Slashdot Mirror

Unemployed gangs of robot thugs will be a problem in the future.

Already happened with the elephants.

Shrinking forests and a law enacted three years ago that prohibits the export of raw timber have saddled Myanmar with an elephant unemployment crisis. Hundreds of elephants have been thrown out of work, and many are not handling it well.

“They become angry a lot more easily,” U Chit Sein, 64, whose eight logging elephants now work only a few days a month. “There is no work, so they are getting fat. And all the males want to do is have sex all the time.”

Remove 2 billion people from the planet.

It's not the human population, it's the human resource consumption. As the average American uses 30 times the amount of resources as people in developing countries, removing the USA would be equivalent to "removing" the poor from around the world many times over.

Ban coal power outright.

Sure.

LFTR reactor research funded to pre-Jimmy-Carter levels.

Cost and time make nuclear power unjustifiable. Taking 20 years and $20 billion to build a new nuclear power plant is already a non-starter even if climate change didn't exist. But if we need to replace coal, wind and solar can be rolled out in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost, with none of the risks presented by nuclear energy.

...so they illegally transferred a bunch of launch vehicle tech to China

FYI, the Clinton administration approved the transfer in 99.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/0...

Which of course, introduces the question, why use a 5g connection

Because promoting 5G is clearly part of their China 2025 initiative (the goal being to make China self-reliant and a technology exporter). China owns a significant number of patents regarding 5G which is why they are promoting it. Use 5G, pay China. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

we are referring to how a government treats their own citizens

America assassinates its own citizens, even though America's constitution is supposed to prohibit that. When America indulges in extrajudicial killings it becomes difficult to claim the moral high ground over Russia or Saudi Arabia.

Because the overall popular vote doesn't matter, people don't base their vote on it and they don't campaign as if it matters.

A significant percentage of people either don't bother to vote in States like CA where they know it won't matter, or vote for a third party candidate in states where they know it won't matter as a form of protest. Those votes would change if the overall popular vote mattered.

The total votes actually case for Trump/Hillary pledged electors in the 2016 election do not reflect what the vote totals would be for a national popular vote decided election. You're trying to take votes case for one thing and magically make them mean something totally different. Sorry, but they don't mean what you'd like to pretend them to.

In the only votes in 2016 actually cast for President, Trump won a big majority, 304 to 227, or 56.5% of the vote compared to Hillary Clinton's 42.3%. 7 votes were case for others in the election.

It’s public domain. That’s the whole point. Since when is this news that matters?

Obviously you are oblivious to what goes on in behind the scenes in the real world. Bill Gates was smart enough to see the possibilities years ago and spent millions (which was peanuts in his terms) to acquire the rights to digitally reproduce and distribute images of some of the worlds greatest art.

More to the point the world of art and the rights to distribute historic images digitally is huge. If you put just about any really well known image as the front page image for a web site then you have to pay Corbis for the rights to use the image and that is why you do not see web sites using great art as background images, at least not legally. If they do there is trolling software using the same engine as bing that alerts Corbis for the purpose of tracking down infringing sites. Corbis and then issues either a take down notice or extorts the site for cash for the use of images that they hold the digital reproductions rights.

Sometimes, the "Russian Bots" are simply Democratic operatives trying to invent a "Russia!" narrative :

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...

While Donald Trump gleefully steals US government worker paychecks to give to Vladimir Putin he should be aware that the sharks are circling the water.

The FBI is investigating Donald Trump as a Russian Agent.

Are we really going to let a treasonous Russian agent shut down America's government and get away with it?

Lock Him Up!

Then you haven't been paying very close attention. He has mentioned 1000 miles worth of wall MANY TIMES. Of course, as much as he bounces around with... well every position he has ever said, I can see how you would get confused.

the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.

The president did not sign that one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...

Retired CIO from higher education here.

The university is likely concerned about a black eye if they have rogue researchers submitting falsified papers to academic journals and they did nothing about it.

Annnnddd this is the problem right here: what the university SHOULD be "concerned" about is that much of the "research" coming from these institutions is laughable and peer-review is a complete joke. They should NOT be concerned with getting a "black eye" because of some procedural issue that wasn't followed. I truly believe you WERE a CIO from higher education. It is people like you that are the problem.

