You are a denier of facts, floating in a cesspool of Fake News and an echo chamber full of confirmation bias.
The classic Trump argument tactic. Seeing what people are saying about you, and calling them the same things. I call you out on fact-challenged fake news full of confirmation bias, so of course your immediate knee-jerk response is to just call me the same thing. "I know you are, but what am I?"
As mentioned, the DMV records intentionally do not specify whether a license holder is a citizen or not, so it would be difficult number to determine, wouldn't it?
So, then how are they able to issue those people licenses which specifically say they are not valid for official federal purposes? How does the government know to issue an AB-60 license instead of a different kind of license? You're suggesting that they left that field out of their database?
Also, "as mentioned"? As mentioned where, in The Washington Times?
so it would be difficult number to determine, wouldn't it?
Well, if what you claim is true (and that's a big "if"), then yeah I guess it would be sort of hard to determine. But, you said this:
it's how the CA system works now. That doesn't mean they are legally allowed to vote, but they are registered
So, if we can't determine the number, then why are you claiming that this is how the system works and that "they" are registered? You're saying yourself that "they" are registered to vote in California, so I guess I'm just not seeing where you're getting that information from. Could you shine a light for those of us in the dark? You seem to have a lot of information on this issue, don't hold it all to yourself! Also, is there a single record of an illegal immigrant actually casting a vote in California? It just seems a little weird that you're simultaneously claiming that people are doing a certain thing, and also claiming that it's "difficult" to determine. I'm sure it's just my stupid brain not able to make an obvious connection though!
Also, when you're citing your sources, try to stay away from things like InfoWars, Milo, The New American, Freedom Daily, or any other organization who uses a tweet as a basis for their claims and fear-mongering.
And somehow you acknowledge the issue
No, you're misreading me. I'm not acknowledging that million of illegal immigrants are registered voters in California, I am making fun of the fact that people genuinely think that somehow the combination of automatically enrolling eligible voters and also giving illegal immigrants driver licenses magically equates to millions of illegal immigrants being registered to vote. And nothing is stopping them! Ooooh, scary.
It doesn't really matter
Yeah, pshh, illegally registering non-citizens to vote wouldn't matter anyway. That's why there's no investigation, right? Fuck it man, Clinton Foundation.
hint: the number is greater than 1
Prove it. Seriously, prove it. You can't though, can you? But you're still going to state that like it's a fact, aren't you? See man, you're a perfect symptom of the problem of fake news. You believe it because it sounds like something that could be true, and because it agrees with your bias.
and the vitriolic hatred for "others" of some stripe indicates an unwillingness to engage in critical thinking or rational discussion on your part.
Yeah, OK Trump University graduate. "I know you are, but what am I?"
Jesus, you're one of those "special" people who believes that Clinton is arranging to sell sex with kids out of a pizza parlor, aren't you?
First off, The Washington Times? Really?
That article you're using as a "reference" is over a year old. I'll get back to the fact that you citing this as a reference is a poor statement on your own thinking ability, but the fact that it is over a year old means that the "questions" that this article raises already have answers. But just to spell things out, let me highlight some of the words they're using that you are willfully ignorant towards because you already believe in what the article is trying to suggest.
The New Motor Voter Act automatically registers to vote all eligible voters when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses at the Department of Motor Vehicles instead of requiring them to fill out a form.
Question number 1: are non-citizens eligible voters?
The goal is to ease barriers to voting, but election-integrity advocates warn that the measure could inadvertently add millions of illegal voters to the rolls given that California allows undocumented aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.
Well, yeah, I guess that a year ago you would have been able to say that millions of illegal voters could be added. It's a year later though, so, question number 2: how many illegal voters have actually been added? As a further challenge, I'm going to request that the reference for this number does not come from an organization like The Washington Times or other fact-challenged media outlets that conservatives enjoy, allowing their creators to bring in over $10k per month in ad views. It's weird that the liberals running those sites don't target liberals with their fake news, right? It's almost as if conservatives are somehow either more gullible, less likely to do research, critical-thinking-impaired, or just more susceptible to confirmation bias. It's the new tabloid industry, and the numbers show that what sells are conservative fever dream stories. So, please, try to avoid citing a tabloid when you're figuring out how many illegal voters have actually been registered to vote in California.
Here's another thought - it's not legal for non-citizens to vote in the United States, right? I'm assuming there might be some sort of election in some jurisdiction that has lax standards, but when we're voting for things like state governors, mayors, or federal elections, you have to be a citizen in order to vote, correct? So, if there are "millions of illegal voters" in California, then where is the investigation? We had recounts in at least 2 states, why wasn't there a recount in California? Oh wait, it's a conspiracy, isn't it? I bet the Clinton Foundation is involved somehow, aren't they?
That doesn't mean they are legally allowed to vote, but they are registered, and there is nothing stopping them from voting.
