Slashdot Mirror

This is why it's important to keep the technology in reach of the general public.

Community developments like Makerspaces with their cheap 3D Printers, Laser Cutters, CNC Machines and the like are helping the non-rich get a grip on what these things can do, and how to build and use them. We are already starting to see a rise in Owner No Employee manufacturing businesses no doubt in part to these same automation technologies, and we need to continue down that path or perhaps only the 1% will own the technology.

Code schools aren't the place to go if you want to be a "rock star" at Google or Facebook. These are designed to turn out junior developers, or "apprentices" as they're known at Software Guild, which currently has 16 instructors and 148 students split between in-person and online programs. Students learn just enough to be dropped into teams of more experienced coders and continue their education at a company, even as they draw a competitive full-time salary. They aren't building the high-flying startups; most are simply translating business processes into code, transforming data or helping maintain and update legacy systems.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-new-kind-of-jobs-program-for-middle-america-1488114000

Government will send you packing for good in your late 50s or early 60s.

I work in government IT. Most of my coworkers are in their 60's and 70's. Unless Microsoft delivers on all the promises for SCCM 2016, they're not planning to retire any time soon.

And no chance you will live to 120 claiming government benefits for 43+ years.

I'm not planning on Social Security being available when I retire. The Wall Street Journal had an article that people who planned to live longer are less likely to outlive their retirement savings even if they live to be 115-years-old.

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/02/17/the-people-least-concerned-about-outliving-their-savings-may-be-most-at-risk-financially/

Haha! You are funny! Romney and McCain are not a Conservatives, they are RINOs.

I already asked you: How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repeating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original [wikipedia.org] sense of the phrase?

Because it really takes some chutzpah to say that your last 3 nominees are RINOs. And their VPs.

They're just not politically correct enough for you.

Using Politifact, an extremely left wing organization, to debunk my claim is just sad.

Denying that Politifact, has shown the lack of truth in the statements of a a number of Republican leaders is pretty sad...but not uncommon, Trump actually lies about fact-checkers too.

Funny though, that the Mitch McConnell link yields mostly trues.

Oh that's even sadder. You're trying to use Politifact for a comparative analysis, which would require them to be a comprehensive examiner, a standard which would be rather hard to establish. I merely offered the evidence of untruthfulness among the right, yet refrained from what you now want to say.

Some philosopher you are.

I'd honestly have to fact check your fact checker, because as mentioned they are grossly biased and remove context to make political claims.

Oh my, the sadness continues. Not only do you not want to admit to the lies, you want to believe, desperately, that they are false in their fact-checking.

Nope, you are not paying me to be your researcher so won't happen.

You're the one who has to establish your own words, that you so pretentiously claim this excuse only makes you more laughable.

If you want to talk cash, leave contact information.

If you have to be paid to seek the truth, you will tell the truth of the highest bidder.

I don't know anyone on the Right who assumes someone is honest, even on their own team.

That would be back to the questions I asked you earlier:

How many people do you know?

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Really, you say you don't know anyone.

We have to debate each other as much as we do the left.

Nope. Not really. You swallow all sorts of lies and deceits. You don't even like it when others point them out. Heck, you've gone so far as to disown the last 3 standard-bearers of the right.

Gowdy and Chavez question Republicans just like they do the Dems.

Nope. They have refused to have numerous investigations and inquiries, meanwhile they spend endless hours on Benghazi.

Sorry dude, you really can't keep spreading the bullshit and expecting us to believe it.

Meanwhile, the "Left" is still claiming women make 70c on the dollar.

Nope.. Nuance . exists.

You're tilting at a strawman.

I won't get into their other lies, the list is way too long and not relevant to the conversation.

Don't worry, you've made your partisan bias and hypocrisy relevant. It's really your own fault. You ego made you take a stance, and purport to superiority, but show no willingness to examine your own dirty hands.

Well, it is a setback for PewDiePie.

Like it was a setback when Milo was banned from Twitter? Or when his speech had to be canceled due to rioting? Granted, the loss of PDP's Youtube Red series hurts a bit, but he's not hard up for money and I'd be shocked if he couldn't get another big name to bite. Amazon's video service, for example, had no qualms about snatching up Clarkson for one of their flagships.

