Perhaps some of this is circumstantial, perhaps some is accidental. Perhaps. But perhaps some percentage of this really is what it seems (to me) to add up to.
In other words they don't have any evidence but if they put all of their non-evidence together in one place it looks kinda troubling.
I never heard about people being that stupid when cruise control was introduced into the mainstream. Autopilot, as it stands, is a smarter form of cruise control (it basically helps you maintain the speed without your foot on the pedal but it's a bit fancier than a fixed speed)
Did you read Tesla's explanation? It's not even coherent.
"The driver of the Tesla, whose hands were not detected on the steering wheel, did not steer to avoid the parked car and instead scraped against its side," Tesla said Wednesday in a statement. "As clearly communicated to the driver in the vehicle, Autosteer is an assist feature that requires the driver to keep his hands on the steering wheel at all times, to always maintain control and responsibility for the vehicle, and to be prepared to take over at any time."
So according to Tesla it requires the driver to keep their hands on the wheel... which is clearly false because it was functioning when his hands were not on the wheel.
And if the purpose is that the driver has to keep their "hands on the steering wheel at all times, to always maintain control and responsibility for the vehicle, and to be prepared to take over at any time" then what's the purpose of the autopilot anyway? You're supposed to sit there with your hands on the wheel (though not really) and pay attention to the road while not-steering?
They can sell their auto-pilot for not self-driving next to the hooka for not smoking pot.
I think Snowden/Greenward/Gellman are working on a book, and these tweets were targeted at a source who was willing to confirm some of the information Snowden told Gellman for the book.
The first message was telling that person it was time for the person to start with the interview. The person was rightfully paranoid and wanted a way to arrange a secure communication channel with Snowden or Gellman.
So the second message was a public key saying "you'll know messages are legit because they'll be signed with this key" (so some other encrypted info about setting up a secure channel).
Both messages were public so that no one could tell who the intended recipient was.
When the person got the info and the secure communications got set up Snowden deleted the tweets.
And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?
It's a private donation by a public figure who just so happens to have a likely conflict of interest in this interview.
I agree it's newsworthy, but in the exchange itself Assange didn't come across as "I think I encountered a major conflict of interest you kept hidden" but "I discovered one of your secrets and I'll use it to destroy you".
Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.
What's supposed to be bad about that?
Don't accept leaks from outside hacks, especially if you believe the hacker has bad motives.
The alleged opponents in questions are also powerful entities. Looks to me like Wikileaks is holding true to its mission.
The problem is that instead of punishing unethical behaviour you're now rewarding it.
The organizations who thrive in the new wikileaks system are the ones unscrupulous enough to hack their rivals and leak their dirty laundry.
So Wikileaks has gone from technically illegal activity to morally-wrong activity?
A tax return is not like memos of secret negotiations or illegal spy activities. It is a document filed by a private citizen with its government. There is absolutely no moral ground to insisting it be provided to the public.
And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?
I found that a bit distasteful, while I can see the public's right to know there's something off about trying to shame someone by surprising them with illicitly obtained private information.
Either way I think the big issue with Wikileaks and the DNC emails is they weren't a leak, they were a hack.
For a leak you need an insider who thinks things are so wrong that they're willing to risk their career, and even jail time, by leaking the information. It's a very random happenstance and tends to happen only when things are particularly bad.
But hacks tend to favour the more powerful entities (like Russia) who can dispatch sophisticated technical resources against their enemies. You don't need a massive egregious wrong, if you have an enemy you just need to hack their servers and go digging until you find bad. Russia didn't leak the DNC emails because the Democratic party was favouring Clinton, they leaked them because they were looking for anything to damage Clinton.
Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.
The problem at hand: It doesn't matter how many people a car's autonomous driving doesn't kill, what matters is the number of people it fails to save. The same rule applies to humans: People cannot defend negligent or murderous actions by a listing of all the people that they didn't kill. What matters is harm committed, not harm evaded.
Moreover, can any company survive the of full liability of the loss of more than a few lives? Over 30,000 people per year are killed on American roads. Even if autonomous vehicles reduced that to 10,000 people per year (a 66% reduction!), their manufacturers/programmers would still be responsible for the death of 10,000 people! What industry could survive that liability? That many civil law suits?
