Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party, and he would have lost in the general election.
There's enough people in the US who would prefer ebola to socialism (whatever the heck that is) that Sander's self-characterization as a "democratic socialist" would almost certainly have lost him any chance. I'm saying that as one who supported him through the nomination process. I wanted Clinton to win, but I wanted Sanders to come close.
The job of the DNC is to get a good electable candidate out there. There were only two popular candidates, and Clinton won the primaries. The superdelegates slanted heavily her way, and she didn't need them. I'd think the caucus states easier to rig, but they went more toward Sanders.
Clinton obviously wasn't a perfect candidate. She's got the charisma of a damp dishrag. I was unhappy with some of her positions. I don't know how effective the Russians were, but Comey pretty much changed the results of the election by talking about the emails in late October.
This was the first Falcon Heavy launch. Nobody knew how it was going to go. Musk said he'd like it if the rocket got far enough up so that it wouldn't damage the pad when it exploded.
In fact, it went off very well, with the two side boosters landing back on land, and the center failing recovery due to a shortage of lighting fluid. Nobody knew that at the time. None of us watching the launch live knew what we'd see.
And nobody had something they wanted to put on a rocket that had an excellent chance of exploding, except Musk. First launches normally don't carry a payload.
And, on the other hand, we don't have personal jetpacks, flying cars, or humanoid robots, and we're just developing relatively cheap flights to low earth orbit. Things didn't just go faster and farther than expected, they went in unexpected ways.
Nope. Start with a usable language. Higher-level languages evolved as abstractions over the machine code, and the abstractions are very useful. The hard part of programming is taking an informal problem statement and turning out an accurate formal solution, and that's enough to learn on its own without worrying about which register has what.
Self-documenting code can make it easy to see what the code is doing. It doesn't describe what the code is doing, or why. That's what comments are for.
Comments that don't tell you anything the code doesn't are mostly useless. Worse, someone will change the code and forget to change the comments. Comments that tell what the code should do are a lot more stable.
The Steele investigation was politically motivated. What's wrong with that? It was presented to the FISA court, and the court was informed that the information was from a politically motivated investigation. The court could take that into account. Just because someone has ulterior motives doesn't make what they find necessarily untrue.
As far as I can tell, what happened with the IRS was that it was hit with lots of right-wing groups claiming non-profit status and not looking like they were legally non-profit, and the IRS worked on the ones they thought more likely to get tax-exempt status. The selection process of who to examine first was arguably unfair.
Watergate was about Nixon using illegal means to sabotage the Democratic Presidential campaigns, including helping a lightweight get nominated. Fudging some warrant applications is small potatoes compared to that, assuming the fudging did happen.
It appears that the FBI and DoJ provided the appropriate information to the FISA court. Heck, by the things the Nunes memo didn't say, it was obvious that the FBI investigation was clean and professional.
The Left, as a whole, is against having police officers shoot unarmed people and get off with nothing more than a paid vacation. It has been against the militarization of the police. It doesn't like the way immigration law is currently being enforced - for example, it creates a class of potential victims that can't talk to the police. This is not being anti-law enforcement, unless your idea of law enforcement is a boot in the face.
The wiretapping was based on legal warrants, and predated the mention of the Steele dossier. There's no way Page is going to be able to overturn those warrants, so the wiretapping evidence is admissible.
Actually, as far as I can tell both memos are factual. The Nunes memo is simply playing games around the facts. It claimed that the FISA court was not notified that the dossier had been prepared by Steele, working for Fusion GPS, to dig up dirt on Republicans. The Democrat memo claims that the FBI redacted actual names and used arbitrary designations, and disclosed everything relevant that way. The Nunes memo also claims that a certain news article didn't corroborate the dossier, and never actually claimed that the FBI claimed it corroborated it.
Um, why the cognitive dissonance? A libertarian could easily oppose gun control and government regulation of what private corporations make, or someone could think guns dangerous enough to warrant regulations and want the ability to repair legislated, dismissing this claimed danger. Those are completely consistent viewpoints.
you can just go read Damore's memo and know the truth exactly.
Actually, no. You can read what he wrote. You don't necessarily know what he did with it. The Labor Board report said that he was pushing his memo on others, and should have realized that, doing what he did, it was likely to go public. Assuming that's true, Damore was disruptive and there were good reasons for firing him. (If that isn't true, then we don't know the truth exactly.) In other words, Damore's claims weren't necessarily exaggerated, since we have evidence suggesting that he was deliberately being disruptive.
In the case of this woman, I don't know the truth. I find her account believable in general, but suspect it's likely exaggerated. Fortunately, I don't need to decide whether she's been seriously harassed or not.
