With respect to "Russian hacking" IF as Every body say its the Russians Why would Trump say We don't know if it is the Russians?

HE and Hillary both get intelligence briefings now. He has no reason not to go along with this line.

Maybe the briefing indicated some other country but publicly they can't say?


I think that Israel could be behind this. If they were the ones then the USA could never publicly admit it. Buy why you ask?

The Obama presidential election team has set up camp in Tel Aviv with the mission to defeat Netanyahu in their upcoming election.

The “Anyone but Bibi” mission is headed by Jeremy Bird, Obama’s National Field Director in his successful presidential campaigns.

This was funded through the State Department..


Could it be that Israel could be behind the hacked emails as a FU to OBAMA/ Clinton/ State Department?

Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.

Your video, Bill Murray Crashes White House Briefing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Shit I'm fine. Older, but fine. I'm going to be fucking 50 next January, if you can believe that shit. And my son graduates from high school next year too. Hell, you must be settling into your mid 30s, I estimate. Getting pumped for that mid-life crisis? Good times, let me tell ya. You still with Gen (or is it Jen)? Or are you out grabbing chicks by their pussies? I hear that's a thing these days. I've had a few brief relationships in the last several years, but I'm single now, and I don't see myself ever marrying again. Relationships are too much work for me anymore, and I really don't want to change my lifestyle to accommodate someone else. Pretty selfish sentiment, I know, but why should I sacrifice watching cartoons all evening in exchange for semi-regular sex? That's why God invented masturbation, my friend.

Well, that's basically it. What's up with you?

\

Published on Apr 14, 2016

The aerobatics skills of Russian pilots over the US destroyer Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea left the Pentagon and other US official running for cover in Washington over “aggressive close interactions” with Russian fighters jets.
Trends
Russia-NATO relations
Releasing the footage of Russian jet flybys in the vicinity of the destroyer, the US Navy said that its vessel has encountered multiple “aggressive flight maneuvers ...within close proximity of the ship,” some as close as 30 feet (10 meters) on Monday and Tuesday.

The set of incidents took place as the US ship, which had sailed from the Polish port of Gdynia, was conducting exercises with its NATO ally Poland in the Baltic Sea. The Navy announced that the SU-24 first flew over Donald Cook on Monday as US sailors were rehearsing “deck landing drills with an allied [Polish] military helicopter”. The numerous close-range, low altitude encounters were witnessed at 3:00pm local time, forcing the commander of the ship to suspend helicopter refueling on the deck until the Russian jets departed the area.

The next day, the Navy said, Russia caused concern among US sailors when a Russian KA-27 Helix helicopter flew seven times over the ship at low altitude in international waters at around 5:00pm. Some 40 minutes later, two Russian SU-24 jets allegedly made a further 11 “close-range and low altitude passes”.

“The Russian aircraft flew in a simulated attack profile and failed to respond to repeated safety advisories in both English and Russian. USS Donald Cook’s commanding officer deemed several of these maneuvers as unsafe and unprofessional,” the Navy said.

Judging by the videos released by the US Navy, the sailors were nonplussed by the Russian aerobatic skills. They gathered on the top deck of the destroyer to watch the Russian pilots.

“He is on the deck below the bridge lane...It looks like he’ll be coming in across the flight deck, coming in low, bridge wing level...Over the bow, right turn, over the bow...” the voiceover on the footage states in what looks more like an instructor’s advice on how to maneuver in open waters, rather than the panic that the central command presented it to be. At least on the video no one can be seen running for cover.

According to a US defense official who spoke with Defense News, sailors aboard the Donald Cook claimed that the Russian jets’ low altitude stirred waters and created wake underneath the ship. US personnel on the American vessels, also claimed that Su-24 was “wings clean,” meaning no armaments were present on the Russian jets that could have posed a threat to US operations in the Baltic.

Yet at the same time, the official noted, that this week's incidents are “more aggressive than anything we’ve seen in some time,” as the SU-24 appeared to be flying in a “simulated attack profile.”

The Russian overflights have caused panic over in Washington, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest calling the actions of the Russian pilots “provocative” and “inconsistent with professional norms of militaries.”

“I hear the Russians are up to their old tricks again in the EUCOM [US European Command] AOR [area of responsibility],” Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Steve Warren said during a briefing on Wednesday, adding that the US is “concerned with this behavior.”

“We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers. These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in a miscalculation or accident that could cause serious injury or death,” the US European Command said in a statement.

In the meantime Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, thanked the US crew for keeping their cool during the stressful situation.

