Slashdot Mirror

...in 2006 by Al Gore? "...unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return", Gore said.

...in 1999, by James Hansen, telling us that the 2000's would rival the 1930's for the highest ever... of course, then we went into a "hiatus" of global warming. Original article.

...in 2006, by this group, saying, Extinction is OUR choice, unless... .... within the next 8 years we have STOPPED using fossil fuels, PLANTED millions of trees, ended logging, and PREPARED our cities and agriculture for the inevitable sea rise. OTHERWISE OUR CHILDREN MAY NOT SURVIVE!

...in 2006, by the Independent?

...in late 2006, by Mother Jones?

..in 2004, by James Hansen? Article

Or maybe just google all this from 10+ years ago, telling us we'd all be dead in 10 years. google.com

Let's stop with the hysteria and stick to facts. I'm not against cutting CO2 emissions, I am against needless panic mongering.

http://www.motherjones.com/env... The charges were dismissed. Don't know if the judge was fair or the gigantic crowd of people outside the courtroom convinced him

Bernie Sanders Called for a Halt to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Why Wonâ(TM)t Hillary Clinton?

Why Did Clinton Just Tap a Pro-TPP, Pro-Keystone Pipeline, Pro-Fracking Pol to Head Her Transition Team? Amy asks some damning questions.

Clinton Foundation Receiving Millions From Proponents of Keystone XL

She is everywhere and nowhere. WikiLeaks is shutdown (for now), now this.

Follow the money.

> Entitled? What if you grew up there; lived there all
> your damn life.

Actually, what's going on is that other states are "dumping" their homeless on California in general, and San Francisco and San Diego in particular (LA used to be a popular one too, but they engaged in their own anti-dumping battle a while back when "skid row" became unmanageable.). Most recently, Nevada was caught red-handed shuffling their mental patients off to California with one-way Greyhound tickets:

http://www.motherjones.com/moj...
https://thinkprogress.org/neva...
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/new...

Im not sure what the solution is. But the reality is that there really is a metric crapton of unpopulated land in the US where people could be housed cheaply. It's hard to believe until you do a decent amount of cross-country travel. But I've flown from SF to Kansas a number of times for work these last few years. And, aside from Denver, there's very little in-between. And, for that matter, Kansas has all of one city of any note; and they share that one with Missouri. The rest is a whole lot of nothing. It's kind of ironic that it's Nevada that was caught doing the most recent round of bussing; because they're one of the states with the most empty land.

The article talks about battery power and long-life food but not climate control, water or sewage.

That's because an entire industry has grown up around scamming survivalists. Whether it's Jim Bakker selling $160 buckets of potato soup (and you can poop in the bucket later!), Glenn Beck's hugely overpriced gold or these guys selling luxury underground bunkers, the goal and method are the same as any other con; gain the mark's confidence using lies and half-truths, then take them for every penny they can get.

Building a bunker that could actually be lived in is secondary to increasing the profit margin, so they skimp on the basic construction and spend a little on cheap frills to hide the deficiencies. That's why the kitchen picture Ultimate Bunker website looks like every piece of shit house that's had superficial improvements done by someone trying to flip it for a profit.

'Climate change' was a term coined by a Republican to make 'Global Warming' seem less scary.

'Climate change' is a natural consequence of 'global warming', and many scientists still refer to it as such because that's the accurate thing to say.

"The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'spherical warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of spherical warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

“Climate change” is less frightening than “spherical warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While spherical warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

The page I'm quoting from: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Here's the link to the goddamn memo: http://www.motherjones.com/fil...

I'm really sick of hearing that scientists changed this term. They didn't. Climate change means something, but it wasn't political activism on the part of people that study it to change the media representation of it.

>Cite where anyone is using religion to deny climate change.
http://www.motherjones.com/env...

>Tell me what YOU are doing to offset climate change.
Well, for a start, I use public transport for more than 95% of my commutes. I moved to a city with nuclear rather than coal as it's primary power, and my next car will be electrical, I'll be installing home solar within the next few years so I don't even use the small bit of secondary power supply my city gets from distant coal plants. I have put a timer-switch on my water-heater so it only runs one hour a day - providing hot water for showers and not using any power the rest of the time.... need I go on ?

