It's also a misleading factoid to site, since D.C., Vermont, Delaware and Rhode Island get a similar super-boost in relative weight, and they all are solid Democrat states. So too is Maryland, which is likewise tiny in area but large in population, courtesy of Baltimore. So why single out Wyoming for abuse?
Uhm... perhaps I wasn't clear. (Or, maybe you're just trolling me for kicks.;-) Either way, I'm happy to clarify.
Superdelegates in the Democrat party primary/caucus system are awarded per state not based on the popular vote in each state's primary/caucus. They are awarded as part of each state's overall delegation of electors in the national party convention at the end of the primary/caucus season, but they are party loyalists who vote for the state party officials' choice of candidate (in each state party convention), not the popular vote winner of the primary/caucus. So the cronies of each state party choose the superdelegates in a private closed-door smoke-filled star chamber meeting totally independent of the expressed will of the voting public at large (whether their state primary/caucus is open or closed to those not registered as Democrat voters, which is a separate issue decide per state by the party officials, not the voters at large).
Note that superdelegates are only delegates in the national party convention where the party candidate is chosen. They hold no role per se in the electoral college vote for the eventual president (well, unless some superdelegate is also later chosen by their state to be an electoral college elector as well... which I'm sure probably happens often since they are, after all, party loyalists appointed by the state party establishment).
So this superdelegate objection I raise has nothing to do w/ city -v- country: it's all about party establishment -v- party outsider. The (Republican) RNC has no such system. That's why a party ``outsider'' like Trump could eventually secure the party nomination, while the DNC superdelegate scheme prevented the Democrat outsider Bernie Sanders from securing his party's nomination.
My broader point was that Bernie might well have defeated Trump had he been his party's candidate--- since then both candidate would have been anti-establishment party outsiders--- but the DNC superdelegate boondoggle essentially guaranteed Hillary would be their candidate despite the popular vote w/in their per-state party conventions.
That's not the way I remember it. Correct me if I'm mistaken (sincerely, I didn't follow the primaries/caucuses very closely for either party).
I thought Bernie won the popular vote in many/most early primary/caucus states, but Hillary was awarded more overall primary delegates due to the DNC superdelegate biased system. I recall several protestations by Bernie and his supporters at the time over just this issue of unfairly awarding superdelegates to Hillary, thereby thwarting his advantages in the popular state-wide votes.
Once Hillary secured a majority of delegates (essentially, all the superdelegates but a minority of the per-state popular vote delegates), Bernie's campaign lost momentum. My impression was, however, that even up to the party convention, he had the overall per-state popular vote in a majority of states, but was denied the superdelegates to overcome the fact that the establishment Democrat party loyalists had already pre-determined that Hillary would be coronated as their chosen candidate.
He was robbed... by ``Crooked'' Hillary and the corruptly biased DNC superdelegate scheme (courtesy Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile and other biased establishment Democrat party operatives).
This op-ed reflects a profound, if not willful, lack of understanding of the Electoral College, its architecture and design.
As argued in the Federalist Papers No.10, No.39 and No.68, the purpose of the Electoral College was to avoid the tyranny of an irrational, impassioned majority (sound familiar?). It had nothing whatsoever to do w/ implementing direct popular democracy. Quite the opposite, in fact, it was a compromise between the large states and the small states to implement sovereign regional federalism.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Specifically:
[I]n the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." What was then called republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.
Moreover, the original system was devised to assign electoral votes proportional to congressional district popular votes, not winner-take-all state-wide popular votes. Each congressional district gets a single electoral vote based on its local popular vote, then two more electoral votes are allocated, one for each state's congressional Senator, presumably to be allocated per the senatorial district popular vote, but in practice both assigned per the state-wide popular vote. So, it is the current state-wide winner-take-all scheme in most states (excepting Maine & Nebraska) that is the root of the problem to which these disgruntled losers seem to object.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The original founders even proposed an amendment to force this district-based apportionment, but a handful of smaller states objected. Over time, more and more states gravitated toward winner-take-all in a misguided attempt to increase the power of their state legislatures (the ruling class) over the power of the individual voter (the citizenry). This transition was stimulated by the abolitionist movement and the Civil War era, BTW. It reflected the passions of a vocal minority which eventually became a majority through coercion. (I'm not saying that was a bad thing, just that that is how and why it evolved.)
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note that changing each state to congressional district apportionment of electors does not require a constitutional amendment: it is up to each state legislature to determine its own method of electoral vote assignment.
