I buy a fair amount of stuff from Ebay still, and honestly I have really good experiences with it mostly. The secret is to not blindly buy from just any seller, but instead to look carefully at the seller's record and feedbacks. When I see a seller with a score of 500, they've been on there for more than a decade, and their feedback score is 100% (not a single negative), that's someone I feel safe buying from. When you see some guy with a new account and little or no feedbacks (and none as a seller), assume the worst. If you're buying something from China, be prepared for it to not show up or to be crappy, but you might get a really good deal too, so don't buy anything expensive from there but for small, cheap stuff it's a good alternative.
In the U.S., law is made by the elected representatives of the people, who are then bought and corrupted by the corporations and do what their new corporate masters command.
Exactly. And what's worse, the People are so dumb they're happy to vote for a candidate who's obviously sold out to Goldman Sachs and various other corporate masters.
It *was* a good job. Honestly, I think it's hilarious: people are bitching left and right about how awful the new Windows UI is, but they just won't stop using Windows. The spyware makes it even funnier. I can't wait to see what shenanigans MS comes up with next to screw over their customers, while they continue to whine but refuse to look for alternatives.
WTF are you talking about? I didn't insult anyone, I explained how "range anxiety" can be mitigated. How the fuck is having multiple cars a "conspiracy theory"??
Then they're idiots. The license is easy to understand, and if you're just writing your own in-house software that's never going to be sold outside the company (which is typical of in-house software; it's downright useless outside of the company that wrote it because it's too specialized for that company's business), there's no legal problems with just keeping it GPLed. Heck, you don't even have to keep the GPL notice on it; it's not like the police are going to raid the place and check for GPL compliance. The only time you have to deal with licensing issues with open-source or Free software is if you distribute. Inside your own organization doesn't count.
If some Windows devs and their bosses are too stupid to understand this, then they deserve to keep using VB on Windows XP no matter how much trouble that is.
Yeah, that is a lousy analogy. You can eat a burger from anywhere, and it doesn't lock you in or out of anything. Buy a Windows Phone locks you out of most of the apps that people want to use, and has the added danger that it won't be supported for long if MS abandons it prematurely. With a smartphone, continued support is important, and for most people apps are too. Buying a smartphone that has no apps is like buying an PC OS that has no apps (remember BeOS?).
It depends on how much your company is spending going after that market, on development costs, on ongoing costs to maintain your products in that market and service those customers, etc.
If you have a niche product with 16M users, and you're some smallish company and this userbase is giving you a handsome profit, then great.
When you're a behemoth company like MS trying to compete in a huge market against entrenched players, and you're spending billions of dollars trying to stay in this market, then no, 16M users is not enough unless you've figured out a way of getting every user to somehow generate ~$1000 per year in profit for you. There's no way that MS is getting that kind of profit from WinPhone users.
BS. I'm willing to consider alternatives to gasoline, and even recently bought a new (gas) car. But while most of my trips are very short for going to work, I take pretty frequent weekend trips which would exceed 100 miles in a day (frequently more like 200 when I visit my parents), so that makes a cheaper EV a no-go for me. A Tesla would work for that, but I can't afford a $100k car. And I can't justify or really afford two separate cars as a single guy, so an EV really doesn't make much sense for me right now. And before you suggest renting a car, getting a rental car would require driving ~40-50 miles in one direction, or ~25-30 miles in another, since I don't live in a city, so that's horribly inconvenient for a day or weekend trip.
If I were married, it'd be easy: I could have an EV for my ~5-mile commute, and my wife could have a gas car that we'd use for those weekend outings, or if I were married to another professional with a good salary, we could afford to have two EVs and keep a nice gas car in the garage for trips. But since I'm not married, all that is out.
So yes, range anxiety is a real thing, regardless of what conspiracy theories you choose to believe.
Yeah, I said that in my second paragraph, though I didn't add in all the bonus points you did. Renting a car whenever you need is a lot easier, however, for urban dwellers, since the nearest Enterprise is probably not very far away. For people farther out, getting to the nearest rental car location may be an extra hassle.
