Slashdot Mirror

I think if they don't like the news they are already informed.

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability

You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."

If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world

I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.

Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:

1. The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
2. The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
3. The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
4. The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.

Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?

I'm sad to say, yes, I'm personally convinced by having watched it. They consistently rate the worst for truthfulness of any national news publisher.

If it's worth your time, check any level of Fox news reporting about _anything_ where you personally know anyone involved or know the subject matter. It's true even for scientifically verifiable subjects. See http://mediamatters.org/blog/2... as a good example of the problem.

So charge her under whatever law was used against Nishimura.

Not applicable.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/06/right-wing-media-run-another-baseless-comparison-clinton-emails/211379

. . . . and yet claim that Hillary's private email server was NEVER hacked by the Russians, or anybody else, for that matter.

Cognitive Dissonance, much ???

Funny how the Right did the exact same thing yet you fail to mention it, Why is that? Oh and their were guns involved. I am sick and tired of shitheads cherry picking their outrage. If you are outraged about these actions then be outraged by them all or shut your racist trap.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

I used to think Scott Adams was an intelligent and insightful man.
Now I'm not so sure.

Yes, Trump has had a tremendously sexist mysoginst past.

Yes, Trump also has a racist past.

His kids have appeared on white nationalist radio.

They may have said he was not a viable candidate or that he was just a reality TV star but thats not ignoring him, it is certainly not ignoring him when you do that for the majority of the time on your news broadcasts. Its not even close to ignoring Trump, its giving him the microphone, at that point it almost doesn't matter what the talking heads have to say.

If you want to see what its like to be ignored by the meida, take a look at what they did with Sanders, thats ignoring a candidate.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

Well she didn't skip college, but......

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

And he learned his lesson and has not done such a thing since 1992 — when Clinton was not even a President yet, BTW. Like I said, it is bad form and whoever tries it, gets burned — for good reason.

To be expected of a man who keeps replacing his wives with younger wives every few years

I'm triggered by your anti-Muslim bigotry! Safe-place, safe-space...

Well she didn't skip college, but......

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

That was a thing with Limbaugh, attacking the appearance of women. To be expected of a man who keeps replacing his wives with younger wives every few years. But hey, he's all about traditional family values and the covenant of marriage, amirite?

Child molesters ARE terrorists.

No. Just, no. People need to stop calling every crime an act of terrorism. It's because of people like you that we have FoxNews calling protesters terrorists and the Department of Defense calling protests "low-level terrorsim."

What good does that do? Over 1 in 5 people are Muslim. Treat them poorly and it will only create blowback down the road. Your fishing with way too big a net.

Now yeah, it works for Israel because they're a lot smaller. And they're not afraid to be an authoritarian, constitution-less apartheid state because they know big brother Sam has their back.

Don't think I'm just being PC here: there are just more useful indicators of radicalization than skin-tone and headwear. Also, threats can come from all directions, not just those you know about.

why you shouldn't:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...

I know its shocking...but foreign countries also have monuments to their cultural or political heroes too.
We've got monuments to just as bad if not worse. Southern states still celebrate men who fought to retain slavery.

Bonus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

We have all this technology to do advanced tracking, consumer prediction, ad-targeting, etc. Advanced. Hyper-advanced.

Yet - watching the primary elections occurring on America - and all elections for that matter - our electoral system is a fucking farce. A complete fucking farce. A throwback to the horse-and-buggy era.

Where is the biometric voter verification? What about advanced electoral forensics and analysis?

Its this way because - because of the massive farce - because the corrupt mostly Democrat-controlled political machines across the country want it that way. They want no voter verification. They want the 20 million illegals who flooded into the country to vote. They don't care about ballot-box stuffing in the precinct centers in the 'hood where the voter turnouts would otherwise be around 10%.

Its time to call BS on America's electoral system.

We have all this advanced technology, and *this* is the voting system we have?!? AYFKM?

