Slashdot Mirror

It isn't the first time that facebook censored photos of statues, eg. The Little Mermaid http://www.independent.co.uk/l...
Or the famous Vietnam war photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...

So they clearly need to improve the system, whether that is fine-tuning image recognition algorithm or educating ignorant reviewers.

Lawmakers in the country are reportedly hoping it will prevent Russia from interfering in Germany's elections next year.

Fake news!

Also, failing to report accurately is lying by omission and the German authorities and news media are guilty. Why don't the German government start by fining themselves?

I am really appalled at how many people don't take the Russian interference seriously and blame it on some kind of Democrat/Obama conspiracy. This has been happening in eastern European countries for decades and Russia has now been targeting also western Europe since the annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine. Russia is funding right-wing populist parties and helping them out with propaganda all across the western hemisphere in an attempt to discredit our democracies and our free press.

Don't believe it? Google "russia populist funding". Here are the top three links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.economist.com/news/...

It's really scary how much success they are having in sowing distrust in our institutions and our free press. Every time I read someone here decrying some mayor western news outlet as "Fake News" I am reminded of the effectiveness of Putins troll army.

so nothing about her other career as a script doctor... one of the best in the business... http://www.independent.co.uk/a...

let's face it, this http://rebellioustimes.com/wp-... was the only reason Carry Fisher became a legend.

yeah, yeah, yeah...

You (apparently) started off making some legitimate points. I'm an independence-inclined Scot and Remainer with zero need or inclination to apologise for Little Englanders who want to go back to the 1950s and still act (and think) with delusions of grandeur like the British Empire hasn't been over for well over half a century.

This doesn't change the fact that by the second paragraph, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm guessing you formed your half-baked idea of the United Kingdom from reading a few isolated scraps and filled in the rest with guesswork and misleading stereotypes.

The "1MBit" Internet speed thing has already been debunked, but your assertion that Cornwall "maybe" ranks along London as the most prosperous part of the United Kingdom shows how much you're pulling out of your arse.

Yes, London's service-based economy *is* undeniably prosperous for those working in it- at the expense of unbalancing that of the UK as a whole. (The flip side being that ludicrously expensive- and rapidly increasing- housing prices and high cost of living are making London virtually unliveable for anyone who *isn't* in the type of jobs that pay such inflated salaries).

Cornwall, though? You don't have a fucking clue. Cornwall is actually one of the poorest parts of the UK.

Not that I have much sympathy for them since they voted to cut their own throats. But Cornwall prosperous? Get a ******* clue.

I lived in Cornwall. Too expensive for locals to live there properties are worth a fortune David Cameron's favourite haunt and lots of retired actors. Edward Woodward was living on the coast there before his death his actresss wife still lives there. Nice weather in Cornwall you get very few council properties in Cornwall they are all privately owned properties.. So quiet and laid-back love it! I just cannot afford the prices.

Poland nobody wants to live in Poland not even the Polish. Hungary Hungarians college professors get paid less than a U.K. roadsweeper I spent almost a year there. I wished Cornwall was poor just so I could afford the prices and I am not poor. I did manage to live in Devon, Newton Abbot a stone throw away from Cornwall for 4 years.

You (apparently) started off making some legitimate points. I'm an independence-inclined Scot and Remainer with zero need or inclination to apologise for Little Englanders who want to go back to the 1950s and still act (and think) with delusions of grandeur like the British Empire hasn't been over for well over half a century.

This doesn't change the fact that by the second paragraph, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm guessing you formed your half-baked idea of the United Kingdom from reading a few isolated scraps and filled in the rest with guesswork and misleading stereotypes.

The "1MBit" Internet speed thing has already been debunked, but your assertion that Cornwall "maybe" ranks along London as the most prosperous part of the United Kingdom shows how much you're pulling out of your arse.

Yes, London's service-based economy *is* undeniably prosperous for those working in it- at the expense of unbalancing that of the UK as a whole. (The flip side being that ludicrously expensive- and rapidly increasing- housing prices and high cost of living are making London virtually unliveable for anyone who *isn't* in the type of jobs that pay such inflated salaries).

Cornwall, though? You don't have a fucking clue. Cornwall is actually one of the poorest parts of the UK.

Not that I have much sympathy for them since they voted to cut their own throats. But Cornwall prosperous? Get a ******* clue.

