Slashdot Mirror

It hasn't been debunked, 1997 - 1998 was an El Niño event, which causes increased air temperatures, 2014-2016 was also an El Niño event, which causes increased air temperatures. and It's an area of frenzied research. The warming hiatus is real, unpredicted and it's unclear if it end or continue. All you have to do is look at Google Scholar and it's 35,500 results to see it's an area of emerging research.

It used to be that 1998 was the warmest year on record, so dishonest people would say there was no warming since then, exploiting a statistical fluke. (1998 was an unusually warm year.) The "tell" here is that they use a specific number of years, such as the "18" here. Since it's been warmer than 1998 lately, the statement is not only deceptive but a flat-out lie.

No, the point is that from today, you can go 18 years into the past without finding statistically significant warming, and that includes the recent El Nino. Basicaly it measures from 1997–98 El Niño event to the 2014–16 El Niño event, two "unusually warm years" and If it were a flat-out lie, why would searching Google Scholar for Warming Hiatus return 35,500 results?

In the meantime, we're still burning billions of tons of fossil fuels each year, and so the CO2 content of the atmosphere continues to rise. In fact, earlier in your post you claimed that emissions have been about 32 billion tons in 2013, 2014, and 2015. This is pretty significant when you realize that one part per million of CO2 is about 8 billion tons.

Yes we are burning 32 GT, and that level has held for 3 years, instead of increasing with the global economic increase, which should be consider a significant milestone by anyone without a hidden agenda. You also have to contrast that against the 439GT emitted by natural processes on land and the 332GT emitted by natural ocean processes, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 4% of all CO2 emissions. A summary of CO2 Emissions and Sinks can be found at How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

It's not getting warmer, it hasn't for 18 years, CO2 isn't going up except for a little out-gassing from the ocean due to the recent El Nina, the Alarmist narrative is coming apart at the seams. They should pull an Obama move, and declare victory and just walk away with their tails tucked.

In other words, the last paragraph of your post was nothing but lies and aspersions, and you are either a liar or a fool.

Boy you just threw that out there like a big turd, sorry for riling up the Chimp House, I'm not sure what your refering to, the 18 years of air temperature not increasing, the Ocean out-gassing (which is the topic of the article), my pointing out that both doesn't support past predictions or pointing out that Politicians are good at declaring victory when the polls show nobody gives a shit about an issue?

If you're talking about Arris, it looks more like malice than incompetence. The backdoors were put there on purpose. Lots of cable modems at ISP's PavlovMedia.com and Hargray.com seem to be pwned. Tons and tons of spam is coming from their IP's, either all their customers got infected with the same Trojan or they all use the same cable modem and I know which is more likely. I wonder if those ISP's were a big part of the bank attack?

I'm guessing this is the place:
https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

Security fence and what not as mentioned some articles. Looks like the drive sloped down away from the mailbox when rotating around using google earth 3D.

The article is slightly wrong and the brick pillar is the one on the other side, without the mailbox. If you look at it from this angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...

There's a different story here where you can tell it's the corner towards the house. It slopes down in both directions, fence on two sides, brick pillar in the corner, car comes rolling down the driveway, seems like a tough spot to get out of because you got nowhere to go.

I'm guessing this is the place:
https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

Security fence and what not as mentioned some articles. Looks like the drive sloped down away from the mailbox when rotating around using google earth 3D.

The article is slightly wrong and the brick pillar is the one on the other side, without the mailbox. If you look at it from this angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...

There's a different story here where you can tell it's the corner towards the house. It slopes down in both directions, fence on two sides, brick pillar in the corner, car comes rolling down the driveway, seems like a tough spot to get out of because you got nowhere to go.

Not sure what you are calling a "hex screw".

_____

That's what I thought.

They suck when they get vewy, vewy tiny. Round-out in a microsecond.

Not sure what you are calling a "hex screw".

_____

For Donald Trump winning is more important that anything else, not truth or making clear what his plans are for the country. And some people like what is perceived a strong leader. He's just a bullshitter.

Apropos of nothing, I notice that Trump has seven positions, with a concrete plan of changes for each.

Hillary has 31 issues, which are all fuzzy and nondescript.

As a "for example"(*), we all know what Donald's position on immigration is. Here's an excerpt from Hillary's immigration reform issue:

Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.
Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.
End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.

Notice the wording: she'll "Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship". Nothing concrete, gives you a good feeling without saying anything specific.

