What is revealed wasn't illegal acts, but rather, that while the DNC claims to be impartial, they were not.
The public image of the RNC and DNC has always been as impartial organizations, who let the voters decide via primaries who is going to represent the parties. Most people who follow politics know that bias exists, and that it would be foolish to assume that the RNC/DNC give each primary candidate equal treatment behind the scenes.
These email leaks just flat out proved that they are very partial to one candidate over the other.
If the DNC wants to just do away with primary voting and pick someone to represent them each cycle, that is totally fine. They are a private club, not a party of government beholden to the people. The issue, is that the claimed to be fair, when they were not.
Correct, and that constitute strong proof that no one, not even liberals, actually enjoys "diversity".
Home is where you don't have to explain yourself.
Home is where I don't have to listen to lies, it has nothing to do with diversity. Someone who believes the Earth is 5,000 years old isn't going to add value to my life with meaningful debate.
And liberal blue areas are WAY more diverse than red areas. I've lived in both. My red rural life was 100% white people, the vast majority of whom were conservative. In my current urban blue area, I work with dozens of different races, ethnicities, and countries of origin. Our work even has things like "diversity day" where we learn about different cultures. I highly doubt any red area workplace has something similar.
Believing in something with no proof (or disbelieving in something that has lots of evidence supporting it) doesn't qualify you as having just a "different way of thinking, equally valid to others".
(just wrote small novel... not worth it, deleted the rest).
Interesting world view. How do you explain other countries with far higher levels of government entitlements , but much higher social mobility than the US?
It is almost as if the US has decided to hand out entitlements that meet people's immediate needs without also having a set of entitlements designed to move them out of poverty....
So maybe the solution isn't less entitlements, but actually more entitlements.
It would be nice to build the community features into the torrents themselves somehow. You would interact with the 'community' through your bittorrent client instead of a website that can be taken down.
More like the clock is running out on the Republican party. If they are not able to sway their based to give up some of their more radical ideas, they will start losing more and more as demographics in the US change, and as society as a whole stops believing in nonsense.
They didn't call out the loons in their party for years, and now the loons have real sway over the party. They shoved the overton window so far right, that if they don't find a way to shift it back to match reality, the party will crumble.
At least I hope so. The alternative would be ugly.
The quality of care that is _available_ in the US is the highest in the world.
The quality and outcomes of care for rare cancers and other rare diseases is higher in the US. But our quality of care for regular stuff, like 95%+, is no different than single payer countries. And in fact, for many outcomes, we are lower than other countries.
Essentially, a minimum wage increase is a wage decrease for everyone else.
Instead of a thought experiment that sounds correct in your head, why don't you look at cities and countries that have raised the minimum wage higher and look at what happened? In every case I've come across, none of what you said happens. Often the exact opposite.
That really picks and chooses carefully to make him seem more consistent. The Daily show and lots of others have made similar videos where Trump is literally saying the exact opposite on dozens of issues.
And he was a registered democrat from 1990'ish to 2000'ish. I forget the exact years, but he's switched from Repub to Dem, back to Repub, as well as praised Hillary as an excellent choice for President during the 2008 primaries.
It was right after Obama got elected that he started becoming conservative (in his latest incarnation of it), talking about the birth certificate and all the crazy stuff. It was obviously to build 'street cred' with the conservative primary voters.
This is an extremely poor time to cast a protest type vote. The supreme court has one vacant position right now, and likely 2-3 more coming up soon.
Trump has already mentioned some names of possible nominees. They are very conservative, and likely to be approved if the house and senate remain in Republican control. And given it is a lifetime appointment, a vote for Trump is a vote to swing the supreme court hard right for 30-50 years.
So just be aware of what you are voting for when you vote for Trump. It isn't a powerless position at all. Executive orders alone are very powerful. And the timing of this election will shape our country's legal system for decades.
Dems controlled House & Senate for first two years
People like to say that, and it is technically true. But technically true did not amount to complete freedom to pass any liberal law they wanted. Ever heard the term blue dog democrat? Or just one guy named Joe Lieberman?
That blue dogs and lieberman are why single payer healthcare wasn't even on the table to begin with.
No, he's voting for the candidate he feels best represents his views. Which is precisely what we should all do, no matter which candidate that is.
That is a nice ideal, but it is really a bad idea when 2-3 supreme court seats might be available in 4 years (one right now of course). Wait until scotus gets restocked with younger judges, then protest vote all you want.
