Wrong persecuted minority (which is not to say many of Trump's more extreme supporters wouldn't push for that.) Trump has focused on Mexican immigrants and Muslim refugees as the go-to scapegoats to be demonized.
I've looked at those phones. 1Gb really does seem to be the absolute floor right now for memory, and has been for several years. The phone I bought I mentioned had 1Gb of RAM was literally the cheapest T-Mobile prepaid (I have a plan, but obviously their prepaid phones work and are easy to buy) at Wal-mart that day, costing something like $30. And that was over two years ago.
Where are you seeing a prepaid Android phone that has less than 1Gb of RAM, and what make and model is it? Other than three or four year old discontinued models, it's hard to believe they're still out there.
The last few phones I bought were "entry level", and one had 1Gb, the other three 2Gb, of RAM, and both of the latter had recent versions of Android so were capable of just adding the SD card storage to the internal space without the user having to manage where files go.
I think there's a case for making Android lighter in general, but aiming to support devices with half a gigabyte... who is making phones that poorly spec'd?
That already happens, people will get a full time job and then a part time job to make ends meet. Or in some cases multiple part time jobs. This isn't unusual in the US, it's the norm for people on low incomes, and it's probably ultimately devastating both for the people involved and for productivity.
I doubt moving to a four hour day (or rather a three day week) would actually result in much of a rise in the number of people doing this (assuming total pay remains the same or in the same ballpark), as most jobs would schedule the same hours, just as they do today.
Let's suppose that it happened again, do you think the OR DOJ would be as likely to find that it violated the law? Or do you think they might feel some pressure to drag out the investigation, or not investigate at all saying they have higher priorities.
They'd be likedly to find that it violated the law, given there's precedent and absolutely no risk associated with prosecution.
No one is against accountability. But at the same time, harsh penalties can counter-intuitively reduce accountability by either a "circle the wagons" mentality and/or desire not to investigate fully in order not to produce a paper trail.
Yes, but that would apply to whatever department violated the law in the first place, and they have little incentive to cover it up. This was fairly clear cut: they weren't simply ignoring the engineer's comments, but trying to intimidate him with a lawsuit. If they do it again, no amount of hiding paper trails is going to remove the evidence that they filed a bogus lawsuit against someone to intimidate them.
If there's literally no paper trail, then the head of the department that made the decision is the one that'll get fired. That gives him or her a pretty strong incentive not to do it.
You're acting like this was a procedural misstep. It wasn't. It was, very obviously, a malicious, false, lawsuit filed by an out of control publicly funded body that cannot take criticism despite being absolutely required to by the nature of its existence within a democracy. That's a level of malice where, actually, you do need to think in terms of removing people. You might even need to think of closing the office altogether.
Your comments, while I'm sure well meant and while applicable in scenarios like "The engineer crashed the train after failing to slow at a signal where this happens frequently", or even "They specified the wrong load rating for the bridge", doesn't apply here. It's not that kind of situation.
Hating Nazis is not a vice. The GP is correct to have that opinion, it's normal and healthy to hate things that want to murder massive segments of the population for no good reason.
(What the hell has this country come to that this even needs to be said? And the same people who are all "Let's not hate the Nazis" get really angry when you point out the frightening parallels between the rise of the current leader and several 1930s fascist leaders.)
That's what the NN debate is about in legal terms, whether to regulate ISPs (and the ISP side of telecommunication providers) as common carriers or not. The ISPs have, largely fearing over-regulation, always pushed back against that, but from any sane point of view they're no different to any other telecommunication providers, and ought to be regulated along the same model.
The "Not responsible" bit came with the DMCA and some other laws passed during the 1990s. Effectively the ISPs have the same privileges as common carriers as long as they follow certain procedures for dealing with content. But no, Comcast deciding to drop CNN.COM unless CNN pays more money wouldn't mean they'd be suddenly responsible for what MSNBC.COM or FOXNEWS.COM publishes.
I think the Senator's point was that - those who would normally be hit with an estate tax (those in the top 10%) tend to actually invest their funds.