What is really bugging people is the haphazard way in which Tesla is going about this.
I have very little confidence that Tesla has any real idea how many lives their auto-pilot will cost or save, nor that they have even tried to seriously study the issue. By all appearances Tesla sees itself as being in a race to be the first one with a self-driving car and they're been happy to ship the first version that seems reasonably safe.
As for these "happy" stories the first one actually had nothing to do with the self-driving "autopilot" but was instead a collision avoidance system (not unique to Tesla) when the self-driving more wasn't even activated.
As for this story the guy might have been just fine without the autopilot, having driven himself or called for an ambulance.
I'm fine with the idea of the legal system accommodating self-driving car defects, I suspect it already does something similar with medical devices. But I don't believe Tesla is showing a sufficient concern for safety considering how many lives are at stake.
Yes, someone going through great effort can cause a crash. I've know cases where people stoodn on overpasses and threw down bricks to cause crashes. Nobody published papers on the "brick loophole" in car security. In most of the examples, it'd have been easier to just cut the brake lines. But we have to target the sensors to get media attention, for a non-story.
We're really good at spotting things that distract humans, not so much at spotting things that distract AIs. Even though this was a deliberate attack there could be other things unintentionally causing interference and leading to crashes, or other classes of attack we haven't discovered yet and may be a lot easier to execute.
Like that her supporters on Facebook were egging her on?
That she was pulled over for having a cardboard license plate. That she was one of those "free range Americas" that have opted out of the government and believe its law does not apply to them. She refused to go to court because she did not recognize its power over her.
The profile in the article was kinda weird, it sounded a bit like sovereign citizen rhetoric, but that demographic is about as white as Donald Trump's natural skin tone. Is there a black offshoot?
I'm pretty sure he just lost the election right now...
He signed a pledge, no one expects Trump to feel beholden to any pledges he signed, his foreign policy is based on getting either ignoring existing pledges or getting other countries to pay for the US to follow them.
I'd be surprised if he even took time to read this pledge!
You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
I'm not even sure if they were making a tradeoff, there's an actual security budget which suggests the electric car chargers came from a completely different pool of money than security. (though I could see a valid security argument for the chargers)
Right. It was just an I'll advised email server. You're judgement is worse than Hillary's.
So you think she's the devil incarnate, so what? The choice is Hillary or Trump so it should be Hillary by a landslide.
If I were American I'd vote for Bush II over Trump, hell I'd vote for Nixon over Trump.
The guy's been running for President for over a year and he still knows nothing about policy nor has he shown the ability to exhibit self-control for any period longer than a few hours. Can you really imagine him reacting well to even the mildest crisis?
Now we're starting to get somewhere. What would have been better would be if there was no question about the security of Hillary's emails in the first place.
It would be great if Obama could be chummier with Republican legislators.
It would be great if Sanders was a little more wonkish and had a solid economic plan and foreign policy.
It would be great if Trump was competent, honest, or remotely sane.
There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, it defies belief that among everything else people are now looking at an ill-advised email server as some sort of failed litmus test.
Can you give me the quote that asked that? I've been following the story pretty closely and never saw anything like that. I think you're just drawing conclusions from headlines, just like they want you to.
I assume you're playing cute with semantics, because he doesn't actually asked them to hack her emails, he asks them to "find" the emails. The implication being of course that they already hacked them.
It's not hugely better of course, rather than asking Russia to hack her server he's saying that it's great that Russia hacked her server, and Russia should use that intel to help his campaign.
And of course his backtrack that he was being "sarcastic" is stupid. But since it was obviously Trump talking he couldn't blame it on a young intern.
That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.
Using a non-governmental account wasn't unprecedented, or illegal.
The illegal part was that classified information was occasionally sent on the servers, but there's no reason to think that was deliberate. High level State Department officials would constantly be dealing with information that was classified, but carried no indication of being classified. Any communication channel they regularly use was going to see the occasional classified document.
That's why people who do what Hillary did, regardless of political influence, don't get charged and certainly don't go to jail.
