Slashdot Mirror

You're conflating "our" abstract interests with Google stockholder interests.

I'll leave aside the question of how specifically Google's data mining will "uplift" these countries. I'll even leave aside the question of how companies in general will do so.

At least until you give me a reason not to consider your position summarily refuted by actual history and practice, with one simple link.

The Marshall Plan actually "uplifted" countries devastated by World War Two. Companies did not volunteer to absorb these costs. This was not accomplished by the notion of "maximize our profits coming from your bombed out cities and crushed economies". It was done by providing help that was not profit maximized.

Consider this:

Trump made business deals with both Saudi Arabia and UAE.

He tried for years to make a deal in Qatar, but failed.

Trump’s Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions About His Allegiances

President Trump has done business with royals from Saudi Arabia for at least 20 years, since he sold the Plaza Hotel to a partnership formed by a Saudi prince. Mr. Trump has earned millions of dollars from the United Arab Emirates for putting his name on a golf course, with a second soon to open.

He has never entered the booming market in neighboring Qatar, however, despite years of trying.

As soon as Saudi Arabia, UAE, & others ganged up on Qatar, Trump was quick to take their side against Qatar, seemingly unaware they host the biggest US military base in the Middle East.

I would love it if they could figure out a way to broadcast Al Jazeera to these boxes while somehow preserving the sports network for legitimate subscribers.

(One of the demands being made of Qatar is that they shut Al Jazeera down).

It is true that no direct guilty pleas for collusion have occurred (but in the nature of plea deals that shouldn't be surprising). As for the idea that no one has been indicted in that context, that's simply false. See here https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... or heck, read the indictments yourself https://www.justice.gov/file/1... .

Wait for the trade war, it is brewing.

77,000 Chinese workers learned about this last week (ZTE, who attempted to purchase Qualcomm).
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/0...

A 7 year ban on using US technologies, consider that. China will fund development of replacements, thus resolving the dependency (they probably already are/were).

And Europe is leaning against unilateral sanctions on Iran (this is as interesting as the Chinese stuff, Europe is a different beast):
https://www.reuters.com/articl...

Avocado's are an interesting view as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

The world is being pushed towards protectionism, through tariffs and/or sanctions.

This is very dangerous territory.

They've shutdown before only to start back up. In 2008, they blew up their cooling tower, and got Bush to remove them from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/world/asia/27iht-korea.1.14044540.html

The linked article is based on a NYTimes article which is much more informative: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... ALL US cellphone location data is being aggregated and resold.

In March, I met a lawyer named Anas Joudeh, who took part in some of the 2011 protests. Joudeh no longer considers himself a member of the opposition. I asked him why. “No one is 100 percent with the regime, but mostly these people are unified by their resistance to the opposition,” Joudeh told me. “They know what they don’t want, not what they want.” In December, he said, “Syrians abroad who believe in the revolution would call me and say, ‘We lost Aleppo.’ And I would say, ‘What do you mean?’ It was only a Turkish card guarded by jihadis.” For these exiled Syrians, he said, the specter of Assad’s crimes looms so large that they cannot see anything else. They refuse to acknowledge the realities of a rebellion that is corrupt, brutal and compromised by foreign sponsors. This is true. Eastern Aleppo may not have been Raqqa, where ISIS advertised its rigid Islamist dystopia and its mass beheadings. But as a symbol of Syria’s future, it was almost as bad: a chaotic wasteland full of feuding militias — some of them radical Islamists — who hoarded food and weapons while the people starved.

And, deliberately revealed that:

[PHOTO of a bombed hospital]
The roof of the Aleppo Eye Hospital, which rebels used as a military headquarters.

smugfunt: It is undeniable that the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society are western funded yet operate only in jihadi held territory.

And one would wonder why there is no White Helmets in Yemen, why no Western funded "NGO" has ever operated in Yemen and/or is deliberately frequently promoted in MSM like White Helmets.
Everyone who question the role, motive, credibility of White Helmets, no mater who they are, they were/are/will be immediately labeled as problematic/propagandist/misinformed, as if only Russians run fake news:
https://medium.com/@caityjohns...
https://www.rt.com/news/424078...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Also, it's so easy to debunk the rescue videos of White Helmets: no first aid, all are dramatical runnings, the victims are either without or with very little dirt, bruises, etc.

When guidance counselors and job recruiters are trying to cash in on AI jobs with $1M+ salary, it becomes a fad.

Link: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Resignation

Just before the election, while many people were making their final decisions about which candidate to choose, FBI Director James Comey influenced the election: Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.

I'm amazed that Comey could be so out of touch with social reality.

The "grab pussy" tape was from a private conversation in 2005.

Not only was the conversation not private, but it wasn't even supposed to be private, that's why there is a recording of it.

You should have brought up "shithole" comment from 2017. But even his shithole statement was from a private conversation. It wasn't offensive, it was factual.

That conversation also wasn't private (obviously) and it was also offensive, because America has been shitting on those countries. It's the equivalent of the school bully pissing on your pants in the bathroom, then calling you piss-pants.

Lower black unemployment.

Stop saying this shit. Less blacks eligible for unemployment benefits, not lower unemployment. Those statistics are shit and anyone who believes them really is an idiot.

ISIS obliterated (Obama said would take decades).

ISIS was just one head of the hydra, it's a minor accomplishment and it's to clear the table to make room for the next war.

