Slashdot Mirror

What to do what to do...
"The catalytic converter, an invention that has sharply reduced smog from cars, has now become a significant and growing cause of global warming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency."
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05...

There is Tesla's Powerpack: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

I still don't know what you mean by tyranny of the weak. I gave it my best shot, and missed. Could you explain further?

Seriously? Okay. Let us speak of the concept of banning words "Ban Bossy". http://banbossy.com/ This project has the very bizzare concept of presumable leaders of people (just females) of being devastated and rendered impotent when people call them bossy. The irony is that teh women promoting this fit the 'bossy" moniker to a T. In my own experience, people have called my wife "Bossy" her reply is "Right, that's why I'm the boss!" Because that is the inherent nature of being a boss. Being too weak to withstand such a word means you are too weak to be a boss. And banning the word will not make a weak preson one bit stronger, merely show that they cannot withstand simple words. Tyranny of the weak. I was listening to an NPR story this afternoon with a younf lady who wants those who utter the word "Retarded" prosecuted for Hate speech. It's rude, but a hate crime? If that were enacted, it would show how people are devastated by the very word, and must be proteced from it. Tyranny of the weak.

But that is merely a proposal, I only offer it as an example of the mindset.

However, Let us speak of the town in England where a man can be prosecuted and convicted of a hate crime, the wording so vague that the mere act of saying hello to a woman can get you arrested. Quoting Winston Churchill gets you arrested for a hate crime. https://www.thenewamerican.com...

A woman was arrested for swearing in front of her children. http://www.mommyish.com/2014/0... Low life lady and no doubt, but apparently it completely destroys children to hear the word fuck, and must be punished to the maximum extent of the law. We need a street harassment law. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...

Anther place in England is turning "Misogyny" into ahate crime. Even when no crime is committed, you can be investigated. Not certain how "investigations" go across the pond. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng... The wording of the law is:

The crime of misogyny is defined as “any incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.”

Other parts of the law are:

Unwanted or uninvited sexual advances, Physical or verbal assault, Unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement, Use of mobile phones to send unwanted or uninvited messages, Take photographs without consent"

Yes David Thornley, you can go to jail for saying "hello" to a a woman. There are some other issues with the law. Unwanted sexual advances - of course. Tell the guy to shut it down and he needs to shut it down. But "uninvited"? That means that no man had better ever tell a woman that he thinks she is cute or attempts to hold her hand (religious in the US consider hand holding as a gateway to sex)

Assault - of course. phones? if you send a message disagreeing with her, welcome to the UK prison system.

Photographs without consent? SRSLY? In the UK, the home of massive surveillance? Take all those cameras down

Now between you and me and the capybaras in the back yard, almost all women don't give a rats putout about most of this weakling stuff. My wife is dare I say, pretty fetching, and gets catcalls on occasion. and she gets called bossy (all by women) and she gets comments about her weight - turn

Obama did it with the Clinton email server investigation Source here. All under a pseudonym for his user name. Hmmm. was it really him?

Just one example from Comey was a NY times article about a supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians.

This one? It says there were contacts, not collusion. In fact, FTA: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation." And Comey's full statement was:

In the main, it was not true. The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. And we don’t call the press and say, "Hey, you got that thing wrong."

That's hardly enough of a condemnation to declare that the entire MSM has been discredited. Are you saying that you DO trust statements from the WH over CNN?

All these approaches to "read" emotion from people's faces are going to fail because faces don't broadcast emotion. Recent research shows that emotions are constructed differently from person to person, from situation to situation.

Jeff Sessions rolled back the Obama-era drug sentencing guidelines, resulting in the harshest possible sentences for drug offenders... which went almost unnoticed by the MSM.

Yep, almost no media outlet noticed.

Even the political purpose backfired, because it showed that Barack Obama lied once again. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

C'mon, Snowden. She leaked because she's insane, not patriotic.