Same retired CIO here. I agree. The problem is the bad research going through these journals. And it's good for a researcher to try to examine that and expose it. But get people involved. As I said: If they understand "I'm doing this to prove a point and I'm going to write a paper about inappropriate review of papers submitted to journals" then that's cool, it's above board.

Letting people know is not a big obstacle. I'm not saying "ask permission first" as a blanket statement - although higher ed usually expects that for certain kinds of research, like this one. Not communicating for doing questionable things (note caveat) can get you into trouble. When you're on the edge like this, best to let other people know.

Need an example? Let's say you're a systems administrator for a company somewhere. Part of good sysadmin practices is to check security, so you run a password cracking program once in a while to make sure your users' passwords can't be easily guessed. And if you're the sysadmin for that division, that's a good thing to do.

Now let's assume you change divisions, so you're a sysadmin in another part of the company. But you get curious how things are going in your old division. Maybe you still have a user account there, so you login and run a password cracking tool. Just to check. But you don't tell anyone at the old division what you're up to.

Think you'll get into trouble? Yes, you will.

Milo Yiannopolulos speech shouted down by liberals at Berkley.
Condoleezza Rice cancels speech at Rutgers.
Ann Coulter cancels speech at Berkley due to protests.

So, since there is no issue of speech being limited in schools, I have to assume the above cases are ones of censorship you approve of.
So are you:
Homophobic?
A Racist?
Or Misogynist?

I will have to assume all three since you don't seem to have an issue with a gay man, a black woman, or a white woman being prevented from speaking at a college. To the point that you make the claim it doesn't even happen.

You liberals are the most disgusting people in existence, and you got caught lying again.

Milo Yiannopolulos speech shouted down by liberals at Berkley.
Condoleezza Rice cancels speech at Rutgers.
Ann Coulter cancels speech at Berkley due to protests.

So, since there is no issue of speech being limited in schools, I have to assume the above cases are ones of censorship you approve of.
So are you:
Homophobic?
A Racist?
Or Misogynist?

I will have to assume all three since you don't seem to have an issue with a gay man, a black woman, or a white woman being prevented from speaking at a college. To the point that you make the claim it doesn't even happen.

You liberals are the most disgusting people in existence, and you got caught lying again.

Undercover investigative journalism is a technique that journalists use, but they normally operate under oversight when using such techniques.

For example, at the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/guidelines-on-integrity.html

Masquerading

Times reporters do not actively misrepresent their identity to get a story. We may sometimes remain silent on our identity and allow assumptions to be made — to observe an institution’s dealings with the public, for example, or the behavior of people at a rally or police officers in a bar near the station house. But a sustained, systematic deception, even a passive one — taking a job, for example, to observe a business from the inside — may be employed only after consultation between a department head and masthead editors. (Obviously, specific exceptions exist for restaurant reviewing and similar assignments.)

Or the CBC Radio's guidelines at http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/consumer-reporting/

Clandestine Methods: Principles

In journalism, clandestine methods include: recording a scene or statements with hidden technical devices; conducting an interview without first identifying oneself as a journalist; asking someone else to gather information on our behalf using any of these methods; and using concealment techniques when we gather digital information.

Since we are aware that unwarranted use of clandestine methods could impair the credibility of our reporting, we will ascertain beforehand that the method chosen clearly serves the public interest and is lawful. We will consult appropriate editorial management on the method we propose to use and its purpose; as well, whether material will be gathered mainly for research on the subject or for publication in our report.

Different journalistic organizations will of course have different standards, but they nevertheless recognize that deception can cause harm and investigations that utilize deception should be subject to stricter scrutiny in order weigh the potential harms to the subjects and to the field of journalism against the benefits to the public.

I'm not saying that the inquiry isn't at least partially motivated by political reasons, but that part of the IRB's involvement is due to Boghossian bypassing the protocols that were in place that would have allowed the university to make a determination on whether his research met their required ethical standards. Saying that journalists do it too is not an excuse because even journalists are held to a similar, albeit weaker standard.

BlueMountain made the counter-bet that bond holders would lose when GM went into bankruptcy. And that was backwards from normal bankruptcy actions. And Andrew Feldstein, who founded BlueMountain, was a college buddy of President Obama, and both Feldstein and BlueMountain were significant donors to the Democrats and President Obama. Not as significant as the $13+MM of the UAW, but still pretty big...