The only way this logic makes sense is if those trees were planted by humans for the primary purpose of burning.

Look up the Drax biomass generators;

The wood pellets used as biomass fuel at Drax are made from low-grade wood such as forest thinnings, tree tops and branches, as well as residue from sawmills and agricultural waste such as straw and seed husks.
[...]
If you burn wood pellets from the waste cuttings of the timber industry in a converted coal-fired power station, it should be possible to produce electricity that is largely carbon-neutral, provided the carbon of wood fuel is replaced by the carbon of growing trees – which Drax insists is the case.

What? Greenhouse gasses are fungible. It doesn't matter if the carbon was captured recently or (as with coal) in the distant past.

When the carbon was captured is not the issue, the issue is whether there is a net release of carbon. It does not matter whether the trees were planted specifically for power generation, what matters is that the wood is replaced at the same rate that it is used, as would be the case with wood from sustainably managed forests existing in many developed countries. This obviously wouldn't be practical on a huge scale, but there might be scope for a few projects like Drax, converting a coal plant to a renewable (or largely renewable) wood burning biomass plant.

Story 1

This article says nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. Just that as there is a observable and measurable correlation between oceans warming and hurricanes growing more frequent and severe.

Story 2

This article mostly talks about the fact that hurricanes may become more intense and that a category 6 will eventually have to be created if that happens because hurricanes with windspeed ranging from 257.5 kph to 407 kph are being lumped together into category 5. It goes on to speculate that dumping the category system might be a better idea than creating a category 6. Towards the end it even says: This oscillation means the Atlantic is expected to cool in the future, obscuring links among hurricane activity and global warming. Perhaps counterintuitively, recent computer modeling studies predict fewer tropical cyclones if the ocean heats up further as a result of global warming. But they also predict intensification of the ones that do form, albeit with limited confidence. Frequency drops by 6 to 34 percent this century, according to 2010 review article in Nature Geoscience, whereas intensity rises 2 to 11 percent. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) , i.e. fewer hurricanes but the ones we'll get will be more severe. Nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.

Story 3

The independent isn't really a scientific source but all this piece says is that somebody found evidence that warmer oceans seem to be linked to an increase in hurricane frequency and that in a warm year hurricanes are twice as likely as in a cold year. The real news here is that somebody found a way to extract data about hurricanes from old measurements made before the satellite age. They say nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.

Story 4

Still nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. It does talk about more hurricanes but the frequency is nothing like you claim: ”If this trend continues, it is realistic to expect a ten-fold increase in hurricanes like Katrina. That amounts to once every two years,”

Story 5

And yet again nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. This guy talks about improvements in computer modelling since 2005 and seems to be making the case that global hurricane frequency will not increase but that the severity of the hurricanes we do get will increase. I.e. about the same number of hurricanes but they'll be more destructive.

Yea, you did a search.

Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.

Bonus speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.

Read that long winded piece and it is mostly a regurgitation of d

Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Story 4
Story 5

Yea, you did a search. Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.

Bonus speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.

No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process. The "Muslim Registry" was part of that fake news that people seem to think helped Trump win the election.

I must call you out on this: it is not "fake news". It is actual news based on something he said. The transcript is here. It's clear that to a degree he is being led on by the reporter and, as is often the case, isn't really thinking about the answers he's giving. He provides vague replies about "management" being the solution and appears distracted. Nonetheless, what's most striking is that he doesn't attach much significance to the concept of a Muslim database. It seems like a totally reasonable idea to him. If I was a Muslim in the US, this is what would worry me. My worry would be compounded by his reaction to the questions in the second half of this video. He's asked about the racial discrimination which a database might bring about and repeatedly avoids the question. He has an opportunity to clarify his views and reassure, but he doesn't take it. It is worrying when someone reacts in the way that he does and none of this information is in any way "fake".

Your video really more shows the opposite of what you claim. Trump never volunteers anything about a "Muslim Registry". The interviewer instead opens with the question "would you support a database for tracking muslims", which is clearly trying to call him out, reveal his racism, or put words in his mouth depending how you want to view it. Trump agrees, but his later comments put some question on what he was agreeing to. He repeatedly references it as a method for stopping illegal immigration. It sounds as though the interviewer is talking about a 'muslim' database but Trump is responding and talking about an immigration database.

