The study involved data from nearly 12 million shopping trips from four major British retailers as well others in the US, Belgium and Holland between 2013 and 2015
The researchers found that introducing self-checkouts raised the rate of loss by 122 per cent to an average of 3.9 per cent of turnover.
It is also difficult for retailers to identify whether a customer wilfully took items without scanning or were simply absentminded.
I'm in the US and I must plead guilty to being absentminded and "stealing" a loaf of bread once. It was very crowded and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. After I exited the store I noticed it sitting there in the lower basket of my cart (not scanned or paid for). I briefly thought about going back inside and paying for it, but then I thought of the crowds and the time it would take.
I figured I could just make it right the next time I shopped there. I never did.
I've also seen, but never taken, the opportunity to mis-enter the codes for my produce. Am I buying the expensive apples or the cheap ones? Hmmm....I could easily claim it was an honest mistake.
I don't do that because the risk is not worth the few pennies I might save. I also consider myself honest, but I guess I'm not that honest since I never made good on that loaf of bread.
And they don't always watch given that I sometimes have to track down an employee when the self-checkout thinks there's a problem. Usually they just clear the register without checking to make sure I didn't cheat.
I believe that Honesty through paranoia is a real thing. Of course sometimes they really are watching. You can never know for sure unless you try, right?
Of course that's not going to stop everyone. Even before self-checkout some people would switch price tags, barcodes or just stuff more expensive merchandise into cheaper packaging. And then there's what's called "sweethearting" where the cashier just cooperates with the thief and doesn't ring certain things up properly if at all.
Don't kid yourself. Shoplifting and other forms of theft are a real problem all over the world. There are people who actually make a living at it.
I was going to make a joke about this guy being trapped in a convertible with the top down, but being able to get out of mine even if submerged in water is simple.
Release the latches. The water should actually help open the roof. That is assuming I even need to in case the electrical system is dead.
And I can't find a citation now, but I'm sure I've read that there was an effort to have it banned at the federal level but a Congressional committee decided that they did not have that authority and that it was a state issue protected by the 10th.
Then they figured out the power of the Interstate Commerce Clause and we ended up with decisions like Wickard v. Filburn and later Gonzales v. Raich.
I am no legal scholar (certainly not a lawyer), but it seems to me that based on those decisions we didn't actually need an Amendment to enact Prohibition. Or maybe we did and those decisions were wrong and thus the federal prohibition on marijuana and other drugs is unconstitutional. But that's not what SCOTUS has said since so we have to accept those decisions as Constitutional.
I'm in favor of legal marijuana and alcohol but I'm not so sure about all the other drugs including ones available only by prescription - like antibiotics.
I suspect that reflects most American's opinions too so how do we resolve this without passing a new Amendment giving the Feds authority over so many things? Each state could pass their own laws, which would result in a crazy patchwork (kind of like we have now with alcohol at least, but with every other drug thrown in) or the state law could say they'd go along with whatever the feds (DEA? FDA?) decided on most drugs.
Or should the ICC really cover that - and if so, what if the feds wanted to control alcohol again? Well, they do at least impose taxes and we do have the ATF or rather the BATFE. Let's just add marijuana for now and call it "the BATFEM".
I've been in dry counties in Texas, but instead of going to a bar you go to a "club" and most of them just give you a membership or charge you a small fee for one. It kind of blew my mind when I found out that in some parts of Alaska even possession of alcohol was illegal.
Oh well, this was supposed to be about the IRS, Coinbase and Bitcoin.
Bitcoin presents a bunch of legal challenges as well. Should Coinbase have to report bitcoin transactions greater than $10,000 like my bank would if I make a transaction for that amount? It's not even issued by the government.
Where does my Bitcoin wallet even exist?
I don't actually have a bitcoin wallet or any bitcoins and the whole thing seems....somewhat risky at the very least.
At that same place I mentioned I pointed out to my boss that any of our customers could just go into the administrative menus and turn on access to modules of our software which they hadn't paid for.
I can't remember his exact words, but it was something like good luck making that work for them because it was fairly bug-ridden territory (and we both knew that).
No client could possibly use the base code anyway, because not only did they require their own customizations, they also expected us to fix the bugs in the parts they did use.
Firefly was good, but there have been very few shows as good as Barney Miller.
For some reason the scene that comes to mind is when he has arrested a native American for who know what and is booking him and the Indian points out that they introduced us to tobacco. Ron takes a drag off his cigarette and coughs and sarcastically says "Thanks".
And who can forget when Wojo's girlfriend made hash brownies and the whole squad (except Barney, I think) got stoned?
An obviously stoned Detective Harris explains Nick's behavior: "Hey, um...Barney. I think he's stoned."
Barney (examining the brownies): I think there's something in these things! Have you had any? Ron (with a big grin on his face): mmm-hmmmm!
Many years ago I was working at a small company with about a half-dozen other programmers. We were all doing Informix 4GL and ESQL/C except for this one guy that kept to himself and never talked to anyone.
He was working on their next big thing - converting all the code to Informix NewEra or as some of us mockingly called it "New Error".
