Bottom line... same here in the U.S., which is why the appeals court said, "This amount has no basis in actual damages. The rule for default judgements wasn't meant to be used this way, with no basis in fact. You suck and you lose in this and any other cases which were treated the same way." (I'm paraphrasing).
In the US legal system (i.e. this case), it was dealt with in small claims court without lawyers and the respondent (Costello) won. As far as he was concerned, it was over.
Then the guy who sued appealed by suing again in a higher court. Depending on which version of events you want to believe, Costello then ignored everything about that new lawsuit (including "settlement" offers) and didn't respond at all, or else the guy suing him never actually sent him the papers.
In order to speed up civil trials, the courts had a rule that said if you don't respond within 30 days, you get a default judgement as if you admitted what was sent you. This is supposed to be to encourage people to actually talk and negotiate in good faith. In this case, the guy suing used a trick he'd apparently used many times before and asked for a bunch of money to try and get a default judgement.
The trial judge felt constrained by the court rules (which he doesn't set) to rule for the guy suing because of the rule. He did rule only for $30K, not the $300K and $600K the guy later asked for.
When Costello finally showed up and contested it by appealing the judgement, then next level of judges tossed out the judgement (along with a bunch of others for the same guy) and said, "No, you can't just send a settlement offer completely unjustified by the facts and use this rule to try and enforce them as a default judgement. Screw-off! No money for you!" (I'm paraphrasing) after which Costello was relieved and justice was served. The end.
The moral of the story, either respond to legal stuff, or else make them prove they served it on you if they didn't. Otherwise, much ado about nothing.
Taxing capital instead of income is just another way of saying you want everyone to be less wealthy in the long run. You tax things you want less of, not things you want more of. We want more capital in use, more income created, more wealth created. What most people actually object to is what they see as excessive consumption.
That way you can get rid of most of the privacy destroying/controlling regulations/laws, tax the "black market" in illegal goods (because they still pay tax when they spend the money they make from illegal items) and simplify tax reporting to something businesses already have to do in 45 states, reducing the accounting pain/drain on the economy.
Moreover, people working the minimal wage jobs often ARE the most hard-working employees. Yet somehow leftists are against allowing them to freely contract with an employer to have a job at a mutually beneficial hourly rate of their choice, preferring to make it illegal instead and requiring them not to be allowed to have a job if they can't convince someone to pay them at least $X for their current job experience/skill-level.
Ever notice that sometimes your perception of why someone is for or against something doesn't always fit the narrative their opponents publish? It helps to listen to people's own claims about their own beliefs, rather than just their opponent's claims.
Who in actual reality except pedantic grammar choppers and some annoying spell check routines has capitalized "internet" since the mid 90s?
Since they're just now changing their style guide, apparently everyone who wrote for the AP from the mid 90s until today?
As noted by many others above, an internet is a set of interconnected networks. The Internet is a specific global grouping of interconnected networks, which happens to also be by far the largest one, in terms of number of distinct networks and nodes.
The original posted stated you couldn't be libertarian and against gay marriage, so I just posted the obvious libertarian argument against gay marriage licenses by the State. It also happens to be an argument against other types of marriage licenses by the State as well. The official LP platform may be pro-gay marriage, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of legitimate (small-l) libertarians who don't agree with them.
If you read the original post I was responding to, the discussion was about what rights a fetus might or might not have (consistent with libertarian views), once you already consider them a person.
We can discuss the various arguments around at what point they should be considered a person, but that _is_ a different discussion. One which I haven't given a viewpoint on and which doesn't directly relate to the one we were having...
Try to keep up. The poster I was responding to said that even if you considered a fetus an individual person, he couldn't see how it having a right to life being compatible with libertarianism.
Assuming you meant Zygote in your comment, perhaps you could also consider learning some science? Then maybe you'll be able to respond to the conversation we were having, rather than the one solely in your head?
Are you trolling? You seem to have too low of a user id to be as young and ignorant as your comment makes you appear to be....
a right of one person to use another person's body for survival against their will.
If you start transporting a person across a dangerous river, one in which the odds are overwhelming they'll die if not for your boat, then yes, you have an obligation to them to do what you can (without giving up your own life) to transport them to safety.
The time to decide you didn't want to do that was before the trip began, not in the middle of the river crossing when they'll likely die if you suddenly decide they can't "use your body" to drive your boat to safety.