Yes there is, you critical-thinking-impaired moron. The thing stopping them from voting is that they are not registered to vote and that it is not legal for them to vote in the first place. Seriously, what kind of fundamental problems would have to exist in this system in order for someone who is specifically getting a drivers license which includes explicit language that it is not to be used for official federal purposes (that is, a completely different kind of driver license) to somehow have their information funneled through the system reserved for "normal" driver licenses? You don't think they would have tested for that before rolling out the system? Seriously? But you don't care about facts, because you already believe the story anyway, and you're the same kind of victim of confirmation bias that causes people to walk into a pizza parlor with a rifle to shoot through doors and find all of the missing kids being sold for sex. And that guy, by the way, still believes that
A swing and a miss. That's a great attempt at deflection there (ok, that was a lie), but unfortunately it has no relevance. The Clintons are finished politically, whatever they're doing is not a threat to the country. The same cannot be said for Trump. His interests could in fact be a direct threat to the country, especially if he decides that the interests of himself, his family, or his friends are more important to him than your interests. Now he wants Rex Tillerson to be the Secretary of State. That's a man who was given the "Order Of Friendship" award by Vladimir Putin in 2013, and Trump wants that guy to be our top diplomat. You think there might be a conflict of interest there? He's got predatory lenders, Goldman Sachs executives, and Putin's friends in his cabinet, and you're trying to get people to focus on Clinton. I realize that your rage boner for Hillary hasn't gone down yet, and that you should probably contact a doctor, but it's probably better to focus on the things that could actually be a threat to the country. And, no, selling sex with kids out of a pizza parlor is not one of those things.
The exact same thing happens when you're selling as well.
I know, when I'm selling then some parasite takes my money too.
If someone sends me a buy order at $3, but I lowered the price to $2.99 only a second before that buy order was sent, why does it make sense for a parasite to intercept that buy order and buy my shares to sell to the buyer? Why shouldn't it be me that gets the buy order that the buyer sent? Why does a parasite get the extra money instead of the seller?
There's even a car analogy. If I'm selling a car on Craigslist or something for $20k, and I'm not getting a lot of offers so I decide to lower the price to $19k, but just as I'm doing that someone is about to pick up the phone and call me with an offer to buy at $20k, is it really fair if someone intercepts that phone call and figures out that I just lowered the price, so they agree to the buyer's offer at $20k while also calling me and buying my car for $19k, so they get that extra thousand instead of me? Is that really a necessary function of society? Is that person really doing anything of value to anyone other than himself? It's that parasitic behavior, isn't that person just feeding off a system where they are not contributing anything in return?
If you sell a share at $2.99, and then somebody buys at $2.99, then guess what? You still sold it at the price you asked for.
Right, but someone was offering to buy it at a higher price, but instead of me getting that higher price it's a parasite who does literally no work except "facilitating the transaction" or "enhancing liquidity" or whatever other bullshit terms they want to use to describe getting paid for having a computer close to the trading computer.
Likewise, if you place a bid for a share at $3 and then you buy at $3, then guess what? You still bought it for the price you asked for.
Right, but some parasite got paid for not doing anything. I call the seller on the phone and say "hey, thanks for selling me those shares at $3." And he says "no, I sold them for $2.99." That seller should have gotten all the money, but he got cheated out of it because someone paid several million dollars for a 3 meter fiberoptic cable so that they can cheat people out of money many, many times per second.
This is something that finance people love to do: make money for themselves just by moving other peoples' money around. It's also referred to as "skimming" in the cases where it's illegal. I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out why it's not illegal when very rich people do it.
He has different cronies than the harridan. His aren't necessarily Wall Street Speculators.
It's early December. Maybe we should wait until his cabinet nominees are actually confirmed and in their jobs before talking about what kind of cronies he will or will not have working for him.
So far his pick for the Treasury (Mnuchin) is a Goldman Sachs partner and member of the management committee, like his father before him. After he earned a few tens of millions at GS, he left and started his own hedge fund. Then he and George Soros and another hedge fund manager bought a home loan bank out of bankruptcy, and Mnuchin became the chair of that. That bank was involved in several lawsuits over questionable foreclosures before they sold it for over twice as much as they bought it for. $1.8 billion for 6 years work isn't bad, even if their bank was responsible for 39% of all federally insured reverse mortgages during that time (even though they only serviced 17% of the market). They did get subpoenas from HUD though, but I guess that problem's going to go away, haha, right? I suppose he'll need to move out of his $26 million house in Bel Air, but I'm sure someone will keep it warm until he gets back.