Disarming North Korea

That was China.

and more support for Israel (personally important to me)

You mean the genocidal state that murders more journalists than almost anywhere else on the planet (they're #2) to try prevent the stories of their genocidal ways from getting out?

Withdrawal from TPP and the Paris accords.

TPP is gone to make room for TTIP. Withdrawing from the Paris accords was brain damaged.

More funding for the NIH.

Trump tried to destroy the NIH budget, idiot. He was forced to fund it.

This is something Tidal vigorously denies and says the DN report is part of a "smear campaign."

I can see why Tidal would argue this as one of their competitors on "HiRes" streaming and music is the Norwegian 2L. Maybe the streaming industry could work together on this and found an independent, non-profit measuring entity to avoid the inevitable investor law suits.

2L is a Norwegian record label focusing on high quality classical recordings - they have 32 Grammy nominations (0 wins). Tidal is a streaming label, similar to Apple Music, Spotify etc. They are not competitors - Tidal also stream music from 2L.

The reason Tidal is covered by DN (a Norwegian financial newspaper), is that Tidal originated in Norway - it started life as WiMP in 2010. Later, as it spread internationally, it rebranded as Tidal and was bought by Jay-Z in 2015.

but as I guy I don't get a second glance

Ditto. I could care less about fashion, but shaved heads are so commonplace nowadays that plenty of guys with full heads of hair shave. It may have started with Yul Brynner, but it really took off with Michael Jordan, Patrick Stewart, and the 1992 U.S. Volleyball Team :-)
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/0...

I'm 40, and I've been shaving my head for almost 20 years now. I've been bald for so long that I wouldn't want my hair back even if there is a cure.

Can espionage speed up progress that a competing nation makes? Sure, but it's not a requirement.

It is a requirement. If the adversary is evolving faster than you, then your only hope to avoid falling further and further behind is to steal his results every once in a while.

And we are evolving faster than China. To even match our speed they need to become a free-market Capitalist country — and they are moving in the opposite direction at present.

Also, you need to know, what the adversary is developing. It takes years to design a new anti-aircraft missile, for example. If your current designs have the top speed of X km/h and the ceiling of N thousand meters, you will be unprotected against the enemy's aircraft flying faster than X or higher than N for years until you can field a modernized weapon. Knowing the X and the N of the enemy's current designs is crucially important — and only spying can get you these numbers. For example, the US does not make much of a secret of the F-35 — and sells them to many allies — but many details of the F-22 are classified.

Intelligence, science, technology, and math aren't some hoardable commodities

They are hoardable. Though the theory was already well understood, try as they might have, for example, USSR could not create atomic bombs of their own in practice — until a family of Communist scumbags handed them the blueprints. The resulting nuclear parity emboldened USSR and condemned millions of people in Eastern Europe to decades of suffering under Soviet occupation. North Koreans and Vietnamese suffer even worse to this day for the same reasons. That is, how important anti-spying is...

There are plenty of other things (including Pepsi-Cola!) USSR just could not replicate — some of these they also ended up stealing, others (like automobile factories) they bought openly, or confiscated as spoils of war. Had the knowledge really been "not hoardable", as you naively assert, they would not have needed to pay Ford and Fiat for it.

Wow. Just wow. It is hard to see BuzzFeed publishing a 35-page document containing unverified, lurid allegations about President-elect Hillary Clinton that it didn't consider credible.

"They stopped being journalists and began being *cheerleaders*, and became people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts to show that Hillary Clinton was an 92, 93, 99 point 9999 chance winner, of winning this campaign.

CNN caught red-handed planting debate questions

Democrats ordered the media to play up Trump - they obeyed! :(

CBS's John Dickerson: Donald Trump Didn't Ruin the Press's Reputation, We Did That Ourselves

Media changing headlines to attack Trump
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

The Times completely missed the story, and misled its readers in the process.

Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton

The entire media endorsed Hillary

So, did we forget that a ton of people, including a LOT of Democrats, opposed this deal from the beginning? In case you've forgotten, here's a refresher.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) (via the Hill):

"The deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold nuclear state," Menendez, who stepped down as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year amid corruption charges, said on MSNBCs "The Rundown." "The deal doesnt end Irans nuclear program, it preserves it."

The New Jersey senator, a long-time critic of the negotiations, refuted President Obamas claim that the deal allows for 24/7 access to inspect any site believed to be violating the deal.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) (via Charleston Gazette-Mail):

Sen. Joe Manchin will vote to oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran, joining every other member of West Virginia’s congressional delegation in opposition.

Manchin announced his decision one week after Democrats secured the votes necessary to make sure the deal goes into effect, downplaying, somewhat, the significance of his announcement.

The deal, which gives Iran relief from international economic sanctions in return for limits on and inspections of the country’s nuclear program, is all but sure to be put into place, despite the objections of West Virginia’s representatives.

Now-former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) all opposed the deal as well. Yet, not enough were able to cross the aisle with Republicans to override a veto threat by Obama over the resolution to reject the agreement. From the September 10, 2015 edition of The New York Times:

Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama when they blocked a Republican resolution to reject a six-nation nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, ensuring the landmark deal will take effect without a veto showdown between Congress and the White House.

