No I don't think so. When you go to a restaurant part of what you're paying for is the service you can't get at home. Creating a full robot-based restaurant isn't really why people go out to eat at a sit-down restaurant.
And for that, I'd go to a real restaurant where the chef prepares a full course for you (like this French restaurant which my wife and visit everytime we go to Tokyo), not the Olive Garden or Cheesecake Factor or Red Lobster or whatever.
For that, shit man, give me a tablet and let me pick and choose (which as the OP said, most restaurants in Japan have it.)
I tend to agree; my wife and kid like Chili's (see what I gotta work with?!?!); but the kiosk idea is acceptable. Our server comes and takes our initial order, if my blood alcohol level drops below the "Ohhhhhh this is great food! Better than I can make level" I simply order a new alcoholic beverage and my server or someone else on staff drops it off. Yes I am a food geek snob:)
At the higher end of the dining out experience, where there is a chef and not just a "cook" and those eateries that actually require a certain level of personal attire to be seated, the experience tends to be different, which is why it is called "fine dining". The chains and lower scale eateries have never attempted to emulate this model despite the advertising hype and why would they? They are selling price point to your average customer, they are selling a laid back attire so that if you are out and about, out of town, don't feel like preparing a meal at home, or want to hang out with family and friends for a gathering where someone else takes care of the mess.
Also at the lower scale, being able to swipe your card and pay your bill is awesome!
Now this is an example of an economic and social issue that our countries are going to have to deal with. More jobs are going to be replaced by automation at every level in society. Computers simply are better at paying utilities, vendors, predictive analytics and so much more than humans. How we deal with people not working and being able to live should be one of humanities top priorities.
The constitution does not "grant" rights to citizens. Those rights are inherent and are born with their human bodies.
I will agree I slipped up with grants rights; the bill of rights were an enumeration of inherit born rights. But where you slip up and fail to understand, that the constitution explicitly reserves certain rights (as those to hold office or to vote) to its citizens. At no point does it define "the people" as citizens only. Article I, section 2 and 3 and the 15th amendment (the right of the citizen to vote) _explicitly_ pointed out citizenry restrictions and a requirement of naturalized citizens to have held such a status for a period of time before being eligible to public office and the simple right of a citizen (naturalized or natural born) to vote. The plain text reading and the inherit positions of the signatories support this assertion. The 14th amendment even goes further to protect the rights of naturalized citizens and non-citizens and I quote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, explicit declaration of naturalized citizens and then a confirmation any person shall not be deprived of the equal protections of the laws in the states jurisdiction.
The constitutional heresy is the argument that "the people" implies citizens only when it clearly includes anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States of America except those provisions reserved for citizens only AS EXPLICITLY stated in the document.
Make all the rationalizations that you want, SCOTUS has already decided. This is not a matter of opinion or rightness, but fact. Non-citizens do not have constitutional rights. They do have human rights and any rights granted by treaty or specific laws, but constitutional rights are only guaranteed for citizens.
Could tie in with that part mentioning "We the people" found in the Declaration of Independence. Which would eliminate non-citizens from protection (possibly).
Except if you look at the full Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Or to paraphrase: We the representatives of the people of the sovereign states hereby define the owners manual for our country.
There have been many people that argued the preamble implies citizen only, but that is contrary to the the fact they enumerated citizen only restrictions elsewhere in the document, in addition, other restrictions upon the Federal Government and the rights of granted to the people via the bill of rights, seems to imply where important distinctions are made.
The textile company I work for is almost 120 years old SAP has made more from us than we've made total in profits over that more than one hundred years. It sucks getting a company-wide paycut to pay SAP.
Standard MO; SAP is so expensive to implement with a successful failure as an end result. Been through it twice in two companies; SAP basically expects you to adopt your businesses processes to fit their model, else you spend lots of time re-implementing their processes as custom processes (where you can, which means lots of ABAP...). I've been the guy that writes middle ware in the Microsoft stack to integrate or extract data to other "friendly" systems (also having written those other systems at times). XI was a joke, followed up by a slightly less of a joke called PI. BW's concept of process chains was okay and familiar if you were an SSIS developer / or had any experience with star schemas. SAP Relied to heavily on flat files, sure you could find an adapter that worked in modern operating systems you could write to "tables" in the environment, but mostly extract to flat file, load from flat file. Most "consultants" that were considered senior would look at you as if you had a second head if you suggested system to system ETL processes that did not rely on flat files (PI can do some of this stuff, but still behind the curve imho).