You mean other than their training? Compare what an officer is trained to see to a recent shooting in my area.

You mean an anecdote? How about we look at the numbers of people who have been released from prison after being proved innocent, who were badgered into confessing by police interrogators - 65 out of 149 last year. Like prosecutors, cops are far, far, far more interested in "winning" than in actual justice.

And cops invariably lie when caught in an unjustified shooting, to cover their own asses. If a cop tells you that nighttime is darker than daytime? Go outside after sundown to check and make sure he was telling the truth.

There's a reason he speaks like Hitler. Trump kept a collection of Hitler's speeches in a cabinet by his bed titled titled, "My New Order" which he read for inspiration.

Why the fuck is this modded insightful. Trump has incited his followers to violence, appeals to neonazis and white supremacists, and has caused holocaust survivors to say "he seems familiar".

Trump and his supporters are a poison in this country, and suggesting Hillary Clinton even comes close to being as evil is delusional.

Now let's figure out what we'd like to cut from Government.

Now lets remember that socialized medicine provides better outcomes for a fraction of the cost of a for-profit, health insurance based system. Ditching pharma, insurance, and for-profit hospitals would be a huge cost savings to the public. Most of the rest the Concerns you mentioned can be answered by that simple fact.

That's part of the constitutionally limited responsibilities (CLR). That's roughly half of discretionary spending (about $600 billion).

This isn't defense, it's Empire. And your figure is off by more than half.

Do you expect that the police aren't subject to the same justice as a citizen?

We've seen for certain that police are not subject to the same justice as citizens.

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

As it's likely the most succinct explanation of Libertarianism I've ever seen, I'll quote it at length, rather than even paraphrasing: "Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence." http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

The NRA ? Actually... I'll bet there are some wingnuts who think the NRA is way too pro-gun-control.

Don't worry there are worse groups although most are pretty small there are a couple of larger ones in that list that I have actually heard of and I have heard a number of people referring to the NRA as meaning "Negotiating Rights Away".

I don't know about falsehoods, but quoting alt-right websites like Breitbart doesn't really help much. Or, as Bannon himself calls it, "this populist nationalist movement". I'm surprised you didn't also quote The National Review, since you also included the Daily Caller. Those three are the current trifecta of the US mainstream populist nationalist movement, at least according to their Twitter hashtags, followers, and stats. I'll counter with a bleeding-heart "alt-left" citation: How Donald Trump's New Campaign Chief Created an Online Haven for White Nationalists. Finally, my own personal opinion is that neither alt-right or alt-left is a viable ideology, and both lead to a very undemocratic place.

I was initially fooled by this article. I thought that the AAPS was a "legitimate" interest group. It turns out that I may have been mistaken:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/tea-party-doctors-american-association-physicians-surgeons

I hope that someone else finds that as interesting as I did.

Piss off. Sanders has been fighting for "people of color" as you put it for his entire career.

...this is actually a pretty good representation of the response one can expect any time this issue (all-important for winning a Democratic primary, mind you) is brought up. All the Black people I follow on twitter had timelines full of sentiments like this. Usually even less nice though, and almost always from eggs or people with white AVI's. I'll tell you what I tell Trump followers asserting similar things: Asserting something doesn't make it true, even if you do it angrily. (Out of curiosity, does it even stack up to the experience of his actual constituents? nope.).

Don't act like he wasn't trying

I don't have to act. We had his whole campaign to watch. It was pretty obvious. And now that its over, the stories from the inside are coming out. Not shocking given how black voters were treated by his campaign, but there are all kinds of tales of supporters of color being ignored, his own press secretary (a black woman hired probably in part to contradict the rumors) being assaulted and turned away at meetings, and just generally treated like they didn't belong. Like the campaign didn't care about them, and didn't want their support. Well, guess what? You don't want it, you didn't get it. #EarnThisDamnVoteOrLose.

My personal favorite came from TWiB (a black-run podcast, that was also acting as the media org behind Netroots Nation). They landed an interview with Sanders during NN16. Nothing weird about that, since he was there, and they were the media org running NN16. They showed up to the interview, and no Sanders. Thought he stood them up. Now that the campaign is over, they were talking with some ex-staffers that were there, and it turned out it wasn't that Sanders stood them up. His own staffers wouldn't let him go. They knew what Bernie was going to say, and knew it would not be taken well at all by TWiB or its audience.