A procedural vote fell two short of the 60 needed to break a Democratic filibuster. It culminated hours of debate in

The current Middle East situation, and map, is a British creation. First and foremost we are there to protect that image and keep the petrol pipelines open for Europe, not the US. We take the dollars, as payment for security services rendered. The relationship remains very profitable. Now, if we withdraw? Guess who moves in.... After all that work that Hillary did?? I don't think so! It would be a big mistake to let our adversaries grow fat on our leftovers. The entire destabilization efforts in the region, North Africa included, are designed to scare off competing "investors". Again this for Europe's benefit. They happen to be next door.

New York Times Magazine piece where Ben Rhodes explained how he led the administration’s efforts to misrepresent the truth in order “to sell” the JCPOA to the press.

CHina's growth continues due to building of new coal plants. In spite of your BS posting, here we speak about last year where CHina increased coal use by 5% (and that is from Chinese gov): But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.
Wait until CHina REALLY starts moving towards EVs. That is going to drive their CO2 way up. As to the future, CHina IS doing 700 new coal plants, with more 350 in CHina alone. The rest are around the globe, but still pushed, financed, and built by CHina.

Shows what a constant liar you are, either as porky or as red tide.

Good. Lets go with common sense and facts.
Here we see your favorite of emissions per capita
Your nation jumps from 1.97 in 1990 to 7.45 in 2016. IOW, you increased 400%. EU-28 is was at 9 in 1990 and went down to 6.75 in 2016. EU-28 decreased ~ 25%.
America was ~20 in 1990, and went down to 15.5 in 2016. IOW, America decreased 25%.
Last year, CHina went up again, while EU stayed flat and America dropped.

When you speak of rich nations, I think that you have to include not just AMerica, but EU-28, Canada, Austrlia, and to be fair, CHina. BUT, CHina continues to grow their co2 emissions and now exceeds EU's per capita. In the next 5 years, there is a great chance that AMerica and CHina will have about the same per capita, which is NOT a good thing. We will probably cross at around 12.

CHina's growth continues due to building of new coal plants. In spite of your BS posting, here we speak about last year where CHina increased coal use by 5% (and that is from Chinese gov): But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.
Wait until CHina REALLY starts moving towards EVs. That is going to drive their CO2 way up.
As to the future, CHina IS doing 700 new coal plants, with more 350 in CHina alone. The rest are around the globe, but still pushed, financed, and built by CHina.

COmmon sense and these facts PROVE that CHina is on the WRONG COURSE. China is increasing CO2 in their own nation as well as others.
In addition, most of the west continues on the RIGHT course. America and most of the west has stopped building new coal plants. Germany, continues to stay with Asia and build out new ones, but will probably be forced to drop those.
Common sense and facts says STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. In addition, it says to quit defending it.

No one is guilty of vehicular manslaughter. This is an accident due to bad design. You don't jail the engineers or architects who design a building that fails in an earthquake.

You do if it wasn't designed to code.

You don't arrest the airline execs when a plan component fails.

Maybe not the exec, but certainly the maintenance engineer who committed fraud that resulted in the death of people.

So here - who's to blame? Who decided to live-test an experimental system that can operate with the safety disengaged?

Moron? For referencing facts?

"“Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry,” Mr. Trump said in a White House statement on Wednesday."

Dipping pretty low into the atmosphere here, aren't we?

ps- It warms my heart to quote the New York Times in defense of our President.

"There's no vote fraud!"

Again, BULLSHIT. How can you tell if there's vote fraud if you don't ID the voter? You can't.

Republicans know there is voter fraud. In the first person. https://www.denverpost.com/201...

http://occupydemocrats.com/201...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=946...

http://nhpr.org/post/mancheste...

https://www.arktimes.com/arkan...

http://archive.jsonline.com/ne...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...

Yesiree, Republicans know full well that there is voter fraud, and that is because so much Votter Fraud is performed by Republicans - highly ranked ones even - And your wet dream of a voter ID is going to do nothing, not one thing but eliminate a trite old chestnut of a talking point.

Personally, I'm in favor of voter ID - but given that Republicans bring it up every election cycle like it is the cure blessed by God himself for them thar godless commiecrats and their letting them chocolate people - who always commit fraud, amirite? - is just Bullshit - to use your term.

Phase it in, make it free ( hey, maybe we can get that Russian Oligarch who funnels money to Republicans through the NRA to chip in ) and start long before elections.

But how is that going to actually stop Republican election fraud? Or is that Okay because the Republican party has shown it has a lock on the moral high ground?

Let's hope other countries do the same thing too.

Remember, agencies of the US government regularly attempt to influence elections overseas, and, oppose the natural desires of their electorate

Below are a selection of links about the same, from across the political spectrum that are quite well-documented.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.channel4.com/news/...

https://www.straitstimes.com/w...

https://www.telesurtv.net/engl...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

https://www.wnyc.org/story/his...

http://www.truth-out.org/opini...

https://www.foreignaffairs.com...

https://www.thenewamerican.com...

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22...

https://www.politico.eu/articl...

https://www.strategic-culture....

Unfortunately, they can still *vote* in many areas, legally or not, and many proposals to require ID have been rejected.

Yeah, except no. It doesn't happen. In fact, Trump disbanded his "election fraud" commission because after a year of work they couldn't find election fraud at any level higher than infinitesimal number of instances where some Republican in Texas tried to vote twice. That, and because the guy who Trump picked to head his "election fraud" commission has his own legal troubles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

https://www.reuters.com/articl...
 

