I don't dislike Hillary, I dislike her actions, her policies, and her crimes. If you don't want to give up the fiction that it is dislike, you will misjudge and misunderstand all of this, and that's your prerogative.
As for Trump making a mess of things, that's been going on since 2008 or so. Worse? Cling to your faith in your choices. We'll see.
Assange denies it, and he's been reliable. Putin will say whatever is to his advantage.
The CIA/FBI may be the source, but we will not know for a while, if ever.
But the Democrats are desperate to retain power. Some believe the Right will punish them, some know how close they are to domination and permanent rule, some merely fear prison.
Yeah, I had my Windows 10 machines go down a few weeks ago for bad WiFi driver updates. Rolling back solved it, and this one I fixed by rolling back also. Sadly, Windows gets network problems more often than ever few decades.
If you meant something else, hey, throw it against the wall.
"I do find it worrying that it's possible to get the most votes by a margin of nearly 2.5 million people and yet to still loose."
If you do not understand the United States' election process, then please either study it or step back.
Hillary's margin of victory can be expressed as
As of today the best results I can quickly find show Hillary's popular vote margin is 3.28MM. Her margin in California is 4.26MM votes.
Think of it. Her popular vote advantage can be consolidated into the margin of one state. ONE STATE.
This is indeed one reason why the Electoral College serves to ensure all states are represented.
Her margin in New York is 1.7MM votes. More telling, her margin in the District of Columbia is 270K votes. 90+% of the total.
Yeah, they love her in D.C. And in California. and New York City. states and D.C. gave her a 60%+ margin, and new York gave her 59%. Thinking our nation could be ruled by 18 states and the seat of federal government is an interesting take on 'majority rule'. Trump was elected by one state less than required for constitutional amendment approval. Hardly an unrepresentative result.
And our nation has had a President elected while losing the popular vote five times in its history. Five times. twice since 2000, the next most recent in 1888.
I do not see the crisis here, except that the 'losing' side cannot readily accept that.
I recommend you find a different way to say what you mean. Disagreement on specific science isn't denial of scientific thought. I do not accept the claim that climate change (specifically, global warming) is actually occurring, and is caused by industrialization, and I have specific reasons for that. But I do not 'deny science'. I reject what I have good evidence of as flawed and falsified data*, incomplete and invalid theories and conclusions, and questionable motives.
But I make a living in technology. Calling me a 'science denier' is stupid. I am employed because of science. Even the science I don't like much I accept.
* If you recoil from this statement, you've not read any of several commentaries on temperature data and the questions surrounding manipulation and outright falsification. Or, if you have read these commentaries, you disagree. Opinions vary.
"Religion has always been a tool of control and manipulation"
This is a shallow and incomplete description. For some religions, since willing acceptance and belief is fundamental to the faith, it doesn't fit the belief.
But it is a common conception, and suffices as criticism.
Islam has various sects with beliefs along a spectrum of 'peace be upon you' to 'surrender or die'. And these sects vary on the topic of secular rule, from an opinion of no opinion to an opinion of absolute religious rule in all of life, for everyone. The most radical Islamic beliefs are either nonviolent and benevolent, or committed to rule by the sword and global domination in the name of their god. We tend to consider the most violent sects as 'radical', failing to also recognize the other extreme. 'Militant' doesn't even describe the violent extremists adequately. But we recognize them.
Buddhism is commonly thought of as a religion, but I'm not sure it isn't better described as a philosophy. And widely misunderstood. But it is not reliant on belief in a deity. Not very religious. Not totally nonviolent, but if you've angered an observant Buddhist, you've done something I think of as wrong.
Hinduism, being a collection of beliefs with commonalities, does rely on deities, but even within that collective there is some discord. Not a monolith, but common enough to be named. Sadly, they sometimes fight among each other.
Christianity is described as a collective group of beliefs encompassing Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxies, Mormon, and a variety of others. Some of those I named I do not grant as actually 'Christian', but they self-identify as such, and I won't exclude them for the purposes of this discussion. Violent Christianity is, to me, almost an oxymoron, but I'm prejudiced. I cannot easily identify a Christian nation today, which is not a problem I seek to address.