I left that place like a rat leaving a sinking ship so I'm not sure what ever became of them, but I'm pretty sure the NewEra product was never installed at any client site.
The thing is, whenever anyone criticizes trump or even questions whether he has conflicts of interest with his businesses the standard reply has become "B-b-b-b-b-but Hillary!".
We know Clinton lost the election. Get over it!
If you look anywhere online the standard response is "Hillary lost, get over it." Hey, we weren't even talking about her. Why do trump supporters keep bringing her up?
There's some interesting differences between you and I.
I cannot stand watching politician's speeches. I find them mostly meaningless and full of empty promises. It doesn't matter if it's Clinton or trump or Merkel or Rouhani, it's all blah, blah, blah to me. They're often curated and does anyone actually sit through Putin answering questions from Russians every year? I've tried - could never make it through the whole charade. I guess it doesn't help that I'm not a Russian citizen.
OTOH, I watch the news - a lot. This sometimes means I listen to politicians drone on and on, but often in only 30 second - 2 minute soundbites.
I just snipped a bunch of ranting, but some TV news actually does go in depth sometimes. I often don't actually, "watch" the news, I just listen while I try to sleep. I gather my news from different sources.
Some people complain about the "24/7 news cycle", but if you actually watch many of these news stations they just repeat the same news broadcast over and over again. It's a relief to me when they actually sit down and do an investigative report or interview someone instead of just letting them give a speech. Or if they just have a debate show.
And there's always some bias. I feel like RT should rename their show "Crosstalk" to "Circle Jerk" after the last episode I listened to.
Still, it's drama and I'm not into DWTS or America's Got Talent or whatever else is on the major US networks.
You're right and it's not so much the blatantly fake news stories we ned to worry about.
It's the ones that are mostly true to be credible but slip in lies which influence people who automatically believe them because most of the story was true - and it may even be on video.
Another thing I do is try to check my own bias.
Example: US attacks MSF hospital in Afghanistan My reaction: It was either a mistake or there was enemy fire coming from the hospital
Example: Hospitals bombed in Aleppo My reaction: Assad is deliberately targeting them or maybe Russia is just carpet bombing and not caring what they hit as long as there's destruction (they've already been promised priority in reconstruction contracts).
I'm not so blind that I can't see the bias in my reactions. I might even be right in my bias, but it's still a bias.
It's good to be reminded to remain skeptical.
I think RT is blatantly biased, but their slogan "Question More" is great.
2) The United States has been in the business of trying to spy on the communications of every person on the planet.
And to quote Arlo Guthrie:
And that's a great thing about America. I mean, this is the only country in the world...l mean, well, it's not the only country in the world that could find stuff out in two minutes, but it's the only country in the world that would take two minutes for that guy.
Other countries would say "Hey, he's the last guy...screw him", you know? But in America, there is no discrimination, and there is no hypocrisy,'cause they'll get anybody. And that's a wonderful thing about America.
We've been seeing stories for a few years now about Russian "trolls" as they're called in the media pushing political agendas. IIRC, it was a big issue in Finland a couple years ago.
To think that Putin is really as non-chalant as he tries to appear to be about who the next President of the US will be is somewhat naive.
I'm drinking and posting on the internet. What am I supposed to do?
The thought has crossed my mind to emigrate, but to where? And do I really think I could or that I'd like it better?
I have thought of that, but never seriously.
I can't just show up in Germany and say I'm a refugee from Syria. I don't think they'd believe me, but maybe I could get them to let me stay anyway.
But if I had a good job offer from most parts of Europe or some parts of South America or Asia or Canada I would consider it. I've moved between states for jobs before. The differences in the places I've lived within the US are interesting and I quite like the city I live in now.
All I really want is a job and to be free from fear of crime (which I always have been in the US) and to have a reasonable place to eat and sleep and to afford food and health care.
I can speak Spanish (not very well, but I could get by in Mexico or Spain). I can order a beer in German. If I had to I could learn Swedish. I would even commit to learning English if I moved to the UK.
I am not advocating changing the rules to overturn the most recent election, but it is worth thinking about for future elections.
Yes, they were both using different strategies and trump was all over my state like a fly on shit (and he still lost my state), but it is making people think about whether we should continue with this system.
How many people in California didn't vote because they knew it really wouldn't make a difference? What about Texas or New York?
It's very easy to support the Electoral College when most of the time it votes the same way as the popular vote and the exceptions to that match your choice anyway.
I think calling the system rigged was a good strategy on Trump's part. Many of his voters may believe the system is rigged, but they were going to have their voices heard and he got the vote out.
Say what you will about the interests of the individual states, but I don't think any state with perhaps the exception of WV and their interest in coal was voting for Clinton or Trump based on their own state interests.
Like many people I have lived in several states. I have never voted for President based on the interests of that state. That's what I do when I vote for my Senators and Congressmen.
Many Clinton supporters were just smugly laughing at Trump and truly believed he had no chance of actually winning that many of them just stayed home.
I've noticed that Snopes often includes citations explaining how they arrived at their conclusions.
They may have some bias but as with any source of information you should consider what they say carefully. There are people rejecting truths just because of the source unwilling to even consider that maybe there is some truth to what they're saying.
