Slashdot Mirror

Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".

A simple search in /. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article, which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.

That sounds like the biodiesel tax loophole:

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

It is impossible to get any processed food that is not laden with salt and sugar. It contributes to high blood pressure and diabetes. Do the food companies care? Or will shipping "product" take precedence over their customers' health?

People want flavor, and something they think will taste good will win out over something that is especially bland but is healthier.
You get flavor from fat, sugar, and salt. The sugar industry has been extremely successful at convincing people that fat in foods is what caused weight gain, and that by buying "low fat" (but high sugar and salt) foods they would lose weight. Of course, the opposite happened, because excess sugar is stored as fat in the body, so increasing the sugar intake increased the body fat.

So eat more fat, and most importantly, less sugar. Cut down on the bread, the pasta, and the sugar drinks, and don't eat packaged foods where they tossed in a lot of sugar and salt to mimic actual food flavor.

Seriously, the fact that a chemical is used in both bread and yoga mats says precisely zero about how healthy or toxic it is.

While that's true, it is an unnecessary chemical which might occasionally be harmful and sometimes companies mess up measuring or mixing and someone gets a whole load of an ingredient, it doesn't get converted in the production process, etc. So while odds are nobody has actually been harmed by it, it's still dumb to use it.

looks that way.

Here are the links as text: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/...
http://modernfarmer.com/2016/0...
http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

ok links http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/... http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.

Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)

The wage gap gets smaller when you control for job and experience, it doesn't disappear. And it's not certain you should be controlling for those things.

The stat about unmarried women in the 22-30 range earning more is part of it. For one those articles are from 2008-2012 when uneducated males were probably the hardest hit demographic, I'm not sure that stat would be true today.

Also, as they get older that gap is likely to reverse as men move out of apprenticeship positions (in labour or medicine) and as they start moving into management.

Do men get promoted into management because women make different career choices, or because we tend to view men as leaders? The answer to that question affects whether you view the wage gap as legitimate.

Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.

I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.

More women in College isn't necessarily a sign of equality, women need degrees because uneducated women don't have the same job opportunities as uneducated men in skilled and unskilled labour. I think Iran, hardly an example of gender equality, also has more women in University.

Besides, you're arguing a straw man. The thing you actually year is not "we need more women in college", it's "we need more women in technical fields". There are a lot of well paying fields like software and engineering that women don't pursue, that's also responsible for part of the wage gap. It also leads to the creation of hostile dysfunctional workplaces like the one described in this article.

The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.

Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)

Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.

I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.

Not visiting the US is not always a solution

Here's an NPR article that mentions it:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/27/...

"When the occupiers took over the refuge last January, the Burns Paiute people watched in dismay. Ancient artifacts stored there were handled and moved. At one point the militants bulldozed through sacred burial grounds while trying to build a road."

I stopped reading your comment when it has no evidence of any kind. By the way, fossil fuel sources by region haven't changed much in 3 years and electric motors have almost no changes.

Then here is a link to a breakdown of each US state's energy grid sources (e.g. coal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, natural gas) by percentage and how the sources have changed from 2004 to 2014: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...

How much of the electric grid is from "green" sources varies significantly by state, but renewables are improving across the board.

Your own source shows that there is very little change in the last 3 years in terms of actual percent. The biggest change is coal is down and natural gas is up because it's cheaper and can change to fit demands, like peak loads, far easier. If your electric car was getting 40mpg co2 equivelant as above it maybe went to 41.

As Described in this article Eindhoven, Netherlands has solar powered blue and green glowing bike paths. No surprise, as Philips was headquartered here for years and the town grew-up in the electric lighting industry.

I stopped reading your comment when it has no evidence of any kind. By the way, fossil fuel sources by region haven't changed much in 3 years and electric motors have almost no changes.

Then here is a link to a breakdown of each US state's energy grid sources (e.g. coal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, natural gas) by percentage and how the sources have changed from 2004 to 2014: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...

How much of the electric grid is from "green" sources varies significantly by state, but renewables are improving across the board.

