If they're successful then in what sense can they be said to be incompetent?
If I get you to invest in my hare-brained idea that I never thought through and don't have the skills to make into a reality, I could be considered both successful and incompetent.
I'm not so sure that people are only looking at star ratings. I play a lot of computer games. I usually get them from Steam or gog.com. Before purchasing a game, I always look for user reviews. But I always READ a few user reviews from people who liked the game and from people who didn't like the game. Like you said, product satisfaction is subjective, so I look at what people specifically liked and did not like about the game. If people liked things I care about and disliked things I don't care about, I'll buy the game if the price is right. I use the stars (or percentage who liked the game, in the case of Steam) as a general barometer of whether I should go to the step of reading reviews, but if the game is a genre I like and inexpensive or otherwise has a lot of things I normally like, I will read individual reviews even if people are overall giving the game a negative rating.
tl;dr - Yes, basing your decisions completely off of star ratings is ridiculous. Which is why I don't think most people do only that. And why I think most people trust user reviews more than critics. Even on RottenTomatoes.
Wikileaks is one of the few remaining upstanding journalistic organizations.
I'm pretty sure you've come up with your own personal definition of the expectations of journalism in your head to fit a predefined position of the things you support that Wikileaks does...
I won't argue that Wikileaks doesn't have a place or a valid idea of ethics. I argue instead that they are by no means more ethical journalists than other reputable sources, and in fact are among the most blatant ethically dubious journalists in some areas.
It's not hard to find common themes among most international journalism societies. Take this and this for example. After reading those ethical expectations, please explain to me how 10 of 23 news stories at https://wikileaks.org/-News-.html over the past 2 years being devoted to the organization's founder qualifies as unbiased reporting. The leaks themselves, located here, while useful, are consistently either without any context whatsoever, or are given with the same or worse consistent bias and narrative that dozens of other journalism sources are lambasted for.
Again, I'm not saying that Wikileaks and the information it provides does not have a place. I'm saying that you're a fool if you aren't willing to see that it has ethical problems that are every bit as glaring and serious as those of other journalism sources and sometimes worse.
I vaguely recall being that way when I was their age. I'm not so sure it is unique to any specific generation.
I have to agree. I remember being taught how to write a thesis 20 years ago and our class being specifically told by the teacher that magazine, newspaper, and internet sources were encouraged (as it gave us practice with the different ways to do citations), but that a lot of students usually don't bother to verify the validity of the source. He had a rule that if you quoted a reference that looked suspicious to him and he was able to find multiple reputable sources that contradicted yours, you'd lose a lot of points. Despite this, some people still lost points on their thesis because they used sources with obviously biased references that had either cherry-picked statistics in a misleading way or had just plain pulled numbers out of their asses.
I feel like this is more of an observation of human nature than it is of a particular generation.
That might be a big reason why they do go after the downloaders.
In general, people who look at child pornography are people who have a sexual interest in children. And if you're trying to find people who are sexually abusing children then finding people with a sexual interest in children is a great way to start.
Obviously that's not the only motive, or they wouldn't charge people just for downloading. But I doubt they'd be very interested in the downloaders if they didn't have a huge overlap with abusers.
Your argument is that observation and fascination often leads to mimicking the action? If that were true, then the FBI should be investigating ISIS by lurking on the Counter-Strike forums... Or, if you want to stick purely to sexuality, then insurance companies should be raising premiums on anyone who they have data on that shows they've been watching porn that includes unprotected sex, as they are obviously spreading STDs...
"Media" is the plural form of "medium." I'll admit that the common vernacular has been to treat "media" as a singular noun, but if you use the "proper grammar" argument then "are" was the correct word for the headline to use.
I feel like it's not just about politics. I hardly ever log in to Facebook (the only social media application I even have an account on), and even outside of elections or times of political conflict I've felt like a majority of the people who use the service a lot are really just shouting at an uncaring world and hoping for a response. Sometimes it's sharing cute or funny videos/pictures. Sometimes it's sharing intentionally inflammatory comments. They don't act like traditional trolls. They just seem to want someone to give them *some* sort of response that they can respond back to.
Political strife seems to exacerbate whatever the cause of the phenomenon is and (not surprisingly) apparently results in more inflammatory comments than at other times. But the bigger question (at least for me, because I don't personally participate in or understand it) is what is it about social media that prompts people to shout their beliefs and interests to people who did not ask and mostly do not care?
