Slashdot Mirror

> NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.

You deniers have got to stop using that one. By now, we've all figured out that any mention of 1998 is just cherry-picking at its worst. All you do is identify yourself as a zero-knowledge shill that should be ignored.

Why, I remember on July 26 1998 I accidentally left the oven on broil for an hour, and the oven thermometer read over 500 degrees; it's a known fact that the average temperature of the earth has not exceeded that since, and from this I deduce that that was the peak point of global warming in both time and space.

It's hard for this to come across as anything other than a lazy "we failed to win the argument so lets just call them names" approach.

Or, a lazy denial of the fact that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The more you shower the anti-vaxxers with facts, the more they deny them. Not sure why anyone would continue to argue otherwise when studies have shown this to be the case, not just your lying eyes.

> NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.

You deniers have got to stop using that one.
By now, we've all figured out that any mention of 1998 is just cherry-picking at its worst.
All you do is identify yourself as a zero-knowledge shill that should be ignored.

Once the FAA sets rules, it probably doesn't matter what you want or don't want. That's the way it worked with airspace for piloted flights.

Here are some examples of what that can lead to:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The biggest problem in the social sciences isn't their practices, it is that their findings are inherently political, so it is very common for them to be used by people with an agenda or even promoted in order to create those tools to do so.

There is data and the interpretation of data. Data tells us the level of air pollution in a given area. The interpretation of data tells us that air pollution is racist. When you begin with an interpretative framework which is inherently political, then of course your findings are going to be inherently political.

No, there are four brothers. The youngest two are twins.

Long story but interesting: http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

However, I suspect that even if we are successful in promoting mixed-use developments so people can, in theory, live near their jobs, it will have much less impact on traffic than we would hope. For much of the 20th century, it was typical for only one person in a household to work full time. Today, though, both partners in middle- to lower-income families often must work full time just to make ends meet. Because of wage stagnation, today's two-income families actually have less discretionary income than comparable single-income families of a few generations ago. And, of course, many people want to have their own career regardless of what their partner does.

For example the missus and I can't carpool for many reasons: our workplaces are nowhere near each other, some days I start an hour before her and end an hour later while some days she works evening shifts but I always work days, and so on. This is pretty typical of many couples.

I absolutely agree that better city and development planning will be essential to deal with this problem. The trend of building huge residential-only developments where residents have to drive everywhere to do *anything* (work, shop, etc.) has surely created massive amounts of traffic.

However, I suspect that even if we are successful in promoting mixed-use developments so people can, in theory, live near their jobs, it will have much less impact on traffic than we would hope. For much of the 20th century, it was typical for only one person in a household to work full time. Today, though, both partners in middle- to lower-income families often must work full time just to make ends meet. Because of wage stagnation, today's two-income families actually have less discretionary income than comparable single-income families of a few generations ago. And, of course, many people want to have their own career regardless of what their partner does.

The consequence is that efforts to eliminate commuting through intelligent urban planning would probably have been far more successful in the '50s and '60s than they could be today. For many couples with two careers, it just won't be possible to live where neither person has to commute. Furthermore, couples often decide to live somewhere that is approximately equidistant between their two jobs so that neither person has to carry the full commuting burden. Thus, you still end up with two cars on the road every day, and better city planning seems unlikely to change that.

Helping raise kids well is what parents, relatives, friends, neighbors, village, tribe, churches of the better sorts, and extended community are for... We got along fine without compulsory schools up until the last 150 years or so...

So kids don't have to go it alone -- except, perhaps, that other forces in our society have greatly damaged parenting, family life, community and village life, and so on, making it harder for them to help kids grow well.

Just one example related to the problems cause by two-income families:
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
"As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi note in their book, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, having a child is now "the single best predictor" of bankruptcy.""

For the beginnings of compulsory schooling in the USA, which Gatto said had to be enforced at gun point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
"In the US, the American Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the first state to pass a compulsory education law which occurred in 1852."