His pick for Commerce (Ross) is a billionaire who spent 24 years working for Rothschild Inc where he advised clients about bankruptcy restructuring, including being the senior managing director. He's the guy who allowed Trump to keep his Atlantic City casinos and rebuild his business after one of his bankruptcies. He left Rothschild and formed his own company with $440 million to buy up failing companies and try to resell them, including steel and coal companies. Back in 2006 when the Sago mine exploded and killed 12 people, he was involved with the company who owned that, knew about the safety problems, and refused to shut down the mine. So maybe they really will bring back the coal industry, even if it kills people. He's also a former officer of the NY state Democratic Party and served under Clinton. Oh, and, as of 2012, he was the "Grand Swipe" (or leader) of the "secret Wall Street fraternity" Kappa Beta Phi.
His pick for Transport, Elaine Chao, is not only the wife of the owner of the single most-punchable face in the Senate, but she was also a VP at Bank of America and an international banker at Citicorp. She was also the secretary of Labor when the Sago mine blew up, so she can reminisce about that with Ross. After the Bush administration she served on several boards, including Wells Fargo and News Corp.
Oh, and when he's not busy running the entire country, Trump is going to continue to produce his reality show. I wonder if it's going to say "Executive Producer: President Donald J. Trump" or if he'll go a little more low-key. I don't think low-key is in his vocabulary though.
Also, kudos on "harridan", I had to look that one up. Nothing like going back to the 1600s for your insulting words for women.
No, the only difference is that some parasite in the middle got paid for not doing anything, when the person selling the shares should have gotten all of that money.
Lucky for us, the BOTS on Wall Street failed to get their own BOT into the White House a month ago...
Right, yeah, the guy who lives in a gilded tower with his name on it in the middle of New York City is really going to stick it to all of those Wall Street people, isn't he? I mean, if there's one person who really understands the common people, it's a guy living in his own 200-meter tower who covers anything he can in gold.
The only "liquidity" that HFT "enhances" is in the bank account of the person controlling the software. It really is parasitic. It feeds off the system without adding anything to it. If I put in an order for a stock at $3 per share and some computer sitting between my broker and the exchange notices that the price is now $2.99 per share, and they buy the shares at $2.99 in order to sell to me at $3, that doesn't do anything except give money to the person who paid however much was required to have only a 3-meter cable between their computer and the trading computer. The people benefiting from the system have a wide range of words that they use to try to explain why it's actually a good thing that they're getting paid for not doing anything, but the reality is that the money belongs in the hands of the seller.
I think Lida Xing is a marked man. If he shows interest in your piece of amber in the amber market in Myitkyina, you mark that thing up. Did I say this was $100? No, I meant $10,000.
Because they have actually seen dinosaur tail bones before, believe it or not. They've also seen ancient bird bones. It's true, amazing I know, but it's true.
That's a wing tip, not a tail. And, incidentally, the same people are quoted in that article, also about amber from Myanmar.
They are the first Cretaceous plumage samples to be studied that are not simply isolated feathers, according to study co-author Lida Xing of the China University of Geosciences.
"The biggest problem we face with feathers in amber is that we usually get small fragments or isolated feathers, and we’re never quite sure who produced [them]," says co-author Ryan McKellar, curator of invertebrate palaeontology at Canada's Royal Saskatchewan Museum.
No, it actually is relevant. They've created a de-facto monopoly by buying up as many smaller labels as they can where they are the major player in the industry, it is hard for a band to do anything if they don't cooperate. As a result, the contract terms are famously one-sided because, again, they have the leverage to essentially dictate whatever terms they want. The only reason they own the music that other people write and produce is because that is what they demand in order for the musicians to be allowed into the system which controls the vast majority of music distribution and publishing. When we're talking about the greed of the music industry in general, the contract terms that they force musicians to agree to in order for them to be included in the system are damn well relevant.
Don't like the system, don't consume from it.
Yes, the "our way or the highway" way of thinking has been their business plan for decades. Only relatively recently have bands had a legitimate distribution network which doesn't require them to be part of the system. And, look what happens, now the recording industry is talking about how unfair it is that they only get a billion dollars from one of the distribution outlets when they think they should get a lot more. That's greedy. There's a new system that doesn't require musicians to sign over ownership of their own artwork and the establishment labels don't like it. A lot of other people have agreed and have decided to not consume from their system, and they've been whining about it ever since.
They only have themselves to blame. If they want people to think that they aren't greedy then they need to reverse the contract clauses, so that the creators are the actual owners and the labels get a small cut for distribution while the artists get the majority. And then the artists can decide how their music is used. If that happens then people won't see the labels as greedy, but when you have people working in that industry who own a lot of content while specifically taking pride in the fact that they can't produce the kinds of things which they have the rights to, it is most definitely greedy and it is most definitely relevant.
We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.
I sense a certain level of cognitive dissonance when I hear people suggest that a man who literally lives inside of a gilded tower with his name on it might push to solve poverty or has some keen sense of understanding of the problems of the common people. This person is a narcissist of the highest order, he's only interested in making himself look good. Hopefully he has enough of a desire for a positive legacy to actually address real problems with meaningful solutions, but I think a safer bet is that he's going to do something illegal just because he thinks he should be able to do that, and end up getting impeached for it.
