Slashdot Mirror

new challenges that will probably require new paradigms

A Universal Social Security puts a trillion dollars less load on the taxpayer.

Since more and more low skilled jobs - including those of CEOs - get automated, there will be fewer jobs for the population

Actually, we still need the productivity to back any form of UBI. The Universal Social Security I propose directly takes a proportion of all income and divides it evenly; that means it directly gives everyone roughly 17% of the GDP-per-capita (it actually gives everyone 17% minus the taxable proportion of income). Any UBI does that; they just use a different means to source the money, which necessarily can purchase some amount of goods, which is a proportion of all productive activity. In the same way, every tax is an income tax--a sales tax, for example, takes a bigger proportion of poor peoples's income than it does of rich peoples's income, and a regressive income tax could take the same amount of money from the same people.

At the same time, job reduction just spreads jobs. That there are "fewer" jobs means there are still jobs involved in making things. Those jobs mean wages. Those wages need to be paid, which means the businesses involved require revenue. Revenue means prices of goods sold must provide that revenue.

In other words: there aren't "fewer" jobs; there are fewer jobs and fewer labor hours involved in making, shipping, and retailing a product, lowering its cost by lowering the amount of total wage paid to provide the goods and services consumers buy. That means the minimum viable price (and the price at any given profit margin) falls, which means prices move toward their stable profit margin as they do today. Consumers spend a smaller proportion of their income on existing products, and so have more to spend on other products--which, themselves, require fewer jobs than they would have, so the products are cheaper, so we can buy more.

There's an alternate path.

If we all keep working 40 hours per week and we need 1/2 as much labor to do our jobs thanks to new technology, then we all still have 40 hours of income and can buy twice as much since the price of everything reflects half as much wage.

If we all work fewer hours per week, we don't have twice the buying power just because everything costs half as much.

That means rather than a new technology allowing us to buy 20% more stuff, we can respond to the new technology by working 20% less--32-hour work weeks instead of 40. People only buy 4 things instead of 5; but every 5 workers only does the same work as 4, so you get a 1:1 labor market. The difference is we don't all immediately go out to buy Teslas and private yachts because we're not all that much richer, since we've elected to make every weekend a 3-day holiday instead.

Both strategies keep the same rate of employment. One involves less work, and results in a lower standard-of-living in terms of purchasing power--or, in other terms, involves purchasing leisure time with some of our wealth.

new challenges that will probably require new paradigms

A Universal Social Security puts a trillion dollars less load on the taxpayer.

Since more and more low skilled jobs - including those of CEOs - get automated, there will be fewer jobs for the population

Actually, we still need the productivity to back any form of UBI. The Universal Social Security I propose directly takes a proportion of all income and divides it evenly; that means it directly gives everyone roughly 17% of the GDP-per-capita (it actually gives everyone 17% minus the taxable proportion of income). Any UBI does that; they just use a different means to source the money, which necessarily can purchase some amount of goods, which is a proportion of all productive activity. In the same way, every tax is an income tax--a sales tax, for example, takes a bigger proportion of poor peoples's income than it does of rich peoples's income, and a regressive income tax could take the same amount of money from the same people.

At the same time, job reduction just spreads jobs. That there are "fewer" jobs means there are still jobs involved in making things. Those jobs mean wages. Those wages need to be paid, which means the businesses involved require revenue. Revenue means prices of goods sold must provide that revenue.

In other words: there aren't "fewer" jobs; there are fewer jobs and fewer labor hours involved in making, shipping, and retailing a product, lowering its cost by lowering the amount of total wage paid to provide the goods and services consumers buy. That means the minimum viable price (and the price at any given profit margin) falls, which means prices move toward their stable profit margin as they do today. Consumers spend a smaller proportion of their income on existing products, and so have more to spend on other products--which, themselves, require fewer jobs than they would have, so the products are cheaper, so we can buy more.

There's an alternate path.

If we all keep working 40 hours per week and we need 1/2 as much labor to do our jobs thanks to new technology, then we all still have 40 hours of income and can buy twice as much since the price of everything reflects half as much wage.