This isn't something specific to California. There's old infrastructure that's been poorly maintained all across the country, mostly because no one has been willing to put up the money to pay for it, here, there, or anywhere. Here's a report on that from last year, though it was sparked by failures of dams elsewhere: http://www.npr.org/2015/10/11/...

Second - yes, this is a 'natural disaster', because that's exactly the term we use when the natural phenomena dump ridiculous amounts of water in a particular location. In other places it produces devastating floods, like last year in South Carolina. Here California was somewhat lucky, because they had a dam like this in place with an empty resevoir that absorbed it - and that wall of water would otherwise be flooding the valley below, along with all the people who live there, and may yet still if the emergency spillway collapses.

Is it possible? Maybe? Should we do it? Probably not, considering there are currently 7 species of bees that are on the endangered species list. We should be very careful about knowledge that can be used to affect the balance of nature.

Left-leaning people and other opponents have mobilised quickly, but they're expecting the administration to react the way they would react. They think that public shaming, legal action and political activism will drive Donald Trump's administration back. I fear they're wrong. They will be seen as traitors and subversives, and they'll be treated accordingly, through formal and informal means. They don't realise that their resistance will ultimately have to be physical. They should be reading up on their Thoreau right about now....

Left-leaning people are mobilizing in other ways, as well. They just don't get emphasized quite as much in the media, but it's happening:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/25/...

I am a moderator for one of Facebook "gun club" type groups for liberals. Our membership is through the roof, with dozens of people joining every day. Most of them ask about things like which gun is best for self-defense, how to train etc. But some also ask if there are any left-wing militias to join.

Well, what do you know. There are some now. More are being organized. We try to keep it out of the original gun groups, because the majority still doesn't want that kind of talk, but there are several new ones specifically dedicated to armed resistance by the left. Their member count seems to be going up steadily as well.

So if things do come to that, make no mistake: we can, and will, shoot back.

... it's been done before.

Except not so much.

You're off topic. This isn't AGW related.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

Please google just about any article on it. It's not AGW in this case.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

And just about every other article you can google on this. And stop calling me Kellyanne.

Exactly, all the kneejerk responders blaming AGW need to take the (ice)chip off their shoulder on this on.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

If a chunk of ice breaks off and nobody from an extinct species is there to hear it, did the climate actually change?

In this case, no. http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

Maybe we shouldn't get distracted from the fact that this is not AGW related instead of jumping right to that conclusion.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

This is not AGW related. There are many sources saying so. I know it's easy for us all to jump to that conclusion because of how frequently it's argued here.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

This is not AGW related. There are many sources beside this one.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

Daily as I make and eat breakfast, workout and shower:

1. NPR Hourly News Summary

2. Marketplace Tech by American Public Media (APM)

3. The Writer’s Almanac

4. NPR Story of the Day

Weekly on my 30 plus minute commute each way:

1. The Moth Podcast

2. StoryCorps

3. Two Guys On Your Head

4. RadioLab

5. This American Life

6. Risk!

7. Improv Nerd

8. On Being

When they have shows:

1. Serial

2. Codebreakers

2. NPR Technology Podcast

Daily as I make and eat breakfast, workout and shower:

1. NPR Hourly News Summary

2. Marketplace Tech by American Public Media (APM)

3. The Writer’s Almanac

4. NPR Story of the Day

Weekly on my 30 plus minute commute each way:

1. The Moth Podcast

2. StoryCorps

3. Two Guys On Your Head

4. RadioLab

5. This American Life

6. Risk!

7. Improv Nerd

8. On Being

When they have shows:

1. Serial

2. Codebreakers

2. NPR Technology Podcast

Daily as I make and eat breakfast, workout and shower:

1. NPR Hourly News Summary

2. Marketplace Tech by American Public Media (APM)

3. The Writer’s Almanac

4. NPR Story of the Day

Weekly on my 30 plus minute commute each way:

1. The Moth Podcast

2. StoryCorps

3. Two Guys On Your Head

4. RadioLab

5. This American Life

6. Risk!

7. Improv Nerd

8. On Being

When they have shows:

1. Serial

2. Codebreakers

2. NPR Technology Podcast

Daily as I make and eat breakfast, workout and shower:

1. NPR Hourly News Summary

2. Marketplace Tech by American Public Media (APM)

3. The Writer’s Almanac

4. NPR Story of the Day

Weekly on my 30 plus minute commute each way:

1. The Moth Podcast

2. StoryCorps

3. Two Guys On Your Head

4. RadioLab

5. This American Life

6. Risk!

7. Improv Nerd

8. On Being

When they have shows:

1. Serial

2. Codebreakers

2. NPR Technology Podcast

Freakonomics podcast is awesome:

http://freakonomics.com/archiv...

Wait Wait Don't Tell Me is also quite funny (although the Trump jokes are getting old at this point):

http://www.npr.org/podcasts/34...

homophobic attacks (like the one in Orlando) and so on.

This is why we're stuck with Trump. Because people don't bother to educate themselves before they start pulling shit from their ass about how Trump is going to protect them from the big bad boogie men from bumfuckistan.

The shooter at the Pulse nightclub massacre was born in America. Maybe measures to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics would have prevented the shooting. We're going to find out, by making it easier for the mentally unstable to obtain guns. Now, attempting to set fire to your living room couch to test its fire retardant properties seems a bit unorthodox to me, but I guess I just don't understand MAGA. I voted for the other gal.

"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"

One of these things is not like the other. They were off on the dollar amount, but that one actually happened. CAH Holiday Hole

Unless I'm an idiot and the others are all true as well...

Out goes the moderations, then.

it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions

It does affect them, by giving them a special exemption:

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

This is, in practice, Christians. (Muslims are the majority, other religions are almost non-existent in the given countries.)

(*) And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

And, for the record, Section 202(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 :

No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence

Emphasis mine. I haven't read the whole 1965 version, but unless there's a provision that creates exceptions for INA1952 212(f) I believe the 1965 version takes precedent. (There are exceptions to 202(a), but deal mainly with things like immediate relatives of citizens getting preference.)

Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper from the ACLU, ADL, John McCain, Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

I'm a little fuzzy on the others, but at least the Iraq action in 2011 was in response to an actual threat, was not nearly as broad (applying only to pending applications), and wasn't even a proper ban (just a delay of approval while they re-evaluated the process.)

But, by all means, continue playing down 45's bullshit by shouting "but the other guy!"

Yes you could rely on the lying MSM to tell you what they want it to mean. Or you could read the real thing here.

Don't you mean here?

(I'd link to the specific one, but there are a few which, just from the titles, could possibly be the one referenced in yours and AC's articles.)

Yes you could rely on the lying MSM to tell you what they want it to mean. Or you could read the real thing here.

Of course he is. That's why his businesses are busy seeking all the foreign worker visas they can get. And that's why the H-2A and H-2B visas his businesses use aren't on the list of visa types he wants to crack down on, either.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...

If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

THIS. There are literally dozens of economic analyses that have concluded the same thing. In fact, over 20 years ago, it was debated whether to bring this argument up in the Big Tobacco litigation (see, for example, this NY Times article from 1996). More recent analyses (such as here and here) agree. Philip Morris even commissioned its own study a while back to argue in the Czech Republic that it was actually saving society money because of decreased lifespans. But the study ended up just making cigarette companies look even more hated, so they backed off of it.

Bottom line is: "healthy" elderly people still cost society a LOT of money to keep alive -- in pensions and Social Security, in assisted living, and yes -- even in generic health care. If you include all of those things, there's NO QUESTION that smokers cost society less by dying earlier.

But even if you take health care costs on their own, it's pretty likely smokers cost less. "Healthy" older people end up living longer and needing hip replacements or treatment for minor cancers or hospitalization over a cold that turns into pneumonia (which doesn't happen as often with younger folks) or whatever -- that stuff adds up greatly over the years. Add an extra 5 or 10 years of "elder care" for non-smokers, and on average those "healthy" people will cost more than the additional costs from a smoker who dies early from a heart attack or whatever.