I have said nothing of the kind. You continue to lie.

Your lies have been numerous and documented, you only add to them here.
You are yet to show any lie that I have made, despite your repeated claims.

I have said that China continues to produce more than 2x the CO2 that America does, while their GDP output is far less.

But China doesn't produce more than twice, it produces a bit less than twice Americas CO2.
China's GDP output is also larger than the US.

And America's transport CO2 rose far far less than what CHina's CO2 did. In fact, our transportation has risen for the last couple of years, BUT, our CO2 continues to drop, which is what matters. OTOH, your nation's CO2 continues to rise.

Facts are you transport has been getting worse for 5 years in a row with no end in site. Despite tougher fuel standards people are still switching away from cars and into SUV's and light trucks making the situation worse. (I'll note here that it's people choosing this despite businesses making more efficient cars and government enacting tougher standards.)

The fact that you continue to claim that Coal burns cleaner than nat gas shows how fucked up you are.

You keep telling this lie, but I never said it and you never show where you think I did. (How many lies so far from you in just this post?)

But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.

As I said before, because your nation continues to install loads more coal than AE, your new electricity continues to come from coal, and not AE.

More lies from you? Can you not read?

Around 15% of the increase in China’s electricity demand was due to higher demand for cooling, driven by a particularly hot summer. (This topic will be the focus of a forthcoming IEA report on how the projected growth in air conditioning usage around the world will affect global electricity demand). Despite continued reductions of coal use in buildings and industry, the growth in the power sector pushed up coal demand in China by 0.3%, after three years of declining demand. Despite this rebound, coal use in China remains below its 2013 peak.

Coal increased less than 1/2 a percent, yet you keep using ten times that number...And coal use peaked in China half a decade ago !!

Now, I know that your gov pays you to lie here, but others need to realize what kind of trash you are for trying to pretend that China is NOT a major polluter. Hell, your cleanest city is worse than any city in America or Europe.

It's quite clear who the liar is here WindBourne.

No one is pretending China is not a big polluter, due to being the global factory and also having the largest population. But it is you who is pretending America is not a major polluter.

But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.

As I said before, because your nation continues to install loads more coal than AE, your new electricity continues to come from coal, and not AE.
Now, I know that your gov pays you to lie here, but others need to realize what kind of trash you are for trying to pretend that China is NOT a major polluter. Hell, your cleanest city is worse than any city in America or Europe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/1...

This is pretty common in Japan and comes in various forms. Back in 2013 the NYT did an article about workers sent to the boredom room. Many of these workers were hired into the company back in the period when lifetime employment was the way things went, so I guess many workers had contracts that made it impossible for them to be laid off. When Sony closed down a number of their older products such as Betamax or the Walkman, they couldn't fire a lot of these old timers that only knew about their specific product, so they stuffed them in 'boredom' rooms where they'd come in every day and read the newspaper or a book, and then go home after 8 hours.

I've also personally experienced similar redundant jobs in Japan. When I went to the city hall to pick up some official tax form information, they had someone that took my request form and handed it to someone who printed out the document. The printer-person confirmed the document, stamped it, and then passed it to the person sitting next to them. This next person looked it over for all of 5 seconds, stamped it and passed it to the person at the head of this block of four desks and he glanced it over and stamped it. Then the person that took my request form took it to another guy sitting in a separate desk about 5ft away ("section chief") and he stamped it and then I got my tax forms. I have no doubt that 2 of the people in this process were completely useless in most of the work they do.

I think the lesson here is that if you want to find pointless jobs, just look in highly bureaucratic systems -- there are bound to be tons.

Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket?

People tend to rate sex highly, until they try heroine.

Sapolsky's book from last year, Behave, has a lot of material on how our dopaminic system rescales itself to available stimulus. The book is 800 pages long, and every page so far is dense with neuroanatomy. Unbelievably good, but I'm guessing it's not sexconker's preferred Flaming Doctor Pepper bomb shot.

For the record, the first time I read Lord of the Rings (all three volumes, one weekend, age 13) I experienced intense annoyance whenever Tolkien abandoned one narrative line to rejoin some other fellowship splinter group.

By the time I got to Full Metal Jacket I had mostly outgrown this, though it still annoyed me for ten full minutes. Basically, "not now Helga, can't you see I'm still banging your sister?"

Bad, Kubrick, bad.

———

Kubrick rarely hesitates to bend time in the other direction, either.

The litmus test for true Kubrick lovers is Barry Lyndon.

John Hofsess: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love 'Barry Lyndon' — 1976

Like many other critics and filmgoers, I have grown so accustomed to films based on literary conventions and familiar structures, that to see a film which stretches one's awareness of what can be achieved in the medium seems prickly and puzzling.

Kubrick's films have a way—at least with some people—of working on in the mind, of passing through all the stages from irritation to exhilaration.

And curiously enough—for critics are supposed to be the most progressive an perceptive of filmgoers—it is the general public in this case, unencumbered by literary prejudices, that has done most of the leading in making 2001 and A Clockwork Orange not just films of immense popularity but of steadily growing stature.

An interview with Michel Ciment — 1982

In the scene that you're referring to, the voice-over works as an ironic counterpoint to what you see portrayed by the actors on the screen. This is only a minor sequence in the story and has to be presented with economy. Barry is tender and romantic with the girl but all he really wants is to get her into bed. The girl is lonely and Barry is attractive and attentive.

