Slashdot Mirror

And a previous lawsuit, in 2013, alleged that Google was illegally scanning students' emails, mirroring the Berkeley students' claims.

But the earlier case -- which was filed in the same federal court -- was framed differently, as a class-action suit on behalf of virtually all users of Google's Apps for Education. It ended in 2014, when a federal judge declined to certify the class, ruling that -- because each school is responsible for its own privacy explanations and disclosures -- users at some universities might have consented to the scanning of their emails.

I haven't looked into the legal details of the previous case, but this seems again like an abuse of the court systems of late to refuse to certify class action suits for random reasons. If the WaPo description is accurate, what difference does it make in a lawsuit against Google what the universities told their students in privacy disclosures, etc.? The only facts should be what Google claimed, either to the public directly or to administration folks at these universities, about what their email should be used for. On the face of it, this seems a rather silly reason to disqualify a class action. (That is, unless they have proof that some students involved had actually signed a waiver from their university saying, "As a student here, you consent to having your email used by Google for commercial purposes." It seems really unlikely any university would ever make a student sign such a waiver, since it would probably be considered a significant FERPA violation.)

Anyhow, the present suit is restricted to one college, because Berkeley explicitly told students that their email wouldn't be scanned for advertising purposes. Again -- all of this seems irrelevant to a lawsuit against Google. If Google told university administrators that they WOULD scan email, and the university told students it WOULD NOT scan email, then the students should suing Berkeley instead of Google.

But if the situation was misrepresented both to the university AND to the students, and the students all were harmed in a similar fashion by the exact same mechanism, I can't see how it makes sense to force them all try separate cases here.

Last year some jackass named John Greenewald Jr. ripped off a small open source software project designed to data-mine FOIA websites that scan and digitize historical documents. Amusingly the public reaction was completely reversed from how people are flipping out about the OkCupid data theft.

Despite the fact that this loser of a human being, John Greenewald, ripped off hundreds of thousands of documents, and never uttered a single word about where he got the data, or how he ripped off an open source software team that had been developing the project for years, nor did he give attribution to the company that did the actual work of scanning the documents—and made them available for free no less. On top of all that this complete parasitic loser even had the balls to try monetize Fold3's work. Yet hilariously people still have the temerity to attack Fold3 and Ancestry.com claiming the company was somehow in the wrong for forcing this attention-whoring sideshow clown to remove the data from his website or face a lawsuit.

The sad truth is people don't care about the actual morality of data theft. They only care about whether or not the data is personally beneficial to them, and if it is, well, ... then it's okay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/
Solar http://watchdog.org/212170/surprise-solar-liens/
electric is never a http://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/energy-advantage/the-greatest-leap-of-mankind-unlimited-free-energy-dr-kent-moors-picks-revealed/
scam

If Hillary can pay ONE MILLION dollars for shills,

As we've learned in today's news, Donald Trump saves money by just becoming his own shills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The only criticism I have is that Donald gave his sock puppet the same name as one of his kids (Barron). He's got a little something to learn about coming up with better aliases.

a public company has an obligation to its shareholders to make as much money as possible.

Except they don't.

The sooner people stop repeating this blatant lie the sooner people will start holding companies and the people within them to proper moral standards.

First, learn the definition of lying. Second, learn that that isn't the sort of accusation a civilized person tosses around ligghjtly.

Then, read this and this.

As for your links, the first uses a common dodge when you want to put your thumb on the scale. It measures involvement rather than attribution. Sor example, a sober trucker's brakes fail and he runs over a motorcyclist stopped at a traffic light. If the motorcyclist had any amount of THC in his system, it is counted as involving a driver with THC in his system. Such stats are more revealing of how much of the population is using marijuana.. The key phrase you want to look for is "caused by"

Clinton won the primary because she had way more votes and pledged delegates, despite the talk the superdelegates had virtually nothing to do with it.

Regular delegate counts: 1,716 Clinton to 1,433 Sanders
Delegates in future (D) primaries: 1,065
Clinton current advantage in regular delegates: 283, or 27% of the remaining delegates available
Clinton advantage in superdelegates: 484

She actually still hasn't officially won yet, although everyone expects her to. The main reason they expect her to are 1. Superdelegate lead (which assumes they won't flip) and 2. polling in future state primaries, especially CA.