Or, on the problems of compulsory schools from another perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
"During this time, American educational professionals Raymond and Dorothy Moore began to research the academic validity of the rapidly growing Early Childhood Education movement. This research included independent studies by other researchers and a review of over 8,000 studies bearing on early childhood education and the physical and mental development of children.
They asserted that formal schooling before ages 8-12 not only lacked the anticipated effectiveness, but was actually harmful to children. The Moores published their view that formal schooling was damaging young children academically, socially, mentally and even physiologically. They presented evidence that childhood problems such as juvenile delinquency, nearsightedness, increased enrollment of students in special education classes and behavioral problems were the result of increasingly earlier enrollment of students.[12] The Moores cited studies demonstrating that orphans who were given surrogate mothers were measurably more intelligent, with superior long term effects - even though the mothers were "mentally retarded teenagers" - and that illiterate tribal mothers in Africa produced children who were socially and emotionally more advanced than typical western children, "by western standards of measurement".[12]
Their primary assertion was that the bonds and emotional development made at home with parents during these years produced critical long-term results that were cut short by enrollment in schools, and could neither be replaced nor afterward corrected in an institutional setting.[12] Recognizing a necessity for early out-of-home care for some children, particularly special needs and impoverished children and children from exceptionally inferior homes[clarification needed], they maintained that the vast majority of children are far better situated at home, even with mediocre parents, than with the most gifted and motivated teachers in a school setting. They described the difference as follows: "This is like saying, if you can help a child by taking him off the cold street and housing him in a warm tent, then warm tents should be provided for all children -- when obviously most children already have even more secure housing.""

As for video games, I agree excessive screen time is problematical for any kid, but maybe we should make better (more educational) ones if kids like them so much? Again though, helping maintain a healthy balance is part of a larger social responsibility. Unfortunately, there is little accountability for people creating "supernormal stimuli" and all too many incentives to addict people to unhealthy things (whether games, food, videos, drugs,

I got your point just fine. You don't want the "wrong" sort of people to vote, which is inherently elitist. As Jenny McCarthy hasn't had to shop at a Wal-Mart for 20 years, that leaves the victims of elitism as the targets for your elitism.

The poor and uneducated wont be allowed to vote, which will help to ensure that they remain poor and uneducated, and thus unable to vote. It's a vicious cycle, which takes time to perfect.

Well, in theory. In reality companies abuse the H1B visas. I personally have several friends who have trained their eventual replacements, H1B visa holders.

More info:

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

http://www.nbcnews.com/busines...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

People who claim ownership of the natural resources (including land underneath buildings) or of financial assets used to capitalize businesses may never have done any more work than cozy up to some King hundreds of years ago to get a "grant" of land, or, alternatively, (legally?) bribe some politician to get special monopoly or tax preferences, or something similar. Those "rents" can form a substantial part of many costs, and have little to do with "labor". Just think "feudalism" and "serfs" for an analogy, where feudal lords (who often provide nothing but protection against the feudal lord himself) taking much of the harvest from "their" lands for themselves despite however much work the "serfs" put in.

Also, even when up-front costs to consumers may be lower with cheaper labor (domestic or foreign), there are also social costs (like violence, failed families, welfare costs, etc.) such as shown by so many people who work at Walmart getting food stamps etc.. So, there can be a lot of indirect costs to "cheap labor" that are paid in indirect ways like higher taxes or greater fears of violence and so on.

Another example of externalities as indirect costs is low price for gasoline at the pump may ignore the huge taxes and debt obligations incurred to support a huge USA war machine which (in theory) defends long oil supply lines, and it also may ignore costs like polluted ground water from MTBE, or the health and crime crises caused by lead in gasoline in previous decades. It is possible the the cost of leaded gas may be (in my estimate) many trillions and trillions of dollars, which people never paid at the pump but paid in their personal lives and in taxes to pay for prisons and police:
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
"New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing. "

Rent-seeking and externalities are reasons why markets need to be regulated by governments. There are other issues too, like ignored or under-appreciated systemic risks. On that, see Alan Greenspan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...
"âoeThose of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholdersâ(TM) equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,â he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform."