Yeah, I am not impressed with SAP and I do not claim to be an expert on the platform, but I am experienced integrating with it. The cost, the underlying technology and methodologies they used are out dated and inflexible IMHO.
That being said, I am sure there are companies out there that have used it successfully and their people find it wonderful. Most likely that comes down to the right tool for the right job and being willing to buy in to the platform and adjust your company to fit it. Around the 2005 -> 2009 time frame it seemed every major company was on the SAP bandwagon and yeah it was all due to marketing and C-Level types pushing it so they appeared "to be on top" of their job and making "remarkable and innovative" decisions. Of the two companies I've worked that implemented SAP, those C-Level execs are no longer there...
Based on my reading of this situation, what you're doing would be considered "indirect" as well. Just because you dump the data out, rearrange it, and present it in a different system doesn't mean the data didn't "originate" from SAP.
This is straight out of the Oracle "F*** your customers over" playbook.
I tend agree with your statements. Even in my place of employments situation, we extract from legacy systems via an SSIS ETL process and then use PI to extract out of SQL tables, eventually, that data gets fed back from the ECC solution to the BW solution and then extracted data from the BW solution to downstream BI solution. Even though that data originated from another system, the fact it was extracted from BW means a SAP user license for anyone touching that data.
ALL sysadmins have thoughts of what they would do as "revenge" for getting fired. Hoarding passwords is something that has occurred to all of us, at one time or another. It's such an easy thing to do.
But you can't do that stuff. It's unethical, and immature, and unprofessional. Not to mention, you'll end up getting sued, and YOU WILL LOSE.
This guy sounds like a whiny little bitch, and he never should've been hired in the first place. When you hire sysadmins, you need to hire people that seem trustworthy, first and foremost.
Look the issue here is simple:
1) Their IT management sucked and he was allowed to use a personal email account for his admin duties despite their "rules" (rules can always be made up after the fact). So I would fire all the way up the chain of command to the CIO/CTO.
2) They _fired_ him. The caveat to that statement is he wiped a laptop that was not HIS property.
If he had simply returned the laptop and refused to help them, no harm no foul - you do not owe your past employers ANYTHING especially if they fire you. So yes, he messed up and damaged their property.
"Make America Great Again!" Hackers need love too! As much as oil execs, business execs, people that abuse the environment, anyone that holds loans to Trumps' companies that he will NEVER talk about to his kids while in office *sic* believe him! BELIIIIIIIIIEVE HIM!
We won, simply by the fact that both the Bush and the Clinton dynasties were shut down in this election cycle.
Trump is sort of the political equivalent of Drano. Nobody wants to drink it or get any of it on their skin, but there are times when pouring some Drano into a sink will fix problems.
I doubt if he'll get a second term. You don't need to use Drano that often.
While not scientific, the friends and family that I argued with prior to the election I actually got to sit down with (yay holidays) recently. I always argued that Clinton would make a better president and a would represent the status-quo. I.e. keep us chugging along while we as a country found ourselves and found a candidate that we could mostly agree was okay together (one step at a time right?). Everyone I talked to hated Clinton, they _hated_ her but they also did not like Trump. They, took a deep breath and swallowed the Drano in hopes that in four years they are not blind. They _needed_ someone other than Clinton. Whether it is logical or not, Clinton was a damaged candidate (I have logical reasons why she was, but I could not support Trump).
If you took the candidate away and discussed her policies they pretty much agreed the policies were okay. They did want a merging of the two a little bit (H1B issues for one thing, like me a few of our family members are in the STEM field (none at this gathering, but they were looking out for their kids)). They wanted to feel safer and if that meant extra vetting of refugees that was okay, as long as the refugees were in good conditions (i.e. halfway point) and not in immediate danger. I even got a couple to admit his cabinet picks so far is not what they considered draining the swamp, one also used the sewage works term (she was very much TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! before hand).
Two did admit they hope Trump and the Republican Congress would install Christianity as the national religion - I did not even have to argue this one, the others were quick to tell them to shut up and if they want to something akin to a national religion there are other counties they can immigrate to, so until they leave, let the rest of us practice our faith (or not at all if we do not believe) in peace and quiet without them sticking their nose in (that made me smile).
It was a good conservation - the ultimate take away I took from it was a) Should NEVER have been Clinton, b) They felt us progressives were being to pushy with our social agenda, while they were not opposed, they said we need to learn how to speak to those that do not agree with us better, c) They don't even know what to believe in the media anymore and they work to much to sift through all the BS.