This is precisely what a losing campaign for the Democratic nomination looks like. If you lose POC by double digits, you lose. Take a kewpie doll, and better luck next time.

So what does his own high-level former staff (who know the campaign better than you or I) say happened?

But let me be clear - NO ONE STOLE THIS ELECTION! Team Sanders we did AMAZING WORK. But we lost. It's a hard reality for some

It was a hard reality for me. Because I fought hard. Now, we won some great battles, but the reality is the system didn't cheat us.

Now the contents of the leaked emails show individuals were definitely biased, but 7 folks on an email didn't "steal" the election.

There are other qualms. Other valid arguments, but a stolen election is not one. I worked there. No one stole the election from us

It's 'kinda worse than that.

Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department

We already knew that Hillary was using her private email server for work, and that some of that information was classified.

So what is the shocking new scandal? That the previous secretary of state emailed information to an official at the state department?

, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

FTA,
"At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014.”

So yeah, gimmie a call when they find evidence that something was deleted because it contained incriminating info, and not because some dumbass lawyer a) thought it was a good idea, and b) sucked at it.

Or at least let me know when they know it's not a duplicate.

(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

Yeah! The media is notoriously easy on Clinton!

Did you actually read the Mother Jones analysis instead of looking at their rebuttal as evidence of media bias?

The whole "scandal" is around the fact that Bill Clinton still does stuff in his capacity as ex-President. This takes some money, not a lot of money, but because it's considered to be in the national interest the federal government gives him funds to do this, ~$100k.

It would be kinda stupid to bring in a whole different set of staff just because you spend a few hours doing ex-President stuff inbetween Clinton foundation stuff, so he just has the same staff work for the government instead of the foundation for that period.

I'm not clear what he should have done otherwise. A bigger scandal would have been if he paid the staff for an ex-Presidential event using Clinton Foundation funds!

Guccifer exposes Hillary's illegal email server and goes to jail for it.

Hilary gets off Scott Free.

BTW, Comey said "Leeeeave Hillary Alllloneeee" because there were more appropriate administrative punishments available.

And? What were they? Were the ever applied?

It's 'kinda worse than that.

Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.

(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)

Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.

Nothing to see here, no smoking gun. She wasn't indicted, so let's leave her alone.

This is similar to the price hike for asthma inhalers.
The excuse was to eliminate CFCs and save the ozone layer.
There is not even an attempt at government control.

Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology [nypost.com] (private and military uses) to Russia.

In case you haven't noticed, most of our "dual use" technology has been shared with the Russians for a long time already. For example, the decimal number system.

In some instances, we might even consider ourselves better off if the Russians did choose to adopt our technologies, such as fail-safe command and control systems responsible for nuclear weapons (supposing our technology is actually better; I suspect the Russians have had 8" floppy disk drives for quite a while already).

Just about any improvement in the Russian commercial space would probably trickle down to the Russian military (trickle down seems to work much better in some directions than others). Are we still in the middle of a 1950s-style total economic blockade? Not that I've heard. Our bigger technical battles are with countries who have not yet produced thousands of nuclear warheads.

In summary, all of this is all a lot of hand-wavy durf, durf, durf.

Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later. Having met that bar, then maybe this issue will start to seem important to people outside your particular Kool-Aid enclave.

Hint #1: you might need to avail yourself of sources other than wnd.

Hint #2: just about every dollar given to a politician comes from someone with an interest who wants something.

Arguably the Saudi's and their Wahhabist agenda have done more damage to American foreign interests over the last thirty years than anything the Russians have done. That line of thinking would probably lead you straight back to the Bush Foundation.

Bush's Newest Secret: Who's Funding His Library?

In this piece, Mother Jones at least displays the decency to tar the Democrats and the Republicans with the same brush.

doesn't that mean taking my money and giving to some dumb lazy bum?

This is exactly the sort of belief that keeps society locked into the status quo. If you redistributed wealth as most people agreed as fair, then sure, lazy bums would get more money. So would every single blue and pink collar worker, most managers, and basically everyone who isn't a rockstar or fortune 500 executive. You have no idea how badly you're being fucked and yet you continue to cheer for it. Why?