It's a pretty boring story if you ignore PewDiePie's outrage at actually being held accountable for his actions.

These is a *fascinating* story to anyone who remotely cares about where the media is headed. You don't have to be a PDP fan (I'm not) to find it fascinating. There are multiple facets here, and I'm most interested in the stuff that involves the larger ecosystem. I've already linked to this a half dozen times at least, but this article shows pretty clearly the WSJ's motive in all of this. (That one shouldn't be paywalled.) Don't forget, they didn't just "write an article" that started all of this. They didn't just hire three reporters to comb through his videos and edit them. They sent their edited results directly to Disney. They had an explicit agenda in getting PewDiePie's platform trimmed down a bit. Why is that? WSJ isn't a progressive-leaning paper. Well, see the above link.

If that is completely boring to you, if you've nothing but shrugs when faced with an internet ecosystem that is completely dominated by a handful of walled gardens that are explicitly, openly seeking to strictly control independently-produced content for their own ends, with not a single viable Youtube competitor on the horizon as the enforcement of their opaque and capricious content policies (that sees videos banned or de-monetized without warning) grows ever stricter and more capricious ... well, I guess that's fine. As someone with a ~200k ID, I suppose you probably have other concerns [resisting the urge to pen a Depends joke] instead of worrying about the ecosystems that millions of relatively tech-ignorant millennial use in their daily life as their primary method of both mass and one to one communication.

But another facet, built on the above, is the role of advertisement moving forward. As Youtube slowly clamps down, they may slowly cede ground to services without advertisers, including Amazon video, HBO, Netflix, etc. There's a huge, irrational disconnect between advertisers who fear controversy and boycotts and consumers who, when faced with advertiser-less services like Netflix or HBO, generally prefer fully uncensored, politically incorrect content. I mean, just consider this for a moment: videos with nudity on Youtube cannot be monetized due to advertiser fears. HBO, on the other hand, became popular precisely because they weren't afraid to include nudity, politically incorrect content (Bill Maher), and other controversial stuff that consumers obviously wanted and weren't going to boycott over, but advertisers were terrified of. And Youtube has taken an extremely non-nuanced view here. They don't offer advertisers the chance to opt-in for content they've flagged as unsuitable. If an advertiser WANTS to show commercials for a video that Youtube de-monetized, they can't. It's a binary switch. And I'd be surprised if Youtube didn't implement it this way at the explicit request of their biggest advertisers.

This is a totalitarian, all or nothing power play that big media / old media is attempting, and there's also ample evidence it will backfire--again, look at the skittishness of the advertisers vs. what consumers actually want (and will tolerate the existence of) from Netflix or HBO or other places that don't have to worry about advertisers. There's huge, bizarre disconnect here between the business practices and actual demand and it will be very interesting to see how th

I'd like to encourage everyone modding posts like this "troll" to post AC explaining your logic.

There's no reasonable line of logic I can see that supports the notion that it's smart for the left to shift any of its fascist-shaming endeavors from political right wingers to the online Youtube stars who aren't very political and have tens of millions of fans. Young fans. Fans who, by dint of their youth, are probably largely left leaning. For now.

(For those people arguing that none of this makes sense because the WSJ is right-leaning, their pro-big business motivations in this matter have been explicitly laid out in subsequent articles.)

Corporations being corporations with their policies... fine, whatever. Allegedly reputable news organizations characterizing that video as "anti-semitic" is something else entirely. Anyone watching the end sequence of that video who goes on to describe it as anti-semitic either does not understand human emotion or is deliberately lying. If that video proves PewDiePie is anti-semitic, then John Cleese, Mel Brooks, Jon Stewart, and dozens of other comedy legends are also anti-semitic, including the political and the largely apolitical.

The anti-semetic angle is just the icing on the cake. The main offense here is taking advantage of poor people, making them do awful things for low pay, making fun of those people for hesitating to do the task, and then making fun of them again for doing the task. Considering the man's immense wealth, it's classic villain behavior. This doesn't fit into a headline neatly, however.

