@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It's incredibly chilling to me that your comments got any upvotes at all. Yeah, I get it's a joke. But in the current political climate where people (i.e. Trump and his frighteningly large number of supporters) are actually talking about walling off an entire nation to keep out "undesirables" and killing the relatives of terrorists in some misguided attempt at revenge, it's a joke in poor taste.

Furthermore the anger behind the joke (and there is clearly anger since you guys are joking about sterilizing and killing people) is misguided as well--you put a camera in front of any political supporter and try to goad them into saying something that is clearly in direct opposition to what their party's line is and you're going to get a bullshit answer, regardless of whether you're interviewing a Democratic or Republican.

On that note, it would be interesting to see this same bit at the DNC with the reporter asking questions about gun control and the NRA--I'm sure you'd get some great clips of people being uninformed and stubbornly resistant to facts as well. And make no mistake-- what we're seeing here are the "best of" clips that some editor picked out to show Republicans in the worst possible light. I would really love to see the raw footage and see how the people they chose not to show on TV reacted during the interviews.

TBH the risk isn't that great. In Texas in 2015, a state with a large number of faulty airbags and roughly the same population as Australia, there were 246,335 people injured in motor vehicle crashes but only one Takata airbag death.

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

You're likely correct, that's what they're thinking.
Unfortunately, while the first assumption is probably correct if young voters can't vote for Sanders, she is likely incorrect on the second point. She's not taking into account her own unlikeability rating, which rivals Trump's. People won't come out in large numbers to vote against Trump if they don't think she's a better alternative, and every time her campaign or the DNC does something underhanded she gets a little closer to tying with him for people's hatred and distain.
She also ignores or underestimates how much the Republicans hate her...it's enough to get them to come out and vote for Trump, even though they don't like him at all, just to spite her. Remember, the Republicans are fine being driven by hate and spite, Democrats and Independents at least like to pretend they aren't. That does not bode well for November.

I had to take discrete math for computer science so I got a good grasp of it. It is merely envisioning everything as groups, rather than values. You don't have to DO anything to the groups, just realise what's inside those groups. In the end though it is merely a well organised way of indicating larger numbers for processing, not intended to find a specific number. I'm not sure what practicality there is for organizing the super large numbers like this either.

I get your point, but I feel this is more akin to fixing the ignition but ignoring the fact that there are no brakes on the car. It's all fine to do it that way, unless you put the car on the road before you fix it all.
I just fear that leaving these laws (or portions thereof) in effect means they will be used and abused to abuse people, as they have been used in the past. I find them disgusting attempts to make homosexuality illegal, and leaving them on the books also indicated it's immoral by the states measure. That needs to be fixed, as it dehumanizes a large number of people for nothing.
I hope someone WILL pick this up as a battle worth fighting. I don't want my tax dollars going to support homophobic, illegal, immoral laws, their use, or even their removal by the courts when it would be so simple and reasonable to have taken care of it as they re-wrote the law. It's abhorrent to me that it's assumed that just bringing this issue up would end debate and halt the bill...it's likely reality, but it's disgusting.

To be clear, it doesn't effect me. I live in Cali, and I'm not getting any anal anyway (giving or receiving), but no oral?!? Screw that, yo. I'm sure glad Cali lets me get my freak on.

I wonder, what percentage of the "2%" of "scientists" that were not convinced of anthropomorphic climate change have also changed their positions?
When deniers claim the science isn't settled, can we now tell them they are a decade behind the times because those few they point to as 'the large number of scientists that don't believe in climate change' have all changed their positions or left the scientific field completely?
Not that many here need to be convinced, but we do have a few holdouts....so *promote

From what I've seen in the perfectly statistically representative grouping of posters in whatever internet fora I visit: there are a large number of Sanders supporters who, quite properly in my view, despise Hillary Clinton.

I don't know if he was giving her the finger, although she did cut him off to some degree.

From what I can tell, the report is about a large number of illegal immigrants who just got caught living under false names in the apartment block there, which tends to be an emotional issue across the globe. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what was getting to him.

It could otherwise just be someone behind the camera, or someone talking in his ear while he was trying to introduce the spot.

Someone with better Russian might be able to confirm/deny my wild unfounded allegations.

