Twice today we've been regaled by attempts from Democratic candidates to garner votes... One to get into the upcoming debate, one to save his boat full of holes...
Mr. Sanders, you are a bit late to this party and are by far NOT the only candidate to hold such a position this time around. Not that I support him, Ron Paul has you beat and he's not holding his fingers up checking the direction of the wind on this subject. Now if you are talking about the first DEMOCRATIC candidate to have this position, I'm pretty sure that Barack Obama voiced similar concerns about NSA data collection in both the 2008 and 2012 election cycles (not that it means he actually did anything) and I'm sure there are some lesser known candidates on our side who beat you to it as well.
I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office.
That's actually VERY true. Candidates from BOTH parties will SAY anything to be elected and what they say has largely been "focus grouped" to death. They study the exact phrases being used on the stump, weasel word their way though the mine field of diverse opinions, letting you believe what you *want* to hear without actually having said it.
HOWEVER.... There are two fairly reliable indicators of what candidates will do when they take office. First is their associations. Who where they associated with during their lives, what kind of people do they hang out with and feel most comfortable with, who are their long standing friends? Second, what have they done in the past? What did they vote for, what did they not, what types of things have they done with their lives in the past?
But your primary way to tell your candidate isn't really "on board" with what's being said is when they use weasel wording on an issue. The candidate will use similar words and phrases ALL THE TIME when they are trying to thread the needle on some hot topic. If you hear this, if you hear these pat sayings and phrases which are highly parsed and usually meaningless when you pay attention to what's actually said, be warned, they are trying to snow you...
Best he can hope for is that Hillary get's charged with a crime due to this E-mail thing and has to drop out leaving only Biden and him. However, being she's not been charged yet, it's very doubtful she ever will.... Bernie has a snowballs chance in Death Valley a in mid summer heat wave... Shame though, as a republican it sure would be fun to watch him as the democratic contender...
Why do you demonRATS waste your time with this loon? I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.
Oh let them have their fun. Like the Republican race, their "A" team hasn't taking the court yet. Right now both teams are warming up on their side of the court throwing field goals and free throws still in their warm up clothes, the officials are still working their way to the time keeper's table and the box seats are only half full. There is 59 min still on the clock. Hillary isn't even out of the locker room yet and this Sander's guy is out making layups as fast as he can and dreaming about the points he's going to make once the game starts while Trump is throwing in 3 pointers from half court and only sinking 1 in 10 shots dreaming the same thing.
Seriously? Either you didn't really think about this and where just angry, or you really are NOT a Paul supporter
I have no idea what a Ron Paul supporter would see in Obama and how such a person couldn't see at least SOME redeeming qualities in Romney who was *much* closer to Ron Paul than who was elected. I didn't much like Romney myself, but even if I didn't agree with everything he was head and shoulders above the alternative. So you just sat home on your hands because Romney didn't hold the extreme positions of the likes of Ron Paul? Shame on you.
Folks need to stop this "all or nothing" set of litmus tests for political campaigns when it comes to the general election, it's not healthy thinking. Yea, sure, during the primary fight it out, root for your choice of candidates, but once the nominee is named and confirmed, you stop the bickering and support the winner, or the other party will win, every time.
Don't you see? The Democrats are, right now, out stirring the pot about the Republican party's "break up". Just last week I got more than one "So, you cannot pick a speaker? How can you pick a candidate in the Republican party?" comments from my friends who are left of me. It's in all the media, it's a calculated play to keep disenchanted folks who's candidate didn't win from voting, to drive a wedge between the Ron Paul zealots and the eventual nominee (who will not be Ron Paul). So they LOVE folks like you, who are easily persuaded to sit at home on their hands while they are sending busses to pick up THEIR voters and bring them to the polls.
On Ron Paul directly.... Where I appreciate much of what he says, and I really like his constitutional stance on a lot of things, his foreign policy and stance on privacy lack practical understanding of reality. Christy's "instruction" of Paul on the use of NSA monitoring data is a prime example of where he looses touch with reality and refuses to allow even reasoned discussion of ways this can be done within constitutional bounds. Where I get his position, and I see the principle he's trying to uphold, there ARE reasonable ways to justify some of what the NSA has done but Ron can not or will not engage in that discussion. His foreign policy positions are also inflexible and brittle in a world where to be effective requires a bit more nuance than rigid ideology, more taking steps in the right direction and less forcing ones ideology.
So, now you want to make the assumption that Facebook bribed YOUR elected leaders?? Do you have *any* evidence of that? No? I didn't think so. Nobody is in jail, nobody from Facebook or any of your elected officials over this, so you are just making this up.
Even if it was true, wouldn't the bigger problem being your leaders selling you out for the bribes and that you had a legal system that allowed it to go on unpunished? If it really was true that Facebook bribed there way out of taxes, I contend that it's the voter's fault for not holding their elected officials and legal systems in check though the ballot box. In short, YOU are mostly at fault for letting bribes happen without so much as a formal investigation by the legal system and by virtue of the fact you keep electing the bribe collectors to office.