So while you might be able to make a case for abortion situations where the life of the mother is in actual danger, or when they didn't have any choice about starting the trip (which isn't the responsibility of the baby, either), in the case of consensual sex and no danger to the mother's life, I'm amazed you can't see how a right to life for a person could be compatible with libertarianism.
The libertarian position against gay marriage: Government doesn't need to be in the marriage business and shouldn't be requiring a license for marriage (among many other things), gay or otherwise. Let people make their own contracts, recognize or not recognize what associations they want to and stop deciding it all based on what's popular politically at the time. That way you can contract for whatever special relationship you want, but you stop forcing others to become an unwilling participant to that contract, which is what the pro-gay marriage crowd appears to want to happen.
Exactly. The headline: Miami Money-Laundering Case May Define Whether Bitcoin Is Really Money should be: Miami Money-Laundering Case May Define Whether Bitcoin Is Legally Money (for the purposes of money laundering statutes)
Last I checked, the courts don't determine reality by judicial fiat....
But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...
If the assistant inspector general supervising the whistleblower unit can't figure out how to safely be a whistleblower without getting hammered, then who can? Ironically, the image of a whistleblower is that the whistle immediately alerts everyone to an issue. How's that worked out for folks?
From the article, it's about 400 sites. Pretty easy to find infected sites with Google, since it changes the home page of the site.
And how does anyone (other than the malware author author) know that nobody has paid them yet?
The ransom is to be paid to a specific bitcoin address, so anyone can look at the blockchain and see how much bitcoin has ever been transferred to that address. The answer being 0 makes the folks in the article pretty confident nothing has been paid so far.
The infected sites appear to be mostly abandoned by their creators, which explains why they're 2 years behind in Drupal 7.x security updates.
Amazon monitors which are the most profitable products from third party sellers, then uses that info to decide which areas to come out with their own store brand products in. There are going to be a lot of unhappy household item sellers after this announcement, but competition marches on and it'll make them less expensive for consumers.
The point was that you can make a similarly alarming and plausible statement about any technological advancement/updated product from the past. Some of them will be true and some of them won't. Not only can you not necessarily tell from the speculation what's going to occur (without hindsight bias), but the actual results overall aren't the disaster implied in the format of the statement.
Would the general population prefer life without them? Did society come to an end as a result of the creative destruction inherent in the process? No to both.
While self-driving cars may be safer and cheaper, the Associated Press warns they could also create massive traffic congestion. "The problem, say transportation researchers, is that people will use them too much."
Try these: While microwaves may be safer and cheaper than regular ovens, the alarmist press warns they could also create obesity "The problem, say kitchen appliance researchers, is that people will use them too much." While computers may be safer and cheaper, the alarmist press warns they could also create over-forestation by replacing paper records "The problem, say accounting researchers, is that people will use them too much." While televisions may be safer and cheaper than traveling to the theater, the alarmist press warns they could also create widespread job loss among stage actors "The problem, say media researchers, is that people will use them too much." While wooden tables may be safer and cheaper, the alarmist press warns they could also create more expensive wood "The problem, say carpentry researchers, is that people will use them too much." While cotton mills may be safer and cheaper, the alarmist press warns they could also create unemployment "The problem, say union researchers, is that people will use them too much."
Are there any random products you couldn't fill into this sentence? Very meaningful speculation... why, it's almost Luddite....
So I hope you're doing your personal part to remedy this lack of waste through no longer over ordering and over producing.... you of course buy so much food that you throw most of it away when it spoils, right? You buy extra lightbulbs and TP and just stash it all in your spare closets, maybe get some rented storage space to hoard it all in?
After all, all of that represents spending and jobs, right?
Of course, if perhaps it turns out you don't do the above, you may want to rethink if you actually believe what you spouted above, or if your personal actions are more consistent with the exact mentality you decry. At that point, if they aren't consistent, you have two choices: 1. Change your behavior to match your theory. 2. Decide your theory is crap and not how people should behave.
If you're honest with yourself, I suspect I know which choice you'll make. If not, you'll be posting next about how I don't understand economics or something, despite the 30+ years I've studied it. BTW, this is called in economics (among other things) "revealed preferences".
In your average fast food place replacing the 3-4 guys in the kitchen with a bunch of machines and still 1 or 2 people to monitor the machines isn't quite as straightforward - particularly since those 1 or 2 guys have a more complex skillset than the 3 or 4 previous guys and as such would command a higher salar.
