OCinBuffalo

I've been saying this for years. IF she wins in 2016, but it looks like she might not get another term? Everything will be on the table, especially and including repealing Obamacare outright. Hell, if her numbers continue as they are, forget about 2016. She simply does not have enough white voters to win right now. Period. Thus, here ends the "demographics" and "Blue Wall" arguments. I will explain. Let's do the basic math here: .5% shifts in white voters ~= 10-15% shifts in minority voters, in terms of total votes. Of course it's different state by state. It doesn't take much change in the white vote to completely erase whatever advantage a D has with minorities. Clinton losing 2 pts of the white vote, to the R(not to staying home), obliterates all minority voting advantages in all states, except maybe CA. 4 pts and we are talking a possible 50 state sweep for the R, and definitely an easy win. Both false arguments are predicated on: 1. minority voting will overtake the difference in R vs. D white voting, thus rendering the white vote irrelevant(never) 2. Ds will never piss off enough white voters to counteract the increasing minority vote(already have) 3. Obama's minority voting shares and volume will remain constant for all Ds, forever(Good Luck!) Yeah, after you read 1-3, it's not difficult to see why the "Blue Wall" and the "Demographic Victory" arguments are crap. Given this, if Clinton's #s with white voters do not improve, her current "move to the left" strategy will be tossed out. It has to be. Unless they want to get Mondaled. Then? EVERYTHING will be on the table, now. Obamacare, Global Warming, Reform et al...Hillary will become the same "centrist" her husband was(for as you say, 100% selfish reasons), and she'll be talking about how SHE plans to repeal and replace Obamacare...BEFORE any of the Rs do/before the year is out... ...per standard execution of Clinton triangulation. Remember that word...

This is why I say fight perversity with perversity. Bring back The Stocks! Our current culture is obsessed with LAMP. Then why shouldn't our punishments be every bit as public? How can anything be cruel or unusual if it is merely keeping within societal norms? How many naked selfies are out there right now? How many people are wasting electricity and bandwidth foisting the entirety of their existence upon the rest of us? So what is cruel, or even close to unusual, about confining this woman in the public square, the place where she chose to put herself a long time ago, in The Stocks(Google it if you don't know)? Anyone whose crime is the public character assassination of others, or the public questioning of the motives of others, or any sort a-hole behavior in public, and especially those who use the media to accomplish their bad behavior...should be punished in public. They shouldn't get to hide behind "suspensions", being "off air" for a while, "spending more time with their family", or any of the rest of the excuses and tactics used. Throw them into the stocks an treated exactly as they deserve: a sideshow to be publicly humiliated, just as they sought to do to others.

Oh yeah, and for a bunch of people that "never read my posts", I love how often the word "scope" has been used since I introduced it into this thread. You rent, but I own. And for hopefully the final time: "As much data as possible" is not what this job requires. Rather the job requires "as much of the right data as possible". And, only if that data is producing actionable results. If the SCOPE of our project calls for the collection of a billion records, that is because of the requirements-->design. Not because of anything else. Similarly, the next scope may only require 10k records. It's always about what is necessary to get the job done. So, whining about "bulk" data collection, or whether meta data is used, or whether the SCOPE of the data we collect is expanded to every type of data conceivable...is stupid. Consider: if we think we have an operative who infiltrated the country in March....what good is any data before that? Thus, if there is a problem, then it's because we have <March data in the warehouse dedicated to this effort, and NOT, because we are "bulk" collecting trying to find this guy through pattern recognition. The problem we are trying to solve is the sole determining factor of our tactics. Therefore, the first question that must be asked is never about tactics , rather it is about problem definition/project scope: what is the problem we see, and what do we think we need to do to solve it? If the answers to those 2 questions are acceptable, then using whatever tactics are necessary to get the job done are acceptable, but, if any tactic isn't producing results(like these million records over here that have shown us nothing, and aren't ever going to), dump it. I guess I will try explaining it another way: we are all familiar with public opinion polls, right? Do scientific public opinion polls require "As much data as possible"/1 million respondents? No, they only require 2000. They do however require qualified, "likely voters", to be the most accurate snapshots of where things currently stand. A series of them taken together has a 50/50 chance of showing a trend, and the reason it's 50/50 is hooking snapshot together is not the same as designing a predictive data model. The best way to determine what voters are thinking is to create an analytic, predictive data storage facility.....which is what Obama's campaign did, which is why he won, and also explains how Romney's, as well as Gallup's internal polling was so off. They were working with the old, hooking snap-shots together method, and it fooled a lot of people, then failed. One tactic was successful, the other was not. Both sides collected "bulk data", and meta data, about people. So "bulk data" made no difference. The difference was, one side knew how to do my job(EDIT: The Obama campaign hired Accenture, not Google, not Apple. ) and the other side didn't.