He didn't accumulate that mass of wealth by being a good and decent human being. Look at the way his company treats its rank and file employees. I don't care how much money he has, Jeff Bezos has absolutely nothing redeeming about him
Amazon is a retailer, a traditionally low margin industry. For the same reason you don't expect clean athletes you don't expect kind and generous CEOs in low margin industries.
When you're worth that much why not just cash out, what's the point of earning more. I can't understand why anyone would be doing anything other than coke and hookers after 1b
that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP
And what it is about that completely non-binding, strictly aspirational bit of fluff (The Platform) is it that you suppose will somehow alter a candidate's actual value system and the world view, principles, ethics, and policies that they hold dear?
The fact that they typically do put their platform first above personal beliefs.
Why would you want to vote for someone whose value system is so fragile and so malleable that a party's choice to placate the noisy losing minority in their ranks would actually change the winning candidate's principles? Or are you saying that the Democrat winner doesn't really have any sort of solid value system, and is thus so easily manipulated? Yeah, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.
It's an awesome one.
I have no idea what any politician's personal principles are, no one does.
But I do know how they campaigned, and what they said they'd do.
The only principle they really need is that they'll be the politician they told the voters they would be.
The US system is completely silent on the matter. The constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about how many political parties there are or should be.
No, but between mass media and the first-past-the-post Presidency it's winking really hard.
There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate
Yeah, that was great how Bush, McCain, and Romney all came out to support.... oh wait, they all stayed away because a significant part of the Republican establishment refuses to endorse Trump.
In fact if they were to endorse anyone during the campaign it would likely be Hillary. I mean the Cruz-endorsing "Obamacare is unconstitutional" folks at Volokh Conspiracy have already done so.
while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement
The only reason the RNC was so quiet is their insurgent with outsider delegates won. Can you imagine how chaotic it would be if Trump had lost?
- primarily because it's come out that the "losing" side only lost because of massive fraud and cheating on the "winning" side.
It has? I must have missed that story. All I heard about was some emails indicating that the DNC was pushing a pro-Clinton narrative to reporters, a fraction of what the RNC tried to do to Trump.
If you read any reports outside the MSM, the DNC has been a complete disaster.
Right before they tell you that Bigfoot shot JFK.
off-script outbursts from invited celebrities,
Someone didn't repeat the teleprompter word for word in a speech before a live audience??? WHAT AN OUTRAGE!!!!
Hillary has managed to turn 538's "80% chance" of victory into a 52% chance - WITH the "post-nomination bounce!"
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.
Yes, if you prefer a quarterly profit and then bankruptcy over long term growth.
Voting for a third party impacts politics even if that party doesn't win. It sends a message to the runner up that there are votes to gain by adopting a few third party questions. Voting for the lesser evil only tells the two major parties that they need to be more like each other if they want more votes. A vote for the lesser evil is a vote to make it become the greater evil, that is why you now have two large parties that only wants to screw you over.
You can exert your influence during the primaries, that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP.
On the Republican side what would have been their 3rd party managed to actually take over the main party.
Insurgents inside of the machine are devastatingly effective. Outside, they're almost completely counter-productive. Can you imagine how much the Democratic platform would have to change just to get a fraction of one of Libertarian or Green voters? You really think they'll shift to the fringe, lose the moderates, just to get an extra 0.5% on the fringe?
There are systems that support healthy and effective 3rd parties, the US is not one of them. If you want to have an impact either work within the system you have or try to implement a new system, voting 3rd party does nothing but hurt your own cause.
Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.
When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?
I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.
Politics is the art of compromise. The only ones who refuse to compromise are dictators or useless blowhards.
Sanders' could have insisted on all of his principles, refused to endorse Hillary, and possibly handed the election to Trump, undercutting virtually every policy objective he had.
Or he could endorse Hillary, hope she'd win, and watch her do 95% of the same things he would have done.
You can insist on a perfect candidate and pout if you don't get one. Or you can be smart like Sanders, find the least worst option you can, and do your best to improve it.
or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???
I don't think the word "half" means what you think it means.
maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)
I believe your understanding of the law is incorrect.
