IIRC hackers tried the RNC and failed. It doesn't speak to the ability of the DNC or Clinton campaign to fall for a phishing link. If exposing dirty laundry is enough to "weaken the other side" to the point of losing, you are not on strong grounds to begin with and it isn't the fault of the person that aired your dirty laundry that your laundry stinks.
Donald Fucking Trump should have been easy prey for any appealing candidate, that Hillary barely lost a tie just proves my point that we had the two worst candidates I've ever seen in a Presidential election.
So what? Yes, when given two crappy choices people rationalize a different result. Go figure that the divide between rural and urban is the foundation of most comprises codified in the Constitution and that that divide still exists today because each has different needs, wants, and perceptions of the federal government. That doesn't mean anything considering the original comment I was responding to.
Over and over they repeat on TV that Trump won the election fair and square. I don't buy that. Russia simply attacked the weaker nodes of our democracy by feeding them raw sewage and from all accounts tried to attack voting databases and such as well. Why did the attack work? It worked because our own politicians have been hacking at those same nodes (people) for a long time.
That "raw sewage" was an unfiltered Hillary Clinton. Why did the "attack" work? Because Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and terrible politician who has been taking advantage of people, errr... what you call "weaker nodes of democracy" by using power, money, and influence to force her coronation. People... "Weaker nodes of democracy" didn't like her and she had a lot of baggage. She didn't energize people like Obama. She didn't connect with people like Bush. She didn't speak to people like her Husband. She didn't have a message to people that felt left behind like Trump.
You sound like Trump and the birthers when Obama was elected. "He no Murrican therefore #notmypresident". Get over it.
I haven't seen any evidence of a direct attack on voting databases or voting booths outside of raw unfiltered information of Clinton and the DNC. Got evidence? Put up or shut up. If its anonymous sources I don't care and will wait for hard verifiable evidence. How can you trust anonymous sources when it was anonymous sources that started this whole fiasco with wikileaks?
What do we need? 1. Run offs if an election is close, so we remove the spoiler effect. (Other methods could work as well.) 2. An electorate that actually actively rejects the liars.
Do you vote in local elections? Do you know that the State controls how elections are organized? If you think you have a good idea convince the people of your state and enact it into law and show everyone how good your idea is before you start proselytizing it. There is only one just one national election. If the that one election can cause too much damage to the republic then that office is too powerful. Start electing people that will restrain that office to congress.
Here's an invention that did not lead to improvement in standards of living: religion.
Are you sure about that? Do you have any evidence? I know if you only look at the last 500-5000 years you would have a very skewed outlook on religion but when you take the entirety of human history you get a very different picture. Take writing as an example, if you believe in a sky fairy you want to share the good news. Writing means sharing. Not only that, the idea alone of a sky fairy is a very abstract concept that tends to need a larger brain. "Marry in the faith" takes a whole new meaning when you apply it to early human evolution and the communities built around prehistoric religion.
I will just leave this here for you to paruse. Just because it doesn't have much use now doesn't mean that has always been the case or even that we would have survived without it. Obesity is a problem today because of the mechanism that was necessary during hard times that helped ensure our survival.
I have no evidence but all reports tell me that cake is a lie. Sounds like propaganda to me and now I must ask you accompany me to the police while they ask about your loyalties.
Must be hard to draw those caricatures and burn those strawmen. It is much easier to criticize a stereotype than to understand the nuance of an opposing idea.
Maybe you're right. Democracy is a failed experiment. Why bother with federalism and democracy when no one is happy with it and we can't agree on anything? We need The Party to force agreement to solve our problems. Those problems can only be solved by government force such as global warming and AI.
If those starry eyed clientele can't handle the responsibilities of a loan they sign up for then they can't handle the responsibilities of voting either. At some point people are adults and can participate in legally binding contracts. Their young, but lets not continue to infantilize them and dismiss any responsibility.
Previously it was "make education available". Now that education is available the primary clientele have to be responsible with that availability. The goal is now "make education affordable". I am not sure what the right answer is but let's stop treating adults like children.
The 'and' changes much of the quote: "acceptance of government force and tyranny". Yes, the cop arresting the murderer is being forceful but like anything it is a balancing act between limp-wrist uselessness and goose-stepping tyranny.
The topic at hand isn't so clear cut as arresting a murderer. Forcing any position without enough of a consensus among the governed will de-legitimize the government's position and will eventually be thrown out by the people that disagree when they come to power. See Obamacare.
The government is useful if the citizens agree or forces that agreement and consensus. Saying "tough titties" for a proposed government action doesn't convince anyone that your solution is best and alludes to your acceptance of government force and tyranny. Yes, governments are useful but they have problems to ignore that reality is disingenuous.
You are setting your self up to be divisive on a topic that shouldn't be divisive because it is a problem that will take decades to manifest and solve. Regardless, even if your ideal solution isn't picked that isn't the end of the world. Any hyperbole to say otherwise is furthering the divide between you and 'the other side'. Remember, they vote just like you and can put an end to your solution at the ballot box.
