Slashdot Mirror

Oh, and those totals don't include the 1 million plus held in "re-education camps" within China. No, that's not prison - that's just a protective space for you to learn how to think right.

Yes it was. However it was destroyed by the earthquake ... the Tsunami likely only swept over the debris ;D
So what is your point?

You want to deny that the cooling system broke? Well, then ask yourself, why were military grade diesel generators which, where flown in by helicopters, not able to replace the drowned emergency generators?

Hm? Any idea?

Anyway:
1) here they talk about the pipes: https://www.theatlantic.com/in...
2) here they talk about a pump: http://statestimesreview.com/2...

Anyway, roughly a year ago a /. reader posted a nice article/link explaining when and how the cooling system itself failed (not only the emergency power).

The Japanese devote a great deal of attention and concern to abiding conventions for social interaction. I believe it a weak claim (how would you ever test such a thing experimentally?) but there is a theory that the historical necessity for large-scale coordinated communal rice planting and harvesting exerted selective pressure for personality traits of conformism, cooperation and agreeableness. With more certainty, Japan is a substantially racially uniform culture, and there is loads of psychological and sociological evidence that racial diversity promotes social disharmony. About 98.5% of residents of Japan are ethnic Japanese. As the Japanese Government states: "...there are no issues of race relations among Japanese citizens as they are all of the same race". It's a little fishy because they include small domestic minorities such as the Ainu, but still those would not be substantial minorities if categorized out and to some degree they remain geographically isolated within Japan.

Regardless of the causes for it, Japanese society is extraordinarily and wonderfully polite, civil and organized. However, that has the trade-off that social norms become so suffocating that Japanese seek escape from social obligations and comfort in relationships in what seems to westerners, bizarre commercial services. Following the rules means that sometimes the best way to get what you want while staying in bounds is to purchase it.

Japan's Rent-a-Family Industry
How to Hire Fake Friends and Family
Rental family service

Please provide a cite for your assertion that Democratic politicians were spreading anti-gay rhetoric as part of their platforms in the 90's and early 2000s.

Homosexuals don't deserve the same rights.

Homosexuals should be ashamed of what they are.

As a bonus:
Racism from the left.

Donald Trump approving of LGBT.

The left wanting Donald Trump to be bigoted towards LGBT.

There's enough to criticize without hiding the Democrat's bigotry and inventing bigotry from Trump. People stopped believing the boy who cried wolf and Democrats lost the last election because of it.

Stay in the real world or risk 8 years of President Donald Trump.

Good analogy, I think.

So, by this analogy, the subprime mortgage industry was a frustum whose bottom face kept getting smaller and whose height and top face kept getting bigger.

Let's see... where was government in this?

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007.

https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

and

The housing bubble was inflated by federal policies created by President Bill Clinton, then expanded by President George W. Bush. The policies were supported by Senator and then President Barack Obama.

The policies were intended to help low-skilled Americans — especially African-Americans — and Hispanic immigrants gain housing wealth by pushing down mortgage requirements, such as down-payments.

But the government policy had the reverse effect, and the housing collapse after 2007 eliminated much of the wealth held by African-American and Hispanic families.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07...

and

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/1...

and

The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Under Clinton's Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in "credit-deprived" areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn't comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.

These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and zero down-payments by 2000. What's more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase "subprime" became commonplace. What an understatement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/2...

I covered this one here: http://www.amerika.org/politic...

Electoral College, learn about it, and realize that they aren't making a vote, they are fulfilling a role, and that each and every state has chosen to follow the vote of the people in the state, with the only slight differences being the cases of Maine and Nebraska, and even that's had minimal impact. States deciding to choose electors based on anything else would be a laughable outcome, and they just aren't going to do it. And they don't cotton too well to people who don't fall in line. As a result, the reality is? The Electoral College is just a pro forma sham, that doesn't really matter except to distort public interaction, and Donald Trump lost the real vote that matters, that of the people.

Then he lied about it. Which just shows his own deceptive practices, because even he admitted that the popular vote was what he considered important. People who try to ignore the popular vote (mostly ones that lose it) and rely on the Electoral College, are so deeply wrong, that they don't ever want to admit it. Some of them, like yourself, even make up sham excuses about how somehow the Electoral College does something to protect small states. They're wrong too.