I don't know about insane, but certainly not very bright. From: Reality Winner, N.S.A. Contractor Accused of Leak, Was Undone by Trail of Clues

Audit trails showed six people had printed copies, but only one — Ms. Winner — had also used a work computer to exchange emails with The Intercept. A search warrant application said she had found the report by plugging keywords into the N.S.A.’s system that fell outside her normal work duties — and had printed no other files.

Dumb enough that either (a) she wanted to get caught or (b) it's been created to make the Trump administration look competent and tough.

Drugs, they've never killed anyone. - Rujiel

Drug Deaths in America Are Rising Faster Than Ever: Drug overdose deaths in 2016 most likely exceeded 59,000. This is greater that the peak car crash deaths, HIV deaths, and gun deaths.
Drug related Homicides accounts for more far more Americna deaths any any war. Thousands are killed in feuds between gangs and dealers looking to expand or protect their drug trade.
People die every day form drug driving.. I know someone who who was completely totaled just last year because of a completely "non-violent drug user". 1 death and 2 others who are never going to recover fully. Statistically, it would of been better had this "non-violent offender" just decided rob a bank at gunpoint.

Trump: I did try and fuck her. She was married.
Unknown: That’s huge news.
Trump: No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.
She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —

Ya know, I expect that if these people currently in prison actually went into the armed services, their chances of committing crime and ending up in prison would been cut dramatically.

The light of the US forces already have had serious problems with their soldiers going on murder sprees on civvies both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, without sending people who actually didn't have an established record of not being able to control themselves.

Yeah, these instances seems to be relatively isolated, but now you're proposing to "open the cages", as it were. Really?

What could possibly go wrong?
 

Video of president colluding with Russain President. Oh, you meant Trump, not Obama... Sorry.

Story of presidental candidate taking BRIBES from Russia to set foreign policy. Oh, sorry again. I forgot you meant Trump, not Clinton.

Did you have some evidence of Trump working with Russia? It sure looks like the DNC was working with them, not Trump. I provided links with evidence. Did you?

lols, poor snowflake

As a private institution, Harvard does indeed have the right to pull the plug on admissions on anyone. However, it is a (and excuse using what often is a logical fallacy ), a slippery slope. With all of the illogical attacks and rampant emotionalism happening on campus these days, I often say to my sig-other, that I would never attend college these days. In fact, as a alumni of one of the most liberal colleges, I don't support the alumni association with donations, instead I give my dough to thefire.org. If you haven't been keeping track, here are a few examples: Yale 2.0 at Evergreen State College, When the left eats its own, Harvard president defends free speech in commencement speech; Harvard still actively suppresses student rights, and the list just goes on and on. The trend away from using logic, peer-review, toward speech-crimes and railing against traditional western liberal free thought and debate is just intellectually mind numbing.

Trump fires [Attourney General] Yates after she refuses to enforce his immigration ban[, which was later found to be illegal by the Supreme Court] (NYT, Jan. 30, 2017).

FTFY

I'm surprised you got this comment in before the Russian trolls started, nice.

But you did miss these from the same citation:

April or May
The FBI focuses on Kushner as a person of interest in their investigation as that effort intensifies. (WP, May 25, 2017).

May 10
Trump fires Comey, citing the recommendation of Sessions (WP, May 10, 2017). In the letter firing Comey, Trump includes a line saying that he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that he is not under investigation (May 10, 2017). The president later tells NBC’s Lester Holt that the firing was because “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story” (CNN, May 12, 2017). Sources indicate that Kushner was a prominent voice behind the firing (CBS, May 17, 2017).

May 11
In a private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reveals classified information shared with the United States by an ally, later reported to be Israel (WP, May 15, 2017). He also reportedly disparages Comey as a “nut job” to Lavrov and Kislyak and says that he “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which was now “taken off” with the firing of Comey (NYT, May 19, 2017).

