Slashdot Mirror

"JCPenney has it's entire business built on this sort of deceptive sale. A CEO came along and tried to end the practice, start having non-gamed sale prices, and the business cratered."

JCPenney is closing 138 stores. (March 17, 2017)

Overall, JCPenney's abuse of customers hasn't been successful, apparently.

(There may be a problem with the conclusion that JCPenney's price abuse caused the company's failures. My understanding is that there were many other areas of poor managemen at JCPenney. So, it would require considerable analysis to discover all the elements of failure.)

Yeah, Business Insider just went down a notch of respect in my view.

I like this graph from the article. I'll bet that drop in wages has more to do with Brexit than with anything systemic. But the article makes it seems like a deep conspiracy.

Most of the world is hardly impressed with Apple. Pretty much just the 5 eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States).

0. 57% Japan

Five Eyes:
1. 48% G.Britain
2. 46% Australia
3. 43% USA
4. 39% Canada
5. 31% New Zealand

Rest of the World:
5. 24% France
6. 24% EU5
7. 20% China
8. 20% Germany
9. 16% Italy
10. 13% Spain
...

Sources:

Apple regains top spot in New Zealand smartphone shipments
Apple tops Samsung in Canadian smartphone market share: comScore
iPhone market share grows 6.4% in USA, takes share from Android in most markets
iPhone market share by country

The story is a rip off of this http://www.businessinsider.com...

The problem with this theory is that electricity is only 20% of mankinds energy consumption https://www.iea.org/publicatio... each panel requires 20 grams of silver to build https://www.usatoday.com/story... so to build this solar farm would require 7.2 times all the silver on planet earth.... https://www.nationaleconomicse...

But Elon Musk, who's claim to fame is that he has fleeced more taxpayer dollars than any person in the history of mankind said it, so it must be true, right?

You are parroting and perpetuating misinformation.

Well you are probably a perjuring prevaricator, Pashenka.

Really, you do yourself a grave injustice and insult the intelligence of slashdot readers by driveling opinions without a basis of fact.

Eg, you claim there is "zero evidence" to support "Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election." Lol, just lol. You made your point without any evidence either, but I'll ignore that (this one time) and respond anyway: http://www.businessinsider.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

At this point, there's just a huge mountain of evidence. To make a claim like "there's no evidence" is obviously a troll/shill, but I just had to respond because your alliteration made me laugh, you sounded so serious, heh, I'm still chuckling.

Does it make any difference since soundcloud only has enough money to last another 80 days or 50 days depending who you listen to?

Wow, nice spin job. Did you get those words from your handlers in St. Petersburg?

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and supporting terrorists therein, Russia hasn't been able to produce helicopters because the engines came from Ukraine. Even though Russia now claims it can produce the parts, it's only for a limited type of aircraft.

Same for their icebreaker. It was supposed to be launched this year, but because of the sanctions, and the testing for the turbines being in Ukraine, the launch has been put off until 2019. If even then.

Ukraine has been exporting more agricultural products since it got out from under the boot heel of Russia. Hardly a recipe for "inedible". Speaking of which, is Putin still destroying food being imported into Russia while shelves go bare just to make a statement?

At least we know what the Russian talking points on Ukraine are. Anything to distract from Russian regions which are running out of money, not to mention Russia itself. Then again, when Russian workers aren't getting paid for months, that tells you all you need to know.

Considering Ukraine is working with Western companies and actively seeking out advice on how to upgrade its industry and make it more efficient, that speaks volumes about its leadership. Compare that to Russia where Putin steals people's property and gives it to his oligarch buddies, or siphons off millions for his personal use, then whines how it's someone else's fault Russia is in such a sorry state of affairs.

While it is true that running a car off of bio-fuels is potentially low carbon what it is not is sustainable. We simply do not have enough land to grow both our food and our fuel.

https://www.withouthotair.com/...

I think one conclusion is clear: biofuels can't add up - at least, not in
countries like Britain, and not as a replacement for all transport fuels. Even
leaving aside biofuels' main defects - that their production competes with
food, and that the additional inputs required for farming and processing
often cancel out most of the delivered energy (figure 6.14) - biofuels made
from plants, in a European country like Britain, can deliver so little power,
I think they are scarcely worth talking about.

