Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.
I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up, I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)
The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.
Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.
Are all (or even most) compounds and delivery devices made this way? If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.
Will the free market solve this without regulation? Without labels and education, consumers don't even have the option of making an informed choice. Without something compelling accuracy in the labels, producers will put inaccurate labels on their products. Without a penalty for producing unhealthy products, producers will design products based on "cost" and "attractiveness", with health a non-consideration. So I'm happy to listen to arguments about solving this without regulation, but I'm not sure how it can be done.
Regulation isn't good, it's just better than anything else we've tried.
So you are saying that "cheap shit" is for sale. And presumably the "cheap shit" doesn't have labels saying "this will cause long-term damage, buy our competiter's shit instead".
You are saying that self regulation is not working. In that case, the options seem to be "add non-self regulation" or "force people to make health decisions without giving them useful information about health outcomes". I'm voting for regulation myself, but that's because I'll be paying for these idiots with my health-insurance dollars so I think I have a say.
Hillary's involvement is Benghazi is what disqualifies her for me.
[ Cutting a anti-H rant which disagrees with the events in every official Benghazi investigation ]
We can agree on a few things:
* There have been about 8 Benghazi investigations.
* The first few focused on finding Obama at fault. After the 2014 election, they quickly pivoted to finding Hillary at fault.
* Most, maybe all of them were controlled by Republicans
* Republicans have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault
* Republicans are supported by a number of generous billionaires, who also have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault.
* Every investigation has returned largely the same results:
* Hillary and Obama did not give complete information at first (while conflicting information was coming in), but neither one lied. They gave the facts as they were known at the time.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama could have done anything during the attack which could have changed the outcome or had any effect.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama did anything (or failed to do anything) before the attack which directly led to or caused or enabled the attacks.
* Some lower level people at State made some decisions which were (in 20/20 hindsight) poor, but were not malicious.
* Some of the people involved in the investigations have not disagreed with the facts in the official reports, but have nonetheless claimed without explicit basis that Hillary and/or Obama lied and caused it and were otherwise EVIL. Again, without facts or clear explanations.
Now here is where we disagree.
You seem to believe that all of the investigations were wrong for some unexplained reason, and all wrong in the exact same way, and nobody involved has clearly explained how they were wrong, but you know more than all of the investigators and can prove that your version is correct.
I believe that you cannot deal with what you WANT to be true disagreeing with reality, so you are making shit up and ignoring facts while truly believing every word you say, You are not lying. You are also not correct.
Fantastic! Now you can prove me wrong. Just find one person who did what Hillary did (mishandle classified data but with no intent to leak and with no data leaked) and is in jail, and you will prove me terribly mistaken.
Or, if you can't, then it will be clear that your hatred of Hillary is greater than your love of facts or fairness or patriotism, and that you will make anything up if it fits the narrative you wish were true.
And what did the FBI basically say? She's too big to indict.
You have a rare talent, to interpret what people "basically" say. My poor brain can only handle what they "actually" say: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various bad stuff]. We do not see those things here."
So people within our borders actively manipulating the elections is fine, but someone outside of our elections proving the fraud most of us suspected is bad. Got it.
People are more likely to take you seriously if you don't construct straw men.
Citizens are generally allowed to "actively manipulate elections". One form is called "voting", another is called "free speech". There is evidence that the DNC did not want Sanders to win, but unless you found something that everyone else missed, there is no evidence that they DID anything. Unless you are calling for Thought Crime?
On the other hand, there are few ways that foreign powers are legally allowed to influence elections. (Sadly our case is weakened since the US seems to have done this a number of times. We're masters of Do What I Say.)
That is a Red Herring. Sanders was the only candidate allowed to compete and Hillary is so bad she would have lost if not for the cheating in the party.
"Allowed to compete"? Citation Needed. "so bad she would have lost"? Citation Needed. Please either quote the specific emails which prove these, or admit that you are making shit up.