Plainly the interview doesn't give you warm fuzzies for Trump, but it's not exactly a smoking gun for him supporting a Muslim registry either, it looks equally strongly like a 'fake' news attempt to make it look like he supports one.

Do you have some better, less nuanced sources? We have video/audio recordings of blaming climate change on a chinese conspiracy, and about grabbing women by there private parts. Surely if Trump supports a muslim registry there is something more conclusive than what looks like a baited question that Trumps mind translated over to immigration database instead of muslim registry.

No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process. The "Muslim Registry" was part of that fake news that people seem to think helped Trump win the election.

I must call you out on this: it is not "fake news". It is actual news based on something he said. The transcript is here. It's clear that to a degree he is being led on by the reporter and, as is often the case, isn't really thinking about the answers he's giving. He provides vague replies about "management" being the solution and appears distracted. Nonetheless, what's most striking is that he doesn't attach much significance to the concept of a Muslim database. It seems like a totally reasonable idea to him. If I was a Muslim in the US, this is what would worry me. My worry would be compounded by his reaction to the questions in the second half of this video. He's asked about the racial discrimination which a database might bring about and repeatedly avoids the question. He has an opportunity to clarify his views and reassure, but he doesn't take it. It is worrying when someone reacts in the way that he does and none of this information is in any way "fake".

I wonder how many of those drones were pointing weapons at the unarmed protesters. If you're going to break out the mine-resistant vehicles from the National Guard, might as well bring in your mini-Predators as well.

And the demographic of migrants being primarily males in their 20's is only part of the problem.

Again, a false claim that is happily repeated over and over by xenophobic fearmongers. Do the math:
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (sorry, german only)

Yet this infamous leaflet was published in 2013?

Wow, that again. Classic case in point. Xenophopic exaggeration and distortion of reality at it's finest.
  Look at the whole picture of that "infamous leaflet". It's only infamous if you really, really want it to be that.
Germans love their rules, especially for their public pools. That leaflet represents a basic set of rules. Concentrating on one of the 13 cartoon images is cherrypicking whatever you can work with to spread hatred.Frankly, as far as respect for women is concerned, I have seen quite a few germans who would have benefitted from those cartoons quite a lot, as they were clearly incapable or unwilling to read and respect the written version of those rules. And btw, that leaflet is much, much older than the current refugee situation. So how can one single picture in it be proof that sexual assaults by refugees at swimming pools have increased so much that an educational leaflet just for them is necessary? And if it is, does it also prove that refugees don't shower, just because picture 1 tells them to?

I am really getting tired of this. You are trying to convince me of things that are proven to be wrong. Do you have anything to say that is not a blatant lie or vigorous bending of reality? I haven't seen anything so far. Therefor, I am now done here.

Neither is that case proof for sexual assault by refugees being a common phenomenon.

Yet this infamous leaflet was published in 2013? Imagine, authorities publishing advice for immigrants over behavioral patterns that only exist as a xenophobic, right-wing fantasy! If we take your figure of the Cologne incident, when was the last time white German males sexually assaulted 650 females in a single evening? I use "white German males" for want of a better phrase to describe men whose sociopolitical ideology does not promote the rape of females who do not subscribe to their religion.

Same goes for the map you linked to. It is being used to distort reality and to cater to an audience that seeks affirmation of it's xenophobic views and fears.

No I'd say the map is representative, studies consistently show sexual crimes being under-reported. There are abundant reports of crimes where perpetrators are incorrectly described as European because the victim fears being labelled 'racist'. In my reading of the map, I suspected that an incident such as the sexual assualt of a minor in a swimming pool would have 3 entries. Of course, the map merely charts crimes by non-german nationals and a percentage will be committed by individuals from countries within the EU.

the rise in sales refers to CS gas pistols, blank guns and such. Oh, and you have to register by name to buy those.

Indeed, I could have clarified that one.

Look, I acknowledge as much as anyone that of course there are criminals amongst those who enter our country as refugees. What I have a problem with is the claim that many, the majority or all of them are criminals. The statistics prove that migrants are no more criminal than german citizens. Anyone who claims to have proof that shows otherwise is a liar, incompetent or deluded by right-wing fearmongering.

What would happen if you were take 500 fighting age males from one poor, inner-city part of Germany and relocate them to another? Objecting to the social problems that would result could not be accurately described as xenophobia. And the demographic of migrants being primarily males in their 20's is only part of the problem. If you check the available statistics, then yes; Muslims are over-represented in prison populations throughout Europe.

