Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
From the Hagel CNN article
:
Mc Cain, R-Arizona, said Thursday evening on Fox News that Republicans approach to the Hagel vote was colored by past experiences.
"To be honest with you ... it goes back to [that] there's a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and [said] he was the worst president since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense," Mc Cain said. "He was anti-his own party and people. People don't forget that."
Because a) A.I. Is a Crapshoot, b) it's not as easy as putting in X, Y and Z and getting A.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanCOMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING.
The European Parliament is currently debating a data protection bill which would have the most stringent consumer security legislation in the entire world.
However, the US government - on behalf of US tech corps (incl Amazon, and eBay) - have tried to blackmail the EU into removing certain portions of the bill, including the Right to be Forgotten (companies must erase all traces of a person from the internet) and Wholly Informed Consent (companies must gain the consent of users before embarking on anything pertaining to their data). Not only that, but the US government is attempting to block provisions that would force non-EU cloud services to treat EU citizenry data in accordance to similar EU cloud services. Not only that, but the US government have said that they would start a "trade war" with the EU over these measures, and have attempted to lobby Members of the European Parliament to the hilt.
...
WTF.
![]()
Admittedly, I don't know much about computer programming, but I doubt it could be all that hard.
Let's say a state is going to be divided into seventeen districts. The computer selects seventeen different points on the state map at random, then makes a circle (representing a district) expand outward from each point, only stopping its progress in a certain direction when it clashes with another district's borders and/or the state borders. I've seen computers do much more complicated stuff then that.
Of course, that's unlikely to give you equal population distribution. That's where running the program a few million times 'til you do get equal distribution comes in.
If there are any reasons this would not be feasible, please, tell me what they are.
I'm not sure erasing all traces of a person from the Internet is even possible.
edited 15th Feb '13 11:28:31 AM by RavenWilder
1. You have to take in geography. People don't live in mountains, for one.
2. The best thing is to map them to settlements; which is the easiest thing to do (ie dividing a city into an East and West district).
3. I can't think of a 3.
Re: Erasing. That's not my point. The point is that the US government is blackmailing the European Union in what is basically illegal protectionism.
edited 15th Feb '13 11:30:08 AM by Inhopelessguy
I am strongly in favor of the EU position on data security.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Its a very nice and secure position. That is why I am very annoyed at the Obama administration for trying to undermine the security of the European peoples because they're big babies who want to know everything. I mean, we've given you all the data you goddamn want. The Dept for Homeland Security probably has more data on EU citizens than the individual EU States do.
Here's to hoping that the EU gives the US gov the middle finger with both hands and gives it the red eye on this consumer security issue.
No offense to any US citizens here, of course; not every US citizen is at fault for their own government's mistakes — just a specific portion of them.
edited 15th Feb '13 11:49:06 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Eh, I would insist on an exception to the law that allows government to keep data on citizens, because, frankly, it's going to do so anyway whether we like it or not.
Warning: Long, possibly off topic diatribe follows.
I am personally in favor of a worldwide secure data repository for all personal information. Rather than have an individual account with every company or organization that I do business with, my personal data: credit records, bank records, contact information, medical records, etc., would be kept in a master file.
An entity wishing to access my information for any purpose must have that request authorized by me, either in advance or on an as-needed basis. The data is released in transactional format, meaning that any given access attempt is only good once. Similarly, only enough data is released to allow that particular transaction to proceed.
Let's say that I want to go to the coffee shop and buy a drink. I proffer my universal ID card, which the cashier swipes. This connects to the central database and generates a transaction for the indicated amount. The store itself only receives the approval or denial of the transaction and not any of my personal data. The banking entities involved similarly receive a transaction to transfer X.XX dollars from account A to account B. Each part of the process is encapsulated to the entities involved in it.
I can see, at any time, a complete report of all transactions I have undertaken, but I would not necessarily see the details on the vendor's end. For example, I would know that I bought a coffee from Starbucks #1248 on 2/15 at 2:47 PM, costing $3.25, and that it was debited from my bank account, but I would not know the destination bank, nor any other details not relevant to my interest in the transaction. The Starbucks would have their end of the transaction data, but would not get my personal information (name, phone number, address, etc.) unless they requested it and I specifically authorized it.
Collection of aggregate data for research purposes would be allowed, of course, and agencies who want to track individual data for marketing purposes could do so, but only with active consent, and only for limited periods of time. I could authorize Acme Market Research to have access to my shopping records for a period of, say, one year. I would be able to see exactly what data of mine they had and when they had retrieved it.
Long term data, such as phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, and the like, could only be stored for the purposes of the transaction that they are involved with. So Acme Company could retrieve my address to ship me something, but they would not be allowed to retain that data longer than it took to complete the shipment. They may also have their own reporting operations that require aggregate data like zip codes and such, which would be fine. If, however, they want to call me later to sell me something else, they'd need my authorization (either in advance or ad-hoc) to do so, and they would have to retrieve my information again — thus they would not be using out of date address or phone information.
Anyway, that's my idea and it's a bit nascent, and it's also vastly off topic. But there you are.
Edit: I'll be frank — such a system would be a boon for companies like the one I work for. Keeping track of hundreds of thousands of transaction records and the associated customer data is a nightmare.
edited 15th Feb '13 11:59:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That sounds like a good idea. Its very similar to the Easycard of Taiwan.
I still don't quite get why the US government has to interfere with European domestic affairs. They don't do this kind of things to our national Parliaments, but when the EU is concerned, its perfectly fine for them to do it! (I also blame our national governments for not chiding the US for performing these heavily protectionist practices...)
![]()
![]()
Very nice proposal, to be frank. But here's the biggest problem with it: Where do we put this central database's physical components — the servers, data storage mediums, and other hardware?
edited 15th Feb '13 12:03:03 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Slightly more on-topic, one concern that I would have with a request to fully strip one's data from the 'net would be safety. The company I work for also deals with recalls, and while we work with businesses, not individuals, there are legitimate problems with not being allowed to contact someone who bought an unsafe product.
Where do we keep all that physical infrastructure now? It's distributed across the world, managed by individual companies, who may or may not have good security practices or disaster recovery plans.
You'd still need distributed data centers, because of latency issues and redundancy requirements. The advantage of centralizing the management of such a system would be that you could put the absolute best physical and data security measures on it that are available, because you only have to do it once, not ten thousand different times. There are many other issues, of course, which I don't want to get into now, but believe me that I have thought about this a lot.
edited 15th Feb '13 12:06:36 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Thought this might be interesting. Saw this on a facebook friend's page.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."The law would redefine "Private Parts" to include "the nipple, or any portion of the areola, or the female breast." That's right, the breast itself is now a private part, like someone's genitalia. And now, if you expose your breasts for a sexual purpose, you face felony charges and 6 months in prison. And if you do it for another reason, misdemeanor charges and 1 month in prison.
Unsurprisingly, this amendment was introduced by a Republican.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

It's a bare Just World Fallacy, thinking that surely the only reason people could be unfortunate is laziness and grift on their part. (Calvinism itself is actually a rather timey-wimey theological stance not really linked to physical fortune at all, but the theme-park-version it spawned is very JWF-friendly)
Looking at Leviticus, I wonder why nobody seems eager to bring back the Jubilee, but I guess that's more Econ-thread territory.
And yeah, my calculations say that at the limit, Gerrymandering allows a House majority with only 25% of the popular vote.
Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?