I believe that if Hillary had picked Sanders as her running mate, Trump would have lost by a considerable amount
The problem is that Sanders goes by the "socialist" label, and that gets middle-America's panties in a bunch. He's not really a socialist, but rather for a mixed system--capitalism and socialism. However, certain key-words just don't fly in the USA. It would be like a Republican candidate outright saying "heavy inequality is good". (Some might think that privately, but stating it out loud would sink them in a general election.)
That election had a low turnout because both candidates were unpopular. However, the "s" word would bring the opposition to the polls. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Sanders, only commenting on how politics works in the USA. I don't know why he uses that word; it doesn't help his general electability.
There isn't a politician in Washington right now that doesn't get sick to their stomach thinking about the next election.
Just get somebody drab, predictable, centrist, experienced, and normal. DC & USA need a vacation from drama. Is that asking too much? Seems so these days.
It's not clear what kind of government it is. Like Russia, on paper it looks like a democracy, or close to one, but it's hard to tell what really goes on in terms of freedom of the press, voter intimidation, fake or jailed opposition, etc.
When looking at it from the outside it is clear that Hillary wasn't a good alternative either.
Those who have personally worked with her say she did a good job. The political process always nitpicks and magnifies things. I'd rather have somebody with a careful mouth negotiating than a loose one. I don't believe T's Yosemite Sam negotiation style works well, based on personal experience.
As far as "the emails", a lot of politicians bungle technology, including the current crew and the prior crew. Just make sure you hire good tech guidance.
TFA: government arguments that the paper trails posed a risk to ballot secrecy,
...lots of those are closed source [software] solutions, and many of them were shown to be hackable.
Indeed. All known approaches pose exposure and tamper risks; it's a matter of weighing the level.
Maybe It'll take a bad event to wake them up. Let's hope ethical hackers bust in and leave a harmless but illustrative warning. Change some votes to Mr. Goatse or something. The look on the inspectors' faces when they google it will be priceless.
Most great achievements of civilization are not "profitable".
But the original implication was that basing our space plans on mining will be less expensive than alternatives such as Mars colonies because of the value of the ore.
It's still far cheaper to get precious metals from Earth mines than space, and it doesn't look like that economic reality will change any time soon. Digging and sifting many tons of dirt on Earth is still much less expensive than sifting less dirt on asteroids because big machines are still far easy to build and maintain on the ground than having smaller mining machines on asteroids; plus the huuuuge expense of fuel needed to move stuff into and out of Earth's gravity well.
A permanent Mars colony would be a far more glorious "human" achievement than an asteroid mining operation. Perhaps the original poster believes that asteroid mining will gradually get more efficient if we simply get actual practice, and therefore should put our resources into space mining.
However, I suspect it will take breakthroughs in other technologies, such as AI and/or space elevators, before space mining becomes practical. It may not be worth waiting around for grand inventions such that we should perhaps focus on a Mars colony instead.
the majority of major US Corporations are setting up shop offshore to not pay taxes
China is no tax haven. And, we should change our tax laws to be less dependent on the location of company headquarters. It's difficult to measure and verify what a co. does overseas, so instead make their US tax dependent on what they do in the US.
By 2035 China and the BRICS will rule and the US will become a 3rd world...
Considering all that's happened, the US is still quite the top dog. China is our biggest rival, but their per capita GDP is about $15k versus $60k in the US. True, their sheer population size magnifies any trade or military threat, but that just means they have a big population, not that USA is going to heck in a handbasket. I don't see their threat as big as the Cold War. US and Soviet Union were on hair-trigger notice back then; it was scary, with too many close calls.
And past growth is no guarantee of future growth. Things change. China has a history of big political turmoil and revolutions.
I wonder why the left is so violent and dystopian nowadays. I guess losing lots of elections will do that.
Dystopia-fearing voters is a large part of why T won: factories closing, growing trade imbalances, excess PC, "strange" immigrants corrupting/overridding evangelism and/or turning into terrorists. (These are alleged by the way, I'm not confirming nor denying them here.)
One could argue that increased polarization makes the other side more fearful when the other side is in power.
Gives him more time to golf, Tweet, and eat Happy Meals while watching TV in bed.
T: "Alexa, get Mexico to pay for the wall, fire Mueller, and call Rocket Man a random new name. Better yet, get Mueller, Rocket Man, AND Mexico to pay for the wall!"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a luddite, I'm a cow. Mooo!
K9 has a laser nose and a USB tongue (or was it the other way around?)
People used to make clothing out of AOL CDs. Crooks can just make them out of thumb drives now.