But we all know you are just making this up, mainly because it's just another failed narrative, piece of rhetoric, and untrue story used to further class envy for political gain. Nobody got bribed here, because if they had, THAT would be the story, not that Facebook paid so little in taxes...
I will quit complaining about it when the *subject* says "Law allows Company X to pay only Y in taxes!"
The way this is presented matters. This "Big Company" = "Bad" + "UNFAIR" equation has got to stop. It's about the LAW, not the company. But the way it's headlined and written it becomes about the company and not the law in this article. This is BAD journalism, which is becoming commonplace and we need to object to it when we see it. (Go read Orwell's '1984' again and see why..)
This is a stupid story. First, the Electoral college doesn't decided who is nominated by either major party. Second, the Electoral college has even less to do with who CNN chooses to let into their debate. Third, who has heard of this person to start with? Doesn't that have more to do with why CNN didn't/won't put them on the stage with the other "serious" contenders?
Not to mention....Why would this story make it to Slashdot? How's this "news for nerds" anyway?
Oh please... Voice vote on the convention floor robbed Ron Paul of the nomination?
It's a conspiracy I tell you!
Um.. No, he didn't have enough delegates to win the nomination though the process... Next you will tell me we never landed on the moon and 9/11 was an inside job.. (Or my personal favorite, Obama was born in Kenya because his birth certificate is *obviously* falsified copy... )
Oh please.... Like not having a "super PAC" means anything at this point in the process, or to Sanders.
I'm not a Democrat, but I can assure you that Hillary is going to win the nomination, pretty much hands down, unless she ends up in handcuffs for the E-mail server thing before the Democrat convention. I don't believe that there is much of a chance she gets charged with any crime and arrested (or it would have happened already) so Sanders has a snowballs chance. Hillary hasn't yet started her campaign, really started it, where she starts spending her money and making an effort on the campaign trail so that she's not polling well is of no surprise. Hillary is doing what the smart money tells her to, concentrate on fund raising, keep your head above water and let Sanders et all weary the party base by bludgeoning each other and her for the next few months. Come January, the gloves will come off, the *real* campaign will start. Sanders will be road kill after that.
The only way this really gets messed up for Hillary is if Biden steps in and splits the moderates of the party, but all that really does is boost Sanders's placement in the horse race as Hillary and Biden will split the same set of voters which are moderate to center. Biden doesn't have the ground infrastructure in place to actually win over Hillary, but he will only hurt Hillary if he jumps in, which just *might* keep Sanders in play long enough to make it interesting, but I doubt it.
Of course, if Hillary happens to end up in handcuffs and withdraws, we could possible see a nomination fight from the floor at the convention and that would be Sanders best chance for securing the nomination, but Biden is going to have to jump in and really botch his campaign for there to be a chance of that.
Similarly, Jeb and Trump will go though the same kind of thing with Jeb not really on the playing field yet. Trump only has traction because the real money hasn't taken the field. (Same with Carson). However, the Republican side is much less sure this time though. With no real heir apparent beyond Jeb and the donors starting to walk away from him, I expect the race to be a bit more competitive on the Republican side this time around. Trump will get steamrolled albeit from multiple candidates and later than Sanders, but apart from that it's not obvious to me which of the field will be on top at the end....
Most companies act both ethically, morally and legally. When they don't there are criminal and civil ways to change their behavior.
We need to stop using the default setting that "big companies are out to cheat me" and realize that the vast majority are just out to do business and make some money. There is NOTHING wrong with making money and making lots of money does NOT imply somebody was cheating, yet with today's mindset that's the default setting. OH.... Company X sold BILLIONS of dollars of products and made MILLIONS in profit, they obviously cheated somehow...This is usually a LIE.
Bringing up insurance companies is just the common whipping boy mindset again.... MOST insurance companies act correctly, ethically and legally, in both the premiums they charge and the claims they process. There are exceptions to this in the insurance industry, but generally they are above board in what they do. In the insurance industry you HAVE to be this way because it's all about the policy and the legal oblations they are assuming though it. As their customer with a claim, you are more than free to obtain the services of a lawyer and make sure you get every penny you are entitled to from them. I suggest that if you feel cheated by an insurance company on your claim, you get a lawyer. Chances are, the insurance company knows EXACTLY what their oblations are and they know it doesn't help them to skimp on claims because if the word gets out this is how they do business two things will happen. 1. They will get sued over past claims. 2. New business will go to other companies. Insurance companies usually get a bad rap on this because most people don't understand what their insurance policy actually mean. They expect their insurance company to cover things they never agreed to cover, or they expect payouts beyond the limits of the policy. It's not THEIR fault in these cases, but the consumer's fault for not knowing or caring to understand what they where actually buying with those premium dollars they paid. How's that the company's fault when the policy meets legal minimums and it's "Buyer beware" after that?