I wonder if the specific timing is WikiLeak's idea or the source's idea.
If you're trying to damage Clinton and the DNC this is great timing, it aggravates Sander's supporters and pits them against the party when everyone is at the DNC, it also distracts the public from good press that the DNC is generating.
But if you're trying to publicize WikiLeaks and the leaks themselves it's terrible timing, almost no one outside of political junkies is going to hear about it because the news is swamped with the DNC itself.
I suspect the source has specific conditions about how this info gets published.
Tor is backdoored. You can see that from the ease with which the Feds locate sites and users.
Tor is open source, the project just manages the sources. You might be able sneak in some subtle exploits if you're in charge... but if the Feds are finding people it's more likely they've just set up a bunch of fake nodes.
When a company first sacks someone facing no charges, then hires a PI to confirm their reason for sacking, even though he's not claiming wrongful dismissal. That pretty much tells you that the organization is stuff full of bad actors.
Or the project is under intense scrutiny and suspicion so they want to cover their bases.
And that is Jacob.
These "we slept together and he licked my muff and that's rape because I didn't agree before hand he could lick my muff, only share the bed"...
It's about consent, and sharing a bed with someone doesn't give you consent.
Now in many cases that's an indication that they are interested, and in that case you can try to get consent. But just because you think they are interested in sex and you can get consent doesn't give you the right to shove your hand down their pants while they're asleep.
these are Assange style attacks, they were disclosed in the Snowden leaks, and they just make him more, demonstrably honest:
That's a theory, it's a theory to watch out for, it's possibly the reason why they hired the PI you were so concerned about, but the fact he was accused of misconduct isn't evidence that he was framed.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.whatreallyhappened....
Scroll down to "body count"
Perhaps some of this is circumstantial, perhaps some is accidental. Perhaps. But perhaps some percentage of this really is what it seems (to me) to add up to.
In other words they don't have any evidence but if they put all of their non-evidence together in one place it looks kinda troubling.
I never heard about people being that stupid when cruise control was introduced into the mainstream. Autopilot, as it stands, is a smarter form of cruise control (it basically helps you maintain the speed without your foot on the pedal but it's a bit fancier than a fixed speed)
Did you read Tesla's explanation? It's not even coherent.
"The driver of the Tesla, whose hands were not detected on the steering wheel, did not steer to avoid the parked car and instead scraped against its side," Tesla said Wednesday in a statement. "As clearly communicated to the driver in the vehicle, Autosteer is an assist feature that requires the driver to keep his hands on the steering wheel at all times, to always maintain control and responsibility for the vehicle, and to be prepared to take over at any time."
So according to Tesla it requires the driver to keep their hands on the wheel... which is clearly false because it was functioning when his hands were not on the wheel.
And if the purpose is that the driver has to keep their "hands on the steering wheel at all times, to always maintain control and responsibility for the vehicle, and to be prepared to take over at any time" then what's the purpose of the autopilot anyway? You're supposed to sit there with your hands on the wheel (though not really) and pay attention to the road while not-steering?
They can sell their auto-pilot for not self-driving next to the hooka for not smoking pot.
If I was dead, the first thing I'd do is get someone to tweet to say I was alive in order to cover up the fact! This is blatently a conspiracy!!!!
If you were dead then how and why are you asking people to tweet and cover it up?
I think Snowden/Greenward/Gellman are working on a book, and these tweets were targeted at a source who was willing to confirm some of the information Snowden told Gellman for the book.
The first message was telling that person it was time for the person to start with the interview. The person was rightfully paranoid and wanted a way to arrange a secure communication channel with Snowden or Gellman.
So the second message was a public key saying "you'll know messages are legit because they'll be signed with this key" (so some other encrypted info about setting up a secure channel).
Both messages were public so that no one could tell who the intended recipient was.
When the person got the info and the secure communications got set up Snowden deleted the tweets.
And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?
It's a private donation by a public figure who just so happens to have a likely conflict of interest in this interview.
I agree it's newsworthy, but in the exchange itself Assange didn't come across as "I think I encountered a major conflict of interest you kept hidden" but "I discovered one of your secrets and I'll use it to destroy you".
Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.
What's supposed to be bad about that?
Don't accept leaks from outside hacks, especially if you believe the hacker has bad motives.
The alleged opponents in questions are also powerful entities. Looks to me like Wikileaks is holding true to its mission.
The problem is that instead of punishing unethical behaviour you're now rewarding it.
The organizations who thrive in the new wikileaks system are the ones unscrupulous enough to hack their rivals and leak their dirty laundry.
So Wikileaks has gone from technically illegal activity to morally-wrong activity?
A tax return is not like memos of secret negotiations or illegal spy activities. It is a document filed by a private citizen with its government. There is absolutely no moral ground to insisting it be provided to the public.
And Assange exposing what he thought was a private donation by Bill Maher?
I found that a bit distasteful, while I can see the public's right to know there's something off about trying to shame someone by surprising them with illicitly obtained private information.
Either way I think the big issue with Wikileaks and the DNC emails is they weren't a leak, they were a hack.
For a leak you need an insider who thinks things are so wrong that they're willing to risk their career, and even jail time, by leaking the information. It's a very random happenstance and tends to happen only when things are particularly bad.
But hacks tend to favour the more powerful entities (like Russia) who can dispatch sophisticated technical resources against their enemies. You don't need a massive egregious wrong, if you have an enemy you just need to hack their servers and go digging until you find bad. Russia didn't leak the DNC emails because the Democratic party was favouring Clinton, they leaked them because they were looking for anything to damage Clinton.
Wikileaks has transitioned from an organization that enabled insiders to hold powerful entities responsible to an organization that helps powerful entities attack opponents.
I would rather an idiot, that wants to do good, be selected as our president.
Well at least Trump gets you halfway there.
The problem at hand: It doesn't matter how many people a car's autonomous driving doesn't kill, what matters is the number of people it fails to save. The same rule applies to humans: People cannot defend negligent or murderous actions by a listing of all the people that they didn't kill. What matters is harm committed, not harm evaded.
Moreover, can any company survive the of full liability of the loss of more than a few lives? Over 30,000 people per year are killed on American roads. Even if autonomous vehicles reduced that to 10,000 people per year (a 66% reduction!), their manufacturers/programmers would still be responsible for the death of 10,000 people! What industry could survive that liability? That many civil law suits?
What is really bugging people is the haphazard way in which Tesla is going about this.
I have very little confidence that Tesla has any real idea how many lives their auto-pilot will cost or save, nor that they have even tried to seriously study the issue. By all appearances Tesla sees itself as being in a race to be the first one with a self-driving car and they're been happy to ship the first version that seems reasonably safe.
As for these "happy" stories the first one actually had nothing to do with the self-driving "autopilot" but was instead a collision avoidance system (not unique to Tesla) when the self-driving more wasn't even activated.
As for this story the guy might have been just fine without the autopilot, having driven himself or called for an ambulance.
I'm fine with the idea of the legal system accommodating self-driving car defects, I suspect it already does something similar with medical devices. But I don't believe Tesla is showing a sufficient concern for safety considering how many lives are at stake.
Yes, someone going through great effort can cause a crash. I've know cases where people stoodn on overpasses and threw down bricks to cause crashes. Nobody published papers on the "brick loophole" in car security. In most of the examples, it'd have been easier to just cut the brake lines. But we have to target the sensors to get media attention, for a non-story.
We're really good at spotting things that distract humans, not so much at spotting things that distract AIs. Even though this was a deliberate attack there could be other things unintentionally causing interference and leading to crashes, or other classes of attack we haven't discovered yet and may be a lot easier to execute.
Like that her supporters on Facebook were egging her on?
That she was pulled over for having a cardboard license plate.
That she was one of those "free range Americas" that have opted out of the government and believe its law does not apply to them.
She refused to go to court because she did not recognize its power over her.
There is only so much a Police Officer can do.
Sure you don't mean a sovereign citizen?
The profile in the article was kinda weird, it sounded a bit like sovereign citizen rhetoric, but that demographic is about as white as Donald Trump's natural skin tone. Is there a black offshoot?