If we all work fewer hours per week, we don't have twice the buying power just because everything costs half as much.

That means rather than a new technology allowing us to buy 20% more stuff, we can respond to the new technology by working 20% less--32-hour work weeks instead of 40. People only buy 4 things instead of 5; but every 5 workers only does the same work as 4, so you get a 1:1 labor market. The difference is we don't all immediately go out to buy Teslas and private yachts because we're not all that much richer, since we've elected to make every weekend a 3-day holiday instead.

Both strategies keep the same rate of employment. One involves less work, and results in a lower standard-of-living in terms of purchasing power--or, in other terms, involves purchasing leisure time with some of our wealth.

Is that a joke? The New Hope light sabers were terrible. Very inconsistently rotoscoped. Came across as a serious rush job - unlike in Empire and Jedi.

Seriously, a lot of the original trilogy special effects were just bad. Come on, defend the use of this hologram. Don't get me wrong, a lot - I'd say most - of their special effects worked. It's amazing how much worse Phantom Menace Jabba looks than RotJ Jabba, for example, over a decade earlier. Not. Even. Close. But just because Lucas made a habit of inserting bad digital effects is no reason to excuse places where the original trilogy screwed up. In a New Hope you can very clearly see a wire running from Obiwan's light saber into his robe. Vader's motions don't line up with his voice at one point, leaving him looking like he's doing sign language. In Empire you can clearly see the stick used to topple one of the AT-ATs. There's lots of things like this that are just simply mistakes.

And yes, sorry, but if you're going to show a storm trooper hitting his head on camera, it should make a sound. Own up to your errors.

It depends a lot on the Russian in question. E.g. this guy is Russian, and was a prominent militia commander for Donbass separatists for a while. Note the flag he's holding on the first photo.

That was page after page that basically translates to "APT sent spam to a large list of recipients and target fell for it."

The DNC IT guy thought phone calls from the FBI alerting him to the attacks were a hoax. He also told the staff to change their passwords via the phishing email they received. Of course, he had no common sense or InfoSec training whatsoever.

https://transcender.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/politihack-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-about-russians-influencing-the-us-election-and-learned-to-love-cybersecurity/

Meanwhile, at the RNC, the attacks failed because their IT guy was on the ball. Go figure.

If you follow the data by the Committee to Protect Journalists, Putin should be clearly credited with improving the situation with journalist murders in Russia (i.e. less journalists were killed during his terms in power on the annual basis.) The most typical Western mistake -- ignore or feign ignorance about Russia's 1990s. I don't blame you on that, because you are just a victim of the Russophobic MSM interpretations of the data.

The motherfucking RUSSIANS are stirring up anti-Russian sentiment.

Don't want people to hate you? Stop stealing land, stop murdering people, and stop fucking lying about it.

To his credit, Putin stopped murders of journalists that started well before him at much greater rate than anything that happened during his terms in power.

I wonder what sort of actions they're going to take against Democrat campaign staffers for having such terrible email security practices?

I'm curious about that too since I work InfoSec. The Transcender blog summarizied the problems that the DNC IT person had: he ignored the FBI phone calls as a hoax, told staff to change passwords using the link from a phishing email, and had no InfoSec training whatsoever. Just mind boggling.

https://transcender.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/politihack-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-about-russians-influencing-the-us-election-and-learned-to-love-cybersecurity/

You should check out the gamergate page. Not only have dozens of editors been banned for edit warring, but the entire thing is a complete mess where even factual information is removed because it's contrary to the people who are pushing a narrative.[...] It's pretty sad when "know your meme" and "encyclopedia dramatica" have more factual articles.

Direct links for the lazy:

• Encyclopedia Dramatica (NSFW)
• Infogalactic
• Know Your Meme
• The History of Gamergate

That's the same article where a dozen hardcore feminists were banned for edit warring,

Oops, you believed the Guardian. It's a common mistake. What actually happened was that one feminist editor Ryulong was banned after he was caught begging for money from the activist group GamerGhazi which was formed by Reddit's SRS clique to suppress the spread of information about Gamergate. That's like asking for money from the Trump campaign after changing the name of Hillary Clinton to "Lying Hillary." They were still going to let him off the hook but Ryulong acted like a total ass on the last few days of the arbitration case so one or two of the votes flipped.

