And unlike when they were receiving unemployment payments, these people can now go out and get at least some form of a job without losing those payments.
At least in the US, it is not totally uncommon that some folks receiving unemployment payments to work cash-jobs on the side and continue to collect unemployment checks. When they finally find a real gig, it pays them more than unemployment checks.
The real issues in the US are for those on long-term unemployment who transition to be dependent on welfare programs.
1. They would often lose medicare, childcare, food assistance and other benefits as they become partially employed, and 2. They eventually become unemployable as their job skills bitrot over time.
Right now these welfare benefits are worth way more than their "cash-equivalent" in the free market, so the reduction of those benefits are not reasonably offset by just giving people some equivalent amount of money if they transition to "some job". For example, the pay of a minimum wage jobs might not realistically offset the cost in child care benefits lost, so although you might get child-care paid for whilst you are *training* for a new job, you might not really afford to simply get just "some form of job" after your training because it won't cover the child-care benefit you would lose. The situation sorta sucks right now for the long-term unemployed.
Did you read his post? He said U.K., unless im wrong, I don't think the U.K. has a USPS. Given that it stands for United States Postal Service.
As a matter of fact, I did read the post. "Given that the odd pension funding requirements have put UPS under strain" and I pointed out that the UPS does *not* in fact have any "odd pension funding requirements" (even in the UK) and pointed out his confusion might be related to the USPS stuff that made the news.
Then I went on to hash about my own political agenda about the actual UPS pension situation (in typical/. off-topic fashion).
One of the issues in the UK was (it seems to have improved in the last year) that delivery schedules were essentially impossible for mortal humans to meet, and there was no time to hand over the package, get a signature, etc. Given that the odd pension funding requirements have put UPS under strain and UPS might be understaffed and having similar issues.
You are making the common confusion between UPS (united parcel service, a private company) and USPS (united states postal service, a government charter company). USPS has your so-called "odd pension funding requirement", the private UPS/IBT offers a pretty standard pension for its employees. Neither pension issue seems to have a effect on staffing levels of these companies.
Although USPS pension "pre-funding" issues have made the news, most folks are unaware that the UPS also has a completely different pension issue. Current UPS workers in the US have their pensions handled by a UPS/IBT union-partnership company, however prior to 2008, UPS outsourced the management of pensions to CSP (aka central-states-pension fund). They eventually decided to take bail on that company, but only take current employees to the new plan and a pay several billions of dollars to CSP to fund the pensions of retired employees remaining on CSP.
Now the old pension management company CSP is becoming insolvent (because most of its clients are trucking companies that are going bankrupt and didn't pay up like UPS) and CSP is poised to slash benefits checks as part of a reorg plan sponsored by the US treasury. Note that this crisis doesn't UPS, or current workers at all, but is of course a kick in the butt for those UPS employees that retired before 2008. Unlike the coal pension fund, congress hasn't been pressured to bail out this pension fund. If the pension fund would go bankrupt and taken over by the the pension guarantee insurance, only a fraction of the pension payments are generally covered by insurance and this negotiation with US treasury is designed to hopefully avoid the BK/insurance option for pensioners.
FWIW, the USPS pension would likely not have this insolvency issue because they are "odd-ly" forced to pre-pay their pension obligations, and not pay-as-you-go as other pensions funds. The observer is left to decide if pre-funding liabilities is an "odd" requirement or not given the fact that many industries can face an eventual future where in their growth phase, multiple employees are supporting a single pensioner, but as they shrink into obsolescence a single employee is supporting multiple pensioners. This is a just microcosm of the future effect of automation and aging populations will have on many western economies.
When companies are "doing-well", it's always tempting to improve benefits for pensioners over the amounts actually supported by the contributions the pensioners and the company when the employees were working. The argument that companies are "doing-well" and "should-contribute-more" is always compelling (and this argument often made by unions when negotiating contracts), but of course we see that generally violates the laws of economics long term and we see the results of this lack of foresight. Ironically the people who allegedly are qualified to plan for the retirement contracts for the employees are ignoring any planning for the retirement of their industries.
