Yes, there is much to celebrate tonight. Donald Trump's campaign chairman, deputy campaign chair, National Security adviser, and personal attorney have all been guilty in a court of law, his two sons and oldest daughter are now being investigated by the New York department of revenue and attorney general for fraud regarding the "Trump Foundation" (Donald himself was also named in the suit and investigation) and both his private attorney and publisher David Pecker of the National Enquirer have implicated him in multiple felonies.
What's not to celebrate? We're seeing history in the making. I was a little kid during Watergate and I watched one corrupt president slink away from office, and it's looking increasingly like I'll have the opportunity to see a second.
Plus, I live in the best part of the best state in the union, it's a beautiful night and I can see the Milky Way from my porch. So fuck yeah, I'm drinking.
Here in Arizona we have paper ballots that get read through an optical reader and saved in a box
This is not about the ballot. If you read the summary, you'll see California is already using paper ballots. It's about what happens to the data after it leaves the optical scanner. How it's reported, tabulated, stored.
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone? At $40/month? No.
The Santa Clara Fire Department doesn't have the $40/month plan. They are a big, well-equipped department with at least a dozen firehouses and hundreds and hundreds of firefighters, plus volunteers.
California leading the way once again. While Georgia is closing polling stations in majority-black counties, California demonstrates how to have fair and honest elections. And guess what? When the elections are fair and open and all the citizens get to vote, you get good government.
It's a reference to a famous American novel by Richard Condon, and the Oscar-winning movie that was made from it, the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, about how hostile foreign powers (Russia and North Korea) brainwashed and controlled a presidential candidate. It is not about race.
Let me correct an error I made in my haste: In the book, Russia and China brainwash an Army intelligence officer (played by Frank Sinatra in the movie) to get him to assassinate a young and popular candidate (Laurence Harvey) who is being controlled by his overbearing mother (a terrific Angela Lansbury) who is trying to engineer the election of a Trump-like ideologue, played by James Gregory at his most unctuous. The movie is much better than the novel. "
When the plot is revealed, the Trump-like ideologuej promises that if elected, he will start a crackdown on dissent and "make martial law seem like anarchy". It doesn't end well for him, or the mother, or the assassin.
Calling someone Manchurian today is racist as fuck, bit for some strange reason your account doesn't get deleted for it.
So, you're saying no one could make a reference to one of the most famous political thrillers of the 20th century because you believe the title is racist?
I believe you are the first person I have ever heard complain about The Manchurian Candidate being somehow racist.
I just don't get how people are able to make such obviously racist comments and get modded up for them. Manchurian what? Why don't you dye your skin and slant your eyes while you're at it, like that man in "Breakfast at Tiffany's"?
It's a reference to a famous American novel by Richard Condon, and the Oscar-winning movie that was made from it, the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, about how hostile foreign powers (Russia and North Korea) brainwashed and controlled a presidential candidate. It is not about race.
I can understand your not being familiar with it, because it was banned in Russia during the Cold War when you were growing up.
It couldn't be that people seriously voted for Trump.
That reminds me: where is the "Trump is going to prison" Anonymous Coward guy? After the events of the day, he might actually be on to something, and I expected that he would be around here tonight crowing about the Manchurian Cantaloupe being implicated in a crime and names as an unindicted co-conspirator by his own long-time personal attorney.
I'm trying to figure out the source of your handle... I'm remembering a funny comic on the Web about 15 years back. Any connection?
The story behind my nickname is in my Slashdot bio. But the short version is it's a childhood nickname (I was an altar boy, so "Pope") I had growing up in Chicago's Little Italy.
Every conservative I know believes that utilities have a special duty to the public.
And every conservative I know would say that you've got a long way to go if you want to successfully assert that Facebook is a "utility".
Words have meaning, lgw. They may not be the ones you want them to have, but it doesn't mean that you can just start naming things arbitrarily according to your political agenda.
If an ISP is not a "utility" (which you have asserted in the past), then certainly Facebook cannot be one.
While Facebook is deriving some revenue from advertising, I don't think the ad revenue is important.
In 2017, Facebook took in $40 BILLION in revenue. Of that, $39.9 BILLION was from digital advertising. So, yeah, I would say $39.9 BILLION is pretty important.
The Zuck suffers from the delusion that the insanely inflated stock price of Facebook shares can keep growing forever. After all, stock price is just a matter of opinion.
