Slashdot Mirror

Why?

* $120K in Silicon Valley for a single person means either soul-destroying commutes or living like a student with three random housemates
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

In Google's defense, when people try to build relatively affordable housing around SV, towns tend to permit more office space but will not allow more housing -- even as that is starting to change (maybe too little too late though?):
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

Google private buses do make the commutes easier though -- at a social cost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

* But even if there was cheaper housing, for singles, SV still has a dating problem other than the year 2038:
https://slashdot.org/story/17/...

* Google no longer has quite the reputation it had now that "don't be evil" is just a memory -- especially as Google has become thought of as a key player in the surveillance/malware state (e.g. with Android).

The fundamental problem here is that the software and services the world desperately needs to be resilient, healthy, and free are not the centralized software and services that will make a company like Google the most money (or maybe that much money at all -- e.g. Gnu/etc/Linux/BSD).

* Google's stock is unlikely to appreciate as significantly as in the past given competition, changing digital landscapes, (re)branding issues, falling computer and networking costs makign personal search engines more viable, federated computing and an emerging social semantic desktop, and more

* Google insists everyone work on-site (ironically, for a company about computer mediated experiences) -- and most of the sites are in expensive places to live (and most US jobs are not at the cheaper cost-of-living sites) -- all of which reduces cognitive diversity at Google from a lack of rural perspectives

* Google's 20% time is now 120% time (one big perk gone)
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

Also, Google has not figured out how to try new products without then abandoning ones that are not growing and thus alienating both employees and customers (e.g. Google Reader)

* Google tends to screen out qualified employees by a biased hiring process that, reading between the lines, Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, indirectly admits has failed -- meaning that the current population of Googlers may not be a diverse enjoyable group of people to work with -- while also indirectly implying a very high fine-grained surveillance of all employee activities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06...

* Googlers tend to have little work-life balance, working long hours (made worse by being on-site), meaning Google can't readily attract older workers who have families or participate in community obligations or take vacations
https://www.glassdoor.com/Revi...
"Cons: Absolutely no work life balance. Deteriorating health conditions thereafter."

* But even if Google could boast work-life balance to be of interest to older workers, Google, like most SV companies practices rampant age discrimination anyway

For example:
http://www.computerworld.com/a...

Not that the last is specific to only G

Why?

* $120K in Silicon Valley for a single person means either soul-destroying commutes or living like a student with three random housemates
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

In Google's defense, when people try to build relatively affordable housing around SV, towns tend to permit more office space but will not allow more housing -- even as that is starting to change (maybe too little too late though?):
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

Google private buses do make the commutes easier though -- at a social cost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

* But even if there was cheaper housing, for singles, SV still has a dating problem other than the year 2038:
https://slashdot.org/story/17/...

* Google no longer has quite the reputation it had now that "don't be evil" is just a memory -- especially as Google has become thought of as a key player in the surveillance/malware state (e.g. with Android).

The fundamental problem here is that the software and services the world desperately needs to be resilient, healthy, and free are not the centralized software and services that will make a company like Google the most money (or maybe that much money at all -- e.g. Gnu/etc/Linux/BSD).

* Google's stock is unlikely to appreciate as significantly as in the past given competition, changing digital landscapes, (re)branding issues, falling computer and networking costs makign personal search engines more viable, federated computing and an emerging social semantic desktop, and more

* Google insists everyone work on-site (ironically, for a company about computer mediated experiences) -- and most of the sites are in expensive places to live (and most US jobs are not at the cheaper cost-of-living sites) -- all of which reduces cognitive diversity at Google from a lack of rural perspectives

* Google's 20% time is now 120% time (one big perk gone)
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

Also, Google has not figured out how to try new products without then abandoning ones that are not growing and thus alienating both employees and customers (e.g. Google Reader)

* Google tends to screen out qualified employees by a biased hiring process that, reading between the lines, Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, indirectly admits has failed -- meaning that the current population of Googlers may not be a diverse enjoyable group of people to work with -- while also indirectly implying a very high fine-grained surveillance of all employee activities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06...

* Googlers tend to have little work-life balance, working long hours (made worse by being on-site), meaning Google can't readily attract older workers who have families or participate in community obligations or take vacations
https://www.glassdoor.com/Revi...
"Cons: Absolutely no work life balance. Deteriorating health conditions thereafter."

* But even if Google could boast work-life balance to be of interest to older workers, Google, like most SV companies practices rampant age discrimination anyway

For example:
http://www.computerworld.com/a...

Not that the last is specific to only G

Additional point: in the Seven Samurai movie, even Samurai could not agree on what was the best way to do a certain combat move -- until it was solved by the death of one of them when they did the move for real...

Another difficulty in good programmers recognizing others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others. Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.""

