Slashdot Mirror

Those of us with memories also know that Hillary as secretary of state took credit for parts of the Arab Spring and was trying to take credit for the Libya uprising until it went south. This was so prominent at her time in the State Department that Putin even accused her of interfering in Russian affairs and organizing protests after a parliament election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12...

If Russia was involved in the US election, it was likely retaliation for that. People who remember that don't worry that their involvement was to help trump but assume it was little more than to defeat Clinton who has been accused or similar crap.

Tricky Dicky had a pretty fair record,

Unless you count stuff like sabatoging peace talks in the Vietnam war. Causing the death of thousands of Americans and more Vietnamese is a really heavy counter-weight to the good stuff he did.

This is more likely a response to Russia's actions during the election.

So, NOW Obama reacts to Russian hacking?

What about when the Russians hacked the White House itself? Obama did nothing.

What about when China hacked the entire OPM database of cleared government workers? Obama did nothing.

What about when Russia had penetrated the entire State Department network? Obama did nothing. (So given Obama's fecklessness, Hillary actually did have a reason to run a separate email system - but she didn't run it securely and it was probably hacked by everyone: Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say)

Obama did nothing until Democrats needed an excuse for Hillary's loss.

This is very reminiscent of the Microsoft / Windows / Internet Explorer monopoly / anti-trust arguments. "Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, you're free to buy an Apple computer... Or install Firefox." Not the same, of course. Apple doesn't tie the app store to it's OS. Although, since you can only use the App Store on an iPhone, it doesn't have to be tied to the OS.

Attached is a small article on the US. vs. Microsoft. It's amazing the similarities. And we know how the court ruled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04...

What makes you say that? Everything that Trump has said in the past about it has been in support of LGBT rights, not against.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

But perhaps you were just trolling?

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

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

Amazon: Amazon Under Fire Over Alleged Worker Abuse in Germany (February 19, 2013)

Microsoft: Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)

Seattle: Together with Microsoft and bad city management, Seattle is a miserable place:

Traffic: Seattle one of the worst U.S. cities for traffic congestion, tied with NYC (March 31, 2015) Quote: "An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.)

Slow internet: Many areas of Seattle have poor internet connections. See the article, These places have the slowest Internet in the country. (June 25, 2015) Quote: "... Seattle ... CenturyLink (CTL) customers trying to access particular sites from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. will have unbearably slow speeds."

Realize though that the reason people working for a corp don't go to jail is mostly on the shoulders of the DoJ. If the DoJ wanted to throw the CEO in prison for something illegal the company they are responsible for did, they can. See here for evidence. If you would like to see the DoJ throw more CEOs in prison for wrong doing of their companies, demand it of your elected officials and vote them out if the refuse. This actually is one item you can directly blame the president for since he actually does preside over the DoJ.

I don't know if a roulette wheel will pay out on the next spin, but I DO know how fast I'll lose money if I continue to put my money down on black.

That's the difference between weather and climate. You don't need to predict the next 5 day's weather to know that 100 years from now we're fucked if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere... and we may be fucked even if we manage to reduce greenhouse gases dramatically in the near future.

The data HAS been verified. For instance, look at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. This was a project funded by right-wing activists who doubted the climate science. They specifically objected to use of satellite data and felt that terrestrial weather stations were not being vetted correctly. (For instance, showing pictures of temperature stations a few feet away from buildings or barbecues which they said tainted the results.) The Berkeley guys were led in part by Richard Muller, who has been a long-time skeptic. They went and got original raw data, and did a thorough job vetting each data point.

The result is that their data agrees completely with the climate change models. Muller's public summary is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...

There are other contrarian opinions, but very few of them work with large data sets in any honest way. Nearly all the contrarian viewpoints can be linked to right-wing money and other professional gains that their mainstream colleagues do not enjoy.

