Slashdot Mirror

Here are some reference pages on various types of death in the US:

• - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...
• - http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Image...
• - https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
• - https://www.theguardian.com/us...

So, your chance of dying of various things in the US is:

• - Heart disease & cancer in the US: (about 1 in 7 deaths.) For every terrorism death, there are 35,000 deaths by heart disease and cancer.
• - Dying in a motor vehicle accident: (about 1 in 100.) For every terrorism death, there are about 2,200 deaths by motor vehicle accidents
• - Drowning in the US: (about 1 in 1200) For every terrorism death, there are about 200 deaths by drowning.
• - Being killed by police in the US: (about 1 in 2300) For every terrorism death, there are about 105 deaths by police
• - Dying in a plane crash: (about 1 in 10,000) For every terrorism death, there are about 25 deaths by plane crashes
• - Killed by lightning in the US: (about 1 in 160K.) For every terrorism death, there are about 1 and 1/2 deaths by lightning.
• - US Citizen killed by terrorists from 2005 through 2014: (about 1 in 240K deaths.)

The TSA failure to find weapons and explosives rate is 95%. IE, they only find 1 out of 20: https://www.theguardian.com/co...

It looks like you could show a decrease in deaths by shutting down the TSA and spending the money on all kinds of other things. For example, you would probably save thousands of people every year, if you took the TSA's budget and used that money to give a daily carrot to everybody in America.

Of course, the future of the KID (Karrot Issuance Daily) agency is not all shiny orange. The yearly number of carroticides might even exceed the number of US people killed by terrorists. But, even factoring in the increase of death by carrot, there still would be tremendous net positive benefit.

Here are some reference pages on various types of death in the US:

• - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...
• - http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Image...
• - https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
• - https://www.theguardian.com/us...

So, your chance of dying of various things in the US is:

• - Heart disease & cancer in the US: (about 1 in 7 deaths.) For every terrorism death, there are 35,000 deaths by heart disease and cancer.
• - Dying in a motor vehicle accident: (about 1 in 100.) For every terrorism death, there are about 2,200 deaths by motor vehicle accidents
• - Drowning in the US: (about 1 in 1200) For every terrorism death, there are about 200 deaths by drowning.
• - Being killed by police in the US: (about 1 in 2300) For every terrorism death, there are about 105 deaths by police
• - Dying in a plane crash: (about 1 in 10,000) For every terrorism death, there are about 25 deaths by plane crashes
• - Killed by lightning in the US: (about 1 in 160K.) For every terrorism death, there are about 1 and 1/2 deaths by lightning.
• - US Citizen killed by terrorists from 2005 through 2014: (about 1 in 240K deaths.)

The TSA failure to find weapons and explosives rate is 95%. IE, they only find 1 out of 20: https://www.theguardian.com/co...

It looks like you could show a decrease in deaths by shutting down the TSA and spending the money on all kinds of other things. For example, you would probably save thousands of people every year, if you took the TSA's budget and used that money to give a daily carrot to everybody in America.

Of course, the future of the KID (Karrot Issuance Daily) agency is not all shiny orange. The yearly number of carroticides might even exceed the number of US people killed by terrorists. But, even factoring in the increase of death by carrot, there still would be tremendous net positive benefit.

At least IBM had the balls to go again.

I don't think Ke Jie has the balls to do it again. It would be utterly pointless too, because the AI will keep improving much quicker than human players.

“I feel like his game is more and more like the ‘Go god’. Really, it is brilliant,” he said.
Ke vowed never again to subject himself to the “horrible experience”.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Thanks. So agree. I'm semi-retired now, but my last serious job was in a small, very competent investment bank. Any major change had to survive the change committee and have a detailed, well-documented roll-back plan. We usually did the doing in the middle of the night at the weekend when major markets were closed as well. Also, senior managers were somewhat tech-savvy and very supportive.

This BA thing isn't the first one either: https://www.theguardian.com/mo... and probably won't be the last. Because the other thing that is going on is that senior people and consultants (accountants) have confused resilience (extra hardware etc. to deal with spikes and outages) with inefficiency (oh, that's too much stuff, you can do it with 'less').

I still enjoy computing and computers but I'm frankly glad to be away from this sort of stupidity.

Sounds like her read Utopia for Realists

Will any of you dumbfucks apologize, or are you just going to keep pretending you don't notice the obvious treason taking place in front of your eyes?