May 12
Lawyers representing Trump release a statement indicating that the president’s tax returns don’t show income from Russian sources, with a few exceptions (NYT, May 12, 2017).

May 17
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation

And to Anon Ivan's complaint that many of these come from the Post, the answer is that you can find the same information elsewhere too.

Trump fires [Attourney General] Yates after she refuses to enforce his immigration ban[, which was later found to be illegal by the Supreme Court] (NYT, Jan. 30, 2017).

FTFY

I'm surprised you got this comment in before the Russian trolls started, nice.

But you did miss these from the same citation:

April or May
The FBI focuses on Kushner as a person of interest in their investigation as that effort intensifies. (WP, May 25, 2017).

May 10
Trump fires Comey, citing the recommendation of Sessions (WP, May 10, 2017). In the letter firing Comey, Trump includes a line saying that he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that he is not under investigation (May 10, 2017). The president later tells NBC’s Lester Holt that the firing was because “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story” (CNN, May 12, 2017). Sources indicate that Kushner was a prominent voice behind the firing (CBS, May 17, 2017).

May 11
In a private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reveals classified information shared with the United States by an ally, later reported to be Israel (WP, May 15, 2017). He also reportedly disparages Comey as a “nut job” to Lavrov and Kislyak and says that he “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which was now “taken off” with the firing of Comey (NYT, May 19, 2017).

May 12
Lawyers representing Trump release a statement indicating that the president’s tax returns don’t show income from Russian sources, with a few exceptions (NYT, May 12, 2017).

May 17
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation

And to Anon Ivan's complaint that many of these come from the Post, the answer is that you can find the same information elsewhere too.

I would like to see evidence of your claims. I was told Yeats had it, she testified with nothing. Comey, Clapper, Rogers, and the rest have all said no evidence. Comey even said no obstruction of justice either (under oath). Videos of all available. I'm not sure what Flynn did at this point, I have yet to see a specific charge that might be given to him. Apparently he DID register as an agent of Turkey, he just registered incorrectly (a procedural error, not an intentional illegal on and we know INTENTION is important). So I've gone from thinking Flynn dirty to realizing its just a hit job on him.

However, I have seen ACTUAL EVIDENCE of collusion with Russia. Not sure why this isn't brought up in these discussions ever.
Video of Obama colluding with Russian president on what he would do for them just before his reelection. Yep, ACTUAL EVIDENCE of COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA before a presidental election. Hmm. I know the election in question was Clinton vs Trump, not Obama.

Story of Clinton taking FUCKING BRIBES from RUSSIA. Yes, Clinton took BRIBES from Russia!!! OMG WTF!?!?! She took bribes from Russia? Yes she did!

So lets see. No evidence of Trump working with Russia. Evidence of Clinton AND Obama colluding with Russia before an election and to get BRIBES!!!

Ok. Evidence show over. Anyone pushing the fake Trump/Russia story is a piece of shit unless they FIRST acknowledge Obama and Clinton's illegal dealings that are public knowledge with evidence first.

Thank you for your time.

You know what the difference between today and the 1980's were? That the attack in San Bernardino and Pulse Nightclub both could have been stopped. What happened?

Omar got reported, and yet the authorities ended up doing nothing.

But then, the same goes for others.

I suppose we could live in the Draconian Police State you want, but I suspect you'd hate that.

And how about more in the UK, with those girls raped and being sold as sex slaves(just a fyi it's happening in the US too).

Yes, yes, West Texas is full of it.

And the muslims trying to take over schools to turn them into extremist breeding grounds(see trojan horse scandal).

No, that's Christians.

Well what do you know? In those dozens of cases it was all the same thing too.

I think we've got a problem. You know what it is? People are too politically correct and afraid of being labeled racist/islamophobe/etc.

Nope, it's the other way around. People are obsessively racist, islamophobic, and otherwise unable to see the problems are all over.