That's part of the point. If the business is being required by law to pay those 3-4 guys the higher wage as if they were already each the 1-2 guys with a more complex skillset, then the actual effect of the minimum wage increase is to tell the business owner their best bet is to (over time) fire the 3-4 guys, hire 1-2 guys who are worth the higher wages and make up any difference with automation.
The 3-4 guys believed the politicians when they were told a higher minimum wage would suddenly make them worth a business paying them more, but reality tends to disagree that you can legislate someone into being a more valuable employee than their knowledge, experience and skill demonstrates. So now they get to go compete for black market work (as they don't have the skills for being paid legally) with the other people who aren't worth paying the new minimum wage. Progress, I suppose...
According to Facebook's own published documentation, their staff decides when to "elevate" a topic, when to blacklist it, when to combine it with another "related" topic, when a topic deserves to be allowed to trend on its own.
Facebook has explicit guidelines which elevate specific news websites to the status of deciding when a story is important or not. The work flow for how to elevate a topic requires that to be a National Story it must be leading at least 5 of the following websites: BBC News, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NBC News, The NY Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Buzzfeed News. To be a Major Story it must be leading all 10. If the above 10 aren't where you get your news, well, too bad. If you have something trending which is headlining The National Review, Fox News, the NY Post, the Wall Street Journal, Washingon Times, Redstate and Drudge, guess what? According to the rules that's at best a local topic, not good enough to be made a trending National Story.
So Clinton and Lewinsky? Wouldn't have been a National Story in the trending topics. Benghazi failures after asking for help? Not a National Story in the trending topics. Clinton's personal IT guy at State who was a political appointee getting immunity and State not being able to produce a single email he send/received from his own account (only a handful from other people's accounts)? Not a National Story in the trending topics.
Yep, no bias there. It just happens that 7/10 out of the only news web sites recognized as the "quality" gatekeepers are left-wing when compared to the average US political viewpoint and you need at least 5/10 to elevate a trending topic to be a National Story. Just a coincidence it's setup that way, no confirmation bias there at all. No intent to limit what can trend and be marked for people's attention.
Plus, I'm sure no young left-wing journalism major would ever let their own opinions impact which topics they choose to deep-six... never happen...
Moneymart and cashmoney are always advertising the cheapest payday loans. Its a total scam. Welfare receipients should be forced to open a *real* bank account and not have cheques cut.
Many of the check cashing folks have either overdrawn their bank account so much that they're on a blacklist at the bank, or else the account they have is already overdrawn and they don't want the bank to take the money they owe it from their check, which is what'll happen if they deposit it.
For the target audience of payday loans, they typically don't have a better option. So getting rid of the payday loan option just results in them picking something even worse. Why anyone thinks forcing people into even worse options (loan shark "personal" collateral, for example) is a good idea I don't know.
It's like people think that removing the option of payday loans will somehow magically remove people's need to borrow money when they can't already get it from less expensive sources. Nobody with a bunch of available credit decides to go get a payday loan instead.
Economists seem to agree that robot automation poses real threats to human labour within the next few decades.
They're misquoting economists and putting their own spin on it. There aren't any economists listed on the linked page as authors of the paper.
You can tell that right off, because no reputable economist would phrase technological efficiency and labor savings as a "real threats to human labour", as opposed to increases in efficiency resulting in higher growth and wealth.
Clinton won the primary because she had way more votes and pledged delegates, despite the talk the superdelegates had virtually nothing to do with it.
Regular delegate counts: 1,716 Clinton to 1,433 Sanders Delegates in future (D) primaries: 1,065 Clinton current advantage in regular delegates: 283, or 27% of the remaining delegates available Clinton advantage in superdelegates: 484
She actually still hasn't officially won yet, although everyone expects her to. The main reason they expect her to are 1. Superdelegate lead (which assumes they won't flip) and 2. polling in future state primaries, especially CA.
It won't happen (they'll likely just decline to prosecute any FBI referral), but if for example the Obama Justice department announced they'd indicted her for multiple felonies and misdemeanors around the ongoing classified email criminal investigation, then the superdelegates can until the actual convention vote choose to flip overnight, in which case Sanders would suddenly be in the lead in the overall delegate count.
