As long as the GOP thinks it's going to maintain control of the House after the 2018 midterm elections, I'm not sure that there's _ANYTHING_ that would be strong enough for Paul Ryan to allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House.
But if it starts to really look like the GOP could lose control of the House due to carrying Trump's water.... well, that could change things. Now, that would require the GOP to lose over 20 seats in the House, so it would take a metric shitload of disaffected GOP voters for that to happen. And with the gerrymandering currently in place that makes a lot of those seats very safe.... it's not likely to happen.
But the threat of it could still make them look at impeachment more seriously.
Because the NSA is trying to protect the source(s) of their information? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Trump's spent a bit of time already shitting on our intelligence community, so I really doubt they're holding back this information in loyalty to him.
But protecting one or more sources who got us that information? I can see that. Plus, we already have the knowledge that Trump can't really be trusted with this sort of information, because it's possible he could blab it to whoever.
We get to join Nicaragua and Syria in not being part of the Paris Climate Accord. And Nicaragua didn't sign it because they think it doesn't go far enough.
First, it didn't go from 80% working on farms to 4% instantly. There was a transition period. (Actually, quite a lengthy one.) Now, we're also going to have a transition period when self-driving cars become commonplace (my personal estimate is within the next 10-15 years).
Second, as those jobs moved away from farm work, there were jobs in urban areas to be had in manufacturing. The early assembly lines (like, say for making cars) were still manual labor intensive.
So, the question is, when self-driving cars and trucks become commonplace, and those jobs become superfluous, where do the people with those jobs go?
Okay, sure, even when self-driving cars take off, not every taxi company or trucking company is going to immediately move to them. As I said above, there's going to be a transition period. There will be early adopters, and late adopters. But that doesn't answer the question of "what jobs will those drivers move to?", it merely spreads it out over years.
At my last job (retail), at one point, I had built up enough time off to take two weeks in a row off, and still have some time off left. So, you know, I did.
A week into the vacation, I go into work to pick up my paycheck (because direct deposit through the job was specifically not working for me), and my manager is there. On a Saturday morning. Which never happens.
He takes one look at me, and says "Never again." "What?" "I'm never letting you take two weeks off IN A ROW again." Apparently, nobody but me really liked working the graveyard shift, AND all the weirdos and jerks who I normally dealt with came in during the first week and had a collective case of the chapped ass.
My first degree was in Mechanical Engineering. Couldn't get a job. Hell, I only got a few interviews, and most places that were advertising openings were barely responding to resume inquiries.
My second degree was in Computer Science. I got the timing of that down just as the Dot-com crash was in full swing. So, I had a second degree in the wrong field at the wrong time, as people weren't exactly hiring fresh graduates when they could hire someone with a half-dozen or more years of experience who was willing to work for the same amount of compensation.
Yes, if you get a degree in Underwater Basket-weaving, you have no one to blame but yourself (and whoever talked you into that major.)
Part of the problem is that most U.S. universities do not give a solitary fuck what you major in, as long as you pay tuition. They couldn't care less that you can't find a job unless they're one of those colleges that advertises what percent of their graduates are employed within so many months of graduating. And a fair number of those pad their numbers in various ways.
Part of the problem is that the housing market is out of whack.
Using data for 1972, when you compare median household income and median house price, the house price is ~325% of the income.
Using data for 2015, when you compare median household income and median house price, the house price is ~525% of the income.
Just a bit of difference there. Now, part of that is different (more exacting) house construction standards, increased costs of construction materials, and so on, but that much of a difference?
Yes, some millennials have poor spending habits and poor savings habits. But the increased cost of houses also plays a part. Not to mention student debt. (And DeVos seems to give not a single fuck about that.)
Hell, I barely use my smartphone's data plan and my bill is around $45 a month. Admittedly, I am an outlier when it comes to such things, as I am over 40 and only got a smartphone last year.
Yes, but then you're stuck with Comcast. And they're terrible.
A friend of mine has been having troubling streaming a livestream of his games, so he called his provider, Comcast.
The tech drone at the other end couldn't solve his problem (hardly unique to Comcast), and elevated it to second-tier, which was supposed to get back to him the next day. That was last week. He finally got the callback yesterday.
Turns out his modem is at end-of-life. Even though it worked fine at his previous address (which was also under Comcast service). It only magically hit end-of-life after he moved. (And he has done tech support and IT work for years, so I doubt he slung the thing overhand in the moving van.)