To be fair, if I was Peter Thiel I would have an axe to grind for Gawker too. I think the idea behind funding other lawsuits instead of your own is that if there are any other private details they remain private instead of dragged out in public for the courts. Why go into the details of my sex life when I can use yours?
They are entitled to it because they paid into it. I think any proposal I have heard to change it (or attack it if you want) have always had the caveat that people currently on it or about to get it won't see a change. Whether you believe them and if that promise holds true is a different matter.
All I am saying is that I am paying into it and will continue to pay into it until retirement and have no expectation of receiving anything from it. The 2040's are a long way off.
The irony is that I only saw more of that word when they did try to censor it and trolls got around the censor. Pretty sad; 1) censor word that was rarely used 2) trolls bypass censor 3) word is now more common and in every thread.
Sure, and if the other drivers don't face similar administrative and long term obstacles I will be surprised. Namely, how does a space agency handle decades long programs that run afoul of cost-benefit analysis? How do they handle those long term goals in a politically uncertain world? I don't think China or Russia have to worry about that to the same extent because of one party rule. Would you rather have one party rule and stable long term space exploration or democracy?
Space exploration is a long term thinking endeavor. One of NASA's problems is that it has been around for decades under different politics with different ideas for space exploration that change NASA's direction. There will inevitably be meandering and lapses in their capabilities but that is hardly damning in and of itself.
It's easy to be pessimistic and each agency will have strengths and weaknesses but you are using a pretty flawed example to say "only one measure is important" compared to the plethora of capabilities that are needed for sustained space exploration.
But there was the Orion program. Sure, he talked a lot about it but he also tried to accomplish the rhetoric and directed NASA toward it. You can argue it was the wrong way for NASA or w/e but to say Bush didn't do anything to try and get NASA further along is wrong. Orion was cancelled by Obama.
That would be pretty cool. Especially if it was easily accessible. Cheap energy and some green house gases to warm up the place (given enough time ofc).
For me, while manned mission capability is important, there are other factors that should be used in determining a good space program. It just seems very narrow minded to think that is the only thing that matters to a good space program. For example, ESA landed a probe on a comet (errr softly crashed but all landings are soft crashes:) wouldn't that contribute to them having a good space program even though they don't have the ability to launch people into space?
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC hackers tried the RNC and failed. It doesn't speak to the ability of the DNC or Clinton campaign to fall for a phishing link. If exposing dirty laundry is enough to "weaken the other side" to the point of losing, you are not on strong grounds to begin with and it isn't the fault of the person that aired your dirty laundry that your laundry stinks.
Donald Fucking Trump should have been easy prey for any appealing candidate, that Hillary barely lost a tie just proves my point that we had the two worst candidates I've ever seen in a Presidential election.
So what? Yes, when given two crappy choices people rationalize a different result. Go figure that the divide between rural and urban is the foundation of most comprises codified in the Constitution and that that divide still exists today because each has different needs, wants, and perceptions of the federal government. That doesn't mean anything considering the original comment I was responding to.
Over and over they repeat on TV that Trump won the election fair and square. I don't buy that. Russia simply attacked the weaker nodes of our democracy by feeding them raw sewage and from all accounts tried to attack voting databases and such as well. Why did the attack work? It worked because our own politicians have been hacking at those same nodes (people) for a long time.
That "raw sewage" was an unfiltered Hillary Clinton. Why did the "attack" work? Because Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and terrible politician who has been taking advantage of people, errr... what you call "weaker nodes of democracy" by using power, money, and influence to force her coronation. People... "Weaker nodes of democracy" didn't like her and she had a lot of baggage. She didn't energize people like Obama. She didn't connect with people like Bush. She didn't speak to people like her Husband. She didn't have a message to people that felt left behind like Trump.
You sound like Trump and the birthers when Obama was elected. "He no Murrican therefore #notmypresident". Get over it.
I haven't seen any evidence of a direct attack on voting databases or voting booths outside of raw unfiltered information of Clinton and the DNC. Got evidence? Put up or shut up. If its anonymous sources I don't care and will wait for hard verifiable evidence. How can you trust anonymous sources when it was anonymous sources that started this whole fiasco with wikileaks?
What do we need?
1. Run offs if an election is close, so we remove the spoiler effect. (Other methods could work as well.)
2. An electorate that actually actively rejects the liars.
Do you vote in local elections? Do you know that the State controls how elections are organized? If you think you have a good idea convince the people of your state and enact it into law and show everyone how good your idea is before you start proselytizing it. There is only one just one national election. If the that one election can cause too much damage to the republic then that office is too powerful. Start electing people that will restrain that office to congress.
Fancy you. I just have a broken clock.
I prefer the term 'meat sack' or 'meat bag' you insensitive toaster!
Vive la resistance
Here's an invention that did not lead to improvement in standards of living: religion.
Are you sure about that? Do you have any evidence? I know if you only look at the last 500-5000 years you would have a very skewed outlook on religion but when you take the entirety of human history you get a very different picture. Take writing as an example, if you believe in a sky fairy you want to share the good news. Writing means sharing. Not only that, the idea alone of a sky fairy is a very abstract concept that tends to need a larger brain. "Marry in the faith" takes a whole new meaning when you apply it to early human evolution and the communities built around prehistoric religion.
