My observation is more that the fawning media always interpreted every poll within or near the margin of error as a win for Clinton.
There's a good reason for this. Polling is done via telephone, so homeless people who vote 10 times for a pack of cigarettes and people who died in 1982 don't show up in the polls but they do show up to vote for Democrats on election day.
America needs truly Universal Healthcare - along with price controls on pharmaceuticals. You want an actual democratic plan ? It means putting all the insurance companies out of business for ever.
Thank you for your honesty. Please understand that this is why the Democrat party is in major decline at every single level in the US (federal, state, and local). Your party will continue to lose until you understand that your views are 180 degrees different than most of the country.
Most people were happy with healthcare before Obamacare. Now they're seeing premiums go up astronomically (125% in AZ this year) if they buy from an exchange. Many exchanges are now in a death spiral where they will have to raise rates like that as fewer people can afford them and are dropping out.
It's fun to say "it's a Republican idea" but no Republican voted for ti. It's your baby, deal with it.
Actually, don't worry. Thanks to the morons in the DNC the Republicans own the entire federal government so they won't need your help to deal with it.
Because they're the party of big business, big media, and the 1%.
I cannot fathom how, after Hillary Clinton's campaign, people like you still don't get it. Seriously. You fall hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being pushed by Soros (think hard about this) that the Republicans are the big business party that doesn't care for you, the little guy.
The little guys voted Republican this time because they're catching on. It doesn't mean their lives will necessarily get better, but they absolutely wouldn't have gotten any better under the Democrats. Trump was correct to ask blacks "what do you have to lose?"
I'd be curious to hear what Slashdot readers think. If you add it all up, are self-driving cars keeping us safer -- or just making us drive more recklessly?
Who cares what Slashdot readers think? This isn't something where opinions or anecdotes matter. Do (or read) a study, collect data. Then you'll have an answer.
It's difficult, because many people won't know about an averted crash, and, even if they do, it's far less likely to be considered newsworthy.
As I've said before, this is the fundamental problem in the "gun" debate. You see in the news when someone is killed, but you don't see the million plus times every year that someone stops a crime using a gun. The "anti" side takes advantage of the imbalance in news coverage to claim the defensive uses are exceedingly rare.
The bottom line is that we need to look at miles driven per crash. That's the metric, and it is possible to find out, just difficult to aggregate.
I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.
I'd take the good with the bad. There's a cop I'd like to take to court for violating my rights - can I get someone to pay for my lawsuit too?
Quite possibly. The ACLU is a good starting point, but there are some other organizations that might also help if you have a good case.
mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses
This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.
Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?
This is what happens when you believe what you read at Media Matters. In this case, MM was blindly copying from Esquire:
The quote from Obama (which people like you don't understand):
"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana—and the reason is because it’s against federal law."
Take this case: Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.
I am so tired of Obama's lies being regurgitated as truth. I can only imagine what the next four years are going to be like from the other side.
And, in case you're wondering, the DEA has been merrily harassing legal marijuana growers even after Obama pretended to tell them to do otherwise. He's the executive. All he had to do was say "You *will* quit enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where it is legal or you will be fired and possibly prosecuted under federal statute (honest services fraud would fit)" and then followed it up. There are plenty of news stories so it wasn't like nobody knew who the agents and offices were that did it. But he did nothing about it.
The Republican congress actually cut the DEA's funding and told them they could no longer raid dispensaries in states where marijuana is legal (note: the Republican congress did this as a matter of law, the President signed the law that they wrote):
That was two years ago. The article I linked to above is earlier this year. That means that the agents who raided the place may have directly broke federal law.
The medscape article repeats the lie that "Before this law, the Justice Department could shut down dispensaries that states legally opened, although under the Obama Administration the department had kept its distance."
The Koch's don't actually give that much money out - orders of magnitude less than Soros and company. Part of the reason morons like you (oops) believe that they do is that a large part of Soros' money goes to fooling idiots into thinking that the Koch brothers give out huge sums of money. I see he got his money's worth on you.
California has approx 574,000 voters per electoral vote. Contrast that to Wyoming with 142,000 voters per electoral vote. (This is because each state gets a minimum number of electoral votes.)
How in the world is that fair? Are we not giving voters in some states more power to elect the President than others?
Because we have two sets of interests represented in the federal government: 1) the people of the USA and 2) the states. The people are represented by the House of Representatives and the states are supposed to be represented by the Senate. That's why the Senate wasn't elected by popular vote when the Constitution was written (and I would argue it was better that way). The Electoral College is based on the same concept of making sure both the people and the states have power.
Why are your states more important than the whole of the nation?
You need to read up on US civics a bit then.
