Slashdot Mirror

Remember the Nutrition Pyramid? The Four Food Groups? Member? Huh?

The problem is much of that was drafted by the agrifood industry, and much of that is bullshit intended to sell their products ... which led to trans-fats and hydrolized crap.

When the average person doesn't know the science, and the science is constrained by lobby groups, how do you know what is good and what isn't?

As to probiotics, if it isn't still a live culture when you eat it, it probably isn't what you think it is. Real kimchi which is still fermenting, or sauerkraut which is doing the same, or even good quality kefir (fermented yogurt) and tons of other stuff will all have it. If it's been pasteurized, why would you think the good bacteria are still there?

I know several women who have started drinking a bit of kefir every day, and they say the occurrence of yeast infections and the like is way down for them since they started .. and I'm going to trust a woman to be able to know what her own girl-parts are doing. My wife swears by it, and has also found that real sourdough bread also lowers her blood sugars throughout the day (it's shocking how much sourdough or rye bread is just white bread in disguise). Fortunately, kefir is now easy to get, and we have an awesome little local bakery nearby which is making sourdough bread which you can tell from the taste is from an actual live culture. It's also freakin' delicious.

I don't think probiotics in general is a bad idea, but I also don't believe the things from the food industry (especially a yogurt which is mostly gelatin) are going to have the same effects, because like so many other things, they take out all of the good stuff, and then try to add something like it back later (think 'enriched' white bread).

The problem with the food industry, is they often make things which have the right words to sound like they're good, but the more you look the more you realize there's a whole lot less in there than you think ... most probiotic yogurt is full of sugar and gelatin, and not much actual dairy.

"New evidence Sony hack was ‘inside’ job, not North Korea" https://nypost.com/2014/12/30/...

New Research Blames Insiders, Not North Korea, for Sony Hack http://time.com/3649394/sony-h...

Researcher: Sony Hack Was Likely an Inside Job by a Woman Named "Lena" http://gawker.com/researcher-s...



So no boys and girls this was not North Korea. This is an attempt by the Military Industrial Complex to gin up tensions with North Korea in order to prevent detente. Because you know war is profitable but peace is not. Stocks for military contracts took a tumble when the US was negotiating with North Korea.

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

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

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

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

For example, a college student in 1993 graduating made as much money per year as a current grad.

http://time.com/money/4777074/college-grad-pay-2017-average-salary/

The average starting salary for a 2017 college grad is just a smidge under $50,000 ($49,785, to be exact), the study indicates. That’s up 3% from last year. After adjusting for inflation, the average pay for new college grads is 14% higher than it was for the graduating class of 2007—before the Great Recession decimated earnings for many categories of workers. While there are different ways of measuring pay, Korn Ferry stated that “average salaries for 2017 grads are at an all-time high.”

The article does go on to point out that inflation adjusted salaries from the late 60s were higher, but not that they have ever been in nominal terms. Do you have a source for your claim that graduates earned the same nominal income 15 years ago?

"Top Psychic's Head Explodes"

http://content.time.com/time/a...

Sigh ... now THAT was news! I mean, what would the world be without Bat Boy!

Man, isn't that great? Not only news, but science and even Art!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://vimeo.com/44545006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

From the heart of American Media Inc., of course, which lives on with National Enquirer and who knows what else?

Busing people from polling place to polling place to vote for the dead or disabled is standard practice in some places in this country. You can claim it doesn't exist all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

And repeating something over and over while loudly insisting it's a "fact" doesn't actually make it one. Despite thousands of accusations, and myriad investigations, that sort of intentional fraud has never been shown to occur.

Meanwhile, what has been proven is that voting machines can be hacked by an 11 year old and vote totals changed to reflect any outcome wanted.

Now, let's apply Mr. Ockham's Razor to this, shall we? Which is more likely to occur: a single individual hacks a voting machine, with no witnesses, and commits undetectable fraud, changing thousands of votes in an instant? Or a conspiracy involving dozens of people laboriously drives from polling place to polling place, managing to cast at most a hundred or so fraudulent votes, seen by hundreds of witnesses, any of whom could bring the whole thing crashing down... not to mention that any one of those dozens of people could turn on the others in an instant in exchange for immunity?

40 years ago it was an earth wrecking ice age coming our way - and proven by science.

