Slashdot Mirror

But you won't ever see Paul Ryan or any other GOP congressman openly show how much economic growth would be required to maintain revenue neutrality. That is because they know the tax cuts will explode the deficit without significant government spending reductions.

That's because, despite all their alarmist rhetoric about deficits and the Debt (almost always during a Democratic administrations and almost never during Republican ones), they actually don't care about those things. Why Don't Republicans Fret About the Debt Anymore?

[ Or simply Google: republicans don't care about (deficit|debt) ]

Meanwhile, Google's mass surveillance of western society continues unabated.

'Reporters' have no special privileges in the USA.

You're a reporter, I'm a reporter, we're all reporters.

Only since 2014. Now everyone who posts on the internet is considered a journalist.

a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”

Perhaps Tripp would have been better off blogging about his experience at Tesla, instead of working with traditional media. However, he would have still exposed himself to a libel claim. Either way, I don't see any charges sticking to the reporter. She followed the rules and asked for additional information to avoid the libel claim. I think she is likely immune to any solicitation claim under the First Amendment.

Once again, IANAL.

Paywall on wapo. But it's not just the evangelicals.

The church of progressivism is too, to wit:

Today’s identity politics has another interesting feature: it teaches students to think in a way antithetical to what a liberal arts education should do. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a Utilitarian or a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any one situation. But nowadays, students who major in departments that prioritize social justice over the disinterested pursuit of truth are given just one lens—power—and told to apply it to all situations. Everything is about power. Every situation is to be analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult, a fundamentalist religion, a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety, and intellectual impotence.

You could see this church of progressivism as the approved cult of the ruling class, for liberal arts is a common "education" for politicians, journalists (checks and balances, baby!), and more generally for "the 9,9%".

Or, differently put, for the aspirational managerial class, that the ruling class deliberately(!) let grow too big. It is one of the reasons why the American Empire is crumbling, as are its western vassal states that did much the same thing. What is the traditional home church of the American ruling class, again?

And many places have flexible hours in the US.

By the way, interesting article today that kind of adds to my point by saying not only can we afford it, the US is also unique in its consumption because of how much we value instant gratification.

and the general consolidation of power that's been going on for about 30, 40 years now.

I think it was Zuckerberg that made this point, but the next generation of billionaires will likely live into their 150s and be productive for most of that time. Most of the tech that keeps them living that long will be too expensive for the working class too.

If you think it's hard to keep wealth inequality and the power gap that includes in check now wait until the aristocracy lives 30-50% longer than you and I do.

Maybe you should look it up first before making false accusations.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

I was thinking of that last week actually. I volunteer, give money, etc. I am not the best, but I try.

You try, which is a good start. Sometimes trying gives the wrong results and then you should stop, and perhaps try something else.

There are people who believe that merely trying, or even merely having good intentions, is all that matters and that absolves from any responsibility from (negative) outcomes. I disagree with such people.

The biggest alleged Social Justice Warriors I know are generally some of the most self centred people I know when it comes to physically, with real time and money, helping real people. They give a nickel and feel like they have saved humanity, while others give far more. They are also some of the most privileged people I know.

No surprises there. It's been long a dark secret of the charity crowd, and the stories there... eh, you got an interwebz, you can use google. I've already read more than I can stomach. But why does a director of a charity "need" to make as much as a CEO of a (not-so-)small company?

I am gay, non-white and disabled and come from a very impoverished background, single parent home with physical abuse and I see people that this SJW profile as nothing more than people who are experts at lipservice.

I'm white, straight, male (and on the dole for having become unemployable 13 years ago, ha), and I sort-of agree with you.

If you're interested, this, that and even the other migth be worth a read.

That is on a good day. It is to make themselves feel good, not fix real problems.

I think you're mixing up things a bit. There's the narcissists, who're in the charity space prancing around like they're saviours or something.