Facebook stock price today is almost exactly the same as it was 1 year ago today. That's a long time for a stock price to be "insanely inflated". With $40 BILLION revenue, that stock price is pretty darn good. In fact, some might argue it's cheap. That is a LOT of revenue.
The public rates them on whether they lie and engage in dishonest (at least) behavior.
My point is that they're a business. Their customers love them. Who cares what "the public" thinks of their trustworthiness as long as they keep forking over their private lives for resale?
The idea that Facebook has some special duty "to the public" flies in the face of every conservative principle about corporate existence and the law. I guess I'm just trying to encourage those hypocrites to expose themselves now publicly.
If you want to argue that there should be special regulations requiring corporations to operate "in the public interest", then we have something to discuss. In fact, Senator Warren has just introduced a bill in Congress to do just that and all the conservatives are scoffing, because they believe the only duty a corporation has is to the shareholders.
Who is going to rate Facebook's 'trustworthiness'? Anyone....anyone??
Their customers. The same people who rate the trustworthiness of any company. And since you may not know this, Facebook's customers are the people who buy targeted advertising and pay for your data, like Cambridge Analytica.
Facebook's users are not their customers. They are just voluntary donors of their personal information and eyeballs. They have no business relationship with Facebook.
Because it could never be as simple as he believes censorship is wrong.
How likely is it that a guy who incites his own mob to attack the press is a supporter of free speech? Or a guy who makes a list of former intelligence officers who he's going to punish based upon whether or not they criticized him?
Fuck you. Trump doesn't care fuck-all about free speech. Remember how envious he was of how Kim Jong Un could get everyone to sit up and pay attention?
but the real concern for the companies is once they start down a route of saying what views can and can't appear they are opening a never ending problem for themselves and possibly risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
If they're willing to take that possible risk, who are you to say they can't?
Maybe so, but I believe we should have a law that Critical Internet Platforms such as Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBnb, Netflix, etc. Do not have the right and may not permanently ban a natural person nor suspend for an extended period from their platform.
So, you really want to nationalize every big corporation? I don't think you want to do that.
Don't lump in Tesla with Google and Amazon. Tesla is a green company and has a mission to save the environment and the planet. They would never do this just to save some money.
Now that I know Elon Musk is into entheogens, I'm much more inclined to like him. I didn't really care for him before, but now that I know he's just really, really high, I think he's kind of alright.
I say again. After tax breaks and all other leaching, does it really make sense for us to allure these huge companies to cities if there is no net benefit for the city?
Luring big corporations to cities with tax money only benefits a) the company and b) the politicians who took campaign donations to lure the company in the first place.
And yes, that includes professional sports franchises. The benefits to an area are always overestimated. Every single time.
It doesn't. Completely stupid idea. Google is full of stupid ideas, but they have a lot of employees so they need to keep looking like they are busy doing stuff.
That's why Google is a failing company with terrible ratings! Witch hunt!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is much to celebrate tonight. Donald Trump's campaign chairman, deputy campaign chair, National Security adviser, and personal attorney have all been guilty in a court of law, his two sons and oldest daughter are now being investigated by the New York department of revenue and attorney general for fraud regarding the "Trump Foundation" (Donald himself was also named in the suit and investigation) and both his private attorney and publisher David Pecker of the National Enquirer have implicated him in multiple felonies.
What's not to celebrate? We're seeing history in the making. I was a little kid during Watergate and I watched one corrupt president slink away from office, and it's looking increasingly like I'll have the opportunity to see a second.
Plus, I live in the best part of the best state in the union, it's a beautiful night and I can see the Milky Way from my porch. So fuck yeah, I'm drinking.
This is not about the ballot. If you read the summary, you'll see California is already using paper ballots. It's about what happens to the data after it leaves the optical scanner. How it's reported, tabulated, stored.
The Santa Clara Fire Department doesn't have the $40/month plan. They are a big, well-equipped department with at least a dozen firehouses and hundreds and hundreds of firefighters, plus volunteers.
California leading the way once again. While Georgia is closing polling stations in majority-black counties, California demonstrates how to have fair and honest elections. And guess what? When the elections are fair and open and all the citizens get to vote, you get good government.
Let me correct an error I made in my haste: In the book, Russia and China brainwash an Army intelligence officer (played by Frank Sinatra in the movie) to get him to assassinate a young and popular candidate (Laurence Harvey) who is being controlled by his overbearing mother (a terrific Angela Lansbury) who is trying to engineer the election of a Trump-like ideologue, played by James Gregory at his most unctuous. The movie is much better than the novel. "
When the plot is revealed, the Trump-like ideologuej promises that if elected, he will start a crackdown on dissent and "make martial law seem like anarchy". It doesn't end well for him, or the mother, or the assassin.