None of this is an argument in favor of smoking. And perhaps there's still some ethical argument to tax smoking more in order to promote "healthy" living or whatever, which perhaps some governments will make. But let's not be disingenuous about blaming smokers for overall societal cost, when they're mostly "taking one for the team" and giving up their Social Security or whatever for you.

Third-party fact checkers scares the hell out of me. Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, ABC News, and AP can be argued not to be impartial and to have a political agenda. If that can be proven out then only one voice will truly be heard on Facebook.
Snopes ran by Kim Lacapria who self describes herself as 'openly left-leaning and a liberal.'
FactCheck.org and Politifact - Trump quoted an article about the number of deaths via the poorly ran Vetrans Adminstration. Trump was reported as giving false facts. When the original CNN article came out the article was reported as completely true.

You know, there's a simpler explanation. Maybe fact-checking is a more "left-leaning and liberal" preoccupation. The same way fake news appears to be favored by the alt-right.

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.

Facts are not "balanced", nor should you expect them to be. The molar mass of nitrogen is 14.0067 g/mol. I don't need to consult someone from the "other side" to tell me that nitrogen doesn't really exist, it's only a liberal conspiracy, or to give me the molar mass in units of fetal souls.

Fact-checking sources provide citations I can check. Remember what happened when "Conservapedia" came out? It was going to be a "conservative" alternative to Wikipedia. They beshat themselves so badly that the only people who visited that site were those seeking to ridicule it. Remember the president's spokesperson giving us "alternative facts"?

Remember which power structure is ascendant during this Age of Alt-Facts. Do you believe it is coincidental that it coincides with an effort to make people believe that nothing is true, no information can be trusted?

To give an example, his travel/immigration ban covers several Middle Eastern countries, and cited terrorist attacks including 9/11 as cause. And yet, none of the countries the 9/11 hijackers came from are included in the ban. Why?

Quoting looney left talking points isn't helping your case. The reason for the seven countries has been covered extensively - Obama chose them.

Even the lunatics at msnbc know this:

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-j...

and NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/...

More reliable information here:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m...

Anyone who's president should not have any stocks whatsoever. Conflict of interest.

Same is true of Congress. However Congress has given themselves the legal right to engage in insider trading.

If it was a Muslim ban, how are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia not on that list - along w/ a mechanism in US consulates in India to deny Muslims any visas?

ANSWER http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/511996783/how-does-trumps-immigration-freeze-square-with-his-business-interests

The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business. He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at "multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest."

And I know this didn't answer your question about India, so here's the answer from the President's own "mouth":

INDIA http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/india/trump-tower-mumbai

Medical science has largely stagnated in this country over the last few decades, due to the enormous amount of red tape and expense needed to bring medical technology to the market.

Seriously: think back to all the articles we see here at Slashdot: 3-d printing skin, growing human organs in pigs, curing diabetes in mice, and so on. We've been seeing these articles for about 20 years, but nothing high-tech or disruptive has entered into common practice.

It's gotten so bad that many people in the hacker community are making their own "mild" (my term) medical devices. Prosthetics by 3-d printer, home-built hearing aids, glasses that can be tuned and set by a non-professional... even some frighteningly potentially dangerous items such as electric brain stimulation devices.

Check out Hackaday.io for a long list of these. There's actually a vibrant community of people doing interesting medical things "to themselves" or "based in a 3rd world country"(*).

So now a bunch of doctors are getting bothered by parents who take the trouble to monitor their infants, and their solution is to have the FDA regulate the devices. Because making less bother for doctors is totally what the FDA is for. Assuming the device doesn't itself cause a medical problem, there's no reason the FDA should regulate it. There's not even any reason to regulate the accuracy of such a device (let the market, or industry standards compliance handle that aspect).