I'm pretty sure he just lost the election right now...
He signed a pledge, no one expects Trump to feel beholden to any pledges he signed, his foreign policy is based on getting either ignoring existing pledges or getting other countries to pay for the US to follow them.
I'd be surprised if he even took time to read this pledge!
You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
I'm not even sure if they were making a tradeoff, there's an actual security budget which suggests the electric car chargers came from a completely different pool of money than security. (though I could see a valid security argument for the chargers)
Right. It was just an I'll advised email server. You're judgement is worse than Hillary's.
So you think she's the devil incarnate, so what? The choice is Hillary or Trump so it should be Hillary by a landslide.
If I were American I'd vote for Bush II over Trump, hell I'd vote for Nixon over Trump.
The guy's been running for President for over a year and he still knows nothing about policy nor has he shown the ability to exhibit self-control for any period longer than a few hours. Can you really imagine him reacting well to even the mildest crisis?
Now we're starting to get somewhere. What would have been better would be if there was no question about the security of Hillary's emails in the first place.
It would be great if Obama could be chummier with Republican legislators.
It would be great if Sanders was a little more wonkish and had a solid economic plan and foreign policy.
It would be great if Trump was competent, honest, or remotely sane.
There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, it defies belief that among everything else people are now looking at an ill-advised email server as some sort of failed litmus test.
Can you give me the quote that asked that? I've been following the story pretty closely and never saw anything like that. I think you're just drawing conclusions from headlines, just like they want you to.
I assume you're playing cute with semantics, because he doesn't actually asked them to hack her emails, he asks them to "find" the emails. The implication being of course that they already hacked them.
It's not hugely better of course, rather than asking Russia to hack her server he's saying that it's great that Russia hacked her server, and Russia should use that intel to help his campaign.
And of course his backtrack that he was being "sarcastic" is stupid. But since it was obviously Trump talking he couldn't blame it on a young intern.
That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.
Using a non-governmental account wasn't unprecedented, or illegal.
The illegal part was that classified information was occasionally sent on the servers, but there's no reason to think that was deliberate. High level State Department officials would constantly be dealing with information that was classified, but carried no indication of being classified. Any communication channel they regularly use was going to see the occasional classified document.
That's why people who do what Hillary did, regardless of political influence, don't get charged and certainly don't go to jail.
He didn't accumulate that mass of wealth by being a good and decent human being. Look at the way his company treats its rank and file employees. I don't care how much money he has, Jeff Bezos has absolutely nothing redeeming about him
Amazon is a retailer, a traditionally low margin industry. For the same reason you don't expect clean athletes you don't expect kind and generous CEOs in low margin industries.
When you're worth that much why not just cash out, what's the point of earning more. I can't understand why anyone would be doing anything other than coke and hookers after 1b
People spend their money doing things they like.
He apparently likes running Amazon.
that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP
And what it is about that completely non-binding, strictly aspirational bit of fluff (The Platform) is it that you suppose will somehow alter a candidate's actual value system and the world view, principles, ethics, and policies that they hold dear?
The fact that they typically do put their platform first above personal beliefs.
Why would you want to vote for someone whose value system is so fragile and so malleable that a party's choice to placate the noisy losing minority in their ranks would actually change the winning candidate's principles? Or are you saying that the Democrat winner doesn't really have any sort of solid value system, and is thus so easily manipulated? Yeah, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.
It's an awesome one.
I have no idea what any politician's personal principles are, no one does.
But I do know how they campaigned, and what they said they'd do.
The only principle they really need is that they'll be the politician they told the voters they would be.
The US system is completely silent on the matter. The constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about how many political parties there are or should be.
No, but between mass media and the first-past-the-post Presidency it's winking really hard.
There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate
Yeah, that was great how Bush, McCain, and Romney all came out to support.... oh wait, they all stayed away because a significant part of the Republican establishment refuses to endorse Trump.
In fact if they were to endorse anyone during the campaign it would likely be Hillary. I mean the Cruz-endorsing "Obamacare is unconstitutional" folks at Volokh Conspiracy have already done so.
while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement
The only reason the RNC was so quiet is their insurgent with outsider delegates won. Can you imagine how chaotic it would be if Trump had lost?
