On the other hand, you had a guy who so far has not taken any political bribes
It's kinda difficult to take a political bribe when you're not a politician. However, Trump openly bragged about giving political bribes, making it clear he was 100% corrupt.
So it was a choice between someone who you know with a 100% certainty will do something bad, versus someone who might do it but at least he's saying he won't.
Trump never said he wouldn't, he made it clear he was perfectly OK with bribery!
Clinton was just another politician. She wasn't especially corrupt, the worst anyone could say about her that wasn't a blatant distortion was that she was quite happy to get paid huge sums of money for making private speeches to Wall Street. There's never been anything specific anyone could point at that Clinton did in response to getting paid to make speeches, beyond the speeches themselves. Clinton endured a 25 year long smear campaign which threw mud constantly at her, making almost every allegation of wrongdoing against her suspicious and likely false.
Trump? I'm struggling to understand why anyone would think he wasn't going to take bribes. It sounds like a lot of people were so blinded by their hatred of Clinton that they choose to project in Trump a trust that was wholly misplaced, rather than looking at his words and history over 30-40 years, showing him as one of the nation's biggest sleezeballs.
Trump is, and always was, what he claimed Clinton to be, except 100 times worse. I'd like to think the people who voted for him realize this by now, but they're still convinced emailgate and Benghazi were real scandals, and probably still think the Clintons murdered Vince Foster, so they'll never see it.
What about Terminator 2? If you carefully watch the movie as it starts, you realize that you're not supposed to think Arnold S is actually a "good robot". There's only one clue (he doesn't outright kill the bikers, he just, you know, tortures them, permanently disfiguring them, and steals their clothes and stuff, but he doesn't kill them), but until he actually saves Connor for the first time, there's no serious reason to believe he's not out to kill Connor.
Spoiled by every trailer of the movie, plus, in fairness, most of the reviews.
In the article you link to the inflation adjusted line seems to imply that prices have barely changed since the 1970s. Also, this may seem stupid, but I recall paying around $10 for a cinema ticket in the early 2000s, I'm surprised to see that article imply it was less than $5 around that time - actually, not surprised, I just don't believe it.
Also to what extent does the different prices for 3D/non-3D factor into this? 3D movies are sold at a premium, the 2D version being charged the same as other 2D movies. Given 3D is entirely optional, does it matter if average ticket prices were raised but only because lots of people decided to buy 3D tickets?
When saying it to feminists they will repeatedly say "you are a man, it does not count".
That's odd, because whenever I'm mentioned being sexually assaulted (at 14), I've had sympathy from Feminists (despite me not actually being all that bothered about the incident - it wasn't at the same sexual violence level as rape.) Maybe the people you were talking to weren't Feminists, but assholes?
The Blu R1 HD costs around $110 without subsidies ($60 with Amazon's subsidy) and has a 720P screen and 2G of RAM (probably beats it on the other specs too.) Alcatel has similar phones in the same price range. This Motorola has a 2007 era screen resolution and 1G of RAM?
Sounds distinctly unimpressive to me. Plus Motorola does sell cheaper phones right now in the same ballpark pricewise. There has to be more to it than "This is what Motorola thinks a cheap phone should be".
Because Windows Update reboots your computer without your permission or control over the process. We're essentially back to Windows 95 in terms of operating system stability because Microsoft cannot figure out how to update an operating system without resetting the computer in the process.
If Windows 10 (1) avoided reboots unless absolutely 100% necessary, and (2) prompted you to reboot (perhaps nagging you until you do) rather than running a timer you often don't even see before it expires do it, then, well, people would be a little happier about the tool.
Updating is good. Microsoft's implementation is shit. If you want people to install security updates, don't do implement it in a way that's indistinguishable from a kernel level bug that crashes your computer every few days.
There's an easy way to avoid making self driving cars that are hacked, and that's to use software that's tried and tested, rather than installing whatever the latest technology is. For example, I would use Windows XP, rather than trying to build a computer based upon Windows 10. The latter has new bugs being introduced all the time.
I would also use the simplest protocols. For example, rather than the latest greatest file transfer protocols which are pretty much guaranteed to have bugs, I would just use XP's built in support for the first version of SMB. That way you should have an operating system that's old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed, combined with an implementation of a networking stack that's old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed, and a networking protocol that itself is old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed.