If you want to "Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration", then vote for Hillary.

If you're worried that 11 million new job seekers suddenly on the market might make it hard for you to get by, then vote for Trump.

(*) I only used the immigration thing because everyone knows Donald's plan. Does anyone know what Hillary's position on tax reform is?

From: https://www.google.com/selfdri...

We've self-driven more than 1.5 million miles and are currently out on the streets of Mountain View, CA, Austin, TX, Kirkland, WA and Metro Phoenix, AZ.

It sounds like they have actual cars, driving actual miles, in actual cities. I've also had a coworker who was driving in the Bay Area see one of their cars go by him on the highway - with no one driving.

Now, they might not replace all cars, but even eliminating regular cars in major cities will dramatically change things. Imagine the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Chicago and DC with less than half the cars they have now (due to people sharing, etc.). Suddenly, rush hour isn't a nightmare, and parking spots don't need to sell for $10k/year since it would be cheaper to send your car home instead of parking it - and then it is available for your spouse/child/family member to use, instead of it being parking in a parking ramp downtown. Plus, you could send your car to drive your child to before- and after-school activities instead of doing it yourself.

"Christine, go pick up Carrie from school and drive her to swim practice and then park and wait for her to finish. Then drive her home without stopping at Dairy Queen. (Yes, I named the car Christine.)

We've had similar discussions in the past.

This is just one example:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/15/07/31/1835207/will-autonomous-cars-be-the-insurance-industrys-napster-moment

See all the Slashdot articles:
https://www.google.com/#q=autonomous+insurance+site:slashdot.org

And meanwhile, in the real world, electric planes are a real thing, actually rather popular in the light aircraft world, and a market that's growing by leaps and bounds every year. And actually have excellent performance vs. price figures compared to their ICE equivalents. Ranges are usually similar to those of electric cars, 150-400km.

Can we ditch with the old battery-energy-density-versus-fuel-energy-density canard, as if a gallon of petrol is an entire vehicle? Even the long-range versions of the Model S, the batteries are only a third of the vehicle weight. There are other parts to a vehicle. An electric motor the size of a roomba has the power output of an entire typical gasoline engine in a typical passenger car. And you can ditch the transmission and a lot of other hardware as well. And it's only logical that this size difference would be the case. Electric motors have vastly less heat to dissipate - heat dissipation means mass. Electric motors have vastly fewer parts; complexity equals mass. Electric motors create force directly applied as torque on a driveshaft linkage (or even directly on the wheel), while ICEs produce it as pressurized gas, change that to linear momentum, then change that to rotational. Obviously the latter is going to cost you signfiicantly in terms of mass.

This headline makes it sound like electric airplanes are new. They're not. They're not even in the one-off-prototype stage, there are a number of serial producers out there. The market is expected to be over 22 billion a year three years from now. I'm not sure I believe it's going to scale up that fast, but it most definitely is growing. It's not even just small manufacturers, even Airbus is currently tooling up to market their E-Fan.

I'm sure we will have electric planes but they will almost certainly remain the domain of small aircraft. The car analogy works well. Electric cars make sense but electric 18-wheelers don't and probably never will. A radical and fundamental shift in how we move cargo and people is more likely to me than an electric A330.

In fact, there already are Chinese manufacturers of electric planes, like Yuneec.

As for Musk, he doesn't just want to make an electric airplane, he wants to make the first electric airplane to break the sound barrier. Ho-hum, I wish that guy would decide to try something ambitious for once ;)

And meanwhile, in the real world, electric planes are a real thing, actually rather popular in the light aircraft world, and a market that's growing by leaps and bounds every year. And actually have excellent performance vs. price figures compared to their ICE equivalents. Ranges are usually similar to those of electric cars, 150-400km.

Can we ditch with the old battery-energy-density-versus-fuel-energy-density canard, as if a gallon of petrol is an entire vehicle? Even the long-range versions of the Model S, the batteries are only a third of the vehicle weight. There are other parts to a vehicle. An electric motor the size of a roomba has the power output of an entire typical gasoline engine in a typical passenger car. And you can ditch the transmission and a lot of other hardware as well. And it's only logical that this size difference would be the case. Electric motors have vastly less heat to dissipate - heat dissipation means mass. Electric motors have vastly fewer parts; complexity equals mass. Electric motors create force directly applied as torque on a driveshaft linkage (or even directly on the wheel), while ICEs produce it as pressurized gas, change that to linear momentum, then change that to rotational. Obviously the latter is going to cost you signfiicantly in terms of mass.