But what I'm trying to point out is that, contrary to most peoples' thinking apparently, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing deal. Any household with multiple vehicles can save money on gas (and other maintenance/repair costs inherent to gas-powered cars, and also the time wasted by stopping for refueling) right away by swapping just one of those vehicles for an EV, and using that for one person's commuting. The more households that do that nationwide, the less gas we'll consume nationally, and the increase in electric consumption will only be gradual. Eventually, as EV ranges increase and/or costs come down and gas cars age out of the fleet, more and more people will get more and more EVs, and either keep a gas car for trips, or just rent them as necessary, depending on what makes more sense for them. This can all be done right now, without any significant improvement in EV technology or range, when you think about how many households have multiple vehicles and how many miles are just commuting trips of no more than 100 miles per day.
You see the same thing when converting a car to electric - I read a lot about conversions back in the day, and they often ended up filling the trunk with batteries, even after filling the engine compartment with as many batteries as would fit around the motor.
Nope. The problem isn't retrofitting (it's a problem, but not as much as you're painting it to be), but a problem with the battery technology: those EV retrofits you saw were using old lead-acid batteries. There's a reason that purpose-built EVs use either NiMH or lithium batteries: the energy density is much higher, so you don't need so much volume for batteries.
A 'from the ground up' natural gas vehicle would probably find a better spot for it's tank.
No, not really. It's still limited by the volume of the tank necessary. Car gas tanks are usually 12-20 gallons and are located under the rear seat, ahead of the rear axle line for crash protection (thank the Pinto for that). That much volume isn't going to get you very far on CNG. So you're basically stuck with taking over the entire trunk space. Remember also, a CNG tank has to handle significant pressure (the "C" in CNG comes from "compressed"), so you can't just make some odd-shaped tank the way you can with gasoline tanks. Gas tanks have funny shapes since they're made to fill the room in the spot they're located; a compressed-gas tank doesn't have that luxury; it has to be a regular shape designed to hold pressure. Take a look at the tank on any air compressor for comparison; that's pretty much what a CNG tank looks like.
So you could use QT which works on all platforms but unless you want to GPL your code that costs a pretty penny
Then GPL your code. It's stupid not to.
If your whole goal is to create software in-house, for in-house use only, there's no reason not to use GPL. Its only requirement is that you provide source code to anyone that you provide the binaries to. If you're only providing the binaries to yourself, then you only have to provide the source code to yourself. Is that really such a problem?
Go read through the comments in this discussion. There's a bunch of pro-hydrogen posts, and many of them come from long-time users. I'm sorry, but to allege that they're all industry-paid shills sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
There are other aspects such as space and weight. Call it "energy density", and luckily Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) is your friend again. Turns out that hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg, while your Lithium batteries are at about 1.8 MJ/kg. At the MJ/l front (space) the two are much closer to each other, again with hydrogen slightly in the lead.
Turns out, there would be a real advantage to hydrogen, once the storage efficiency and a few other problems are solved.
The thing you're completely missing here is volumetric efficiency, and also the weight of your storage tank (which is accounted for in the lithium battery number, and not in the hydrogen number, so you're not comparing apples to apples). Hydrogen is extremely lightweight, and it also requires an extremely heavy tank capable of withstanding enormous pressure and not leaking (since hydrogen atoms are so small). So you wind up with an enormous storage tank taking up all the free space in the vehicle.
You can see something like this with vehicles converted to use CNG back when that was popular. CNG's volumetric energy density is much lower than gasoline, so these vehicles had huge tanks installed in them taking up all the cargo space, making these vehicles absolutely useless for cargo carrying. And CNG isn't nearly as bad as hydrogen.
Yes, field corn is not normally eaten on-the-cob by humans, however a quick read of Wikipedia will tell you that it IS used for human consumption. What do you think tacos and tortillas are made out of? (hint: it's not sweet corn) Where do you think HFCS comes from? 98% of corn grown in the US is field corn, but much of it is used for humans, the rest is used for animal feed (and then these animals are eaten by humans). It's not like the corn has no other viable uses.
There's a simple near-term solution for this "range anxiety" problem with long trips: don't use EVs for them, use gas cars.
All you have to do is have multiple cars. Have one EV that you use for your daily commuting and trips where you're sure you won't go over 100 miles (or 200-something for longer-range EVs) in a single day. Then keep around a single gas car for road trips. For families, this should be a lot easier; one person can drive the gas car, the other the EV, or if they can afford it, both people can have EVs and then keep a gas car in the garage for trips. With the gas car being used only for road trips, it won't accumulate miles very quickly and will last a long time, and the insurance cost should be low since it's "pleasure use only" with the associated low yearly mileage.
