If only there was someone in charge that could tell the FBI to stop this.
Like who, this guy? This doesn't sound very promising:
As a practiced politician, Obama avoided coming down too hard on any one side, and he said he wasn't able to discuss the ongoing FBI vs. Apple case at all. But by and large his message was that sacrificing some degree of privacy for the sake of our safety has served the country well for hundreds of years, and he expects we'll figure out a way to do so digitally as well.
Here he is pondering:
"The question we now have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there's no key or no door at all," Obama pondered, "how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?"
I'm going to answer his question with another question: why does he think that people feel like strong encryption is necessary? If he doesn't know the answer to that, he should ask Edward Snowden. If the government only ever used its authority responsibly then we wouldn't be having this argument. Here's another gem:
As to how to balance these things Obama said we'll have to figure out "how do we have encryption as strong as possible, the key as secure as possible and accessible by the smallest pool of people possible, for a subset of issues that we agree is important."
The "smallest pool of people possible" is 1, the person who owns the data. No one else needs that key. As far as "the subset of issues that we agree is important", I'm pretty sure that you don't set up encryption where you have one key that you can give to the government which only works to decrypt the data if they are actively pursuing a child porn investigation and have a warrant for your phone. I'm pretty sure the key always works, regardless of who is using it. But I'm not a cryptographer, so don't quote me on that. As far as the government only using that key if it was part of a legal investigation, see above about Snowden and how much trust we have in the government to use its authority responsibly.
How does hosts alleviate that problem? For all URLs that are not blocked (and, for the sake of argument, not in the DNS cache) the OS still has to scan the entire hosts file, then the entire cache. If you're not using hosts then it only scans the cache. Using a hosts file only takes the cache out of play if the domain you're looking up is in the hosts file, for every other domain it only adds additional processing time.
Since there is no extension taking CPU cycles pattern matching ads this way is actually faster
The browser isn't using CPU cycles for that, but the OS still is. It still has to scan through the hosts file any time a request is made, so increasing the size of the hosts file will not only introduce a slight delay for anything that is blocked, but it will introduce a longer delay for anything that is not blocked where it still has to scan through the entire file. Even with "frequently-used" sites at the beginning of the hosts file pointing to the correct IP addresses, for any lesser-used site it incurs the full delay of scanning the entire file.
At this point though we're splitting hairs, and the delays we're talking about with either an extension or hosts file will probably only be able to be measured with tools to specifically measure those (assuming the hosts file doesn't have millions of records or something, in which case it probably is noticeable).
Native blocking is a good first step, but still, if Opera ends up getting sold to a Chinese company then I'll drop it anyway. But hopefully more browsers follow the lead of Brave and Opera.
That's all fine and dandy, but so far it doesn't apply when put up against the Constitution. If Bernie Sanders got elected we would not all of a sudden become a socialist country, and any laws that get enacted still need to satisfy the Constitutional requirements.
Clinton looks pretty super-left-wing, doesn't she? Note that Obama is to the left of Clinton, but more authoritarian, or at least he was in 2012 when he was trying to get re-elected. When he was trying to get elected in 2008 he was far left of where he is now.
Hillary Clinton is a conservative, she's just not as conservative as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders is probably forcing her to campaign to the left on various issues, but her record speaks for itself. Like virtually all politicians in this country (with the notable exception of Sanders, and a few others), she is conservative.
The reason why Trump might be viewed as a moderate is because nearly everything he says can be contradicted by something he said at some earlier point. He doesn't stand for anything except himself, he just says things that he think will keep him in the spotlight. He was a Clinton donor for years before running against Obama and asking for his birth certificate, and now he's appealing to racists and other conservatives who are unhappy with the establishment. The things that he is saying are not moderate, but where he actually stands once the cameras are off is anyone's guess.
I used to be joking when I accused the left of wanting a totalitarian state. I wish I were still joking.
You ARE joking, whether intentional or not. The totalitarian candidate is the one leading the primaries on the Republican side. That's not "the left". "The left" wants the second place Democrat candidate, who is not a totalitarian. The people on the center-right want to see the status quo continue by voting for Clinton or one of the other Republican candidates.
Here in Phoenix we hit 90 degrees on Feb. 17th this year, which is the earliest 90-degree day on record (since 1895, at least). The average for that day is 71, so we're a bit above average. Last weekend things cooled off a little bit (i.e. approached the average) but the forecast shows that we're back into the high 80s approaching 90 again this week. Last year the first 90-degree day didn't happen until March 16, so we're about a month early. All of our reptiles and bugs are waking up early this year.
