Slashdot Mirror

Yes, don't eat meat or fish.

Eating meat causes destruction to the environment due to the many bad effects of raising animals. Two of the many bad effects: 1) Misuse of antibiotics, and 2) Keeping animals extremely close to each other develops new viruses and bacterial diseases.

Eating fish is causing depopulation of the oceans, with many, many bad and unknown results.

Links:

Harmful Environmental Effects Of Livestock Production On The Planet 'Increasingly Serious,' Says Panel (Feb. 22, 2007)

The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production (Dec. 16, 2013) Quote: "Livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else."

How does eating meat harm the environment? (No date.) One of the many interesting ideas: "Raising animals for food consumes more than half of all water used in the U.S. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat."

5 Ways Factory Farming is Killing the Environment (Sept. 16, 2017) The 5: 1) Air Pollution, 2) Deforestation, 3) Water Pollution, 4) Monocultures, 5) Fossil Fuels and Carbon Emissions.

11 Facts About Factory Farms and the Environment

I stopped eating meat and fish in 2008. Avoiding eating flesh seems to have contributed to my good health. It is, of course, complicated to make new adjustments to eating habits. Those adjustments were learned during childhood.

Ya, what kind of moron would think Russia could influence US politics.

Moronic ones, that's who. Or Swiftoating ratfuckers. Messing with other countries is what you do.

Just look at smoking-related deaths

Or all those resulting from the government-imposed "War on Fat"... Why, shouldn't it be criminal to even produce the murderous butter, much less offer it to children?

You mean this. It's way more interesting than the version you presented.

What makes you think corporations becoming larger than the government will happen? That's one of many things that anti-competition law is designed to prevent.

Are you sarcastic? I'm sure you are!

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295938213_Multinational_corporations_A_new_global_dimension_-_Corporations_bigger_than_governments
• http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations
• http://www.globalissues.org/article/51/corporations-and-human-rights
• https://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html
• http://www.globalissues.org/article/52/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-medical-research
• https://archive.skoll.org/2011/02/21/corporations-are-more-powerful-than-governments/
• https://www.businessinsider.com/25-corporations-bigger-tan-countries-2011-6?op=1
• https://business.time.com/2012/01/27/are-companies-more-powerful-than-countries/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5-myths-about-big-business-vs-big-government/
• https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/16598-focus-monsanto-protection-act-proves-corporations-more-powerful-than-government
• http://www.globalissues.org/article/54/tax-avoidance-and-havens-undermining-democracy
• https://makewealthhistory.org/2014/02/03/the-corporations-bigger-than-nations/
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/control-nation-states-corporations-autonomy-neoliberalism
• http://www.confrontcorporatepower.org/how-corporations-influence-the-government/
• https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/15/these-25-companies-are-more-powerful-than-many-countries-multinational-corporate-wealth-power/

South Korea is also known as "Republic of Samsung":

• http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/25/business/fi-samsung25
• https://ipezone.blogspot.com/2008/04/dismantling-of-republic-of-samsung.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-s-korea-the-republic-of-samsung/2012/12/09/71215420-3de1-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html

> I must be getting old or something, but $90k for a recent college grad sounds outrageously generous

The average college grad with a bachelor's in CS can expect to make around $60k.

http://time.com/money/collection-post/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-makes-right-out-of-college/

Where the hell did I ever advocate for eugenics (even for you, because it's not necessary: you're never going to breed anyway)? Pointing out a problem situation isn't advocating in favour of it. And as for lies, you're the one who just passed yet another whopper.

I will, however, cop to favouring some forms of censorship. We have laws here against hate speech, and I think that's a good thing. And in case you haven't noticed, both Facebook and Google now censor certain types of posts (Facebook) and videos (youtube).

And as for militancy, I have engaged in both peaceful protest and legal action - for what I believe in. That's both my right and my responsibility in a democracy. As for "being militant" against you, I'm just giving you back some of what you've served me.

Why? Because you have a problem with transsexuals. You don't believe that we can possibly be happier as women than we were as men, probably because you believe that men are innately superior to women. Even your military and your current secretary of defense don't buy into that any more, not about women, and not about transsexuals. Tsk tsk. Times have changed, society has evolved, and you've done neither.

Who wants to hire someone addicted to drugs?

Smoking weed on the weekend does not make a person a drug addict. Having a drink over the weekend doesn't make a person an alcoholic.

Who is very likely to go smoke more weed during a break, and become a liability.