Tell me this is a joke.... It's a joke right? A lame attempt at humor? Wait, you are SERIOUS?
As long as there are bad people with guns intent on doing harm, you will need good people with guns to stop them. There are no other options for cops, but to be well armed and proficient in the use of force, deadly force when required. Non lethal options need to be available, but you cannot replace firearms with them in today's world.
Even without the 2nd amendment in the USA, keeping firearms out of the hands of "bad people" is impossible, so there will be no *replacement* for guns in the hands of the police. With the 2nd amendment there will be literally MILLIONS of guns in circulation, making them easily obtained though illegal means. We might disarm the police though law and practice in some places, but they will be backed up by well armed police carrying firearms and many of the disarmed will pay with their lives because we denied them the means of protecting themselves and us. Taking guns from cops is stupid in almost all cases IMHO.
There is no replacing the gun in the hands of cops with any of the technologies we now have, and if we force it to happen, the police and the public will pay in blood for our foolishness. There is NO REPLACMENT for the gun in the police's hands right now, and I suspect that there will NEVER be a nonlethal alternative to a firearm.
If Facebook (or any other company) paid their LEGAL tax oblation, what's the beef? If they are not cheating and breaking the rules, WHO CARES?
If a resident of the UK somehow get's the idea that Facebook *should* be paying more, then it's up to you to CHANGE THE LAW to make it fair. You guys have elections, you elect the people who write the laws, go make your case with them and insist they change the law..
I get so tired of this, "all big corporations are evil" narrative, especially for companies which are FOLLOWING THE LAW. IMHO MOST companies follow the law, both because it's good for business and because folks don't like going to jail. So can we please stop with this narrative? It's not valid.
Companies are finding that they need one charging port for every two of their employees' electric vehicles. "If you don't maintain a 2-to-1 ratio, you are dead," said ChargePoint CEO Pat Romano. "Having two chargers and 20 electric cars is worse than having no chargers and 20 electric cars. If you are going to do this, you have to be willing to continue to scale it."
There will ALWAYS be a shortage of chargers, it's the nature of the beast. They cost money to buy, money to run and money to maintain and at this point are generally free to use. Where this is altruistic and helps the environment by encouraging folks to drive their EV's (or actually making it *possible* for them to extend their range) they are a "cost center" for companies, like other employee benefits, and take away from their bottom line. There will always be a shortage. But the above quote comes from a guy who makes his living SELLING chargers. Somehow I get the idea he's more motivated by the prospect of making money selling chargers, not saving the environment. Why do I say this? He's advocating a charger for every TWO EV's. This is WAY to many.
At first glance it seems reasonable, but in reality it's not even close. The proper ratio at most one charger per FOUR EVs, and likely more like one to eight or more.
1. First we need to understand that 1 charger can easily service FOUR parking spaces if you orient the spaces correctly (with two side by side on each side or a row of cars). With long enough cables and drivers parking so the charging port is nearer the charge, this would be EASILY extended to SIX spaces
2. Few EV's require more than a few hours of charging to regain a significant amount of range, some can recharge to 80% in less than an hour. This should make it possible to charge more than the four EV's which can be reached by each charger and giving each of the EV's per charger more than an hour each during a standard 8 hour work day.
3. Staggering start times would only extend the ability of a single charger by a couple more hours per day, extending the effective charging time available from 8 to about 12 hours or more (2 hours on each side of standard office hours). This would afford 6 parking spaces 2 hours each from a single charger.
4. Nobody is at work every day. One can assume that out of 52 weeks, vacation, sick leave will consume about 4-5 weeks or about 10% of an employee's work hours. This means that the number of EV's goes down by a similar percentage.
5. Two hours of charge time is nice, but for most EV's it is more than necessary to restore 80% of it's range. This means that if you *require* half day parking and regulate charger use to a maximum of 1 hour pre EV you can likely service 8 to 12 EV's PER charger. Of course this would require a corporate culture adjustment and a bit of policing to make sure your EV owners where making the best use of the chargers.
So, all of the above tell me that this guy is just trying to sell chargers. He knows what he's saying isn't really valid and that one charger could easily provide service to more than 2 EV's per day. He's just trying to sell the stuff he builds and the sad part is he's packaged it in the "being green" marketing slogans. The sad part is some folks don't see this for what it really is, just some shady marketing campaign which makes it to Slashdot.
Ok.. Well this quality of life thing is pretty darned expensive.... I'm not sure the city/government is who I want in charge of making sure of my quality of life is good enough, especially if they are choosing light rail systems. The are a waste in almost all cases.
There are usually better investments that can be made over some light rail system if quality of life is your goal. Investments which are cheaper and more effective than spending billions of dollars per mile to bury a subway. Roads and busses come to mind, even pushing carpooling and HOV lanes seem to make more sense to me. It's as effective and a whole lot cheaper..
However, we also pay taxes on fuel both at the local and federal level which pay for the highways we drive on using that fuel. Usually this funding is pays for what we need if it's not wasted on garbage projects.