It would be less about greed if the RIAA gave a larger piece of the pie to the people who actually created the music in the first place. When the RIAA gets the majority then it looks like they're being greedy about it.
That was my question also. I'm thinking that they are using the actual number of Spotify users (if it's about $18 per user for $2 billion, that would be around 111 million users), but then assuming that all 800 million "music users" use YouTube for music. I don't think that's a legitimate assumption. If I want to listen to a particular song I'll search on Spotify first, and if I can't find it there then maybe I'll try YouTube or something else. I would be surprised if even 100 million people use YouTube as their primary source of music. If that number is around 55 million people, then YouTube is paying the same amount per music user as Spotify.
What sort of extra special secret personal characteristics do you need for that job anyhow? It's a low profile domestic position.
It's the head of a department with a budget of around $50 billion annually, in charge of things like taking care of homeless people, community planning, public housing, and other urban issues. It's one of those agencies that you don't notice when it's doing its job well. Now that a neurosurgeon is in charge of it, you may start to notice it.
HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination; and transform the way HUD does business.
He might be a good brain surgeon, but I wouldn't let him fix my computer, tune my car, or hem my pants. And I sure as shit wouldn't let him "educate me" on what the pyramids of Egypt were built for.
He can be an intelligent and good surgeon and still have weird beliefs. For example, intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, and wisdom is knowing that a tomato doesn't go in a fruit salad. He very well might be (and probably is) a very intelligent person, he just didn't study ancient Egypt. That's OK. He's a brain surgeon, not an archaeologist.
Now, why Trump wants him to head up HUD of all things, I have no idea. The only job that suits him is surgeon general.
I totally agree. Modern physics luminaries like yourself and I understand that nothing that we know ever changes, that chemical propellant is the pinnacle of universal space flight technology, that Newton had everything correct, and since Newton had everything correct then Einstein was wrong in the first place and therefore this story about his so-called "theory" being challenged is fundamentally flawed. Einstein was a space nutter and should have stuck to the stupid patent office. I don't know who this Stephen Hawkins fellow is but he sounds like a real idiot.
The rooftop was about four stories up -- the pedestal section of the 12-story high-rise -- but the man fell only about 20 feet to a balcony below, Lt. Harold Webb, with Seattle Fire, said.
And that's a perfect example of the lack of motivation which management was concerned about with this employee. This isn't going to look good on his next performance review.
The popular vote is meaningless. It would only be meaningful if it actually counted, but it doesn't. Voters know that we have an electoral college, and there are a lot of voters in states that are virtually guaranteed to go a certain way (California, New York, Texas, etc) who stay home because they know their vote isn't going to change anything. If the election was actually decided on a popular vote, THEN we could use that as some metric of determining popularity. We can't use it because people know that it's not a popular vote, and a lot of people stay home because of that.
We DO know that Trump and Clinton are the #1 and #2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, we do know that. We also know that Trump beat Clinton. We know that Clinton lost a national election to someone who is totally unqualified to be the president. We know that too. But it's kind of stupid to look at a difference in votes of less than 2% and use that to claim that Clinton is more "popular" than Trump. She very well could be.
Of course she's unpopular, why do you think she lost to Donald Trump? Can you name another candidate who would actually be able to get nominated, who would then lose to Trump? I've seen all of these articles about why the Democrats lost the election, and they also seem to be missing the obvious reason: people just don't like Clinton. We've had, what, 30 or so years to get to know her? Well, we did, and we don't like her. That's why she was the #2 most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, right behind Trump himself. She lost to him because people didn't like her enough to go out and vote for her, which meant that everyone who either believed Trump or hated Clinton got their victory. That's why voter turnout was at a 20-year low this time. People didn't like either candidate, and a lot of people stayed home, but people in more competitive states turned out for Trump. Obama got something like 12 million more votes in 2008 than Clinton did, and keep in mind that she was running against the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. The DNC shot themselves right in the face by nominating her, hopefully she goes away now and the Democratic party decides that they want to represent large numbers of people again. But, who knows, she lost in the primary once to Obama, then Trump beat her, hell the Democrats might just decide to run her again next time. It's her time!
And maybe the 3 yellow states, whatever "with and without paper trail" is supposed to mean. There are 13 states that allow electronic with paper trail only, and 21 states without electronic voting.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a denier of facts, floating in a cesspool of Fake News and an echo chamber full of confirmation bias.
The classic Trump argument tactic. Seeing what people are saying about you, and calling them the same things. I call you out on fact-challenged fake news full of confirmation bias, so of course your immediate knee-jerk response is to just call me the same thing. "I know you are, but what am I?"
As mentioned, the DMV records intentionally do not specify whether a license holder is a citizen or not, so it would be difficult number to determine, wouldn't it?