Hillary's negatives among conservatives play into the picture. Many Cruz/Rubio supporters will be tempted to just stay home and not vote for Trump, but having someone they dislike even more on the other side (Clinton) will convince a lot of them to go vote anyway. Also, don't underestimate the Sanders supporters who have a negative attitude toward her, enough to stay home or (latest poll 30% of Sanders voters) crossover and vote for Trump. She really is disliked at both ends of the spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Bottom line... same here in the U.S., which is why the appeals court said, "This amount has no basis in actual damages. The rule for default judgements wasn't meant to be used this way, with no basis in fact. You suck and you lose in this and any other cases which were treated the same way." (I'm paraphrasing).
In the US legal system (i.e. this case), it was dealt with in small claims court without lawyers and the respondent (Costello) won. As far as he was concerned, it was over.
Then the guy who sued appealed by suing again in a higher court. Depending on which version of events you want to believe, Costello then ignored everything about that new lawsuit (including "settlement" offers) and didn't respond at all, or else the guy suing him never actually sent him the papers.
In order to speed up civil trials, the courts had a rule that said if you don't respond within 30 days, you get a default judgement as if you admitted what was sent you. This is supposed to be to encourage people to actually talk and negotiate in good faith. In this case, the guy suing used a trick he'd apparently used many times before and asked for a bunch of money to try and get a default judgement.
The trial judge felt constrained by the court rules (which he doesn't set) to rule for the guy suing because of the rule. He did rule only for $30K, not the $300K and $600K the guy later asked for.
When Costello finally showed up and contested it by appealing the judgement, then next level of judges tossed out the judgement (along with a bunch of others for the same guy) and said, "No, you can't just send a settlement offer completely unjustified by the facts and use this rule to try and enforce them as a default judgement. Screw-off! No money for you!" (I'm paraphrasing) after which Costello was relieved and justice was served. The end.
The moral of the story, either respond to legal stuff, or else make them prove they served it on you if they didn't. Otherwise, much ado about nothing.
"-4F" is when you volunteer for the army.
"4F" is when you aren't going to get drafted.
What that has to do with temperature and batteries... no idea.
Taxing capital instead of income is just another way of saying you want everyone to be less wealthy in the long run. You tax things you want less of, not things you want more of. We want more capital in use, more income created, more wealth created. What most people actually object to is what they see as excessive consumption.
Try listening to some economists and consider taxing consumption rather than capital, wealth or income.
That way you can get rid of most of the privacy destroying/controlling regulations/laws, tax the "black market" in illegal goods (because they still pay tax when they spend the money they make from illegal items) and simplify tax reporting to something businesses already have to do in 45 states, reducing the accounting pain/drain on the economy.
Moreover, people working the minimal wage jobs often ARE the most hard-working employees. Yet somehow leftists are against allowing them to freely contract with an employer to have a job at a mutually beneficial hourly rate of their choice, preferring to make it illegal instead and requiring them not to be allowed to have a job if they can't convince someone to pay them at least $X for their current job experience/skill-level.
Ever notice that sometimes your perception of why someone is for or against something doesn't always fit the narrative their opponents publish? It helps to listen to people's own claims about their own beliefs, rather than just their opponent's claims.
Since they're just now changing their style guide, apparently everyone who wrote for the AP from the mid 90s until today?
As noted by many others above, an internet is a set of interconnected networks. The Internet is a specific global grouping of interconnected networks, which happens to also be by far the largest one, in terms of number of distinct networks and nodes.
The original posted stated you couldn't be libertarian and against gay marriage, so I just posted the obvious libertarian argument against gay marriage licenses by the State. It also happens to be an argument against other types of marriage licenses by the State as well. The official LP platform may be pro-gay marriage, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of legitimate (small-l) libertarians who don't agree with them.
If you read the original post I was responding to, the discussion was about what rights a fetus might or might not have (consistent with libertarian views), once you already consider them a person.
We can discuss the various arguments around at what point they should be considered a person, but that _is_ a different discussion. One which I haven't given a viewpoint on and which doesn't directly relate to the one we were having...
Try to keep up. The poster I was responding to said that even if you considered a fetus an individual person, he couldn't see how it having a right to life being compatible with libertarianism.
Assuming you meant Zygote in your comment, perhaps you could also consider learning some science? Then maybe you'll be able to respond to the conversation we were having, rather than the one solely in your head?
Are you trolling? You seem to have too low of a user id to be as young and ignorant as your comment makes you appear to be....
