They're not both terrible to the same degree, though.

Your country's right-wing media have had it out for the Clintons for over 20 years now. Ever since one of them became President.

And all they've been able to come up with is some controversy about the Benghazi embassy bombing. There were many 'Benghazi's' during Bush's tenure. And the problem with the e-mail servers. And again, the Cheney-Bush presidency sucessfully deleted over 30,000 e-mails pertaining to their conspiracy to send America to war in Iraq. Why doesn't the news cover that? Because their deletion of e-mails was wholly successful.

So despite all of that fear, uncertainty, and doubt being spread by the right-wing media in the past 20 years the Clinton Foundation has done incredible humanitarian work throughout the world. Apparently it's possible that Melinda Gates and a sultan of Brunei may have been able to speak to Hillary because of their sizable donations, but it's also possible that those people are already of necessary stature to speak to Hillary.

So, that's 3 things over 20 years that stuck. Hillary has fought her entire life to be where she is, even having to endure heckling by men when she was writing her Harvard Law acceptance test. To say that she's in the same basket as Trump is, at best, intellectually dishonest. You're just parroting your media's narrative.

If you think Hillary is bad then you must believe Trump to be truly deplorable. Then why would you equate the two?

There are many biasing factors that current scientists must deal with. Consider the sad state of such "sciences" as criminal bite analysis, or shoeprint analysis, or even fingerprinting. Poor results come from huge external pressures to come to the "right" conclusions, regardless of the truth.

One boycotts hysteria by refusing to become hysterical, and refusing to parrot hysterical claims, even if it seems socially or professionally advantageous.

Your video, Parrot and Guitarist - Beautiful Duet, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My mother has a parrot who walks around on the floor and the cats mostly avoid it. Like its a gigantic puffball of vengeance for all the little birds they've killed.

reason 3721 why i don't want parrots... or kids.

*promote

And I'm for Clinton. Sanders is admirable. No question.

Also, compare this with the Tapper-Trump interview. Trump was a parrot of short #whinylittlebitch statements who interrupted constantly.

@ChaosEngine

I'm not sure you understand what machine learning is. As I said, the trigger for your child.runsInFront() is based on numerical inputs from sensors that is fed into a formula with certain parameters and coefficients. This has been optimized from many hours of driving data but ultimately it's not able to predict novel events as it can only optimize off existing data. There is a base level of error from bias-variance tradeoff to this model that you cannot avoid. It's not simply a matter of logging enough hours of driving. If that base error level is not low enough, then autonomous cars may never be deemed reliable to be unsupervised.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff
Or specifically: http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/docs/BiasVariance/biasvariance.png

It's the same reason that a stock market simulator using the same method (but different inputs) is not accurate. The difference would be that while 55% correct for the stock market may be sufficiently accurate and useful to be profitable, a driving algorithm needs to be near perfect. It's true that a sensor reaction time to someone braking unexpectedly may be much better than a human's and prevent a crash, so yes in certain cases autonomous driving will be safer but because of exceptional cases, but it may never be truly hands-off and you may always need to be ready to intervene, just like how Tesla works today (and why on a regulatory level it passed muster).

The combination of Google hyping its project and poor understanding of math or machine learning is why news reports just parrot Google's reliability numbers. Tesla also, has managed to convince many people that it already offers autonomous driving, but the auto-steer / cruise and changing lanes tech has existed for around a decade. Volvo, Mercedes and Audi all have similar features. There is a tendency to treat this technology as magical or inevitable when there are some unavoidable limitations behind it that may never be surmounted.

Wow Bob, I know I just defended your right to your opinion, and that people shouldn't attack you for it, but this is a lie. A complete fabrication. You should feel deeply ashamed of this bullshit. Even more so if you're just parroting some Republican talking point crap.

Thanks for those two pointless adages that you've parroted from the lame-stream media.

Since you're a military aviation expert could you tell us what's wrong with the JSF?

My Uncle used to work at the animal control facility at Mirabel International Airport North of Montreal. I visited him when I was young and he would have all manner of exotic animals at his house (parrots, a chimp, etc).

At one point someone, I kid you not, tried to smuggle in a cub Mountain Cougar. Algernon was confiscated and put into my Uncles care.

He ultimately took on ownership of Algernon. When I was just 7 years old I remember visiting him and being chased down and scratched by young Algernon. He was cute, but those claws let you know what he would grow into.

Fast forward another 7 years and my Uncle moved to Ontario close to our town. We would visit every now and then and see Algernon. At his maturity he was 15 foot from head to tail. He would live inside the house in a converted room for his needs with a huge cage door. He would spend time outside on a very long, very fortified run. To feed Algernon my Uncle would open the door to his room, close it behind him and deliver the food. My Uncle is all 5' 4" tall, but you wouldn't know it. Algernon would put his front paws up on my Uncles shoulders and you would just hear my Uncle in a slightly annoyed voice "shoo" Algernon off like he was a pesky kitten trying to jump on him for dinner.

I remember sitting at the foot of his cage door looking into his eyes. A few things I learned... never look directly into a large cats eyes and never... never turn your back to a large cat.

