When you alter you contradict your own fact checking to include partisan interpretations and equivocation to bolster an agenda, you lose credibility.
Snopes is no longer a credible source for fact checking when they don't stick to facts as stated BY SNOPES. Now I have to suspect every analysis on editorializing. Snopes provides their own custom narrative on judgement re: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... - she did laugh, she did plea bargain him out, etc. Don't say false when it's true, but you are trying to meet your own overall conclusion. It really soured me. Yes, the story is basically false, but the fact checking there is factually incorrect. Her behavior isn't all that strange among defense attorneys.
That being said, the idea of "fake news" is tricky subject when real news can be spun so hard. Facts get blurred when put together in unexpected ways to form a new headline which is almost always to meet some agenda. On the other hand, a news story always starts with a perceived context, so which is more correct? The more factually correct or the more coherent narrative?
> Apple's phone profit margin is about 40%. [nytimes.com]. So, they cannot absorb a doubling of the production cost without selling the phones at a loss.
Running at a margin below a target margin, does not make it a loss.
They claim they are, but then elect a guy like Trump and prove themselves wrong.
That's why it was surprising to nearly the entire country. Those feeling disenfranchised were shocked, those opposing him were shocked. I think your perspective is skewed.
> every nuclear power plant you build is one of a kind
That's a United States problem. France uses a template. Bad policy tends to stick around, just like any statistical disaster...which leads me to my problem with nuclear power. It's set up and run by humans.
Yes you can generate power very cheaply for a few decades, but it ruins the site for a couple hundred years. Long term, it doesn't work out either. Now, if there is an accident (over what time period, how many will there be?) you end up contaminating more than just the site (fukishima, chernobyl).
None of this was referenced in the movie. It was a lot of backstory to develop the boring nonsensical drama. The aliens could have been fairies or it's all a dream and the movie is the same.
"should" is a word that indicates you might have lost the argument. Telling someone how to act "because", is not compelling.
The crux of the race was - and - still - is, about corruption. Jon Stewart's tale of his time in Washington really resounded with me. Russia talking to the candidate they back (via wikileaks and probably other methods) is not surprising.
I don't see Russia controlling Trump's policies nor Russia rigging the election, but influencing indirectly was a result of existing conditions Clinton caused. The Russians, if responsible for email hacks, simply gave more information to the US people.
I do believe that if Trump had been attacked in a similar way, we would have seen bad business dealing (he is not all that great and certainly petulant) but being able to hide it is part of his charm and image. Clinton acting like she never does anything wrong came off as more distasteful hubris, which marginalized his.
Understanding how we got the US election result, is part of dealing with the result.
No, it is not. Democracy is participatory political action. If a family wants to decide on what color to paint a car, if 3 say red and 3 says blue, there is no ruling nor is there a mob. There wasn't even a decision.
The repetition of "mob rule" smacks of laziness and ignorance. Breaking it down...
"mob" is a convenient turn of phrase but is devoid of political meaning. The idea that a group of actors (mob) making a decision together requires a specific structure...most importantly, a relative political parity between actors and usually some rules for victory. The sentiment that it breaks down into herd mentality, is a possible condition under some niche cases. It is not the definition of democracy.
"rule", in the sense of dictating social programs (re: mob rule of the government) can be avoided, as I have mentioned. To clarify, the US democracy is the US people, in aggregate, have agreed to adhere to The US Constitution. Outside of that, you can have orthogonal democratic elections and still maintain policies in opposition to the current populist opinion (counter to the wishes of "the populist mob"). Democracy is not all-or-nothing, nor is it necessarily a singular lever for steering a government.
"the word is in the type of government" is not correct. The US Constitution mentions democracy as well as a republic, but is a unique type of government that was a republic of states, by design. It would probably come as a surprise, to you, that almost every existing government is rather unique (more or less).
That's simply not true. "Pure" being a weasel word to hide a ton of assumptions. There are many systems that are composed of positions elected by majority, which is not mob rule, because no single construct (for example the branches of the US or the division of the US Congress to start) is "ruling".
There was no mistake (it would have to be hundreds of thousands of mistakes). A problem is that the US still has an electoral college. Hillary won the popular vote and that seems to be an issue the US should be trying to fix NOW.
> overwhelmingly to put the same old congresscritters back in office.
To be fair, that's because many of our choices were the same critters from the major parties. I had no other options (write-ins for congress havent worked).
People have a reasonable choice to not use WOT (regardless of the stores pulling it or not). I didn't have to read the TOS (this isn't a new method or even scheme for data monetization). In this way, it's similar to finding a hilt-less blade. I chose not to possibly hurt myself by using with it because I've seen it before (yahoo toolbar anyone?).
Apple, Google, Oracle, IBM, this is basic digital advertising 101 stuff. They all have some api to read your cookie and pull your information via api, you just don't know what that API is (it tends to change when it gets exposed improperly).