If you start transporting a person across a dangerous river, one in which the odds are overwhelming they'll die if not for your boat, then yes, you have an obligation to them to do what you can (without giving up your own life) to transport them to safety.
The time to decide you didn't want to do that was before the trip began, not in the middle of the river crossing when they'll likely die if you suddenly decide they can't "use your body" to drive your boat to safety.
So while you might be able to make a case for abortion situations where the life of the mother is in actual danger, or when they didn't have any choice about starting the trip (which isn't the responsibility of the baby, either), in the case of consensual sex and no danger to the mother's life, I'm amazed you can't see how a right to life for a person could be compatible with libertarianism.
The libertarian position against gay marriage: Government doesn't need to be in the marriage business and shouldn't be requiring a license for marriage (among many other things), gay or otherwise. Let people make their own contracts, recognize or not recognize what associations they want to and stop deciding it all based on what's popular politically at the time. That way you can contract for whatever special relationship you want, but you stop forcing others to become an unwilling participant to that contract, which is what the pro-gay marriage crowd appears to want to happen.
Exactly. The headline:
Miami Money-Laundering Case May Define Whether Bitcoin Is Really Money
should be:
Miami Money-Laundering Case May Define Whether Bitcoin Is Legally Money (for the purposes of money laundering statutes)
Last I checked, the courts don't determine reality by judicial fiat....
But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...
If the assistant inspector general supervising the whistleblower unit can't figure out how to safely be a whistleblower without getting hammered, then who can? Ironically, the image of a whistleblower is that the whistle immediately alerts everyone to an issue. How's that worked out for folks?
From the article, it's about 400 sites. Pretty easy to find infected sites with Google, since it changes the home page of the site.
The ransom is to be paid to a specific bitcoin address, so anyone can look at the blockchain and see how much bitcoin has ever been transferred to that address. The answer being 0 makes the folks in the article pretty confident nothing has been paid so far.
The infected sites appear to be mostly abandoned by their creators, which explains why they're 2 years behind in Drupal 7.x security updates.
What'll they find next, giant canals?
Amazon monitors which are the most profitable products from third party sellers, then uses that info to decide which areas to come out with their own store brand products in. There are going to be a lot of unhappy household item sellers after this announcement, but competition marches on and it'll make them less expensive for consumers.
The point was that you can make a similarly alarming and plausible statement about any technological advancement/updated product from the past. Some of them will be true and some of them won't. Not only can you not necessarily tell from the speculation what's going to occur (without hindsight bias), but the actual results overall aren't the disaster implied in the format of the statement.
Would the general population prefer life without them? Did society come to an end as a result of the creative destruction inherent in the process? No to both.
Try these:
While microwaves may be safer and cheaper than regular ovens, the alarmist press warns they could also create obesity "The problem, say kitchen appliance researchers, is that people will use them too much."
While computers may be safer and cheaper, the alarmist press warns they could also create over-forestation by replacing paper records "The problem, say accounting researchers, is that people will use them too much."
While televisions may be safer and cheaper than traveling to the theater, the alarmist press warns they could also create widespread job loss among stage actors "The problem, say media researchers, is that people will use them too much."
While wooden tables may be safer and cheaper, the alarmist press warns they could also create more expensive wood "The problem, say carpentry researchers, is that people will use them too much."
While cotton mills may be safer and cheaper, the alarmist press warns they could also create unemployment "The problem, say union researchers, is that people will use them too much."
Are there any random products you couldn't fill into this sentence? Very meaningful speculation... why, it's almost Luddite....
Yes, Communist China...the very model of unrestrained capitalism. Only government control of their industries will solve the problem, right?
So I hope you're doing your personal part to remedy this lack of waste through no longer over ordering and over producing.... you of course buy so much food that you throw most of it away when it spoils, right? You buy extra lightbulbs and TP and just stash it all in your spare closets, maybe get some rented storage space to hoard it all in?
After all, all of that represents spending and jobs, right?
Of course, if perhaps it turns out you don't do the above, you may want to rethink if you actually believe what you spouted above, or if your personal actions are more consistent with the exact mentality you decry. At that point, if they aren't consistent, you have two choices: 1. Change your behavior to match your theory. 2. Decide your theory is crap and not how people should behave.
If you're honest with yourself, I suspect I know which choice you'll make. If not, you'll be posting next about how I don't understand economics or something, despite the 30+ years I've studied it. BTW, this is called in economics (among other things) "revealed preferences".
