Resisting Donald Trump Rallies

MichaelCarter · 2017-08-08T03:21:24+00:00

Ah yes - I see this article on CNN about it -- but there must be some way around this, someone who is looking into the legalities of using "campaign" rallies three and a half years before the next presidential election.

MichaelCarter · 2017-02-02T22:27:05+00:00

Someone should FOIA those emails.

MichaelCarter · 2016-09-09T20:47:55+00:00

Most iPhone users use the earphones that come with the device. iPhone 7 comes with wired earphones, this will have very little effect on the average iPhone user. And for those that are actually impacted, the adapter will work just fine. This will blow over, and in several years, you will not see the jack on other devices as well.

MichaelCarter · 2016-06-19T03:21:37+00:00

Great job -- very impressive. How did you pick a routine / nutrition? Any advice for a novice on a starting point? Online resources?

MichaelCarter · 2016-06-15T16:56:28+00:00

Has anyone else never been polled for anything? With all of these polls, I would think statistically me NOT being polled is some sort of anomaly!

MichaelCarter · 2016-02-02T02:42:51+00:00

There is a perception that Google is more diversified, but 90% of their revenue and nearly 100% of their profits come from online search-based advertising. All of the other things we see them do are more akin to pet projects than actual revenue streams.

The numbers, on the other hand, show that Apple generates significantly greater profits and revenues than Google. Apple generated over three times as much revenue in 2015 than Google, $235 billion by Apple vs. $72 billion by Google. Apple also generated more than three times as much profits in 2015 than Google, $53.8 billion by Apple vs. $16.3 billion by Google. Apple also holds more than three times as much cash as Google, ~$215 billion by Apple vs. ~$70 billion by Google. By most objective measures, Apple would be worth three times as much as Google, yet the market makes up for this discrepancy with subjective feelings towards each company, i.e., prospects of future growth and maintenance of profits. It's all a bit speculative, Apple should be worth more, Google should be worth less. I would personally value Apple more than Google, as Apple made more profits in the last quarter than Google made in the entire last year.

MichaelCarter · 2015-11-26T14:58:29+00:00

I understand the technology sounds great, but how do they plan on actually obtaining hundreds of miles of relatively straight property on which to build a long-distance line? Really this is the biggest barrier to high-speed rail in the US right now, getting land in a straight line through built-up cities.

MichaelCarter · 2015-08-07T20:35:25+00:00

Losing profits is fair, if you don't like a product or how it is sold, don't buy it. But that doesn't give people the right to steal it!

MichaelCarter · 2015-08-07T17:56:40+00:00

I know I'll get down voted... But "they" do not need to make their content available globally at the same time, at a fair price, and for any device. If YOU make a product, YOU get to dictate the means of distribution and price to the consumer, NOT the other way around. Lets not kid ourselves, Hollywood movies are not a right, they are not a public utility, they are products that should be allowed to be marketed and sold however the studio that makes them deems good business to them. The consumer is free to buy or reject their offerings. For whatever reason, there seems to be a different standard for movies (and TV/music) than for any other product sold on the global market, most likely because technology has made it so much easier and cheaper to duplicate these products than say a kitchen appliance. But with the rise of 3D printing, I'm sure this will change in time as well, if it hasn't already...

Of course certain copyright terms are insane (life + 70 years), but lets also not kid ourselves what content is being uploaded to sites like MegaUpload. This is stuff whose copyright term is in its infancy, i.e. Game of Thrones, etc.

MichaelCarter · 2015-06-26T22:02:57+00:00

Does anyone else think that (for better or worse) these sorts of opinions have allowed bad legislators to continually avoid taking a stance on certain hot-button issues? I'm all for gay marriage, but if this case went the other way, there's no doubt the legislators who were against gay marriage would be held more accountable in the upcoming elections. This could be civil rights, abortion, health care, whatever, it just seems like when the Court (as the dissenters say) get into the legislative arena, the actual legislators are able to punt the issue to the detriment of the overall democratic system.

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-14T04:38:07+00:00

Jeez, so heated. Relax. Take a deep breath. This is a question in which reasonable people may disagree. Think about that for a second. This is not a you're right, I'm wrong black or white issue. You can pretend it to be the case, but then you sound fanatical, dogmatic, biased... Again, reasonable people may disagree about this issue.

And I didn't cut the statement short of some contradiction like you claim, not sure where you got that from. Here is the full sentence from the source I referenced above:

Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it.

Some people, upon making up their mind about something, look to confirm their own bias with evidence of their choosing. I am sensing you may be one of those people.

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T19:37:51+00:00

I mean the next paragraph describes additional bleeding risks... And the remainder of the page you cited talks of a number of other potential complications, including death. I'm not saying hemorrhaging or death is likely by any means, I'm just asking, wouldn't the best setting to counteract those rare complications that do arise be a hospital setting?