I hope one of the things Donald Trump does when he's in office is to start implementing the electoral system that America deserves, not this farce.

even fox news disagrees.
"Several states adopted new laws last year requiring that people show a photo ID when they come to vote even though the kind of election fraud that the laws are intended to stamp out is rare."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud.html

"Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=0

"Claim: List cites instances proving voter fraud in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.
FALSE"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

"Summary of eRumor: "This is a forwarded email that cited alleged instances of voter fraud during the 2012 presidential election in an effort to prove voter ID laws are necessary.
The Truth: This eRumor contains a mix of accurate and false data that fails to prove there was widespread voter fraud during the 2012 election."
https://www.truthorfiction.com/2012-voter-fraud/

"Like many of you, our eyebrows raised when we first read this headline out of Georgia: “Fulton election results show more than 100% turnout in 4 precincts.” The culprit causing strange turnout during this primary election? Confusion at the polls over newly redistricted precincts. Because Fulton County failed to revise their voter rolls in time, many voters were erroneously listed in the wrong districts and thus showed up at the wrong place to vote."
http://lwv.org/blog/georgia-exceeds-100-voter-turnout

"A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent."
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13236464-new-database-of-us-voter-fraud-finds-no-evidence-that-photo-id-laws-are-needed

"Debunking The Conservative Media's 2014 Voter Fraud Horror Stories" http://mediamatters.org/resear...

"7 papers, 4 government inquiries, 2 news investigations and 1 court ruling proving voter fraud is mostly a myth"

I thought that about carabou but info on it seems to be mixed on an ideological basis.

Here's some links on it.
Government
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/ind...
Herds have declined a lot.

Hunters
http://www.adn.com/article/201...
Herds have declined a lot.

Liberals
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
Disaster! Woe is me! Caribous going extinct!

Conservatives
http://www.mrc.org/news/alaska...
One herd has increased!

Conservatives
http://www.heritage.org/resear...
Mmmm. Pipelines good! Jobs jobs jobs! Pipelines good!

The MRC seems to paint a good picture but then you see it has cherry picked one particular herd, the Central Arctic caribou herd, and ignored a huge decline in other carabou herds!

"In 1977, as the Prudhoe region started delivering oil to America's southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128. "

It seems to me that the pipeline's benefit to carabou is a conservative fiction. Grrr. I used to be very conservative from 1980 to 1992. It upsets me that so many religious people lie by commission or omission on the conservative side.

To elaborate:

Media Shouldn't Be Fooled By Fake Neutrality Bill Backed By Broadband Industry

IBT: GOP Legislation Would Undermine FCC's Ability To Enact Net Neutrality Regulations. As the International Business Times reported, the legislation proposed by congressional Republicans purports to ban broadband providers from blocking or speeding up certain content, or from charging content providers for faster access -- but in reality, undermines the FCC's ability "to impose stricter regulations on broadband companies" by establishing open-Internet rules. [International Business Times, 1/21/15]

Free Press: GOP Legislation "Undermines The Open Internet It Claims To Protect." In a January 21 statement, Free Press Action Fund noted that the GOP legislation would "declaw the one agency responsible for protecting the public interest in communications," rather than "safeguard Net Neutrality," as it claims to do:

Despite what they claim, this legislation won't safeguard Net Neutrality. The bills instead would undermine the FCC's ability to protect Internet users by removing broadband and wireless companies from nearly all agency oversight.

"The legislation fails at the very thing it claims to accomplish. It prohibits a few open Internet violations but opens the door to new industry abuses. It claims to give the FCC limited adjudication powers but removes the agency's ability to adopt and adapt rules to fit the changing landscape for high-speed Internet access. [Free Press, 1/22/15]

The Hill: GOP Bill Will Undermine Future Consumer Protection Efforts And Prevent Broadband Development. In a January 21 op-ed, experts at the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation explained that the GOP legislation would "strip the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of crucial legal authority that protects consumers and small businesses on the internet," by limiting the FCC's ability to "adapt to evolving consumer harms." They also explained that the narrowly-written legislation would "eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband":