So, then how are they able to issue those people licenses which specifically say they are not valid for official federal purposes? How does the government know to issue an AB-60 license instead of a different kind of license? You're suggesting that they left that field out of their database?
Also, "as mentioned"? As mentioned where, in The Washington Times?
so it would be difficult number to determine, wouldn't it?
Well, if what you claim is true (and that's a big "if"), then yeah I guess it would be sort of hard to determine. But, you said this:
it's how the CA system works now. That doesn't mean they are legally allowed to vote, but they are registered
So, if we can't determine the number, then why are you claiming that this is how the system works and that "they" are registered? You're saying yourself that "they" are registered to vote in California, so I guess I'm just not seeing where you're getting that information from. Could you shine a light for those of us in the dark? You seem to have a lot of information on this issue, don't hold it all to yourself! Also, is there a single record of an illegal immigrant actually casting a vote in California? It just seems a little weird that you're simultaneously claiming that people are doing a certain thing, and also claiming that it's "difficult" to determine. I'm sure it's just my stupid brain not able to make an obvious connection though!
Also, when you're citing your sources, try to stay away from things like InfoWars, Milo, The New American, Freedom Daily, or any other organization who uses a tweet as a basis for their claims and fear-mongering.
And somehow you acknowledge the issue
No, you're misreading me. I'm not acknowledging that million of illegal immigrants are registered voters in California, I am making fun of the fact that people genuinely think that somehow the combination of automatically enrolling eligible voters and also giving illegal immigrants driver licenses magically equates to millions of illegal immigrants being registered to vote. And nothing is stopping them! Ooooh, scary.
It doesn't really matter
Yeah, pshh, illegally registering non-citizens to vote wouldn't matter anyway. That's why there's no investigation, right? Fuck it man, Clinton Foundation.
hint: the number is greater than 1
Prove it. Seriously, prove it. You can't though, can you? But you're still going to state that like it's a fact, aren't you? See man, you're a perfect symptom of the problem of fake news. You believe it because it sounds like something that could be true, and because it agrees with your bias.
and the vitriolic hatred for "others" of some stripe indicates an unwillingness to engage in critical thinking or rational discussion on your part.
Yeah, OK Trump University graduate. "I know you are, but what am I?"
Jesus, you're one of those "special" people who believes that Clinton is arranging to sell sex with kids out of a pizza parlor, aren't you?
First off, The Washington Times? Really?
That article you're using as a "reference" is over a year old. I'll get back to the fact that you citing this as a reference is a poor statement on your own thinking ability, but the fact that it is over a year old means that the "questions" that this article raises already have answers. But just to spell things out, let me highlight some of the words they're using that you are willfully ignorant towards because you already believe in what the article is trying to suggest.
The New Motor Voter Act automatically registers to vote all eligible voters when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses at the Department of Motor Vehicles instead of requiring them to fill out a form.
Question number 1: are non-citizens eligible voters?
The goal is to ease barriers to voting, but election-integrity advocates warn that the measure could inadvertently add millions of illegal voters to the rolls given that California allows undocumented aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.
Well, yeah, I guess that a year ago you would have been able to say that millions of illegal voters could be added. It's a year later though, so, question number 2: how many illegal voters have actually been added? As a further challenge, I'm going to request that the reference for this number does not come from an organization like The Washington Times or other fact-challenged media outlets that conservatives enjoy, allowing their creators to bring in over $10k per month in ad views. It's weird that the liberals running those sites don't target liberals with their fake news, right? It's almost as if conservatives are somehow either more gullible, less likely to do research, critical-thinking-impaired, or just more susceptible to confirmation bias. It's the new tabloid industry, and the numbers show that what sells are conservative fever dream stories. So, please, try to avoid citing a tabloid when you're figuring out how many illegal voters have actually been registered to vote in California.
Here's another thought - it's not legal for non-citizens to vote in the United States, right? I'm assuming there might be some sort of election in some jurisdiction that has lax standards, but when we're voting for things like state governors, mayors, or federal elections, you have to be a citizen in order to vote, correct? So, if there are "millions of illegal voters" in California, then where is the investigation? We had recounts in at least 2 states, why wasn't there a recount in California? Oh wait, it's a conspiracy, isn't it? I bet the Clinton Foundation is involved somehow, aren't they?
That doesn't mean they are legally allowed to vote, but they are registered, and there is nothing stopping them from voting.
