Yeah, because China wouldn't have dared to lie to Barack.
Please. China has been engaged in cyberwarfare since the invention of the computer network. They're not stepping it up. They're getting caught more, and western countries are starting to replace "unknown foreign actor" with "Chinese" in reports, rather than continuing to give them cover.
They steal our intellectual property, manipulate currency, and likely install backdoors in networks, chips and other devices manufactured for export. And like Lenin said many U.S. corporations are not only glad to sell them the rope with which to hang us, they'll actually pay them to put the rope around our necks.
With the proper software you can already used the camera's CCD to detect radiation. After all the only difference between the photons the camera captures for photographs and the photons of gamma radiation is the energy of the gammas.
I don't think the comments are flippant. Some people want to overestimate the potential damage here because:RADIATION. When the true hazard is heavy metal poisoning, but only if ingested, which is unlikely
The radiation guidelines are more than 6000 less than a level which can cause actual damage. As a matter of fact the most significant reasons levels are so low is the potential damage to unborn fetuses, which are much more susceptible to damage from radiation than even children.
Initially I wrote about how much more radiation is allowed for radiation workers (I am one), but someone rightly pointed out that we're talking about alpha radiation here, which is even less likely to cause damage.
It's extremely likely that no member of the public received a dangerous level of radiation from this incident. It is equally likely that no member of the public was injured by heavy metal poisoning (the real danger of handling Uranium incorrectly.)
It's possible, but highly unlikely, that government workers might have received some radiation. It is somewhat more likely that some government worker might have gotten some contamination from handling the buckets, but even that is low once they were placed where they were.
Now admitting all that, the Park Service screwed up. Such samples should never have been allowed anywhere near the public. They should have only been handled by trained geologists in a controlled environment. It is possible to safely display such samples, in a locked case, with proper shielding for alpha radiation (basically acrylic).
NRC limits are extremely conservative. While doses to the public are set at 100 mrem/year radiation workers are allowed upto 6 Rem a year for their entire working lifetime. These levels are set to be below the damage threshold.
At these levels it is likely no harm was experience by any member of the public, who would have received less than 7 mrem total dose in a 30 minute period. (For gamma radiation 1 R equals 1 rem.) Even if they visited several times over multiple years.
It might be different for National Park workers though, who could easily have exceeded the allowed radiation worker levels and gotten doses above the threshold known to cause harm.
10 states prohibit merchants charging a surcharge to use a credit card.
The merchant can increase all of their prices for all of their customers in these states, but they cannot charge specific customers because they are using a credit card. Many states also prohibit charging customers to use a debit card.
I can only speak to my personal situation. My withholding was reduced each paycheck and I got more money each month. The amount of my withholding was smaller and the amount of actual taxes I paid was less. Since the amount held by the IRS was smaller I got less back.
I use the standard deduction and have for years, since my house was paid off.
SInce one of the provisions of the tax reform was to reduce withholdings I'm not surprised people got less back. What I don't understand is people being pissed because the government gets to use less of their money for free for a year. I tossed the extra money in my savings and am getting interest off it that the IRS would not pay me.
According to Politifact California gets $.99 for every dollar of taxes taken in. That other bastion of political fairness New York state gets $1.23 per dollar of taxes taken in. So no they are not donor states.
States that receive less than they take in are Utah, Wisconsin, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana and Minnesota. All of those, with the exception of Illinois, are so-called Red States.
The fact is that about 40 of the 50 states receive as much or more than they contribute. If you take all of the contributions from all of the states you will find that the federal government pays out more than it receives. That's one of the reasons there is a deficit.
So let's stop promoting the fantasy that California, New York or any of the bastions of progressivism are donor states. They are not. (Illinois go ahead and claim it if you want. You've earned it.)
Twitter still exists because Trump posts on it. If he didn't it would have disappeared in 2017.
It's actually hilarious most of the time. Some idiot "journalist" posts Martians have landed in Boise and before you know it every news site on the planet is carrying the story, without any of them actually checking for sources or corroboration.
Then it comes out it was a hoax or that it was actually a movie was being filmed there and all of the news site pretend like it never happened. And then they wonder why only members of congress are held in lower esteem than the media.