What does seem viable is the seawater to jet fuel system that the US Navy is working on. By using nuclear power and some pretty basic chemistry we can get zero carbon fuel.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Give me all the bullshit you like about nuclear waste scaremongering but here's the deal, nuclear power works now. This seawater to fuel technology works now. This does not require any new technology and 90% of the infrastructure to make this replace fossil fuels already exists by virtue of it being a hydrocarbon, just like the fossil fuels.

We could be zero carbon in just a few decades if we went on this track, and 99.9% of the population would not even know it's happening. We'd need to issue nuclear power licenses at a rate of two per month in the USA to do it. That might sound like a lot until you compare it to how many cornfields, solar panels, and windmills it would take for the same energy.

Seems like bullshit still.

A recent example was the dollar coins that people could order from the U.S. Mint with free shipping on their credit cards, deposit the coins at their bank, pay off the credit card balance, and collect the frequent flyer miles for free.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-mint-ends-the-dollar-coin-scam-for-airline-miles-2011-7

Actually, you are mistaken. The data that you used from your quick google search was from 2015. In 2016 and most of 2017, it changed. http://marketrealist.com/2015/...

What are you talking about? I quoted no data. And I'm not wrong. Rig counts have been climbing for weeks (I think only recently did they break the climbing streak): http://www.businessinsider.com...

In any case, anything that you said does not discount what I said, in fact agrees with it. Near $50 a barrel, probably 60-70 now would be a fair market value.

I still think $60-$70 is out of the question with the new market. Permian break-even occurs around $40 and is profitable even below $50: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Cru... And that assumes no further advancements in efficiency. The Permian production price was $98 in 2013. It was $38 in 2016. Newer fields are going as low as $20 profitability: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... We are not going to see $70 oil again. $60 is a longshot possibility, but unlikely.

The Cartel is by no means broken, and as the supply price is driven down and competing tech is made enviable, you will see the price rise again.

It's completely broken. OPEC tried to freeze production to boost prices and it didn't do anything. The US producers just filled the gap. The US is profitable at $50 oil. OPEC is not: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... What you're going to see is a great deal of budget changes and economic realignment in OPEC nations. There's gonna be subsidy cuts and attempts at building other industries, because they won't be able to rely on oil anymore.

But that's not true of most of Russia.

Siberia is so warm frozen viruses are thawing and infecting people
Slow-motion wrecks: how thawing permafrost is destroying Arctic cities

Sure, not many people live up north, but anthrax isn't really something you want to play around with.

Technically there was chemical WMDs in Iraq. It's just that we (the US) where the ones that sold them to Saddam, to help him fight against Iran. We might have actually sold them to Saddam a few times...it's almost like "planting evidence". When it comes to him having any nuclear capabilities, the CIA reported that it was highly unlikely. He probably had the in-house technical expertise, but lacked any fissionable materials, had no centrifuges, etc. He REALLY wanted to have a nuke, but even the CIA estimated that even if he could get ahold of the equipment he was still at least 5+ years out.

The "yellowcake" we removed is several refining steps away from usable U-235. One needs around 4000 metric tons of yellowcake to get enough U-235 out to make a Hiroshima size nuke, Saddam only had around 400 metric tons. The IAEA knew about this, much of it was from his nuclear reactor Israel had bombed back in 1981. However, I do agree that often the CIA is untrustworthy; it's part of their job to spread disinformation.

disclosure: american here.

I am an American as well, but with a different perspective.

our Department of Defense is funded to the tune of more than 500 billion dollars.

Our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars.

It employs close to three million people.

That's 1% of our population.

This doesnt count the literal millions of people whom are employed as military contractors

One. Literally one million. A quick search shows that adding up the top 9 contracters is under 900,000 people, and a large portion of each of those companies actually sits outside the defense industry. For simplicity, let's round up to a nice single million. That's not even enough to bump our percentage beyond statistical error.

providing everything from catering to private security and transportation (our troops fly commercial aircraft frequently.)

Their contracts are included in the DoD's budget. Our troops fly with paid tickets, most often coming out of that DoD budget as well.

we helped ourselves to the war chest during WW2 to get out of a crippling depression fueled by unregulated credit markets.