There's also the SJWs, who're into wagging fingers under everyone's noses. Those people are more of a cult, which is a different thing. (See e.g. the discussion of "intersectionality" in the "this" link above, and in same the discussion of "identity politics" taught in sociology departments.) You might not see much of the latter if you're stuck in charity land.

Talk is cheap, as they say.

For some, talk is all there is to it. To the point that others saying things they don't agree with must be shut down with shouting and possibly violence. SJWs do this, as do *cough* certain other people *cough*.

As they say, "the heretic isn't dangerous because he's wrong; he's dangerous because he might be right". And now we're talking religion, so yes, social justice-the-movement is religious in nature, full of dogma. Hence, a cult.

Worse, a cult whose fount of origin is with academia. For me reason to want to shut down entire sociology departments, fire everyone, and let's see how they survive on their own medicine.

The internet was created under defacto net neutrality. It was only after the 2005 Brand X lawsuit that net neutrality was killed. Scalia, of all people, thought the ruling in Brand X was bad law.

So anytime anyone asks if NN was a good thing, the answer is FUCK YES, without NN the Internet would not exist, it would have just been a bunch of walled gardens AOL style.

Why write Apps at all for Android? Everyone who uses it expects everything for free and it's a sad copy of iOS.
I really don't get why anyone thinks
(a) Android came first and iOS is a copy when the truth is the total opposite. It's like saying Trump was the best candidate for president.
(b) why you'd write apps on a platform that can't turn a dime for your work.
Android studio looks and feels like something a placement student did as a summer project at google, a company who shat out a mobile OS just so they wouldn't have to pay anyone for default browser royalties. Play and Android are like the forgotten wastelands of googleland.
Yeah, rant away about the 80+% of users on Android but that includes your grandma and the folks who'd be better off still using a trusty Nokia 6xxx series.
Keep holding your breath for Adobe to bring PS to it. You might get a Darwin award.

Not everyone uses Mobil Oil though. Everyone uses Facebook, one way or another. In fact, one of my last job interviews had it as a requirement for employment.

There is just nothing else out there for making discussion groups, pages, or creating events.

You're dating yourself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/te...

Gist of that article is that teenagers have moved on from Facebook for event planning, since everybody and their mother is on there and can see (and interfere with) what they're planning. Instagram's the way now, and I'm sure in 5 years it'll again be something else.

Yes, but what will be the long-term results?

This.

Yes, but what will be the long-term results?

This.

Much of the increase has been traced to sinecure positions, a word coming from the old school church where the church created paid positions "without care" to the core mission of soul saving. I.e. graft.

I think you have no idea what universities spend their money on because the data doesn't support your position at all. Growth in tenured positions has been falling and salaries of professors barely keep pace with inflation in recent years. There are reasons for increasing college costs but not the ones you seem to believe.

Here, it is without care to the core mission of teaching.

What makes you think the core mission of every university is teaching? For some that is certainly true but it's definitely not true for a lot of big research universities. The teaching is almost just a little side hustle for them and only accounts for about 30% of costs. Universities are a lot more than some classrooms and blackboards.

Congress can stop these increases overnight by refusing to guarantee any loans for universities that increase spending more than inflation.

That's an idiotic idea for reasons almost too numerous to enumerate. I don't think you understand what inflation is. The rate of inflation has nothing to do with what causes university costs to increase or decrease nor is it a useful benchmark in most cases. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to increase costs more than the rate of inflation, some of which are not under the control of the university.

There's also non-troubling things, like removing genetic disorders. The possibility for the first shouldn't preclude using it for the second.

Not even that is going to be simple. There are some deaf people that don't want their own deaf children to get cochlear implants or to have other types of procedures that could restore their hearing. If they don't want that, odds are they won't accept a genetic fix to prevent the problem from developing in the first place.

There's also a whole can of worms as to what constitutes a genetic disorder. Suppose for sake of argument that sexual preference has a genetic control (I don't believe that this is the case, but this is for the sake of argument) and some parent doesn't want (or does, as some people today may well do) their child to be a homosexual. Is that something that's permissible to "fix"?