It won't happen (they'll likely just decline to prosecute any FBI referral), but if for example the Obama Justice department announced they'd indicted her for multiple felonies and misdemeanors around the ongoing classified email criminal investigation, then the superdelegates can until the actual convention vote choose to flip overnight, in which case Sanders would suddenly be in the lead in the overall delegate count.

Hillary's negatives among conservatives play into the picture. Many Cruz/Rubio supporters will be tempted to just stay home and not vote for Trump, but having someone they dislike even more on the other side (Clinton) will convince a lot of them to go vote anyway. Also, don't underestimate the Sanders supporters who have a negative attitude toward her, enough to stay home or (latest poll 30% of Sanders voters) crossover and vote for Trump. She really is disliked at both ends of the spectrum.

Hillary would have the highest negative rating of any Presidential nominee in recent history, except Trump's is even higher .

Well, she WANTED off the plane,

Well, depending on which version of the story you read either she was taken off the plane because she was ill or her "illness" was entirely due to her concerns about the professor.

The Washington Post seems to think that the way of investigating an accusation of terrorism is to google the person's name (probably more reliable than the TSA but not much). Or maybe they should have publically interviewed him in his seat on the plane (for the entertainment of the surrounding passengers)?

Incidentally, I see that the Washington Post is keen to point out at every opportunity that the prof was "curly haired", "olive skinned" and "foreign-sounding" without providing a shred of evidence that this was relevant to anybody other than the woman who complained (and even that is speculation, although it sounds likely). In particular, note how the journalist has weaved these words into their account of the interview with the security guy to make sure that we associate the issue of race with the "interrogation" (and don't question their headline that claims the prof was "ethnically profiled") - that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you do spin. "Some sort of agent" is a great one, too.

...and if you read to the end of the Washington Post article you'll find the root of the narrative: yes folks, it was all Trump's fault!

Now, if Trump sat next to me on a plane writing scary notes about building walls and banning Moslems, I'd probably feign illness and demand to be let off myself, but I don't think he can be held single-handedly responsible for every instance of casual racism or ignorance in the USA.

1978 was due to women entering the workforce in large numbers

Workforce participation by women, actually, declined less in recent years, than that by men. That is, quite indisputably, a sign of decline. Because, contrary to all the talk of "equality", women remain the only sex capable of giving birth — an activity, which takes months and years away from employment. If, despite this, their withdrawal from the labor is slower than that by men, we are in trouble.

the U.S. is lower than nearly all major industrialized nations

None of those "major industrialised nations" can afford to defend themselves from the likes of Russia without our help. Sad but true. Because Socialism sucks — and the more of it there is in a country, the worse off the people.

If corporations returned more of the revenue to the workers

Yeah, sure, blame corporations... Sitting in their corporation buildings, acting all corporationy...

Here is an article that discusses the health risks of rubberized materials such as crumb rubber on football fields.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Personally I do not think that this is a big issue for electric cars being the weight of batteries is what causes tire wear. It is the fact that electric cars are so damn quick off the line. If we can only make electric vehicles as sluggish as gas cars the tire problem would go aware.

Combine the participation rate (Which does not include people considered unemployed) with the unemployment rate which is 5% + 37.2% (Not Participating) = 42.2%.

Now you may think that people giving up on looking for a job and a significant increase in disability claims is a good thing, many of us don't though.

Just yesterday, I visited someone who is counted in Trump's 42% number: my 85 year-old mother.

Is Trump saying he wants people over 75 to get off their lazy asses and get to work? How about moms who stay at home to raise kids?

Anyway, Trump corrected himself within a few days by offering two different "unemployment rates". He's a very creative guy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

There is some entertaining detail missing from the US News story that you can find in Washington Post. Here is their description of how the encounter started:

The curly-haired man tried to keep to himself, intently if inscrutably scribbling on a notepad he’d brought aboard. His seatmate, a blond-haired, 30-something woman sporting flip-flops and a red tote bag, looked him over. He was wearing navy Diesel jeans and a red Lacoste sweater – a look he would later describe as “simple elegance” – but something about him didn’t seem right to her.

Blonde jokes and 3, 2, 1 ....

Blonde with a red tote bag and flip flops? TERRORIST!