This. The CIA is not "refusing" to brief Congress. They're just not ready to do so right now.
This is just posturing on the part of GOP congresscritters.
Them and the news media to boost ratings - after all they will have a Trump Administration they need to play homage to if they ever want access (other than twitter). But yes, they have already stated see this article they are completing the review that President Obama has ordered before briefing.
I for one support them actually completing their work, instead of the BS that Comey pulled...
After losing an election following six months of sneering, elitist, classist "mockery," clearly the answer is to... double down.
Trump is an elitist:) Granted, he is a different kind in appearance than the ones we are used to mocking in our country, but at the core he is pretty much the same.
I don't know if you were alive these last 8 years, but anyone who mocked or belittled the President was immediately shouted down as racist. With Trump in office, it will become OK to criticize the President again, which is a huge improvement.
Perhaps you were just saying racist things? I am a progressive and I have conservative friends and we mocked President Obama all the time, but we mocked some of his policies, we never attacked his children (unlike some people on the right) nor his wife, his race, culture or religion. Perhaps you need to take a hard long look in the mirror (you do not need to tell us the results) and ask yourself if you are really being honest with yourself.
Please provide citations for this; what laws did she break? Other than one donation which the foundation should have gotten approval for based on a gentlemen s handshake between Clinton and the Obama Administration. Of course you cannot backup your claim.
The intent of the Electoral College at least in part was to act as a final check against an unsuitable candidate becoming President. Now we can certainly debate Trump's suitability for high office, but as to complaining about the rules, well the EC is actually somewhat vague in that regard. The chief issue I see with Electors voting for someone other than who they are pledged for is that it could, in states where being a faithless electoral, end you up in hot water.
Without California Hilliary wouldn't have won the popular vote. She won California by over 2 million votes, a total higher than she got for the US overall. California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless. This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized. Worked exactly as designed.
Agreed it worked as expected, but other than these states electors may cast their vote for a candidate other than the one that won the popular vote in their state or the one that they pledged to. So this election has the potential of getting very interesting (probably not).
That being said, I generally disagree with the hysteria with replacing the EC with the popular vote. The argument that the smaller less populous states need some kind of advantage to preserve power at the executive level is idiotic. Their power resides in their sovereignty, in their representation in congress and via their party to elect a candidate to promote their ideals and run for president. The will of the people to elect the leader and figurehead of our country should be done by popular vote, i.e. we elect a candidate that has swayed the majority of voters that their views are in the best interest of our nation, the president therefore needs to either a) have a majority of his party in congress to push his/her agenda, or b) work with congress to pursue the presidents agenda, which is where the smaller states maintain power either individually or via coalition of like minded representatives at the congressional level (and see below).
Ultimately you feel that the smaller states views and ideals would not be represented if the popular vote was used, but that is not the case. If you look here you will see the last 100 years of presidential elections (other than a couple outlier's) the EC and populate vote generally have gone hand-in-hand. You will also see that both Republican and Democrats won the EC and popular, so this nonsense that somehow the smaller states would not have a voice in the general election is just pure ridiculous as history shows us otherwise.
Why are people surprised about this? Only idiots didn't see this coming.
People have been told they should be angry and that they have been cheated; the one thing Trump is very good at is playing for ratings and he got that. He was able to use the media to his advantage and without having to pay for a lot of the attention. We shall see in four years if the electors do not vote against him, who will admit to having voted for Trump, especially since the sewage plant is in full swing it seems.
He only wants to drain it so he can build his own sewage works there. The first thing he has done is appoint his friends and family to his administration, scumbags the lot of them.
Yup and he duped enough people to get the EC votes. We can only hope the electors see what he is doing and say, "nope, I will take my fine (in states where this applies) and vote for the betterment of the country."
He is still acting like this a reality TV show and it will only get worse IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump's not perfect, but at least he rejected both parties.
You don't actually believe that, right?
I am afraid they do...
Mine too :)
No I don't think so. When you go to a restaurant part of what you're paying for is the service you can't get at home. Creating a full robot-based restaurant isn't really why people go out to eat at a sit-down restaurant.
And for that, I'd go to a real restaurant where the chef prepares a full course for you (like this French restaurant which my wife and visit everytime we go to Tokyo), not the Olive Garden or Cheesecake Factor or Red Lobster or whatever.