I'm sorry, Lynnwood Rooster, I know you are committed in your partisan myopia to a complete and utter defense of the Electoral College, today, but since I also know you would completely change your tune if the circumstances were different, it's not exactly persuasive. You're not committed to any kind of moral position, you will simply believe you are at war with EastAsia, that the chocolate ration has increased, and that wrapping yourself in the Constitution will justify any malfeasance.

At least you're committed to that, so we know what you'll keep on doing.

Electoral College, learn about it, and realize that they aren't making a vote, they are fulfilling a role, and that each and every state has chosen to follow the vote of the people in the state, with the only slight differences being the cases of Maine and Nebraska, and even that's had minimal impact. States deciding to choose electors based on anything else would be a laughable outcome, and they just aren't going to do it. And they don't cotton too well to people who don't fall in line. As a result, the reality is? The Electoral College is just a pro forma sham, that doesn't really matter except to distort public interaction, and Donald Trump lost the real vote that matters, that of the people.

Then he lied about it. Which just shows his own deceptive practices, because even he admitted that the popular vote was what he considered important. People who try to ignore the popular vote (mostly ones that lose it) and rely on the Electoral College, are so deeply wrong, that they don't ever want to admit it. Some of them, like yourself, even make up sham excuses about how somehow the Electoral College does something to protect small states. They're wrong too.

I'm sorry, Lynnwood Rooster, I know you are committed in your partisan myopia to a complete and utter defense of the Electoral College, today, but since I also know you would completely change your tune if the circumstances were different, it's not exactly persuasive. You're not committed to any kind of moral position, you will simply believe you are at war with EastAsia, that the chocolate ration has increased, and that wrapping yourself in the Constitution will justify any malfeasance.

At least you're committed to that, so we know what you'll keep on doing.

has no foreseeable end date.

So, just like most government entities.

I think it's great, doing a good job and they need to fund it. It needs an expiration date though, just like John McCain and everyone else has. If it's still doing a good job and nothing else has appeared to replace it, then extending it for another X years seems easily sensible. If SkyNet earlier appeared and always fixes all bugs everywhere, the maybe it's time to disband it.

Once Elon and Jeff have become the Borg, THEN we'll see about never-ending committee entities. (Like the ones we already have.)

Or does eventual existence renewal make things become political? Actually asking here. Also, Japan

https://www.theatlantic.com/na...

"In the US, far left is currently mainstream"

bwahaha...

Left: - universal healthcare - environmental protections - marijuana legal - hate speech outlawed - no coal plants

FAR left, is above plus - universal income - 50%-90% corporate tax rate - all drugs legal - proportional representation - nationalized critical industries (energy, water, internet) and some too big to fail businesses or businesses in the national interest - no more nukes, nuke plants or any polluting power plant. renewables only. - cap higher end wages

So I very much doubt that the "mainstream" in the USA is "far left". I think you guys can barely get to the centrist position.

I know its said time and time again, but the USA version of "left" is considered center or center right by other 1st world democracies.

You left out their most extreme positions and you know it. For example:

Left:

- general disdain for white people and favor affirmative action type programs. I think this is unique to the US. - OK to openly fly job ads that specify no white males unless they are gay - general disdain for Christians as a group - general disdain for anyone from "fly over" states, the south, or just not from a city - amnesty for all illegal immigrants is acceptable. Multiple times is fine too. - Abolish ICE so that enforcement of immigration laws is handicapped - force people to use an ever expanding list of new pronouns depending on what they identify as that day - deplatforming / censorship is OK as long as it's hate speech. Note that hate speech is very broadly defined and full of exclusions.

Far Left:

- wants reparations for slavery, always calculated to be in the trillions of USD - segregation in the form of safe spaces where only "people of color" are allowed - abolish borders altogether, anyone can come in any time and stay however long they like

Think I made this garbage up? Here are some citations:

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lu... https://www.thecollegefix.com/... https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.washingtontimes.co...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma... The 9.9% is the new bourgois, the 0.1% is the new aristocrats, the 90% is the proletariat.

The issue is how much vitamin D is healthy, and what level constitutes deficiency.

No, the issue is how much vitamin D you actually absorb from supplements, and how efficacious taking supplements is overall. The most popular supplements have not been shown to provide significant health benefits, including vitamin D. The simple fact is that most supplements are a waste of money.