Look, I realize that you hate Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it turns out that many people like her. Many other people people may dislike her but try to base her fitness on "facts" not "rage". Personally I think she'll be very similar to Obama: Good for the economy, lower the deficit, improve the safety net and wealth inequality via the minimum wage and/or health care. Pretty good internationally, Fair for the environment, Pretty Poor from a privacy standpoint. Not perfect but a solid step towards a more liberal society. (Probably more so than Sanders would have; unless you are a dictator it's hard to make progress if you cannot compromise.) Turns out a lot of people agree with me.
The Mark Twain quote about the 3 kinds of lies comes to mind reading this one. Hillary has a very long history of being viewed negatively. Her being under "investigations" does not sweep things under the rug, but is surely not the only issue with the negativity facing the person's statement. At least as important, these people (Hillary et. al) have all been found to be GUILTY of the charges people are investigating.
So, Hillary is GUILTY of what? Killing Vince Foster? Parachuting into Benghazi and slaughtering dozens of Americans? Giving her emails to religious terrorists? Selling weapons to the enemies of America? Lying to the public to start needless wars? (Sorry, those last two were other presidents.)
It sounds like you feel that "investigated" means GUILTY, and "no evidence" means GUILTY. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure how else to interpret your answer.
A lot of people don't like her. Honestly, she's not a very likable person. But she seems competent, loyal to the US rather than just herself, and reasonably honest as politicians go. If you think the main skill set for the presidency should be likability, feel free to write in Miss America. If you want the president to be effective and liberal, though, she's one of the best choices you could make.
Who did the hacking is irrelevant. It's just a distraction.
I only partly agree with this. If a foreign country is trying to affect our elections, that's something worth considering. Especially because if they'll do something minor like this they may do something major and less-easily-traced later.
The inner workings of both major US political parties as it relates to rewarding large donors, choosing party candidates, and dealing with "disruptive" candidates is very ugly. This could have easily happened to the RNC (if it hasn't already) and a similar pile of shit would likely be unearthed.
This is very true. The DNC was unhappy with Sanders, but never thought he had a chance of winning and didn't do much against him. Some talk, but no action.
The RNC, OTOH, has been in an existential fight with Trump for the past year. They probably had a LOT more talk and probably more action. (Totally ineffective action, true, but action nonetheless.)
I really don't know how primaries should work. As you say, primaries currently give too much power to those with strong and vocal opinions. Caucuses are even worse. Open primaries let people outside the party have a say, which may or may not be a good idea. The old method of "smoke filled backroom deals" doesn't seem an improvement.
The disapproval ratings for the DNC and RNC candidates are at record high levels and speak for themselves
That's a red herring. The DNC candidate has been under near-constant "investigations" (which have produced close to zero evidence or crimes) for more than two decades and has little charisma; that's gonna cause disapproval from those who like investigations but dislike evidence. The RNC candidates have insulted just about every cultural, ethnic, and gender-based group in the country. It's a perfect storm, but neither one seems tied to the parties.
All those investigations, no indictments, virtually no evidence. Either she is a criminal mastermind who makes Lex Luthor seem like an incompetent dunce, or her political enemies investigate her because gullible rubes will believe that investigations PROVE that she is guilty.
Fortunately, betting that the public are gullible rubes is a very safe bet, as this election has shown.
You're over thinking this. Trump likely doesn't believe in anything he has said. As far as I can tell, he only believes that he needs more money and more respect. He won't re-write the constitution because it would take too much effort and wouldn't make him money. I have no idea what he would do, but you cannot guess based on his previous words.
"send American soldiers to die because some foreign leader insulted him" seems pretty spot on, though.
The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate. I think a lot of Sanders supporters are going to be disgusted to see how "their" party plotted and schemed to defeat their candidate
Huh?