Every other hardcore feminist editor got away with it. Then the admins took vengeance for their friend Ryulong by instantly banning anybody who reported the misbehavior of any of the hardcore feminist editors in any other area of the wiki. They also took out a bunch of the Japanese editors who tried to correct Ryulong's misspellings where this white fanboy had made himself Wikipedia's final judge of Japanese spelling and grammar and had previously banned anyone who disagreed with him. When Gamaliel got elected to the Arbitration Committee a year later, ArbCom quickly banned two prominent editors who had presented evidence against Gamaliel during the Gamergate case, Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate, without presenting any justification for either ban. It was straight out of Kafka.

Some people still mistakenly think that the adults will take charge if you stay calm and reasonable and don't break the rules. That has been tried and results in a quick and permanent ban. Explaining your own position is "soapboxing" and "beating a dead horse" and is grounds for a ban. Having strong sources to support your position makes you a "POV-pusher" who is "not here to build the encyclopedia", which justifies a permanent ban. Presenting evidence of rulebreaking by the admins is "trolling" and "sockpuppetry" and merits an instant ban, and they are likely to remove your comments and insult you on the way out. If you try to appeal your ban on the grounds that you never broke any policy, your appeal will be rejected and you are likely to have your talk page access revoked. You are required to confess to sins you have not committed and proclaim that the admins are correct in policy when they are not. The place is run by completely irrational people who belong in an insane asylum.

For further reading:

• GamergateHQ's Wikidrama thread
• Wiki In Action
• Wikipediocracy
• Wikipedia Sucks

I'm using a Raspberry Pi and some modified software located here:

https://murphy101blog.wordpres...

What argument? I just provided data. The greenhouse theory is basic physics understood even back in the 1800s: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh....

That the world is warming is confirmed by direct measurement, and satellite measurement. We can directly observer the impacts of that warming on the cryosphere, and sea level. We don't need to use pan evaporation rate as a proxy for global temperatures when we have direct measurements. This is especially true since PER makes a very poor thermometer - it's affected by a number of factors other than temperature including humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. A change in any of these other factors would render it useless as a thermometer.

"Boiling seas" is needless hyperbole. The truth is startling enough. This is one year and it's not clear that this dramatic excursion from the trend isn't just an anomaly. Anyone interested in polar ice should follow Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog

UN GA just days ago adopted a resolution finally admitting that Ukraine is a victim of the Russian military aggression.

For better or worse, the part of the United States' electorate, to whom you want to appeal, view the United Nations with skepticism. So, instead of appealing to a questionable authority, try the following argument...

Imagine, Americans, Mexican government declaring Trump's election "a coup", his assemblage of generals — a junta, which placed the Latinophobic Nazi in power, contrary to the wishes of most Americans. Out of concern for the brotherly nation, Mexican government is encouraging volunteers to cross into California, Arizona, and Texas to help the local Spanish-speaking "self-defense" militias protect themselves against the White English-speaking bigots, who've persecuted the Spanish-speaking minority for years. In places stolen from Mexico before, these polite volunteers in military uniforms without any official insignia are already organizing a referendum to leave the US and join Mexico.

Patriotic Americans attempting to resist the invasion are denounced as racists and shot at with military-style efficiency. Although officially Mexico is not a party to this "civil war", its troops are regularly encountered on the battlefields — all of them are then found to have been "on leave" from their units. Artillery bombardment of American forces seems to originate from across the border, but no one can say for sure.

Would you still say, it is a civil war — Americans fighting other Americans?

"You've got a bunch of folks with PHds, usually with a heavy emphasis on math and statistics, but the implication I get again and again from folks is that they're somehow trying to cheat us all for the mountains of grant money."

Because it's been proved (at least as well as AGW)?