Judaism also is composed of various sects, ranging from very relaxed observance to strict, widely considered archaic, practices. And it is not now practiced as historically required by the most ancient beliefs. It is also probably the most persecuted, subjectively yes.
Equal? Hardly. Equivalent? More accurate but still not 100%. To indict religion as a destructive force is, in my mind, a shallow and incomplete understanding of the dynamic. If you include Communism as a religion, you then encompass the best and worst of humanity. You need not hang the motivation for evil on philosophy.
Or, as my good friend reminds me, the best of humans are, at best, human.
Conservatives have been out of power and influence for so ling, this is stupid. But you're excused,since most assume Republicans are Conservatives.
They are mostly not. And to stomp out the flames in advance, neither is Trump. But he's not part of the Establishment, so we can hope for some minimal changes.
If we had elected any Establishment candidate, we would have no reason to hope.
Computer buying of performance tickets enhances liquidity in that market. Instant sales, the venue and exhibitor are guaranteed sales, the artist(s) are ensured of their fee, all is well. The market then is extended as buyers pile in and buy at markup, and only the original seller(s) suffer in not sharing in the markup.
Or do they? Perhaps there is a raging business in brokered resales, and the venue/exhibitor/performers are the ones most cheated, if none of them share in the markup?
HFT is pure arbitrage. Liquidity isn't the primary feature. Automated ticket purchasing is even worse, in that the systems purport to open sales to buyers at a point in time, but the truth is very few human buyers are *permitted* to purchase - the bots win.
This is a good thing, enhanced only if the law could permit bot sales when disclosed in advance by the original sellers, putting you and me on notice that we are wasting our time queuing up to click and fail. At least be honest, so I won't bother, but will know that those tickets to the concert I want to go to won't cost $65, they will cost $125. Each. No matter.
Than I can make choices in an informed manner. And know that I'm actually enriching the scalpers. Then i can choose.
I've thought this through a few times. Same conclusion each time.
For humans, women are the selectors. Men are cheap. Women are the required and scarce resource, that is, willing women. Most any man is willing, with few exceptions.
Unfortunately, women today are using different criteria, the most important change being that they no longer have to put up with the man even for the duration of the pregnancy. They also need not even pretend to choose a man able to support them and their child(ren). Being 'willing' is less a part of this than ever.
Extending the freedom of choice and independence to even the means of delivery can only increase the incidence of Cesarean deliveries.
This also will result in significant divergence of the population between affluent and impoverished women. No money, need a man. Money, no man. Cruel, brutal, and simplistic, but true.
It does not bode well for our species. We should also be looking at the evolution of the family.
And in the US at least, Obstetricians do schedule C Sections for their convenience.
It doesn't matter why. Cesarean delivery has consequences, and some of those may well be genetic manipulations.
And all this explains a multitude of things for me, while leaving several others unexplained, and exposing an inconvenient truth. Darn. I was hoping not, but so it is.
Especially the updating over Cellular vs, WiFi thing.
I regularly get updates (yeah, some of us do) that try to force going over WiFi, despite my having set updates over both Cellular (Mobile) and WiFi and expecting these to happen. Whether the carrier, Google Play Store, or the app dev do this, they try to force these over WiFi, size not being an obvious factor.
So I have to manually trigger these.
Morons. What fun it is to have WiFi enabled on my phone during lunch, when I walk by 6 different 'open' hotspots, each of which wants me to accept some T&C whatever, and each latches onto my phone and prevents it from even receiving SMS until I do something. Yes. T-Mobile. Probably due to WiFi Calling, I bet.
It's not all kittens and glitter out there. Stuff sometimes doesn't really work like ti was expected to, and I should not complain. Much. I get paid to deal with these sorts of problems, and if I were not, or they did not happen, I would have to work for a living.
It's not hard work to point out the obvious, just annoying.