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...

While I think this is a silly way to block this project, Los Angeles sits on vast oil reserves. It's the reason the city grew to be the largest on the West coast. The La Brea Tar Pits (located right next to downtown Los Angeles) are a part of this. When they first began digging the tunnel for the Los Angeles subway, they came back the next morning to find that tar had seeped through the tunnel walls dug the previous day. They had to put the project on hold for a year while they figured out how to deal with the tar seepage. A delay which ballooned the construction cost from $400 million to over $1 billion (making it the most expensive public transportation project in U.S. history at the time, until it was eclipsed by Boston's Big Dig).

So yeah, an environmental impact report is most appropriate in this case.

My observation is that governments around the world, at all levels, are great at making pronouncements, less great at accomplishing the stated goals. Recent example, note EU not on track: According to the UN, most major polluters are not on track to meet their Paris goals.

In addition to the EU, Rwanda also launched a climate change mitigation plan today Rwanda launches national plan for Paris Agreement on climate change

Another day, another set of cheap pronouncements.

When Democrats abandoned the working class (ie most people) for ever more niche groups, like transgenders, that gave them a loss

I'm curious to know how you figure they did this. Their economic policies didn't change; the democrats are still the party that aims to reduce taxes on the 99% while the republicans still aim to reduce taxes for the top 1%. Their education policies didn't change; they still favor funding public education while the republicans still favor various "market based solutions" and other such tactics that are shown to reduce accessibility to education. What exactly do you think they did that favored "niche groups" over the working class?

Their economic policies most certainly did change. Supply and demand is a basic thing. By increasing how many H1B and other visas you increase supply. By favoring free trade you decrease job demand. You realize that Bill Clinton let China in the WTO and signed NAFTA into law. Thus we have less in real wages than in the 70s. I'll provide links, but despite all the talk about increasing productivity the reality is that most of the gains have gone to the top 1%. To be fair to the Democrats, this trend is consistent across both D and R administrations. Still, they have done exactly *nothing* to try and turn it around other than lip service about training for the new economy. Want to see Democrats that really pushed for the little guy (ie the 99%)? Think Teddy Roosevelt and breaking up trusts, which today would be more like huge corporations. Think FDR who despite his *many* faults was at least trying to do something. Think Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The Democrats were at one time the party of the little guy. No more.

Turns out that hating white males

Where did you see them doing this? What policies or proposals did you see that could be said to be aiming for that to happen?

If I say that preference will be given to women and minorities then what I have really said is that everyone other than white males will be given an advantage. That could be restated as everyone is equal but white males get penalized. Can it be more clear? In case that isn't clear enough they have run job descriptions that specifically asked for no white straight males.

Citations:

https://www.epi.org/productivi... https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... https://www.spiked-online.com/... https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lu...

In the case of Toys R Us specifically their problem was about pure greed and capitalism. This indepth piece argues the leverage buyout in 2005 was really the demise of the company. While Toys R Us was threatened by online giant Amazon, the fact that most of Toys R Us' profit had to go back to paying their LBO debt was the main reason they could never compete. There was no money for capital investment like updated intrastructure. There was no money for hiring talent, etc. All money went to private equity debt.

Well, this plane flew around the world on just solar cells. Granted, it's more akin to the unmanned gliders you mentioned above but it was manned and flew a lot of miles on just solar power. Solar panels certainly aren't going to totally power an aircraft that carries a lot of passengers or freight but if they add to the range it might make sense to include them.

The way I had learned science was that most things are considered to be truth

Um, no.

many of the things of science fiction have a strange way of becoming common every day items... look at cell phones, or microwaves, or any number of other common items, 50 years ago many were only science fiction...

99% of science fiction didn't come true (and probably never will). Make enough predictions and some are bound to work out.