Next up on the pension crisis... Calpers (the california public employee pension fund)
I've never worked in a dev house that doesn't have some kind of music blasting. Usually electronic, sometimes rock or indie - depends what the boss is into usually.
If you don't like it, report them to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. I bet they didn't bother to pay for the "jukebox" licence required to legally to play a selection of music for employees (except an over-the-air radio station). The $500/year/pro bill from each of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC is probably enough to scare the boss into silence.
If they plan to be the Uber of trucking, they would start at something slightly less than 15% and then jack it up after they drive their competitors out of business and become the monopoly provider.
Yes, that's very likely what they will do. That is the magic of the "free market". Eventually, a bigger, badder competitor, with deeper pockets, will beat you up and take away your lunch money. Only a stinking socialist would find fault with that, right?
The biggest, baddest competitor is basically the government. They don't need to make a profit because they have the deepest pockets because they can tax you.. Socialist will find no fault with it, because their dad can beat up your "free market" dad.
Let's be clear...we lost the White House because of a (yet to be finalized) Electoral College vote. In terms of popular votes (ie what "the people" want) we actually won the White House.
That's a bit of fiction. Hillary received a plurality of votes (~48.0% to ~46.7%). She did not win a majority the popular vote (thanks to Gary Johnson). If we go by the constitution,if no-one wins a majority in the Electoral College, the presidency is decided by the House of Representatives. If we continue down this fictional route, I suspect if the results hinged on the House (where republicans hold a majority), it would be the same result as the Electoral College.
Face it, unless you redefine "the people want" as plurality of votes, the outcome is basically the same.
Ah, Chelsea will run for something in the near future, she has no other marketable skills so might as well ride Bill's coattails into a political career.
Twenty years from now, sure. She'll run against George P. Bush.
Actually, I think there's a better chance she'll be running against Ivanka Trump in 20 years...
Thanks to Bush, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East and we the USA are going to have to deal with it for the rest of our existence
If you actually think we have ever been on a track for peace in the Middle East, you have simply ignored the last 300 years of history. The last time it was remotely peaceful in the Middle East was back in the times before the decline of the Ottoman Empire which started before the existence of the USA... If you want to "thank" anyone for there never being "peace", you can thank Russia for defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1774...
In modern times, there was perhaps a moment of false hope during the time of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, but as expected Yasser Arafat nixed the whole thing...
Even with an antenna, in the US you'll still likely need a digital decoder for the signal; the analog signal has been mostly converted to digital in the US, despite delays.
The digital decoder to analog converter is only needed for older TVs bought in prior decades. Because of this requirement, the USA government used to give out coupons so you could get such a ATSC->NTSC converter for free (they allowed each household to get a $40 coupon and many companies made converter boxes you could by for $40 making them effectively free).
Short answer, most modern TV's have a "F" connector on the back. Most modern antenna have a matching connector which may or may-not have threads. If it does not have threads just press it on the F connector. If it has threads, screw it on to the F connector. If your antenna is so old that it doesn't have a matching connector (e.g., 300-ohm twin-lead cable), you will probably need to buy a device called a balun to convert between the two (if the TV doesn't also have 2 screws to connect the twin-lead antenna cable to).
For your viewing pleasure you can watch someone attach and F connecter in this video....
Or better yet, it's not even your car and it goes and picks up someone else to go somewhere and some other automated car picks you up later.
Or even better, we can invent some sort of publicly accessible vehicle that shuttles many people to a event and picks them up when they are done to reduce traffic. I suggest we call these vehicles a Basic User Shuttle aka a BUS.
The requirement for Shanghainese or Cantonese for some jobs in China is similar to the requirement for knowing Spanish in the USA. For some jobs, you will never know what is *really* going on if you don't know the language people curse at each other in and you will be completely ineffective.
For front-office jobs that are populated by token "whites", generally knowing a little Mandarin (Putonghua) is enough. They don't really want you to know too much about what is really going on anyways...
When you fall into money, usually it is mostly luck. People who work just as hard, in the same field in similar circumstances sometimes have wildly different outcomes.
However, those that *feel* their hard work has earned them their money and not luck, often have the type of personality that seeks some sort of validation (either internally or from other people) and thus will often not stop working.