But mostly, the arguments they make are trash - which is why they aren't published. They're dumb ideas, easily seen through. Science works by honest appraisal of ideas and data, not opinion or groupthink as you seem to believe. It's not perfect - lord knows I disagree with a lot of scientific colleagues' approaches - but by and large good science tends to win out over bad science.

Had it been American authorities, Apple would've put up a heroic fight. But helping Russian (and Chinese) efforts to keep tabs on their citizens and enable dragnets by foreign governments — well, that's just complying with local laws, nothing to see here.

...

Meanwhile, the US has just voted for more coal. Maybe, if we are lucky, some more fracking too.

The future is bright! (for china)

While I would never ever recommend voting for Trump or any derivatives thereof, and while many voters may have believed they were voting for more coal they also liked his line about mexico paying for his monument to racism. As with many things Trump, just because he says it, doesn't mean he will do it, or even try to do it. Hillary ain't going to jail either. He flat out admitted he only said that to get votes. Surprise surprise..

I just don't think coal is going to happen that much. Natural gas is pretty much cheaper right now. It also produces less CO2. Here is a random link. There are various others.

Is natural gas the perfect solution? Certainly not. Fracking has problems, but right now they look like manageable problems. Compared to putting someone wanting to destroy the EPA in charge of it, Natural gas is a tempest in a teacup.

> I'm only one person, I don't have time to debunk all this nonsense you keep posting.

Feel free to stop.

You don't know it, because you're actually the conspiracy theorist kook on this site, but most of the fake news comes from you. Like, you know, when you tried to argue the PizzaGate scandal was real and so on, so you'll actually be solving the goal you profess to solve which is good.

What you're really saying is that you're getting worn out being the only guy willing to prop up fake news and conspiracy theories. That's really not a loss to most of us if you stop that though you know?

The only people that have killed off the tech angle are people like you that are more interested in implying political opponents are paedophiles than actually having a decent rational discussion. If it upsets you that the site isn't what it used to be then all you have to do is stop being one of the key causes of that.

We really really don't want you to keep defending fake news and the fact you call this widespread issue a conspiracy theory is astounding. What, you really think all those Moldovan and Macedonian kids who admitted they make a fortune peddling it are CGI or paid to say that or something? If they were then that would in itself mean it was fake news, hence destroying your argument of it being a mere conspiracy theory anyway:

https://www.ft.com/content/333...

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/wo...

http://en.publika.md/moldova-s...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://www.pri.org/stories/201...

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

It doesn't matter what media left, or right, or what part of the world you look in - Serb or British, Macedonian or American, the problem is real. The fact you want to pretend fake news isn't real says all that needs to be said about you.

If you don't have time to keep trying to debunk the truth then you may want to consider that that's because the truth can't be debunked. You're fighting a battle you can't win, because you're fighting a battle against reality purely because you can't accept that you spent the last 6 months of your life riding Slashdot's ass to defend countless fake news stories and peddle them as fact. You were duped by a 16 year old Macedonian kid, so accept it and get the fuck on with your life if you can't cope with the pressure of trying to mask your own failings.

I think this just reminds you that Kodak missed the boat a long time ago,

Kodak didn't miss the boat. They made the boat. They invented the digital camera in 1975. They were the pioneer of digital sensor technology. In the 1990s they made the first series of digital backs which fit into the film slot of existing professional SLRs (with a hard drive for storing the pictures). The damn things cost $20,000, but were immensely popular with the press who often had reporters shooting in remote locations where it was impractical to develop film. The reason Kodak has managed to stick around this long is because they owned the vast majority of early patents on digital photography. So they were kept afloat by a huge amount of royalties.