What the fuck makes you think that a marijuana user is automatically "very likely" to smoke weed on his break? Again, if somebody has a drink over the weekend, are they "very likely" to also drink at their desk?

Perhaps the reason they are poor in the first place comes from bad money management from buying things like... drugs?

This is a little dated, but in 2014 Americans spent $374B on prescriptions. Our country must be full of idiots.

No, I think i'll keep not hiring society's degernerates

You are fucking clueless. Is this part of Sessions' "Good people don't smoke marijuana" garbage? Reefer Madness was bullshit brother.

I don't know how movies are being "made for the Chinese".

Many movies are. Transformers 4, for instance, had a number of concessions to Chinese culture and political norms. Its reward? It became the #1 highest grossing film in Chinese history (at the time).

http://time.com/2965333/how-transformers-4-became-the-number-one-film-in-chinese-history/

That franchise would be dead if it wasn't for China. I think they are doing it on purpose to fuck with us.

I don't know how movies are being "made for the Chinese".

Many movies are. Transformers 4, for instance, had a number of concessions to Chinese culture and political norms. Its reward? It became the #1 highest grossing film in Chinese history (at the time).

http://time.com/2965333/how-transformers-4-became-the-number-one-film-in-chinese-history/

Perhaps you don't consider Time Leftist, but a lot of people do:

• I Was My Mother's Drug Mule
• Time tag for Marijuana

I grew up reading Time in the 80's, so I'm well aware of their pro-drug bias.

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.

I can explain it: forgiveness . Perhaps you live in Leftist utopia where everything is permissable, but nothing is forgiven, but the rest of the world doesn't think that way. If you wouldn't judge someone for mistakes in their past, and I understand (and the Right understands) that people make mistakes, who is there left to judge someone for their past mistakes? However, I can understand your sentiment - you've surely seen how the Left doesn't forgive racists - and you extrapolate that to a criminal record. You might be right in this regard, but at least you could still work for a conservative.

I imagine most Leftists wouldn't care about past drug use, and should you find yourself interviewed by a Conservative, you can always refer to Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." So, from this perspective, the deterrent of prison time helps keep people from picking up the habit in the first place, and gives them reason to seek treatment should it happen to them. When this is combined with the Conservative preference for small government, you end up with a system where the role of police is not to lock everyone up for minor drug crimes, but rather, "to keep an honest man honest".

The fuck is this? I'm the one saying we shouldn't lock people up for doing drugs. And you come back talking about how the Left doesn't forgive. If you are so all about forgiveness, why do you want to lock people up and ruin their lives?

I don't really see how forgiveness enters into it. The fact is that having a felony record severely impacts a person's ability to get a job and sustain themselves. That's not a judgement by the Left or the Right, it's the way our society currently works. And it's part of why it's such a bad idea to lock people up for doing drugs.

Perhaps you don't consider Time Leftist, but a lot of people do:

• I Was My Mother's Drug Mule
• Time tag for Marijuana

I grew up reading Time in the 80's, so I'm well aware of their pro-drug bias.

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.

I can explain it: forgiveness . Perhaps you live in Leftist utopia where everything is permissable, but nothing is forgiven, but the rest of the world doesn't think that way. If you wouldn't judge someone for mistakes in their past, and I understand (and the Right understands) that people make mistakes, who is there left to judge someone for their past mistakes? However, I can understand your sentiment - you've surely seen how the Left doesn't forgive racists - and you extrapolate that to a criminal record. You might be right in this regard, but at least you could still work for a conservative.

I imagine most Leftists wouldn't care about past drug use, and should you find yourself interviewed by a Conservative, you can always refer to Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." So, from this perspective, the deterrent of prison time helps keep people from picking up the habit in the first place, and gives them reason to seek treatment should it happen to them. When this is combined with the Conservative preference for small government, you end up with a system where the role of police is not to lock everyone up for minor drug crimes, but rather, "to keep an honest man honest".

The fuck is this? I'm the one saying we shouldn't lock people up for doing drugs. And you come back talking about how the Left doesn't forgive. If you are so all about forgiveness, why do you want to lock people up and ruin their lives?

I don't really see how forgiveness enters into it. The fact is that having a felony record severely impacts a person's ability to get a job and sustain themselves. That's not a judgement by the Left or the Right, it's the way our society currently works. And it's part of why it's such a bad idea to lock people up for doing drugs.

Perhaps you don't consider Time Leftist, but a lot of people do:

• I Was My Mother's Drug Mule
• Time tag for Marijuana

I grew up reading Time in the 80's, so I'm well aware of their pro-drug bias.

