In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 25 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote: perhaps, doens't change the point about fptp trending toward 2 parties (unless there's very strong regional identity).
I think it's interesting that for all the strong rah, rah states' rights beliefs in the States there isn't strong regional identity to have something like our Reform party sweeping the West while the PC's held ground in the Atlantic provinces.
And the winner for local election campaign ads, and a palate cleanser for corrupt Hillary against incompetant Trump:
WASHINGTON — Alarmed by Donald J. Trump’s record of filing lawsuits to punish and silence his critics, a committee of media lawyers at the American Bar Association commissioned a report on Mr. Trump’s litigation history. The report concluded that Mr. Trump was a “libel bully” who had filed many meritless suits attacking his opponents and had never won in court.
But the bar association refused to publish the report, citing “the risk of the A.B.A. being sued by Mr. Trump.”
On October 25 2016 14:32 Danglars wrote: And the winner for local election campaign ads, and a palate cleanser for corrupt Hillary against incompetant Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjRwNUQDRU
WASHINGTON — Alarmed by Donald J. Trump’s record of filing lawsuits to punish and silence his critics, a committee of media lawyers at the American Bar Association commissioned a report on Mr. Trump’s litigation history. The report concluded that Mr. Trump was a “libel bully” who had filed many meritless suits attacking his opponents and had never won in court.
But the bar association refused to publish the report, citing “the risk of the A.B.A. being sued by Mr. Trump.”
On October 25 2016 14:32 Danglars wrote: And the winner for local election campaign ads, and a palate cleanser for corrupt Hillary against incompetant Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjRwNUQDRU
WASHINGTON — Alarmed by Donald J. Trump’s record of filing lawsuits to punish and silence his critics, a committee of media lawyers at the American Bar Association commissioned a report on Mr. Trump’s litigation history. The report concluded that Mr. Trump was a “libel bully” who had filed many meritless suits attacking his opponents and had never won in court.
But the bar association refused to publish the report, citing “the risk of the A.B.A. being sued by Mr. Trump.”
So dems are turning out in record numbers. I think it is safe to say that hillary is not going to have an enthusiasm problem. Lets just hope that can be turned into the wave we need to take the house. Sucks how garrmandering has made what should of been an easy flip nigh impossible.
Democrats have a good shot at narrowly taking the Senate; the House may not change hands for a while still, perhaps not until districting reform takes place.
On October 25 2016 09:00 plasmidghost wrote: An important facet of any healthy democracy is the free exchange of ideas on how to run government, even if, and especially if, you disagree with them. Having only two viable choices is an awful form of government. Three's only slightly better, but it is an improvement nonetheless. I hate political parties and would get rid of them if I could, but that's not going to happen so I'll try to change the current system into one I want, where many political parties are seen as viable and people have far more viable choices for candidates at every political level. Therefore, I have decided to vote for Gary Johnson and hope that the Libertarian Party can become just as recognized as the Republicans and Democrats.
That's fine because you're not in a swing state. The Founding Fathers already made your vote completely irrelevant when they created the electoral system.
I wish that system was gone, I don't understand how anyone thought it was a good idea to do that, where it makes like 75% of the country's votes irrelevant
Because the Founding Fathers only wanted the rich, wealthy, educated elite landowners to be the votes that counted, what better way than to separate them into a complete other part of the republic
We're taught all throughout school how good they were but I never saw it
They created a Republic on democratic ideals and made it stick. That is the accomplishment, and it was and is praiseworthy. It was groundbreaking at the time (and more or less sui generis). Now we have seen the task tried dozens of times, and we know that success is quite rare. Getting democracy to stick is real work and usually takes several go-arounds, many decades, and a few wars.
On October 25 2016 09:00 plasmidghost wrote: An important facet of any healthy democracy is the free exchange of ideas on how to run government, even if, and especially if, you disagree with them. Having only two viable choices is an awful form of government. Three's only slightly better, but it is an improvement nonetheless. I hate political parties and would get rid of them if I could, but that's not going to happen so I'll try to change the current system into one I want, where many political parties are seen as viable and people have far more viable choices for candidates at every political level. Therefore, I have decided to vote for Gary Johnson and hope that the Libertarian Party can become just as recognized as the Republicans and Democrats.
That's fine because you're not in a swing state. The Founding Fathers already made your vote completely irrelevant when they created the electoral system.
I wish that system was gone, I don't understand how anyone thought it was a good idea to do that, where it makes like 75% of the country's votes irrelevant
Because the Founding Fathers only wanted the rich, wealthy, educated elite landowners to be the votes that counted, what better way than to separate them into a complete other part of the republic
We're taught all throughout school how good they were but I never saw it
They created a Republic on democratic ideals and made it stick. That is the accomplishment, and it was and is praiseworthy. It was groundbreaking at the time (and more or less sui generis). Now we have seen the task tried dozens of times, and we know that success is quite rare. Getting democracy to stick is real work and usually takes several go-arounds, many decades, and a few wars.