Making matters worse, the legislation would leave the FCC powerless to protect consumers from other broadband harms not specified in the bill text, such as those that are already occurring in the interconnection context. When the FCC enacted net neutrality rules four years ago, few anticipated that ISPs would congest their own networks as a strategy to extract fees from edge services like Netflix. But that's precisely what happened throughout 2013 and 2014, according to data collected by the Measurement Lab (a research consortium that includes the Open Technology Institute). The congestion harmed millions of Internet users whose connection speeds slowed to the point of unusability -- but the FCC had no mechanism in place to help these consumers. This prolonged, damaging behavior by multiple ISPs demonstrates why the FCC needs the flexibility to respond to problems as they evolve.

The bill would also eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband. This is a blow to municipalities that want to offer broadband service to their residents, particularly those currently restricted by state barriers to municipal broadband projects. The Open Technology Institute has consistently found that some of the fastest and most affordable broadband service in America comes from cities that have invested in their own infrastructure. Congress should be figuring out ways to support local government. Instead, the Thune-Upton bill prohibits the FCC from responding to communities that have asked for help. [The Hill, 1/21/15]

New Republican Bill Is Network Neutrality in Name Only

But, as written, the Republican bill p

No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...

Damn those pesky facts.

How many of those cities are run by Democrats?

Damn those pesky facts.

No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...

Damn those pesky facts.

How many of those cities are run by Democrats?

Damn those pesky facts.

No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...

Damn those pesky facts.

How many of those cities are run by Democrats?

Damn those pesky facts.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2015/07/07/chicagonola.jpg

What's interesting to me is how stunningly higher the murder rates are than the gun-only murder rates: less than 18% of Detroit's murders were committed by a gun.

We should ban whatever they use the other 82% of the time.

Damn those peskier facts.

No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...

Damn those pesky facts.

No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...

Damn those pesky facts.

No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...

Damn those pesky facts.

Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.

That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.

Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US.

In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever

6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago.

In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.

And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things.

Funny how you types always leave that out.

And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.kansascity.com/opin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.

That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.

Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US.

In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever

6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago.

In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.

And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things.

Funny how you types always leave that out.

And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.kansascity.com/opin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.

That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.

Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US.

In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever

6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago.

In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.

And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things.

Funny how you types always leave that out.

And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.kansascity.com/opin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.

That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.

Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US.

In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever

6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago.

In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.

And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things.

Funny how you types always leave that out.

And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.kansascity.com/opin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.

That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.

Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US.

In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever

6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago.

In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.

And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things.

Funny how you types always leave that out.

And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.kansascity.com/opin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You made a claim, I've simply been asking for you to back up that claim. After MULTIPLE requests you finally respond with a single source. Something, but nothing near 'most models overstate climate change'.

So the content of this study is irrelevant ....but here goes -

The author Patrick Michaels has been pretty thoroughly wrong about climate for a while now
link 1
link 2

Here's debunking of your two authors climate change opinions

here's another posting by your authors Watts Up With That
And here's another debunking.

So no I don't throw out the paper due to any preconceived ideas, I do tend to discount it because MULTIPLE SCIENCE professionals provide examples of why it's authors have been full of shit on this topic and are paid shills for the CATO institute - a well known political entity with obvious agendas to push.

Unlike you, science doesn't have agendas. Perhaps individual scientists, or 'people', do but science is data and it rules above all else.

Note the deepclimate article above, where it shows your authors clearly cherry picking which parts of a study to quote and what they leave out is the part about how it's easy to be disingenuous if you cherry pick data. Just WOW.

And one more thing - you perhaps noticed Ted Cruz claiming there's been no warming at all for the last 18 years. Funnily it does pan out that 1998 and 2015 are very similar in temps. What's that 18 year period though, seems like a random number right? Well that's the ONLY date range that shows his claim because 18 years ago was one of the hottest on record.

Probably because Fox News hyped the hell out of The New York Times article that implied that Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation by federal investigators, which the newspaper later — and somewhat reluctantly — retracted. Despite the retraction, Fox News went on and on with the original NYT article like a dog with a chew toy..