- http://a-sceptical-mind.com/th... That trickey 'hockey stick' graph that so motivated the world?
- http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.... "We don't have the original climate data"
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com... and
- https://notalotofpeopleknowtha... Massive, and repeated 'creative' manipulation of the data;

The claim I read the last time was two children and 27 200 SEK which is $2914.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyhe...
Says a family with three children and mention 28 000 SEK = $3000 precisely.

There's this one from 2013 which gives a number more in line with what you claim with 22 249 SEK / month but that one is three years old whereas the one with 28 000 SEK / month is from this year:
https://ladycobra.wordpress.co...

Regarding SFI (Swedish for immigrants):
http://www.aftonbladet.se/sena...
4/10 follow through.
22% drop completely mostly because of getting a job according to that one.
http://www.op.se/opinion/ledar...
Says 1/3 finish SFI.

I have no idea if people actually lose the money on a scale worth mentioning.

On the other hand there's those who "separate" to have double benefits and double housing and then rent out one of them and live together anyway, or the cheating with assistants or fake consultation for getting a job or a fake job (or a fake job to get to stay as a "working immigrant") and so on.

The more welfare solutions and providers with poor regulation the more chances to cheat the system.

28 000 with three children is still $3000 and that's after taxes for no work whatsoever.
The reason for such absurdity is the idea that all children should be brought up in a similar environment and that's nice and all BUT YOU CAN'T OFFER THAT FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD IN A NATIONAL SYSTEM AND STILL MAINTAIN A GOOD LIVING STANDARD YOURSELF!

Wait a minute. There's no penis bone? Then how do you explain THIS?

https://keimiller.files.wordpr...

Grammar saves lives.

Let's eat, gramma!
Let's eat gramma!

https://matthewsavides.wordpre...

Nice pic
https://www.facebook.com/Lets-...

Cuba's internet issues have very little to do with geography.

So, if the embargo-ing United States weren't the closest well-connected place (to which everyone else in the region apparently connects), things would be no different for Cuban connectivity?

Extra points if you get one in a wheelchair or one with bad teeth, because then you get to use your inbred and meth-head jokes.

Inbreeding doesn't really limit itself to poor meth heads.

https://pmchollywoodlife.files...

https://fabiusmaximus.files.wo...

http://telegrafi.com/wp-conten...

And the kicker:

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

Extra points if you get one in a wheelchair or one with bad teeth, because then you get to use your inbred and meth-head jokes.

Inbreeding doesn't really limit itself to poor meth heads.

https://pmchollywoodlife.files...

https://fabiusmaximus.files.wo...

http://telegrafi.com/wp-conten...

And the kicker:

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

There is a good argument for better software design being more important than Moore's Law when it comes to complex breakthroughs in computing. It can be hard to quantify how algorithm improvements compare to hardware improvements, but the field of numerical algorithms gives some insight.

In the field of numerical algorithms, however, the improvement can be quantified. Here is just one example, provided by Professor Martin Grötschel of Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik Berlin. Grötschel, an expert in optimization, observes that a benchmark production planning model solved using linear programming would have taken 82 years to solve in 1988, using the computers and the linear programming algorithms of the day. Fifteen years later – in 2003 – this same model could be solved in roughly 1 minute, an improvement by a factor of roughly 43 million. Of this, a factor of roughly 1,000 was due to increased processor speed, whereas a factor of roughly 43,000 was due to improvements in algorithms! Grötschel also cites an algorithmic improvement of roughly 30,000 for mixed integer programming between 1991 and 2008.

My guess is we have plenty of room for improvement as we find ways to live within the confines of physics. Even if we don't find a better alternative to silicon based computing, advances in computer science has the potential to improve our computational ability by a factor of millions without needing Moore's law.

When the original John D. Rockerfeller was asked how much money is enough? He replied: "Just a little bit more." https://starwinar.wordpress.co...