I believe the AC's point is that the people in all 11 cars can watch a movie.
A couple of other points:
1. The passing lane is the passing lane. It's not for cruising in, and if someone passes you on the right and they're not driving like a crazy person, in many jurisdictions you'll be the one ticketed, not them. That means if self driving cars are following the rules, they're not going to be cruising in the passing lane, for exactly the same reason that they're not going to be breaking the speed limit.
2. The issue with gray haired old ladies is not that they drive at the speed limit. God bless 'em if they ever do. It's that they drive at 50, 45, 50, 45, 40, 39, 45, 35, 50, 34, 40, 42, 40, 45. If they drove at 45 in a 45 zone, there wouldn't a problem, we'd just set our cruise controls and relax.
You don't. I don't. My daughter does (my phone's 5" screen isn't much smaller than those car DVD players anyway, and I can wedge it between the headrest and the main part of my wife's passenger seat while she watches The Cat In The Hat Knows A Lot About That*, or Sid the Science Kid), and apparently a lot of younger adults do too. And that's fine. The entire world doesn't have to revolve around my preferences, there's room for everyone on this fragile planet of our's.
* Yes, that's really its name. It's an education show on PBS and Netflix where the Dr Seuss's most famous creation leads kids on various excursions to learn about everything from planets to bees.
The Telegraph is right wing, but it's hardly a bad newspaper. It's a better paper than anything Murdoch produces. Evening Standard? Sure, I'll give you that one though.
I would take the opposite point of view. What medium it's recorded on is irrelevant - I can't for the life of me see why that would matter to Cannes or anyone else. The point is that it's the intention that the work be shown on a large screen in front of an audience. That reflects the type of work in much the same way that a website and a novel may contain the same number of words, but you'd expect the latter to be written in an entirely different way to the former, in part because the intent is for someone to sit down and read it on their lap over a period of days rather than navigate to the good bits using the computer at their desk.
From Canne's point of view a good way to gauge that intention is to require it be shown in a cinema. That way they can feel reasonably that they're getting the same kind of work, comparing like with like.
Now, is it technologically behind the times? That's arguable. Likewise it's arguable that a test that something should only be eligible for "Novel of the year" that it be printed, bound, and sold in a bookshop, would be behind the times too. But the latter test would be far more behind the times than the former. Netflix doesn't have cinemas yet, and it's doubtful most cinematographers of straight-to-Netflix viewers have a screen hundreds of feet wide in mind when composing shots. So, subtle as it may be, if Cannes has not accepted TV or straight-to-VHS movies before, it's probably right it bans straight-to-Netflix content too.
All of the carriers are moving to the 4G/third version of GSM, LTE. So that's happening anyway. Verizon and Sprint are treating cdmaOne/cdma2000 as a legacy technology.
So I wouldn't worry about this in the long term. In the short term, there are two nationwide carriers that support the first two versions of GSM (GSM and UMTS) as well as LTE (at&t is phasing out 2G GSM though) so there's absolutely no need to get a combination cdmaOne/GSM phone for traveling.
It already charges the highest prices of the big 4. The major issue is whether it can continue to do so - it succeeds right now by marketing itself as the highest quality network (it isn't, in my experience, I've yet to meet a Verizon customer who didn't sound like they were talking through a garden hose stuffed with paper, but the counter to that is their coverage is good), but the price difference between it and, say, T-Mobile, is so massive, and the coverage difference today so minor right now*, I don't see it lasting.
* Yes, I know {random Slashdotter hitting the Reply button} tried T-Mobile 10 years ago, or even three years ago, and lost coverage in "teh boonies". First of all, all networks have blind spots, and your experience matched what you thought it would, people who didn't have problems with coverage don't tend to mention that. BUT MORE TO THE POINT T-Mobile has massively, massively, improved coverage over the last 2-3 years, and continues to do so. They also didn't have any 700MHz spectrum 3 years ago. They do today and they've been rolling out 700MHz spectrum like crazy. If you go out to the same place you lost coverage last time, the chances are you'll get a signal: if you don't, it's infinitely more likely you have an older phone without band 12 support than it is that there's no signal there.
Almost all games are Win32. Unsure why, I'd have expected them to benefit most of all from more efficient 64 bit instructions, and the latest games aren't generally written to run on older platforms, but 32 bit they generally are.
