$370M in 1975 is $1.66B in 2016 from inflation alone. Add in the increased price of construction materials over what steel, concrete, etc cost then, as well as increased cost for labor and you might be getting close..
Er that is covered by inflation. That is exactly what inflation is, the increased cost of things over time.
Instead what we get are pissing wars where everyone gets wet. I think Trump is a doofus, that doesn't mean that he didn't perform better in these Reality TV episodes.
Based on previous debates, each party had a chance to at least get their point across relatively uninterrupted, even if it was full of shit. Trump spent all three debates moaning like the man baby he is, and for that reason he loses by default. The simple lack of self control, to participate in an adult conversation is an automatic loss. And he never once presented data, it was entirely slogans. Say what you like about Hillary, she at least knows the subject matter quite well.
But I agree Trump is the better entertainer, I've watched every episode of the Apprentice and think he makes a great TV personality. But this is still a debate, and for that he failed miserably.
I supported her for several months on a weekly basis because of her virus woes and constant update and install issues.
I hear these stories all the time but can only guess that you (or they) are doing something horribly wrong.
I've given out various Windows machines to my family ranging from children to grannies and the extent of issues are maybe every year or two a fresh OS install. I simply can't see how you need help every week unless you are really stupid and click on those "You the 1 millionth visitor!" type things every single time.
I would give them Macs because I do agree they are easier, but they are ridiculously expensive. My kids have $200 laptops, the Macbook equivalent is over $1000.
Hardware wise, the Macs generally use decent hardware that lasts,
Such as? The Hardware is all made at the same factory. CPUs, RAM, SSDs are all the same stuff regardless of label on the box. Or do you seriously think an Apple Intel CPU is more reliable than a Dell Intel CPU?
They're not self-selecting at a rate of 1300 people per week...
The IT dept is migrating them.
Don't act like you have more insight into IBM's support issues that the head IT guy at IBM.
My experience of IBM was getting them in to quote on a migration piece for our SAN, The quote of $50k ensured we never did any business with them ever again. I end up doing the work all by myself in less than a week. Maybe their Windows support guys charge out at a similar rate?
People almost never think of the consequences of writing rules or laws.
Of course they do. The mistake you are making is thinking that rules are designed to be strictly enforced.
As an example, we have a rule about dogs on leashes here. Most people with sociable and trained dogs don't keep their dogs on a leash, and there is rarely issues or fines. But if someone comes along with a nuisance dog causing grief off a leash, the council now has a lever with which to punish the owner.
Where this law will become useful is not preventing all people from short term rental, but curbs the industrial scale rentals that are destroying a lot of large inner city areas.
I have a more accurate summary:
If you want standard shit politics, but the country to still function, vote Clinton
If you want change, and by change it means possibly throwing your country down the toilet, then vote Trump
Most people want change, but the change has be an improvement, which is why Trump will lose. He is the ISIS alternative to Hillary being Saddam.
I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:
Not sure what your experience is in debating, but Trump lost all three massively because he failed to construct an argument at any point.
A debate is not just a popularity contest, it's supposed to be a presentation of ideas with justifications and counter arguments.
Trump spent all three interrupting claiming Hillary was wrong, when he was wrong by nearly a factor of 10 to 1. He presented no solid justification to anything, just simple catchphrase "I'll make America great!" That is not debating.
I'm no Hillary fan, If Romney were contesting this election he would shit it in. But Hillary is making Trump look like the monkey that he is.
Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.
What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?
Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?
They should just publish without opinion or manipulation. Assange has made it clear it wants to be more than just an independent source of information.
Transparency doesn't work when the gatekeeper has an ego.
Wow you're right, it was at least a couple months instead of few weeks.
Can you provide a link? Until you do it just sounds like you making stuff up.
The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation), has it's charitynavigator.org listing first crawl on Sept 2nd, 2016! Makes one wonder what happened to the other 18 years.
This probably has more to do with the way the archive works. You can only search on an exact URI, so if the URI changes (quite normal if a site is updated, or re-indexed) the web archive search won't match it up.
See that's going to set off the conspiracy theorists and it's a good example of what I'm talking about; there are so many entities ready to spasm-out every time somebody yells squirrel; while all of the whacko's are out there jousting with windmills, it's distracting people from issue with substance. It's getting to the point where every time I see a sensational headline stating "This will bury Hillary", I figure she's the one who put it out there to begin with.
Well the difference between 'whacko conspiracy theory' and reality is that if something is real you can usually provide evidence that it exists. Again I'm happy to be proven wrong, but so far you accusations have all been in your head.
Out of interest, how does Trump's charity compare?
