So…the FBI has now said this raid was an attempt to recover classified top secret documents Trump admitted he stole by the boxful from the whitehouse but failed to turn over when the courts demanded he do so in 21. At least 15 boxes of stolen classified documents.

They have also reported that at least some of these stolen state secrets have been recovered in this raid of his home (now reporting many boxes full, maybe even 15 have been recovered), which was not a secure location, proving Trump committed the treasonous crimes of the theft and retention of classified top secret documents they are investigating AND the dangerous, irresponsible act of keeping them unsecured while foreign entities he was hosting (including Russians and Saudis) may have had access to or even gained possession of them. Because he claims to have destroyed or disposed of some, we will never know.
Each document stolen carries a prison term of 5 years, he took 15 boxes of them.

No wonder Fox and the right are losing their shit…demanding the FBI be dissolved, forgetting its director is a Trump appointee he lavished praise on, as (I believe) is the judge that issued the warrant.

BTW, no doors were kicked in as the right claims today, the secret service was notified and gave the FBI free access. They are still there now.



Thoughts and prayers for @bobknight33 and his great leader.

There are a lot of parallels between advertising and copyright. Buy wholeheartedly in to either, and you end up sort of failing to accept the reality of their flaws.

Advertisers think they have a big problem whenever someone circumvents their ads. They panicked when VCRs came around and allowed people to record shows and fast-forward through ads. They panicked when DVRs came out and let people digitally skip through ads. And they are panicking now, with more and more people getting fed up and putting ad-blocking software on their computers or devices.

Copyright holders think they have a big problem when someone tries to circumvent their system, too. They worried about libraries giving people free access to books; but at least a physical book is pretty much limited to one person at a time. They freaked out about cassette tapes being easily copied with a dual cassette deck. They freaked out about people sharing MP3 music over the internet. They freaked out when DVDs came out with CSS protection which was circumvented almost immediately. They continue to freak out by pushing for ever more and more drastic DRM schemes, that are generally circumvented quite rapidly.

The general theme in both advertising and copyright is escalation; a sort of arms race. The problem is that that solution doesn't actually improve things for anyone, in either case. Ads get more and more offensive and annoying, more and more people block/skip them. Copyright gets more and more locked-down, more and more people circumvent it. In both cases, as the "legitimate" side squeezes harder, it ends up making the user experience better for those who circumvent it "illegitimately". See, for example, this good old comic from The Oatmeal:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

The web with adblock software is a massively better experience than the web without it. A pirated 1080p movie or TV show lets you skip the previews/commercials that are often unskippable on a DVD. And on and on.

This arms race doesn't have a good future. Creators and distributors must start wracking their brains to come up with whole new ideas, or at least variants of the old ones, that break that cycle and ensure that "illegitimate" users/viewers don't have a better experience than legitimate ones. I'm sure not holding my breath though.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.
Not all farms treat their animals badly. Our Turkeys, for instance, had the run of 300 acres, as did our cattle, goats, and sheep. The chickens had a pen for their own protection, but one larger than an average house with a large roost house they had free access to and from. The all had proper veterinary treatments. All in all, they had a much better life than many humans with the exception of the freedom to leave the property.
Most children in the world live in worse conditions than the animals at OUR farm, and have a MUCH more painful, lingering death. The only atrocity about the situation to me is that there are so damn many human children.
And mentally handicapped people aren't animals. It may be true, forcing naked, mentally handicapped (or non-mentally handicapped) children to be outside 24/7 might be considered abuse...doing so with an animal is not.
Beyond that, you are making HUGE mistaken assumptions to make your point, mistaken assumptions about 1) how 100% of farmers treat their animals and 2) how 100% of parents treat their children.

Ahh...and my sustenance is more important to me than another being's minimal suffering....that's how a food web works, and it doesn't make me an asshole, it makes me an omnivore.

The other cat doesn't look like it misses out particularly, it's certainly not wasting away...

This behaviour might well be the reason for its overeating though. Without easy and free access to the food the other cat is overeating when it gets the chance. Instead of just eating what it needs it's reacting to the possibility that it may not be allowed to eat for a long time and eating as much as it can.

Cats will self regulate if they have free access to food all the time, but owners need to be aware of situations like this which can lead to fat cats.

Ummm... I'm confused. Does Trancecoach and others like him think that Netflix doesn't pay to access the Internet? That Google, Amazon, Netflix and the like all have a free access pass to the Internet? Or when they say "In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't." are they talking about end users and not the companies paying millions to access the Internet already? Or are they confused on other aspects?

Perhaps some aspects of this video confused them...

Right now if a person pays $45 a month for 15Mps they should expect all that content delivered to them at 15Mps. The way the ISPs want to rig it, is they want to go to Netflix/YouTube/Google/Amazon and other services and make them pay extra to get to that 15Mps. If Netflix doesn't pay then the ISP slows that content down to 10Mps, even though the end user is paying for 15Mps access. They aren't coming to the end user, yet, and having them pay extra for streaming access as shown in this video, though I'm sure they'll triple dip that too eventually. (Another problem I have with the video, beyond suggesting they'll just charge the end user extra, is that Netflix and others are willing partners in this scam, when Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and all the others have been the biggest ones to support Net Neutrality and are fighting against the cable companies, while the video seems to suggest they'll handing the money over willingly.)

