It is part of the constitution of our country, right after the freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.
Great, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. It even says so in the document itself. Or do you only follow the bits you agree with?
There is also this major issue that the politicians on the US left
And right. Don't forget that a lot of the right support some level of regulation too.
keep trying to regulate the arms as if people breaking the law will care about yet another law preventing their ownership of firearms, when frankly, that isn't human nature.
It's not as simple as "make guns illegal = no more murder". But there is plenty of evidence that shows a reduction in guns and gun culture results in a reduction of gun violence.
Thanks to the Constitution, there are hard limits on authority, so even the most authoritarian President conceivable could not approach that level, and if a politician was of that same mold the first thing they would set their sites on would be the 22nd amendment. Something no American politician has done since its passing.
NSA, Gitmo, Iraq War etc are all examples of Presidents (from both sides) exceeding authority. I find it odd that in this day an age you have such faith in this safeguard.
Remember Hitler didn't start out gassing the Jews, it was merely going to make Germany great again. There was a long road of slowly wearing down the established processes until a tipping point was reached that the people could no longer return from. This is how extreme Authoritarianism works, and Donald Trump is displaying early signs of such behaviour ie I don't like it, they should be sued, punished, removed etc. inflammatory comments about entire groups of people based on sex, race and religion. No other western leader left or right has been this extreme since Hitler.
, people have called Trump's position on abortion authoritarian, yet his stated preference (recently anyhow) is that it should be a State rather than Federal matter, which means ceding, not increasing, authority.
Finally, that's the worst presentation of the spectrum I have yet to encounter. It assigns an arbitrary origin without identifying it as such, and conflates ideology and policy. Did you know that in terms of policy, between 2000 and 2008 the median Republican was center-left?
Ironic you say that yet provide no quantitative reference yourself?
Being a Non-American, the US democrats are as right than most other Western right parties. The conservatives in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc are all pretty close to the Democrats (ie moderate right), and The Republicans are extreme right. Happy to see data that shows otherwise, by my experience disagrees with that claim.
I want to see a poll based on a real sampling of the population across the country where the questions in the poll are worded and ordered exactly the same as the ballot. Anything else is just fabricated numbers to sell a story.
That's good, so what are you doing about it?
I always hear lots of people complaining about the current system, but very few of them are actually lifting a finger to try and change it.
Why didn't AIDS become as big in the hetero community.
Really? Do you not know anything about the gay scene? I'll give you a clue, the amount of fucking is in the region of 10-100 times greater than in hetero land. That means contagions have a 10-100 times greater chance of spreading.
You spend more time on your laptop because it has a more suitable form factor. That doesn't mean it should be more expensive. As far as actual technical features go your phone does more and the form factor makes it even more difficult to manufacture.
Bigger screen cost more money
More powerful CPU cost more money
More RAM cost more money
More Storage cost more money
It costs more because it has higher spec'd components in almost every area.
I'm never going to pay more for a phone than a laptop...
Why? Barring x86 a smartphone does more. Especially the Note.
I have a Note, and a Dell XPS. Productivity-wise I do a LOT more with my laptop, I use it 10 hours a day. The phone is for the odd call/txt/message, and checking the odd web page or map or mobile music. My phone lasts about 2-3 years, whereas I'm getting 5 years at least out of my laptop (hardware/OS upgrades are an issue with phones).
So for me, the laptop does more.
Who does the polling and who reports the polling results?
Lots of different organisations, and they report the numbers themselves. The media usually watch these results and report them too, but you can get the information from the source if you don't trust the media.
The media is telling you this.
Oh you asked a question then answered it yourself. That is not usually how questions work.
You have no way of knowing what the actual vote will be.
Statistical methods are well understood, even if you didn't stay in school long enough to learn this.
The polling itself is set up to favor the two party system and is a self-fulfilling prophecy
Is it? Which part of the method do you disagree with? What method do you think would improve this?
because people like you believe the results.
Instead people should just believe you? What better method to you have, I'm genuinely interested.
If the polling is so darn good, why do we even both voting?
Polls are an estimation with a margin of error. A vote is as close to 100% accurate as you can get.