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.

I can explain it: forgiveness . Perhaps you live in Leftist utopia where everything is permissable, but nothing is forgiven, but the rest of the world doesn't think that way. If you wouldn't judge someone for mistakes in their past, and I understand (and the Right understands) that people make mistakes, who is there left to judge someone for their past mistakes? However, I can understand your sentiment - you've surely seen how the Left doesn't forgive racists - and you extrapolate that to a criminal record. You might be right in this regard, but at least you could still work for a conservative.

I imagine most Leftists wouldn't care about past drug use, and should you find yourself interviewed by a Conservative, you can always refer to Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." So, from this perspective, the deterrent of prison time helps keep people from picking up the habit in the first place, and gives them reason to seek treatment should it happen to them. When this is combined with the Conservative preference for small government, you end up with a system where the role of police is not to lock everyone up for minor drug crimes, but rather, "to keep an honest man honest".

Perhaps you don't consider Time Leftist, but a lot of people do:

• I Was My Mother's Drug Mule
• Time tag for Marijuana

I grew up reading Time in the 80's, so I'm well aware of their pro-drug bias.

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain to me why putting someone in jail for years, and ruining their employment prospects when they get out is preferable to them having a drug habit.

I can explain it: forgiveness . Perhaps you live in Leftist utopia where everything is permissable, but nothing is forgiven, but the rest of the world doesn't think that way. If you wouldn't judge someone for mistakes in their past, and I understand (and the Right understands) that people make mistakes, who is there left to judge someone for their past mistakes? However, I can understand your sentiment - you've surely seen how the Left doesn't forgive racists - and you extrapolate that to a criminal record. You might be right in this regard, but at least you could still work for a conservative.

I imagine most Leftists wouldn't care about past drug use, and should you find yourself interviewed by a Conservative, you can always refer to Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." So, from this perspective, the deterrent of prison time helps keep people from picking up the habit in the first place, and gives them reason to seek treatment should it happen to them. When this is combined with the Conservative preference for small government, you end up with a system where the role of police is not to lock everyone up for minor drug crimes, but rather, "to keep an honest man honest".

Yelp tried to extort them a few times, so this restaurant gives 50% off on pizza if you give them a 1-star review:

https://www.yelp.com/biz/botto...

http://www.bottobistro.com/REW...

http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.co...

http://time.com/money/3398188/...

Perhaps "boot camp" just sounds much sexier than "certification". After all, military boot camp is hard (well, maybe not as hard now as it was before the military went soft) so anyone who completes programming "boot camp" must be a real hard ass.

Hey, it's you again. Sorry but reality means there are people that that benefit more from our military spending than others. Don't think so? Then why do we spend billions on the Middle east but spend almost nothing on the violence in Africa?

Or how about military spending out of line with what voters want or even what the military wants?
http://time.com/4253842/defens...
http://www.military.com/daily-...

Then you suggest as a counter argument that policing isn't re-distributive to the wealthy. You are correct in some ways and I even realized that prior to hitting submit but didn't change my own text because I wanted to get your response. You're response literally stated that policing funds are sometimes re distributive to the poor thus confirming more core point. Thanks for that.

Have a look at his original staff and check who is left: http://time.com/4658499/donald... Of those who sometimes communicated their own opinions rather than simply defending Trump, there is only Kushner (family) and Pence (elected VP). Those that left include Bannon, Priebus, Flynn, McFarland, Walsh, Dubke, Spicer, Scaramucci, and more. https://www.bustle.com/p/all-t... We are looking at 3.5 more years of a delusional President who chooses divisive people for his staff and then fires anyone who gets under his thin skin. I can't see how competent people would agree to work there given what we know thus far.

The experience of Harvey Mudd seems to point to exactly that. They have a close to 50:50 gender participation rate in engineering majors, and they have achieved it through changes to their curriculum and teaching environment.

Bullshit. Total utter fucking bullshit. They achieved that parity by intentionally accepting female applicants.

Harvey Mudd accepts 31% of female applications and only 12.5% of male applications.
http://time.com/money/4147738/...

We have no specific biological adaptations to eating meat. Our teeth are those of herbivores, and our digestive system is that of a frugivore. Based on dental calculus analysis and corprolite data, our ancestors ate shit-loads of plants.

But we do have at least one specific biological adaptation that is a result of eating meat. Our intestinal system and muscle mass as evolved to much smaller than equivalent animals that are pure herbivores.

http://time.com/4252373/meat-e...
http://news.harvard.edu/gazett...