I'm actually kind of curious about this. I've never once clicked a sidebar ad or an ad before a youtube video (at least not on purpose). Are there people who really do that consistently enough to justify the cost? Or is the goal more of a brand or product recognition/refreshment from people even glancing at the advertisement? Or something else I'm just not thinking of?
Anyone have experience in creating/publishing online advertising who can comment on this?
Couldn't this article and the question asked to Newell be slightly rephrased along the lines of, "Is Valve relying on the success of its VR headset as its primary driver of growth?" The answer appears to be "no," which seems like the prudent business strategy to me.
All these kludges do is breed better idiots. Time to let darwin clean house a bit.
That may still happen. I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but in a lot of places in the United States it's actually dangerous to cross a street without looking even if the pedestrian traffic light is lit. In most cases the light exists on corners, and many states allow drivers to turn right if oncoming traffic is clear. Most of the time, the oncoming traffic that could hit you is on the left. So if you're looking left and start moving your car before looking to the right, you could easily hit someone in either the crosswalk on your current street or the crosswalk on the street you're turning on to if you're not careful.
It's a good idea in the United States (and, I suspect, in many countries) to check for careless drivers even if the crosswalk sign says you can cross the street. You have the right of way, but it sure is easier to curse out a stupid/careless driver from the sidewalk than from the pavement after they've hit you.
I mean, what exactly is wrong with our elected American leaders saying they are going to put forth and defend American interests first and foremost when dealing with the rest of the world?
You seem to be implying that American leaders were not already trying to gain advantages for American interests wherever possible or mitigating the negative effects when it's not possible. We'll just have to differ on our world view on that point.
Isn't that exactly what we elected them to do?
Maybe you did. Most people actually have a wide range of issues that they care about. Some of them even care less about America's role on the world stage than they do about the problems in front of them here and now that have nothing to do with the rest of the world. The point is, there are a lot of reasons to vote for a representative. Not everyone sees America throwing its weight around as a #1 priority.
I mean, nothing wrong with cooperating and helping out other countries in the world, as long as it doesn't go against US interests and put us on the short end of a deal.
Imagine you're in a village of 196 families. Some of them are bigger than others. Some are richer than others. Some have stronger people than others. You start wondering, why doesn't your family only ever deal with other families so long as you don't get the short end of the deal? Sounds reasonable right?
Pretty soon, everyone realizes what you're doing and stops dealing with you altogether. Why should they? The only way you ever agree to anything is when it's absolutely even (doesn't happen very often) or you're getting more than they are. In which case, why deal with you at all when there are other options?
Seriously, other countries out there are working hard for their own interests (see China especially these days, their building of "islands" and claiming more and more of the sea away from their mainland is a prime example)....yet so many in our country seem only too happy to give any advantage or thought to gaining advantage away.
How is China's island building and Russia's de facto annexation any different than what you want America to become? That's a certain pathway to war. If you want to take exception to nationalistic expansion from your enemies you'd sure as hell better have a moral high ground to speak from if you expect anyone to listen to you.
I missed it...when exactly did it become wrong to want your country to come out on top when dealing with the rest of the world?
Around the same time people realized that being a constant asshole to your neighbors isn't an effective long term strategy.
The world is a contest...every other country out there plays it to win, and yet, there seems to have somehow in recent years, been a generation of US citizens that don't perceive this...they think the world is a warm and friendly place with everyone giving their fair share, holding hands and singing Kumbaya (sp?)....
Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, the world is more complicated than "I must beat everyone totally, all the time, and if I don't then I lose!" I mean, seriously, if you really truly think that the purpose of every country is to try to rule the entire world, then there would have been a nuclear holocaust as soon as any side armed with nuclear weapons realized that they could not achieve that goal.
Was it about the same time it seems it became just plain wrong to be born a white male?
As a white male, I have experienced no personal discrimination or recrimination. Quite the opposite, really. Methinks thou doth project too much.
Though this story does beg the question... if you *can* control a FPS game (or any other console game, for that matter) with a mouse + keyboard, why not have native support for that control scheme on the console wherever possible? It would certainly help lessen (thought not eliminate) some of the "my PC game feels like a stupid console port!" complaints. Plus game development studios would win out because they would have less barriers to cross-platform multiplayer games.
It's not like there aren't games that exist on PC with perfectly working keyboard/mouse controls that actually play better with a controller than a keyboard/mouse simply by their nature. Rocket League is an example that comes to mind. Why can't we fit the controls to the game instead of being locked in to exactly one type of control schema on consoles?