And, to get back to the discussion about Facebook, you are right, I simply refuse to discuss politics with a violent racist that uses a comment section on facebook to threaten to kill refugees or to call for genocide - or threatens to kill me, for that matter. I see no common ground for discussion there. And for some reason, Facebook seems to think such threats are good for their business and somehow less wrong than posting a nipple pic. I have a problem with that, and so does the german law.

I hear you. Threats of violence are completely unacceptable. My point is that censoring or shutting down debate where there are valid concerns is ultimately counterproductive. Assuming anybody discussing these issues to be xenophobic is likewise. As for this complete nonsense... it'd seemingly be more effective as a guide to spotting sociopaths (by which I mean the individuals who commissioned and authored it).

Neither is that case proof for sexual assault by refugees being a common phenomenon.

Yet this infamous leaflet was published in 2013? Imagine, authorities publishing advice for immigrants over behavioral patterns that only exist as a xenophobic, right-wing fantasy! If we take your figure of the Cologne incident, when was the last time white German males sexually assaulted 650 females in a single evening? I use "white German males" for want of a better phrase to describe men whose sociopolitical ideology does not promote the rape of females who do not subscribe to their religion.

Same goes for the map you linked to. It is being used to distort reality and to cater to an audience that seeks affirmation of it's xenophobic views and fears.

No I'd say the map is representative, studies consistently show sexual crimes being under-reported. There are abundant reports of crimes where perpetrators are incorrectly described as European because the victim fears being labelled 'racist'. In my reading of the map, I suspected that an incident such as the sexual assualt of a minor in a swimming pool would have 3 entries. Of course, the map merely charts crimes by non-german nationals and a percentage will be committed by individuals from countries within the EU.

the rise in sales refers to CS gas pistols, blank guns and such. Oh, and you have to register by name to buy those.

Indeed, I could have clarified that one.

Look, I acknowledge as much as anyone that of course there are criminals amongst those who enter our country as refugees. What I have a problem with is the claim that many, the majority or all of them are criminals. The statistics prove that migrants are no more criminal than german citizens. Anyone who claims to have proof that shows otherwise is a liar, incompetent or deluded by right-wing fearmongering.

What would happen if you were take 500 fighting age males from one poor, inner-city part of Germany and relocate them to another? Objecting to the social problems that would result could not be accurately described as xenophobia. And the demographic of migrants being primarily males in their 20's is only part of the problem. If you check the available statistics, then yes; Muslims are over-represented in prison populations throughout Europe.

And, to get back to the discussion about Facebook, you are right, I simply refuse to discuss politics with a violent racist that uses a comment section on facebook to threaten to kill refugees or to call for genocide - or threatens to kill me, for that matter. I see no common ground for discussion there. And for some reason, Facebook seems to think such threats are good for their business and somehow less wrong than posting a nipple pic. I have a problem with that, and so does the german law.

I hear you. Threats of violence are completely unacceptable. My point is that censoring or shutting down debate where there are valid concerns is ultimately counterproductive. Assuming anybody discussing these issues to be xenophobic is likewise. As for this complete nonsense... it'd seemingly be more effective as a guide to spotting sociopaths (by which I mean the individuals who commissioned and authored it).

Well I barely have any non-white friends and one of the few I know was verbally assaulted in the street. Some people apparently thought that voting "out" meant we'd then immediately evict anyone who wasn't 7th generation British. Figures show something like a doubling of racially motivated attacks and that's the reported figures, like my friend I suspect most incidents went unreported.

The Independent [1] reported a 3-fold increase between the days immediately after the referendum and the comparative dates in 2015. That seems like it qualifies as a very large surge [which thankfully doesn't appear to have been sustained].

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Every social media and other interaction added up to make a 'citizen score'.
"In this world, anything from defaulting on a loan to criticising the ruling party, from running a red light to failing to care for your parents properly, could cause you to lose points. And in this world, your score becomes the ultimate truth of who you are – determining whether you can borrow money, get your children into the best schools or travel abroad; whether you get a room in a fancy hotel, a seat in a top restaurant – or even just get a date."

There is at least a degree of plausability as Bill Clinton flew on Jeffrey Epstein's “Lolita Express” at least 26 times, ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, Supposedly Hillary Clinton went 6 times and Donald Trump at least once; after all the best trolls have a basis in fact, a healthy dose of implication and exaggeration to make the lie more palatable.

