Or any of the many instant-runoff or proportional representation methods. Unfortunately, as hard as the established parties will fight against limits on their wealthy gravy-train, I suspect they'll fight *much* harder against any fundamental changes to the election system they've currently captured. And considering that it would take a constitutional amendment to change the rules, I'd say it' a non-starter until we've managed to take back a measure of control over both congress and the state legislatures.

No, the CIA reported on outside-the-embassy protests elsewhere, and made some conjecture along those lines in the hours immediately following the event. They (and the FBI, and DoD) briefed the White House (and thus State) on the reality of the event (a planned, organized event run by well armed, hardened militants) not even 24 hours later. But for days and weeks afterwards, the administration continued to try to sell the "It's all because of this vile video, see..." fairy tale. Why? Because that deliberate lie was a better fit with the campaign's "the terrorist are on the run" narrative. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

That is a good one - I'll have to add that to my list.

And you really think that whatever number that other 95% is, it will go down if someone willing to kill himself on a commercial airliner in order to destroy it on approach over a large city no longer has to even wonder if he'll have his bomb found while boarding? If you're going to troll, at least do it in a way that makes it look like you at least take yourself seriously.

Feel free to pop into any of thousands of posts and show me where someone with whom I'm more philosophically aligned has sent someone out to do a stint of serial lying on a matter of plainly obvious fact (a la launching Susan Rice at the weekend talk shows, or Hillary repeating the same stuff days after she's been briefed on details that explicitly illustrate the exact opposite) - upon which I excused/approved. Specifics, please.

But in your imagination, I have? THAT'S how you make it more comfortable, somehow, to process the pre-election BS we're talking about, coming out of the current administration? "I don't like you, so I suspect you'd approve of other people I don't like lying, and saying so while using phrases like 'statistical certainty' is, no matter how lame, the best thing I can think of to try to distract from the administration's campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying on the topic at hand." THAT'S your argument? Very nice.

Umm, what? Spam's irrelevant to the conversation, and USB charges at a predefined voltage, so there's no "electrical firehose", just a standard-"pressure" hose that you must negotiate power-rights with before drawing more than the minimum power guaranteed by the specs.

I couldn't find details about the 20V charging mode, so I suppose if it's a negotiated thing rather than a separate set of power pins, then there's some chance that a cheap no-name USB "high power" charger might deliver 20V constantly, likely burning out any 5V hardware plugged into it. But then that's always the risk with ultra-cheap chargers, isn't it? Even with older USB specs that should never exceed 5V.

>Now tell me again why is it that we don't need a third party in this country ?

Because so long as we have first-past-the-post voting rules, game theory tends to render third parties irrelevant. Example: the several "third" parties that currently *do* exist in the US, but rarely if ever win elections.

So lets support Bernie Sander with money and time, probably the best chance we've got at weakening the strangle-hold the wealthy have on this country.

You're right. Sending out Susan Rice to lie to reporters in an attempt to spin a completely preventable horror show at the consulate so as to prevent it from further tainting an upcoming election ... that's party-neutral. It's pointing out the lies that's partisan, right? Yeah.

Perhaps they were using the Mac fans to field-test the standard as they optimized the chipset for this new generation with broader, largely transparent, appeal?

Unfortunately, it's the same connector that *finally* promises to solve most of the mechanical issues that have plagued the first three generations of USB ports.

On the plus side, it sounds like falling back to USB 3 may be the default behaviour if either device isn't thunderbolt compatible. Which would be nice, much like the current "fall back to USB2 if both devices (and the cable) don't support USB 3".

From the article:

So yes, it sounds like you'll be able to use cheap passive cables, provided you don't need more than 20Gbps or Displayport support. Which would b the vast majority of use cases.

Really? You already have a USB chipset onboard that is designed to negotiate the power being delivered *by* the laptop, how much more difficult will it be to also negotiate the power being delivered *to* it? I'd bet very little - and in exchange the user gets the confidence of knowing their laptop can charge from any standard 100W USB-C charger. The greater opposition I suspect would be laptop manufacturers not wanting to give up their juicy replacement cable business. And frankly, aside from a certain well-known boutique brand, most laptop power cables seem to be pretty rugged, and I doubt there's *that* big a market for auxiliary power cords.

So, when the people in the DoD and the CIA say the exact opposite, and point out that at no time did they conclude or tell anyone that the ambassador was killed by a spontaneous protest crowd, you're thinking ... what, exactly? Weeks afterwards, when the administration was still sticking to that narrative, when every agency with info on the matter was telling them the opposite, you're concluding what, exactly?

Regardless, you're deliberately ignoring the concluding pages of the report, which point out the administration's culpability in ignoring the safety of the people deployed there, and the unanswered questions about the actions of the administration during and in the wake of the event. The report doesn't address why the administration continued to lie about the event for days and weeks after they had unassailable intelligence showing the nature of the attacks.

The report does, of course, express the Senate's considerable frustration that the State Department was preventing important people from appearing to testify, and thus preventing inquiry into entire areas related to accountability and the usual who-knew-what-when. They specifically cite a lack of cooperation from the administration, which prevented access to documents, personnel, and the answers to questions they wanted answered. They, the people who wrote the report you're trumpeting, say that political protectionism by the administration prevented discovery of basic facts about what happened before, during, and after the attack.

In short, the "flawed talking points" they identified were ... flawed. And to the extent that they outlined something known "at the time," we're talking about information that was formally revised only hours later ... not that the administration changed their pervasive lie on the subject for days and days, in appearance after appearance, where they continued on with the YouTube video BS. Something that everyone involved knew was crap before the sun set the next day. But you keep patting them on the back, and ignoring the bulk of the conclusions in the report you yourself trotted out.

So what you're saying is we should stop screening for weapons and explosives? Yes or no.

Right, still can't actually address the point. At least you're predictable. Oh no! Someone made a point I don't want to address! Quick, act like a three year old! And do it again! Hilarious.