Reddit did not block white supremacists. They blocked groups that contained doxing attempts. A reddit moderator (who had no influence or insight into the ban) chose to believe the group was instead banned because of popularity.
Your kung fu is good, but your alternative reality style is no match for my reading comprehension style!
It also depends on what you mean by "reliability". Do you mean dropped calls? I haven't experienced or heard of anyone else experiencing a significant problem with any of the major carriers dropping calls for years now. Being within 1% on that metric is totally unimpressive. Do you mean reliability of finding a cell signal on your phone? Because I was a Sprint customer until 2 years ago and dropped them for that very reason. So either my area is part of the 1% where their reliability isn't the same, or they aren't using the same metric that I care about. Either way, the 1% claim is not reflective of my reality and thus completely untrustworthy from my perspective.
Oh, I'm totally in agreement on that point. I share the opinion that tax law should not be open to influence by private entities. Or that at the very least we ought to strive for as little influence as possible if we cannot achieve a reality of no influence at all.
But if that's really all that's morally or ethically different between a private individual and a corporation as far as taxation is concerned, then Apple and others did nothing morally or ethically wrong so long as they were not involved in creating the legal framework for tax havens to exist. Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that Apple and others are guilty of ethically dubious behavior by using these tax havens. But the thing is that I believe I would also be equally guilty if I did the same thing.
I suppose the other difference is that I know I wouldn't be able to avoid the consequences of such flagrant tax dodging behavior, and Apple apparently believes they can (or at least can minimize the penalties).
Shouldn't corporate duty to shareholders should take into account the risk and penalty of obvious legal loopholes being closed?
I will not lie and pretend I like paying taxes. I like getting what they give me, and if I can get that for less money, I will. It's the same principle upon which big business works, and if it's good for them, then it's surely good for me.
Contributing my bit is not really the problem. Being asked to contribute someone else's bit because they are evading taxes, or because they are purchasing legislation which permits them to avoid them instead while I still am expected to pay them, that is the problem.
Wait, didn't paragraph 1 basically state, "I don't like paying taxes and will use legal (if perhaps not moral) methods to pay less of them if I can?" And didn't paragraph 2 then state, "But I really hate it when anyone else uses legal (if perhaps not moral) methods to pay less taxes?"
Unless I'm missing something, the big difference between you and them is that they can contribute to making the legal loopholes whereas you can only use existing ones. But if that's true, then companies using legal loopholes that they didn't create are morally equivalent to yourself.
The article summary isn't completely accurate. As the parent and the article both linked in the Twitter post, the proposed exchange was not specifically for a pardon, but for clemency. Clemency is synonymous with mercy or leniency. Changing a sentence from 28 years left to a few months left certainly seems to satisfy that criteria.
My opinion is that Assange will not give himself up and will play word games to the effect that this action does not go far enough/was not what he had in mind. Still, stranger things have happened. And a trial may be looking more attractive after years stuck at an embassy, especially if you can make it look like a political statement instead of a surrender, as he now has the option to do.
Yeah, I tried putting a giant rubber sheath over my monitor too, but apparently that doesn't stop you from getting an infection when you cyber. I feel his pain.
Out of curiosity, do you happen to live in a state that opted not to set up its own health care exchange?
I've noticed an interesting pattern that nobody ever seems to bring up. The OP's insurance premiums have increased dramatically, and if he really is in North Carolina, I have no reason to doubt him. But has anyone else noticed that traditionally Republican leaning states that refused to set up their own health exchanges seem to be faring the worst? For being the party that claims to trust the states to handle affairs more than the federal government, I find the irony to be palpable.
Gotta give the DNC credit on this one, they have managed to completely deflect from their security incompetence and breaking faith with their voters.
Unless you linked the wrong article, you left out the word "probably" between "now" and "think" and the words "I think" before "50%". That article doesn't say anything about anyone thinking voting machines had been hacked.
The article itself is actually somewhat interesting and may have a point about some conspiracy theories being highly partisan in who believes them. I assume the comment upvotes were either appreciation for the article as it is or part of the usual echo chamber from people who didn't bother to read whether the article says what your comment implies it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Incompetent yet successful...
If they're successful then in what sense can they be said to be incompetent?
If I get you to invest in my hare-brained idea that I never thought through and don't have the skills to make into a reality, I could be considered both successful and incompetent.