There were two major candidates. One is a lifelong democrat who is part of the biggest fundraising team in the democratic party's history, who has regularly campaigned for and helped democratic candidates, and who has pushed democratic policies (and helped set democratic policies) their entire political career. The other is an independent who just recently declared themself a democrat for the express purpose of winning this primary and "leading a revolution" in the democratic party, who is not known for helping or fundraising for democrats and who has policies which are similar to but still rather different than the democratic party's policies.
Look, I like Bernie and I respect Bernie's goals, but his goal was to take over and explode the democratic party. Why do you think the current democratic party leaders would be neutral about this? That's insane. Of course they dislike him and fear him and did not want him to win; from their point of view, that is the only rational behavior.
Note also, you say "until the party members have selected their candidate". Bernie wants more open primaries because many of his supporters are independants, not democrats. I don't know if open primaries are good or bad, but when you have open primaries you no longer have "the party members" selecting a candidate, you have anyone who decides to vote in that party's primary selecting. That may be good or it may be bad, but it ain't the same thing.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Nobody can seem to find a case where someone who mishandled classified material but did not leak it ended up in jail. The closest recent case seems to be Petraeus, who actively gave/leaked classified material to a journalist. In fact, Comey even said: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various things]. We do not see those things here."
I do agree that Hillary is treated very differently than anyone else. For anyone else, people would see the recommendations and say "oh well, I thought her actions were more serious, and I'm unhappy with the result, but I guess it's closed; I assume the FBI is more of an expert on the law than I am." For Hillary, I expect at least 4 more years of hearings, select committees, accusations, insinuations, leaks, conspiracy theories, and all the rest of the circus. And little evidence of crimes and no convictions, either because she is a criminal mastermind who makes Lex Luthor seem like an idiot, or because she is, well, kinda an asshole but innocent of serious crimes.
I know I won't convince you or anyone else. Once we "know" something, we won't let new evidence change what we believe. But I'm still saddened. There are so many valid reasons to hate Hillary, but most folks fixate on the invalid ones.
Hmmm. We likely can find the bases via Google Maps. Also, any place without Pokemon Go players could be a secret base, but it also could be a forest with no people, a lake, a toxic waste dump, a poor farming community without electricity, or maybe just a location without cell service (the US seems to have a few of those). This would be one of the most useless and ineffective ways of finding secret bases that I could possibly come up with.
The US military also has strict rules that are bent and broken regularly in regards to wireless devices. One IA officer I knew actually yelled at me for leaving my cell phone at home, "How am I going to get in touch with you? Go get it!" when I was trying to think security and follow the rules.
Can't be. I've been told that every single person who breaks any of the government's security policies is immediately punished, unless they are named Hillary which just proves that she blackmailed the FBI. People regularly break the rules and don't get punished? Unpossible!
Sorry, had to say that. Yeah, I never worked for the government (military or otherwise) but since every other human I know would ignore rules which were inconvenient and hard-to-enforce, seems like military folks would do so too. Contractors, OTOH, I know well, and they'll ignore any rules, even those which are helpful and easy-to-enforce.
What if Microsoft released an update that blocks $your_company website from being accessed at the OS level (no matter what browser you use) and instead redirects them to the same service offered by Microsoft - how many people would dump Windows (after all, there are alternatives) just to be able to access your website?
You mean like how whenever you click on an address in an iOS app, you always get Apple Maps, and there is no way to get Google Maps by default? Unlike Android, where once you have multiple maps apps, clicking on an address will ask you which app to use (this time and/or make the default)?
Note, I agree that one of government's purposes is to limit the damage that a monopolistic company can cause. I'm just having trouble seeing both Android's monopoly status and what they're doing to abuse it.
Since a company with a monopoly in one market doesn't have to worry about competition there they can raise prices to get extra resources.
I think that you are saying that Google is charging too much for Android to get dominance in another market? The second question, of course, is "which market"?
Now, the way the word monopoly is used in legal cases it typically isn't required to have 100% of the market. 70% is more than enough to be called a monopoly.
It varies, and I don't know how EU has ruled, but 70% is still kinda low. I seem to recall that the claim was the Google is using Android to gain dominance in the "Android app market". Why this isn't the "Cell phone app market" is a question that only those regulators can answer.