Um, how do you go to the hospital and get them to do a blood draw? They've got patients who are actually sick or hurt, and they likely aren't interested.
Supposing you do get a good blood alcohol reading, now what? You have the equivalent of four drinks in you, and you're willing to swear and give details about the two drinks you did deliberately consume. It's not unheard of for people to lose track of how much they're drinking.
The police, if they show up, are going to want witnesses. Assuming they accept your claim that your drinks were spiked, they don't know who did it. Given clear evidence that one of five people committed a felony, they can't do much unless they can get evidence against a specific person.
I originally thought Damore got a raw deal, then I read the Labor Board report. Damore was pushing his memo on people, not just posting it to internal discussion sites, and the Labor Board ruled that he should have expected it to go public if he did that. That can get disruptive.
The tragedy in Wichita was because an officer screwed up and shot. I've read that the officer wasn't a part of the SWAT team, so, as far as the incident went, the SWAT team did exactly what they should have.
The National Guard is often called "weekend warriors", because they train during weekends and another two weeks a year. When you need the National Guard right now, odds are everybody's off at their jobs or their homes or bars or something. It takes time to call the Guard up.
Once the National Guard are finally at the possible crime scene, what do they do? They have training in how to assault a building and clear it, but they aren't expected to do that without casualties. If you need a fortified defense position neutralized, that's more their speed.
What we need in a situation like that is a police unit that's trained in crisis situations, not a bunch of beat cops, and not a military force.
It isn't just a waste of resources, it's deliberatey endangering others. No matter how well trained the officers are, there's the possibility of someone getting shot. The officers may think they're in danger, and all it takes is one officer making the wrong decision to create a tragedy. Obviously, the officer concerned should be held responsible, but if the swatter hadn't created the situation to allow the officer to kill someone with a wrong decision there wouldn't have been a death.
I trust the adaptive cruise control on my car because, if it fails, there's plenty of time for me to do something about it. In the meantime, I'm looking around to see what other drivers might be doing, because I don't trust them. Similarly, I had no problems keeping my attention on the road and traffic when teaching my son how to drive, even after he demonstrated that he was competent in situations where another driver did a bonehead thing. (Actually, the driver that did that made me more relaxed in the long run, because I had more faith in my son's driving.)
Speaking as someone from Minneapolis, Minnesota, it's not necessary to clean off the top. My wife had a car that would occasionally dump lots of snow onto the windshield when she did a quick stop, but the windshield wipers would clear it off before she had to go again. Mine will dump nothing that the windshield wipers won't handle.
I've had the lower layer ice sometimes, as freezing drizzle turns to snow. No issues.
I don't brush off the top of the car. I use the brush on the windows and hood and lights. I haven't had a problem yet.
And a lot of software works only for people who paid the Microsoft Tax. If manufacturers want to make their products compatible with Air Play, they can, and it will cost them some money (in addition to the Apple Tax).
What I don't understand is why Apple can't improve the world by making their stuff easier to use. I own a Subaru. I can use standard gasoline and roads and tires, but aside from that I get parts for Subarus. I don't put Volkswagen doors on it. The car works like it does because it was designed as an integrated whole. When you're talking about a smart watch, you're talking about buying one ready-made designed by one company. Why does it matter whether the physically separate components can be swapped, or if two of them together can be swapped?
Insurance rates will not go up all that much for human-driven cars. They're at the point, right now, where the premiums cover the costs. The only way they'd go up is if human-driven cars started causing more damage. Rates for self-driving cars are likely to go down. Auto insurance is a competitive market. If one insurance company offers reasonable premiums, and another offers higher rates, drivers will flock to the one with reasonable premiums.
It may become a lot cheaper not to own a car, which would mean lots of people wouldn't spend the money, but I'm predicting it will still be affordable.
Missing what? My numbers seem pretty much unobjectionable, my back-of-the-envelope calculations close enough, and my assumptions conservative. Checking with other sources, I wasn't that horribly off.
I did note your difference between "Antarctic ice" and "Antarctic sea ice", so if you're trying to play games there (a) you failed, and (b) I caught it.
There's a difference there. You had abusers and I didn't. You were probably depressed because of your situation, and I wasn't. I'm glad you figured out how to face your issues and improve your life, but we had definitely different problems.
Reducing the size of carry-ons is going to be REAL unpopular. Companies make bags that are just sized for carry-ons, Travelers have bought them. Travelers are used to packing them. Travelers are going to be really pissed if you say, "No, for this flight it has to be three inches shorter."
Slashdot Mirror
Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party, and he would have lost in the general election.