I think he's making it up as he goes along.
How many multi-millionaires that actually earned their money by typically building small businesses or investing in tangible assets (real estate) will, as they are contemplating the passing of their assets to their heirs, go "ooh, shiny Ethereum kittehs!"?
No idea, but it's not the multimillionaires who build small businesses or invest in tangible assets that the estate tax hits, it's their heirs. There's absolutely no reason to believe that their heirs are going to be super responsible with their windfall.
If what you're arguing is seriously the logic, then I suspect it demonstrates the confusion by many conservatives who argue the tax is a "Death Tax". It isn't. It's a windfall tax on people who suddenly gain extremely valuable assets without earning them in any way.
The bailout of GM and Chrysler was both necessary (had it not occurred, not merely would those two have sunk, but every one of their suppliers, which would have had a knock on effect of killing Ford and probably one or two of the non-US companies that builds cars in the US) and well done - subsidizing electric cars (and EV research in the case of GM) meant we were much closer to being able to phase out ICE based cars and produce cheaper, safer, and environmentally better electric cars instead.
It's a triumph of ideology that you'd be sitting there complaining about it. And it's a triumph of hypocrisy you'd be sitting here complaining about it on the Internet, another example of the US government spending money for the public good to create something where the benefits were both short term and long term. The Internet wasn't built by Comcast.
He missed the boat on what? It's either cash or a pyramid scheme. These are two mutually exclusive uses. You cannot celebrate the absurd valuations BTC has right now, and simultaneously run around claiming it's something that allows society to conduct direct sales.
You're not really making a great case for not outlawing Bitcoin, a "currency" whose value fluctuates by 1000% under normal conditions, and which does so not in response to attempts to maintain the economy by a democratically accountable government, but because of speculation and stupidity.
That's not the question. The question is would he have been arrested had he dropped blank leaflets, or leaflets expressing an opinion opposite to that expressed, or leaflets discussing the moderation system of Slashdot.
My guess is yes. Dropping leaflets would appear to be problematic for all kinds of reasons, and I suspect many of those reasons overlap with overt prohibitions in codes the FAA enforces.
Most electricity is generated from fossil fuels, so it would be hit by the same tax.
Kinda. You state the inefficiency of electric cars by only measuring fuel->drivetrain efficiency, but:
1. Ground->Distribution for fuel is much more efficient for electric power plants than for cars: power plants can make use of trains and pipelines, cars have to use a network of fueling stations.
2. Not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels
3. Centralized electricity generation provides fewer points for environmental clean-up, making it both easier and more efficient, thus cutting any (sane) environmental fuel tax significantly
4. ICE engines can't generally turn braking energy into gasoline. While regenerative braking's efficiency is frequently overstated, it's still a factor.
Real world experience seems to support the notion that electric cars are more efficient. People generally run them for pennies (well, dimes - that's a 10c coin for non-Americans out there) a day, as opposed to dollars for ICE engines. If it were somehow more efficient to fuel a diesel VW Golf than a Tesla, then you'd expect that to be reflected in the relative costs of running them. Existing taxes on gasoline and diesel are tiny, and indeed gasoline is frequently subsidized, both by government and by the businesses selling it (the 7-Eleven, not the pump, is where the money's made in an average US gas station) so that doesn't explain why it cost so much more.
That's what's being glossed over in the environmental movement's crusade to eliminate diesel vehicles based solely on emissions.
It's not lost, it was originally a popular argument in the 1980s, before it became clear that diesel was significantly worse with emissions per gallon than gasoline. France even subsidized diesel for a while, leading to massive pollution problems. Burning diesel may result in less CO2 per mile than gasoline, but the health effects are disastrous when the other pollutants are taken into account.
Despite being a tiny minority of vehicles and accounting for a relatively small percentage of total fuel sold, diesel-powered vehicles and equipment account for nearly half of all nitrogen oxides (NOx) and more than two-thirds of all particulate matter (PM) emissions from US transportation sources. Tens of thousands of people die in the US every year due to particulate pollution, this isn't a theoretical problem.