You're gonna have to explain that.

Gladly. Shithole nations are followers in every way. We brought them technology, products, processes, and money by the bucketload. The Vietnamese who are pouring mountains of plastic into the ocean didn't invent these, they were introduced to them by western nations.

As such pointing the finger to their waste without demonstrating a suitable alternative is disingenuous.

Fascinating rationale. Problem is, the alternative to just plopping the plastics into a river that ends up in the ocean has been around a while: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Especially that in some of these countries, labor is in ready supply, and one of the issues - that of sorting - can be largely taken care of.

They learnt to drink from plastic bottles from us, it's up to us to demonstrate that they can live without it too.

I doubt that living without plastic is practical. Recycling is practical.

Despite my flippant comment the USA still is the most powerful nation in the world. Do not underestimate the amount of influence it has on waste from these countries. And despite my comment I don't call out USA alone here. All western nations have a role to play, not the least those such as Australia who actively exported their plastic waste to they very countries which are accused of polluting the oceans with it.

We should once again become the leaders we have always claimed to be.

There seems to be an undercurrent that China buys this plastic, then dumps it. Strange business model, that. What they did do, was process plastic and paper. Did do, because they stopped https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

Now, between you and me and the voices in our heads, there is precious little that the US can do by itself. Or Europe. We can stop sending our recyclables to China, and do our own recycling, that's been taken care of by the Chinese. We can do other countries recycling, I suppose. That really seems like the sort of thing individual countries should do.

Probably the only thing that might work is the present United Nations effort. But it is kind of weird, having to act like it is the USA's problem, while making rah rah about the efforts in the countries that are responsible. http://web.unep.org/unepmap/un... . Note that particular link is pretty innocuous, but I receive notices, some acting like the USA banning plastic straws for waxed paper ones will cure the problem. Or that these brave intrepid countries are cleaning the oceans of the USA's criminal activities.

So I guess they have figured that they need to lowkey pump the very fashionable hatred of the USA and sneak some concept of non-piggishness to these countries through the back door to get things done. Global politics, amirite?

In the end, the concept of those doing the inventing - (do you blame Charles Goodyear, Alexander Parkes, or the person who discovered chicle?) as responsible for the utterly disgusting habits of other people is stretching logic to the snapping point of a synthetic rubber band.

In fact, this problem has at base the problem of too damn many people.

But there is a worse problem. Does one improve the health and fecundity of people who might have simply lived short lives in step with their mental outlook, or is one better to leave them alone and eliminate the problems that occur from over rapid population growth? In the weirdest twist of the blame the USA bogeyman, we are sort of responsible for extending the lifespan of people in these countries.

Those African big game hunts you see all over the news every now and then that environmentalists get all hung up about?

I am afraid you're misrepresenting past criticism of certain wealthy westerners who have travelled overseas to kill animals. The outrage hasn't been so much a rejection of killing animals for sport. Many of the public-outrage incidents you are probably referring to involved unethical hunting behavior that infuriates both hunters and non-hunters. Idaho Game Official Gloats After Killing Family of Primates Dentist Shoots GPS-collared Lion Lured from Preserve This isn't "hunting" so much as it is paying money for the opportunity to kill exotic creatures. The participants lack any skills or patience for "fair chase." They're not much different than a crystal meth addict hiding next to a barrel of rotten apples in a California forest waiting to shotgun (slug) a black bear so he can cut out its heart and sell it to a Chinese witch doctor. I admire the hunters who go after invasive species such as the Burmese python in the Everglades. It takes hundreds of hours and tons of legwork and concentration to find these monsters. Money doesn't buy an easy trophy there. Here's an excellent article about the erosion of "fair chase" hunting in America. Before pointing a finger at hunting critics, consider that there really are a lot of jackasses running around calling themselves hunters. The critics are largely pointing their fingers at these jackasses.

I'm not talking about the Cecil killer or the monkey idiot (one maybe, but a whole group was just excessive). But there was the dentist I believe that killed the rhino that was past breeding age and was a loner/was sick, and everyone freaked out. As for skill/fair chase, well, isn't really that hard to sit in a deer stand for a few hours and waiting to shoot a deer that can't even see you, is it? That's honestly one of the reasons why I stopped deer hunting. It didn't feel very sporting (wasn't crazy about the taste of venison either and not into trophy hunting). And you forgot about the gall bladders that bear poachers tend to go for, too.

