Slashdot Mirror

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.

Would you prefer it if you read about this problem on HuffPo?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

That's an article from 2014, so this is not new or the rantings of only "right wing nutjobs".

Last night I finished reading "Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal" by Nick Bilton. There's a quote by Mark Zuckerburg that the Twitter founders "drove a clown car that feel into a gold mine." They played musical chairs for the CEO for first few years and the current CEO is a Steve Jobs wannabe. Unbelievable.

The very "rules of war" have changed. The role of non-military means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.

Except in California, they can't get the Americans to work more then a day, even while offering WAY above minimum wage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/immigrant-worker-unharvested-crops_us_59508a72e4b05c37bb774d89

Earlier generations did temporary kicks and dents, such as during WWII.

White privilege detected

Hypocrite privilege detected.
*Every* race, religion, ethnicity, etc etc has, at some point in history, moved to some area and forced out and/or killed the people there at the time or committed other atrocities and/or crimes against humanity.

Ah, if only you could stay on topic, instead of moving the goalposts. Right now I'm talking about your "temporary kicks and dents" bullshit, especially "during WWII". If you were a Japanese-American Citizen who was thrown into a concentration camp and lost your property to some racist fuck who jumped on it and took it over while you were unrightfully incarcerated because of your ethnic heritage, then you probably don't see it as a "kick" or a "dent". You probably see it as a whole lot worse than that. Or, you know, if you were a black person (also a citizen) who lost relatives to the Tuskegee Experiments. Or frankly, if you were any person of color who is still suffering from a well-entrenched systematic system of oppression which continues to affect them to this day, and which well predates WWII. Even the gun control movement began to attempt to disarm blacks. The idea that shitting on the constitution is a new phenomenon is one that can only ever be held from a position of white privilege, coupled with deep ignorance.

of this.

90% of the snow and ice cap on Kilimanjaro is gone.

Compared with 150 years ago, not since the turn of the 21st century - the majority of that ice loss occurred before man-caused climate change.

So what is your stupid point?

I doubt anyone made a prediction, you probably just cite a newspaper. That is not a prediction.

If you click the link provided, the prediction cited was in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie:

The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.

Perhaps because I don't have time to repeatedly do so. It is NOT my responsibility to educate your ignorance.

Donald Trump spoke to veterans. The media published hundreds of articles touting that Donald Trump said soldiers commit suicide because they are weak. Just a few examples below, and those are much milder than many headlines I saw.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Except those media outlets blatantly took Trump's words out of context and implied statements that he did not make. You can also go to YouTube.com and find the actual video. In fact, surprisingly, that particular video is perhaps the most Presidential moment I have ever seen of Trump.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-t...

So there you got, there is a citation for you. Now give me your address so I can send you a pro-rated bill for my time your lazy ignorant buttface wasted. And THIS is why I don't cite every time. Cause we have Google. Use it....

That is the exact opposite of healthy advice in Germany where the police aren't actually out to get you on minor details to raise money or to put you away in prison to appease the prison industry complex.

I don't know the ratio of good/bad US police, but here are some examples of good US police:

Big-hearted cop hailed for buying homeless man a new pair of boots - TODAY.com

Caught on Camera/ CHP Officer Had This Stranded Pleasanton Motorist's Back - Pleasanton, CA Patch

Homeless Man in Florida Discovers Forgotten Bank Account Collecting Pension With Cop's Help

Ohio cop praised for restraint, refusing to shoot suspect

Ohio cop takes homeless family to Walmart, books them in hotel - TODAY.com

Police officer beats teen in dance off, does the "Nae Nae" - CBS News (with video)

Police Officer Caught in Random Act of Kindness, Internet Falls in Love - Temecula, CA Patch

Police Officer Has 'Tea Party' With Toddler Whose Life He Saved - ABC News

Police officer helps woman who couldn't afford a birthday cake for her son - TODAY.com

Police officer shares meal with homeless man/ 'Nobody wants to eat alone' - TODAY.com