You should read carefully the article. It makes two very important points:
1) "It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials."
2) "Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks."
In fact it is understandable the mistrust with American intelligence agencies right now, because, as Bloomberg put it, "the U.S. intelligence ship is too leaky to sail". Besides that, this Kushner-Flynn affair has ostensibly nothing to do with the alleged (and very unlikely IMO) Russian hack of the Democratic party, but it is related to the Syrian war, where American intelligence agencies have been playing dirty since the start and not in the interest of the American people (unless arming al-Qaeda is in the interest of the American people).

But there is legal jeopardy, because — and his defense lawyer will seize on that — in releasing information to Americans, that the President himself has already disclosed to Putin.

That is not a complete sentence. "There is jeopardy because in releasing information to Americans, that the president himself has already disclosed to Putin"... Because what???

I think what you are trying to say is "I am not a lawyer but I think it would be just fine to share top secret information with the world because the president discussed the information with the Russians."

I think it is good you are not a lawyer.

But, hey, if no one really knows the content, why are we taking such amorphous anonymous accusations of the "leaks" as valid at all?

"This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."

You did respond.

I asked you a question. You can infer from this that I was interested in whether you would exhibit cognitive dissonance and how you would attempt to reconcile that. It is thought that the attempt to maintain cognitive consistency in the face of conflicting attitudes can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior. You seem to think that it was just fine for Trump to share top secret information with the Russians. Many thanks for answering the question.

Please don't infer from my lack of further responses that I have any interest in, opinion on, or have even read anything further you may write. Please only infer that I have the answer to my question.

So was the last one, but this will not stop the Bigots stereotyping until they are blue in the face.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend, and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.

What about that fellow who leaked classified intel to the Kremlin just to impress his Russian pals? I guess it's as Richard Nixon liked to say, if the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.

They've outed the leaker in chief. "This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."

Israel’s moves to restrict intelligence could be the shape of things to come in other corners of the globe. On the issue of intelligence-sharing, the Trump administration has proven erratic and unreliable—something that is increasingly alarming for U.S. allies.

Nobody tried to ban Milo

https://www.change.org/p/ban-m...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/...
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/...
http://www.dailyuw.com/opinion...

Look, I could keep going but I think that presents extensive proof that you're full of shit.

But since you apparently stopped reading after my first sentence, you don't know how your post actually PROVED my point.

I didn't stop reading. I merely went back and highlighted that you lied in your opening sentence, and since the rest of your illogical rant ridden with falsehoods was based on that lie I couldn't be arsed to go through and point out where you're full of shit.

Milo is offensive and a lot of people have tried to ban him. Many of those identify as 'left' on the political spectrum.

It's clearly too complex an issue for you as you can't properly articulate it. You're too busy throwing around labels like 'left' and 'right', and misrepresenting even those arbitrary positions, and you're operating from a bigoted ignorant base that will prevent you finding any answers, simple or otherwise.

Now fuck off and watch how adults do it.

It's not punishment for Brexit. They've wanted to do this kind of stuff for years but needed to be out of the EU to do it. Once the UK is out of the EU the government will be free to trounce upon the rights of the people because citizens won't be able to go to the Supreme Court in Brussels.

Exactly this. Theresa May wanted the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights even before the Brexit referendum took place. It isn't hard to work out why a politician would want to do away with human rights.

Photos and a video for the lazy comin' right up.

I did check. All media outlets are reporting it as a rape investigation.

And here. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... we have this:

His Swedish accuser, through her lawyer, decried the decision. “It is a scandal that a suspected rapist can escape justice and thereby avoid the courts,” the lawyer, Elisabeth Fritz, said in a statement to news agencies. “My client is shocked.”

There is this tho which is really interesting. https://www.theguardian.com/me.... Content of this I agree strongly suggests there was no significant change in allegations leveled inspite of the R word being thrown around in the media over recent events so I need to retract my prior comments about this and revisit my thinking on this.

The qui bono on this pushes me more towards this kind of thing as a more realistic threat:
https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Many shadowy parties are reported to be involved in this sort of thing, another is American Billionaire Robert Merce who has also been implicated in unlawful campaigning in the UK Referendum and General Elections, illegally under UK election regulations.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Probably, but a large part of this is probably a cover for the work of Robert Mercer and his many tech buddies, formerly of Google, subverting American democracy.

