Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 1:07 pm**

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was sentenced Wednesday to 50 weeks in a British prison for jumping bail in 2012.

He apologized to the court, but the judge said he had used his “privileged position” to show disdain for British law.

Assange next faces an extradition hearing on Thursday related to a separate and potentially more consequential charge in the United States of conspiring to hack a government password. Legal experts anticipate the extradition fight could take years.
...
Judge Deborah Taylor said Assange could have left the embassy and surrendered at any time — rather than waiting for Ecuador to kick him out — and that he used his asylum at the Ecuadoran Embassy to insult the British judiciary. She mentioned that British police had spent 16 million pounds (nearly $21 million) securing and watching the embassy, where until recently Assange had continued to wage his campaigns on the Internet.
...
Sweden discontinued its sex crimes investigation against Assange in 2017. But after his arrest in London last month, Swedish prosecutors said they were considering reopening the investigation.

The courtroom was filled with two dozen Assange supporters. After he was sentenced, some Assange backers shouted, “Shame!” Assange raised his fist in solidarity as he was led away.

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 1:18 pm**

Defiant wrote:

Well if the brown shirt fits...

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 1:29 pm**

How can you not see the jackboot joke that was handed to you?

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 1:45 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote:How can you not see the jackboot joke that was handed to you?

I didn't want to go for the obvious! Unfortunately there will be plenty of opportunities to use all sorts of Nazi references in the next few years.

Posted: **Fri May 03, 2019 5:37 pm**

NPR

A federal court has ruled that Ohio's congressional map is an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander" and must be redrawn by the 2020 election.

In their ruling Friday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio argue that the map was intentionally drawn "to disadvantage Democratic voters and entrench Republican representatives in power." The court argues the map violates voters' constitutional right to choose their representatives and exceeds the state's powers under Article I of the Constitution.
...
The decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently deliberating challenges to congressional maps from Maryland and North Carolina.

The League of Women Voters, ACLU and other voting rights groups sued Ohio last year, saying Republicans redrew the state's congressional map in 2011 with intention of maintaining their three-to-one advantage. Since the map came into effect in 2012, Ohio's congressional delegation has been locked in at 12 Republicans and four Democrats.
...
Ohio's current map was drawn in 2011 by Republican state lawmakers, with input from party consultants in a Columbus hotel room. Democrats argue they were shut out of the process completely.
...
The judges also ruled that Ohio's map has proven to advantage Republicans in every election. The decision says experts "demonstrated that levels of voter support for Democrats can and have changed, but the map's partisan output remains stubbornly undisturbed."

A ballot issue overwhelmingly passed in May 2018 to place new requirements on Ohio's map-drawing process, but the new map wouldn't be created until after the 2020 Census. No congressional election would be affected until 2022.

Under the amendment, a congressional map that lasts 10 years must win 50 percent support from the state's minority party. If it fails to do so, the map would be drawn instead by a bipartisan commission. If that map doesn't get enough support, a 10-year map could then pass with just one-third of the minority party's support, or a four-year map could be passed without minority support but with stricter rules.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm**

Since we're gamers....

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said Wednesday that he'd introduce legislation banning "manipulative video game features aimed at children." Called the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, the bill would prohibit loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions

https://www.cnet.com/news/senator-to-in ... deo-games/

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2019 9:53 am**

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm Since we're gamers....

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said Wednesday that he'd introduce legislation banning "manipulative video game features aimed at children." Called the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, the bill would prohibit loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions
https://www.cnet.com/news/senator-to-in ... deo-games/

#Hawley2020

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2019 4:00 pm**

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm Since we're gamers....

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said Wednesday that he'd introduce legislation banning "manipulative video game features aimed at children." Called the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, the bill would prohibit loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions
https://www.cnet.com/news/senator-to-in ... deo-games/

Good!

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2019 4:06 pm**

Drazzil wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:00 pm
Defiant wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm Since we're gamers....

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said Wednesday that he'd introduce legislation banning "manipulative video game features aimed at children." Called the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, the bill would prohibit loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions
https://www.cnet.com/news/senator-to-in ... deo-games/
Good!

Potentially bad acronym.

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2019 4:25 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:06 pm
Drazzil wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:00 pm
Defiant wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm Since we're gamers....

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said Wednesday that he'd introduce legislation banning "manipulative video game features aimed at children." Called the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, the bill would prohibit loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions
https://www.cnet.com/news/senator-to-in ... deo-games/
Good!
Potentially bad acronym.

PCAGA?