It would be more entertaining if he wasn't equally corrupt. Imagine a candidate who wanted to clean up the corruption, but was smart and not big mouth dickhead. Oh wait, that was Bernie Sanders...
Yes because he's a grown man and refuses to admit he is at fault.
The idea is when you are busted being a dick, you own up, apologise and it goes away. He refuses to, so the dogs remain at the door. This is how society ensures certain standards are maintained.
To make things more perplexing, Hillary and the media aren't even trying to dispute any of the information's validity.
I'm not across it all, but I heard a summary the other day that if this is the worst it gets for Hillary it isn't really that bad. So maybe they don;t care that much.
The only argument they are making is that it's not fair that what they are doing has been made public.
Which is fair. Most people are for more transparency, why does Trump get a free pass to hide in the shadows?
He is outing government corruption and massive press confusion.
His initial goal was greater transparency which won a lot of support. Now he says he'll do whatever he can against only one side of politics. This goes against the transparency/accountability goals we all want. This partisan politics is root cause of the problem to start with.
I do not understand how the media can spend hundreds of hours more time on an unverified harassment claim regarding an incident never brought up before that supposedly took place 20 years ago than on actual alleged current corrupt government activities.
And herein lies the root of the issue. I think a lot of Trump supporters share you view, however just because you don't understand, doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason behind it.
Politics is more complicated than can be explained here, but the gist of it is that politics is a dirty business. It has to be that way because that is how things get done (on all sides). But Trump isn't different kind of fool, and that foolishness has far greater risks than a blow job in the oval office, starting illegal wars, socialising medicine, or another 4 years of typical political bullshit.
So Hillary's activities are bad, but still in the bounds of political badness so not as interesting. Trump's demagoguery is Kim Jong Un ridiculous, and a real risk to democracy as we know it, so of course this gets more attention.
If this is any indicator, do you honestly believe that the press will stop their collusion with Hilary when she becomes president and start becoming journalists again? She will have close to unchecked power - especially knowing that the media will destroy anyone that opposes her.
Rubbish. This is the biggest myth, since the President can't do much without the support of Congress which is currently led by Republicans. And "the media" aren't colluding with anyone (apart from maybe Breitbart which is run by Trump's campaign manager) . Some networks are left leaning, just as some are right. It's your job as a voter to find balanced information from multiple sources. I'm pretty sure Fox News won't let Hillary get away anything. And in this day and age, you can always get you news from overseas, free of American bias. The BBC, Al Jazeera etc tend to run quite balanced programs
.
Violence has nothing to do with the availability of weapons, and everything to do with the IQ of a population group.
The lower the IQ, the less impulse control of the populace.
So let's work with this, just as a thought exercise.
Assuming you are right, does it then make sense to allow low IQ people access to high powered weapons?
Exactly, and that is unacceptable as for a President and leader of the free world, which is why he will lose the election. That is my point exactly.
As a comparison, can you think of any former president that has offended so many people with such crude statements?
There is no comparison between Trump and Hitler
Of course there is. The point is not that Trump is exactly 100% like Hitler. The point is that he is similar in that he is divisive and authoritarian, just like Hitler was. And people like that are not suited to democratic leadership positions, because it doesn't matter what they say, the nature of their personality is that they are always right, and anyone not like them is wrong. He is a divider, and dividers will use anything against you, sex, race, religion, exactly as he has already demonstrated.
Facts are not biased you moron. Facts are facts. Opinions based on a lack of facts is called a delusion.
But delivery of only one side's information while ignoring all of the other is what make it biased. Do you understand how that works now?
You said you lacked facts
I was after unbiased and impartial information that showed why Trump is a better choice than Hillary. Nothing you have presented satisfies that requirement.
I gave you a source for additional facts. Instead of looking at facts you cry foul because the person giving them looks scare to you.
Because the person giving them looked stupid you mean...
You are a moron, I'm guessing another david_thornley troll account.
I'd go so far as to say that Wikileaks has lost all credibility with him still around.
He has made it clear it is no longer an independent actor, so everything Wikileaks does from now will be tainted with his bias.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole idea with the next gen plants was standardized design an a combined construction operating license, which would keep costs down,.
Just like the F35 JSF?
Finally, there's the death toll. Both solar and wind power - per kWH generated - cause more human deaths than nuclear power.
I like Nuclear as an option, but am not sure how people die from solar panels or wind farms?
$370M in 1975 is $1.66B in 2016 from inflation alone. Add in the increased price of construction materials over what steel, concrete, etc cost then, as well as increased cost for labor and you might be getting close. .
Er that is covered by inflation. That is exactly what inflation is, the increased cost of things over time.
Instead what we get are pissing wars where everyone gets wet. I think Trump is a doofus, that doesn't mean that he didn't perform better in these Reality TV episodes.