Under normal circumstances, some polls might have some bias one way, and others might go the other, and the real result is somewhere in the middle. But when all the polls including even Fox News agree, there is a good chance that they represent actual voter sentiment. Or do you think Hillary has paid off Fox News too?
Just poll a couple hundred people (it's ok if you leave out a demographic group or two) and ask them which candidates they would vote for (don't even bother to include all the candidates on the ballot). Should be good enough.
And herein lies the problem with the average Trump voter. Your lack of education prevents you from understanding how statistical polling works, and it also prevents you from understanding why catchphrase slogans do not make good policy, and also why you tend to just believe anything your cult leader says without question.
It's never dear leaders fault, it's the opposition, and the establishment, and the media, and the statisticians, and the FBI, and Generals, and the CIA, and the NSA, and women, and Mexicans, and Muslims, and black people, and...
So either everyone else is crazy, or maybe it's just Trump.
Same here. My requirements for a phone are large screen, stylus input, decent camera and tactile home button. The Note is the only phone that fits the bill.
I've had a Note 2, now have my trusty old Note 3, and the wife has a Note 4. I was thinking of upgrading but the Note 3 is still kicking along nicely. Although it is getting a bit laggy, and there's no Marshmallow update for this model, so I might look at an upgrade.
One con, is my Note 3 was the best phone you could get when released, and cost me $800 in local dollars to buy outright. The Note 7 was $1350 which to me is just ridiculous. Stores are selling boxed Note 5's for about $600, which seems like a reasonable price for a good phone. I'm never going to pay more for a phone than a laptop...
For one program? No. The problem comes when *everyone* starts thinking that way. Applications use more and more RAM because "It's cheap" and "everyone has plenty". Nobody optimizing means that multitasking becomes needlessly more difficult.
Again why is this a problem? Storage and RAM is so cheap is cost more in my time to write this response than to buy more. In fact you could argue it's less efficient because optimising code takes more developer time, and adds time and cost to project delivery. Given the choice of a 1GB app delivered now, or an 800MB app delivered 3 months late and 20% over budget, I'll take the former every time.
And that's where we aren't on the same page. Apparently you can't read the part where I don't think Trump is better than Hillary.
One of them will be president, which do you think will do less damage to the country and greater international community?
The choice is not between two horrible candidates.
Yes it is.
The choice is whether to support one of two horrible candidates because the media tells you those are the only "viable" candidates
The media doesn't tell me this, polling numbers suggest the winner will be either one of these two.
or "throw away your vote" by voting against the two party system which has gone off the cliff and left any semblance of public service behind.
It's not throwing away your vote. If you believe the system is flawed, then vote third party. And get out and convince others to do the same. If enough people feel the same way, third parties will eventually achieve enough votes to make an impact. That is how democracy works
It certainly doesn't work by sitting on your couch moaning about it.
Two characteristics? Is that all it takes? Well, if that's your metric..
It's not my metric...
If you understood how Conservatism, Liberalism, Authoritarianism and Libertarianism all relate on the political spectrum then you would understand that Trump's political position is the closest to that of Hitler of any modern candidate. But don't just take my word for it
Seen any obvious comparison?
When an American politician establishes their own army to patrol the streets and crush opposition; when they hold Nuremberg scale rallies; when they adopt a policy of territorial expansion...
Yeah yeah blah blah, but by then it's too late. We did actually learn some lessons from that episode, and as they say, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why Clinton has much higher support among educated voters . Why do you think that is?
In this case Trump is throwing a styrofoam ball in a glass house. Yes a styrofoam and rocks are both roughly round and throwable, but the risks of throwing them in a glass house are not comparable.
Good analogy. You have a man-baby with a bad reputation for throwing styrofoam balls at anyone and everyone in his playpen, and he now wants to move into a new house with only rocks in it. What do you think is going to happen here?
I'm unaware of any Secretary of State sending and receiving classified emails on a private server either. We are not on the same page.
You think Hillary invented out of band communication of classified material? You'd have to be petty naive to think she was the first person ever to do this type of thing. Again not excusing the behaviour, but merely explaining why it's probably not as big a deal to those who know how it works at this level.
. By you defending her actions, you're showing yourself to be no less of a brainless partisan than the idiots voting for Trump to stop Hillary.