So afraid that they'll turn a blind eye to people preparing to carry out a terrorist attack. Until that changes this isn't going to change either. We could, avoid the whole "implement internet agenda thing." The answer is in this paragraph. And you know as well as I do that the left has a very long history the last decade of going after people for daring to say "that muslim looks like they're going to blow people up."

Yeah, that's because you say it so much, then you attack some Sikhs.

After all, that's what happened in Rotterdam and why 1000+ girls were raped and used as sex toys after all....for over a decade.

Clean your own closet first.

You don't really care though, that's why you won't even bat an eye at the stuff in your own backyard.

You'll do nothing but scream and pout in a tantrum.

Apparently you are, not only that you're an idiot to boot. The "line that I'm pushing" is people are afraid of doing something and being labeled racist for doing it.

To make it very simple for you: They're willing to look the other way because of fear, and they're willing to look so hard in the other direction that people are dying because of it.

Yes, the FBI is unable to investigate right-wing terrorism because of that attitude.

Some of

You know what the difference between today and the 1980's were? That the attack in San Bernardino and Pulse Nightclub both could have been stopped. What happened?

Omar got reported, and yet the authorities ended up doing nothing.

But then, the same goes for others.

I suppose we could live in the Draconian Police State you want, but I suspect you'd hate that.

And how about more in the UK, with those girls raped and being sold as sex slaves(just a fyi it's happening in the US too).

Yes, yes, West Texas is full of it.

And the muslims trying to take over schools to turn them into extremist breeding grounds(see trojan horse scandal).

No, that's Christians.

Well what do you know? In those dozens of cases it was all the same thing too.

I think we've got a problem. You know what it is? People are too politically correct and afraid of being labeled racist/islamophobe/etc.

Nope, it's the other way around. People are obsessively racist, islamophobic, and otherwise unable to see the problems are all over.

So afraid that they'll turn a blind eye to people preparing to carry out a terrorist attack. Until that changes this isn't going to change either. We could, avoid the whole "implement internet agenda thing." The answer is in this paragraph. And you know as well as I do that the left has a very long history the last decade of going after people for daring to say "that muslim looks like they're going to blow people up."

Yeah, that's because you say it so much, then you attack some Sikhs.

After all, that's what happened in Rotterdam and why 1000+ girls were raped and used as sex toys after all....for over a decade.

Clean your own closet first.

You don't really care though, that's why you won't even bat an eye at the stuff in your own backyard.

You'll do nothing but scream and pout in a tantrum.

Apparently you are, not only that you're an idiot to boot. The "line that I'm pushing" is people are afraid of doing something and being labeled racist for doing it.

To make it very simple for you: They're willing to look the other way because of fear, and they're willing to look so hard in the other direction that people are dying because of it.

Yes, the FBI is unable to investigate right-wing terrorism because of that attitude.

Some of

The NY Times had an article on taking a cargo ship from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes for a week. Sounds like fun.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/travel/great-lakes-montreal-minnesota.html

The reason that your federal taxes won't go down is that Trump's cuts are balanced out by his increases in spending on the military, even though that spending is already larger than military spending by China, Russia, UK, Japan, France, Saudia Arabia, India and Germany combined.

So state governments cannot pick up the slack without raising taxes. Thanks Trump!

Of course, when it comes to climate change, local action isn't really good enough. The US emits more CO2 than any other country except China, and these cities pledging their support for Paris represent not much more than 10% of the U.S. population.

The BBC and the New York Times, to name just a few reputable sources, disagree with your assessment that Greece used rules accepted at the time and were only changed 4 years later:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09...

Practically no country in Europe has maintained the 3% deficit rule all the time. But I think it is not hypocritical to demand this of new applicants, it's just common sense. After all, if you can't even follow the rules at the beginning at least, as a special effort in order to join the bloc, what does this spell for the future?
It's the same logic as a job interview. You will go nicely dressed, shaved with clean shoes and fresh breaths, this doesn't mean you will go like this to work every day, but at least upon joining you should be at your best, no?
Not to mention that Germany had to go through the extra effort of assimilating former east block GDR. Suddenly one third of Germany was a developing country. Greece didn't have this special circumstances.