This is when corporate lawyers start echoing the standard refrains of "Don't destroy any records", "where is your search warrant" and "don't talk to investigators or the press without a lawyer present" lines to everybody.
Somebody is likely going to jail, or at least facing criminal charges in both the EU and the USA.... Expect there to be a lot of finger pointing from here on out.
I agree withe everything up to "don't talk to investigators or the press without a lawyer present." Never forget that a corporate lawyer doesn't represent you, he or she is their to protect the corporation and will throw you under the bus at the first opportunity. Anytime a lawyer is sent to "help" the first thing to ask is "Who you represent?" followed by "are you my lawyer?" and "is everything we say confidential and privileged?"
if the answer to the last two isn't yes and yes they are not on your side.
I wasn't giving advice to anybody, especially legal advice. I was just relaying what is likely going on inside the halls of VW as the criminal investigation continues. By all means, if you are having a conversation with the people investigating the criminal part of this, having a lawyer present who represents you is a good idea, and as you point out, the lawyers hired by the company are not likely to be representing you.
From this former resident of the NC state capital who went to the red school on Hillsborough street, Move from the RTP to North Texas as soon as you can.... Trust me, apart from the summer heat, things are better here.. The traffic is better, the taxes are better and the housing is cheaper, at least for now.
Not true. The NTTA (North Texas Turnpike Authority) has build multiple roads which are self supported. Yes, they are initially funded though government backed bonds, but these obligations and the operation of these toll roads is funded solely by the tolls they collect from the system's users.
Which is my general point about light rail. It never pays for itself though fares, but ALWAYS requires substantial subsidies from local governments to survive. They cost cities money, lots of money, and drain resources from other things like police and fire, especially during the down turns because you cannot just stop using the subways or safely reduce operating costs for these systems. They eat money at generally the same rate regardless of the city's ability to support them and they are often way too big and inefficient to start with because folks don't understand this and believe them to be self supporting.
Which is EXACTLY the problem with public transit, It's almost never convenient for anybody using it, takes longer than driving yourself, and always requires financial support from tax payers because you never can charge the riders enough.
Public transport is great for what it is, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it is a solution for traffic congestion or that we can make it convenient and cheap enough to get people who have other options to ride it...
People in Chicago are laughing at you.
Yea, I've been in Chicago (last week actually) and I'm chuckling too, mostly at you. Yea the "EL" is there and folks do ride the thing, but to get around the windy city and the suburbs, the bulk of people take the extensive number of toll ways in their cars. There is a reason the number of I-Pass holders exceeds the number of public transit riders by an order of magnitude or two. Apart from not wanting to get shot in the grand "gun free zone" folks generally find a car trip to their destination a better option. Personally, I chose to drive myself while I was there...
Not that I oppose public transportation. It's just EXPENSIVE and the fares collected simply cannot pay the development and operation costs of most systems.
Plus, as others have pointed out, such subway/elevated systems cost more to operate than they can collect in fares. Deepening the debt loads of the major cities who choose to "invest" in such systems. This is universally true for every major system I know of in the USA and abroad.
Let's not forget that Obama's party had 100% control of congress for nearly two years when he took office. They could have had ANYTHING they wanted and All the republicans could do is stand yelling on the capital steps and stomp their feet hoping the press would cover it. So what did the party in power do? Not all that much, except for Obamacare, which they sold on a series of lies... Is it no wonder that they've steadily lost seats in the house and senate and Obama's second election win was with a thinner margin than his first? IMHO - I think the trend will continue, though lord knows the republicans are not apt to do much better if they stay on the same old paths that got their clocks cleaned in 2008....
My republican co workers assured me that Obamacare would cause our company to go under because healthcare costs would skyrocket. They're actually saving close to 200 dollars per employee.
Oh, so you haven't got your rate increase for 2016 yet then.... I just got mine and it's pretty shocking this year... I think my premiums have gone up nearly $300 over the last three years for my family, ostensibly due to the ACA, and my deductibles and out of pocket went up too. I also hear that a number of areas are seeing 20% rate hikes on the Federal exchanges this time around. So if you really are saving money, you work in a rare place, or everybody got cut back to part time..
Light rail is ALWAYS expensive no matter how you do it, doubly true if you choose to bury it. It will NEVER be financially viable and will suck the tax payer dry trying to live up to the dream.
Busses are better and more adaptable, but even then are rarely financially viable.... You just loose less money funding them as the tax payer because a buss and some roads to drive them on is ALWAYS cheaper than laying track and buying a train to run on it....
Light rail systems are rarely financially viable... Did I say rarely? I mean never... You can never charge enough in fares to pay for what it costs to build and operate these systems. Plus, they will never be really convenient. You cannot put in enough stops, run enough trains at all times of the day to make them even marginally convenient for the majority.
They CAN reduce congestion and possibly reduce parking problems, but they are huge ticket items for tax payers that will always be sapping the budgets they depend on and never really achieving the dream of cheap, efficient and convenient mass transit.