The right is fucked up, too. But the right wing (despite their feelings on Israel) is not overly concerned about PewDiePie's Nazi jokes.

I'm not going to stuff my post full of "Trump and the GOP have created a very bad atmosphere, too" disclaimers. This particular controversy has been built on the atmosphere the left has created. I don't know the political affiliations of the reporters or their immediate supervisors at the right-leaning WSJ, but there were obvious cynical pro-big business reasons for doing what they did despite their reliance on PC culture in their methods. This isn't a conspiracy theory; they are very open about it.

Submitter here. And the gloves are off, FYI. This is a bizarre little trick, apparently some weird leftover piece of Cold War propaganda, that any time a topic has anything to do with the free market you can point that out and a significant minority of people will believe you've just "won" the discussion and will mod you up, even if you're rambling irrelevant drivel. (It works on Reddit, too.) Congratulations, Disney and Youtube are legally free to do as they choose. No, the first amendment doesn't constrain them. Are we done with the kindergarten version of Civics now? There appears to be widespread *lying* about the nature of the videos in question, characterizations that are so brazen as to be actual lies by mainstream media organizations like the Wall Street Journal, Wired, The Independent, etc. This is on top of the WSJ actually going out of their way to get PewDiePie "fired" by mining and editing his content and then sending it directly (from my understanding) to Disney. I think that alone is all worth talking about. If dishonest and manipulative newspapers don't interest you at all, well there's the door. Bye. But there's even more: to the extent that companies like Youtube and Disney are being pressured by asshats writing letters and threatening boycotts, I'd even go so far as to say it's worth discussing trying to pressure them in the opposite direction. Not because I'm a huge PewDiePie fan (I'm not; I've watched only a few of his videos), but because the internet is being dominated by a small group of companies and it's worth a little effort to push back now, while we still can, and inform them that free speech for their platform (not just our constitution) is what we actually want. Just listen to this smug shit coming out of the WSJ and put that in the context of the thousands of Youtubers trying to figure out Youtube's uncodified content policy so their videos won't be de-monetized. Put that in the contest of the millions of Youtube users who just want their favorite hosts to be able to speak their mind uncensored. The WSJ doesn't care about all of that. They only care about media giants being able to dictate acceptable content with an iron fist. Does that violate the first amendment? Again, no. Is this capitalism at work? Again, yes. You're such a good, smart little anti-Communist for reminding us of these things! But us talking about it and getting a bit pissed about it and wondering aloud if there's any way to pull the brake on this shitshow before it gets any worse is also capitalism at work. If that's a conversation that doesn't interest you--there's the door. Vote with your feet, citizen.

There will always be the internet equivalent of a town soapbox where any fool can say anything they like. And certainly the people who own a soapbox in Time Square, and pay people to speak there, have a right to fire such people for any reason they choose. This fool has run his course, and joked about things which society agrees must not be joked about. If he is a good fool, he will find another soapbox. If not, he should consider himself lucky to have made millions playing a fool.

If he was truly horrified by what he and they did

Your posts and others like it are rather like the arguments that seek to conflate the contents of leaked documents with the personalities of Assange, Snowden and Manning. All three of them could turn out to be cynical trolls or just plain horrible people, but that wouldn't make their revelations worth ignoring.

Likewise, PDP could be a troll and it wouldn't change one iota the underlying gravity of the situation. Youtube and other social media have been slowly clamping down in recent months, the Wall Street Journal was an active participant in getting Youtube and Disney to act against PewDiePie here, and in the aftermath they are openly and brazenly talking about it all in the context of online media giants needing to crack down on free speech everywhere.

[trimmed ad hominem attack]

Insults found in in the conclusion of an argument (in the "then") cannot, by definition, be an ad hominem. Only insults in the premise or logical induction of an argument (in the "if") can qualify, and they do not automatically qualify simply by being insults. On a simpler note: an ad hominem is not an "attack"; it is an informal logical fallacy. The rules of politeness are entirely orthogonal to the rules of factual or logical correctness.