The real problem that I see - repeatedly - is that nobody is apparently teaching that subject nowadays. I've had intelligent friends argue on Facebook that single-payer healthcare is legal in America, for instance, because the Constitution doesn't say you can't. It takes something like 10 minutes to read the Constitution and understand it, but he can't be bothered to read it before explaining it on Facebook.
You can argue historical purpose in a historical context, but we live in the present.
Reading through the Old Testament taught me one thing: people were still the same dickheads 2500-3000 years ago that they are now. It's just amazing how little anything has changed. Take 20 minutes and read the book of Esther sometime. Even if you're not religious you'll appreciate it (note that God isn't even mentioned one single time in that book).
Our Constitution has really stood up to the test of time, if only we would follow it closer.
You can see a microcosm of the problem this presents by looking at Illinois. Illinois has one huge city (Chicago) that basically is able to dictate state policy and foist those policies upon the largely rural population that makes up most of the state. I grew up in Indiana about 20 miles away from the border and, needless to say, the culture doesn't change much when you cross that border. But Illinois residents had far stricter gun laws, for example, back in the day. They were one of the last states to get concealed carry. What people want and need in Chicago is very different than what people want and need in Olney. Or out in the vast farmlands that make up most of the state.
Without the electoral college we would have presidential candidates working the coasts and ignoring most of the country, because there are enough votes on the coasts to win the election. Yeah, not quite perhaps, but enough to overcome a large split (60/40) in the middle. The whole country would be Illinois and, trust me, you don't want that.
I'm serious - I am tired of defending Trump but I'm so tired of lies and the lying liars who tell them.
He also thinks Amazon CEO "Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post to exert political power
There's no other reason to buy a dying newspaper.
and avoid paying taxes,
And it's probably decent for tax writeoffs as it's unlikely to be making money.
and claimed that Mark Zuckerberg's push for specialist immigration would actually decrease opportunities for American women and minorities.
He's absolutely correct. There's a reason that Facebook founders were willing to throw $20M at Hillary at the last minute to try to get her elected. By the way - remember the timing of that? When everybody thought Hillary had it wrapped up? Given the rampant collusion between Clinton, big media, and big business it seems pretty clear that she and her team knew she had a loss on her hands a couple of months ago and hoped an extra 8 digit slush fund would help.
I'm sure Lessig was just *furious* when he found out about it <eyeroll>.
As with every similar article they get so hung up on defending the status quo that they cannot imagine the alternatives. The only alternative they consider is getting rid of DST.
First, we have 8 months of DST and 4 months of "standard" time. So, "standard" is actually the exception and the supposed exception is actually the norm.
Second, if it's a great idea to get more day light during the 8 months that we have DST, then the argument should be for DST year round. In other words, let's change our time zones to be one hour advanced.
Putting it simply, we can get rid of DST by making DST a year round thing. That simply means changing our time zone definitions and then we're done.
It is stupid (literally: stupid) to change the clocks twice each year. Let's just change the time zones and be done with it.
A recent BuzzFeed investigation found that 38 percent of posts shared from three large right-wing politics pages on Facebook included "false or misleading information."
Yeah, but, let me guess, Media Matters, TPM, etc. were found to be bastions of honesty, right?
I had to hide all posts from about half my facebook "friends" on both sides of the political aisle because so much of it was just outright falsehoods. It was different kinds of falsehoods, but still lies.
And if you don't do it you end up with a van, a bunch of homeless people, and free cigarettes while they're driven around to various polling places to vote in the stead of dead people (who tend to lean strongly Democrat).
The paper and pencil voting system with manual counting is even more unhackable, and easily verifiable whilst still being anonymous and immune to vote selling ad coercion...and is used all over the world with no real issues....
Agreed. And in most of the rest of the world they require 1) a photo ID and 2) dye a finger. Put all that together and elections are are pretty easy to do. It's odd that there's one party that is against common-sense voting laws.
He's reached out to a number of companies for help in various areas besides Microsoft. He's asked Yahoo to help him put together a profitable long-term business strategy, along with Twitter in case the Yahoo deal falls through. He's also asking Exxon to help with a clean-energy plan. And he's reached out to the DNC for help securing his email server.
With all his corporate partners he's set up for success!
You're engaging what's known as the "no true Scotsman fallacy fallacy". A "Scotsman" is defined by birth, an environmentalist is defined by caring for the environment.
What you say about solar and wind would be believable had we not been hearing the same trash for 40 years now. Solar and wind can't replace baseload power. Also, faux environmentalists like you are the reason that nukes take so long to build. You cause the problem then claim that's why we can't have nukes.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a good reason for this. Polling is done via telephone, so homeless people who vote 10 times for a pack of cigarettes and people who died in 1982 don't show up in the polls but they do show up to vote for Democrats on election day.
America needs truly Universal Healthcare - along with price controls on pharmaceuticals. You want an actual democratic plan ? It means putting all the insurance companies out of business for ever.