Besides, they saw a tweet or a FB post that contradicted Snopes.
I did see a Snopes article where I thought they were showing a slight left-wing bias. I can't remember the topic, but I would still rate Snopes "Mostly Accurate" in their analysis.
It sounds like a good idea to require a real name, but simply for free speech doing so could have chilling effects and work to silence people.
Most of us are posting somewhat anonymously here even though I don't believe it's an impenetrable mask. We build up our own karma (or lose it) and are identifiable by pseudonym so others can judge our credibility based on past posts.
Complete anonymity can lead to complete lack of credibility which is why so few people here pay any attention to Anonymous Cowards at all.
I hope no one takes this as a challenge, but for some random web surfer I would hope it would not trivial to take off my mask. I'm still careful about what I say, but it's unlikely anyone will google my real name and be able to find everything I've posted here or on other sites and that makes me feel free enough to post at all.
If I were of the wrong political persuasion in a country like Turkey right now I would either be afraid to post at all or I would take greater steps to hide my identity for obvious reasons and yet I believe free speech is a basic human right.
If you're murdered in America, there's a 1 in 3 chance that the police won't identify your killer.
To use the FBI's terminology, the national "clearance rate" for homicide today is 64.1 percent. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90 percent.
And that's worse than it sounds, because "clearance" doesn't equal conviction: It's just the term that police use to describe cases that end with an arrest, or in which a culprit is otherwise identified without the possibility of arrest — if the suspect has died, for example.
Data recorded in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program show just how widely clearance rates vary across larger police departments. Of the 100 cities reporting the most murders in 2013, 11 cleared less than a quarter of their cases. Meanwhile, eight departments registered clearance rates of 90 percent or more. The national murder clearance rate was 64 percent for 2013.
NYT reported Trump poisoned Megyn Kelly and got debate questions before the debate. Their source, Mrs. Kelly, said neither was true. Looks like they made it up completely.
Unless I'm mistaken those come from a review of Megyn Kelly's book, here:
Her story becomes more byzantine. On the day of the debate, Ms. Kelly writes, she woke up feeling great. Then an overzealous, suspiciously enthusiastic driver picked her up to take her to the convention center. He insisted on getting her coffee, though she’d repeatedly declined his offer. Once it was in her hand, she drank it. And within 15 minutes, she was violently ill, vomiting so uncontrollably that it was unclear if she’d be able to help moderate that evening. It was so bad that she kept a trash pail beneath her desk throughout the debate, just in case.
Ms. Kelly never says outright that someone tried to poison her. (A stomach bug was going around, she notes.) But the episode spooked her enough that she shared it later with Roger Ailes and a lawyer friend of his. Foul play? Again: She reports. You decide.
About Trump getting the questions for the debate beforehand, they simply wrote:
Then, the day before the first presidential debate, Mr. Trump was in a lather again, Ms. Kelly writes. He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.
She doesn’t speculate where the leak came from. (She reports. You decide.)
I have not read her book, but that was in the NYT review on November 10.
Maybe she refuted those claims somewhere besides in two separate Tweets, but I haven't found them yet.
For the record, my book "Settle for More" does not suggest Trump had any debate Qs in advance, nor do I believe that he did.
Also for the record, I believe the reason I got sick the day of the first debate was I contracted a stomach virus, just as Rand Paul did.
Even if the NYT played up those two anecdotes from her book, they didn't make it up completely.
Indeed. I live in what was considered a swing state. Trump campaigned hard here.
The main paper's website was filled with comments from smug Clinton supporters scoffing at him for campaigning in one of the more liberal cities and laughing at him for campaigning in smaller more conservative towns here.
Even I was convinced he wasn't going to win and I was going to cast my vote third party more as a protest against both major parties, but in the last 2 weeks I changed my mind.
Many Clinton supporters were way too confident and Trump was pushing hard. He still lost here, but he won enough other states that it didn't matter.
This is in fact what I do because I'm cheap and it's good enough in my opinion.
I used to buy coffee beans from Starbuck's clones (there are plenty of smaller regional ones) but why pay that much when I just want to make a strong caffeine drink at home?
I don't think I would. I could see kicking back and having a beer with Obama or Bush or Clinton or the elder Bush or Reagan if he were still alive or Carter.
I disagreed with them all on some things, but I've pretty much hated trump ever since I learned who he was which was probably in the late '80s and none of it was even politically motivated until this campaign.
trump seems like the kind of guy who I wouldn't even want to sit in the same bar with even if he was buying.
It's not that other ex-presidents are very credible in all the things that they may say, but trump has an air of BS about him such that if he saw the sun shining and said it was a nice day I would be suspicious of him.
It's not that other presidents haven't lied to us before, but I get the feeling everything that comes out of trump's mouth is about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball (which, you have to admit sometimes was right but that was only by chance.) Most likely Magic 8 Ball answer is "Cannot predict now".
He must have some appeal though. He didn't marry three wives and get people to put his name on their buildings without being somewhat charismatic or intelligent. He's always been a politician. He's very familiar with lawsuits.