PS: The first handheld cellphone was 45 years ago and commercial carphones have existed since 1946.

The same hardware independence you think is "magic" makes simulation easy, and lets them test and learn from countless scenarios before they're ever encountered in reality. Read and learn.

The purpose of a business is to maximize profits, not to "survive".

This is just tall people expecting short people to subsidize them.

Tall guys get all the chicks, they are paid more, and now they are trying to take away the one thing that works in favor of short people: cramped airline seats.

Short people need to stand up for their rights ... and if nobody notices, they need to stand on a stool.

Oh really? Article 13 didn't pass and police raids and arrests for social media posts aren't happening on a daily basis? The London metropolitan police aren't actively trawling through social media looking for thought crime?

Then there is this recent ruling by the EU court of 'human rights' that decided that free speech is not a right and that the “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected” will be enforced through pain of fine or imprisonment. No doubt there will be even more midnight police raids for thought crimes.

Oh and speaking of 'justice' is Tommy Robinson back in court yet? Any more press 'gag' orders to make journalists afraid to even discuss it or face prison time themselves?

Not nearly as bad as the US... well, at least you have that right. If we're not careful to oppose the leftist globalist would-be tyrants that have made the EU what it is now then we could suffer the same fate. We need to be remain vigilant so that the EU asylum seekers and refugees fleeing prosecution have someone to go.

Well we better build our own strategic maple syrup reserve to match theirs.

Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.

If you write it into every Google employment contract that compensation can withheld (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) the quiet, little internal "investigation" now becomes a matter of civil tort, and all the parties involved (including the women who filed the original complaint) risk being hauled into open court, where the standards of evidence are much, much starker than #MeTooHonestToGod "women mostly tell the truth about these things".

So you can have the quiet, internal investigation which results in people losing their employment (in an at-will employment environment, this is hard to litigate), but not their compensation (in law, property is the giant bull's-eye cake, and all the rest is merely icing); or, all the women of Google can form a giant support group to collectively get their courtroom Anita Hill on.

Andy Rubin already lives in a world where his name will summon up allegations of sexual misdeeds for all time.

Unlike many overpaid executives, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that Andy Rubin delivered immense corporate value for that giant pay packet.

These women know they can't successfully sue Rubin in civil court (their largely anecdotal evidence is insufficient for that venue), or they would take their grievance there, and profit immensely.

So now they are trying to intimidate their employer, Google, to extract a huge financial penance on scant documentary evidence, in a ratio that no court in America would countenance.

I've seen this drama before.

Why the Stanford Judge Gave Brock Turner Six Months — 17 June 2016

Ana Kasparian: Stanford Rapist Barely Punished — 6 June 2016

Seriously, Ana Kasparian thinks that Brock Turner was "barely punished".

Actual outcome: Instantly demoted from a Stanford golden child, to a lifelong felon, having served a big chunk of actual jail time (six months in the slammer in the pink petticoat for a socially maladapted Stanford nerd is not small change), whose given name is now synonymous with "dumpster rape" on the Internet for all time, and is barely employable, anywhere, ever (except on false pretenses where he dishonestly conceals his sordid history) because the social media wrath of the Sorority Sisters against any "clean slate" employer who ever associates with this person for all time would be too vituperative to even contemplate. All this for an act committed as a socially mindless young male not yet brutally familiar with neither alcohol nor women.

That's a whole new definition of "barely punished" that would make a cross-dressing Spanish Inquisitor cackle with glee.

Women who complain about their PMS affecting their mood and behaviour have no freaking clue about the brain-cramping rampage of peak TSB in a young man's late teenage years.

We've known ever since Robert Trivers first wagged around the magic, sexual-emotion clue stick that the chips in male evolution are stacked far higher, and far narrower than for women, and thus it only stands to reason that the hormonal ravages are correspondingly more intense.

Every woman who has ever said "my eyes are up here" to a man under the age of twenty-five has noticed this herself, without bothering her pretty head to write down and solve the underlying reproductive equation.