Further, a good programming team in most situations may benefit from diversity. The same characteristics that make some people good at some programming tasks may make it more challenging for them to see some of this diversity.
"The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies" by
Scott E. Page
http://press.princeton.edu/tit...
"The Difference reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. "

An old African proverb says, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

So, there remain no easy answers.

Google is trying Big Data as rutabagaman linked to, which led to this conclusion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06...
"A. On the hiring side, we found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time. How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane? How many gas stations in Manhattan? A complete waste of time. They don't predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.
    Instead, what works well are structured behavioral interviews, where you have a consistent rubric for how you assess people, rather than having each interviewer just make stuff up.
    Behavioral interviewing also works -- where you're not giving someone a hypothetical, but you're starting with a question like, "Give me an example of a time when you solved an analytically difficult problem." The interesting thing about the behavioral interview is that when you ask somebody to speak to their own experience, and you drill into that, you get two kinds of information. One is you get to see how they actually interacted in a real-world situation, and the valuable "meta" information you get about the candidate is a sense of what they consider to be difficult."

But when you think about that, if you are not hiring programmers for their ability to hire other programmers by asking such questions and evaluating such answers, and you are not coaching them on that either, why would you expect they could do a good job of it?

Having *really* good HR people specializing in evaluating developers for a role in a team might in theory be an answer... But then the question is, how do you hire really good HR people? :-)

No, but close.

Most gun deaths are by suicide.

Next up is accidental discharge,

After that, it's homicide by someone the victim knows.

When Americans think about deaths from guns, we tend to focus on homicides. But the problem of gun suicide is inescapable: More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide.

"Fun fact: Pence was hacked. Clintons email server was not."

Fun fact: Pence's email account was hacked. Clintons account we have no idea. Emails were deleted after a court order requesting they were preserved. The hard-drive was professionally "erased" after that was ordered preserved. No way to forensically assess if the server was hacked or not as it no longer exists.

FBI Director Comey: “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” per NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

You are lying when you claim her server wasn't hacked. I would be lying if I said it was. Seeing many of the security profiles of her server back in 2015 (also discussed on slashdot at the time https://politics.slashdot.org/... ). I the it very much UNLIKELY her server wasn't hacked.

The FBI and numerous sources state that it's probable it was hacked. Left wing source and Right wing source just in case you are biased in one direction or the other. Why can be found here, or talk to a security expert who has dealt with forensics if you want the technical details.

Nor are ranks from California.

It used to be that in the US there were no such things as police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. The quasi-military rank structure came into being IIRC in Los Angeles California(?).

http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/P...

1807: The Richmond Police Department officially was established as one of the first formally organized law enforcement agencies in the United States.
...
1861: Virginia seceded from the Union. The president of the newly formed Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, established Richmond as the capital of the CSA Officers began wearing badges and were considered members of the militia.
1863: With the city's population swollen to almost 100,000 by the Civil War, the Richmond Police Department was overwhelmed. As a result, the Department was reorganized with 13 day officers, one of whom was designated the Chief of Police. The night watch was given one captain, three lieutenants and 40 privates.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

As the oldest police department in the country, the Boston Police Department (BPD) has a rich history and a well-established presence in the Boston community. The initiation of a formal department began in 1838, when the General Court passed a bill allowing the city of Boston to appoint police officers. The department was structured after the model developed by Sir Robert Peele for the London Police force.
...
The first police force consisted of 260 officers and a chief. Each division had a captain and two lieutenants; sergeants were not appointed until 1857. In these early days, an officer on duty carried a six-foot pole, painted blue and white to protect himself, and a "police rattle" to call for assistance.

Ranks were there back in the day when police officers were armed with RATTLES.

Ranks are NOT militarization. Police all around the world have ranks. Fire brigades have ranks.

Militarization is when regular police starts employing military weapons, tactics and equipment on daily basis.
I.e. When police thinks that it actually needs those "5,638 bayonets ($307,769) and 36 swords and scabbards", or when campus police thinks it really needs those M16s there is something terribly wrong both with their internal philosophy AND their purchasing program.

Could it possibly be that the USA has been staging these huge military operations around the globe since... oh... the Desert Storm?
And could it be that such huge military operations overseas create an increase in surplus of military equipment - while at the same time draining the budget of money that could be spent on local law enforcement, among other things?
Could it also be that unloading all those hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment onto law enforcement agencies is hiding actual holes in the law enforcement budgets?
And is there a chance that, besides all that surplus military gear, police has also been getting

You know, in isolation, I complete agree with this.

However, this didn't happen in isolation. It happened in an environment where this same organization (part of the Executive branch) has just been found by the Ninth Circuit courts to be attempting to specifically ban as many adherents of a specific religion as they could, including people from this same country, on a transparently flimsy legal pretext. The Administration isn't appealing it any further, which is essentially and admission. This is as close to an objective truth on a political matter as the US legal system has.