There's enough people in the US who would prefer ebola to socialism (whatever the heck that is) that Sander's self-characterization as a "democratic socialist" would almost certainly have lost him any chance. I'm saying that as one who supported him through the nomination process. I wanted Clinton to win, but I wanted Sanders to come close.
The job of the DNC is to get a good electable candidate out there. There were only two popular candidates, and Clinton won the primaries. The superdelegates slanted heavily her way, and she didn't need them. I'd think the caucus states easier to rig, but they went more toward Sanders.
Clinton obviously wasn't a perfect candidate. She's got the charisma of a damp dishrag. I was unhappy with some of her positions. I don't know how effective the Russians were, but Comey pretty much changed the results of the election by talking about the emails in late October.
This was the first Falcon Heavy launch. Nobody knew how it was going to go. Musk said he'd like it if the rocket got far enough up so that it wouldn't damage the pad when it exploded.
In fact, it went off very well, with the two side boosters landing back on land, and the center failing recovery due to a shortage of lighting fluid. Nobody knew that at the time. None of us watching the launch live knew what we'd see.
And nobody had something they wanted to put on a rocket that had an excellent chance of exploding, except Musk. First launches normally don't carry a payload.
And, on the other hand, we don't have personal jetpacks, flying cars, or humanoid robots, and we're just developing relatively cheap flights to low earth orbit. Things didn't just go faster and farther than expected, they went in unexpected ways.
Nope. Start with a usable language. Higher-level languages evolved as abstractions over the machine code, and the abstractions are very useful. The hard part of programming is taking an informal problem statement and turning out an accurate formal solution, and that's enough to learn on its own without worrying about which register has what.
Self-documenting code can make it easy to see what the code is doing. It doesn't describe what the code is doing, or why. That's what comments are for.
Comments that don't tell you anything the code doesn't are mostly useless. Worse, someone will change the code and forget to change the comments. Comments that tell what the code should do are a lot more stable.
The Steele investigation was politically motivated. What's wrong with that? It was presented to the FISA court, and the court was informed that the information was from a politically motivated investigation. The court could take that into account. Just because someone has ulterior motives doesn't make what they find necessarily untrue.
As far as I can tell, what happened with the IRS was that it was hit with lots of right-wing groups claiming non-profit status and not looking like they were legally non-profit, and the IRS worked on the ones they thought more likely to get tax-exempt status. The selection process of who to examine first was arguably unfair.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Watergate was about Nixon using illegal means to sabotage the Democratic Presidential campaigns, including helping a lightweight get nominated. Fudging some warrant applications is small potatoes compared to that, assuming the fudging did happen.
It appears that the FBI and DoJ provided the appropriate information to the FISA court. Heck, by the things the Nunes memo didn't say, it was obvious that the FBI investigation was clean and professional.
The Left, as a whole, is against having police officers shoot unarmed people and get off with nothing more than a paid vacation. It has been against the militarization of the police. It doesn't like the way immigration law is currently being enforced - for example, it creates a class of potential victims that can't talk to the police. This is not being anti-law enforcement, unless your idea of law enforcement is a boot in the face.
The wiretapping was based on legal warrants, and predated the mention of the Steele dossier. There's no way Page is going to be able to overturn those warrants, so the wiretapping evidence is admissible.
Actually, as far as I can tell both memos are factual. The Nunes memo is simply playing games around the facts. It claimed that the FISA court was not notified that the dossier had been prepared by Steele, working for Fusion GPS, to dig up dirt on Republicans. The Democrat memo claims that the FBI redacted actual names and used arbitrary designations, and disclosed everything relevant that way. The Nunes memo also claims that a certain news article didn't corroborate the dossier, and never actually claimed that the FBI claimed it corroborated it.
Um, why the cognitive dissonance? A libertarian could easily oppose gun control and government regulation of what private corporations make, or someone could think guns dangerous enough to warrant regulations and want the ability to repair legislated, dismissing this claimed danger. Those are completely consistent viewpoints.
Actually, no. You can read what he wrote. You don't necessarily know what he did with it. The Labor Board report said that he was pushing his memo on others, and should have realized that, doing what he did, it was likely to go public. Assuming that's true, Damore was disruptive and there were good reasons for firing him. (If that isn't true, then we don't know the truth exactly.) In other words, Damore's claims weren't necessarily exaggerated, since we have evidence suggesting that he was deliberately being disruptive.
In the case of this woman, I don't know the truth. I find her account believable in general, but suspect it's likely exaggerated. Fortunately, I don't need to decide whether she's been seriously harassed or not.
Um, how do you go to the hospital and get them to do a blood draw? They've got patients who are actually sick or hurt, and they likely aren't interested.