"For most healthy babies there is not a role for home monitoring at all," said neonatologist Dr Elizabeth Foglia, one of the authors of the opinion piece published by the American Medical Association journal Jamanet.

The "most healthy babies will do just fine" line is an appeal to historical evidence, where we *didn't* have this sort of information. It may very well be that historical monitoring could turn over predictable evidence of future problems such as SIDS.

To take an extreme example, "washing hands" between child delivery was strongly opposed by the doctors of the time, probably using the same logic as these doctors are using today. In most normal cases, washing hands shouldn't matter.

The FDA should focus on whether the device hurts patient, and leave everything else open.

Anything else will make for further stagnation in the field.

(*) I follow one project that aims to automate detecting TB in 3rd world countries. Completely ad-hoc, done by a handful of students in a SA community college.

Right. Especially since he was originally an Obama appointee--which you'd expect would have gotten him fired, not promoted.

But how are we going to afford all this if we are going to borrow another $38 billion for a semi useless wall?
link

While he sounds to have a decent plan, actually getting it done is another thing, and just because he wasn't fired, doesn't mean that won't change. Also he is not a fan of net neutrality. link

Maybe we will somehow get broadband, but have to pay $999999 a month if we want the non right wing wacko pack?

If you're asking for examples of "what the fact checkers debunk" having a less than optimal relationship with "what was said," it's been something that's been an ongoing problem for years. Here's two examples of critical views of them from 2012, from the Columbia Journalism Review and NPR, and the only thing that appears to have particularly changed much since then is who benefits most from not bringing up the important issue of "Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?"

Since when? Since refusal to speak a certain way which supports a particular political ideology makes you a "homophobic", "racist", and "bigoted". Since challenging the validity of proposed laws makes you not "worthy of even having a public debate" (from the UofT debate).
https://youtu.be/68NHUV5me7Q?t=44m10s

Since a florist who didn't want to participate in gay weddings is automatically "homophobic" and a "bigot", despite having both gay employees and patrons.
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/...

The left has been using identity politics for the last few years quite heavily. Instead of attacking the viewpoint, they've attacked the person. Now the right has learned to play that game. This is bad for ALL of us.

Identity politics silences dissent. The end result of silencing dissent is tyranny and oppression. Read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. We don't want to go there.

Regardless of how you stand on these issues, get out and talk to those who disagree with you--and listen to what they have to say. Be open to other opinions. Debate those who disagree with you--those whose opinions you know are wrong.

First steps have been taken to censor the scientific method to fit the new regime's alternate facts: http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

Smells like more of what I am starting to refer to as 'Trumped up news'.

Not that I support the man (or in fact could really care less directly about US politics), however it seems very important to quite a group of people to
make it look like the sky is falling right now. It is quite sad to see the side that believes they stand for fairness, doing the right thing, caring of others, etc
having to throw so much dirt so bitterly. Its like watching monkeys at the zoo fighting over scraps.

No it's not. It raising the alarm over alarming actions. It's the same thing thing that happened to some other guy. It's the same thing that yet some other guy did many many times.

when you think the press is critical of you, and not the other guy, you're just biased. when you complain and criticize almost non-stop, then call it unfair when other people criticize and complain about you, you're just a fucking cry-baby.

Yes Boss.

Just business as usual, Boss.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/25/exxonmobil-climate-change-scientists-congress-george-w-bush

http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/political-interference-climate-change-science-under-bush-administration-december-2007/p15079

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-appointee-at-nasa-resigns-over-censorship-6109603.html

Unless the polls were hacked, then the election wasn't hacked.

Grima Wormtongue, um, sorry, Sean Spicer, has already stated that the President BELIEVES the election was hacked, that the President has SEEN reports and documentation of it. It happened today from the Mouth of Sauron, I'm sorry, Trump, Sean Spicer, himself.

Who are we to argue with Lord Hee-Haw, himself, if he wants to say that the 2016 November Elections are illegitimate? That's fine, I am entirely comfortable with accepting his determination that he was illegally elected. He has even told us how we should respond.