Please explain how you can be so fucking obtuse as to wave away the example of Libya (which she enthusiastically supported) and her vote in favor of the Iraq War AUMF.

On second thought, don't bother. You have nothing interesting to say and are conveniently ignoring the points that don't line up with your world view.

It's only outdated if you don't want a dedicated device for time. Some of us do want or need such a device, preferably one that doesn't need to be recharged every 24 hours, do a bunch of shit we don't care about, and occupy half of our lower arms. A nice looking watch is also a fashion statement; I'm not talking Rolex level (although you can certainly do that), just something that looks halfway decent and goes with most of your wardrobe.

There's still a market for dedicated devices. What does a smartwatch give me? Don't need it for fitness, it will never compete with a decent runner's watch for durability and ease of use. Don't want it for time, my real watch is less cumbersome and has a battery life measured in years. Can't do anything productive (e-mails, shopping lists, etc.) with it that I can't do better with my smartphone. Directions? That might be an argument, but again, how is the watch better than my phone? I've gotten around foreign cities where I don't speak the local language using my phone and Google Maps. Where's the game changer in doing the same with my watch?

I'm very well versed in PPC assembly. I've found a quite wonderful niche working on automotive controllers. I also have several subordinates well versed in Tricore (Infineon automotive CPU) assembly.

Neither of those will ever make it onto any list of "popular" anything, but we all make plenty of money doing it.

As important as those two languages are to what we do, I've never hired anyone that listed either of those things on their resume. The ones that did list them specifically had at best a rudimentary understanding and little other practical background that would make them useful.

Don't learn something because you think you can make money with it. Learn something because you like it and want to use it. Then, find an employer that values your talents and willingness to learn whatever they need you to learn.

That's the best path to a good paying job.

No, the destruction of nation-states (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) that created the conditions for ISIS to flourish are Clinton's responsibility. She was a policy-maker, not the policy-maker, but a policy-maker nonetheless who was in the room when these decisions were made.

Basic fact fail. The vote was 297-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. There were plenty of brave voices willing to stand up against the Iraq War. HRC was not one of them. She does not get a pass for that clusterfuck, nor any of the clusterfucks that occurred while she was serving in the Obama Administration.

Good for you. You're also adept at putting words into my mouth. But feel free to excuse away HRC's bad judgment if it makes you feel better.

Stockholm syndrome got its name from a bank robbery that occurred in Stockholm; it has no real or perceived reference to Swedish soceity. Incidentally, that society is a social democracy and there's a huge difference between that and socialism by most definitions. Despite what you may have "learned" from cable news there's plenty of capitalism going on in Sweden....

Oh, by the way, your criticism of GWB, that he deposed a regime and created a power vacuum leaving an opening for Islamic extremists:

Did you pay attention to what we did in Libya? Or who the Secretary of State was while we were doing it?

Which part did you miss? The part where Senator Clinton voted in favor of the AUMF that authorized the Iraq War or the part where she served with an administration that made "regime change" in Syria national policy? Perhaps both?

You may be willing to stick your head in the sand and forget about the AUMF but I'm not. HRC was a policymaker when the seeds were laid for every problem that I outlined. She does not get a pass. Your knee-jerk defense of her suggests to me that you're a Democratic partisan and not worth taking seriously.

If she disagreed with the policy and had any backbone she would have resigned. Since she didn't we can conclude that she either agreed with the policy or she didn't have enough courage of conviction to resign. Neither one of those options suggests that she's fit to sit in the Oval Office.

Are you serious? The World is going to shit and she oversaw four years of our foreign policy. Russia is annexing parts of her neighbors, ISIS is on the march, China is bullying her neighbors, North Korea still has nuclear weapons, Iran may yet obtain them, and she was one of the biggest cheerleaders for regime change in Libya. That's just her list of "accomplishments" as SecState; wanna talk about her time in the Senate? Two words: Iraq AUMF.

I'd say her entire record as Senator and Secretary of State is a glaring failure. Why don't you proffer something she did right instead of saying she didn't completely fuck up?

Not exactly a ringing endorsement when one looks at the current geopolitical situation.

That depends on what kind of shape she's in. :)

PositiveMoney has it all wrong. The video says "if we all paid off our debt, the current economic system would collapse". But if we all paid off our debt and stopped working because we didn't need to anymore, then the real economy (i.e. the thing that actually produces food, clothes, houses, cars, computer, electricity, clean water, etc.) really would also collapse because there would be no one doing the work to create all that stuff.

There is a big issue of inequality of both income and wealth distribution. But debt itself isn't the problem. Think about Zimbabwe where the government printed money and handed it out to the poor. Everyone paid off their debts. But the currency is worthless because inflation was 1000%. No one bothered working because the money they got from selling it would be worthless before they could spend it. There was no point in doing anything for which you didn't receive some immediate benefit. The concept of savings simply ceased to exist. (Hoarding, however, was very much still alive.)

Debt, in fact, is the biggest and best backstop a currency has. Debt is the promise that the people who owe money in that currency will work for you in the future. Stuff is still relatively plentiful, but labor, especially skilled labor, is very dear indeed. And debt means a currency is backed by that labor. That's a big part of why the dollar reigns supreme.

Before the most recent crash, the financial sector of the US economy represented 40% of GDP one year (and I doubt the UK was too far off from that). Clearly a ridiculous figure. While most of that was probably fees on stock trading and the like, some part of that was consumer financial services.

And besides, banks are a good place to start to modernize because they're already heavily regulated so consumers have more of a chance of pushing what's good for us. But once we prove the possibility and utility of digital fiances, imagine that instead of a piece of paper, you get a digital receipt for everything you buy. Imagine XML or JSON that specifies not just a total, but each line item, the quantity, the discount, the amount, and each tax it;s subject to. And imagine all that data being automatically and instantly received integrated into your personal financial app. You could know exactly how much ($ and %) you spend on gas, kids clothes, cheese, state taxes, local taxes, etc. You could get a history of your spending and see trends. All without any data entry.

Now imagine you and millions of others choose to share that data anonymously with some server somewhere. And imagine an app that, by knowing exactly how much and where other people have paid for things in the last few minutes, could tell you the cheapest way to buy everything on your grocery list. Willing to drive up to 10 miles? It has an even better deal. Willing to go to up to 3 stores? You can get it cheaper still! Want it delivered? Companies have already bid on it and there's a price for that too.

I don't object to either private companies or the government collecting data on everything we buy, everywhere we go and everyone we associate with. I object to them not sharing that data with me in a useful format. I can make way better use of it than big business or big government ever could. But if consumers and citizens actually had such data, real competition would mean both big business and government would be in a heap of trouble.