Indeed, it's almost historically low. Tight labor markets induce rising wages because workers have more bargaining power.

No wonder Democrats want an endless influx of illegal aliens to keep that from happening.

Except Germany's extremely biased and social class enforcing stratification starting in early education fails to produce the kind of highly skilled workers that the modern economy demands. Germany is experiencing a shortage of workers with the complex skills gained in tertiary education. Specifically "managers, researchers, engineers, doctors, nurses and medical assistants".

Being bracketed into the "easy" path dooms students to failure in the rest of their academic careers. Despite efforts to expand access, drop out rates are increasing especially for those previously bracketed onto lower paths, and total time until graduation is increasing for those who do finish. This is while the same high skill jobs go unfilled.

For the US though, the reality is that making college free in the US would be cheaper for the federal government than its current programs.

It's not common in the US. The whole medical bankruptcy is the most common reason for bankruptcy was a myth. There were slightly more bankruptcies in 2017 than in 2007, so obviously Obamacare didn't have some huge effect on reducing them, either. In terms of total bankruptcy, In 2001, 1.45 million households filed for bankruptcy. In 2007, that number was 727,167.

(Posting as AC as I already moderated in the discussion earlier).

That is quite some cherry picking of data used by you and that article, considering 2007 had a record low number of bankruptcy filings. To put it into context, 2006 had 1,085,209 non-business filings, 2007 had 775,344 filings, and 2008 had 1,004,171. 2007 was an aberration as the trend from 2005-2010 was an increase of over 100,000 more non-business bankruptcy filings per year. After it peaked in 2010, it has been reducing by about 125,000 filings per year from 2010-2016. 2017 potentially has shown an end to that trend, as filings only dropped by 13,400.

Just to be clear, non-business bankruptcies have been cut in half since Obamacare took effect. That is not just because of Obamacare, since the Great Recession was a large driver of bankruptcies in 2009/2010, but it is still a significant factor. Even if you compare today's bankruptcies to 2005-2007 (before the recession, it has been a nearly 20% drop in non-business bankruptcies. And considering the population is 10% higher today than in 2006, the drop is even more dramatic.

The fact the story you cited used such skewed and cherry picked data puts a cloud over everything else it states. Its obvious the author had an agenda, even if it was just to be provocative. Considering it goes against the strong consensus regarding the prevalence of medical bankruptcies, it isn't surprising the author needed to fudge the numbers to come to those conclusions.

It's not common in the US. The whole medical bankruptcy is the most common reason for bankruptcy was a myth. There were slightly more bankruptcies in 2017 than in 2007, so obviously Obamacare didn't have some huge effect on reducing them, either. In terms of total bankruptcy, In 2001, 1.45 million households filed for bankruptcy. In 2007, that number was 727,167.

(Posting as AC as I already moderated in the discussion earlier).

Probably because Muslims are more often the victim than the perpetrator. There's a lot of countries in Africa too where xians are performing ethnic cleansing on Muslim populations.

You might want to research. The west practices tolerance, but in areas that are majority Muslim, not so much.

Here, you can find a list of countries that allow the DEATH PENALTY for apostasy and blasphemy. You will never guess the dominant religion for most of them... http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Well, "blasphemy" laws can be applied to pretty much anybody that you disagree with. In Pakistan, a Christian woman was pretty much railroaded and sentenced to death, despite the lack of any actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One telling quote (from the article):

In December 2010, a month after Noreen's conviction, a Muslim cleric announced a 500,000 Pakistani rupee award (the equivalent of $10,000)[7] to anyone who would kill her. One survey reported that around 10 million Pakistanis had said that they would be willing to personally kill her out of either religious conviction or for the reward.

Also, even if you DON'T actually commit blasphemy, here is a list of 13 countries where begin an Atheist can get you killed. You get three guesses about the dominant religion for 12 of these countries (the 13th country, Nigeria, is evenly divided between Christian and Islam). Yes, being the wrong religion (or lack thereof) is LEGAL grounds for execution. https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

Another page with a similar map: https://www.indy100.com/articl...

But as to who is the VICTIM of persecution, I will leave this article (cliff notes: Christians). The source data appears to be Pew (who is generally regarded as unbiased), but you can analyze the data for skew yourself.

https://www.express.co.uk/news...