They knew exactly where the future lay. How they screwed up is that they didn't have a marketable technology once film was gone. Fuji at least had the foresight to branch out into making cameras (decent cameras, not the cheap consumer crap Kodak churned out). So when Fuji's film revenue dried up, they had camera revenue to fall back on. Film cameras and digital cameras aren't all that different to make. Kodak OTOH only concentrated on the low-end consumer camera market (e.g. disposable cameras). Digital cameras made this camera market segment obsolete right along with film, leaving Kodak with no marketable consumer products. They were the leader in sensor technology, but didn't own any fabs. That meant they knew what to make, but they didn't know how to make it. So Sony, who had a lot of experience making electronics, ended up dominating the digital sensor market (most camera phones and point and shoot digicams use Sony sensors).

I think you mean Obummer. Trump isn't in yet.

Someone ought to tell him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

The FBI and the CIA seem to disagree with you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01...

James Clapper lied about U.S. cybersecurity. James Clapper is the U.S. Director of National Intelligence. He resigned.

Two big issues:

1) If he feels comfortable lying, can anything he says be considered to be reliable?

2) He is 75 years old. Photos of him give the impression he is extremely conflicted. (See the resignation story.) Does he have any technical knowledge?

There is the possibility that everything that has been said is manipulated nonsense. Apparently NONE of the authors of the stories have investigated the depth of technical knowledge of ANYONE. There is no depth to any of the stories.

I would say it is a /. myth :D

The New York Times disagrees with you. So does businessinsider. And bloomberg. The Chinese control bitcoin, even in Tibet.

China isn't doing it because they're environmentally conscious, they're doing it because that's where the MONEY is.

Seriously, why on Earth would you even think that? Reports have been coming from China for many, many years about their pollution problem, and even in recent days there have been articles of the heavy air pollution alerts for multiple days in a row. It's a problem that they have been working hard to fix. Here's a quote from the first article:

On Sunday, 25 cities in China issued "red alerts" for smog, which triggers orders to close factories, schools and construction sites.

So I really do wonder why you thought that China wasn't environmentally conscious. Were you basing this on something, or was it just blind assumption?

Your "non-story" is on the front page again, as a new story for today and the link to yesterday's story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/us/chicago-racially-charged-attack-video.html

[...] but the four Chicago assholes torturing a guy with mental deficiencies is ... a non-story.

That's funny. I found your "non-story" on the front page of the NY Times website.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-racially-charged-attack-video.html

"you are a member of the race of which the community and culture accepts you as a member"

And that is the real definition of race. Lots of people think race is genetic, but the one group that has near unanimous agreement that race is not genetic are actual geneticists. For example, Dr Craig Venter (founder of the Human Genome Project) says, "Race is a social concept, not a scientific one. We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."

Turns out there is more genetic diversity within commonly defined racial groups than there is between them. An illustration of this fact:

In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue

Another example is that it was only within the last 130 years or so that italians, germans, french, irish and even swedes were considered "white." Here's Ben Franklin expressing the commonly held beliefs of his time:

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.
Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increasing of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c." (Boston: Printed by S. Kneeland, 1755)

The evaluation was performed by a third party that is not associated with NOAA. In fact, lead author Zeke is associated with the Berkeley BEST skeptics that were once the darlings of the climate contrarian movement - until the results of their audit were released and ended up confirming the consensus position.

Regarding the graph, what you are looking at is the difference between the reference and the reconstruction. A negative trend means the reconstruction is lower than the reference. A positive trend means that the reconstruction is higher than the reference. A zero trend means that the reconstruction is bang on. You'll notice that the ERSSTv4 matches the instrumentally homogeneous reference datasets quite well. That's a good thing!

The evaluation was performed by a third party that is not associated with NOAA. In fact, lead author Zeke is associated with the Berkeley BEST skeptics that were once the darlings of the climate contrarian movement - until the results of their audit were released and ended up confirming the consensus position.

Regarding the graph, what you are looking at is the difference between the reference and the reconstruction. A negative trend means the reconstruction is lower than the reference. A positive trend means that the reconstruction is higher than the reference. A zero trend means that the reconstruction is bang on. You'll notice that the ERSSTv4 matches the instrumentally homogeneous reference datasets quite well. That's a good thing!