On the one hand, I don't know if that means "he hates homosexuals" or "he likes or doesn't care about or disagrees with homosexuals, but he'll happily oppress a minority to gain support from a bigoted majority".
On the other hand, I don't think that that changes how you should feel about him or treat him, since I think that the second trait is worse than the first trait. I mean, if Christians actually become a tiny minority with little political power (unlikely this century, I know), then would he happily turn against them?
Remember, the separation of church and state isn't there to oppress the religious; it is there to protect them. A government which allows oppression against homosexuals can also allow oppression against the religious.
All this means you have a bunch of people who want to tax 65% or 85% of the rich people's money (with no plan on how that's going to help, or what to do about everyone else)
Who with any credibility has suggested this? Bernie Sanders, whose proposals were a bit crazy but did have some support, wanted 52% on $10M+ incomes. I didn't read the rest of your manifesto because if you cannot contruct reasonable strawmen then the rest of your numbers are likely equally bad.
Indeed. The Republican Party Platform, as of now, wants government to:
* Regulate the porn industry and control what you're allowed to see.
* Regulate who you can marry.
* Regulate what operations your doctor can do on you (especially if you are a woman).
* Regulate what bathroom you can use.
* Spend more and more on the military.
* Pay for it all by cutting taxes, mostly on the wealthy.
Not what I would call small government.
But they want to be sure that fewer people have health care, so they have that going for them, which is nice.
The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.
And he was right.
As someone who has seen what smoking does, and remembers the tobacco companies lying under oath about the ill effects of smoking, I'm happy with big government smacking those guys down. Also, I'm happy that my health insurance payments are a lot lower because there are fewer tobacco-caused issues they have to pay for for others on my plan.
Government's role is to keep the big companies honest. It's not perfect, but it does a better job than anything else would. Our job is to keep government honest. We suck at this, because we elect people based on what they say, not what they do. We love people who lie to us about what we want to be true. I'm not sure how to fix this, though.
Unless you're president Kennedy. Or president Nixon. Or unless the VP needs to cast a deciding vote on some very serious matter before the Senate (you do know that's part of the job, right?).
Yeah, both Clinton and Trump are on the old side for first-term presidential candidates. I don't think either one has any major health problems, but I think that only Reagan was older, and there is evidence that his Alzheimers manifested long before he left office.
You're right that VP picks rarely seem to be a positive, but in certain cases they can be a big negative.
I suspect that Gingrich doesn't think Trump has any chance of winning. However, he and Trump both know that former republican candidates for both P and VP make crazy-large amounts of money on the conservative talk circuit. Republicans seem to pay very large amounts of money to listen to failed candidates speak. Democrats do too, but it seems to be less-crazy amounts and fewer venues, and the people usually have more credentials than "failed to become president".
(I personally think that that was the only reason Trump ran, and that he as surprised as everyone else that he's in this spot.)
Did you ever wonder why products come with dozens of lines of small print, or why laws which should be two paragraphs end up being 40 pages long? It's because of you.
So sure, rather than saying "unlimited", they need to offer a large set of limitations for total space, how much the data can change per month, exactly how long the retrieval time will take, an SLA for availability, and probably eight other things which I haven't thought of, because if they don't meet your definitions you'll complain loudly that they didn't carefully limit it so you deserve it all.
Yeah, I'm being a bit over-the-top here, but only a bit. I don't know if YOU will complain, but I guarantee that someone will, probably loudly and to a blogger who prefers clicks over reasonable stories.
Also, I agree with you that MS was stupid to offer "unlimited" if they were not SURE they could handle it.
Slashdot Mirror
Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.
I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up, I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)
The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.
Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.
Are all (or even most) compounds and delivery devices made this way? If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.