Oddly enough,the one example of a Win32 application you gave, Chrome, is being phased out on ix86-32 (might already be, for all I know...)
White people without a racist bone in their body were being called racist if they even thought about voting for Trump BY the Hillary campaign.
No they won't. They never were. That's an absolute 100% lie. Clinton didn't even call All Trump supporters racists, despite the fact she would have been 100% within her rights given Trump was running a blatantly racist campaign, and people who were supporting him were supporting that.
The claim people keep making is that they voted for Trump because they were told Trump supporters were racist by Democrats. That logic doesn't, and never will, hold up because it's stupid: if you weren't already a Trump supporter, you wouldn't have been insulted by that comment. If you were, you were going to vote for Trump anyway.
Meanwhile they attacked Trump for being a horn dog while ignoring that Hillary's husband was impeached for the exact same thing but when a Clinton does it it's ok.
Bill Clinton was impeached for "lying under oath", a dubious charge, because he referred to a consensual sexual act as not sex because he believed it legally didn't count as sex. He was not impeached for groping women, he was not impeached for entering the changing rooms of 14 year old models, he wasn't impeached for talking about how sexually attracted he was to his daughter, or any other of the specific and backed up allegations made against Trump.
And the most important part: Bill is not Hillary. Bill Clinton could run "Clinton University" and rip off thousands of poor people, he could have bankrupted numerous suppliers by just not paying them, he could have used Mob labor to build his buildings, he could have a fake charity he stole money from, he could have avoided paying any taxes while living a lavish lifestyle, and he could have, yes, groped and ogled and all the other things Trump is accused of, and it still wouldn't have meant anything negative about Hillary Clinton.
All you can do, six months after that election, is continue making up the most absurd drivel about Clinton and Democrats, rather than address the fact you elected a monster. Think about that, then change course.
This argument is getting old. Nobody changed their vote to Trump because TEH LIEBERALS were saying his EXISTING voters included white supremacists, except, maybe, other white supremacists. Why would you vote for someone who you weren't planning to vote for and hadn't supported until now because you've been told their supporters are horrible people? Especially when they are, actually, horrible people, people like Richard Spencer and David Duke?
It's right there in the first sentence. The number is up 200 million over last year. Microsoft ended its Windows 7/8.x forced upgrades thing over a year ago, so we can reasonably suggest all 200 million are voluntary (or, well, as voluntary as installing the near-monopoly OS is.)
You don't generally find traffic signals on freeways. This article is about junctions on city streets, exactly where you'd expect human beings to be crossing the road.
Absurdly expensive, and as a result very unlikely to happen, instead pedestrians will get the shaft.
We're looking at a country that doesn't build bridges over railroads, and you're expecting city planners, who have been trained since City Planner School, to consider anyone not driving a car with contempt, to build four pedestrian bridges over every single traffic light controlled junction in their cities?
Thanks! So not a holistic strategy but a "Should work in 99% of cases" approach. (StW is still needed for the intermediate clean-ups from the looks of things, but they should be a lot faster and less noticeable.)
I semi-agree with Google on putting a swap on an SD card, I suspect it'd confuse most users if there was some component of their phone they had to replace every few months. It would be nice to have it as an option however...
Yeah, a surprisingly large number of people in my office have one. They do appear to be pretty popular. It could be my experience is unique, but I haven't seen any headlines suggesting Surface is a dud, and let's be honest, when Microsoft releases something that sells poorly (Zune, Lumia) or just doesn't do as well as it could (Windows 8), Slashdot is usually packed with mocking stories on the subject.
I'm still not understanding the "Sanders would totally have won" mentality, even though I voted for him. He's a self-described socialist, and the bulk of the Republican party never even bothered to campaign against him, seeing him as an easily defeated candidate, much as there was little or no campaigning against Trump by Team Hillary until he actually got the nomination.
People who turn around and say "Ah, but anti-establishment!" forget that Trump did a pretty decent job of convincing people that he was anti-establishment, and the "establishment" they were referring to was more of a phantom "center left" group that supposedly was going to force everyone to gay marry Prius driving black Muslim transexuals, than the white, rich, male establishment that actually runs the country.
Sanders was never going to win because you don't actually win fights against that establishment, it's the establishment for a reason, it would not survive unless a majority of the population actually propped it up.