This headline makes it sound like electric airplanes are new. They're not. They're not even in the one-off-prototype stage, there are a number of serial producers out there. The market is expected to be over 22 billion a year three years from now. I'm not sure I believe it's going to scale up that fast, but it most definitely is growing. It's not even just small manufacturers, even Airbus is currently tooling up to market their E-Fan.

> The arbitrator is picked by the company.

Uhm, no. The arbitrator is assigned by the American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/

Nobody would ever use arbitration if the other party got to choose the arbitrator.

If you'd like to see the terms rather than making wild guesses, you can read them here:
https://fiber.google.com/legal...

Gun violence is at an all time low

But still more than other developed countries by a lot. I mean a WHOLE lot.

And mass shootings in the US are at an all-time high. No matter how you cut it, we are one violent and fucked up culture that loves guns.

https://docs.google.com/spread...

No, you aren't thrown in jail for being poor. But you can certainly be thrown in jail for the side-effects of being poor, e.g. the inability to pay a bill or fine. And people on public assistance don't get money. They get vouchers to buy certain necessity items. They can't buy liquor, for example. So I don't think they're buying heroin with it either.

Jailed for not paying a bill or fine: only if that is a Government bill or fine. A private institution cannot have you jailed for not paying your bill. Stop paying your rent, or mortgage, or Visa bill and you won't end up in jail. Don't pay your taxes and away you go!

And those vouchers are easy to sell for cash time and time again.

An attack has been found and exploited ...

...that is all complete fucking jibberish.

It's a Fork Bomb with money.

In other words, tying value to a bit doesn't work so well after a .... bit. ;-) But don't worry, it's the next big thing since the stock market. Invest now before you lose out!

It's "gibberish", old man.

Yeah, give us a break, our memory's not quite what it used ... what was i saying?

The latest signals arrived at the Livingston detector 1.1milliseconds before they hit the Hanford detector, allowing scientists on the team to roughly work out the position of the collision in the sky.

https://www.google.com/search?...

(distance between the two, approximately 2300 miles)

Do the math, what speed do you get when you divide 2300 miles (or km equivalent) by 1.1 ms?

Now, what the hell is it doing on /.?

Slashdot is full of liberal-libertarian wargarble largely in the vein of "money is economy" and "we can solve all our problems by hurting the rich". Basically, the response to poor people suffering is to attack the rich for being too well-off, with no explanation of how that helps. That attitude is what drove me largely toward economics; the tax impacts (WageTax sheet) of my Citizen's Dividend pisses people off for not terrorizing the rich, even though the impact on the poor is massive. (Of course, the hyper-conservatives on Slashdot hate this, too, because hand-outs are bad.)

You'll notice the yammer here is about ending deficit spending (not always a bad thing: if your deficit is smaller than your debt grows by inflation, your debt is getting smaller) by accusing the rich of being drug addicts and then taking away their money. Rich people bad. Bad bad bad.

Now, what the hell is it doing on /.?

Slashdot is full of liberal-libertarian wargarble largely in the vein of "money is economy" and "we can solve all our problems by hurting the rich". Basically, the response to poor people suffering is to attack the rich for being too well-off, with no explanation of how that helps. That attitude is what drove me largely toward economics; the tax impacts (WageTax sheet) of my Citizen's Dividend pisses people off for not terrorizing the rich, even though the impact on the poor is massive. (Of course, the hyper-conservatives on Slashdot hate this, too, because hand-outs are bad.)

You'll notice the yammer here is about ending deficit spending (not always a bad thing: if your deficit is smaller than your debt grows by inflation, your debt is getting smaller) by accusing the rich of being drug addicts and then taking away their money. Rich people bad. Bad bad bad.

1. Suddenly the Citroen DS-19 seems drop-dead gorgeous.

Hm. On reflection, the older I get, the prettier the DS gets. I may even wind up getting one.. one day.

Or go one step up.

(Another interesting late-60's-to-early-70's model, although, alas, that one didn't make it into production. Non-Mazda rotary engine, though, so caveat emptor - not that you'll ever be able to buy one of the remaining ones from Daimler-Benz.

And as long as we're talking about Citroens and Wankels....)

