Slashdot Mirror

the kind that hand-picked Hilary over Sanders?

No one wants to seem to admit that they did this because she had a better shot at it than Bernie:
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ber...

The Democrats have always been comfortable with their minority block....if they picked Bernie, they probably would have been crushed in November.

"So yes, I think he's entirely serious that he wants to have people walking on Mars within his term."

Why not watch the video?

https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

Starts at 1 minute, comment is at 1:34. He starts talking seriously, then breaks into a grin, and then plays the crowd for laughs (which he gets). It's OBVIOUSLY a fucking joke.

This is the exact opposite of what has happened - in fact the EU already prevented the UK from liberalising such rules, as it wanted a tax on blank media or similar as per other EU countries. Guardian link on the same subject if you prefer.

The UK was ahead in recognising format shifting, but was slapped back by the copyright lobby demanding payment for format shifting and working that angle via the EU.

Oh, you want to talk about who is taking over ? Not to mention what they take out.

For decades.

I know you don't want to face it, but the right-wing is the bastion of the thought police.

You should probably just abandon your false conception of the left-right political spectrum, and make your arguments without it. Even if you had a historical point (which you don't), you'd be fighting uphill against reality. Of course, denying reality and living in fantasies is a hallmark of the right, so...you'll keep on keeping on. We will always have been at war with Eastasia, and the chocolate ration will be increased to 30 grams a week.

The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth so this shouldn't surprise anyone. Here's what he said only a week ago:

"Rigorous science is critical to my administration's efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection."

"My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks," Trump said. "As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.

What better way to advance scientific research and allow for honest inquiry and robust debate than to wipe from the record, the very research one claims to support.

P.S. He had no problem claiming climate change as the reason he needed to build a sea wall around his Irish golf course:

"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."

They've wasted $80 million on an inferior spacesuit. They should have spent more on spacesuit!

Now where's that pooping spacesuit we've all been waiting for?

Sorry about the link.

The public needs to decide just how much privacy they're willing to sacrifice in the name of security, and get their legislative representatives to give that decision the force of law... or the cops will take all their privacy without even blinking.

I believe the UK has already lost this battle.

I'm not a denier, and yet I know that it is extremely arrogant to assert that we *know* what is going on with the climate. We don't. We have a hypothesis. Most good scientists will say the same thing. Only arrogant fools assert brazenly that either (a) humans are definitely heating up the planet; or (b) humans are definitely not heating up the planet. We don't have conclusive proof of either.

The IPCC states that the evidence is unequivocal that global warming is occurring and that the odds are at least 95% that humans are the principal cause of it. It seems that the scientists of the world disagree with your assessment. Maybe they are being arrogant as you say, or maybe they just know more about this than you do.

For example, you think that the 200 year timescale is insignificant on a scale of 4.5 billion years, and yet it is the very short time that makes it significant. The temperature rise over such a short period is way above any naturally occurring climate change. You say that we only believe that CO2 and methane are involved, and yet the effect of those gases on the transfer of various forms of energy have been known by scientists for centuries. In fact, the idea that man's increase of greenhouse gases could result in the warming of the planet was postulated long before we had the measurements to back it up. Your notion of what scientists have established is over 200 years out of date.

Finally, another claim that you make that I suspect is wrong is that you are not a denier. It is a favorite tactic of climate change deniers to make it appear that we are less sure of what is going on by suggesting that there is still debate within the scientific community about the causes. This has gone on ever since that leaked Republican party memo that warned "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly".

this says differently https://www.theguardian.com/en...

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

It will be a sad world if people ever have to rely on Uber and Lyft to get from place to place.

I suspect that you are older than a Millenial and do not live in a dense urban area. (Personally, I'm older than a Millenial, I don't live in a dense area, and I very much treasure owning my own car.)

When I was a teen I was just counting the days until I got a permit to be able to drive a car; now Millenials are increasingly not bothering to get driver's license and insurance, and taking bus/Uber/Lyft when they want to go somewhere.

And there are people who live in dense urban areas who would find it a hassle to park a car, and prefer not to own a car there. More, there are cities that are actively trying to reduce the number of cars on their roads.

Tesla has not demonstrated that the sensors they are shipping will be able to handle all cases.

Okay, we get it, you're skeptical of the full self-driving features.

Will they be aimed low enough to stop to allow a rabbit to cross the road safely or are we just running over animals now? Will they scan the contour of the road so they can drive properly through ice ruts or around deep potholes? I didn't think they had that kind of tech yet.

Frankly I don't know the answers to these questions, but if Tesla thinks their current sensor tech is sufficient for full self-driving, my guess is they have at least thought of each of these things.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the ultrasonic sensors would be used to watch for ice ruts and potholes; that the testing program has already included people driving the test cars on roads with ice ruts and potholes; and the forward radar would likely do a better job of spotting a rabbit than a tired human at night. I don't think anyone is claiming that the self-driving features would completely eliminate all road kills, but equally I doubt self-driving cars will be worse than humans.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware

I'm pretty sure the lungfuls of car exhaust will counteract that benefit. Hell, I knew a truck driver who had his chest cracked open looking for problems only to find it was just the build up of decades of soot from sitting in traffic so much.

