Slashdot Mirror

That leaves hiring, which for some reason has fallen off a cliff, versus non-whites. Is there any innocent explanation for this?

No, there isn't.

Reason is such a funny word to apply to a process that involves people appointed by committee asking for funding.

In a real way, you are absolutely correct. However, that sort of rational thinking is often totally absent, and I think you really need to look at how the Military Industrial Complex, and its newer subsidieries work.

Check out this: http://www.speroforum.com/a/UGRHJGPCSM51/73796-Hercules-C130-An-epic-tale-of-military-aviation-and-pork-spending?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email3-13-2013

Long story short... the Military asked for some number of planes that they expected to need. Congress bought 50 times that for them. Not 10% extra, not 50%...5000% more. Why? Because Lockheed-Martin started directing their sales efforts directly at politicians.

What you have done is made a ground assessment of need, and looked at what they have vs what they need, and concluded that they have a hidden agenda. You are absolutely correct, but that agenda is to waste money on equipment. Money wasted on equipment is money that goes into jobs, that buy constituents.

Oh it leaves them prepared for war against us, and since they have the ability, it becomes that much easier, but, that's not what they are preparing for, that's just the accidental consequence, they just don't care about that, its not their problem.

Statistical mechanics works because when molecules interact they do so in probabilistic ways that you can easily work out

No. Statistical mechanics works because when you average the interactions of the millions of molecules, the result is predictable. Many of the interactions do NOT happen exactly as one might predict, but some act "unpredictably" in one direction, and some "unpredictably" in another.

In the same way, we do not need to know which individual person did something stupid on the freeway to determine that once there is critical density of traffic, someone tapping their brakes at one point will cause a cascade effect that leads to a full-stop situation for the freeway a few miles back.

Humans don't operate like that. Human interactions are, shockingly, more complex than a molecule bumping into another.

That's irrelevant. Individual humans behave unpredictably. People, en masse, behave in ways that are actually highly predictable because the unpredictable actions of one person are balanced by the "unpredictable" action of another person doing something relatively opposite.

This article is much more illuminating:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=41255&t=Vatican%3A+++Pope+urges+Catholic+press+to+help+discover+truth+in+an+increasingly+virtual+world

I'm not even going to waste my time ridiculing slashdot's editorial decisions...

-b

The actual article seems like a troll as it only reports a couple of snipits. Here's a better one with the full quote I found via google. The Pope was actually talking about the way modern media reports the news.

Today, for example, the world of appearances has an increasing weight with the development of new technologies; but if on the one hand this has doubtless positive aspects, on the other, the image can also become detached from reality , it can give life to a virtual world, with diverse consequences, the first of which is the risk of indifference to the truth. In fact, new technologies, together with the progress that they bring, can result in what is true and what is false becoming interchangeable, it can lead to confusing the real with the virtual. In addition, reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment and not as an occasion for reflection. The search for ways to authentically promote man then disappears into the background, because the event is presented primarily to arouse emotions. These issues are alarm bells: an invitation to consider the danger that the virtual distances us from reality and does not stimulate the pursuit of what is true, the truth.

Would you feel differently about Big Lebowski Bowling if you knew it was created in North Korea?"

How would you feel about Pocqhontas and the Lion King? In some fields, North Korea has surprising expertise.

It's a fake crisis, like so many others. Photoshopped news is not that rare. And often, it's for more than just aesthetics

http://www.speroforum.com/a/34500/Reuters-admits-to-doctored-photos-of-Gaza-Flotilla
(after all the story was that Israel attacked "unarmed" protestors, can't have huge knives in the hands of protestors, especially when they appear to be using them on soldiers)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184452.php

I guess in some cases, these fotos are simply "fake, but accurate", right ? And then there are the tings never shown :

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/02/a-dispatch-from.php

My company did. We abandoned a brand-new billion dollar semiconductor fabrication facility. Officially it was because we didn't have enough work to fill it along with our several other (non-Chinese) fabs. Rumor says it was at least partly because we were tired of competing with ourselves and our fourth-shift output. However, it certainly wasn't anything to do with fear of nationalization or the unpleasantness surrounding that Australian Rio Tinto executive who was arrested and is currently being tried in China for (again, rumor has it) not bribing enough people, although I think that should be at least considered. Since the Rio Tinto trial was front-page Wall Street Journal news yesterday, I'm guessing that today a lot of people who make outsourcing decisions are thinking about it.