Based on previous debates, each party had a chance to at least get their point across relatively uninterrupted, even if it was full of shit. Trump spent all three debates moaning like the man baby he is, and for that reason he loses by default. The simple lack of self control, to participate in an adult conversation is an automatic loss. And he never once presented data, it was entirely slogans. Say what you like about Hillary, she at least knows the subject matter quite well.
But I agree Trump is the better entertainer, I've watched every episode of the Apprentice and think he makes a great TV personality. But this is still a debate, and for that he failed miserably.
So the most reasonable explanation is that no one has attempted to leak the info, not bias by Wikileaks.
The bias is that Assange has admitted he is targeting Hillary. He should shut his mouth and remain an impartial voice.
I supported her for several months on a weekly basis because of her virus woes and constant update and install issues.
I hear these stories all the time but can only guess that you (or they) are doing something horribly wrong.
I've given out various Windows machines to my family ranging from children to grannies and the extent of issues are maybe every year or two a fresh OS install.
I simply can't see how you need help every week unless you are really stupid and click on those "You the 1 millionth visitor!" type things every single time.
I would give them Macs because I do agree they are easier, but they are ridiculously expensive. My kids have $200 laptops, the Macbook equivalent is over $1000.
Hardware wise, the Macs generally use decent hardware that lasts,
Such as? The Hardware is all made at the same factory. CPUs, RAM, SSDs are all the same stuff regardless of label on the box. Or do you seriously think an Apple Intel CPU is more reliable than a Dell Intel CPU?
They're not self-selecting at a rate of 1300 people per week...
The IT dept is migrating them.
Don't act like you have more insight into IBM's support issues that the head IT guy at IBM.
My experience of IBM was getting them in to quote on a migration piece for our SAN, The quote of $50k ensured we never did any business with them ever again. I end up doing the work all by myself in less than a week. Maybe their Windows support guys charge out at a similar rate?
People almost never think of the consequences of writing rules or laws.
Of course they do. The mistake you are making is thinking that rules are designed to be strictly enforced.
As an example, we have a rule about dogs on leashes here. Most people with sociable and trained dogs don't keep their dogs on a leash, and there is rarely issues or fines. But if someone comes along with a nuisance dog causing grief off a leash, the council now has a lever with which to punish the owner.
Where this law will become useful is not preventing all people from short term rental, but curbs the industrial scale rentals that are destroying a lot of large inner city areas.
If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.
If you want change, vote for Trump.
I have a more accurate summary:
If you want standard shit politics, but the country to still function, vote Clinton
If you want change, and by change it means possibly throwing your country down the toilet, then vote Trump
Most people want change, but the change has be an improvement, which is why Trump will lose. He is the ISIS alternative to Hillary being Saddam.
I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:
Not sure what your experience is in debating, but Trump lost all three massively because he failed to construct an argument at any point.
A debate is not just a popularity contest, it's supposed to be a presentation of ideas with justifications and counter arguments.
Trump spent all three interrupting claiming Hillary was wrong, when he was wrong by nearly a factor of 10 to 1. He presented no solid justification to anything, just simple catchphrase "I'll make America great!" That is not debating.
I'm no Hillary fan, If Romney were contesting this election he would shit it in. But Hillary is making Trump look like the monkey that he is.
Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.
What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?
Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?
They should just publish without opinion or manipulation. Assange has made it clear it wants to be more than just an independent source of information.
Transparency doesn't work when the gatekeeper has an ego.
Wow you're right, it was at least a couple months instead of few weeks.
Can you provide a link? Until you do it just sounds like you making stuff up.
The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation), has it's charitynavigator.org listing first crawl on Sept 2nd, 2016! Makes one wonder what happened to the other 18 years.
This probably has more to do with the way the archive works. You can only search on an exact URI, so if the URI changes (quite normal if a site is updated, or re-indexed) the web archive search won't match it up.
See that's going to set off the conspiracy theorists and it's a good example of what I'm talking about; there are so many entities ready to spasm-out every time somebody yells squirrel; while all of the whacko's are out there jousting with windmills, it's distracting people from issue with substance. It's getting to the point where every time I see a sensational headline stating "This will bury Hillary", I figure she's the one who put it out there to begin with.
Well the difference between 'whacko conspiracy theory' and reality is that if something is real you can usually provide evidence that it exists. Again I'm happy to be proven wrong, but so far you accusations have all been in your head.
Out of interest, how does Trump's charity compare?
It would be more entertaining if he wasn't equally corrupt. Imagine a candidate who wanted to clean up the corruption, but was smart and not big mouth dickhead. Oh wait, that was Bernie Sanders...