Those African big game hunts you see all over the news every now and then that environmentalists get all hung up about?

I am afraid you're misrepresenting past criticism of certain wealthy westerners who have travelled overseas to kill animals. The outrage hasn't been so much a rejection of killing animals for sport. Many of the public-outrage incidents you are probably referring to involved unethical hunting behavior that infuriates both hunters and non-hunters.

Idaho Game Official Gloats After Killing Family of Primates

Dentist Shoots GPS-collared Lion Lured from Preserve

This isn't "hunting" so much as it is paying money for the opportunity to kill exotic creatures. The participants lack any skills or patience for "fair chase." They're not much different than a crystal meth addict hiding next to a barrel of rotten apples in a California forest waiting to shotgun (slug) a black bear so he can cut out its heart and sell it to a Chinese witch doctor.

I admire the hunters who go after invasive species such as the Burmese python in the Everglades. It takes hundreds of hours and tons of legwork and concentration to find these monsters. Money doesn't buy an easy trophy there.

Here's an excellent article about the erosion of "fair chase" hunting in America. Before pointing a finger at hunting critics, consider that there really are a lot of jackasses running around calling themselves hunters. The critics are largely pointing their fingers at these jackasses.

Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations"

Based on Census data, people moving out of CA are families with kids with only a high school education and lower-income are going to TX. High costs of living including housing are the chief reason people are leaving.

Those costs are, in part, because of government regulation and taxes that limit supply and increase building costs for new housing.

No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.

The entire government apparatus that makes people leave CA wasn't put forward by a single vote. People do vote for high taxes and regulations. Some are proud of being "civilized" to have such government services. It's a choice and they are free to make it just as other people are free to leave that state because of those costs.

It is accurate to say that people, particularly poor families, are leaving CA to places like TX because of taxes and regulation that make it too expensive for them to live there. There is evidence and data to support that statement.

What bothers me the most about CA migration is that the people leaving CA bring CA with them. They are increasing housing costs and in many instances (that I have seen personally) bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left.

Hell. Trade them, I say. Putin's not happy with her for pleading guilty and giving up information to investigators. Let that spying bitch go back to Russia and so Putin can have her killed. What's the problem here?

The problem is she quite possibly has information that will be useful in court with the other targets (besides her and the other arrested and cooperating witnesses) of the Russian hacking investigation. The point of arresting her wasn't to take a spy off the streets, it was to be able to use the charges against her as leverage to get her cooperation in taking down some of the bigger fish in this ring. This is how conspiracy prosecutors work.

That will be unavailable to US prosecutors if she's conveniently back in Russia, traded by the boss of "US Person 1" (from her indictment papers) for a US citizen Russia purposely picked up for this exact reason. There will be no leverage to get her to help prosecute her former US contacts, and its quite likely (as you imply) she will end up even more inconveniently dead, like many other Russians involved in this affair..

Which means the next question is, if the POTUS agrees to "trade" a prisoner to a country who was otherwise perhaps going to cooperate with an investigation into his underlings, and possibly himself, is that interference in an investigation? The answer is "Yes", but its an innovative new way to do it.

The next question after that is, does anyone have the authority to refuse? I'm not sure the answer to that one. I'm thinking probably not, unless she perhaps has state charges against her too.

story from NYT, no pizza place involved.

Just a bunch of crybaby liberals that are upset that they support THE MOST CORRUPT politicians of all of human history.

If a person falls off a nuclear cooling tower and dies, it is a death related to nuclear power.

Not according to nuke fanboy math its not, no moreso than uranium mining accidents are.

That wind and solar don't have the possibility for catastrophic events, and so don't need insurance against that, really doesn't tell us anything about why insurance on nuclear is so difficult to get. You like wind and solar, I get it, but your argument is laughable.

In the same breath you note that wind and solar don't have no possibility for extreme disasters and then wonder why nuclear insurance is "hard to get"? Laughable indeed.

If the USA did safety like Japan

You mean cut corners to save money? But of coooourse they do. Hell, here's an article back from the Reagan Administration on how safety is given second priority. Fukushima was a once in a thousand years disaster - if you think all US plants could survive the same, you're wearing some mighty big clown shoes.