[*] TSB = toxic sperm build-up

We get it. We're about 3000 years overdue for a sea change on society's general tolerance of sexual misbehaviour (which is predominantly, but not exclusively, a male crime).

The attitudes must change.

Nevertheles

CNN? The Clinton News Network? The network that sees its role as not reporting the news, but biasing the world to its advantage? You serious? Saying CNN is unbiased is ludicrous and so easily disproven.

Here's CNN getting caught red-handed planting debate questions.

CNN cropped out the ISIS finger salute and Jihad scarf from the Fort Lauderdale attacker's picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...">CNN cuts off congressman when he mentions Wikileaks with Clinton

CNN glorifying a killer for ratings: 30 second Video: Sheriff asks media not to report Oregon shooter's name, CNN ignores request and does it anyway, including publishing his social media comments. (Note: video was edited by uploader to censor CNN's publishing of the shooter's name)
It's worth it to watch that clip a few times. It's so insane that we allow this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...">Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton

CNN deceptively edited a rioter's speech. What she did was call for the rioters to move their rioting.
Burnin down shit ain't going to help nothin! Y'all burnin' down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves. I don't wear it. But we need it.
Citation: https://twitter.com/DeeconX/st...
CNN apology: "We shorthanded sister's quote. Unintentionally gave the impression she was calling for peace everywhere." Unintentionally my ass.

CNN's Reza Aslan wishing rape on someone.

CNN gets caught red-handed telling their focus group what to say

CNN conducts fake interview in parking lot

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/undercover-video-cnn-producer-admits-trump-russia-narrative-mostly-bullst/

Top 10 Times CNN Reported Fake News

specifically who is asking the US Government to regulate speech on Facebook?

40% of Americans want more government regulation of speech.

But they need to register as foreign agents.

Here is the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please note that it says "no law". It doesn't say "no law except for unregistered foreigners".

show me somebody more credible than a /. poster who is asking the government to regulate speech on Facebook.

You are moving the goalposts. Why does someone have to be "credible" to favor restrictions on speech? The vote of a non-credible person counts the same as yours.

Only if the SJWs call off their social justice war. Or if the 80% of the rest of us who oppose political correctness decide to stick up for ourselves and stop being pushed around by toxic bullies.

Or you could start acting as the bigger person instead of reverting to threats and childish three-letter-acronyms to belittle people who have opinions you don't like.

Only if the SJWs call off their social justice war. Or if the 80% of the rest of us who oppose political correctness decide to stick up for ourselves and stop being pushed around by toxic bullies.

Heard this and the other conspiracy theory about Linus never being alone in a room with a woman, but never seen any evidence that it's true.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

It seems pretty unlikely that the SJW Illuminati would have been able to blackmail him

Members of the SJW illuminati did in fact succeed in getting the media after Linus just before he decided to leave. Sure seemed to me to check all the boxes for blackmail.

yet much more powerful people like the NSA/GCHQ have apparently failed to force him to weaken Linux for them.

This isn't the way things work. NSA has a dual role of protecting US interests which includes defending against foreign intelligence. NSA doesn't want to weaken the Kernel they want secret advantages nobody else (Linus included) knows about. The Linux Kernel like OpenSSL is an open project anyone can contribute. Access is trivial and not getting caught doesn't seem to be much of a challenge either as innocent errors make their way into code all the time.

Meanwhile Linux hasn't forked

Of course it has, virtually every distro runs its own fork with varying degrees of differentiation from mainline. Many SoCs run forks with significant volume of incompatible change with mainline. Android kernel is a very notable fork.

hasn't been destroyed

https://xkcd.com/386/

the predicted mass exodus of developers and use of the CoC to oust all straight white men hasn't happened.

We used just a little poison and nobody died... YAY.