Curious that snopes already had THREE threads 'debunking' this before there was even a police report publicly released on the facts.

The DC police have been forthcoming with the facts as they have become known starting the day after the killing.

Not to mention, the Snopes article itself is suffused with as much conjecture, speculation, and 'implied guilt by association' as any anti-Clinton hack blog.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the entire, "Hillary kilt a Seth Rich on this tree" story has been concocted by a far-right conspiracy blogger who's been pushing the (also debunked) "Clinton Body Bags" story which posits that every time Hillary Clinton is off-camera, she's committing at least two or three murders.

And it's not just Snopes that has debunked all this:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/...

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

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

Because "enterprise" people are, by definition, "the right people". Just ask the Saudi government!

Wasserman Scultz's "resignation" was smug and facile. She and her cronies had already achieved their mission of handing the nomination to Hillary on a platter. And there was Hillary praising her and promising to reward her and ongoing role.

Only fit punishment is expulsion from the party and rehosting the convention. To let Hillary keep it is to let her keep stolen goods. Sure, maybe she would have got them anyway, but they weren't Wasserman Scultz's to give to her.

The whole thing is a disgrace but the DNC elite will make sure Hillary gets to the stolen goods. It's too bad Hillary is only facing Trump because she's so disliked any half-decent Republican would whip her ass in the polls.

And Newt asks, "Miss me yet?"

Not even for a second.

FTR I hope they both lose.

And Newt asks, "Miss me yet?"

Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.

You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.

Would you look a that?
Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least.
And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".

Hmm... where did I hear that kind of rhetoric recently... Calling personal political goals "the will of the people"? Oh that's right!
It's the guys running for office in order to shut down the government against the will of the ACTUAL people.
Imagine people like that also labeling as "trolls" anyone disagreeing with them. Naaaah... They wouldn't do THAT?

Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.

You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.

These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much.

Best that the Hillary Haters (which is a family tradition in some cultures) could come up with is claiming violation of 18 U.S. Code  599.

Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section.
18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.

But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.

What they SHOULD be quoting is section 600 - 18 U.S. Code  600.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.

In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so.
Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events.
"IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."

Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that.
It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.

Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.

Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty.
"You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered."
That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe...
And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election.
Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.

And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!
They are asking for references for possible consideration.
So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise.
Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.

But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a

These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much.

Best that the Hillary Haters (which is a family tradition in some cultures) could come up with is claiming violation of 18 U.S. Code  599.

Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section.
18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.

But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.

What they SHOULD be quoting is section 600 - 18 U.S. Code  600.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.

In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so.
Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events.
"IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."

Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that.
It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.

Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.

Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty.
"You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered."
That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe...
And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election.
Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.

And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!
They are asking for references for possible consideration.
So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise.
Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.

But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a

I personally wish golden rice worked and was viable. It's not.

I have no idea what you're talking about - it works just fine

Enlightenment awaits you.

So lowering costs (diesel, labor) and increasing yields (less pest damage, less competition from weeds) that lead to lower prices and less environmental damage isn't worthwhile? I'm sorry version 1.0 isn't exactly what you wanted, but how is that an argument against it?

I'm not sure those tradeoffs have actually led to less environmental damage.

So what you're in favor of is something far beyond our current ability, as well as absurd? (How would you prevent them from speciating? Why not just take the easier route and engineer them into extinction (doable with existing tech) and breed a new pollinator from an existing one?)

Speciation takes time. Several of the diseases would likely be long extinct prior to that happening again. But why not shoot for the stars? After all, you're fine with thinking you can better nature. It's only a question of specifics here. Inject a gene here, roll back a mutation there. As for causing those specific mosquitos to go extinct, well, haven't we been trying that in various forms for the past 100 years?

As opposed to Trump, who owes $100M to a German bank fighting with US regulators.

I am not a Hillary fan and don't plan to vote for her. I'm saying this from a "these both suck, that's really the best you've got?" position: you're deluding yourself if you think she's "owned" more than Trump.

Even military language is standard operating procedure for police.

Police do not patrol neighborhoods, they patrol sectors. Even in small towns it is broken into sectors.

When I think of sectors, I think of militarized zones with fences and lines that need monitoring.

In order for this cycle to end there needs to be respect on both sides. #Blacklivesmatter need to call out people who are being idiots and inciting, #Police need to call out over aggressive idiots on their ranks that are abusive with force instead of condoning it silently as a bystander.