Short answer: Capitalists were primarily concerned about "extracting surplus value" eg: manufacturing something in such a way as to capture a high yield of profit. Fighting against this was the empirically sound observation that of N units of time the tendency for the rate of profit to fall to 0% was probability of 1. So in a convergence towards N=1 you have a point where it makes sense for the capitalist to replace workers with automation. But of course as Marx would put it the internal contradictions of capitalism stops this from being a long term trend because tendency of profit to fall will accelerate. Long answer read Marx or a blog about non-linear complex systems relating to marx: https://thenextrecession.wordp...

Given that you are offering $12/hr cash payment to evade taxes that means that:

a. The federal, state, and local governments get nothing; you are ripping off your fellow citizens, all of them.
b. The workers aren't getting credits towards Social Security so no retirement "safety net" for them.
c. The workers aren't getting credits for unemployment so no insurance when you fire them.

You on the other hand are getting $15/hr value for $12/hr.

Furthermore, you are talking about "day jobs" not full time jobs, so your $30K (tax-evaded) equivalent assumes that they can get a job every single day of the work week. You don't mention 1.5X rate for overtime, which they would normally be entitled to. They get no sick pay or vacation pay - something that a normal full time job would offer. And you're talking about six adults working full time for minimum wage sharing a 3 bedroom house (or apartment); that sounds a lot like the Samsung worker dormitories https://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/300-samsung-security-cameras-record-a-young-worker%E2%80%99s-four-attempts-at-suicide-yet-fail-to-save-him/ - maybe not exactly what we ought to be hoping to make the standard here in the US.

Take a look at the era surrounding the great depression here. Now take a look at 1950-1980. What happened after 1970? What happened between 1950 and 1980?

Your links undermine your argument. There is growing abundance in the US from 1950 on to the present, yet fertility collapsed to barely 1% growth (driven solely by immigration of high fertility population, I might add). If there was evidence for your claim, we would see it now. You wouldn't need to strongly and repeatedly assert it without evidence.

Take a look at the era surrounding the great depression here. Now take a look at 1950-1980. What happened after 1970? What happened between 1950 and 1980?

Your links undermine your argument. There is growing abundance in the US from 1950 on to the present, yet fertility collapsed to barely 1% growth (driven solely by immigration of high fertility population, I might add). If there was evidence for your claim, we would see it now. You wouldn't need to strongly and repeatedly assert it without evidence.

Which is false in practice. The high abundance societies all and I do mean all have negative population growth once you exclude first and second generation immigrants (who have higher fertility).

Societies experiencing famine and economic recessions grow their population more-slowly than their population grows before and after those recessions.

Societies experiencing economic booms grow their population rapidly.

Take a look at the era surrounding the great depression here. Now take a look at 1950-1980. What happened after 1970? What happened between 1950 and 1980?

Why does population seem to always surge when food and jobs are plentiful, and then stop growing so damned much when further growth starts to make food and jobs scarce? Why does that happen?

Incorrectly described. If his theory had been correct, we would have seen massive die-offs in the 19th and 20th Century.

Why? What became scarce in the 19th and 20th century such that there was no way to provide for the people we had? Are you telling me that, some time in the 19th century, we had 2 billion people and only enough food to feed 1.5 billion people? If so, how did population not die off?

If population grows until it hits a wall, restricting its growth, then the point at which it stops is the point at which it's stable. Something must become inaccessible for population to constrict--even wars and disease only cut the population back temporarily.

Which is false in practice. The high abundance societies all and I do mean all have negative population growth once you exclude first and second generation immigrants (who have higher fertility).

Societies experiencing famine and economic recessions grow their population more-slowly than their population grows before and after those recessions.

Societies experiencing economic booms grow their population rapidly.

Take a look at the era surrounding the great depression here. Now take a look at 1950-1980. What happened after 1970? What happened between 1950 and 1980?

Why does population seem to always surge when food and jobs are plentiful, and then stop growing so damned much when further growth starts to make food and jobs scarce? Why does that happen?

Incorrectly described. If his theory had been correct, we would have seen massive die-offs in the 19th and 20th Century.

Why? What became scarce in the 19th and 20th century such that there was no way to provide for the people we had? Are you telling me that, some time in the 19th century, we had 2 billion people and only enough food to feed 1.5 billion people? If so, how did population not die off?