I'm not so sure that people are only looking at star ratings. I play a lot of computer games. I usually get them from Steam or gog.com. Before purchasing a game, I always look for user reviews. But I always READ a few user reviews from people who liked the game and from people who didn't like the game. Like you said, product satisfaction is subjective, so I look at what people specifically liked and did not like about the game. If people liked things I care about and disliked things I don't care about, I'll buy the game if the price is right. I use the stars (or percentage who liked the game, in the case of Steam) as a general barometer of whether I should go to the step of reading reviews, but if the game is a genre I like and inexpensive or otherwise has a lot of things I normally like, I will read individual reviews even if people are overall giving the game a negative rating.
tl;dr - Yes, basing your decisions completely off of star ratings is ridiculous. Which is why I don't think most people do only that. And why I think most people trust user reviews more than critics. Even on RottenTomatoes.
You respond to links of peer reviewed scientific papers with a link to a tabloid article... And you wonder why people don't take your views seriously.
Unless we develop technology to create voids in the universe or to exclude fields we're going to have vibrating matter.
My observations have led me to conclude that vibrating matter has a tendency to fill voids in quite interesting ways.
Wikileaks is one of the few remaining upstanding journalistic organizations.
I'm pretty sure you've come up with your own personal definition of the expectations of journalism in your head to fit a predefined position of the things you support that Wikileaks does...
I won't argue that Wikileaks doesn't have a place or a valid idea of ethics. I argue instead that they are by no means more ethical journalists than other reputable sources, and in fact are among the most blatant ethically dubious journalists in some areas.
It's not hard to find common themes among most international journalism societies. Take this and this for example. After reading those ethical expectations, please explain to me how 10 of 23 news stories at https://wikileaks.org/-News-.html over the past 2 years being devoted to the organization's founder qualifies as unbiased reporting. The leaks themselves, located here, while useful, are consistently either without any context whatsoever, or are given with the same or worse consistent bias and narrative that dozens of other journalism sources are lambasted for.
Again, I'm not saying that Wikileaks and the information it provides does not have a place. I'm saying that you're a fool if you aren't willing to see that it has ethical problems that are every bit as glaring and serious as those of other journalism sources and sometimes worse.
I vaguely recall being that way when I was their age. I'm not so sure it is unique to any specific generation.
I have to agree. I remember being taught how to write a thesis 20 years ago and our class being specifically told by the teacher that magazine, newspaper, and internet sources were encouraged (as it gave us practice with the different ways to do citations), but that a lot of students usually don't bother to verify the validity of the source. He had a rule that if you quoted a reference that looked suspicious to him and he was able to find multiple reputable sources that contradicted yours, you'd lose a lot of points. Despite this, some people still lost points on their thesis because they used sources with obviously biased references that had either cherry-picked statistics in a misleading way or had just plain pulled numbers out of their asses.
I feel like this is more of an observation of human nature than it is of a particular generation.
That might be a big reason why they do go after the downloaders.
In general, people who look at child pornography are people who have a sexual interest in children. And if you're trying to find people who are sexually abusing children then finding people with a sexual interest in children is a great way to start.
Obviously that's not the only motive, or they wouldn't charge people just for downloading. But I doubt they'd be very interested in the downloaders if they didn't have a huge overlap with abusers.
Your argument is that observation and fascination often leads to mimicking the action? If that were true, then the FBI should be investigating ISIS by lurking on the Counter-Strike forums... Or, if you want to stick purely to sexuality, then insurance companies should be raising premiums on anyone who they have data on that shows they've been watching porn that includes unprotected sex, as they are obviously spreading STDs...
"Social media IS driving americans insane"
FFS!
"Media" is the plural form of "medium." I'll admit that the common vernacular has been to treat "media" as a singular noun, but if you use the "proper grammar" argument then "are" was the correct word for the headline to use.
I feel like it's not just about politics. I hardly ever log in to Facebook (the only social media application I even have an account on), and even outside of elections or times of political conflict I've felt like a majority of the people who use the service a lot are really just shouting at an uncaring world and hoping for a response. Sometimes it's sharing cute or funny videos/pictures. Sometimes it's sharing intentionally inflammatory comments. They don't act like traditional trolls. They just seem to want someone to give them *some* sort of response that they can respond back to.
Political strife seems to exacerbate whatever the cause of the phenomenon is and (not surprisingly) apparently results in more inflammatory comments than at other times. But the bigger question (at least for me, because I don't personally participate in or understand it) is what is it about social media that prompts people to shout their beliefs and interests to people who did not ask and mostly do not care?
I'm actually kind of curious about this. I've never once clicked a sidebar ad or an ad before a youtube video (at least not on purpose). Are there people who really do that consistently enough to justify the cost? Or is the goal more of a brand or product recognition/refreshment from people even glancing at the advertisement? Or something else I'm just not thinking of?