Your bullshit. The imperial budget is as fake as the unemployment rate, because spending that is obviously military in nature - like the VA or the Department of Energy managing America's nuclear weapons - isn't counted as military spending.

With respect, neither wind nor solar are credible additions to the traditional power grid.

Repeating tired winger deflection doesn't make it true. Wind and solar are already cost competitive with fossil fuels, and that's ignoring the trillion a year the U.S. spends on subsidizing the oil industry.

As to the urban environment, it is too dense to credibly use renewable energy in that way.

Because power lines that transport coal power hundreds of miles couldn't work for wind or solar farms. Or something.

Here you might say "but nuclear power is bad because some power plants built in the 50s and 60s had issues after being poorly maintained and continuously running for 50 years." Think about it.

Now that's just putting on your clown shoes. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man. No power company on the planet has rolled the future costs of plant decommission and the storing of nuclear waste for thousands of years, even if they've incorporated all the costs of plant construction, maintenance, security, ore mining and refinement.

As usual, you arguments are entirely based on ideology, not science.

Got a little butthurt about getting called out on our anti-vaxxer bullshit wrt climate change, did we? Now let's talk about the laziness downthread:

I could probably find evidence to support your argument if I wanted. I could also probably find evidence to help make a counterargument to it if I wanted to. But I don't care to do either of those things.

That's good, I'm glad to see you're not an idiot, you're merely lazy.

Oooo, projection. If I assert that you like to have sex with goats and set kittens on fire, is it my job to prove that assertion, or your job to disprove it? Cuz, you know, if you merely insist that you have never touched a goat or laid hands on a kitten, it means you're "merely lazy" because you didn't prove your innocence.

I'm not speaking as a "denier" here. I trust the scientific method to eventually come to a fact-driven conclusion, whichever that may be, on carbon warming. My objection is to the way the left has clutched warming to its heart by demanding, that science confirm the most apocalyptic possible scenario on climate.

You might want to get your left and right hands to talk to each other before typing, so one doesn't make a very bad liar out of the other in the same breath. That, and try not leading with stuff like "Church of Warminetics", and it wont be so obvious that you're engaging in willful anti-vaxxer like dumbfuckery.

even if you're a winger. You aren't arguing science, you're arguing ideology as much as an anti-vaxxer.

You mean a scam like this: http://www.inflationdata.com/i... or http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

Wow, what a schooling story. Hope you can move past the scars eventually (Kung Fu Panda II has some interesting comments at the end about scars). With "zero tolerance" policies these days, I can expect similar things happen even more often now (but with less physical stuff).

You're right about the cost of home schooling; it has been a huge opportunity cost for our family. One part of the choice is also whether our kid gets attention when young vs. a college fund etc. when older. Also, there are a lot of single parent families. A basic income might be another part of the solution; John Holt wrote about that in this 1970s book "Escape from Childhood", In New York State, at an average of about US$20,000 per kid per year, a family of three is getting US$60K spent per year on it, yet I'd think many families would prefer the money and homeschooling or hiring private tutors or paying for private school somewhere. Homeschooling is generally difficult or even illegal in Western Europe, but at least in many countries there the money follows the kid, and parents can choose an alternative school they want their kids to go to and the money goes there. Contrast with the very successful Albany Free School instead being starved for funding and needing to scrape by including on previous real estate investments.

Lots of things have affected the family structure including cars and TV, but I agree the two-income family is a biggie. See also the book "The Two Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren for more on that, and why there has been little net benefit (even a negative return in terms of precarity) for most working families.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

In the US, we just let politicians do that for us.

The most comprehensive recount was a $1 million effort sponsored by the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which owns papers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun. That press recount, the big one, found that Bush still won, even without the military votes.

Hoist on your own snobby petard. The very study you mention is the one showing Gore winning a statewide recount under any scenario. Of course the chickenshit press buried that behind two pages of talking about how Bush would have still won if Gore's legal team had gotten their way in the recount, which again is irrelevant as he wasn't the one recounting the votes.

So are you going to move on from your fools mate and deal with the fact that Gore won Florida, or just retreat deeper into your anti-vaxxer denial?