Is it solvable? Sure. If burned at scale, it becomes easy to do "clean diesel" using a mixture of fuel additives and filters and converters of various kinds. At scale in practice means "Anything the size of a Diesel locomotive, or larger, with, like the locomotive, a dedicated team of support staff on hand to change filters and maintain additives, who aren't going to shirk off the job dismissing it as "treehugger bullshit from the lieberals in Washington."
Electric cars make sense. Increased use of diesel would be a massive retrograde step towards dirty air and the kind of issues with mass respiratory syndromes that I saw when I grew up with in the 1970s and 1980s and haven't seen since. Let's not do that.
Redbox goes into Walmart and buys a copy of the same movie. Why are they treated differently?
Because RedBox is easier to find and prosecute, and the payoff would be bigger. To sue "you" in your description, they'd have to know you did it, know who you are, and they'd be lucky to get a few hundred dollars in compensation.
It's the same thing as, say, littering. Someone throwing a paper cup out of their car window on I-95 with no police around is treated entirely differently to someone who loads up their truck with paper cups, chicken bones, and unsold copies of Linux Journal (too soon?), and dumps them in full view of Donald Trump on a Mar-a-Lago golf course, before thumbing his nose and saying "Hey, here's my driver's license you orange asshole."
So, to be clear: Feminists - for due process. You - apparently opposed to anything that would involve investigating harassment complaints. Which puts Feminists firmly on the right side of this argument and makes a mockery of your assertion that Feminists think that the possibility that women might lie shouldn't relate to policy.
This makes perfect sense as there's an untapped market for people who want to take their cars to the airport, presumably wanting to make use of those "Fly your car to LA for just $69" offers United is always advertising.
Also why has Slashdot changed their colors from blue to green? Ever since Hillary Clinton won the election, I've noticed things are really odd, like the office lunatic who keeps banging on about alternative universes and promised me if I don't shut up about how wonderful it is we finally have a cure for cancer, and have world peace, he'd send me to the worst universe.
It is taken as an axiom of feminist thinking that if women ever lie about such things, it is so rare as to be unworthy of altering public policy. If you tell us you have never seen this sort of thinking you are either too ignorant of feminist arguments to have an opinion worth a damn or you are lying because it is repeated by every major and most minor feminists on the Internet.
Nope.
I have never heard this. Feminists are well aware there have been liars in the past, but most point out that the issue isn't with the liars being believed, it's with the fact that it's very, very, hard for a woman to be taken seriously at all who claims sexual assault of any kind.
Merely having an open investigation can destroy a career or someone's life, so just starting one because some woman said someone did bad things is guaranteed to hurt a lot of innocent men.
This entire sentence makes me think that there's heavy projection on your part when you assert the position of Feminists is so extreme that they don't want liars to be taken into account when determining public policy. Not even investigating a sexual assault accusation because some women have lied when making them?
I've seen it happen, and unfortunately that sort of speech is not defamation per se despite it being a malicious, quasi-statement of fact aimed at hurting a reputation with no evidence to back it up other than feelz.
Actually making a maliciously false statement of fact that hurts someone's reputation is defamation. I'm not sure where you get it from that it isn't. Maybe you're confusing the act with the difficulty of prosecution, namely it's a civil offense and notoriously difficult (and expensive!) to litigate and, well, doesn't generally, in the end, result in anything positive for either side? Defamation cases are usually pointless and harmful unless your sole intent is to harm someone who defamed you, and the consequences be damned.
Meanwhile, do we have any examples of people whose lives were ruined by false accusations? The most famous person I can think of who was subject to almost certainly false accusations of rape is Bill Clinton. He got elected President, and remains a prominent figure in politics. The accusations seem to be gaining more traction right now, largely as part of the unveiling of accusations against large numbers of people from Bill O'Reilly to Harvey Weinstein, but he was on Conan three weeks ago. Clinton has never been exonerated, it's just pretty clear that the accusations were part of a smear campaign that includes allegations varying from real estate fraud to murder.