No, "many" do not support or like you. You are able to write a handful of quotes out of a userbase of 4.5 million plus, that is not "many". That is "a few". Very few. "Many" people want you to take your spam and shove it up your ass, that's the difference between "many" and "a few". "A few" people still find it amusing that you post as a third party. "Many" people think you're pathetic. Are you understanding the difference?
If you want to prove me wrong, then put a poll on Slashdot asking what people think about you and your posts. I'll wait to watch it appear so that you can show me how much I fail. Continuing to link to a post where you trot out "a few" people saying something vaguely non-negative about you continues to be pathetic, and you are not proving me wrong in any way by doing that. That post you continue to link to, which you think proves some point of yours, is not evidence of anything, is not embarrassing for me or anything like that, it does not prove me wrong on anything that I've said (including the quote from me you included), and only shows how pathetic you actually are. You've got 4.5 million people here and you can produce 8 quotes of people saying something that is not completely negative about either your software or using hosts files in general. Yeah, some of those people are just saying the equivalent of "hosts files work", which I've never even argued against, but you're trying to use it as evidence that I'm wrong. You're an idiot, APK, admit it. Stop with the pathetic third party posting, it's embarrassing for you at this point. Hopefully at least one of your personalities can realize that and try to spread that information around the hive in your mind. Your "many" personalities are apparently completely unaware of how pathetic you look to everyone else when you keep up this stupid charade, as if any AC is watching this story from 2 weeks ago. I suspect you might be aware a little bit, which is why you refuse to post as yourself (or did those filters catch up to you?), so take a hint, live up to your word, and go away.
The guy who refuses to even post as himself, and instead tries to act like someone else supporting him, is telling me that I lose. That is funny as hell.
Learn how to read APK, this is not speaking in absolutes:
You are generally unliked enough around here
I phrased it that way for a reason. Now live up to your word and go away.
Answer the question, APK. If the management of the site tells you that they don't want you here, are you going to leave? I know the answer to that question, I just want you to say it.
The fact is that the management does in fact want you to stop posting your spam and your trolling bullshit, which is why they are implementing filters specifically to stop your posts, but that doesn't mean you're going to stop. You are generally unliked enough around here that people consistently mod your posts down (and, sorry, trotting out a few unlinked quotes of anonymous people saying "you know, his software really doesn't suck all that much" is not evidence that you are liked). You're not honorable enough to figure out when you're not wanted and move on, no, like a 13 year old kid you take it as a challenge and insist on some pissing contest. It's pathetic man, you seriously need to grow up and find a better way to spend your time. How about devoting your energy to finding someone who's going to love you for the next few decades? You think a better use of your time is to just kind of irritate and annoy people who don't really want you around? Have a little self-respect. Look at you, you are reduced to posting in a third-person voice still trying to insist that you've won something. PA-THE-TIC
You've already said you're done posting here. At least try to live up to your word on one goddamn thing.
The rationale behind "Classic" is that bitcoin would continue to actually operate the same way it always has, unconstrained by a block size limit.
It doesn't sound like Bitcoin is currently operating in a way that is unconstrained by a block size limit. In fact, it actually sounds like that limit has always been there, but was never reached until now.
Still, I'm about 80% down the page here on Slashdot and still don't see anyone trying to talk about the practical effects of what this means for Bitcoin users. So far the conversation is all about whether or not gold is a better currency, or people talking about fiat currency (I think the major reason that people talk about fiat currency is so that they can use the phrase "fiat currency"), but true to Slashdot form there's little discussion about the actual article. Just like the article about how the CIA flew a plane from Virginia to the EU, which passed over Scotland, in order to possibly bring Snowden home if he was captured and everyone in the comments is talking about whether or not Scotland is a country.
How about a discussion about what this actually means? Will transactions actually just fail, where it would be like they were never initiated to begin with? The sender still has all their money and the recipient never got anything? Would the transaction be randomly approved at some later point when a miner decides to process it or does it just expire? Is this a self-correcting problem, in the sense that the network is at capacity, so a certain number of people will stop using it which will then lower demand and bring transaction times back to normal? Does anyone care about things like this or is everyone here to just argue about whether or not you should mortgage your house using gold while pointing out that they don't use Bitcoins anyway?