Um incorrect, the actual Mexican minimum wage in USD has gone DOWN. It was 5 USD per DAY in 1993, today those 80 pesos PER DAY not HOUR that they raised to is worth 3.80 USD now. Yeah NAFTA was great for Mexico, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12...

It isn't the first time that facebook censored photos of statues, eg. The Little Mermaid http://www.independent.co.uk/l...
Or the famous Vietnam war photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...

So they clearly need to improve the system, whether that is fine-tuning image recognition algorithm or educating ignorant reviewers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The only thing is, all of these dumb rednecks desperately want to die early from some kind of coal-related illness. Is there some way we can still make their dream come true, even as solar gets cheaper by the day? What hope is there that they can still die of black lung in mid-life, like they so desperately want? Won't somebody please think of the coal miners?!?!?!?

This is the bigger issue we're not supposed to think about:

This "Russia hacked the election, Russia is a hack threat, Russia is hacking the Grid, Russia, Russia Russia!" meme was pushed out by the DNC. It's very clear that the "journalists" at the NYT and at WaPo grabbed this meme and ran with it. They're not actually doing and real journalism, they're just running with partisan political talking points, as was exposed a number of times in 2016.''

It was not just the Wikileaks exposure that showed "journalists" working hand-in-glove with the Clinton campaign, but even members of the Obama admin were caught explaining that the voters were dumb (look for Gruber on YouTube) and liberal journalists would happily repeat to the public anything the Democrats told them to say. For example, see this piece about Ben Rhodes (the novelist Obama hired as deputy national security advisor).

With all the screaming about Russia and hacking and "fake news", the elephant in the room is that most of our current "mainstream" new outlets are really just shills for the Democrats who spout whatever they've been told to spout and run with stories that align with those talking points, without doing ANY actual JOURNALISM. Did the WaPo do ANY standard journalism on the power grid hacking story before running with it? Nope. No serious questions were asked and no skepticism was on display - there was a Democrat political narrative to push: The amazing Russian Hackers are able to hack ANYTHING! DANGER! DANGER!

This was about reinforcing the idea that Russian hackers elected Trump. Just as mainstream journalists breathlessly hype the hacked election theme and do not bother to ask any skeptical questions of team Obama/Hillary (Like "why could we not detect it in real-time and shut it down?" and "President Obama insisted out elections could not be hacked, so now what's changed?" etc) this hacked power grid story lacked basic journalistic questions as well (Like "are the power grid controls even connected to the web, and if so who was stupid enough to do that?" and "does this one laptop have any access to the controls for the grid?")

Yesterday, Washington Post ran a story that the Russians hacked our power grid.

Yep, and now that story contains a correction at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors. Fake news sites don't issue corrections, because their entire purpose is to make up facts.

NYT a couple days after the election reported Trump had poisoned Meghan Kelly before the first debate. Their source was Mrs. Kelly. Every other news outlet rushed to her to get details and she said that never happened.

Actually, your timeline is a bit messed up. What actually happened was that New York Magazine reported in September that "Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues." This was NOT ignored in the media, but rather spread in September as a big rumor, which Kelly did NOT address or debunk at that time.

Then a couple months later when the New York Times published a book review, it talks about a passage where Kelly recounts the SAME weird story herself where a driver repeatedly insisted on giving her coffee and then rapidly became violently ill. Why exactly she reported that story in her book is unclear, but it seems to confirm that she did find the incident suspicious, as had already been reported in major media outlets two months earlier.

The NYT book review is NOT meant to be a solid piece of "factual journalism," but rather a playful dialogue with the book. Note the repeated "We report. You decide." quip in the review, which is meant to make fun of the Fox News slogan -- and in this case meant to signal a somewhat sarcastic rendering of this story from Kelly's book:

Ms. Kelly never says outright that someone tried to poison her. (A stomach bug was going around, she notes.) But the episode spooked her enough that she shared it later with Roger Ailes and a lawyer friend of his. Foul play? Again: She reports. You decide.