Slashdot Mirror
Twice today we've been regaled by attempts from Democratic candidates to garner votes... One to get into the upcoming debate, one to save his boat full of holes...
Mr. Sanders, you are a bit late to this party and are by far NOT the only candidate to hold such a position this time around. Not that I support him, Ron Paul has you beat and he's not holding his fingers up checking the direction of the wind on this subject. Now if you are talking about the first DEMOCRATIC candidate to have this position, I'm pretty sure that Barack Obama voiced similar concerns about NSA data collection in both the 2008 and 2012 election cycles (not that it means he actually did anything) and I'm sure there are some lesser known candidates on our side who beat you to it as well.
You are NOT the first, you are NOT the only...
I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office.
That's actually VERY true. Candidates from BOTH parties will SAY anything to be elected and what they say has largely been "focus grouped" to death. They study the exact phrases being used on the stump, weasel word their way though the mine field of diverse opinions, letting you believe what you *want* to hear without actually having said it.
HOWEVER.... There are two fairly reliable indicators of what candidates will do when they take office. First is their associations. Who where they associated with during their lives, what kind of people do they hang out with and feel most comfortable with, who are their long standing friends? Second, what have they done in the past? What did they vote for, what did they not, what types of things have they done with their lives in the past?
But your primary way to tell your candidate isn't really "on board" with what's being said is when they use weasel wording on an issue. The candidate will use similar words and phrases ALL THE TIME when they are trying to thread the needle on some hot topic. If you hear this, if you hear these pat sayings and phrases which are highly parsed and usually meaningless when you pay attention to what's actually said, be warned, they are trying to snow you...
That much is certain..
Best he can hope for is that Hillary get's charged with a crime due to this E-mail thing and has to drop out leaving only Biden and him. However, being she's not been charged yet, it's very doubtful she ever will.... Bernie has a snowballs chance in Death Valley a in mid summer heat wave... Shame though, as a republican it sure would be fun to watch him as the democratic contender...
Why do you demonRATS waste your time with this loon? I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.
Oh let them have their fun. Like the Republican race, their "A" team hasn't taking the court yet. Right now both teams are warming up on their side of the court throwing field goals and free throws still in their warm up clothes, the officials are still working their way to the time keeper's table and the box seats are only half full. There is 59 min still on the clock. Hillary isn't even out of the locker room yet and this Sander's guy is out making layups as fast as he can and dreaming about the points he's going to make once the game starts while Trump is throwing in 3 pointers from half court and only sinking 1 in 10 shots dreaming the same thing.
Seriously? Either you didn't really think about this and where just angry, or you really are NOT a Paul supporter
I have no idea what a Ron Paul supporter would see in Obama and how such a person couldn't see at least SOME redeeming qualities in Romney who was *much* closer to Ron Paul than who was elected. I didn't much like Romney myself, but even if I didn't agree with everything he was head and shoulders above the alternative. So you just sat home on your hands because Romney didn't hold the extreme positions of the likes of Ron Paul? Shame on you.
Folks need to stop this "all or nothing" set of litmus tests for political campaigns when it comes to the general election, it's not healthy thinking. Yea, sure, during the primary fight it out, root for your choice of candidates, but once the nominee is named and confirmed, you stop the bickering and support the winner, or the other party will win, every time.
Don't you see? The Democrats are, right now, out stirring the pot about the Republican party's "break up". Just last week I got more than one "So, you cannot pick a speaker? How can you pick a candidate in the Republican party?" comments from my friends who are left of me. It's in all the media, it's a calculated play to keep disenchanted folks who's candidate didn't win from voting, to drive a wedge between the Ron Paul zealots and the eventual nominee (who will not be Ron Paul). So they LOVE folks like you, who are easily persuaded to sit at home on their hands while they are sending busses to pick up THEIR voters and bring them to the polls.
On Ron Paul directly.... Where I appreciate much of what he says, and I really like his constitutional stance on a lot of things, his foreign policy and stance on privacy lack practical understanding of reality. Christy's "instruction" of Paul on the use of NSA monitoring data is a prime example of where he looses touch with reality and refuses to allow even reasoned discussion of ways this can be done within constitutional bounds. Where I get his position, and I see the principle he's trying to uphold, there ARE reasonable ways to justify some of what the NSA has done but Ron can not or will not engage in that discussion. His foreign policy positions are also inflexible and brittle in a world where to be effective requires a bit more nuance than rigid ideology, more taking steps in the right direction and less forcing ones ideology.
So, now you want to make the assumption that Facebook bribed YOUR elected leaders?? Do you have *any* evidence of that? No? I didn't think so. Nobody is in jail, nobody from Facebook or any of your elected officials over this, so you are just making this up.
Even if it was true, wouldn't the bigger problem being your leaders selling you out for the bribes and that you had a legal system that allowed it to go on unpunished? If it really was true that Facebook bribed there way out of taxes, I contend that it's the voter's fault for not holding their elected officials and legal systems in check though the ballot box. In short, YOU are mostly at fault for letting bribes happen without so much as a formal investigation by the legal system and by virtue of the fact you keep electing the bribe collectors to office.