It looks like the 12th amendment spells that out. It says that if no one gets a majority of the electoral college votes, then the House will choose the president. Each state gets a single vote (not each representative), and only the 3 highest vote getters from the general election are eligible. This part:
a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Sounds to me like 2/3 of the states need to be present in order for a vote to occur, and that someone needs a majority to be elected. If the House fails to elect a new president then the previous vice president takes over as if the president had died.
So, maybe Biden will get to be president after all. I admit, if that happens it would be funny as hell and would probably be the end of the electoral college.
We're in an age when each person's vote is equal to any other person, so the electoral college serves no purpose now. The popular vote should elect the president, then we would see the end of all of that obnoxious "swing state" campaigning and news reporting (Wolf Blitzer is going to need to find something else to talk about over and over). Look at this map, it shows where Bush and Kerry (and their VPs) either visited (the waving hand) or spent $1 million in advertising in the 5 weeks leading up to the 2004 election. That shit is ridiculous. Look at this graph, it shows the number of people in each state per electoral vote. In Wyoming you only need less than 200,000 people for a single electoral vote, but in Texas you need almost 750,000 for a vote. So the people in Wyoming, Washington D.C., Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and Rhode Island have all of their votes mean more than the people in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. That's also pretty stupid, my vote should count the same as any other vote regardless of which state they live in. And, for that matter, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc should all have their votes counted also if they're going to be under our jurisdiction.
I don't think that's a reason to remove choice from the popular vote. It might be a reason to get rid of the electoral college, but it's not a reason to restrict choice. If I were the dictator then the general election would have Sanders, Trump, Clinton, Bloomberg, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and whoever the Republicans decide to send. If the House wants to make someone president who got 5% of the popular vote instead of someone who got 30%, then I'd like to see what happens after that. I think several of those representatives would have to head back home and try to justify why they did what they did.
Right, but the Democrats don't want to nominate Bernie because then there wouldn't be a Democrat in the election, similar to the Republican side.
I like that people want actual change, I've been pushing for it for the last 5 years or so. In this election I would vote for Sanders or Johnson (or maybe Stein), but none of the others appeal to me. I'd like to see both Bernie and Trump run even if they don't get the party nomination, because I want to see a change in the election and debate system. People deserve to have more than 2 choices, we need to get away from the system where people vote against someone because there isn't a viable candidate that they feel actually represents their beliefs. A big part of moving away from that system involves major televised presidential debates featuring people with something other than a D or R after their names, the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to get shut out of the system in favor of actual choice. I'd love to see Sanders, Trump, Bloomberg, Johnson, Stein, Clinton, and whatever Republican all on the same stage having an actual debate about substance, it would be the best election season in memory and it would force the CoPD to either change its ways or be passed by.
Why is the story specifically about Edge? Doesn't Chrome also have a built-in PDF reader? Is there something that makes Edge vulnerable in this case but Chrome isn't?
A Clinton/Trump vote is good for Republicans though
No, a Clinton/Trump election is not good, regardless of which party you claim. In January, Gallup reported that Trump had the highest unfavorability rating recorded, and yesterday Clinton's unfavorability hit a new high. 60% of people actively dislike Trump, and 55% of people actively dislike Hillary. Those are 2 people who are both disliked by a majority of the country. That's not good. They are the only candidates over 50%. Jeb! peaked at around 45%, the evangelist Ted Cruz is at 37% unfavorable and noted socialist Bernie Sanders is at 31%.
31% of the country dislikes a socialist in a presidential election, and 55% dislike the presumptive Democratic nominee while 60% dislike the Republican. That's not a good sign that things are going well in this country. If this election comes down to Clinton and Trump without any big-name independents you're going to see the lowest voter turnout in recent history and a lot of unhappy people feeling like they are not represented.
Slashdot Mirror
If only there was someone in charge that could tell the FBI to stop this.
Like who, this guy? This doesn't sound very promising:
As a practiced politician, Obama avoided coming down too hard on any one side, and he said he wasn't able to discuss the ongoing FBI vs. Apple case at all. But by and large his message was that sacrificing some degree of privacy for the sake of our safety has served the country well for hundreds of years, and he expects we'll figure out a way to do so digitally as well.
Here he is pondering:
"The question we now have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there's no key or no door at all," Obama pondered, "how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?"