So, you're saying no one could make a reference to one of the most famous political thrillers of the 20th century because you believe the title is racist?
I believe you are the first person I have ever heard complain about The Manchurian Candidate being somehow racist.
No, dummy. It's not about race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's a reference to a famous American novel by Richard Condon, and the Oscar-winning movie that was made from it, the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, about how hostile foreign powers (Russia and North Korea) brainwashed and controlled a presidential candidate. It is not about race.
I can understand your not being familiar with it, because it was banned in Russia during the Cold War when you were growing up.
Well, one of us has to stand up for the cause of liberty, and in this case, it's not going to be you apparently.
OK, you modded me down, but don't pretend you didn't laugh a little bit when you read, "the Manchurian Cantaloupe".
See? I saw you smile a little just now when you read it again. You can't help yourself because it's funny. My work here is done for the night.
That reminds me: where is the "Trump is going to prison" Anonymous Coward guy? After the events of the day, he might actually be on to something, and I expected that he would be around here tonight crowing about the Manchurian Cantaloupe being implicated in a crime and names as an unindicted co-conspirator by his own long-time personal attorney.
Ah, these are the good old days.
No problem. I'm all in favor of the "last mile" to Facebook being regulated as a utility.
The story behind my nickname is in my Slashdot bio. But the short version is it's a childhood nickname (I was an altar boy, so "Pope") I had growing up in Chicago's Little Italy.
And every conservative I know would say that you've got a long way to go if you want to successfully assert that Facebook is a "utility".
Words have meaning, lgw. They may not be the ones you want them to have, but it doesn't mean that you can just start naming things arbitrarily according to your political agenda.
If an ISP is not a "utility" (which you have asserted in the past), then certainly Facebook cannot be one.
In 2017, Facebook took in $40 BILLION in revenue. Of that, $39.9 BILLION was from digital advertising. So, yeah, I would say $39.9 BILLION is pretty important.
Facebook stock price today is almost exactly the same as it was 1 year ago today. That's a long time for a stock price to be "insanely inflated". With $40 BILLION revenue, that stock price is pretty darn good. In fact, some might argue it's cheap. That is a LOT of revenue.
My point is that they're a business. Their customers love them. Who cares what "the public" thinks of their trustworthiness as long as they keep forking over their private lives for resale?
The idea that Facebook has some special duty "to the public" flies in the face of every conservative principle about corporate existence and the law. I guess I'm just trying to encourage those hypocrites to expose themselves now publicly.
If you want to argue that there should be special regulations requiring corporations to operate "in the public interest", then we have something to discuss. In fact, Senator Warren has just introduced a bill in Congress to do just that and all the conservatives are scoffing, because they believe the only duty a corporation has is to the shareholders.
Their customers. The same people who rate the trustworthiness of any company. And since you may not know this, Facebook's customers are the people who buy targeted advertising and pay for your data, like Cambridge Analytica.
Facebook's users are not their customers. They are just voluntary donors of their personal information and eyeballs. They have no business relationship with Facebook.
How funny is it that the only analogue you could find to the President of the United States' behavior is a group of anarchists.
Tells you everything you need to know about Trump.
How likely is it that a guy who incites his own mob to attack the press is a supporter of free speech? Or a guy who makes a list of former intelligence officers who he's going to punish based upon whether or not they criticized him?
Fuck you. Trump doesn't care fuck-all about free speech. Remember how envious he was of how Kim Jong Un could get everyone to sit up and pay attention?
If they're willing to take that possible risk, who are you to say they can't?
So, you really want to nationalize every big corporation? I don't think you want to do that.
Now that I know Elon Musk is into entheogens, I'm much more inclined to like him. I didn't really care for him before, but now that I know he's just really, really high, I think he's kind of alright.
Luring big corporations to cities with tax money only benefits a) the company and b) the politicians who took campaign donations to lure the company in the first place.
And yes, that includes professional sports franchises. The benefits to an area are always overestimated. Every single time.
Welcome to the movement, comrade. Are you ready to start lopping some CEO heads with us now, or are you going to just bend over and take it?
That's why Google is a failing company with terrible ratings! Witch hunt!