It was in their terms of service. It's common and benign (most sites do it to some extent without explicitly stating that). I don't understand what else you could imagine the business model was or why this would be surprising.
> if this is the worst we can dig up on Hillary after 20 years of non-stop character assassination
You're confusing *worst with *latest. This isn't the worst, it's just part of a pattern since Bill was governor and issues were perennially raised. I don't think it's character assassination when the corruption is so blatant. Trump is a moron. Again, not character assassination, imo. He hasn't even had the opportunity to be politically corrupt yet.
> The choice of the word "openly" in the headline shows a poor understanding of capitalism in particular, and society in general
It shows the current understanding of the political system and how misrepresentation and corruption is effective and unpunished. You are thinking about it in childish terms, which is the hope of those actors.
> You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.
I do not. You are arguing with me because I showed you that your argument has problems that leads to this kind of pointless discourse you are having with the OP. You're trying to win a pissing match with ANYONE who challenges what you are saying OR what your point is, where you aren't quite smart enough to understand what the issues are. Good luck.
You are incorrect. Please understand that US law is not the arbiter of morality. It's known to be flawed, which should give you the proper perspective.
> Basically, you are suggested HRC should negotiate with the Trump supporters so that they stop saying that she is...
You are incorrect. I did not.
> In other words, your argument is with the OP who suggested that HRC be tried via the ballot box
I am not making an argument. I am trying to clarify that your reasoning is flawed without asserting correctness of conclusion. The "ballot box" (which ostensibly is in regards to POTUS) only results in one political change, in context. This does not mean it only indicates one outcome occurred. Correct yourself by not using the OPs weasel words and concepts, that leave a great deal to interpretation.
Of course you can. That's reality. You make compromises on priorities in a representative political structure.
People are going to vote for her despite what they believe and some another way because of what they believe. This has absolutely nothing to do with "innocence" (which is a moral concept).
Slashdot Mirror
Tech Dirt is not a news outlet. Tech Dirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill.
When you alter you contradict your own fact checking to include partisan interpretations and equivocation to bolster an agenda, you lose credibility.
Snopes is no longer a credible source for fact checking when they don't stick to facts as stated BY SNOPES. Now I have to suspect every analysis on editorializing. Snopes provides their own custom narrative on judgement re: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... - she did laugh, she did plea bargain him out, etc. Don't say false when it's true, but you are trying to meet your own overall conclusion. It really soured me. Yes, the story is basically false, but the fact checking there is factually incorrect. Her behavior isn't all that strange among defense attorneys.
That being said, the idea of "fake news" is tricky subject when real news can be spun so hard. Facts get blurred when put together in unexpected ways to form a new headline which is almost always to meet some agenda. On the other hand, a news story always starts with a perceived context, so which is more correct? The more factually correct or the more coherent narrative?
> Sounds like bullshit
Many people are having to subside on side hustles and tips if you're lucky. Sounds like you have no idea what being in the working class is like.
That doesn't make any sense. The administration is not a ship, nor is it interesting when he leaves (now or in 60 days). Slow news day.
> Apple's phone profit margin is about 40%. [nytimes.com]. So, they cannot absorb a doubling of the production cost without selling the phones at a loss.
Running at a margin below a target margin, does not make it a loss.
That's why it was surprising to nearly the entire country. Those feeling disenfranchised were shocked, those opposing him were shocked.
I think your perspective is skewed.
> every nuclear power plant you build is one of a kind
That's a United States problem. France uses a template. Bad policy tends to stick around, just like any statistical disaster...which leads me to my problem with nuclear power. It's set up and run by humans.
Yes you can generate power very cheaply for a few decades, but it ruins the site for a couple hundred years. Long term, it doesn't work out either. Now, if there is an accident (over what time period, how many will there be?) you end up contaminating more than just the site (fukishima, chernobyl).
Tracking everything Wolfram does (especially dead-end projects nobody sees) is not news. I agree it looks more like a viral marketing bit.
I like the cut of your jib, sir.
None of this was referenced in the movie. It was a lot of backstory to develop the boring nonsensical drama. The aliens could have been fairies or it's all a dream and the movie is the same.
> Neither should you
"should" is a word that indicates you might have lost the argument. Telling someone how to act "because", is not compelling.
The crux of the race was - and - still - is, about corruption. Jon Stewart's tale of his time in Washington really resounded with me.
Russia talking to the candidate they back (via wikileaks and probably other methods) is not surprising.
I don't see Russia controlling Trump's policies nor Russia rigging the election, but influencing indirectly was a result of existing
conditions Clinton caused. The Russians, if responsible for email hacks, simply gave more information to the US people.
I do believe that if Trump had been attacked in a similar way, we would have seen bad business dealing (he is not all that great
and certainly petulant) but being able to hide it is part of his charm and image. Clinton acting like she never does anything
wrong came off as more distasteful hubris, which marginalized his.