Will the free market solve this without regulation? Without labels and education, consumers don't even have the option of making an informed choice. Without something compelling accuracy in the labels, producers will put inaccurate labels on their products. Without a penalty for producing unhealthy products, producers will design products based on "cost" and "attractiveness", with health a non-consideration. So I'm happy to listen to arguments about solving this without regulation, but I'm not sure how it can be done.
Regulation isn't good, it's just better than anything else we've tried.
So you are saying that "cheap shit" is for sale. And presumably the "cheap shit" doesn't have labels saying "this will cause long-term damage, buy our competiter's shit instead".
You are saying that self regulation is not working. In that case, the options seem to be "add non-self regulation" or "force people to make health decisions without giving them useful information about health outcomes". I'm voting for regulation myself, but that's because I'll be paying for these idiots with my health-insurance dollars so I think I have a say.
Hillary's involvement is Benghazi is what disqualifies her for me.
[ Cutting a anti-H rant which disagrees with the events in every official Benghazi investigation ]
We can agree on a few things:
* There have been about 8 Benghazi investigations.
* The first few focused on finding Obama at fault. After the 2014 election, they quickly pivoted to finding Hillary at fault.
* Most, maybe all of them were controlled by Republicans
* Republicans have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault
* Republicans are supported by a number of generous billionaires, who also have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault.
* Every investigation has returned largely the same results:
* Hillary and Obama did not give complete information at first (while conflicting information was coming in), but neither one lied. They gave the facts as they were known at the time.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama could have done anything during the attack which could have changed the outcome or had any effect.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama did anything (or failed to do anything) before the attack which directly led to or caused or enabled the attacks.
* Some lower level people at State made some decisions which were (in 20/20 hindsight) poor, but were not malicious.
* Some of the people involved in the investigations have not disagreed with the facts in the official reports, but have nonetheless claimed without explicit basis that Hillary and/or Obama lied and caused it and were otherwise EVIL. Again, without facts or clear explanations.
Now here is where we disagree.
You seem to believe that all of the investigations were wrong for some unexplained reason, and all wrong in the exact same way, and nobody involved has clearly explained how they were wrong, but you know more than all of the investigators and can prove that your version is correct.
I believe that you cannot deal with what you WANT to be true disagreeing with reality, so you are making shit up and ignoring facts while truly believing every word you say, You are not lying. You are also not correct.
Fantastic! Now you can prove me wrong. Just find one person who did what Hillary did (mishandle classified data but with no intent to leak and with no data leaked) and is in jail, and you will prove me terribly mistaken.
Or, if you can't, then it will be clear that your hatred of Hillary is greater than your love of facts or fairness or patriotism, and that you will make anything up if it fits the narrative you wish were true.
And what did the FBI basically say? She's too big to indict.
You have a rare talent, to interpret what people "basically" say. My poor brain can only handle what they "actually" say: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various bad stuff]. We do not see those things here."
So people within our borders actively manipulating the elections is fine, but someone outside of our elections proving the fraud most of us suspected is bad. Got it.
People are more likely to take you seriously if you don't construct straw men.
Citizens are generally allowed to "actively manipulate elections". One form is called "voting", another is called "free speech". There is evidence that the DNC did not want Sanders to win, but unless you found something that everyone else missed, there is no evidence that they DID anything. Unless you are calling for Thought Crime?
On the other hand, there are few ways that foreign powers are legally allowed to influence elections. (Sadly our case is weakened since the US seems to have done this a number of times. We're masters of Do What I Say.)
That is a Red Herring. Sanders was the only candidate allowed to compete and Hillary is so bad she would have lost if not for the cheating in the party.
"Allowed to compete"? Citation Needed. "so bad she would have lost"? Citation Needed. Please either quote the specific emails which prove these, or admit that you are making shit up.
Look, I realize that you hate Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it turns out that many people like her. Many other people people may dislike her but try to base her fitness on "facts" not "rage". Personally I think she'll be very similar to Obama: Good for the economy, lower the deficit, improve the safety net and wealth inequality via the minimum wage and/or health care. Pretty good internationally, Fair for the environment, Pretty Poor from a privacy standpoint. Not perfect but a solid step towards a more liberal society. (Probably more so than Sanders would have; unless you are a dictator it's hard to make progress if you cannot compromise.) Turns out a lot of people agree with me.