I withdraw the part of my post that agrees the parks are staying open. You are just 100% wrong. The link I used in that post referenced Joshua Tree. It just shut down. Looks like even Trump's express change to policy couldn't survive contact with reality. Shocking.

Cross posed to the GP post, so people will see it.

I withdraw the part my other response to this post that agrees the parks are staying open. You are just 100% wrong. The link I used in that post referenced Joshua Tree. It just shut down. Looks like even Trump's express change to policy couldn't survive contact with reality. Shocking.

According to the NY Times detailed report on MTA problems there is plenty of blame for all. I can find absolutely no supporting evidence that "GOP Controlled Boards" are responsible and I trust the left-leaning NYT to have found them if they existed. Yes absolutely the Republican mayor and governor screwed the MTA but so did the Democratic legislatures back their proposals, and the Democratic mayors and governors did no better. Everyone in office treated the MTA as a piggybank and robbed it.

You hit the nail on the head. Here's what being a climate skeptic looks like: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.

Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.

Richard Muller is the poster child for what a real skeptic looks like and how they behave. He saw what he thought were serious errors in measuring climate change, and decided to do it right. What he found was that he just didn't really understand the field, and he didn't understand why things were being done the way they were. He was excessively and very inefficiently thorough, but doing it his own way he got the same answer, because he was rigorously applying proper scientific and statistical techniques. When you do that, reality doesn't change.

What he didn't do was to prosecute climate change in the media, where reality can take a back seat to flash and entertainment. What he didn't do was make some blogs up and cherry pick evidence to feed to an audience who doesn't want to believe. What he didn't do was go into the comment section of articles on climate change and flatly deny everything we know to be true about climate change. None of that is skepticism. It's trolling at the best, or a bizarrely dogmatic decision to be wrong at the worst.

I think his most powerful point, and one that deniers really need to address, is this:

The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

Link to a story about the AT&T shenanigans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

Not new though.

The USA did the same thing to Japan's supercomputer industry in the 1980s.

The "I can Haz Chesseburger" or whatever cat people are doing quite well.

You never know what stupid shit hits big and makes money in this crazy society we have. There are too many people who don't have anything better to do with their disposable income.

What do you think they use inside canned food these days? I'll give you a hint, but it wasn't BPA plastic. Not even back in the 1800's.

Rust: The Longest War by Jonathan Waldman — 19 April 2015

The chapter on the cans is among my favorites. It contains not just a biography of the can and its extreme usefulness but also a description of the quest by a small number of people to stop them from imploding, self-Âdestructing and interfering with the food and drink they encapsulate.

Rust by Jonathan Waldman — 3 April 2015

Waldman is concerned about the chemical ingredients of epoxy can coatings, especially bisphenol-A, which may leak into the drink or food contents.

Its impact on health is controversial — some authorities maintain that it can disrupt human hormones and increase the risk of cancer and other disease, others insist that it is harmless in the concentrations likely to be absorbed even by a dedicated drinker of canned beverages.

Unsurprisingly, Waldman's suspicious questions about BPA did not make him popular at Can School.

I'll give you a hint: whatever the coatings contain (much is shrouded in secrecy) they contain plenty of BPA.

Dossier: Can coatings — December 2016

The most common epoxy coatings are synthesized from bisphenol A and epichlorohydrin forming bisphenol A-diglycidyl ether epoxy resins.

There's an insane amount of these epoxy resins manufactured in America, and then spread very, very, very thin, them maintained in constant contact with food or drink, for days or weeks or months (during highly variable storage conditions, too).

Sperm Count Dropping in Western World — 26 July 2017

The results, published in the journal Human Reproduction Update, showed a 52.4 percent decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3 percent decline in total sperm count among North American, European, Australian and New Zealand men.

Not exactly a smoking gun.

BPA is well known as a potent source of smokeless powder.

I'd love to see a graphic of epoxy can liners over the past 40 years denominated in m^2 hour per capita (average duration of food contact times total coated area of container in constant contact with food until food consumed). It just might tell a sad tale of sad tails.

Current liberal orthodoxy holds that uncomfortable speech is literally violence, with the overt end goal of framing the elimination of free speech rights as necessary self defense.

There are 2 principal differences between India and China. First, India is economically poor, but China is economically wealthy. Second, India is a democracy, but China is an authoritarian nation.