If you think about it, it isn't likely that he is the only soldier she has brought home while her husband has been away to the wars. You could have had Barry give signals to the audience, through his performance, indicating that he is really insincere and opportunistic, but this would be unreal. When we try to deceive we are as convincing as we can be, aren't we?

No wink. Blink and you miss it.

———

At this point, I also want to give a shout out to another very long film, La Belle Noiseuse (1991), with the 237-minute run time.

The film holds an approval rating of 100% on review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes.

How does such a stupidly long movie earn a 100% approval rating? Not a single Michael Bay fan attended this movie by accident. French title, and not a single showing with a start time after 18:30.

Roger Ebert

She understands, puts it on, disrobes in front of him, and will be entirely nude for at least at hour in this film. Yes, at first we observe Emmanuelle Beart as a woman. Then we see her as a model. Slowly we come to see her as Frenhofer wants to: The woman inside, the essence, the being

They got a huge tax break instead of an all-but-guaranteed tax hike.

Yeah, actually not. Clinton's plan contained significant cost reductions for people making under $50K/yr. Under trump, we got tax cuts for millionaires and tax bills for the middle class.

Unemployment is way down.

Not for rural whites. In fact, its still so bad for them that Michigan republicans are trying to exempt them from their draconian medicaid work requirements.
Also, those people at that Carrier plant that he "saved?" Yeah, they got fucked.

The stock market is way up.

(A) Doesn't mean squat for majority of people because they don't own stocks.
(B) Rate of growth in the stock market is slower than it was under Obama.
(C) China has stopped buying soybeans. Not just tariffs, full stop, buying em from somewhere else. China is the #2 largest market for US soy and soy is the #2 US crop export.

Denuclearization, peace, and potential reunification in Korea,

Not anything to do with trump. The sanctions only resulted in a ~20% increase in black market currency exchange, showing that it wasn't a big deal for a country that survived the great faminine of the 90s on nothing but Juche. Moon Jae-in is leading trump around by the nose. Though I guess you could say the fact that trump is so easily played by Moon is a point in trump's favor. So sure, promise that gloryhound a nobel prize if that's what it takes to keep him from screwing up everybody else's work.

Tons of sex cults and human trafficking rings have been broken up.

Ah, so now you reveal yourself as one of those RWNJ dumbasses. In fact, its the nothing of the kind. If anything, they've been cracking down on easy targets - adult sex-workers, not trafficking victims. Meanwhile Trump knowingly endorsed an actual pedophile.

Corrupt leaders and former leaders of many countries are actually being brought to justice.

Yeah. Putin. Duterte. Netanyahu MBS They've all been locked up!!! Yay!

The wall is being built.

Lol. He couldn't even get his own republican party to pay for it. Much less mexico.

Next year there will be no unconstitutional personal mandate for health insurance.

Yay! That's already working out so great for republicans.
Never mind how he totally fucked rural whites with empty promises about the opioid epidemic.

Here's some data: by an informal count of gender-recognizable top 1000 kernel contributors to Linux kernel I did several years ago, there were 8 women (I recognize western and slavic names, first names I didn't recognize were skipped). A more thorough count of all "key" packages (as defined by testing migration criteria) in Debian Stretch, where I tried to guess gender based on first name, ldap, ~60 seconds of web search for that person -- shown 0.9% of last uploaders being female, with each female having only 60% packages on the average (although, with low population of data, this last figure might be not significant enough).

your data is interesting. You go on to make a conclusion, however, that is not based in any way on that data. You conclude "Thus, I believe this is approximately the natural gender ratio of skilled software engineers." However, your data would just as reasonably fit a conclusion "Thus, I believe that there are things in the software community that discriminate against women and drive women away from the community."

Like, perhaps, constant and unrelenting harassment:
http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/brotopia-emily-chang-tech-sexual-harassment/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/28/google-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-bro-culture
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/23/google-bro-culture-led-to-violence-sexual-harassment-against-female-engineer-lawsuit-alleges/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html

Since one of the things he was objecting to was a code of conduct saying
Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to: Violent threats or language directed against another person. Discriminatory jokes and language. Posting sexually explicit or violent material. Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”). Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. Unwelcome sexual attention. Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.

I think he doesn't have any interest in solving this problem.

So your statistics about the demographics of all voters who voted for Trump and Clinton show us nothing about the factors which led to his victory.

Oh, that was just a tiny little taste. You want some hard core facts? Buckle the fuck up.

"The individual data do not suggest that those who view Trump favorably are confronting abnormally high economic distress, by conventional measures of employment and income," ...

"People living in zip codes with disproportionately high shares of white residents are significantly and robustly more likely to view Trump favorably," he writes. "Those living in zip codes with overall diversity that is low relative to their commuting zone are also far more likely to view Trump favorably." Put another way: If you're in the whitest suburb in your area, you're likelier to back Trump. ...

Areas with more manufacturing are significantly less likely to support Trump. An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007 predicted higher Trump support — which is the opposite of what you'd expect, given the narrative around this campaign.
Donald Trump's supporters are LESS likely to be affected by trade and immigration, not more

You can ask just one simple question to find out whether someone likes Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.

That’s more accurate than asking people if it’s harder to move up the income ladder than it was for their parents (54 percent), whether they oppose trade deals (66 percent), or if they think the economy is worse now than last year (81 percent). It’s even more accurate than asking them if they are Republican (87 percent).
The easiest way to guess if someone supports Trump? Ask if Obama is a Muslim.

Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class were more likely to prefer Clinton over Trump. Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety—feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment—that best predicted support for Trump.
It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety

Not enough for you? This guy summarized even more studies: Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century.

You don know the Art of the Deal was ghostwritten.

That just goes to show how clever Trump is!

Indeed. I'd put him on a level with Gwyneth Paltrow.

When it was actually investigated, it turned out the IRS was actually more lenient to tea party groups than left-wing groups....the left wing groups just didn't whine about it.

https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]

One major problem with your assertions is that neither of the links you posted to support it, actually support it. Neither says the IRS was more lenient to right than left, all they say is that the IRS also had some keywords they used which would show more left-wing groups.
The bias wasn't that they didn't look at left-wing groups, it was that a typical left-wing process might take a couple of months at worst while when looking at a tea party group, it would take years.
Here's a story from the NY Times (your source) about the legal settlements:

The settlements were the conclusion of two legal battles that have dogged the I.R.S. since the initial lawsuits were filed after a 2013 treasury inspector general’s audit that found groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names received more scrutiny over their applications for tax-exempt status. The revelations plunged the I.R.S. into a firestorm that ultimately led to the ouster of its acting commissioner and prompted accusations that the agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.

and

the I.R.S. “expresses its sincere apology” for the “heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays” the groups experienced when filing tax forms from 2009 to 2012.

In the agreement, the I.R.S. also admits to being wrong in demanding unnecessary information from the plaintiffs and screening groups based on name or policy affiliation.

The problem wasn't that someone looked carefully at their applications (like they did for some of the left-wing groups), the problem was that they required additional approvals and deliberately delayed their applications in order to keep them from being effective and harassed them with multiple unwarranted information requests, for example, their group members, donations, literature, etc...

When it was actually investigated, it turned out the IRS was actually more lenient to tea party groups than left-wing groups....the left wing groups just didn't whine about it.

https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]

One major problem with your assertions is that neither of the links you posted to support it, actually support it. Neither says the IRS was more lenient to right than left, all they say is that the IRS also had some keywords they used which would show more left-wing groups.
The bias wasn't that they didn't look at left-wing groups, it was that a typical left-wing process might take a couple of months at worst while when looking at a tea party group, it would take years.
Here's a story from the NY Times (your source) about the legal settlements:

The settlements were the conclusion of two legal battles that have dogged the I.R.S. since the initial lawsuits were filed after a 2013 treasury inspector general’s audit that found groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names received more scrutiny over their applications for tax-exempt status. The revelations plunged the I.R.S. into a firestorm that ultimately led to the ouster of its acting commissioner and prompted accusations that the agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.

and

the I.R.S. “expresses its sincere apology” for the “heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays” the groups experienced when filing tax forms from 2009 to 2012.

In the agreement, the I.R.S. also admits to being wrong in demanding unnecessary information from the plaintiffs and screening groups based on name or policy affiliation.

The problem wasn't that someone looked carefully at their applications (like they did for some of the left-wing groups), the problem was that they required additional approvals and deliberately delayed their applications in order to keep them from being effective and harassed them with multiple unwarranted information requests, for example, their group members, donations, literature, etc...

What about when the Obama administration use the NEA to advocate for Obama care???

The NEA is not part of the government, and the Hatch act does not apply.

What about sending the IRS after the tea party?

When it was actually investigated, it turned out the IRS was actually more lenient to tea party groups than left-wing groups....the left wing groups just didn't whine about it.

https://www.politico.com/story...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

What about using the "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down Rush Limbaugh?

The Fairness Doctrine ended in the 1987.

What about how the DoJ employees use 90% of their personal earnings to donate to democrats they are investigating?

[citation required]
Btw, DOJ employees aren't paid that well and still must consume food.

What about Joe Biden telling everyone to vote against Robert Bork -a judicial nominee- because Bork wasn't a democrat?

The horror of the Senate doing it's job of "advise and consent".

Bork had many bad rulings during his judicial career. And that's not a partisan statement - he was overruled many, many times. What Bork did is applied his political beliefs to the cases before him instead of applying the law. That's not what a judge is supposed to do.

Far more skilled judges, like Scalia and Thomas, cloak their political beliefs in the law. Such that they are technically applying the law while serving their political ends.

What about the state department under Obama trading favors with foreign interests for domestic privileges and campaign donations?

Wait....the State Department negotiated with foreign interests?!?!?!?!! How shocking!!!1!!eleven!! Next you'll tell me the Defense Department has a few weapons.

As for campaign donations, [citation required]. Keep in mind the scummy Clinton Foundation donations are not actually a campaign donation.

This guy tells people he wants Trump re-elected and that is politicizing the federal government ??? What ??

He promoted Trump while acting as an FCC commissioner. That's a violation of the Hatch act. Invite him to speak but leave off his title, and it's not a violation.

Federal law says incumbents are allowed to campaign on military bases. That's because it was expected when the laws were written that people are going to have political views and they are going to fundraise and they are going to run for office !

And this is relevant because......? And when supplying your justification, keep in mind the President and VP are exempt from the Hatch act.

So sorry that you missed the point here.