It seems to me he got the reality TV vote. People love the idea of a tough successful businessman telling someone else "You're fired" - as long as it's not me that actually gets fired.
In the real world though, unless you really screw up terribly, typically employers will "let you go" or decide that it's "best to not continue with our relationship". Maybe your employment was "not a good match". It may sound PC, but there's no point of being confrontational when firing someone.
You say it diplomatically and tell them politely they're not working for you anymore.
trump lacks that understanding. He lacks class. Everything has to be gold-plated for him. He cannot take criticism and he always tries to turn that around on the person criticizing him.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. He has shown signs that he understands that being president is a big responsibility and one which he is not prepared for. He said he was an outsider, but he did say from the start that he would surround himself with the best people who knew how Washington works and he's doing that.
Well, maybe not the best people, but certainly insiders anyway
Interesting times we live in. I actually agree with some of his stated policies. I just have never trusted him to accomplish anything good (in my opinion) that he says.
I also think Clinton lost at least in part due to the polling which showed her as a shoe-in. Similar to Brexit, I think a lot of people didn't bother to vote because they were sure the rest of their country would side with them and vote accordingly.
Up until about a week or two before the election I was planning to vote third party because I was sure Clinton would win my state and really I didn't like Clinton, but in my opinion she was not as bad as trump.
I did not want to be a "me too" vote in an election which a month ago I was pretty sure Clinton would win.
Instead I saw trump campaigning hard here. We were sort of considered a swing state and we were assaulted by appearances by both him and his children.
As it turned out though we were solidly blue, but we were never the key to victory for trump.
--
It's really making me question the Electoral College. I've always believed it was meant to balance out the power between big and small states and it's easy to continue supporting when it usually mirrors the popular vote.
Now I'm more inclined to think that we do a good enough job at balancing power by giving each state 2 senators and a proportionate number of representatives.
The executive branch is a special case and is supposed to represent the entire country, not just the individual states.
In closing, let me remind you not to attempt any jokes in an airport. A friend of mine once did that and it cost him a lot of money and several days of his time. The joke also contributed to some of your personal inconveniences if you ever travel with an electronic device, but 'nuff said.
Not saying "Hi, Jack" while traveling by air is one of those things I somehow learned early on in life. I don't know how I learned it - I never said it nor did I even know anyone named Jack, but it was just one of those things that sunk in, sort of like having respect at a funeral.
It's taken seriously.
Similarly, you can probably say you want to kill your neighbors because you hate them and no one will take you seriously unless you provide enough context to actually be credible.
Saying you want to kill the president or the president elect though? That's likely to draw some attention if for nothing else to make sure you really don't pose a credible threat.
Or at least know your audience and make sure you're not overheard.
There's a funny anecdote that used to be told at a place I used to work. I'm not entirely sure it's true, but one of the most complex pieces of software that was used was called "the bomb". It was thousands of lines of spaghetti code and was very resource intensive and sometimes it failed - catastrophically, but that wasn't even why it was called "the bomb" - that was just coincidence actually. Despite attempts to get away from that terminology, the name stuck.
Legend has it that one day the person carrying the primary support pager was at the grocery store when she got paged and she wrote "bomb down" along with the phone number of the client on something that the bag boy saw and he alerted authorities, being the diligent bag boy that he no doubt was.
That was before 9/11 even, but supposedly she got stopped by the cops to make sure she wasn't a terrorist (and she was white too). I'm a little skeptical as to whether that actually happened, but it's probably best not to talk about bombs in airports or joke about assassinating....well, anyone really.
With all that said, I wouldn't mind if trump keeled over tomorrow but that would make Pence the next president, wouldn't it?
Okay, he can have a heart attack and die too. What then? Paul Ryan? I'm unclear on exactly how that would work especially since the electoral college hasn't weighed in, trump hasn't taken the oath of office and Obama is still president for 2 more months.
And if somehow by some strange coincidence Paul Ryan were to mysteriously die at the same time we'd get Orrin Hatch?
Just how many elected officials have to die before my local dog-catcher becomes president?
Because he's actually a Washington outsider and he really does love puppies and I don't think he's beholden to lobbyists in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because Europeans are inherently all honest and Americans are all t'ieves aren't we?
Self-service checkouts turn honest shoppers into thieves, warn criminologists
The study involved data from nearly 12 million shopping trips from four major British retailers as well others in the US, Belgium and Holland between 2013 and 2015
The researchers found that introducing self-checkouts raised the rate of loss by 122 per cent to an average of 3.9 per cent of turnover.
It is also difficult for retailers to identify whether a customer wilfully took items without scanning or were simply absentminded.
I'm in the US and I must plead guilty to being absentminded and "stealing" a loaf of bread once. It was very crowded and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. After I exited the store I noticed it sitting there in the lower basket of my cart (not scanned or paid for). I briefly thought about going back inside and paying for it, but then I thought of the crowds and the time it would take.
I figured I could just make it right the next time I shopped there. I never did.
I've also seen, but never taken, the opportunity to mis-enter the codes for my produce. Am I buying the expensive apples or the cheap ones? Hmmm....I could easily claim it was an honest mistake.