I'm not defending her, but we cannot know the full details, and the anti-Hillary argument is for trial by media which is even less acceptable
Ultimately the choice is between a competent but sinister candidate, and a buffoon. Both are bad choices, but one is a slightly less bad option than the other.
I'm willing to start with them. Yes the world is getting hotter. Yes man is contributing and most likely is the driving force behind it. No there's no stopping it without unbelievably drastic measures that will not be accepted by almost anybody. The best chance for stopping it is a world war...
Why do we have to stop it, isn't adapting easier? We can grow food in the desert now, there is no real need to panic.
*sigh* There are no serious AGW primary forcing computer models that wouldn't have us hitting his special target temperature even if we had cut all emissions in 1985. CO2, methane, everything. Which means disingenuous shitbirds like you have exactly four choices. Either seriously advocate the eradication of between 50-95% of the human race as well as an accompanying drop in living standard depending on just how much of humanity you want to keep around, advocate for chemically geoengineering the Earths atmosphere to drop temps, advocate creating a giant solar shield, or accelerate development through incentives for absorbing and sequestering CO2 into various long term storage mediums. Pussyfooting around like a bitch saying that any sort of Kyoto Accords will do jack fucking shit to seriously mitigate AGW temp rise is, while amusing, utterly pathetic.
You forgot the most likely one, just move somewhere where AGW will result in an improvement. Because even if AGW results is fucking some parts of the world, it will also result in making some parts nicer (warmer, more CO2, more plants etc).
Nice try but you lose. I am a Johnson supporter and I think Trump is an asshole pig. But for all the legitimate reasons Trump gives you to attack him, emails are the shoddiest thing ever. If what Trump did is neglect (I think you mean negligence?), than Hillary should be in prison. You don't get to have it both ways...
Ok calm down. firstly, you don't get to decide who goes to prison.
Secondly all I'm saying is that it's a bit rich from Trump to be claiming email neglect when he is guilty if something similar
Thirdly, I'm not trying to equate SoS neglect with private asshole neglect, but it still is neglect. glasshouse and stones etc
Well unless you are the FBI and you can decide that no reasonable prosecutor would take a case against Hillary and any reasonable prosecutor would take any case against Trump.
Also, as far as multi-billion dollar businesses with shitty information security, I agree it is a common problem. But I am unaware of any CEOs that have been held criminally liable for KNOWN hacks that have exposed tons of personal information including from healthcare companies, banks, etc, not just a real estate mogul.
I'm unaware of any SoS being held criminally liable either. So it sounds like we are on the same page.
.
I want flying cars as badly as any kid that grew up watching The Jetsons. Problem is, you can't let Joe Sixpack drive - regardless of what everyone saw in Star Wars.
The problem is that flying requires significantly more energy than driving, so the viability of this as a mode of transport will always be questionable.
Except Powell barely used email, and what emails he sent were preserved -
How do you know? You think the Secretary of State during time of war didn't have conversations outside of the official channels? I'm not excusing the behaviour, but don't pretend Hillary invented this.
Trump was an official at the highest levels of government, who's day job involved information classified beyond top secret? You should get this breaking news to the press.
Presidential nominees receive classified top secret information. But thanks for the demonstration of ignorance...
As a proud, card-carrying TreeHugger(TM) I am happy to see nuclear power remaining a viable component of our national electrical baseline capacity..
I always find it absurd that the hippies are the people most responsible for the continued use of coal burning. Had there been no hippies in the 60's and 70's, we'd actually have a lot cleaner energy today. We'd probably be up to Gen6 reactors today that were extremely safe and efficient and electricity would still be cheap.
Fucking hippies...
Slashdot Mirror
It is part of the constitution of our country, right after the freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.
Great, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. It even says so in the document itself. Or do you only follow the bits you agree with?
There is also this major issue that the politicians on the US left
And right. Don't forget that a lot of the right support some level of regulation too.
keep trying to regulate the arms as if people breaking the law will care about yet another law preventing their ownership of firearms, when frankly, that isn't human nature.
It's not as simple as "make guns illegal = no more murder". But there is plenty of evidence that shows a reduction in guns and gun culture results in a reduction of gun violence.