Beyond those differences, India is similar to China. For example, Indians relish killing female fetuses, so do the Chinese. The ratio of male infants to girl infants is 1.09. (Get more information about this issue.)

Of course, both New Delhi and Beijing censor information.

Among the Russian elites, supporters of Vladimir Putin use India to justify rejecting democracy. They point to the poverty and poor governance in India. They recommend autocratic China as a model for Russian development.

Get more informatioin about this issue.

There are 2 principal differences between India and China. First, India is economically poor, but China is economically wealthy. Second, India is a democracy, but China is an authoritarian nation.

Beyond those differences, India is similar to China. For example, Indians relish killing female fetuses, so do the Chinese. The ratio of male infants to girl infants is 1.09. (Get more information about this issue.)

Of course, both New Delhi and Beijing censor information.

Among the Russian elites, supporters of Vladimir Putin use India to justify rejecting democracy. They point to the poverty and poor governance in India. They recommend autocratic China as a model for Russian development.

Get more informatioin about this issue.

That is the purpose of short selling: to reduce the effect of market bubbles. If you didn't have short selling you would only have people who cheerlead to make a stock go up. The short sellers are the only ones looking critically at an investment. That is why companies like Enron hate short sellers (they called them "terrorists" https://www.nytimes.com/2006/0...), and Elon Musks hates them too (https://www.wired.com/story/what-are-short-sellers-and-why-does-elon-hate-them/). Only people and companies with something to hide hate short sellers. If a company is healthy and doing the right thing, short sellers can't affect them.

And we all know China will pay attention to the WTO just like...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

whatever you say my dude enjoy eating your pets commie

The problem of "homeless people with full-time jobs" is most definitely not a small problem or only located in certain areas. Cite 1 (extremely informative and well-researched investigative series) Cite 2 Cite 3 Cite 4

I suspect you're just reciting truisms. Unfortunately, this problem has been growing massively in the past two decades. The scale and visibility is such now that some journalists, investigators and generally insightful people are taking long hard looks at it.

These "personal" cars won't have the level of monitoring and inspection that city subways have

Holy shit have you ever BEEN on an SF or NYC subway, and also in a Tesla owners car??

At least in Musk's tunnels a jacked up car just rolls in neutral off to a side channel instead of blocking every car behind it for an entire morning.

Alzheimer's is likely the result of the brain trapping infectious agents: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0.... It makes little sense to treat the symptom of an infection rather than its cause.

I wouldn't call it likely. It's a recent observation. No path of causation has been shown.

It looks like the smart money is on the Alzheimers == Type 3 diabetes hypothesis. There's lots of solid causation pathways there.

Who makes those rules? In this case, it's Trump. Dropping the Clinton investigation was the very first campaign promise that Trump broke, before he was even inaugurated.

It was a merger. You don't have to know what words mean, that's ok. Others do.

Unless merger means acquisition, you don't actually. SBC bought ATT.

However, SBC chose to be known as ATT. As well, they're behaving like them. If they want to be known as ATT, and they act like them, who are we to argue?

Or, the forecast for an increase in GLTD reservations could be people hijacking Rudy Guiliani tweets.

a) A huge percent of third-world waste is production run-off for first-world consumers, made by first-world companies working there.
b) Another large chunk is trash from first-world countries shipped to the third-world dumping grounds. The pile of waste in the photo at the top of this article is in China -- it's all dumped waste from the USA.
c) This sort of thing can happen to any city if its waste pipeline breaks down for some reason. NYC's garbage strike in 1968, for example, created similar situations. The pictures linked to by Shanghai Bill include Lebanon. Lebanon is not a third-world country, and Beirut is definitely not a third-world city. It's just a city whose dump filled up and they couldn't negotiate anyone else to take the garbage. Similar situations are developing in the USA right now because China closed its borders to our recyclable waste (see the link I included in (b) above).

Don't be so quick to judge.

I have seen many, many examples of insufficient management at Amazon.

It is VERY important to recognize ALL of the abusiveness of Amazon. Only a small part of that is mentioned here, in this re-post of a former comment, with added information:

My opinion: Jeff Bezos is not a sufficiently capable manager. Evidence: Look at any Amazon web page. As you are researching some product that is interesting, you are often distracted by other products. One fix: Put any distractions at the bottom of the page. There are many other shortcomings of the Amazon web site besides those mentioned in this Slashdot story.