So harassing a valid Visa holder from this same country, in context, no longer looks particularly innocent. It looks very much like someone possibly literally being in contempt of court.

I've worked as a programmer mainly at companies in Silicon Valley. I've taken and given plenty of whiteboard coding interviews, including for Google.

The problem is that they were designed originally to find recent college graduates who have topics like red-black trees or counting sort at top-of-mind. This process weeds out older folks who might have a lot more practical knowledge but aren't as well versed with more academic topics that aren't encountered much in the real world. Instead, people are given an expectation that they need to brush up on their academic skills for a non-academic job interview, which is an indicator of a broken process.

Besides, even Google has publicly admitted that there is almost zero correlation between interview scores and the resulting job performance score. It's disheartening to see that they really haven't revisited this process then, despite their claims of data-driven decision making.

The majourity of Muslims live in Asia! Particular Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China, and if you want to count it in: Pakistan. All those nations have no problems with radical Muslims or Sharia.

Indonesia: "Aceh Province, on the northern tip of Sumatra island, stands alone in having formally established Shariah law in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country with a relatively secular Constitution. In Aceh, women are required to dress modestly, alcohol is prohibited, and numerous offenses -- from adultery to homosexuality to selling alcohol -- are punishable by public whipping.

Aceh (pronounced AH-chay) began its experiment with Shariah in 2001, after receiving special authorization from Indonesia's central government, which was intent on calming separatist sentiment in the deeply conservative region. Now, Shariah police officers roam the province, raiding everything from hotel rooms to beaches in a hunt for immoral activity.

In the decade and a half since, Indonesia as a whole has drifted in a conservative direction, and Aceh, once an outlier, has become a model for other regions of the country seeking to impose their own Shariah-based ordinances, alarming those who worry about the nation's drift from secularism."

Malaysia: "The Malaysian Parliament is set to debate a controversial bill that could see stricter forms of sharia law introduced in the state of Kelantan, but critics have warned the so called hudud bill would result in whippings and even the amputations of limbs for crimes such as theft. [..] Kelantan's state capital Kota Bahru is deeply religious and many of its citizens live by a strict adherence to Islam. At shops and supermarkets there are separate queues for males and females, while signs advising women to cover up are common outside offices and government buildings."

India: An interesting political situation with a complex history. The Muslims there are said to be very much not extremists. But maybe that's more because of the history and the current political climate, where Hindus are the dominant population and agitators (after having been dominated earlier by Muslims themselves), and the Muslims that are there were the ones who stayed in India, while practically all the Indians left Pakistan during the split. Even so, India still suffers Islamic terror attacks, especially from neighboring Pakistan (remember those bloody borders), and there are calls for Muslim-rule areas within India.

Pakistan: A hotbed of terrorism and militant Islam, and dominated by Sharia.

China has problems with Islamic separatists, but they are an authoritarian state and have managed to keep a lid on it.

Other countries you haven't mentioned:

Afghanistan: Taliban and al Qaeda.

Philippines: Home to an Islamic separatist movement. In the news recently.

Or I can name several countries in Africa, like Mali, Nigeria, and Somalia.

Or I could talk about Russia.

I'm going to stop here because I don't want to make an exhaustive list.

Turkey was "safe" before Erdogan came

Yes, because a popular military commander picked up the pieces from the Ottoman empire and forced a secular government on the nation. Several military coups and a nearly century later, it's being undone by an elected Muslim leader, and the last military coup has failed.

Do you see a pattern here? ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS. It's founding prophet was a military warlord who imposed Sharia law.

The ISIS idiots on the other hands are simply power hungry idiots. That they es

What culture were the 5-year-olds raised in? What foods were they exposed to? Seriously: food preferences and cultural preferences start developing at a much younger age.

It's not about food preference. Processed food like Doritos are engineered to stimulate senses. See:

Nacho-cheese-flavor Doritos, which contain five separate forms of glutamate, may be even richer in umami than the finest kombu dashi (kelp stock) in Japan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...

Someone who eats Doritos (or similar) needs a cleansing, even some kind of rehab, before they can again enjoy natural food. That's why fresh fish or venison stands no chance compared to processed food, no matter how the people were raised.

. . . but as an initial point, what's wrong with requiring drivers in ENGLAND to show mastery of ENGLISH ??

But secondly, that's actually a minor hurdle, compared to the "knowledge" required to pass the legendarily hard London Cab Drive License Test.