If, say, California or New York or Oregon or Illinois felt so damned strongly about this, it is a simple matter of citizens compelling their state legislatures to switch back to the original congressional district proportional scheme. Of course, then they wouldn't have the bully club of their present winner-take-all big city / college town domination, as seen in the 2016 per-district election vote map.
Witness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If these DNC reprobates are so adamant about proportional representation, why do they not first repeal the corrupt party mafia appointed ``superdelegate'' cancer in their own party? Had they done so, Bernie Sanders would have been their rightful candidate, not ``Crooked'' Hillary Clinton. He might well have received more electoral votes than Trump, given that this was essentially, at core, and anti-establishment election.
superdelegate – noun US - plural noun: super-delegates
(in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention.
Closures are not a ``problem''. Ignorant or incompetent implementations of closures is the problem.
Just as ignorant or incompetent implementations of garbage collection and memory management is a problem.
And ignorant or incompetent use of arrays/vectors/buffers and pointer arithmetic and access permissions and...
So here is an alternative list:
1. Low-skilled programmers (``script kiddies'') who write profound amounts of buggy code.
2. Low-skilled language ``designers'' who re-introduce the known bugs of the past and introduce new innovative bugs as well.
3. Low-skilled managers who reward high output over high quality, thus ensuring an on-time, under-budget hairball and bugs nest.
4. Low-skilled educators who teach ``coding'' rather than computer science, thus ensuring another generation of the above.
5. Low-skilled professional organizations who reward and encourage incompetent industry leaders to unduly influence the field.
6. Low-skilled investors who reward incompetent technology from dominant, monopolistic companies.
7. Low-skilled consumers who flock to buy flash-in-the-pan shiny stupid gimmicks but won't invest in sound technical innovation unless it's flashy.
This is why C students should never be allowed to graduate w/ a degree. They only go on to further muck up the world. Color me bitter.;-)
P.S. That `C' above refers to grade level / professional competence, not the language (which should really be named D or D minus minus). *smirk*
Altering data after a subpoena to preserve it is called tampering with evidence.
Doing it to conceal the identity of someone is an act of conspiracy, wire fraud and suppression of evidence.
Doing it to prevent others from discovery is contempt of court (in this case, contempt of Congress).
All of the above five (5) highlighted charges are criminal acts subject to federal indictment and conviction.
That is, unless the ruling administration says you're their friend. Then it's OK. Apparently.
Wonder what would happen if the BernOut Bros could somehow stage a DDoS attack on electronic voting machines across the nation? What a beautiful media circus that would be!
If he was plotting the stability equations for the latest Kentucky Derby winner while seated in the wrong side of the plane, this could have been a serious danger had the plane taken off.
1. So are you a Quantum Change denier then? Or just a denier in man-made Quantum Change?
2. Do you support taxing it heavily via legally-binding international treaty, or only for countries with successful capitalist economies?
3. Do you accept the authority of secret federal courts to compell you to break the entanglement without notifying the communicants and without a proper warrant solely via a national security letter even if it might implicate you directly in a crime?
4. Do you accept The Greek Oracle's claim to have patented this by traveling in time back to the Big Bang and being first to file in Eastern Texas, or do you accept Francios Googol's claim in Belgium that we all have a right to give away a cleanroom re-implementation of it even if it uses some/much of the open sourced API originally implemented by The Sun outside the jurisdiction of The Federation or The Empire or The Collective?
Etc.
The flywheel effect is the continuation of oscillations in an oscillator circuit after the control stimulus has been removed. This is usually caused by interacting inductive and capacitive elements in the oscillator. Circuits undergoing such oscillations are said to be flywheeling.
To my mind, clouds and UV-reflective/absorbent foliage and ice caps and oceans all act as capacitors/inductors of temperature change. They cover land, sea and air. Duh!
Q. Put a dozen of them in a room and use consensus rules to run massive weather models and what do you get?
A. Boom! Global warming!!
So what if each of the individual results is mostly wrong? Majority rules! This is now settled science. Move on, dolt commie: this is the just democratization of truth. Etc. *smirk*
They should begin by releasing only and all information directly related to those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution: any member of the White House staff, all members of Congress, all federal judges and all federal law enforcement officials, especially the NSA and FBI.
Only once all that data has been released and thoroughly scrutinized by the free press should they consider releasing any data on private citizens.
If the feds have nothing to hide, they should have no objection or concerns.
Slashdot Mirror
I re-read it every four years, once the campaign season starts to gather heat (not light). :-/
If a dispute over emojis (of all things) is enough to tank Twitter, then Twitter is not relevant in the first place.