Anyone have experience in creating/publishing online advertising who can comment on this?
Norville: [to Amy] Now let me ask you a question: Would an imbecile come up with this?
[shows Amy a picture of a circle]
Norville: You know, for kids.
Couldn't this article and the question asked to Newell be slightly rephrased along the lines of, "Is Valve relying on the success of its VR headset as its primary driver of growth?" The answer appears to be "no," which seems like the prudent business strategy to me.
All these kludges do is breed better idiots. Time to let darwin clean house a bit.
That may still happen. I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but in a lot of places in the United States it's actually dangerous to cross a street without looking even if the pedestrian traffic light is lit. In most cases the light exists on corners, and many states allow drivers to turn right if oncoming traffic is clear. Most of the time, the oncoming traffic that could hit you is on the left. So if you're looking left and start moving your car before looking to the right, you could easily hit someone in either the crosswalk on your current street or the crosswalk on the street you're turning on to if you're not careful.
It's a good idea in the United States (and, I suspect, in many countries) to check for careless drivers even if the crosswalk sign says you can cross the street. You have the right of way, but it sure is easier to curse out a stupid/careless driver from the sidewalk than from the pavement after they've hit you.
I mean, what exactly is wrong with our elected American leaders saying they are going to put forth and defend American interests first and foremost when dealing with the rest of the world?
You seem to be implying that American leaders were not already trying to gain advantages for American interests wherever possible or mitigating the negative effects when it's not possible. We'll just have to differ on our world view on that point.
Isn't that exactly what we elected them to do?
Maybe you did. Most people actually have a wide range of issues that they care about. Some of them even care less about America's role on the world stage than they do about the problems in front of them here and now that have nothing to do with the rest of the world. The point is, there are a lot of reasons to vote for a representative. Not everyone sees America throwing its weight around as a #1 priority.
I mean, nothing wrong with cooperating and helping out other countries in the world, as long as it doesn't go against US interests and put us on the short end of a deal.
Imagine you're in a village of 196 families. Some of them are bigger than others. Some are richer than others. Some have stronger people than others. You start wondering, why doesn't your family only ever deal with other families so long as you don't get the short end of the deal? Sounds reasonable right?
Pretty soon, everyone realizes what you're doing and stops dealing with you altogether. Why should they? The only way you ever agree to anything is when it's absolutely even (doesn't happen very often) or you're getting more than they are. In which case, why deal with you at all when there are other options?
Seriously, other countries out there are working hard for their own interests (see China especially these days, their building of "islands" and claiming more and more of the sea away from their mainland is a prime example)....yet so many in our country seem only too happy to give any advantage or thought to gaining advantage away.
How is China's island building and Russia's de facto annexation any different than what you want America to become? That's a certain pathway to war. If you want to take exception to nationalistic expansion from your enemies you'd sure as hell better have a moral high ground to speak from if you expect anyone to listen to you.
I missed it...when exactly did it become wrong to want your country to come out on top when dealing with the rest of the world?
Around the same time people realized that being a constant asshole to your neighbors isn't an effective long term strategy.
The world is a contest...every other country out there plays it to win, and yet, there seems to have somehow in recent years, been a generation of US citizens that don't perceive this...they think the world is a warm and friendly place with everyone giving their fair share, holding hands and singing Kumbaya (sp?)....
Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, the world is more complicated than "I must beat everyone totally, all the time, and if I don't then I lose!" I mean, seriously, if you really truly think that the purpose of every country is to try to rule the entire world, then there would have been a nuclear holocaust as soon as any side armed with nuclear weapons realized that they could not achieve that goal.
Was it about the same time it seems it became just plain wrong to be born a white male?
As a white male, I have experienced no personal discrimination or recrimination. Quite the opposite, really. Methinks thou doth project too much.
Though this story does beg the question... if you *can* control a FPS game (or any other console game, for that matter) with a mouse + keyboard, why not have native support for that control scheme on the console wherever possible? It would certainly help lessen (thought not eliminate) some of the "my PC game feels like a stupid console port!" complaints. Plus game development studios would win out because they would have less barriers to cross-platform multiplayer games.
It's not like there aren't games that exist on PC with perfectly working keyboard/mouse controls that actually play better with a controller than a keyboard/mouse simply by their nature. Rocket League is an example that comes to mind. Why can't we fit the controls to the game instead of being locked in to exactly one type of control schema on consoles?