Sorry, but this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

But let me clarify what I said in that "ad hominem" a bit: yes, PewDiePie could have been acting with those facial expressions. That's entirely conceivable. What is not up for debate with anyone who understands human emotion is that that reaction presented (fake or real) was, in fact, one of shock and horror. You can't plausibly twist it around to make it out to be a neo-Nazi slyly winking at the camera. There's no undercurrent of that sort whatsoever. Someone pretending to by anti-semitism (or the ease with which it can be produced) is, in the absence of evidence establishing ulterior feelings and motives, more or less as good as someone who really is offended.

Consider The Producers, where there is a scene celebrating Hitler and Nazism and then a shot of an audience looking horrified at the scene celebrating Nazism. Except, the audience wasn't *really* horrified. They were actors pretending to horrified. Does it then follow that Mel Brooks and/or the audience were anti-Semitic? Does it then follow that the movie as a whole contains an anti-Semitic message?

Allegedly reputable news organizations characterizing that video as "anti-semitic" is something else entirely.

If this is true then he has a really good case for a libel/slander suit.

This is akin to bitching that you don't like Snowden because he wears ugly glasses and has a boring face.

I'm the submitter. I don't watch PewDiePie videos. I think I watched only two in my entire life before today. This is serious news. He is the biggest name on Youtube (like it or not), and these are some of the biggest names in mainstream news lying about him, engaging in an open campaign to get him fired (WSJ went directly to Disney, from my understanding), and then they casually, lazily, openly discuss about how their motive in all of this was that they want to see online media giants dictate acceptable content with an iron fist instead of this willy-nilly free speech bullshit that makes old media nervous.

When the hell did Slashdot turn into goddamn TMZ? Who cares who you like or don't like? This. Matters.

Submitter here. And the gloves are off, FYI.

This is a bizarre little trick, apparently some weird leftover piece of Cold War propaganda, that any time a topic has anything to do with the free market you can point that out and a significant minority of people will believe you've just "won" the discussion and will mod you up, even if you're rambling irrelevant drivel. (It works on Reddit, too.)

Congratulations, Disney and Youtube are legally free to do as they choose. No, the first amendment doesn't constrain them. Are we done with the kindergarten version of Civics now?

There appears to be widespread *lying* about the nature of the videos in question, characterizations that are so brazen as to be actual lies by mainstream media organizations like the Wall Street Journal, Wired, The Independent, etc. This is on top of the WSJ actually going out of their way to get PewDiePie "fired" by mining and editing his content and then sending it directly (from my understanding) to Disney.

I think that alone is all worth talking about. If dishonest and manipulative newspapers don't interest you at all, well there's the door. Bye.

But there's even more: to the extent that companies like Youtube and Disney are being pressured by asshats writing letters and threatening boycotts, I'd even go so far as to say it's worth discussing trying to pressure them in the opposite direction. Not because I'm a huge PewDiePie fan (I'm not; I've watched only a few of his videos), but because the internet is being dominated by a small group of companies and it's worth a little effort to push back now, while we still can, and inform them that free speech for their platform (not just our constitution) is what we actually want.

Just listen to this smug shit coming out of the WSJ and put that in the context of the thousands of Youtubers trying to figure out Youtube's uncodified content policy so their videos won't be de-monetized. Put that in the contest of the millions of Youtube users who just want their favorite hosts to be able to speak their mind uncensored. The WSJ doesn't care about all of that. They only care about media giants being able to dictate acceptable content with an iron fist.

Does that violate the first amendment? Again, no. Is this capitalism at work? Again, yes. You're such a good, smart little anti-Communist for reminding us of these things!

But us talking about it and getting a bit pissed about it and wondering aloud if there's any way to pull the brake on this shitshow before it gets any worse is also capitalism at work. If that's a conversation that doesn't interest you--there's the door. Vote with your feet, citizen.

Corporations being corporations with their policies... fine, whatever. Allegedly reputable news organizations characterizing that video as "anti-semitic" is something else entirely.

Anyone watching the end sequence of that video who goes on to describe it as anti-semitic either does not understand human emotion or is deliberately lying. If that video proves PewDiePie is anti-semitic, then John Cleese, Mel Brooks, Jon Stewart, and dozens of other comedy legends are also anti-semitic, including the political and the largely apolitical.