That's not true in most cities:

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

“Even in Delhi, one of the most polluted cities in the world – with pollution levels ten times those in London – people would need to cycle over five hours per week before the pollution risks outweigh the health benefits.

Look, roads were made for cars and trucks. If you ride a motorcycle or bicycle on the road, anything that happens to you is your fault. A smart person surrounds himself in steel to protect him from stupid assholes on the road. Only retards think that they don't need it.

Actually, roads were originally made for (and paid by) cyclists:

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

Surrounding yourself in steel doesn't seem to make drivers very safe when 35,000 people a year are killed in car crashes.

AC US government still hunting WikiLeaks as Obama targets whistleblowers (6 March 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/me...

OK smartypants, if you think it is an "error," what is the authority on English grammar? Is there a book or something that lists the rules?

maybe these will do the trick.. they are good enough for universities.
or these should suffice
you SEEM to think that "seen" is a perfectly fine and esoteric substitute for "seem"... it's not.
You also seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that you are right under all circumstances even when blatantly wrong.
I also find your utter pretentiousness absolutely hilarious! 100% entertainments from how hard you bite. It's just magical!...
Please tell us all how magical and fabulous you are again!...

Buzzfeed seems to only link their own articles in their stories, so it's not convenient to fact-check them. I would have prefered some other information on this subject and since there is none in the TFA, I will provide you with some more info on this lobbying dollout:

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/...

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

http://www.cbronline.com/news/...

From an obnoxious website that I won't link because of how totally obnoxious their javascript is; you may wish to read this anyway:

f the surprising election win by President-elect Donald Trump left you feeling dispirited, you may be looking for a way to take action.
One way you could do so is donating money or time to causes you believe stand against Trump's politics. Conversely, you could hold back your money â" by boycotting companies and/or corporate executives that stand against your beliefs.
As of mid-September, no CEO of a Fortune 100 company supported Trump by donating to his campaign.
But in other ways, and in the time since, a few big companies have shown support for the president-elect â" directly or indirectly.
Here are five examples.
New Balance
The day after the election, Matthew LeBretton, vice president of public affairs for the sneaker brand New Balance, told a Wall Street Journal reporter: "The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us and frankly with President-elect Donald Trump, we feel things are going to move in the right direction."
After that message went out, angry people on Twitter shared photos showing them destroying or trashing their New Balance shoes.
In response, New Balance issued a statement to Sole Collector clarifying its position.
"As the only major company that still makes athletic shoes in the United States, New Balance has a unique perspective on trade and trade policy in that we want to make more shoes in the United States, not less," the statement reads. "New Balance publicly supported the trade positions of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump prior to Election Day that focused on American manufacturing job creation and we continue to support them today."
Yuengling
On a final campaign swing through Pennsylvania at the end of October, Trump's son Eric stopped by the Yuengling Brewery in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
Richard "Dick" Yuengling Jr., who is 73 and the fifth-generation owner of the nation's oldest beer company, gave him a tour.
"Our guys are behind your father," Yuengling said, the Reading Eagle reported. "We need him in there."
Eric Trump promised a Trump presidency would help businesses like Yuengling, a $550 million company with breweries in Pottsville and East Norwegian Township in Pennsylvania and Tampa, Florida.
"Maybe your dad will build a hotel in Pottsville, or serve Yuengling in his hotels," Yuengling said, jokingly, according to the Eagle.
Following the visit, there were calls on Twitter for a consumer boycott of the beermaker.
Home Depot
Kenneth Langone, one of the co-founders of Home Depot, has been publicly supporting Trump since May.
After supporting GOP presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and then Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Langone settled on Trump.
"And you want to know something?" Langone said on CNBC's "Closing Bell" in May. "I think he'll do a hell of a good job. At least I'm hoping."
Langone even doubled down after Trump bragged about sexual assault in the bus video leaked in October.
When asked for comment about the Langone's support, Stephen Holmes, the director of corporate communications for Home Depot said: "The Home Depot nor our CEO endorse Presidential candidates. Ken is a co-founder, and was once on our board of direc

House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

Phlease, there is nothing to "investigate" there. I'm yet to hear even a coherent accusation — much less any evidence, however circumstantial or otherwise unreliable.

He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo

He-he... Much comfort that is — from the loving care of MPs to the gentle mercies of civilian wardens. More importantly, perhaps, Obama also changed the entire doctrine from capturing suspected terrorists to outright killing them. That's actually bona-fide evil, but with media airbrushing it, he was given a pass — even the unwarranted killing of Osama bin Laden was celebrated with only a few people asking, why he was ordered killed, not captured.