About the forced WW2 loan. First of all, you are mixing topics, I guess in an effort to show how unfairly Greece is being treated, since this has nothing to do with corruption levels or faking of statistics. And second, I don't know where you got that argument about today's Germany not being united. The real reason for Germany refusing to pay that I'm aware of is explained in this BBC article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Berlin paid 115m Deutschmarks to Athens in 1960 in compensation. It was a fraction of the Greek demand but was made with the agreement there would be no more claims.

Apple is paying next to nothing? We can argue about whether they should be paying more, but let's please not engage in such blatant hyperbole. They're the single largest US taxpayer. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and unlike most other nations, they tax profits globally instead of regionally, which is why US-based companies jump through hoops to move it all overseas. And because of the high tax rate when it's moved to the US, that money stays *out* of the US, doing us no good in terms of tax revenue.

At some point, high taxation becomes counter-productive, as companies look for better deals elsewhere. Yes, we need taxes to keep public infrastructure going, but you have to balance that against global competition for business.

Generating tax revenue complicated. It's not a zero-sum game with easily understood causes and effects, much as it would be nice if they were. One of the most famous examples of unintended tax-related consequences was the US's early 90's luxury goods tax. Partly as a result of this tax, the yacht-building industry in particular took at significant hit, as wealthy customers decided to postpone yacht orders due to the high 10% surcharge. The tax revenue was expected to be $9 billion over a five year period, but actual calculated revenue fell far short, and this was offset by a number of yacht builders going bankrupt and tens of thousands of workers filing for unemployment. When was the last time you saw the New York Times support a tax cut?

I know that if I donated my blood thinking it was going to save a life, and it was instead sold for profit, I'd be a little disturbed.

Do you honestly think blood isn't already sold for profit to hospitals?

Not downtown San Jose in Silicon Valley. Most people who live downtown don't work downtown as tech jobs are located in the surrounding towns (Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto and San Francisco). Downtown San Jose is practically empty during the day. That's the exact opposite to San Francisco that has an extra 2M+ people during the day.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/california-today-san-jose-an-immigration-success-story.html

The FBI, under Comey, was investigating Trump and his political campaign and the ties to Russia

Just because Trump says that Comey wasn't investigating him doesn't make it true.

A bankrupted DNC hired an IT guy who didn't take the FBI warnings about hacking attempts seriously enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

"net neutrality is really important is the Netflix of 10 years ago."

The rule being so hotly debated was only introduced in 2015. It did not exist 10 years ago — if Netflix rose despite this "critical" rule being absent, so can others...

Our memories are so fucking short: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11....

Thanks for that link - I had indeed forgotten. So basically it sounds like she hops from company to company, pretending to be an analyst in an attempt to sway stock prices and increase her personal fortune.

Natural gas and automation killed coal. We didn't even begin to make the coal industry pay for its externalized costs.

This is the equivalent of England taxing the colonies to pay for it's army which it then quartered in the houses of Americans, then without provocation declaring the Colonies were declaring war on it.

Our memories are so fucking short: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11....

Ah, I see you support the return of mass DDT sprayings.

Why not? It was being overused. It was quite effective and isn't very toxic though.
http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04... ... or do any number of searches regarding it.

I can read the paper for free. The reason there is no illustrations of a conch shell is because it follows the fine structure of the layer of the shell, not the macro structure. Here's an article from 2000 which talks about the type of structure being imitated.

In the US if a power company loses computer control of their portion of the grid they still get the joy of rolling trucks out to substations and other locations to maintain control. An interesting thing about the Russian hack of the Ukrainian grid is that the Russians also DoSed the call center to prevent the outages from being reported sooner. Like with any number of cyber attacks there were multiple ways that this should have been stopped but wasn't. One can read all about findings either here or here for good analysis of what happened. Besides if people think a cyber attack against the power grid is the greatest threat they should consider those bastard squirrels instead. If one really wanted to do some damage discharging a high powered rifle (think .30-06 deer rifle) into some of those large transformers at substations would be easier and cause a longer outage than a cyber attack as there just aren't many spares around.