This, of course, is the same Comcast who completely closed out his account when he moved. Even though his new address was also under Comcast. Because no one has ever moved before.
I believe that's covered under littering laws. Or possibly vandalism.
There have already been a couple court cases, I believe, on how far up into the air property rights extend, regarding drone operation. And, again, I believe civilian drone use is already prohibited in the airspace of military bases. (Whether that covers military personnel in on-base housing, playing with drones, I couldn't tell you.)
There are a wide range of commercial drones that shockingly are not armed with military munitions. Technically, those $10 quad-copter remote controlled toys you can buy at a mall kiosk are drones.
Basically, we have the right to do anything without fear of legal repercussions, where there is no law prohibiting it.
Want to have 100 pink plastic flamingos in your front yard? There's no law against it. (HOA regulations, maybe.)
Want to cover your car (sans windshield) in Christmas lights? There's no law against it.
Want to fly a remote-controlled drone? There's no law against it. Except where prohibited by law.
That's the point here. This law would say "You can't fly drones where it would interfere with these activities." But you currently have the right to fly a drone anywhere that it isn't currently prohibited (say, over military bases), because that's how this works.
Look, I loathe most everything that the Trump administration has done thus far, but as written, this doesn't sound too bad.
If some moron is hindering fire-fighting operations with a drone, then yes, there should be ways to deal with it without having to worry about the drone owner threatening a lawsuit.
Now, I object to to the records of such anti-drone activities being exempt from freedom of information laws.
That's because in-person voter fraud is so shockingly rare as to be non-existent. Depending on the state, it can be very easy to register to vote fraudulently, or send in a fraudulent mail ballot.
But in-person voter fraud, which is the only type of voter fraud that picture IDs would address, hardly ever happens. But it's the only type of voter fraud that gets fixated on by the GOP.
In-person voter fraud is shockingly rare. (Some states have mandated picture ID or other forms of identification to vote for years, by the way.) From 2000-2012, there were 2,068 cases of voter fraud. 10 of those were in-person voter fraud.
10.
So, the ostensible goal of most of these voter ID laws, that they need to be in place to stop voter fraud, is really a non-factor. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Then why do it?
Well, for one, it's an appeal to ignorance. "There has to be voter fraud, we don't have any way to stop it!" Except, of course, we do. Even states that don't require picture ID have methods of catching fraudulent ballots.
For another, it's clearly being used as a way to block certain types of voters (poor, minorities) from legally accessing one of their rights. It's not a coincidence that those blocks of voters tend towards voting for the Democratic party.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think it makes sense that everyone should have a picture ID. It's damn useful to be able to prove who you are to the cops, to potential employers, whatever.
But let's make it accessible. Don't close down places that provide picture ID, don't make it harder.
No political party with honest intent should be trying to restrict people from voting.
Because the President keeps going there, and it's completely unrealistic to assume that either he or some of the WH staff don't bring some sort of work with them. At the very least, they're bringing laptops, phones (you have noticed that the President tweets a lot, right?), and so on.
Hell, even if those laptops and phones are secured properly, given how much a membership at the resort costs, it's asinine that the private resort doesn't have better security. And considering that foreign dignitaries have gone there since Trump has become President, those foreign governments have to be concerned about that lack of security as well.
As a counterpoint, though, super intellectual movies tend to have less special effects, CGI, etc. which runs up the costs. Sure, they might be spending a fair chunk of change on actors who can actually do that sort of work, but overall those films generally cost less money to produce, as opposed to a CGI fest like the Power Rangers movie (which has bombed).
They can do whatever they want with regards to hosting or not hosting videos. Hell, they could decide tomorrow that they don't want the hassle any more, and stop supporting video posting and live feeds.
It's actually cheaper in the long run to house homeless people than to leave them on the streets. And seriously, the rich are always going to find tax loopholes or tax breaks. Why shouldn't they do something that helps other people instead of just using some loophole that other benefits them?
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the GOP thinks it's going to maintain control of the House after the 2018 midterm elections, I'm not sure that there's _ANYTHING_ that would be strong enough for Paul Ryan to allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House.
But if it starts to really look like the GOP could lose control of the House due to carrying Trump's water.... well, that could change things. Now, that would require the GOP to lose over 20 seats in the House, so it would take a metric shitload of disaffected GOP voters for that to happen. And with the gerrymandering currently in place that makes a lot of those seats very safe.... it's not likely to happen.