Except the myth that 40 years ago science was warning the world about a coming ice age is just that; a myth: http://web.archive.org/web/201...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

I'm not so sure it'd be appropriate to call a medical product 'popular' when the only reason it makes its sales is because up until now they were the only ones legally allowed to produce this life saving device in the US.
It's not like Mylan raised the price of their epipens to 600 bucks because they're the Apple of EpiPens here. People either had to cough up the cash or die. Consider that an EpiPen costs $30 to manufacture. (yeah yeah sure, there's shipping costs and the like. But I'm pretty sure they weren't using SpaceX to ship their EpiPens from Pensylvannia, to the rest of the US)

Back around 2000, many companies (Sun, Google) had their own shuttle services that went between the different corporate buildings and Caltrain stations. They were needed to allow employees to get between buildings for meetings and many didn't want to drive along freeways each day.
Google now runs luxury coach buses through San Francisco.

There was a big hoo-hah about how these buses were using bus-stops but not actually making any payments to the cities, so there was a deal made that involved Google making a $7 million donation for free childrens rides on public buses:

http://time.com/10315/google-b...

https://www.wired.com/2015/11/...

Common in the United States. Or, at least, it was before Obamacare helped fix it. For years the number one trigger of personal bankruptcy was medical debt.

Your attitude is a big part of the problem. Because YOU PERSONALLY don't see something, it isn't a problem? Please don't do that. The world is bigger than what you personally experience.

Time has a good article on the subject right here: http://time.com/money/4765443/obamacare-bankruptcy-decline/

US ex-pat living in Japan here. They don't have mass shootings, they have mass stabbings, mass poisonings and sarin attacks. This in a country that take has very restrictive gun laws (basically it's a big NO) but at the same time has no problems with people walking around with swords (which they're cracking down on a bit) or bows (I see multiple people with yumi everyday). Both of which would be illegal in NYC (and a lot of other US cities). Yet the overall crime rate is much lower here and in general is infinitely safer than than most places in the US. The bottom line is that some people are just f*cked up and if they want to kill people, they're going to kill people.

Softbank was not trying to buy Tesla, not last year, not last month.

Hate to break it to you...

There is not even speculation of indication of interest from Apple.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Google did not buy Tesla when it was allegedly offered to them for $5G, it ain't paying 10x that today.

It was precisely the other way around. Musk terminated the deal when Tesla had its first profitable quarter and no longer needed the cash. And it was for $6B at an $11B valuation, and that was when Tesla was a far smaller company.

The Saudis already indicated that they're not interested in holding more than what they already bought

Ref?

The rest of your rant is not even a speculation

For the record, what about "the rest" (written below) do you find "deranged"?

    * The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund (companies like Tesla are right up their alley, and Norway has the highest per-capita ownership of Teslas in the world)
    * China (various) (lately seems to throw money at pretty much anything that moves, particularly if it has a plug, and it was already announced that Tesla was working with local Chinese investors concerning Gigafactory 3)

Republicans don't deny access to healthcare;

They do. Not only that, they expressly support the idea of banning not just abortion, but their rhetoric is encouraging pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication.

That's the consequence of their "moral conscience" and "religious liberty" approach.

they just don't want to pay for others having a procedure they disagree with.

Nope. They want to outlaw those procedures. Or even just having a miscarriage.

I disagree with elective abortion, so I don't want my tax dollars to pay for you to have an elective abortion.

And I don't want my tax dollars wasted opposing a person getting an abortion that's being paid for privately.

Are you going to refund me? No? Why not?

How about the thousands of other things I don't want the government doing with my tax dollars? No, you won't even listen to my grievances about the fault system of elections so I'm effectively unrepresented in those discussions?

Huh. Pardon me for giving little credence to your demands then, since you don't reciprocate.

I am against making abortion illegal because there are some situations I agree with abortion (such as a pregnancy which resulted from rape, or cases where either the mother's or fetus' life is in severe jeopardy).

As Republicans will tell you, those are elective too. Remember, if it was legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting it down.

The Catholic Church is against contraceptives, so they don't want to pay from health insurance which pays for contraceptives, but that doesn't stop their employees from buying supplemental insurance or paying retail for contraceptives.

The Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what healthcare I get, even if they employ me. They are a church. We do not let churches govern lives. And you won't find an insurer that doesn't want to cover contraceptives. It's actually cheaper. Why does the Catholic Church get to increase my costs as a potential employee, or an insurer's costs?

What gives them that right to impose expenses upon me do to their religious dogma?

And the Catholic Church isn't even as bad a bunch of liars as the Quiverful movement. Now that group is taking a lot of welfare money. Not to mention the whole adoption business they want to control.

The country is so divided that you parrot your party's talking points without determining the validity of the claims.

Your mind is so blinded that you can't even admit the Republican Party's own dogma or how invalid its claims are.

They are committed to their agenda, and they brazenly lie about it. And it's not limited to abortion, they do the same with immigration, voting, same-sex marriage, public schools, and more.

Maybe you need to do some checking. Here's a suggestion, contact some Republic

Just because Putin had a preference it doesn't mean that the government of Russia caused Trump to win. Believing that is just stupid.

If you want to know why he preferred Trump, read this: http://time.com/4422723/putin-....
And this: https://www.reuters.com/articl...

STEM in high school means nothing without the college degree to back it up and if LeBron isn't going to fund these kids THROUGH college its a fruitless endeavor.

That's a fair point. Or, it would be if not for the fact that "If [students at the school] successfully complete the school program and graduate from high school, James will cover their full tuition at the local public college, University of Akron." But given that fact, it's actually a pretty piss poor point that seems more aimed at shitting on someone doing something good than at contributing to a solution.

I thought that no voting machines were hacked, and no vote tallies were changed. Is that no longer true?

That's a classic PHB viewpoint: "We haven't got hacked yet, so why spend resources on security safeguards?"

We know other countries were trying. Just because they were not successful (that we know of*) is NOT a reason to not guard against future attacks.

GOP, you should be spanked for shortsighted thinking. (Don't even get me started about debt hypocrisy.)

* To some extent they were successful.

Oh please, this tripe is getting old. Obama oversaw the worst recovery in history. His administration changed the U-3 calculation for unemployment to stop counting those who stopped working and then sat back and watched the labor participation rate fall to lowest since the 1970's. As explained at Forbes what was reported during his administration was distorted by not counting those who gave up. They reported lower unemployment rates even while the number of unemployed persons went up.

Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be. One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%. Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.

He had an average GDP growth at around 2.1% whereas the average GDP growth since 1949 was well above 4% for the 10 expansions that occurred prior to the supposed expansion under Obama. Recall his comments about this is the new normal? Guess the message was lost considering GDP numbers today are 4.1% for the last quarter.

Likewise, wage growth barely breached 2% during his expansion whereas historically it grew at around 4%.

So the recovery was pitiful compared to every other recovery in modern times, including the Great Depression. And good portions of what there was of a recovery can be credited to Tarp, the Feds and the European Central Bank.

A big point in his failure was domestic investment dropping because of the 13.4 percentage point tax increases. From 1960 to 2008, relative to GDP, the aggregate of all investments in the US, Net Private Domestic Investment (NPDI), was 7%. That average was 7 to 8 from 1960 to 1990 and 6.5 in Clinton and Bush years. For Obama that number was 2% of GDP. Because of his policies of tax increases and Obamacare, investment dried up, wages stagnated, a record number of people were on food stamps or dropped out of the work force.

So real great momentum there for sure.

They different is Watergate/Clinton investigations were started due to some pretty clear and damning evidence. Occam's Razor suggests the most likely instigating factor for the Mueller investigations was some political impropriety and fearmongering on the Democrat's part. In terms of real evidence pointing to a massive conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia (on anything), it is objectively almost nothing. It still may or may not be true, but I don't think anyone can deny Democrats have twisted themselves in circles trying to convince the world of some massive conspiracy, a la 9/11 truthers.

And I'm going to seriously consider the opinion of someone who starts a Post with "They different"?

And just remember, after Trump stated Publicly that handing over Ambassador McFaul to Putin's gang of thugs for "Interviewing" was actually "worth Considering", the Senate voted 98-0 last week to block that idea.

http://time.com/5343322/michae...

Oh, and when Articles of Impeachment against Assistant AG Rob Rosenstein were filed in the House last night, only ELEVEN ***REPUBLICANS*** (out of 236 Representatives total) jumped on the bandwagon. Even Speaker of the House Paul Ryan spoke out Publicly against the measure. Even Trey Gowdy, who is NO supporter of the Mueller Investigation, said of the Rosenstein Impeachment attempt: "Impeach him? For What?"

https://www.newsweek.com/rod-r...