But then someone doxes high schoolers or a bunch of people are injured in some third world pesthole because someone tweeted the wrong thing and you realize these people are a danger to themselves and others.
You need to rethink that. Courts have required malls, which are privately owned, but which behave as if they were public squares to allow pamphlets to be distributed, as if they were the public squares they pretend to be.
Trump was forced to unblock followers because the courts found that his tweets were official government correspondence. Official correspondence on the network of a private company that citizens were using to correspond with a government official. Correspondence that Twitter was facilitating.
Twitter says it wants to be the new public square. It acts as if it is. Then it bans people while saying it believes that people have a right to be on social media. Those were Jack Dorsey's words on the Joe Rogan podcast. "People have a right to be on social media." Twitter might just find that the courts agree with them that being on social media is a right.
Since a banned feminist is suing them over being banned we might just find out.
It's a religious issue because Christian Scientists beliefs prohibit vaccinations.
In more modern times some, not all, Catholics believe it is immoral to receive vaccinations which are grown on media developed on fetal lies from aborted babies. Which is also a belief based religion.
Confession doesn't work like that. It is ineffective to say "I'm going to kill you but it will be alright because I'm going to confession tomorrow."
The other poster has it right. For most anti-vaxers it is not a religious issue. It's a trust issue. They don't trust a government who is known in the past to have given African Americans a placebo rather than antibiotics to treat their VD. Or they don't trust corporation who we know have sold many types of drugs or food knowing it was unsafe.
I'm on the vaccine people side. But I can understand why some people have problems with vaccines and realize that calling them stupid is not likely to convince them of anything. Want to fix the problem? Figure out how to gain their trust.
Christian and Christian belief is hard to talk about in absolutes because there are thousands of individual Christian religions many of whom have divergent beliefs. So if you say some Christian group believes that anyone who doesn't follow their understanding of Christian faith will go to eternal damnation I'm absolutely sure you'll find one that does.
My understanding is that anyone who rejects God will not go to heaven, because to be in heaven is to be in the presence of God. If you reject him why would you want to be with him?
As revealed in scripture before the creation of the physical world Lucifer rejected God and he was banished. If you die and don't go to heaven you're fair game for Lucifer, also known as the devil to do with as he pleases. Does that mean eternal torture? I don't know, but Satan doesn't seem like avery nice guy.
At best God created everyone to be with Him. If you reject Him then eventually you'll feel the loss of being separated from Him. Think of it as they way you feel if someone you love has broken up with you or died. Is that feeling torture? Maybe, but you're the one who rejected God, so if you're torture over it then why blame God for it?
And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.
Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to you by the Democratic party. The party that tried to destroy the Union in support of slavery. They built this statue after the war when they retook the government by denying civil rights to people of color. Let us never forget.
If you listen to the full interview it is obvious that Northam was discussing a baby who was born with a disability. It is quite common for pro-abortion supporters to bring up fringe cases like rape, incest and disabilities because they get more support by ignoring the fact the the vast majority of babies are aborted because they are inconvenient for the mother to bring to term and raise. Yes I said inconvenient. The vast majority of abortions do not happen because of economic issues.
Now the question becomes: Is it alright to allow a child to die, which can be medically saved because they have a disability? Sure it is more expensive, physically harder and more intrusive to your lifestyle to have to care for a child that is disabled. But do we really want to live in a world where the law allows inconvenient people to be killed?
Most people don't think so, which is why some pro-choice Democrat probably leaked the yearbook photo.
And for the record when you kill a child after it is born that is infanticide.
That is so patently untrue that I wonder how you can say it without blushing, or are you blushing?
Obama had not only control of the three branches of government during the first two years of his presidency, he had two thirds of the senate, which means for the first time in a century he actually had enough votes, with only Democrats to override a filibuster and force closure on a bill, which is how we got Obamacare, since not a single Republican voted for it.
Obama didn't do it during that time because he spent all his political capital on a health care bill written by the insurance companies that was so patently unpopular with even his own party that he had to lie to them to get them to vote for it.
Fixing Internet regulation, immigration or any of a hundred other problems which would have gotten some bipartisan support would have been simpler, but instead he went for the legacy legislation which will eventually be totally replaced with something that will actually work.