Exodus was never on the table. What is on the table are the consequences of unnecessary fragmentation brought about by injecting unnecessary politics. Linux generally as an ecosystem is already too fragmented as it is. Political bullshit instigated by a few loudmouth SJWs isn't helping anyone.

they'll be clogging landfills the world over.

We're getting there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seY78wuc38c - Republican hero explains why Trump is a bitchlike child and traitor in a thick Bavarian accent, for your consideration as you decide whether or not you have functional balls.

I'm not sure how much Arnold would care to be called "Bavarian", since he's from Austria.

(Speaking of Arnold... See https://www.theatlantic.com/po...)

And please drop the hyperbole and calls for violence, you're just undermining yourself. Let the facts speak for themselves.

They already blew a guy up with a repurposed bomb defusing robot.

https://www.theatlantic.com/te...

Didn't they have to tell Watson to forget everything you learned from Urban Dictionary?

Yes, they did. They couldn't even feed Wikipedia articles in without some editing.

Hey bro, I understand your frustration. Aviation is expensive, especially as a hobby, and nobody likes Uncle Sam breathing down their neck.

And I hate to break it to you, but ADS-B is also required in class E airspace at various altitudes depending on where you are: FAA Nextgen info. These requirements are subject to change, and we all know the FAA regulatory process is pretty much one way, unless congress gets involved. The FAA grounds planes all the time. Every time an FAA licensed IA mechanic inspects an airplane and determines that the airplane isn't airworthy (like, not having required equipment), it's grounded until it's fixed. And don't think you'll be able to squeak through some airspace undetected. If you knew the capabilities available to track and assign target IDs to anything moving, in the air or on the ground, being tracked by ADS-B would be the least of your worries.

There are much cheaper options for ADS-B than a $5000 radio. However, some use your existing mode C transponder or require an external GPS source, so they have a bit of extra complexity and will be a bit more expensive to install and maintain.

These cheaper options are not more expensive than the mode C mandate was years ago due to inflation. $500 in 1960 is equivalent to over $4000 today. $500 in 1970 is equivalent to over $3000 today: Inflation calculator

And sadly, your $20,000 dollar airplane has a $20,000 engine. It's going to need to be rebuilt or replaced eventually, and your friends will only be able to kick the can down the road for so long by replacing a valve or cylinder here and there. Also, your exhaust components don't last beyond a thousand hours or so, so you'll need new stainless steel exhaust parts. And that muffler! You inspect that flame tube frequently, right? No cracks, hasn't broken off and fallen out, right? Mufflers only last a few hundred hours, and they are around $500 to replace. And those aging Marvel Shebler carburetors, not cheap!

The point is that if you or your friends can't afford to drop $1k every now and then (an aviation standard monetary unit), once or twice a year on maintenance and safety items, then you should probably pick a different hobby. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't terribly different than a nice -ish car that is out of warranty. Timing belts and clutches add up.

And as for ADS-B allowing the FAA to track everything about who, what, and where you go when you fly: yep, it's kinda creepy. And have you seen what it takes to sign up a new student for flight training?! They almost strip-search new students to prove they are US Citizens or are here legally and have a good reason to learn to fly. 911 changed things bro, in a big way.

I do not wish planes to be grounded or pilots to not fly as any form of elitism. In fact, I am rather fond of folks flying anything, even drones and quadcopters, as more people responsibly participating in aviation is a good thing.

And lastly, I am not going to return your ill sentiment, but I will tell you this: you do not have any more of a right to fly or occupy an airspace than you have the right to drive. Flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Violate that privilege and you'll hurt someone and/or go to jail. And please don't be one of the pilots described in A Darker

They cancelled their plan to work with China though. They thought about it, did a bit of prototyping to see what it would be like, and decided it was unethical.

That is quite a spun re-telling of what actually happened.

Then please tell us or give us detail to read. Don't simply say that it is a spinning story because others would like to make the decision by their own.

I'm guessing that GP is talking about this news which is quite old. Now we would like to read yours.