That's a nice story that resonates well with today's economic fears, but it's only partly true. When the stock (not credit) market crashed, it triggered a period of deflation. That in turn led to a drastic cut in spending, including the spending on new credit. Then Europe started to default on its credit that we had extended during World War I, and due to political instability, did not have much hope for recovering. That froze the credit market, as well. That would probably have not been so bad, except that a century of bad agricultural practices had crippled the Great Plains farmland, and a series of droughts decimated the recovery efforts.

When World War II began, the economic recovery was well underway, with the GDP back up to pre-1929 levels, but confidence was still low (much as it still is today after the 2007 recession). While the war brought us a huge new market for defense technology, it didn't bring much funding. Instead, the massive bond program led to what was essentially a crowdfunded war effort. In a curious turn, the war bonds effectively boosted the consumer confidence, because they offered a future income as well as inspiring patriotism.

Then the paranoia of a generation led us to stumble into central america, the middle east, and southeast asia.

To be fair, the paranoia was mostly warranted. During World War II, the Soviet bloc also recovered well from their own economic troubles, and their economies had led to political expansion that cut off emerging markets for the United States. The Soviet Union also gained a significant amount of territory in Europe through the war, and they maintained exclusive control, apparently fueling the Soviet economy at the West's expense.

Now, the US military is too big to do anything but sustain, or get bigger.

Or it could actually get smaller, as its budget did after 2010. It's ramping up again, but slowly.

rolling back the defense budget is not an option in a nation that makes nothing anymore.

Again, our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars. That's a lot of "nothing" we make. Our defense budget is only about 3.3% of that. For supporting 1% of the population, it's a little disproportionate, but not unreasonable.

So, we pick our battles and fight the wars we have an overwhelming supremacy in waging.

Again, in the interest of honesty, there are very few places where we don't have an overwhelming supremacy. We have nukes, if we chose to use them. Of course, nukes are bad. So is carpet-bombing. So is a fu

And a low-tech analog system does not protect you from those things either.. If you blackmail or bribe someone does it matted if they press button X on a computer or a old analog control-panel?

But anyway, you would have to involve a lot more than just one person to put a place like that into meltdown... Sure they could cause damage to the place that would cost a shitload to fix, but the actual safety of people outside of the plant would not be affected...

I don't understand why people are focusing so much on nuclear power when there is a lot more serious targets that can cause major damage, and that requires a lot less effort...

Imagine someone shuting down the power in a country..
ref 1 : http://www.reuters.com/article...
ref 2 : http://www.businessinsider.com...
I remember there was a talk on blackhat or defcon where they discussed how to bring down the whole grid in the US (without specific details of course) and what they found out was that if they could bring down a few central hubs it would trigger a chain-reaction over the whole grid that would basically shut down power in the whole country.

Or have a look at what happened in Tianjun.. More people died there than in Fukushima.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Please see the list of toxic materials released and the number of people that was evacuated from the area and number of people that died as a direct cause of it.

Instead of the fear-mongering... Lets try and focus on the important part instead.... How can we protect control/failsafe systems from being affected by a third-party in a destructive way?

I think much of this will rest on any statements Trump or his administration actually make on this merger. It's been clearly shown in multiple court decisions that the actual "intent" of the Administration's decisions matter quite a bit. When Trump's surrogates repeatedly said "Muslim ban", even during the campaigning time, this came back to bite them no matter what they claimed later.

However, as far as I know, there has been no actual communications from the Executive branch on this merger recently outside of these "unnamed sources". Trump did say earlier ""it would consolidate too much power in the media industry" and he is correct. Blocking it for this reason is entirely legal, and IMHO, a good idea. His constant attacks on CNN with his "fake news" meme is already riding the line on First Amendment areas, many feel he is attempting to "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" as it is.

If Trump, by some miracle, actually personally stays out of the merger talks and doesn't 3:00AM tweet about it...he should just let the DoJ do it's job. They can cite legal anti-trust reasons to block the merger that have nothing to do with "fake news". Trump should direct them from behind, and not get involved publicly. Yet that's not the pattern we've seen, so I don't know. One tweet about "blocking the merger" due to "fake news" and the whole thing will turn into a dumpster fire.