Police Sergeant Buys Clothes for Third Grade Bicyclist Struck by Car - San Leandro, CA Patch

Strangers Join Police Officers to Buy 95-Year-old New Air Conditioner - Good News Network

Sweet photo of police officer comforting lost boy goes viral - TODAY.com

Video Captures Police Officer Buying New Shoes For Barefoot Man | HuffPost

But overall, there are too many idiots on both sides that refuse to listen to the other sides ideas

Do not attempt to make a false equivalence here. The only reason it might seem that way is because one side has a massive persecution complex fed by an outrage machine dedicated to hyping that noise for profit and the other 'side' (described as the reality-based community by Karl Rove) treat such as cases as just another minor news event.

NYC: Linda Sarsour Faces Death Threats Ahead of Her CUNY Commencement Speech | Democracy Now!
Princeton professor who criticized Trump cancels events, saying she's received death threats
Shakespeare in the Park featured a Trump-like Julius Caesar, and right-wing media freaked out - Vox
Greg Gianforte Pleads Guilty To Assaulting A Journalist : The Two-Way : NPR
GOP pressured NPR into firing a journalist who reported on their bigotry / LGBTQ Nation
Lawmakers across the US are finding ways to turn protesting into a crime - Vox
Tom Price commends police who arrested journalist asking questions
GOP rep goes after activist by writing letter to employer | TheHill
Sinclair Requires TV Stations to Air Segments That Tilt to the Right - The New York Times
Oklahoma Governor Signs Anti-Protest Law Imposing Huge Fines on “Conspirator” Organizations
FDA Denies Ordering Employees to Switch Television Monitors to Fox News Channel
FCC to investigate, 'take appropriate action' on Colbert’s Trump rant | TheHill
Jury Convicts Woman Who Laughed At Jeff Sessions During Senate Hearing | HuffPost
Fordham U. blocked formation of pro-Palestinian group: suit - NY Daily News

Seems about on the level of, "Doctors claim vaccines don't cause autism, but Jenny McCarthy doesn't agree," which started from and is largely maintained by the left.

Started by "the left"? Say what? "Left" and "Right" have nothing to do with this. "Doctors" are at least as likely to be members of "the left" if by that you mean social liberals as opposed to conservatives. Oh, wait, they are more likely:

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://jamanetwork.com/journal...

The last article is very thoughtful and analyzes trends in political contributions specifically, fractionated by gender, race, and subspeciality. It indicates that left/right even for physicians is more likely to be a question of income, gender, race, speciality, and age than it is of "intelligence" per se, but it is a simple matter of fact that on average liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Now, if you want to get into pseudoscience, we can talk about the "conservatives" in Texas and Kansas and Missouri who are passing legislation to make masturbation a misdemeanor crime (Texas), teach intelligent design on a par with evolution in the schools, rewrite history so that the founding fathers are Good Christians as opposed to deists or atheists and suppress evidence to the contrary to prevent it from being mentioned in school, let alone taught.

Personally, I tend to think of science as mostly being social value neutral, but the glaring exception to this is when science collides (as it so often does!) with religion. This is beautifully reflected in surveys like this:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

although it is perhaps better summarized by this piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

To quote:

The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition — respect for customs and institutions. But even though religiousness and spirituality are highly correlated, the more spiritual a person is, the more liberal he is. This relationship is mediated by the value placed on universalism — social tolerance and concern for everyone’s welfare.

As with previous studies, conservatives were more conscientious (organized and self-disciplined), while liberals were more agreeable and more open to new ideas and experiences. The trend of conservatives being more religious and liberals being more spiritual held even when controlling for these personality factors, and when controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic status.