This is a really bad time to protest vote. There is one vacant supreme court nomination, and possible 2-3 more up within 4-8 years.
That means if you get someone like Trump in office, the supreme court might be extremely far right wing conservative for the next 30-50 years.... Trump already released lists of judges he thinks might be good, and it is horrifying.
I bet we would have a lot less CEOs who only think about quarterly profits, and jump ship every few years because they get multi-million dollar bonuses, if they made 2-5x what a worker makes instead of 200-500x.
A CEO would be a lot more responsive to the lives of everyday workers if he/she were closer on the economic rung to them and a lot more likely to be invested in the company long term.
"Why is it society's responsibility to teach you job skills?"
It is better for you , if all your neighbors are highly educated and highly productive. It is better for you, if the society you live in is highly educated and highly productive.
By pretty much any metric (less crime, less need for gov. assistance, etc..) you want to use, your quality of life, your finances, etc.., will all be improved if you live in a country with a high level of education and production.
So while it might not be society's job to teach someone, it certainly is in society's best interest. Education should be free for anyone willing to do the work. And tax payers should fund it, because it is in their own self-interest to do so.
No matter what the cop tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the cop is acting lawfully.
I was just thinking about that an hour ago. Comply now, sue later. Simple. And I would assume if you were a race that is often targeted by police, 'comply now, sue later' would be burned into your brain.
But it seems to me that the people who are not complying, are not rational people. This could be due to a mental illness or other factors beyond their control. At that point, the cop's training is the only thing standing between a harmless encounter and a deadly encounter.
And it is pretty clear that officers need more training dealing with the mentally ill. A guilty pleasure of mine is watching that show 'cops'. I think I lose brain cells watching it... but I do. It is so clear to me that tons of suspects are mentally ill, and the officer is treating them as if their brain is functioning properly. A lot of the time, it almost appears as if the officers are getting enjoyment from running mental laps around the suspects logic. "Why'd you run?", "I was scared". "you know you shouldn't be scared of the cops right?", "but I was scared". "Well now you've got a bunch of extra charges, so that was silly of you, next time don't run", silence. (Yeah, and I know 90% of the time people run it is to get rid of evidence.. I'm referring to the 10%).
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
A more correct answer is that certain things in our society get 'extra' protection, by law. Race, religion, speech, sex, and in some states, sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not full protected at a federal level like race/religion, so it can be confusing when determining if what someone is doing is illegal or just being a jerk.
Autopilot, to people who are engineers, or familiar with planes, etc.. yes.
The term autopilot does not convey the same meaning to an average person. When you market a product to people, often you should not use the correct terms. Sometimes you use terms that are technically not correct, but practically convey the meaning you need to get across to them.
I deal with this often. Oftentimes a department will want to use legalese on a web site we are creating for them. We have to remind them that while yes, the terms they want to use are correct, very few of their readers will understand them.
That said, none of that excuses someone driving a heavy killing machine without reading the manual first and following the guidelines in that manual...
He should have built it in Minecraft (like many others have done to various degrees) and saved himself 50 grand. Museums could have virtual tours of the thing:) Kids would love that. Put on your VR googles in the museum, and wander around the computer with your digital avatar, while a real person gives the tour to you via a headset.
In a prior slashdot story about this, someone posted a ted talk by the head of Google's autonomous car project. In the talk, he said that one of the reasons they want to release a fully autonomous car, rather than incrementally improving driver assistance technology, is because once assistance tech reaches X percent of perfection, people will start to rely on it as a fully autonomous technology.
If Tesla's driver assistance technology is safe 95% of the time, some percent of people will start reading books in their car. And yes, they will still be 100% dumb and at fault for trusting that 95% perfect tech, but it is just human nature. That is why google wants to aim for 100% (or 99.999%..) before releasing to the public.
Mickey Mouse has been protected for 56 years. Lobbying, pressure on congress, etc... It doesn't really matter how it happened. The issue is that it DOES happen.
So do you really want that involved in the world's food supply?
Slashdot Mirror
What is revealed wasn't illegal acts, but rather, that while the DNC claims to be impartial, they were not.
The public image of the RNC and DNC has always been as impartial organizations, who let the voters decide via primaries who is going to represent the parties. Most people who follow politics know that bias exists, and that it would be foolish to assume that the RNC/DNC give each primary candidate equal treatment behind the scenes.