Re "How messed up as a society to you have to become to think that way?"
It goes back to the Time and motion study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Later ideas about "Motivating Employees"
http://guides.wsj.com/manageme...
Computer monitoring system grew from early email and internet use around the USA.
e.g. daily reports of every keystroke per computer, clickstream data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The why is often given as "trade secrets", i.e. the idea that monitoring everyone stops a walk out?
Other ideas surround legal issues. The lack of monitoring allowed bad thing to go on and not be stopped.
If training is expensive, tracking all workers can show if extra help is needed.
Background checks often fail or are done at a low cost...
The Fourth Amendment, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, State laws might offer some protection from an invasion of privacy. i.e. company computer, company network, no reasonable expectation of privacy for clickstream data.
Most of that was tested in courts the 1990's.
The tracking of workers would show a return to the Time and motion study decades.

AC most of that is just from Employee monitoring :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... e.g. clickstream data, the ability to monitor, audit, inspect provided Internet.
The Fourth Amendment, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, state statutes have all be used to protect from such efforts.
The ability to guide and shape workers is often commented on too :)
"Motivating Employees"
http://guides.wsj.com/manageme...

I'm not sure why Robart is concerned with precedent in this case, since his reason for blocking Trump's travel ban basically came down to "Because I said so."

There is a 29 page ruling.

Granted, I haven't read it all (I just skipped to the DENIED at the end), but I think it's a little more nuanced than, "because I said so."

While correct, I'd say that the models hired for these events make more money than being a woman in IT. Attractive people always make better sales people. You may not like that fact, but human nature (that fact) does not care how you feel. (Plenty more citations for you to find if you are interested in those pesky things called studies.

Let's not forget what a monster success it was before this quarter. It sold double the units of the original iPhone in it's first year, and did $6B in revenue. That likely made it the best selling watch in history by revenue.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a...

And in it's second year sales are increasing.

That explains jumping on Trump over the radical Islamic nation ban as a precursor to fighting for the H1Bs under the penumbra of immigration. Ditto for Bezos, Goldman Sachs, Apple, Facebook and the rest of Silicon Valley.

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a...

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

consider dual citizenship (some nations allow that)

Trump also bans people with dual citizenship.

The infrastructure and support staff it takes to manage what the bots are doing takes a little more than "a few dozen workers" in those factories.

Not according to The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-factories-are-working-again-factory-workers-not-so-much-1482080400

Wow, you're really a loon if you think that's a winning strategy:

You're a loon if you think calling me one is an effective strategy. It won't work. I'd rather be a crazy shit in this world than sane.

Every day, I get more and more convinced, that it'd be better to be going rip-snorting bonkers.

have Hillary pick a Republican running mate? That might pick up some R voters who don't like Trump, but it'll also cause tons of D voters (including everyone who considers themselves a progressive) to sit out the race or vote third-party.

Not really no. Oh sure, if she'd picked somebody who didn't know how to spin things the right way, she'd have been in trouble, but you know, I'd think they'd have the sense for a little coaching. At least, anybody WORTH picking. Yeah, ok, another Sarah Palin would be a bad idea, but even Dan Quayle could have worked.

Selling yourself as "The alternative to the crazy guy that's taken oven my party" would cause voters to swoon across the spectrum. And maybe throw in a few lines about "Now I've seen the light, and will support this wonderful Democratic lady" and wham, here comes the voters, eager to suck on the teat of lies.

A more salient objection is that none of them would have the moxie to do it. Not that going into the VP job is a good idea, when you can' t even be guaranteed you won't be pushed out in 4 years. But still, it'd take a cast iron set of balls to run that table.

The better choice (since it would be more likely) would be a dynamic and exciting Democrat. Even Sanders. Should have courted him for the VP job before he entered to run. But no, no, we got blahbity-blah Tim Kaine.

Who couldn't even fuck up Mike Pence. Seriously. Guy was totally a whiff at the VP debate. Against a guy who should have been a total target.

Who in the name of hell coached him? They ought to be slapped. The goal was to make Pence look like he was working for a crazy guy, maybe a little crazy himself, not to make yourself look asinine.