Trump won because he represented the fear by that establishment that it was losing power. Sanders would have lost even more easily than Clinton did. People had to hate Clinton for Clinton to lose. Sanders merely needed to say what he represented.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kinda difficult to take a political bribe when you're not a politician. However, Trump openly bragged about giving political bribes, making it clear he was 100% corrupt.
Trump never said he wouldn't, he made it clear he was perfectly OK with bribery!
Clinton was just another politician. She wasn't especially corrupt, the worst anyone could say about her that wasn't a blatant distortion was that she was quite happy to get paid huge sums of money for making private speeches to Wall Street. There's never been anything specific anyone could point at that Clinton did in response to getting paid to make speeches, beyond the speeches themselves. Clinton endured a 25 year long smear campaign which threw mud constantly at her, making almost every allegation of wrongdoing against her suspicious and likely false.
Trump? I'm struggling to understand why anyone would think he wasn't going to take bribes. It sounds like a lot of people were so blinded by their hatred of Clinton that they choose to project in Trump a trust that was wholly misplaced, rather than looking at his words and history over 30-40 years, showing him as one of the nation's biggest sleezeballs.
The i9 will be sucking 140W of power, it's not really a laptop CPU.
Trump is, and always was, what he claimed Clinton to be, except 100 times worse. I'd like to think the people who voted for him realize this by now, but they're still convinced emailgate and Benghazi were real scandals, and probably still think the Clintons murdered Vince Foster, so they'll never see it.
What about Terminator 2? If you carefully watch the movie as it starts, you realize that you're not supposed to think Arnold S is actually a "good robot". There's only one clue (he doesn't outright kill the bikers, he just, you know, tortures them, permanently disfiguring them, and steals their clothes and stuff, but he doesn't kill them), but until he actually saves Connor for the first time, there's no serious reason to believe he's not out to kill Connor.
Spoiled by every trailer of the movie, plus, in fairness, most of the reviews.
In the article you link to the inflation adjusted line seems to imply that prices have barely changed since the 1970s. Also, this may seem stupid, but I recall paying around $10 for a cinema ticket in the early 2000s, I'm surprised to see that article imply it was less than $5 around that time - actually, not surprised, I just don't believe it.
Also to what extent does the different prices for 3D/non-3D factor into this? 3D movies are sold at a premium, the 2D version being charged the same as other 2D movies. Given 3D is entirely optional, does it matter if average ticket prices were raised but only because lots of people decided to buy 3D tickets?
Apple's next generation replacement for macOS, tvOS, and iOS will be written in PHP.
That's odd, because whenever I'm mentioned being sexually assaulted (at 14), I've had sympathy from Feminists (despite me not actually being all that bothered about the incident - it wasn't at the same sexual violence level as rape.) Maybe the people you were talking to weren't Feminists, but assholes?
The Blu R1 HD costs around $110 without subsidies ($60 with Amazon's subsidy) and has a 720P screen and 2G of RAM (probably beats it on the other specs too.) Alcatel has similar phones in the same price range. This Motorola has a 2007 era screen resolution and 1G of RAM?
Sounds distinctly unimpressive to me. Plus Motorola does sell cheaper phones right now in the same ballpark pricewise. There has to be more to it than "This is what Motorola thinks a cheap phone should be".
Because Windows Update reboots your computer without your permission or control over the process. We're essentially back to Windows 95 in terms of operating system stability because Microsoft cannot figure out how to update an operating system without resetting the computer in the process.
If Windows 10 (1) avoided reboots unless absolutely 100% necessary, and (2) prompted you to reboot (perhaps nagging you until you do) rather than running a timer you often don't even see before it expires do it, then, well, people would be a little happier about the tool.
Updating is good. Microsoft's implementation is shit. If you want people to install security updates, don't do implement it in a way that's indistinguishable from a kernel level bug that crashes your computer every few days.
There's an easy way to avoid making self driving cars that are hacked, and that's to use software that's tried and tested, rather than installing whatever the latest technology is. For example, I would use Windows XP, rather than trying to build a computer based upon Windows 10. The latter has new bugs being introduced all the time.
I would also use the simplest protocols. For example, rather than the latest greatest file transfer protocols which are pretty much guaranteed to have bugs, I would just use XP's built in support for the first version of SMB. That way you should have an operating system that's old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed, combined with an implementation of a networking stack that's old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed, and a networking protocol that itself is old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed.