If population grows until it hits a wall, restricting its growth, then the point at which it stops is the point at which it's stable. Something must become inaccessible for population to constrict--even wars and disease only cut the population back temporarily.

Well, if you want data, according the social security adminsitration the average wage has gone up by about $8000 since 2010; however the median wage has gone up by something more like $3000.

This pretty much tells you what you'd expect under trade liberalization: it helps higher wage workers with specialized skills more than it does commodity labor.

The key to understanding data like this, as a sociology professor once told me, is to disaggregate it. If you do you'll see that while the averages and even median that looks fairly rosy over the last thirty years, the picture for median and below has been almost flat for a generation.

That doesn't sound too bad. Sure the wealthy and the well-to-do are getting richer, but nobody (at least no economic slice -- geography tells a different story) is doing worse. But even that result has to be disaggregated. On one hand you have only a modest increase in the overall cost of consumer goods (thanks free trade!); this modest increase along with modest compensation increases produces no growth or loss of purchasing power below median income.

On the other hand if you break out just health incurance, medical care and college tuition, median purchasing power has collapsed in the last thirty years or so.

What this means is that median income people can buy a lot more TVs and home entertainment crap than they could in the 70s, but as that stuff has become cheaper paths to upward mobility have been closing and paths to downward mobility have been opening.

Its a shame they are so evil.
Use Palm Oil (a major contributor of deforestation )
Buying up Land and water wells in developing countries, then selling their own water back to them.
and then there was the Infant Formula fiasco.

https://unlatched.wordpress.co...

Nestle care about people ? I think not.

The democrats love the Saudi's as they donate millions every year to them especially to the Clinton foundation.

https://my2bucks.files.wordpre...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

http://presentationsunplugged....

https://devoutinfidel.files.wo...

The democrats love the Saudi's as they donate millions every year to them especially to the Clinton foundation.

https://my2bucks.files.wordpre...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

http://presentationsunplugged....

https://devoutinfidel.files.wo...

Writing drivers needs two things: specs

The nouveau project demonstrates that isn't the case. Your claim is flatly false. What you want learn about is reverse engineering. That's how to get it done in the real world.

Time is easier said than done

Only if you waste it having a whinge on Slashdot instead of doing your driver development work. Harden up, son.

BTW I am very thankful we have outspoken, progressive Muslims like Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah up here. They provide a much needed reality check.

Ok explain to me why this is okay, but this isn't?

Why is this okay but this isn't?

If you say because one is black and the other is white then you are the textbook definition of a racist.

The IRS takes a very dim view (*caugh*Clinton Foundation*caugh*) on using a corporation or foundation to convert personal expenses into untaxable corporate expenses.

The Clinton foundation has done nothing wrong, and is not under criminal investigation. It's the Trump foundation that has been illegally used to pay personal debts of Crooked Donald. The Clinton Foundation is under investigation because thousands of unsubstantiated accusations have been laid against it, and that triggers an "investigation" even with an absence of wrongdoing.

but I'm baffled where all the Trump supporters came from.

There are a few different groups. Lets get the KKK, Nationalists, etc out of the way. Yes they voted for him (Like they would have voted for Clinton) but their numbers are so small they're really not worth discussing on a national scale.

In the Midwest:

In large part it's blue collar salt of the earth people in the middle. Come out and visit 'us'. (I didn't vote trump but my state and county did). If you make a joke about flyover country you'll probably get punched the 10th time you say it. Most of the people out here are the nicest people you'll meet. If you ever needed anything (Flat tire, etc) they'll be the first to stop and lend a hand. Everyone has had a job that was affected by NAFTA. (Real or perceived, most people think they were affected by NAFTA)

50% of household earning less than $35k don't have Internet. Some townships are on Dialup alone. [Despite having our tax money go to help fix that]. Our infastructure is literally falling apart around us. We don't have enough population in any single county to warrant people paying attention to us. When it comes to 'social' issues most of us are "I don't see it I don't care". When asked where a transgendered person pees it's probably in the woods like everyone else. But we really, really hate being dictated to about 'how it is' from the coasts.