Specifically:

To achieve the required standard to be licensed as an “All London” taxi driver you will need a thorough knowledge, primarily, of the area within a six-mile radius of Charing Cross. You will need to know: all the streets; housing estates; parks and open spaces; government offices and departments; financial and commercial centres; diplomatic premises; town halls; registry offices; hospitals; places of worship; sports stadiums and leisure centres; airline offices; stations; hotels; clubs; theatres; cinemas; museums; art galleries; schools; colleges and universities; police stations and headquarters buildings; civil, criminal and coroner’s courts; prisons; and places of interest to tourists. In fact, anywhere a taxi passenger might ask to be taken.

"Maximizing profits is a legal obligation to shareholders for publicly traded companies"

That concept is FALSE:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

The problem is "race" is such a nebulous term. It has no scientific underpinning

Bullshit. The differences between races, such as susceptibility to certain diseases and ability to digest certain foods is scientifically established. The physical features (round vs. narrow eyes, skin color, hair) are even more self-evident.

None of it is a "social construct"...

I'll substitute your cherry picked examples with actual statistics.

And then you provide no links... HMMM.

In fact the comparison you are making is highly misleading.

Which is why you provide no proof, because it would show just how misleading your assertion was.

Starbucks treats their employees well and they pay more than fair trade prices for the coffee, so they are in fact a better influence on the neighborhood and the world than plenty of small coffeeshops.

Bullshit. Starbucks is known for having irregular shifts so that part-time workers can't find a second job, was caught keeping their workers' tips (thankfully they lost that lawsuit) and in the face of increasing minimum wage they reduced workers' hours, effectively leaving more work for fewer people.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fo...
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
http://www.reuters.com/article...

> I use ethnicity for the most part just because of the silly destruction of the term race.

The term "race" isn't being destroyed. It isn't even changing. All that's changed is that you are running into the limits of your grade-school understanding of the world. Time to grow up. Biology has always been a small and completely arbitrary part of race. For example, it wasn't until just a little over 100 years ago that the Irish and Italians were considered "white." You know that phrase "Tall, dark and handsome?" - That was never about black men, it was about europeans. People who were not white then but are now.

Here's Ben Franklin expounding on the concept of whiteness as commonly understand at the time:

That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Furthermore, the one group of people who consistently think race is not genetic? Actual geneticists.
For example, Dr Craig Venter, you might have heard of him, he created the Human Genome Project.
Venter had this to say 16 years ago:

''Race is a social concept, not a scientific one''

FYI, "ethnicity" and "race" - they are basically the same thing.

ethnicity
noun
        The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Why do 1st world workers feel an overbearing sense of entitlement that they deserve special privileges?

Yes, as fluffernutter said and because we already proven the unfettered capitalism will eat itself.
"Capitalism may be the best economic system ever devised, but one of its drawbacks is that it provides financial incentives to harm and even kill people." - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

Indian engineers were shot and killed in Kansas. These are not the type of Indians that historically have had to fear for their lives in Kansas, a Red state. It is suspected that a disgruntled /. reader may be the perp. Most people feel this is not a good alternative to simply fixing or getting rid of the H1-B program.

Between Fowler's accusations, the recent NYT article on Uber's company culture and Waymo's suit for theft of autonomous driving sensor designs, Kalanick & co are going to have a lot of face time with investigators

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

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/...

isn't the toll on the internet (or paid prioritization) what net neutrality is supposed to prevent?

That's right. You think that Republicans support Net neutrality? Certainly as late as 2015 they were calling it "Obamacare for the internet" https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

4. Thomas Jefferson, the most-oft cited slave-owning Founder, never bought nor sold a single slave.

False, Jefferson actually bought and sold several slaves in his lifetime.

You may not think the numbers considerable, but it does show you lie. Or perhaps you're the victim of the censorship and lying of others.

Trump Toughens Some Facets of Lobbying Ban and Weakens Others

While the title is technically true, the parts he strengthened is much more significant than the ones he weakened. Even the critics they interviewed conclude that this is a big step in the right direction. But if you only read the title, you'd think it didn't do much at all. So if NYT was reporting in earnest, the title should've been "Trump Strengthens Lobbying Ban with new Executive Order".

I looked at one example at random, but I'm sure there are others like his ending the TPP or the jobs that he kept from moving to Mexico by literally calling the CEO of the company. And that's not getting into controversial topics like his deporting of illegal immigrants, which if you think about it, is just enforcing existing immigration laws created by congress, something that any president should've been doing. This is neutral in my book, but I guarantee you, every NYT article on it is going to be negative.

He does plenty of stupid stuff worthy of being called out on, so there's absolutely no need to try to make him look bad elsewhere. He does it all to himself.

Other NYT stories tell a different side but you have your ideological blinders on I see.

It's applicable to BOTH sides, however, and its fucking up our elections. For your consideration:

Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia.

Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.