When do Tweets become news, really?
Do you really think tweets from below bear less weight than "MSM false coverage" to a whole range of the population?

Pizzagate: Son of Donald Trump's national security adviser shares wild conspiracy claims surrounding Hillary Clinton and a pizza shop paedophile ring

The son of Trump's likely National Security Advisor is one of those gullible simpletons

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

will be for law abiding citizens and low grade criminals/terrorists/... The real bad boys will know how to and will use good encryption. But then I can't see that the food standards agency would be interested in real, hard, nasty people. This is why people are calling Theresa May the Pry Minister.

Oh, I think they are calling her way worse names than that.

will be for law abiding citizens and low grade criminals/terrorists/... The real bad boys will know how to and will use good encryption. But then I can't see that the food standards agency would be interested in real, hard, nasty people. This is why people are calling Theresa May the Pry Minister.

thus no children will be victimized by being used to make child porn.

Banning it makes this problem worse. If child porn was legalized and regulated, it could be made with cgi animation, adult actors posing as children, etc. There is no evidence that viewing child porn causes the consumer to commit more child abuse, and some evidence that it is preventative. In Japan, pedophiles can buy child-sized sex dolls, and although data is limited, it appears that this reduces their desire for real children by providing an alternative release.

Our treatment of pedophiles is based on knee-jerk populism, not scientific evidence. We often punish pedophiles just for seeking psychological help. It would be harder to design a dumber system even if we tried. We really should think of the children.

pfft use google and you get thousands of images for Clinton kissing Saudi butt what off it.

https://www.google.com.au/sear...

What I am talking about is real hard bribe money from a dictatorship that hates gays and restricts women's rights in the last election donating to a left leaning democratic party.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

The Netherlands seems to have a pretty good handle on civil liberties.

Not for long. Just this week, they banned certain pieces of clothing from being worn in public.

Fitting captcha: discover

"Snoopers’ Charter: Only amendment politicians have submitted to controversial bill is to stop MPs being spied on" http://www.independent.co.uk/l...

Modern art was CIA 'weapon' (22 October 1995)
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
"... set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. "
Its interesting reading about the past of many US projects with terms like:
"Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media" (Friday 18 March 2011)
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
"... none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology"
"The CIA and the media" gives some context to what the US was doing globally.
http://carlbernstein.com/magaz...

But journalists not confirming before they publish is just irresponsible...

The problem with this story is that CNN did initially confirm it:

CNN denied airing 30 minutes of inappropriate content on Thursday night after initially blaming local cable television provider RCN for the mishap, the network clarified on Friday.

"The RCN cable operator in Boston aired inappropriate content for 30 minutes on CNN last night,” the network said in their original statement. “CNN has asked for an explanation."

All that is happening now in the US has happened before in Europe. You need evidence? Just google "Putin far right funding" or "Putin Trolls". Here, let me give you a hand:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.businessinsider.de/...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Putin is leading a full-scale propaganda war against the west, intended at undermining trust in our democarcies and our institutions.

Time to wake up, America.

This might also interest you in particular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All that is happening now in the US has happened before in Europe. You need evidence? Just google "Putin far right funding" or "Putin Trolls". Here, let me give you a hand:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.businessinsider.de/...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Putin is leading a full-scale propaganda war against the west, intended at undermining trust in our democarcies and our institutions.

Time to wake up, America.

This might also interest you in particular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All that is happening now in the US has happened before in Europe. You need evidence? Just google "Putin far right funding" or "Putin Trolls". Here, let me give you a hand:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.businessinsider.de/...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Putin is leading a full-scale propaganda war against the west, intended at undermining trust in our democarcies and our institutions.

Time to wake up, America.

This might also interest you in particular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All that is happening now in the US has happened before in Europe. You need evidence? Just google "Putin far right funding" or "Putin Trolls". Here, let me give you a hand:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.businessinsider.de/...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Putin is leading a full-scale propaganda war against the west, intended at undermining trust in our democarcies and our institutions.

Time to wake up, America.