The Mark Twain quote about the 3 kinds of lies comes to mind reading this one. Hillary has a very long history of being viewed negatively. Her being under "investigations" does not sweep things under the rug, but is surely not the only issue with the negativity facing the person's statement. At least as important, these people (Hillary et. al) have all been found to be GUILTY of the charges people are investigating.
So, Hillary is GUILTY of what? Killing Vince Foster? Parachuting into Benghazi and slaughtering dozens of Americans? Giving her emails to religious terrorists? Selling weapons to the enemies of America? Lying to the public to start needless wars? (Sorry, those last two were other presidents.)
It sounds like you feel that "investigated" means GUILTY, and "no evidence" means GUILTY. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure how else to interpret your answer.
A lot of people don't like her. Honestly, she's not a very likable person. But she seems competent, loyal to the US rather than just herself, and reasonably honest as politicians go. If you think the main skill set for the presidency should be likability, feel free to write in Miss America. If you want the president to be effective and liberal, though, she's one of the best choices you could make.
Who did the hacking is irrelevant. It's just a distraction.
I only partly agree with this. If a foreign country is trying to affect our elections, that's something worth considering. Especially because if they'll do something minor like this they may do something major and less-easily-traced later.
The inner workings of both major US political parties as it relates to rewarding large donors, choosing party candidates, and dealing with "disruptive" candidates is very ugly. This could have easily happened to the RNC (if it hasn't already) and a similar pile of shit would likely be unearthed.
This is very true. The DNC was unhappy with Sanders, but never thought he had a chance of winning and didn't do much against him. Some talk, but no action.
The RNC, OTOH, has been in an existential fight with Trump for the past year. They probably had a LOT more talk and probably more action. (Totally ineffective action, true, but action nonetheless.)
I really don't know how primaries should work. As you say, primaries currently give too much power to those with strong and vocal opinions. Caucuses are even worse. Open primaries let people outside the party have a say, which may or may not be a good idea. The old method of "smoke filled backroom deals" doesn't seem an improvement.
The disapproval ratings for the DNC and RNC candidates are at record high levels and speak for themselves
That's a red herring. The DNC candidate has been under near-constant "investigations" (which have produced close to zero evidence or crimes) for more than two decades and has little charisma; that's gonna cause disapproval from those who like investigations but dislike evidence. The RNC candidates have insulted just about every cultural, ethnic, and gender-based group in the country. It's a perfect storm, but neither one seems tied to the parties.
For future reference, you look like less of a troll if you use fewer *****STARS*****.
I think you are saying "I fear competent companies, so will only ever use incompetent companies".
I believe that your philosophy dooms you to unhappiness and frustration.
All those investigations, no indictments, virtually no evidence. Either she is a criminal mastermind who makes Lex Luthor seem like an incompetent dunce, or her political enemies investigate her because gullible rubes will believe that investigations PROVE that she is guilty.
Fortunately, betting that the public are gullible rubes is a very safe bet, as this election has shown.
Please don't be a gullible rube.
You're over thinking this. Trump likely doesn't believe in anything he has said. As far as I can tell, he only believes that he needs more money and more respect. He won't re-write the constitution because it would take too much effort and wouldn't make him money. I have no idea what he would do, but you cannot guess based on his previous words.
"send American soldiers to die because some foreign leader insulted him" seems pretty spot on, though.
Think wider.
The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate. I think a lot of Sanders supporters are going to be disgusted to see how "their" party plotted and schemed to defeat their candidate
Huh?