Yes, because it's RACIST! /s

SWJ's don't let cold hard facts get in the way. Same day delivery must be offered equally, even if it doesn't make financial sense for Amazon to offer it. When this logic is applied to home loans, it should not have been surprising what the outcome was.

Your understanding of the financial crisis is disputed by researchers in the field. Here is a National Bureau of Economic Research paper on the subject. For a summary, read this opinion post.

I hope they billed the idiot for the inconvenience, expense and defamation...

While people are (perhaps rightly) ganging up on this passenger and blaming her for being ignorant, she was only a small part of the problem here. The Washington Post story on this incident notes a comment from Menzio that isn't in the summary here, where Menzio expressed concern about...

"A security protocol that is too rigid--in the sense that once the whistle is blown everything stops without checks--and relies on the input of people who may be completely clueless. "

Contrast this incident with what would happen in a sane world.

What happened here:
- Woman feigns illness to deplane. Reports suspicious person to authorities. Pilot escorts "terrorist" off plane. Delays follow for hours as suspect is questioned until "threat" is cleared.

What would happen in a sane world:
- Woman says to flight attendant, "Can I talk to you for a second?" and gets up from seat. Attendant knows terrorists are much rarer than lightning strikes, so is skeptical. After short conversation, flight attendant walks past, glances at man's paper, sees he's just doing math, and tells woman everything is fine -- return to seat.

What would happen in a relatively sane world with some greater level of caution:
- Woman has conversation with flight attendant. Flight attendant walks up to man, sees math. Attendant casually asks, "Hey, sir, what are you working on there?" Guy replies, "Oh, well... economics actually. I'm a prof at Penn." Situation resolved.

If still suspicious, we could even go a step further -- Attendant: "Oh, can I just check your ticket? We had a question from a passenger about seat numbers?" Attendant checks name of passenger, excuses herself, sends message to security -- they do a Google search and verify guy actually is Ivy League prof in economics, and situation is resolved in 3 minutes instead of hours.

Bottom line: while we can laugh that this woman's ignorance, the greater problem here is the general paranoia and bureaucratic structure around security theatre that requires disproportionate responses to things that don't deserve them.

There is some entertaining detail missing from the US News story that you can find in Washington Post. Here is their description of how the encounter started:

The curly-haired man tried to keep to himself, intently if inscrutably scribbling on a notepad he’d brought aboard. His seatmate, a blond-haired, 30-something woman sporting flip-flops and a red tote bag, looked him over. He was wearing navy Diesel jeans and a red Lacoste sweater – a look he would later describe as “simple elegance” – but something about him didn’t seem right to her.

Blonde jokes and 3, 2, 1 ....

UL started privately without regulations. You're missing the history. It's still private.

Someone who is massively on the hook if you harm your customers has a big incentive to make sure you don't harm them. That's one way liability insurance prevents harm in the first place. Read the previously linked studies rather than ignoring the science behind it.

The point is that if you care about the risk and you are a consumer, you don't have to have your own test lab, all you have to do is have a small minority of customers/activists see that a product has been UL certified for safety or not and if the store has legit liability coverage or not and then publicize that fact accordingly. Stores themselves, in order to gain a market advantage, have a huge incentive to publicize the proof they are safe and their competitor down the street isn't if consumers are worried at all about it.

Compared to all that, the FDA is ineffective at best, harmful at worst. In this specific case, they're a gift to big tobacco and could actually harm public health. I thought people stopped believing the lies from big tobacco 30-40 years ago. Why are you so insistent on helping them now? They don't need your crony capitalism/fascism, despite having apparently "influenced" the D's in power to assist them against their competition offering healthier alternatives for a nicotine addiction.

Now you start to understand the lie - figuring out what you are interested in is a "Hard AI" problem because your interests at any point in time are the gestalt of everything that you've experienced up to that point, including all the formative years of your childhood and the way your genes are expressed. Maybe Google will get that AI stuff down one day and it might be good enough to actually anticipate what you want before you know what you want. But I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime all that tracking is fit for purpose in figuring out how to market shit to you. In the marketing business a response rate of just 5% is considered a huge success. In other words they can get it wrong 95% of the time and they are still fucking titans in the field. Whether it is blatant "here buy this" advertising or more subtle ways of extracting cash from you like "price discrimination" -- for example Orbitz showing macintosh users higher priced hotel rooms than they show to PC users -- that is the only thing that tracking and profiling is any good for.