The worst outcome I can see is if Trump does speak out, this goes to court. A court decides that Trump is messing with the merger and is violating the First Amendment and decides in the merger's favor. This will have multiple repercussions...one, a giant media company controlled by a corp (AT&T) who has been shown to flaunt their monopoly / duopoly against consumers for almost 50 years now. Two, it will coniderably weaken the government's ability in the anti-trust realm by setting a court precedence. Other mergers will cite this case, and it will continue to erode the government's capabilities to effectively regulate giant corporations.

On a side note, this reminds me of the RPG Shadowrun's "Shiawase Decision of 2001" that helped establish corporations as true multinational entities on their own. If this ends up stripping regulatory power away from the USA, it is one more step towards corporate extra-territoriality.

Yeah? A citation should be easy to provide, then.

And it is of course Richard Branson has clearly spoken about it from personal knowledge. This has also been confirmed by Trump's friends like Omarosa Manigault. In fact if you just do a Google search for "Trump enemy list" you will quickly find out that he actively seems to want to publicise the idea. The only question is, given it's so easy, why didn't you search yourself?

Like Resyone, a humanoid robot called Robobear, could also eliminate the need for multiple caregivers by helping transfer seniors from the bed to a wheelchair. The nursing robot, which is still in the experimental phase and was designed by engineers from Japan's research institution RIKEN, is capable of lifting people.

Sales of robots designed specifically to assist elderly people are expected to reach 12,400 units between 2015 and 2018, with that number expected to "increase substantially" over the next 20 years, according to the Merrill Lynch report.

And it goes beyond personal care robots too. Robot cats are currently being sold to keep seniors company.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Volvo is a high-end, low-volume manufacturer. Worldwide sales are about half a million out of total worldwide sales of nearly 90 million.

Whether this is a smart move in their chosen market segment remains to be seen. But it's not going to noticeably move the needle in the overall market.

Many dubious reviews
Allegations of "Payola"
Allegations of business shakedowns
Too many novices rate everything 5 stars, or 1 star

In the grander scheme of things I'm not sure we should take Company B's advice that Company A is wrong and should be penalized, merely because Company B writes op-eds and sweet talks regulators. AKA ~ Regulatory Capture.

Yelp is just out to destroy Google since they are the competition. I'm not defending Google either though.

Ailments like paranoia, because you feel someone is watching you?

Between Google, the NSA, and your nosy next door neighbor, there IS someone watching you, probably right now. And heck, staying home with the windows closed doesn't do any good either.

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you."

But the good news is that Amazon Dash Button is now linked with your pharmacy* so sedatives are now just a physical click away. Delivered by drones. In an hour. Straight to your cell phones' location.

* That means Amazon also bought your pharmacy when they gobbled up Whole Paycheck^W Foods. Forget that old original grumpy, nosy, and smelly pharmacist; stop by and chat with our new friendly virtual personality -- now with a face! Or even better, just talk to yourself; Alexa's always listening anyway.
-----

No, I'm not at all paranoid. Why are you looking at me like that??

Indeed. Knee-jerk cynicism about the future on a website billing itself as news for nerds has always struck me as ridiculous.

But what do I know? I'm just distracting my dumb brain with sex and drugs in this brave new world and the rest of my energy is spent trying to scrounge up some soylent green.

The future is always bleak. I guess no one wants to risk being accused of being naive when they suggest the future might be better instead of worse. Diseases have fallen to unthinkable levels, worldwide poverty is steadily going down, the population is showing signs of coming to a manageable steady state, people are living longer as a result of easier lives, violent crime is dropping, democracy is increasing... but no, it's all going to hell in a handbasket because robots gonna take all out jerbs!

Or at least they can't go up before leaving an adequate sperm sample. Romance being what it is in Japan, the women won't mind taking it from a turkey baster, right?

If the con artist gets wind there's an attempt to stop using Russian-based software because the company might be susceptible to Russian government influence, he'll order them to use it no matter what.

Remember, this is the same guy who was explicitly warned not to bring Michael Flynn into the fold because Flynn was highly susceptible to Russian blackmail. He went ahead and did it anyway, then tried to blame Obama when everything blew up in his face, ignoring the fact it was Obama who fired Flynn for insubordination.

If the con artist gets wind there's an attempt to stop using Russian-based software because the company might be susceptible to Russian government influence, he'll order them to use it no matter what.