To recap, the folks, who roasted Bush alive for detaining suspected terrorists, were perfectly fine with Obama murdering same. And still he has not fulfilled his promise to drain Guantanamo...

until Republicans took over congress under his watch

Two years... Two years was not enough for him to disperse a few hundred prisoners... Trump's been in office for less than 100 days and you are already trumpeting his "failures"...

So you're arguing that these drugs don't get you high?

That's what I'm told about marijuana. It has no effect whatsoever which is why everyone wants to smoke it. No matter how many articles come out about people jumping out windows, shooting themselves, ignoring train whistles, thinking it's funny to give someone laced food without their knowledge, or driving the wrong way in traffic and killing people, I'm always told it's not the weed. It has to be something else because marijuana is perfectly safe.

The intersection of money and politics is a problem. Probably an unsolvable problem for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post.

Charles Koch compared the contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to being asked to choose cancer or a heart attack. He then compared Trump to Hitler https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Yet Trump is president, having run as a Republican. Clearly the Koch brothers don't in fact pick the president, nor the republican nominee. In fact, most powerful republicans opposed Trump's nomination; the de-facto leader of the party and 3rd in the line of succession, House Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, refused to endorse or defend Trump. All the powerful people (and arguably all the well-informed people) opposed Trump, yet he's president simply because ordinary voters liked what he had to say, more than they liked Clinton or Cruz, anyway.

A few years ago we ran a college student for city council, because we weren't happy with what some of the old fogeys on the council were doing. Our favorite word, "authoritarian" might apply to the established council. :)
  The college student won, because we voted for him, and he got under the established council-members' skin because he wouldn't play the game. Much like Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul, this college student (Jess Fields) refused to go along with the rest of the council when they weren't doing the right thing. Jess is now running for the state legislature, and we fully expect he'll win.

If Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul can get elected to Congress, as much as they grate on the establishment, there's no reason we can't elect Jess Fields to Congress in a few years. He's a lot brighter, and representative of the people, than the idiot Congressman this article is about.

> What you just did is to confirm that you are out of step with the party that you apparently support.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, these days I can't vote for a party, I have to spend the time to select a candidate, on their merits. As an example, for me, both Hillary and Trump seemed to be rather bad options, so I wouldn't vote for either based on party. I voted against Trump twice and against Hillary once.

In the *primaries* I must choose whether to vote in the Republican primary, the Democrat, or the Libertarian. For reasons outside the scope of this post, I find the general platform and approach of the Democrat leadership to be repugnant, so there are few Democrats I can support. The libertarian primary isn't strategically as important (though a libertarian vote in the general can make sense), so in the primary I end up voting with the intent of trying to get the Republicans to nominate the best (least objectionable?) candidate.

Once upon a time, before I got sick of it all, I used to call in to Conservative talk shows reminding their guests amd listeners that if conservatives support the Constitution, that means they must support the first amendment, not just the second amendment. The fourth amendment too. This because the liberals don't even pretend to value the Constitution, their shtick is ignoring ("reinterpreting") the Constitution based on how they feel from week to week. I can't make a Constitutional argument to an audience who believes the Constitution has no meaning beyond whatever their emotional gut feeling is at the moment. Again, I'm not saying conservatives follow the Constitution - I'm saying the CLAIM to. When they fail to do so, I can point out the inconsistency between their words and their actions.

First thing, we don't have 'tax dollars', we have another currency called 'pounds'.

Second thing, the 'internal market' (introduced by Thatcher) within the NHS (our healthcare system) is an anathema to most Brits. We do not wish to die, just because we have no cash, as in the US. That doesn't answer the 'rigged' question, but see below.

This: https://www.theguardian.com/so... is one of several 'incidents' involving Virgin Healthcare looking to the bottom line rather than to patients. As such, (my opinion) it shouldn't be allowed to bid at all.

If that is you beardy (qv), or one of your shills, my apologies.

That's great that they have various processes in place to counter review bias and train employees on counteracting bias but you're expecting us to take your word for it that these processes are perfect. The government has data leaked by an employee at Google that shows a significant disparity in compensation between men and women. They are requesting additional information from Google to disprove this but Google instead makes a PR blog post and somehow this proves there's no bias.

I'm not buying Google's PR blog post's assertions when the DOJ says something quite a bit different. https://www.theguardian.com/te...

On the plus side, illegal immigration is at the lowest it's been in 2 decades

Not just illegal immigration, people are avoiding traveling to the US in general (Interest in travel to the US has "fallen off a cliff" since Donald Trump’s election - https://www.theguardian.com/tr...) Good! There are enough people here, we don’t need anymore, we’ll make that tourist money up in other ways. Silicon valley tech companies are avoiding letting employees travel to outside the US for fear they won’t be able to get back in. Good! show them with actions it’s better to only hire US workers. I mean what have immigrants ever done for silicon valley and the US anyway?! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

the economy is up by 20%

%20? sure, I follow you brother no citation needed. Either way, great, nothing wrong there. ("Any improvement for the consumer will be balanced out by the higher value of the dollar," Mr. Payne forecasts. http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...)

and we made a strong-but-measured move in Syria which has garnered praise from many world leaders.