But the threat of it could still make them look at impeachment more seriously.
Not "Tear up", per se, but here's a quote from her in the article:
"And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."
Yeah, that doesn't sound fucked up at all.
And five will get you ten that, during the confirmation hearing, at least one Senator asks "Did Trump ask you for a pledge of loyalty to him?"
Because the NSA is trying to protect the source(s) of their information? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Trump's spent a bit of time already shitting on our intelligence community, so I really doubt they're holding back this information in loyalty to him.
But protecting one or more sources who got us that information? I can see that. Plus, we already have the knowledge that Trump can't really be trusted with this sort of information, because it's possible he could blab it to whoever.
We get to join Nicaragua and Syria in not being part of the Paris Climate Accord. And Nicaragua didn't sign it because they think it doesn't go far enough.
But there were other jobs to be had.
First, it didn't go from 80% working on farms to 4% instantly. There was a transition period. (Actually, quite a lengthy one.) Now, we're also going to have a transition period when self-driving cars become commonplace (my personal estimate is within the next 10-15 years).
Second, as those jobs moved away from farm work, there were jobs in urban areas to be had in manufacturing. The early assembly lines (like, say for making cars) were still manual labor intensive.
So, the question is, when self-driving cars and trucks become commonplace, and those jobs become superfluous, where do the people with those jobs go?
Okay, sure, even when self-driving cars take off, not every taxi company or trucking company is going to immediately move to them. As I said above, there's going to be a transition period. There will be early adopters, and late adopters. But that doesn't answer the question of "what jobs will those drivers move to?", it merely spreads it out over years.
At my last job (retail), at one point, I had built up enough time off to take two weeks in a row off, and still have some time off left. So, you know, I did.
A week into the vacation, I go into work to pick up my paycheck (because direct deposit through the job was specifically not working for me), and my manager is there. On a Saturday morning. Which never happens.
He takes one look at me, and says "Never again." "What?" "I'm never letting you take two weeks off IN A ROW again." Apparently, nobody but me really liked working the graveyard shift, AND all the weirdos and jerks who I normally dealt with came in during the first week and had a collective case of the chapped ass.
Except that sometimes it's not just the degree.
My first degree was in Mechanical Engineering. Couldn't get a job. Hell, I only got a few interviews, and most places that were advertising openings were barely responding to resume inquiries.
My second degree was in Computer Science. I got the timing of that down just as the Dot-com crash was in full swing. So, I had a second degree in the wrong field at the wrong time, as people weren't exactly hiring fresh graduates when they could hire someone with a half-dozen or more years of experience who was willing to work for the same amount of compensation.
Yes, if you get a degree in Underwater Basket-weaving, you have no one to blame but yourself (and whoever talked you into that major.)
Part of the problem is that most U.S. universities do not give a solitary fuck what you major in, as long as you pay tuition. They couldn't care less that you can't find a job unless they're one of those colleges that advertises what percent of their graduates are employed within so many months of graduating. And a fair number of those pad their numbers in various ways.
Part of the problem is that the housing market is out of whack.
Using data for 1972, when you compare median household income and median house price, the house price is ~325% of the income.
Using data for 2015, when you compare median household income and median house price, the house price is ~525% of the income.
Just a bit of difference there. Now, part of that is different (more exacting) house construction standards, increased costs of construction materials, and so on, but that much of a difference?
Yes, some millennials have poor spending habits and poor savings habits. But the increased cost of houses also plays a part. Not to mention student debt. (And DeVos seems to give not a single fuck about that.)
Hell, I barely use my smartphone's data plan and my bill is around $45 a month. Admittedly, I am an outlier when it comes to such things, as I am over 40 and only got a smartphone last year.
Yes, but then you're stuck with Comcast. And they're terrible.
A friend of mine has been having troubling streaming a livestream of his games, so he called his provider, Comcast.
The tech drone at the other end couldn't solve his problem (hardly unique to Comcast), and elevated it to second-tier, which was supposed to get back to him the next day. That was last week. He finally got the callback yesterday.
Turns out his modem is at end-of-life. Even though it worked fine at his previous address (which was also under Comcast service). It only magically hit end-of-life after he moved. (And he has done tech support and IT work for years, so I doubt he slung the thing overhand in the moving van.)