Nah, you've invoked me all by your idiot self. This it's literally the same thing as asking "what is the difference between a coupon rate and a discount rate?". That invokes you, and only one time is required. Your dopey ass would proceed to fill page after page in response, especially if anybody dared to question you about anything, no matter how trivial. So spare us the hypocrisy. Just because I know a lot about the subject matter being discussed, and you do not, as evidenced by your long posts in this thread, doesn't mean you get to pretend that if the topic was finance, you wouldn't be writing book post after book post.

Which are all less than he would have made had he stayed in Philly, and, as I said above: this is the price you pay for losing a holdout. Everybody else in the NFL, and these 3 guys, which include an agent, expects the "lost your holdout" penalty to be put into full effect. Since that's true, we shouldn't be expecting the Bills to pay $24 mil over 3 years or whatever, and criticizing Whaley when he doesn't do that , because that's not how the NFL works.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why a Chicago newspaper is covering the Bills.

Are you new? This is the stupid schit we always have to endure, during June and July. This is the time of year when the "Get rid of Rian Lindell"(remember that? ) posts happen. Yes, 2005, and a whole summer where Ryan Lindell became the greatest Satan of all time, and was the cause of all our problems...acording to far too many here at the time. Two years later he sets a team record for consecutive FGs made. , and goes on to be one of most consistent kickers in the NFL for the next 5 years after that. But if we had listened to the "summer wisdom"? The upside is: they moved the draft back to May. So, now it's only 2 months of the banal, inane, and insane, instead of 3.

This entire post needs a rewrite. I get what you are trying to say, maybe, but, I don't get how "with good reason because of history" and "although it may not be true" belongs in the same phrase, in any post, about any topic, anywhere on this board. These things are mutually exclusive. Something cannot be both true for good reason, because: history, and, false, at the same time, because...what...reason(other than "here is where I cover my ass")? Your last sentence would have sufficed as the entire post. Instead, you feel the need to contort this into a race issue initially, but then contort back, with that last sentence? Why did you bother to write anything else besdies your last sentence? Question: What are all these contortions? Answer: 1. Trying to be "on record" as both accepting and defying reality at the same time, so you can make the race charge you need to make 2. Carrying the brackish PC water, again 3. Inserting race into discussion for no good reason, but, covering your ass so that you don't get Duke Lacrossed. This post is hysterical, because it illustrates in technicolor exactly how much absurdity people like you willl post in avoidance of reality: To the point of contradicting themselves in the same phrase, never mind sentence. Perhaps with all your contortions here, an audition for the circus is in order? Yep. All irrelevant, especially when we are talking Rosenhaus. Mathis lost, but Rosenhaus lost bigger. He's the guy doing the advising here, and he got his client released rather than extended or traded. Now, his client has to take whatever he is given by the other 31 teams, and ALL of them have an axe to grind with Roesnhaus. It is possible somebody steps ahead oif the pack and offers Mathis more than he was making? Sure. Is it likely? No. This is the risk every player takes when they hold out. If the team cuts them, they automatically become damaged goods, whether true or not, BECAUSE they held out. Doubly so when they publicy talk schit about the coach that released them afterwards. Think: which of the 31 teams ISN"t going to be saying to themselves: "Hey if this is how the guy behaves during this, what's to say he doesn't do the same thing here? How do I know I'm not putting a cancer on my team, and over-paying for it?"

and he didn't get it. I don't know how losing a holdout by getting released outright, and not traded, improves your bargaining position with the other 31 teams. IF somebody thought he was worth the money he was being paid, they would have traded for him. So, we have to start with less than he was going to make the next 2 years, don't we? I mean, who releases an All-Pro, #2 PFF guard, unless the guy swears he isn't gonna play a single down without more $? Is Kelly's need for control worth dumping a guy like Mathis? We don't know. Regardless, Mathis gambled, and lost. The rest of the teams have their perspective as well.