That isn't to say don't worry about cyber attacks and don't mitigate things but there are a lot of other threats that are as damaging or more so that should also be prepared for.

Case in point. Trump just announced that he would cut disability benefits https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

I stopped reading the WSJ when they ran a news story on disability benefits. They searched federal records to find the judge in the US with the most generous records of approving Social Security Disability benefits. He was in West Virginia, which also has one of the worst economies in the US, and about the worst job prospects in the US.

Now SSD is a complicated subject. There's no precise medical or legal definition of "disability". It's pretty easy to say, "He hurt his back, so he can't work in any jobs that are locally available." In fact, there are no jobs locally available. To an extent, SSD is used as a substitute for welfare programs. That's because welfare programs have been cut back, and unlike other countries we have no support for workers displaced by technology and foreign trade deals. There are reasonable arguments on both sides.

Instead of giving the reasonable arguments on both sides, as the WSJ used to do (and as the NYT did in that example), this post-Murdoch hit piece was an attack on the disability judge.

In the old days, I would have thought, "Well, these are journalists I can trust, maybe they've got something here." Now I just think, "It's Murdoch's pro-Trump propaganda, I don't have time to check it out. https://twitter.com/ziobrando/...

As I wrote elsewhere here, I used to be a WSJ fan, until Rupert Murdoch bought them up. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12...

Ironically, their greatest coverge was about the WSJ takeover attempt itself. During the Murdoch takeover, they had stories every day giving the background and details of Murdoch's journalism career, and the Bancroft family. They did it with their usual freedom to write about anything they thought was important, even if it meant airing the family secrets of the publishers.

It turned out that the reason why the WSJ was such a great newspaper was that the Bancroft family had a commitment to great journalism. It was quite profitable and they were willing to accept those profits. The next generation of Bancrofts weren't willing to accept those profits. After I read that series, I understood for the first time how a newspaper works. (Basically, rich publishers do whatever they want. If they want great journalism, they can get it.)

They also exposed Murdoch as an unethical, criminal scumbag. The worst thing he did was to agree to censor news of human rights violations in China, in return for getting his cable networks into China. They also catalogued the promises that he made and broke, in case anybody believed his promises to preserve the WSJ's editorial independence.

The WSJ didn't submit either of those series to the Pulitzer Prize competition.

I ask myself, "Does this news source give all viewpoints, including the ones I disagree with, including the unpopular ones?" I judge them first by the subjects that I'm most familiar with myself (primarily medicine and biology). Classroom example: Does a story about abortion give both (or all) sides? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

In my freshman year of college, even the engineering majors had to take a humanities course. The most valuable book they gave me was John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.... Mill summarized it himself:

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

So I look for a news source that gives me as many ideas as possible, so I can evaluate them myself. A special case is the journalistic rule: Whenever you attack someone, you have an obligation to give him a chance to respond. I worked as a journalist myself, and any journalist can tell you that when you get the other side, it often turns the whole story around.

The one newspaper that did the best job (more than the New York Times) was the Wall Street Journal. For example, they did a story on a welfare work program in California, and interviewed everyone from the governor down to the welfare recipients. (It seemed clear to me that the program wasn't working, but you could come to your own conclusions.) Some of their best reporters were socialists. Their page 1 editor was gay, contracted AIDS, wrote about his treatement with AZT, and got a Pulitzer Prize for it. http://www.pulitzer.org/winner... They wrote about the successes and failures of the capitalist system. The WSJ made their reputation when GM told them to kill a story, threatened to cancel all their advertising if they didn't, and the WSJ told them to fuck off.