As a scientist, I interpret this as the more orthodox religious a person is, the more likely they are to accept absolute nonsense as truth just because it is written down in a scriptural text somewhere and hence exempted somehow from the ordinary rules and methods of reason. The more spiritually religious they are, the more likely they are to accept absolute nonsense as truth just because they "feel" like it must be true and their feelings are again exempt from the ordinary rules and methods of reason. You can see the problem -- liberals and conservatives are almost equally likely to accept at least some nonsense as truth if they are religious, and liberals and conservatives who are intelligent enough not to do this are, almost by definition, less likely to accept nonsense as truth whether or not it is religious simply because they apply the rules

If they keep having kids while not being able to support then then they are fucked in the head and should be put in a room all alone.

Can we start with this guy?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Well, Leo does look a bit like ol' Jack these days (three years ago): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Clearly the TSA feels they need new laptops at home and no the Airline is not responsible when the TSA steal your stuff ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Again, listen and believe. Why aren't you so doubtful? 3rd wave feminists would accuse you of being rape apologist if you showed a fraction of skepticism on their narrative.

One of the biggest problems that any group has, is that they don't stop once achieving their goals. From legal equality to the right to vote, to equality in the workplace, removing the impediments against women has largely been achieved. There will always be some incidents, but that goes both ways.

But as noted, they don't stop. Just a few of the third wave feminists examples and solutions to the "patriarchy"

Manspreading. Men sometimes sit with their knees further apart than third wave feminists believe is appropriate. It is also symbol of rape culture.https://femmagazine.com/the-problem-with-manspreading/ You can be arrested for it - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

In addition Professor Lyndsay Kirkham of Humber College in Toronto, she declares that people asking for proof of it are not human. She is also a fan of misandry. http://socawlege.com/feminist-...

We must not forget that Sweden, a country actually run by third wave feminists, declared that removing automobiles from the streets is a woman's rights issue, and that clearing the streets of snow was sexist, and implemented a policy of clearing streets after snow last, after clearing the sidewalks and schools. It didn't work out very well. Seems that an acedemic idea that since most vehicles are driven by men, therefore sexist, so punish the men by not clearing them affested women and children as well. Sorry for the Return of kings link, but while searching for cites, it was an early one to come up. http://www.returnofkings.com/1...

Anyhow, my definition of third wave feminism is just like when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - when the main focus of your life is hatred of men, everything looks like misogyny.

And the problem of course, is that eventually, there is pushback, or outright rejection. You don't have to be a conservative right winger to be a bit concerned about the number of young men growing up with nearly zero male influence in their lives, and largely belittled from an early age, both from their now single mothers, the male deserts of school, and heaven help them if they are foolish enough to go to college, where they are considered rapists in waiting and have to pay for the classes that tell them just that.

And when they check out of the relationship game because of the lose lose situation for them, they are told they need to man up.

You don't have to be a trump voter to be concerned with the way you sit being a criminal offense, or that not allowing people to hear any other point of view is a right of yours, or that people who claim to be representing women have arguably insane ideas that clearing streets of snow is sexist. Well, I'm no right wing misogynist (outside of what third waver's think) but I have huge concerns over people who subscribe to that sort of thing being in power.

Drinking blood is the next big thing to keep old people young.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/julia-caples-drinking-blood_n_3416983.html

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!

And somehow you got modded up to +5, even thought you did nothing to counter the argument other than emotional claims about "hyperbole". Did you even bother to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations?

But poster's got a point. Being right doesn't mean anyone will listen. The only fact that matters is that Trump won the election, and people who care about the environment lost. So, its not about the science. It's about persuading people. By now it should be clear that calling a person a murderer because of a coal plant somewhere does not persuade anyone to vote "no" for Trump or his climate-denying cronies. It may be infuriating, but all you do is generate yuk-yuks on Fox and Friends.

The real "inconvenient truth" is that most people zone-out and read their Twitter feeds while you perform your back-of-the-envelope calculations. If you want results, as opposed to snarky ridicule from Trump sycophants seeking to ride his gravy train, you need to take a breath and adopt a new approach, something that works. It may be a pain-in-the-ass at first, but politics and persuasion is just another application of science: experiment, observe the data, throw out what doesn't work, try again. Scare tactics, doomsday scenarios, and "you are a murderer!" may be good to preach to the choir, and may vent your frustrations a bit, but in the end, it fails to get 51% of the electoral college, or even defeat politicians who assault reporters in public. Climate facts, political facts, they're all facts. Accept them and work with them or we're fucked.