“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”

He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

The Washington Post has a similar article centering on Milo Yiannopoulos' backfiring at CPAC, but more broadly about how many of today's conservatives consider themselves "reactionaries" to what they see as smug, liberal intellectuals hell-bent on making even the most moderate conservative feel like an asshole, only to find themselves embraced by an "extremely lucrative... conservative-media industrial complex" which encourages bullshit-artists like Anne Coulter and Yiannopoulos because being an asshole grabs air-time and sells books. Whether it's all in their heads is beside the point. The point is enough people think this way to turn an election, either because they voted Trump as above, or they stayed home.

Until the U.S. can get past this finger-pointing you're-an-asshole no-you're-an-asshole bullshit, we can only expect more of the same. Fuck all I hope for is that Trump doesn't start a fucking war on account of his completely dissing the nation's intelligence community: "[Trump] has little need for intelligence professionals who, in speaking truth to power, might challenge the 'America First' orthodoxy that sees Russia as an ally and Australia as a punching bag. That’s why the president’s trusted White House advisers, not career professionals, reportedly have final say over what intelligence reaches his desk." This ain't no shit - the last time a (vice) president ignored intelligence, like there seriously ain't no WMD's in Iraq, we wound up in a war which we are STILL paying for. The only question worth asking is, how in fuck did we get here, and the answer is both sides blaming each other and calling each other assholes, grossing out all the "normal people" until almost HALF feel too disgusted to bother casting a vote.

Yes, we need bullshit-detectors in a world that churns out so much of it, but we also need to learn how to be civil to each other... or we'll just wind up with more blow-hards running things as we just pray that the markets don't collapse or we don't wind up in another war (and Trumps' just crazy enough to re-instate the draft... you 16-to-twenty-something-year-olds put that in your bowl and smoke it).

Coverage of the Zimmerman case is an example of why I learned to distrust the NYT. A reporter's job is to provide all the relevant facts so that a reader can have a better sense of what actually happened, and be fair and impartial, but this article doesn't do that. It makes heavy use of sources antagonistic to the subject and leaves out pertinent information, making the bias quite plain to me. It reminds me of the oft used Mark Twain quote about lies, damn lies and statistics; while factual, the presentation can be biased such that the impression a reader has is not an accurate or complete one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05...
This one was on Page 11 and drafted 2 years earlier. Make you feel any better, you shill?

Go jack off to Alex Jones and enjoy your bubble of ignorance.

TBH, that goes both ways and why I find the Horse-shoe theory applicable. Both sides are doubling down and the real question is which side is pissing off the middle more than the other. Right now, I think more people are getting fed up with the left, hence POTUS Trump. Yea, Trump is disliked but that was true before he was elected. Obviously, that dislike wasn't enough. All he has done is what he promised on the campaign trail, like it or not. Just like the ACA that pissed off R's that Obama said he would do. Polls show his E.O. travel ban was popular . Looks like it is disliked by D's that wasn't going to like anything he did. Go figure.

Sure, there are some issues with the press and government over truthiness but neither have authority over truth. I like the government and media at odds because they should be critical of each other and not give a pass. No scandals from Obama? Right...

What is definitive is the violence is more often then not coming from the left. Whether that is paid agitators at campaign rallies or the antifa on inauguration and Berkley. There are allegations of *isms and *ists but a lot of those reports have been either false or carried out by people trying to craft that narrative of *isms and *ists. Like this.

If I had to gander a guess as to which is more repugnant to normal people; I would venture the guess to the violence, false accusations, and poorly justified allegations..

Shut up, you fucking liar.

Actually, it's millions,

No - in the story in question, it is billions... You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of paraphrasing.

It's makes you writing much more interesting and relevant when using old quotes.

Let's review your words:

As the old saying goes: Billions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!

Unfortunately for you, this expression means you're claiming the old saying follows your own words, so sorry, Superkendall, but in the old saying, it is, in fact, millions, making you mistaken.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the XYZ Affair. It was actually an attempt to foment hawkish aggression in the matters of the nation, a less desirable goal than many people realize.

Now if you had initially indicated you were deliberately modifying it, you'd be believable since you'd be establishing your alteration from the start, but you didn't phrase yourself in such a way. Furthermore, your reaction is to attack by characterizing the person, rather than simply claim you were editing it, while lacking in further content and examination yourself. Thus making it more likely you didn't actually know you were misquoting it, and are just uselessly trying to insist you meant to change it all along, in a defensive reaction since you can't just admit to the error due to your own ego. Sorry, but that's the consequences of your choice to

Next time, however, if you do not wish to be shown to be mistaken so easily, consider that the problem was your choice of expression. You'll be less likely to sound foolish.

Anyway, here are some more words to consider:

HENRY FORD TO PUSH WORLD-WIDE CAMPAIGN FOR UNIVERSAL PEACE

Will Devote Life and Fortune to Combat Spirit of Militarism Now Rampant.

LAUGHS AT THOSE WHO PREDICT SUCCESSFUL INVASION OF U. S.