1. Patriots. To be fair, any SB winning team is almost assuredly going to take a step back. The other teams go after their UFAs, and the players are looking to cash in on their rings. However, the Pats secondary is, in every way, a self-induced dumpster fire. Not only did they lose their #1 and 2 DBs, by not even trying to keep them, they released their #3. They got: a 2nd round reach S who is 3rd string on their depth chart, and a 7th round CB who is 2nd string, in the draft. They had JAGs and practice squad promotions. Now, UDFAs, and street free agents comprise their options. Unless they want to get ripped off in a trade, or find another team's miscreant/trouble maker == get lucky? They have no choice but to play zone most of the year, and do very little blitzing. This is why drafting a true cover CB is never a bad thing. IF the Pats* win at all, they will beat the O/U every time. Scores of 42-35, etc. Brady will have to average 3 TDs per game when he comes back. I am just as sure Brady can do it, as I am sure Garappolo cannot, which is why the Pats could easily be looking at 1-3(Steelers home, Bills away, Jags home, Cowboys away) when Brady gets back. Imagine if they lose to the Jags. This era's Pats team, after winning a SB, probably starting a season at 1-3 if the Brady suspension holds. How is that not the biggest step back? 2. Eagles. Philly is black and white. Either Kelly is right, or he has destroyed a talented team due to sheer ego. This could easily be #1...or not belong on this list at all. We'll see. 3. Cleveland. Due to the resources blown on things like Manziel, and others, after a brief stint at getting better, they are back to self-inflicting the "Factory of Sadness". That's the thing: this is psychological as much as anything. Pettine may be able to overcome it. But, no other coach has in 20 years. 4. SF. They lost a lot. However, like Pittsburgh and Baltimore, can you ever expect a 2-14 season from them? It's hard to put them above Cleveland(see: Factory of Sadness) 5. You can put a lot of people here, and others have already listed them.

Seriously, why aren't we doing phrasing, literally, not figuratively.

Based solely on opinion. Last year he lived largely off the football team Andy Reid created. This year, he has seen fit to strip a lot of talent off that team, and replace it with his guy: Kiko. Soon we will have fact that either proves he is what you say, or, is one of the inexperienced, dumber minds in a league filled with guys who are experienced and wise, and therefore know what works. As I said above, this is rapidly approaching "no middle ground" status. Kelly is going to 100% one thing, or 100% the other.

I'm used to winning that competition, and I imagine so are many NFL players, but, I don't see how that makes the team better.

Yeah, ever since DeSean Jackson, I've been saying that there's no middle ground here. Either Chip Kelly is really on to something, or he is really on his way out the door. It's one of the very few times where there's no relativity. It's rapidly approaching absolutes. He either wins big, or he loses big. It's interesting. It's certainly not safe. And, Mathis rated #2 by PFF last year out of 78.