And in fact, those Eleven Traitorous Republicans have already turned tail and run home:

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/26/...

Yep. Sounds like the Democrats are the only ones that are beginning to think "something's up"...

Gimme a break, willya?

MAGAP

(Make America Get Another President (tm))

Former head of the FBI for 12 years, appointed by the Trump DOJ, endorsed by Republicans [usatoday.com] back when this whole process started.

You say that like its supposed to mean something. It means nothing when the FBI has been a ratfucking outfit since its inception, and establishment Republicans (who tended to endorse Hillary if they weren't running themselves) hate Trump. And just as Flint still doesn't have clean water, Mueller still hasn't bothered to examine the DNC server, the alleged hacking of which he's now issuing indictments for. You simply cannot fit that square peg in a round hole.

Preach brother! You've disproven the indictment by timing and irrelevant hyperbole alone! All who disagree with you have less than a couple of functioning neurons!

Your attempt to substitute lazy hand waving and sarcasm for an actual response is noted.

Because the tale is that Putin offered to allow Mueller to observe interviews conducted by Russian officials in Russia

Yes, interrogate the accused Russians with other Russians present.

If the Special Counsel really wants to get to the bottom of this, Putin went on, he should team up with Russian law enforcement to catch these hypothetical meddlers.

Roh roh.

if the Russians could question "U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul and 10 other 'U.S. officials and intelligence agents

That's how quid pro quos work - all the while calling out Mueller's bluff and pointing out how hypocritical the US is in "meddling" with other countries. Now, if you want to go on kicking the football for the same people that lied you into the Iraq war, now with even less evidence (and by less I mean zero), go ahead - but try not to drag the rest of the world into nuclear war while you're at it, mmmkay?

story of a top DNC representative calling to do the same to US citizens she doesn't like.

From Waters' comments, its much worse in the USA. Here you don't even have to have debt or committed a crime before she thinks you should be able to get even food from restraunts or grocery stores. That's right, she wants people who have different political views to starve to death. Kind of reminds me of some horrible leaders from the 20th century, but she is today a high ranking member of the "tolerant" DNC. lols.

The EC is a holdover from the effort to get Slave States to sign the Constitution.
No other cause

The previous poster linked to zerohedge, probably for convenience.

The announcement if these new indictments today by Rosenstein on live TV included Rosenstein saying those very disclaimers!

If you give the new indictments ANY credibility then you MUST accept that word of the same guy making them when HE SAID "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result."

If you won't believe Trump-hating TIME magazine, then go look for the video of the presser on YouTube. Of course, if you have the democrat aluminum foils wrapped too tightly about your cranium, you probably will decide YouTube is part of the imaginary Trump-YoutTube-Russia collusion scheme...

Oh, and the same disclaimer was attached to the previous set of "Russian hacker" indictments.

The way you guys carry on you think it was Russia that boasted about inteferring in the 1996 election and then doubled the size of the Warsaw Pact, all the way to America's borders, after promising not one inch of expansion in the 80's. All the whining about Ukraine and Crimea is just Swiftboating, as it was the U.S. that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and is busy arming literal neo-nazies, along with Israel.

Pretty sure he means the 2 percent of GDP of spending on their military forces they're obligated to spend by treaty, but don't actually spend.

This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked.

This is false. In the US, for one, your citizenship can be revoked for treasonous acts, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation.

You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion.

You are grossly misinformed, and there's no alternative.

Eh, 70% or so of families lose their wealth in a single generation link. This narrative that there is no churn or mobility in the US seems like nonsense to me. Sure if you want to be middle class it is probably more of a struggle than in the past but it isn't like the rich are some separate species.

It's not that there is no churn, but little / less churn. The US has social mobility, but there it is lower than many industrialized nations:

* http://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/the_relationship_between_income_inequality_and_social_mobility

There seems to be a correlation between a country's Gini index and mobility, and it is intergenerational:

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

Since about the 1970s we have started moving towards a new Gilded Age (and possible aristocracy); see Piketty's "Capital in the 21 Centruy":

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence_(inequality)

Eh, 70% or so of families lose their wealth in a single generation link. This narrative that there is no churn or mobility in the US seems like nonsense to me.