Who else? The Village Voice article was debunked and nobody's feeling anything but sympathy for the people originally accused, which contradicts the notion that once exonerated people's lives are still ruined. I've heard people claim other people's accusations were "proven false", but when I've done the research I've found the putative "victim" of such false allegations actually had a history. "Mattress Girl" Emma Sulkowicz's attacker, for example, was accused of assault by three other women, and supposedly the evidence she wasn't raped herself was because the local definition of rape excluded the specific actions her attacker took at the time he took them, despite the fact she wasn't consenting at the time.
3. We don't even do this for murder. The government's investigators do a preliminary examination, usually as discretely as possible, to determine if it was a murder or some other form of death.
This is part of a process of investigation.
4. Most "sex crimes" involving adults don't have signs of coercion that could be used to prove a lack of consent. It's entirely based on her word against his. If you have sex with your wife tonight and don't use a condom, she can go to the police tomorrow and accuse you of rape. The evidence that
And in most of the cases that come to the public's attention, it's altered into a political ideology of 'men are evil, time to put them down'
Citation required. I've only ever seen that depiction of Feminism in MRA/Right wing forums (and, of course, on Slashdot.)
Funnily enough I do see the term "egalitarian", which the GGGP (enough Gs?) used almost exclusively as "I consider Feminism to be {some straw man}, I believe in true equality, and BTW I think we're already there and that women are paid less/sexually harassed/etc for entirely reasonable reasons and should shut up and stop whining about it." So unlike AmiMojo, I wouldn't describe the two "movements" as complementary, I'd reject the label for myself. I might agree with a literal definition of egalitarianism, but no way am I going to associate with people who use the term to separate themselves from Feminists and other people fighting for civil rights.
I think Feminism, the theory that women are people, and should be respected as such, and not subject to undue social, legal, and systemic barriers that men aren't subject to, is a completely reasonable position. I also think that while we've seen legal (and constitutional) barriers broken down, we continue to see problems on the social and systemic fronts. So Feminism still needs support. And if you're a decent human being, you'll give that support, whether you call it Feminism or something else.
But the chances are if you say "That's not Feminism, Feminism is short haired women in boiler suits saying 'All men are rapists!!!', I know this because Carl of Swindon did a really awesome takedown of an Anita Sarkeesian video I've never watched", you probably don't support the non-strawman Feminist agenda either, and have decided Feminists are "All men are rapists!" types not because Carl of Swindon is a whiz with the videos, but because you were looking for some excuse to ignore them.
That's my observation anyway. I'd hope you didn't fall into that latter category.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong persecuted minority (which is not to say many of Trump's more extreme supporters wouldn't push for that.) Trump has focused on Mexican immigrants and Muslim refugees as the go-to scapegoats to be demonized.
I've looked at those phones. 1Gb really does seem to be the absolute floor right now for memory, and has been for several years. The phone I bought I mentioned had 1Gb of RAM was literally the cheapest T-Mobile prepaid (I have a plan, but obviously their prepaid phones work and are easy to buy) at Wal-mart that day, costing something like $30. And that was over two years ago.
Where are you seeing a prepaid Android phone that has less than 1Gb of RAM, and what make and model is it? Other than three or four year old discontinued models, it's hard to believe they're still out there.
The last few phones I bought were "entry level", and one had 1Gb, the other three 2Gb, of RAM, and both of the latter had recent versions of Android so were capable of just adding the SD card storage to the internal space without the user having to manage where files go.
I think there's a case for making Android lighter in general, but aiming to support devices with half a gigabyte... who is making phones that poorly spec'd?
That already happens, people will get a full time job and then a part time job to make ends meet. Or in some cases multiple part time jobs. This isn't unusual in the US, it's the norm for people on low incomes, and it's probably ultimately devastating both for the people involved and for productivity.
I doubt moving to a four hour day (or rather a three day week) would actually result in much of a rise in the number of people doing this (assuming total pay remains the same or in the same ballpark), as most jobs would schedule the same hours, just as they do today.