1. Again, if what they are doing produced nothing but garbage, that is incompetence, and whoever "they" are should be fired. Not the mooks who do the daily stuff, but the bosses and designers of the "system". The question here is NOT whether the effort ever produces garbage, at all. Rather, it's whether it ever produces actionable intelligence, and how often it does. This kind of work is always going to produce garbage. So, lets quit being shocked when it does, mkay? If they are keeping the garbage for no apparent reason, as this quote states, then yeah, that is stupid, and they should be canned. There are ways, I'm not going to get into because that is a very long post, for determining if current garbage will always be garbage, or if at some point it may be useful. Once again, competence is required to do that. 2. Again, we have to collect lots of seemingly unrelated data for patterns to emerge. Enough of the OUTRAGE! over the fact that lots of data/pics/whatever are collected from disparate sources. Calls, texts, posts, pics: collecting datat of all stripes...This is the F'ing job! We don't need any of this, if we could do everything with Gibbs and his team from NCIS: magically hacking 512 encryption in minutes , and amazingly, only ever receiving and working with the small, perfectly targeted data sets that have a 90% confidence level of producing results and always magically appear on demand with minimal "computer work". All of this, while none of the irrelevant/failed data sets ever show up. Yes, it only takes minutes to do my job! Especially if done by a hipster chick forensic scientist, with no formal education or experience in data warehousing, or God F'ing forbid, yet another tool from MIT who thinks that being from MIT alone means they can do what we do(that is the only realism here). When are we going to stop pretending that TV is reality? This work REQUIRES lots of disparate data. And, sometimes it fails to produce any results. The question is how many "hits" are we getting, and how much garbage, that will always be garbage, we are retaining for reasons passing understanding. (Hits are actually a horrible way to describe this, and if we are going after hits, we are doing it wrong. "Hits" are point in time. Patterns are over time. Like all point in time data, any "hit"'s usefulness expires as we move away from its point in time. A pattern shows us ongoing reality. Designing a system to produce hits, and not patterns, is idiotic. But, I've seen it plenty.) When did I say it couldn't? Wake up. I am saying that not ONLY phone call meta data, but texts, pics, posts, ALL of it, AND its meta data, is the PROPER way to do the job. I'm rapidly tiring at the OUTRAGE over what is merely competently going about one's analytics business.

Get used to seeing this. It's been 2 years. 2 years was always when the Federal subsidizing of the state exchange(and Medicaid expansion as well, don't forget that) as a whole(meaning not individual subsidy, but "startup cost assistance") was going to run out. As far as the SCOTUS case? This whole thing is Obama and Co. trying to get out of the language they purposely created as a political trap for red state governors. The logic: IF you don't create your own exchange and/or expand Medicaid, you won't get Federal subsidy $ (In case you don't know: Normal Medicaid funding == 50% Fed, 25% state, 25% county. Medicaid expansion means expand coverage and change the formula, by using the extra Federal funds. So, it was ~70% Fed, 15% state, 15% county. When the extra Fed funds run out, we revert to the normal formula, and the state and counties will be left holding the bag to make up the difference on the "expanded" people. Or, kick them back out of Medicaid, and go back to normal coverage rules. Don't be surprised to see the latter, as many counties, and some states, face bankruptcy in trying to make up the difference.) THEN we will excoriate you politically for denying the people in your state something that other people in other states are getting, and not only will you be defeated in your next election, we will turn your state from red to purple on your watch. Unfortunately for the Ds, they couldn't conceive of any other possible logical outcome. But reality is this: ELSE Red state govs will call your bluff, because they aren't the idiots you thought they were, because only your own hubris said you could intimidate them, and, because proper analysis of Obamacare said FAIL. Obamacare will remain unpopular, will fail spectacularly in both design and execution at the Federal level, the young will not be fooled into signing up for a ripoff, and the magical thinking that said somehow adding massive, temporarily subsidized, demand for health care without increasing supply, was going to "lower rates", fails, because it is: magical thinking. The trap above cannot work WITHOUT the specific language that is being contested in the SCOTUS case: "Federal subsidies of individuals are only available to exchanges established by the state". So, please understand, this is NOT a "mistake in the language" or an "oversight". No. This is the remains of a failed political trap, that Obama et al are now trying to get out of, because they could never conceive of the ELSE. EDIT: If anything a new trap for blue state governors and Ds in general has been created: "You either kick people out of Medicaid, or, you have to raise taxes substantially, which will get YOU defeated in the next election"