Some folks think that these adaptations allowed us the luxury of evolving larger brains...

It's not that hard really.

This is an example of BLM denouncing violence. The GPP was requesting evidence for the opposite: BLM advocating or excusing violence. So far no evidence for that has been provided.

It's not that hard really.

That's funny, because the Great Retard apparently didn't know who he was last year.

âoeWell, just so you understand, I donâ(TM)t know anything about David Duke, OK? I donâ(TM)t know anything about what youâ(TM)re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,â Trump said on CNNâ(TM)s State of the Union. âoeI know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists.â

Actually I agree with you, but...

Stubhub tried this, displaying "all-in" pricing, but then ended up backing out. Maybe we just like getting lied to? <shrug>

European hospitals must not use chargemasters in hospitals? Adam ruins everything briefly touched on this recently as well.

Why makes you think they don't exist?

Have you actually tried looking for evidence to the contrary of your beliefs?

The wage gap you mean?

http://www.washingtonexaminer....

http://time.com/3222543/wage-p...

Or data that would disprove the fact that women chose to avoid stem-related fields when they get a chance?
The original was an article about the development in east germany after the wall fell and suddenly all the girls stopped being interested in STEM-related fields even though now they were not assigned to their future job (and thus university subject) but could chose freely. Turns out that many chose more "fulfilling" but lower paying jobs. Its possible that this article was in german, hence why google is not finding it when I search for it using english words.

In the meantime I found something similar:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/q...

Wrong.
The reason for the EC was to get the approval by the 8 Slave States for the Constitutio
Without UNEQUAL representation, they threatened to form their own nation.

Actual facts are fun huh?

Fixed that for you. Remember kids, fascism is ok when the left does it.

I do not like Trump, but things he is good at: He is good at picking one word to say about oppeonts that fits well enough for them to get in trouble over it.

Shit-talking. Got it.

He is good at changing the subject - that said, it has gotten harder for him with some of these russia investigation stuff,

More caca from the cabeza, ok.

Sounding honest - i.e many people seem to believe that he says.

Ya, more people believe this president than any other, well, except for ... all of them in the last 70 years.

He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.

So he's an average businessman? I could find a lot of numbers to disagree, but I'll give you that. Granted, it doesn't really qualify for "things he's good at."

He seemes to value family highly.

As opposed to all those other politicians who claim to hate family.

He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.

Popular vo... 20 years of faux... Bah, fine, I'll give you this one too. Final score, pros: "shit-talking" and "more popular than Hilary." Yay. Man, the cons list would take years. Heh, I said 'Con'.

Per that logic, Europe must have no manufacturing at all, right? Because the average EU worker has 2x vacation and takes 300+ more hours off than the US.

Propaganda works by citing a Russian invasion of Crimea that never happened

During 2014, maybe, it was excusable to believe this lie.

But when, a year later, Russian TV broadcast an entire movie celebrating the invasion — and Putin's direct involvement in it — the excuse vanished. In particular, during the interview, that is part of the film, Putin says:

I ordered Minister of Defense, why hide, under the guise of reinforcing our military installations in Crimea, to transfer forces of GRU there, marines, and paratroopers. [...] Our advantage was that I was personally involved. Not because I did everything right, but because the country's top people are involved, things are easier for the operators on the ground".

The cat's been out of the bag since March 2015. Your continuing to lie about it does not help Russia — it just exposes you as an asshole.

Lie to people often enough and they eventually believe it.

Yep, this is generally true. But it will not help you here.

At the end of the video we get "It was a natural event that had been anticipated for months and was not directly caused by climate change."

Putting this 'insignificant' piece of information at the end speaks volumes as to why people are tuning out MSM.

lab-made meat onto dinner tables everywhere

This will allow people objecting to slaughter of actual animals to eat the necessary protein, which is good.

However, there is no mention of the "carbon footprint" of this method — how much electricity, labor, and materials is it going to take per pound? The (real) meat is wasteful, we are told. Will this be better?

Do we get much tourism from those countries?

The "Trump Slump" is affecting all international tourism to the US.

http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/

Two things -

First, You didn't answer the question that was posed. If you had answered it I think we would find remarkably little tourism from Syria and Yemen to the US, for example. Second, the answer that you did give "somehow" omits a long running important factor in the outcome. I'll give you a hand:

2015 - Will a Strong US Dollar Scare Away International Tourists?
2016 - How the strong dollar is hurting American tourism
2017 - Strong dollar, travel ban threaten California tourism, UCLA forecast says

Your "moderate" setting seems to be calibrated a little too close to "anti."