I don't do that because the risk is not worth the few pennies I might save. I also consider myself honest, but I guess I'm not that honest since I never made good on that loaf of bread.
And they don't always watch given that I sometimes have to track down an employee when the self-checkout thinks there's a problem. Usually they just clear the register without checking to make sure I didn't cheat.
I believe that Honesty through paranoia is a real thing. Of course sometimes they really are watching. You can never know for sure unless you try, right?
Of course that's not going to stop everyone. Even before self-checkout some people would switch price tags, barcodes or just stuff more expensive merchandise into cheaper packaging. And then there's what's called "sweethearting" where the cashier just cooperates with the thief and doesn't ring certain things up properly if at all.
Don't kid yourself. Shoplifting and other forms of theft are a real problem all over the world. There are people who actually make a living at it.
I was going to make a joke about this guy being trapped in a convertible with the top down, but being able to get out of mine even if submerged in water is simple.
Release the latches. The water should actually help open the roof. That is assuming I even need to in case the electrical system is dead.
Doesn't that just reinforce what was already in place prior to the 18th?
That is, alcohol would be something covered by the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".)?
I also recall that prior to alcohol prohibition some states were banning the sale of tobacco:
Between 1895 and 1921, 14 states banned the sale of cigarettes (Neuberger, 1963: 52). Even in the city of New York it was declared unlawful for women to smoke in public
And I can't find a citation now, but I'm sure I've read that there was an effort to have it banned at the federal level but a Congressional committee decided that they did not have that authority and that it was a state issue protected by the 10th.
Then they figured out the power of the Interstate Commerce Clause and we ended up with decisions like Wickard v. Filburn and later Gonzales v. Raich.
I am no legal scholar (certainly not a lawyer), but it seems to me that based on those decisions we didn't actually need an Amendment to enact Prohibition. Or maybe we did and those decisions were wrong and thus the federal prohibition on marijuana and other drugs is unconstitutional. But that's not what SCOTUS has said since so we have to accept those decisions as Constitutional.
I'm in favor of legal marijuana and alcohol but I'm not so sure about all the other drugs including ones available only by prescription - like antibiotics.
I suspect that reflects most American's opinions too so how do we resolve this without passing a new Amendment giving the Feds authority over so many things? Each state could pass their own laws, which would result in a crazy patchwork (kind of like we have now with alcohol at least, but with every other drug thrown in) or the state law could say they'd go along with whatever the feds (DEA? FDA?) decided on most drugs.
Or should the ICC really cover that - and if so, what if the feds wanted to control alcohol again? Well, they do at least impose taxes and we do have the ATF or rather the BATFE. Let's just add marijuana for now and call it "the BATFEM".
I've been in dry counties in Texas, but instead of going to a bar you go to a "club" and most of them just give you a membership or charge you a small fee for one. It kind of blew my mind when I found out that in some parts of Alaska even possession of alcohol was illegal.
Oh well, this was supposed to be about the IRS, Coinbase and Bitcoin.
Bitcoin presents a bunch of legal challenges as well. Should Coinbase have to report bitcoin transactions greater than $10,000 like my bank would if I make a transaction for that amount? It's not even issued by the government.
Where does my Bitcoin wallet even exist?
I don't actually have a bitcoin wallet or any bitcoins and the whole thing seems....somewhat risky at the very least.
You've got a point there.
At that same place I mentioned I pointed out to my boss that any of our customers could just go into the administrative menus and turn on access to modules of our software which they hadn't paid for.
I can't remember his exact words, but it was something like good luck making that work for them because it was fairly bug-ridden territory (and we both knew that).
No client could possibly use the base code anyway, because not only did they require their own customizations, they also expected us to fix the bugs in the parts they did use.
I think there's a big woosh here
I actually thought of trying to make a Venus Flytrap/Ron Glass mistaken identity joke myself, but didn't think it was funny enough.
Firefly was good, but there have been very few shows as good as Barney Miller.
For some reason the scene that comes to mind is when he has arrested a native American for who know what and is booking him and the Indian points out that they introduced us to tobacco. Ron takes a drag off his cigarette and coughs and sarcastically says "Thanks".
And who can forget when Wojo's girlfriend made hash brownies and the whole squad (except Barney, I think) got stoned?
An obviously stoned Detective Harris explains Nick's behavior: "Hey, um...Barney. I think he's stoned."
Barney (examining the brownies): I think there's something in these things! Have you had any?
Ron (with a big grin on his face): mmm-hmmmm!
I think they got hash in them, Barney.
Many years ago I was working at a small company with about a half-dozen other programmers. We were all doing Informix 4GL and ESQL/C except for this one guy that kept to himself and never talked to anyone.
He was working on their next big thing - converting all the code to Informix NewEra or as some of us mockingly called it "New Error".
I left that place like a rat leaving a sinking ship so I'm not sure what ever became of them, but I'm pretty sure the NewEra product was never installed at any client site.
The thing is, whenever anyone criticizes trump or even questions whether he has conflicts of interest with his businesses the standard reply has become "B-b-b-b-b-but Hillary!".
We know Clinton lost the election. Get over it!