That said, there's an opportunity here. With Trump pulling the Federal Government out of the business of climate, there's a gap that may be filled by folks who really care, like the states. There's an opportunity to show that that Trump and climate-deniers are idiots, wasting an opportunity. But it's not going to be done by scare tactics. It's gonna be done by persuasion, like showing how west Texans are cashing in on wind power, or how great it would be to live in an electric-friendly city where rush-hour doesn't pump the air full of smog. Gosh, if only we had a different president, federal grants might be available so that more cities could get in on that.

The big banks launder money all the time and usually if caught only get sanctioned or fined an affordable (for them) amount. Nobody goes to jail. This is just capitalism trying to clamp down on an increasingly popular alternative way of doing business. Links: https://www.int-comp.com/ict-v... http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/2... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://rense.com/general28/mon...

Trump just got Democrats and (some) Republicans to agree about an issue to do with environmentalism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... It must be freezing in hell.

Yes. Yes there were.

Each year the US loses $600 billion due to the health problems caused by using coal as an energy source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... . That doesn't include any negative effects from climate change.

Gasoline-related health problem estimates are $1.7 trillion per year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... . Again, that doesn't include any negative effects from climate change.

So yes, I'd like to spend $1.3 trillion a year in an effort to stop harming my neighbors.

I would think that if people wanted him out so desperately and they had the goods they would have provided the evidence by now.

To a republican senate who won't even commit to pretending to investigate him?

Hell, they can't even articulate what crimes may have been committed. All they can do is throw out vague, over the top accusations.

Awful hard to do when no one with any power will actually investigate him.

And when has that stopped a congressional investigation before? We spent seven million dollars investigating whether Hillary Clinton personally led a band of islamic terrorists to murder soldiers and government employees and that was well worth it, she'll spend her prison time she earned from that thinking about what she's done. And of course all those climate change scientists, without congress we'd never have punished them for using a hockey stick to heat up the earth. And obviously, Congress very effectively ended the criminal organization that was ACORN many times, which as you know committed the double sin of trying to get poor people houses and also something clearly involving legalizing child prostitution.

But for every slam dunk case congress successfully prosecutes like that, there are silly nonsense things like investigating the financial crisis.

For those with republican brains, the above things were sarcasm. None of those things I mentioned as good congressional investigations were based on anything. Republicans endlessly pursue investigations based on absolutely nothing while ignoring serious crimes. "You can't even say what crimes Trump should be investigated on" is a massive double standard, and this should be obvious to anyone capable of voluntarily chewing. If voters held Trump to the same standard as we allow liberals to be held to, he would be in Guantanamo bay by now.

The Army used to be made of REAL MEN. It's a disgrace what its become. Could you imagine someone like Chelsea Manning storming the beaches of Normandy?

Actually, speaking of D-day, there wren't only REAL MEN storming on the beaches of Normany - e.g.: Martha Ghellhorn, Ernest Hemingway's ex-wife (though a natural-born woman, but still definitely not a REAL MAN) managed to be among the first waves on the beach (even before her ex-husband) by first hiding on a boat and then disguising as a combat medic (though her actual profession was war journalist).
There *WAS DEFINITELY* a pair of boobs under one of the uniforms running on the beaches of Normandy.

It took so long because you can't sue lawyers for malpractice. The rate at which lawyers are disbarred is about 0.08% per year. Compared to about 0.3% of doctors losing their license for malpractice. So either lawyers are 4x more honest than doctors, or self-policing by the American Bar Association is inadequate.

The corollary to that is that lawyers are 4 times less likely to be punished for improper, illegal or negligent practice.