Yes, strength! (Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise - https://www.theatlantic.com/po...)

Hey don't forget it's not just Syria, we are showing our strength all over the world! (civilian deaths - more than 1,000 in March alone - that have come directly as the result of the Trump administration’s other reckless military campaigns across the Middle East over the past few weeks. - https://www.theguardian.com/co...) Yes, this is great! The heavy handed tactics accusations thrown at Hillary which would lead us into war, well now Trump has done them so it’s ok, yeah! We’re #1 we’re #1!

positive effect on relations and negotiations with Iran, N. Korea, and China.

Yes, for sure because they respect a useless reckless show of force over keeping their trade deals in tact.

Limiting illegal immigration should eventually bubble up into more jobs

Yup, I’m pretty psyched, I’m preparing for my new job! It’s at a nice outdoor location in sunny fields actually. Purportedly it reaches about 100F so I should get a good tan out of it to boot! The hours will be refreshing, I will be working from 5AM to 6PM and I’m working with nature, picking fruit, I think I can have a radio with me and I’m making $15 per hour! Great, looking forward to it! The other benefit is I'll be able to take some fruit home in my bag since I won't be able to afford it anymore at the supermarket.

Or is it just another example of government waste?

Yeah, i think it was one of those stupid "Obama liberal biased" attempts to help brown people not get railroaded by local law enforcement practices, good riddance I say!

On the plus side, illegal immigration is at the lowest it's been in 2 decades

Not just illegal immigration, people are avoiding traveling to the US in general (Interest in travel to the US has "fallen off a cliff" since Donald Trump’s election - https://www.theguardian.com/tr...) Good! There are enough people here, we don’t need anymore, we’ll make that tourist money up in other ways. Silicon valley tech companies are avoiding letting employees travel to outside the US for fear they won’t be able to get back in. Good! show them with actions it’s better to only hire US workers. I mean what have immigrants ever done for silicon valley and the US anyway?! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

the economy is up by 20%

%20? sure, I follow you brother no citation needed. Either way, great, nothing wrong there. ("Any improvement for the consumer will be balanced out by the higher value of the dollar," Mr. Payne forecasts. http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...)

and we made a strong-but-measured move in Syria which has garnered praise from many world leaders.

Yes, strength! (Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise - https://www.theatlantic.com/po...)

Hey don't forget it's not just Syria, we are showing our strength all over the world! (civilian deaths - more than 1,000 in March alone - that have come directly as the result of the Trump administration’s other reckless military campaigns across the Middle East over the past few weeks. - https://www.theguardian.com/co...) Yes, this is great! The heavy handed tactics accusations thrown at Hillary which would lead us into war, well now Trump has done them so it’s ok, yeah! We’re #1 we’re #1!

positive effect on relations and negotiations with Iran, N. Korea, and China.

Yes, for sure because they respect a useless reckless show of force over keeping their trade deals in tact.

Limiting illegal immigration should eventually bubble up into more jobs

Yup, I’m pretty psyched, I’m preparing for my new job! It’s at a nice outdoor location in sunny fields actually. Purportedly it reaches about 100F so I should get a good tan out of it to boot! The hours will be refreshing, I will be working from 5AM to 6PM and I’m working with nature, picking fruit, I think I can have a radio with me and I’m making $15 per hour! Great, looking forward to it! The other benefit is I'll be able to take some fruit home in my bag since I won't be able to afford it anymore at the supermarket.

Or is it just another example of government waste?

Yeah, i think it was one of those stupid "Obama liberal biased" attempts to help brown people not get railroaded by local law enforcement practices, good riddance I say!

Oh that explains why the Forbes 100 has been completely static for the last 200 years. Oh wait...

Forbes Magazine has only existed for 100 years. And companies make and drop off that list for all sorts of reasons.

In any case, use your head: companies constantly reinvent themselves in response to technological changes. It's the norm, not the exception.

And you are living under a rock if you haven't seen the stories about fossil fuel companies exploring alternative energy sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

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

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Etc.

Trump did publicly ask Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails. His supporters didn't seem to care about him asking a foreign government to interfere with the election or the threat to national security having a foreign government hack a presidential candidate presents.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

He also said: "By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

http://www.politico.com/story/...

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

What we know the Russians hacked:

1) DNC e-mails. Publishing these e-mails hurt Hillary in the election. It is believed this alone caused her to drop at least 5 points which was more than the difference in the election. This might be called more of hacking the voters than hacking the vote.

2) The US Election Assistance Commission. The EAC is responsible for national voter registration, establishing voluntary guidelines for voting, and certifying and auditing voting machines. Some news outlets reported that this hack occurred after the election, but the only evidence to support that is that after the election one of the hackers involved was selling the administrator accounts and other data. It also isn't clear if the Russian hacker was state sponsored or not as the hack was not advanced (started with an SQL injection). It doesn't make sense for Russia to hack it after the election, but it might make sense for one of the hackers to sell the data after he didn't need it anymore to try to make extra cash if he wasn't kept in line to keep this secret.