Yes because he's a grown man and refuses to admit he is at fault.
The idea is when you are busted being a dick, you own up, apologise and it goes away. He refuses to, so the dogs remain at the door. This is how society ensures certain standards are maintained.
To make things more perplexing, Hillary and the media aren't even trying to dispute any of the information's validity.
I'm not across it all, but I heard a summary the other day that if this is the worst it gets for Hillary it isn't really that bad. So maybe they don;t care that much.
The only argument they are making is that it's not fair that what they are doing has been made public.
Which is fair. Most people are for more transparency, why does Trump get a free pass to hide in the shadows?
He is outing government corruption and massive press confusion.
His initial goal was greater transparency which won a lot of support. Now he says he'll do whatever he can against only one side of politics. This goes against the transparency/accountability goals we all want. This partisan politics is root cause of the problem to start with.
I do not understand how the media can spend hundreds of hours more time on an unverified harassment claim regarding an incident never brought up before that supposedly took place 20 years ago than on actual alleged current corrupt government activities.
And herein lies the root of the issue. I think a lot of Trump supporters share you view, however just because you don't understand, doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason behind it.
Politics is more complicated than can be explained here, but the gist of it is that politics is a dirty business. It has to be that way because that is how things get done (on all sides). But Trump isn't different kind of fool, and that foolishness has far greater risks than a blow job in the oval office, starting illegal wars, socialising medicine, or another 4 years of typical political bullshit.
So Hillary's activities are bad, but still in the bounds of political badness so not as interesting. Trump's demagoguery is Kim Jong Un ridiculous, and a real risk to democracy as we know it, so of course this gets more attention.
If this is any indicator, do you honestly believe that the press will stop their collusion with Hilary when she becomes president and start becoming journalists again? She will have close to unchecked power - especially knowing that the media will destroy anyone that opposes her.
Rubbish. This is the biggest myth, since the President can't do much without the support of Congress which is currently led by Republicans. And "the media" aren't colluding with anyone (apart from maybe Breitbart which is run by Trump's campaign manager) . Some networks are left leaning, just as some are right. It's your job as a voter to find balanced information from multiple sources. I'm pretty sure Fox News won't let Hillary get away anything. And in this day and age, you can always get you news from overseas, free of American bias. The BBC, Al Jazeera etc tend to run quite balanced programs .
I'm not necessarily endorsing this, it's just that he wouldn't be the first guy to say 'Leave well enough alone'.
And that is exactly why he is in no place criticise others for being equally negligent. Do the word "double standards" mean anything to you?
Violence has nothing to do with the availability of weapons, and everything to do with the IQ of a population group.
The lower the IQ, the less impulse control of the populace.
So let's work with this, just as a thought exercise.
Assuming you are right, does it then make sense to allow low IQ people access to high powered weapons?
Look, his quote about Mexico came off as racist.
Exactly, and that is unacceptable as for a President and leader of the free world, which is why he will lose the election. That is my point exactly. As a comparison, can you think of any former president that has offended so many people with such crude statements?
There is no comparison between Trump and Hitler
Of course there is. The point is not that Trump is exactly 100% like Hitler. The point is that he is similar in that he is divisive and authoritarian, just like Hitler was. And people like that are not suited to democratic leadership positions, because it doesn't matter what they say, the nature of their personality is that they are always right, and anyone not like them is wrong. He is a divider, and dividers will use anything against you, sex, race, religion, exactly as he has already demonstrated.
But they haven't, because no one bothered to hack Trump.
Probably because is doing a better job of self destruction all on his own...
You have not looked at the facts the person presents because of an appearance. How shallow do you have to be to omit information based on that?
Um what? This makes no sense.
Learn what bias is then come back.
Facts are not biased you moron. Facts are facts. Opinions based on a lack of facts is called a delusion.
But delivery of only one side's information while ignoring all of the other is what make it biased. Do you understand how that works now?
You said you lacked facts
I was after unbiased and impartial information that showed why Trump is a better choice than Hillary. Nothing you have presented satisfies that requirement.
I gave you a source for additional facts. Instead of looking at facts you cry foul because the person giving them looks scare to you.
Because the person giving them looked stupid you mean...
You are a moron, I'm guessing another david_thornley troll account.
Um ok, good luck with that...
Trump will be better for all the wall builders in Mexico. Think of the job creation!
Assange has stated that if he had stuff to leak on Trump he would do that, too. But I guess Trump was a bit harder to hack.
Yeah that unpatched Exchange 2007 server must've been too hard for even the Pro's to get into...
I'd go so far as to say that Wikileaks has lost all credibility with him still around.
He has made it clear it is no longer an independent actor, so everything Wikileaks does from now will be tainted with his bias.