The most important thing we noticed was that the party had already decided to throw its weight behind Clinton before the primaries had even begun! You might say that the party is a private organization and can do whatever the fuck it wants, but even if this was the case, they were still caught in a lie.
I'm not sure why this would be considered surprising, or even that it would be unethical. When Elizabeth Warren announced she was not running, the Democratic Party had no credible candidates to challenge Hillary. At the start of the primaries, of course they'd throw their weight behind Clinton -- if a candidate is going to win, then the Party wants the primaries over with as soon as possible.
There is a lot of power to convenience. It's the user experience, which is what the application is most supposed to facilitate. An application that is totally secure and totally inconvenient is not very useful for the average person.
I just meant that if the choice is between "Big Tech" and "Big Oil" or "Big Defense", then I'm more comfortable with a president that's beholden to "Big Tech".
How about a president who is self made and doesn't have to be beholden to anybody except the american people?
Then you have someone who is starting out rich (this is a huge negative in many peoples' minds) and is trying to "buy the presidency." There is no winning in this sort of argument.
Indeed, I don't know why people keep perpetuating the lie that presidents have such huge economic influence. It's probably because the candidates campaign on these empty promises, "Vote for me, I'll make all your economic dreams come true!" Truly the most power they have is veto, and they are heavily pressured to not delay a budget which has made it through both houses of Congress.
For the most part, the President's power over the economy is overrated. But they can have extremely wide-ranging effects. If we had almost any other president than GWB, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq and that was an ENORMOUS expense. Couple that with the money pumped into Afghanistan that had to be spent because of the Iraq distraction, and you have a huge bundle of cash sucked out of the US economy.
You can also make the argument that an entire-half-assed approach to Syria and Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. In the long run, how much will that cost?
Technically, it's off topic, but still a point of concern. You noticed that when the Orlando shooting happened, the talking heads were on it immediately.
Probably because it was the worst mass shooting in United States history. That attracts a lot of US-based talking head attention.
Yes, obviously they're trying to make it more difficult. Making commerce more difficult is generally only something an idiot would approve of, though.
San Francisco has little interest in encouraging a buyer who just re-rents it without being a landlord in a city where rents are already extremely high and housing availability is quite limited. That is "commerce" that doesn't benefit anyone in the city.
For someone, though, who posits a "Libertarian" viewpoint, you seem awfully anxious to allow the government to own a woman's body and her sovereign rights to it.
Whether you are for or against abortion usually (though not always....) comes down to when you think life arrives. Birth? Conception? The anti-abortion, often religious argument is that life begins at conception, not at birth, that there's little difference between 2 weeks and 3 weeks, or 18 weeks and 19 weeks. So they draw the line at conception. Once that line is drawn, every other argument makes sense -- "allow the government to own a woman's body" etcetc is nonsense, because there is little moral justification for a woman to kill her child out of convenience, whether it's three months before birth or three months after. That's the consequence of drawing the line at conception. "You can't control my body" pales in comparison to "you can't murder your children." That's why a Libertarian can be against abortion, Libertarians are quite ok with police enforcing laws governing murder.
You can't get into the venue in the first place without putting a $500 authorization (or "hold") on your credit card. If you're thrown out, they capture the authorization.
And if the reasons for getting thrown out are fraudulent, you can file a credit card chargeback. At that point, they could sue you, assuming they would actually want to bring the issue to court.
Even if Hussein was still relevant, it was a nitwit move to think we could just push the pause button on Afghanistan and that we'd just sweep through Iraq in a few weeks and... and what? Oh yeah, we'd be 'greeted as liberators.' Ugh.
President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, causing the healthcare costs of tens of millions of Americans to continue to skyrocket.
Are you under the impression that health care costs would not have continued to skyrocket without the ACA, as they skyrocketed before the ACA was passed? How very convenient for the insurance industry that they have a wonderful scapegoat to blame for the price increases they would have put into place regardless.
Trump is such an easy candidate to take down, how shameful it is that the Democrats somehow found a candidate who suffers a real chance of losing to him. It SHOULD have been a slam dunk.
and about 1% of what Shrub killed with his bogus wars.
BTW, do you think that if we had a Democrat in the White House we wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan? Hint: The US absolutely would have. As much as Bernie likes to rant about how smart he is on these things, he would have sent the troops in or been forced out of office. At least we could have gotten things cleaned up much faster without that 10-year expensive disaster of a distraction in Iraq.