Unless you're someone who goes "oh shiny - must have" it doesn't affect you, and if advertising affects you that much, you have bigger problems.

I work in the micro-targeting business and we love people like you. It is the ones who think they are immune to the work we do that are actually the most susceptible because you'll never see it coming. It hasn't been about in-your-face advertising for at least a decade.

It is about swaying you without you even realizing you are being swayed. Here's an egregious example: One of our clients sells alcohol. They use our data to figure out who has alcoholics in their family and then we send them snail-mail coupons for significant discounts on their products, sometimes even completely free, because we know that alcoholism has genetic and environmental components that family members often share and because 10% of the population accounts for 50% of the industry's profits. Those are the people they want to sucker in. And guess what? When the data shows that a heavy drinker has stopped drinking, we send them coupons for freebies too. But we don't just mail them out directly, we have them printed up in their newspaper or their magazine subscription. So it isn't obvious that they've been singled out.

And then there are the politicians (and their superpacs). They use our service to figure out exactly what people's hot button issues are so their campaign and best push those buttons to make them vote for their candidate. Or if there is little chance of getting them to vote for their guy, they do their best to make the voter disgusted with "the other guy" so that they just stay home and don't vote at all. All the big ticket campaigns - presidential and congress do this now and some of the in-state races for important districts are doing it too because it is getting cheaper and cheaper every day.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. This is the largest industry on planet earth. Facebook alone is valued at 350 BILLION DOLLARS predicated solely on their ability to manipulate people. It doesn't matter how much mental fortitude you have, you will succumb at some point. My company alone has a 10 million dollar budget for pure research in the field of psychology as it applies to swaying people. As the apocryphal saying goes, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time..."

The only way to win this game is not to play.

Unless you're someone who goes "oh shiny - must have" it doesn't affect you, and if advertising affects you that much, you have bigger problems.

I work in the micro-targeting business and we love people like you. It is the ones who think they are immune to the work we do that are actually the most susceptible because you'll never see it coming. It hasn't been about in-your-face advertising for at least a decade.

It is about swaying you without you even realizing you are being swayed. Here's an egregious example: One of our clients sells alcohol. They use our data to figure out who has alcoholics in their family and then we send them snail-mail coupons for significant discounts on their products, sometimes even completely free, because we know that alcoholism has genetic and environmental components that family members often share and because 10% of the population accounts for 50% of the industry's profits. Those are the people they want to sucker in. And guess what? When the data shows that a heavy drinker has stopped drinking, we send them coupons for freebies too. But we don't just mail them out directly, we have them printed up in their newspaper or their magazine subscription. So it isn't obvious that they've been singled out.

And then there are the politicians (and their superpacs). They use our service to figure out exactly what people's hot button issues are so their campaign and best push those buttons to make them vote for their candidate. Or if there is little chance of getting them to vote for their guy, they do their best to make the voter disgusted with "the other guy" so that they just stay home and don't vote at all. All the big ticket campaigns - presidential and congress do this now and some of the in-state races for important districts are doing it too because it is getting cheaper and cheaper every day.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. This is the largest industry on planet earth. Facebook alone is valued at 350 BILLION DOLLARS predicated solely on their ability to manipulate people. It doesn't matter how much mental fortitude you have, you will succumb at some point. My company alone has a 10 million dollar budget for pure research in the field of psychology as it applies to swaying people. As the apocryphal saying goes, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time..."

The only way to win this game is not to play.

Also, assuming someone does up and spend (at least) $5k to get some lesser amount back, the perpetrators know that nothing else will happen to them. There's no penalty for trying, so hey, why not try?

Informative graph: Civil forfeiture in the United States amounts to billions of dollars every year.

No Math On Planes bitches

Right now India is drying up, 330 million people don't have enough water, wells have dried up, armed guards are stationed around the power dam to prevent people from stealing water because if it falls just one more foot, no more power.

They'd be far better off forcibly sterilizing people (both parents) after 1 kid.

Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

Seems likely that since Hillary didn't intentionally leak the info, she'll get what everyone else who mishandles classified info without leaking it gets: a slap on the wrist, but no indictment or jail time. Once again, if anyone has a counter-example, please let me know.