For urban dwellers without space for multiple cars, it's easy: just own an EV, and any time you're going to take a road trip, rent a gas car. The amount you save with the EV should easily more than make up for the cost of the rental car.
I'd be willing to bet that most of the road-miles by passenger cars are by (sub-)urban commuters these days. Replacing most of these with EVs is entirely doable (most are not going to exceed 100 miles a day), and would hugely decrease the nation's gasoline consumption. Rural dwellers will take longer, but that's OK because with much lower demand for gasoline, and accordingly lower environmental effects from burning it, it wouldn't be such an issue.
*People* never thought is was a good idea: oil and automotive executives do, because hydrogen maintains a gas station-style distribution network.
I'm sorry, this is total BS. I've had arguments about this issue before right here on/., and there's no shortage of people willing to argue for hydrogen, and that's on a site with "tech nerds". Just scroll down a bit and you'll find plenty of pro-hydrogen, anti-EV posts right here in today's thread.
Yes, "people" do think hydrogen is a great idea.
That said, you're completely correct about the entrenched interests wanting to keep a gas station-style distribution network. But never underestimate the willingness of regular people, and even "tech nerds", to back the position of an entrenched corporate interest, even when it's a terrible idea from a technical standpoint.
The NSA, CIA, and FBI aren't intended to be criminal organizations. They were built to help the people of the US. The hope of the public at large is that this draws honorable people to those organizations, and that at worst, only a few bad apples will exist.
I really wish people would stop using this expression.
Have you ever left a bad apple in a bunch of apples? If you had, you'd know exactly what happens: the whole bunch turns bad very quickly. That's where the expression came from, and that's why it's invalid to say "only a few bad apples": there is no such thing as a few bad apples!!! When you have a bad apple, whether it's an apple or a cop in a police department, unless it's removed quickly, pretty soon they're all bad. Which is why the expression is apt for police, except that everyone keeps forgetting about what really happens with bad apples. Does no one keep bunches of apples any more?
Well crap, there goes my idea of moving to Scotland. And I like chilly, wet weather too. I guess I'll have to settle for the Pacific Northwest. I like that area a lot, but everything I've read about the Seattle area says that it's a sausagefest. For some strange reason, all the single 30+ women live in the east coast cities of DC, Philly, and NYC. But those cities mostly suck for programming jobs unless you're either a web programmer or into defense (but the single women won't be interested in you if you work in defense).
It's easy for me: Trump is obviously to the left of Hillary, though not by much. With Trump, I won't worry as much about another war, whereas with her it's virtually certain. I think he's just an egomaniac blowhard who thinks he knows what's best for the country.
As for Hillary for VP, I think that's a terrible idea because she's sure to have Bernie knocked off. There's a long trail of bodies surrounding the Clintons.
He's a liar that will say or do ANYTHING to get elected.... Trump will do and say whatever it takes to win.
Yes, but you can say the exact same thing about Hillary.
The only thing you can be certain of is that Donald Trump will do whatever is in Donald Trumps best interest without regard for anyone else.
Again, Hillary is the same, and quite likely much worse because she's in it for the money and the power, and is sold out to various interests, which is how she and Bill have become nearly billionaires. At least Trump is already rich and there's no evidence he's sold out to anyone. He's just in this for his own ego; he wants to go down in history as a President of the US. He might even do a decent job if he wants to go down in history as a good president.
That is the one consistent thing he's done his entire fucking life.
Hillary's been consistent that way too. Look at how she's attempted to destroy the reputation of every woman that Bill sexually assaulted.
You and all the other voters aren't even insects to him.
Sounds just like Hillary. Go read about how she treated the White House staff back when she was First Lady.
Honestly, it's really pathetic that we're sitting here arguing over who's a bigger liar and who's more evil, since we idiot voters are poised to vote for one of them or the other, instead of the one guy who doesn't have any of that baggage.
Are you really naive enough to believe Hillary when she flip-flops like that?
Trump really *is* against the TPP, unlike Hillary, so if that's the most important issue to you, Trump is the rational choice. Trump's flip-flopped on a bunch of things, but not the trade issue.
I completely disagree, and honestly I think this is typical head-in-the-sand thinking from non-Republicans. The Republicans are winning all the lower-level elections: they control both houses of Congress, and they've been sweeping more and more state legislatures and governorships. Just 2 years ago, Democrats famously didn't bother turning out to vote and Republicans made huge gains nationwide.