However, those that *feel* that their luck has earned them their money generally think that it is an unrepeatable event and probably aren't as likely to keep working. This is the "lottery" winner type, but could be "inheritance" or other windfall. Unfortunately, this type of life is really not easy as it complicates social interaction so it tends to be isolating. Your friends and family still have to work so their time isn't as flexible, and after a while, those that actually matter will probably end up resenting any handouts. However, some folks like isolation, so it isn't necessarily bad, but probably bad for many people, more than they would like to admit. For those that don't seek isolation, they probably need to keep working in some capacity, but often they don't know how and that is a problem in itself.
I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Trump would have won without winner-take-all?
I think I saw some analysis that if *all* states split their electors proportional to the votes Clinton would have 262 electors, and Trump would have 258 electors, Gary Johnson would have 10 electors and Stein and McMullen would each have 1. Since no candidate would have the majority (270 required), the House of Representatives would consider the top 3 candidates from the Electoral College. Since the House is mostly Republican 247-188, even with a large number of defections, I suspect that Trump would still have won the election.
The scenario that some people are proposing to obsolete the Electoral College is that if a majority of electors were required to cast their vote for whoever got the majority of the popular vote throughout the US. This is similar but not the same as eliminating the overweight that small states have over the big states (because of the "bonus" senator electors) and marginalizes all the battleground states (as they would often simply just split +-1 electoral vote).
Without any type of winner take all complication, any strong 3rd party showing (like this latest 2016) election would likely mean no majority, so unless you want a president elected with a plurality, you probably will end up throwing the election to the House of Representatives.
However, if you read the Federalist papers, direct representation is clearly not what they intended for the office of the president. The complication of the Electoral College was taken because they wanted to make sure that candidates for president weren't just selected for their ability to be popular in a few states as they knew it would take completely different attributes/talents for a president to be successful and accepted by "a considerable a portion" of the whole country. They also wanted to minimize the ability of persons trying to corrupt the process or advancing "manchurian" candidates by distributing the power across all the states so that corrupting influence in one part of the country had a minimal effect on the process. Also, electors were to be chosen only for the task of electing a president and no other purpose and weren't allowed to be holding office in the House or Senate to minimize any institutional influence and corruption. Seems to me these are all worthy goals. Personally, I think more people should read the Federalist papers...
My precinct had >160% turnout. There is massive fraud here in CA.
FYI Oakland, California is in *ALAMEDA COUNTY*.
Given that Hillary won in California by 2:1 over Donald, even if there were massive fraud in California, it had exactly zero bearing on the election. However, if you insist, here are the Oakland Alameda, California results. Out of 888709 registered, only 670245 total ballots were cast (~75%). In Alameda County in California, Hillary received 78.06% of votes cast and Donald only managed to receive 14.54% of the votes.
Your link is for the state of *MICHIGAN* (Oakland County). Fromyour link there are only two precincts that report > 100% Southfield Township precincts 8/9 which reported a total 4258 votes vs 2551 registered
Pretty impressive to be "years" behind schedule, 2 years after you founded the company. They should declare "time bankruptcy" and start from scratch.
Not that I'm defending them, but Magic leap gave their first technology demo in 2011, so it wasn't just 2 years ago the started...
It was 2 years ago they closed their "A" round of financing ($50M) which was technically when they started their "clock" Google lead their "B" round of financing ($542M) And earlier this year, Alibaba lead their "C" round of financing (~$800M at a $4.5B valuation),
So they've raised ~$1.4B to date, but I'm guessing the"C" round financiers are shortly about to take a bath...
FWIW, Magic Leap doesn't seem to be organized like a tech venture, but more like a entertainment studio. From all reports, the tech that they seem like they are developing is adapted from medical tech: a single fiber scanning endoscope technology worked on at University of Washington by Eric Seibel. The chief technical officer of Magic Leap is Brian Schowengerdt who was Mr. Seibel's research partner. Apparently, the idea is to reverse the endoscope from being a camera to being a projector. Of course there are issues involved in adapting any technology, so it's not unexpected that they have run into a boat load of trouble and are years behind. Such is the nature of high tech.
