After i saw this yesterday, i did a quick search for giggles. Straight off i found a book that gives a photo attribution to Carol M. Highsmith/Buyenlarge/Getty. TIME Inside the White House- The History, Secrets and Style of the World's Most Famous Home
I think the problem is that shit keeps getting crazier and more extreme, and it is just accepted as the new normal. I would hate to keep running this experiment of "let's see who (or what policies) is so over the top that we as a nation "wake up". And I am not sure who it is in Congress who would get this wakeup call. Most just punch their time cards, or they have already been as extreme as Trump for ages. Any serious departure from this trend is what is seen as radical. The "compromise center" has shifted way too far into bizarroland already.
We don't "special insight". We only need the long, long record on who has been pro-TPP. (And other, similar gems. And pro-fast track, and pro-secrecy, and completely misrepresenting what are in these "trade" deals...)
The article wasn't about Trump. He was mentioned not even by name as sort of a comparative foil.
No one ignored here ignored the "DNC hack". Maybe you ignored everything except this particular article. Which apparently shouldn't exist, or be entirely uncritical of Clinton. This article is about it's subject. It's not a politically-motivated list of reasons to be anti-Clinton.
The facts suck, I know. But some of you Clinton supporters should check yourselves, you aren't doing her any favors. (Not that every dog that's been in this fight hasn't had some truly awful supporters.)
Mostly the culture of not being able to get away with ultra-cheap development and production needs to be changed. If everyone is playing on the same field, the forces of innovation will roll right on ahead. If they can't, their service is probably so shoddy, pointless, and possibly dangerous that it really is better if it doesn't make it to market. Businesses get away with externalizing far too many costs. It's just not their problem, whether it's awful IoT-ness, leaded gasoline, asbestos, pollution and environmental destruction, using limited resources for discardable items, or hiding from taxes that would pay to upkeep the infrastructure that allows them to do what they do in the first place. Sure, it can suck trying to fight the incumbent system as a startup, but that's why there should be incentives to small businesses rather than giant breaks for megacorporations. But if all you are going to do is start up and then sell out, well, you're kind of part of the problem.
Overly onerous, pointless, and ridiculous rules are always stupid. I think most people would like to avoid those. Which is why we should stop legislating and acting on belief, and be a bit more evidence-based culturally.
The point, assuming it is Russia, would be to sow confusion and discord. It doesn't really matter if Russia supports either one or not.
As for hurting Trump. Lol, nothing really hurts Trump, which is why he is where he is. People with sections of completely contradictory ideologies, including those that conflict with Trump's personal behaviors, love him. You could show him palling around with Bin Laden and hugging him, post 2001-09-11, and people would say it just proves that the terrorist attacks were false flag ops.
Not that we don't put up with all sorts of atrocious behavior from nearly every politician ever.
I am pretty sure the other intent is that there are lots of businesses and services and governments which do not properly encrypt stored data or personal online communications. And there is the always lovely IoT. And gee, if the cookie law is so bloody heinous, could you imagine having to adopt encryption properly? Ermahgerrrrrrd. I'm sure we could invent a cost to business for that which is 10 times the global domestic product for the next 100 years.So yeah i guess a regulation for it is the only way to get that done.
Ooooh! More demands for silencing. My, we are cranky here today.
Big Pharma sucks. Insurance companies and a lot of the medical industry sucks. Naturopathy and denying actual evidence-based medicine sucks.
The last thing corporate executives should be sent to prison for is providing something life-saving and useful, or people for speaking facts.
But hey, I guess i must be on board with this whole "ignore the actual topic" thing given my last few comments. IIRC it was how some blowhards attempted to threaten a writer with nothing to back up their claims... Right! Silencing. The common thread.
Wow. Ignored, sure. Punished when directly causing harm and endangering people's lives, yes.
I do agree anyone following Wakefield and any other completely discredited nonsense is an idiot - they are the ones who haven't actually looked at or thought out anything. But wow.
Oh, but i would agree that media and other social institutions that go out of their way to provide a platform for this idiocy are equally bad as anti-vaxxers, et al. "Silenced" seems pretty illegal and threatening though.
Earlier I understood your post clearly enough, but your opening does have a tone a little like apologetics for anti-vaxxers. Which... OK fine, you clarified what you meant, but now you indicate there is some noticeable trend in calling people who decline flu shots "anti-vaxxers". That either an interesting claim or an interesting trend. (And if someone calls you an anti-vaxxer for declining flu shots but not spouting anti-vaxxer nonsense as your reasoning, then they are an idiot.)
It's actually freaked me out since before connected automobiles, the over-reliance on electronics and code. It sucks that eventually you will not be able to buy dumb cars, or TVs, or whatever. And it seems open architecture general-purpose computing could be dying also. Creepy.