Samsung is a South Korean juggernaut.

In South Korea, it's apparently a different story. Samsung alone is responsible for 20 percent of the country's $1.1 trillion economy. For reference, government spending there also makes up about 20 percent of GDP.

There's no telling how much influence this translates to within Samsung's home nation.

Here's an interesting article about how the Holocene (or what some might call Anthropocene) extinction and how it compares with mass extinctions in the fossil record. After making my post, I found another interesting article comparing the impact of human activity with the Permian-Triassic extinction. Humans have done tremendous damage, but as a matter of scale, the damage done by humans to date doesn't approach any of the five mass extinctions. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere dramatically increased near the Permian-Triassic boundary, with estimated rates during the event estimated to be close to the present day, but over a much longer period of time. I'm not aware that anyone really knows the source of the carbon dioxide, but it was a dramatic and extremely rapid event with respect to geologic time. It also took about 10 million years to recover from that extinction.

As the first article notes, however, ecosystems can behave in a non-linear way much like the climate system does. I am personally skeptical of our ability to establish where those tipping points occur. It's not that I distrust the science, but rather that I appreciate the complexity of the systems involved. It's all the more reason to play it safe and limit our damage as much as possible. We haven't caused a mass extinction yet, but we're more than capable of doing so.

Even the Communist party realises you need a sustainable environment if nothing else to stop people from insurrecting against the government because the environment can't sustain you anymore. China has more than a billion citizens, most of them living in rural communities. Destroy the enviroment and you have a first class ticket to a revolution.

This is laughable. Climate change is massively expanding the extant deserts in China causing mass exoduses to the city. In the short term, this means fucking over the environment to stave off insurrection. In the long-term, China's massive water shortage in the north is resulting in them spending billions (probably hundreds of billions in the end) to redirect water from the south. Yet none of it is going to be enough in the end when it comes to sustainability.

Massospara Heights
https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...

I have no horse in this race... but i can smell when the sh*t stinks

Did you check your shorts? Just sayin'.

And I can't see why Putin would care for Trump to win over Hillary, Feel free to enlighten me.

He wants to reestablish the Soviet Union and a weak American president over whom he has kompromat can help him with that.

But don't take my word for it, Putin said it himself in no uncertain terms that he wanted Trump to win:

https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

Even the White House, which for some reason edited the official transcript of Putin's remarks, which were made on camera, had to finally put them back, because editing out Putin saying, "Yes, I wanted Trump to win" just made Trump look even more guilty, and at this point, they're just trying to put out the wildfire that's headed their way.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

Here's the official record of Congressional CRA actions rolling back Obama's last-minute regulations:
https://www.rpc.senate.gov/cra...

And an article from about 70 into Trump's term:

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

To answer your question: "The oldest drinking straw in existence, found in a Sumerian tomb dated 3,000 B.C.E., was a gold tube inlaid with the precious blue stone lapis lazuli.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_straw

And here to save you the trouble of looking it up is the referenced source article: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/the-amazing-history-and-the-strange-invention-of-the-bendy-straw/248923/

Now let's get back to the subject of why these airlines are permitted to waste jet fuel and needlessly pollute the air just to hold onto their airport slots. It's ecologically unsound and should be illegal. The slots should be rescinded just for doing this.

The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.

Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse.

I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).

I never said Americans invented the term- it is common knowledge that it began in Britain to refer to football that was administered by the football association. What I said is it is incorrect to refer to football as being administered by the British Football Association when it isn't. I

The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.

Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse.

I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).

The right to "human dignity" is another invention, in this case by Justice Kennedy. Tell me - what actions do you consider undignified? If you believe lack of access to bacon tramples on your dignity, then does the halal restaurant down the street violate your rights?

You don't need ICE to fight gang violence. We already have laws which address it.

Right. And lefty jurisdictions are busy establishing policies that prevent those laws from being enforced.

No, no they are not. Nobody is trying to establish policies that will prevent laws against gang violence from being enforced. So that's a lie.

Quit trying to be slippery. You know exactly what's going on here.

Yes, I do. I know exactly what's going on here: you're talking shit. You said that "lefty jurisdictions are busy establishing policies that prevent" (your quote) "laws which address" (my quote, to which you were replying) "gang violence" (also from my quote, to which you replied.) But that's not happening. If that wasn't what you meant, you should have said something else.