And if they mean the end user... then a person not streaming and only needing access to basic text and web stuff can get the basic 3Mbps option for only $30 or 2Mps option for $15. Streaming users do pay extra already. They pay for the extra bandwidth... if all you do is browse Facebook and tweet and the like and are using the 15Mbps or higher plans than you are an idiot. The end users do pay. As do the content companies like Netflix and YouTube/Google, Amazon and the rest...to the tune of millions a year. Yes, the content itself is far more expensive. For Netflix streaming a movie is cheaper than sending the DVD, postage is semi-cheap, but the people cost a lot. Still, they pay to access the Internet just like everyone else. Nobody is getting a free ride. This is just the ISPs trying to double, and potentially triple dip fees, and Net Neutrality seeks to stop them from double and potentially triple dipping. Bad enough we have to put up with banks double dipping ATM fees...

Big companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon and the like can potentially pay the fees if they have to. The question then becomes can sites like videosift pay whatever ComcastWarner, Verizon, AT&T want? I know my little blog couldn't pay extra... not that my site's users would need more than the 3Mps plan, if that, to access most of the content... save of course when I embed a YouTube video I made.

TLDR: The end user already pays extra if they stream above and beyond what an end user who doesn't stream pays. Also Netfilx, Amazon, Google and the like all pay millions to access the Internet, they don't get their access for free. What the ISPs want to do is tell Netflix, if they want to reach that customer who's paying $40 for 15Mps access at the full speed that consumer is already paying for, then Netflix has to pay that consumer's ISP in ADDITION to the costs they are already paying. If they don't pay, then the consumer is given that content at a slower speed than what they are paying their ISP to get it at. The ISPs are trying to double dip, and someday may triple dip. Net Neutrality would stop the ISPs from doing that.

Hey at least they have good free access.

I would argue that China's "one child" policy might have something to do with the negative effects of overpopulation, but that's a different conversation.

I really am curious as to the answer to the question: What use could we possibly have for filling the earth to carrying capacity? Not to mention the effects that reaching human capacity might have on... all the other life on earth.

It wouldn't actually take that much to accomplish something. Free access to birth control for everyone and a little bit of education could go a really long way. Even if only one in a thousand people listened or used contraception because of it, population rates would decrease dramatically.

You keep saying we're well within capacity, but problems like overfishing, the depleting oil/energy supply, the food supply, the need for arable land... these problems actually exist right now. Even with advancements, capacity is a problem right now. All the energy that we put into trying to implement the solutions to these problems could already be getting applied to making them better. Instead of trying to fix problems as they arise, we could avoid them completely and spend our time on other things.

Maybe you're right, maybe it is just hype, but I just can't help but think that the energy spent on reducing the world's population would solve many more problems, way more efficiently than just eliminating Hummers, golf courses and fast food, and then waiting three-hundred years to see if the numbers drop.

Aaaand guess how many of these right-wing conservatives are against?

/Captain Obvious

>> ^peggedbea:

this is how you decrease the number of abortions:
1. free comprehensive, scientifically sound, sex education to all
2. readily available, easily accessible, very affordable, guilt-free access to contraception in every community
3. counseling
4. streamline the adoption process to make it an actual option to EVERY sane, loving adult with the means to care for a child. i'd adopt a 3rd baby in a heart beat if it didn't cost $40k and they let single women of modest income do it. i have the means to support another child, but i don't have $40k laying around.
5. make health care a right
6. revisit public policies that actually alleviate poverty
7. equal pay for women
8. make legitimate vocational schools as affordable as community college and/or offer more grant-eligible vocational programs within community colleges... i know from experience that learning a trade can offer as much opportunity for single mothers as it can for any young man.
guess how many of these abortion-preventing solutions planned parenthood has a hand in???

this is how you decrease the number of abortions:

1. free comprehensive, scientifically sound, sex education to all
2. readily available, easily accessible, very affordable, guilt-free access to contraception in every community
3. counseling
4. streamline the adoption process to make it an actual option to EVERY sane, loving adult with the means to care for a child. i'd adopt a 3rd baby in a heart beat if it didn't cost $40k and they let single women of modest income do it. i have the means to support another child, but i don't have $40k laying around.
5. make health care a right
6. revisit public policies that actually alleviate poverty
7. equal pay for women
8. make legitimate vocational schools as affordable as community college and/or offer more grant-eligible vocational programs within community colleges... i know from experience that learning a trade can offer as much opportunity for single mothers as it can for any young man.

guess how many of these abortion-preventing solutions planned parenthood has a hand in???