Doing another maintenance run on the Hubble is probably beyond the spec/capabilities of the first manned SpaceX launch, currently planned for mid 2019.

According to this article from January 2018, the earliest SpaceX is expected to fly humans is December 2019. Boeing expects to fly February 2020.

Probably not an outright lie, but Gizmodo is clearly trying to twist the facts. Why else would they omit a link to the video?

Perhaps if you read the article for comprehension instead of word occurence -- "Gizmodo has opted to not publish the video itself in order to maintain source anonymity" -- you would have your answer. Not everyone is eager to be the next Reality Winner thanks to video watermarking.

Amazon admits that the video exists.

Then where is it?

Nope. Not required. When the video's original source admits that it exists, ShanghaiBill's ability to view that video is not required to confirm that it exists.

They want to cherry pick, and they don't want you to see the cherries that weren't picked.

Penalty - moving the goalposts. 15 yards from the spot of the foul.

> sales and marketing

I cannot watch movies or listen to audiobooks with those 2 careers. As an engineer, I can.

> I think many women have figured this out.

I read one time that most women choose careers they LIKE and enjoy (such as healthcare), whereas most men choose careers they don't really like, but they know the higher pay will support a wife + kids.

Apparently the theory still exists: https://www.theatlantic.com/ed...

I'm pretty sure it's safe to completely ignore every other item on your passive-aggressive list.

You call that reason? You call yourself educated?

Of the 1,146 and 1,092 victims of police violence in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the authors found 52 percent were white, 26 percent were black, and 17 percent were Hispanic.

Source.

Is that left leaning enough for you? White people are more likely to be shot. A black person is more likely to be shot, but they are also more likely to commit crime being 13% of the population and commit over half the murders, rapes, assaults, burglaries, robberies, and domestic violence cases. Its all there. Pick a year, any year.

Now go ahead and fail to refute the rest of the list, or are you going to spew insults and hatred like you usually do?

Your problem isn't political bias, it's that you think you are educated, but don't even know what "likely" means.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to completely ignore every other item on your passive-aggressive list.

You call that reason? You call yourself educated?

Of the 1,146 and 1,092 victims of police violence in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the authors found 52 percent were white, 26 percent were black, and 17 percent were Hispanic.

Source.

Is that left leaning enough for you? White people are more likely to be shot. A black person is more likely to be shot, but they are also more likely to commit crime being 13% of the population and commit over half the murders, rapes, assaults, burglaries, robberies, and domestic violence cases. Its all there. Pick a year, any year.

Now go ahead and fail to refute the rest of the list, or are you going to spew insults and hatred like you usually do?

Here's a good article that discusses the issues with meritocracy.

The premise of meritocracy is that those who perform best should receive the most compensation, whether in the form of promotions or pay. In other words, performance should correlate strongly with salary and status. The problem is that systems that claim to be only merit-based are often anything but. The author then argues that those who refuse to consider the possibility of bias often make very biased decisions. When you accept the possibility that people are biased arbiters and act to remove those biases, you end up with a system that is much closer to the premise of meritocracy.

We all have biases that influence our decisions, but it's our choice whether to address them or not. To give you an example, as an instructor grading written assignments, I tried to grade all students by the same standard and be unbiased. There was a student who had given very low effort on previous assignments, failed to turn in some work, and ignored my emails expressing concern for his grade.

However, on a subsequent short essay (2-3 paragraphs) essay, I took off several points. When I finished grading the entire class, for some reason, I felt I should go back and revisit his assignment. Upon reading it again, I felt a higher grade was warranted, and adjusted it accordingly. I knew next to nothing about the student except his name and his prior performance in my class. Because he had performed poorly in the past, I probably assumed this assignment would also be of low quality, and that bias affected his grade. Make no mistake, the previous low grades were warranted, but they had biased my decision on the current assignment. The problem is that even when we think we're unbiased, we still make biased decisions. In this case, the solution is probably to use blind grading on Canvas and remove student names during grading.