Since lawyers insist being able to sue doctors for malpractice is vital for keeping the medical profession honest, why not let us sue lawyers for malpractice? After all, what's good for the goose...

If we're using the old goose/gander cliche, shouldn't we perform medical experimentation on the lawyers that get disbarred?

It took so long because you can't sue lawyers for malpractice. The rate at which lawyers are disbarred is about 0.08% per year. Compared to about 0.3% of doctors losing their license for malpractice. So either lawyers are 4x more honest than doctors, or self-policing by the American Bar Association is inadequate.

Since lawyers insist being able to sue doctors for malpractice is vital for keeping the medical profession honest, why not let us sue lawyers for malpractice? After all, what's good for the goose...

Yes, there seems to be a large difference in perspective.

Oh, it's not merely a difference in perspective, there's a degree of distortion. Like a funhouse mirror.

Looking at Russia, all I see is a country that has lost 20% of its territory and 50% of its people in the last 30 years. I see a third-rate military power, shrinking, aging population, rapidly deteriorating nuclear defenses, an economy the size of Texas, with a corrupt, inefficient crony capitalist system run by a dwarf.

Looking at Russia, I see a country that is run by a murderous tyrant (whose height doesn't matter), and that is far more likely to be a problem than a bunch of guys whose best efforts was hijacking some planes, and whose current practices are broadcasting executions on Youtube and getting disaffected idiots to build bombs.

Islam? They couldn't do anything that Dylan Roof or Timothy McVeigh didn't manage.

Russia? They actually have an industrial base, technological resources, and some semblance of discipline.

That they're a system of corruption is making it more dangerous, not less.

All your claims of collapse? Compound the worries.

If we stretch the facts and forget about NATO and Trump, then yes, Putin might be a threat to a few weak/tiny neighbors (Ukraine and Estonia?), but frankly, who gives a fuck about those? They left 30 years ago, he can have them back for all I care.

Your indifference is already established, you need not compound the issue by adding to it. You don't care, I get it. You need not keep trying to make me believe you further.

You, on the other hand see Russia as an immediate, existential threat, worth starting a nuclear war over... Seems strange to me.

Seems like distortion to me. Who is talking about starting a Nuclear War...other than you, for your strawman jousting?

Though I do suspect there are some people who would like to bring back the posturing over warheads again, they may not be the ones you believe they would be.

Now, regarding Islam, I see a vicious, toxic psychological virus that currently infects about a billion people, spreading exponentially.

Exponentially, eh? From what zero? Because last I checked, there were a billion members in 1990, so you're not making a convincing case there. And for a billion people infected by a virus, it sure doesn't seem capable of much virulence to me, especially since most of the casualties of their afflictions in the last year were internecine.

Sad, but true. The worst fighting is within the same house.

"Our uterus is the weapon of Jihad," said some Islamist asshole in the 90s (google it if you care to find out which one).

Actually, that reminds me of the Quiverfull movement. And other assorted white nationalists.

It's a notion that's hardly unique, or uncommon, but I don't think it's really sustainable.

There's an automatic death sentence given to anyone who dares to leave Islam.

Not really, no. Plenty of people have quit, and lived! Allah apparently doesn't feel terribly bothered. I mean sure, they're going to die, but we're all going to die.

Try to spare me the hyperbole, if you want to say something, do it without the excess.

Fundamentally, this pathogenic "religion" is incompatible with our Western modern-day society...

So you say. So far you've not offered any substance to your argument, preferring instead to make up complaints about liberals. It's less persuasive than you might imagine.

Yet the "enlightened" liberals seem to have no antibodies against

What's with all the Russophobia?

Common sense?

Do the Russians blow up little girls at concerts?

I certainly don't doubt that Putin would do so. The most you can say is that he won't see it as to his advantage.

Or perhaps they call for the murder of gays/lesbians?

They actually murder them

Do they advocate stoning women who don't wear tents in public?

No, they advocate throwing their enemies in the gulag.

And no, they aren't exactly good on attire, no.

Did their Prophet call for enslavement, rape, and murder of the Christians/Jews?