But best of all, they gave me ideas every morning that I disagreed with, and I had to figure out whether I was really right.

Then Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ and destroyed the best newspaper in the world, by placing right-wing political commissars over the editing process and censoring liberal ideas. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12... .

So it's back to the New York Times, even though they have an annoying habit of pandering to their advertisers and to the neo-liberal establishment. (I noticed this when I was following auto safety engineering, and the NYT basically followed the auto industry line that seat belts and air bags were too expensive. The auto industry is in the top 2 or 3 newspaper advertisers.)

After that, the best news sources that I read are in the professional journals. Science magazine actually does get all sides. I also read the New England

I ask myself, "Does this news source give all viewpoints, including the ones I disagree with, including the unpopular ones?" I judge them first by the subjects that I'm most familiar with myself (primarily medicine and biology). Classroom example: Does a story about abortion give both (or all) sides? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

In my freshman year of college, even the engineering majors had to take a humanities course. The most valuable book they gave me was John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.... Mill summarized it himself:

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

So I look for a news source that gives me as many ideas as possible, so I can evaluate them myself. A special case is the journalistic rule: Whenever you attack someone, you have an obligation to give him a chance to respond. I worked as a journalist myself, and any journalist can tell you that when you get the other side, it often turns the whole story around.

The one newspaper that did the best job (more than the New York Times) was the Wall Street Journal. For example, they did a story on a welfare work program in California, and interviewed everyone from the governor down to the welfare recipients. (It seemed clear to me that the program wasn't working, but you could come to your own conclusions.) Some of their best reporters were socialists. Their page 1 editor was gay, contracted AIDS, wrote about his treatement with AZT, and got a Pulitzer Prize for it. http://www.pulitzer.org/winner... They wrote about the successes and failures of the capitalist system. The WSJ made their reputation when GM told them to kill a story, threatened to cancel all their advertising if they didn't, and the WSJ told them to fuck off.

But best of all, they gave me ideas every morning that I disagreed with, and I had to figure out whether I was really right.

Then Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ and destroyed the best newspaper in the world, by placing right-wing political commissars over the editing process and censoring liberal ideas. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12... .

So it's back to the New York Times, even though they have an annoying habit of pandering to their advertisers and to the neo-liberal establishment. (I noticed this when I was following auto safety engineering, and the NYT basically followed the auto industry line that seat belts and air bags were too expensive. The auto industry is in the top 2 or 3 newspaper advertisers.)

After that, the best news sources that I read are in the professional journals. Science magazine actually does get all sides. I also read the New England

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach-no-a-computer-wrote-it.html IN a low-key, musical version of the match between Garry Kasparov and the chess-playing machine called Deep Blue, a musician at the University of Oregon competed last month with a computer to compose music in the style of Johann Sebastian Bach.

How does that article not have links to the music? Oh wait, it's from '97.

The earliest instance of computer generated composition is that of Lejaren Hiller and Leonard Isaacson at the University of Illinois in 1955-56. Using the Illiac high-speed digital computer, they succeeded in programming basic material and stylistic parameters which resulted in the Illiac Suite (1957). The score of the piece was composed by the computer and then transposed into traditional musical notation for performance by a string quartet.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach-no-a-computer-wrote-it.html

IN a low-key, musical version of the match between Garry Kasparov and the chess-playing machine called Deep Blue, a musician at the University of Oregon competed last month with a computer to compose music in the style of Johann Sebastian Bach. Steve Larson, who teaches music theory at the university, listened anxiously while his wife, the pianist Winifred Kerner, performed three entries in the contest -- one by Bach, one by Dr. Larson and one by a computer program called EMI, or Experiments in Musical Intelligence.

Dr. Larson was hurt when the audience concluded that his piece -- a simple, engaging form called a two-part invention -- was written by the computer. But he felt somewhat mollified when the listeners went on to decide that the invention composed by EMI (pronounced ''Emmy'') was genuine Bach.