I can also see the Dem's having a field day about Saudi money financing Trump's desires.
The Dems probably shouldn't be throwing such stones. Two reasons... 1. Apparently the Clinton Foundation has ingested quite a bit of Saudi money over the years... 2. SoftBank is a *Japanese* tech conglomerate, not a Saudi tech fund...
The other reason that China bought up a lot of US debt was to make sure there were no more property bubbles in the Far East funded by American money. They deliberately prevented Trump and people like him developing land over there, and aren't about to let them now.
It could get ugly if Trump and co. start using the US economy as leverage to get personal real-estate deals off the ground.
Hardly. There are property bubbles like you can't imagine all over the far east (including china in Shanghai and Shenzen). Are you trying to say that by buying US treasuries, they prevented the private US companies from borrowing money to invest in real-estate deals? Apparently the People's Bank of China didn't get the memo because they were basically funding both the bubble AND buying US treasuries. Of course now they have over the last couple years sold a big chunks of their US treasury holdings to address their own liquidity problems because of their slowing economy and the growing property bubbles.
If they were "smart" they would have let american companies take some of that risk, right?
Sounds to me that China bought up a lot of US debt as a safe place to park money that has the advantage of being pretty liquid (because there is a robust secondary market in US debt instruments)... Just like everyone else in the world does.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's engineers designed them to help developers implement crypto libraries without having to become experts .
I'm not sure if I am supposed to be happy or depressed about this claim...
And unlike when they were receiving unemployment payments, these people can now go out and get at least some form of a job without losing those payments.
At least in the US, it is not totally uncommon that some folks receiving unemployment payments to work cash-jobs on the side and continue to collect unemployment checks. When they finally find a real gig, it pays them more than unemployment checks.
The real issues in the US are for those on long-term unemployment who transition to be dependent on welfare programs.
1. They would often lose medicare, childcare, food assistance and other benefits as they become partially employed, and
2. They eventually become unemployable as their job skills bitrot over time.
Right now these welfare benefits are worth way more than their "cash-equivalent" in the free market, so the reduction of those benefits are not reasonably offset by just giving people some equivalent amount of money if they transition to "some job". For example, the pay of a minimum wage jobs might not realistically offset the cost in child care benefits lost, so although you might get child-care paid for whilst you are *training* for a new job, you might not really afford to simply get just "some form of job" after your training because it won't cover the child-care benefit you would lose. The situation sorta sucks right now for the long-term unemployed.
Did you read his post? He said U.K., unless im wrong, I don't think the U.K. has a USPS. Given that it stands for United States Postal Service.
As a matter of fact, I did read the post. "Given that the odd pension funding requirements have put UPS under strain" and I pointed out that the UPS does *not* in fact have any "odd pension funding requirements" (even in the UK) and pointed out his confusion might be related to the USPS stuff that made the news.
Then I went on to hash about my own political agenda about the actual UPS pension situation (in typical /. off-topic fashion).
One of the issues in the UK was (it seems to have improved in the last year) that delivery schedules were essentially impossible for mortal humans to meet, and there was no time to hand over the package, get a signature, etc. Given that the odd pension funding requirements have put UPS under strain and UPS might be understaffed and having similar issues.
You are making the common confusion between UPS (united parcel service, a private company) and USPS (united states postal service, a government charter company). USPS has your so-called "odd pension funding requirement", the private UPS/IBT offers a pretty standard pension for its employees. Neither pension issue seems to have a effect on staffing levels of these companies.
Although USPS pension "pre-funding" issues have made the news, most folks are unaware that the UPS also has a completely different pension issue. Current UPS workers in the US have their pensions handled by a UPS/IBT union-partnership company, however prior to 2008, UPS outsourced the management of pensions to CSP (aka central-states-pension fund). They eventually decided to take bail on that company, but only take current employees to the new plan and a pay several billions of dollars to CSP to fund the pensions of retired employees remaining on CSP.