To me the EAC hack is even bigger than the other one, but it has received very little attention and as far as I know hasn't been part of the investigation. After the election Republicans voted to get rid of the EAC in committee, but as far as I can tell it hasn't gone before a full congressional vote. We know Russian hackers achieved full administrator access to the EAC and stole the reports on the audits of the voting machines. This means we know Russia stole the plans on how to hack the voting machines and for some reason this hasn't been investigated. We also know that Trump did better in districts that had the vulnerable voting machines than he did in districts where other systems were used. Most exit polls showed that Clinton won (they show different results for North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida). Republicans blocked the recounts and it wasn't clear that the recounts could have determined if there was hacking in districts with no paper trail, although it could have in districts with a paper trail.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

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

Election Systems & Software alone controls 60% of voting machines in the US, and can control the election results. The majority of the rest of the machines are Dominion Voting System (formerly Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold) and they also control enough machines to change the results of the election.

How do we know the election itself wasn't hacked?

Now reading from RT https://www.rt.com/news/383807.... The US managed to kill 2 civilians, three soldiers and injure seven others (so obviously the Syrians were fully aware of the attack and it looks like one of the missiles went a little astray), with a claim of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles fired, with an approximate cost of $1.59 million each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., excluding firing costs, for a total cost of $93.81 million, excluding firing costs, operation of vessels and crew, which could really blow that figure out, likely double. So who was punishing whom for what is looking like a false flag gas attack (did the US government just roundly punish US taxpayers), although people really did die but it is looking like they were kidnap victims from pro-Syrian government villages who were murdered. So all in all, just what the fuck is going on, this is looking all sorts of crazy. A profitable day for Raytheon McDonald Douglas but it makes the US look like a pack of idiots. So panic of the Obama spying on Trump disclosures, the Clintons are feeling prosecutorial heat, Trump has been set up for impeachment with an attack upon another country without Congressional or US approval or Raytheon McDonald Douglas, were bitching because profits for this quarter are a little low and demanded expenditure. Make no mistake, the attack was clearly rushed because the false flag story was falling apart and now the evidence will expose Uncle Toms Obama's Syrian rape brigades as the actual culprits and Trump will be blamed for acting with congressional approval, what a stupid debacle. It seems very much like the US spent more money than the damage they caused, especially when the US government values foreign people with brown skins at $2,500 per https://www.theguardian.com/wo....

The goal wasn't to kill people, it was to make it harder for Syria to undertake attacks like this in the future. So you take out hangars, fuel depots, aircraft, and runways. And when you are hitting an airfield, you don't just hit it once and call it a day. You have to put multiple craters on every runway as well as damage ramp areas and support facilities. One crater on a runway can be prepared pretty quickly. You put holes all along every runway and you knock that base out for weeks at least.

It looks like 59 Tomahawks were used when 15 could do the job. Did the 35 ones go astray or fail to explode?

It's not that special any more. Large sections are empty because people bought condos as investments instead of to live in, creating an urban desert. Throw in the rain, and the smog, and the drugs, and the traffic, and the sky-high cost of housing, and you're better off on the mainland.

There are a few flaws, e.g. there is no carbon sink that is relevant on that scale.

A large portion of human-produced CO2 is no longer in the air. I've heard about half. That sounds quite relevant to me.

And to have those benefits you mention, you have to kill all of the western civilization and leave upstarts like India and China alone ...

For a 90% drop in population, you can't leave a third of the population alone. Even if we killed off the people with the smallest carbon footprint first, we'd still substantially reduce the amount of CO2 emitted (by half). 90% is a huge drop in CO2 emissions no matter how you do it.

But I think it was obvious that I was speaking of a proportionate drop in population for all not a kill the Western World first which would be much greater drop than 90%.

He had no choice but to admit defeat. He's positioning the business for either an outside investment or an IPO (in other words, he wants to cash out). As for redirecting resources, some departments are being hit with layoffs of up to 60%.

Other failures:

• Ubuntu Android emulator
• UbuntuTV Hardware TV - a ripoff of SammyTV open source project
• Ubuntu Smartphone - remember Ubuntu Edge?
• Ubuntu tablet
• Ubuntu ONE Music Store - RIP June 2014
• Ubuntu ONE Cloud Storage - RIP June 2014

And of course absolutely horrific color schemes ...

Not all left-leaners are the same when it comes to question of military intervention.

Reminds of this comment I saw earlier.

Numerous, totally credible reports at Russia Today

Totally credible and Russia Today are not words that can really be fit into the same sentence.

this gas event was an unfortunate consequence of Assad using conventional weapons against an arms depot where the rebels had stockpiled significant quantities of the compound. These reports are definitely not propaganda.