Believe it or not there was an occasion when Democrat wasn't synonymous with Northam, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez. You didn't always agree with them, but at least you could respect them, even accomplish things of significant benefit. I think they still exist somewhere. Sadly they get pushed out by left wing loons who win primary elections with 15,000 votes out of 100,000 registered Democratic voters, who don't bother to show up. Nevertheless for the sake of those bystanders whom we very much need as allies please consider where you send your jabs.
Well let's start at the beginning. How much does it cost the manufacturer to make the phone? IHS Markit claims the IPhone X has $370.25 worth of parts in it. Considering what they pay for labor in China it probably cost them $400 for an IPhone.
Considering that retail markup is generally 100% that should put the IPhone at somewhere around $800.
A Samsung flagship phone, like the S8 cost about $307 to make and sells for about twice as much as manufacturing costs or ~$720. However the S6 only costs $275 to make and sells for $700.
The real question is would the phones cost more if they included replaceable batteries, a SD slot and a phone jack? For the last two probably by a few bucks. For the first probably not since having to solder a battery in has to be more expensive than just dropping it in.
Of course if you make the case out of something cheaper than glass it would probably be cheaper too. (and not break so easy.)
How about any source which is not under the direct political control of people who stand to gain from the results of their predictions?
The UN has consistently misrepresented population numbers for decades. They refused to accept that there is not a human population problem, even though in almost every country in the developed world populations are not only decreasing, but in many actually collapsing. Entire economic systems are going to collapse due to decreasing populations and the poor choice of funding retirement using Ponzi schemes.
Japan is in real trouble. The gender imbalance in China is going to come to a reckoning.
Population is wealth. Fewer people means few researcher. Automation means that there will be fewer low and no skill jobs. But until creative AI come around, which is never in my opinion, high skill and creative tasks will take people, and the fewer people you have the less creativity and research there will be.
Meanwhile demographics is destiny. Collapsing populations will be replaced by cultural groups which are not collapsing. The Canadians have it more right than the UN hacks, parroting the agenda of their political masters.
Pretty much nobody is going to do anything about this. There is no will among regulators to do anything about this. Don't blame the Republicans. If the Democrats were in control it would be no different. Or perhaps blame them both. It won't get you anything, but you can feel justified they're all slimeballs.
If a lawyer can make a class action lawsuit out of this, perhaps something will happen. This system came out about a year and a half ago. I didn't really see it in stores until last year. How many units have they sold? I've read that you can do a class action with as little as 40 people. Nest claims to have sold 11 million items, but I would be surprised if more than tens of thousands Nest Secures have been sold. It runs about $300. So that's like what $3 million buck ber 10,000 consumers in play? Not counting penalties. Is that enough for a set of high priced lawyers to take them to court for a protracted legal battle? I don't think so, but what do i know?
The best reason to believe the Thermostat doesn't have a microphone is that it was developed before Google bought Nest. So since we might assume Nest wasn't originally in the data spy business, it make sense to conclude there is no microphone.
Except didn't a new version of the Nest Thermostat come out after Google bought them? Oops!
Since the Secure uses the microphone as a breaking glass detector I'd say it was active, but didn't have the software to phone home like a Google Home puck or phone app.
So yep. It's been turned on, but the user couldn't access it for speach recognition.
I've checked their website. It appears the Nest Secure is for now only available in the United States.
Too bad. We can be sure the FTC, FCC, Justice Department, et. all will do nothing about it. If the European Union was involved I think we all know that Google would "'ave some ex'plaining to do."
You need to keep up. The Democrats control the house. That means that they don't control three branches of government. Considering Senate rules the only party in modern time who has ever controlled all three branches of government was the DEmocrats, while Obama was president, for which we can thank them for the ACA. Other than that, because of closure in the Senate no party has truly had control of all three branches of government.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because China wouldn't have dared to lie to Barack.
Please. China has been engaged in cyberwarfare since the invention of the computer network. They're not stepping it up. They're getting caught more, and western countries are starting to replace "unknown foreign actor" with "Chinese" in reports, rather than continuing to give them cover.
