How do murder rates compare between the countries (not just for "gun violence")? Really, we should include deaths due to all criminal activity whether or not violence was reported.
Also, what are the trends for deaths due to criminal activity/violence between the countries? Have changes in "gun laws" shown significant effects?
And as always, how many deaths have occurred due to the right to self defense provided by the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment compared to deaths due to armys and police forces acting on behalf of powerful governments?
When you write "you haven't thought it through," you just underscore how little you've thought it through. Start with basic facts. The indictment is for fraud, identity theft, and working as an unregistered alien.
Flooding social media with "disinformation" is not a crime. It's not even a crime to use network news to spread propaganda. If these were crimes, you might be forced to read the facts and formulate your own opinion instead of parroting whatever "the box" tells you.
Republican politicians are paid not to understand that utilities such as Comcast and Verizon were heavily subsidized by taxpayers to create the foundation of their service, and hence need to be regulated so that they don't just do whatever the heck they want to make the most coin for themselves.
And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
Not saying Democratic politicians are more ethical, but their traditional big money interest (organized labor) is frankly dying anyway.
The Democrats are now very well funded by big money (remember Hillary's versus Trump's campaign chests?). Think Google/Alphabet or Amazon (Washington Post). The days of labor vs. capital are long gone.
Since you strayed into "gun control," how many millions of people have been killed by U.S. citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? Now how many millions of people have been killed by guns wielded by soldiers in the employ of governments? Was the U.S. "Civil War" started by people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights or, was it caused by inflammatory propaganda and refusal of political factions to compromise?
We don't need "gun control." We need propaganda control. Before we even consider regulating internet framework providers, we should be regulating internet content providers. We need to be sure we are not being driven towards a real civil war by wealthy propagandists.
The Russian based internet marketing company's budget was over $1 million per month. They weren't spending that on political advertising in the U.S. That was the budget for all their operations including those that had nothing to do with the U.S. election. The indictment doesn't specify who was paying the marketing company for media related to the U.S. election but it's likely that it was PACs looking for an inexpensive way to get their message out.
When you type "conspiracy sites" you do mean "vast right-wing conspiracy" sites--don't you?
I hope you can get the joke.
If not, Google is your friend.
Btw, when DJT first announced he was running for POTUS, rational persons, who were unfamiliar with his personal history, thought he was running as a publicity stunt. Remember (or look it up), he was previously a registered Democrat before he switched parties to run in the Republican primary.
Qanon's posts are only interesting to genuine nerds. Slashdot has been overrun by normies... or maybe they're pod people. Well, whatever, nerds on Slashdot seems to be a disappearing breed.
The fact that our elections are free and open enough AND THEY KNOW they can influence them through social media meddling,.
Fixed that for ya
The Russian social media meddling was rather low budget and they likely got what the paid for.
A much more expensive but much more effective way to meddle in an election is to manipulate content on television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS,...) and manipulate the results of highly regarded polls in order to demoralize supporters of a candidate. Tens (or hundreds) of millions of people are exposed to network media every day.
Anyhow, the demoralization of a candidate's supporters isn't likely to influence their voting preference but it is likely to influence whether or not and, how much, they donate to their preferred candidate's campaign. Who wants to put their money on a sure loser?
The candidate with the smaller campaign chest is less able to buy media coverage to influence voters who haven't already made a firm choice. Thus the candidate, who's been targeted by network media for negative coverage, will lose potential voters.
In American politics there's no such thing. You are blue or red. Any alternative viewpoint or idea that you could meet in the middle is heresy. Any deviation from the party line needs to be punished.
JavaScript interpreters will run really horribly messy code but you can paste your JavaScript code into jslint.com and it will tell you how to fix your code so that it will be much more readable and maintainable.
All that's needed to learn to program is internet access and a modern web browser: 1. Use the web browser to run JavaScript. 2. Use w3schools, for example, for a JavaScript tutor. 3. Use jslint.com to help you write clean JavaScript code.
Ok, you've read the "dossier." Then you know it looks like something from the Onion, You should know it's still in "largely unverified" status (meaning it names people and places that really exist but the events described in it are not verified).
We do not know who Steele's sources were. We do not know whether they were from the FSB, FBI/CIA, DOJ, U.S. Department of State, etc.
I'm not going to click on the Newspeak link. Why don't you provide a summary of what's at the link?
What will you say when the Trump administration uses a "dossier" to surveil their opposition in the 2020 election?
If the Democrats on the HPSCI had evidence that FISA warrants were obtained under un-impeachable circumstances then, why did they wait to publish their findings until after the Republicans published their summary memo? Really. Why wait?
How and why could the the dossier (have you read it?) be used, in any capacity, without un-impeachable verification, to get a FISA warrant to surveil a presidential campaign and administration?
What will you say when Trump's administration uses FISA warrants to surveil the Democrat candidate in 2020?