Some of us tried the high road, my county went very Bernie in the primaries. Polls had both WI and MI completely wrong. We saw Bernie as the democratic way to 'make america great again' and were told, literally, "You aren't needed in November" despite filling stadiums and waiting in lines to see Sanders.

Republican votes per county have held flat 2008-2012-2016. Jill stein saw a 'huge' jump between 2012-2016. And Democratic voters more or less just stayed home.

The second group is a bit more entertaining to watch:

It's /r/The_Donald. It's the angry, contrarian young male vote. It seems to be a melting pot of RedPill, 4Chan, and a bunch of other places that demographic hangs out, online equivalent of a bag of cats.

Milo Yiannopoulos seemed to gain a lot of traction and followers out of the GamerGate. They have less in common other than they really really hate the "SJW" type and saw trump as the anti PC candidate. I'm fascinated by people watching so I've dug through some profiles. Most are just 18-25 year old males that feel something about Obama or Clinton gave them the short end of the stick.

The recruiting techniques are pretty much follow gang recruiting techniques that have been used for centuries and are used now to radicalize people for ISIS. "Did those people wrong you? It's this persons fault. Join us and we'll "fix" it".

Beyond that there's really nothing that binds them. (Other than some don't know how to create new Reddit Profiles).

For example one user is a ~20 year old 2nd generation Muslim Indian immigrant. Follows soccer and Cricket, loves cats, smokes cannabis lives in NY, drives around a BMW 435i and used to drive an Audi S5. And is all on the trump train ... because.

You've got to be kidding me. The media were colluding with her campaign, they weren't reporting anything!
1. Lying: Benghazi was a spontaneous protest caused by a youtube video. Proof: See Wikileaks, she knew the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack.
2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.
3. Corrupt: Read Clinton Cash for a long list of examples.
4. Unlikable: See any of the likeability polls that were run in 2016 about Clinton. She's got the lowest numbers ever for a Democrat presidential candidate.
5. Arrogant: See the video she gave where she wondered how she wasn't up by 50 points over Trump.
6. Harpy: harpy image 1, harpy image 2, harpy image 3. The fact is, there are numerous accounts of her throwing huge tantrums when anything doesn't go her way. Cursing and swearing, throwing objects, smashing things, firing people. She's just a horrible person.
7. Only Accomplishment is marrying Bill: Hard to prove this one either way. She has zero accomplishments before marrying him. Would she have been elected as a Senator if she wasn't the wife of a former President? Impossible to say for sure, but probably not.

You've got to be kidding me. The media were colluding with her campaign, they weren't reporting anything!
1. Lying: Benghazi was a spontaneous protest caused by a youtube video. Proof: See Wikileaks, she knew the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack.
2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.
3. Corrupt: Read Clinton Cash for a long list of examples.
4. Unlikable: See any of the likeability polls that were run in 2016 about Clinton. She's got the lowest numbers ever for a Democrat presidential candidate.
5. Arrogant: See the video she gave where she wondered how she wasn't up by 50 points over Trump.
6. Harpy: harpy image 1, harpy image 2, harpy image 3. The fact is, there are numerous accounts of her throwing huge tantrums when anything doesn't go her way. Cursing and swearing, throwing objects, smashing things, firing people. She's just a horrible person.
7. Only Accomplishment is marrying Bill: Hard to prove this one either way. She has zero accomplishments before marrying him. Would she have been elected as a Senator if she wasn't the wife of a former President? Impossible to say for sure, but probably not.

Uhhh the US taxpayers paid to the tune of 200 billion for a nationwide upgrade to our intertubes during Clinton and all we got for that money was a low res Goatse from the big corps.

This is why we should give them 90 days to either provide what we paid for, give us back every cent with interest, or we nationalize the whole thing and open it up to competition like we did when we first broke up Ma Bell. If they want exclusives in an area? Let them run 100mbps FIOS to the door and we'll be happy to give them a 15 years exclusivity deal but as it is now? They owe us a shitload of money and we should demand we get what we paid for!

