News Stories

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Amd the "must have x years of experience" has been frustrating me for some time now. My basic question being "how am I suppose to gain experience if no one hires anyone without experiance?"

Easy, tell them you are an illegal immigrant (therefore you will accept a lesser pay) and that you have an university degree in your home country. They will ask you to get a social security number "somewhere", provide your own social security number. If you are thinking "they will only believe I am an illegal immigrant if I say I am latino and I do not look like a latino" let me tell you that I am probably whiter than you are (if i shave my head I would probably fit into a neonazi parade no problem), tell them you are from northern Mexico. When you have five years in the job quit and apply for a job somewhere else.

[ganbaru]

Republicans in Virginia, other states seeking electoral college changes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...5e7_print.html

In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district, a setup far more favorable to Republicans. Under such a system in Virginia, for instance, President Obama would have claimed four of the state’s 13 electoral votes in the 2012 election, rather than all of them.
Other states considering similar changes include Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which share a common dynamic with Virginia: They went for Obama in the past two elections but are controlled by Republicans at the state level.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus recently voiced support for the effort, saying it is something that “a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at.”

Florida House Speaker Weatherford: changing the Electoral College is for sore losers
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/naked...re-losers.html

"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and the beat us in the fourth," Weatherford, a Republican, told the Herald/Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better."

[Ithekro]

I was thinking by percentage of the total popular vote rather than congressional districts as that would reflect the will of the people more than winner takes all.

[SeijiSensei]

Looks like China is wearing its "good-cop" hat today.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226562271548

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/wo...pan-envoy.html

The North Koreans? Not so much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/wo...uth-korea.html

As for the Electoral College, I did a quick analysis in response to a question by a college classmate about whether choosing Presidential electors by Congressional district, rather than winner-take-all at the state level, would have changed the outcomes of any Presidential election other than 2012. The answer is no.

The Constitution allocates each state a number of Electoral Votes equal to the sum of its two senators and the number of members in its delegation to the House of Representatives. Because the Republicans win a lot of small states like Wyoming, the margin between the candidates in the 100 seats allocated from the Senate is small. In 2012 Obama won 27 states, thus gaining 54 EV compared to Romney's 46. The margin of victory in the House is always much bigger than that. In 2004 and 2012 the Republicans won by a margin of about thirty seats; in 2008 the Democrats won by a margin of nearly ninety. So even if we allocated EV using the method now in effect in Maine and Nebraska, and advocated by Republicans in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania, it would have little effect on the outcome in the Electoral College, where margins in the hundreds of EVs are quite common.

The Constitution is clear on this matter; states can choose their electors however they want. No one has challenged Maine or Nebraska for choosing electors by Congressional district. As a practical matter, though, I prefer winner-take-all because it insulates the Presidential contest from the effects of gerrymandering in the drawing of House district lines. I estimate the Republicans have a 10-12 seat "bulwark" in the House resulting from gerrymanders after the 2010 Census. To reward this behavior with a 10-12 EV advantage in the 2016 and 2020 Presidential elections is unfair. I also think that electing someone who wins a minority of the popular vote as President, as would have happened in 2012 if all states used the Congressional-district method, undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system overall. One positive effect moving to the district method might provide is broadening the competition for President out beyond the dozen or so "swing states" that now largely determine the outcome of Presidential elections.

[SaintessHeart]

Seiji, I think China is playing a far more nefarious(pun unintended) plan here.

By forcing North Korea into a corner, it makes them even more dangerous enemy. They are just making North Korea more desperate and probably is planning to drain an already militarily weakened US into another conflict, giving more political leverage in the South China Sea and pushing the US allies to sign a non-aggression pact with them.

[DonQuigleone]

The plus side of allocating seats by congressional district, rather then by state popular vote, is that it means whoever controls congress will also usually control the presidency. Of course the fact that congress is gerrymandered is somewhat problematic....

Then again, if it was done by congressional district, suddenly you might see candidates campaign more widely, and the democrats might take some of these districts the republicans created with "thin" margins.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The plus side of allocating seats by congressional district, rather then by state popular vote, is that it means whoever controls congress will also usually control the presidency. Of course the fact that congress is gerrymandered is somewhat problematic....

Then again, if it was done by congressional district, suddenly you might see candidates campaign more widely, and the democrats might take some of these districts the republicans created with "thin" margins.

I agree with these observations. I think it would make American elections more "parliamentary" in nature and would give Presidential candidates an incentive to campaign nationally. Madison would probably have objected to the former rationale for fear of the "tyranny of the majority." The American Constitution is largely constructed to make it difficult for the Federal government to do much of anything without substantial majorities in favor.