"You will need me and other real humans to document your descent from valued individuals who provide useful services to those who suck resources from the economic totality."

LOL. :-) Good points, but the internet is already replacing *most* paid creative writing with viral essays and videos. What I mean by that is that is it possible for one creative writer to quickly reach millions of readers, but readers have only so much time. That is the power of automation as an amplifier. So, yes, we may indeed "need" one creative writer (or even a thousand) doing what you outline, but there are literally millions of people who want to be creative writers. That means 99.9%+ of potential creative writers can't make a living from it in the internet age. If even the New York Times is struggling, why should any specific writer expect things could work out financially?

Of course, one may point to hundreds of YouTube video creators or bloggers with millions of followers making tens of thousands of dollars from advertising -- but that model just does not scale. There just is not enough advertising revenue to go around. There is also not enough subscription revenue to go around. There are not enough eyeballs and free time to go around.

It's always been that way with a "star" model of success in the creative arts. It seems to me that most people (95% - 99%?) who make a living related to the arts do it by teaching their craft (like a public school music teacher or writing teacher or something similar). Then they do a little bit of creative stuff in their spare time.

Many other artists and writers have a spouse or parents who funds their time. For a personal example I just spent 2.5 years providing (paid) third-line technical support and software development services to NBCUniversal's broadcast operations while my wife worked (mostly unpaid) part-time (we also homeschool) on her free book on "Working With Stories". That book is ironically in part about getting communities to tell their own stories again instead of mostly accepting pre-packaged commercial offerings. :-)
http://www.workingwithstories....

Before that, for years she was making most of the money for our family while I was writing stuff more (including "Post-Scarcity Princeton" and various free software) and doing more of the homeschooling. However, realistically, that was only possible because we both could command six-figure annual wages as professionals and were willing to accept some other compromises (smaller older house, many years without health insurance, etc.). Unless you are really, really frugal, and probably don't homeschool, that model probably won't work for most families without potentially two professional incomes of some sort (unless you have other funding like from parents or savings or investments).

However, in the past, like the 1950s in the USA, before the "two income trap" sprung, it was a lot more feasible, at least for a typical male breadwinner and female stay-at-home couple.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
"Two-income families are almost always worse off than their single-income counterparts were a generation ago, even though they pull in 75 percent more in income. The problem is that so many fixed costs are rising -- health care, child care, finding a good home -- that two-income families today actually have less discretionary money left over than those single-earner families did. As the authors write: "Our data show families in financial trouble are working hard, playing by the rules -- and the game is stacked against them.""

BTW, the "Two Income Trap" adds a new twist to this discussion, suggesting that job loss is a lot more devastating to most families now than it was in the 1950s. One reason is that the other spouse can't start working to pick up the slack because he or she is already working and they are dependent on both incomes. You als

. That's not a joke, either. You can walk down the street without a license carrying a loaded shotgun in each hand, handguns strapped all over your waist and legs, and rifles slung over your back, but nunchucks are illegal. We need to draw the line somewhere. This isn't the wild west any more.

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

Any one sane doesn't like armed-to-the-teeth wanna-be vigilantes walking around with an axe to grind. They are being socially ostracized too.

It may not be the Wild West anymore but the culture it shaped still clings to "simpler times". When all a man needed was his horse and a gun to tame the Wild and make a life for his family, away from that meddlesome government.

The stereotypes are wrong and harmful, on both sides of the fence

To which stereotype are you referring? This OP is not about a stereotype; it's about immersing people into the body of someone of another race so they can experience the subtle differences that others exhibit firsthand.

Racism ends when we stop judging people by race - full stop.

Numerous studies have shown that this is impossible for humans to do. The best we will ever be able to do is work to surface our unconscious racist impulses to the conscious where the biases can be moderated.

Racism will end when there is only one race left. Of course, we'll invent plenty of other -isms to keep us divided, so there won't really be any change to the status quo ante.

I agree that helping countries develop helps slow the birthrate. My point is that slowing the birthrate helps countries develop, also. Culture (ex: "Ten or 15 more sons will be a healthy sign.") and lack of birth control also contribute to big families.