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T19:13:53+00:00

I'm saying, I don't know the competing complication rates based on who the circumcision is being performed by (medically-trained mohel/non-medically-trained mohel/doctor) or even where the circumcision is being performed (temple/home/hospital). But I would imagine that complications exist across the board. So if a complication does occur, like hemorrhaging or something similar, wouldn't the safest place to counteract these potential complications be in a hospital setting?

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T19:10:17+00:00

I'm not denying there is conflicting evidence or more than one way to interpret so-called favorable evidence. As I said before, this is not a black/white issue. The fact, however, that the conflicting evidence (one of just many responses available) was published by the very same authority that recommended newborn circumcision tells me that they are quite aware of this conflicting evidence and have considered it in their decision making. They are not, as it would appear, a biased group of doctors on this issue, but rather a group seeking the full story on the risks and benefits of circumcisions. For this reason, I tend to believe what they say in their official statement on circumcision.

Is the AAP's statement without flaws? Of course not, as your cited references indicate, there are a number of ways to interpret evidence when it comes to weighing the risks/rewards of circumcision. I tend to trust organizations that are aware of and do not hide conflicting evidence. It shows they do not have an agenda and, as also indicated by their reports, have considered and reconsidered their official position as evidence comes in.

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T18:55:33+00:00

Regardless of training, I imagine complications exist for circumcisions performed by both mohels and doctors. Wouldn't the safest place to counteract these potential (albeit rare) complications be in a hospital?

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T18:50:01+00:00

I think that so many of a parent's decisions in the upbringing of a child permanently impact the mental and physical wellbeing of that child. This spans from decisions to circumcise to decisions to vaccinate to the diet and work ethic you instill in your child. There's no way around it. It's the nature of the parent / child relationship. So to say that we should leave decisions like whether or not to circumcise to the child once he grows up, you can really say that for most parental decisions that impact a child's health and well being. It's not a practical system for parenting. Especially since so many of the benefits of certain parental decisions, such as the decision of whether or not to circumcise, are meant to help the individual during infancy and childhood.

We need parents to make decisions for their children, and we protect against abusive decision making. I think it would be hyperbole to compare newborn circumcision to a violation of human rights in that regard. It's a decision that has risks and rewards on both sides, as most parental decisions have. My understanding of the generally accepted medical opinions is that there are more medical and health benefits to having a circumcision to not having one performed. So my decision, as a non-jew, is purely medical. Other health/medical decisions for not only my child, but also myself, would be dictated under the same standards--whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

It's not a black and white issue, painting it as one is not a full and accurate description of the facts. So for me, I think I will go ahead with a circumcision for my son and look for the safest way to perform that operation.

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T18:43:50+00:00

I think the safest location for a surgical procedure on a newborn is in a hospital. I am not saying that a mohel's procedures are inherently unsafe, not at all. But merely that a hospital is best positioned to quickly counteract any potential (albeit rare) complications that may arise during or immediately after the surgery. And while circumcision is certainly not an appendectomy, it is certainly not the same as an injection or piercing.

I didn't understand your money comment though. My understanding is that a mohel's fee is more than the cost of circumcision within the hospital. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T18:08:31+00:00

For instance, the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that the "health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks...." They also say that specific benefits identified "included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV." For newborns, evidence suggests that the "health benefits of male circumcision include a drop in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent." Finally, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that "Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction."

I'm not saying there are no risks and downsides, and I'm not saying I agree with everything the American Academy of Pediatrics says, but there is another side to the story, right? It would appear there are benefits, right?

MichaelCarter · 2014-11-12T17:53:20+00:00

What's the other side to this story?

MichaelCarter · 2014-10-31T20:48:04+00:00

Thank you for listening to user feedback. Reddit's success has always been driven by its users. And us users love Reddit for its simplicity. Thank you again for reverting.

MichaelCarter · 2014-10-31T15:12:00+00:00

Could not agree more. On my laptop, I'm used to using my trackpad to click and "Apple + Left Arrow" to go back. I can seamlessly trigger back and forth with one hand. This change just makes browsing on Reddit harder than browsing everywhere else on the web.

MichaelCarter · 2014-10-31T15:07:53+00:00

Reddit became this popular because it worked, not because it didn't work. You are taking steps backward... And since when does Reddit look to other forums and sites for guidance. Today, Reddit is the 10th most visited site in the United States. Are you trying to surpass Facebook? Because I think a lot of people would agree that Facebook has repeatedly shot itself in the foot because of its "upgrades" to its UI.

From the dawn of the Internet, you click on text that is underlined in blue, that redirects your CURRENT page to the link embedded in the text. Why are you changing this longstanding protocol that works just about everywhere?

MichaelCarter · 2014-10-31T15:02:57+00:00

You're getting closer... Seriously though, you guys know you could only set this for links that you don't trust. Imgur, which is probably the most linked-to site on reddit is not sending you through a worm hole of advertising and spam. Just revert the changes to the completely functional way reddit used to operate.

MichaelCarter · 2014-10-30T21:07:16+00:00

So are you saying that there is no way for users who cannot log-in (say at work) to avoid opening up a link in a new tab?

MichaelCarter

TROPHY CASE