For that, shit man, give me a tablet and let me pick and choose (which as the OP said, most restaurants in Japan have it.)
I tend to agree; my wife and kid like Chili's (see what I gotta work with?!?!); but the kiosk idea is acceptable. Our server comes and takes our initial order, if my blood alcohol level drops below the "Ohhhhhh this is great food! Better than I can make level" I simply order a new alcoholic beverage and my server or someone else on staff drops it off. Yes I am a food geek snob :)
At the higher end of the dining out experience, where there is a chef and not just a "cook" and those eateries that actually require a certain level of personal attire to be seated, the experience tends to be different, which is why it is called "fine dining". The chains and lower scale eateries have never attempted to emulate this model despite the advertising hype and why would they? They are selling price point to your average customer, they are selling a laid back attire so that if you are out and about, out of town, don't feel like preparing a meal at home, or want to hang out with family and friends for a gathering where someone else takes care of the mess.
Also at the lower scale, being able to swipe your card and pay your bill is awesome!
Now this is an example of an economic and social issue that our countries are going to have to deal with. More jobs are going to be replaced by automation at every level in society. Computers simply are better at paying utilities, vendors, predictive analytics and so much more than humans. How we deal with people not working and being able to live should be one of humanities top priorities.
The constitution does not "grant" rights to citizens. Those rights are inherent and are born with their human bodies.
I will agree I slipped up with grants rights; the bill of rights were an enumeration of inherit born rights. But where you slip up and fail to understand, that the constitution explicitly reserves certain rights (as those to hold office or to vote) to its citizens. At no point does it define "the people" as citizens only. Article I, section 2 and 3 and the 15th amendment (the right of the citizen to vote) _explicitly_ pointed out citizenry restrictions and a requirement of naturalized citizens to have held such a status for a period of time before being eligible to public office and the simple right of a citizen (naturalized or natural born) to vote. The plain text reading and the inherit positions of the signatories support this assertion. The 14th amendment even goes further to protect the rights of naturalized citizens and non-citizens and I quote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, explicit declaration of naturalized citizens and then a confirmation any person shall not be deprived of the equal protections of the laws in the states jurisdiction.
The constitutional heresy is the argument that "the people" implies citizens only when it clearly includes anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States of America except those provisions reserved for citizens only AS EXPLICITLY stated in the document.
Make all the rationalizations that you want, SCOTUS has already decided. This is not a matter of opinion or rightness, but fact. Non-citizens do not have constitutional rights. They do have human rights and any rights granted by treaty or specific laws, but constitutional rights are only guaranteed for citizens.
Citation?
Could tie in with that part mentioning "We the people" found in the Declaration of Independence. Which would eliminate non-citizens from protection (possibly).
Except if you look at the full Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Or to paraphrase: We the representatives of the people of the sovereign states hereby define the owners manual for our country.
There have been many people that argued the preamble implies citizen only, but that is contrary to the the fact they enumerated citizen only restrictions elsewhere in the document, in addition, other restrictions upon the Federal Government and the rights of granted to the people via the bill of rights, seems to imply where important distinctions are made.
The textile company I work for is almost 120 years old SAP has made more from us than we've made total in profits over that more than one hundred years. It sucks getting a company-wide paycut to pay SAP.
Standard MO; SAP is so expensive to implement with a successful failure as an end result. Been through it twice in two companies; SAP basically expects you to adopt your businesses processes to fit their model, else you spend lots of time re-implementing their processes as custom processes (where you can, which means lots of ABAP...). I've been the guy that writes middle ware in the Microsoft stack to integrate or extract data to other "friendly" systems (also having written those other systems at times). XI was a joke, followed up by a slightly less of a joke called PI. BW's concept of process chains was okay and familiar if you were an SSIS developer / or had any experience with star schemas. SAP Relied to heavily on flat files, sure you could find an adapter that worked in modern operating systems you could write to "tables" in the environment, but mostly extract to flat file, load from flat file. Most "consultants" that were considered senior would look at you as if you had a second head if you suggested system to system ETL processes that did not rely on flat files (PI can do some of this stuff, but still behind the curve imho).
Yeah, I am not impressed with SAP and I do not claim to be an expert on the platform, but I am experienced integrating with it. The cost, the underlying technology and methodologies they used are out dated and inflexible IMHO.