Hillary on the other hand may have mishandled her email set-up, but she did it in a way that was commonplace in previous administrations
Absolutely false, no other Secretary of State hosted email in the same way. Unfortunately, we really only have one other person to compare to, Colin Powell, since Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright did not use email, and the State Department didn't use email before Powell. Powell DID use a private email address, but it wasn't located at home. Not that a home email server is necessarily more or less secure, but it's likely unless she wanted to be her own every-day admin.
Oh, and if you think that "depriving humanity of another life" is "saving a huge expense" then you obviously have no idea how retirement funds work in socialist countries. Hint: look up "Ponzi scheme" on Wikipedia.
Oh God, you're not one of those guys who thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, do you?
Care to explain how it's not, then?
Sure, it's very easy -- in a Ponzi scheme, the people at the top do not get rotated out. In real life, retirees do not live forever -- no matter how long they live, they will eventually leave the system, and every working man and woman pays into the system without exception. So participation is tied to the unemployment rate, not to an individual's decision of whether it's a good idea or not. If we discovered immortality, then yes, the Social Security system would collapse, but that would also be the least of our problems at that point. Now you might say that currently people are living a bit longer and the birth rate has dropped, so the system is paying out more than it takes in, but that's an easy problem to fix -- increase social security taxes a percent or two. It doesn't take an act of God, just Congress (the more cynical might say the former is more likely).
Also, when a social program has been operating for 80 years, it's pretty safe to say that it's not a Ponzi scheme.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Not correct. Individuals can refuse medical treatment from emergency service providers, which includes telling them you do not want to be transported to a hospital or other care facility.
But you have to be capable of making that preference known, and I'm not 100% sure that someone in a horrific accident is going to be A) conscious enough to give that consent and B) coherent enough to think things through, or at least to make the same decision they made when they were healthy. The default action is to provide medical care and save the life in absence of an objection.
touch them. This sometimes surprises the newer students, who then ask "what do you do"? The answer is that you stand there until the patient passes out and then you provide assistance. Passing out is a change in status, and he's no longer refusing care, so you are ok to act. In other words, if you are a paramedic at an accident scene and a conscious and alert victim tells you "I am a Jehovah's Witness and I decline medical care", you move on to the next victim and come back to the JW after he passes out.
In which case, aren't you explicitly going against his stated wishes?
And bringing this thread back to the original context, the original point was that someone should be able to not wear a seat belt and medical bills won't be a problem because he can decline the medical care. He made that choice. But if someone suffers a brain injury due to their decision not to wear a seat belt, I think it's pretty unlikely that he'll be ABLE to tell the medical personnel that they should let him die in the car because he assumed the risk and the consequences. I also think it's unlikely that even if he could, he actually WOULD choose to do that. "I know I said most of my life that I accepted the risks of driving without a seat belt and that I'd die if I got into a huge accident, but now I'm actually dying, so I'm changing my mind." I think most of the folks who say they'd stick to their guns would really do the latter.
Oh, and if you think that "depriving humanity of another life" is "saving a huge expense" then you obviously have no idea how retirement funds work in socialist countries. Hint: look up "Ponzi scheme" on Wikipedia.
Oh God, you're not one of those guys who thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, do you?
Devil's Advocate time: How would you have handled it? To claim the $55, the user would have to show real proof, and a "uhhh yeah, your honor, I totally bought this with the intent of using OtherOS" isn't going to cut it.
I'm eligible for the $55 (I am pretty sure I still have the OtherOS image installed on my PS3 hard drive), but I'm not yet sure how I'm going to prove it, and I know that they can't just take my word for it.
Donald Trump went through a bit of effort associating "Lying" with "Ted." No one else has gone through quite the same amount of effort making "crooked Hillary" a thing. It doesn't matter whether you actually believe she's crooked or not, the exact phrase (that's important) hasn't gotten nearly the exposure as "Lying Ted" did.
Slashdot Mirror
The most important thing we noticed was that the party had already decided to throw its weight behind Clinton before the primaries had even begun! You might say that the party is a private organization and can do whatever the fuck it wants, but even if this was the case, they were still caught in a lie.
I'm not sure why this would be considered surprising, or even that it would be unethical.
When Elizabeth Warren announced she was not running, the Democratic Party had no credible candidates to challenge Hillary. At the start of the primaries, of course they'd throw their weight behind Clinton -- if a candidate is going to win, then the Party wants the primaries over with as soon as possible.