A few of the stories about Amazon being abusive:

Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace. (New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015)

Quote: "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers..."

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon Gets Tax Breaks While Its Employees Rely on Food Stamps, New Data Shows (The Intercept, April 19, 2018)

Quote: "Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table."

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

Quote from the Wikipedia page for Jeff Bezos. (Nov. 29, 2018):

"Journalist Nellie Bowles of The New York Times has described the public persona and personality of Bezos as that of 'a brilliant but mysterious and coldblooded corporate titan'. During the 1990s, Bezos earned a reputation for relentlessly pushing Amazon forward, often at the expense of public charity and social welfare."

In my opinion, Bezos is not "brilliant". No one who is habitually abusive can be called brilliant; his abusiveness damages the quality of his own life.

Would you fly into space if the company has a manager who shows serious limits? Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns Blue Origin.. Blue Origin does NOT now have the capability of orbiting the earth. Would you fly into space with a company owned by someone who makes huge mistakes and doesn't detect them?

every clueless fuck that voted for trump should be forced to at least re-take (and pass) junior high (lets get real here, most never did pass and graduate high school, so we have to go back a few grades) civics and american history.

Hillary Clinton won CA by 61% to 31% over Donald Trump - 2nd only to Hawaii. Yet, if you dig into the statistics, you'll find that California is number 1 in percentage of residents 25 and older who never finished 9th grade, and ranks 50th in terms of high school graduation rates.

Seems to me that you should change your perspective about who actually passed...

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

ALL those stories were created by the Russians to discredit Clinton to get Trump elected.

WUT?!?!

Check the date on that NY Times story about Crooked Hillary! profiting from the Uranium One sale to Russian oligarchs - it's from April 2015 .

April 2015, dunderhead.

Jesus H. Mother Fucking Christ, you are stupid.

Calling you dumb as a post would be an insult to every acorn in the forest with dreams of getting buried, sprouting, growing into a tree, getting cut down, hauled to a lumber mill, hewn into a post, and planted as part of a fucking fence.

You utter fucking imbecile.

I cannot believe you're so gullible...

The sad thing is you probably think you're smart.

Astronomers worldwide are lamenting the fact you don't have a twin - the moment you two got too close, the miniature black holes that you think are brains would merge and we'd be able to see gravitational waves up close, probably leading to theories that unify gravity with other forces.

Of course, the concentrated combined stupidity would probably retroactively erase human knowledge back to ancient Greece...

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

So? Clinton was found innocent. Flynn and the entire Trump administration are criminals. Your point?

Found innocent?

By who?

Comey weasel-worded Hillary!'s "innocence" by claiming she didn't knowingly violate laws regarding the handling of classified data, which is actually irrelevant per the law. Not only that, that's factually false anyway, because Hillary! is known to have directed a subordinate to actually remove classification markings and send a secure fax via nonsecure email.

And why weren't Cohen or Flynn offered immunity prior to their FBI interviews, like Cheryl Mills was?

The list of double standards is endless - Hillary! got away with felonies and her aides got immunity, Trump aides go to jail after being forced to plead guilty to non-crimes. (And no, Trump's payoffs to women are NOT "illegal campaign contributions" - Trump's done those for years, which means by law they're not campaign contributions. Period. Full stop. The more you argue they are, the more you reinforce the fact that Trump's being held to a standard no one else has ever been.)

And unlike you, I have actual factual reporting linked in to back up my claims.

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

ALL those stories were created by the Russians to discredit Clinton to get Trump elected. I cannot believe you're so gullible - but there are millions of people like you in this country and coupled with Republican election rigging, we now have a baboon in the White House who ruined Obama's great economy, got played by the North Koreans like the idiot he is, saddled future generations with debt and environmental ruin, committed treason, made the CFPB worthless, we never got that trillion dollars in infrastructure spending that he promsied ... I'm getting tired of typing - I'd be here all day with Trump's failures.

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

So? Clinton was found innocent. Flynn and the entire Trump administration are criminals. Your point?

Why did someone so innocent need 9 lawyers and get special treatment?

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

So? Clinton was found innocent. Flynn and the entire Trump administration are criminals. Your point?