Meanwhile, all the false flag, false report, and literal violent bullshit has been coming out of the left.

Nope!

Nope!

Nope!

I will grant this did though.

But but muh conservatives! But but his tax returns!

And shadowy business dealings. He can't even keep his promises, note how he claimed he wasn't going to take money from foreigners staying at his hotels? oops

Do we get much tourism from those countries?

The "Trump Slump" is affecting all international tourism to the US.

http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/

Because the shootings that gain national media attention tend to be committed with illegally owned weapons.

That is simply not true. In fact, it is the exact opposite of true. Eighty percent of the mass shootings in the last three decades were committed using legally-purchased weapons.

http://time.com/4367592/orland...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

Cutting taxes is not giving.

It is, when those taxes were paying for services received, and instead of paying for them through taxes, you issue bonds which those wealthy snap up.

They double-dip, you know.

And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

Or we could do this.

You're just being stupid, raising a pointless strawman argument that does not resolve differences or explain anything, but merely makes you look irate.

Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

Have you read what's happening in Kansas? They followed the plan of handouts to the rich. How's that worked out for them?

Sorry, but you can believe the lie brigade about CT if you want, KS is still a failure. It's a logjam due to partisan politics.

Readers here may recall that Trump's budget director Mick Mulvaney published a budget that had a $2 Trillion dollar math error.

Republicans (think Paul Ryan) often (always?) produce budgets that contain all sorts of tax cuts for upper brackets and then a "magic asterisk" that gives no detail but says the shortfall will be made up by a) economic growth stimulated by the tax cuts and b) cost savings from cutting government waste.

So my take is the bad optics of all this finally bubbled up to Trump (I guess Fox News couldn't filter it out totally) and he gave the command to his minions to find trillions of dollars of "government waste and inefficiency" to save the budget. So they came up with this.

It doesn't have to make sense. All he wants to do is get headlines out there that proclaim Trump Saves Us Trillions and for most of his base and way too much of the swing voters that is all they will see. It is ideal for this media purpose. If the topic gets the slightest bit technical he can count on the talking airheads to gloss it over and he'd up with "opposing views on this story" in the worst case.

What that means: enough voters will think have this view: Trump and Republicans produced a budget that will save our economy and Democrats are Fighting It. . They don't have to be right. They just have to throw up enough chaff to confuse the voter and Republicans win the mid-terms again.

It seems like you don't want to listen to any facts. Calling them "fake news" may make you feel better but doesn't change them.
Since you're too lazy to use Google here are some more references:
https://insideclimatenews.org/...
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
http://time.com/4709796/trump-...
https://thinkprogress.org/trum...

You're not alone. Surely Paris is where they're buried.

Well, more Americans want to see Trump impeached than support him. That's been shown in many polls (including those with moving averages over time).

Why You Should Be Skeptical About Polls on Impeaching Trump

"What it says to you is basically the electorate doesn't fully understand impeachment," he told TIME. "Their understanding of impeachment is I'm sending a message of disapproval."

And this is only half of the story. Read this, this, and this...and you might begin to understand the breadth and the scope of what Russia is doing online. The Kremlin has built an entire industry manned by thousands, whose sole purpose is to get online and sew chaos, confusion, and doubt. They are why, when you discuss any issue that reflects poorly on Russia on any major website, you get marginalized and bombarded with talking points.

There are conservatives who mirror the Kremlin's message, but these buildings filled with thousands of paid trolls are the originals and the instigators. This is not a game, read the Times story above and you will see the real world consequences; Russia can create fake hysteria in America, made up disasters, and form political causes out of the ether which sway American policy in the direction they like. Russia, right this very second, and since 2014, and into the future--is at war with you, with me, with every Conservative and every Democrat and every Independent--and they don't care at all what you want. They care what 1 man wants, and what he wants is to say fuck you and your country.

Nutsign detected: vague non-specific claims with "Google it" instead of providing links to corroborating evidence.

No. Some of us are old enough to remember and its only the "kiddies" who need to Google things. Some of the top links for Clinton and Chinese donations.

"The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton's personal Washington, D.C., residence. Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million."
http://time.com/4348675/terry-...

"Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. "Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996 ... According to congressional investigators, Ng laundered the illegal campaign donations through a close Clinton associate in Arkansas named Charlie Trie during the 1996 election."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

What is an "AOL job" now anyway... do they police AIM or something?