Lol. ISIS is "left wing."
Once again, convenience trumps security.
There is a lot of power to convenience. It's the user experience, which is what the application is most supposed to facilitate.
An application that is totally secure and totally inconvenient is not very useful for the average person.
I just meant that if the choice is between "Big Tech" and "Big Oil" or "Big Defense", then I'm more comfortable with a president that's beholden to "Big Tech".
How about a president who is self made and doesn't have to be beholden to anybody except the american people?
Then you have someone who is starting out rich (this is a huge negative in many peoples' minds) and is trying to "buy the presidency." There is no winning in this sort of argument.
Indeed, I don't know why people keep perpetuating the lie that presidents have such huge economic influence. It's probably because the candidates campaign on these empty promises, "Vote for me, I'll make all your economic dreams come true!" Truly the most power they have is veto, and they are heavily pressured to not delay a budget which has made it through both houses of Congress.
For the most part, the President's power over the economy is overrated. But they can have extremely wide-ranging effects. If we had almost any other president than GWB, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq and that was an ENORMOUS expense. Couple that with the money pumped into Afghanistan that had to be spent because of the Iraq distraction, and you have a huge bundle of cash sucked out of the US economy.
You can also make the argument that an entire-half-assed approach to Syria and Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. In the long run, how much will that cost?
Technically, it's off topic, but still a point of concern. You noticed that when the Orlando shooting happened, the talking heads were on it immediately.
Probably because it was the worst mass shooting in United States history. That attracts a lot of US-based talking head attention.
Yes, obviously they're trying to make it more difficult. Making commerce more difficult is generally only something an idiot would approve of, though.
San Francisco has little interest in encouraging a buyer who just re-rents it without being a landlord in a city where rents are already extremely high and housing availability is quite limited. That is "commerce" that doesn't benefit anyone in the city.
For someone, though, who posits a "Libertarian" viewpoint, you seem awfully anxious to allow the government to own a woman's body and her sovereign rights to it.
Whether you are for or against abortion usually (though not always....) comes down to when you think life arrives. Birth? Conception? The anti-abortion, often religious argument is that life begins at conception, not at birth, that there's little difference between 2 weeks and 3 weeks, or 18 weeks and 19 weeks. So they draw the line at conception. Once that line is drawn, every other argument makes sense -- "allow the government to own a woman's body" etcetc is nonsense, because there is little moral justification for a woman to kill her child out of convenience, whether it's three months before birth or three months after. That's the consequence of drawing the line at conception. "You can't control my body" pales in comparison to "you can't murder your children." That's why a Libertarian can be against abortion, Libertarians are quite ok with police enforcing laws governing murder.
You can't get into the venue in the first place without putting a $500 authorization (or "hold") on your credit card. If you're thrown out, they capture the authorization.
And if the reasons for getting thrown out are fraudulent, you can file a credit card chargeback. At that point, they could sue you, assuming they would actually want to bring the issue to court.
Even if Hussein was still relevant, it was a nitwit move to think we could just push the pause button on Afghanistan and that we'd just sweep through Iraq in a few weeks and... and what? Oh yeah, we'd be 'greeted as liberators.' Ugh.
President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, causing the healthcare costs of tens of millions of Americans to continue to skyrocket.
Are you under the impression that health care costs would not have continued to skyrocket without the ACA, as they skyrocketed before the ACA was passed? How very convenient for the insurance industry that they have a wonderful scapegoat to blame for the price increases they would have put into place regardless.
Trump is such an easy candidate to take down, how shameful it is that the Democrats somehow found a candidate who suffers a real chance of losing to him. It SHOULD have been a slam dunk.
Does apologizing like a little bitch gain you anything?
Nope.
"Oh i didn't like him till he groveled about how sorry he was." Said noone ever...
Is this really indicative of the mindset of Trump supporters?
How utterly depressing.
and about 1% of what Shrub killed with his bogus wars.
BTW, do you think that if we had a Democrat in the White House we wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan?
Hint: The US absolutely would have. As much as Bernie likes to rant about how smart he is on these things, he would have sent the troops in or been forced out of office.
At least we could have gotten things cleaned up much faster without that 10-year expensive disaster of a distraction in Iraq.