They used to say the same thing about Trump, but I think the RNC is finally starting to relent and starting to accept Trump even though they didn't want him originally. When it comes to primaries, votes do not matter.

I just don't think it really matters. I think most of the polls have agreed so far that in almost every possible match up....regardless of which republican, regardless of which democrat. Democrat wins.

Palin and Trump may rally the base, but they rally more people to vote against them. If McCain had picked just about anyone else for VP. I think he might have won. I think Palin made a large number of Republicans stay home and a large number of Democrats to come out to vote. I think the only thing that made it a semi close race (popular vote wise, not electorally) was that Obama was black and that made the racists come out in droves to vote against him. Fortunately, racism is slowly slowly dying. I'm also sure there were some die hard Hillary fans that were still pissed that Obama got the nod so they stayed home.

I think Trump is going to be a repeat of that. Islamaphobes and everyone who despises minorities will vote Trump, but more people (Republicans as well) will vote against him. And again, it might be sorta close because whoever will get the Democrat nod, there will be the die hard fans of the other person who will stay home.

That's my take on it so far anyway. It's the Democrats' race to lose. They've been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the past.

I didn't even notice they were butchering the camel until I read the comments. And then I watched it again and I was horrified.

But then I thought about why I was horrified and it really has more to do with the fact that we simply don't see where our meat comes from anymore in society. If I want some turkey for Christmas dinner, I can just head to the grocery store and buy one that's ready to cook (or already cooked). I don't have to go out in the backyard and chop one's head off, bleed it, pluck it, and pull its innards out with my bare hands.

So really, the horror comes from just not seeing it happen everyday (even though I'm guessing millions of animals are butchered for food worldwide every day).

The comments in YouTube suggest this camel was being killed in a Halal fashion (which would require the butchering to be done the way we see in the video--a swift cut to the carotid artery followed by a bleeding out). Turkeys are killed in the same way, I believe (though hung upside down first before having their throat slit).

So to the people who are against this video (or are actually downvoting it) I say: humans are omnivores. It's scientific fact. Most humans eat animals and that usually means killing them first. This video shouldn't be shocking and probably the reason it is to you is that 1) you never thought to eat a camel since you grew up in a country where that wasn't common and/or 2) you've forgotten that animals actually have to be butchered before showing up on your local grocery store shelf and/or 3) you've chosen to be vegetarian (good on you) but forgotten that a large number of other people have chosen to embrace their omnivorism.

(I know omnivorism isn't an actual dictionary word but if vegetarianism can be a word, why not?)

First statement = opinion
The remaining life of one man versus 30 minutes of time for 30 men.

Second statement = uninformed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

Third statement = uneducated opinion
The incident involved a large number of trained officers presumably adequately trained to assess and address the situation

The entire last paragraph = biased conjecture
All projected outcomes proposed are negative. All possible positive outcomes ignored.

Troll Score = 10/10
Every word inflammatory and pointless yet I am compelled to reply...

Well played sir.

It's not only about the surveillance, but it's not NOT about surveillance, the television screens that watched everyone were part of it, as much as the rewriting of history by the ministry of truth and the rewriting of language that was newspeak.

People really seem to have taken to Jacob Levich's quote that 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. I expect that the large number of people who have seen his quote on a t-shirt but haven't read the book will only increase the problem.

Given the differences in design and intent, the similarities are remarkable.

I have a large number of embedded devices (mostly server manager cards or the like) that use java controls, and they generally don't have updates available, so the change to java security mandating a Permissions attribute in the manifest means I have a lot of entries in the java security exceptions list.

I don't particularly have a problem with java the language, but java plug-ins have become really painful.

1) Not if the specific individuals didn't actually repeatedly communicate with him, which it seems like they didn't - they just prompted a large number of people to be aware of and possibly contact him. It could possibly be labeled conspiracy to harass or incitement to harass, but that's not necessarily an actionable offense. He'd probably have more luck suing for defamation.

2) 'Feeling harassed' is super-actionable; it's the defining prerequisite for the crime of harassment to have taken place. As long as you fear for your safety, and that can be your psychological or social safety, you're technically within the scope of the broadly written statute. It's most likely written that broadly to ensure that obviously harassing behavior is not missed on a technicality, and courts, as well as plaintiffs, are expected to exercise common sense.

I also bet it won't go anywhere after the court of first instance.