The problem is that Sanders goes by the "socialist" label, and that gets middle-America's panties in a bunch. He's not really a socialist, but rather for a mixed system--capitalism and socialism. However, certain key-words just don't fly in the USA. It would be like a Republican candidate outright saying "heavy inequality is good". (Some might think that privately, but stating it out loud would sink them in a general election.)
That election had a low turnout because both candidates were unpopular. However, the "s" word would bring the opposition to the polls. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Sanders, only commenting on how politics works in the USA. I don't know why he uses that word; it doesn't help his general electability.
Just get somebody drab, predictable, centrist, experienced, and normal. DC & USA need a vacation from drama. Is that asking too much? Seems so these days.
That's scary, because the USA often follows what UK does after enough bad apples do their bad apple deeds.
Gee, maybe if we put our blogs inside of guns, they'll be protected?
It's not clear what kind of government it is. Like Russia, on paper it looks like a democracy, or close to one, but it's hard to tell what really goes on in terms of freedom of the press, voter intimidation, fake or jailed opposition, etc.
In the White House?
Those who have personally worked with her say she did a good job. The political process always nitpicks and magnifies things. I'd rather have somebody with a careful mouth negotiating than a loose one. I don't believe T's Yosemite Sam negotiation style works well, based on personal experience.
As far as "the emails", a lot of politicians bungle technology, including the current crew and the prior crew. Just make sure you hire good tech guidance.
Windows 8.1 is not that old. Isn't this premature?
What sources are acceptable to you?
Maybe they'll invent Schrodinger's Canary.
A plot to get China to install Windows 10 on their subs to weaken them. Brilliant!
(IKWYRM)
Indeed. All known approaches pose exposure and tamper risks; it's a matter of weighing the level.
Maybe It'll take a bad event to wake them up. Let's hope ethical hackers bust in and leave a harmless but illustrative warning. Change some votes to Mr. Goatse or something. The look on the inspectors' faces when they google it will be priceless.
Fox Translation: "Scientists Suck"
We are overdue for a recession. I warned you.
We have a leader competitive with them in that arena also. #MALA!
But the original implication was that basing our space plans on mining will be less expensive than alternatives such as Mars colonies because of the value of the ore.
It's still far cheaper to get precious metals from Earth mines than space, and it doesn't look like that economic reality will change any time soon. Digging and sifting many tons of dirt on Earth is still much less expensive than sifting less dirt on asteroids because big machines are still far easy to build and maintain on the ground than having smaller mining machines on asteroids; plus the huuuuge expense of fuel needed to move stuff into and out of Earth's gravity well.
A permanent Mars colony would be a far more glorious "human" achievement than an asteroid mining operation. Perhaps the original poster believes that asteroid mining will gradually get more efficient if we simply get actual practice, and therefore should put our resources into space mining.
However, I suspect it will take breakthroughs in other technologies, such as AI and/or space elevators, before space mining becomes practical. It may not be worth waiting around for grand inventions such that we should perhaps focus on a Mars colony instead.
China is no tax haven. And, we should change our tax laws to be less dependent on the location of company headquarters. It's difficult to measure and verify what a co. does overseas, so instead make their US tax dependent on what they do in the US.
Considering all that's happened, the US is still quite the top dog. China is our biggest rival, but their per capita GDP is about $15k versus $60k in the US. True, their sheer population size magnifies any trade or military threat, but that just means they have a big population, not that USA is going to heck in a handbasket. I don't see their threat as big as the Cold War. US and Soviet Union were on hair-trigger notice back then; it was scary, with too many close calls.
And past growth is no guarantee of future growth. Things change. China has a history of big political turmoil and revolutions.
Dystopia-fearing voters is a large part of why T won: factories closing, growing trade imbalances, excess PC, "strange" immigrants corrupting/overridding evangelism and/or turning into terrorists. (These are alleged by the way, I'm not confirming nor denying them here.)
One could argue that increased polarization makes the other side more fearful when the other side is in power.
It's missing a key device diver.
I don't know about that; if anyone can build the ultimate insult-bot, he can.
Gives him more time to golf, Tweet, and eat Happy Meals while watching TV in bed.
T: "Alexa, get Mexico to pay for the wall, fire Mueller, and call Rocket Man a random new name. Better yet, get Mueller, Rocket Man, AND Mexico to pay for the wall!"
Alexa: "[beep] Sure thing boss, I'm on it..."
It'll be h-h-h-huuuge, b-b-b-belive me! Best AI ev-v-v-v-ver!