Don't bother, I'm already or of that corner. Whistleblowers serve society more often than not. Secrets are a necessary part of modern society, but exposing abuse and crimes may not be popular. Protecting whistleblowers may not even be an all or nothing thing. But I support them, and pardoning them more often than not.
None of our current crop of well known whistleblowers earns anything but my support. My government should not be secure from oversight be it organizational, legislative, or vigilante.
Freedom of speech is the essential civil right, second only to freedom of thought, which when lost describes total oppression.
Without free speech you cannot:
- Say what is true. - Say what others are thinking and do not realize they are not alone in that. - Say what true and so expose lies and fabrications, thereby rejecting falsehoods and those who publish them. - Expand the debate beyond what the majority say. - Offer alternatives to the accepted and protected norm. - Choose, for yourself, your direction and intentions. - Ask others to join with you and oppose.
Speech is critical.
And next, after that, nearly (pr perhaps) equal, is self-defense, which is necessary to your right to life. First, to claim your right to live, then to reject in speech (ideas for you who struggle with some plain talk) those who would deny you life, and then to defend that life.
From there, to be left alone to do as you wish, insofar as you deny no one else that, is the beginning of liberty. To defend others ensures their rights and collaterally yours, preventing oppressors from merely outnumbering you.
Speech. Without this freedom, you would not be able to present your demands for this and the others. You would know it, in your heart, you would just not be able to exercise it and others, and defend any.
And balancing rights against each other is a lie. Balancing your exercise of rights is necessary, sometimes, in current civilized society, but such accommodations are properly limited and focused.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't dislike Hillary, I dislike her actions, her policies, and her crimes. If you don't want to give up the fiction that it is dislike, you will misjudge and misunderstand all of this, and that's your prerogative.
As for Trump making a mess of things, that's been going on since 2008 or so. Worse? Cling to your faith in your choices. We'll see.
It's been a while since either party called for insurrection and reversal of an election.
Assange denies it, and he's been reliable. Putin will say whatever is to his advantage.
The CIA/FBI may be the source, but we will not know for a while, if ever.
But the Democrats are desperate to retain power. Some believe the Right will punish them, some know how close they are to domination and permanent rule, some merely fear prison.
But they are desperate. Insanely so.
It may get worse.
In the US you'll have to give up something for reloadable cards. Terrorisum.
A nation or a nation - state /city - state?
Ok, half credit.
This is a job for a Raspberry Pi. Can't wait. Gotta find an image to do this.
Yeah, I had my Windows 10 machines go down a few weeks ago for bad WiFi driver updates. Rolling back solved it, and this one I fixed by rolling back also. Sadly, Windows gets network problems more often than ever few decades.
If you meant something else, hey, throw it against the wall.
Data is verifiably altered, therefore I question it.
Please don't restate my complaint incorrectly.
"I do find it worrying that it's possible to get the most votes by a margin of nearly 2.5 million people and yet to still loose."
If you do not understand the United States' election process, then please either study it or step back.
Hillary's margin of victory can be expressed as
As of today the best results I can quickly find show Hillary's popular vote margin is 3.28MM. Her margin in California is 4.26MM votes.
Think of it. Her popular vote advantage can be consolidated into the margin of one state. ONE STATE.
This is indeed one reason why the Electoral College serves to ensure all states are represented.
Her margin in New York is 1.7MM votes. More telling, her margin in the District of Columbia is 270K votes. 90+% of the total.
Yeah, they love her in D.C. And in California. and New York City. states and D.C. gave her a 60%+ margin, and new York gave her 59%. Thinking our nation could be ruled by 18 states and the seat of federal government is an interesting take on 'majority rule'. Trump was elected by one state less than required for constitutional amendment approval. Hardly an unrepresentative result.
And our nation has had a President elected while losing the popular vote five times in its history. Five times. twice since 2000, the next most recent in 1888.
I do not see the crisis here, except that the 'losing' side cannot readily accept that.