If you're on Android Marshmallow, you can deny these permissions on a per-app basis. So give your GPS and fitness app permission to use your location, give your camera app access to the camera, but prohibit Facebook. If your phone hasn't yet gotten Marshmallow, this is probably the biggest reason you want to pester your carrier about hurrying up and releasing that update. It's been available to developers for over a year now, and unless you've got a very old handset it's inexcusable that a carrier hasn't rolled it out yet. (In an ideal world carriers wouldn't be allowed to sell phones, so we'd have competition to force phone makers to roll out these updates promptly. Most have within a month or two, it's the carriers who are dragging their feet - because they have no competition within their network they feel no urgency to roll out these things.)

Some apps crash if you prohibit certain permissions. But that's probably a good sign that you should uninstall that app (the developer isn't doing basic error handling). The only permission Marshmallow doesn't allow you to block is network access. But if you're rooted, it's trivial to install a firewall and block specific apps from using your data and/or wifi connection.

For Android there's Tinfoil for Facebook, which sandboxes the Facebook mobile website and lets you allow or block location services. Their mobile website doesn't work all that well but it lets you access Messages without using Facebook Messenger. Google Play: Tinfoil for Facebook GitHub: Tinfoil for Facebook

We know exactly what Trump would do.
It's gonna be classy and it's gonna be HUUUUUUGGGEEEE, dripping in gold and marble.
And no loser poor people, anywhere.

For comparison, the total GDP of the country is a little under $17 trillion.

Labor force participation is low, the levels it was in the 1970s. There's a recent uptick in jobs, but the graph is notoriously noisy, and it'll be at least 6 months to a year before we can tell whether this is a trend.

GDP per capita (amount of GDP per person) has about doubled since 1995. Quadrupled since 1970.

Despite these gains, household income has dropped by about 8% in the last 10 years.

So in summary, since 1995 (ish) we doubled our GDP (both per person and in absolute terms), and household income right now is about the level it was at the start of the doubling.

Oh, and everyone who works still has to put in 40hrs/week.

For comparison, the total GDP of the country is a little under $17 trillion.

Labor force participation is low, the levels it was in the 1970s. There's a recent uptick in jobs, but the graph is notoriously noisy, and it'll be at least 6 months to a year before we can tell whether this is a trend.

GDP per capita (amount of GDP per person) has about doubled since 1995. Quadrupled since 1970.

Despite these gains, household income has dropped by about 8% in the last 10 years.

So in summary, since 1995 (ish) we doubled our GDP (both per person and in absolute terms), and household income right now is about the level it was at the start of the doubling.

Oh, and everyone who works still has to put in 40hrs/week.

"Literacy rates have been rather high for well over a century in the US, particularly for white americans. Literacy in the 1950s was well above 90%. The percentage of the population that couldn't read a newspaper in the US hasn't been over 10% since before 1910." This is incorrect and does not include functionally illiterate. https://www.google.com/search?... How many people are illiterate in the US? According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read. The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html What percent of American adults are functionally illiterate? Over 60% of adults in the US prison system read at or below the fourth grade level. 85% of US juvenile inmates are functionally illiterate. 43% of adults at the lowest level of literacy lived below the poverty line, as opposed to 4% of those with the highest levels of literacy. Functional illiteracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy Search for: What percent of American adults are functionally illiterate? What is the definition of illiteracy? What is the average reading level of adults in the US? The 15% figure for full literacy, equivalent to a university undergraduate level, is consistent with the notion that the "average" American reads at a 7th or 8th grade level which is also consistent with recommendations, guidelines, and norms of readability for medication directions, product information, and popular ... Literacy in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

Me Either. When Facebook made the change, I looked around and found this app:
https://play.google.com/store/...
Sane permissions (internet, camera, location), much smaller footprint.

10/10 would download again.

You mean these ?

Yup, that was hilarious! People need to lighten up over "prank signs."

Hello, you may be thinking of the old story from Something Awful, called "The American Dream"...

https://sites.google.com/site/forgottenemployee/

https://fi.google.com/

$20/mo + $10/GB, with refunds of up to the megabyte not used in a month.

If you are paying $90/month for a phone, you are doing something very wrong. Even Verizon, the most expensive cell company doesn't charge that much.

I know you really need to get rid of those Christians.

westboro baptist church

Show me a US mosque where they actually encourage murdering homosexuals.

Now I'll show you Westboro Baptist and New Hartford Word of Life.