Except that claim in itself is complete bullshit because Sarin/other chemical agents are not generaly speaking stored so that firing on them would release the chemical:

However, Jerry Smith, the operations chief of the UN team that supervised the surrender of Syria’s sarin stockpiles after more than 1,000 people were killed by the nerve agent in August 2013, said the components of the gas were almost always stored separately until they were about to be used.

“The Assad regime had two final precursors that would only be mixed just before use,” he said. “This scenario is that it was premade sarin in a store and, as a result of being hit, it has dispersed. This is plausible, but it requires a lot of things to align.”

(source)

What's mean by 'a lot of things lining up' is that not only would you you have to be hitting a premixed storage of Sarin which is not typically how it's stored, you'd also have to hit in in a very spesific way to disperse the gas. A direct hit will burn the gas, destroying the toxin.

So let's recap: one one side you have 'totally credible' reports from Russian and Syrian source which have a vested interest in not telling the truth if Assad is behind this saying that this happened by accident, and on the other hand you have chemical weapons experts that actually have knowledge of the Syrian chemicals weapons arsenal telling you that it's very unlikely based on their knowledge that Assad's explanation is plausible, And for some inexplicable reason you choose to trust Russians on this.

Your standards of evidence are truly low if all it takes is for RT to run a report saying 'nope, totally an accident assad would never lie to us ;)' and go "yeah, seems legit."

Now reading from RT https://www.rt.com/news/383807.... The US managed to kill 2 civilians, three soldiers and injure seven others (so obviously the Syrians were fully aware of the attack and it looks like one of the missiles went a little astray), with a claim of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles fired, with an approximate cost of $1.59 million each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., excluding firing costs, for a total cost of $93.81 million, excluding firing costs, operation of vessels and crew, which could really blow that figure out, likely double. So who was punishing whom for what is looking like a false flag gas attack (did the US government just roundly punish US taxpayers), although people really did die but it is looking like they were kidnap victims from pro-Syrian government villages who were murdered. So all in all, just what the fuck is going on, this is looking all sorts of crazy. A profitable day for Raytheon McDonald Douglas but it makes the US look like a pack of idiots. So panic of the Obama spying on Trump disclosures, the Clintons are feeling prosecutorial heat, Trump has been set up for impeachment with an attack upon another country without Congressional or US approval or Raytheon McDonald Douglas, were bitching because profits for this quarter are a little low and demanded expenditure. Make no mistake, the attack was clearly rushed because the false flag story was falling apart and now the evidence will expose Uncle Toms Obama's Syrian rape brigades as the actual culprits and Trump will be blamed for acting with congressional approval, what a stupid debacle. It seems very much like the US spent more money than the damage they caused, especially when the US government values foreign people with brown skins at $2,500 per https://www.theguardian.com/wo....

The goal wasn't to kill people, it was to make it harder for Syria to undertake attacks like this in the future. So you take out hangars, fuel depots, aircraft, and runways. And when you are hitting an airfield, you don't just hit it once and call it a day. You have to put multiple craters on every runway as well as damage ramp areas and support facilities. One crater on a runway can be prepared pretty quickly. You put holes all along every runway and you knock that base out for weeks at least.

Now reading from RT https://www.rt.com/news/383807.... The US managed to kill 2 civilians, three soldiers and injure seven others (so obviously the Syrians were fully aware of the attack and it looks like one of the missiles went a little astray), with a claim of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles fired, with an approximate cost of $1.59 million each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., excluding firing costs, for a total cost of $93.81 million, excluding firing costs, operation of vessels and crew, which could really blow that figure out, likely double. So who was punishing whom for what is looking like a false flag gas attack (did the US government just roundly punish US taxpayers), although people really did die but it is looking like they were kidnap victims from pro-Syrian government villages who were murdered. So all in all, just what the fuck is going on, this is looking all sorts of crazy. A profitable day for Raytheon McDonald Douglas but it makes the US look like a pack of idiots. So panic of the Obama spying on Trump disclosures, the Clintons are feeling prosecutorial heat, Trump has been set up for impeachment with an attack upon another country without Congressional or US approval or Raytheon McDonald Douglas, were bitching because profits for this quarter are a little low and demanded expenditure. Make no mistake, the attack was clearly rushed because the false flag story was falling apart and now the evidence will expose Uncle Toms Obama's Syrian rape brigades as the actual culprits and Trump will be blamed for acting with congressional approval, what a stupid debacle. It seems very much like the US spent more money than the damage they caused, especially when the US government values foreign people with brown skins at $2,500 per https://www.theguardian.com/wo....

Actually, no. Many gig economy companies will charge their staff a fee for finding replacement cover.

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

How did HB2 help people get left alone?

HB2 addresses men imposing their presence on women in bathrooms;

No, it doesn't. It actually contains zero content relevant to criminal harassment, though as North Carolina already had such laws, it had no need to impose further upon people by forcing them to undergo genital inspections before entering a bathroom facility. Why lie? Did you think I hadn't read them?