“Bravo Zulu to the crew of USS Donald Cook for their initiative and toughness in how they handled themselves during this incident,” the admiral said on Facebook.

Russia has yet to comment on the incidents but most likely the Russian air craft flew from the Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland. Kaliningrad is the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet, which also includes the Chernyakhovsk, Donskoye, and Kaliningrad Chkalovsk air bases.

Description Credits: Russia Today

Video Credits: Defense Media Activity - Navy

I was hoping for more meat to his presentation, and was disappointed. I feel that he said absolutely nothing to help anyone in the audience understand what quantum computers actually DO or what sort of problems they'll help to solve. They'll absolutely not increase your FPS, as that's not what they're well-suited to do. What they are quite excellent at is taking a problem with many possible solutions and finding the correct (or best) one at an extremely high speed.

One example would be the Traveling Salesman problem. In brief, find the optimum route for traversing a number of points on a map. This is useful for things like scheduling package delivery routes, airline flights, etc. With a classic / current computer we write software that cleverly chugs through the possible solutions, throws out any that prove to be poor, and eventually gets to what appears to be the best or is at least a "good enough" solution. As the number of necessary points to be visited increases this problem scales in complexity quickly, so eventually a current computer would just choke on the problem and at best return an ok-ish solution in a reasonable period of time.

A quantum computer is a totally different beast. If it's "big" enough (IE, is comprised of a sufficient number of qubits), it takes the entire set of all possible solutions to the problem, and rather than iterate through them to find the best one, it checks them all simultaneously and immediately returns the optimum solution. It does this by using properties of quantum mechanics, and I think this is where the speaker was drawing his talk of parallel universes. If there are 3 qubits, they would exist as 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, and 111 simultaneously. The software would then define what the best answer would look like, and the computer returns the answer.

You can hopefully see how this totally breaks encryption. With a current computer and a long enough encryption key, an encoded message would take the fastest machines a huge number of years to decipher. With a quantum computer you hand it a gibberish encrypted message, it loads all possible transformations of that message simultaneously, and it then returns the transformation which looks most like a coherent message.

I'm excited to see what these machines can do for us, but they're going to necessitate some significant structural changes in how we handle sensitive data.

1. I just spent 45 minutes reading details of lives of people I have never met. At least, I don't think so. Hmmm.
2. I'm fairly new to VS and I'm marrying the man who introduced me to it.
3. We're getting married tomorrow .
4. This will be my second, and final, marriage.
5. I curse. A lot. My voice tends to carry (or I'm just loud) and this sometimes causes problems...for others.
6. I'm in corporate sales.
7. I'm very good at what I do...but I hate it.
8. I am an introvert. I hide it well. Or so I'm told.
9. I am an avid reader. Anything that catches my interest, so the titles on my bookshelves sometimes baffle people.
10. I have 2 sons who I hope I'm not screwing up too much.
11. I was considered a "troubled youth" and my parents sent me to military school.
12. Then I joined the army. So I guess it worked...but really I just wanted to get away from my state.
13. 5 years later, I came back. And haven't been able to make it out of this black hole for the last 10 years.
14. I smoked for 20 years, with only a few brief periods of quitting.
15. I quit 3 days ago, for the last time.
16. 15 is probably not true. Just to keep it honest.
17. I grew up in a family rife with addiction and dysfunction.
18. We have one of the closest family units I know, now.
19. I am a "grammar nazi," but I probably overuse ... and ( ).
20. I'm a sucker for cop and crime shows.
21. This has made me believe I could probably get away with murder.
22. I would never murder anyone...but I do often contemplate it. Mostly while driving in traffic.
23. I'm seriously considering deleting this post right now, but the beer is telling me not to.
24. I have a real passion for singing...but no talent for it. Cruel, cruel world!
25. I'm hitting submit before proofreading in order not to chicken out, so I apologize for any typos.

I always seen clips and been puzzled by his brief hiatus into stardom. But I never saw his Elvis impersonation...just the high pitched stuff.

Seeing him in action and not just through the speaker made this. Perfect ending!

I remember my brief few months in fast food. They weren't bad at all. I enjoyed myself and the people. You gotta love your job no matter what and make people smile -- when you think of the people you're serving, and you distance yourself from workplace negativity, you'll love every minute of the day.

And when you no longer love enjoy your day -- which is inevitable -- that's a sign that you need to move on to bigger and better things.

Guys like this do their thing and then move on. That's the natural progression of quality employees. Don't get stuck. If you don't put on a show, it's time to move on.

I was a pleasure lounging with you yesterday even though it was brief. Don't be a stranger.