To be clear, the author of the article is saying that performance should be strongly correlated with pay. However, people are biased arbiters and do a poor job of evaluating performance. As a result, many "meritocracies" do a poor job of promoting those with the most merit. Identifying and addressing those biases actually produces a system that is much closer to the premise of meritocracy.

CNN deceptively edited a rioter's speech. What she did was call for the rioters to move their rioting.

> Burnin down shit ain't going to help nothin! Y'all burnin' down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves. I don't wear it. But we need it.

Citation: https://twitter.com/DeeconX/st...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA

CNN apology:

> We shorthanded sister's quote. Unintentionally gave the impression she was calling for peace everywhere.

Unintentionally my ass.

CNN Cuts Live Interview When Facts About Refugees Are Brought Up https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Fake protest staged by CNN film crew at London Bridge terrorist attack scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN gets caught red-handed telling their focus group what to say https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN conducts fake interview in parking lot https://www.theatlantic.com/na...

Top 10 Times CNN Reported Fake News https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN reporter's response when asked why CNN hadn't corrected false gun article: "not playing your game man." http://thefederalist.com/2017/...

CNN threatens man into silence with threats of doxxing https://i.redd.it/jyw161j3wntz...

CNN on family leave before and after Trump backed it https://imgoat.com/thumb/e296a...

Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding 'story' http://thehill.com/opinion/whi...
CNN: Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond

The CNN example includes edited video that zooms in on Trump to only show his face and prevents the viewer from seeing what Japanese Prime Minister Abe was doing at a key point of the short event.

Why was Abe edited out? Perhaps because he took his entire box of fish food and dumped it into the pond. Trump followed Abe's lead and did the same seconds later.

But with the zoom edit cutting Abe out, the viewer or reader - with an assist from the caption Â-- is led to believe only Trump dumped his box. The media was not only blatantly overt, but intentional in its deception.

The greatest danger to our nation comes from a free press that chooses sides in the political process. And that has openly and unapologetically taken place.

So NOW you're concerned about companies using their political influence? Where were you when conservative companies like Koch Industries were literally threatening to fire employees if they didn't vote Republican (which is somehow legal now due to the Citizens United). Google's reaction is fairly mild by comparison. It's entirely appropriate for a company to be concerned about how a new administration will affect their business and discuss it with their employees.

https://www.kansas.com/news/po... [kansas.com]

"Another 34 were identified by the Sedgwick County Election Office when staff attended naturalization ceremonies to register new citizens and discovered some were already registered."

If you read your link, you will notice that Kris Kobach, who is anything but a neutral observer, offers ZERO EVIDENCE that these things happened, but assures us that they did. Let's see...can we think of any other instances where Kobach lied or whether he had an incentive to do so?

https://slate.com/news-and-pol...

https://www.kansascity.com/new...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voti...

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

Here's even more recent news about Kris Kobach lying in order to enrich himself at the expense of a bunch of small towns by selling them on a non-existent "immigrant crisis".

https://splinternews.com/kris-...

https://www.propublica.org/art...

I have heard about these plans 20 years ago. I hope they are moving forward, not just rehashing some old dream.

People have been bringing this idea up for at least 200 years. It's a romantic but thoroughly impractical (bordering on idiotic) idea just like flying cars, asteroid mining, etc that people keep bringing up because it seems plausible if you don't really understand physics and economics and don't think about it too deeply.

You're off by an order of magnitude. The earliest documented proposal is from 1825.

Apparently, iceberg towing away from things (oil rigs, mostly) is pretty routine, and mature technology. Towing them to somewhere is a difference in scale only.

But history suggests this is mostly just another way of extracting money from gullible investors.

If enough of them sign their name to it, it will force the hand. I happen to agree with David Frum's take on this. Zontar, despite being mindless, is echoing some of what David Frum also says.