These email leaks just flat out proved that they are very partial to one candidate over the other.
If the DNC wants to just do away with primary voting and pick someone to represent them each cycle, that is totally fine. They are a private club, not a party of government beholden to the people. The issue, is that the claimed to be fair, when they were not.
Correct, and that constitute strong proof that no one, not even liberals, actually enjoys "diversity".
Home is where you don't have to explain yourself.
Home is where I don't have to listen to lies, it has nothing to do with diversity. Someone who believes the Earth is 5,000 years old isn't going to add value to my life with meaningful debate.
And liberal blue areas are WAY more diverse than red areas. I've lived in both. My red rural life was 100% white people, the vast majority of whom were conservative. In my current urban blue area, I work with dozens of different races, ethnicities, and countries of origin. Our work even has things like "diversity day" where we learn about different cultures. I highly doubt any red area workplace has something similar.
Believing in something with no proof (or disbelieving in something that has lots of evidence supporting it) doesn't qualify you as having just a "different way of thinking, equally valid to others".
(just wrote small novel... not worth it, deleted the rest).
Interesting world view. How do you explain other countries with far higher levels of government entitlements , but much higher social mobility than the US?
It is almost as if the US has decided to hand out entitlements that meet people's immediate needs without also having a set of entitlements designed to move them out of poverty....
So maybe the solution isn't less entitlements, but actually more entitlements.
It would be nice to build the community features into the torrents themselves somehow. You would interact with the 'community' through your bittorrent client instead of a website that can be taken down.
The clock is running on our moral superiority.
More like the clock is running out on the Republican party. If they are not able to sway their based to give up some of their more radical ideas, they will start losing more and more as demographics in the US change, and as society as a whole stops believing in nonsense.
They didn't call out the loons in their party for years, and now the loons have real sway over the party. They shoved the overton window so far right, that if they don't find a way to shift it back to match reality, the party will crumble.
At least I hope so. The alternative would be ugly.
The quality of care that is _available_ in the US is the highest in the world.
The quality and outcomes of care for rare cancers and other rare diseases is higher in the US. But our quality of care for regular stuff, like 95%+, is no different than single payer countries. And in fact, for many outcomes, we are lower than other countries.
~100 acres of farmland at most in the first place, so maybe the ones you know work on a different scale.
The vast majority of farms are owned by large corporations now. Family run farms are a tiny minority of the total acreage.
Essentially, a minimum wage increase is a wage decrease for everyone else.
Instead of a thought experiment that sounds correct in your head, why don't you look at cities and countries that have raised the minimum wage higher and look at what happened? In every case I've come across, none of what you said happens. Often the exact opposite.
You might want to recheck your facts.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov1/16fivethirtyeight-gov1-blog480.jpg
All spending has gone up, not just social programs.
The 3 trillion figure is a strawman. The actual figure would be far lower.
That really picks and chooses carefully to make him seem more consistent. The Daily show and lots of others have made similar videos where Trump is literally saying the exact opposite on dozens of issues.
And he was a registered democrat from 1990'ish to 2000'ish. I forget the exact years, but he's switched from Repub to Dem, back to Repub, as well as praised Hillary as an excellent choice for President during the 2008 primaries.
It was right after Obama got elected that he started becoming conservative (in his latest incarnation of it), talking about the birth certificate and all the crazy stuff. It was obviously to build 'street cred' with the conservative primary voters.
This is an extremely poor time to cast a protest type vote. The supreme court has one vacant position right now, and likely 2-3 more coming up soon.
Trump has already mentioned some names of possible nominees. They are very conservative, and likely to be approved if the house and senate remain in Republican control. And given it is a lifetime appointment, a vote for Trump is a vote to swing the supreme court hard right for 30-50 years.
So just be aware of what you are voting for when you vote for Trump. It isn't a powerless position at all. Executive orders alone are very powerful. And the timing of this election will shape our country's legal system for decades.
Uh, no.
Dems controlled House & Senate for first two years
People like to say that, and it is technically true. But technically true did not amount to complete freedom to pass any liberal law they wanted. Ever heard the term blue dog democrat? Or just one guy named Joe Lieberman?
That blue dogs and lieberman are why single payer healthcare wasn't even on the table to begin with.
No, he's voting for the candidate he feels best represents his views. Which is precisely what we should all do, no matter which candidate that is.