Thanks to the Constitution, there are hard limits on authority, so even the most authoritarian President conceivable could not approach that level, and if a politician was of that same mold the first thing they would set their sites on would be the 22nd amendment. Something no American politician has done since its passing.
NSA, Gitmo, Iraq War etc are all examples of Presidents (from both sides) exceeding authority. I find it odd that in this day an age you have such faith in this safeguard.
Remember Hitler didn't start out gassing the Jews, it was merely going to make Germany great again. There was a long road of slowly wearing down the established processes until a tipping point was reached that the people could no longer return from. This is how extreme Authoritarianism works, and Donald Trump is displaying early signs of such behaviour ie I don't like it, they should be sued, punished, removed etc. inflammatory comments about entire groups of people based on sex, race and religion. No other western leader left or right has been this extreme since Hitler.
, people have called Trump's position on abortion authoritarian, yet his stated preference (recently anyhow) is that it should be a State rather than Federal matter, which means ceding, not increasing, authority.
Citation?
this sounds pretty authoritative to me.
Finally, that's the worst presentation of the spectrum I have yet to encounter. It assigns an arbitrary origin without identifying it as such, and conflates ideology and policy. Did you know that in terms of policy, between 2000 and 2008 the median Republican was center-left?
Ironic you say that yet provide no quantitative reference yourself?
Being a Non-American, the US democrats are as right than most other Western right parties. The conservatives in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc are all pretty close to the Democrats (ie moderate right), and The Republicans are extreme right. Happy to see data that shows otherwise, by my experience disagrees with that claim.
I want to see a poll based on a real sampling of the population across the country where the questions in the poll are worded and ordered exactly the same as the ballot. Anything else is just fabricated numbers to sell a story.
That's good, so what are you doing about it?
I always hear lots of people complaining about the current system, but very few of them are actually lifting a finger to try and change it.
The headphone jack works well, it's standard, and it's on literally almost EVERYTHING that outputs sound.
And it's better quality. The limitations with Bluetooth mean it has to be compressed. So in true Apple fashion, it cost more, does less.
Why didn't AIDS become as big in the hetero community.
Really? Do you not know anything about the gay scene? I'll give you a clue, the amount of fucking is in the region of 10-100 times greater than in hetero land. That means contagions have a 10-100 times greater chance of spreading.
Very rarely with 100s of partners a year, yet this is "not uncommon" in the gay male community.
They are on average promiscuous on a level heterosexuals just don't get close to.
Heterosexual men are equally promiscuous, they just lack similarly willing partners.
You spend more time on your laptop because it has a more suitable form factor. That doesn't mean it should be more expensive. As far as actual technical features go your phone does more and the form factor makes it even more difficult to manufacture.
Bigger screen cost more money
More powerful CPU cost more money
More RAM cost more money
More Storage cost more money
It costs more because it has higher spec'd components in almost every area.
I'm never going to pay more for a phone than a laptop...
Why? Barring x86 a smartphone does more. Especially the Note.
I have a Note, and a Dell XPS. Productivity-wise I do a LOT more with my laptop, I use it 10 hours a day. The phone is for the odd call/txt/message, and checking the odd web page or map or mobile music. My phone lasts about 2-3 years, whereas I'm getting 5 years at least out of my laptop (hardware/OS upgrades are an issue with phones).
So for me, the laptop does more.
Who does the polling and who reports the polling results?
Lots of different organisations, and they report the numbers themselves. The media usually watch these results and report them too, but you can get the information from the source if you don't trust the media.
The media is telling you this.
Oh you asked a question then answered it yourself. That is not usually how questions work.
You have no way of knowing what the actual vote will be.
Statistical methods are well understood, even if you didn't stay in school long enough to learn this.
The polling itself is set up to favor the two party system and is a self-fulfilling prophecy
Is it? Which part of the method do you disagree with? What method do you think would improve this?
because people like you believe the results.
Instead people should just believe you? What better method to you have, I'm genuinely interested.
If the polling is so darn good, why do we even both voting?
Polls are an estimation with a margin of error. A vote is as close to 100% accurate as you can get.