With Hillary as the Democratic standard-bearer, and lots of younger people mad about how Bernie's been sidelined, I don't expect it to be any better this year. Dems and other non-Republicans are going to stay at home, and Republicans are going to make more gains, and take the White House too.
Don't forget, Republican voters, in general, are *much* more reliable about getting out to vote. Additionally, they're really big single-issue voters. Right now, their two big issues are immigration and guns. Trump has been endorsed by the NRA and is painting Hillary as a huge gun-grabber, and apparently has a concealed-carry permit himself so he actually is consistent on that. And of course he's also loved by the anti-immigration (legal or otherwise) folks for his stance there. By contrast, Hillary is completely despised by people on the right. Even if they have to hold their nose to vote for Trump, they'll do it to make sure she doesn't win. Toss in the fact that she's despised by so many on the left (the Bernie lovers) and things don't look good for her.
Finally, I think Trump is a much better candidate than her (which isn't saying much I'll admit). Hillary is a huge warmonger. She's criticized Obama for not doing more warmongering, and she's a huge fan of Henry Kissinger, who bombed the shit out of Cambodia. I'd rather have Trump in there than have her start yet another war. He may be unpredictable, but he's not sold out to anyone but his own ego and has criticized warmongering and the Iraq War (royally pissing off Bush), while Hillary voted for the war.
Trump's past is not a problem. He's been flip-flopping all over the place and people have voted for him anyway. They don't care about his past. They like what he stands for, that he's claiming to work for working-class whites (who the Dems haven't done anything for lately), and they've finally realized that the establishment Republicans are working against their best interests. Who knows how much they really *like* him, but it doesn't matter: to them, he's the best option they have in this race, by a long shot, except for Bernie, who they don't really like because they're generally conservative and wouldn't vote Democratic anyway even if he is the best choice for their interests (which he is).
Slashdot Mirror
I feel more comfortable buying stuff off eBay.
I buy a fair amount of stuff from Ebay still, and honestly I have really good experiences with it mostly. The secret is to not blindly buy from just any seller, but instead to look carefully at the seller's record and feedbacks. When I see a seller with a score of 500, they've been on there for more than a decade, and their feedback score is 100% (not a single negative), that's someone I feel safe buying from. When you see some guy with a new account and little or no feedbacks (and none as a seller), assume the worst. If you're buying something from China, be prepared for it to not show up or to be crappy, but you might get a really good deal too, so don't buy anything expensive from there but for small, cheap stuff it's a good alternative.
In the U.S., law is made by the elected representatives of the people, who are then bought and corrupted by the corporations and do what their new corporate masters command.
Exactly. And what's worse, the People are so dumb they're happy to vote for a candidate who's obviously sold out to Goldman Sachs and various other corporate masters.
It *was* a good job. Honestly, I think it's hilarious: people are bitching left and right about how awful the new Windows UI is, but they just won't stop using Windows. The spyware makes it even funnier. I can't wait to see what shenanigans MS comes up with next to screw over their customers, while they continue to whine but refuse to look for alternatives.
WTF are you talking about? I didn't insult anyone, I explained how "range anxiety" can be mitigated. How the fuck is having multiple cars a "conspiracy theory"??
Then they're idiots. The license is easy to understand, and if you're just writing your own in-house software that's never going to be sold outside the company (which is typical of in-house software; it's downright useless outside of the company that wrote it because it's too specialized for that company's business), there's no legal problems with just keeping it GPLed. Heck, you don't even have to keep the GPL notice on it; it's not like the police are going to raid the place and check for GPL compliance. The only time you have to deal with licensing issues with open-source or Free software is if you distribute. Inside your own organization doesn't count.
If some Windows devs and their bosses are too stupid to understand this, then they deserve to keep using VB on Windows XP no matter how much trouble that is.
Yeah, that is a lousy analogy. You can eat a burger from anywhere, and it doesn't lock you in or out of anything. Buy a Windows Phone locks you out of most of the apps that people want to use, and has the added danger that it won't be supported for long if MS abandons it prematurely. With a smartphone, continued support is important, and for most people apps are too. Buying a smartphone that has no apps is like buying an PC OS that has no apps (remember BeOS?).