Yes there is, you critical-thinking-impaired moron. The thing stopping them from voting is that they are not registered to vote and that it is not legal for them to vote in the first place. Seriously, what kind of fundamental problems would have to exist in this system in order for someone who is specifically getting a drivers license which includes explicit language that it is not to be used for official federal purposes (that is, a completely different kind of driver license) to somehow have their information funneled through the system reserved for "normal" driver licenses? You don't think they would have tested for that before rolling out the system? Seriously? But you don't care about facts, because you already believe the story anyway, and you're the same kind of victim of confirmation bias that causes people to walk into a pizza parlor with a rifle to shoot through doors and find all of the missing kids being sold for sex. And that guy, by the way, still believes that
A swing and a miss. That's a great attempt at deflection there (ok, that was a lie), but unfortunately it has no relevance. The Clintons are finished politically, whatever they're doing is not a threat to the country. The same cannot be said for Trump. His interests could in fact be a direct threat to the country, especially if he decides that the interests of himself, his family, or his friends are more important to him than your interests. Now he wants Rex Tillerson to be the Secretary of State. That's a man who was given the "Order Of Friendship" award by Vladimir Putin in 2013, and Trump wants that guy to be our top diplomat. You think there might be a conflict of interest there? He's got predatory lenders, Goldman Sachs executives, and Putin's friends in his cabinet, and you're trying to get people to focus on Clinton. I realize that your rage boner for Hillary hasn't gone down yet, and that you should probably contact a doctor, but it's probably better to focus on the things that could actually be a threat to the country. And, no, selling sex with kids out of a pizza parlor is not one of those things.
The exact same thing happens when you're selling as well.
I know, when I'm selling then some parasite takes my money too.
If someone sends me a buy order at $3, but I lowered the price to $2.99 only a second before that buy order was sent, why does it make sense for a parasite to intercept that buy order and buy my shares to sell to the buyer? Why shouldn't it be me that gets the buy order that the buyer sent? Why does a parasite get the extra money instead of the seller?
There's even a car analogy. If I'm selling a car on Craigslist or something for $20k, and I'm not getting a lot of offers so I decide to lower the price to $19k, but just as I'm doing that someone is about to pick up the phone and call me with an offer to buy at $20k, is it really fair if someone intercepts that phone call and figures out that I just lowered the price, so they agree to the buyer's offer at $20k while also calling me and buying my car for $19k, so they get that extra thousand instead of me? Is that really a necessary function of society? Is that person really doing anything of value to anyone other than himself? It's that parasitic behavior, isn't that person just feeding off a system where they are not contributing anything in return?
If you sell a share at $2.99, and then somebody buys at $2.99, then guess what? You still sold it at the price you asked for.
Right, but someone was offering to buy it at a higher price, but instead of me getting that higher price it's a parasite who does literally no work except "facilitating the transaction" or "enhancing liquidity" or whatever other bullshit terms they want to use to describe getting paid for having a computer close to the trading computer.
Likewise, if you place a bid for a share at $3 and then you buy at $3, then guess what? You still bought it for the price you asked for.
Right, but some parasite got paid for not doing anything. I call the seller on the phone and say "hey, thanks for selling me those shares at $3." And he says "no, I sold them for $2.99." That seller should have gotten all the money, but he got cheated out of it because someone paid several million dollars for a 3 meter fiberoptic cable so that they can cheat people out of money many, many times per second.
This is something that finance people love to do: make money for themselves just by moving other peoples' money around. It's also referred to as "skimming" in the cases where it's illegal. I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out why it's not illegal when very rich people do it.
He has different cronies than the harridan. His aren't necessarily Wall Street Speculators.
It's early December. Maybe we should wait until his cabinet nominees are actually confirmed and in their jobs before talking about what kind of cronies he will or will not have working for him.
So far his pick for the Treasury (Mnuchin) is a Goldman Sachs partner and member of the management committee, like his father before him. After he earned a few tens of millions at GS, he left and started his own hedge fund. Then he and George Soros and another hedge fund manager bought a home loan bank out of bankruptcy, and Mnuchin became the chair of that. That bank was involved in several lawsuits over questionable foreclosures before they sold it for over twice as much as they bought it for. $1.8 billion for 6 years work isn't bad, even if their bank was responsible for 39% of all federally insured reverse mortgages during that time (even though they only serviced 17% of the market). They did get subpoenas from HUD though, but I guess that problem's going to go away, haha, right? I suppose he'll need to move out of his $26 million house in Bel Air, but I'm sure someone will keep it warm until he gets back.
His pick for Commerce (Ross) is a billionaire who spent 24 years working for Rothschild Inc where he advised clients about bankruptcy restructuring, including being the senior managing director. He's the guy who allowed Trump to keep his Atlantic City casinos and rebuild his business after one of his bankruptcies. He left Rothschild and formed his own company with $440 million to buy up failing companies and try to resell them, including steel and coal companies. Back in 2006 when the Sago mine exploded and killed 12 people, he was involved with the company who owned that, knew about the safety problems, and refused to shut down the mine. So maybe they really will bring back the coal industry, even if it kills people. He's also a former officer of the NY state Democratic Party and served under Clinton. Oh, and, as of 2012, he was the "Grand Swipe" (or leader) of the "secret Wall Street fraternity" Kappa Beta Phi.