There were two major candidates. One is a lifelong democrat who is part of the biggest fundraising team in the democratic party's history, who has regularly campaigned for and helped democratic candidates, and who has pushed democratic policies (and helped set democratic policies) their entire political career. The other is an independent who just recently declared themself a democrat for the express purpose of winning this primary and "leading a revolution" in the democratic party, who is not known for helping or fundraising for democrats and who has policies which are similar to but still rather different than the democratic party's policies.
Look, I like Bernie and I respect Bernie's goals, but his goal was to take over and explode the democratic party. Why do you think the current democratic party leaders would be neutral about this? That's insane. Of course they dislike him and fear him and did not want him to win; from their point of view, that is the only rational behavior.
Note also, you say "until the party members have selected their candidate". Bernie wants more open primaries because many of his supporters are independants, not democrats. I don't know if open primaries are good or bad, but when you have open primaries you no longer have "the party members" selecting a candidate, you have anyone who decides to vote in that party's primary selecting. That may be good or it may be bad, but it ain't the same thing.
And then are still in desperation because of poor choices.
So what you're saying is "we cannot trust people to decide where best to spend money; instead, we must trust the government to spend it for them"?
I'm not a huge fan of a nanny state myself, but if you cannot trust people to make good choices...
Yeah, that's what I mean. Nobody can seem to find a case where someone who mishandled classified material but did not leak it ended up in jail. The closest recent case seems to be Petraeus, who actively gave/leaked classified material to a journalist. In fact, Comey even said: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various things]. We do not see those things here."
I do agree that Hillary is treated very differently than anyone else. For anyone else, people would see the recommendations and say "oh well, I thought her actions were more serious, and I'm unhappy with the result, but I guess it's closed; I assume the FBI is more of an expert on the law than I am." For Hillary, I expect at least 4 more years of hearings, select committees, accusations, insinuations, leaks, conspiracy theories, and all the rest of the circus. And little evidence of crimes and no convictions, either because she is a criminal mastermind who makes Lex Luthor seem like an idiot, or because she is, well, kinda an asshole but innocent of serious crimes.
I know I won't convince you or anyone else. Once we "know" something, we won't let new evidence change what we believe. But I'm still saddened. There are so many valid reasons to hate Hillary, but most folks fixate on the invalid ones.
Hmmm. We likely can find the bases via Google Maps. Also, any place without Pokemon Go players could be a secret base, but it also could be a forest with no people, a lake, a toxic waste dump, a poor farming community without electricity, or maybe just a location without cell service (the US seems to have a few of those). This would be one of the most useless and ineffective ways of finding secret bases that I could possibly come up with.
The US military also has strict rules that are bent and broken regularly in regards to wireless devices. One IA officer I knew actually yelled at me for leaving my cell phone at home, "How am I going to get in touch with you? Go get it!" when I was trying to think security and follow the rules.
Can't be. I've been told that every single person who breaks any of the government's security policies is immediately punished, unless they are named Hillary which just proves that she blackmailed the FBI. People regularly break the rules and don't get punished? Unpossible!
Sorry, had to say that. Yeah, I never worked for the government (military or otherwise) but since every other human I know would ignore rules which were inconvenient and hard-to-enforce, seems like military folks would do so too. Contractors, OTOH, I know well, and they'll ignore any rules, even those which are helpful and easy-to-enforce.
What if Microsoft released an update that blocks $your_company website from being accessed at the OS level (no matter what browser you use) and instead redirects them to the same service offered by Microsoft - how many people would dump Windows (after all, there are alternatives) just to be able to access your website?
You mean like how whenever you click on an address in an iOS app, you always get Apple Maps, and there is no way to get Google Maps by default? Unlike Android, where once you have multiple maps apps, clicking on an address will ask you which app to use (this time and/or make the default)?
Note, I agree that one of government's purposes is to limit the damage that a monopolistic company can cause. I'm just having trouble seeing both Android's monopoly status and what they're doing to abuse it.
Since a company with a monopoly in one market doesn't have to worry about competition there they can raise prices to get extra resources.
I think that you are saying that Google is charging too much for Android to get dominance in another market? The second question, of course, is "which market"?