RT is literally called Russia Today a wholly sponsored media channel of the Kremlin, it's like the Fox News of Putin.

Julian Assange is waging a personal war against the Obama/Clinton administration, some Australian hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he won't face rape allegations in Sweden shouldn't be the one to dictate how the American people should vote.

He is implying that Clinton blaming the email leak on Russians means that she will be terrible at foreign policy not mentioning that 3 separate cyber security firms found traces indicating the hack was carried out by Russians. It's so sensitive now. They release proof Russia is dabbling with US elections how will the American people react?

Selectively releasing damaging information against one candidate against another is not just some idealistic truth to power its manipulation of elections. I wouldn't mind if BOTH the DNC and RNC emails get released but this is a very one-sided attack. But think what that scenario even implies. Should all federal government briefings be open to the public because WikiLeaks says so?

Where are the WikiLeaks on Russia's war in Ukraine? Or the assassination of Boris Nemtsov?

Talking to a conspiracy theorist about either the moon landing or the flat earth theory is exasperating. They discredit a scientific theory on the slightest technicality in your brief retelling of it, but if you baulk at their vague one-sentence alternative you're brainwashed.

You can tell them about the retroreflectors, or the satellite images we have of the landing site. You can tell them about sundials, the phases of the moon or constellations.

They don't care - anything can be faked and their definition of "proof" boils down to seeing it with their own naked eye.

It's totally impractical to take everyone up in a Red Bull balloon to see the curvature of the Earth for themselves. Presumably you'd have to take everyone up twice at two locations to show that the circular horizon is not an edge. Or kill two birds with one stone and take them to the moon landing site and back again because nothing less will suffice.

Because if I take them to the most advanced telescope in the world and focus it on the moon landing site - the image could be faked. You could show them how the telescope works, but each component could produce a faked output. The only way they would accept the telescope information is if they built it themselves from raw materials - oh you used a standard electronic device such as a basic motor? Illuminati dude, that thing can produce EM waves that fake the image. You're going to use a Macbook to read the USB output? Are you a shill?

Literally nothing is good enough but they are all, without exception, too fucking lazy to go and prove it to themselves from first principles.

Which is called "getting a degree in physics", where you are also taught to question every step, AKA being "brainwashed".

I just read it.

I get that it's a complicated issue and emotive for many, I've been on the receiving end of abuse myself and I do understand what being "triggered" feels like (not that I think it should change anything outside of a personal context). I also understand that a subject such as this kind of requires some nuance and intelligence if it's going to be tackled comically, without coming across as simply crass.

But, finding some material crass seems like a necessarily consequence of experimentation and having a diverse artistic community. And moreover, Jim's material here didn't come across as crass, or intentionally hurtful to me. (beyond a deliberate faux crassness clearly intended to emphasise the effect of the material)

I can only assume that it cut too close to the bone for your own sensibilities and/or experiences? Or perhaps instead that you are concerned that it might in some way encourage or validate the twisted attitudes of unevolved brutes?

I understand and respect this, but I have always seen such things as my own weaknesses and obstacles to be overcome. By way of example; to me death and cruelty are the ultimate comedic premises. They represent the deepest fears and anxieties inherent in the human condition, and as such conduits to the deepest catharsis.

Life is unfathomably cruel and brief; to find true levity in the darkest reaches of that, I think represents one of the highest and most liberating state a human being can strive for. (the temporary suspension of ego and care)

We all die and awful things can happen at any moment, this for me is the divine joke and I suspect the underlying power of all things we find humorous to a greater and lesser extent. (one could re frame that as "life is pointless and as such hilarious", but it would mean the same here)

I guess after all that self indulgent waffling, I'm saying that I don't think the collateral of other peoples sensibilities should hold back the pursuit of such lofty things. I'm sure Jim wouldn't see it in quite such terms, but in his own small way this is what I think he, like all good artists, is doing.

There will always be Devils and Ignavi but would be Ubermenschen (or if you will Uberdamen) should never pander to such creatures, lest they allow them to pollute the light they seek to create.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Love is the law, love, under the temperance of will.

(That last part is just a lunatics way of saying; never let the fear of the foolish compromise the pursuit of ones highest arts. Life is short, shine brightly and apologise only on your own terms.)

(^ I do unfortunately suck at actually living by the above, because I'm lazy and cowardly)

Apologies for the gender mixup, I'll make a mental note for future reference

Much love.

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

This video has been deemed incorrectly flagged brief (not less than 1 minute in length) - declared notbrief by cricket.