And yes, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has helped women get birth control. Family planning is an important topic for Melinda Gates. I'm not saying people aren't emphasizing the need at all for birth control these days. But there was much more emphasis on it in the 1960s and 1970s. These days, how many warnings do you hear in the news, about population increase?

Regarding fear of seeming to be a racist, do a Google on "population control racism" (without the quotes). You'll see lots of articles, in which people claim that population control equals racism. Ex: the MotherJones has an article titled "Why Is Population Control Such a Radioactive Topic?". This article says, "Rinku Sen is a leading racial justice advocate, the publisher of ColorLines magazine, and president of the Applied Research Center: The reason people get so upset about population control is because historically reproduction has been controlled without the consent of the controlled person or community—usually with a deep racial or class dimension."

Certainly not everyone believes population control == racism. The government of China, with its one-child policy, is certainly not racist against Asians. But unfortunately, many people do think control == racism.

Your sources don't show a link in the scientific literature between global warming and increased tornado activity. "as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tornado researcher Harold Brooks put it in a 2013 paper summarizing the consensus: "Climate model simulations suggest that CAPE will increase in the future and the wind shear will decrease." So even though higher overall heat might lead to the potential for more explosive storms, the expected decrease in shear meant that potential might not get realized. In other words, it was basically looking like a wash." - http://www.motherjones.com/env...

hmm.. A simple google search shows that nobody is a lot of organizations that appear to be somewhat scientific in their approach and presentation.

Also, the new scientis or articles on their site seem to attempt to make predictions about tornadoes

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Mother Jones does another story connecting it too.
http://www.motherjones.com/env...

Of course one article is dated march of 2014 and the other august of the same year. But of course politicians have been making claims about the links for a while now. Here is an article presented in october of 2014 which examines political discourse about the global warming tornado threat somewhat.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Now note, one of those sites is a conservative site. Can you guess which one that might be? Well, it doesn't matter because the information is not inaccurate and came about before this was even on the radar. In fact, it was attempting to impeach the credibility of the political hack appointed to oversee the ebola fiasco and manage political fall out from reported cases reaching American shores.

So lets not ignore the fact that connections have been made.

Why didn't you google it you lazy ****

My week as an Amazon insider | Technology | The Guardian

I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave | Mother Jones

'Being homeless is better than working for Amazon' | Money ...

In the Tipping Point you advance the argument that it was better policing against minor infractions that reduced crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
"Economist Steven Levitt and Malcolm Gladwell have a running dispute about whether the fall in New York City's crime rate can be attributed to the actions of the police department and "Fixing Broken Windows" (as claimed in The Tipping Point). In Freakonomics, Levitt attributes the decrease in crime to two primary factors: 1) a drastic increase in the number of police officers trained and deployed on the streets and hiring Raymond W. Kelly as police commissioner (thanks to the efforts of former mayor David Dinkins) and 2) a decrease in the number of unwanted children made possible by Roe v. Wade, causing crime to drop nationally in all major cities -- "[e]ven in Los Angeles, a city notorious for bad policing"."

However, it looks like the drop in crime is most closely correlated with the fall in environmental lead (mostly from reducing the used of leaded gasoline). Since other places have seen their crime rate fall without drastic changes in policing, what do you think of the lead and crime connection? See also:
"America's Real Criminal Element: Lead; New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing. "
http://www.motherjones.com/env...

The myth of the Gun Free Zone needs to die.
In 2013 there was an analysis of the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years, and not one target was ever chosen because they were in a Gun Free Zone.

The targets are chosen because they have a personal connection to the shooter. Such as workplace shootings by employees that work there, or school shootings by students that go there.

And then there's this observation:

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop").

These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No, I dont believe labeling a place as gun free somehow magically deters crime. But neither does it attract it. The people involved in these things arent making rational decisions. They arent picking a place because of its gun policy, but because they feel wronged by someone there and want to "punish" them. The gun policy policy is comepltely irrelevent to the decision.

This myth is dangerous because it distracts from the true issues at hand.