Reddit did not block white supremacists. They blocked groups that contained doxing attempts. A reddit moderator (who had no influence or insight into the ban) chose to believe the group was instead banned because of popularity.
Your kung fu is good, but your alternative reality style is no match for my reading comprehension style!
The best economic system is...
Damnit, some of us are drinking coffee! You need to label this kind of post "funny" if you don't want people to spit all over their monitors!
It also depends on what you mean by "reliability". Do you mean dropped calls? I haven't experienced or heard of anyone else experiencing a significant problem with any of the major carriers dropping calls for years now. Being within 1% on that metric is totally unimpressive. Do you mean reliability of finding a cell signal on your phone? Because I was a Sprint customer until 2 years ago and dropped them for that very reason. So either my area is part of the 1% where their reliability isn't the same, or they aren't using the same metric that I care about. Either way, the 1% claim is not reflective of my reality and thus completely untrustworthy from my perspective.
Oh, I'm totally in agreement on that point. I share the opinion that tax law should not be open to influence by private entities. Or that at the very least we ought to strive for as little influence as possible if we cannot achieve a reality of no influence at all.
But if that's really all that's morally or ethically different between a private individual and a corporation as far as taxation is concerned, then Apple and others did nothing morally or ethically wrong so long as they were not involved in creating the legal framework for tax havens to exist. Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that Apple and others are guilty of ethically dubious behavior by using these tax havens. But the thing is that I believe I would also be equally guilty if I did the same thing.
I suppose the other difference is that I know I wouldn't be able to avoid the consequences of such flagrant tax dodging behavior, and Apple apparently believes they can (or at least can minimize the penalties).
Shouldn't corporate duty to shareholders should take into account the risk and penalty of obvious legal loopholes being closed?
I will not lie and pretend I like paying taxes. I like getting what they give me, and if I can get that for less money, I will. It's the same principle upon which big business works, and if it's good for them, then it's surely good for me.
Contributing my bit is not really the problem. Being asked to contribute someone else's bit because they are evading taxes, or because they are purchasing legislation which permits them to avoid them instead while I still am expected to pay them, that is the problem.
Wait, didn't paragraph 1 basically state, "I don't like paying taxes and will use legal (if perhaps not moral) methods to pay less of them if I can?" And didn't paragraph 2 then state, "But I really hate it when anyone else uses legal (if perhaps not moral) methods to pay less taxes?"
Unless I'm missing something, the big difference between you and them is that they can contribute to making the legal loopholes whereas you can only use existing ones. But if that's true, then companies using legal loopholes that they didn't create are morally equivalent to yourself.
The article summary isn't completely accurate. As the parent and the article both linked in the Twitter post, the proposed exchange was not specifically for a pardon, but for clemency. Clemency is synonymous with mercy or leniency. Changing a sentence from 28 years left to a few months left certainly seems to satisfy that criteria.
My opinion is that Assange will not give himself up and will play word games to the effect that this action does not go far enough/was not what he had in mind. Still, stranger things have happened. And a trial may be looking more attractive after years stuck at an embassy, especially if you can make it look like a political statement instead of a surrender, as he now has the option to do.
The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough.
Yeah, I tried putting a giant rubber sheath over my monitor too, but apparently that doesn't stop you from getting an infection when you cyber. I feel his pain.
Out of curiosity, do you happen to live in a state that opted not to set up its own health care exchange?
I've noticed an interesting pattern that nobody ever seems to bring up. The OP's insurance premiums have increased dramatically, and if he really is in North Carolina, I have no reason to doubt him. But has anyone else noticed that traditionally Republican leaning states that refused to set up their own health exchanges seem to be faring the worst? For being the party that claims to trust the states to handle affairs more than the federal government, I find the irony to be palpable.
I'm pretty sure the only clear preference shown in this past election by the US people was for none of the available candidates.
Especially seeing as the way this has been covered 50% of Democrats now think the Russians hacked voting machines
https://today.yougov.com/news/...
Gotta give the DNC credit on this one, they have managed to completely deflect from their security incompetence and breaking faith with their voters.
Unless you linked the wrong article, you left out the word "probably" between "now" and "think" and the words "I think" before "50%". That article doesn't say anything about anyone thinking voting machines had been hacked.
The article itself is actually somewhat interesting and may have a point about some conspiracy theories being highly partisan in who believes them. I assume the comment upvotes were either appreciation for the article as it is or part of the usual echo chamber from people who didn't bother to read whether the article says what your comment implies it does.