Your link only indicates movement in one direction, that is that wealthy families lose their wealth, not that poor families become rich.
It fits the narrative that wealth in consolidated into fewer and fewer rich families very well.
What you need is a link that shows that 70% of the rich families also became rich in a single generation to show that the mobility holds up and isn't just the big fish eating the middle sized fish.

Eh, 70% or so of families lose their wealth in a single generation link. This narrative that there is no churn or mobility in the US seems like nonsense to me. Sure if you want to be middle class it is probably more of a struggle than in the past but it isn't like the rich are some separate species.

His name is Seth Rich.

He died to expose the depth of the DNC and Obama Administration's corruption.

That is complete fucking bullshit.

Just because Fox made up some bullshit, doesn't make it true.

Removing all germs is why more and more people get sick so often. They're so germophobic their bodies don't develop immunity to minor bugs, let alone the bigger ones. These are the same people who run to the doctor when they have a sniffle and demand an antibiotic which is why we are beginning to see antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The best thing a child can do when growing up is eat two pounds of dirt.

NOTE: this does not mean I don't wash my hands after using the restroom or that people who handle food should not wash their hands. I'm only saying that building up an immunity would go a long way to helping mitigate outbreaks.

You were saying?

Well, cultures that don't consume much dairy are generally shorter, less healthy and die earlier.

The longest-lived and healthiest people on the planet eat little dairy.

And its absolutely the most efficient way to get calcium

That is a total falsehood.

I'm sure you think taking vitamins is the best way to get calcium

That's because you're an assumption-making moron. I said literally nothing about supplements.

And you can't digest milk because you stopped drinking it at some point (probably before or during college)

I consume dairy all the time, so I can digest it just fine. However, I am not a moron, so I can acknowledge that it might not be a healthy behavior even though I am engaging in it. Sorry about your cognitive dissonance!

Also, fuck you for using open source software and then trying to deny the folks that built that software basic food stuffs.

Aww, you're cute. But that's not even vaguely close to what I'm doing. He was complaining about his high cost of living, and I was pointing out that it was unnecessary. If you want calcium, you should drink soup made with bone broth and green vegetables. It will be dramatically more effective than consuming dairy products, even those fortified with calcium (which is ineffective for the same reason as supplements.)

Maybe that milk isn't even for him and is for his niece.

Cow's milk isn't healthy for children, either.

But then again, drinkypoo I've been here for years and remember some of your other posts.

I've been here for more years, and I don't remember any of your posts. Guess you're irrelevant.

Dated 2008, but the Collider could save entire countries of people from starving in Africa.

If you give up your internet connection, you can use the money saved to sponsor African children.

It only takes one individual to make a difference.

Also, something for you to think about:

DW special: Why does Africa go hungry?

Why Africa Is Still Starving

Especially since Holmes was a big Clinton supporter

So was Donald Trump.

http://time.com/3962799/donald...

https://www.politico.com/story...

https://www.vanityfair.com/sty...

This isn't about wealth or poverty. Suicide rates have little to do with monetary wealth. In fact, studies have shown that people who live in wealthier neighborhoods and try to keep up with the Joneses are more prone to suicide than those living in poverty. http://business.time.com/2012/...

You can be extremely happy if you're content with what you have and not constantly focused on what others' have and what you don't.

nor do they work the same average of hours/as productive.

Google says otherwise:
http://time.com/4621185/worker...
And I'm not sure why you think being obese is an excuse. This is part of being a high quality society, not allowing you people to eat themselves to death (as an example we restrict the amount of sugary low nutrition food in schools and it produces an net gain overall. I expect this could never happen in the US because of Freedom to be fat laws or something equally ridiculous...)

You have failed to demonstrate why one is better or worse than the other. Seems like you have a conclusion that you look for evidence and narratives to support.

I assume most people want to be healthy and alive as long as possible. Maybe I have that wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.
I think you have to accept that the US despite being the richest nation on earth, is a falling behind many others in terms high quality metrics (health, education, social equality/mobility, corruption, violent crime etc etc). Why is this/how does this happen?

Considering a teenager was recently ordered to pay $37 million in restitution for starting a fire with fireworks Elon is setting himself up to be sued for billions when these things end up being misused. Enjoy your litigation, rocket-bro.