His pick for Transport, Elaine Chao, is not only the wife of the owner of the single most-punchable face in the Senate, but she was also a VP at Bank of America and an international banker at Citicorp. She was also the secretary of Labor when the Sago mine blew up, so she can reminisce about that with Ross. After the Bush administration she served on several boards, including Wells Fargo and News Corp.
Oh, and when he's not busy running the entire country, Trump is going to continue to produce his reality show. I wonder if it's going to say "Executive Producer: President Donald J. Trump" or if he'll go a little more low-key. I don't think low-key is in his vocabulary though.
Also, kudos on "harridan", I had to look that one up. Nothing like going back to the 1600s for your insulting words for women.
No, the only difference is that some parasite in the middle got paid for not doing anything, when the person selling the shares should have gotten all of that money.
Lucky for us, the BOTS on Wall Street failed to get their own BOT into the White House a month ago...
Right, yeah, the guy who lives in a gilded tower with his name on it in the middle of New York City is really going to stick it to all of those Wall Street people, isn't he? I mean, if there's one person who really understands the common people, it's a guy living in his own 200-meter tower who covers anything he can in gold.
The only "liquidity" that HFT "enhances" is in the bank account of the person controlling the software. It really is parasitic. It feeds off the system without adding anything to it. If I put in an order for a stock at $3 per share and some computer sitting between my broker and the exchange notices that the price is now $2.99 per share, and they buy the shares at $2.99 in order to sell to me at $3, that doesn't do anything except give money to the person who paid however much was required to have only a 3-meter cable between their computer and the trading computer. The people benefiting from the system have a wide range of words that they use to try to explain why it's actually a good thing that they're getting paid for not doing anything, but the reality is that the money belongs in the hands of the seller.
I think Lida Xing is a marked man. If he shows interest in your piece of amber in the amber market in Myitkyina, you mark that thing up. Did I say this was $100? No, I meant $10,000.
Because they have actually seen dinosaur tail bones before, believe it or not. They've also seen ancient bird bones. It's true, amazing I know, but it's true.
That's a wing tip, not a tail. And, incidentally, the same people are quoted in that article, also about amber from Myanmar.
They are the first Cretaceous plumage samples to be studied that are not simply isolated feathers, according to study co-author Lida Xing of the China University of Geosciences.
"The biggest problem we face with feathers in amber is that we usually get small fragments or isolated feathers, and we’re never quite sure who produced [them]," says co-author Ryan McKellar, curator of invertebrate palaeontology at Canada's Royal Saskatchewan Museum.
No, it actually is relevant. They've created a de-facto monopoly by buying up as many smaller labels as they can where they are the major player in the industry, it is hard for a band to do anything if they don't cooperate. As a result, the contract terms are famously one-sided because, again, they have the leverage to essentially dictate whatever terms they want. The only reason they own the music that other people write and produce is because that is what they demand in order for the musicians to be allowed into the system which controls the vast majority of music distribution and publishing. When we're talking about the greed of the music industry in general, the contract terms that they force musicians to agree to in order for them to be included in the system are damn well relevant.
Don't like the system, don't consume from it.
Yes, the "our way or the highway" way of thinking has been their business plan for decades. Only relatively recently have bands had a legitimate distribution network which doesn't require them to be part of the system. And, look what happens, now the recording industry is talking about how unfair it is that they only get a billion dollars from one of the distribution outlets when they think they should get a lot more. That's greedy. There's a new system that doesn't require musicians to sign over ownership of their own artwork and the establishment labels don't like it. A lot of other people have agreed and have decided to not consume from their system, and they've been whining about it ever since.
They only have themselves to blame. If they want people to think that they aren't greedy then they need to reverse the contract clauses, so that the creators are the actual owners and the labels get a small cut for distribution while the artists get the majority. And then the artists can decide how their music is used. If that happens then people won't see the labels as greedy, but when you have people working in that industry who own a lot of content while specifically taking pride in the fact that they can't produce the kinds of things which they have the rights to, it is most definitely greedy and it is most definitely relevant.
We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.
I sense a certain level of cognitive dissonance when I hear people suggest that a man who literally lives inside of a gilded tower with his name on it might push to solve poverty or has some keen sense of understanding of the problems of the common people. This person is a narcissist of the highest order, he's only interested in making himself look good. Hopefully he has enough of a desire for a positive legacy to actually address real problems with meaningful solutions, but I think a safer bet is that he's going to do something illegal just because he thinks he should be able to do that, and end up getting impeached for it.
It would be less about greed if the RIAA gave a larger piece of the pie to the people who actually created the music in the first place. When the RIAA gets the majority then it looks like they're being greedy about it.