Mexico is a sad, sad story and the drug war has a lot to do with it.

I do not think Mexico can begin to recover until many drugs are legalized.

As for china...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8432514.stm
China executions shrouded in secrecy ...
Amnesty International's figure is lower. It estimates the number of executions in 2008 was about 1,700, still a considerable number. The disparity shows just how little is known about the process here.

Reports in the Chinese media suggest about one in 10 executions is for non-violent, economic crimes. ...
The courts here describe themselves as independent, but the reality is the Communist Party controls them.
---
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=19981&t=10%2C000+Uighur+disappear+in+China%2C+U.S.+silent
"About 10,000 people disappeared in Urumqi in one night. Where have they gone? If they are dead, where are they" now, she said during a press conference through an interpreter.
---
And here's the one that would apply to executives moving to china...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8186849.stm
Two Chinese business people have been executed for defrauding investors out of more than 850m yuan ($120m, £70m), China's state news agency reports.

These are *tiny* amounts of money compared to the frauds committed by wall street, bernie madoff, stanford, the enron crew, the worldcom crew. All the while laying off and destroying middle class and lower class jobs by the thousands while also bilking shareholders and investors.

And you write like a coward. Why don't you read the link he provided?

My friend had money that Obama would say "Always bet on black" for his opening speech (paid 700:1) and that he would use the word 'banana' in his speech (paid 800:1). He lost them both.

Can I propose a simpler scheme where your friend just mails me money while being a racist nitwit? As long as that's his idea of a hobby...

Sure, as long as you are willing to send him back several thousand dollars in the event of some highly unlikely event. It's called "gambling" and he loves the it. He's also Indian American and has a great sense of humor.

Perhaps your "racism" comments would be more better directed at the Irish bookie making these offerings to the betting community? I think the "Obama Cliche Betting" section has most of what was being offered.

In addition to the Human Rights Act, Britain has subtle legal system which is full of checks and balances.

E.g. post the "Behead those who insult Islam" demonstration there was much hostile media coverage.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=6403

The government responded to this by advising the police and CPS to use existing legal powers to stop people inciting violence at demonstrations. They also decided to amend the Public Order Act 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

Now in this case, under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, it seems like the original act was too strict.

However, this guy has to go in front of a jury. A jury is likely to be more sympathetic to him than the "Behead those who insult Islam" types. You can think of the British system pre Human Rights Act as follows

1) Bad things happen like the Sloan Square demonstration.
2) The Media covers them and whips up a firestorm of panic
3) The government gets legal advice as to whether existing legal powers are enough to stop Bad Things happening again.
4) They introduce new legislation and/or brief the police/CPS to use their powers more aggressively. The police arrest people and the CPS decides whether there is a case for them to answer in court.
5) New legislation might cause false positives like this case where harmless people are prosectuted
6) Hopefully the government will advise the police/CPS not to do this in future and possibly amend legislation
7) The people prosecuted should be found not guilty because the jury is briefed, or maybe the judge will throw the case out. Or maybe they will get busted in which case the media will stir up a firestorm and force the government to legislate.

It's kind of funky but the system does have checks an balances. Of course the Human Rights Act allows people prosecuted in step 7 to appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights or judges to strike down legislation which breaks the HRA. Which is not really a good thing if you believe in the concept of "parliamentary sovereignty", but there you are.

And before Americans sneer that this is adhoc, you're right. But this system has led to a stable society where individual freedoms have either increased or stayed constant for hundreds of years, far longer than the US system has existed.

This condescending dick thinks that people want to live in mud huts and get their drinking water from the same watering hole they shit in.

People who invite development projects do not necessarily welcome military action.

He'd be asking why we were not in Afghanistan sooner to make sure that all those "brown" women could go to school, not have their clits cut off and be allowed to show ankle skin in public.

Female genital mutilation does not occur in Afghanistan.

and Syria, where they take food from children's mouths so they can attack children across the Israeli border.

Do you have evidence of mass starvation in Syria? There are loads of tourists there these days, and no one is reporting famine and misery.

This selfish spoiled brat likes to blame America for the world's problems and conveniently ignore that America gave more to fight AIDS in Africa than whatever country he is in.