I'm going to answer his question with another question: why does he think that people feel like strong encryption is necessary? If he doesn't know the answer to that, he should ask Edward Snowden. If the government only ever used its authority responsibly then we wouldn't be having this argument. Here's another gem:
As to how to balance these things Obama said we'll have to figure out "how do we have encryption as strong as possible, the key as secure as possible and accessible by the smallest pool of people possible, for a subset of issues that we agree is important."
The "smallest pool of people possible" is 1, the person who owns the data. No one else needs that key. As far as "the subset of issues that we agree is important", I'm pretty sure that you don't set up encryption where you have one key that you can give to the government which only works to decrypt the data if they are actively pursuing a child porn investigation and have a warrant for your phone. I'm pretty sure the key always works, regardless of who is using it. But I'm not a cryptographer, so don't quote me on that. As far as the government only using that key if it was part of a legal investigation, see above about Snowden and how much trust we have in the government to use its authority responsibly.
Benjamin Franklin would like a word, see below.
Here's my idea:
1. Walk into a gun store.
2. Take a gun off the shelf and buy it.
3. Boom, a weapon using off-the-shelf parts.
How does hosts alleviate that problem? For all URLs that are not blocked (and, for the sake of argument, not in the DNS cache) the OS still has to scan the entire hosts file, then the entire cache. If you're not using hosts then it only scans the cache. Using a hosts file only takes the cache out of play if the domain you're looking up is in the hosts file, for every other domain it only adds additional processing time.
I'm waiting on the switch to Vivaldi for the sale to go through, hopefully they can hit a stable release by then. I'm sure it's coming soon.
Since there is no extension taking CPU cycles pattern matching ads this way is actually faster
The browser isn't using CPU cycles for that, but the OS still is. It still has to scan through the hosts file any time a request is made, so increasing the size of the hosts file will not only introduce a slight delay for anything that is blocked, but it will introduce a longer delay for anything that is not blocked where it still has to scan through the entire file. Even with "frequently-used" sites at the beginning of the hosts file pointing to the correct IP addresses, for any lesser-used site it incurs the full delay of scanning the entire file.
At this point though we're splitting hairs, and the delays we're talking about with either an extension or hosts file will probably only be able to be measured with tools to specifically measure those (assuming the hosts file doesn't have millions of records or something, in which case it probably is noticeable).
Uhh, ok. Or, my post was a joke and maybe you should take some time off and relax.
You're no NYCL.
No shit. In fact, I'm not a lawyer at all.
No sale has been announced. An offer to buy was announced a month ago. Opera Software is still headquartered in Norway and run by Norwegians.
Native blocking is a good first step, but still, if Opera ends up getting sold to a Chinese company then I'll drop it anyway. But hopefully more browsers follow the lead of Brave and Opera.
That's all fine and dandy, but so far it doesn't apply when put up against the Constitution. If Bernie Sanders got elected we would not all of a sudden become a socialist country, and any laws that get enacted still need to satisfy the Constitutional requirements.
I'm not on a crusade to correct the BBC, but I'm happy to correct you. Here is where the presidential candidates stand, if you'd like to compare that with the parties in the UK then the UK parties are here.
Clinton looks pretty super-left-wing, doesn't she? Note that Obama is to the left of Clinton, but more authoritarian, or at least he was in 2012 when he was trying to get re-elected. When he was trying to get elected in 2008 he was far left of where he is now.
Hillary Clinton is a conservative, she's just not as conservative as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders is probably forcing her to campaign to the left on various issues, but her record speaks for itself. Like virtually all politicians in this country (with the notable exception of Sanders, and a few others), she is conservative.
The reason why Trump might be viewed as a moderate is because nearly everything he says can be contradicted by something he said at some earlier point. He doesn't stand for anything except himself, he just says things that he think will keep him in the spotlight. He was a Clinton donor for years before running against Obama and asking for his birth certificate, and now he's appealing to racists and other conservatives who are unhappy with the establishment. The things that he is saying are not moderate, but where he actually stands once the cameras are off is anyone's guess.
I used to be joking when I accused the left of wanting a totalitarian state. I wish I were still joking.
You ARE joking, whether intentional or not. The totalitarian candidate is the one leading the primaries on the Republican side. That's not "the left". "The left" wants the second place Democrat candidate, who is not a totalitarian. The people on the center-right want to see the status quo continue by voting for Clinton or one of the other Republican candidates.
Well you'll be delighted to note that there is no constitutionally protected right to possess vehicles in the good US of A.
Nonsense. I classify my vehicle as a weapon, and the second amendment means that I get to possess it.