They'd be likedly to find that it violated the law, given there's precedent and absolutely no risk associated with prosecution.
Yes, but that would apply to whatever department violated the law in the first place, and they have little incentive to cover it up. This was fairly clear cut: they weren't simply ignoring the engineer's comments, but trying to intimidate him with a lawsuit. If they do it again, no amount of hiding paper trails is going to remove the evidence that they filed a bogus lawsuit against someone to intimidate them.
If there's literally no paper trail, then the head of the department that made the decision is the one that'll get fired. That gives him or her a pretty strong incentive not to do it.
You're acting like this was a procedural misstep. It wasn't. It was, very obviously, a malicious, false, lawsuit filed by an out of control publicly funded body that cannot take criticism despite being absolutely required to by the nature of its existence within a democracy. That's a level of malice where, actually, you do need to think in terms of removing people. You might even need to think of closing the office altogether.
Your comments, while I'm sure well meant and while applicable in scenarios like "The engineer crashed the train after failing to slow at a signal where this happens frequently", or even "They specified the wrong load rating for the bridge", doesn't apply here. It's not that kind of situation.
Hating Nazis is not a vice. The GP is correct to have that opinion, it's normal and healthy to hate things that want to murder massive segments of the population for no good reason.
(What the hell has this country come to that this even needs to be said? And the same people who are all "Let's not hate the Nazis" get really angry when you point out the frightening parallels between the rise of the current leader and several 1930s fascist leaders.)
That's what the NN debate is about in legal terms, whether to regulate ISPs (and the ISP side of telecommunication providers) as common carriers or not. The ISPs have, largely fearing over-regulation, always pushed back against that, but from any sane point of view they're no different to any other telecommunication providers, and ought to be regulated along the same model.
The "Not responsible" bit came with the DMCA and some other laws passed during the 1990s. Effectively the ISPs have the same privileges as common carriers as long as they follow certain procedures for dealing with content. But no, Comcast deciding to drop CNN.COM unless CNN pays more money wouldn't mean they'd be suddenly responsible for what MSNBC.COM or FOXNEWS.COM publishes.
I think he's making it up as he goes along.
No idea, but it's not the multimillionaires who build small businesses or invest in tangible assets that the estate tax hits, it's their heirs. There's absolutely no reason to believe that their heirs are going to be super responsible with their windfall.
If what you're arguing is seriously the logic, then I suspect it demonstrates the confusion by many conservatives who argue the tax is a "Death Tax". It isn't. It's a windfall tax on people who suddenly gain extremely valuable assets without earning them in any way.
They'll just move from 70% to 100% general fund funding. Roads haven't paid for themselves in decades. Why start now?
The bailout of GM and Chrysler was both necessary (had it not occurred, not merely would those two have sunk, but every one of their suppliers, which would have had a knock on effect of killing Ford and probably one or two of the non-US companies that builds cars in the US) and well done - subsidizing electric cars (and EV research in the case of GM) meant we were much closer to being able to phase out ICE based cars and produce cheaper, safer, and environmentally better electric cars instead.
It's a triumph of ideology that you'd be sitting there complaining about it. And it's a triumph of hypocrisy you'd be sitting here complaining about it on the Internet, another example of the US government spending money for the public good to create something where the benefits were both short term and long term. The Internet wasn't built by Comcast.
Removable/swappable batteries? Madness. Next you'll want headphone jacks.
Gold's ability to be converted into jewelry (and toilets for people who want to be ostentatious with their wealth) helps.
He missed the boat on what? It's either cash or a pyramid scheme. These are two mutually exclusive uses. You cannot celebrate the absurd valuations BTC has right now, and simultaneously run around claiming it's something that allows society to conduct direct sales.
You're not really making a great case for not outlawing Bitcoin, a "currency" whose value fluctuates by 1000% under normal conditions, and which does so not in response to attempts to maintain the economy by a democratically accountable government, but because of speculation and stupidity.