I was wondering the same thing. AOL turned into a company that is a one stop shop for digital advertising like Google. You can find info here. They're also now Aol not AOL. Because you know, that's cooler these days...

The issue isn't duration of data retention. It's who controls the data retention. Yes Google can potentially keep your voice search data for longer, but they let you review and delete it if you want. Amazon also lets you erase Alexa's recordings if you want.

Apple lets you erase your search history, but it's unclear if that also deletes the audio recordings they have of you.

Google and Amazon = YOU decide
Apple = They decide for you what's best

I had a few ideas about why Cable TV is failing, and of course others had the same idea.

1. Commercials - Time has an article about the trend over the years for more commercials per hour. The article has a 2014 date, so we're talking an increase in almost a minute per hour over 5 years.

   On cable, commercials are even more frequent, totalling 15 minutes and 38 seconds of each hour. Commercials on cable took 14 minutes and 27 seconds of each hour in 2009.

2. Content - We've all complained about how much Reality TV just plain sucks. There's a nice write-up onOregon State's sociology 499 class site (of all places) that mentions ER set a record for $13Mil per episode, while a half hour reality show can cost more like $150k.
3. Cost - Of course we the consumer complain about a steady increase in cost for little gain (another grass growing channel? really?), we don't often look at how much things cost for companies. Sports Illustrated has a nice breakdown of costs to run a 30 second ad during the super bowl. The growth is damned near exponential and was somewhere on the order of $5mil this year, and $3mil in 2010.

Basically, it's all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Commercials have gotten longer and more expensive, while production costs have been driven lower and lower. If only there was some way en masse to stop making stupid people famous...

Frank Pasquale left out a couple of details in his opinion piece. First, these algorithms are only used in determining sentences, not to determine guilt. At that point in the trial guilt has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt. At the sentencing phase rules of evidence do not apply anymore and almost anything goes. That's why the prosecutor puts crying victims on the stand. There have been two supreme court cases (Malenchik vs Indiana and Loomis v. Wisconsin) that challenged the use of algorithms in sentencing and both upheld (in the later with some minor restrictions) that these algorithms can be used in sentencing. The conditions in general are that the algorithm has to be scientifically sound. That was the case in both cases that were challenged as there is existing peer-reviewed literature that examined the algorithms. Frank neglected to mention that. The secrecy of the algorithms is a consequence of patent and copyright law btw. The algorithms in these cases are a scoring function. Math is not (and should not) patentable or copyrightable. In this case the consequence is that the manufacturers only recourse is to keep it a trade secret. That could be solved better, but in my opinion people shouldn't get their hopes up that there's some exploitable loophole in the algorithm or something.

We can debate whether assessments (actuarial prediction instruments) should be used in sentencing or criminal justice. I’m very much in favor as it does reduce bias and leads to reproducible results. It’s much easier to control for biases in decision making with statistical methods than it is to control or fix bias in humans. Does anybody believe that human judgement is less biased? You can read up on the work of Paul Meehl who spend his lifetime showing that even simple assessment tests outperform the judgment of trained clinicians. Part of the sentencing is taking into consideration how likely the perpetrator is to commit a new offense. Humans suck at making predictions and estimating probabilities. This is no different in criminal justice.

Let me end this with pointing out some of the positive change that systems like this have brought: early release from incarceration. Low risk prisoners are more frequently released early (not just from overcrowded California prisons when ordered to do so by a federal judge), and then put on probation/parole. And work out well it did: http://time.com/4065359/califo... The expected crime wave from federally mandated early release didn't materialize. In my opinion thanks to these prediction models.

There are many things wrong with policing and criminal justice in the US, but the move to what’s generally referred to as “evidence based practices” (incl. actuarial prediction instruments) has been pretty positive. The great part is that both Dems and Reps are behind the idea of risk assessments so we might actually see some change for the better.

google road to evil begins
http://techland.time.com/2012/...
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

google secretly embraces evil
http://time.com/4060575/alphab...

google realizes full power of the dark side
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
http://www.wired.co.uk/article...
http://www.computerworld.com/a...

RIP google privacy,ethics,trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

google road to evil begins
http://techland.time.com/2012/...
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

google secretly embraces evil
http://time.com/4060575/alphab...

google realizes full power of the dark side
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
http://www.wired.co.uk/article...
http://www.computerworld.com/a...

RIP google privacy,ethics,trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...