For the last time: "Bulk" collection can be defined as any more than 1 record. Thus, it's a cliched, nonsense argument. Why are people with no clue how data warehouses are constructed, never mind used, pretending they are authoritative on this issue. Snowden is certainly no authority. I am. When I tell you that "bulk" isn't nearly as important as the data model, what touched the data, and NSA's methodology, that's the definitive answer, period. And, of course it isn't "just phone calls". Collecting just phone calls is called: incompetent. When looking for patterns, often we have to include dimension after dimension of seemingly unrelated data, from many sources. The right way IS calls, texts, bank, credit, whatever we think will produce a pattern. That's the point of the entire F'ing exercise: we don't care about the raw data itself, except when it produces a pattern that we can process into information, or in this case "actionable intelligence". Only then do we look at the specific fields within the records that fit the pattern. Up until that point its just a bunch of records, and we only care about their IDs.The very last thing we want is inspecting field values out of turn. That leads to bias. Verizon has ALL call and text meta-data. It had it before the Patriot Act, now, and they will still have it if 100% repealed, so WTF? If I'm the NSA guy doing this, I don't need garbage cluttering up my warehouse that I use to find the bad guys. Doubly so if I can go get a clean set of raw data from Verizon, with a FISA warrant, whenever I need. If I am incompetent/stupid/compromised by another agenda, then yeah...I want all the records now and forever. That's where professional IT management, Congressional oversight, and Executive oversight come in, and fire me. Also, once you get past 10k records in most tables/collections, if your "algorithms"(used for simplicity here) are terrible, it doesn't matter of there's 10k or 10mil. You are going to have a slow, ****ty system, that produces 0 results, or worse, false ones. So once again, the amount of "bulk" is irrelevant when compared to: competence. Garbage goes in the trash. If you NEVER took the garbage out at home? Sooner or later you can't even make it to the bathroom. Ever seen a "hoarders" show? Data works the same way. Yes, some dopey clients begin as "hoarders" who want everything. I can totally envision some jagoff ordering the NSA to do that. But, over time even the biggest jagoff always learns their lesson: Usually only takes 1, 500+ page report, and delivering it in front of their peers, to condition their behavior. Moving on, attempting to watch all things at all times == FAIL. By definition, you can't establish patterns if you never narrow the raw data result set beyond "all calls in North America every day, all the time". That's not how this works at all. In fact, that kind of data is practically guaranteed to give you nothing, or false patterns. All the extra garbage causes higher propensity for errors, and error margins, which can easily cause a pattern to be obfuscated. Seriously, I'm quite tired of hearing incompetence run the show in this thread. There is a right way to do targeted data collection, extraction, transformation, loading, and then analysis. We do NOT KNOW if they NSA is doing it right. And they shouldn't tell us, because doing so compromises their methods, the terrorist change what they do, and it's back to square one. Prattling about "bulk" is a distortion, and a waste of time.

Cue Yoko Ono's wailing. I was thinking of doing a youtube of Hillary's speechifying with interspersed Ono wailing. If I have time, I shall.

Well, you know, if you can't explain the 18 year "hiatus"(apparently we've moved on from "pause"), there's always denying it exists! Then, you can get clowns to say this: Now this is odd, isn't it? In this very thread we have link after link, including a trusted Buffalo weatherman's efforts, that EXPLAIN the 18-year pause. Again I ask: why the need for an explanation for something...that doesn't exist? These leftist Global Warming clowns obviously don't have their head and ass wired together. Half are trying to deny the pause, the other half are trying to explain it as a pause, and NONE are entertaining the simplest explanation: they overestimated CO2 sensitivity. However, we do have relief! From the last link we have this: Wait a minute. Hold on. So NOAA scientists are now telling us that the data from THEIR own satellites is wrong? And, it has been, since 1979? Well, the WTF are the doing with them then? How many bad satellites has NOAA put into space, and what is the cost, if NONE of them can produce reliable surface temperatures. Again I ask WTF is going on here? Weren't NOAA's satellites used in part at least, to create the UN models? Aren't they the thing that brought us Global Warming in the first damn place? Now, they are suddenly wrong? WTF? What I bet will be DC_Tom's favorite part of this post, and it is mine: Hmm. I just got done saying a very similar thing on the football board wrt QB data. And, of course there's the runner up from the same link: Ok then, what the F are we even talking about? Even the most blatant data massaging cannot save the failed UN models. What else is there to say? IF anyone needed any more evidence that the UN models are garbage, here it is: even Karl's concerted and obviously wishful effort to save the entire Global Warming ship...STILL leaves them to drown. And of course, there's a strong counter to this paper by a real climate scientist(who, sorry leftists, doesn't "work for the oil companies"). Anyone who is familiar with advanced statistical analysis or "analytics" can see plain as day that Curry blows up Karl's paper completely: Well, now honey, you're just a scientist, you can't be expected to understand why this short paper bastardizes the raw data. See, it has to, because this is the required political outcome that is being demanded. Karl's study is operating as designed. The WH custom ordered this from NOAA, and they are just doing the job they...Wait! Perhaps you do understand: Game. Set. Match.