This might also interest you in particular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All that is happening now in the US has happened before in Europe. You need evidence? Just google "Putin far right funding" or "Putin Trolls". Here, let me give you a hand:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.businessinsider.de/...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Except it's not BS. I'm multilingual and follow some main online news publications of different European countries. What the US has witnessed now has been happening in Europe since Russia annexed Crimea. Russian government trolls are flooding discussion forums with pro-Putin and anti NATO / western propaganda, linking to phony stories on Russian news websites for "proof". They try to undermine trust in our democratic institutions spreading all kinds of wild conspiracy theories while accusing others of conspiracy theories when they are called out.
Russia is leading a full-scale propaganda war against the west, trying to change public opinion while funding far-right groups across Europe. They are basically trying to destabilize us. It's no joke:

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
http://www.businessinsider.de/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

I guess Russia has recently extended its operations to the US and has been disturbingly successful. The weakest candidate - Trump - became president, and the Duma applauded and cheered:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

You mean that place where Netanyahu ordered a retraction? That one?
Or did you miss Trumpists actual anti-Jewish statements?
Remember, Trump offered this guy to be Sec. of Defense, so yes, that is with Trump APPROVAL!

The story featured here around the new Macbook Pros called "MacBook Pro (2016) Disappointment Pushes Some Apple Loyalists To Ubuntu Linux" claimed that Apple users were jumping ship to Linux during the same time frame that it was declared these were the fastest selling Macbooks ever. And if you look in the comments section everyone fell for it. Obviously there is not much left here but pandering clickbait and slashvertisements.

"And we are proud to tell you that so far our online store has had more orders for the new MacBook Pro than any other pro notebook before. So there certainly are a lot of people as excited as we are about it."

The cited article, 2016/11/17, gives no further references. The Daily Express citation doesn't even contain the word "1000". The Independent, Tuesday 15 November 2016, cites USA Today as a source....

Google finds a VOA News of April 11, 2013 2:07 PM, mentioning the same 1000 years theory three years ago. The phrase is ascribed to a 2008 ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the NASA. So perhaps it should be 992.

Hawking's original reckoning is missing.

"Trump may have done some sleazy things. His tax files may not have been in perfect order. But I don't recall anyone accusing him of lying in court, revealing state secrets, or falsifying evidence. In hindsight it's amazing he didn't win by a larger margin"

It's amazing that so many voted for a man who treats women as he does. And who blatantly violated the privacy of underage pageant contestants

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_...

and boasted about it on Stern's radio program - http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Or personally inspecting them in their bathing suits

"Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before" - I bet you have it all on videotape too, Mr President-elect.
The extent of his creepiness wrt to the beauty pageants is appalling. I'm surprised more of it isn't criminal
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Swap the lives, histories & actions of Trump & Obama only they still keep their names & faces - which one of them would become the nominee of either party?
I bet that version of Trump could win nomination for either while the revised Obama couldn't get elected as county ratcatcher anywhere in America

Of course not. If companies had to pay for their own security in the Middle East, it would be vastly cheaper.

Of course you will provide references to back that claim up.

For example, if government pays $100 per pet for robotic poop scoopers so that I don't have to exert myself for the $1 of time and effort it takes to collect the poop from my pet, it's not $100 of subsidy to me. It's $1 of subsidy.

What if they pay a bunch of guys to risk their lives so you don't have to risk yours What's that worth to you?
How much stuff do you have right now that you get to keep because someone else is preventing bad guys to killing you and talking your stuff? You can't argue against the concept of welfare if you enjoy the protection of state.

And why isn't the cost of those wars counted towards the cost of renewable energy subsidies?

Because we're not in the middle east securing the use of solar panels? Really?

They benefit too even if it is a little bit more tenuously than fossil fuels (these wars after all stabilize global trade which renewable energy is dependent on). That's the usual double standard in play.

That really is grasping at straws. Take a look at all the conflict in the world, then see which ones we get involved with, and see if you can find a pattern.
The Iraq conflict has been going for 25 years, and cost us trillions. You seriously think that would've happened if we didn't rely on oil so much? Oil is the most subsidised energy there is. If you don't like subsidising energy you should be all for new energy because that is the greatest benefit to independence. Once achieved you no longer need to subsidise it. It will only be temporary while fossil fuels will require subsidies forever.

Dishonest comparison since the renewable energy subsidies won't be in the places with the deaths (developed world subsidies versus developing world pollution and deaths) and of course, ignoring the positive externality of cheaper energy.