But we all know you are just making this up, mainly because it's just another failed narrative, piece of rhetoric, and untrue story used to further class envy for political gain. Nobody got bribed here, because if they had, THAT would be the story, not that Facebook paid so little in taxes...
I will quit complaining about it when the *subject* says "Law allows Company X to pay only Y in taxes!"
The way this is presented matters. This "Big Company" = "Bad" + "UNFAIR" equation has got to stop. It's about the LAW, not the company. But the way it's headlined and written it becomes about the company and not the law in this article. This is BAD journalism, which is becoming commonplace and we need to object to it when we see it. (Go read Orwell's '1984' again and see why..)
This is a stupid story. First, the Electoral college doesn't decided who is nominated by either major party. Second, the Electoral college has even less to do with who CNN chooses to let into their debate. Third, who has heard of this person to start with? Doesn't that have more to do with why CNN didn't/won't put them on the stage with the other "serious" contenders?
Not to mention....Why would this story make it to Slashdot? How's this "news for nerds" anyway?
Oh please... Voice vote on the convention floor robbed Ron Paul of the nomination?
It's a conspiracy I tell you!
Um.. No, he didn't have enough delegates to win the nomination though the process... Next you will tell me we never landed on the moon and 9/11 was an inside job.. (Or my personal favorite, Obama was born in Kenya because his birth certificate is *obviously* falsified copy... )
Oh please.... Like not having a "super PAC" means anything at this point in the process, or to Sanders.
I'm not a Democrat, but I can assure you that Hillary is going to win the nomination, pretty much hands down, unless she ends up in handcuffs for the E-mail server thing before the Democrat convention. I don't believe that there is much of a chance she gets charged with any crime and arrested (or it would have happened already) so Sanders has a snowballs chance. Hillary hasn't yet started her campaign, really started it, where she starts spending her money and making an effort on the campaign trail so that she's not polling well is of no surprise. Hillary is doing what the smart money tells her to, concentrate on fund raising, keep your head above water and let Sanders et all weary the party base by bludgeoning each other and her for the next few months. Come January, the gloves will come off, the *real* campaign will start. Sanders will be road kill after that.
The only way this really gets messed up for Hillary is if Biden steps in and splits the moderates of the party, but all that really does is boost Sanders's placement in the horse race as Hillary and Biden will split the same set of voters which are moderate to center. Biden doesn't have the ground infrastructure in place to actually win over Hillary, but he will only hurt Hillary if he jumps in, which just *might* keep Sanders in play long enough to make it interesting, but I doubt it.
Of course, if Hillary happens to end up in handcuffs and withdraws, we could possible see a nomination fight from the floor at the convention and that would be Sanders best chance for securing the nomination, but Biden is going to have to jump in and really botch his campaign for there to be a chance of that.
Similarly, Jeb and Trump will go though the same kind of thing with Jeb not really on the playing field yet. Trump only has traction because the real money hasn't taken the field. (Same with Carson). However, the Republican side is much less sure this time though. With no real heir apparent beyond Jeb and the donors starting to walk away from him, I expect the race to be a bit more competitive on the Republican side this time around. Trump will get steamrolled albeit from multiple candidates and later than Sanders, but apart from that it's not obvious to me which of the field will be on top at the end....
Most companies act both ethically, morally and legally. When they don't there are criminal and civil ways to change their behavior.
We need to stop using the default setting that "big companies are out to cheat me" and realize that the vast majority are just out to do business and make some money. There is NOTHING wrong with making money and making lots of money does NOT imply somebody was cheating, yet with today's mindset that's the default setting. OH.... Company X sold BILLIONS of dollars of products and made MILLIONS in profit, they obviously cheated somehow...This is usually a LIE.
Bringing up insurance companies is just the common whipping boy mindset again.... MOST insurance companies act correctly, ethically and legally, in both the premiums they charge and the claims they process. There are exceptions to this in the insurance industry, but generally they are above board in what they do. In the insurance industry you HAVE to be this way because it's all about the policy and the legal oblations they are assuming though it. As their customer with a claim, you are more than free to obtain the services of a lawyer and make sure you get every penny you are entitled to from them. I suggest that if you feel cheated by an insurance company on your claim, you get a lawyer. Chances are, the insurance company knows EXACTLY what their oblations are and they know it doesn't help them to skimp on claims because if the word gets out this is how they do business two things will happen. 1. They will get sued over past claims. 2. New business will go to other companies. Insurance companies usually get a bad rap on this because most people don't understand what their insurance policy actually mean. They expect their insurance company to cover things they never agreed to cover, or they expect payouts beyond the limits of the policy. It's not THEIR fault in these cases, but the consumer's fault for not knowing or caring to understand what they where actually buying with those premium dollars they paid. How's that the company's fault when the policy meets legal minimums and it's "Buyer beware" after that?