That being said, I am sure there are companies out there that have used it successfully and their people find it wonderful. Most likely that comes down to the right tool for the right job and being willing to buy in to the platform and adjust your company to fit it. Around the 2005 -> 2009 time frame it seemed every major company was on the SAP bandwagon and yeah it was all due to marketing and C-Level types pushing it so they appeared "to be on top" of their job and making "remarkable and innovative" decisions. Of the two companies I've worked that implemented SAP, those C-Level execs are no longer there...
Based on my reading of this situation, what you're doing would be considered "indirect" as well. Just because you dump the data out, rearrange it, and present it in a different system doesn't mean the data didn't "originate" from SAP.
This is straight out of the Oracle "F*** your customers over" playbook.
I tend agree with your statements. Even in my place of employments situation, we extract from legacy systems via an SSIS ETL process and then use PI to extract out of SQL tables, eventually, that data gets fed back from the ECC solution to the BW solution and then extracted data from the BW solution to downstream BI solution. Even though that data originated from another system, the fact it was extracted from BW means a SAP user license for anyone touching that data.
I suspect there is a lot of self turn on...
ALL sysadmins have thoughts of what they would do as "revenge" for getting fired. Hoarding passwords is something that has occurred to all of us, at one time or another. It's such an easy thing to do.
But you can't do that stuff. It's unethical, and immature, and unprofessional. Not to mention, you'll end up getting sued, and YOU WILL LOSE.
This guy sounds like a whiny little bitch, and he never should've been hired in the first place. When you hire sysadmins, you need to hire people that seem trustworthy, first and foremost.
Look the issue here is simple:
1) Their IT management sucked and he was allowed to use a personal email account for his admin duties despite their "rules" (rules can always be made up after the fact). So I would fire all the way up the chain of command to the CIO/CTO.
2) They _fired_ him. The caveat to that statement is he wiped a laptop that was not HIS property.
If he had simply returned the laptop and refused to help them, no harm no foul - you do not owe your past employers ANYTHING especially if they fire you. So yes, he messed up and damaged their property.
"Make America Great Again!" Hackers need love too! As much as oil execs, business execs, people that abuse the environment, anyone that holds loans to Trumps' companies that he will NEVER talk about to his kids while in office *sic* believe him! BELIIIIIIIIIEVE HIM!
We won, simply by the fact that both the Bush and the Clinton dynasties were shut down in this election cycle.
Trump is sort of the political equivalent of Drano. Nobody wants to drink it or get any of it on their skin, but there are times when pouring some Drano into a sink will fix problems.
I doubt if he'll get a second term. You don't need to use Drano that often.
While not scientific, the friends and family that I argued with prior to the election I actually got to sit down with (yay holidays) recently. I always argued that Clinton would make a better president and a would represent the status-quo. I.e. keep us chugging along while we as a country found ourselves and found a candidate that we could mostly agree was okay together (one step at a time right?). Everyone I talked to hated Clinton, they _hated_ her but they also did not like Trump. They, took a deep breath and swallowed the Drano in hopes that in four years they are not blind. They _needed_ someone other than Clinton. Whether it is logical or not, Clinton was a damaged candidate (I have logical reasons why she was, but I could not support Trump).
If you took the candidate away and discussed her policies they pretty much agreed the policies were okay. They did want a merging of the two a little bit (H1B issues for one thing, like me a few of our family members are in the STEM field (none at this gathering, but they were looking out for their kids)). They wanted to feel safer and if that meant extra vetting of refugees that was okay, as long as the refugees were in good conditions (i.e. halfway point) and not in immediate danger. I even got a couple to admit his cabinet picks so far is not what they considered draining the swamp, one also used the sewage works term (she was very much TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! before hand).
Two did admit they hope Trump and the Republican Congress would install Christianity as the national religion - I did not even have to argue this one, the others were quick to tell them to shut up and if they want to something akin to a national religion there are other counties they can immigrate to, so until they leave, let the rest of us practice our faith (or not at all if we do not believe) in peace and quiet without them sticking their nose in (that made me smile).
It was a good conservation - the ultimate take away I took from it was a) Should NEVER have been Clinton, b) They felt us progressives were being to pushy with our social agenda, while they were not opposed, they said we need to learn how to speak to those that do not agree with us better, c) They don't even know what to believe in the media anymore and they work to much to sift through all the BS.
This. The CIA is not "refusing" to brief Congress. They're just not ready to do so right now.
This is just posturing on the part of GOP congresscritters.
Them and the news media to boost ratings - after all they will have a Trump Administration they need to play homage to if they ever want access (other than twitter). But yes, they have already stated see this article they are completing the review that President Obama has ordered before briefing.