Under normal circumstances, some polls might have some bias one way, and others might go the other, and the real result is somewhere in the middle. But when all the polls including even Fox News agree, there is a good chance that they represent actual voter sentiment. Or do you think Hillary has paid off Fox News too?
Just poll a couple hundred people (it's ok if you leave out a demographic group or two) and ask them which candidates they would vote for (don't even bother to include all the candidates on the ballot). Should be good enough.
And herein lies the problem with the average Trump voter. Your lack of education prevents you from understanding how statistical polling works, and it also prevents you from understanding why catchphrase slogans do not make good policy, and also why you tend to just believe anything your cult leader says without question.
It's never dear leaders fault, it's the opposition, and the establishment, and the media, and the statisticians, and the FBI, and Generals, and the CIA, and the NSA, and women, and Mexicans, and Muslims, and black people, and...
So either everyone else is crazy, or maybe it's just Trump.
Same here. My requirements for a phone are large screen, stylus input, decent camera and tactile home button. The Note is the only phone that fits the bill.
I've had a Note 2, now have my trusty old Note 3, and the wife has a Note 4. I was thinking of upgrading but the Note 3 is still kicking along nicely. Although it is getting a bit laggy, and there's no Marshmallow update for this model, so I might look at an upgrade.
One con, is my Note 3 was the best phone you could get when released, and cost me $800 in local dollars to buy outright. The Note 7 was $1350 which to me is just ridiculous. Stores are selling boxed Note 5's for about $600, which seems like a reasonable price for a good phone. I'm never going to pay more for a phone than a laptop...
For one program? No. The problem comes when *everyone* starts thinking that way. Applications use more and more RAM because "It's cheap" and "everyone has plenty". Nobody optimizing means that multitasking becomes needlessly more difficult.
Again why is this a problem? Storage and RAM is so cheap is cost more in my time to write this response than to buy more. In fact you could argue it's less efficient because optimising code takes more developer time, and adds time and cost to project delivery. Given the choice of a 1GB app delivered now, or an 800MB app delivered 3 months late and 20% over budget, I'll take the former every time.
And that's where we aren't on the same page. Apparently you can't read the part where I don't think Trump is better than Hillary.
One of them will be president, which do you think will do less damage to the country and greater international community?
The choice is not between two horrible candidates.
Yes it is.
The choice is whether to support one of two horrible candidates because the media tells you those are the only "viable" candidates
The media doesn't tell me this, polling numbers suggest the winner will be either one of these two.
or "throw away your vote" by voting against the two party system which has gone off the cliff and left any semblance of public service behind.
It's not throwing away your vote. If you believe the system is flawed, then vote third party. And get out and convince others to do the same. If enough people feel the same way, third parties will eventually achieve enough votes to make an impact. That is how democracy works
It certainly doesn't work by sitting on your couch moaning about it.
Two characteristics? Is that all it takes? Well, if that's your metric..
It's not my metric...
If you understood how Conservatism, Liberalism, Authoritarianism and Libertarianism all relate on the political spectrum then you would understand that Trump's political position is the closest to that of Hitler of any modern candidate. But don't just take my word for it
Seen any obvious comparison?
When an American politician establishes their own army to patrol the streets and crush opposition; when they hold Nuremberg scale rallies; when they adopt a policy of territorial expansion...
Yeah yeah blah blah, but by then it's too late. We did actually learn some lessons from that episode, and as they say, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why Clinton has much higher support among educated voters . Why do you think that is?
In this case Trump is throwing a styrofoam ball in a glass house. Yes a styrofoam and rocks are both roughly round and throwable, but the risks of throwing them in a glass house are not comparable.
Good analogy. You have a man-baby with a bad reputation for throwing styrofoam balls at anyone and everyone in his playpen, and he now wants to move into a new house with only rocks in it. What do you think is going to happen here?
I'm unaware of any Secretary of State sending and receiving classified emails on a private server either. We are not on the same page.
You think Hillary invented out of band communication of classified material? You'd have to be petty naive to think she was the first person ever to do this type of thing. Again not excusing the behaviour, but merely explaining why it's probably not as big a deal to those who know how it works at this level.
. By you defending her actions, you're showing yourself to be no less of a brainless partisan than the idiots voting for Trump to stop Hillary.