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2019 4:31 pm**

Not sure if this is in another thread, but it's great (especially for the acronym)!

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2019 4:42 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:25 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:06 pm
Drazzil wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:00 pm
Defiant wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm Since we're gamers....

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said Wednesday that he'd introduce legislation banning "manipulative video game features aimed at children." Called the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, the bill would prohibit loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions
https://www.cnet.com/news/senator-to-in ... deo-games/
Good!
Potentially bad acronym.
PCAGA?

Depends how they slice it. I mean if they can get DRONES or STALKERS, anything is possible. Certainly certain sectors will call it the PCFAG Act

BTW is "Act" usually part of the acronym or not? Writer's discretion?

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2019 4:58 pm**

PPACA, HIPAA, FISA, IRTPA, FERPA suggest inclusion.

USA PATRIOT Act does not.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 12:35 am**

Once again showing red state policies don't add up to success.

Best States

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 1:22 am**

Louisiana edges out Alabama and Mississippi for worst state in the union.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 2:11 am**

It's a tight race down there.

Weird to see Tennessee with no. 1 Fiscal Stability at no. 30 overall. The lowest state with a no. 1 score.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 7:04 am**

Utah would be amazing as long as you never plan on advancing your career or stepping outside. Looks like the best around me is New Hampshire - as long as I don't mind crumbling bridges.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:33 am**

I'm surprised MA didn't rank higher, being #1 in education and #2 in healthcare with low levels of crime and gun violence. Our infrastructure isn't THAT bad....

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 11:02 am**

NJ #2 in education? Color me shocked.

Alabama #50 in education sounds about right with the absurdity going on down there right now.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 11:58 am**

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:33 am I'm surprised MA didn't rank higher, being #1 in education and #2 in healthcare with low levels of crime and gun violence. Our infrastructure isn't THAT bad....

As long as you ignore your gas pipelines

Was surprised to see you at no. 4 for crime.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 1:19 pm**

The ranking are interesting, but essentially meaningless without the data behind them. For instance, in the NFL one year the Saints Defense was ranked 32 in the league. The difference between it and the 31st team was the same as the difference between the 31st team and the 11th team. You lose out on the nuance without the numbers.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 1:22 pm**

If only there were a way to drill down...

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 1:26 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:22 pm If only there were a way to drill down...

I did that, but those numbers are just more ratings. It's all meaningless without the statistics to get the ratings.

Edit: Wait, I tried to drill down. I used the environmental settings as a test and it never got to numbers like what you show above. That is actually useful - but would take a long time to line up and compare. Did they do that anywhere?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 1:28 pm**

Perhaps you would be interested in the methodology.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 2:51 pm**

North Carolina was higher than I expected. But it still reinforced my notion that NC is WAY better than SC, and Virginia is upper class NC.

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 6:13 pm**

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/ ... 5004379137

Posted: **Thu May 16, 2019 3:12 pm**

Even the cops laughed at the stupidity...

Posted: **Thu May 16, 2019 4:19 pm**

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:33 am I'm surprised MA didn't rank higher, being #1 in education and #2 in healthcare with low levels of crime and gun violence. Our infrastructure isn't THAT bad....

Not unless you include those driving on it.

Posted: **Thu May 16, 2019 6:54 pm**

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 3:12 pm Even the cops laughed at the stupidity...

The solution is to buy a 45 dollar prayer coin, obviously.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 12:16 pm**

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 12:35 am Once again showing red state policies don't add up to success.

Best States

Alabama 50th in education? That's overly harsh but understandable. On the other hand, ranking us 35th in Natural Environment, or 45th in Economy, is absolutely inexplicable.

These "Best states to live in", surveys are always biased against the South, IMHO. They never take into account things like "Cost of Living", "Unemployment rate" or "Government regulation". And to rank states like New York and Connecticut ahead of Alabama in "Natural Environment" is ludicrous (and, yes, I've lived in all three). These sorts of surveys always seem to end up over-rating cold weather states with bad climates that few people actually want to live in. And this particular survey goes beyond any I've ever seen in simply rating States like Lousiana and Alabama low in everything.

On the other hand, if you depend on State services or like lots of Gov't regulations like vehicle inspections, 55 mph speed limits, restrictive gun policies, fireworks bans, etc. the South is definitely not the place for you!