While other countries give less in total dollars amounts to aid, they quite often give more in percentage of GDP.

Your post deserves to get modded down because it is poorly thought out. You could make a case that America is doing good in many parts of the world, but when you should such shoddy arguments you hurt your own cause.

For me, the biggest issues with nuke are handling long-term bulk waste and the costs: nuke is far more expensive than anything else [...]

No, nuclear power is not expensive. Quote from http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9839&t=France%3A+Energy+profile : "French nuclear power is efficient and low cost, and French electricity tariffs are therefore the lowest in Europe.". In fact, it is so inexpensive that we are the "world's largest net exporter of energy, exporting 18% of total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, Britain, and Germany." See http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.htm

More interesting references can be found in this WP article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

He is clearly delusional: he has said "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so." (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCate gory=33&idsub=128&id=8342&t=Czech+president%3A+Env ironmentalism+is+a+religion)

Perhaps instead they should photo-shop him into the pictures of the child prostitutes for which his country is infamous (not X-rated would get the most press, just standing among the lineups, and next to the AIDS ridden ones who are dying would be appropriate). Maybe his loving subjects might reconsider selling their daughters into a life of misery.

posted AC as I am a coward, more reading on the king and Thailand

Who said I know nothing about science?

It's pretty obvious.

The one thing I know, with out a doubt about science is nothing is closed for debate...except this. Wonder why?

Climate science isn't "closed for debate", either. You can debate that the climate isn't changing or humans aren't causing it. You can also debate that disease isn't caused by germs. You just look foolish either way.

The fact is, CO2 in our atmosphere actually would make it cooler, not warmer.

That "fact" is contradicted by both experiment, observation, and the laws of physics.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=29387 62&page=1
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idartic le=8342

I guess you're illiterate too.

First, those links have nothing to do with the point under discussion. I indicated in detail why you were wrong about global cooling, but you didn't read the links. You responded with other links that have nothing to do with global cooling. Changing the subject doesn't win you any points.

Second, your first link contradicts the statement you made above, that CO2 in our atmosphere makes the climate cooler. It states explicitly that temperature rises with increasing CO2 — it just claims that the observed rise is not as large as predicted.

Perhaps you were confused by the sentence which reads, "The impact on temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with increasing CO2." That does not mean that temperature goes down with increasing CO2. It means that the increase in temperature goes down with increasing CO2, i.e., as you increase CO2, the temperature still increases, but not by as much as lesser increases of CO2. This is the well known logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on CO2 concentration, which is mentioned in the very same paragraph (in terms of a fixed additive change in temperature for a fixed multiplicative increase in CO2, i.e., a logarithmic relationship).

If you would like to discuss other scientific claims made elsewhere in that link, state which ones you want to debate.

The second link contains nothing but the opinion of a politician, and no science at all.

Other than 2 links to your propaganda sites, what science have you quoted?

Once again, you choose to dismiss any science that does not agree with your point of view.

Climatology even mentions Meteorology in it's definition.

The fact is, climatologists are not meteorologists, they apply for different jobs and often work in entirely different departments, and they publish in different journals. Most relevantly, and as I pointed out before, the chaotic limitations of weather forecasting do not apply to climate forecasting, for reasons I already stated.

I noticed that you just called me "ignorant" but did nothing to prove me wrong.

Mitigating climate change does not imply that the world economy will be "upset", unless you consider any expenditure to upset the economy. Consider the studies of economists like Richard Tol and William Nordhaus, whose work indicates that there is no need for catastrophic spending to mitigate climate change. Tol even argues that there are short-term benefits which will substantially offset the costs of mitigation.

You are just following a washed up senator that couldn't even carry his own state in his bid for President.

I couldn't care less what Al Gore thinks, but it won't stop you from making ad hominem attacks instead of real debate.

Yep, just like in the 70's when it was global cooling.

This is wrong, as I pointed out in my very first response to you.

Warm your freezer up by 3 degrees, did your ice melt? Didn't think so.

I am at a loss as to what you are asserting. Are you really claim

>I can tell I'm dealing with a rational person here. No, you don't know anything about the >science, but you know the TRUTH.

Who said I know nothing about science? The one thing I know, with out a doubt about science is nothing is closed for debate...except this. Wonder why?