In my country we say: a dog is trying to bite its tail. In this case Julian escaped an extradition to Sweden for a crime in Sweden which was not committed. So the order for extradition shoudn't exist anymore, as the basis for it has volatized.
Yes. If it was Julian Assange before he became a big problem for the U.S. government, he would be a free man now. It's funny, he was a darling of the American Left until Wikileaks became a problem for Hillary. The multiple comments repeating the "rape" charge and "bail" problem is very disturbing. It seems that Slashdotters are unable to use a search engine and are speaking power to truth.
...the electoral college....is an obsolete 18th century election result manipulation instrument...
It's amazing how so many apparently smart people do not understand the "electoral college." It lessens the chance that the President is selected only by the voters of a few metropolises. Anyhow, if you didn't learn about the "electoral college" in school you can learn about it at Wikipedia (assuming there's a good article for it there that hasn't been vandalized by anti-American ideologues).
Maybe a nice project for someone doing a thesis would be to quantify the pro vs anti Trump posts and moderating. Are there more pro or anti? Do the biased posts and moderations follow a chronological pattern? Could "'bots" be involved?...?
To get modded up, you should put your anti-Trump rant at the beginning of your post. The anti-Trump moderators don't read past the first sentence. The first sentence of your post is not obviously anti-Trump.
1. The U.S. has "tradition" of democracy. It is legally a constitutional republic. Bush/Clinton legacies seem anti-republican (note the small "r") though... 2. You do not seem to understand the "electoral college." I'm assuming from your comment that you are intelligent enough to understand the college and its value. I believe there is a good Wikipedia entry you can read to learn out about the EC and its value. You should read it. 3. Ad hominens undermine your argument. Stick to the pertinent facts. The poster's history has nothing to do with the value of "its" argument here.
Hillary Clinton's campaign paid foreign agent Christopher Steele to purchase information from Russian agents with the goal of creating a dossier damaging Donald Trump's reputation.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, cite the law — the article and the verse — you allege has been violated. I'll wait.
The de facto law is that the party with the highest dudgeon always wins and it's rarely violated.
The news for nerds is that the normies/pod-people are really, really illogical.
Welcome to Costco. I love you.
How do murder rates compare between the countries (not just for "gun violence")? Really, we should include deaths due to all criminal activity whether or not violence was reported.
Also, what are the trends for deaths due to criminal activity/violence between the countries? Have changes in "gun laws" shown significant effects?
And as always, how many deaths have occurred due to the right to self defense provided by the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment compared to deaths due to armys and police forces acting on behalf of powerful governments?
Oh here we go again is right: studies say ...
You ever hear of publication bias?
There ain't no money in showing violent media is correlated to violent behavior.
When you write "you haven't thought it through," you just underscore how little you've thought it through. Start with basic facts. The indictment is for fraud, identity theft, and working as an unregistered alien.
Flooding social media with "disinformation" is not a crime. It's not even a crime to use network news to spread propaganda. If these were crimes, you might be forced to read the facts and formulate your own opinion instead of parroting whatever "the box" tells you.
Republican politicians are paid not to understand that utilities such as Comcast and Verizon were heavily subsidized by taxpayers to create the foundation of their service, and hence need to be regulated so that they don't just do whatever the heck they want to make the most coin for themselves.
And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
Not saying Democratic politicians are more ethical, but their traditional big money interest (organized labor) is frankly dying anyway.
The Democrats are now very well funded by big money (remember Hillary's versus Trump's campaign chests?). Think Google/Alphabet or Amazon (Washington Post). The days of labor vs. capital are long gone.
Since you strayed into "gun control," how many millions of people have been killed by U.S. citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? Now how many millions of people have been killed by guns wielded by soldiers in the employ of governments? Was the U.S. "Civil War" started by people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights or, was it caused by inflammatory propaganda and refusal of political factions to compromise?
We don't need "gun control." We need propaganda control. Before we even consider regulating internet framework providers, we should be regulating internet content providers. We need to be sure we are not being driven towards a real civil war by wealthy propagandists.
The Russian based internet marketing company's budget was over $1 million per month. They weren't spending that on political advertising in the U.S. That was the budget for all their operations including those that had nothing to do with the U.S. election. The indictment doesn't specify who was paying the marketing company for media related to the U.S. election but it's likely that it was PACs looking for an inexpensive way to get their message out.
When you type "conspiracy sites" you do mean "vast right-wing conspiracy" sites--don't you?
I hope you can get the joke.
If not, Google is your friend.
Btw, when DJT first announced he was running for POTUS, rational persons, who were unfamiliar with his personal history, thought he was running as a publicity stunt. Remember (or look it up), he was previously a registered Democrat before he switched parties to run in the Republican primary.
Qanon's posts are only interesting to genuine nerds. Slashdot has been overrun by normies ... or maybe they're pod people. Well, whatever, nerds on Slashdot seems to be a disappearing breed.