>> ^chilaxe:

Prosperity is a big part of human welfare, and if we take $10 from one person so another person can think it costs them $.50 to send a letter, many citizens will feel justified in reducing any further altruism on their part toward society.


But that's the thing, we're not "taking $10 from one person so another can person think it costs them $.50 to send a letter." We're telling everyone it costs 50 cents to send a letter, regardless of whether the actual cost is 1/10th of a cent or $10, and making sure we set the flat rate so it covers the actual costs.

Which is to day, people don't think they're engaged in altruism when they're sending a letter, they think they're buying a service with a flat rate. Just like when I get RoadRunner from Time Warner and pay a flat rate for bandwidth, I'm buying a service, I'm not engaging in altruism towards other people on the service who might use more GB of bandwidth per month than me...

More generally, I think that people should understand that paying taxes is paying for services they've been rendered while living & working here (most of which resemble insurance), not engaging in "altruism," especially if they're in denial about the services they're benefiting from.

>> ^chilaxe:
Sending books by mail was probably important in the time of the founding fathers, but nowadays people have access to the sum total of human knowledge from their homes, or they can drive or bike to somewhere that does have internet. I'd imagine most of the mailed media that now takes advantage of the reduced media rates isn't very impressive.


Ah, but does everyone have that access? For example, do rural communities all have easy, free access to internet?

I'm definitely in agreement that mail delivery is no longer filling the role the founding fathers had in mind when they put it into the Constitution. The question is, what's the right change to make to the USPS? Dismantle it and abandon its objectives, or reinvent it so it uses modern technology like the Internet to achieve its original mission?

I say the latter makes more sense than the former.

They (TYT) contradicted themselves by implying more gun regulation is necessary and then almost immediately saying that the regulations don't matter because anyone can go to a gun show and buy one off the back of a truck. No amount of legislation will change the latter.

I don't think this is a problem that can be regulated or legislated away. As far as we know, this is not a case of illegal gun ownership; this is a case of irresponsible gun ownership. You can't use laws to force people not to be stupid.

In all honesty, and this part is probably going to seriously offend most of you, I think the kid is the victim here, not the mother. He's 10. Giving him free access to loaded guns and expecting him to have the capacity to only use them responsibly was a failing on the parents' part, even more so when he's been showing violent tendencies.

She may be dead but his life is probably ruined because of this, too. Both are primarily her fault (and the father's).

>> ^Ryjkyj:
But I can't help but thinking that scientific and social advancements are great and all but why not just start promoting the idea that people need to have less babies?

I think you missed the point in the documentary where they mention that it doesn't work well to try to limit peoples population growth by promoting less babies. People get less babies when their countries develop and they have good access to contraception. Many developed countries are already experiencing near zero or even negative growth.

I think with improved technology the Earth can easily support many more billions. The UN predicts that the population will level out around 9 billion in the medium scenario.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Under the assumptions made in the medium scenario projection, world population will not
vary greatly after reaching 8.92 billion in 2050 (figure 6). In another 25 years, by 2075, it is projected
to peak at 9.22 billion, only 3.4 per cent above the 2050 estimate. It will then dip slightly
to 8.43 billion by 2175 and rise gradually to 8.97 billion, very close to the initial 2050 figure, by
2300.

However the people could be richer and the planet in better state if the population growth doesn't continue too much. So the best way to accomplish that is to help developing countries develop as quickly as possible and give free access to contraception if people can't afford it.

I've said something similar in the lounge, and I will repeat it here. There is a war going on whether people know it or not. The sides are reason and willful ignorance. It's time that those on the side of reason stand up and say enough is enough.

Islam, in particular, is both oppressive and viral. It imposes itself into many western secularized countries, while keeping a stranglehold on it's "own" countries. As we've seen in another video, in the Muslim countries no other religious practices are allowed either, so why should we allow them free access to our own society? By trying to "be better" than them, we are effectively propagating its viral content by not clearing it out.

Religion is a cancer and the more we can remove the better. Islam is only the front-runner right now, Christianity is the same way, but more ingrained over here anyway. Luckily, if Islam keeps being stoic in its dogma, it will not survive. Christianity has learned this lesson and split up into its many, many forms of pseudo-christianity, which pick and choose which stuff it believes in and not. In the western countries there are Muslims doing this too (certainly in Muslim countries too, no doubt), but at its heart it is still very locked in "the dark ages", and as long as it is, I would rather we quell it before it gains critical mass. This was a first step.

Ordnung muss sein! *slams table*
(I can't help but Godwin myself on this.)

>> ^vairetube:
Being observant of history, it's sort of comforting to know: It's painful, but this will get sorted out in time as always.
I'm starting to understand the depth of the problem that occurs when people cannot help their misperceptions for whatever reason... the spread of real fact-based information, and free access to it, is the only way to human salvation.
Nature will take care of the rest, np!

I've begun to doubt that in this case.

Indoctrination encourages blind faith and rejection of reason. For every fundamentalist turned rationalist, there are hundreds more mindless drones spawned.