Thank you for your honesty. Please understand that this is why the Democrat party is in major decline at every single level in the US (federal, state, and local). Your party will continue to lose until you understand that your views are 180 degrees different than most of the country.
Most people were happy with healthcare before Obamacare. Now they're seeing premiums go up astronomically (125% in AZ this year) if they buy from an exchange. Many exchanges are now in a death spiral where they will have to raise rates like that as fewer people can afford them and are dropping out.
It's fun to say "it's a Republican idea" but no Republican voted for ti. It's your baby, deal with it.
Actually, don't worry. Thanks to the morons in the DNC the Republicans own the entire federal government so they won't need your help to deal with it.
So why did democrats want it,
Because they're the party of big business, big media, and the 1%.
I cannot fathom how, after Hillary Clinton's campaign, people like you still don't get it. Seriously. You fall hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being pushed by Soros (think hard about this) that the Republicans are the big business party that doesn't care for you, the little guy.
The little guys voted Republican this time because they're catching on. It doesn't mean their lives will necessarily get better, but they absolutely wouldn't have gotten any better under the Democrats. Trump was correct to ask blacks "what do you have to lose?"
Who cares what Slashdot readers think? This isn't something where opinions or anecdotes matter. Do (or read) a study, collect data. Then you'll have an answer.
It's difficult, because many people won't know about an averted crash, and, even if they do, it's far less likely to be considered newsworthy.
As I've said before, this is the fundamental problem in the "gun" debate. You see in the news when someone is killed, but you don't see the million plus times every year that someone stops a crime using a gun. The "anti" side takes advantage of the imbalance in news coverage to claim the defensive uses are exceedingly rare.
The bottom line is that we need to look at miles driven per crash. That's the metric, and it is possible to find out, just difficult to aggregate.
I'll add the most secure Windows ever to my collection. Let's see:
1. Most Secure Windows Evah!!!
2. World's tallest midget
3. Most pleasant smelling turd
4. Most beautiful day for Rosie O'Donnell
I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.
I'd take the good with the bad. There's a cop I'd like to take to court for violating my rights - can I get someone to pay for my lawsuit too?
Quite possibly. The ACLU is a good starting point, but there are some other organizations that might also help if you have a good case.
mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses
This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.
Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?
This is what happens when you believe what you read at Media Matters. In this case, MM was blindly copying from Esquire:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
As I said, if you can't be bothered to use google I'm not going to help you. I would recommend you read this:
https://www.greenrushdaily.com...
The quote from Obama (which people like you don't understand):
"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana—and the reason is because it’s against federal law."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Here's more information on the raid that is 404'd in the huffpo:
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
Must be the DNC! See, we can use unfounded accusations in both directions!
Take this case: Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.
I am so tired of Obama's lies being regurgitated as truth. I can only imagine what the next four years are going to be like from the other side.
And, in case you're wondering, the DEA has been merrily harassing legal marijuana growers even after Obama pretended to tell them to do otherwise. He's the executive. All he had to do was say "You *will* quit enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where it is legal or you will be fired and possibly prosecuted under federal statute (honest services fraud would fit)" and then followed it up. There are plenty of news stories so it wasn't like nobody knew who the agents and offices were that did it. But he did nothing about it.
And in case you're too lazy to use Google:
https://cannabisnow.com/breaki...
The Republican congress actually cut the DEA's funding and told them they could no longer raid dispensaries in states where marijuana is legal (note: the Republican congress did this as a matter of law, the President signed the law that they wrote):
http://www.medscape.com/viewar...
That was two years ago. The article I linked to above is earlier this year. That means that the agents who raided the place may have directly broke federal law.
The medscape article repeats the lie that "Before this law, the Justice Department could shut down dispensaries that states legally opened, although under the Obama Administration the department had kept its distance."
The real question is, how does that make Trump look bad?
The Koch's don't actually give that much money out - orders of magnitude less than Soros and company. Part of the reason morons like you (oops) believe that they do is that a large part of Soros' money goes to fooling idiots into thinking that the Koch brothers give out huge sums of money. I see he got his money's worth on you.
California has approx 574,000 voters per electoral vote. Contrast that to Wyoming with 142,000 voters per electoral vote. (This is because each state gets a minimum number of electoral votes.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
How in the world is that fair? Are we not giving voters in some states more power to elect the President than others?
Because we have two sets of interests represented in the federal government: 1) the people of the USA and 2) the states. The people are represented by the House of Representatives and the states are supposed to be represented by the Senate. That's why the Senate wasn't elected by popular vote when the Constitution was written (and I would argue it was better that way). The Electoral College is based on the same concept of making sure both the people and the states have power.
The electoral college ensures that politicians ignore 90% of the country and focus on only the few swing states.
Yeah, how'd that work out for Hillary?