That's not the question. The question is would he have been arrested had he dropped blank leaflets, or leaflets expressing an opinion opposite to that expressed, or leaflets discussing the moderation system of Slashdot.
My guess is yes. Dropping leaflets would appear to be problematic for all kinds of reasons, and I suspect many of those reasons overlap with overt prohibitions in codes the FAA enforces.
Kinda. You state the inefficiency of electric cars by only measuring fuel->drivetrain efficiency, but:
1. Ground->Distribution for fuel is much more efficient for electric power plants than for cars: power plants can make use of trains and pipelines, cars have to use a network of fueling stations.
2. Not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels
3. Centralized electricity generation provides fewer points for environmental clean-up, making it both easier and more efficient, thus cutting any (sane) environmental fuel tax significantly
4. ICE engines can't generally turn braking energy into gasoline. While regenerative braking's efficiency is frequently overstated, it's still a factor.
Real world experience seems to support the notion that electric cars are more efficient. People generally run them for pennies (well, dimes - that's a 10c coin for non-Americans out there) a day, as opposed to dollars for ICE engines. If it were somehow more efficient to fuel a diesel VW Golf than a Tesla, then you'd expect that to be reflected in the relative costs of running them. Existing taxes on gasoline and diesel are tiny, and indeed gasoline is frequently subsidized, both by government and by the businesses selling it (the 7-Eleven, not the pump, is where the money's made in an average US gas station) so that doesn't explain why it cost so much more.
It's not lost, it was originally a popular argument in the 1980s, before it became clear that diesel was significantly worse with emissions per gallon than gasoline. France even subsidized diesel for a while, leading to massive pollution problems. Burning diesel may result in less CO2 per mile than gasoline, but the health effects are disastrous when the other pollutants are taken into account.
Despite being a tiny minority of vehicles and accounting for a relatively small percentage of total fuel sold, diesel-powered vehicles and equipment account for nearly half of all nitrogen oxides (NOx) and more than two-thirds of all particulate matter (PM) emissions from US transportation sources. Tens of thousands of people die in the US every year due to particulate pollution, this isn't a theoretical problem.
Is it solvable? Sure. If burned at scale, it becomes easy to do "clean diesel" using a mixture of fuel additives and filters and converters of various kinds. At scale in practice means "Anything the size of a Diesel locomotive, or larger, with, like the locomotive, a dedicated team of support staff on hand to change filters and maintain additives, who aren't going to shirk off the job dismissing it as "treehugger bullshit from the lieberals in Washington."
Electric cars make sense. Increased use of diesel would be a massive retrograde step towards dirty air and the kind of issues with mass respiratory syndromes that I saw when I grew up with in the 1970s and 1980s and haven't seen since. Let's not do that.
Because RedBox is easier to find and prosecute, and the payoff would be bigger. To sue "you" in your description, they'd have to know you did it, know who you are, and they'd be lucky to get a few hundred dollars in compensation.
It's the same thing as, say, littering. Someone throwing a paper cup out of their car window on I-95 with no police around is treated entirely differently to someone who loads up their truck with paper cups, chicken bones, and unsold copies of Linux Journal (too soon?), and dumps them in full view of Donald Trump on a Mar-a-Lago golf course, before thumbing his nose and saying "Hey, here's my driver's license you orange asshole."
20 programmers, 1180 managers. You know how it works.
Oh, and by coincidence USA Today last week tried to get a Feminist to advocate the kind of crap you're accusing Feminists of advocating. They failed to find anyone who supported just firing accused harassers without due process.
So, to be clear: Feminists - for due process. You - apparently opposed to anything that would involve investigating harassment complaints. Which puts Feminists firmly on the right side of this argument and makes a mockery of your assertion that Feminists think that the possibility that women might lie shouldn't relate to policy.
How old is the El and has anyone come up with any advances since in less noisy construction technologies?
This makes perfect sense as there's an untapped market for people who want to take their cars to the airport, presumably wanting to make use of those "Fly your car to LA for just $69" offers United is always advertising.