Tell me this is a joke.... It's a joke right? A lame attempt at humor? Wait, you are SERIOUS?
As long as there are bad people with guns intent on doing harm, you will need good people with guns to stop them. There are no other options for cops, but to be well armed and proficient in the use of force, deadly force when required. Non lethal options need to be available, but you cannot replace firearms with them in today's world.
Even without the 2nd amendment in the USA, keeping firearms out of the hands of "bad people" is impossible, so there will be no *replacement* for guns in the hands of the police. With the 2nd amendment there will be literally MILLIONS of guns in circulation, making them easily obtained though illegal means. We might disarm the police though law and practice in some places, but they will be backed up by well armed police carrying firearms and many of the disarmed will pay with their lives because we denied them the means of protecting themselves and us. Taking guns from cops is stupid in almost all cases IMHO.
There is no replacing the gun in the hands of cops with any of the technologies we now have, and if we force it to happen, the police and the public will pay in blood for our foolishness. There is NO REPLACMENT for the gun in the police's hands right now, and I suspect that there will NEVER be a nonlethal alternative to a firearm.
If Facebook (or any other company) paid their LEGAL tax oblation, what's the beef? If they are not cheating and breaking the rules, WHO CARES?
If a resident of the UK somehow get's the idea that Facebook *should* be paying more, then it's up to you to CHANGE THE LAW to make it fair. You guys have elections, you elect the people who write the laws, go make your case with them and insist they change the law..
I get so tired of this, "all big corporations are evil" narrative, especially for companies which are FOLLOWING THE LAW. IMHO MOST companies follow the law, both because it's good for business and because folks don't like going to jail. So can we please stop with this narrative? It's not valid.
Companies are finding that they need one charging port for every two of their employees' electric vehicles. "If you don't maintain a 2-to-1 ratio, you are dead," said ChargePoint CEO Pat Romano. "Having two chargers and 20 electric cars is worse than having no chargers and 20 electric cars. If you are going to do this, you have to be willing to continue to scale it."
There will ALWAYS be a shortage of chargers, it's the nature of the beast. They cost money to buy, money to run and money to maintain and at this point are generally free to use. Where this is altruistic and helps the environment by encouraging folks to drive their EV's (or actually making it *possible* for them to extend their range) they are a "cost center" for companies, like other employee benefits, and take away from their bottom line. There will always be a shortage. But the above quote comes from a guy who makes his living SELLING chargers. Somehow I get the idea he's more motivated by the prospect of making money selling chargers, not saving the environment. Why do I say this? He's advocating a charger for every TWO EV's. This is WAY to many.
At first glance it seems reasonable, but in reality it's not even close. The proper ratio at most one charger per FOUR EVs, and likely more like one to eight or more.
1. First we need to understand that 1 charger can easily service FOUR parking spaces if you orient the spaces correctly (with two side by side on each side or a row of cars). With long enough cables and drivers parking so the charging port is nearer the charge, this would be EASILY extended to SIX spaces
2. Few EV's require more than a few hours of charging to regain a significant amount of range, some can recharge to 80% in less than an hour. This should make it possible to charge more than the four EV's which can be reached by each charger and giving each of the EV's per charger more than an hour each during a standard 8 hour work day.
3. Staggering start times would only extend the ability of a single charger by a couple more hours per day, extending the effective charging time available from 8 to about 12 hours or more (2 hours on each side of standard office hours). This would afford 6 parking spaces 2 hours each from a single charger.
4. Nobody is at work every day. One can assume that out of 52 weeks, vacation, sick leave will consume about 4-5 weeks or about 10% of an employee's work hours. This means that the number of EV's goes down by a similar percentage.
5. Two hours of charge time is nice, but for most EV's it is more than necessary to restore 80% of it's range. This means that if you *require* half day parking and regulate charger use to a maximum of 1 hour pre EV you can likely service 8 to 12 EV's PER charger. Of course this would require a corporate culture adjustment and a bit of policing to make sure your EV owners where making the best use of the chargers.
So, all of the above tell me that this guy is just trying to sell chargers. He knows what he's saying isn't really valid and that one charger could easily provide service to more than 2 EV's per day. He's just trying to sell the stuff he builds and the sad part is he's packaged it in the "being green" marketing slogans. The sad part is some folks don't see this for what it really is, just some shady marketing campaign which makes it to Slashdot.
Ok.. Well this quality of life thing is pretty darned expensive.... I'm not sure the city/government is who I want in charge of making sure of my quality of life is good enough, especially if they are choosing light rail systems. The are a waste in almost all cases.
There are usually better investments that can be made over some light rail system if quality of life is your goal. Investments which are cheaper and more effective than spending billions of dollars per mile to bury a subway. Roads and busses come to mind, even pushing carpooling and HOV lanes seem to make more sense to me. It's as effective and a whole lot cheaper..
In some cases, 100%... See NTTA: https://www.ntta.org/whatwedo/...