But don't worry, all is not lost! We'll have eight more years of Hillary, which means eight more years of Republicans convening never-ending witch hunts and eight more years of Clinton haters waving their pocket Constitutions and Bibles without comprehending either one. I look forward to the Select House Committee on Investigating Hillary's Pantsuits! (Real Women don't wear pantsuits, so it's probably proof of a Commie Muslim Lesbian Fascist Atheist working with her Wall Street Overlords to kill the free market and puppies. You heard it here first!)

Huh, I probably had too many margaritas celebrating Cinco De Rapists, so I apologize if I'm less polite than usual.

It is not to your credit that you are willing to believe that your political opposites are so venal as to vote for an ideological proponent no matter what their criminal background.

Remember, these are the same people who want felons to vote. You might also heed the popularity of this man. If anyone cared about moral rectitude, certain candidates -- from both sides -- would have been off the menu already. Audiences change. The people of the 1950s for whom these mild sins would be a deal-killer are no longer with us. The current audience is much more polarized and ideological.

Hillary Clinton fired America's Ambassador to Kenya over — among other things — his use of "commercial e-mail":

"The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information [emphasis mine -mi]. Notwithstanding his talk about the importance of mission staff doing the right thing, the Ambassador by deed or word has encouraged it to do the opposite."

To have setup and used her own e-mail server for "official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information" is the height of hypocrisy — the greatest sin of a politician. That the server contained not merely "sensitive", but in same cases "top secret" data may be, what will send her to prison. But it is the hypocrisy, that ought to derail her presidential bid.

Whether or not her server was hacked by anyone is besides the point.

A friend of mine had a child with a Cesarean. She was sewed up by two people afterwards — an experienced doctor on one side and a young "resident" on the other.

The resident's side remained painful for two weeks longer than the experienced doctor's side. If a robot can do these things in the near future, it would be welcome progress indeed. We are very short on doctors.

what if no one get's 270?

That's an extremely unlikely scenario based on the 2016 electoral map, which is identical to 2012 and 2008. Hillary needs 28 electoral votes to win. Trump will need 168 electoral votes to win.

And here's the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.

The Republican map — whether with Trump, Cruz or the ideal Republican nominee (Paul Ryan?) as the standard-bearer — is decidedly less friendly. There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes. That means the eventual nominee has to find, at least, 168 more electoral votes to get to 270. Which is a hell of a lot harder than finding 28 electoral votes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/

Trump has had just over 10M votes cast for him so far, which doesn't even match up with what GWB got in the 2000 primary. He's had 15M votes cast against him so far.

He won because the opposition never coalesced behind a particular anti-Trump candidate, until far too late.

Look at this graph

Sure, total vote tally isn't the measure for getting the nomination - delegate count per state is. And total vote tally isn't the measure for winning the general either, vote tally per State is, as filtered through the Electoral College. But it doesn't bode well for him - he's going to have to find a way to roll back a lot of nasty things he's said before November unless he wants a big chunk of those 15M people to stay home.

Except, in this case, the U.S. is the outlier -- not Finland, or even Europe. There are large, densely populated countries spending a lot less and getting a lot more.
Most of the top 20 GDP countries spend less and get more -- and the rest spend a lot less but still follow the curve.

The point is that the U.S. system sucks for the majority of people and we'd be better off emulating the systems in the rest of the world that work.

Sure, it'd suck for private insurance companies, though they would still exist, but it follows that the nation should eventually spend less and get more out of it.
Well, unless you're going to say that U.S. cultural diversity somehow impacts the ability to run a successful health care system.

The 9/11 failure was not due to a lack of effort or stupid 'ole Bush not listening to intelligence.

That might well be true -- OTOH, anecdotes like Bush dismissing the "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" briefer with a simple "All right. You've covered your ass, now." don't look too flattering in retrospect. But sure, maybe they did all they could reasonably be expected to do, and just got unlucky.