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

The myth of the Gun Free Zone needs to die.
In 2013 there was an analysis of the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years, and not one target was ever chosen because they were in a Gun Free Zone.

The targets are chosen because they have a personal connection to the shooter. Such as workplace shootings by employees that work there, or school shootings by students that go there.

And then there's this observation:

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop").

These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No, I dont believe labeling a place as gun free somehow magically deters crime. But neither does it attract it. The people involved in these things arent making rational decisions. They arent picking a place because of its gun policy, but because they feel wronged by someone there and want to "punish" them. The gun policy policy is comepltely irrelevent to the decision.

This myth is dangerous because it distracts from the true issues at hand.

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

The myth of the Gun Free Zone needs to die.
In 2013 there was an analysis of the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years, and not one target was ever chosen because they were in a Gun Free Zone.

The targets are chosen because they have a personal connection to the shooter. Such as workplace shootings by employees that work there, or school shootings by students that go there.

And then there's this observation:

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop").

These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No, I dont believe labeling a place as gun free somehow magically deters crime. But neither does it attract it. The people involved in these things arent making rational decisions. They arent picking a place because of its gun policy, but because they feel wronged by someone there and want to "punish" them. The gun policy policy is comepltely irrelevent to the decision.

This myth is dangerous because it distracts from the true issues at hand.

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

You say that as if it weren't equally true for every president since -- what, Carter? Nixon? Maybe even FDR?

Really? I'm not so sure about that.

Doesn't matter to me. The democrats weren't doing anything with it.

What could the Democrats do? The Republicans filibustered the senate more than any other time in more than a century, ever since the dems got the senate after 2006.

Mod parent up.

Obligatory link to Mother Jones article exposing the link between leaded gasoline and crime rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/env...

And yes, I grew up in the 80s so I blame the double post and bad link on leaded braincells.

Less BS than pretending that the price of fossil fuels is what you pay at the pump or on your meter.

Cheaper means only one thing. How much is my electricity bill at the end of the month.

You're forgetting your bill on April 15th to support the petrodollar and Exxon making 20-40 billion per quarter. Or did you think maintaining economic dominance over the world's gas stations was free?

Bill Gates claimed to be doing that that (among others) and he is not finding it easy.

Recently, a status update ran around Facebook asking people to "List 10 books that have stayed with you in some way. Don't take more than a few minutes, and don't think too hard. They do not have to be the 'right' books or great works of literature, just ones that have affected you in some way." Facebook's data scientists went though 130,000 responses and came up with a list of the 100 most common entries.

http://www.motherjones.com/mix... Were these only 'public' Facebook accounts, or private accounts or both? Did anyone think it was creepy that they are scraping Facebook posts for research without informing the subjects that they are being researched on?

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

you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Undercover of helping immigrant agricultural workers who have long needed a break in America, the American technology sector - lead by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg - has seen fit to heavily lobby Congress to increase H1-B and other worker visa permits, vastly increasing H1-B visas at a time when very good research shows that there is no shortage of tech workers in America. Zuckerberg has so far succeeded, in the Senate. What is motivating the claim for more H1-B visas?

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

previously

One of the most respected technology pundits in Silicon Valley has this to say about the H1-B worker problem and Two H1-B's walk into a Bar: More on the H1-B visa problem

One of many examples of what goes on behind closed doors: an immigration attorney and his consultants teaching corporations how to manipulate foreign-worker immigration law to replace qualified American workers.

H1-B's are only the tip of the iceberg; there are more than 20 categories of foreign worker visas.

Professor Norman Matloff's extremely well documented studies on the H1-B and foreign worker visa problem. Matloff claims that Hi-B abuse has cost Americans $10Trillion dollars, since 1975. Inc. Magazine weights in Professor Matloff's Webpage

Mother Jones weighs in:How H1-B visa abuse is hurting American tech workers

Marc Zuckerberg and other wealthy tech scions - including large immigration law firms and corporation who profit from importing H1-B's continue to perpetuate this trend

How H1-B malpractice hurts the American economy

Most of the new crop of H1-Bs is coming from one of the most corrupt university systems in the world.