Most likely though, it's both together, possibly with the Russians working for the US based manipulators. This wouldn't be the first time that western plutocrats lined together with a dictator intent on destroying their countries.

Just looking at the pictures ( https://www.theguardian.com/en... ) of the vault itself its apparent these people have no idea what they are doing:

1. The plastic boxes are not waterproof in the event of a flood the entire supply will be compromised
2. There are no cages in place to keep the plastic containers from falling off the shelves in the event of an earthquake or flood, and compromising their integrity
3. The ground floor is permafrost - not actual concrete or any sort of reinforced material, so any lifeform that is capable of digging can penetrate this 'vault'

"remains in the investigative state" (6 March 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/me...

A pandemic seems more likely than all the catastrophic events that may yet come, especially with first world countries having an older population throughout the rest of this century.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/antibiotics-medicine-dark-ages-overprescribing

you may as well do as you suggest anyway, your depression is entirely justified ... because we're already royally fucked, and we don't show any signs of being able to interrupt or even slow down the melting of the glaciers that Eric talks about ...

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/about/events/s-t-lee-lecture/s.t.-lee-lecture-2016

Professor Eric J.M. Rignot, 14 February 2017

Donald Bren Professor of Earth System Science, School of Physical Sciences, University of California, Irvine
Senior Research Scientist/Joint Faculty Appointee at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

It's very interesting to have the "anatomy" of the glaciers discussed so that we know how the calculations have been made.
His lecture describes the analyses that his team made on each significant sea-facing glacier in the world, and the conservative estimates are alarming. Unless there's a volcanic eruption which causes global temperatures to drop rapidly, we already have an inevitable 1 meter overall sea rise ahead of us, and there's a handful of glaciers that can each deliver 4 meters or more, it's just a matter of time, we're too late to stop it ... enjoy !
That's 1 meter AVERAGE, so you can imagine how that pans out for equatorial sites like New Orleans - they haven't seen nothing yet.

The evidence is clear for all to see - the Totten glacier : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?utm_term=.2889616837dc
- Pine Island Glacier : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/26/collapse-antarcticas-glaciers-ice-melt-sooner-than-thought-scientists-warn

You're right - what do we care?
It's too fucking late already to stop it, but we could make life a "little" more pleasant for our children, presuming they will live normal lives of about another 60 years ...
If we still don't care, that speaks volumes about us collectively, eh?

... and that includes the climate scientists. I imagine it would be hard to find a climate scientist who would be willing to bet his house on a measurable and non-trivial prediction about the future -- one that he would make from his climate models in the span of a few years.

I don't think anyone has bet a house, but a scientist and economist did bet £1000 against some of the GWPF advisors, (spoiler: the GWPF people lost)

Of course, Bill Nye offered to bet $20,000 against Marc Morano's predictions of cooling but Morano turned him down. He offered a similar bet to Joe Bastardi who also turned him down.

The linked article reads: "10 to 20 cm of sea-level rise expected no later than 2050."

Huh? I don't try to keep up with all of these doomsday predictions, but I thought it was supposed to be several feet and that huge tracts of land in coastal areas would be underwater by 2050? so I googled

sea level rise by 2050

The first result was a PBS story from 2012. This article quotes a report in the journal Environment Research Letters stating: "Sea levels could rise as much as 19 inches by 2050, according to what the report calls 'mid-range projections.' " Next result was an article from The Guardian in 2015 which states "sea levels may still rise at least 6 meters (20 ft) above their current heights, radically reshaping the world's coastline". They also reference some pseudo-scientists in some scientific publication

I thought there was some "consensus" on this stuff? Have the "climate scientists" reached the consensus that sea levels will rise by anywhere from 10cm to 600cm by 2050, with 48cm being in the "mid range"?

Predicting the future is NOT science.

Your current leader thinks it's fiction (along with most of slashdot of course), so that should be a great comfort to you. Nothing bad will happen

Not so fast. His Orangeness most certainly does believe in climate change. It's the very reason he cited in his application to build a sea wall for an Irish golf course. Specifically:

"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."

Even more interesting is they used an Irish government's study about the effects of erosion through 2050, then said that study failed to take into account the effects of climate change. Which is why he petitioned to build the sea wall. Because of the effects of climate change.

On the other hand the Baby Boomer generation will probably love it

Methinks you got that backwards.