[RRW]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?

Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-26-10-03-12

[konart]

"Fake or not" kind of news:

http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2013/01...-site-offline/

A British defence company has been breached and as a result a heap of documents have been published online and now the site has gone offline.

The attack is on britam defence (http://www.britamdefence.com/) and has been claimed by a hacker using the handle JAsIrX who uploaded the leaked information to various file sharing websites and released it via a single pastebin post with the a message about the release (see bottom).

The documents come in 6 parts and total over 423MB compress zip files and inside the compress files appears to be a common layout of three main folders named !!Syria, Iran and Iraq.

Leaked documents:
- Contracts copies with signatures
- Private email correspondence
- Personnel data, etc.

Insides look like this:

Images

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[thevil1]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...5#.UQRpPic4trM
"The Israel Air Force on Monday conducted a successful test of an upgraded Iron Dome rocket system"

I saw these tests two days in a row. Interesting to see it in use as a test rather than in real use.

[Kyuu]

Oh look.

A law abiding gun toting citizen...

Charges: Dad points AK-47 at daughter for getting two B’s in school

Share on facebookShare on linkedinShare on twitterShare on gmailShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services
159
Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:43 AM CST
Updated: Jan 25, 2013 1:59 PM CST


33 things to know about White House gun violence plan
ST. PAUL, Minn. (KMSP) -
A St. Paul man has been charged with terroristic threats for pointing an AK-47 rifle at his daughter during an argument over the fact that she got two B's instead of straight A's in school.

According to the charges, 52-year-old Kirill Bartashevitch recently purchased the AK-47 due to fears that such weapons would be banned under President Obama's push for gun control legislation.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story...ter-for-grades

Oh yea. These guns are primarily used on criminals, right? These families need guns to protect themselves, right? If I were a betting man - this sort of scenario (using guns to discipline children) is MUCH more likely to happen. Needless to say, this was a ridiculously inappropriate way to use a gun.

This is a news item, even though it is a gun issue related article.

Kirill Bartashevitch is charged with two counts of terroristic threats for pointing the gun at his daughter and wife. Bail was set at $20,000 with the conditions Bartashevitch have no contact with his daughter or wife.

If convicted, each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine

Well, in this case, the law still works.

[Vexx]

i'll just keep saying it - "some/most of the population may be getting too stupid to own firearms or any other advanced technology"

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Oh look.

A law abiding gun toting citizen...

Oh look, a law abiding cell phone owner.

Man accused of killing teen while texting, driving to stand trial
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23835442&nid...cid=featured-2

Vexx is of course correct.
Stupidy doesn't require a gun to kill, Kyuu.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

i'll just keep saying it - "some/most of the population may be getting too stupid to own firearms or any other advanced technology"

And therefore, not enough is being done to prevent that portion of the population from getting access. But given the way US law works -- you can't determine whether a person is qualified or not UNTIL something stupid happens.

Of course, that can change IF a system is installed to ensure all (or as many as possible) are indeed qualified to possess fire arms. The licensing system must be as thorough as that of drivers licenses (with regular expiration dates and competency tests). Is there such a system in place? No, there isn't.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Oh look, a law abiding cell phone owner.

Man accused of killing teen while texting, driving to stand trial
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23835442&nid...cid=featured-2

Vexx is of course correct.
Stupidy doesn't require a gun to kill, Kyuu.

Yes, no one can prevent these things 100%. But at least, for cell phones, there are laws in existence to minimize the effects of that stupidity.

Don't forget to mention alcohol. Oh wait, that matter is pretty much settled as alcohol is regulated up the ass, plus there's a common culture that discourages drunk driving. Yet, drunk driving still happens from time-to-time, where people may die. The problem is not 100% removed; but at least it is not a "epidemic".

For guns? Not enough laws and regulations are implemented. So, quit fighting the inevitable change, join the process, and let the lawmakers do their jobs in that department. If laws are too strict, then there can be ways to loosen them. Trial and error process, y'know.

By the way, you mentioned the idea of your own gun club having some kind of licensing system with regards to fire arms. I think that is a good idea. Now, let's get to work to make sure that everyone is indeed law-abiding.

[Kyuu]

Issues aside.

With that article -- kudos to the mother and daughter -- with enough guts to stand up to a gun pointed at them. As stated, they knew of the gun's status as unloaded; but still, they stood up to a father, who was displaying too much force.