Scores Hypocrites Who Pretend to Be Religious, Yet Foster War For Sordid Gain.

"I will do everything in my power to prevent murderous, wasteful war in America and in the whole world; I will devote my life to fight this spirit which is now felt in the free and peaceful air of the United States, the spirit of militarism, mother to the cry of 'preparedness' preparedness, the root of all war."

These words, uttered Saturday by Henry Ford, hater of war and visualizer of vast foresight, marked the beginning of what will henceforth be the life-work of the man to strike with everything he commands at what he declares to be the direct cause of all wars and all national antipathies that breed war "preparedness."

"I would teach the child at its mother's knee," said Mr. Ford, "what a horrible, wasteful and unavailing thing war is. In the home and in the schools of the world I would see the child taught to feel the uselessness of war; that war is a thing unnecessary; that preparation for war can only end in war.

Will Give Much to End Wasteful "Preparation"
"I have prospered much, and I am ready to give much to end this constant, wasteful 'preparation.' Not by building palaces of peace, not by inspiring fearful peace by powerful armament, but by teaching the men, women and children of America that war does not threaten us, that war will not reach us, that the fullness of peace is their inheritance, not the burden of militarism with its heavy hand that curbs liberty and its foul sustenance upon the blood, the labor and the toil-earned happiness and goods of the worker.

Entire World United in Demand for Peace
"This I would make a world work, for all the world cries for peace, and there can be no peace wh

Glass is water-soluble. That's why supply houses sell distilled water in plastic jugs. http://www.chemworld.com/ChemW...

That's why the F.D.A. recommends against using lead glass containers for long-term storage. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02...

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

So the Clinton's go to some city to do some charity work and to give some paid speeches. How should they do that?

Should they use two different staffs? That's a lot of extra money and hassle.

Should they personally pay their staff to work for the charity? Sure, but they're spending a lot of their own money.

Or they could do what they did, have the charity pay for the same staff when that staff is working for the charity.

Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

I don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State. But if she was President they'd be completely detached from the foundation, there would be no opportunity for someone to donate to a Clinton charity because there would be none.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

A "power player" is not a government official, former politicians cashing in is not new, even if the politician might return to a position of power.

The difference is that Trump is currently President.

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

ay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

Hey look and listen.

How long do you think it's going to take Pence to stage a coup?

I guess you'd prefer the New York Times then: "But when it comes to the most lethal form of force -- police shootings -- the study finds no racial bias."

Not that I needed a study by a black Harvard professor or a report by the New York Times to tell me Black Lies Matter was bullshit. Ferguson "hands up, don't shoot" was a complete lie from the beginning (the "gentle giant" Michael Brown was a thug), and they draw inspiration from a cop-killing, Black power terrorist fugitive living in Cuba (you won't see the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CNN talk about that much, will you). Their rhetoric has led to riots, assaults, and dead cops.

And for what? A handful of controversial cases to spin a false narrative that there was an epidemic of police shooting blacks, while more blacks kill each other in Chicago alone than police do across the entire nation.

sitting on evidence that the Trump campaign was in bed with the Russians

Ahh, Russians - the modern Goodwin law comes into effect.

It's funny you liberal simpletons have such a problem with Trump communicating with Russians - do you even understand how diplomacy is done? It involves talking to foreign governments.... DUH.

Couldn't find our message complaining about Obama telling Putin he would have more flexibility after the election... No "Red" flags there (har har!), no sir!

I'll let you have the last word since you conspiracy nuts cannot help but dig a deeper hole.

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Here's one now - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/leaks-donald-trump.html

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Seems you realize what I'm saying and chose to ignore it.

I'm realizing what you're saying, and pointing out that it is wrong.

I really can't say it more clearly. Fake news means making up facts . You are saying people should be outraged by the leaks out of the Trump administration. Well, fine, you can think that if you want. That's perfectly valid opinion. However, if a news article does not happen to write that opinion in the body of an article, not writing it does not make that news article fake news. Fake news means making up facts .

OK, there may be a huge difference between one type of leak and another. You may even label that "false equivalence" if you like. But it's not fake news unless they are making up facts.

Got it? Fake news is news that is incorrect because it is made up with no regard to facts. Fake news is not "an article that didn't express an opinion that I personally think should have been expressed."

Look, this is important: there is a clear and bright distinction between news that expresses an opinion that you think is wrong, and "news" that simply makes shit up with the intent to outrage without any intent whatsoever to be consistent with reality. Making shit up is fake news.

it may also be used to track who is going to a political rally or protest, or who is visiting a dissident.

This would've been a valid concern, if being a "dissident" were in any way dangerous in our country. And it is not.

Certainly not lately — on the contrary, supporting the elected President or the majority-holding Party is what can get you beaten up or reported to your employer (and subsequently fired).