The fact that our elections are free and open enough AND THEY KNOW they can influence them through social media meddling,.
Fixed that for ya
The Russian social media meddling was rather low budget and they likely got what the paid for.
A much more expensive but much more effective way to meddle in an election is to manipulate content on television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, ...) and manipulate the results of highly regarded polls in order to demoralize supporters of a candidate. Tens (or hundreds) of millions of people are exposed to network media every day.
Anyhow, the demoralization of a candidate's supporters isn't likely to influence their voting preference but it is likely to influence whether or not and, how much, they donate to their preferred candidate's campaign. Who wants to put their money on a sure loser?
The candidate with the smaller campaign chest is less able to buy media coverage to influence voters who haven't already made a firm choice. Thus the candidate, who's been targeted by network media for negative coverage, will lose potential voters.
were anywhere close to neutral
In American politics there's no such thing. You are blue or red. Any alternative viewpoint or idea that you could meet in the middle is heresy. Any deviation from the party line needs to be punished.
Democracy at its finest.
That is red-pilled vs blue-pilled.
JavaScript interpreters will run really horribly messy code but you can paste your JavaScript code into jslint.com and it will tell you how to fix your code so that it will be much more readable and maintainable.
All that's needed to learn to program is internet access and a modern web browser:
1. Use the web browser to run JavaScript.
2. Use w3schools, for example, for a JavaScript tutor.
3. Use jslint.com to help you write clean JavaScript code.
Ok, you've read the "dossier." Then you know it looks like something from the Onion, You should know it's still in "largely unverified" status (meaning it names people and places that really exist but the events described in it are not verified).
We do not know who Steele's sources were. We do not know whether they were from the FSB, FBI/CIA, DOJ, U.S. Department of State, etc.
I'm not going to click on the Newspeak link. Why don't you provide a summary of what's at the link?
What will you say when the Trump administration uses a "dossier" to surveil their opposition in the 2020 election?
If the Democrats on the HPSCI had evidence that FISA warrants were obtained under un-impeachable circumstances then, why did they wait to publish their findings until after the Republicans published their summary memo? Really. Why wait?
How and why could the the dossier (have you read it?) be used, in any capacity, without un-impeachable verification, to get a FISA warrant to surveil a presidential campaign and administration?
What will you say when Trump's administration uses FISA warrants to surveil the Democrat candidate in 2020?
In my country we say: a dog is trying to bite its tail. In this case Julian escaped an extradition to Sweden for a crime in Sweden which was not committed. So the order for extradition shoudn't exist anymore, as the basis for it has volatized.
Yes. If it was Julian Assange before he became a big problem for the U.S. government, he would be a free man now. It's funny, he was a darling of the American Left until Wikileaks became a problem for Hillary. The multiple comments repeating the "rape" charge and "bail" problem is very disturbing. It seems that Slashdotters are unable to use a search engine and are speaking power to truth.
We live in interesting times.
...the electoral college. ...is an obsolete 18th century election result manipulation instrument...
It's amazing how so many apparently smart people do not understand the "electoral college." It lessens the chance that the President is selected only by the voters of a few metropolises. Anyhow, if you didn't learn about the "electoral college" in school you can learn about it at Wikipedia (assuming there's a good article for it there that hasn't been vandalized by anti-American ideologues).
...effective governance...
The Roman Catholic Church has survived for millenia. Very effective. Maybe we should emulate their manner of selecting leaders.
Maybe a nice project for someone doing a thesis would be to quantify the pro vs anti Trump posts and moderating. Are there more pro or anti? Do the biased posts and moderations follow a chronological pattern? Could "'bots" be involved? ...?
To get modded up, you should put your anti-Trump rant at the beginning of your post. The anti-Trump moderators don't read past the first sentence. The first sentence of your post is not obviously anti-Trump.
1. The U.S. has "tradition" of democracy. It is legally a constitutional republic. Bush/Clinton legacies seem anti-republican (note the small "r") though...
2. You do not seem to understand the "electoral college." I'm assuming from your comment that you are intelligent enough to understand the college and its value. I believe there is a good Wikipedia entry you can read to learn out about the EC and its value. You should read it.
3. Ad hominens undermine your argument. Stick to the pertinent facts. The poster's history has nothing to do with the value of "its" argument here.
Guns drawn and video leaked to TV news? Sounds like an FBI operation. Did they crash through his door at dawn too?
Hillary Clinton's campaign paid foreign agent Christopher Steele to purchase information from Russian agents with the goal of creating a dossier damaging Donald Trump's reputation.
Collusion?
Conspiracy?
FISA warrant abuse?
By "people with money" you must mean people:
1. Jeff Bezos ...
2. Bill Gates
3. Warren Buffet
4. Mark Zuckerberg
World's Richest
Excellent comment!
If Bush 43, the fake good ole boy, is agin' it then I am for it.