This, of course, is the same Comcast who completely closed out his account when he moved. Even though his new address was also under Comcast. Because no one has ever moved before.
I believe that's covered under littering laws. Or possibly vandalism.
There have already been a couple court cases, I believe, on how far up into the air property rights extend, regarding drone operation. And, again, I believe civilian drone use is already prohibited in the airspace of military bases. (Whether that covers military personnel in on-base housing, playing with drones, I couldn't tell you.)
There are a wide range of commercial drones that shockingly are not armed with military munitions. Technically, those $10 quad-copter remote controlled toys you can buy at a mall kiosk are drones.
"Anything not proscribed is permitted."
Basically, we have the right to do anything without fear of legal repercussions, where there is no law prohibiting it.
Want to have 100 pink plastic flamingos in your front yard? There's no law against it. (HOA regulations, maybe.)
Want to cover your car (sans windshield) in Christmas lights? There's no law against it.
Want to fly a remote-controlled drone? There's no law against it. Except where prohibited by law.
That's the point here. This law would say "You can't fly drones where it would interfere with these activities." But you currently have the right to fly a drone anywhere that it isn't currently prohibited (say, over military bases), because that's how this works.
Look, I loathe most everything that the Trump administration has done thus far, but as written, this doesn't sound too bad.
If some moron is hindering fire-fighting operations with a drone, then yes, there should be ways to deal with it without having to worry about the drone owner threatening a lawsuit.
Now, I object to to the records of such anti-drone activities being exempt from freedom of information laws.
That's because in-person voter fraud is so shockingly rare as to be non-existent. Depending on the state, it can be very easy to register to vote fraudulently, or send in a fraudulent mail ballot.
But in-person voter fraud, which is the only type of voter fraud that picture IDs would address, hardly ever happens. But it's the only type of voter fraud that gets fixated on by the GOP.
In-person voter fraud is shockingly rare. (Some states have mandated picture ID or other forms of identification to vote for years, by the way.) From 2000-2012, there were 2,068 cases of voter fraud. 10 of those were in-person voter fraud.
10.
So, the ostensible goal of most of these voter ID laws, that they need to be in place to stop voter fraud, is really a non-factor. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Then why do it?
Well, for one, it's an appeal to ignorance. "There has to be voter fraud, we don't have any way to stop it!" Except, of course, we do. Even states that don't require picture ID have methods of catching fraudulent ballots.
For another, it's clearly being used as a way to block certain types of voters (poor, minorities) from legally accessing one of their rights. It's not a coincidence that those blocks of voters tend towards voting for the Democratic party.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think it makes sense that everyone should have a picture ID. It's damn useful to be able to prove who you are to the cops, to potential employers, whatever.
But let's make it accessible. Don't close down places that provide picture ID, don't make it harder.
No political party with honest intent should be trying to restrict people from voting.
Well, I assume they were smart enough to not do this when the President was actually there.
Because the President keeps going there, and it's completely unrealistic to assume that either he or some of the WH staff don't bring some sort of work with them. At the very least, they're bringing laptops, phones (you have noticed that the President tweets a lot, right?), and so on.
Hell, even if those laptops and phones are secured properly, given how much a membership at the resort costs, it's asinine that the private resort doesn't have better security. And considering that foreign dignitaries have gone there since Trump has become President, those foreign governments have to be concerned about that lack of security as well.
Because he's an arrogant prick who thinks that he can do whatever he wants without consequences.
I don't think we need to worry about that. There's an infinite supply of jokes to be made at the expense of politicians.
As a counterpoint, though, super intellectual movies tend to have less special effects, CGI, etc. which runs up the costs. Sure, they might be spending a fair chunk of change on actors who can actually do that sort of work, but overall those films generally cost less money to produce, as opposed to a CGI fest like the Power Rangers movie (which has bombed).
Facebook isn't a government agency.
They can do whatever they want with regards to hosting or not hosting videos. Hell, they could decide tomorrow that they don't want the hassle any more, and stop supporting video posting and live feeds.
It's actually cheaper in the long run to house homeless people than to leave them on the streets. And seriously, the rich are always going to find tax loopholes or tax breaks. Why shouldn't they do something that helps other people instead of just using some loophole that other benefits them?
"Are there no prisons?"
You're about eight months early, Scrooge.