I for one support them actually completing their work, instead of the BS that Comey pulled...
Hah, hah, very funny conspiracy theory you have there.
In reality, it's much simpler, and far more obvious. The purpose of the Trump presidency is to enrich Donald Trump.
"And those he and the Republican congress see fit to enrich..."
Here you go, once you've had your parents read it to you go ahead and read this.Hopefully that clears that up for you! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Dude I wish we could dual mod you as funny and informative! ;-) LOL!
They love Trump in the UK:
http://janeygodley.com/wp-cont...
Perhaps she misspelled "cute"... then again, I didn't see a white cane leaning up against her ;-)
After losing an election following six months of sneering, elitist, classist "mockery," clearly the answer is to... double down.
Trump is an elitist :) Granted, he is a different kind in appearance than the ones we are used to mocking in our country, but at the core he is pretty much the same.
Trump belongs to the most protected class of all: millionaires.
Or as he claims, "billionaires" which is why he threatens to sue anyone and everyone :)
I don't know if you were alive these last 8 years, but anyone who mocked or belittled the President was immediately shouted down as racist. With Trump in office, it will become OK to criticize the President again, which is a huge improvement.
Perhaps you were just saying racist things? I am a progressive and I have conservative friends and we mocked President Obama all the time, but we mocked some of his policies, we never attacked his children (unlike some people on the right) nor his wife, his race, culture or religion. Perhaps you need to take a hard long look in the mirror (you do not need to tell us the results) and ask yourself if you are really being honest with yourself.
Guess what?
Federal bribery does!!
Business deals for trade deals is ... wait for it ... bribery!
Do your calling for the arrest of Hilary Clinton then.
Of course not. Laws don't apply to the left.
Please provide citations for this; what laws did she break? Other than one donation which the foundation should have gotten approval for based on a gentlemen s handshake between Clinton and the Obama Administration. Of course you cannot backup your claim.
The intent of the Electoral College at least in part was to act as a final check against an unsuitable candidate becoming President. Now we can certainly debate Trump's suitability for high office, but as to complaining about the rules, well the EC is actually somewhat vague in that regard. The chief issue I see with Electors voting for someone other than who they are pledged for is that it could, in states where being a faithless electoral, end you up in hot water.
But only in these states.
Without California Hilliary wouldn't have won the popular vote. She won California by over 2 million votes, a total higher than she got for the US overall. California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless. This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized. Worked exactly as designed.
Agreed it worked as expected, but other than these states electors may cast their vote for a candidate other than the one that won the popular vote in their state or the one that they pledged to. So this election has the potential of getting very interesting (probably not).
That being said, I generally disagree with the hysteria with replacing the EC with the popular vote. The argument that the smaller less populous states need some kind of advantage to preserve power at the executive level is idiotic. Their power resides in their sovereignty, in their representation in congress and via their party to elect a candidate to promote their ideals and run for president. The will of the people to elect the leader and figurehead of our country should be done by popular vote, i.e. we elect a candidate that has swayed the majority of voters that their views are in the best interest of our nation, the president therefore needs to either a) have a majority of his party in congress to push his/her agenda, or b) work with congress to pursue the presidents agenda, which is where the smaller states maintain power either individually or via coalition of like minded representatives at the congressional level (and see below).
Ultimately you feel that the smaller states views and ideals would not be represented if the popular vote was used, but that is not the case. If you look here you will see the last 100 years of presidential elections (other than a couple outlier's) the EC and populate vote generally have gone hand-in-hand. You will also see that both Republican and Democrats won the EC and popular, so this nonsense that somehow the smaller states would not have a voice in the general election is just pure ridiculous as history shows us otherwise.
Why are people surprised about this? Only idiots didn't see this coming.
People have been told they should be angry and that they have been cheated; the one thing Trump is very good at is playing for ratings and he got that. He was able to use the media to his advantage and without having to pay for a lot of the attention. We shall see in four years if the electors do not vote against him, who will admit to having voted for Trump, especially since the sewage plant is in full swing it seems.
He only wants to drain it so he can build his own sewage works there. The first thing he has done is appoint his friends and family to his administration, scumbags the lot of them.
Yup and he duped enough people to get the EC votes. We can only hope the electors see what he is doing and say, "nope, I will take my fine (in states where this applies) and vote for the betterment of the country."
He is still acting like this a reality TV show and it will only get worse IMHO.