It's pretty firmly established that older folks value their privacy much more than younger ones. It wasn't the Boomer generation that created Facebook and Instanarcissist: the entire "social media" movement of trading your privacy for a wee bit of convenience was created by the millennial generation. You can always find individual exceptions, but it's not the older generations I see walking around constantly snapping selfies and uploading everything they do to social media. It's not the Boomer generation saying "Privacy no longer a social norm".

There's a generation gap indeed: Online privacy? For young people, that's old-school

For four years, nearly 200 high school students in Dallas voluntarily allowed every text, email, and IM to be monitored. That these youth would sign off on such an invasion of privacy, especially in light of the content that was discovered within their communication, shows how much the next generation has changed their views on privacy.

For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Many in that movement went though the courts, lobbied their government officials and even peacefully protested to sway public opinion, and only then did they resort to breaking the law... You keep trying.

Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.

Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens? Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.

For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's

So, that's a no. Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, you really need to review your history of the Civil Rights movement. It included quite a bit of lawbreaking which was necessary to raise awareness and move the issue forward. I'd say it constitutes a pretty decent counterexample to your claim, actually. But even if it didn't, the fact that you had to reach back almost 60 years to find an example of someone allegedly fixing a governmental problem through official channels is telling enough.

Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.

Nonsense. You should read about John Crane, Thomas Drake and the others who were persecuted (and prosecuted) for trying to reveal what Snowden did, but to do it "the right way". The evidence is abundant and well-documented by serious journalists. This isn't some conspiracy theory crap, and if you're unaware of it it's because your own confirmation bias has led you to avoid it. Here's an article to get you started: https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens?

Good intentions are not a defense against bad actions. I sincerely believe that the members of the intelligence community are trying to protect the country, but that doesn't mean they can just do anything they want. There is tremendous potential for abuse, which is why we need laws that strictly circumscribe what the intelligence community can do, and real oversight -- with teeth -- to verify that the laws are being followed. We manifestly lack real oversight, and as a result the intelligence community regularly breaks the law, which itself is dangerously permissive.

Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.

You have a very simplistic view of the world. There is more than one issue at stake. Classified information can be integral to maintaining safety, and yet it can still be necessary to reveal classified information in order to preserve freedom. In most cases this can be done without actually endangering anyone... but sometimes it can't, and that's just too damned bad. Freedom isn't free, and part of the cost

I wonder if this move has anything to do with what the Guardian did a story on: "The Great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked" https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Apparently, there are some mercenary individuals who run companies who are capable of significantly influencing the outcomes of elections through manipulating social media and using people's personal social media data to target them during election campaigns. Although, thinking about it, isn't that what the "old media" have always done? I guess they object to Donald Trump and Nigel Farage more than previous campaigners... Oh, and the story is run by an "old media" outlet.

Israel technically denies that it has nucs. Nobody believes them but that is the official line.

Nobody wants 'Lil Kim anywhere near them.

It might, a shame that all crime, especially violent crime is rising rapidly. Thanks for the fake news, though.

Within the UK it gets even more interesting.
When the UK was collecting on all calls within Ireland and between Ireland and the rest of the world the UK needed to keep such collection secret from the press, lawyers, any court setting, human rights groups, UK police who enjoyed talking with the media, UK police with contacts in Ireland.
So only the UK mil, GCHQ and Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch would often see the results of collection. No other parts of the UK gov could be trusted with raw product and the results of collect it all.
Irish funding and support had to also be tracked in the USA by the UK, and had to avoid all questions by the USA.
Later meetings saw the use of Forward Intelligence Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Other issues show the need to control unions in the UK "Police ‘covered up’ links with union blacklisting" (8 Nov 2014)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
The use of different groups by the sections of the UK police and UK gov offers a way of ensuring police officials, the media, lawyers never pay for or get told of such methods.

I listen to the same song again and again. The artist got paid once.
I buy CD's used. The artists doesn't get paid there.
I share CD's. Guess what -- the artist doesn't get paid.

Quit playing the "starving artist isn't get paid" card -- because there are numerous legal examples.

Maybe you missed the memo that the RIAA are the the biggest thieves -- NOT the consumers.

People who pirate regularly spend MORE on films and BUY more.

Google is not different from anyone else. You are conflating the (free) distribution of music on YouTube as if it is the ONLY source of income. This is false. Artists aren't making a living off of YouTube even if ZERO of their music is "pirated."

--
Fuck You Red Cross for hijacking the + operator and the color red hundreds of years AFTER the Templars.