Algernon eventually went on to a wildlife preserve that took great care of him until end of life... although not lucky to be taken out of his habitat he sure was well kept post smuggling.

I had a parrot when i was a kid. I wish I could have one now.

Christ....

Odd how Republicans always scream about "redistribution of wealth", but are fine with the fact that most employers no longer pay living wages the way they used to. They are fine if it's some rich guy taking his wealth generated by his employees' hard work for himself, but god forbid that the government take anything to help those that rich guy is leaving behind. Over half the people who work for Walmart qualify food stamps (only about 30% actually take it), despite the fact Walmart's profits are so high it could pay them all living wages, give them benefits, higher more, give more hours, and still make a huge profit while not raising prices... but it's the people needing food stamps that are bad, not the people who own and operate the company and take so much from their workers.

The one true small government candidate that the Republicans had was Rand Paul, and they rejected him for big government, tough talk, candidates that capitalize on their fears... most of which are fairly unjustified. Americans aren't lining up on the streets to get the sort of jobs that they accuse Mexican's of coming here to take. Our own actions of telling Muslims how to live is the reason they want to kill us, leave them alone and govern themselves... stop preemptively attacking... you know be more Christ like who wouldn't support such things...

And as @oritteropo basically noted, Reagan was far to the left what today's Republican party is. Reagan wouldn't even get through the Primary process. Fox News, Rush and all of them would be ripping him a new asshole for not being "conservative enough". Obama is far closer to Reagan style politics and economics than most today's primary candidates. McCain once upon a time was close to Reagan, but he swung to the right to appeal to the extreme right base, and then added an idiot running mate. Had he ran down the center as he used to be, and got a centralist running mate, he would have had a chance of winning... though Obama sort of captured a hope for progressive change that never came, he turned out to be a Democrat in Name Only and was closer to a Reagan Republican than a true progressive.

Let's also not forget that Congress controls the purse strings and the US economic outlook (at least to what degree the government can, since the rest is in the hands of investors and business owners). Congress has been obstructionist for the last 6 years, and haven't allowed ANY of Obama's policies through, any of his attempts to help fix the economy. Want to blame somebody in the government for the mess, blame Congress, not Obama... if they attempted his stuff, then yes it would be his fault, but they haven't tried a single one of them. You can't say no to trying something, then when what you did instead doesn't work blame the person you said no to.

For the price of the F35 program so far, a plane that only barely passed some of it's flight tests, the rest still failing, we could have bought every homeless person a $600,000 home.... in this area a $150,000 home is very nice (good 3 bedroom home, nice safe neighborhood with good schools), let alone what $600,000 would get you... for the price of it this year, we could fund the school lunch program for 24 years. Now to be fair, I haven't fully vetted those two "facts" myself, but what I have vetted, is for the price of the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011, we paid more than NASA's entire history, even after adjusting for inflation. It's all a question of priorities. Republican's don't care how much the military costs the taxpayer, but suggestions to help the people being left behind as the rich take more and more for themselves (redistributing the wealth generated by their workers to themselves, rather than their workers) and suddenly they start screaming bloody murder.

Every time a Republican opens their mouth and spouts such things like this video I hate their gullibility... and all too often they talk about their faith and Christ... and I've already covered how the Republican views are 100% opposed to the teachings of Christ and it's why I first lost faith in God as he'd be screaming at them and trying to convict them that their views are wrong were he real. Don't just trust the first few Google results you see, as they filter their results to appeal to you and your views. Don't listen to the echo chamber. Learn to truly vet sources and understand what is actually going on. Don't parrot claims about a "liberal media" or whatever, when over 95% of the news sources out there are controlled by the same 5 companies, none of which have an incentive on letting people know just how bad they are being fucked by the business interests in this country... supporting gay marriage, supporting a minimum level of help isn't liberal, it's being a decent person... being against equal rights under the law because somebody sins differently than you, or not wanting to help somebody because they aren't working 80-100 hours a week is being a heartless asshole. But feel free to keep living in your echo chamber of stupidity, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity."

Your video, John Cleese Remembers Monty Python's "Dead Parrot", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

For those that may want to view the dead parrot sketch again

To claim that the collective non-consumption of 3%ish of the country is not taken into account in meat production is a pretty dim outlook of the intelligence of food executives. Of course one vegetarian doesn't make much difference. Neither does one vote or one person's taxes. If you're railing against incremental action, you'll have problems with a lot more than people's dietary choices.

On the other hand, the business about soy consumption is a baffling new argument circulating the internet. I say baffling, because it only takes about 15 seconds of hard thinking to debunk. (Hint: animals eat soy, you eat animals). Almonds, of course, are as optional for vegans as everyone else.

But all of this is a sideshow. The real point is that I make choices that do no one any harm and make me feel better. You on the other hand apparently go sifting through the internet for arguments against my lifestyle, fail to subject those arguments to even cursory critical thinking in your zeal, and parrot them on a video sharing community while proudly declaring your loathing for people like me.

I think this says a lot more about your relationship to eating animals than it does about mine.