Don't forget "PlaysForSure" which they abandoned when they came out with Zune.
It depends on how much your company is spending going after that market, on development costs, on ongoing costs to maintain your products in that market and service those customers, etc.
If you have a niche product with 16M users, and you're some smallish company and this userbase is giving you a handsome profit, then great.
When you're a behemoth company like MS trying to compete in a huge market against entrenched players, and you're spending billions of dollars trying to stay in this market, then no, 16M users is not enough unless you've figured out a way of getting every user to somehow generate ~$1000 per year in profit for you. There's no way that MS is getting that kind of profit from WinPhone users.
BS. I'm willing to consider alternatives to gasoline, and even recently bought a new (gas) car. But while most of my trips are very short for going to work, I take pretty frequent weekend trips which would exceed 100 miles in a day (frequently more like 200 when I visit my parents), so that makes a cheaper EV a no-go for me. A Tesla would work for that, but I can't afford a $100k car. And I can't justify or really afford two separate cars as a single guy, so an EV really doesn't make much sense for me right now. And before you suggest renting a car, getting a rental car would require driving ~40-50 miles in one direction, or ~25-30 miles in another, since I don't live in a city, so that's horribly inconvenient for a day or weekend trip.
If I were married, it'd be easy: I could have an EV for my ~5-mile commute, and my wife could have a gas car that we'd use for those weekend outings, or if I were married to another professional with a good salary, we could afford to have two EVs and keep a nice gas car in the garage for trips. But since I'm not married, all that is out.
So yes, range anxiety is a real thing, regardless of what conspiracy theories you choose to believe.
Yeah, I said that in my second paragraph, though I didn't add in all the bonus points you did. Renting a car whenever you need is a lot easier, however, for urban dwellers, since the nearest Enterprise is probably not very far away. For people farther out, getting to the nearest rental car location may be an extra hassle.
But what I'm trying to point out is that, contrary to most peoples' thinking apparently, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing deal. Any household with multiple vehicles can save money on gas (and other maintenance/repair costs inherent to gas-powered cars, and also the time wasted by stopping for refueling) right away by swapping just one of those vehicles for an EV, and using that for one person's commuting. The more households that do that nationwide, the less gas we'll consume nationally, and the increase in electric consumption will only be gradual. Eventually, as EV ranges increase and/or costs come down and gas cars age out of the fleet, more and more people will get more and more EVs, and either keep a gas car for trips, or just rent them as necessary, depending on what makes more sense for them. This can all be done right now, without any significant improvement in EV technology or range, when you think about how many households have multiple vehicles and how many miles are just commuting trips of no more than 100 miles per day.
You see the same thing when converting a car to electric - I read a lot about conversions back in the day, and they often ended up filling the trunk with batteries, even after filling the engine compartment with as many batteries as would fit around the motor.
Nope. The problem isn't retrofitting (it's a problem, but not as much as you're painting it to be), but a problem with the battery technology: those EV retrofits you saw were using old lead-acid batteries. There's a reason that purpose-built EVs use either NiMH or lithium batteries: the energy density is much higher, so you don't need so much volume for batteries.
A 'from the ground up' natural gas vehicle would probably find a better spot for it's tank.
No, not really. It's still limited by the volume of the tank necessary. Car gas tanks are usually 12-20 gallons and are located under the rear seat, ahead of the rear axle line for crash protection (thank the Pinto for that). That much volume isn't going to get you very far on CNG. So you're basically stuck with taking over the entire trunk space. Remember also, a CNG tank has to handle significant pressure (the "C" in CNG comes from "compressed"), so you can't just make some odd-shaped tank the way you can with gasoline tanks. Gas tanks have funny shapes since they're made to fill the room in the spot they're located; a compressed-gas tank doesn't have that luxury; it has to be a regular shape designed to hold pressure. Take a look at the tank on any air compressor for comparison; that's pretty much what a CNG tank looks like.
So you could use QT which works on all platforms but unless you want to GPL your code that costs a pretty penny
Then GPL your code. It's stupid not to.
If your whole goal is to create software in-house, for in-house use only, there's no reason not to use GPL. Its only requirement is that you provide source code to anyone that you provide the binaries to. If you're only providing the binaries to yourself, then you only have to provide the source code to yourself. Is that really such a problem?