Nobody believed that Saddam was behind 9/11, but it absolutely was believed (see again, faulty intelligence) that he had chemical weapons and probably nukes. There were a few unreliable sources that the DO put too much credence in. I'm not going to defend the action the invade Iraq because I thought--and think--that it was poorly executed

The idea that the decision to invade Iraq was an "honest mistake" has been pretty well discredited. The Bush Administration (and in particular the Vice President) were deliberately and willfully "Fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy". That is, they knew the conclusion and the policy they wanted, and they were perfectly willing to ignore any inconvenient facts that might contradict it, and even make up facts to support it when necessary. In particular, Dick Cheney kept pressuring the CIA for reports that fit his preferred narrative, until they finally gave him a report that said something close enough to what he wanted it to say. Whether the Executive branch had actually fooled themselves or were "merely" being dishonest to others in service of a preordained policy objective is beside the point -- a competent and serious administration would have remained objective and thoughtful about such a serious matter, and thereby likely would have avoided a catastrophic policy mistake.

That is so funny! it's pretty much madness to think there is historical precedent of any sort for what is about to transpire.

Let's look at the 2016 electoral map, which is identical to the 2012 and 2008 electoral maps. Hillary needs 28 electoral votes to win. Trump will need 168 electoral votes to win.

And here's the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.

The Republican map — whether with Trump, Cruz or the ideal Republican nominee (Paul Ryan?) as the standard-bearer — is decidedly less friendly. There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes. That means the eventual nominee has to find, at least, 168 more electoral votes to get to 270. Which is a hell of a lot harder than finding 28 electoral votes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/

Some Alaskans have a very different opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

Alaska and Northern Canada will be some of the very first places to see the more extreme effects of warming. In fact already the ice roads are less stable than they used to be, which will eventually have a huge impact on the ability to operate mines and other economic activities in the far North. To say nothing of the natives who are finding the drastic changes very damaging their their livelihoods.

Historically, when a vacancy came up during the last year in Office

Yeah, about that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You're talking about 18 USC 2071. That wouldn't block election to the presidency. The Constitution runs supreme over everything else; a statutory prohibition to holding office of the president due to a violation of criminal law would be above and beyond the requirements set in the Constitution, and therefore void.

There's precedent for this, too. In the 1990s, a bunch of states added term limits to their congressional representatives, but the Supreme Court overturned these in 1995, saying that states couldn't add requirements not present in the Constitution. Even earlier, in Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court found that "the Constitution leaves the House without authority to exclude any person, duly elected by his constituents, who meets all the requirements for membership expressly prescribed in the Constitution." A footnote extends this holding to include the Senate. Other cases have held that felons can seek the office of the president even if state laws barring felons from holding public office would preclude them from doing so, and felons have run for president.

Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman goes into much more detail at this Washington Post article where he responded to claims by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey that Clinton would be barred from office under 18 USC 2071. For his part, Mukasey demurred, saying that Tillman was correct and that if elected, Clinton could serve as president.

And wages were not that great until .com sucked up all the engineering talent for anyone who could create an html page.

Most of what's been pinned on Trump supporters has actually been paid and planted people from the Hillary camp, and in a couple of cases Cruz/"establishment" people.

You are delusional.

https://img.washingtonpost.com...

How does that picture refute what he says? False flag operations are part and parcel of the looney left. Hell, this just came across the wire today:

http://college.usatoday.com/20...

Most of what's been pinned on Trump supporters has actually been paid and planted people from the Hillary camp, and in a couple of cases Cruz/"establishment" people.

You are delusional.

https://img.washingtonpost.com...

This has been noted in lots of other articles.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

http://www.heritage.org/resear...

Fact is that the total number of manufacturing jobs worldwide has been declining for years.

--Paul

You forgot Venezuela has already reached the two day workweek. They also have $0.13/gallon gasoline which helps out the poor.

I think there are plenty of asshole things you could do to a driverless car that isn't illegal.

For instance, just get in front of it and drive 10 mph under the limit. Unless these things have a routine for that, the user will have to go manual to pass.

A couple of points:
* Who is going to be more annoyed - the person who is driving 10 below the limit or the person that isn't driving at all?
* Driving 10 below the posted limit can be illegal https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Ya...just search youtube for Road Rage and see all the fun things that people do.

Just think of Norman.

Just about anything you could do to annoy a driverless car would amount to impeding the normal flow of traffic - which is generally illegal.
http://definitions.uslegal.com...

Median college debt is ~$13k.

34.4 percent graduated with no debt.

12.0 percent graduated with $1-$9,999 in debt.

18.2 percent graduated with $10,000-$19,999 in debt.

15.5 percent graduated with $20,000-$29,999 in debt.