Here you go:

Orlando gunman tied to radical imam released from prison last year, say law enforcement sources

Robertson, who recently spent four years in prison in Florida on illegal weapons and tax fraud charges before being released by a Florida judge one year ago, has openly and enthusiastically preached against homosexuality. The targets of Mateen’s bloody rampage were members of the gay community of Orlando, 120 miles from the 29-year-old’s home in Fort Pierce.

Here's ANOTHER .

These ISLAMIC guys actually do go out and kill gays - all across the ISLAMIC world:

Horrific moment ISIS kill four gay men by throwing them from a roof

And guess what all the countries that punish homosexuality by death have in common?

You got the stones to answer there?

Naaah, you got no balls.

So I'll tell you: Every country that punishes homosexuality by death is ISLAMIC.

How many people have Westboro Baptist Church members killed? Oh, and Fred Phelps, leader of that church? He was a DEMOCRAT. You dumbass.

Now, do YOU have the BALLS to say how many people murderous Christians slaughtered over Piss Christ?

Do you?

Or are you still just an ignorant chickenshit blowhard too spineless to answer a simple question that demonstrates your strawman out to be a farce?

So, again, because you're GUTLESS:

NOT ONE CHRISTIAN KILLED ANYONE OVER PISS CHRIST

You need to grow a fucking brain. And once it's functional enough to enable you to become non-sessile, you can go fuck your stupid self.

go and do your school home work, your mum is getting your dinner ready

Kinda hurts when the facts that keep coming out totally bitch-slap your head-up-your-ass "he wasn't a radical Islamic" claims, doesn't it?

FBI 'highly confident' Orlando killer was radicalized

FBI Director Comey: "highly confident" Orlando shooter radicalized through internet

Orlando shooting: attacker appeared to be self-radicalized, says Obama – live

You can either pull your head out of your ass and realize this loon was an ISLAMIC homophobic loon, or you can keep living on a planet that doesn't have a blue sky.

Because right now reality is laughing at you.

You can either grow up and start living in the real world or you can remain deliberately blind.

This is why instead of embedding a plugin in the browser for PDFs, Mozilla has created PDF.js. It uses HTML5 & JavaScript to render PDFs within the browser's normal sandbox. There's even a Chrome addon.

he seemed more homophobic than radicalised

Why are you trying to separate those two traits? With Islam, they go hand-in-hand.

How about this Orlando imam caught on video saying "Gays must die"?

And yeah, it's ISLAM that's the problem. Not religion. No one was murdered over Piss Christ.

• We use SSL for video streams. Protecting users is the most important thing we can do at Google, and without SSL, bad actors were able to use unencrypted YouTube streams as a source of invading the privacy of our users ( U.S. firm helped the spyware industry build a potent digital weapon for sale overseas). Obviously this isn't the only reason to go SSL, but non-SSL communications simply aren't an option in the modern internet anymore.
• We use signed URLs with relatively short expiry. This is to largely to protect the CDN from abuse.

Neither of these is *targeted* at cache-busting, but both have that effect; with the GGC program in place, we don't make it a primary goal to make the raw streams cachable, because we simply don't wish to have ISPs do caching that way, and instead prefer GGCs, which give better user performance where we can use them.

In any case, if you are having trouble finding someone to talk to, please feel free to let me know, and I'll see what I can do, if anything.

-- Christopher Schmidt, YouTube Quality of Experience

• We use SSL for video streams. Protecting users is the most important thing we can do at Google, and without SSL, bad actors were able to use unencrypted YouTube streams as a source of invading the privacy of our users ( U.S. firm helped the spyware industry build a potent digital weapon for sale overseas). Obviously this isn't the only reason to go SSL, but non-SSL communications simply aren't an option in the modern internet anymore.
• We use signed URLs with relatively short expiry. This is to largely to protect the CDN from abuse.

Neither of these is *targeted* at cache-busting, but both have that effect; with the GGC program in place, we don't make it a primary goal to make the raw streams cachable, because we simply don't wish to have ISPs do caching that way, and instead prefer GGCs, which give better user performance where we can use them.

In any case, if you are having trouble finding someone to talk to, please feel free to let me know, and I'll see what I can do, if anything.

-- Christopher Schmidt, YouTube Quality of Experience

It's an aggregator of stuff that's split among a ton of other sites. That's the point - to cherry-pick the interesting stuff and leave the rest of it out there.

I don't need Slashdot's help to find way too much coverage about the Orlando terrorist attack. Just news.google.com is enough to find way more coverage of it than I possibly could care about.

E3 and WWDC are both next week. I'm sure Slashdot can find plenty of stories about stuff that's happening then without having to cover a story that's already over-saturated.