Russians aren't big on religious tolerance either, no.

I get it, you probably have the Russians precisely because they fight the radical Islamic terrorists. How fucking sick.

Oh so, they fight the Radical Islamic terrorists, so nothing they do can be wrong, is that it?

Maybe it's just like WW2, when Stalin and Hitler were BOTH MURDEROUS TYRANNICAL DESPOTS.

And since the Islamic terrorists don't have a tenth of Hitler's war machine, I see no reason to buddy up to Putin.

I will not give him a favorable reference in the House of Commons, the House of Representatives, or in the House of Saud.

Universities were able to extract more money from students because of loans, and used that money to hire more administrators who did not help improve student performance in any way. That's why cost has gone up - because they had more money to throw around, they hired more paper pushers who don't actually help with anything. Not the other way around as you seem to think. If that one link isn't enough to convince you, take your pick.

Instead of demanding better conditions for yourself you want the Millennials to suffer? I know that's not what you said, but it's the sentiment you're expressing. I hear it over and over and over again. I once worked for a company that cut everyone's pay and said (with a straight face) it was OK because they were cutting the starting pay even more. And I can't tell you the number of minimum wage earners I know who oppose a rate hike because they happen to make $11/hr and feel that somebody else starting there makes their struggle to make it to $11/hr worthless. It cheapens them and lowers their standing.

What you're doing is measuring your quality of life subjectively instead of objectively. E.g. the "Starving kid's in China" thing. It's been used for thousands of years by the ruling class to divide the working class into groups at each other's throat. There's an old joke about it that nails it pretty well.

TL;DR. Stop looking down on the Millennials for having it marginally less worse than you and start organizing with them to demand better. You deserve it. They deserve it. Everybody deserves it.

Disclaimer: I'm one of these terrible, no-good, lazy, overspending millennials. I have actually a pretty good job situation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lie to myself that somehow I've done better because I'm somehow a better person. I've been very lucky, and a lot of millennials are being screwed over through no fault of their own at all.

Story removing any "to be fair" to Buffett. He fought tax bills tooth and nail, WHILE saying taxes should increase.

All while complaining he paid less taxes than his secretary. Perhaps if he PAID his legally owed taxes instead of not paying them and fighting the IRS about it that wouldn't be the point.

So you have sympathy for a guy who has $50 billion, doesn't pay taxes he is legally obligated to pay, and your reasoning is he asks for higher taxes? He asked for higher taxes for others, not himself.

Story of Al Gore admitting he lied about corn subsidies in order to win elections.

Citation provided. What where you lying about again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Princeton Election Consortium made a similar predition

http://election.princeton.edu/...

People file complaints to the FCC, all the time, about everything. Just google "Funny FCC complaints." Here's the first result, the top 10 funniest complaints about SNL:

Because the Internet is wonderful, a Freedom of Information Act request was filed for every complaint about SNL the FCC has received in the last five years. That request was carried out and posted in its entirety on this website.

This document is 226 pages long and littered with paranoia, unabashed racism and homophobia, generally angry people, and, of course, fun. Lots and lots of fun.

Included in there are accusations SNL was carrying out a human trafficking ring. It's all nuts.

So what we have here is Colbert makes a vulgar joke. People report it to the FCC because people report everything to the FCC. And they investigate and respond because that's the job of the FCC. Trump critics then turn this into "Trump supporters want the government to shut down anti-Trump views." It's just confirmation bias.

Seems to be working for Star Wars / Star Trek.

They wouldn't be (re)making this stuff if fans weren't throwing money at them for doing it. Ultimately, it's people willing to pay to watch these remakes which causes them to be re-made. If you want new movie ideas, you have to show you're willing to pay for them (and not willing to pay for remakes). The explosion of instant Internet reviews has actually worked against us here, as it's become harder for studios to (partially) recoup the costs of a new movie idea which flops. That makes them less likely to experiment with new movie ideas, and more likely to stick to tried and true ideas - which means a lot more remakes and reboots.