After this story becomes even more viral (no pun intended) than the September one did, Kelly steps in and tweets that it really was just a stomach bug. But why did she even tell the story in the first place in the book with her suspicion (of what?)?

At best, the book critic at the NYT could be accused of "reading between the lines" about a suspicious passage in the book and reporting an old story which had appeared elsewhere that had NOT been previously debunked by Kelly... and then making a playful "She reports. You decide." joke about it.

Seriously?? Those are the best examples of "fake news" in the mainstream media you can come up with?

This is an actual fake news site. It's made up of completely bogus articles, though it looks legit and the stories may sound vaguely legit if you only read the headline and first paragraph. But it's completely bogus, and most of the stories make that clear by becoming increasingly ridiculous when you read them.

YET a number of "articles" on that satirical site have been shared hundreds of thousands or even millions of times on Facebook as if they were real news. Are you seriously going to say that a corrected article in the WaPo and a quip that echoed a pre-existing st

Surely Marvin Minsky should be present on this list.

Not from the 'left', it's from the democrats. Here's why. Just your regular turf war

I only pick on the democrats because they claim to be above it all. I expect it from the republicans, so it went without mentioning.

You are looking at it with blinders on. Republicans have long claimed the moral high ground. Now this might be based on your proclivities. But google moreal high ground and see what you get. Lot's of articles on how the Democrats have lost the moral high ground, lots of articles how the Republicans have lost the moral high ground.

I'm fully aware of their tag team relationship, each keeping the seat warm for the other. But their theatrical bickering sells well at the expense of non-aligned candidates who don't serve the party. The real email 'scandal' is about weapons sales and smuggling to terrorists, but the cartoon angle serves party interests better. If you want to talk about Hillary's legacy, this is it in a nutshell. You can see why the Russians might be a bit upset, but the election rigging is still a domestic issue.

You have me there, Republicans have never done any weapons sales, especially not to actual enemies of the United States. Especially not via a money Laundering type scheme. On this matter they are blameless.........

You'll probably try to frame this as you arguiung with a Liberal Dem. Nope, You are arguing with someone who has a good memory, and doesn't allow his personal politics to frame the other party as evil just because they are both doing the same thing as each other. I can go tit for tat on most things you can bring up.

I credit you with not taking the response I get most of the time, which is being told to go die in a fire. Remarkably from Democrat types as well as Republican types.

Amazon's Jeff Bezos Explains Why He Bought The Washington Post.

In my opinion, a good indication of Jeff Bezos's management ability is any Amazon web page. Amazon web pages distract you from buying something by trying to sell other things.

I only pick on the democrats because they claim to be above it all. I expect it from the republicans, so it went without mentioning. I'm fully aware of their tag team relationship, each keeping the seat warm for the other. But their theatrical bickering sells well at the expense of non-aligned candidates who don't serve the party. The real email 'scandal' is about weapons sales and smuggling to terrorists, but the cartoon angle serves party interests better. If you want to talk about Hillary's legacy, this is it in a nutshell. You can see why the Russians might be a bit upset, but the election rigging is still a domestic issue.

This could be solved with very high tax rates on corporate profits, dividends and income from stock sales.

I'm not sure how old you are, but in my half-century plus walking around this country I've come to the conclusion that very few problems are solved through higher taxes, at best they create as many new problems as they intended to solve.

I have a file drawer full of stories about states that implemented "millionaires taxes" to combat some certain problem, only to find the millionaires found a way to avoid the tax, eventually costing the state lost tax revenues, not increasing them. There was a story in the news recently about a state that had to redo their budget to address the loss of a single multi millionaire from the state...

President-elect Trump says we should put this behind us.