Remember, this is the same guy who was explicitly warned not to bring Michael Flynn into the fold because Flynn was highly susceptible to Russian blackmail. He went ahead and did it anyway, then tried to blame Obama when everything blew up in his face, ignoring the fact it was Obama who fired Flynn for insubordination.

As for Crimea, it was the people who were living in Crimea

Crimeans didn't decide anything. In spite of overwhelming Russian propaganda, polls before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea showed that Crimeans preferred to stay with Ukraine. First of all, Russia's referendum pantomime was done in breach of numerous international laws, norms, and treaties, and under Russian military occupation. Second, the referendum did not have a "status quo" option. Third, as the Kremlin's Human Rights Council confirmed that the Crimea "referendum" results were totally fabricated. Russia took away Crimeans' ability to determine their own fate.

the anti-Russia government that took power in Ukraine after the coup?

When a certain country attacks you, you tend to become anti- that country. But let's get the chronology straight - Russia started its Crimea invasion in early February 2014, while Yanukovych was still in office. One of the Russian officers coordinating the Crimea invasion, was Igor Girkin, who immediately went on to lead Russia's invasion of Ukraine's Donbas region. So your rationalization of Russia's Crimea invasion is absurd.

so anti-Russians it even tried to forbid the Russian language.

That's a flat out lie. A motion was proposed in the Rada to take away the privileged status of the Russian language, but Ukraine's acting president, Turchynov, said that he wold veto any such proposal, and that was the end of it. How dumb do you have to be to believe that a country could "forbid" a language that's spoken by the majority of that country?

can you explain to me why the US government immediately accepted the result of the coup instead of demanding the respect of democracy

As mentioned above, Yanukovych tried to subvert democracy in Ukraine - he would've turned Ukraine into a Russia-style dictatorship. The revolution ensured that democracy was not thwarted. After three months of Turchynov's provisional government, Poroshenko was elected in accordance with Ukrainian law.

Considering the difference of military power, if one day Russia decided to invade Ukraine, it would be even easier for them than when the US invaded Iraq.

More Russian propaganda. Here's a translation of a Novaya Gazeta article, in which a Buryat (Russian Mongol) soldier openly talks about his tank unit invading Donbas. Since the article has been published, his mother has been complaining that the Russian military refuses to give him his military pension or to provide other services due to him as an injured soldier. Ukrainian POW Savchenko was traded to Russia for two Spetsnaz who were captured in Donbas. Just yesterday, a Russian soldier was captured in East Ukraine. You can download the Nemtsov Report, which Boris Nemtsov was compiling before the Kremlin's lackeys murdered him -

"Known to security services"

Can mean someone has not been "arrested for actual crimes" but security services have heard about them and have their name on file, for example the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi http://uk.businessinsider.com/...

1) He told friends "being a suicide bomber was okay," something that led them to contact an anti-terrorism hotline run by the British government. 2) A community worker who knew Abedi had been worried he was "supporting terrorism" and had expressed the view that "being a suicide bomber was ok" 3) Didsbury Mosque — attended by Abedi in the past — contacted the Home Office's Prevent programme about Abedi. Prevent is an anti-radicalisation programme. 4) Two people who knew Abedi at college made calls about him to the authorities, the BBC added.

So he was "known" to MI5.

Republican Senators would back him up, but they refused, warning him that they would attack him for playing politics with foreign affairs.

Here is one of many articles, this from Dec 9th, confirming that description of events:

The Washington Post reported McConnell, who attended the briefing in September, "voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence."

Citing several unnamed officials, The Post wrote that McConnell threatened to rebuke the Obama administration if it publicly challenged Russia.

Trump hired McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, as secretary of transportation after the election.
The top Senate Republican had a defiant response to intelligence on Russia's alleged involvement in the election

The Russians who finance him / guarantee his loans through Deutsch Bank own the hotels. The usual lenders won't lend to him any more because they've been bitten too many times. And then there's this mess

I was being half-snarky... the GOP health bill hasn't passed yet.
But for real, the Canada thing simply means that a cop is empowered to DO something if he sees a driver with a cell phone in his/her hand while driving, and the driver can't weasel out of it simply by claiming it was turned off, requiring the cop to prove he could tell whether it was on or off from the vantage point of his cruiser.