That was my question also. I'm thinking that they are using the actual number of Spotify users (if it's about $18 per user for $2 billion, that would be around 111 million users), but then assuming that all 800 million "music users" use YouTube for music. I don't think that's a legitimate assumption. If I want to listen to a particular song I'll search on Spotify first, and if I can't find it there then maybe I'll try YouTube or something else. I would be surprised if even 100 million people use YouTube as their primary source of music. If that number is around 55 million people, then YouTube is paying the same amount per music user as Spotify.
What sort of extra special secret personal characteristics do you need for that job anyhow? It's a low profile domestic position.
It's the head of a department with a budget of around $50 billion annually, in charge of things like taking care of homeless people, community planning, public housing, and other urban issues. It's one of those agencies that you don't notice when it's doing its job well. Now that a neurosurgeon is in charge of it, you may start to notice it.
HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination; and transform the way HUD does business.
He might be a good brain surgeon, but I wouldn't let him fix my computer, tune my car, or hem my pants. And I sure as shit wouldn't let him "educate me" on what the pyramids of Egypt were built for.
He can be an intelligent and good surgeon and still have weird beliefs. For example, intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, and wisdom is knowing that a tomato doesn't go in a fruit salad. He very well might be (and probably is) a very intelligent person, he just didn't study ancient Egypt. That's OK. He's a brain surgeon, not an archaeologist.
Now, why Trump wants him to head up HUD of all things, I have no idea. The only job that suits him is surgeon general.
I totally agree. Modern physics luminaries like yourself and I understand that nothing that we know ever changes, that chemical propellant is the pinnacle of universal space flight technology, that Newton had everything correct, and since Newton had everything correct then Einstein was wrong in the first place and therefore this story about his so-called "theory" being challenged is fundamentally flawed. Einstein was a space nutter and should have stuck to the stupid patent office. I don't know who this Stephen Hawkins fellow is but he sounds like a real idiot.
It's very telling of the American popular mindset that not a single mainstream movie out of Hollywood
Yeah, and if there's one group of people who can really understand and capture the mindset of the common American, it's Hollywood.
Also your "bit of a gap" is rapidly approaching a decade, with no end in sight.
There are a few ends in sight. One of them is called Dragon 2, another is Dream Chaser, another is Orion, another is CST-100.
The rooftop was about four stories up -- the pedestal section of the 12-story high-rise -- but the man fell only about 20 feet to a balcony below, Lt. Harold Webb, with Seattle Fire, said.
And that's a perfect example of the lack of motivation which management was concerned about with this employee. This isn't going to look good on his next performance review.
Yeah, right, I'm pretty sure that's Apple's whole motto.
Apple: Caveat Emptor
Apple: Just Because We Stamp Our Logo On Something, Doesn't Make It Worth More
Right, that's totally Apple's sales strategy.
Probably because CAN and AUS are the two other "dollars" Americans are most familiar with.
Yeah, but that's wrong. Austria uses the Euro, not the dollar. Trust me, I'm American.
The popular vote is meaningless. It would only be meaningful if it actually counted, but it doesn't. Voters know that we have an electoral college, and there are a lot of voters in states that are virtually guaranteed to go a certain way (California, New York, Texas, etc) who stay home because they know their vote isn't going to change anything. If the election was actually decided on a popular vote, THEN we could use that as some metric of determining popularity. We can't use it because people know that it's not a popular vote, and a lot of people stay home because of that.
We DO know that Trump and Clinton are the #1 and #2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, we do know that. We also know that Trump beat Clinton. We know that Clinton lost a national election to someone who is totally unqualified to be the president. We know that too. But it's kind of stupid to look at a difference in votes of less than 2% and use that to claim that Clinton is more "popular" than Trump. She very well could be.
Of course she's unpopular, why do you think she lost to Donald Trump? Can you name another candidate who would actually be able to get nominated, who would then lose to Trump? I've seen all of these articles about why the Democrats lost the election, and they also seem to be missing the obvious reason: people just don't like Clinton. We've had, what, 30 or so years to get to know her? Well, we did, and we don't like her. That's why she was the #2 most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, right behind Trump himself. She lost to him because people didn't like her enough to go out and vote for her, which meant that everyone who either believed Trump or hated Clinton got their victory. That's why voter turnout was at a 20-year low this time. People didn't like either candidate, and a lot of people stayed home, but people in more competitive states turned out for Trump. Obama got something like 12 million more votes in 2008 than Clinton did, and keep in mind that she was running against the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. The DNC shot themselves right in the face by nominating her, hopefully she goes away now and the Democratic party decides that they want to represent large numbers of people again. But, who knows, she lost in the primary once to Obama, then Trump beat her, hell the Democrats might just decide to run her again next time. It's her time!
there is no paper trail to allow the results to be audited and scrutinized
This map shows the 12 states where that's true (assuming you go for electronic instead of paper in the red states):
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...
And maybe the 3 yellow states, whatever "with and without paper trail" is supposed to mean. There are 13 states that allow electronic with paper trail only, and 21 states without electronic voting.