There are actually 2 characteristics that make Trump a deep danger to us all:
1) He lies when it suits him.
2) He lies when he totally mis-understands issues. Which makes him a dangerous idiot as well.

The article you link to merely boast about what Trump accomplished - whether detrimental or not.
Here's some links to many of his lies:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/marya...
https://www.dailywire.com/news...
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

Seems to me his lies and actions have wreaked havoc with USA's reputation world-wide.
The Eagle will fly no more as a result.

It is the presence of two parents in the home.

The thing that usually gets missed in these debates is that marriage is not the cause of good childhood outcomes it is an indicator of wealth. Wealthy people have higher rates of marriages and have lower divorce rates. Blue states tend to have higher levels of wealth than red states, ergo they have better chidhood outcomes.

FWIW, this wealth effect on marriage rates is especially concentrated in the black community where the disproportionate rates of criminal convictions versus the crime rate have permanently consigned ~30% of the adult black male population to low-paying jobs making it extremely difficult for them to sustain a marriage.

The overwhelming factor in overall educational results does not seem to be the school budget. It is the presence of two parents in the home. And that is more common in the Democratic states. A New York Times article, with citations, describes some of this. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

Is Jeff Bezos careful to be logical? It seems to me the answer is no, if you judge by how Amazon is managed. More evidence, added to the evidence in the parent comment:

A Slashdot comment: "you still can't sort prime-only items by price correctly (it includes the lowest priced non-prime seller)..."

And: "... Amazon literally still builds their rich pages using their normal grid layout, and in the most impossible to navigate way possible.

Amazon: Amazon warehouse jobs push workers to physical limit (Seattle Times, April 3, 2012)

Amazon: Amazon Under Fire Over Alleged Worker Abuse in Germany (Bloomberg, Feb. 19, 2013)

Amazon: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon's sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers (Salon.com, Feb. 23, 2014)

Amazon: Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace (New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015) Quote: "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers..."

Amazon: Amazon paid no US income taxes for 2017 (SeattlePI, Feb. 27, 2018)

Amazon: Undercover author finds Amazon warehouse workers in UK 'peed in bottles' over fears of being punished for taking a break (Business Insider, April 16, 2018)

Amazon: The undercover author who discovered Amazon warehouse workers were peeing in bottles tells us the culture was like a 'prison' (Business Insider, April 18, 2018)

Amazon: Amazon Gets Tax Breaks While Its Employees Rely on Food Stamps, New Data Shows (The Intercept, April 19, 2018) Quote: "Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table."

Safe space flight depends on careful thinking. Everyone involved with flight into space must be logical. Maybe Jeff Bezos just needed to find a place to put his money; maybe he doesn't influence Bllue Origins much. But even if that is true, he has influence, and that is scary. My opinion.

Just look at all the goodwill!
With surprising speed and warmth, the presidents of North and South Korea reached a broad agreement on Wednesday to work for peace and unity on their bitterly divided peninsula, the biggest step by either side to ease tensions in 50 years.
The agreement, which came after more than three hours of talks in the North Korea capital, Pyongyang, on the second day of their first summit meeting, was signed and toasted by President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea and President Kim Jong Il of the North, who were shown on South Korean television clinking champagne glasses, shaking hands vigorously and smiling broadly.
[...]
The general points agreed on included the need for reconciliation and unification; the establishment of peace; the commencement in August of exchange visits by members of divided families; and more cultural exchanges.

Wait a minute... Kim Jong... Il?

Oooooh, that article is talking about the peace breakthrough from 2000. My bad, just got the wrong link!

One has to choose how to sequester carbon so it does not become CO2. The CO2 causing problems now was sequestered as carbon-containing compounds in geological formations containing petroleum and coal. Large amounts are also sequestered in limestone (CaCO3).

Limestone forms from CO2 when the CO2 dissolves in water and forms carbonic acid (just like in your carbonated soft drink) and the carbonic acid finds calcium or magnesium ions, which are found in rocks. The problem with the natural process is that the calcium and magnesium ions only become available very slowly. (To those willing to wait hundreds of millions of years, the solution to that extra carbon dioxide is coming!)

Tests in Iceland have been successful in converting about 95% of radioactively labeled CO2 into calcite. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0.... If you can get calcium and magnesium bases into the ocean, you can neutralize the carbonic acid that is raising the pH and sequester the carbon. Climate change is not only atmospheric CO2 so a range of solutions is needed.

Autopilot cannot 'see' plainly visible concrete barriers...Why is a technology being allowed to drive if it cannot see what it is in front of it, like an 82-year old grandpa?

Teslas went past that exact same part of the road bunches of times before and never had an issue. That exact same Tesla went past that barrier multiple times before the crash. It is very clear that Teslas could see it, but for some reason they had trouble identifying what to do about it in a few situations. That is the opposite of not being able to see the barrier.

Human driving is very safe if you consider the 3.2 *trillion* miles driving in the US every year. Much safer than Autopilot would be if it were to drive everywhere and in all conditions like a human.

I provided evidence to the contrary, and you decided you didn't like it. You declined to provide any evidence to back up your lie.

Well, there are no self driving cars, they all have humans in them.

Did you miss this?

There is an entire list of issues with the NHSTA study with regards to it's suitability to make any comment on the safety of Autopilot; it does not draw that conclusion because the sample wasn't right to draw that conclusion and it was likely a Tesla media spin.

That's a flat out fabrication on your part.

