It's silly to accuse Republican of gerrymandering under the guise that Democrats do it too "sometimes"... if they are really desperate or something. Redistricting is done every 10 years after the census. Whichever party happens to have majority at that time is the one which gets to do more gerrymandering. But there is plenty of cases of life-long Democrats keeping their gerrymandered districts, too. It's also used to eliminate congressmen who are too cooky (Dennis Kucinich - D) or don't tow the party line (Thaddeus McCotter - R). My point is that there is no reason to fight gerrymandering. It's accidental (rather than intentional) side effect is that it introduces elements of a parliamentary system into a winner-take-all system.
Putin sells a lot more oil and wages wars around the world to continue selling oil than all the Koch brothers combined. Oh, there are movies showing people at maidan. I didn't see any skinheads. With so many sources of modern media, the fact that so few purported neonazis were even noticed says that you are way overexposed to a very small pre-selected amount of information. Because the non-skinheads completely dominate and drown out one or two skinheads that some Russian propaganda managed to find (and possibly place) in that crowd. Don't forget that the protesters weren't armed. And the only reason the president had to flee is that he lost all legitimacy after killing so many unarmed protesters. Oh, and "fool from Georgia"? Don't be naive. He is more intelligent and better educated than both Putin and Medvedev combined. He managed to turn Georgia into a western-style country despite the shambles that SU left it in and despite not having access to the kind of natural resources that Russia had and could have used to remake itself into a modern nation. Who is a bigger fool? Someone who raises a national from the dust? Or someone who manages to turn a nation of 50 million closest friends into 50 million bitter enemies?
I think when the dust settles, everyone will do what they've been doing over and over their whole lives: Trump will build things, Bernie will complain and Hillary will fail.
You do know that the only reason Russia accused the protests in Ukraine of being fascist is to pre-empt the most obvious comparison between Putin and Hitler. Russia has a text-book to-the-letter fascist regime. Even if Ukraine had some neo-fascist parties (as most Eastern European countries do), they don't even register on the radar when it comes to elections. Putin's invasion of Georgia was already frequently invoking comparisons to Hitler's Czechoslovakia. Ukraine would have been to Putin what Austria was to Hitler: Austrian German is similar to German, similar majority ethnic group, a lot of internal sympathetic population, the comparisons continue. So they decided to confuse the issue by calling the protesters Nazis. This way anyone calling Putin's regime fascist doesn't look original anymore. But it's still by-the-book fascism.
Your reasoning and superior debate skills have convinced me. Statistics don't matter.
I didn't realise that being poor or disadvantaged was irrational
I said "desperate." Desperation is not a good breeding ground for rational. And those who try to rile them up know it. The whole idea that Republicans are the party of fear breaks down when you try to explain why most military service members vote for Republicans. These are people who volunteered to fight. Did they do so out of fear? Out of being rich? Out of being "stupid"? They doesn't make much sense if you also consider the fact that US has the most technologically advanced military.
No, because the 30% number hasn't risen despite some candidate dropping out. Rubio went from 8% in NH to 22% in SC. Rubio+Cruz combined now have more votes than Trump. As more people drop out, Trump's number has to get higher or someone will pass him.
No, it's just a statistic. The college-educated always voted for Republicans by more than 50% until the Obama election. Sorry, should I sprinkle some feel-good dust to make you think that numbers decide elections rather than which TV channel you hate?
The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
The Democrats aren't the ones telling me that Mexicans are rapists, Muslims are going to blow me up, and gay marriage is a slippery slope to bestiality.
Are you trying to prove me right? Do you honestly think your summary was an accurate representation rather than a cherry-picked slur? Do you really think that making statements which need more nuanced answers is even remotely close to trying to get people who don't have a home to cast a vote deciding on how 1/4 to 1/3 of the economy gets spend (that's what the government spends now)? You might as well answer the accusation that you are irrational with something like "oh, yeah? well, you are stupid!!"
Mixing it up only gets Trump 30% of the Republican vote. Not exactly a winning number. He is going to have to become more somber to actually win the nomination. You still can't deny the premise that the Democrats are the ones who try to register homeless to vote and who try run on the platform of "helping the poor". Regardless of who you believe actually helps the poor, the Democrats are the ones who want their votes.
gerrymandering is the American substitute for parliamentary system. Because legislative elections are winner-take-all, the only way to get votes to vote on narrow range of issues (which is what parties do in a parliamentary system) is to gerrymander the districts to contain like-minded voters. Please, don't respond to this with anything that starts with a phrase such as "I've heard of..." I know you haven't. This idea is not commonly discussed.
But it's the Democrats who target the irrational crowd. They are the ones who try to get all the "desperate" vote (poor, traditionally disadvantaged, etc.) The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
Well, most smart people in the US vote Republican, so if you don't, you are probably too young. The college-educated voted for Obama because of the opposition to history of racism and Bush fatigue. But other than that, Republicans win the votes of the smart people.