How say everyone else?
I believe the AC's point is that the people in all 11 cars can watch a movie.
A couple of other points:
1. The passing lane is the passing lane. It's not for cruising in, and if someone passes you on the right and they're not driving like a crazy person, in many jurisdictions you'll be the one ticketed, not them. That means if self driving cars are following the rules, they're not going to be cruising in the passing lane, for exactly the same reason that they're not going to be breaking the speed limit.
2. The issue with gray haired old ladies is not that they drive at the speed limit. God bless 'em if they ever do. It's that they drive at 50, 45, 50, 45, 40, 39, 45, 35, 50, 34, 40, 42, 40, 45. If they drove at 45 in a 45 zone, there wouldn't a problem, we'd just set our cruise controls and relax.
You don't. I don't. My daughter does (my phone's 5" screen isn't much smaller than those car DVD players anyway, and I can wedge it between the headrest and the main part of my wife's passenger seat while she watches The Cat In The Hat Knows A Lot About That*, or Sid the Science Kid), and apparently a lot of younger adults do too. And that's fine. The entire world doesn't have to revolve around my preferences, there's room for everyone on this fragile planet of our's.
* Yes, that's really its name. It's an education show on PBS and Netflix where the Dr Seuss's most famous creation leads kids on various excursions to learn about everything from planets to bees.
The Telegraph is right wing, but it's hardly a bad newspaper. It's a better paper than anything Murdoch produces. Evening Standard? Sure, I'll give you that one though.
I would take the opposite point of view. What medium it's recorded on is irrelevant - I can't for the life of me see why that would matter to Cannes or anyone else. The point is that it's the intention that the work be shown on a large screen in front of an audience. That reflects the type of work in much the same way that a website and a novel may contain the same number of words, but you'd expect the latter to be written in an entirely different way to the former, in part because the intent is for someone to sit down and read it on their lap over a period of days rather than navigate to the good bits using the computer at their desk.
From Canne's point of view a good way to gauge that intention is to require it be shown in a cinema. That way they can feel reasonably that they're getting the same kind of work, comparing like with like.
Now, is it technologically behind the times? That's arguable. Likewise it's arguable that a test that something should only be eligible for "Novel of the year" that it be printed, bound, and sold in a bookshop, would be behind the times too. But the latter test would be far more behind the times than the former. Netflix doesn't have cinemas yet, and it's doubtful most cinematographers of straight-to-Netflix viewers have a screen hundreds of feet wide in mind when composing shots. So, subtle as it may be, if Cannes has not accepted TV or straight-to-VHS movies before, it's probably right it bans straight-to-Netflix content too.
All of the carriers are moving to the 4G/third version of GSM, LTE. So that's happening anyway. Verizon and Sprint are treating cdmaOne/cdma2000 as a legacy technology.
So I wouldn't worry about this in the long term. In the short term, there are two nationwide carriers that support the first two versions of GSM (GSM and UMTS) as well as LTE (at&t is phasing out 2G GSM though) so there's absolutely no need to get a combination cdmaOne/GSM phone for traveling.
It already charges the highest prices of the big 4. The major issue is whether it can continue to do so - it succeeds right now by marketing itself as the highest quality network (it isn't, in my experience, I've yet to meet a Verizon customer who didn't sound like they were talking through a garden hose stuffed with paper, but the counter to that is their coverage is good), but the price difference between it and, say, T-Mobile, is so massive, and the coverage difference today so minor right now*, I don't see it lasting.
* Yes, I know {random Slashdotter hitting the Reply button} tried T-Mobile 10 years ago, or even three years ago, and lost coverage in "teh boonies". First of all, all networks have blind spots, and your experience matched what you thought it would, people who didn't have problems with coverage don't tend to mention that. BUT MORE TO THE POINT T-Mobile has massively, massively, improved coverage over the last 2-3 years, and continues to do so. They also didn't have any 700MHz spectrum 3 years ago. They do today and they've been rolling out 700MHz spectrum like crazy. If you go out to the same place you lost coverage last time, the chances are you'll get a signal: if you don't, it's infinitely more likely you have an older phone without band 12 support than it is that there's no signal there.
Almost all games are Win32. Unsure why, I'd have expected them to benefit most of all from more efficient 64 bit instructions, and the latest games aren't generally written to run on older platforms, but 32 bit they generally are.