In a way, it's the same problem I'm seeing with science and R&D. Those have traditionally advanced via the shotgun approach: Lots of people try lots of different things; most miss, but some hit, and the stuff that hits is what allows technology to advance. But managers demanding success from researchers, regulations increasing the cost of trying and failing, and media increasingly and selectively mocking failures, has resulted in technology advancing more via a slower evolutionary approach rather than by leaps and bounds. The inkjet printer was invented by a bunch of guys playing with electrostatic charges to make globs of liquid move, with no thought whatsoever for practical applications.

You have to be tolerant of failure if you want lots of success. And decreased tolerance of failure leads to decreased success.

So you've seen it?

Yes, I've seen it.

"Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet... We disagree."

Sounds like something, fans of "Net Neutrality" would say...

At least, UK may create a new "government controlled Internet" (or so the write-up says). America's Progressives wish to take over the existing network, impose "Title II" on the ISPs, ban the sites they don't like and otherwise sensor "haters".

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

I don't want content adjusting itself as I scroll. My keyboard has Home and End buttons. If I want to see the stop of the 'page'

Silly user, finite pages are so 1998. Now we have pages that load in more crap as you scroll.

You should check out this page (not the article itself; it's depressing as fuck). It's like Medium cranked up to 11:

The header covers the entire screen, is an autoplaying video for no reason, and when you scroll down it fades into a picture and "sticks" for a couple scrolls until you can get past that.
Then you scroll past that and it's the standard column of too-large fontsize text that only takes up the middle third of the screen with huge white stripes on the side.
Then you find out later that horrid header thing is repeated for each of the seven or so mid-article chapter headings.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

Then there is this, cash flowing to the Clinton foundation from donors. Since it's the New York Times though, that's probably just a conservative hit piece.

From the emails (and you'll have to stop being lazy and look this one up on your own), it's apparent that the donors were expecting things in return, even if Clinton wasn't offering anything. Whether she is guilty or not probably depends on the quality and quantity of evidence that can be found, the precise details of the law, and the mood of the jury, but to say there is no evidence is to just close your eyes. There is definitely evidence.

You are conflating Catholics with "all Christians." Generally speaking, Catholics do not generally use the term intelligent design, nor do they believe that arose over time out of causality is in conflict with the concept of a universe created by God.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

To bad we don't have freedom after laughing. I'm facing jail time after laughing at Jeff Sessions.

She wasn't convicted for laughing. According to the foreperson of the jury, "She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave". See

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressional-hearing_us_590929bbe4b05c39768420ef

And if you look at the following video, you will see that when she was asked to leave, she yelled and screamed and brought the hearing to complete standstill for over 10 seconds.

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/818837991217123328

And oh, by the way, she's a repeat offender. According to the following article, she was charged with a similar offense in 2007.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/code-pink-activist-convicted-laughing-sessions-170504001328276.html

Human progress — and the concomitant rises in productivity — are a wonderful thing and your historical facts are fascinating. But why should the reduction in work-hours be government-mandated? As long as people are free to work for whoever they wish and hire whoever they please, why wouldn't an employer gain better employees and/or higher productivity by offering shorter work-days and longer vacations? Indeed, it is happening all the time:

people like Ford started cutting back to 8-hour shifts and giving pay raises.

But let's stay on topic, shall we? The discussion is not about how many hours to work — it is whether or not people are entitled to other people's monies just for living in the same country or even on the same planet.

When quizzed about why they hate GMOs, the most common answer is that they have heard that other people are afraid of GMOs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

That was my thought as well. The market is maturing (who cares about that?), but the way the tech is maturing is the way that casu marzu matures.

So he did nothing?

Read more carefully:

he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.

Pretty much says he has done things, but failed to do it as he said he would, and lied about it.

If I had wanted to say he had done nothing, I could have said that, but no, I merely stated he had done little to nothing, and none of it was exactly how he said he was going to do it, and I certainly wouldn't have said that he has lied about everything he has done if he had nothing.