Why? That's not what the FBI is demanding. They are demanding that Apple write a program allowing them to effectively erase the key. A program which, for this model of the phone, does not currently exist.
Why didn't they go for the gold and just make stuff up with something like "should Apple stop breaking the law?" They'd get more yes responses then. Try asking "should Apple write software if FBI demands that they do?" And see how many positives you get then.
You don't own the airport. All your examples involve you being on someone else's property (which they own). So they do get to tell you how may or may not use/access it. The only exception is your own home. And yes, you do pledge yourself to each other, so there is a degree of ownership in a marriage contract.
This isn't evidence. They are asking for a program to be written which currently doesn't exist. They are demanding that work be done by a company which does not want the job of doing that work.
But if Apple gives them a program which would allow it, they can use it in the future on ANY phone. In fact, anyone who gets hold of the program would be able to use it in the future on any phone.
"Ownership" is the right to say "No." If Apple can't say no to writing a new way to access their own devices, then they don't own Apple. The FBI is not asking for access. They are asking for a service to be performed.... and not by any one individual... by a company. Last I heard, there is no enlistment right for corporations (yeah, yeah, despite corporate personhood). You can buy something, you can lend something. But if you can't tell someone "no" when they request your services, they own you. And FBI does not own Apple. They are not asking for something which already exists. They asking for work to be performed at their behest. This case is becoming about more than the right to privacy. It's becoming about the right to not be deputized at a judge's pen stroke. If Apple can be compelled to write code because FBI so chooses, then anyone can.
BS. If they were so confident they could do it, they wouldn't have to do it with THAT phone. They could decrypt the phone of some independent 3rd party willing to arbiter the contest. The judge didn't order decryption of THAT phone. It ordered Apple to surrender information sufficient to give FBI ability to decrypt ANY phone. And I believe (could be wrong on that) Apple's position is that it's not able to do it under the current encryption scheme (even if did it in the past, it may not be able to do it now). Here's http://crypto.stackexchange.co... a discussion of someone trying to understand why brute force isn't possible even if they take apart the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
It's silly to accuse Republican of gerrymandering under the guise that Democrats do it too "sometimes"... if they are really desperate or something. Redistricting is done every 10 years after the census. Whichever party happens to have majority at that time is the one which gets to do more gerrymandering. But there is plenty of cases of life-long Democrats keeping their gerrymandered districts, too. It's also used to eliminate congressmen who are too cooky (Dennis Kucinich - D) or don't tow the party line (Thaddeus McCotter - R). My point is that there is no reason to fight gerrymandering. It's accidental (rather than intentional) side effect is that it introduces elements of a parliamentary system into a winner-take-all system.
Putin sells a lot more oil and wages wars around the world to continue selling oil than all the Koch brothers combined. Oh, there are movies showing people at maidan. I didn't see any skinheads. With so many sources of modern media, the fact that so few purported neonazis were even noticed says that you are way overexposed to a very small pre-selected amount of information. Because the non-skinheads completely dominate and drown out one or two skinheads that some Russian propaganda managed to find (and possibly place) in that crowd. Don't forget that the protesters weren't armed. And the only reason the president had to flee is that he lost all legitimacy after killing so many unarmed protesters. Oh, and "fool from Georgia"? Don't be naive. He is more intelligent and better educated than both Putin and Medvedev combined. He managed to turn Georgia into a western-style country despite the shambles that SU left it in and despite not having access to the kind of natural resources that Russia had and could have used to remake itself into a modern nation. Who is a bigger fool? Someone who raises a national from the dust? Or someone who manages to turn a nation of 50 million closest friends into 50 million bitter enemies?
I think when the dust settles, everyone will do what they've been doing over and over their whole lives: Trump will build things, Bernie will complain and Hillary will fail.
You do know that the only reason Russia accused the protests in Ukraine of being fascist is to pre-empt the most obvious comparison between Putin and Hitler. Russia has a text-book to-the-letter fascist regime. Even if Ukraine had some neo-fascist parties (as most Eastern European countries do), they don't even register on the radar when it comes to elections. Putin's invasion of Georgia was already frequently invoking comparisons to Hitler's Czechoslovakia. Ukraine would have been to Putin what Austria was to Hitler: Austrian German is similar to German, similar majority ethnic group, a lot of internal sympathetic population, the comparisons continue. So they decided to confuse the issue by calling the protesters Nazis. This way anyone calling Putin's regime fascist doesn't look original anymore. But it's still by-the-book fascism.
Rubbish. Rationality means facts based on reason
Your reasoning and superior debate skills have convinced me. Statistics don't matter.