Now the old pension management company CSP is becoming insolvent (because most of its clients are trucking companies that are going bankrupt and didn't pay up like UPS) and CSP is poised to slash benefits checks as part of a reorg plan sponsored by the US treasury. Note that this crisis doesn't UPS, or current workers at all, but is of course a kick in the butt for those UPS employees that retired before 2008. Unlike the coal pension fund, congress hasn't been pressured to bail out this pension fund. If the pension fund would go bankrupt and taken over by the the pension guarantee insurance, only a fraction of the pension payments are generally covered by insurance and this negotiation with US treasury is designed to hopefully avoid the BK/insurance option for pensioners.
FWIW, the USPS pension would likely not have this insolvency issue because they are "odd-ly" forced to pre-pay their pension obligations, and not pay-as-you-go as other pensions funds. The observer is left to decide if pre-funding liabilities is an "odd" requirement or not given the fact that many industries can face an eventual future where in their growth phase, multiple employees are supporting a single pensioner, but as they shrink into obsolescence a single employee is supporting multiple pensioners. This is a just microcosm of the future effect of automation and aging populations will have on many western economies.
When companies are "doing-well", it's always tempting to improve benefits for pensioners over the amounts actually supported by the contributions the pensioners and the company when the employees were working. The argument that companies are "doing-well" and "should-contribute-more" is always compelling (and this argument often made by unions when negotiating contracts), but of course we see that generally violates the laws of economics long term and we see the results of this lack of foresight. Ironically the people who allegedly are qualified to plan for the retirement contracts for the employees are ignoring any planning for the retirement of their industries.
Next up on the pension crisis... Calpers (the california public employee pension fund)
I've never worked in a dev house that doesn't have some kind of music blasting. Usually electronic, sometimes rock or indie - depends what the boss is into usually.
If you don't like it, report them to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. I bet they didn't bother to pay for the "jukebox" licence required to legally to play a selection of music for employees (except an over-the-air radio station). The $500/year/pro bill from each of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC is probably enough to scare the boss into silence.
If they plan to be the Uber of trucking, they would start at something slightly less than 15% and then jack it up after they drive their competitors out of business and become the monopoly provider.
Yes, that's very likely what they will do. That is the magic of the "free market". Eventually, a bigger, badder competitor, with deeper pockets, will beat you up and take away your lunch money. Only a stinking socialist would find fault with that, right?
The biggest, baddest competitor is basically the government. They don't need to make a profit because they have the deepest pockets because they can tax you.. Socialist will find no fault with it, because their dad can beat up your "free market" dad.
magnetic rays
Magnets don't make rays, magnetic fields have divergence of 0
obsessively_correcting_factual_errors while_substantially_missing_actual_point
I see you haven't uncovered the existence of my secret doomsday weapon powered by magnetic monopoles...
Let's be clear...we lost the White House because of a (yet to be finalized) Electoral College vote. In terms of popular votes (ie what "the people" want) we actually won the White House.
That's a bit of fiction. Hillary received a plurality of votes (~48.0% to ~46.7%). She did not win a majority the popular vote (thanks to Gary Johnson). If we go by the constitution,if no-one wins a majority in the Electoral College, the presidency is decided by the House of Representatives. If we continue down this fictional route, I suspect if the results hinged on the House (where republicans hold a majority), it would be the same result as the Electoral College.
Face it, unless you redefine "the people want" as plurality of votes, the outcome is basically the same.
Ah, Chelsea will run for something in the near future, she has no other marketable skills so might as well ride Bill's coattails into a political career.
Twenty years from now, sure. She'll run against George P. Bush.
Actually, I think there's a better chance she'll be running against Ivanka Trump in 20 years...
Thanks to Bush, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East and we the USA are going to have to deal with it for the rest of our existence
If you actually think we have ever been on a track for peace in the Middle East, you have simply ignored the last 300 years of history. The last time it was remotely peaceful in the Middle East was back in the times before the decline of the Ottoman Empire which started before the existence of the USA... If you want to "thank" anyone for there never being "peace", you can thank Russia for defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1774...
In modern times, there was perhaps a moment of false hope during the time of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, but as expected Yasser Arafat nixed the whole thing...