In short, I think these sorts of surveys look too much at State and local policies and not enough at other factors, many of which are more important considerations in choosing a State to live in. As fucked up as our State Governments might be here in the Deep South, they also have less influence on our daily lives than governments in many other states, thanks to Southerners disdain for Government regulation in general.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 12:58 pm**

Apollo wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 12:16 pm And to rank states like New York and Connecticut ahead of Alabama in "Natural Environment" is ludicrous (and, yes, I've lived in all three). These sorts of surveys always seem to end up over-rating cold weather states with bad climates that few people actually want to live in.

"Natural environment" has nothing to do with climate. And while you are so proud of your state government having "less influence over your daily life", the government's job also involves being of top of things like this and this.

And the whole "few people actually want to live in" New York, etc. - you are completely contradicting your own argument that cost of living is higher there. That's just supply and demand. If "few people" wanted to live in New York, the cost of living there would be going down, not up.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:01 pm**

Surveys on "best" are inherently worthless unless you're only interested in what people think and not what's true, particularly with regard to objective subjects like environmental impact.

That said, I would assume these surveys are polling the south as well, giving them an equal opportunity to voice their biased opinions just like the North.

What the survey tells me is that nobody thinks highly of the South, not even the South.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:06 pm**

It's not a 'Best place to live' list, it's a ranking of every state on 8 criteria, all of which are well detailed. For instance, Natural Environment measures the number of unhealthy air quality days and water violations, along with amount of pollutants in the environment. As for employment, which is factored into economy, someone has to be 45th worst and it's Alabama. Cost of living is factored into Opportunity.

If you want to dispute the data points, that's fine, but the list isn't just some folks thinking about where they'd like to most live.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:07 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 1:01 pm Surveys on "best" are inherently worthless unless you're only interested in what people think and not what's true, particularly with regard to objective subjects like environmental impact.

That said, I would assume these surveys are polling the south as well, giving them an equal opportunity to voice their biased opinions just like the North.

What the survey tells me is that nobody thinks highly of the South, not even the South.

It's not a poll. That becomes clear if you look at it.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:15 pm**

Fair enough. It said survey in the article and that's as far as I was interested in going. My assumption was based on that plus Apollo suggesting it was opinion based.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:16 pm**

Well, looks like you just made an assay out of yourself.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:17 pm**

Ba da bum, tssh.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:24 pm**

Where public opinion does come into it is how the categories are weighted. More people think health care is more important than fiscal stability.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:53 pm**

gilraen wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 12:58 pm
Apollo wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 12:16 pm And to rank states like New York and Connecticut ahead of Alabama in "Natural Environment" is ludicrous (and, yes, I've lived in all three). These sorts of surveys always seem to end up over-rating cold weather states with bad climates that few people actually want to live in.
"Natural environment" has nothing to do with climate. And while you are so proud of your state government having "less influence over your daily life", the government's job also involves being of top of things like this and this.

And the whole "few people actually want to live in" New York, etc. - you are completely contradicting your own argument that cost of living is higher there. That's just supply and demand. If "few people" wanted to live in New York, the cost of living their would be going down, not up.

It seems to me that you're misrepresenting my arguments into things you can easily dismiss. For one, I wasn't talking about climate when I was posting about Natural Environment. We have a wealth of untouched forests, lakes, rivers and beautiful beaches that blow anything in New York away. It's not even close. And New York has far more polluting industries than Alabama does (though if we had the same amount of industry as NY, we would certainly be producing more pollutants, thanks again to our F'ed up State and local governments).

And where did you get the idea that I'm "so proud of" my state government? I guess you stopped reading after the first paragraph or you would have noticed that I posted "As fucked up as our State governments are here in the Deep South..." My point was, as bad as our State government is, there are some advantages (such as less direct intervention into one's life).

I think you are wrong about "Cost of Living" being an indicator of how much people want to live in NY. That might be true of California, but it's definitely not true of the Northeast as a whole (where populations continue to shrink whereas the South continues to grow.) The high cost of living in states like New York has more to do with a large population and having an older, more developed (thus slower growing) economy than any Southern state, not because people are dying to live there.

P.S. I enjoyed my time living in Saratoga Springs, NY, and I have nothing against the state, I'm just trying to get Alabama and the South some credit where credit is due. On the other hand, as far as Connecticut goes, I didn't find one thing I liked about that state other than Mystic, which is one of my all-time favorite towns (though I've been told it's not actually a separate town, but whatever...)

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 1:56 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 1:15 pm Fair enough. It said survey in the article and that's as far as I was interested in going. My assumption was based on that plus Apollo suggesting it was opinion based.

Yeah, I mistakenly posted "survey" when I should have posted "study". Sorry about that, but I stand by the rest of what I posted.

Octopus Overlords

Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness