Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:GIGO (Score 1) 881

by MLease (#41933431) Attached to: Nate Silver's Numbers Indicate Probable Obama Win, World Agrees

The problem is not that either of us thinks that running into rocks is a good idea, it's that we disagree about where the rocks are. I'm not convinced that the Affordable Healthcare Act is going to be the horrible burden on business people that they think it will be. The right has been crying wolf over every progressive policy that has come down the pike, claiming it's going to be the end of business and Mom and Apple Pie every time. But if you look at it, the economy has done better under Democratic administrations than it has under Republican ones. We do better when the middle class is going strong, not when the wealthy get to bleed it dry while sanctimoniously crying about "job creators" (who seem to like to create more jobs in India and China than here in the US). Private sector employment is doing fairly well under Obama, perhaps not as well as we'd like, but improving. Where a lot of the employment picture becomes dark is in the public sector, where due in large part to Republican state governments and obstructionism at the national level, a large number of public employees have received their pink slips.

As for the debt, you might want to watch this 3 min. video (or maybe not, if your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcvLHHMC4iI

Bush was the one who squandered the surplus Clinton left him, and plunged us into most of the debt we're carrying today, what with massive tax cuts that benefited mostly wealthy people and a pair of expensive wars (Afghanistan, I'll concede, may have had a point, but Iraq was completely senseless). And Romney's team was made up of a lot of familiar faces from the Bush administration. Obama has added to the debt, in his efforts to clean up the mess he inherited, true. But he isn't even 20% responsible for the size of today's debt (if you disagree, show me where that video has gone wrong, please).

-Mike

Comment: Re:Why vote for Obama? (Score 1) 707

by MLease (#41875711) Attached to: In the 2012 U.S. presidential election:

You may not agree with everything on this list, but here is a list of some of what he's managed to do, despite intense opposition and obstructionism from the Republicans:

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/09/04/youre-damn-right-were-better-off-hundreds-yes-hundreds-of-reasons-listed/

I'm voting for Obama on Tuesday. I think he's done a lot better than his opponents have given him credit for, and I think the alternatives are either ludicrous or terrifying.

-Mike

Comment: Re:A thing called discretion... (Score 1) 467

by MLease (#41670821) Attached to: How Facebook Can Out Your Most Personal Secrets

You didn't read TFA, did you? She didn't post her own sexual orientation on Facebook. She had everything locked down as much as possible. What happened was that the owner of an open group (the "Queer Choir" group) added her to that group. Since it was open, notifications of her addition to that group were broadcast to ALL OF HER FRIENDS. She had nothing to do with it, her only mistake was letting the group leader know that she was on Facebook, and he took care of the rest for her. To be fair, he was a newbie and didn't know better. But Facebook should NOT automatically broadcast information like that to each of her friends. She should be allowed to control what information goes out, and she tried within the limits Facebook offered her, but was thwarted by that loophole.

-Mike

Comment: Re:Just a short clip (Score 1) 535

Depends on how many short clips of objectionable material he has to watch. He still gets plenty of disturbing images planted in his mind, even if he shuts each one off just as soon as he figures out that the person's guts are being spattered or the child is getting raped. He still has to watch long enough to tell what's going on.

Comment: Re:When it's objectionable to you... (Score 1) 535

It's Google's business because the law (at least in the US) says it is. In TFA, the author mentions that by law, child porn in particular has to be taken down within 24 hours (I'm not sure what laws apply to other types of offensive material). To do that, someone needs to review it to determine what it is and whether it runs afoul of the law.

It's not Google's job (or intent, as far as I can tell) to determine what we can and can't see. But they do have to follow the law or face whatever consequences the government chooses to impose for failing to do so.

Comment: Re:Something's still strange, though... (Score 1) 1469

by MLease (#41071669) Attached to: The Mathematics of 'Legitimate Rape' and Pregnancy

True, but women who are not in a consensual sexual relationship and don't anticipate getting into one soon are less likely to be taking the pill. There are medical reasons for taking the pill that have nothing to do with contraception, but if a woman doesn't have a condition that calls for it, she's not likely to be taking the pill "just in case" she might get laid some time down the road. There are risks from side effects, and if there's not a particular reason for a woman to be taking the pill, she's better off not taking it until and unless she gets into a relationship she thinks might lead to sex. Some women are very sexually active and might take the pill by default, but many are not and may not expect to engage in sex until her perception of a relationship reaches a certain stage.

One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin

Working...