Reminds me of Pelosi: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..."
It reminds you of quote-mining?
Reminds me of Pelosi: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..."
It reminds you of quote-mining?
Milktoast centrist put in vice president status. Courage required: 0
At least the guy is well educated and experienced.
Not a dramatic choice - but a solid guy all the same. Would be justly called pretty conservative most places outside the US.
I'd have much preferred an Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren emotionally - but see the virtue in a low-key centrist technocrat.
Perhaps he's exciting by virtue of being boring in this environment. Get the guy training with some comedians before the debate, and a few good lines with low expectations could have OK results.
In other news: No news is news, in this news cycle. Which isn't news, with 24 hour news.
I think it's fine, do you think Franken or Warren would really bring that much influence over Hillary? She'd most likely put VP Franken or Warren in an closet to twiddle their thumbs for four years.
Kaine is probably on the same page so can act as a surrogate in office, and if Clinton died in office then Kaine would probably be fine to govern more or less how she would have governed.
It's not a secret that Clinton is a rather vile person, so whatever rude and dirty things she says to other Democrats is of no consequence.
No. Every since the right decided that she didn't know her place as a first lady they've been telling everyone who will listen that she's the devil incarnate.
It's just disturbing that at some point a bunch of progressives have jumped on board because apparently everyone knows she's evil so it must be true!
Oddly enough her philandering husband who probably knew the email situation, and is certainly involved in any Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories, is still generally popular.
They won't, of course. But it's still theoretically possible. In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.
Fortunately in this universe that decision is left up to legal authorities instead of lynch mobs.
Clinton isn't a completely unique situation, the closest examples seem to be Alberto Gonzales, John O'Neill, and Bryan Nishimura. All three removing classifier material, Gonzales and O'Neill weren't charged and Nishimura got 2 years probation.
All three involved no intent to distribute to unauthorized parties. Gonzales and O'Neill were essentially careless while Nishimua was deliberate.
I see Clinton as belonging with Gonzales and O'Neill, all three mishandled docs while performing their official duties and non attempted to expose the docs on purpose.
Nishimua is the only one who was deliberately taking docs out of classified systems, and he only got 2 years probation.
Given those precedents the decision not to prosecute seems quite defensible.
It's also kinda funny how I can barely remember hearing a peep about Gonzales when he arguably had more intent to break the law than Clinton. There's no evidence that Clinton was trying to send classified info on her mail server, but Gonzales, the Attorney General, clearly knew he had classified info when he carried it in his briefcase and took it home.
Assange was probably just taking time to review the material and figure out how to release it.
Why would he need to review it to know how to release it? If you're ultimately going to dump the data, just dump it and let the people read it for themselves. Don't pre-filter it or spin it one way or another.
There might be sensitive or personal information that he doesn't think should be made public or there might be bombshells that he wants to specifically advertise.
When Assange previously was given front-page status on slashdot for having a cache of Hillary emails to release, I said I figured he was going to do it to help Bernie Sanders win the election. After all, if Hillary were to actually fall out somehow before November, Sanders would be the only choice the party could present. Being as every poll that ever asked voters about Sanders vs Trump showed Sanders completely wiping the floor with Trump, this strongly suggests that Assange has a favorite here.
There's a lot of emails. Assange was probably just taking time to review the material and figure out how to release it.
I don't know what Assange's political views are but I doubt that's a huge factor here. If someone gives him a big dump of emails from a major organization he's gonna publish them with maximum publicity.
The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road." The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian." The driver said, "I am not sure if I would have been able to stop before hitting him but I am so glad the car did." The Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), which is standard on all Tesla vehicles and is part of Tesla's Autopilot mode, is what was at work here. It appears that many of the convenience features of Autopilot were not activated at the time of the incident.
So what happened is the driver was driving the vehicle, a situation happened for which he was unprepared but was a probable accident, and the AI took over and prevented the accident.
Almost no one is complaining about this scenario, and if I recall other car companies have deployed something similar and it's a decent first step towards autonomous vehicles.
The problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention and the AI becomes almost exclusively responsible for driving safely.
Its great that the AI is good enough that it prevented this accident, it still doesn't make the pseudo self-driving mode a good idea.
Cripes, it's an open carry state, with an open carry believers, for a candidate that encouraged his followers to beat up protestors.
If some one doesn't take a shot at them, then they will take a shot at the protestors.
I would offer odds, 2:1 that someone attending the convention or a protesting against the convention will end up trying to shoot someone
I would be more worried about those unlawfully carrying than those who are legally open carrying or those who are legally carrying concealed (with a permit). My guess is that most folks who are open carrying are doing so to promote / exercise their rights and are being responsible about it. The last thing folks emphasizing their rights want to do is perform an action (shoot someone in this case) that has the effect of generating negative public opinion.
A big subtext of open carry is they think they look really cool, authoritative, and intimidating with their big guns. On their own you can just kind of ignore them and let them do their thing, but they're walking into a scenario where there's a lot of people on both sides who are brimming for a fight and trying to show they won't back down.
All you need is a few open carry folks who really want to show they're in charge, some protesters who want to call their bluff, and things escalating into violence. It might not happen, but there's an unusual number of bad factors at work.
Companies will have power as long as they can make political donations.
It's not the donations that are the big problem, it's the lobbyists who constantly surround legislators and "assist" them by "explaining" issues and writing legislation.