Obama started it

Mr. Obama added that he also had âoea belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.â

âoeA new president doesnâ(TM)t want to look vengeful,â said a former Bush White House lawyer ... âoeand the last thing a new administration wants to do is spend its time and energy rehashing the perceived sins of the old one.

Why did this only come to light after Clinton the Wildebeest "Hildebeast Clinton lost election, its far more likely likely all Crap!

If you were paying attention, this issue came up in October 2016, a month before the election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/us-formally-accuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html

This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairly wealthy, as well as well paid.

Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that .287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."

I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.

Someone should start a gofundme in advance to pay this -- any lawmaker that's filming during a C-SPAN blackout and fined under this policy can get reimburdged from the gofundme account when the video is uploaded.

There, problem solved.

This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairly wealthy, as well as well paid.

Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that .287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."

I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.

I don't get where you can say 45% are Republicans, when Hillary won 61% to 31%. California has a Democrat supermajority (67% or more) in both houses, a massive39 of 53 Federal Representatives, and both Federal Senators. And a Democat Governor. California is as close to a single-party State as you can find, with ZERO ability by the GOP here to affect ANYTHING at Federal, State - and increasingly, local - levels.

They're denying evidence, and yet no intelligence service has elaborated on any actual evidence.

You might want to read what you write first before hitting that post button. Are you really that credulous?

I assume the gang of 8 and the president were informed. Since the gang of 8 includes opposition leaders and since they have generally regarded Russian interface as a real threat, I'd like to assume that the president isn't just playing politics.

“Let me say that I have the highest confidence in the intelligence community,” Mr. McConnell said ...

Mr. Ryan said: “As I’ve said before, any foreign intervention in our elections is entirely unacceptable. And any intervention by Russia is especially problematic because, under President Putin, Russia has been an aggressor that consistently undermines American interests.”

“The first thing we want to establish is, ‘Did the Russians hack into our political system?’” Mr. Graham said in an interview on Monday. “Then you work outward from there. I have a high degree of confidence Russia did this.”

From this nytimes article

Are we really that credulous? I think you should be asking if Republican congressional leaders are really that credulous, and it turns out they are. Or, maybe you should ask yourself, are you really that incredulous?

So did the author of "Watership Down" today. And a foul mouthed comic died too.

Actually, Ricky Harris died yesterday.

And Richard Adams lived to the ripe, old age of 96.

Carrie Fisher died at 60. That's too young these days... But Ricky Harris was only 54.

"Another 40,000 comin' every day..."

I love how the writer relays the message that said woman is "amazing", without qualifying it. Is she a CEO? The principal violinist for a symphony orchestra? A celebrated archaeologist? An oncologist?

It is unfortunate, and it is a real problem. And it stems from the inculcated idea that man = Evil, and Woman = Pure. Note that it is damn near impossible to even broach that without powerful memes being brought out. Not too long ago, it was a rallying cry for many women about "not needing a man in my life", to now the increasing susurrations that men have lost interest and are remaining forever infantile, not wishing to grow up and marry/reproduce/ with women. No freakin kidding. Its like a major discovery has been made that if you marginalize someone long enough, they quit playing the game. Who knew?

Here's a real mind blower, and rather a headache to read. The effects of massive multi-genderism on Wellsley, a Women's college. I don't think that one has to be an alt-right Pepe' to acknowledge that this is kind messed up. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/1...

But mandatory in a world where assuming one's gender is a reason to go apeshit on the person who commits that crime.

I'm not in the least worried about People who have personal gender issues. I'm not in the least concerned with gay marriage.

But one does not have to be some social conservative to understand that maybe a gender system based upon marginalizing the other gender is going to have some implications, especially when biological urges occur, yet you are still supposed to hold the other gender in contempt. Which brings up another issue. The urge to reproduce is present in different amounts between people, but is generally stronger in the females. So when beat down, many males are fully capable off deciding that they don't need to reproduce, yet the females who have been inculcated as being able to do anything they put their mind to, yet likewise that the male is evil, end up with a real dilemma on their hands. So it might just be off to the sperm bank for you dear. However, it is worth noting that after a year of the UK national sperm bank opening in order to solve a sperm shortage, they had just 9 donors. http://www.bbc.com/news/health...