I'm not one for 'Murica! style patriotism either, but I have to admit that when I visited DC earlier this year, I really got a sense of just how monumental it was to have founded the USA at the time, on modern democratic principles that still endure today. Yes some of the details were awful like slavery and a limited vote, but all the same it was a revolutionary project at the time, and their legacy is a system that has allowed for things like Nasa, Apple, and Google.
Obviously, view them critically, but don't discount their achievements either.
On October 25 2016 09:00 plasmidghost wrote: An important facet of any healthy democracy is the free exchange of ideas on how to run government, even if, and especially if, you disagree with them. Having only two viable choices is an awful form of government. Three's only slightly better, but it is an improvement nonetheless. I hate political parties and would get rid of them if I could, but that's not going to happen so I'll try to change the current system into one I want, where many political parties are seen as viable and people have far more viable choices for candidates at every political level. Therefore, I have decided to vote for Gary Johnson and hope that the Libertarian Party can become just as recognized as the Republicans and Democrats.
That's fine because you're not in a swing state. The Founding Fathers already made your vote completely irrelevant when they created the electoral system.
I wish that system was gone, I don't understand how anyone thought it was a good idea to do that, where it makes like 75% of the country's votes irrelevant
Because the Founding Fathers only wanted the rich, wealthy, educated elite landowners to be the votes that counted, what better way than to separate them into a complete other part of the republic
We're taught all throughout school how good they were but I never saw it
They created a Republic on democratic ideals and made it stick. That is the accomplishment, and it was and is praiseworthy. It was groundbreaking at the time (and more or less sui generis). Now we have seen the task tried dozens of times, and we know that success is quite rare. Getting democracy to stick is real work and usually takes several go-arounds, many decades, and a few wars.
I'm not one for 'Murica! style patriotism either, but I have to admit that when I visited DC earlier this year, I really got a sense of just how monumental it was to have founded the USA at the time, on modern democratic principles that still endure today. Yes some of the details were awful like slavery and a limited vote, but all the same it was a revolutionary project at the time, and their legacy is a system that has allowed for things like Nasa, Apple, and Google.
Nearly half of all American adults have been entered into law enforcement facial recognition databases, according to a recent report from Georgetown University's law school. But there are many problems with the accuracy of the technology that could have an impact on a lot of innocent people.
There's a good chance your driver's license photo is in one of these databases. The report from the school's Center on Privacy & Technology says more than 117 million adults' photos are stored in them. Facial recognition can be used, for instance, when investigators have a picture of a suspect and they don't have a name.
They can run the photo through a facial recognition program to see if it matches any of the license photos. It's kind of like a very large digital version of a lineup, says Jonathan Frankle, a computer scientist and one of the authors of the report, titled "The Perpetual Line-Up."
"Instead of having a lineup of five people who've been brought in off the street to do this, the lineup is you. You're in that lineup all the time," he says. Frankle says the photos that police may have of a suspect aren't always that good — they're often from a security camera.
"Security cameras tend to be mounted on the ceiling," he says. "They get great views of the top of your head, not very great views of your face. And you can now imagine why this would be a very difficult task, why it's hard to get an accurate read on anybody's face and match them with their driver's license photo."
And Frankle says the study also found evidence that facial recognition software didn't work as well with people who are dark skinned. There's still limited research on why this is. Some critics say the developers aren't testing the software against a diverse enough group of faces. Or it could be lighting.
"Darker skin has less color contrast. And these algorithms rely on being able to pick out little patterns and color to be able to tell people apart," Frankle says.
Because of its flaws, facial recognition technology does bring a lot of innocent people to the attention of law enforcement.
Patrick Grother says most people have a few doppelgangers out there. He's a computer scientist with the National Institute of Standards and Technology — part of the Commerce Department. "The larger you go, the greater the chance of a false positive," he says. "Inevitably if you look at a billion people you will find somebody that looks quite similar."
And even with the photos taken at the department of motor vehicles, there can be differences in how they are shot. Grother thinks if those photos are going to be used for facial recognition, more uniform standards in lighting, height and focus are needed. "Without those things, without those technical specifications then face recognition can be undermined," he says.
That Frankle guy is being a bit hyperbolic regarding the spread of facial photographs as "perpetual line-up," photographic and physical line-ups are some of the most frequently tossed pieces of evidence in criminal trials, and judges tend to be quote zealous when it comes to making sure that line-up rules are followed.
NPR is doing daily podcasts until the election. Today’s coverage included the “Poll sampling email from 2008” that Trump is citing. Trumps threats to sue all his accusers and weaponizing nasty women. 21 minutes and a good summary of what is going on, plus some jokes.
The most amusing part is that Trump is talking about an email about polls from 2008 like it is today.
NPR is doing daily podcasts until the election. Today’s coverage included the “Poll sampling email from 2008” that Trump is citing. Trumps threats to sue all his accusers and weaponizing nasty women. 21 minutes and a good summary of what is going on, plus some jokes.
The most amusing part is that Trump is talking about an email about polls from 2008 like it is today.
I can't tell if Trump is going with that story because he's a moron that genuinely thinks like his supporters or he knows it's bullshit but goes with it because he knows his supporters eat it up. Though I'm starting to think that the distinction between a moron and the perfect illusion of a moron is insignificant.
EPT