I will just leave this here for you to paruse. Just because it doesn't have much use now doesn't mean that has always been the case or even that we would have survived without it. Obesity is a problem today because of the mechanism that was necessary during hard times that helped ensure our survival.
I have no evidence but all reports tell me that cake is a lie. Sounds like propaganda to me and now I must ask you accompany me to the police while they ask about your loyalties.
Must be hard to draw those caricatures and burn those strawmen. It is much easier to criticize a stereotype than to understand the nuance of an opposing idea.
Maybe you're right. Democracy is a failed experiment. Why bother with federalism and democracy when no one is happy with it and we can't agree on anything? We need The Party to force agreement to solve our problems. Those problems can only be solved by government force such as global warming and AI.
Meanwhile in the real world
humans riding dinosaurs based on no evidence at all
Oh really? Then explain this! Checkmate atheists.
OOO a rebel. I live in my mom's attic. I am pretty much Rex meat.
If you expect tax payers to pay for college then it should be no surprise when tax payers care about what type of education they are paying for.
If those starry eyed clientele can't handle the responsibilities of a loan they sign up for then they can't handle the responsibilities of voting either. At some point people are adults and can participate in legally binding contracts. Their young, but lets not continue to infantilize them and dismiss any responsibility.
Previously it was "make education available". Now that education is available the primary clientele have to be responsible with that availability. The goal is now "make education affordable". I am not sure what the right answer is but let's stop treating adults like children.
The proposals are irrelevant to the point.
The 'and' changes much of the quote: "acceptance of government force and tyranny". Yes, the cop arresting the murderer is being forceful but like anything it is a balancing act between limp-wrist uselessness and goose-stepping tyranny.
The topic at hand isn't so clear cut as arresting a murderer. Forcing any position without enough of a consensus among the governed will de-legitimize the government's position and will eventually be thrown out by the people that disagree when they come to power. See Obamacare.
The government is useful if the citizens agree or forces that agreement and consensus. Saying "tough titties" for a proposed government action doesn't convince anyone that your solution is best and alludes to your acceptance of government force and tyranny. Yes, governments are useful but they have problems to ignore that reality is disingenuous.
You are setting your self up to be divisive on a topic that shouldn't be divisive because it is a problem that will take decades to manifest and solve. Regardless, even if your ideal solution isn't picked that isn't the end of the world. Any hyperbole to say otherwise is furthering the divide between you and 'the other side'. Remember, they vote just like you and can put an end to your solution at the ballot box.
Government inaction is a feature not a bug.
just something that drives itself on a system that is pretty well defined by strict rules.
To be fair, a system well defined by strict rules with other participants that don't follow those well defined strict rules.
To be fair, if I was Peter Thiel I would have an axe to grind for Gawker too. I think the idea behind funding other lawsuits instead of your own is that if there are any other private details they remain private instead of dragged out in public for the courts. Why go into the details of my sex life when I can use yours?
He had a kids cartoon
So did Batman. So did Ren and Stimpy.
When does the man behind Hulk Hogan have a right to privacy?
They are entitled to it because they paid into it. I think any proposal I have heard to change it (or attack it if you want) have always had the caveat that people currently on it or about to get it won't see a change. Whether you believe them and if that promise holds true is a different matter.
All I am saying is that I am paying into it and will continue to pay into it until retirement and have no expectation of receiving anything from it. The 2040's are a long way off.
The irony is that I only saw more of that word when they did try to censor it and trolls got around the censor. Pretty sad; 1) censor word that was rarely used 2) trolls bypass censor 3) word is now more common and in every thread.
Sure, and if the other drivers don't face similar administrative and long term obstacles I will be surprised. Namely, how does a space agency handle decades long programs that run afoul of cost-benefit analysis? How do they handle those long term goals in a politically uncertain world? I don't think China or Russia have to worry about that to the same extent because of one party rule. Would you rather have one party rule and stable long term space exploration or democracy?
Space exploration is a long term thinking endeavor. One of NASA's problems is that it has been around for decades under different politics with different ideas for space exploration that change NASA's direction. There will inevitably be meandering and lapses in their capabilities but that is hardly damning in and of itself.
It's easy to be pessimistic and each agency will have strengths and weaknesses but you are using a pretty flawed example to say "only one measure is important" compared to the plethora of capabilities that are needed for sustained space exploration.
But there was the Orion program. Sure, he talked a lot about it but he also tried to accomplish the rhetoric and directed NASA toward it. You can argue it was the wrong way for NASA or w/e but to say Bush didn't do anything to try and get NASA further along is wrong. Orion was cancelled by Obama.
That would be pretty cool. Especially if it was easily accessible. Cheap energy and some green house gases to warm up the place (given enough time ofc).
TBH, I don't have any expectation of getting SS when I retire despite paying into it. older millennial.
For me, while manned mission capability is important, there are other factors that should be used in determining a good space program. It just seems very narrow minded to think that is the only thing that matters to a good space program. For example, ESA landed a probe on a comet (errr softly crashed but all landings are soft crashes :) wouldn't that contribute to them having a good space program even though they don't have the ability to launch people into space?