Maybe that's just how you make arguments.

The whole Trump Russia connection a tired democrat narrative. Only a moron would believe this shit at this point.

Within a few days of the Watergate break-in on June 17th, 1972, the Democrats filed a $1 million lawsuit and accused the GOP Committee to Re-elect the President as a co-conspirator.
But neither the press nor the public believed them. On June 21st, NBC's David Brinkley snarkily referred to it as a novel method of fundraising and that if they were so certain, why not sue for $9 million and erase the DNC's existing campaign debt at the GOP's expense.
Throughout that year the Dems kept updating the lawsuit with stronger allegations and moving ever closer to pinning Watergate's tail on Nixon's , er, donkey, they weren't getting a lot of public traction and Nixon was re-elected in a historic landslide, garnering 61% of the popular vote in a devastating 520-17 victory over the hapless & forgotten George McGovern who a decade previously had said of Vietnam "The current dilemma in Vietnam is a clear demonstration of the limitations of military power ... [Current U.S. involvement] is a policy of moral debacle and political defeat ... The trap we have fallen into there will haunt us in every corner of this revolutionary world if we do not properly appraise its lessons"
It was long rumored and now accepted that Nixon undermined LBJ's efforts to broker peace talks in 1968, hoping to secure that as a political victory for himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

Months after the Saturday Night Massacre of Oct 1973 and the infamous "I'm not a crook" speech of Nov 17, 1973 at his final SOTU address, Nixon thundered "1 year of Watergate is ENOUGH".
Barely 6 months later Nixon resigned in disgrace. That same day, his re-election committee settled with the DNC for $775k.

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/0...

The whole Trump Russia connection a tired democrat narrative. Only a moron would believe this shit at this point.

Within a few days of the Watergate break-in on June 17th, 1972, the Democrats filed a $1 million lawsuit and accused the GOP Committee to Re-elect the President as a co-conspirator.
But neither the press nor the public believed them. On June 21st, NBC's David Brinkley snarkily referred to it as a novel method of fundraising and that if they were so certain, why not sue for $9 million and erase the DNC's existing campaign debt at the GOP's expense.
Throughout that year the Dems kept updating the lawsuit with stronger allegations and moving ever closer to pinning Watergate's tail on Nixon's , er, donkey, they weren't getting a lot of public traction and Nixon was re-elected in a historic landslide, garnering 61% of the popular vote in a devastating 520-17 victory over the hapless & forgotten George McGovern who a decade previously had said of Vietnam "The current dilemma in Vietnam is a clear demonstration of the limitations of military power ... [Current U.S. involvement] is a policy of moral debacle and political defeat ... The trap we have fallen into there will haunt us in every corner of this revolutionary world if we do not properly appraise its lessons"
It was long rumored and now accepted that Nixon undermined LBJ's efforts to broker peace talks in 1968, hoping to secure that as a political victory for himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

Months after the Saturday Night Massacre of Oct 1973 and the infamous "I'm not a crook" speech of Nov 17, 1973 at his final SOTU address, Nixon thundered "1 year of Watergate is ENOUGH".
Barely 6 months later Nixon resigned in disgrace. That same day, his re-election committee settled with the DNC for $775k.

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/0...

Ford was able to secure a huge loan before the credit markets seized in 2008, which allowed them to ride out the worst of the recession. If not for that loan they would have gone bankrupt too.

Well-Timed Borrowing Sets Ford Apart From Rivals

By Matthew B. Crawford May 21, 2009: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0...
"As it happened, in the spring I landed a job as executive director of a policy organization in Washington. This felt like a coup. But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didnâ(TM)t fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style â" that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning. As I sat in my K Street office, Fredâ(TM)s life as an independent tradesman gave me an image that I kept coming back to: someone who really knows what he is doing, losing himself in work that is genuinely useful and has a certain integrity to it. He also seemed to be having a lot of fun."

One Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html

You're acting like this is some big secret that I'm claiming is being hushed up. Trump makes no apologies for his friendship with Murray or his role in crafting White House energy policies. You can do a Google search if you want more details on their relationship. I'm not going to research 20 links that your not going to read anyway. Remember, one of Trump's biggest traits, whether you love it or hate it, is that he does what he wants his critics can go to hell.

so they're still right wing there. The leaders of the Democratic party are right wing too. The mega corps have bought out everything, so they control the message. Hell, they guy who runs the Consumer Protection Bureau just openly admitted to accepting bribes and it was barely covered. NY Times, WAPO and the left wing Youtubers covered it. CNN buried it in an opinion piece. You'd think this would be national news.

The problem is, it's statistics that don't mean jack squat.

It could mean a lot of things. But #1 is that it isn't 40 years of history, its only 2 years of history. Prior to that this particular set of numbers were not reported at all. That changed with the passage of the 2015 Freedom Act.

One of, if not the, most informed reporter on FISC/FISA issues is Marcy Wheeler aka emptywheel. Her twitter feed is hard to read for newbies because she does not bother to re-explain the background behind each tweet. But the articles on her website are pretty thorough, one might say too thorough. She's hyper-detailed.

FWIW, she's probably also the reporter with the most expertise on the scooter libby trial too. For example, she explains why Bush commute Libby's sentence rather than pardoning him (so that he could still maintain his 5th amendment right to silence, thus protecting Cheney and maybe even Bush from threat of prosecution for the Plame disclosure).