I listen to the same song again and again. The artist got paid once.
I buy CD's used. The artists doesn't get paid there.
I share CD's. Guess what -- the artist doesn't get paid.

Quit playing the "starving artist isn't get paid" card -- because there are numerous legal examples.

Maybe you missed the memo that the RIAA are the the biggest thieves -- NOT the consumers.

People who pirate regularly spend MORE on films and BUY more.

Google is not different from anyone else. You are conflating the (free) distribution of music on YouTube as if it is the ONLY source of income. This is false. Artists aren't making a living off of YouTube even if ZERO of their music is "pirated."

--
Fuck You Red Cross for hijacking the + operator and the color red hundreds of years AFTER the Templars.

When Tony Blair met Bill Gates in 2006 - after kissing Gates' feet and gushing for a few hours about his supreme wonderfulness - Blair signed up for the super huge mega deal, with all the Windows you can eat. (Small print: security is up to you, mumble mumble mumble...)

"Mr Gates, the billionaire software pioneer, had just written a book about how IT could transform economies".

Yeah. Transform them from prosperity to miserable bankruptcy - along with lots of dead and dying patients. And transfer a large slice of their revenue to Bill Gates' bulging pockets.

Maybe the NHS should call Gates now and ask him to sort out their problems.

https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

Hmmm...

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Some hankee and pankee did happen.

Hmmm....

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

The report is about Brexit. But it can be easily applied to US...the players are the same, the same agenda (though I have no clue what they want other than some chaos.)

And how about if he fired a FBI director that has publicly said on at least three different occasions that he isn't under investigation for anything at all?

When Donald Trump claimed that Comey "has publicly said on at least three different occasions..." he apparently hadn't seen the news.

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

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

All three of those citations have links to video of Comey stating, in English, that Trump is indeed under investigation. If you need a Russian translation, we can probably find one for you.

The problem with this conspiracy theory is that if the billionaires got to pick the president, it would have been Jeb Bush, not Donald Trump. Do you think that "the elite" wanted TPP cancelled, NAFTA re-negotiated, and subsidized pensions/healthcare for coal miners? Most billionaires would have picked Hillary over Donald. She was the "status quo" candidate, and the status quo is working pretty well for them.

You are making assumptions about the goals of whomever is behind this. Did you read the other linked article? https://www.theguardian.com/po... People do things for reasons other than making money or preserving the status quo. Besides, I'm just relating what I have experienced. Since a little before the election, right-wing trolls have been out in force, in a way I have never seen before. I can assume it's a coincidence that so many on the right have taken to comment sections where they previously were not found. Or I can think they were sent there. Read the article; it is plausible they were sent there.

So, let me see if I understand this... a foreigner stating opinions about US politics is equivalent in your mind with interfering in US politics?

Not just "in my mind". Social media messaging is one of the major components of "foreign interference".

They need to become e-residents:

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Does that include companies like The Guardian too? They're one of the biggest culprits when it comes to trying to influence clueless voters with their version of reality. Hell, these demagogues are still peddling the "Pepe is racist hate speech" nonsense, on their frontpage no less.

No, there is nothing wrong with openly trying to influence people. The Guardian is an openly corporatist, "liberal" (in the European sense of "right wing", lassaiez-faire with "bien pensant" support for social improvement, but without actually committing to doing anything themselves, for example by paying extra taxes). This is not something they hide, they state it openly on their editorial pages. Their attacks on both left wing and extreme right wing authoritarian groups within Europe are clear and well understood. They still attempt to report the truth as they understand it and often include articles from their opponents when they don't (which is much of the time).

If you don't understand the difference between that and someone who is actively lying and misleading then you need to read up about freedom of expression. The guardian's "misunderstandings" could be easily answered by more contrary speech.

For example you claim that the guardian is reporting that "Pepe is racist hate speech", which would hardly be a news story, however I find, on the Guardian's front page, the story that Pepe the Frog creator kills off internet meme co-opted by white supremacists - it's talking about the actual original artist who made the frog drawings. Now that is news, whether you agree with Mr Furie or not. It becomes clear that the question is not "why is the Guardian reporting this" but instead "why is the rest of the media not reporting this.

and it won't stop as long as these "persuadable" voters make their decisions based on facebook posts.

Oh, it won't stop there either. If Facebook stops being an effective vector, they'll move to something else. Propaganda is an ancient art. Technology and the fact that so many people are volunteering their personal information, just make it more effective.