SB 1070 and HB 56 addresses foreigners coercing Americans to support them financially and associate with them;

Nope. SB 1070 did nothing for that, as its provisions were directed at Law Enforcement, instructing them to impose themselves on individuals to determine their immigration status REGARDLESS of any other status. It had nothing to do with welfare.

Now HB 56did impact public benefits, however, that was not its exclusive content, sorry. By some arguments, it even criminalized giving an illegal immigrant a cup of coffee. It was very broadly written. It also forbade contracts and agreements, in some cases.

And in fact, some of the individuals investigated under the law had valid passports, international driver's licenses, and work permits.

I'm going to suspect that neither of those individuals was on welfare.

Prop 8 addresses gay men and women being able to coerce other Americans to do business with them against their moral conviction.

No, it didn't. It denied people's right to marry. Marriage is inherently a sanctioned practice by the state, and yes, it is coercive. Given the vast majority of marriages that remained in effect, its only result was discriminatory upon a particular group.

How exactly does that serve in the interests stated above? I might respect such an argument if it were repudiating all marriage as a state-practice, but nope, that's not going to happen.

All these laws were in response to coercive laws and practices in the US. Now, they were flawed responses, but they were the best people could do under the circumstances.

Seems they did poorly. All of them were almost completely overturned. Others were heavily challenged. And their effectiveness was less than salutary.

Did you want to discuss that, instead of the actual character and behavior of the professed conservatives as exemplified by their patterns and practices?

On the whole, I have no complaint with the character or behavior of conservatives. I do have a big problem with the bigotry, intolerance, and greed of progressives and Democrats, which is why I left the Democratic party recently.

Oh? Well, I suggest you examine the character and behavior of conservatives, or self-proclaimed conservatives, especially the ones claiming Republican Party membership.

Wasn't what we we discussing before, though.

You're in the minority now, sadly. I agree with what you're saying and I respect that sort of difference of opinion.

But you don't have to look far to find people who are trying to solve the problem of "abuse" by making sure some messages are never heard. I mean, just look at this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/unwanted-advances-on-campus-us-university-professor-laura-kipnis-interview

Unless perhaps I'm not keeping up and the Guardian is now considered Russian propaganda, it's quite dangerous to see how far this new trend has gone, wherein people find it injurious that they actually have to defend their (lack of) thinking and would much rather shut down all discussion via legal or extra-legal pathways.

Are we already on the fourth stage of climate change denial? That's unfortunate, because the last stage isn't a very good one if it's true.

Believing otherwise is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Yeah, and believing that we can't fix it guarantees disappointment when the consequences come.

Forget the real world. >Because real-world results don't matter. What did your MODEL that hasn't successfully predicted sunrise direction for the last 15 years say?

If you are snarking about climate models, in fact the climate models have been remarkably accurate over the last fifty years. Here's the Berkeley Earth comparison between models and measurements: http://static.berkeleyearth.or... (See also: https://www.skepticalscience.c... https://www.theguardian.com/en... )

And why have you been ignoring more accurate satellite-based measurements of the sunrise and selectively using only ground-based measurements that have been, errr, corrected from the original data?

You ARE aware that satellite measurements are heavily corrected, right? The satellites see a line-of-sight average of microwave emissions, and there is a rather long and controversial process to turn microwave emission intensity into middle troposphere temperatures. One researcher (John Christy) has a correction method that produces an output that says that global warming is real, but it's on the low end of the predicted values. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... Other researchers using the same data, however, come up with other answers.

The ground measurements, on the other hand, have had relatively minor corrections to account for changes of the type of thermometer, the corrections being well-documented, and (an important thing to note) the change due to corrections making no significant difference to the final conclusion.

They do exist.

Stallman cleared up that confusion decades ago, by insisting that the complete OS be called GNU/Linux. More recently, in 2011, he also made the Android naming clear:

"Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think "Linux" refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as "Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux". If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different."

Of course, posting on Slashdot, you ought to know all that. So either congrats on your troll, or please hand in your geek card at the door.

I will never forget seeing a program on US healthcare where a person who lost 3 fingers in an induustrial accident was tol the insurance will only cover X amount and he had to choose two of the three to save.

What you saw was a fraud. There is nowhere in the U.S. where employers are not required to be fully insured for such accidents. Even if the person had to pay on their own, the normal process would be for the hospital to do everything possible to save the fingers. They would then write off any loss or apply to one of our many charities that help cover the costs in cases like this. One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive here for those that can pay is because we subsidize those who can't.

A little google shows that the event discussed, a person losing several fingers and being told by the hospital to choose which ones to reattach, seems to have come from the Michael Moore film "Sicko." The details listed by AC, however, are inaccurate (unless there was another incident I couldn't find on google.) It was a table saw, not an industrial accident, and the man wasn't insured"

https://www.theguardian.com/fi...
http://www.npr.org/templates/s... :

Let's talk about some of the medical cases Michael Moore describes in this film. At the very beginning, there is one about an American man who loses the ends of two of his fingers in an accident with an electric saw. He did not have insurance. The man must choose between having his middle finger reattached for $60,000, or his ring finger for $12,000. The man chooses his ring finger. How can a man be put into the position of making that choice?