Because most HR departments are lazy and just tick off boxes without checking anything. This even happens at prestigious institutions, dean of admissions at MIT had no credentials and worked there for 28 years. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...

Hmm, let's see... recent terror attacks in the west:
Salman Ramadan Abedi (British)
Anis Amri (Tunisian)
Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel (Tunisian)

- and yet neither Britain nor Tunisia were on Trump's proposed travel restriction list.

Meanwhile, in the USA, domestic terrorism is alive and well.

(Note, this isn't a political point. All this was going on before Trump. But the idea that simply keeping out people from a few countries, apparently hand-picked for their non-involvement with violence to date, will do anything to help is just bizarre.)

Usually future conservatives (aka "bullies"). And when they grow up, Conservatives usually run screaming for "safe spaces" whenever somebody pushes back ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... or http://www.salon.com/2017/04/0... ).

The laughter was because he was stating the incredibly obvious not because he was wrong.

Nah, in this case, they really were mocking him for being wrong (or more accurately, because they were partisans looking to mock). There are many examples still around. Here is one example. The NYT editorial page wrote, "His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics." That's a clear statement that they thought he was wrong (or maybe their article is just craven politics).

What other choice was there?

The NYT article gave examples of the "real" threats: "Al Qaeda and its imitators, Iran, North Korea, economic stresses."

I'll go on record saying I don't think Russia is a threat, and they could become a strong ally if we had a president with any diplomacy skill (Bush Sr did well in that regard. Clinton was decent).

Why? That wasn't news, we already heard about it under Bush.

You're like the parent who confronts his kid's drug use, and then they say they learned it from you.

Who never had to teach grandpa to spy on Americans, let alone suck eggs.

Look, you want to convince me you give a rat's ass about privacy, and aren't just grinding a partisan axe? Show some concern beyond the previous administration, the one that's out of office. Take a gander overseas, or in the boardrooms. Then maybe I'll think it is something other than an irate pretense that you'll drop as soon as somebody else is in office.

That's not what actual research says.

And funny, I also worked at a state university, and every year, the Board chose to raise tuition BECAUSE they had far more applicants willing to pay their federally granted loan money to attend the school than the school could afford to take. Related is the emphasis on out-of-state students, that pay far more. Yeah, the State's portion got cut every year, but no one cared, because the tuition and fees payments went up way more.

University of Michigan, in 2010, had state funding cut by $1.4 million, or about 0.5%, off of $316 million. But they raised tuition by almost 4%, and raised fees as well for a total increase of 7.1% - or $68 million out of $1 BILLION.

So STFU, because you are completely wrong.

“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet,” Mr. McConnell said, after describing Democratic opposition in the past to Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. “And it cannot and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards: one for the nominees of the Democratic president and another for the nominees of Republican presidents.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

The hypocrisy is strong with these jerks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02...

James Burke (creator of the "The Day The Universe Changed") covered a lot of the issues with methane back in a 1990 TV program called "After the Warming:"

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11...

which the farming and petroleum industry worked vigorously to discredit because both create or leak large amounts of methane into the environment as side-effects/externalities/pollution of their profit making businesses.

Looking up info on that program now provides more links to FUD spun by industry groups than accurate information. There are errors in this now 27 year old program, but the basic points are sound.

Organizations never want to pay for the externalities, negative side-effects and pollution their activities create. That will have to change or we'll need to get off this planet before we are buried in externalities.

That is not anti-business. That's a call for responsible enterprises that properly resolve the externalities they create.

Just look at all the domestic spying that has been uncovered, admitted to, and simply resumed without anything being done about it.

You mean the domestic spying which got its real start when Bush forced telecom companies to install equipment which allowed the government to listen in on every phone call without a warrant? That he admitted to signing the executive orders and which were subsequently found to be illegal? Who then went and expanded the program?

You mean those hacks who kept saying over and over it's for our protection, that the right to privacy no longer exists?