What to do? The experiment in male hatred which came along with the great self-esteem movement, is going to be difficult to undo. And third wave feminism, which boils down to enraged women yelling at men, isn't helping a bit. Especially when supporting some social systems that treat women as property, while yelling at the memvers of the evil and insufferable patriarchy. Men? Sorry, we're are out riding our motorcycles or playing with our new game console. Have fun.

I'm not certain, but I suspect that parthenogenesis is the answer. Where females can reproduce with only their own genes, or with another female partner. At that point, the only reason to keep males around will be in order to have someone to blame stuff on. That's a joke. Then, the male of the species will become endangered, then extinct. That's not a joke.

I'm thinking about recent statements like: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...

Aerio lost the supreme court hearing where they had a seperate HD atenna for each user and claimed to just restream the content.. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014...

Sure, Ebenezer could have bought a Christmas goose for Tiny Tim's family, but that would have just helped one family one time.

The contracting agency I worked for gave everyone an extra five weeks of pay (which is less than a month of pay after taxes) as a Christmas bonus. The author for an essay on Hanukkah goose wrote that it cost him $250 for kosher goose. With my unexpected holiday bonus, I could have bought kosher goose for a dozen families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/opinion/goose-a-hanukkah-tradition.html

But if he had instead kept the money, and reinvested it in his business, he could expand and create jobs, goods, and services that would benefit far more people, and benefit them permanently.

Or bought a yacht. Which is what the CEO of a Fortune 500 company was rumored to have done after getting a 60% raise for having lousy fiscal year and laying off 10% of the workforce. As one of the laid off employees, I had a lousy Christmas in 2013.

The prosperity of the modern world wasn't created by people giving away their money.

That's funny. Every how-to book on becoming wealthy recommends starting a charitable foundation.

According to the most recent statistics, the number of family foundations like the Cordes Foundation has exploded since 2001. There are now over 40,000 family foundations in the United States, making grants totaling more than $21.3 billion a year, up from about 3,200 family foundations doling out $6.8 billion in 2001, according to the Foundation Center in Washington.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/your-money/family-foundations-let-affluent-leave-a-legacy.html

Sure, Ebenezer could have bought a Christmas goose for Tiny Tim's family, but that would have just helped one family one time.

The contracting agency I worked for gave everyone an extra five weeks of pay (which is less than a month of pay after taxes) as a Christmas bonus. The author for an essay on Hanukkah goose wrote that it cost him $250 for kosher goose. With my unexpected holiday bonus, I could have bought kosher goose for a dozen families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/opinion/goose-a-hanukkah-tradition.html

But if he had instead kept the money, and reinvested it in his business, he could expand and create jobs, goods, and services that would benefit far more people, and benefit them permanently.

Or bought a yacht. Which is what the CEO of a Fortune 500 company was rumored to have done after getting a 60% raise for having lousy fiscal year and laying off 10% of the workforce. As one of the laid off employees, I had a lousy Christmas in 2013.

The prosperity of the modern world wasn't created by people giving away their money.

That's funny. Every how-to book on becoming wealthy recommends starting a charitable foundation.

According to the most recent statistics, the number of family foundations like the Cordes Foundation has exploded since 2001. There are now over 40,000 family foundations in the United States, making grants totaling more than $21.3 billion a year, up from about 3,200 family foundations doling out $6.8 billion in 2001, according to the Foundation Center in Washington.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/your-money/family-foundations-let-affluent-leave-a-legacy.html

Anecdotes are useless in this case. And why should I even believe you have any idea what the real stats are? I prefer to trust actual research...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...