Supposing you do get a good blood alcohol reading, now what? You have the equivalent of four drinks in you, and you're willing to swear and give details about the two drinks you did deliberately consume. It's not unheard of for people to lose track of how much they're drinking.
The police, if they show up, are going to want witnesses. Assuming they accept your claim that your drinks were spiked, they don't know who did it. Given clear evidence that one of five people committed a felony, they can't do much unless they can get evidence against a specific person.
I originally thought Damore got a raw deal, then I read the Labor Board report. Damore was pushing his memo on people, not just posting it to internal discussion sites, and the Labor Board ruled that he should have expected it to go public if he did that. That can get disruptive.
According to the Labor Board findings, Damore didn't just submit his memo, he actively pushed it on people. That's different.
The tragedy in Wichita was because an officer screwed up and shot. I've read that the officer wasn't a part of the SWAT team, so, as far as the incident went, the SWAT team did exactly what they should have.
The National Guard is often called "weekend warriors", because they train during weekends and another two weeks a year. When you need the National Guard right now, odds are everybody's off at their jobs or their homes or bars or something. It takes time to call the Guard up.
Once the National Guard are finally at the possible crime scene, what do they do? They have training in how to assault a building and clear it, but they aren't expected to do that without casualties. If you need a fortified defense position neutralized, that's more their speed.
What we need in a situation like that is a police unit that's trained in crisis situations, not a bunch of beat cops, and not a military force.
It isn't just a waste of resources, it's deliberatey endangering others. No matter how well trained the officers are, there's the possibility of someone getting shot. The officers may think they're in danger, and all it takes is one officer making the wrong decision to create a tragedy. Obviously, the officer concerned should be held responsible, but if the swatter hadn't created the situation to allow the officer to kill someone with a wrong decision there wouldn't have been a death.
I trust the adaptive cruise control on my car because, if it fails, there's plenty of time for me to do something about it. In the meantime, I'm looking around to see what other drivers might be doing, because I don't trust them. Similarly, I had no problems keeping my attention on the road and traffic when teaching my son how to drive, even after he demonstrated that he was competent in situations where another driver did a bonehead thing. (Actually, the driver that did that made me more relaxed in the long run, because I had more faith in my son's driving.)
On my route to and from work, there's a five-mile stretch of two-lane divided highway without exits, and the shoulders don't look wide enough.
Speaking as someone from Minneapolis, Minnesota, it's not necessary to clean off the top. My wife had a car that would occasionally dump lots of snow onto the windshield when she did a quick stop, but the windshield wipers would clear it off before she had to go again. Mine will dump nothing that the windshield wipers won't handle.
I've had the lower layer ice sometimes, as freezing drizzle turns to snow. No issues.
I don't brush off the top of the car. I use the brush on the windows and hood and lights. I haven't had a problem yet.
And a lot of software works only for people who paid the Microsoft Tax. If manufacturers want to make their products compatible with Air Play, they can, and it will cost them some money (in addition to the Apple Tax).
What I don't understand is why Apple can't improve the world by making their stuff easier to use. I own a Subaru. I can use standard gasoline and roads and tires, but aside from that I get parts for Subarus. I don't put Volkswagen doors on it. The car works like it does because it was designed as an integrated whole. When you're talking about a smart watch, you're talking about buying one ready-made designed by one company. Why does it matter whether the physically separate components can be swapped, or if two of them together can be swapped?
Insurance rates will not go up all that much for human-driven cars. They're at the point, right now, where the premiums cover the costs. The only way they'd go up is if human-driven cars started causing more damage. Rates for self-driving cars are likely to go down. Auto insurance is a competitive market. If one insurance company offers reasonable premiums, and another offers higher rates, drivers will flock to the one with reasonable premiums.
It may become a lot cheaper not to own a car, which would mean lots of people wouldn't spend the money, but I'm predicting it will still be affordable.
Missing what? My numbers seem pretty much unobjectionable, my back-of-the-envelope calculations close enough, and my assumptions conservative. Checking with other sources, I wasn't that horribly off.
I did note your difference between "Antarctic ice" and "Antarctic sea ice", so if you're trying to play games there (a) you failed, and (b) I caught it.
But that's what cognitive therapy is. You learn and practice different thought processes.
There's a difference there. You had abusers and I didn't. You were probably depressed because of your situation, and I wasn't. I'm glad you figured out how to face your issues and improve your life, but we had definitely different problems.
Reducing the size of carry-ons is going to be REAL unpopular. Companies make bags that are just sized for carry-ons, Travelers have bought them. Travelers are used to packing them. Travelers are going to be really pissed if you say, "No, for this flight it has to be three inches shorter."