They steal our intellectual property, manipulate currency, and likely install backdoors in networks, chips and other devices manufactured for export. And like Lenin said many U.S. corporations are not only glad to sell them the rope with which to hang us, they'll actually pay them to put the rope around our necks.
With the proper software you can already used the camera's CCD to detect radiation. After all the only difference between the photons the camera captures for photographs and the photons of gamma radiation is the energy of the gammas.
https://phys.org/news/2014-06-smartphone-detector-app-positive.html
I don't think the comments are flippant. Some people want to overestimate the potential damage here because:RADIATION. When the true hazard is heavy metal poisoning, but only if ingested, which is unlikely
The radiation guidelines are more than 6000 less than a level which can cause actual damage. As a matter of fact the most significant reasons levels are so low is the potential damage to unborn fetuses, which are much more susceptible to damage from radiation than even children.
Initially I wrote about how much more radiation is allowed for radiation workers (I am one), but someone rightly pointed out that we're talking about alpha radiation here, which is even less likely to cause damage.
It's extremely likely that no member of the public received a dangerous level of radiation from this incident. It is equally likely that no member of the public was injured by heavy metal poisoning (the real danger of handling Uranium incorrectly.)
It's possible, but highly unlikely, that government workers might have received some radiation. It is somewhat more likely that some government worker might have gotten some contamination from handling the buckets, but even that is low once they were placed where they were.
Now admitting all that, the Park Service screwed up. Such samples should never have been allowed anywhere near the public. They should have only been handled by trained geologists in a controlled environment. It is possible to safely display such samples, in a locked case, with proper shielding for alpha radiation (basically acrylic).
This should never have happened.
NRC limits are extremely conservative. While doses to the public are set at 100 mrem/year radiation workers are allowed upto 6 Rem a year for their entire working lifetime. These levels are set to be below the damage threshold.
At these levels it is likely no harm was experience by any member of the public, who would have received less than 7 mrem total dose in a 30 minute period. (For gamma radiation 1 R equals 1 rem.) Even if they visited several times over multiple years.
It might be different for National Park workers though, who could easily have exceeded the allowed radiation worker levels and gotten doses above the threshold known to cause harm.
10 states prohibit merchants charging a surcharge to use a credit card.
The merchant can increase all of their prices for all of their customers in these states, but they cannot charge specific customers because they are using a credit card. Many states also prohibit charging customers to use a debit card.
I can only speak to my personal situation. My withholding was reduced each paycheck and I got more money each month. The amount of my withholding was smaller and the amount of actual taxes I paid was less. Since the amount held by the IRS was smaller I got less back.
I use the standard deduction and have for years, since my house was paid off.
SInce one of the provisions of the tax reform was to reduce withholdings I'm not surprised people got less back. What I don't understand is people being pissed because the government gets to use less of their money for free for a year. I tossed the extra money in my savings and am getting interest off it that the IRS would not pay me.
According to Politifact California gets $.99 for every dollar of taxes taken in. That other bastion of political fairness New York state gets $1.23 per dollar of taxes taken in. So no they are not donor states.
States that receive less than they take in are Utah, Wisconsin, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana and Minnesota. All of those, with the exception of Illinois, are so-called Red States.
The fact is that about 40 of the 50 states receive as much or more than they contribute. If you take all of the contributions from all of the states you will find that the federal government pays out more than it receives. That's one of the reasons there is a deficit.
So let's stop promoting the fantasy that California, New York or any of the bastions of progressivism are donor states. They are not. (Illinois go ahead and claim it if you want. You've earned it.)
Twitter still exists because Trump posts on it. If he didn't it would have disappeared in 2017.
It's actually hilarious most of the time. Some idiot "journalist" posts Martians have landed in Boise and before you know it every news site on the planet is carrying the story, without any of them actually checking for sources or corroboration.
Then it comes out it was a hoax or that it was actually a movie was being filmed there and all of the news site pretend like it never happened. And then they wonder why only members of congress are held in lower esteem than the media.
But then someone doxes high schoolers or a bunch of people are injured in some third world pesthole because someone tweeted the wrong thing and you realize these people are a danger to themselves and others.
You think Tim Pool is right wing?