It's also a misleading factoid to site, since D.C., Vermont, Delaware and Rhode Island get a similar super-boost in relative weight, and they all are solid Democrat states. So too is Maryland, which is likewise tiny in area but large in population, courtesy of Baltimore. So why single out Wyoming for abuse?
See, for example, this insightful graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Uhm... perhaps I wasn't clear. (Or, maybe you're just trolling me for kicks. ;-) Either way, I'm happy to clarify.
Superdelegates in the Democrat party primary/caucus system are awarded per state not based on the popular vote in each state's primary/caucus. They are awarded as part of each state's overall delegation of electors in the national party convention at the end of the primary/caucus season, but they are party loyalists who vote for the state party officials' choice of candidate (in each state party convention), not the popular vote winner of the primary/caucus. So the cronies of each state party choose the superdelegates in a private closed-door smoke-filled star chamber meeting totally independent of the expressed will of the voting public at large (whether their state primary/caucus is open or closed to those not registered as Democrat voters, which is a separate issue decide per state by the party officials, not the voters at large).
Note that superdelegates are only delegates in the national party convention where the party candidate is chosen. They hold no role per se in the electoral college vote for the eventual president (well, unless some superdelegate is also later chosen by their state to be an electoral college elector as well... which I'm sure probably happens often since they are, after all, party loyalists appointed by the state party establishment).
So this superdelegate objection I raise has nothing to do w/ city -v- country: it's all about party establishment -v- party outsider. The (Republican) RNC has no such system. That's why a party ``outsider'' like Trump could eventually secure the party nomination, while the DNC superdelegate scheme prevented the Democrat outsider Bernie Sanders from securing his party's nomination.
My broader point was that Bernie might well have defeated Trump had he been his party's candidate--- since then both candidate would have been anti-establishment party outsiders--- but the DNC superdelegate boondoggle essentially guaranteed Hillary would be their candidate despite the popular vote w/in their per-state party conventions.
Hence, the Democrats lost the presidency.
That's not the way I remember it. Correct me if I'm mistaken (sincerely, I didn't follow the primaries/caucuses very closely for either party).
I thought Bernie won the popular vote in many/most early primary/caucus states, but Hillary was awarded more overall primary delegates due to the DNC superdelegate biased system. I recall several protestations by Bernie and his supporters at the time over just this issue of unfairly awarding superdelegates to Hillary, thereby thwarting his advantages in the popular state-wide votes.
Once Hillary secured a majority of delegates (essentially, all the superdelegates but a minority of the per-state popular vote delegates), Bernie's campaign lost momentum. My impression was, however, that even up to the party convention, he had the overall per-state popular vote in a majority of states, but was denied the superdelegates to overcome the fact that the establishment Democrat party loyalists had already pre-determined that Hillary would be coronated as their chosen candidate.
He was robbed... by ``Crooked'' Hillary and the corruptly biased DNC superdelegate scheme (courtesy Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile and other biased establishment Democrat party operatives).
So have I got this all wrong?
This op-ed reflects a profound, if not willful, lack of understanding of the Electoral College, its architecture and design.
As argued in the Federalist Papers No.10, No.39 and No.68, the purpose of the Electoral College was to avoid the tyranny of an irrational, impassioned majority (sound familiar?). It had nothing whatsoever to do w/ implementing direct popular democracy. Quite the opposite, in fact, it was a compromise between the large states and the small states to implement sovereign regional federalism.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Specifically:
[I]n the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." What was then called republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Moreover, the original system was devised to assign electoral votes proportional to congressional district popular votes, not winner-take-all state-wide popular votes. Each congressional district gets a single electoral vote based on its local popular vote, then two more electoral votes are allocated, one for each state's congressional Senator, presumably to be allocated per the senatorial district popular vote, but in practice both assigned per the state-wide popular vote. So, it is the current state-wide winner-take-all scheme in most states (excepting Maine & Nebraska) that is the root of the problem to which these disgruntled losers seem to object.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The original founders even proposed an amendment to force this district-based apportionment, but a handful of smaller states objected. Over time, more and more states gravitated toward winner-take-all in a misguided attempt to increase the power of their state legislatures (the ruling class) over the power of the individual voter (the citizenry). This transition was stimulated by the abolitionist movement and the Civil War era, BTW. It reflected the passions of a vocal minority which eventually became a majority through coercion. (I'm not saying that was a bad thing, just that that is how and why it evolved.)
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note that changing each state to congressional district apportionment of electors does not require a constitutional amendment: it is up to each state legislature to determine its own method of electoral vote assignment.