And, really, you think that rampant corruption and gang violence in El Salvador is the fault of the US?

Yes.

Your eagerness to conflate genuine refugees, legal immigrants, and those who criminally cross the border means you have zero credibility on this entire topic.

Your eagerness to create differences between those people who do not exist proves that you are unwilling to consider reality.

I don't know how it is in the people's socialist republic of California,

If you want to talk about issues relating to motor vehicles, you probably should. We have the most drivers, the most vehicles, the second-most miles of road, and the most road miles traveled by vehicles per year.

It's not a RIGHT, but a privilege, and has restrictions.

It ought to be a right since the federal government aided the auto companies in shutting down useful and even profitable public transportation systems.

Plus, unless you came here LEGALLY, you are NOT an immigrant, you are an ILLEGAL ALIEN and should be stopped, arrested and deported.

Illegal immigrants contribute substantially to America's economy. We need them here to do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, until the robots are capable of doing those jobs. Then the elite won't need the immigrants or you, and you will be momentarily embarrassed that you've been jerking them off all your life, and then you will be dead.

But, in the people's socialist republic of California, there are NO laws.

The people's socialist republic of California operates at a surplus, which is a good thing, because we are one of the states that gets raped hardest for tax money. Meanwhile, Missouri is one of the states which provides the least return on investment. In short, we here in commiefornia are footing the bill for your lifestyle. But go ahead and cry your white snowflake tears about brown people who contribute more to the nation than you do...

Are they going to spin off and begin creating x86 compatible processors, completely neglecting patents?

Yes, and what are you going to do to stop them?

A single change and your x86 software becomes a buggy mess, I'd like to see them try to copy it.

China made 90.6% of all PCs produced in 2011. (Most recent number I could find in a quick search.) If your software doesn't work on them, who has more incentive to "fix" it?

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

It is a religion that started with Russian Cosmism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

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

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z92t...

If the USA truly had a conscience, the government would grant Native Americans property rights to help them pull themselves out of poverty.

That was tried once before: Dawes Act of 1887. It quickly turned into a transparent grab for their property.

If the USA truly had a conscience, the government would grant Native Americans property rights to help them pull themselves out of poverty.

But keeping non-whites poor and segregated seems to be more important. Why do you think zoning laws exist?

Does the USA have guilt? Not nearly enough!

How do you define poverty? They seem to be living quite "American" in their plush casinos.

If the USA truly had a conscience, the government would grant Native Americans property rights to help them pull themselves out of poverty.

But keeping non-whites poor and segregated seems to be more important. Why do you think zoning laws exist?

Does the USA have guilt? Not nearly enough!

You've got to be kidding me. Are you so disconnected from reality that you don't think the left was outraged by drone strikes under Obama?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
http://www.newsweek.com/strike...

Among for-profit programs...

There is the problem. Pay attention to the headlines:

More than half of students at for-profit colleges defaulted on loans, study finds

Almost all student loan fraud claims involve for-profit colleges, study finds

The Empty Promises of For-Profit Colleges

Actually, Trump has it backwards.

So here's an article on it. It doesn't seem to be regulation that's the issue,

There used to be another way. It went by names like "naked DSL" - telco plant owners (the guys who operate the actual physical cabling) used to be required to lease access to 3rd party ISPs. You might remember companies like Mindspring and Earthlink, for the most part their businesses depended on naked DSL.

But that all changed in 2005 when the SCOTUS ruled in NCTA v Brand X that plant owners did not have to provide access to 3rd party ISPs anymore. You might remember the Brand X case as the one that also killed net neutrality - both principles were part of being regulated as a "telecommunications provider" and the SCOTUS ruled that telcos could be categorized as "data providers" which were not subject to those requirements. Scalia actually dissented on that ruling. Turns out that prick was pretty smart when he didn't have an ideological dog in the fight.

You can't possibly be amazed they're getting away with this. Netflix is no longer the young lovable new puppy. It's an old established dog of a corporation that too many people simply live with (and, largely, they enjoy simply flipping on the tube and watching whatever is on). Baby Boomers have a netflix button on their TV remote. Their stock price in this case isn't how happy the users are, it's how profitable and powerful the company is. This is a move that makes them more powerful at the expense of customer satisfaction. And the stock prices went up.