He was a Bernie Sanders supporter. I guess you think Jim Himes and Kathleen Sebelius are right wing too?
You need to rethink that. Courts have required malls, which are privately owned, but which behave as if they were public squares to allow pamphlets to be distributed, as if they were the public squares they pretend to be.
Trump was forced to unblock followers because the courts found that his tweets were official government correspondence. Official correspondence on the network of a private company that citizens were using to correspond with a government official. Correspondence that Twitter was facilitating.
Twitter says it wants to be the new public square. It acts as if it is. Then it bans people while saying it believes that people have a right to be on social media. Those were Jack Dorsey's words on the Joe Rogan podcast. "People have a right to be on social media." Twitter might just find that the courts agree with them that being on social media is a right.
Since a banned feminist is suing them over being banned we might just find out.
It's a religious issue because Christian Scientists beliefs prohibit vaccinations.
In more modern times some, not all, Catholics believe it is immoral to receive vaccinations which are grown on media developed on fetal lies from aborted babies. Which is also a belief based religion.
Confession doesn't work like that. It is ineffective to say "I'm going to kill you but it will be alright because I'm going to confession tomorrow."
The other poster has it right. For most anti-vaxers it is not a religious issue. It's a trust issue. They don't trust a government who is known in the past to have given African Americans a placebo rather than antibiotics to treat their VD. Or they don't trust corporation who we know have sold many types of drugs or food knowing it was unsafe.
I'm on the vaccine people side. But I can understand why some people have problems with vaccines and realize that calling them stupid is not likely to convince them of anything. Want to fix the problem? Figure out how to gain their trust.
I'm afraid Pew disagrees with you. Thier research says that 12% of liberals believe vaccines are unsafe, but only 10% of conservatives do.
Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, but they are not allowed to have their own facts.
Christian and Christian belief is hard to talk about in absolutes because there are thousands of individual Christian religions many of whom have divergent beliefs. So if you say some Christian group believes that anyone who doesn't follow their understanding of Christian faith will go to eternal damnation I'm absolutely sure you'll find one that does.
My understanding is that anyone who rejects God will not go to heaven, because to be in heaven is to be in the presence of God. If you reject him why would you want to be with him?
As revealed in scripture before the creation of the physical world Lucifer rejected God and he was banished. If you die and don't go to heaven you're fair game for Lucifer, also known as the devil to do with as he pleases. Does that mean eternal torture? I don't know, but Satan doesn't seem like avery nice guy.
At best God created everyone to be with Him. If you reject Him then eventually you'll feel the loss of being separated from Him. Think of it as they way you feel if someone you love has broken up with you or died. Is that feeling torture? Maybe, but you're the one who rejected God, so if you're torture over it then why blame God for it?
And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.
Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to you by the Democratic party. The party that tried to destroy the Union in support of slavery. They built this statue after the war when they retook the government by denying civil rights to people of color. Let us never forget.
If you listen to the full interview it is obvious that Northam was discussing a baby who was born with a disability. It is quite common for pro-abortion supporters to bring up fringe cases like rape, incest and disabilities because they get more support by ignoring the fact the the vast majority of babies are aborted because they are inconvenient for the mother to bring to term and raise. Yes I said inconvenient. The vast majority of abortions do not happen because of economic issues.
Now the question becomes: Is it alright to allow a child to die, which can be medically saved because they have a disability? Sure it is more expensive, physically harder and more intrusive to your lifestyle to have to care for a child that is disabled. But do we really want to live in a world where the law allows inconvenient people to be killed?
Most people don't think so, which is why some pro-choice Democrat probably leaked the yearbook photo.
And for the record when you kill a child after it is born that is infanticide.
That is so patently untrue that I wonder how you can say it without blushing, or are you blushing?
Obama had not only control of the three branches of government during the first two years of his presidency, he had two thirds of the senate, which means for the first time in a century he actually had enough votes, with only Democrats to override a filibuster and force closure on a bill, which is how we got Obamacare, since not a single Republican voted for it.
Obama didn't do it during that time because he spent all his political capital on a health care bill written by the insurance companies that was so patently unpopular with even his own party that he had to lie to them to get them to vote for it.
