hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on... or other traits.
So, Twitter, by threating these users based on their traits, is itself engaging in politically incorrect "hate speech." They'd better just shutter the windows.
What ever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" All you SJWs, here's a fact - you have no right to not be offended. Learn to live with it.
(oops, I guess that's "hate speech," since I just insulted those who would claim offense)
I agree, get rid of the EC, and go to a 1 state, 1 vote system. The US is, after all, a federation of individual states, so why should any state have more of a say in choosing a President than any other?
Sure, they have a right to do business with whoever they want. Well, except all those laws which say you can't discriminate. And whatever contractual relationship was already in place between the parties.
But they should at least be honest about it, instead of trying to spin it as some righteous, objective, morally justified action instead of the political one it is.
OTOH, Trump himself "ignores what Trump actually says he will do".
And, "6 major countries, including Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland..." Since when are Finland, Austria, and Holland "major countries?"
Because a single suit would be more expensive than multiple federal and state ones? Or because winning in a malicious prosecution suit recovers legal costs, while a claim for damages (usually) results in only recovery of actual damages?
Nope. Many people vote for the party, not the candidate, so there's no like or dislike of the candidate involved. Others vote because of peer pressure, there's no like or dislike of the candidate involved. A vote cannot be equated to a like or a dislike.
Fail. I'll posit that a very large number of voters didn't like either of them, they just closed their eyes and swallowed. You can't assume a vote means a like.
"when one compares counties that are side by side and demographically similar, Trump won by an average of a 7% margin HIGHER only in those counties that used electronic voting machines."
If you actually read, and try to track back to the source material, the summary is highly inaccurate. Take this claim:
After examining results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin computer scientists have discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots.
Where's that come from? A CNN article which doesn't provide a citation to anything which supports that claim, not even NYmag, which seems to be the original source for it. That article is more specific, saying
The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.
Going further, the one name given in both articles, J. Alex Halderman, in the post at the other link in the summary, says the article was inaccurate:
You may have read at NYMag... That article, which includes somebody else's description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot).
... and goes on to give reasons for checking ballots, with absolutely no mention of the statistical anomalies claimed.
Furthermore, examining the above "7%" claim, the Halderman article has a map which shows that all counties in Michigan and Wisconsin use paper ballots. So, there can be no basis for the claim that there's a difference between electronic and paper ballot counties in Wisconsin (or Michigan)!
And, no info on methodology back up the claim - you can't directly compare two different counties in two different states (or even the same state) and expect them to have equivalent vote proportions. If such comparisons were made, were they against previous votes in the same counties? How are they comparing votes in Pennsylvania counties with electronic voting against Michigan and Wisconsin counties? Or are they just using a difference between polls and actual vote totals? Seems the polls were wrong in lots of places, and to try and base any statistical claims on them seems to be a case of garbage-in-garbage-out.
Finally, if as stated the concern is with electronic voting machines, why would they call for recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin, which use paper ballots?
It just defies logic and sense. Is this just fake news which has found its way onto CNN via NYMag?
I had a friend who often pointed out that a common definition of "life" (from the first Google hit for "definition of life": growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death) only works if you exclude fire.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Twitter, by threating these users based on their traits, is itself engaging in politically incorrect "hate speech." They'd better just shutter the windows.
What ever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" All you SJWs, here's a fact - you have no right to not be offended. Learn to live with it.
(oops, I guess that's "hate speech," since I just insulted those who would claim offense)
"I have a 3TB extranal network drive to back up my computers"
Extranal retentive?
So, fake news is itself fake news. News at 11!
I agree, get rid of the EC, and go to a 1 state, 1 vote system. The US is, after all, a federation of individual states, so why should any state have more of a say in choosing a President than any other?
Sure, they have a right to do business with whoever they want. Well, except all those laws which say you can't discriminate. And whatever contractual relationship was already in place between the parties.
But they should at least be honest about it, instead of trying to spin it as some righteous, objective, morally justified action instead of the political one it is.
OTOH, Trump himself "ignores what Trump actually says he will do".
And, "6 major countries, including Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland..." Since when are Finland, Austria, and Holland "major countries?"
"stop light racing teens."
Must be a new thing. How does one race a stop light? In my experience, they only move a few inches due to wind.
"She would be very unlikely to prevail in a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Otherwise she would have won the current case"
Legal fail. Two completely differenent issue, legally.
"She would lose the case, win nothing, and still be stuck with paying her own legal expenses."
And the current situation is different in exactly what way?
Because a single suit would be more expensive than multiple federal and state ones? Or because winning in a malicious prosecution suit recovers legal costs, while a claim for damages (usually) results in only recovery of actual damages?
FTFY.
She should have ignored their demand and if they then started legal action, countersued for malicious/abusive prosecution.
Trump won in 50% more states. And in the only vote which matters, Trump is winning by over 30% - 306 to 232.
Nope. Many people vote for the party, not the candidate, so there's no like or dislike of the candidate involved. Others vote because of peer pressure, there's no like or dislike of the candidate involved. A vote cannot be equated to a like or a dislike.
The first "A" in NASA doesn't mean what you think (or at least imply) it means. It's for aeronautic, not atmospheric. As in flight, not weather.
Learn the meaning of "like" and come back with an argument.
It's not apples and oranges. It's arsenic and belladonna.
"So 1.3M or so fewer voters disliked Clinton. "
Fail. I'll posit that a very large number of voters didn't like either of them, they just closed their eyes and swallowed. You can't assume a vote means a like.
"when one compares counties that are side by side and demographically similar, Trump won by an average of a 7% margin HIGHER only in those counties that used electronic voting machines."
That's not what the article says. So, source?
Where's that come from? A CNN article which doesn't provide a citation to anything which supports that claim, not even NYmag, which seems to be the original source for it. That article is more specific, saying
Going further, the one name given in both articles, J. Alex Halderman, in the post at the other link in the summary, says the article was inaccurate:
... and goes on to give reasons for checking ballots, with absolutely no mention of the statistical anomalies claimed.
Furthermore, examining the above "7%" claim, the Halderman article has a map which shows that all counties in Michigan and Wisconsin use paper ballots. So, there can be no basis for the claim that there's a difference between electronic and paper ballot counties in Wisconsin (or Michigan)!
And, no info on methodology back up the claim - you can't directly compare two different counties in two different states (or even the same state) and expect them to have equivalent vote proportions. If such comparisons were made, were they against previous votes in the same counties? How are they comparing votes in Pennsylvania counties with electronic voting against Michigan and Wisconsin counties? Or are they just using a difference between polls and actual vote totals? Seems the polls were wrong in lots of places, and to try and base any statistical claims on them seems to be a case of garbage-in-garbage-out.
Finally, if as stated the concern is with electronic voting machines, why would they call for recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin, which use paper ballots?
It just defies logic and sense. Is this just fake news which has found its way onto CNN via NYMag?
"Zumwalt is the first of three in the $22-billion class."
It's refreshing to see the honesty - "$22-billion class" ship is much more descriptive than "Zumwalt class" ship.
"Block port 80 and you block it all. Keep it open and it is just as exploitable as it ever was."
You have a really, really crappy firewall if it can only block ports without considering the specific IP(s) the traffic is from/to.
I had a friend who often pointed out that a common definition of "life" (from the first Google hit for "definition of life": growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death) only works if you exclude fire.
"Why is that a bad thing?"
Because it is manufacturing evidence from whole cloth.
But, CSI .
There's a rather large difference between being required to file paperwork and the government simply taking it.