Sweet Home is what I use. Works great, backs up from my kids, the wife, and mine.

Hillary provably flat out LIES on her position on trade agreements. If in election cycle, she's against them. If in office and election cycle is at least a year away, she's the biggest cheerleader for trade agreements. Google "Hillary Colombia Trade Agreement" (oh the irony of doing this) and read for yourself on her modus operandi. Here's an article which lays out her flat out lies.

curved glass planes

I suppose they only look curved due to the RDF.

The headline is "There's No Evidence" but there was evidence presented in the video. Decisive evidence? Persuasive evidence? You decide.

For me, the most persuasive part was where they used Google Trends to see how popular the autocompleted searches actually were. The autocomplete suggested "hillary clinton crime reform" yet Google Trends said that search didn't happen often enough to graph. It was super rare and yet it was the most popular completion to "hillary clinton cri"?

Okay, let's ask Google Trends what is popular. I am providing you with clickable links so you can see the graphs for yourself. "hillary clinton indicted" vs. "hillary clinton indiana"
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana&cmpt=q

Hmm, "indiana" was roughly as searched for in May as "indicted" but searches for "indiana" have dropped to near zero while "indicted" shot way up. So Google Trends says "indicted" is much more searched for than "indiana".

Here, let's add in "hillary clinton india" as another item on the graph.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20india&cmpt=q

Nope, "hillary clinton india" clearly isn't a popular search.

Okay, for "hillary clinton cri" what is the more searched-for completion, "hillary clinton criminal" or "hillary clinton crime reform"?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20criminal%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20crime%20reform&cmpt=q

When they tried it they couldn't even get a graph for "crime reform" but by asking for a comparison of the two I got a graph. And wow, slam-dunk win for "criminal", way more searches.

Okay, I decided to try one on my own. I went to Bing and typed "hillary clinton cor" and the top suggestion was "hillary clinton corruption" Google? The top suggestions were "hillary clinton corporate" and "hillary clinton correct the record"

Okay, Google Trends, which of those three is the most popular?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20corruption%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20corporate%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20correct%20the%20record&cmpt=q

And it's "corruption" by a large margin.

Interestingly, there is a completely different autocomplete for Google News results.

"hillary clinton cri" -> "hillary clinton criminal prosecution", "hillary clinton criminal video"

"hillary clinton ind" -> "hillary clinton indictment for emails", "hillary clinton indiana", "hillary clinton indianapolis"

"hillary clinton cor" -> "hillary clinton correct the record", "hillary clinton cory booker", "hillary clinton corruption reddit"

Now, Google claims that what is going on is just a standard thing where they block certain terms like "criminal" from searches. This story from The Verge argues, persuasively, that Google is telling the truth. http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/10/11906912/google-denies-autocomplete-search-manipulation-hillary-clinton

The most interesting point: most of the people searching for dirt on Hillary Clinton don't bother to type her full name, and the autocomplete gives more negative results if you just search for "hillary". Let's try that.

"hillar

The headline is "There's No Evidence" but there was evidence presented in the video. Decisive evidence? Persuasive evidence? You decide.

For me, the most persuasive part was where they used Google Trends to see how popular the autocompleted searches actually were. The autocomplete suggested "hillary clinton crime reform" yet Google Trends said that search didn't happen often enough to graph. It was super rare and yet it was the most popular completion to "hillary clinton cri"?

Okay, let's ask Google Trends what is popular. I am providing you with clickable links so you can see the graphs for yourself. "hillary clinton indicted" vs. "hillary clinton indiana"
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana&cmpt=q

Hmm, "indiana" was roughly as searched for in May as "indicted" but searches for "indiana" have dropped to near zero while "indicted" shot way up. So Google Trends says "indicted" is much more searched for than "indiana".

Here, let's add in "hillary clinton india" as another item on the graph.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20india&cmpt=q

Nope, "hillary clinton india" clearly isn't a popular search.

Okay, for "hillary clinton cri" what is the more searched-for completion, "hillary clinton criminal" or "hillary clinton crime reform"?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20criminal%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20crime%20reform&cmpt=q

When they tried it they couldn't even get a graph for "crime reform" but by asking for a comparison of the two I got a graph. And wow, slam-dunk win for "criminal", way more searches.