Here in Phoenix we hit 90 degrees on Feb. 17th this year, which is the earliest 90-degree day on record (since 1895, at least). The average for that day is 71, so we're a bit above average. Last weekend things cooled off a little bit (i.e. approached the average) but the forecast shows that we're back into the high 80s approaching 90 again this week. Last year the first 90-degree day didn't happen until March 16, so we're about a month early. All of our reptiles and bugs are waking up early this year.
No, "many" do not support or like you. You are able to write a handful of quotes out of a userbase of 4.5 million plus, that is not "many". That is "a few". Very few. "Many" people want you to take your spam and shove it up your ass, that's the difference between "many" and "a few". "A few" people still find it amusing that you post as a third party. "Many" people think you're pathetic. Are you understanding the difference?
If you want to prove me wrong, then put a poll on Slashdot asking what people think about you and your posts. I'll wait to watch it appear so that you can show me how much I fail. Continuing to link to a post where you trot out "a few" people saying something vaguely non-negative about you continues to be pathetic, and you are not proving me wrong in any way by doing that. That post you continue to link to, which you think proves some point of yours, is not evidence of anything, is not embarrassing for me or anything like that, it does not prove me wrong on anything that I've said (including the quote from me you included), and only shows how pathetic you actually are. You've got 4.5 million people here and you can produce 8 quotes of people saying something that is not completely negative about either your software or using hosts files in general. Yeah, some of those people are just saying the equivalent of "hosts files work", which I've never even argued against, but you're trying to use it as evidence that I'm wrong. You're an idiot, APK, admit it. Stop with the pathetic third party posting, it's embarrassing for you at this point. Hopefully at least one of your personalities can realize that and try to spread that information around the hive in your mind. Your "many" personalities are apparently completely unaware of how pathetic you look to everyone else when you keep up this stupid charade, as if any AC is watching this story from 2 weeks ago. I suspect you might be aware a little bit, which is why you refuse to post as yourself (or did those filters catch up to you?), so take a hint, live up to your word, and go away.
The guy who refuses to even post as himself, and instead tries to act like someone else supporting him, is telling me that I lose. That is funny as hell.
Learn how to read APK, this is not speaking in absolutes:
You are generally unliked enough around here
I phrased it that way for a reason. Now live up to your word and go away.
Answer the question, APK. If the management of the site tells you that they don't want you here, are you going to leave? I know the answer to that question, I just want you to say it.
The fact is that the management does in fact want you to stop posting your spam and your trolling bullshit, which is why they are implementing filters specifically to stop your posts, but that doesn't mean you're going to stop. You are generally unliked enough around here that people consistently mod your posts down (and, sorry, trotting out a few unlinked quotes of anonymous people saying "you know, his software really doesn't suck all that much" is not evidence that you are liked). You're not honorable enough to figure out when you're not wanted and move on, no, like a 13 year old kid you take it as a challenge and insist on some pissing contest. It's pathetic man, you seriously need to grow up and find a better way to spend your time. How about devoting your energy to finding someone who's going to love you for the next few decades? You think a better use of your time is to just kind of irritate and annoy people who don't really want you around? Have a little self-respect. Look at you, you are reduced to posting in a third-person voice still trying to insist that you've won something. PA-THE-TIC
You've already said you're done posting here. At least try to live up to your word on one goddamn thing.
Legal purchases, donations, etc, appear to make up only a tiny fraction.
How do they appear to be so small? Which reference are you using which shows the purpose of each transaction?
The rationale behind "Classic" is that bitcoin would continue to actually operate the same way it always has, unconstrained by a block size limit.
It doesn't sound like Bitcoin is currently operating in a way that is unconstrained by a block size limit. In fact, it actually sounds like that limit has always been there, but was never reached until now.
Still, I'm about 80% down the page here on Slashdot and still don't see anyone trying to talk about the practical effects of what this means for Bitcoin users. So far the conversation is all about whether or not gold is a better currency, or people talking about fiat currency (I think the major reason that people talk about fiat currency is so that they can use the phrase "fiat currency"), but true to Slashdot form there's little discussion about the actual article. Just like the article about how the CIA flew a plane from Virginia to the EU, which passed over Scotland, in order to possibly bring Snowden home if he was captured and everyone in the comments is talking about whether or not Scotland is a country.