Even with an antenna, in the US you'll still likely need a digital decoder for the signal; the analog signal has been mostly converted to digital in the US, despite delays.
FWIW, if you bought a TV in the last decade, it already should have an ATSC decoder built in. This is required by federal law for all TV sets sold in the USA that also have an NTSC analog tuner.
The digital decoder to analog converter is only needed for older TVs bought in prior decades. Because of this requirement, the USA government used to give out coupons so you could get such a ATSC->NTSC converter for free (they allowed each household to get a $40 coupon and many companies made converter boxes you could by for $40 making them effectively free).
TL;DR...
Short answer, most modern TV's have a "F" connector on the back. Most modern antenna have a matching connector which may or may-not have threads. If it does not have threads just press it on the F connector. If it has threads, screw it on to the F connector. If your antenna is so old that it doesn't have a matching connector (e.g., 300-ohm twin-lead cable), you will probably need to buy a device called a balun to convert between the two (if the TV doesn't also have 2 screws to connect the twin-lead antenna cable to).
For your viewing pleasure you can watch someone attach and F connecter in this video....
http://seinfeld.wikia.com/wiki...
Or better yet, it's not even your car and it goes and picks up someone else to go somewhere and some other automated car picks you up later.
Or even better, we can invent some sort of publicly accessible vehicle that shuttles many people to a event and picks them up when they are done to reduce traffic. I suggest we call these vehicles a Basic User Shuttle aka a BUS.
Thankfully I remembered to download the entire Internet to a blank CD before I left for Chin++++NO CARRIER
Don't laugh, but didn't I hear that Google's doing something like that for Cuba? ;^)
The requirement for Shanghainese or Cantonese for some jobs in China is similar to the requirement for knowing Spanish in the USA. For some jobs, you will never know what is *really* going on if you don't know the language people curse at each other in and you will be completely ineffective.
For front-office jobs that are populated by token "whites", generally knowing a little Mandarin (Putonghua) is enough. They don't really want you to know too much about what is really going on anyways...
I wonder how many millionaire introverts spend their days posting on Slashdot
I hope that number is zero. There are zillions of better ways to spend your days in isolation. ;^)
When you fall into money, usually it is mostly luck. People who work just as hard, in the same field in similar circumstances sometimes have wildly different outcomes.
However, those that *feel* their hard work has earned them their money and not luck, often have the type of personality that seeks some sort of validation (either internally or from other people) and thus will often not stop working.
However, those that *feel* that their luck has earned them their money generally think that it is an unrepeatable event and probably aren't as likely to keep working. This is the "lottery" winner type, but could be "inheritance" or other windfall. Unfortunately, this type of life is really not easy as it complicates social interaction so it tends to be isolating. Your friends and family still have to work so their time isn't as flexible, and after a while, those that actually matter will probably end up resenting any handouts. However, some folks like isolation, so it isn't necessarily bad, but probably bad for many people, more than they would like to admit. For those that don't seek isolation, they probably need to keep working in some capacity, but often they don't know how and that is a problem in itself.
I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Trump would have won without winner-take-all?
I think I saw some analysis that if *all* states split their electors proportional to the votes Clinton would have 262 electors, and Trump would have 258 electors, Gary Johnson would have 10 electors and Stein and McMullen would each have 1. Since no candidate would have the majority (270 required), the House of Representatives would consider the top 3 candidates from the Electoral College. Since the House is mostly Republican 247-188, even with a large number of defections, I suspect that Trump would still have won the election.
The scenario that some people are proposing to obsolete the Electoral College is that if a majority of electors were required to cast their vote for whoever got the majority of the popular vote throughout the US. This is similar but not the same as eliminating the overweight that small states have over the big states (because of the "bonus" senator electors) and marginalizes all the battleground states (as they would often simply just split +-1 electoral vote).
Without any type of winner take all complication, any strong 3rd party showing (like this latest 2016) election would likely mean no majority, so unless you want a president elected with a plurality, you probably will end up throwing the election to the House of Representatives.