8.9 percent graduated with $30,000-$39,999 in debt.

5.3 percent graduated with $40,000-$49,999 in debt.

5.3 percent graduated with $50,000-$99,999 in debt.

0.5 percent graduated with over $100,000 in debt.

Five myths about college debt

The individuals listed could personally pony up $250 million from petty cash. Why ask the government for funding?

They're donating collectively $48M. Think of it as a 1,000,000:1 matching donation - you give $1, they each give $1M or more.
Source (better article than TFA: https://www.washingtonpost.com... )

The most famous fringe site is Washington Post. Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Those who do not see the results, are too sensitive to scroll down the results page in google query. Nobody reads page #2 of google results anyway.

The problem they have in Europe is due to historic dicounts/tax concessions on diesel, they became popular with tight-fisted motorists. Even though most of these concessions have been removed, the mindset of "diesel == cheap" remains.

There is no such tax advantage in the UK, in fact typically diesel is more expensive (slightly) than petrol, and has been for many years. It is however still a win for the "tight fisted" driver due to diesel's typical higher fuel economy.

The real "problem" in Europe is that they legislated for much stricter standards on fleet average fuel economy and CO2 emissions (see e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com... ). The only way to meet those standards has been small diesels, it is only in the last couple of years that petrol technology has started catching up. USA doesn't believe CO2 is a pollutant, has low taxes on fuel, so US drivers don't (in general) care about efficiency. Some of the big US car mfrs (e.g. Ford) make highly efficient cars that they only sell _outside_ the US - because apparently no US demand... http://www.wired.com/2009/02/f...

Diesel is no dirtier or cleaner than petrol (end electric just moves the dirt where you can't see it), it is just different. It is all really about which pollutant you want, and how fast you want to die. CO will kill you in minutes, and petrol engines are 20-40x worse than diesels. Unburnt hydrocarbons we don't yet know how fast they'll kill you, but again petrol is a lot worse than diesel. NOx will kill you in years to decades, maybe, and diesels are worse than petrol. CO2 will kill most of us in generations, maybe, and petrol is worse than diesel.

There is a direct relation in any IC engine (petrol or diesel) between NOx and CO - bring one down and the other goes up. Pick which you want. Personally I'll take the NOx and live a bit longer.

oh, and positive, too.

According to another member of Dan's religion, it's simple: No men allowed.

Remember, it's only sexism if you're being sexist against women.

Oh please
The reason the KKK "has been pretty peaceful" is that they've lost their constituency to other groups that just don't call themselves KKK like so called "sovereign citizens" and "patriot" groups and even "non-groups" like those who congregate on stormfront but have no official formal structure.

This isn't some sort of moderation of the KKK, its a result of social and technical changes. The violent extremists are still there doing their thing.

And your characterization of BLM is ridiculous. Your grandparents were saying the exact same shit about MLK and the civil rights movement in the 60s.

John Podesta, Podesta Group and the Clinton Fund. Google that for some king of sleaze stuff. Podesta Group was BPs chief lobby pre and during the oil spill.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/p...

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Probably not, but there's plenty of dislike in the US for Brazil's leftwing government, with plenty of attacking propaganda by US political pundits. The last time a coup happen in Brazil it was directly supported by the US. Combine that with the fact that the current president (the one they're trying to impeach) was tortured by US and UK-trained torturers, it's not that far-fetched to assume that some US citizens are also involved in these trolling campaigns (but again, I doubt it's the case for this Igw guy; he's probably just badly informed).

Probably not, but there's plenty of dislike in the US for Brazil's leftwing government, with plenty of attacking propaganda by US political pundits. The last time a coup happen in Brazil it was directly supported by the US. Combine that with the fact that the current president (the one they're trying to impeach) was tortured by US and UK-trained torturers, it's not that far-fetched to assume that some US citizens are also involved in these trolling campaigns (but again, I doubt it's the case for this Igw guy; he's probably just badly informed).

Interestingly, those six nations all make it into the top 21 of World Suicide Rates (by country). http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

List contains 26 countries out of ~200. Does not claim to be the top 26.

So six countries with very varying degrees of socialist governments (the Netherlands? Canada?) are all in the top 21 out of 26 non-randomly picked countries. Other top-21 countries include South-Korea (#1), Japan (#3) and the US (#18). <slowclap>