Short story: not only that, they're quite potent too - much more so than CO2 (for the same concentration). The only reason they haven't received as much attention in this context as CO2 is that the international community has been quite successful at curbing their atmospheric concentrations and thus their impact on the climate. Which cannot be said about CO2.

Longer story at Wikipedia.

On the subject of getting attention: am I the only one who finds the theoutline.com link in TFS offensive? Not only did they succeed to combine the worst of late-2010s and early-1990s web design (scrolling site + white-on-black wall of text = teeth gnashing) but it's just a thoroughly sensationalized duplicate of the earlier TIME story. Complete with shamelessly copied misleading image of "largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded (September 2006)", but now with complimentary misleading caption "who did this?"

It's almost as if they're setting up a strawman for the purpose of bashing the more moderate people with legitimate concerns about anthropogenic climate change. But then there's Poe's law...

I didn't try to justify requiring jumping through the very lowest and widest of hoops to view tweets from @realDonaldTrump (not @POTUS).

And I didn't write @POTUS. I wrote POTUS, who issues official tweets through @realDonalTrump.

As to the rest, I'm sure that everyone who replied to you or engaged in any moderation in connection those posts either misunderstood you or was wrong. Your communication was surely flawless.

There are a variety of policy and market reasons for the transfer of wealth from young to old.
---
* One reason for the age-based increasing income increasing inequality is the transfer of wealth and purchasing power from the society at-large to existing asset holders, who are typically older. And this is done via monetary policy.

Monetary policy is about trying to bring about prosperity via manipulation of the money supply. The net result of monetary policy is the transfer of purchasing power from one group to another. For example, inflation doesn't involve a transfer of money, but it makes a saver poorer and a debtor less poor by changing the purchasing power each one has, by changing the value of the currency. One uses monetary policy to stoke or reduce inflation. Or QE - Quantitative Easing. It was printing money to buy bonds (government debt and mortgage debt). The printing of money has some side effect - it is not consequence-free. The recipients of that money firehose were made wealthier. And the asset bubbles which resulted also made existing asset holders (physical (e.g. real estate) and financial - stock market went from 11K (2011) to 25K (2017) in six years) wealthier.

Governments through the ages have always wanted easy, controllable, predictable prosperity, but in reality achieving prosperity is much trickier and chaotic. It requires first the correct intelligence, temperament and values of the population. Then the population interacts with the natural world and creates legal and physical and security infrastructure. Then, more chaotic, is the creation of items that people value (not merely to satisfy speculative demand (which is quite volatile), like items to gamble on, but things that will satisfy consumption demand (which is more persistent) - demand to consume those items, both goods and services and perhaps non-speculative financial products). And then the march of technology to continue to improve social welfare and the standard of living. And then through some luck, that value and purchasing power must be distributed in some semi-equitable way to the population so that it can consume those things they value.

That's complicated and volatile and not guaranteed. Manipulating the money supply is much simpler. Prosperity through the stroke of a pen. Unfortunately, if it were possible, Haiti or Sierra Leone could become prosperous in short order. Obviously, that will not happen. But manipulating the money supply and the value of the currency to bring about prosperity has been a siren song for policy makers and leaders over the millennia. And the side effect today has been the transfer of wealth from young to older.
---
* Also, straight up preying on the young by using them as pass through entities for government money firehosed to the education sector. The young get stuck with the debt, and education costs escalate because they're being paid by our rich Uncle Sam. Yet we all see the reports on how much wealthier those with degrees are versus those without.
---
* Next medical costs and insurance. There are both policy and market-based reasons for this.
---
* Then, offshoring of manufacturing and intellectual property - offshoring of the production of value. Again both policy and market-based reasons for this.
---
* Finally, we're on the dawn of a new industrial revolution, with software automation. The effect is the same as what happened with the industrial revolution - one person could create a much larger amount of product because of technology. To summarize, it was the "consolidation of the production of value."
---

So - the net result of all of these factors? Young people are f-cked.

(A) All the russian interference was not enough by itself for him to steal the presidency. Trump exploited weaknesses in the system that people like Newt Gingrich and Rupert Murdoch have been cultivating for decades. They didn't plan on Trump becoming their anointed one, he kind of muscled in on their action, but once he was in, they all fell in line.