- primarily because it's come out that the "losing" side only lost because of massive fraud and cheating on the "winning" side.
It has? I must have missed that story. All I heard about was some emails indicating that the DNC was pushing a pro-Clinton narrative to reporters, a fraction of what the RNC tried to do to Trump.
If you read any reports outside the MSM, the DNC has been a complete disaster.
Right before they tell you that Bigfoot shot JFK.
off-script outbursts from invited celebrities,
Someone didn't repeat the teleprompter word for word in a speech before a live audience??? WHAT AN OUTRAGE!!!!
Hillary has managed to turn 538's "80% chance" of victory into a 52% chance - WITH the "post-nomination bounce!"
I read 538 as well, though apparently with better reading comprehension.
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.
Yes, if you prefer a quarterly profit and then bankruptcy over long term growth.
Voting for a third party impacts politics even if that party doesn't win. It sends a message to the runner up that there are votes to gain by adopting a few third party questions.
Voting for the lesser evil only tells the two major parties that they need to be more like each other if they want more votes.
A vote for the lesser evil is a vote to make it become the greater evil, that is why you now have two large parties that only wants to screw you over.
You can exert your influence during the primaries, that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP.
On the Republican side what would have been their 3rd party managed to actually take over the main party.
Insurgents inside of the machine are devastatingly effective. Outside, they're almost completely counter-productive. Can you imagine how much the Democratic platform would have to change just to get a fraction of one of Libertarian or Green voters? You really think they'll shift to the fringe, lose the moderates, just to get an extra 0.5% on the fringe?
There are systems that support healthy and effective 3rd parties, the US is not one of them. If you want to have an impact either work within the system you have or try to implement a new system, voting 3rd party does nothing but hurt your own cause.
Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.
When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?
I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.
Politics is the art of compromise. The only ones who refuse to compromise are dictators or useless blowhards.
Sanders' could have insisted on all of his principles, refused to endorse Hillary, and possibly handed the election to Trump, undercutting virtually every policy objective he had.
Or he could endorse Hillary, hope she'd win, and watch her do 95% of the same things he would have done.
You can insist on a perfect candidate and pout if you don't get one. Or you can be smart like Sanders, find the least worst option you can, and do your best to improve it.
or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???
I don't think the word "half" means what you think it means.
maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)
I believe your understanding of the law is incorrect.
I wonder if the specific timing is WikiLeak's idea or the source's idea.
If you're trying to damage Clinton and the DNC this is great timing, it aggravates Sander's supporters and pits them against the party when everyone is at the DNC, it also distracts the public from good press that the DNC is generating.
But if you're trying to publicize WikiLeaks and the leaks themselves it's terrible timing, almost no one outside of political junkies is going to hear about it because the news is swamped with the DNC itself.
I suspect the source has specific conditions about how this info gets published.
Tor is backdoored. You can see that from the ease with which the Feds locate sites and users.
Tor is open source, the project just manages the sources. You might be able sneak in some subtle exploits if you're in charge... but if the Feds are finding people it's more likely they've just set up a bunch of fake nodes.
When a company first sacks someone facing no charges, then hires a PI to confirm their reason for sacking, even though he's not claiming wrongful dismissal. That pretty much tells you that the organization is stuff full of bad actors.
Or the project is under intense scrutiny and suspicion so they want to cover their bases.
And that is Jacob.
These "we slept together and he licked my muff and that's rape because I didn't agree before hand he could lick my muff, only share the bed"...
It's about consent, and sharing a bed with someone doesn't give you consent.
Now in many cases that's an indication that they are interested, and in that case you can try to get consent. But just because you think they are interested in sex and you can get consent doesn't give you the right to shove your hand down their pants while they're asleep.
these are Assange style attacks, they were disclosed in the Snowden leaks, and they just make him more, demonstrably honest:
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
That's a theory, it's a theory to watch out for, it's possibly the reason why they hired the PI you were so concerned about, but the fact he was accused of misconduct isn't evidence that he was framed.