That's your opinion, the facts says otherwise.
Renewables are the next big industry. Imagine having this same discussion when oil was discovered. You'd be complaining that we shouldn't bother with this new oil fad, let's stick with burning wood and steam engines.

Further, we could eliminate most of these deaths with the usual pollution controls developed in the 1970s and 80s. No need to switch to renewables when there's a cheaper option at hand.

Too late, renewables are already cheaper for developing countries with no existing infrastructure, and getting cheaper every day.
You are betting that you can keep modifying your typewriter to an electronic version to compete with PCs.

They gloss over that more than $2 trillion of that is just due to China's mess

China is the world's leading investor in renewables. They have already recognised the folly of fossil fuels and have jumped in with both feet. Would you prefer the new global mega industry to be monopolised by the Chinese, or should America try get a slice of that pie?

Why should I expect either to have good future capital gain over a typical investment horizon?

The choice is gains (get involved) or losses (let the Chinese and Germans own the next big thing). Which do you prefer?

Has it actually been passed?

I saw this story on Slashdot yesterday (Thursday) and it's now Friday morning (10am in England) and there is nothing on the BBC and no update to the parliament.uk page regarding the bill.

Is there a chance this hasn't actually been passed which is why it's not being reported? The BBC has no recent (within last week) news on this.

OK, so searching with Google News I can now see a few UK papers picking this up today: The Independent, Digital Trends, Out-Law, and Press Gazetta but they are not what you'd consider main-stream.

Fuck the main-stream media.

Fuck the UK government.

You're either trolling well, or extremely clueless. https://static.independent.co.... Headlines like these have no value for credibility.

China has been reducing its dependency on lignite, aka "brown coal". This is in part to address their epic, mind-boggling smog problems, but it has also had the effect of flattening the net worldwide growth anthropogenic carbon emissions over the past three years. I've checked the journal's impact factor and although it's new it is ranked in the top quartile of Earth and planetary sciences journals.

Nice try, but globalism is killing the inefficient work in bad locations for profit itself. It is powered by capitalism and the people resisting it are fighting the tide. They voted Trump because they were fooled by promises he has already broken.

Trump is a liar already so he will be a single term president, and probably less than that.

He will be a lame duck president the whole term, whether he is impeached for past crimes or not. He is already reversing course on all the rhetoric used to rile up the populist vote. Spectacle to see the Republicans crash and burn, but with Trump busy fucking Putin in the Oval office we may have a Red Dawn.

Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, ..., money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found

There is no credible source for those claims. Mexico has said that it is willing to "discuss" NAFTA, but the idea that they are willing to renegotiate it in a way that would impose the tariff barriers that Trump proposed is laughable:

"Meanwhile Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said they were willing to discuss the importance of the agreement with Mr Trump."

Pedophiles fear many things. If they seek psychiatric help, the doctor is required to report them. So they stay untreated in the shadows. Other countries are more enlightened. In Japan, pedophiles can buy child-sized sex dolls. Although data is scarce, the dolls appear to provide a release for their predilection and reduce offenses against actual children. This is unlikely to happen in America, but soon we will have a sexual predator as our president, so maybe he will be more empathetic.

So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?

No, that's not what I took from this story at all.

The problem with social media that this election illustrates on both sides is that because of its nature it seeks to maximize views and shares, it doesn't care whether or not an article comes from a satirical news site, a blog, or a scientific journal. All it cares about is maximizing eyeballs and clickthrough rates. This creates an environment that's ideal for bubbles to form and as people on both sides of the political field share stuff - factual or not - that supports their view.

For democracy to work properly the populace needs to be informed about the state of affairs. When they're not, and when the channels of information they use don't offer them factual information but emotionally appealing content, the result is that populism becomes easier and easier. It's only a day after the election and Trump has started pivoting into his actual positions already. He's stopped talking about jailing Clinton, and his so called 'plan' to ban all muslims just disappeared from his website without any explanation.

As a foreigner I'm not so much worried about Trumps actions as president, but what his run is signalling: you can now lie openly and blatantly and make claims that are so wildly absurd everyone with 2 brain cells or more knows them to be bullshit, and still get elected as the president of the most powerful nation on Earth.

If we want better candidates, step one on that road is to make the voters more aware of how to discern truth from fiction, and the media does play a role in that, especially the social media.

Do you have some other quote where he actually talks about nuking somebody?

Sure do.