Okay, I decided to try one on my own. I went to Bing and typed "hillary clinton cor" and the top suggestion was "hillary clinton corruption" Google? The top suggestions were "hillary clinton corporate" and "hillary clinton correct the record"

Okay, Google Trends, which of those three is the most popular?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20corruption%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20corporate%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20correct%20the%20record&cmpt=q

And it's "corruption" by a large margin.

Interestingly, there is a completely different autocomplete for Google News results.

"hillary clinton cri" -> "hillary clinton criminal prosecution", "hillary clinton criminal video"

"hillary clinton ind" -> "hillary clinton indictment for emails", "hillary clinton indiana", "hillary clinton indianapolis"

"hillary clinton cor" -> "hillary clinton correct the record", "hillary clinton cory booker", "hillary clinton corruption reddit"

Now, Google claims that what is going on is just a standard thing where they block certain terms like "criminal" from searches. This story from The Verge argues, persuasively, that Google is telling the truth. http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/10/11906912/google-denies-autocomplete-search-manipulation-hillary-clinton

The most interesting point: most of the people searching for dirt on Hillary Clinton don't bother to type her full name, and the autocomplete gives more negative results if you just search for "hillary". Let's try that.

"hillar

The headline is "There's No Evidence" but there was evidence presented in the video. Decisive evidence? Persuasive evidence? You decide.

For me, the most persuasive part was where they used Google Trends to see how popular the autocompleted searches actually were. The autocomplete suggested "hillary clinton crime reform" yet Google Trends said that search didn't happen often enough to graph. It was super rare and yet it was the most popular completion to "hillary clinton cri"?

Okay, let's ask Google Trends what is popular. I am providing you with clickable links so you can see the graphs for yourself. "hillary clinton indicted" vs. "hillary clinton indiana"
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana&cmpt=q

Hmm, "indiana" was roughly as searched for in May as "indicted" but searches for "indiana" have dropped to near zero while "indicted" shot way up. So Google Trends says "indicted" is much more searched for than "indiana".

Here, let's add in "hillary clinton india" as another item on the graph.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20india&cmpt=q

Nope, "hillary clinton india" clearly isn't a popular search.

Okay, for "hillary clinton cri" what is the more searched-for completion, "hillary clinton criminal" or "hillary clinton crime reform"?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20criminal%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20crime%20reform&cmpt=q

When they tried it they couldn't even get a graph for "crime reform" but by asking for a comparison of the two I got a graph. And wow, slam-dunk win for "criminal", way more searches.

Okay, I decided to try one on my own. I went to Bing and typed "hillary clinton cor" and the top suggestion was "hillary clinton corruption" Google? The top suggestions were "hillary clinton corporate" and "hillary clinton correct the record"

Okay, Google Trends, which of those three is the most popular?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20corruption%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20corporate%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20correct%20the%20record&cmpt=q

And it's "corruption" by a large margin.

Interestingly, there is a completely different autocomplete for Google News results.

"hillary clinton cri" -> "hillary clinton criminal prosecution", "hillary clinton criminal video"

"hillary clinton ind" -> "hillary clinton indictment for emails", "hillary clinton indiana", "hillary clinton indianapolis"

"hillary clinton cor" -> "hillary clinton correct the record", "hillary clinton cory booker", "hillary clinton corruption reddit"

Now, Google claims that what is going on is just a standard thing where they block certain terms like "criminal" from searches. This story from The Verge argues, persuasively, that Google is telling the truth. http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/10/11906912/google-denies-autocomplete-search-manipulation-hillary-clinton

The most interesting point: most of the people searching for dirt on Hillary Clinton don't bother to type her full name, and the autocomplete gives more negative results if you just search for "hillary". Let's try that.

"hillar

The headline is "There's No Evidence" but there was evidence presented in the video. Decisive evidence? Persuasive evidence? You decide.

For me, the most persuasive part was where they used Google Trends to see how popular the autocompleted searches actually were. The autocomplete suggested "hillary clinton crime reform" yet Google Trends said that search didn't happen often enough to graph. It was super rare and yet it was the most popular completion to "hillary clinton cri"?

Okay, let's ask Google Trends what is popular. I am providing you with clickable links so you can see the graphs for yourself. "hillary clinton indicted" vs. "hillary clinton indiana"
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana&cmpt=q

Hmm, "indiana" was roughly as searched for in May as "indicted" but searches for "indiana" have dropped to near zero while "indicted" shot way up. So Google Trends says "indicted" is much more searched for than "indiana".