>The facts, however, differ. There is a direct link to man's activity, natural effects are not >large enough to produce the observed changes, and the historical record indicates that we are not >due for a "cycle" of warming that looks anything like what we are experiencing.

What "link" are you referring too? The fact is, CO2 in our atmosphere actually would make it cooler, not warmer. Again, historical records only "indicate" a very small slice of time, not enough to base a conclusion, unless you have other motives.

>I already indicated in detail why you were wrong, but you didn't read the links.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=29387 62&page=1
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idartic le=8342

There is you some light reading.

>No, you don't. Your whole post is entirely free of scientific content.

Other than 2 links to your propaganda sites, what science have you quoted?

>This is false. They are not in the same field, they often don't even work in the same department, >and most importantly, prediction of the climate is totally different from prediction of the >weather for reasons I already gave, which you ignored.

Not ignored, disputed. Let's look at the definition of Climatology, shall we?
Climatology - The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena.
Meteorology - The science that deals with the phenomena of the atmosphere, especially weather and weather conditions.
If you can get your head out of Algore's butt long enough to read this, you will see that the definitions prove my point. Climatology even mentions Meteorology in it's definition.

>>You and your crowd wants to upset the world economy on less than 50 years of studies.
>Don't tell me what me or "my crowd" thinks. And I note that you are as ignorant of the economics >of climate change as you are of the science.

I noticed that you just called me "ignorant" but did nothing to prove me wrong. Please, a debate, not name calling.

>>This world is, some say, billions of years old, we study it for less than 50 years and we know >>what is going on???
>So that's it, your big argument, the basis of debate? "I don't believe that science works, >therefore it's wrong." Great. Good argument there.

Look, my argument has more substance and validity than anything you have said. You are just following a washed up senator that couldn't even carry his own state in his bid for President.
Algore even was quoted that his movie was "not factual, but drew all the right conclusions." Hey, but thank God he invented the internet so we can have this conversation.

>>Then the scientist realize that if there is no problem, there is no money...hence, there will >>always be a problem as long as there is a grant to pay for the study of it.
>And your second big argument is a global conspiracy theory. No, what happens in reality is that >if somebody publishes dodgy work they get torn apart by the scientific community and nobody ever >cites their work again.

You are right, if someone disagrees with your position, the chicken little crowd brands them a heretic. This boils down to, if you tell a lie long and loud enough, people will start to believe it.

>>I am not worried about the polar ice caps melting. This will pass.
>Sure, because it's all "natural", and not just "natural" but a "natural cycle" which will soon >reverse itself, and therefore you don't have to worry a

--It would certainly go a distance in explaining the actions of some of the supposedly fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the prelude to the grand 9-11 performance acting in ways most un-Islamic. (Booze and Cocaine and Women [gnn.tv] won't win the devout many points with Allah.) So what's the story here? Were they fundamentalist terrorists, or were they dupe mercenaries who didn't know what they were signing up for, and who were allowed to bring off their clutzy plan while the US secret services conveniently looked the other way [tvnewslies.org], while the secret/shadow government [washingtonpost.com] provided access to the remote controlled [911review.com] jets actually capable of performing the precision flying which badly-trained mercenary goof-balls could not have been asked to manage, and while the Israeli-owned security companies [whatreallyhappened.com] which held contracts at each of the airports involved during 9-11, gave them fast-lane service at the boarding check points?

There is a great antidote to some of that confusion: Debunking 9/11 Myths

Dudes with bombs and box-cutters working independently is still the false reality which needs to be understood here. The myth of terrorists is the preferred tool for building the fascist state. Luckily, this is increasingly well understood. It's the 'How' which seems to be causing some hiccups.

Here are some victories the good guys won against terrorism around the world in the last couple of weeks (this list doesn't include terrorist attacks):

11 suspected Islamic radicals arrested in Spanish African enclave
Spain arrests Chechen rebel suspect wanted in Russia
Turkey Arrests Suspected Regional Al Qaeda Leader
Turkey arrests 10 with suspected links to al-Qaeda
Pakistan arrests 47 suspected Taliban
13 foreign nationals arrested in S. Afghanistan
Police Claim Arresting Taliban Commander in Ghazni
Pakistanis Arrest 90 Afghans at Border
Saudi detains 139 suspected militants
Security forces scrambled to disrupt Asian summit terror plots
Court freezes Islamic group's bank account
Top aide of Qaeda chief in Iraq killed
Morocco jails 14 Islamists
Eight French Islamists Returned To France
4 Dutch Muslims Convicted of Terror Plan
and another trial: Denmark: Muslim terror trial begins
Terrorist plot targeting Illinois mall foiled
Man accused in Taliban arrest ordered held without bail
And reaching back just a little further just to inc

But over 97% of mass-murders are commited by muslim men (and women). See khartoem, sudan, mogadishu and ethiopia (and others) for the current big problems.

Then there is the question as to WHY this is the case. And then you check the muslim holy book, you know, the one they always tell you to check, and :

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the infidels wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Quran 9:5)

And then you say ... hmmm. (btw there's tons more of statements like that in the koran)

Add to that that every muslim mass-murderer also says that he did it because of these verses and then you start seeing the problem.

--

Let's make a comparison. Why these 2 things. First nothing about racism you can easily compare any two things, especially 2 things that are basically ideas. Why these 2 ? Because it illustrates a glaring problem :

Islam - Nazism

1. Does the ideology inspire people to kill others ?
Islam - Yes, as the londen bomber said "He who kills in the name of allah is excused", see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ for a more complete list
Nazism - Yes, see "Final Solution", amongst others

2. Does the ideology inspire people to repress large parts of their own population with extreme measures ?
Islam - Yes, see http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idartic le=6845
Nazism - Yes, http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/people/victims.htm

3. Is the ideology completely opposed to personal choice and democracy ?
Islam - Yes, see http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15522
Nazism - Yes, see takeover and disbanding of parliament in Germany before the war

4. Does the ideology indoctrinate children with ideas of hate ?
Islam - Yes, see http://www.pmw.org.il/schoolbooks.html (I couldn't find the link about the western "madrassas", that are at least equally bad)
Nazism - This is how they "started" (if you are willing to accept that nazism started, while in reality it has always existed, and prevails even today, but this is what allowed it to expand enough to do damage)

Isn't this exactly what made nazism bad ? Why do we forgive muslims for forcing idiocies like this on their children ?

So you see "islamofascism" is not that bad a name for the ideology of terrorists/taliban/iran's mullahs(/saudis) (because they also match on the other points, the socialism part). It has the added advantage of implying that someone can be muslim without being an islamofascist. (btw, in every muslim country, like egypt, or morocco, they call the terrorists "islamists", also implying a direct connection between the religion and the terrorism)

So yes, if someone is muslim, we try check if they are an islamofascist or not. That's just common sense. A muslim and an islamofascist are 2 coins of the same ideology. If muslims did this themselves, like we try to prevent our own children from becoming nazi's or racists, there would be much less of a problem, and the checks would wither away and die.

We try to make better guesses on whether someone is a mass-murderer, based on past behavior
They ... well I really can't describe it any better than this : http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idartic le=6845

And we also tell them that newspapers lie for political correctness, then don't fix the mess they create :
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006452.htm

Or worse :
http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

Or worse :
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruptio n-of-media.html

And then you read your headline again ... then think 5 seconds on who is more honest
-> the policeman that can get fired when he steps a toe out of line and checks airline passengers
-> or the reporter who is not checked by anyone, a sensationalist, and has a political affiliation

Then you think another 5 seconds.

Actually none of those 15% of NYC households were starving, they were all fed through charities and food stamps. There is no evidence that large amounts of people in NYC are facing extreme malnutrition outside of the fashion model industry.

On the other hand, each week 3,500 Zimbabweans actually die from malnutrition. Life expectancy in Zimbabwe at 34 for women and 37 for men, thanks mainly to a government that does not protect private property, but takes it whenever it wants.

In addition to the photos, there are many fake news stories out there. Like the one the photo was supposed to accompany said the photo was of a jet firing three missiles was actually the jet firing one flare. The report that a particular Israeli strike in Lebanon killed 40 civilians. There was only one casualty in that strike.

The fact that Reuters didn't even look at the photos before publishing is just laughable. Anyone with an ounce of experience in photography could tell they were fake. Either Reuters is so inept you can't trust them to know the truth from lies or they don't care to tell the difference. Heck, a death threat to "Zionist pigs" was traced to a Reuters IP. Sure, I'll believe anything they say.

Either way, as a previous poster said, read from a wide variety of news sources and figure it out for yourself.