It's just a legal attempt, democratically passed, to get around the fact that cell phones impair drivers as much as being rip-roaring drunk, but there's no blood-alcohol test they can run on a texter to prove that he was actually texting and not just allegedly holding a switched-off phone while driving (yeah, right), particularly if the texter ditched or destroyed his phone at or just after being pulled-over or engaging in an accident.

That's right, some damn fool can kill your sister, but by raising his hand swearing in court that his phone was off just before it was thrown from his car and destroyed, there's reasonable doubt to that vehicular manslaughter charge.

Yeah, maybe there's evidence out there in cyberland, but what's to compel that knucklehead to serve up his Facebook password? Does the district have the money to subpoena the carrier, the provider, Facebook, and to carry out the cyber-forensics to prove he was texting, and not just ordinary driver careless oh gosh I didn't see the light change. Accidents happen, sorry about your sister, think of how my insurance is gonna go up and thank god my airbag worked right.

So, given that the risk of being T-Boned and instantly transformed into a quadriplegic by an asshole texter is very fucking real, please do enumerate the hardships and dangers of the so-called "nanny-state" that outweigh this attempt to put some teeth into no-texting-while-driving laws, particularly with respect to Canada.
I mean, is there evidence of waves of depressed Molson-drinking immigrants flooding over from the great North, thirsting for the Freedom to text and drive without oppression from storm-trooping Mounties?
I don't think so, I haven't seen it.
But maybe I'm wrong. Any Canadians in slashdot-land want to weigh in? Any youse guys feeling repressed up North up there? or are you guys just so chill you can live fine with your hands off your phones while driving?

Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

Your theory doesn't really hold water either. At least, not to the broader market. Here is the average profit margin for every sector in the S&P500:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

It's roughly 9%. With tech being the obvious outlier.

Walmart, for example, has a net profit margin of only 2.59% (https://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/profit_margin).

So the idea that these companies are somehow squeezing out efficiency and sitting on cash instead of lowering prices (or burning more money on expanding, i.e. hiring) is mostly untrue. There are some exceptions (a certain fruit company). But in a competitive landscape (which Walmart definitely is in), they don't have the choice of keeping prices high if they increase productivity.

Yea, apparently people have forgotten that this has been tried many, many time, and it's always been a failure.

Reference: The History Of iTV Failures

I so wish I had mod points for you. However, I am sad to say you time frame is off a bit. It was John Maynard Keynes that first made this prediction in the 1930's actually. In the 1950's science and science fiction were both forecasting that technology advances would eliminate our need to work. Jack Ma is a tad bit late to the party. A better question he could answer is: why is it taking longer than predicted?

she had a reputation for getting things done at Google

She invented gmail.

Not tipping "No tip, you get four stars. Slam doors, you get four stars. If you start to do multiple dumb things, your rating goes lower." â"Anonymous driver

The government has a lot of draconian rules when it comes to regulated financial companies like Coinbase. In order to stay in business, Coinbase has to stay away from anything even remotely connected to something that looks criminal.

The irony of this is that the FBI itself has no good answer to ransomware and has even themselves recommended that people pay the ransoms: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Yet the same government regulations make it nearly impossible for Coinbase to let people use their Bitcoin like that, ironically forcing people to unregulated or dark markets to buy Bitcoin.

The best answer to ransomware is:

1. encrypt your private files manually (PGP is pretty good for this), don't store the passphrase, remember it

2. make backups

Then, when ransomware hits, just format your hard drive and restore the backups.

I don't think regular rape gets you on the list.

I suspect it does, given what else can..
http://www.businessinsider.com...

There is no shortage of stories like this. What I find personally enraging is when minors and children are added to the list.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

The teenager was listed as both the victim and the perpetrator on the sexual exploitation charges.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/t...

North Carolina authorities arrested a 16-year-old girl in February for committing two felony sex crimes against herself when she sent a nude photo to her boyfriend

I think the worst one I remember reading about was two 11 year old girls added to the list. Political biases of the links above aside (Not that there is any shortage of similar stories if you search) I think we can all agree this is fucking stupid.

The irony of this is that the FBI itself has no good answer to ransomware and has even themselves recommended that people pay the ransoms: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Yet the same government regulations make it nearly impossible for Coinbase to let people use their Bitcoin like that, ironically forcing people to unregulated or dark markets to buy Bitcoin.