Here, let's add in "hillary clinton india" as another item on the graph.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20india&cmpt=q

Nope, "hillary clinton india" clearly isn't a popular search.

Okay, for "hillary clinton cri" what is the more searched-for completion, "hillary clinton criminal" or "hillary clinton crime reform"?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20criminal%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20crime%20reform&cmpt=q

When they tried it they couldn't even get a graph for "crime reform" but by asking for a comparison of the two I got a graph. And wow, slam-dunk win for "criminal", way more searches.

Okay, I decided to try one on my own. I went to Bing and typed "hillary clinton cor" and the top suggestion was "hillary clinton corruption" Google? The top suggestions were "hillary clinton corporate" and "hillary clinton correct the record"

Okay, Google Trends, which of those three is the most popular?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20corruption%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20corporate%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20correct%20the%20record&cmpt=q

And it's "corruption" by a large margin.

Interestingly, there is a completely different autocomplete for Google News results.

"hillary clinton cri" -> "hillary clinton criminal prosecution", "hillary clinton criminal video"

"hillary clinton ind" -> "hillary clinton indictment for emails", "hillary clinton indiana", "hillary clinton indianapolis"

"hillary clinton cor" -> "hillary clinton correct the record", "hillary clinton cory booker", "hillary clinton corruption reddit"

Now, Google claims that what is going on is just a standard thing where they block certain terms like "criminal" from searches. This story from The Verge argues, persuasively, that Google is telling the truth. http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/10/11906912/google-denies-autocomplete-search-manipulation-hillary-clinton

The most interesting point: most of the people searching for dirt on Hillary Clinton don't bother to type her full name, and the autocomplete gives more negative results if you just search for "hillary". Let's try that.

"hillar

I dont know about iOS powered devices, but android devices have useful python interpreters on the playstore.

(iOS probably wouldnt be able to do this, given apple's prohibition on running non-native code. That's fine, there are very cheap android devices out there in the 30 to 60$ range that are burner smartphones that would work well as educational aides for kids. Try getting an apple product that cheap.)

Here's one such project-- QPython.

https://play.google.com/store/...

It offers a python execution environment for python scripts and projects, on android platforms. There's your candidate for modern qbasic. :)

Oh, you're just a typical right wing conspiracy theorist. I bet if you do the search for Hispanic Couple you get more mixed race images. OK, so you get purely hispanic couples. So what.

Well, if you search for ASIAN couple, I bet there's some whites and blacks mixed in there too, like with the "white couples" search. Hmm. Well there's no diversity in that search either. Indian Couples is sure to have some Native Americans and Indonesians as well as a few Asians. Nope, just Indian Indians. Big deal.

YOU'RE JUST OFFENDED BY BLACK PEOPLE IN YOUR WHITE SEARCH RESULTS, FUCK YOU! You're jumping at shadows! Google isn't purposefully putting SJW results into the engine. Also those Hillary results are purely coincidence, it's probably just a glitch in the auto-complete code.

Oh, you're just a typical right wing conspiracy theorist. I bet if you do the search for Hispanic Couple you get more mixed race images. OK, so you get purely hispanic couples. So what.

Well, if you search for ASIAN couple, I bet there's some whites and blacks mixed in there too, like with the "white couples" search. Hmm. Well there's no diversity in that search either. Indian Couples is sure to have some Native Americans and Indonesians as well as a few Asians. Nope, just Indian Indians. Big deal.

YOU'RE JUST OFFENDED BY BLACK PEOPLE IN YOUR WHITE SEARCH RESULTS, FUCK YOU! You're jumping at shadows! Google isn't purposefully putting SJW results into the engine. Also those Hillary results are purely coincidence, it's probably just a glitch in the auto-complete code.

Oh, you're just a typical right wing conspiracy theorist. I bet if you do the search for Hispanic Couple you get more mixed race images. OK, so you get purely hispanic couples. So what.

Well, if you search for ASIAN couple, I bet there's some whites and blacks mixed in there too, like with the "white couples" search. Hmm. Well there's no diversity in that search either. Indian Couples is sure to have some Native Americans and Indonesians as well as a few Asians. Nope, just Indian Indians. Big deal.

YOU'RE JUST OFFENDED BY BLACK PEOPLE IN YOUR WHITE SEARCH RESULTS, FUCK YOU! You're jumping at shadows! Google isn't purposefully putting SJW results into the engine. Also those Hillary results are purely coincidence, it's probably just a glitch in the auto-complete code.