However, if you read the Federalist papers, direct representation is clearly not what they intended for the office of the president. The complication of the Electoral College was taken because they wanted to make sure that candidates for president weren't just selected for their ability to be popular in a few states as they knew it would take completely different attributes/talents for a president to be successful and accepted by "a considerable a portion" of the whole country. They also wanted to minimize the ability of persons trying to corrupt the process or advancing "manchurian" candidates by distributing the power across all the states so that corrupting influence in one part of the country had a minimal effect on the process. Also, electors were to be chosen only for the task of electing a president and no other purpose and weren't allowed to be holding office in the House or Senate to minimize any institutional influence and corruption. Seems to me these are all worthy goals. Personally, I think more people should read the Federalist papers...
I now live near Oakland, CA, any my precinct had 142% turn out.
Greater than 100% turnout happened in every county I looked at here in CA. For Oakland County where I live:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/MI/Oakland/63990/184040/en/vt_data.html
My precinct had >160% turnout. There is massive fraud here in CA.
FYI Oakland, California is in *ALAMEDA COUNTY*.
Given that Hillary won in California by 2:1 over Donald, even if there were massive fraud in California, it had exactly zero bearing on the election. However, if you insist, here are the Oakland Alameda, California results. Out of 888709 registered, only 670245 total ballots were cast (~75%). In Alameda County in California, Hillary received 78.06% of votes cast and Donald only managed to receive 14.54% of the votes.
Your link is for the state of *MICHIGAN* (Oakland County). Fromyour link there are only two precincts that report > 100% Southfield Township precincts 8/9 which reported a total 4258 votes vs 2551 registered
And in other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead...
Soros spent about 2 billion dollars to get Hillary *votes*.
Trump spent only about 300 million to get *electors*.
FTFY. Both got what they paid for right?
Pretty impressive to be "years" behind schedule, 2 years after you founded the company. They should declare "time bankruptcy" and start from scratch.
Not that I'm defending them, but Magic leap gave their first technology demo in 2011, so it wasn't just 2 years ago the started...
It was 2 years ago they closed their "A" round of financing ($50M) which was technically when they started their "clock"
Google lead their "B" round of financing ($542M)
And earlier this year, Alibaba lead their "C" round of financing (~$800M at a $4.5B valuation),
So they've raised ~$1.4B to date, but I'm guessing the"C" round financiers are shortly about to take a bath...
FWIW, Magic Leap doesn't seem to be organized like a tech venture, but more like a entertainment studio. From all reports, the tech that they seem like they are developing is adapted from medical tech: a single fiber scanning endoscope technology worked on at University of Washington by Eric Seibel. The chief technical officer of Magic Leap is Brian Schowengerdt who was Mr. Seibel's research partner. Apparently, the idea is to reverse the endoscope from being a camera to being a projector. Of course there are issues involved in adapting any technology, so it's not unexpected that they have run into a boat load of trouble and are years behind. Such is the nature of high tech.
I can also see the Dem's having a field day about Saudi money financing Trump's desires.
The Dems probably shouldn't be throwing such stones. Two reasons...
1. Apparently the Clinton Foundation has ingested quite a bit of Saudi money over the years...
2. SoftBank is a *Japanese* tech conglomerate, not a Saudi tech fund...
The other reason that China bought up a lot of US debt was to make sure there were no more property bubbles in the Far East funded by American money. They deliberately prevented Trump and people like him developing land over there, and aren't about to let them now.
It could get ugly if Trump and co. start using the US economy as leverage to get personal real-estate deals off the ground.
Hardly. There are property bubbles like you can't imagine all over the far east (including china in Shanghai and Shenzen). Are you trying to say that by buying US treasuries, they prevented the private US companies from borrowing money to invest in real-estate deals? Apparently the People's Bank of China didn't get the memo because they were basically funding both the bubble AND buying US treasuries. Of course now they have over the last couple years sold a big chunks of their US treasury holdings to address their own liquidity problems because of their slowing economy and the growing property bubbles.
If they were "smart" they would have let american companies take some of that risk, right?
Sounds to me that China bought up a lot of US debt as a safe place to park money that has the advantage of being pretty liquid (because there is a robust secondary market in US debt instruments)... Just like everyone else in the world does.