JOANNE SILBERNER: [In the U.S.,] the hospital doesn't have to give him care unless it's lifesaving care, and his life wasn't threatened by the loss of two digits. So the hospital was within its rights to say, "We can reattach your two digits, but it's going to cost you." The irony is that if he had insurance, the insurance company would have paid far less than $12,000 or $60,000. The insurers can negotiate rates with hospitals that individuals can't.

... that this should come up at the same time as the federal gov't is deleting previously-public data archives.

Citation.

Which makes me kinda suspicious about the motivations behind this bill.

If you want to see what a real press ban looks like, you'd better start here. Because the Obama administration actually *did* ban the press on multiple occasions. In fact it was so bad at one point that multiple press agencies and reporters published a letter over it.

...deeply implicated in Trump and Brexit elections.

Innuendo and conjecture unsupported by verifiable facts.

FACT: RT exists and has a pro-Russia - and therefore anti-Hillary - bias.

FACT: RT has a website where they sometimes post their biased US coverage which often ends up on facebook and twitter where innocent American eyes might see it.

FACT: Lying on the internet is completely equivalent to - if not actually worse than - hacking into government vote-counting machines or computers in swing states on election day and adding thousands of votes for Trump.

FACT: No American news organizations have any institutional biases of their own; agenda-driven, factually-deficient journalism is a complete unknown in the US; and Americans would never, ever, EVER meddle in anyone else's elections.

CONCLUSION: Russia hacked the election, Trump is Putin's puppet, and we must neutralize him immediately by any means necessary before he causes the annihilation of all life on earth.

QED

The NHS relies upon the ingenuity of the Americans creating new techniques and improving technology. That is why the latest greatest techniques are generally found in the US and not in England. Innovation costs money, or is that irrelevant to the evaluating health care systems?

http://www.investors.com/polit...

https://www.theguardian.com/he...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...

It is really good, until it is threatened by cost overruns. But who cares, it is someone else's money.

Police should start pulling over and ticketing drivers who are on their phones while driving.

That has been the case for a few years in the UK. However many ignored this and so recently the penalty when caught was doubled to 6 points; if you have 12 you are disqualified for some time. There has also been a recent media campaign "put your 'phone out of reach while driving". No one can claim that they don't know; I expect that many will still 'phone & drive.

Who do you think should be punished?

I, actually, didn't say, somebody should be. What I said was, since no one was, there is nothing to hold the EPA in check...

The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive.

Not according to Guardian:

Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public. (Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.)

But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda

Stipulating for a second, the scientists were innocent and it were all the politicians at fault at the FDA, how is the EPA different? That is, what did happen at the FDA, that does not and will not happen at the EPA?

It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it

Wrong. First of all, your link describes (with the weaselese "may have" rather than firm "has") such efforts, which ended in 1967 — USDA's "dietary guidelines" denouncing fat were published only in 1980ies. And second, the "sugar industry", according to your link, didn't lobby the politicians — instead, they paid scientists. And it was hardly a massive bribe — the three scientists from Harvard were paid an equivalent of today's $50,000 to publish a paper, which the believed to be valid.

In other words, the smart assholes at NYTimes realized what massive egg is on the Big Government's face and wanted to create some smokescreen for it to shift the blame towards the Greedy KKKapitali$t$, but failed. Well, almost failed — you fell for it...

In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research

You aren't citing any sources and I call bullshit. Why would industry lobby — heavily! — for a major overhaul of its production lines? The "fat free" stuff is not any cheaper, the margins on it aren't specifically higher, while developing it requires work and brings about uncertainty. No. Once the demand was there, the industry responded to satisfy it — praise be to Capitalism — but it made no sense for anyone to lobby for it...

the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. [...] a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society

My argument is, the EPA does not "benefit society". If only for this reason — they can ban and banish anything they please willy-nilly... We already have toilets, that don't flush (even the EPA themselves admit such problems "in earlier models") and dishwashing machines, that do not wash dishes. In a rush for "renewable energy", we

But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...

I'm with you so far.

Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake.

Umm, maybe. Who do you think should be punished? The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive. It was the politicians who said, "We don't have time to wait for facts. We need to act."

Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?

I see how you can get there. But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it.

The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.

And that's where you go off the rails. In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research. We now know that it wasn't just unsupported; it was wrong.

In the case of environmental regulations, the industry money is all lining up to say we don't need to reduce fossil fuel use. And the vast majority of scientists are saying that the science is settled, and it goes against what industry is pushing.

But my biggest gripe with your solution is the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. That's a common solution for certain advocacy groups (and political parties) who know that it's a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society than it is to build them.