Here's arctic and antarctic sea ice combined. : The combined graph is quite a bit more dramatic.

That being the case, how do you explain the lack of women/certain races/people from certain economic backgrounds?

I have no idea. Fortunately, the burden of proof is not on me...

As far as women go, to stay on topic of TFA, my only speculation is that the burdens of reproduction is what prevents females from a better showing in science and other pursuits. But we can't say with any higher degree of certainty, because to even pose the question is enough to be thrown out of today's "scientific" circles.

Genetically less intelligent?

This is why I mentioned "dogma" in my original post. For you kind, races being genetically identical is even more of an axiom, than Earth rotating around the Sun. You discount our obviously visible differences — eye-shape, skin-color — as superficial. The less obvious ones — like resistance to certain diseases and ability to digest milk — are less known and you quietly ignore them.

But to suggest, that, maybe, some other such differences may play part in differences between academic and other achievement — as you are baiting me to do — is a more reliable way to lose an argument, than even tripping the Godwin's Law would be.

So, I will not make any such statement. The woeful underperformance of Blacks in today's America is much better explained by the scandalous rate of single-parenthood in Black families, for example. And let me preempt your saying "persecution" by pointing out the sad story of Jews — persecuted for centuries throughout Europe, they have a lot to complain about. But not about being underrepresented in Science (nor Chess)...

That said, we are veering off topic here, from differences between sexes to those between races. I shall not continue.

You just pick the lies you want to believe.

You mean like Twitter is targeting everyone for "hate speech." When there are examples that it isn't the case.

And then nothing else happened, and everyone was ok.

No? Just remember it only happens if you say "I hate black people." If you say "I hate white people." That's okay though. Hating particular groups of people are fine with Twitter.

This story happens to be about alt-right groups, but Twitter has begun taking all threats of violence seriously.

I guess that's why organizations like CON(which is supported by Feminist Frequency) are still on Twitter's "trust and safety council" right? Despite that they've actively harassed and doxed people. Which of course is why groups like BLM are still on there, after engaging in violence. Or why they don't really go after terrorist group accounts until it reaches a point that they can no longer ignore it. And then we can get into the various verified accounts which openly call for violence, doxing, and harassment...but don't get a slap on the wrist at all. Not even a temporary ban...unless it hits the news.

Nope sorry. There's two sets of rules on Twitter, one for them and their ideological buddies. One for everyone else. Now if they actually are going after those on the left, it's only taken them 5 years.

https://sonofhel.files.wordpre...

Is it saying things they disagree with?

That's exactly what it is. You'll find quite a few of the 3rd wave feminists and TERFs using this as a means to shutdown discussion, or launch harassment against people, even going as far as trying to get them criminally charged. Also facts are hate speech, and if they happen to be threatening you? That's not hate speech. Also if you quote their statements or rhetoric, that's hate speech too. This shouldn't be a surprise though, Twitter decided to create the Orwell sounding "Trust and Safety Council" which is chalk full of left-wing groups, some of them are so radical that they'd be right at home in european antifa movements. Some of the groups have also been directly engaged in harassment, doxing and so on too.

So just remember, if you're of the right political ideology. It's fine, but if you're not..they're coming for you.

This is boring technology, even the lady in the patent isn't impressed with it!

Anyway, what the "Eye Tracking Unit" indicates is that this isn't actually a hologram but rather more tomfoolery of giving your eyes two different images. The problem with this is it won't look 3D when more than one person is looking at it.

Your first link merely points out that the event my link says will have an insignificant effect is slowly occurring, so I'm not sure I understand your argument. The wikipedia article talks about the same thing and the aerobic and anaerobic digesting organics and expiring CO2 and methane, so again I'm not sure I understand your argument.

What do you want us to do, look at the infographic USA CO2 emissions trending down, European Union CO2 emissions trending down, Japan's CO2 emissions trending down, Russia's CO2 emissions trending down? How about China and India CO2 emissions trending up sharply!

For a while this fake news site was the top result in Google for the search query 'who won the popular vote?'