This is what gamers do when Steam goes down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...

>BWAAA HAAAA HAAAA!!!!

nukes flying won't be funny.

Just like "raaaaacist!!!" and "sexist", Democrats have been spouting that fear-mongering crap for decades.

Literally.

Besides, the US probably doesn't have any working nukes anymore. Hillary! sold control of US uranium to the Russians for a few million dollars:

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

But you're worried about Trump selling out to the Russians? You're a clown - and that's an insult to clowns because THEY have a purpose to make people laugh.

And get the bolded part of the quote - the NY Times says Hillary! lied - even to Obama.

" until everyone realized". This is a good example of Argumentum ad populum or "appeal to the majority" - a fallacious argument

No, it isn't. It was a glib expression that intended to convey the notion that even the Russians/DNR/LNR, who are usually thick as fuck, realized that their own side was responsible for that particular shelling of civilians. Perhaps you don't understand that because English isn't your first language; perhaps you're just being a little too desperate in stitching together your attempt at an argument.

You are constantly calling separatists "Russians". They are not Russians, they are Ukrainian citizen

Russia's DNR and LNR terrorists generally consider themselves Russian, and their ranks contain an abundance of Russian mercenaries. The lowest estimate I've seen (from DNR sources) is that the DNR/LNR are 30% Russian mercenaries, if you exclude the Russian commanders and regular Russian military that fill their ranks; the highest estimate I've seen (from a Russian ultranationalist DNR commander, and confirmed by an Armenian DNR mercenary) is that they''re 80% Russian. The commanders who issue their orders are Russian, and they function as divisions of the Russian army, so there's nothing wrong with calling them Russian.

You are such an obvious Ukrainian doing his job.

Yep, you got it. The cash-strapped Ukrainian government has nothing better on which to spend its money than slashdot posts. It's not Ukraine, but Russia that has an army of trolls, who flood message boards with disinfo. Incidentally, the post to which you responded was +3 Informative, until daylight broke in St. Petersburg, and it got modded down to 0 by your compatriots, who seem to think they have magical powers to determine who is/isn't Ukrainian, but still can't get the hang of using an article properly.

During the war they were shelling separatists who were in the cities among civilians.

At what point did anyone say that this doesn't happen? It probably does, as the Russians have a habit of using civilians for human shields, just as Putin promised they would. None of this would be happening if Russia hadn't invaded Donetsk. Your own FSB agent, Strelkov, said that if he hadn't kicked off the war in Donbas (he was sent by Russian security services, under the guise of working for nationalist oligarch Malofeev), there would be no war. He would eventually say that the war has ruined Donetsk, and if he could have known in advance what would happen, he would never have invaded. Russia is responsible for every single war casualty in Ukraine by virtue of being the aggressor nation - can you get that through your thick, nationalist skull?

Replying to the false narrative Russia keeps putting out:

I guess they would be defending Crimea and other Russia territory from attacks over the border.

There was nothing to defend since it isn't their territory. It's Ukrainian soil and Ukraine wasn't attacking Russia, let alone even threatening Russia.

However, since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea there has been wholesale arrests of Crimean Tartars, the television, radio and other Tartar news sources have been shut down, and their businesses stolen.

Got Crimea back,

There was nothing to get back. It wasn't Russia's to begin with.

got involved in Syria and seems to have resolved it

By deliberately bombing hospitals and civilians, yes, that is one way.

and installed his choice of leader in the White House.

Agreed. Putin did a fantastic job on the gullible rednecks in the U.S. which shows how far this country has sunk.

while removing sanctions and doing deals to boost the Russian economy.

Also agreed. That is what Russia needs most right now because with oil prices still being low, Russia just might run out of money in the coming year. We know the sanctions have been have been having an effect so Putin had to do whatever he could to make sure Hillary Clinton didn't get in since she would have increased sanctions as well as possibly provide military support to Ukraine.