How about a discussion about what this actually means? Will transactions actually just fail, where it would be like they were never initiated to begin with? The sender still has all their money and the recipient never got anything? Would the transaction be randomly approved at some later point when a miner decides to process it or does it just expire? Is this a self-correcting problem, in the sense that the network is at capacity, so a certain number of people will stop using it which will then lower demand and bring transaction times back to normal? Does anyone care about things like this or is everyone here to just argue about whether or not you should mortgage your house using gold while pointing out that they don't use Bitcoins anyway?
Hillary is in a tough spot.
Her only escape is a No Bill.
Shit, and Bill is one of the best things she has going for her. I'm not sure how she'll get out of this one.
It looks like the 12th amendment spells that out. It says that if no one gets a majority of the electoral college votes, then the House will choose the president. Each state gets a single vote (not each representative), and only the 3 highest vote getters from the general election are eligible. This part:
a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Sounds to me like 2/3 of the states need to be present in order for a vote to occur, and that someone needs a majority to be elected. If the House fails to elect a new president then the previous vice president takes over as if the president had died.
So, maybe Biden will get to be president after all. I admit, if that happens it would be funny as hell and would probably be the end of the electoral college.
We're in an age when each person's vote is equal to any other person, so the electoral college serves no purpose now. The popular vote should elect the president, then we would see the end of all of that obnoxious "swing state" campaigning and news reporting (Wolf Blitzer is going to need to find something else to talk about over and over). Look at this map, it shows where Bush and Kerry (and their VPs) either visited (the waving hand) or spent $1 million in advertising in the 5 weeks leading up to the 2004 election. That shit is ridiculous. Look at this graph, it shows the number of people in each state per electoral vote. In Wyoming you only need less than 200,000 people for a single electoral vote, but in Texas you need almost 750,000 for a vote. So the people in Wyoming, Washington D.C., Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and Rhode Island have all of their votes mean more than the people in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. That's also pretty stupid, my vote should count the same as any other vote regardless of which state they live in. And, for that matter, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc should all have their votes counted also if they're going to be under our jurisdiction.
I don't think that's a reason to remove choice from the popular vote. It might be a reason to get rid of the electoral college, but it's not a reason to restrict choice. If I were the dictator then the general election would have Sanders, Trump, Clinton, Bloomberg, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and whoever the Republicans decide to send. If the House wants to make someone president who got 5% of the popular vote instead of someone who got 30%, then I'd like to see what happens after that. I think several of those representatives would have to head back home and try to justify why they did what they did.
Right, but the Democrats don't want to nominate Bernie because then there wouldn't be a Democrat in the election, similar to the Republican side.
I like that people want actual change, I've been pushing for it for the last 5 years or so. In this election I would vote for Sanders or Johnson (or maybe Stein), but none of the others appeal to me. I'd like to see both Bernie and Trump run even if they don't get the party nomination, because I want to see a change in the election and debate system. People deserve to have more than 2 choices, we need to get away from the system where people vote against someone because there isn't a viable candidate that they feel actually represents their beliefs. A big part of moving away from that system involves major televised presidential debates featuring people with something other than a D or R after their names, the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to get shut out of the system in favor of actual choice. I'd love to see Sanders, Trump, Bloomberg, Johnson, Stein, Clinton, and whatever Republican all on the same stage having an actual debate about substance, it would be the best election season in memory and it would force the CoPD to either change its ways or be passed by.
Why is the story specifically about Edge? Doesn't Chrome also have a built-in PDF reader? Is there something that makes Edge vulnerable in this case but Chrome isn't?
Nonsense. At least if you are implying the political parties typically called "conservative" and "liberal."
It's nonsense because we don't have a liberal party in this country, we have a conservative party and a really conservative party.
A Clinton/Trump vote is good for Republicans though
No, a Clinton/Trump election is not good, regardless of which party you claim. In January, Gallup reported that Trump had the highest unfavorability rating recorded, and yesterday Clinton's unfavorability hit a new high. 60% of people actively dislike Trump, and 55% of people actively dislike Hillary. Those are 2 people who are both disliked by a majority of the country. That's not good. They are the only candidates over 50%. Jeb! peaked at around 45%, the evangelist Ted Cruz is at 37% unfavorable and noted socialist Bernie Sanders is at 31%.
31% of the country dislikes a socialist in a presidential election, and 55% dislike the presumptive Democratic nominee while 60% dislike the Republican. That's not a good sign that things are going well in this country. If this election comes down to Clinton and Trump without any big-name independents you're going to see the lowest voter turnout in recent history and a lot of unhappy people feeling like they are not represented.