Indian government officials are not happy that the universities that they collude with might have some limitations placed on the abuses that have enabled them to "sell" their product to the American IT sector.

How the new immigration bill could ignite a trade war with India

How to underpay an H1-B worker

Fractions of a penny on the pork barrel dollar. Slash military spending to a reasonable size - down to the National/Coast/Air Guards - and you'd have far more money to spend on infrastructure and R&D. We could have gone to Mars long ago if NASA's budget was a trillion dollars per year.

Zuckerberg is also a traitor to the American tech worker.

Hey, Mark, MSFT just laid off 18,000 people; Cisco just laid off a bunch; MSFT just the other day closed its research center right down the street from you - filled with gifted coders and brilliance. Mark, there is a MOUND of studies showing NO shortage of STEM works in the US.

Some facts: The H-1B fiasco has cost Americans **$10TRILLION** dollars, since 1975. For anyone who wants to know the truth, read on.

One of the most respected technology pundits in Silicon Valley has this to say about the H1-B worker problem http://www.cringely.com/2012/1... Here's an attorney and his consultants teaching corporations how to manipulate foreign-worker immigration law to replace qualified American workers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

H1-B abuse if accompanied by other worker-visa abuse L-1 Visa (H1-B's are only the tip of the iceberg). There are more than 20 categories of foreign worker visas. http://economyincrisis.org/con...

Professor Norman Matloff's extremely well documented studies on this problem. http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/...

Federal offshoring of healthcare.gov website http://www.economicpopulist.or...

How H1-B visa abuse is hurting American tech workers http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

There is no stem worker crisis in America http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...

Marc Zuckerberg and wealthy tech scions continue to perpetuate this trend http://programmersguild.org/do...

Yahoo http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs...

Also, little known is the tactic of creating many different kinds of sub-visa categories to "fool the system". There are almost TWENTY different kinds of work visas. The whole thing is a sham and a lie, designed to drag down wages and keep from having to re-train Americans. Never thought I would see this day!

Some of the information presented in the following links will shock most Americans, because American corporate leaders don't want us to know the truth, and they are paying off policy makers with contributions to keep the truth from us. Bill Gates, John Chambers, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, and many, many others - including the principals of the most prominent immigration law firms, who profit from this outrage, are lying through their teeth. There is NO shortage of STEM workers in the US!!

Last, Zuckerberg has all out lied since day 1 about guaranteeing privacy on Facebook - just outright lied. Facebook has become something that teens shun and will soon go the way of MSFT, run by another deceiver, Bill Gates, on the H1-B issue.

Cops shouldn't exist! Government shouldn't exist!
Fully privatized police are just fine - they would answer to those who hire them, not to elected officials. Likewise, courts and other government mechanisms would be privatized and hired by the party most able to pay them.

It's freedom if you have the money to hire the privatized police and pay the privatized justice system. Otherwise, you are just a moocher and a parasite who should be happy that someone with money pays you enough for your work that you don't starve.

To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.

In what sense? The NYPD kills people all the time (they seem to be found guilty of misconduct more frequently than other police departments):

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

However, as elsewhere, the police killings appear to be representative of the population of suspects and perpetrators:

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

From 11 months ago:

But make no mistake: Tesla still relies on subsidies to stay in the black. Its first-quarter profit, a modest $11 million, hinged on the $68 million it earned selling clean-air credits under a California program that requires automakers to either produce a given number of zero-emission vehicles or satisfy the mandate in some other way. For the second quarter, Tesla announced a $26 million profit (based on one method of accounting), but again the profit hinged on $51 million in ZEV credits; by year's end, these credit sales could net Tesla a whopping $250 million. There are also generous tax credits and rebates for electric-car buyers: $7,500 from the federal government and up to $5,000 if you live in California.

Beyond that, leaving out the HUGE tax credits buyers get for purchasing Telsa cars (10-17% of the price of a Model S) is intellectually dishonest on your part; Tesla would sell far fewer cars and at lower prices with out those extreme tax credits.