"Science denial"
I recommend you find a different way to say what you mean. Disagreement on specific science isn't denial of scientific thought. I do not accept the claim that climate change (specifically, global warming) is actually occurring, and is caused by industrialization, and I have specific reasons for that. But I do not 'deny science'. I reject what I have good evidence of as flawed and falsified data*, incomplete and invalid theories and conclusions, and questionable motives.
But I make a living in technology. Calling me a 'science denier' is stupid. I am employed because of science. Even the science I don't like much I accept.
* If you recoil from this statement, you've not read any of several commentaries on temperature data and the questions surrounding manipulation and outright falsification. Or, if you have read these commentaries, you disagree. Opinions vary.
"Religion has always been a tool of control and manipulation"
This is a shallow and incomplete description. For some religions, since willing acceptance and belief is fundamental to the faith, it doesn't fit the belief.
But it is a common conception, and suffices as criticism.
Equal?
Do you mean 'equivalent'?
Even then, they are not.
Islam has various sects with beliefs along a spectrum of 'peace be upon you' to 'surrender or die'. And these sects vary on the topic of secular rule, from an opinion of no opinion to an opinion of absolute religious rule in all of life, for everyone. The most radical Islamic beliefs are either nonviolent and benevolent, or committed to rule by the sword and global domination in the name of their god. We tend to consider the most violent sects as 'radical', failing to also recognize the other extreme. 'Militant' doesn't even describe the violent extremists adequately. But we recognize them.
Buddhism is commonly thought of as a religion, but I'm not sure it isn't better described as a philosophy. And widely misunderstood. But it is not reliant on belief in a deity. Not very religious. Not totally nonviolent, but if you've angered an observant Buddhist, you've done something I think of as wrong.
Hinduism, being a collection of beliefs with commonalities, does rely on deities, but even within that collective there is some discord. Not a monolith, but common enough to be named. Sadly, they sometimes fight among each other.
Christianity is described as a collective group of beliefs encompassing Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxies, Mormon, and a variety of others. Some of those I named I do not grant as actually 'Christian', but they self-identify as such, and I won't exclude them for the purposes of this discussion. Violent Christianity is, to me, almost an oxymoron, but I'm prejudiced. I cannot easily identify a Christian nation today, which is not a problem I seek to address.
Judaism also is composed of various sects, ranging from very relaxed observance to strict, widely considered archaic, practices. And it is not now practiced as historically required by the most ancient beliefs. It is also probably the most persecuted, subjectively yes.
Equal? Hardly. Equivalent? More accurate but still not 100%. To indict religion as a destructive force is, in my mind, a shallow and incomplete understanding of the dynamic. If you include Communism as a religion, you then encompass the best and worst of humanity. You need not hang the motivation for evil on philosophy.
Or, as my good friend reminds me, the best of humans are, at best, human.
Conservatives have been out of power and influence for so ling, this is stupid. But you're excused,since most assume Republicans are Conservatives.
They are mostly not. And to stomp out the flames in advance, neither is Trump. But he's not part of the Establishment, so we can hope for some minimal changes.
If we had elected any Establishment candidate, we would have no reason to hope.
The stock market IS a game.
Oh, dear, let's go to this now.
Computer buying of performance tickets enhances liquidity in that market. Instant sales, the venue and exhibitor are guaranteed sales, the artist(s) are ensured of their fee, all is well. The market then is extended as buyers pile in and buy at markup, and only the original seller(s) suffer in not sharing in the markup.
Or do they? Perhaps there is a raging business in brokered resales, and the venue/exhibitor/performers are the ones most cheated, if none of them share in the markup?
HFT is pure arbitrage. Liquidity isn't the primary feature. Automated ticket purchasing is even worse, in that the systems purport to open sales to buyers at a point in time, but the truth is very few human buyers are *permitted* to purchase - the bots win.
This is a good thing, enhanced only if the law could permit bot sales when disclosed in advance by the original sellers, putting you and me on notice that we are wasting our time queuing up to click and fail. At least be honest, so I won't bother, but will know that those tickets to the concert I want to go to won't cost $65, they will cost $125. Each. No matter.