(B) He didn't stumble on russian intelligence. They've been grooming him since the 80s. He wasn't the only horse they've bet on over the years, but the closer he got to power the more the resource they poured into using him. His entire comeback since 2000 was financed by laundering dirty russian money. In Russia the government is the mafia, so all that money laundering was happening with Putin's explicit approval.

The problem is that car accidents are in general vastly under-reported by the media. Until the last couple years, the single most dangerous thing you did was to get into a car (surpassed only recently by drug overdoses). On average, about 1 in 102 people you know are fated to die in a car accident. Compare to the odds of some of the other things the media devotes a disproportionately high (or low) amount of coverage time:

Suicide: 1 in 91
Police killed on duty: 1 in 104 (1.1 million officers / (135 per year * 78 year lifespan normalization)
Homicide by gun: 1 in 285
Drowning: 1 in 1,086
Fire: 1 in 1,506
Choking: 1 in 3,138
Killed by police: 1 in 4,336 (325.7 million / (963 * 78 year lifespan)
Complications from pregnancy: 1 in 5,965 (325.7 million / (700 * 78 year normalization)
Terrorism in U.S.: 1 in 28,033 (325.7 million / (3277 * 78 year lifespan / 22 years sample))
Killed by deer: 1 in 34,797 (325.7 million / (120 * 78 year lifespan)
Gun accident: 1 in 8305
Lightning: 1 in 114,195
School shootings: 1 in 121,033 (325.7 million / (138 * 78 year lifespan normalization / 4 years sample))
Dog attack: 1 in 132,614
Plane crash: 1 in 205,552
Terrorism in U.S. excluding 9/11: 1 in 248,954
Shark attack: 1 in 3,690,101 (325.7 million / (43 * 78 year lifespan / 38 year sample)

If news reports were truly unbiased, you'd expect to see:

Roughly 3x as many reports about fatal car accidents than gun homicides.
5x as many reports of women dying from pregnancy than reports of terrorism fatalities (including 9/11, 77x without).
39x as many stories about people dying of choking on food, versus school shootings.
43x as many stories about fatal car accidents than police shootings.
91x as many reports about suicides than gun accidents.
Over 100x as many stories about people being killed by deer, than killed by sharks.

The truth is the media picks and chooses which stories they want to publicize, whether it be because of their unusual and provocative nature (e.g. Tesla crashes, plane crashes, school shootings, shark attacks), or to serve a political agenda.

The problem is that car accidents are in general vastly under-reported by the media. Until the last couple years, the single most dangerous thing you did was to get into a car (surpassed only recently by drug overdoses). On average, about 1 in 102 people you know are fated to die in a car accident. Compare to the odds of some of the other things the media devotes a disproportionately high (or low) amount of coverage time:

Suicide: 1 in 91
Police killed on duty: 1 in 104 (1.1 million officers / (135 per year * 78 year lifespan normalization)
Homicide by gun: 1 in 285
Drowning: 1 in 1,086
Fire: 1 in 1,506
Choking: 1 in 3,138
Killed by police: 1 in 4,336 (325.7 million / (963 * 78 year lifespan)
Complications from pregnancy: 1 in 5,965 (325.7 million / (700 * 78 year normalization)
Terrorism in U.S.: 1 in 28,033 (325.7 million / (3277 * 78 year lifespan / 22 years sample))
Killed by deer: 1 in 34,797 (325.7 million / (120 * 78 year lifespan)
Gun accident: 1 in 8305
Lightning: 1 in 114,195
School shootings: 1 in 121,033 (325.7 million / (138 * 78 year lifespan normalization / 4 years sample))
Dog attack: 1 in 132,614
Plane crash: 1 in 205,552
Terrorism in U.S. excluding 9/11: 1 in 248,954
Shark attack: 1 in 3,690,101 (325.7 million / (43 * 78 year lifespan / 38 year sample)

If news reports were truly unbiased, you'd expect to see:

Roughly 3x as many reports about fatal car accidents than gun homicides.
5x as many reports of women dying from pregnancy than reports of terrorism fatalities (including 9/11, 77x without).
39x as many stories about people dying of choking on food, versus school shootings.
43x as many stories about fatal car accidents than police shootings.
91x as many reports about suicides than gun accidents.
Over 100x as many stories about people being killed by deer, than killed by sharks.