You need to read up on US civics a bit then.
The real problem that I see - repeatedly - is that nobody is apparently teaching that subject nowadays. I've had intelligent friends argue on Facebook that single-payer healthcare is legal in America, for instance, because the Constitution doesn't say you can't. It takes something like 10 minutes to read the Constitution and understand it, but he can't be bothered to read it before explaining it on Facebook.
You can argue historical purpose in a historical context, but we live in the present.
Reading through the Old Testament taught me one thing: people were still the same dickheads 2500-3000 years ago that they are now. It's just amazing how little anything has changed. Take 20 minutes and read the book of Esther sometime. Even if you're not religious you'll appreciate it (note that God isn't even mentioned one single time in that book).
Our Constitution has really stood up to the test of time, if only we would follow it closer.
You can see a microcosm of the problem this presents by looking at Illinois. Illinois has one huge city (Chicago) that basically is able to dictate state policy and foist those policies upon the largely rural population that makes up most of the state. I grew up in Indiana about 20 miles away from the border and, needless to say, the culture doesn't change much when you cross that border. But Illinois residents had far stricter gun laws, for example, back in the day. They were one of the last states to get concealed carry. What people want and need in Chicago is very different than what people want and need in Olney. Or out in the vast farmlands that make up most of the state.
Without the electoral college we would have presidential candidates working the coasts and ignoring most of the country, because there are enough votes on the coasts to win the election. Yeah, not quite perhaps, but enough to overcome a large split (60/40) in the middle. The whole country would be Illinois and, trust me, you don't want that.
I'm serious - I am tired of defending Trump but I'm so tired of lies and the lying liars who tell them.
He also thinks Amazon CEO "Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post to exert political power
There's no other reason to buy a dying newspaper.
and avoid paying taxes,
And it's probably decent for tax writeoffs as it's unlikely to be making money.
and claimed that Mark Zuckerberg's push for specialist immigration would actually decrease opportunities for American women and minorities.
He's absolutely correct. There's a reason that Facebook founders were willing to throw $20M at Hillary at the last minute to try to get her elected. By the way - remember the timing of that? When everybody thought Hillary had it wrapped up? Given the rampant collusion between Clinton, big media, and big business it seems pretty clear that she and her team knew she had a loss on her hands a couple of months ago and hoped an extra 8 digit slush fund would help.
I'm sure Lessig was just *furious* when he found out about it <eyeroll>.
It's like the Tennessee legislature passing a law that pi equals 3.
It was Indiana, and the law was proposed but not passed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hardly pointless: http://www.popularmechanics.co...
As with every similar article they get so hung up on defending the status quo that they cannot imagine the alternatives. The only alternative they consider is getting rid of DST.
First, we have 8 months of DST and 4 months of "standard" time. So, "standard" is actually the exception and the supposed exception is actually the norm.
Second, if it's a great idea to get more day light during the 8 months that we have DST, then the argument should be for DST year round. In other words, let's change our time zones to be one hour advanced.
Putting it simply, we can get rid of DST by making DST a year round thing. That simply means changing our time zone definitions and then we're done.
It is stupid (literally: stupid) to change the clocks twice each year. Let's just change the time zones and be done with it.
A recent BuzzFeed investigation found that 38 percent of posts shared from three large right-wing politics pages on Facebook included "false or misleading information."
Yeah, but, let me guess, Media Matters, TPM, etc. were found to be bastions of honesty, right?
I had to hide all posts from about half my facebook "friends" on both sides of the political aisle because so much of it was just outright falsehoods. It was different kinds of falsehoods, but still lies.
And if you don't do it you end up with a van, a bunch of homeless people, and free cigarettes while they're driven around to various polling places to vote in the stead of dead people (who tend to lean strongly Democrat).
The paper and pencil voting system with manual counting is even more unhackable, and easily verifiable whilst still being anonymous and immune to vote selling ad coercion ...and is used all over the world with no real issues ....
Agreed. And in most of the rest of the world they require 1) a photo ID and 2) dye a finger. Put all that together and elections are are pretty easy to do. It's odd that there's one party that is against common-sense voting laws.
He's reached out to a number of companies for help in various areas besides Microsoft. He's asked Yahoo to help him put together a profitable long-term business strategy, along with Twitter in case the Yahoo deal falls through. He's also asking Exxon to help with a clean-energy plan. And he's reached out to the DNC for help securing his email server.
With all his corporate partners he's set up for success!
You're engaging what's known as the "no true Scotsman fallacy fallacy". A "Scotsman" is defined by birth, an environmentalist is defined by caring for the environment.
What you say about solar and wind would be believable had we not been hearing the same trash for 40 years now. Solar and wind can't replace baseload power. Also, faux environmentalists like you are the reason that nukes take so long to build. You cause the problem then claim that's why we can't have nukes.