Everyone should read the article linked behind "a global plutocracy" in the summary above. https://www.theguardian.com/po... This is a very well organized and funded campaign. The average person, being unaware of even the possibility of doing what they are doing, has no defense against it. People call me paranoid and a conspiracy theorist when I say that society and culture are being engineered behind the scenes. Well, read the article and see if you can honestly tell me you don't think so too.

The main difference between the elections in France and the elections in the US, is that there was a choice between 11 candidates on the first turn, four of which have had a score above 19% .

Enjoy your weekly car fires and terrorist attacks.

He did kind of signal that that was the future they can look forward to.

This threat, this imponderable problem, is part of our daily lives for the years to come.

So far as I can see, it's no big secret that Putin would like to destabilize the EU

Destabilize Russia's biggest customer, because reasons.

especially NATO countries, because a weak EU/NATO means it's easier for him to implement his long-term agenda

....of not continuing to be encircled by an alliance of hypocritical warmongers who continue to blame, threaten and sanction Russia because....the United States overthrew the government of Ukraine.

So far as I can see, it's no big secret that Putin would like to destabilize the EU

Destabilize Russia's biggest customer, because reasons.

especially NATO countries, because a weak EU/NATO means it's easier for him to implement his long-term agenda

....of not continuing to be encircled by an alliance of hypocritical warmongers who continue to blame, threaten and sanction Russia because....the United States overthrew the government of Ukraine.

Maybe California is using its much higher debt per capita to create the illusion of less poverty and wealth? I mean, you can live high on the hog on credit cards, but if you continuously spend more than you bring in - eventually that plan falls apart. And scholastically, Texas and California are essentially tied.

NOTE: I say this as a resident of California (Ventura, CA area). Beautiful place to live, but the State Government is seriously messed up (for example, firearm policy; much more liberal Washington State is shall issue and permissive about firearms and enjoys 1/3rd the gun murder rate as much more restrictive California), the State finances are in a shambles (it's all smoke and mirrors - hey, we have a $1 trillion shortfall in pension funding, which works out to about $30,000 per CA resident), and the State has ZERO plan on how to complete the "high speed" rail (I use quotes because it is nothing like HS rail in the rest of the world, being just over 160 kph) through the Tehachapi mountains - effectively cutting it off from LA. Thankfully I've economically relocated out of CA, so it's not too bad for me...

Elon Musk to the rescue!

Hopefully their are good medical benefits. Some of Youtube's human censors have quit and been diagnosed with PTSD due to all the disgusting, traumatic, and disturbing videos some people try to upload to youtube.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Which kind of brings up an interesting point and another parallel. Just like when Rand Paul had a spat with the TSA, when our elected leaders start brushing up (negatively) against those controversial policies of the government, the more likely those policies will be changed.

I had hoped (maybe still hoping) that if Trump's conversations were picked up in dragnet and he learned about it that he would want to publicize those to eventually end those kind of practices or at least force them inline with the law. Just like Rand Paul and the TSA (Rand Paul was always a critic of the TSA but after that spat he stepped up his efforts to reign in on the agency).

Let's be honest, more and more elected representatives and judges will come into contact with these policies and I would hope that many of them won't like it and begin the slow churn of changes in government.

Still waiting for solar to pass its commercial viability test and I suspect wind power is a similar story.

Either you are willfully ignoring facts or you don't understand them. Solar has been economically viable in a wide variety of circumstances for quite a few years now. It's not the cheapest option everywhere (nothing is) but it's easily competitive in a great many places. Even better it's cost per unit of power generated has been dropping very rapidly with no evidence of an end in sight.

So far it only succeeds here in the UK because of government subsidies.

I could say the same thing about oil and gas in the UK. The UK subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of billions per year directly, not to mention the indirect subsidy of not requiring coal and oil to pay the full cost of their emissions. Solar is already competitive with coal and oil in many situations and it is easily competitive if you compare the full cost of each which folks like yourself arguing against solar tend not to do.

If I pay for and install my own 5kWh solar system the returns over 20 years don't cover the cost of the initial installation, let alone a replacement inverter after 10 years or any other maintenance.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Even if we take your statement at face value (and we shouldn't), it doesn't follow that there are no solar installations anywhere (UK or elsewhere) that do not recoup their costs. It is a trivial exercise to find examples of solar installations that pay for themselves within their operational lifespan.