The truth is the media picks and chooses which stories they want to publicize, whether it be because of their unusual and provocative nature (e.g. Tesla crashes, plane crashes, school shootings, shark attacks), or to serve a political agenda.

Here's a like that is right up this line of thought. Found it the other day and shared it with some friends:

http://time.com/5280446/baby-b...

The real question here is : Who gives a fuck?

That shit happened 17 years ago. Move on already.

Ah, millennial gnat-hair attention spans. The FBI spent 45 years trying to track down D.B. Cooper. It took 18 years to find the Unibomber and 37 years to track down the last of the Baptist Street Church bombers.

Just think how much time and money they could have saved had you been there to explain to them nobody "gives a fuck" anymore (including, of course, the victims and their families), and so they just needed to "move on already."

Nope. There were contemporary news reports that had customers stating they stopped going to both stores due to the drop in customer service quality after the firings.

For many consumers, however, Circuit City's most obvious failing was its customer service. In March 2007, it announced plans to lay off its highest-paid hourly employees, including salespeople, and replace them with cheaper workers. That same year, then CEO Philip Schoonover received some $7 million in compensation. It may come as no surprise, then, that a quick Web search on "Circuit City complaints" brings up hundreds of thousands of entries.

From this story from 2008. But, hey, you got to try to sound smart by looking up fallacies on wikipedia.

Or as someone on /. put it: why is it called "touch screen" if you cannot touch type on it?

I used to wonder why phones lost their keyboards in a time when people started using them more for text than talk. The best answer I could think of was the importance of following the shiny slab trend from Apple. I guess more technical/functional reasons include the need for a big screen in this overly visual era; a touchscreen also makes more sense for non-verbal stuff in this era of declining literacy.

The worst thing is that young children now have a harder time learning their first language:
http://time.com/4769571/smartp...
https://www.cps.ca/en/document...

Don't know why this was voted down since Hillary confirmed she did:

http://time.com/4297996/hillar...

That means she's one of us and we should give her our vote.

Most people lurk as ACs for quite a while before joining, I know I was here for a good 3-4 years before making this account.

Well, it's not as if one could ever lie about that. You've persuaded me!

I don't know who decided that racism was a great rebuttal, but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan", the racist implication being that even if you somehow got that sloppy accusation right after making it so many times, everything they said would be unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being Russian.

Russian is a race? Why have I never seen that in a census form? I am shocked to learn that I am a racial self-hater, considering all the Eastern European ancestry. Must be the Western European ancestry rearing its ugly head. And they call it all "Caucasian." Such irony.

Or maybe, since you can't plausibly that claim comments denigrating a documented practice by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy is more than a "sloppy accusation," you thought that you needed to add a charge of racism to spice things up.

Wait, I thought Russia wanted to "destabilize" us? Isn't that what you're contributing to? So tell me, why are you trying to divide us again? Would you like to tell us why, even knowing the Russian plans, you decided to go and help them?

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. If he is a Russian troll, why not make the charge? If he is not a Russian troll, why should I refrain from suggesting that he is behaving like one? I mean, you've persuaded me, so it's obviously the latter. But for the good of the country, or just to not be "racist," I should simply ignore anyone with a contrary opinion is a "DNC shill" or a member of an "advocacy group" posting anti-Trump propaganda rather than repeating the Truth (as declared by Fox & Friends).

Since you don't appear to have a problem with the political implication that everything someone says is unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being alleged "DNC shills" or members of "advocacy groups," and thus merely spouting anti-Trump propaganda, you'll excuse me for engaging in any sort of political commentary that I wish. Or not. It's not as if I'll stop because one person has an almost unique conception of race, or my posts don't rise to his personal standards.

If the white helmets are so great, why does no one in the liberated cities ever have anything good to say?
Why is there headquarters in the same building as ISIS?

Keep up the lies. The people the white helmets rescue are very grateful because they know if it were Assad's army the people would be killed on the spot. Oh look, your lie about the white helmetsA being associate with terrorists is false. How odd.

Oh look, an article describing how Russia deliberately bombs these rescuers so they can't help the people being killed.

Tell us again who the terrorists are? The ones who are trying to help people lead a better life or those who deliberately target civilians and rescuers? Go home comrade, you're too drunk, and stupid, to come up with anything original.