For all the talk that folks on sites like slashdot and reddit make for "thinking rationally", why the hell is it so many seem utterly incapable of doing that when it comes to Clinton? How, for example, can you bridge the ideology gap between voting for Bernie Sanders (a socialist, who agrees with Hillary Clinton on a wide swath of issues) or Ron Paul (a staunch libertarian) and then switching to Donald Trump, a guy who has espoused no consistent stance on almost anything and has flippantly proposed dozens of blatantly unconstitutional actions? The mind fucking boggles.
I think it's just confirmation bias. I think in the mid-90s the right became really uncomfortable with the idea of a first lady exerting political influence. They figured that was going way outside her role and trying to usurp her husband's power so they started labelling her as lying and manipulative and really haven't stopped.
The thing with repeating labels like that is they don't really need to be accurate, you just need to keep repeating them and people eventually figure there's something to it (otherwise why would you be saying it?).
So now everybody is convinced that Hillary is really manipulative and deceptive, throw in something like the email scandal and if you already assume she's lying then it just re-enforces the whole narrative.
What Tesla and Musk need to do is re-name the feature to something like Driving Assist, or Safety Assist. It is NOT a completely autonomous driving system, you are not meant to take your hands off of the wheel or your mind off of the road. I think that the accidents so far are people ignoring warnings and somehow thinking that Autopilot means that the car can drive itself.
The name is only an issue in that it discredits Tesla's attempts to throw blame on drivers.
Call it an autopilot or not drivers will still figure out that you don't need to be paying attention to be driving, and they'll inevitably zone out, watch DVDs, and even drift off to sleep like this guy possibly did.
The fix is simple, if you're sitting in the driver's seat then you're the one steering the car. The AI can still act as a safeguard but until it's ready to assume full responsibility for the journey the human needs to remain the driver.
Thanks! I hadn't read that bit of information.
That looks disturbingly like the driver fell asleep, and didn't wake up fully when they took control. Ouch - how do we fix that one???
By not having an autopilot that requires human intervention.
The problem with the autopilot doing its own thing for a while and then handing control back to the user is that the user may not be in a state where they're able to safely drive.
They might be fiddling with a DVD player, reaching into the glove compartment, or had fallen asleep because they weren't required to pay attention while the car was driving itself.
There's no safe way to hand control back to the driver while the car is in motion, either the car is fully autonomous or the AI only kicks in if the driver is doing something wrong. Accidents like this are exactly what you'd expect with Tesla's system.
For americans, the second amendment included military firepower. If just one of those civilians or law officers had a CSWS or an RPG, they could have ended the threat, even if some collateral damage occurred it could have significantly lowered the impact of the overall carnage caused in this case.
That said, what did the French expect to happen when all they had to defend themselves was a constant stream of week old baguettes to try and take out what was obviously a heavily armored bread delivery truck driven by an angry and swarthy middle easterner.
Indeed, the way to prevent serious terrorist attacks is to have members of the general public walking around with RPGs.
Deporting all Muslims is the only way to save western civilization.
Western civilization isn't the one at risk, the reason for these attacks, the reason Muslim conservatives hate immigration even more than Western conservatives, is that repressive Muslim cultures are the ones under real threat.
We're worried about people coming from a different culture and regressive beliefs. They're worried about those same immigrants becoming liberalized and spreading those ideas of tolerance back home.
That's one of the reasons why ISIS is attacking the West, so that Western nations exclude and even kick out Muslims and stop the spread of western values into their culture. The other reason is that ISIS is losing and starting to get desperate, so they're increasing terror attacks to recruit more people and egg the West into doing something stupid (to the extent they care President Trump would be a win for them).
These terror attacks are terrible but the price of western civilization is we sometimes need to endure terrible things.
The last 20 years.
BMI is antiquated as a measure of health because it completely ignores body composition.
Despite this being pointed out hundreds upon hundreds of times we see more studies like this that say that men who are more than certain height to weight ratio (IE what BMI is.. it is a quotient of weight to height.) Are more likely to die.. they don't say from what though.. layers of obfuscation.
So they are telling me that someone who is 6 ft 2 and 230 pounds at 5% body fat is unhealthy ? I don't think they can draw parallels between that guy and say a 200 pound 5 ft 5 guy with 40% body fat.. They are ignoring nuance upon nuance.
I'm sure they're perfectly aware of the limitations of BMI. It's an imperfect measure but really cheap and easy to measure. Sure it misrepresents the guy who is "6 ft 2 and 230 pounds at 5% body fat", but those people are extremely rare and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis or simply ignored without invalidating the broader conclusions.
This is not a major mystery though we don't have it all figured out for everyone in every shape and condition with every disease and genetic combination possible , but we know the general rules of the game and you cannot articulate it with just a BMI or weight number, the answer has more to it than that..
Well these researchers cleared up part of the mystery, obesity is an extra risk factor if you're male.
I suspect this has to do with the fact that males tend to disproportionately accumulate abdominal fat.
Watch though.. 20 years from now this idiot researchers will be talking about how everyone who is over 200 pounds is likely to die of heart disease, while most of society will have gotten in shape by then.. their captive audience would be people who still listen to their pseudoscience diet industry crap. ("Oh try homeopathy and acupuncture..it will increase your orgone energy field.. the weight will just melt off! trust me!) It is easy to fool desperate people who have problems that make weeding out bullshit a low priority.
And now the weird part of the comment where you seem to have conflated scientists and homoeopaths...
1 Sagan = Billions & Billions