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/24/ny-times-walks-back-flimsy-report-on-probe-into/204576

A clarification from the SAME authors: No net heating ... a localized atmospheric mixing effect

scientist-debunks-misleading-coverage

70% of American 8th-graders aren't proficient in reading — obviously, the sorry state of affairs is a reflection of the quality of the teachers...

Maybe, if I emphasize the important part, you'll be able to pick it up... Here you go, you missed this part the first time: an article on some unknown blog, which cites anonymous "experts" is hardly credible...

First off, one paper doesn't immediately invalidate everything that came before it.
Secondly, no, I don't think you actually understood the paper or its point, but rather are projecting from it what you want to hear.

NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did

even the author of the nasa paper is complaining that deniers are misstating what his study actually says:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...

NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did
http://mediamatters.org/resear...

because Breitbart totally isn't a 'news' source that engages in bad reporting to push an agenda, and then blames others when called on it...

because Breitbart totally isn't a 'news' source that engages in bad reporting to push an agenda, and then blames others when called on it...

because Breitbart totally isn't a 'news' source that engages in bad reporting to push an agenda, and then blames others when called on it...

because Breitbart totally isn't a 'news' source that engages in bad reporting to push an agenda, and then blames others when called on it...

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Not marked.

Well even still, as someone who had to sit through regular DIA and FBI security lectures, the lack of the mark does not make the material unclassified. It does not prevent you from any potential civil or criminal penalties for divulging or improperly handling the material. And anyone working as the Secretary of State level should probably assume that any material they are presented with needs to be secured.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Not marked.

The video is dishonest. It's very telling that the parent isn't even trying to back up their lies about the video mentioning a Lamborghini.

Because the Daily Caller would never do that!

Because the Daily Caller would never do that!

"Zharkova herself did not help matters when she hesitantly answered, "Yes, indeed" when asked during a July 13 interview with Radio New Zealand whether she was "saying we've got 15 years before there's an ice age?" Zharkova, who is a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, clarified later in the interview that she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" ...."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

no one is forcing strip clubs to hire anyone, period

That's only because the entertainers are not, formally, employees, but are all "independent" and "renting" space in the joint. This legal dodge has been in place for ever and it is only a matter of time before some future Eric Holder or Elliot Spitzer puts an end to it.

a bigoted asshole like you.

Now that's fresh... We are done here.

I thoroughly loathe and despise your views.

Thank you, sergeant Painfully Obvious. I wonder, what happened to the "Please, don't hate" sentiment, though...

I have some wonderful arguments against them.

No, you don't. At most, you have something tortured, or else you would posted it here. Your best was to try the hair-splitting over striptease dancers — and even that failed. But now that you called me "asshole", it is too late to even try again.

Dragging in bigotry against gays, blacks, transgender persons

I, actually, did nothing of the kind, but with over half of Americans being less-than-proficient readers, I'm not surprised, you misunderstood me... Hop along.

But maintaining health into old age, and avoiding "lifestyle" diseases, is part of the reason I work out and try to eat healthily.

Very good. Now, can you identify, where in my post above have I said anything against this commendable practice?

That FranTaylor is part of the 70%, who can not read proficiently, is already clear. Are you a fellow victim of America's public school system, or you just didn't pay attention today?

Clinton Cash has errors removed

Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.

including prominent conservatives and conservative groups

Clinton Cash has errors removed

Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.

including prominent conservatives and conservative groups

I wasn't after a partisan approach, but interesting.

My interest was piqued by the Benghazi accusations of intelligence mismanagement, especially by Fox. To be able to say 'this was on your watch, it's your fault' about a terrorist raid in N Africa seems fine, but to do it about Sept 11th isn't. This contradiction stinks of the grossest hypocrisy (I know, quelle surprise).

Hadn't heard about the Sandy Berger accusations. Turns out there's a reason why (they weren't true)
http://mediamatters.org/resear...