Oddly enough,the one example of a Win32 application you gave, Chrome, is being phased out on ix86-32 (might already be, for all I know...)
No they won't. They never were. That's an absolute 100% lie. Clinton didn't even call All Trump supporters racists, despite the fact she would have been 100% within her rights given Trump was running a blatantly racist campaign, and people who were supporting him were supporting that.
The claim people keep making is that they voted for Trump because they were told Trump supporters were racist by Democrats. That logic doesn't, and never will, hold up because it's stupid: if you weren't already a Trump supporter, you wouldn't have been insulted by that comment. If you were, you were going to vote for Trump anyway.
Bill Clinton was impeached for "lying under oath", a dubious charge, because he referred to a consensual sexual act as not sex because he believed it legally didn't count as sex. He was not impeached for groping women, he was not impeached for entering the changing rooms of 14 year old models, he wasn't impeached for talking about how sexually attracted he was to his daughter, or any other of the specific and backed up allegations made against Trump.
And the most important part: Bill is not Hillary. Bill Clinton could run "Clinton University" and rip off thousands of poor people, he could have bankrupted numerous suppliers by just not paying them, he could have used Mob labor to build his buildings, he could have a fake charity he stole money from, he could have avoided paying any taxes while living a lavish lifestyle, and he could have, yes, groped and ogled and all the other things Trump is accused of, and it still wouldn't have meant anything negative about Hillary Clinton.
All you can do, six months after that election, is continue making up the most absurd drivel about Clinton and Democrats, rather than address the fact you elected a monster. Think about that, then change course.
This argument is getting old. Nobody changed their vote to Trump because TEH LIEBERALS were saying his EXISTING voters included white supremacists, except, maybe, other white supremacists. Why would you vote for someone who you weren't planning to vote for and hadn't supported until now because you've been told their supporters are horrible people? Especially when they are, actually, horrible people, people like Richard Spencer and David Duke?
It's right there in the first sentence. The number is up 200 million over last year. Microsoft ended its Windows 7/8.x forced upgrades thing over a year ago, so we can reasonably suggest all 200 million are voluntary (or, well, as voluntary as installing the near-monopoly OS is.)
You don't generally find traffic signals on freeways. This article is about junctions on city streets, exactly where you'd expect human beings to be crossing the road.
Absurdly expensive, and as a result very unlikely to happen, instead pedestrians will get the shaft.
We're looking at a country that doesn't build bridges over railroads, and you're expecting city planners, who have been trained since City Planner School, to consider anyone not driving a car with contempt, to build four pedestrian bridges over every single traffic light controlled junction in their cities?
Not going to happen.
Thanks! So not a holistic strategy but a "Should work in 99% of cases" approach. (StW is still needed for the intermediate clean-ups from the looks of things, but they should be a lot faster and less noticeable.)
I semi-agree with Google on putting a swap on an SD card, I suspect it'd confuse most users if there was some component of their phone they had to replace every few months. It would be nice to have it as an option however...
Yeah, a surprisingly large number of people in my office have one. They do appear to be pretty popular. It could be my experience is unique, but I haven't seen any headlines suggesting Surface is a dud, and let's be honest, when Microsoft releases something that sells poorly (Zune, Lumia) or just doesn't do as well as it could (Windows 8), Slashdot is usually packed with mocking stories on the subject.
I'm still not understanding the "Sanders would totally have won" mentality, even though I voted for him. He's a self-described socialist, and the bulk of the Republican party never even bothered to campaign against him, seeing him as an easily defeated candidate, much as there was little or no campaigning against Trump by Team Hillary until he actually got the nomination.
People who turn around and say "Ah, but anti-establishment!" forget that Trump did a pretty decent job of convincing people that he was anti-establishment, and the "establishment" they were referring to was more of a phantom "center left" group that supposedly was going to force everyone to gay marry Prius driving black Muslim transexuals, than the white, rich, male establishment that actually runs the country.
Sanders was never going to win because you don't actually win fights against that establishment, it's the establishment for a reason, it would not survive unless a majority of the population actually propped it up.
Trump won because he represented the fear by that establishment that it was losing power. Sanders would have lost even more easily than Clinton did. People had to hate Clinton for Clinton to lose. Sanders merely needed to say what he represented.