I'm not defending her, but we cannot know the full details, and the anti-Hillary argument is for trial by media which is even less acceptable
Ultimately the choice is between a competent but sinister candidate, and a buffoon. Both are bad choices, but one is a slightly less bad option than the other.
the best you can do is:
1. stop eating beef..
You just lost me....
I'm willing to start with them. Yes the world is getting hotter. Yes man is contributing and most likely is the driving force behind it. No there's no stopping it without unbelievably drastic measures that will not be accepted by almost anybody. The best chance for stopping it is a world war...
Why do we have to stop it, isn't adapting easier? We can grow food in the desert now, there is no real need to panic.
*sigh* There are no serious AGW primary forcing computer models that wouldn't have us hitting his special target temperature even if we had cut all emissions in 1985. CO2, methane, everything. Which means disingenuous shitbirds like you have exactly four choices. Either seriously advocate the eradication of between 50-95% of the human race as well as an accompanying drop in living standard depending on just how much of humanity you want to keep around, advocate for chemically geoengineering the Earths atmosphere to drop temps, advocate creating a giant solar shield, or accelerate development through incentives for absorbing and sequestering CO2 into various long term storage mediums. Pussyfooting around like a bitch saying that any sort of Kyoto Accords will do jack fucking shit to seriously mitigate AGW temp rise is, while amusing, utterly pathetic.
You forgot the most likely one, just move somewhere where AGW will result in an improvement. Because even if AGW results is fucking some parts of the world, it will also result in making some parts nicer (warmer, more CO2, more plants etc).
Nice try but you lose. I am a Johnson supporter and I think Trump is an asshole pig. But for all the legitimate reasons Trump gives you to attack him, emails are the shoddiest thing ever. If what Trump did is neglect (I think you mean negligence?), than Hillary should be in prison. You don't get to have it both ways...
Ok calm down. firstly, you don't get to decide who goes to prison.
Secondly all I'm saying is that it's a bit rich from Trump to be claiming email neglect when he is guilty if something similar
Thirdly, I'm not trying to equate SoS neglect with private asshole neglect, but it still is neglect. glasshouse and stones etc
Well unless you are the FBI and you can decide that no reasonable prosecutor would take a case against Hillary and any reasonable prosecutor would take any case against Trump.
Also, as far as multi-billion dollar businesses with shitty information security, I agree it is a common problem. But I am unaware of any CEOs that have been held criminally liable for KNOWN hacks that have exposed tons of personal information including from healthcare companies, banks, etc, not just a real estate mogul.
I'm unaware of any SoS being held criminally liable either. So it sounds like we are on the same page. .
. Their shiny reputation is somewhat tarnished. I doubt they'll ever be trusted again to be impartial and nonpartisan.
The FBI had a shiny reputation? Where do you live?
I want flying cars as badly as any kid that grew up watching The Jetsons. Problem is, you can't let Joe Sixpack drive - regardless of what everyone saw in Star Wars.
The problem is that flying requires significantly more energy than driving, so the viability of this as a mode of transport will always be questionable.
Is that a flying car, or a plane you can drive?
Except Powell barely used email, and what emails he sent were preserved -
How do you know? You think the Secretary of State during time of war didn't have conversations outside of the official channels? I'm not excusing the behaviour, but don't pretend Hillary invented this.
Trump was an official at the highest levels of government, who's day job involved information classified beyond top secret? You should get this breaking news to the press.
Presidential nominees receive classified top secret information. But thanks for the demonstration of ignorance...
Is too!
At a U.S. average rate of 12 cents/kWh = $120/MWh = $0.12 million/GWh, that's $947 million worth of power generated per year.
Where I live it's closer to 40c/kWh, so yeah, a no brainer. But the hippies don't like them so we continue to burn coal instead
As a proud, card-carrying TreeHugger(TM) I am happy to see nuclear power remaining a viable component of our national electrical baseline capacity..
I always find it absurd that the hippies are the people most responsible for the continued use of coal burning. Had there been no hippies in the 60's and 70's, we'd actually have a lot cleaner energy today. We'd probably be up to Gen6 reactors today that were extremely safe and efficient and electricity would still be cheap.
Fucking hippies...