So why continue to scare people with a future that will never come to pass, in order to get them to behave in a way they would have done anyway had you simply left them alone?

Uh, because the carbon levels are already high enough to start affecting us negatively. It is already passing. The alarmists have been trying to get us to cut back for 20+ years, way back when it would have made the biggest difference. If the fossil fuel industries had not fought so hard (like the tobacco companies before them), we could have avoided the affects we're seeing now:

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

But it's more than that. The alarmists have been reacting to the scientific research that says it will get much worse. What we decided in the 90's - to ignore the alarmists - affects how bad it will be in 2050 and 2100. Yes, technology is going to push us anyway, but if we just let it happen naturally, it will not be fast enough to avoid real consequences. This is not partisan or alarmist, it's just the best prediction that can be made with the evidence we have. Nothing has been proven wrong about the predictions since the 90's, except the results and new predictions have become slightly worse.

How many real problems could we solve with money being wasted on fear-mongering or redundant promotion?

No. The money invested in developing renewables is well-spent (this is an understatement). We're talking about a technological ~revolution, meaning there's a lot of money to be made. The countries developing the technology will be rich, while those ignoring it will be poor (this is an overstatement, but hopefully it illustrates the point). Germany proved it already - back in the 90's, making solar panels, and they saw a big bump in their stock market and real estate market. It's been very successful for a long time, although China is stealing the market share now.

I don't...if you are wanting to take yourself out, you'll take yourself out, doesn't matter the method.

This just isn't true, as others said. Suicide is very often an impulsive behavior, and one that those who attempt it immediately regret. A huge majority of those who attempt suicide and fail eventually find the support and care they need to live a normal life.

And frankly, I don't care...if someone is that messed up, likely they are doing us a favor by taking themselves out of the gene pool.

Then, politely, fuck you. I'm not going to try and have a discussion about a topic that necessitates some measure of empathy with someone who is clearly a sociopath. Look up the word if you don't know what it means (most sociopaths don't).

"I am always faster when using a tool I designed myself"

Faster at what? Running a company into the ground? Firing male workers? Complaining of sexism?

Are you really arguing there are no ugly male CEOs that suck? Is the guy who runs Sears devilishly handsome in your opinion, just to name a terrible CEO off the top of my head?

> That my friend is the difference between you, and I (the peons) and the
> CEOs of the world. The driven continue to be driven, not just by money,
> but by their desire to create, innovate, and sometimes destroy.

BULL FUCKING SHIT. I *might* believe that for a *second* if they didn't ALSO get paid RIDICULOUS sums, REGARDLESS of their performance. Or did you miss the news that she will walk away with $186 million?

Show me an America CEO who makes within TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE what the average employee earns and I *might* believe that they're doing it for anything other than the money.

Think she doesn't like money? Maybe she'll share her newfound wealth with the 2,100 who were laid off last week. $186 million divided by 2,100 = $88,571 per employee.

Or share some with these people. (Feb 2016)
Or these people. (April 2015)
Or these people. (June 2013)

Don't you fucking DARE tell me that she is more driven by a desire to create or innovate than any of those THOUSANDS of people -- that THEY were only driven by money. Becoming CEO is basically like winning the lottery.

By the way, she was already worth $540M last week.

Marissa Mayer
CEO, Yahoo!
2017 AMERICA'S SELF-MADE WOMEN NET WORTH â" as of 6/8/17
$540 M

Add today's $186M and she's now around $720M. She's three-quarters of a BILLIONAIRE. But she's not driven by money -- just her desire to create and innovate. Gotcha. Too bad for the thousands of shallow, selfish former Yahoo employees who were only driven by money.

> That my friend is the difference between you, and I (the peons) and the
> CEOs of the world. The driven continue to be driven, not just by money,
> but by their desire to create, innovate, and sometimes destroy.

BULL FUCKING SHIT. I *might* believe that for a *second* if they didn't ALSO get paid RIDICULOUS sums, REGARDLESS of their performance. Or did you miss the news that she will walk away with $186 million?

Show me an America CEO who makes within TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE what the average employee earns and I *might* believe that they're doing it for anything other than the money.

Think she doesn't like money? Maybe she'll share her newfound wealth with the 2,100 who were laid off last week. $186 million divided by 2,100 = $88,571 per employee.