Go read through the comments in this discussion. There's a bunch of pro-hydrogen posts, and many of them come from long-time users. I'm sorry, but to allege that they're all industry-paid shills sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
There are other aspects such as space and weight. Call it "energy density", and luckily Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) is your friend again. Turns out that hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg, while your Lithium batteries are at about 1.8 MJ/kg. At the MJ/l front (space) the two are much closer to each other, again with hydrogen slightly in the lead.
Turns out, there would be a real advantage to hydrogen, once the storage efficiency and a few other problems are solved.
The thing you're completely missing here is volumetric efficiency, and also the weight of your storage tank (which is accounted for in the lithium battery number, and not in the hydrogen number, so you're not comparing apples to apples). Hydrogen is extremely lightweight, and it also requires an extremely heavy tank capable of withstanding enormous pressure and not leaking (since hydrogen atoms are so small). So you wind up with an enormous storage tank taking up all the free space in the vehicle.
You can see something like this with vehicles converted to use CNG back when that was popular. CNG's volumetric energy density is much lower than gasoline, so these vehicles had huge tanks installed in them taking up all the cargo space, making these vehicles absolutely useless for cargo carrying. And CNG isn't nearly as bad as hydrogen.
That's not much different from gasoline cars. The two byproducts of (ideal) gasoline combustion are H2O and CO2.
Why is this modded up? This is totally wrong.
Yes, field corn is not normally eaten on-the-cob by humans, however a quick read of Wikipedia will tell you that it IS used for human consumption. What do you think tacos and tortillas are made out of? (hint: it's not sweet corn) Where do you think HFCS comes from? 98% of corn grown in the US is field corn, but much of it is used for humans, the rest is used for animal feed (and then these animals are eaten by humans). It's not like the corn has no other viable uses.
There's a simple near-term solution for this "range anxiety" problem with long trips: don't use EVs for them, use gas cars.
All you have to do is have multiple cars. Have one EV that you use for your daily commuting and trips where you're sure you won't go over 100 miles (or 200-something for longer-range EVs) in a single day. Then keep around a single gas car for road trips. For families, this should be a lot easier; one person can drive the gas car, the other the EV, or if they can afford it, both people can have EVs and then keep a gas car in the garage for trips. With the gas car being used only for road trips, it won't accumulate miles very quickly and will last a long time, and the insurance cost should be low since it's "pleasure use only" with the associated low yearly mileage.
For urban dwellers without space for multiple cars, it's easy: just own an EV, and any time you're going to take a road trip, rent a gas car. The amount you save with the EV should easily more than make up for the cost of the rental car.
I'd be willing to bet that most of the road-miles by passenger cars are by (sub-)urban commuters these days. Replacing most of these with EVs is entirely doable (most are not going to exceed 100 miles a day), and would hugely decrease the nation's gasoline consumption. Rural dwellers will take longer, but that's OK because with much lower demand for gasoline, and accordingly lower environmental effects from burning it, it wouldn't be such an issue.
*People* never thought is was a good idea: oil and automotive executives do, because hydrogen maintains a gas station-style distribution network.
I'm sorry, this is total BS. I've had arguments about this issue before right here on /., and there's no shortage of people willing to argue for hydrogen, and that's on a site with "tech nerds". Just scroll down a bit and you'll find plenty of pro-hydrogen, anti-EV posts right here in today's thread.
Yes, "people" do think hydrogen is a great idea.
That said, you're completely correct about the entrenched interests wanting to keep a gas station-style distribution network. But never underestimate the willingness of regular people, and even "tech nerds", to back the position of an entrenched corporate interest, even when it's a terrible idea from a technical standpoint.
You replied to the wrong person.
The NSA, CIA, and FBI aren't intended to be criminal organizations. They were built to help the people of the US. The hope of the public at large is that this draws honorable people to those organizations, and that at worst, only a few bad apples will exist.
I really wish people would stop using this expression.
Have you ever left a bad apple in a bunch of apples? If you had, you'd know exactly what happens: the whole bunch turns bad very quickly. That's where the expression came from, and that's why it's invalid to say "only a few bad apples": there is no such thing as a few bad apples!!! When you have a bad apple, whether it's an apple or a cop in a police department, unless it's removed quickly, pretty soon they're all bad. Which is why the expression is apt for police, except that everyone keeps forgetting about what really happens with bad apples. Does no one keep bunches of apples any more?