Hillary on the other hand may have mishandled her email set-up, but she did it in a way that was commonplace in previous administrations
Absolutely false, no other Secretary of State hosted email in the same way. Unfortunately, we really only have one other person to compare to, Colin Powell, since Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright did not use email, and the State Department didn't use email before Powell. Powell DID use a private email address, but it wasn't located at home. Not that a home email server is necessarily more or less secure, but it's likely unless she wanted to be her own every-day admin.
I agree. Everyone knows it's Hillary who would order the airstrikes and Trump having the KGB kill him off.
Oh, and if you think that "depriving humanity of another life" is "saving a huge expense" then you obviously have no idea how retirement funds work in socialist countries. Hint: look up "Ponzi scheme" on Wikipedia.
Oh God, you're not one of those guys who thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, do you?
Care to explain how it's not, then?
Sure, it's very easy -- in a Ponzi scheme, the people at the top do not get rotated out. In real life, retirees do not live forever -- no matter how long they live, they will eventually leave the system, and every working man and woman pays into the system without exception. So participation is tied to the unemployment rate, not to an individual's decision of whether it's a good idea or not. If we discovered immortality, then yes, the Social Security system would collapse, but that would also be the least of our problems at that point. Now you might say that currently people are living a bit longer and the birth rate has dropped, so the system is paying out more than it takes in, but that's an easy problem to fix -- increase social security taxes a percent or two. It doesn't take an act of God, just Congress (the more cynical might say the former is more likely).
Also, when a social program has been operating for 80 years, it's pretty safe to say that it's not a Ponzi scheme.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Not correct. Individuals can refuse medical treatment from emergency service providers, which includes telling them you do not want to be transported to a hospital or other care facility.
But you have to be capable of making that preference known, and I'm not 100% sure that someone in a horrific accident is going to be A) conscious enough to give that consent and B) coherent enough to think things through, or at least to make the same decision they made when they were healthy. The default action is to provide medical care and save the life in absence of an objection.
touch them. This sometimes surprises the newer students, who then ask "what do you do"? The answer is that you stand there until the patient passes out and then you provide assistance. Passing out is a change in status, and he's no longer refusing care, so you are ok to act. In other words, if you are a paramedic at an accident scene and a conscious and alert victim tells you "I am a Jehovah's Witness and I decline medical care", you move on to the next victim and come back to the JW after he passes out.
In which case, aren't you explicitly going against his stated wishes?
And bringing this thread back to the original context, the original point was that someone should be able to not wear a seat belt and medical bills won't be a problem because he can decline the medical care. He made that choice. But if someone suffers a brain injury due to their decision not to wear a seat belt, I think it's pretty unlikely that he'll be ABLE to tell the medical personnel that they should let him die in the car because he assumed the risk and the consequences. I also think it's unlikely that even if he could, he actually WOULD choose to do that. "I know I said most of my life that I accepted the risks of driving without a seat belt and that I'd die if I got into a huge accident, but now I'm actually dying, so I'm changing my mind." I think most of the folks who say they'd stick to their guns would really do the latter.
Oh, and if you think that "depriving humanity of another life" is "saving a huge expense" then you obviously have no idea how retirement funds work in socialist countries. Hint: look up "Ponzi scheme" on Wikipedia.
Oh God, you're not one of those guys who thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, do you?
No. Not at all. Doesn't go to the hospitals. You don't get the same medical care - if any.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Devil's Advocate time: How would you have handled it? To claim the $55, the user would have to show real proof, and a "uhhh yeah, your honor, I totally bought this with the intent of using OtherOS" isn't going to cut it.
I'm eligible for the $55 (I am pretty sure I still have the OtherOS image installed on my PS3 hard drive), but I'm not yet sure how I'm going to prove it, and I know that they can't just take my word for it.
I get an additional 395,000 results for "Lyin Ted".
Together though, that's still about 60,000 results less than "Crooked Hillary," so point taken, at least in the Google results.
Hahaha!
Future vision: headsets have large antennae for wireless charging and everyone wears a tin foil hat to protect brain from radiation.
Then the headset will be too heavy, another (more minor) issue with headsets that need batteries.
Grasping at straws? It's a problem that I deal with for my wireless headset all the time.
Donald Trump went through a bit of effort associating "Lying" with "Ted." No one else has gone through quite the same amount of effort making "crooked Hillary" a thing. It doesn't matter whether you actually believe she's crooked or not, the exact phrase (that's important) hasn't gotten nearly the exposure as "Lying Ted" did.