Dissidents in the US denounce the sitting President to the ovations from audiences, fearing not one bit neither for personal safety nor for job-prospects.

So, no, any concern over police identifying "dissidents" in a free country is invalid. But helping the officers separate known rioters from peaceful — even if excited — protesters is a useful thing.

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Here's one now - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/leaks-donald-trump.html

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Seems you realize what I'm saying and chose to ignore it. I showed they've been lying for almost a century and that was made clear. The second one you chose to believe the fake news again, or you really don't get it. There is a huge difference between a leak and a leak that happened here. Maybe that was really lost on you. This isn't some dumbass handler (Podesta) with a password of - password or asshole at Justice or on the Hill, these guys are trusted with some of the most sensitive information the country has. The leak shows that they can get whatever they want and this is something intelligence *NEVER* divulges because it really tips their hand, in fact it shows their hand. Let's be honest about it. Hell of it is, I don't want to seem as if I wanted Trump to be President. I didn't. I don't. However he is what we have and we shouldn't throw the country away just because the left lost big time due to their continued stupidity. I wasn't a fan of BO, he really did what he could to screw the country all the way up to the last moments he was POTUS as it turns out. There is a LOT of stuff that the public really should know about him and what he did, however none of that stuff is coming out. Probably never will. The stuff everyone knows like what he did to Isreal was just him measuring his cock on the way out. However I'm sure they'll keep his very very dirty laundry secret.

Of course, I'm assuming that you care. I'm thinking you don't, until the country falls and you're the one in big trouble. Don't worry, things will heat up fast. We have the Netherlands (Wilders will win), France (Le Pen will win) that have elections, then France will exit the EU... The EU will disolve... and so on. 2017 will be a hell of a ride. We really need a different kind of guy as POTUS right now. Trump would have been fine the past 8 years, not now. We need a guy more like Eisenhower. I hope Trump is up to the task. IMHO he is way, and I mean way way way better than if Hillary were in office. She'd fubar it good. Probably destroy the whole world.

As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.

An Obama-appointed AG that was on their way out the door anyways and was playing leftist politics.

As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.

He criticized a ruling. Boo hoo. Kinda like when Obama embarrassed the Supreme Court judges at his State of the Union address for the Citizens United ruling? Actually, Obama's was worse:

"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices' faces."

That's from the New York fucking Times, back before they completely went anti-Trump apeshit.

As well as positioning himself in opposition to all the mainstream media, and siding with a horrific shit of a news outlet.

Because the mainstream clearly had a bias against Trump, and became "horrific shits" themselves.

As well as dumping 90% of the experience of the National Security Council, and putting the former chairman of that shit of a news outlet onto the Principle Committee of the NSC.

A neutral and non-screechy article on the matter provides a different perspective.

As well as pissing off major foreign leaders.

Wah, wah. He's not Obama and he's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.

As well as inviting un-vetted guests, including foreign nationals, to stand over him while he reads top secret intelligence on North Korea and south east asia.

Yeah, he fucked up.

And lets not talk about his child-like attitude on Twitter...

Sounds like you're talking about it. Boo hoo, he's mean on Twitter, just like he was during the campaign.

Some other things he's done:
- Put the focus back on American jobs.
- Put a spotlight on government waste via over-priced mega projects.
- Met with foreign leaders.
- Ramped up deportation of illegal immigrants.
- Set goals for reducing regulations and their costs.
- Nominated a Supreme Court justice.

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Here's one now - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/leaks-donald-trump.html

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Here are a few other sources that appear to say the same thing:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15...
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Yea, you're right. It was just way too much to ask the reporter to look 5 feet to the left and not come to crazy conclusions. What were we thinking?

Besides, what if Trump removed it? It's his office after all. Why is that news in the first place? MLK was never in there before BO. Can't he have what he wants in the office? No, it was written to incite hate.

Let's see you get out of this one - the Durante Pulitzer for the NY Times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . What, them remove their prize? NEVER. Fake news, since at least the 1930s. Don't think I had to go back to the 1930s. It probably wouldn't be all that hard to find a fake article from today. Here's one now -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

So here they are making a comparison between a leak from the DNC, based on a password of - password, that are not government secrets to something that was illegally obtained, from a private citizen, mischaracterized and was at probably the highest level of secret we have and wonders why Trump isn't happy? If that's leaked, nothing is safe. The nation isn't safe regardless of who is in the white house. Brad Manning for example caused all kinds of problems for BO when he did it. I guess BO forgot about that when he pardoned him. If he had any sense he would have made him serve his sentence.

This isn't funny. They need to get these guys and put their head on a pike.

While I tend to agree, I think there are some times when it's appropriate to have auto-playing content (maybe only restricted to silent content). For example, multimedia-rich pages such as this benefit from a tasteful (in my opinion) use of multimedia.