That's part of the point. If the business is being required by law to pay those 3-4 guys the higher wage as if they were already each the 1-2 guys with a more complex skillset, then the actual effect of the minimum wage increase is to tell the business owner their best bet is to (over time) fire the 3-4 guys, hire 1-2 guys who are worth the higher wages and make up any difference with automation.
The 3-4 guys believed the politicians when they were told a higher minimum wage would suddenly make them worth a business paying them more, but reality tends to disagree that you can legislate someone into being a more valuable employee than their knowledge, experience and skill demonstrates. So now they get to go compete for black market work (as they don't have the skills for being paid legally) with the other people who aren't worth paying the new minimum wage. Progress, I suppose...
According to Facebook's own published documentation, their staff decides when to "elevate" a topic, when to blacklist it, when to combine it with another "related" topic, when a topic deserves to be allowed to trend on its own.
Facebook has explicit guidelines which elevate specific news websites to the status of deciding when a story is important or not. The work flow for how to elevate a topic requires that to be a National Story it must be leading at least 5 of the following websites: BBC News, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NBC News, The NY Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Buzzfeed News. To be a Major Story it must be leading all 10. If the above 10 aren't where you get your news, well, too bad. If you have something trending which is headlining The National Review, Fox News, the NY Post, the Wall Street Journal, Washingon Times, Redstate and Drudge, guess what? According to the rules that's at best a local topic, not good enough to be made a trending National Story.
So Clinton and Lewinsky? Wouldn't have been a National Story in the trending topics. Benghazi failures after asking for help? Not a National Story in the trending topics. Clinton's personal IT guy at State who was a political appointee getting immunity and State not being able to produce a single email he send/received from his own account (only a handful from other people's accounts)? Not a National Story in the trending topics.
Yep, no bias there. It just happens that 7/10 out of the only news web sites recognized as the "quality" gatekeepers are left-wing when compared to the average US political viewpoint and you need at least 5/10 to elevate a trending topic to be a National Story. Just a coincidence it's setup that way, no confirmation bias there at all. No intent to limit what can trend and be marked for people's attention.
Plus, I'm sure no young left-wing journalism major would ever let their own opinions impact which topics they choose to deep-six... never happen...
Many of the check cashing folks have either overdrawn their bank account so much that they're on a blacklist at the bank, or else the account they have is already overdrawn and they don't want the bank to take the money they owe it from their check, which is what'll happen if they deposit it.
For the target audience of payday loans, they typically don't have a better option. So getting rid of the payday loan option just results in them picking something even worse. Why anyone thinks forcing people into even worse options (loan shark "personal" collateral, for example) is a good idea I don't know.
It's like people think that removing the option of payday loans will somehow magically remove people's need to borrow money when they can't already get it from less expensive sources. Nobody with a bunch of available credit decides to go get a payday loan instead.
They're misquoting economists and putting their own spin on it. There aren't any economists listed on the linked page as authors of the paper.
You can tell that right off, because no reputable economist would phrase technological efficiency and labor savings as a "real threats to human labour", as opposed to increases in efficiency resulting in higher growth and wealth.
Regular delegate counts: 1,716 Clinton to 1,433 Sanders
Delegates in future (D) primaries: 1,065
Clinton current advantage in regular delegates: 283, or 27% of the remaining delegates available
Clinton advantage in superdelegates: 484
She actually still hasn't officially won yet, although everyone expects her to. The main reason they expect her to are 1. Superdelegate lead (which assumes they won't flip) and 2. polling in future state primaries, especially CA.
It won't happen (they'll likely just decline to prosecute any FBI referral), but if for example the Obama Justice department announced they'd indicted her for multiple felonies and misdemeanors around the ongoing classified email criminal investigation, then the superdelegates can until the actual convention vote choose to flip overnight, in which case Sanders would suddenly be in the lead in the overall delegate count.
Hillary's negatives among conservatives play into the picture. Many Cruz/Rubio supporters will be tempted to just stay home and not vote for Trump, but having someone they dislike even more on the other side (Clinton) will convince a lot of them to go vote anyway. Also, don't underestimate the Sanders supporters who have a negative attitude toward her, enough to stay home or (latest poll 30% of Sanders voters) crossover and vote for Trump. She really is disliked at both ends of the spectrum.
Hillary would have the highest negative rating of any Presidential nominee in recent history, except Trump's is even higher .