They're so big they didn't even feel the need to defend network neutrality and said as much. What are the ISPs going to do, NOT offer Netflix? Their user-base would revolt.

When Netflix showed up, it moved markets. People got a bunch of old shows for cheap, old IP made some money, and people cut their cable cords. YAY! Markets are moving again, but it's not looking good for the end-user. Streaming services are no longer disruptive, they're established. Or at least becoming established.

Netflix is just another bundle of channels. Some of their stuff is good. A lot is decent. Most is.... just TV.

Can Sacrificing Privacy Stomp Out Disinformation Online?

According to Dipayan Piku Ghosh, a digital-privacy expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,“the commercial interests of internet platforms like Facebook and those of disinformation operators are at some points aligned.”

Ghosh specified that keeping users engaged for as long as possible is a core goal for both internet companies and entities spreading false information. “For the internet platform, it allows them to create more ad space and collect more data,” he said on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “For disinformation operators, it allows them to try to persuade the individual. And that alignment is what we need to really try to solve.”

Renée DiResta, who works as Data for Democracy’s head of policy, offered one possible solution—but it’s a bitter remedy for those who would wish to hold their data close: “Really, the solution ... is better information sharing,” she said on Thursday.

DiResta’s vision of online truth enforcement consists of a “triangle” of independent and academic researchers, researchers at big tech companies, and the government, all exchanging what they know and working in concert to stomp out disinformation. For some, that’s a chilling proposition—after all, it was data sharing between academics and Facebook that allowed Cambridge Analytica to create 30 million psychographic voter profiles without users’ consent. But without data and analysis flowing between each point of the triangle, DiResta argued, there’s no hope of triumphing over nefarious actors in a disinformation arms race.

Can Sacrificing Privacy Stomp Out Disinformation Online?

According to Dipayan Piku Ghosh, a digital-privacy expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,“the commercial interests of internet platforms like Facebook and those of disinformation operators are at some points aligned.”

Ghosh specified that keeping users engaged for as long as possible is a core goal for both internet companies and entities spreading false information. “For the internet platform, it allows them to create more ad space and collect more data,” he said on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “For disinformation operators, it allows them to try to persuade the individual. And that alignment is what we need to really try to solve.”

Renée DiResta, who works as Data for Democracy’s head of policy, offered one possible solution—but it’s a bitter remedy for those who would wish to hold their data close: “Really, the solution ... is better information sharing,” she said on Thursday.

DiResta’s vision of online truth enforcement consists of a “triangle” of independent and academic researchers, researchers at big tech companies, and the government, all exchanging what they know and working in concert to stomp out disinformation. For some, that’s a chilling proposition—after all, it was data sharing between academics and Facebook that allowed Cambridge Analytica to create 30 million psychographic voter profiles without users’ consent. But without data and analysis flowing between each point of the triangle, DiResta argued, there’s no hope of triumphing over nefarious actors in a disinformation arms race.

DNA profiling has its uses, but as many cases have proven in the past decade or so it can easily be abused as well. First off while DNA is usually highly unique DNA profiles aren't so much so. There was a case not long ago where during a trial "experts" claimed that the chances of a profile mismatch were insanely unlikely, I believe when it was reviewed in appeals they found out the statistical probabilities were actually 50/50. And that is before you get into things like micro samples, evidence tampering, lab mistakes, etc. If you use DNA evidence as it was originally used, as in get evidence, find suspect with motive & opportunity, then do testing at a well ran facility, your chances of a mistake are extremely low. But if you go the lazy route, just throwing crime scene evidence at a database and trying to blindly convict the first match that the computer spits out the chances of an innocent person being convicted skyrocket.

Lab Tech falsifies results
Lab with erroneous results from incompetence

After the inevitable scooter share startup bankruptcies, the problem will essentially solve itself. The scooters will then be auctioned off in bankruptcy to satisfy creditors.

See also: the mountains of abandoned sharing bicycles in China.