That is a nice ideal, but it is really a bad idea when 2-3 supreme court seats might be available in 4 years (one right now of course). Wait until scotus gets restocked with younger judges, then protest vote all you want.
This is a really bad time to protest vote. There is one vacant supreme court nomination, and possible 2-3 more up within 4-8 years.
That means if you get someone like Trump in office, the supreme court might be extremely far right wing conservative for the next 30-50 years.... Trump already released lists of judges he thinks might be good, and it is horrifying.
I bet we would have a lot less CEOs who only think about quarterly profits, and jump ship every few years because they get multi-million dollar bonuses, if they made 2-5x what a worker makes instead of 200-500x.
A CEO would be a lot more responsive to the lives of everyday workers if he/she were closer on the economic rung to them and a lot more likely to be invested in the company long term.
"Why is it society's responsibility to teach you job skills?"
It is better for you , if all your neighbors are highly educated and highly productive. It is better for you, if the society you live in is highly educated and highly productive.
By pretty much any metric (less crime, less need for gov. assistance, etc..) you want to use, your quality of life, your finances, etc.., will all be improved if you live in a country with a high level of education and production.
So while it might not be society's job to teach someone, it certainly is in society's best interest. Education should be free for anyone willing to do the work. And tax payers should fund it, because it is in their own self-interest to do so.
No matter what the cop tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the cop is acting lawfully.
I was just thinking about that an hour ago. Comply now, sue later. Simple. And I would assume if you were a race that is often targeted by police, 'comply now, sue later' would be burned into your brain.
But it seems to me that the people who are not complying, are not rational people. This could be due to a mental illness or other factors beyond their control. At that point, the cop's training is the only thing standing between a harmless encounter and a deadly encounter.
And it is pretty clear that officers need more training dealing with the mentally ill. A guilty pleasure of mine is watching that show 'cops'. I think I lose brain cells watching it... but I do. It is so clear to me that tons of suspects are mentally ill, and the officer is treating them as if their brain is functioning properly. A lot of the time, it almost appears as if the officers are getting enjoyment from running mental laps around the suspects logic. "Why'd you run?", "I was scared". "you know you shouldn't be scared of the cops right?", "but I was scared". "Well now you've got a bunch of extra charges, so that was silly of you, next time don't run", silence. (Yeah, and I know 90% of the time people run it is to get rid of evidence.. I'm referring to the 10%).
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
A more correct answer is that certain things in our society get 'extra' protection, by law. Race, religion, speech, sex, and in some states, sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not full protected at a federal level like race/religion, so it can be confusing when determining if what someone is doing is illegal or just being a jerk.
Autopilot, to people who are engineers, or familiar with planes, etc.. yes.
The term autopilot does not convey the same meaning to an average person. When you market a product to people, often you should not use the correct terms. Sometimes you use terms that are technically not correct, but practically convey the meaning you need to get across to them.
I deal with this often. Oftentimes a department will want to use legalese on a web site we are creating for them. We have to remind them that while yes, the terms they want to use are correct, very few of their readers will understand them.
That said, none of that excuses someone driving a heavy killing machine without reading the manual first and following the guidelines in that manual...
He should have built it in Minecraft (like many others have done to various degrees) and saved himself 50 grand. Museums could have virtual tours of the thing:) Kids would love that. Put on your VR googles in the museum, and wander around the computer with your digital avatar, while a real person gives the tour to you via a headset.
In a prior slashdot story about this, someone posted a ted talk by the head of Google's autonomous car project. In the talk, he said that one of the reasons they want to release a fully autonomous car, rather than incrementally improving driver assistance technology, is because once assistance tech reaches X percent of perfection, people will start to rely on it as a fully autonomous technology.
If Tesla's driver assistance technology is safe 95% of the time, some percent of people will start reading books in their car. And yes, they will still be 100% dumb and at fault for trusting that 95% perfect tech, but it is just human nature. That is why google wants to aim for 100% (or 99.999%..) before releasing to the public.
I agree it is better to bash the broken patent system and bad business practices, but your analogy doesn't computer for me, try this one:
If Ford gave cars (seed) to poor people for free, then two years later started charging them once they became dependent on that car....
Mickey Mouse has been protected for 56 years. Lobbying, pressure on congress, etc... It doesn't really matter how it happened. The issue is that it DOES happen.
So do you really want that involved in the world's food supply?