If you look anywhere online the standard response is "Hillary lost, get over it." Hey, we weren't even talking about her. Why do trump supporters keep bringing her up?
I dislike him intensely and I think he's a horrible person, but most of us (I believe anyway) didn't think he would win and yet he did.
Like him or not, disagree with the electoral college or not, he will be the next President.
I'm not even sure what Modi has done this year to even be in the running (screwed up their current bank note fiasco?)
Putin, May and Fatty Kim haven't done anything nearly as impressive or shocking as what trump has done - again, just my opinion of course.
If Brexit were a person eligible for person (thing?) of the year I guess you could make a case for that.
Or if you want to open it up to Immigrants to Europe or Daesh as "person" of the year, those could also be valid candidates.
There's some interesting differences between you and I.
I cannot stand watching politician's speeches. I find them mostly meaningless and full of empty promises. It doesn't matter if it's Clinton or trump or Merkel or Rouhani, it's all blah, blah, blah to me. They're often curated and does anyone actually sit through Putin answering questions from Russians every year? I've tried - could never make it through the whole charade. I guess it doesn't help that I'm not a Russian citizen.
OTOH, I watch the news - a lot. This sometimes means I listen to politicians drone on and on, but often in only 30 second - 2 minute soundbites.
I just snipped a bunch of ranting, but some TV news actually does go in depth sometimes. I often don't actually, "watch" the news, I just listen while I try to sleep. I gather my news from different sources.
Some people complain about the "24/7 news cycle", but if you actually watch many of these news stations they just repeat the same news broadcast over and over again. It's a relief to me when they actually sit down and do an investigative report or interview someone instead of just letting them give a speech. Or if they just have a debate show.
And there's always some bias. I feel like RT should rename their show "Crosstalk" to "Circle Jerk" after the last episode I listened to.
Still, it's drama and I'm not into DWTS or America's Got Talent or whatever else is on the major US networks.
You're right and it's not so much the blatantly fake news stories we ned to worry about.
It's the ones that are mostly true to be credible but slip in lies which influence people who automatically believe them because most of the story was true - and it may even be on video.
Another thing I do is try to check my own bias.
Example: US attacks MSF hospital in Afghanistan
My reaction: It was either a mistake or there was enemy fire coming from the hospital
Example: Hospitals bombed in Aleppo
My reaction: Assad is deliberately targeting them or maybe Russia is just carpet bombing and not caring what they hit as long as there's destruction (they've already been promised priority in reconstruction contracts).
I'm not so blind that I can't see the bias in my reactions. I might even be right in my bias, but it's still a bias.
It's good to be reminded to remain skeptical.
I think RT is blatantly biased, but their slogan "Question More" is great.
2) The United States has been in the business of trying to spy on the communications of every person on the planet.
And to quote Arlo Guthrie:
And that's a great thing about America. I mean, this is the only
country in the world...l mean, well, it's not the only country
in the world that could find stuff out in two minutes, but it's
the only country in the world that would take two minutes
for that guy.
Other countries would say "Hey, he's the last guy...screw
him", you know? But in America, there is no discrimination,
and there is no hypocrisy,'cause they'll get anybody. And that's
a wonderful thing about America.
emphasis all mine.
Fuller context:
Arlo Guthrie: The Pause of Mr Clause
And to think he wrote that about 50 years ago.
That doesn't mean they didn't.
We've been seeing stories for a few years now about Russian "trolls" as they're called in the media pushing political agendas. IIRC, it was a big issue in Finland a couple years ago.
To think that Putin is really as non-chalant as he tries to appear to be about who the next President of the US will be is somewhat naive.
well, if RT has "debunked" it then I'm convinced.
What more do we need?
There's a big difference between accepting that Russia manipulates social media and believing they're behind every "fake" news story.
I'm drinking and posting on the internet. What am I supposed to do?
The thought has crossed my mind to emigrate, but to where? And do I really think I could or that I'd like it better?
I have thought of that, but never seriously.
I can't just show up in Germany and say I'm a refugee from Syria. I don't think they'd believe me, but maybe I could get them to let me stay anyway.
But if I had a good job offer from most parts of Europe or some parts of South America or Asia or Canada I would consider it. I've moved between states for jobs before. The differences in the places I've lived within the US are interesting and I quite like the city I live in now.
All I really want is a job and to be free from fear of crime (which I always have been in the US) and to have a reasonable place to eat and sleep and to afford food and health care.
I can speak Spanish (not very well, but I could get by in Mexico or Spain). I can order a beer in German. If I had to I could learn Swedish. I would even commit to learning English if I moved to the UK.
I am not advocating changing the rules to overturn the most recent election, but it is worth thinking about for future elections.
Yes, they were both using different strategies and trump was all over my state like a fly on shit (and he still lost my state), but it is making people think about whether we should continue with this system.
How many people in California didn't vote because they knew it really wouldn't make a difference? What about Texas or New York?
It's very easy to support the Electoral College when most of the time it votes the same way as the popular vote and the exceptions to that match your choice anyway.
I think calling the system rigged was a good strategy on Trump's part. Many of his voters may believe the system is rigged, but they were going to have their voices heard and he got the vote out.