Fixing Internet regulation, immigration or any of a hundred other problems which would have gotten some bipartisan support would have been simpler, but instead he went for the legacy legislation which will eventually be totally replaced with something that will actually work.
Believe it or not there was an occasion when Democrat wasn't synonymous with Northam, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez. You didn't always agree with them, but at least you could respect them, even accomplish things of significant benefit. I think they still exist somewhere. Sadly they get pushed out by left wing loons who win primary elections with 15,000 votes out of 100,000 registered Democratic voters, who don't bother to show up. Nevertheless for the sake of those bystanders whom we very much need as allies please consider where you send your jabs.
Well let's start at the beginning. How much does it cost the manufacturer to make the phone? IHS Markit claims the IPhone X has $370.25 worth of parts in it. Considering what they pay for labor in China it probably cost them $400 for an IPhone.
Considering that retail markup is generally 100% that should put the IPhone at somewhere around $800.
A Samsung flagship phone, like the S8 cost about $307 to make and sells for about twice as much as manufacturing costs or ~$720. However the S6 only costs $275 to make and sells for $700.
The real question is would the phones cost more if they included replaceable batteries, a SD slot and a phone jack? For the last two probably by a few bucks. For the first probably not since having to solder a battery in has to be more expensive than just dropping it in.
Of course if you make the case out of something cheaper than glass it would probably be cheaper too. (and not break so easy.)
How about any source which is not under the direct political control of people who stand to gain from the results of their predictions?
The UN has consistently misrepresented population numbers for decades. They refused to accept that there is not a human population problem, even though in almost every country in the developed world populations are not only decreasing, but in many actually collapsing. Entire economic systems are going to collapse due to decreasing populations and the poor choice of funding retirement using Ponzi schemes.
Japan is in real trouble. The gender imbalance in China is going to come to a reckoning.
Population is wealth. Fewer people means few researcher. Automation means that there will be fewer low and no skill jobs. But until creative AI come around, which is never in my opinion, high skill and creative tasks will take people, and the fewer people you have the less creativity and research there will be.
Meanwhile demographics is destiny. Collapsing populations will be replaced by cultural groups which are not collapsing. The Canadians have it more right than the UN hacks, parroting the agenda of their political masters.
Pretty much nobody is going to do anything about this. There is no will among regulators to do anything about this. Don't blame the Republicans. If the Democrats were in control it would be no different. Or perhaps blame them both. It won't get you anything, but you can feel justified they're all slimeballs.
If a lawyer can make a class action lawsuit out of this, perhaps something will happen. This system came out about a year and a half ago. I didn't really see it in stores until last year. How many units have they sold? I've read that you can do a class action with as little as 40 people. Nest claims to have sold 11 million items, but I would be surprised if more than tens of thousands Nest Secures have been sold. It runs about $300. So that's like what $3 million buck ber 10,000 consumers in play? Not counting penalties. Is that enough for a set of high priced lawyers to take them to court for a protracted legal battle? I don't think so, but what do i know?
The best reason to believe the Thermostat doesn't have a microphone is that it was developed before Google bought Nest. So since we might assume Nest wasn't originally in the data spy business, it make sense to conclude there is no microphone.
Except didn't a new version of the Nest Thermostat come out after Google bought them? Oops!
Since the Secure uses the microphone as a breaking glass detector I'd say it was active, but didn't have the software to phone home like a Google Home puck or phone app.
So yep. It's been turned on, but the user couldn't access it for speach recognition.
I've checked their website. It appears the Nest Secure is for now only available in the United States.
Too bad. We can be sure the FTC, FCC, Justice Department, et. all will do nothing about it. If the European Union was involved I think we all know that Google would "'ave some ex'plaining to do."
They are not talking about the Nest thermostat. They are talking about the Nest Security system. Two different items made by the same company.
So return your Nest thermostat if you want, but you won't be able to do it because it has a microphone, because, as far as is known, it doesn't.
You need to keep up. The Democrats control the house. That means that they don't control three branches of government. Considering Senate rules the only party in modern time who has ever controlled all three branches of government was the DEmocrats, while Obama was president, for which we can thank them for the ACA. Other than that, because of closure in the Senate no party has truly had control of all three branches of government.