Understanding how we got the US election result, is part of dealing with the result.
> Democracy is by DEFINITION mob rule
No, it is not. Democracy is participatory political action. If a family wants to decide on what color to paint a car, if 3 say red and 3 says blue, there is no ruling nor is there a mob. There wasn't even a decision.
The repetition of "mob rule" smacks of laziness and ignorance. Breaking it down...
"mob" is a convenient turn of phrase but is devoid of political meaning. The idea that a group of actors (mob) making a decision together requires a specific structure...most importantly, a relative political parity between actors and usually some rules for victory. The sentiment that it breaks down into herd mentality, is a possible condition under some niche cases. It is not the definition of democracy.
"rule", in the sense of dictating social programs (re: mob rule of the government) can be avoided, as I have mentioned. To clarify, the US democracy is the US people, in aggregate, have agreed to adhere to The US Constitution. Outside of that, you can have orthogonal democratic elections and still maintain policies in opposition to the current populist opinion (counter to the wishes of "the populist mob"). Democracy is not all-or-nothing, nor is it necessarily a singular lever for steering a government.
"the word is in the type of government" is not correct. The US Constitution mentions democracy as well as a republic, but is a unique type of government that was a republic of states, by design. It would probably come as a surprise, to you, that almost every existing government is rather unique (more or less).
You might enjoy Nomic.
> Pure Democracy is rule by mob
That's simply not true. "Pure" being a weasel word to hide a ton of assumptions. There are many systems that are composed of positions elected by majority, which is not mob rule, because no single construct (for example the branches of the US or the division of the US Congress to start) is "ruling".
> The states are the unit of power in the US
That's the problem. It's ostensibly intended to be We the People.
There was no mistake (it would have to be hundreds of thousands of mistakes). A problem is that the US still has an electoral college. Hillary won the popular vote and that seems to be an issue the US should be trying to fix NOW.
> overwhelmingly to put the same old congresscritters back in office.
To be fair, that's because many of our choices were the same critters from the major parties. I had no other options (write-ins for congress havent worked).
People have a reasonable choice to not use WOT (regardless of the stores pulling it or not). I didn't have to read the TOS (this isn't a new method or even scheme for data monetization). In this way, it's similar to finding a hilt-less blade. I chose not to possibly hurt myself by using with it because I've seen it before (yahoo toolbar anyone?).
Apple, Google, Oracle, IBM, this is basic digital advertising 101 stuff. They all have some api to read your cookie and pull your information via api, you just don't know what that API is (it tends to change when it gets exposed improperly).
It was in their terms of service. It's common and benign (most sites do it to some extent without explicitly stating that). I don't understand what else you could imagine the business model was or why this would be surprising.
> People mishandle classified information all the time
Then they go to jail, almost (now), uniformly. Mishandling is a crime, that's part of accepting the responsibility.
> if this is the worst we can dig up on Hillary after 20 years of non-stop character assassination
You're confusing *worst with *latest. This isn't the worst, it's just part of a pattern since Bill was governor and issues were perennially raised.
I don't think it's character assassination when the corruption is so blatant. Trump is a moron. Again, not character assassination, imo. He hasn't even had the opportunity to be politically corrupt yet.
> this would be to make election day a federal holiday.
If America's political system was about democracy, I think this would be the case.
> The choice of the word "openly" in the headline shows a poor understanding of capitalism in particular, and society in general
It shows the current understanding of the political system and how misrepresentation and corruption is effective and unpunished. You are thinking about it in childish terms, which is the hope of those actors.
> You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.
I do not. You are arguing with me because I showed you that your argument has problems that leads to this kind of pointless discourse you are having with the OP. You're trying to win a pissing match with ANYONE who challenges what you are saying OR what your point is, where you aren't quite smart enough to understand what the issues are. Good luck.
> Innocence is a legal concept, not a moral one.
You are incorrect. Please understand that US law is not the arbiter of morality. It's known to be flawed, which should give you the proper perspective.
> Basically, you are suggested HRC should negotiate with the Trump supporters so that they stop saying that she is...
You are incorrect. I did not.
> In other words, your argument is with the OP who suggested that HRC be tried via the ballot box
I am not making an argument. I am trying to clarify that your reasoning is flawed without asserting correctness of conclusion. The "ballot box" (which ostensibly is in regards to POTUS) only results in one political change, in context. This does not mean it only indicates one outcome occurred. Correct yourself by not using the OPs weasel words and concepts, that leave a great deal to interpretation.
> if that is what you prefer.
SMH
> Can't have it both ways.
Of course you can. That's reality. You make compromises on priorities in a representative political structure.
People are going to vote for her despite what they believe and some another way because of what they believe. This has absolutely nothing to do with "innocence" (which is a moral concept).