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
Michael Brown's Mom Laid Flowers Where He Was Shot—and Police Crushed Them

As darkness fell on Canfield Drive on August 9, a makeshift memorial sprang up in the middle of the street where Michael Brown's body had been sprawled in plain view for more than four hours. Flowers and candles were scattered over the bloodstains on the pavement. Someone had affixed a stuffed animal to a streetlight pole a few yards away. Neighborhood residents and others were gathering, many of them upset and angry.

Soon, police vehicles reappeared, including from the St. Louis County Police Department, which had taken control of the investigation. Several officers emerged with dogs. What happened next, according to several sources, was emblematic of what has inflamed the city of Ferguson, Missouri, ever since the unarmed 18-year-old was gunned down: An officer on the street let the dog he was controlling urinate on the memorial site.

Suppose some cop brought his police dog to piss on your mother's grave. Would you get mad?

The reason they have race riots, all over this country, is that people go through the whole process of polite complaints and peaceful demonstrations, and get nowhere. They're routinely getting killed and the cops routinely get away with it. And then the cops stop them in the street and humiliate them, like they did here when they knew they were the center of attention with cameras around. What do you suppose they're doing when there aren't any reporters around?

They riot because they found out that riots are the only thing that works. When they burn down the town, the white establishment finally pays attention.

I doubt that you would pay attention otherwise.

Go create a memorial in the middle of any street and see what happens to it. I assure you, it won't be pretty. Comparing some flowers in the middle of a street to someone's final resting place, let alone their mother's final resting place, is a little far reaching.

Quit being such a damn crybaby and quit supporting a bunch of animals who used this event as an excuse for personal gain.

The shooting in Ferguson was used as an excuse to riot.

Look at the story, every 'witness' says he was shot in the back running away ... until the autopsy shows that NONE of the wounds were in his back. From the start every witness account was bullshit.

No. "Every" witness didn't say that. Lawyers who regularly investigate situations like this say that when you have a lot of witnesses, you get different accounts. When every witness gives the same story, they assume that the witnesses got together and made up a story together -- which cops often do.

Ferguson was a town in which most of the population was black, the cops were white, the district attorney was white, and most of the politicians were white. One of the main sources of income for the town was stopping black motorists and giving them traffic tickets.

There were many incidents of brutality by white cops against black people, and this was only the last straw. Most of the demonstrators were peaceful.

And oh yeah. The residents made a memorial for Michael Brown, his mother laid flowers on the spot that he was killed -- and one of the cops brought a police dog to urinate on it.

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
Michael Brown's Mom Laid Flowers Where He Was Shot—and Police Crushed Them

As darkness fell on Canfield Drive on August 9, a makeshift memorial sprang up in the middle of the street where Michael Brown's body had been sprawled in plain view for more than four hours. Flowers and candles were scattered over the bloodstains on the pavement. Someone had affixed a stuffed animal to a streetlight pole a few yards away. Neighborhood residents and others were gathering, many of them upset and angry.

Soon, police vehicles reappeared, including from the St. Louis County Police Department, which had taken control of the investigation. Several officers emerged with dogs. What happened next, according to several sources, was emblematic of what has inflamed the city of Ferguson, Missouri, ever since the unarmed 18-year-old was gunned down: An officer on the street let the dog he was controlling urinate on the memorial site.

Suppose some cop brought his police dog to piss on your mother's grave. Would you get mad?

The reason they have race riots, all over this country, is that people go through the whole process of polite complaints and peaceful demonstrations, and get nowhere. They're routinely getting killed and the cops routinely get away with it. And then the cops stop them in the street and humiliate them, like they did here when they knew they were the center of attention with cameras around. What do you suppose they're doing when there aren't any reporters around?

They riot because they found out that riots are the only thing that works. When they burn down the town, the white establishment finally pays attention.

I doubt that you would pay attention otherwise.

How this is a surprise to anyone by now is a surprise to me, this has been standard operating procedures with pretty much everyone since computers have come out.

Computers?

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

google global warming hiatus ipcc

http://www.motherjones.com/env...

http://washington.cbslocal.com...
http://www.weather.com/news/sc...
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...