According to reports, this was one man with an AR-15 and a bunch of ammo and look at the damage.

It has to stop on both sides and it has to stop today. It is not cool when someone mows white people down with an assault rifle and it is not cool when police harass Americans for "DWB", driving while black. It is not cool that black people have to teach their children to comply with police or risk getting shot. It is not cool that so many people have nonviolent felonies that they can't get a job. It is a giant cluster mess.

This will take action from society as a whole to fix. I saw an encouraging first step in Detroit recently.
Jobseekers get nonviolent records expunged.

It is not cool that Hilary Clinton gets a get out of jail free card.
It is not cool that General Patraeous gets probation.
It is not cool when teens like Ethan Couch with affluenza walk away with probation or little jail time.
It is not cool that cities like Flint and poisoned with lead just because they are poor.
It is not cool that America rebuilds New Orleans but lets Detroit rot even though it suffered an economic Sunami of Free-Trade Agreements.
It is not cool that some kids can get a decent public education and others can not based on their zip code.
It is not cool that Jails are now a "For Profit" business further preying on people on the margins of society.
It is not cool that America incarcerates more people per capita than any other modern country in history.

American is not perfect, but Trump was right when he said the "system was rigged". While we might not be perfect, we believe in a union of people working together for the common good, freedom, and the hope of liberty and pursuing happiness. The hope to live a good life that doesn't have a violent end because you walked down the wrong street or drove in the wrong neighborhood.

I would encourage everyone looking at these events today not to take a sides, but ask,
"What can we do to fix this, before it gets worse?",
"How can we heal the racial divide?"
"How can we love our neighbor?"

The natural tendency is to be tribal, pick your tribe and then prepare to war with the other tribe. It's human, it is how we survived long ago. If we go down that path, more will die. America is awash with guns and ammo and the killing of whites, blacks, gays, muslims, seeks, mexicans NEEDS TO STOP.

Reflect and ask yourself, "how can I be the change I want to see in the world?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Which, over the last 34 years represents 0.2 murders/100,000 people, or barely a blip in the murder rate. There were more gang related murders in 2012 alone that mass-shooting homicides in US history.

But go ahead and make mountains out of those molehills.

No... That's your job. You wouldn't want me to call you a mentally retarded idiot who can't even grasp how onus probandi works, now would you?

And then, after you you have compiled all those cases, compare them to the number of cases where an armed civilian committed an actual mass shooting.
Just remember to compare actual prevented cases of proven attempts of mass shootings. Not scuffles and personal shootouts where a third person intervened.
Cause then you'd have to include ALL the shootings in your comparison. Not just mass shootings.
Arguably... even suicides. Cause cops sometimes prevent those by disarming people.

And don't forget to include the cases where civilians decide to go all Rambo - and end up getting killed or killing and wounding innocent bystanders.

Guess what - civilians with guns NEARLY NEVER stop mass shootings despite all (ALL OF THEM) US states allowing concealed carry, and 11 of them allowing unconcealed carry (plus 4 more with certain caveats).
But they sure do cause them.

No... That's your job. You wouldn't want me to call you a mentally retarded idiot who can't even grasp how onus probandi works, now would you?

And then, after you you have compiled all those cases, compare them to the number of cases where an armed civilian committed an actual mass shooting.
Just remember to compare actual prevented cases of proven attempts of mass shootings. Not scuffles and personal shootouts where a third person intervened.
Cause then you'd have to include ALL the shootings in your comparison. Not just mass shootings.
Arguably... even suicides. Cause cops sometimes prevent those by disarming people.

And don't forget to include the cases where civilians decide to go all Rambo - and end up getting killed or killing and wounding innocent bystanders.

Guess what - civilians with guns NEARLY NEVER stop mass shootings despite all (ALL OF THEM) US states allowing concealed carry, and 11 of them allowing unconcealed carry (plus 4 more with certain caveats).
But they sure do cause them.

Nice attempt to get out of cherry picking by putting up a strawman defense.

Guess what? You just affirmed that your cherry picked argument is full of shit - WHILE piling more fallacies on your own doorstep.
You should really stop digging once you hit the septic tank, you know?