Well crap, there goes my idea of moving to Scotland. And I like chilly, wet weather too. I guess I'll have to settle for the Pacific Northwest. I like that area a lot, but everything I've read about the Seattle area says that it's a sausagefest. For some strange reason, all the single 30+ women live in the east coast cities of DC, Philly, and NYC. But those cities mostly suck for programming jobs unless you're either a web programmer or into defense (but the single women won't be interested in you if you work in defense).
It's easy for me: Trump is obviously to the left of Hillary, though not by much. With Trump, I won't worry as much about another war, whereas with her it's virtually certain. I think he's just an egomaniac blowhard who thinks he knows what's best for the country.
As for Hillary for VP, I think that's a terrible idea because she's sure to have Bernie knocked off. There's a long trail of bodies surrounding the Clintons.
He's a liar that will say or do ANYTHING to get elected. ... Trump will do and say whatever it takes to win.
Yes, but you can say the exact same thing about Hillary.
The only thing you can be certain of is that Donald Trump will do whatever is in Donald Trumps best interest without regard for anyone else.
Again, Hillary is the same, and quite likely much worse because she's in it for the money and the power, and is sold out to various interests, which is how she and Bill have become nearly billionaires. At least Trump is already rich and there's no evidence he's sold out to anyone. He's just in this for his own ego; he wants to go down in history as a President of the US. He might even do a decent job if he wants to go down in history as a good president.
That is the one consistent thing he's done his entire fucking life.
Hillary's been consistent that way too. Look at how she's attempted to destroy the reputation of every woman that Bill sexually assaulted.
You and all the other voters aren't even insects to him.
Sounds just like Hillary. Go read about how she treated the White House staff back when she was First Lady.
Honestly, it's really pathetic that we're sitting here arguing over who's a bigger liar and who's more evil, since we idiot voters are poised to vote for one of them or the other, instead of the one guy who doesn't have any of that baggage.
Are you really naive enough to believe Hillary when she flip-flops like that?
Trump really *is* against the TPP, unlike Hillary, so if that's the most important issue to you, Trump is the rational choice. Trump's flip-flopped on a bunch of things, but not the trade issue.
Trump doesn't have a chance, no republican did.
I completely disagree, and honestly I think this is typical head-in-the-sand thinking from non-Republicans. The Republicans are winning all the lower-level elections: they control both houses of Congress, and they've been sweeping more and more state legislatures and governorships. Just 2 years ago, Democrats famously didn't bother turning out to vote and Republicans made huge gains nationwide.
With Hillary as the Democratic standard-bearer, and lots of younger people mad about how Bernie's been sidelined, I don't expect it to be any better this year. Dems and other non-Republicans are going to stay at home, and Republicans are going to make more gains, and take the White House too.
Don't forget, Republican voters, in general, are *much* more reliable about getting out to vote. Additionally, they're really big single-issue voters. Right now, their two big issues are immigration and guns. Trump has been endorsed by the NRA and is painting Hillary as a huge gun-grabber, and apparently has a concealed-carry permit himself so he actually is consistent on that. And of course he's also loved by the anti-immigration (legal or otherwise) folks for his stance there. By contrast, Hillary is completely despised by people on the right. Even if they have to hold their nose to vote for Trump, they'll do it to make sure she doesn't win. Toss in the fact that she's despised by so many on the left (the Bernie lovers) and things don't look good for her.
Finally, I think Trump is a much better candidate than her (which isn't saying much I'll admit). Hillary is a huge warmonger. She's criticized Obama for not doing more warmongering, and she's a huge fan of Henry Kissinger, who bombed the shit out of Cambodia. I'd rather have Trump in there than have her start yet another war. He may be unpredictable, but he's not sold out to anyone but his own ego and has criticized warmongering and the Iraq War (royally pissing off Bush), while Hillary voted for the war.
Trump's past is not a problem. He's been flip-flopping all over the place and people have voted for him anyway. They don't care about his past. They like what he stands for, that he's claiming to work for working-class whites (who the Dems haven't done anything for lately), and they've finally realized that the establishment Republicans are working against their best interests. Who knows how much they really *like* him, but it doesn't matter: to them, he's the best option they have in this race, by a long shot, except for Bernie, who they don't really like because they're generally conservative and wouldn't vote Democratic anyway even if he is the best choice for their interests (which he is).