And over a report card? There are kids out there who'd be so freakin' happy to get B's.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

So, quit fighting the inevitable change, join the process, and let the lawmakers do their jobs in that department.

hey, go playback some real smooth R&B like Al Green's "I'm soooo in loooove with you" (preferably in LP format), savor the brief moment and enjoy your POTUS ... because come 2014 our side will totally LIQUIDATE you (and on majority of districts & counties to boot!) and render the Obama machine totally impotent!


oh wait,

tsk tsk tsk

a few days ago the appeals court DID render Obama impotent ... a base starter nonetheless!

... but still, the campaign goes on! We will do everything to extinguish the immediate threat your side is posing to CXIII congress.


Jan 25 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama violated the U.S. Constitution when he used recess appointments to fill a labor board, in a sweeping decision that could limit presidential power to push through federal nominees.

The court found that the Senate was not truly in recess, for the purpose of a recess appointment, when Obama in January 2012 installed three nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

The nominees were facing stiff Republican opposition, and the appointments caused an uproar at the time. Republicans argued that Obama undercut the Senate's power to confirm nominees because although most of its members were out of town, the Senate had not formally adjourned.

In a surprisingly broad ruling, the three-judge panel rejected not only the NLRB appointments but any made while the Senate is in session but on a break. That could limit recess appointments to only a few weeks a year.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also ruled that recess appointments could only be used for positions that become vacant while the Senate is in recess.

"If the decision stands, it would be a significant reduction of the president's recess power," said John Elwood, a Washington lawyer who was deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 2005 through 2009.

"This is a big, big decision for executive power," Elwood said. "It is one of the most important decisions in decades."

More immediately, the ruling casts doubt on the ability of the NLRB, an independent agency that oversees labor disputes, to conduct its business if it does not have enough members. Its recent rulings may also be vulnerable to challenge.

The ruling also throws into question the legality of the appointment of Richard Cordray, the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama used the same type of recess appointment to install Cordray; his appointment was challenged in a separate lawsuit .....

[ganbaru]

Thousands march against gun violence in Washington
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90P0DE20130127

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Thousands march against gun violence in Washington
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90P0DE20130127

that's Westboro Church-grade in quantity compared to this!

just yesterday...

But guess what? The annual pro-life march, this year marking the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision didn’t garner a syllable of coverage on Friday’s World News on ABC nor the CBS Evening News. Yet on Saturday night, both newscasts highlighted a pro-gun control protest in DC which CBS anchor Jim Axelrod pegged at drawing “close to a thousand people.”

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Yes, no one can prevent these things 100%. But at least, for cell phones, there are laws in existence to minimize the effects of that stupidity.

You mean those not-quite-universal (39 states) laws that are nearly impossible to enforce, and for all intents and purposes worthless other than as a possible extra charge after said stupidity has already caused accidents and/or killed?

Not that I don't think those laws shouldn't exist, I just haven't seen anything that remotely suggests they've done anything to "minimize the effect".

Don't forget to mention alcohol. Oh wait, that matter is pretty much settled as alcohol is regulated up the ass

It is? I don't recall having to submit to a background check before I buy a 6-pack at a 7-11

Yet, drunk driving still happens from time-to-time, where people may die. The problem is not 100% removed; but at least it is not a "epidemic".

The 10k+ killed from drunk driving every year disagrees, and that's only counting the fatalities.

according to the CDC, approx. 1.4 million drivers were arrested in 2010 for DUI, which while sounds bad, it is dwarfed in comparison to the 112+ million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving - That's 213 DUIs every minute.

Hardly something that only happens "from time to time".

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

For guns? Not enough laws and regulations are implemented. So, quit fighting the inevitable change, join the process, and let the lawmakers do their jobs in that department. If laws are too strict, then there can be ways to loosen them. Trial and error process, y'know.

You clearly have no idea what the firearms laws are in the US, do you?
It is much harder to get an FFL than it is an alchohol license.
Booze is much easier to obtain, so your comparison is disingenuous at best.
The fact of the matter is Kyuu, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that many Americans will not give up this right so easily.
We will not just lay down and "go along" with the insanity of gun control.

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Thousands march against gun violence in Washington
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90P0DE20130127

Yeah, so?
Thousands marched all over the country a few days ago to protest any new gun control.

Thousands rally against stricter gun control in US
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-rall...223627779.html

Not sure why some people here keep trying to drag this back up.
I thought the gun control thread was closed for a reason.