Now, the way the word monopoly is used in legal cases it typically isn't required to have 100% of the market. 70% is more than enough to be called a monopoly.
It varies, and I don't know how EU has ruled, but 70% is still kinda low. I seem to recall that the claim was the Google is using Android to gain dominance in the "Android app market". Why this isn't the "Cell phone app market" is a question that only those regulators can answer.
On the one hand, I don't know if that means "he hates homosexuals" or "he likes or doesn't care about or disagrees with homosexuals, but he'll happily oppress a minority to gain support from a bigoted majority".
On the other hand, I don't think that that changes how you should feel about him or treat him, since I think that the second trait is worse than the first trait. I mean, if Christians actually become a tiny minority with little political power (unlikely this century, I know), then would he happily turn against them?
Remember, the separation of church and state isn't there to oppress the religious; it is there to protect them. A government which allows oppression against homosexuals can also allow oppression against the religious.
All this means you have a bunch of people who want to tax 65% or 85% of the rich people's money (with no plan on how that's going to help, or what to do about everyone else)
Who with any credibility has suggested this? Bernie Sanders, whose proposals were a bit crazy but did have some support, wanted 52% on $10M+ incomes. I didn't read the rest of your manifesto because if you cannot contruct reasonable strawmen then the rest of your numbers are likely equally bad.
Indeed. The Republican Party Platform, as of now, wants government to:
* Regulate the porn industry and control what you're allowed to see.
* Regulate who you can marry.
* Regulate what operations your doctor can do on you (especially if you are a woman).
* Regulate what bathroom you can use.
* Spend more and more on the military.
* Pay for it all by cutting taxes, mostly on the wealthy.
Not what I would call small government.
But they want to be sure that fewer people have health care, so they have that going for them, which is nice.
The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.
And he was right.
As someone who has seen what smoking does, and remembers the tobacco companies lying under oath about the ill effects of smoking, I'm happy with big government smacking those guys down. Also, I'm happy that my health insurance payments are a lot lower because there are fewer tobacco-caused issues they have to pay for for others on my plan.
Government's role is to keep the big companies honest. It's not perfect, but it does a better job than anything else would. Our job is to keep government honest. We suck at this, because we elect people based on what they say, not what they do. We love people who lie to us about what we want to be true. I'm not sure how to fix this, though.
Unless you're president Kennedy. Or president Nixon. Or unless the VP needs to cast a deciding vote on some very serious matter before the Senate (you do know that's part of the job, right?).
Yeah, both Clinton and Trump are on the old side for first-term presidential candidates. I don't think either one has any major health problems, but I think that only Reagan was older, and there is evidence that his Alzheimers manifested long before he left office.
You're right that VP picks rarely seem to be a positive, but in certain cases they can be a big negative.
Actually, I think he did.
I suspect that Gingrich doesn't think Trump has any chance of winning. However, he and Trump both know that former republican candidates for both P and VP make crazy-large amounts of money on the conservative talk circuit. Republicans seem to pay very large amounts of money to listen to failed candidates speak. Democrats do too, but it seems to be less-crazy amounts and fewer venues, and the people usually have more credentials than "failed to become president".
(I personally think that that was the only reason Trump ran, and that he as surprised as everyone else that he's in this spot.)
Did you ever wonder why products come with dozens of lines of small print, or why laws which should be two paragraphs end up being 40 pages long? It's because of you.
So sure, rather than saying "unlimited", they need to offer a large set of limitations for total space, how much the data can change per month, exactly how long the retrieval time will take, an SLA for availability, and probably eight other things which I haven't thought of, because if they don't meet your definitions you'll complain loudly that they didn't carefully limit it so you deserve it all.
Yeah, I'm being a bit over-the-top here, but only a bit. I don't know if YOU will complain, but I guarantee that someone will, probably loudly and to a blogger who prefers clicks over reasonable stories.
Also, I agree with you that MS was stupid to offer "unlimited" if they were not SURE they could handle it.