However, we also pay taxes on fuel both at the local and federal level which pay for the highways we drive on using that fuel. Usually this funding is pays for what we need if it's not wasted on garbage projects.
This is when corporate lawyers start echoing the standard refrains of "Don't destroy any records", "where is your search warrant" and "don't talk to investigators or the press without a lawyer present" lines to everybody.
Somebody is likely going to jail, or at least facing criminal charges in both the EU and the USA.... Expect there to be a lot of finger pointing from here on out.
I agree withe everything up to "don't talk to investigators or the press without a lawyer present." Never forget that a corporate lawyer doesn't represent you, he or she is their to protect the corporation and will throw you under the bus at the first opportunity. Anytime a lawyer is sent to "help" the first thing to ask is "Who you represent?" followed by "are you my lawyer?" and "is everything we say confidential and privileged?" if the answer to the last two isn't yes and yes they are not on your side.
I wasn't giving advice to anybody, especially legal advice. I was just relaying what is likely going on inside the halls of VW as the criminal investigation continues. By all means, if you are having a conversation with the people investigating the criminal part of this, having a lawyer present who represents you is a good idea, and as you point out, the lawyers hired by the company are not likely to be representing you.
From this former resident of the NC state capital who went to the red school on Hillsborough street, Move from the RTP to North Texas as soon as you can.... Trust me, apart from the summer heat, things are better here.. The traffic is better, the taxes are better and the housing is cheaper, at least for now.
Not true. The NTTA (North Texas Turnpike Authority) has build multiple roads which are self supported. Yes, they are initially funded though government backed bonds, but these obligations and the operation of these toll roads is funded solely by the tolls they collect from the system's users.
https://www.ntta.org/whatwedo/mobilitysolutions/Pages/Funding.aspx
Which is my general point about light rail. It never pays for itself though fares, but ALWAYS requires substantial subsidies from local governments to survive. They cost cities money, lots of money, and drain resources from other things like police and fire, especially during the down turns because you cannot just stop using the subways or safely reduce operating costs for these systems. They eat money at generally the same rate regardless of the city's ability to support them and they are often way too big and inefficient to start with because folks don't understand this and believe them to be self supporting.
People in Chicago are laughing at you.
Yea, I've been in Chicago (last week actually) and I'm chuckling too, mostly at you. Yea the "EL" is there and folks do ride the thing, but to get around the windy city and the suburbs, the bulk of people take the extensive number of toll ways in their cars. There is a reason the number of I-Pass holders exceeds the number of public transit riders by an order of magnitude or two. Apart from not wanting to get shot in the grand "gun free zone" folks generally find a car trip to their destination a better option. Personally, I chose to drive myself while I was there...
Not that I oppose public transportation. It's just EXPENSIVE and the fares collected simply cannot pay the development and operation costs of most systems.
Plus, as others have pointed out, such subway/elevated systems cost more to operate than they can collect in fares. Deepening the debt loads of the major cities who choose to "invest" in such systems. This is universally true for every major system I know of in the USA and abroad.
Let's not forget that Obama's party had 100% control of congress for nearly two years when he took office. They could have had ANYTHING they wanted and All the republicans could do is stand yelling on the capital steps and stomp their feet hoping the press would cover it. So what did the party in power do? Not all that much, except for Obamacare, which they sold on a series of lies... Is it no wonder that they've steadily lost seats in the house and senate and Obama's second election win was with a thinner margin than his first? IMHO - I think the trend will continue, though lord knows the republicans are not apt to do much better if they stay on the same old paths that got their clocks cleaned in 2008....
My republican co workers assured me that Obamacare would cause our company to go under because healthcare costs would skyrocket. They're actually saving close to 200 dollars per employee.
Oh, so you haven't got your rate increase for 2016 yet then.... I just got mine and it's pretty shocking this year... I think my premiums have gone up nearly $300 over the last three years for my family, ostensibly due to the ACA, and my deductibles and out of pocket went up too. I also hear that a number of areas are seeing 20% rate hikes on the Federal exchanges this time around. So if you really are saving money, you work in a rare place, or everybody got cut back to part time..
Light rail is ALWAYS expensive no matter how you do it, doubly true if you choose to bury it. It will NEVER be financially viable and will suck the tax payer dry trying to live up to the dream.
Busses are better and more adaptable, but even then are rarely financially viable.... You just loose less money funding them as the tax payer because a buss and some roads to drive them on is ALWAYS cheaper than laying track and buying a train to run on it....
Light rail systems are rarely financially viable... Did I say rarely? I mean never... You can never charge enough in fares to pay for what it costs to build and operate these systems. Plus, they will never be really convenient. You cannot put in enough stops, run enough trains at all times of the day to make them even marginally convenient for the majority.
They CAN reduce congestion and possibly reduce parking problems, but they are huge ticket items for tax payers that will always be sapping the budgets they depend on and never really achieving the dream of cheap, efficient and convenient mass transit.