I Delivered Packages for Amazon and It Was a Nightmare

you have hit the nail on the head. I'm a volunteer in a local entrepreneur group and we have been trying to figure out why our membership is declining. My long-term suspicion has been that it tracks the availability of a social safety net. I did a quick Google while writing this and found this very interesting article from back in 2015 about how welfare availability makes people more willing to take a risk on starting a business.

so if we want more startups, more entrepreneurial activity, make sure everybody gets healthcare from the public sector, not from your employer. Make sure food stamps are relatively easy to get. And, try to do something about rent because it's too damn high!

The Atlantic has a good article in their current issue that talks about this. However, their angle is not synthetic viruses, but rather just the natural terrors that have arisen from places like The Congo and how the world is horribly unprepared for a repeat of the 1918 Flu Epidemic.

It is a very good read.

Really? I don't even know where to start.

Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it - https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.

Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation? Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on.

So, what in the WashPo indicates anything was wrong, other than 1 $500K donation in 2010? And the only thing wrong there appears to be clerical. And you don't think the IRS audited them? I know they audited them again in 2016, at the behest of 64 Republicans. Where are those Republicans when it's time to audit the Trump Organization charities? As for them taking money - please provide proof. That they take money for speaking? Yes they do. As does every other single ex-president. Uranium One - again, provide proof. I've seen a lot of accusations, zero proof. And that's the problem.

Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.

https://www.investors.com/poli... https://www.theatlantic.com/po... http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

A reference to an editorial that links to another set of editorials? That's the best you can do? In fact, your second link proves that there was nothing untoward with the Uranium One deal. If anything, it shows extreme partisan bias being wielded to denigrate a potential candidate. (After all, where's the investigation of the other 8 departments that approved U-One, or even the assertion that Clinton swung the vote somehow, or influenced the other 8?)

How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...

Ah yeah, Gruber, the self-important self-grandizing model that Gulliani is out-grandizing.... Anyone that didn't get the message that the healthy would pay in to help lower (subsidize) the costs for the unhealthy should probably be in a mental ward. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it at least attempted to address the healthcare issues for the people, no matter how badly. The then existing system was setup to only support healthy people and maximize profits. Not really a healthcare solution.

The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.

The only argument I have with your statement is that Hillary was not disbarred. Facts are important. And FWIW, back in 2000 or so, when people said Hillary would make a run for president, I pointed to the TV and stated that the only way Hillary would be elected is if someone like Trump, standing next to Bill and Hillary, was her opponent. I really do wish I'd bet on her presidential run. Make no mistake about it, the only reason she lost to asshat Trump is because of large amounts of disinformation floating about the rather fertile minefie

Further, it's clear she used her position for financial gain. Very clear. At the expense of the United States.

Is it? Is it really? Want to provide some proof of that financial gain? After all, if it's so clear, you should be able to provide whatever's needed for those hapless FBI guys so she can be charged tomorrow, right? TBH, I'm sick of you conspiracy nutjobs (both sides) that just keep on repeating some tripe you heard in one of your echo chambers. Put up some real documentation or shut up.

Really? I don't even know where to start.

Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it -
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.

Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation?
Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on. Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.

https://www.investors.com/poli...
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...

The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.

A Republican would already be years into his prison sentence by now if he did what she did at the same time.

Well, Trump's still going, and it's been documented that he's benefiting from his elected position. (His hotel in DC alone has a 50% increase in revenues since the presidency started, along with the sudden large number of legal actions in China going his and his family's way post election) I think you'll see more unsavory stories as administration actions are traced back to those that benefitted from them. Zinke is my personal favorite for next indictable current administration official. His actions as EPA head and interactions with lobbyists are billowing smoke. All that's needed is to find the fire.

Interesting. So what law has Trump broken because the Democrats would love to know of an actual law he's broken instead of the fake one - collusion. They've tried emoluments, other things that are very obscure and haven't been complained about in the history of the country. One by one they've been ruled to be not a concern. They're trying to conduct a coup. Just like they tried to do with Nixon.

GDP is doing very well, we're #1 again in the world. Consumer confidence is way back up. Unemployment is at a 43 year low. Black people are doing better than they have done under ANY Democratic President. Things are working a whole lot better. He's even bringing peace to the Korean peninsula. Something Obama really wanted to do and failed. He's putting politicians to shame all the way back to at least Eisenhower. Probably more like Lincoln. I thin

Maybe subways as designed today are obsolete. It is worth trying a very different approach in New York City. If the idea works in Chicago, it may work on a larger scale in NYC.