Or share some with these people. (Feb 2016)
Or these people. (April 2015)
Or these people. (June 2013)

Don't you fucking DARE tell me that she is more driven by a desire to create or innovate than any of those THOUSANDS of people -- that THEY were only driven by money. Becoming CEO is basically like winning the lottery.

By the way, she was already worth $540M last week.

Marissa Mayer
CEO, Yahoo!
2017 AMERICA'S SELF-MADE WOMEN NET WORTH â" as of 6/8/17
$540 M

Add today's $186M and she's now around $720M. She's three-quarters of a BILLIONAIRE. But she's not driven by money -- just her desire to create and innovate. Gotcha. Too bad for the thousands of shallow, selfish former Yahoo employees who were only driven by money.

I see a lot of project related analysis in your post except for the only one that matters: Did it work?

Yes it did.

I think China is a hundred times more of a threat than Russia. Russia grandstands. They want attention. China doesn't want attention. ... Because they're an actual threat. They manipulate information, they manipulate currencies, they have tons of spies and the largest group of hackers on the planet. 27% OF ALL ATTACKS come from China, and as much as 47% can be tracked back to China. This is not a fucking joke. This is the calm before the storm. China has the largest standing military (over a MILLION MORE than the USA). For all the "military-industrial-complex" people harp on the USA (and it's warranted) 99% of the public has no idea how big a threat China is becoming.

And manipulating the election? China does that too in both the US and the UN. Google it.

We've also had tons of ACTUAL state secrets "leaked" and straight up SOLD to China. Not this "war in iraq"/"poor civilians got shot" shit that's just a PR blunder. ACTUAL secrets that represent tens of BILLIONS of dollars and decades of US research that ends up overseas. Like ultra-high resolution modern radar systems. We're paying for it, and they're benefiting from it.

Here's a report from 2017 that China is reaching "near parity with the West's military." That should horrify you. China does not give two shits about your civil liberties or peace among nations. They've been the sole reason North Korea hasn't been bombed into dust. Why? Because it's in their best interests.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Russia is a freaking distraction. An underdog. China is a resting giant quietly growing a military capable of conquering new territory.

You're smart enough to see what's right in front of you, but not wise enough to keep your mouth shut. A rocky road lies ahead...

Bush had months of daily warnings of an impending attack but chose to do nothing.

The intelligence provided the president is shared with congressional leaders, and as I recall was not what the intelligence community refers to as 'actionable intelligence'

From what I recall McConnel threatened to basically rebuke obama. link That still seems odd and Obama should have spoken more forcefully.

The main problem is garbage in garbage out. CItizens are poorly informed at the best of times, let alone when they are fed raw sewage thanks to the alt right and all the fake crap. For the good of our country, it would be best that if politicians stood together and defended it. The other options are attacking back with cyber weapons to expose truth, or just blindly hoping a more active press and more informed citizenry will protect us. That seems a poor strategy.

I think China is a hundred times more of a threat than Russia. Russia grandstands. They want attention. China doesn't want attention. ... Because they're an actual threat. They manipulate information, they manipulate currencies, they have tons of spies and the largest group of hackers on the planet. 27% OF ALL ATTACKS come from China, and as much as 47% can be tracked back to China. This is not a fucking joke. This is the calm before the storm. China has the largest standing military (over a MILLION MORE than the USA). For all the "military-industrial-complex" people harp on the USA (and it's warranted) 99% of the public has no idea how big a threat China is becoming.

And manipulating the election? China does that too in both the US and the UN. Google it.

We've also had tons of ACTUAL state secrets "leaked" and straight up SOLD to China. Not this "war in iraq"/"poor civilians got shot" shit that's just a PR blunder. ACTUAL secrets that represent tens of BILLIONS of dollars and decades of US research that ends up overseas. Like ultra-high resolution modern radar systems. We're paying for it, and they're benefiting from it.

Here's a report from 2017 that China is reaching "near parity with the West's military." That should horrify you. China does not give two shits about your civil liberties or peace among nations. They've been the sole reason North Korea hasn't been bombed into dust. Why? Because it's in their best interests.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Russia is a freaking distraction. An underdog. China is a resting giant quietly growing a military capable of conquering new territory.

I found a source stating that the color was chosen that way. http://www.businessinsider.com...