If, say, California or New York or Oregon or Illinois felt so damned strongly about this, it is a simple matter of citizens compelling their state legislatures to switch back to the original congressional district proportional scheme. Of course, then they wouldn't have the bully club of their present winner-take-all big city / college town domination, as seen in the 2016 per-district election vote map.
Witness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is how it is pr
If these DNC reprobates are so adamant about proportional representation, why do they not first repeal the corrupt party mafia appointed ``superdelegate'' cancer in their own party? Had they done so, Bernie Sanders would have been their rightful candidate, not ``Crooked'' Hillary Clinton. He might well have received more electoral votes than Trump, given that this was essentially, at core, and anti-establishment election.
superdelegate – noun US - plural noun: super-delegates (in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention.
Closures are not a ``problem''. Ignorant or incompetent implementations of closures is the problem. ...
Just as ignorant or incompetent implementations of garbage collection and memory management is a problem.
And ignorant or incompetent use of arrays/vectors/buffers and pointer arithmetic and access permissions and
So here is an alternative list:
1. Low-skilled programmers (``script kiddies'') who write profound amounts of buggy code.
2. Low-skilled language ``designers'' who re-introduce the known bugs of the past and introduce new innovative bugs as well.
3. Low-skilled managers who reward high output over high quality, thus ensuring an on-time, under-budget hairball and bugs nest.
4. Low-skilled educators who teach ``coding'' rather than computer science, thus ensuring another generation of the above.
5. Low-skilled professional organizations who reward and encourage incompetent industry leaders to unduly influence the field.
6. Low-skilled investors who reward incompetent technology from dominant, monopolistic companies.
7. Low-skilled consumers who flock to buy flash-in-the-pan shiny stupid gimmicks but won't invest in sound technical innovation unless it's flashy.
This is why C students should never be allowed to graduate w/ a degree. They only go on to further muck up the world. Color me bitter. ;-)
P.S. That `C' above refers to grade level / professional competence, not the language (which should really be named D or D minus minus). *smirk*
Just sayin'. ;-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Altering data after a subpoena to preserve it is called tampering with evidence.
Doing it to conceal the identity of someone is an act of conspiracy, wire fraud and suppression of evidence.
Doing it to prevent others from discovery is contempt of court (in this case, contempt of Congress).
All of the above five (5) highlighted charges are criminal acts subject to federal indictment and conviction.
That is, unless the ruling administration says you're their friend. Then it's OK. Apparently.
Subject line says it all.
Wonder what would happen if the BernOut Bros could somehow stage a DDoS attack on electronic voting machines across the nation? What a beautiful media circus that would be!
Everything else is just a recording.
Global Warming? ;-P
...when western civilization collectively pulled its head out of its ass from the superstitious dark ages and entered the age of reason.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It just means he was relatively effective at covering it up... so far.
The open-source compiler for this new language is called Hokum and the free IDE is called Bunkum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2. Do you support taxing it heavily via legally-binding international treaty, or only for countries with successful capitalist economies?
3. Do you accept the authority of secret federal courts to compell you to break the entanglement without notifying the communicants and without a proper warrant solely via a national security letter even if it might implicate you directly in a crime?
4. Do you accept The Greek Oracle's claim to have patented this by traveling in time back to the Big Bang and being first to file in Eastern Texas, or do you accept Francios Googol's claim in Belgium that we all have a right to give away a cleanroom re-implementation of it even if it uses some/much of the open sourced API originally implemented by The Sun outside the jurisdiction of The Federation or The Empire or The Collective?
Etc.
.
Does any of this sound familiar? ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The flywheel effect is the continuation of oscillations in an oscillator circuit after the control stimulus has been removed. This is usually caused by interacting inductive and capacitive elements in the oscillator. Circuits undergoing such oscillations are said to be flywheeling.
To my mind, clouds and UV-reflective/absorbent foliage and ice caps and oceans all act as capacitors/inductors of temperature change. They cover land, sea and air. Duh!
A. Boom! Global warming!!
So what if each of the individual results is mostly wrong? Majority rules! This is now settled science. Move on, dolt commie: this is the just democratization of truth. Etc. *smirk*
Perhaps someone should ask whether the candidates would support that in the next presidential primary town hall.
I bet it could even be used to balance the budget, too!
They should begin by releasing only and all information directly related to those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution: any member of the White House staff, all members of Congress, all federal judges and all federal law enforcement officials, especially the NSA and FBI. Only once all that data has been released and thoroughly scrutinized by the free press should they consider releasing any data on private citizens. If the feds have nothing to hide, they should have no objection or concerns.