Say what you will about the interests of the individual states, but I don't think any state with perhaps the exception of WV and their interest in coal was voting for Clinton or Trump based on their own state interests.
Like many people I have lived in several states. I have never voted for President based on the interests of that state. That's what I do when I vote for my Senators and Congressmen.
Many Clinton supporters were just smugly laughing at Trump and truly believed he had no chance of actually winning that many of them just stayed home.
I've noticed that Snopes often includes citations explaining how they arrived at their conclusions.
They may have some bias but as with any source of information you should consider what they say carefully. There are people rejecting truths just because of the source unwilling to even consider that maybe there is some truth to what they're saying.
Besides, they saw a tweet or a FB post that contradicted Snopes.
I did see a Snopes article where I thought they were showing a slight left-wing bias. I can't remember the topic, but I would still rate Snopes "Mostly Accurate" in their analysis.
Damn, I already used all my mod points.
EFF says it better than I could.
It sounds like a good idea to require a real name, but simply for free speech doing so could have chilling effects and work to silence people.
Most of us are posting somewhat anonymously here even though I don't believe it's an impenetrable mask. We build up our own karma (or lose it) and are identifiable by pseudonym so others can judge our credibility based on past posts.
Complete anonymity can lead to complete lack of credibility which is why so few people here pay any attention to Anonymous Cowards at all.
I hope no one takes this as a challenge, but for some random web surfer I would hope it would not trivial to take off my mask. I'm still careful about what I say, but it's unlikely anyone will google my real name and be able to find everything I've posted here or on other sites and that makes me feel free enough to post at all.
If I were of the wrong political persuasion in a country like Turkey right now I would either be afraid to post at all or I would take greater steps to hide my identity for obvious reasons and yet I believe free speech is a basic human right.
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/...
If you're murdered in America, there's a 1 in 3 chance that the police won't identify your killer.
To use the FBI's terminology, the national "clearance rate" for homicide today is 64.1 percent. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90 percent.
And that's worse than it sounds, because "clearance" doesn't equal conviction: It's just the term that police use to describe cases that end with an arrest, or in which a culprit is otherwise identified without the possibility of arrest — if the suspect has died, for example.
That's just murder, but it was easy to find.
Then I found this:
http://www.governing.com/topic...
Data recorded in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program show just how widely clearance rates vary across larger police departments. Of the 100 cities reporting the most murders in 2013, 11 cleared less than a quarter of their cases. Meanwhile, eight departments registered clearance rates of 90 percent or more. The national murder clearance rate was 64 percent for 2013.
It probably varies widely by crime as well.
If you like your false promises from politicians you can keep your false promises from politicians.
I guarantee it, no matter if it's Obama, Trump, your governor or your city councilman.
In the last week...
NYT reported Trump poisoned Megyn Kelly and got debate questions before the debate. Their source, Mrs. Kelly, said neither was true. Looks like they made it up completely.
Unless I'm mistaken those come from a review of Megyn Kelly's book, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
The excerpt about poisoning:
Her story becomes more byzantine. On the day of the debate, Ms. Kelly writes, she woke up feeling great. Then an overzealous, suspiciously enthusiastic driver picked her up to take her to the convention center. He insisted on getting her coffee, though she’d repeatedly declined his offer. Once it was in her hand, she drank it. And within 15 minutes, she was violently ill, vomiting so uncontrollably that it was unclear if she’d be able to help moderate that evening. It was so bad that she kept a trash pail beneath her desk throughout the debate, just in case.
Ms. Kelly never says outright that someone tried to poison her. (A stomach bug was going around, she notes.) But the episode spooked her enough that she shared it later with Roger Ailes and a lawyer friend of his. Foul play? Again: She reports. You decide.
About Trump getting the questions for the debate beforehand, they simply wrote:
Then, the day before the first presidential debate, Mr. Trump was in a lather again, Ms. Kelly writes. He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.
She doesn’t speculate where the leak came from. (She reports. You decide.)
I have not read her book, but that was in the NYT review on November 10.
Maybe she refuted those claims somewhere besides in two separate Tweets, but I haven't found them yet.
For the record, my book "Settle for More" does not suggest Trump had any debate Qs in advance, nor do I believe that he did.
Also for the record, I believe the reason I got sick the day of the first debate was I contracted a stomach virus, just as Rand Paul did.
Even if the NYT played up those two anecdotes from her book, they didn't make it up completely.
Indeed. I live in what was considered a swing state. Trump campaigned hard here.
The main paper's website was filled with comments from smug Clinton supporters scoffing at him for campaigning in one of the more liberal cities and laughing at him for campaigning in smaller more conservative towns here.
Even I was convinced he wasn't going to win and I was going to cast my vote third party more as a protest against both major parties, but in the last 2 weeks I changed my mind.
Many Clinton supporters were way too confident and Trump was pushing hard. He still lost here, but he won enough other states that it didn't matter.
You might as well drink 'Folger's'.
This is in fact what I do because I'm cheap and it's good enough in my opinion.
I used to buy coffee beans from Starbuck's clones (there are plenty of smaller regional ones) but why pay that much when I just want to make a strong caffeine drink at home?