That's a terrible multimedia rich page. It looks like it's supposed to be a written article but it takes over THE ENTIRE WINDOW to show a stupid video of a boat. Scroll down and it jars into a written article. Keep scrolling and it jars into another fucking full page video. Particularly annoying if you're scrolling at high speed. This is actually only of the worst fucking uses of autoplay video I've seen.

I also don't know what the deal is with blogs now deciding that all their images must be animated GIFs instead of stationary pictures.

About the only place that autoplay videos / sound are acceptable are on audio or video sites (Youtube for example, with the caveat that it's annoying on the channel page)

I read the phrase "think that over" as meaning you disagree with the quoted text. However, your link does not contradicting that statement, unless you also believe Clinton employed less rhetoric during the campaign. Wikipedia defines rhetoric as "the art of discourse, wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade or motivate particular audiences in specific situations". Even if we use the less formal definition ("excessively flowery or emotional, often meaningless, speech") can you truly say Clinton employed fewer such devices?

I find such assertions ridiculous; the politician's primary job is to be persuasive, and the most effective tools to do so are the subtle, often trite, phrases which hook into their audience's existing biases. Someone arguing that a slogan, whether "Stronger Together" or MAGA, is not an attempt to persuade tells me more about their bias than it does the politician using it.

See this report for example; excerp - "About 37 percent of Americans live in regions where a Leaf’s greenhouse gas emissions would equate to a gasoline-powered vehicle rated at 41 to 50 m.p.g.". That's about what I get from my diesel car, which is a 2 litre sporty car that delivers a lot more performance than a Leaf while delivering 45mpg. And that's taking the grid in those areas as a whole; it probably isn't 100% coal even in the worst places. So I'm afraid you're wrong.

While I tend to agree, I think there are some times when it's appropriate to have auto-playing content (maybe only restricted to silent content). For example, multimedia-rich pages such as this benefit from a tasteful (in my opinion) use of multimedia. That said, the ability to choose click-to-play settings (either globally or domain-specific) would be a Good Thing. And of course, there's a special place in hell for any website which allows auto-play ads with audio.

Do you work for the NYT or something? I have yet to see a single news website that succeeds at "tasteful use of multimedia." NYT might be better than most because they're historically a print media, but I don't go to a freaking news website to watch a video! I go there to read the news! If I wanted to watch a video and listen to some multimedia, I'd probably go to YouTube or turn on my TV. In the rare instances where the article makes me want to watch some footage, I'd like to be able to choose to do so instead of having the video shoved down my throat at the top of the article I am trying to read. I can read the whole article in half the time it takes some news anchor to blabber on about the content.

"A federal appeals court decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on Friday, saying its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls."-July 29, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

While I tend to agree, I think there are some times when it's appropriate to have auto-playing content (maybe only restricted to silent content). For example, multimedia-rich pages such as this benefit from a tasteful (in my opinion) use of multimedia.

That said, the ability to choose click-to-play settings (either globally or domain-specific) would be a Good Thing.

And of course, there's a special place in hell for any website which allows auto-play ads with audio.

And they decided that a group of people has the same rights as a single person

Not quite. What courts have ruled in previous decisions is that individuals have rights, and individuals don't lose rights just by joining a group. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the difference is profound, especially in the Citizens United case.

Quick background: Michael Moore, during the 2004 election cycle, released Fahrenheit 9/11, which advocated de-electing President Bush. Citizens United complained that this was a violation of the campaign finance reform, but the FEC said it was just a documentary and not advertising subject to campaign finance regulation. So Citizens United did the same thing, but on the other end of the political spectrum. Citizens United created a documentary on Hillary Clinton, and released it during the 2008 election cycle. This time, however, just when the content happens to be critical of a Democrat, the FEC said it was advertising subject to campaign finance regulation, and banned the movie as illegal campaigning.. Hence, the lawsuit.

In arguing the case before the Supreme Court, the court asked how far such a ban could go. Roberts asked a 500-page book had a single sentence in it that said “vote for X” could be banned under this same law. The government said yes, if corporate money were used to pay for the book. Given the first amendment implications banning books, the court ruled it an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment.

While I am not comfortable recognizing corporations as persons, I think they did the right think in this case given the circumstances.

Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way.

No, the term "fake news" is looney left propaganda made up in the face of Hillary's loss to explain why she lost.

No, fake news really exists, although it the term has been coopted to mean "stuff I don't agree with." There were web sites that basically completely made stuff up. some of them had small print claiming that they were satire, like this one http://www.thatsfake.com/did-e... but some of them were just clickbait sites, making shit up and trying to go viral with links reposted so that they could score with clicks, like this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

You're right to this extent, though, the term is much over-used recently.