But while you're wallowing in your own shit there... back to your non-argument about "terrists" and illegal guns.
Which could be disregarded simply on account of logic - cause you are pulling an onus probandi disguised as an argument.
I.e. Claiming something would happen, without any proof for it (even with immense proof against it) and shifting the burden of evidence on the other side, demanding that I prove your wild hypothetical guess you pulled out of your ass - to be factually wrong.
And that's not an argument. That is, again, a fallacy.

But why even bother with hypotheticals when there is DATA proving you wrong RIGHT NOW.
In 75% of cases of mass shootings, between 1982 and 2012, gunmen used legally purchased guns.
Even this last case was committed with perfectly legally purchased guns.
Guns don't kill people. Legally purchased automatic weapons with high capacity magazines kill people.

The fact is, that though the terrists are carefully concealing their identities, secret plans, hiding their true intentions from the public and the police - they are showing no attempt to try to conceal their gun purchases.
Omar Mateen RENTED A VAN despite owning a car - but had no need to conceal his gun purchase.
Why should he?
Buying an automatic gun which can't be used for hunting and will kill your neighbors across the street if you use it for home defense, yet you still want one of those things designed solely for mass murder of people - that is not at all suspicious.

On top of that, had mass shooters been buying illegal guns, even a tragedy such as Orlando would have had a positive side - there would be a clue towards breaking up an illegal, terrist supplying, gun selling chain.
But since all these guns were legal - they are not only cheaper, there is also nothing to investigate.

In fact, those guns being legal and thus cheap and available to any loon - is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING of spree killings.
It's like the US government is paying people money to gun down its citizens.
Or at least lowering the entry fee.

Nearly everywhere else they would be FORCED to pay more.
And to jump through some very hard loops. Like, you know... meeting people who break laws for living... in secluded places... where they have guns and you have money...
All while leaving a bigger footprint for the police.
Except in the land of the flee. Home of the scared.

10 (or 11, I can't remember) Muslim countries kill homosexuals as a criminal punishment

Amazing Islamaphobia fail there. It is true there are 11 countries in the world where you can be executed for being gay (those in the article + Uganda now), and they are all in Africa or countries adjacent to it. However, 2 of those 11 are primarily Christian countries. In at least one of those the law in question was passed at the suggestion and urging of US-based Christian groups. The punishment is cribbed straight out of the Christian holy book: stoning.

It isn't the religion. Its the culture in that part of the world.

Literally there were 370 "mass shootings" (i.e. more than 4 people killed) last year in the US.

Sorry, but that is a falsehood -- there were not 370 incidents where more than 4 people were killed in the United States in 2015. It's widely agreed that this claim is nothing more than political propaganda.

Sorry, you don't get a pass on this, I'm calling bullshit.

Your bullshit. You're doing the same thing every other asshole American Exceptionalist does in pinning all violence carried out by people who might be Muslim on Islam, while pretending his own Christianist shit doesn't stink.

Get that beam outta your eye before complaining about motes.

People are acting like there was only one case of this type, and that the objective was to win the case on principle.

The entire point is that were talking about people with so much money that they can fund multiple case after case until the defendant runs out of money, regardless of what the defendant actually did. It is accidental that the defendant in this case actually lost.

Mother Jones won the suit filed by Frank VanderSloot, but was financially damaged: http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

How many "losses" like that would Frank VanderSloot have to suffer before Mother Jones was run out of business?

The only way to stop a bully is to punch him in the nose, he respects nothing else...

Cool. So when are you going to punch Uncle Sam, and his puppet government in SK, in the face? Watching you American Exceptionalists go on about "the bad guys" is like watching Zombie Ted Bundy lecture Chris Brown for his bad attitude towards women.

Sure, now tell me I had privilege but I just didn't know it ... you're right (about not knowing it). I saw no evidence of it in any part of my life.

I agree that "white privilege" is overstated and is frequently used to attack and gain unfair advantages.

However to your point about not knowing advantages...

In 2009, 4.7% of the black adult male population was in prison, as compared to .7% of the adult white male population. source

Also how you are 4x more likely to be shoot by the police as a black person than a white person. source

Anecdotally, you must have heard of the tongue-in-cheek crime "driving while black," and the "black lives matter." Also anecdotally you must have heard how when a police officer catches a kid with drugs how a white kid will be let off with a warning whereas the black kid gets arrested and gets a record (which in turn will cause problems with future employment).