Than I can make choices in an informed manner. And know that I'm actually enriching the scalpers. Then i can choose.
In the US this is solved by state welfare. Only the middle class is penalized by divorce, and the welfare class can avoid marriage altogether.
I've thought this through a few times. Same conclusion each time.
For humans, women are the selectors. Men are cheap. Women are the required and scarce resource, that is, willing women. Most any man is willing, with few exceptions.
Unfortunately, women today are using different criteria, the most important change being that they no longer have to put up with the man even for the duration of the pregnancy. They also need not even pretend to choose a man able to support them and their child(ren). Being 'willing' is less a part of this than ever.
Extending the freedom of choice and independence to even the means of delivery can only increase the incidence of Cesarean deliveries.
This also will result in significant divergence of the population between affluent and impoverished women. No money, need a man. Money, no man. Cruel, brutal, and simplistic, but true.
It does not bode well for our species. We should also be looking at the evolution of the family.
Define 'evolving'.
I bet you assume it's a positive, beneficial thing.
Subjective evaluations aren't very useful in this area, and are the cause of much confusion.
And in the US at least, Obstetricians do schedule C Sections for their convenience.
It doesn't matter why. Cesarean delivery has consequences, and some of those may well be genetic manipulations.
And all this explains a multitude of things for me, while leaving several others unexplained, and exposing an inconvenient truth. Darn. I was hoping not, but so it is.
Especially the updating over Cellular vs, WiFi thing.
I regularly get updates (yeah, some of us do) that try to force going over WiFi, despite my having set updates over both Cellular (Mobile) and WiFi and expecting these to happen. Whether the carrier, Google Play Store, or the app dev do this, they try to force these over WiFi, size not being an obvious factor.
So I have to manually trigger these.
Morons. What fun it is to have WiFi enabled on my phone during lunch, when I walk by 6 different 'open' hotspots, each of which wants me to accept some T&C whatever, and each latches onto my phone and prevents it from even receiving SMS until I do something. Yes. T-Mobile. Probably due to WiFi Calling, I bet.
It's not all kittens and glitter out there. Stuff sometimes doesn't really work like ti was expected to, and I should not complain. Much. I get paid to deal with these sorts of problems, and if I were not, or they did not happen, I would have to work for a living.
It's not hard work to point out the obvious, just annoying.
Don't bother, I'm already or of that corner. Whistleblowers serve society more often than not. Secrets are a necessary part of modern society, but exposing abuse and crimes may not be popular. Protecting whistleblowers may not even be an all or nothing thing. But I support them, and pardoning them more often than not.
None of our current crop of well known whistleblowers earns anything but my support. My government should not be secure from oversight be it organizational, legislative, or vigilante.
It's either Tea or No Tea.
The difference? Usually harmless.
Nothing about that post should inspire laughter. Unless you find assault humorous.
Freedom of speech is the essential civil right, second only to freedom of thought, which when lost describes total oppression.
Without free speech you cannot:
- Say what is true.
- Say what others are thinking and do not realize they are not alone in that.
- Say what true and so expose lies and fabrications, thereby rejecting falsehoods and those who publish them.
- Expand the debate beyond what the majority say.
- Offer alternatives to the accepted and protected norm.
- Choose, for yourself, your direction and intentions.
- Ask others to join with you and oppose.
Speech is critical.
And next, after that, nearly (pr perhaps) equal, is self-defense, which is necessary to your right to life. First, to claim your right to live, then to reject in speech (ideas for you who struggle with some plain talk) those who would deny you life, and then to defend that life.
From there, to be left alone to do as you wish, insofar as you deny no one else that, is the beginning of liberty. To defend others ensures their rights and collaterally yours, preventing oppressors from merely outnumbering you.
Speech. Without this freedom, you would not be able to present your demands for this and the others. You would know it, in your heart, you would just not be able to exercise it and others, and defend any.
And balancing rights against each other is a lie. Balancing your exercise of rights is necessary, sometimes, in current civilized society, but such accommodations are properly limited and focused.