Also why has Slashdot changed their colors from blue to green? Ever since Hillary Clinton won the election, I've noticed things are really odd, like the office lunatic who keeps banging on about alternative universes and promised me if I don't shut up about how wonderful it is we finally have a cure for cancer, and have world peace, he'd send me to the worst universe.
Cryptocurrencies are neither crypto, nor currencies. Discuss.
Cross it out and tattoo a "This DNR is null and void - signed (blah)" statement underneath?
Or get a really good Tattoo artist to draw over it so it looks like a really awesome skull riding a motorcycle.
Nope.
I have never heard this. Feminists are well aware there have been liars in the past, but most point out that the issue isn't with the liars being believed, it's with the fact that it's very, very, hard for a woman to be taken seriously at all who claims sexual assault of any kind.
This entire sentence makes me think that there's heavy projection on your part when you assert the position of Feminists is so extreme that they don't want liars to be taken into account when determining public policy. Not even investigating a sexual assault accusation because some women have lied when making them?
Actually making a maliciously false statement of fact that hurts someone's reputation is defamation. I'm not sure where you get it from that it isn't. Maybe you're confusing the act with the difficulty of prosecution, namely it's a civil offense and notoriously difficult (and expensive!) to litigate and, well, doesn't generally, in the end, result in anything positive for either side? Defamation cases are usually pointless and harmful unless your sole intent is to harm someone who defamed you, and the consequences be damned.
Meanwhile, do we have any examples of people whose lives were ruined by false accusations? The most famous person I can think of who was subject to almost certainly false accusations of rape is Bill Clinton. He got elected President, and remains a prominent figure in politics. The accusations seem to be gaining more traction right now, largely as part of the unveiling of accusations against large numbers of people from Bill O'Reilly to Harvey Weinstein, but he was on Conan three weeks ago. Clinton has never been exonerated, it's just pretty clear that the accusations were part of a smear campaign that includes allegations varying from real estate fraud to murder.
Who else? The Village Voice article was debunked and nobody's feeling anything but sympathy for the people originally accused, which contradicts the notion that once exonerated people's lives are still ruined. I've heard people claim other people's accusations were "proven false", but when I've done the research I've found the putative "victim" of such false allegations actually had a history. "Mattress Girl" Emma Sulkowicz's attacker, for example, was accused of assault by three other women, and supposedly the evidence she wasn't raped herself was because the local definition of rape excluded the specific actions her attacker took at the time he took them, despite the fact she wasn't consenting at the time.
This is part of a process of investigation.
Citation required. I've only ever seen that depiction of Feminism in MRA/Right wing forums (and, of course, on Slashdot.)
Funnily enough I do see the term "egalitarian", which the GGGP (enough Gs?) used almost exclusively as "I consider Feminism to be {some straw man}, I believe in true equality, and BTW I think we're already there and that women are paid less/sexually harassed/etc for entirely reasonable reasons and should shut up and stop whining about it." So unlike AmiMojo, I wouldn't describe the two "movements" as complementary, I'd reject the label for myself. I might agree with a literal definition of egalitarianism, but no way am I going to associate with people who use the term to separate themselves from Feminists and other people fighting for civil rights.
I think Feminism, the theory that women are people, and should be respected as such, and not subject to undue social, legal, and systemic barriers that men aren't subject to, is a completely reasonable position. I also think that while we've seen legal (and constitutional) barriers broken down, we continue to see problems on the social and systemic fronts. So Feminism still needs support. And if you're a decent human being, you'll give that support, whether you call it Feminism or something else.
But the chances are if you say "That's not Feminism, Feminism is short haired women in boiler suits saying 'All men are rapists!!!', I know this because Carl of Swindon did a really awesome takedown of an Anita Sarkeesian video I've never watched", you probably don't support the non-strawman Feminist agenda either, and have decided Feminists are "All men are rapists!" types not because Carl of Swindon is a whiz with the videos, but because you were looking for some excuse to ignore them.
That's my observation anyway. I'd hope you didn't fall into that latter category.