The parenting problem arises from personal insecurity. Studies I've read/heard about show that the real reason parents yell at kids(and some are downright nuts), has nothing to do with their kid(s). Rather, the parent sees the kid's poor performance as a reflection upon them as a parent...in front of the other parents. So yeah, this is usually a mental defect. Once again, the standard defect: "I don't want to accept the personal consequences, of my choice, to do nothing to help my child improve" is the root cause of yet another problem. But rather than addressing the problem or its root cause head on? We take away the chance for any parent to look bad in front of any other by: 1. Removing competition. We fabricate something that sounds smart as the reason: "Collaboration over Competition". And, thus the average parents feel(of course instead of think) that not only are they doing the right thing, they are doing the smart right thing. Now its even more appealing: not only do they get to avoid facing the root cause, and addressing THEIR problems, they also get to feel smart about doing it! 2. Handing out trophies to everyone. Same old story here: One Size Fits All. Or, "All peole aren't just created equal, they are entitled to equal outcomes". The more you stabilize the outcome, the more you obfuscate the root cause. Thus, rather than a parent spending time with their kid working on the things that need work, no matter what it is, they aren't accountable for anything. They know all the kids are entitled to the same outcome, so it doesn't matter how they get there. Once again, we are talking about parenting FAIL here, but, we are also talking about yet another situation in which the conditions for parenting FAIL, have been created by the social "experts".

There's a word for this: BenSmithing. Detailed definition: Instead of reviewing or telling the whole story, you focus on a picayune issue, and get as many others to focus on it as well. You spend tons of time on that aspect. Then, you create a "report" that includes your exhaustive investigation of the picayune issue, and pretend that == an exhaustive investigation of the entire story. You hand your report out to the largely lazy media, who would rather take your "exhaustive" report than do their own work. Then, when others bring up the other, glaring, infinitely more relevant issues and aspects, like the "refusing to cooperate" aspect? You, and now, also, the lazy media(and their parrots) who don't want to be exposed as such, say this whole thing is "old news", has already been exhaustively looked at, point to your report as "definitive", and therefore, there's nothing left to talk about. Example: "Look, this Brady thing is a phony scandal. This is distracting the NFL from doing more important work. How can a few deflated footballs really have helped him? Look at the score of the game. Was it the trainer who deflated the footballs on his own, or because Brady was telling him to do it, what difference at this point does it make?" Hmmm. Some of those words and phrases...you might have heard before, somewhere. Shocking, I know. That's because BenSmithing is a tactic that's been in place for quite some time now, and is merely being co-opted by the Patriot* fans and media.

That's what this is plain and simple. Brady/Pats apologists(regardless of whether they accept that moniker) can post as many times as they like, when they get done? The above will still be true. So, if anyone is going to make any points about this issue at all, without incorporating the above? They are wasting everyone's time. There is no avoiding the above. There is no "yeah, but". Deal with it. Listen to what people are saying in other NFL cities that have nothing to do with the AFC, never mind the AFC East. They have more to say and worse things to say, than what has been said here. The notion that there's some sort of "obsession", or rage fest, with this issue, on this board, or amongst Bills fans, is absurd. Not when you see what has been said elsewhere.

Once again I will ask: Can we buy Mike Schopp out of his contract, and replace him with Sal C? I'm this close to doing a Kickstarter for this.

Again typical ...lybob, and liberals in general. You make a declaritive statement, I call BS, and now it's for me to prove you wrong. No. It's for you to prove your declaration. (Christ this is Global Warming all over again: I call BS on your "argument" and instead of proving the case, now it falls to me to prove there isn't Global Warming? F you!) I have multiple ideas of what Putin is going to do, and, you're high if you think that China's first move in a major war isn't to invade Russia, to go after their natural resources, EDIT: followed closely by invading SE Asia and Korea, just like the Chinese have been doing for literally millenia. But, none of that matters, yet, because you need to prove what you have arbitrarily declared. I'm happy to respond to your request...right after you back up your declaration with fact, not conjecture.

Or a dog on his roof. Let us never forget the shame of that.