I don't think I would. I could see kicking back and having a beer with Obama or Bush or Clinton or the elder Bush or Reagan if he were still alive or Carter.
I disagreed with them all on some things, but I've pretty much hated trump ever since I learned who he was which was probably in the late '80s and none of it was even politically motivated until this campaign.
trump seems like the kind of guy who I wouldn't even want to sit in the same bar with even if he was buying.
It's not that other ex-presidents are very credible in all the things that they may say, but trump has an air of BS about him such that if he saw the sun shining and said it was a nice day I would be suspicious of him.
It's not that other presidents haven't lied to us before, but I get the feeling everything that comes out of trump's mouth is about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball (which, you have to admit sometimes was right but that was only by chance.) Most likely Magic 8 Ball answer is "Cannot predict now".
He must have some appeal though. He didn't marry three wives and get people to put his name on their buildings without being somewhat charismatic or intelligent. He's always been a politician. He's very familiar with lawsuits.
It seems to me he got the reality TV vote. People love the idea of a tough successful businessman telling someone else "You're fired" - as long as it's not me that actually gets fired.
In the real world though, unless you really screw up terribly, typically employers will "let you go" or decide that it's "best to not continue with our relationship". Maybe your employment was "not a good match". It may sound PC, but there's no point of being confrontational when firing someone.
You say it diplomatically and tell them politely they're not working for you anymore.
trump lacks that understanding. He lacks class. Everything has to be gold-plated for him. He cannot take criticism and he always tries to turn that around on the person criticizing him.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. He has shown signs that he understands that being president is a big responsibility and one which he is not prepared for. He said he was an outsider, but he did say from the start that he would surround himself with the best people who knew how Washington works and he's doing that.
Well, maybe not the best people, but certainly insiders anyway
Interesting times we live in. I actually agree with some of his stated policies. I just have never trusted him to accomplish anything good (in my opinion) that he says.
I also think Clinton lost at least in part due to the polling which showed her as a shoe-in. Similar to Brexit, I think a lot of people didn't bother to vote because they were sure the rest of their country would side with them and vote accordingly.
Up until about a week or two before the election I was planning to vote third party because I was sure Clinton would win my state and really I didn't like Clinton, but in my opinion she was not as bad as trump.
I did not want to be a "me too" vote in an election which a month ago I was pretty sure Clinton would win.
Instead I saw trump campaigning hard here. We were sort of considered a swing state and we were assaulted by appearances by both him and his children.
As it turned out though we were solidly blue, but we were never the key to victory for trump.
--
It's really making me question the Electoral College. I've always believed it was meant to balance out the power between big and small states and it's easy to continue supporting when it usually mirrors the popular vote.
Now I'm more inclined to think that we do a good enough job at balancing power by giving each state 2 senators and a proportionate number of representatives.
The executive branch is a special case and is supposed to represent the entire country, not just the individual states.
In closing, let me remind you not to attempt any jokes in an airport. A friend of mine once did that and it cost him a lot of money and several days of his time. The joke also contributed to some of your personal inconveniences if you ever travel with an electronic device, but 'nuff said.
Not saying "Hi, Jack" while traveling by air is one of those things I somehow learned early on in life. I don't know how I learned it - I never said it nor did I even know anyone named Jack, but it was just one of those things that sunk in, sort of like having respect at a funeral.
It's taken seriously.
Similarly, you can probably say you want to kill your neighbors because you hate them and no one will take you seriously unless you provide enough context to actually be credible.
Saying you want to kill the president or the president elect though? That's likely to draw some attention if for nothing else to make sure you really don't pose a credible threat.
Or at least know your audience and make sure you're not overheard.
There's a funny anecdote that used to be told at a place I used to work. I'm not entirely sure it's true, but one of the most complex pieces of software that was used was called "the bomb". It was thousands of lines of spaghetti code and was very resource intensive and sometimes it failed - catastrophically, but that wasn't even why it was called "the bomb" - that was just coincidence actually. Despite attempts to get away from that terminology, the name stuck.
Legend has it that one day the person carrying the primary support pager was at the grocery store when she got paged and she wrote "bomb down" along with the phone number of the client on something that the bag boy saw and he alerted authorities, being the diligent bag boy that he no doubt was.
That was before 9/11 even, but supposedly she got stopped by the cops to make sure she wasn't a terrorist (and she was white too). I'm a little skeptical as to whether that actually happened, but it's probably best not to talk about bombs in airports or joke about assassinating....well, anyone really.
With all that said, I wouldn't mind if trump keeled over tomorrow but that would make Pence the next president, wouldn't it?
Okay, he can have a heart attack and die too. What then? Paul Ryan? I'm unclear on exactly how that would work especially since the electoral college hasn't weighed in, trump hasn't taken the oath of office and Obama is still president for 2 more months.
And if somehow by some strange coincidence Paul Ryan were to mysteriously die at the same time we'd get Orrin Hatch?
Just how many elected officials have to die before my local dog-catcher becomes president?
Because he's actually a Washington outsider and he really does love puppies and I don't think he's beholden to lobbyists in any way.