That's not even getting into things like unconscious bias when hiring managers hire employees, or even unconscious bias when a student is taking a test in school. (Studies show if people think they are disadvantaged then they'll do more poorly, and even if it is unfair minorities think they are disadvantaged. source )

Of course there is questions of reverse causation, or exaggeration, or "you don't fix racism with racism," so numerous other valid counterarguments. But to say that white people have no "white privilege" is also an exaggeration.

> OK, I just realized that there are some of you who may believe that I'm overdoing my criticism of vox.com, so I'm going to post a story from their motherfucking front page today

That makes them better than Mother Jones (reporter of the original story) who has a "meme of the day" then, no?

http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

I'm curious as to how RF causes cancer only in *male* rats and why they live longer anyhow, or why the middle exposure group tended to have zero rats with cancer, rather than the low exposure groups, which had about as much cancer as the high exposure groups. Frankly, from reading the data reported in the study (you all did that... right?), all I could help think there's no clear pattern here. It really looks like the noise is larger than the effects, given all the 'anomalous' zero samples assuming the hypothesis that it really does cause cancer.

1) This is a non-event, about on par with the non-events in nuclear power that mdsolar regularly submits (which for some baffling reason gets approved). The reflected sunlight set a few wire bundles on fire, and the fire damaged some piping. That's it. Ars Technica has about the only non-dramatized coverage of it I've read. I suppose you could view the hype as counterbalancing mdsolar's anti-nuclear hype, but I'd just rather not have hype of any kind on /.

2) The danger of solar comes mostly during installation and maintenance. Working on the roof (where most PV panels are installed) is the most dangerous construction job out there. And the always-generating nature of PV panels makes them an electrocution hazard. Not really an issue here since Ivanpah is a solar thermal plant.

3) After fuels that you burn and Banqiao, solar is the most dangerous energy source once you normalize for amount of electricity generated. About 10x deadlier than nuclear power,

Their unethical experimentation in 2012 to see what happens when you encourage one subgroup to vote and don't encourage another (hint: you increase turnout for that subgroup) has shown that they don't see a problem "being a force for Good" in the world. Here's them being called out by Mother Jones, of all sites:

It is curious that Facebook officials apparently thought that testing such a major change in its users' feeds in the weeks before the 2012 election—precisely when people might be paying more attention to political news and cues—was benign and not worth sharing with its users and the public.
  - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/can-voting-facebook-button-improve-voter-turnout

The problem here, though, is that there's clear institutional and collective pressure (and group think) that suppressing conservative points of view, preventing conservatives from getting elected (not that Trump is a conservative, but that's a different debate...), etc are all things Facebook has a moral right and/or obligation to do so.

Hell, even if it's not so explicit as that, it's clear that one could up with plausible ways to achieve the results one wants while lying to yourself and others about the real reasons...

"Sure, let's encourage all the 18-24 year olds to vote if it looks like they're politically engaged with social justice groups! Voting is good!"

Social Media Networks (and Google) should be held to a higher standard than regular private websites. Joe Blow's motorsports forum running PHPBB on his grandmother's ISP isn't going to sway the election if it moderates the posts and deletes stuff it doesn't like. Facebook very well could.

Now nerds want comic book movies and to complain about the doom and gloom of the future. Well good luck with that.

To be fair, wages have stagnated and lots of people are out of a job.

It makes perfect sense to be worried about the future, and devote time to complaining and looking for solutions.

(And not to put too fine a point on it, WE are the smart people in the room. If answers are to come, they will come from forward-looking individuals like us.)

You might be too young to remember the outcry that surrounded artificial insemination. Unnatural, against god's will and all that shit.

Or birth control: http://www.motherjones.com/med...

Freaky shit.

Sex - It's like ethanol and cannabis consumption except with a biological imperative. People are going to engage in sex, even have a drive to do it, and not many want to end up like the Duggars. Suppressing it leads to all kinds of whacky stuff.

What's sad is that the knee jerk sexist responses here only prove Pao's point. Something that flies straight over the heads of those who attack her - especially since she was the one in Reddit defending their right to free speech, even as they used it to drag her through the mud. http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/...