I didn't realise that being poor or disadvantaged was irrational
I said "desperate." Desperation is not a good breeding ground for rational. And those who try to rile them up know it. The whole idea that Republicans are the party of fear breaks down when you try to explain why most military service members vote for Republicans. These are people who volunteered to fight. Did they do so out of fear? Out of being rich? Out of being "stupid"? They doesn't make much sense if you also consider the fact that US has the most technologically advanced military.
No, because the 30% number hasn't risen despite some candidate dropping out. Rubio went from 8% in NH to 22% in SC. Rubio+Cruz combined now have more votes than Trump. As more people drop out, Trump's number has to get higher or someone will pass him.
I didn't say eligible voters. 30% of the VOTING voters in the Republican primaries voted for Trump. That's not enough.
No, it's just a statistic. The college-educated always voted for Republicans by more than 50% until the Obama election. Sorry, should I sprinkle some feel-good dust to make you think that numbers decide elections rather than which TV channel you hate?
The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
The Democrats aren't the ones telling me that Mexicans are rapists, Muslims are going to blow me up, and gay marriage is a slippery slope to bestiality.
Are you trying to prove me right? Do you honestly think your summary was an accurate representation rather than a cherry-picked slur? Do you really think that making statements which need more nuanced answers is even remotely close to trying to get people who don't have a home to cast a vote deciding on how 1/4 to 1/3 of the economy gets spend (that's what the government spends now)? You might as well answer the accusation that you are irrational with something like "oh, yeah? well, you are stupid!!"
Mixing it up only gets Trump 30% of the Republican vote. Not exactly a winning number. He is going to have to become more somber to actually win the nomination. You still can't deny the premise that the Democrats are the ones who try to register homeless to vote and who try run on the platform of "helping the poor". Regardless of who you believe actually helps the poor, the Democrats are the ones who want their votes.
gerrymandering is the American substitute for parliamentary system. Because legislative elections are winner-take-all, the only way to get votes to vote on narrow range of issues (which is what parties do in a parliamentary system) is to gerrymander the districts to contain like-minded voters. Please, don't respond to this with anything that starts with a phrase such as "I've heard of..." I know you haven't. This idea is not commonly discussed.
But it's the Democrats who target the irrational crowd. They are the ones who try to get all the "desperate" vote (poor, traditionally disadvantaged, etc.) The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
Well, most smart people in the US vote Republican, so if you don't, you are probably too young. The college-educated voted for Obama because of the opposition to history of racism and Bush fatigue. But other than that, Republicans win the votes of the smart people.
Tell us something we DON'T know.
This information is already accounted-for by the poll. The question is clearly biased and its meant to produce a biased response.
Why? That's not what the FBI is demanding. They are demanding that Apple write a program allowing them to effectively erase the key. A program which, for this model of the phone, does not currently exist.
Why didn't they go for the gold and just make stuff up with something like "should Apple stop breaking the law?" They'd get more yes responses then. Try asking "should Apple write software if FBI demands that they do?" And see how many positives you get then.
but i still don't care about yelp. sorry, better luck with your next "star turp".
You don't own the airport. All your examples involve you being on someone else's property (which they own). So they do get to tell you how may or may not use/access it. The only exception is your own home. And yes, you do pledge yourself to each other, so there is a degree of ownership in a marriage contract.
Cops work for the entity which owns public roads -- the government.
This isn't evidence. They are asking for a program to be written which currently doesn't exist. They are demanding that work be done by a company which does not want the job of doing that work.
But if Apple gives them a program which would allow it, they can use it in the future on ANY phone. In fact, anyone who gets hold of the program would be able to use it in the future on any phone.
what changed?
The claim is that the security scheme used in the phones has changed.
Because they don't want access to this phone. They want a program which would allow them future access to all phones.
"Ownership" is the right to say "No." If Apple can't say no to writing a new way to access their own devices, then they don't own Apple. The FBI is not asking for access. They are asking for a service to be performed.... and not by any one individual... by a company. Last I heard, there is no enlistment right for corporations (yeah, yeah, despite corporate personhood). You can buy something, you can lend something. But if you can't tell someone "no" when they request your services, they own you. And FBI does not own Apple. They are not asking for something which already exists. They asking for work to be performed at their behest. This case is becoming about more than the right to privacy. It's becoming about the right to not be deputized at a judge's pen stroke. If Apple can be compelled to write code because FBI so chooses, then anyone can.
BS. If they were so confident they could do it, they wouldn't have to do it with THAT phone. They could decrypt the phone of some independent 3rd party willing to arbiter the contest. The judge didn't order decryption of THAT phone. It ordered Apple to surrender information sufficient to give FBI ability to decrypt ANY phone. And I believe (could be wrong on that) Apple's position is that it's not able to do it under the current encryption scheme (even if did it in the past, it may not be able to do it now). Here's http://crypto.stackexchange.co... a discussion of someone trying to understand why brute force isn't possible even if they take apart the phone.