Stopped chemical weapons being used in Syria

Lied about stopping Chemical weapons being used in Syria, lied about his wasteful airstrike on an airport that was back in operation almost immediately, and certainly did not fulfill his promises on it. In reality, the Syrian Civil War is still a humanitarian crisis, and the use of Chemical weapons, no matter how deplorable they are, is only a small fraction of the tragedy.

And of course, Trump claimed he would solve the problem, which he hasn't, making his failure a lie. That he had previously denounced such missile strikes as he ordered as theater only harms your defense of him.

Increased S&P 500 by 5% (Real money gained by middle class)

Not directly attributed to anything he did, so...huh Thanks for showing the braggadocio though...the trend was already up and really, trying to assert it is real money gained by middle class? Ah, lies.

Unemployment claims at a 17 year low

A fuller perspective shows the lie.

Unemployment claims have been dropping steadily. Attributing it to Trump is like claiming that he put out a fire that was already mostly extinguished. Of course, he also claimed the same employment numbers were lies before relying on them for his own benefit, so there's another broken word of his. You really can't win with this, either Trump takes responsibility and admits that the complaints he made about unemployment statistics were false, or Trump has still left 90 million Americans without a job.

Illegal immigration drop by 75-90% depending on your source

Or you could at that some more. That isn't even getting into his already demonstrated lie about a Wall, his executive order, and his false sanctuary cities claims. Not to mention the toddlers and senior citizens added to his dangerous criminal list.

His handling of that has been yet another cavalcade of deceits, failure, and incompetence.

Supreme court nomination everyone agrees is good

Well, there's a lie. Your hyperbole betrays you. All it took is one.

There are others. 45 in the Senate alone.

Thats quite a bit for 3 months.

That's quite a bit of lies for 5 Sentences. No wonder Trump is your hero

If you still claim he did nothing, then y

Actually, the US is far far far from being the bastion of democracy that they claim (somewhat vocally) to be!

http://www.inquisitr.com/376286/texas-threatens-to-arrest-un-backed-election-observers-liberals-fear-voter-supression/

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-economist-just-downgraded-the-us-from-a-full-democracy-to-a-flawed-democracy/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html

No it's not yet because those things are more technically challenging. In genitals, you have dense arrays of nerves, pretty complex blood vessels, a bunch of "filler" tissue, the urethra, and skin. What is technically possible now is growing one type of cell or tissue, that's routine, with research starting to get into multiple types of cells grown together. Two different types of cells together gets much more complicated, and growing them together in a specific structure, rather than a random blend, at scales big enough to see without a microscope... that's beyond capabilities at the moment.

On top of that, the focus remains on the simpler tissues for economic reasons. If you can grow a liver in a dish (Organovo's main focus) you can make billions testing drugs for safety. One of the most common reasons expensive drug candidates fail is they kill your liver, another common reason is that drug candidates get processed in the liver to become something toxic to somewhere else. Doing this testing in animals is hideously expensive, slow, and often not very good at actually predicting how it will do in humans. Testing in human cells in a dish would be much easier. Drug testing is extremely expensive but also necessary. So it's a huge market. Genital replacement on the other hand is pretty low-demand compared to that. So there's huge economic advantages to focusing on the simpler goal, much less in creating much more complex genitals.

Genital repair should eventually be a goal though if we actually care at all about our soldiers or those other unfortunate individuals you mentioned. It's worth serious consideration, this is no joke, and feel free to smack down anyone in the future who brings it up lightly by pointing out it's an important goal even though "LOL WEINERS." And people are definitely working on it. Just it's not going to happen before we get livers in a dish.

Another clueless statist.

From this side of history, the will of Session to stoke up the war on drug and particularly get more repressive against Marijuana

And you say that why? Because Sessions himself has said he will not go against state legalization

You can't really be blamed for not knowing what is going on, since you only read news from people who are tying to lie to you to make you mad...