It's a fine line to walk, I'll grant you, but surely somebody told him that his Plan B was to back off?

This strategy actually would have been great for getting the Green Party a lot more votes than they got with her crappy pick of Kaine.

Please, they haven't managed to get anything in the way of traction in this country. You want to change that? Change the electoral system on a more fundamental level. That'll help.

Sanders *was* a qualified Democrat. He ran as one, and that's all you have to do.

Nope!

Even further...well, you'd have to read the convention by-laws. Even the GOP could have rejected Trump.

Yeah, technically there's a lot of easy ways to get in, but that's like the Electoral college, a result of America's haphazard system, it only seems stable and effective because it hasn't been fully broken all that often. Like a farce of security, not actual protection, but as long as nobody breaks in, you're cool.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Democrat Party faithful think that only long-time Party members should be allowed to play in their party.

I think Donald Trump is a good example of why it's a terrible idea for a political party to let any Johnny-Come-Lately grab the presidential nomination without any form of commitment or participation. I wish they had said "No, no, thank you, stay away!" but they knew from 1992 that they didn't want to risk an independent with chutzpah and resources enough to run. They got greedy. They knew they had nothing else to take on Hillary, so...they gave themselves up to be screwed.

(They wanted it anyway, that's their dirty secret. The horny bastards.)

Sorry, but I think a political party SHOULD be able to identi

A tiny percentage of the population can reasonably subscribe to being trans-people: those few people walking around with XXY chromosomes, where their parents literally picked their gender at birth.

Here it is from Johns Hopkins, where they first started doing gender reassignment before realizing that it was a mistake after tracking the results of their patients.

Why are gays bundled with transpeople? They are not remotely similar. Being gay is a manner of attraction, which you develop as part of your subconscious by subconsciously rejecting your biological drive to reproduce. Being trans equates to denying your DNA. You're quite literally rejecting your body. You wouldn't tell someone suffering from bulimia that they do look fat, nor should you tell someone suffering from thinking they're the opposite gender. Clearly, they're really the other gender that requires a lifetime of medicine to sustain.

Also, pretending that a 2-year old is actually picking their gender is bizarre. A 2-year old is lucky to crap in their own diaper, let alone decide that it's really a she. This is simply dumb parents destroying their child's chance at a normal life and setting them up to have a lifetime of problems.

There is an enormous difference between being effeminate as a male or a "tomboy" as a female, and thinking you are the opposite gender. Thinking that somehow your body is mistaken and that the sex organs between your legs is backwards is nothing other than mental disease. The acceptance of it is nothing short of the acceptance that disgustingly fat people should not feel bad about their bodies -- they should; it's literally killing them.

Ignoring all of that, it is preposterous to think that taxpayers should pay for any elective surgery. Even if you believe that trans-people are deserving of living their lives via such surgery, it's not something that they deserve in prison, just like people do not deserve to get rhinoplasty at taxpayer expense.

How do I know? The New York Times and The Washington Post will tell me that it is.

If you read yesterday's The Wall Street Journal, the 4% economic growth of the 1980's that Trump promised on the campaign trail is unlikely to happen again. That's a big problem for the Republicans.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/politicians-pine-for-elusive-solution-to-voters-discontent-4-growth-1484560827

Funny how anemic growth under Obama hasn't been a problem for Democrats...

Or is that why Hillary lost?

How do I know? The New York Times and The Washington Post will tell me that it is.

If you read yesterday's The Wall Street Journal, the 4% economic growth of the 1980's that Trump promised on the campaign trail is unlikely to happen again. That's a big problem for the Republicans.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/politicians-pine-for-elusive-solution-to-voters-discontent-4-growth-1484560827

Huh.

You can decide to personally accept the scientific community's consensus...

By the way, that whole "97% consensus" thing is pure organic fertilizer.

Here's a Wall Street Journal piece on that falsehood. Of course the WSJ is a well-known alt-right mouthpiece (snort). http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/virg...

So not even your claims of consensus hold up to scrutiny.

You really should quit while you're behind rather than continuing to dig the hole deeper.

studies showed links between fat-rich diets and heart disease. It was later shown that it wasn't "all fats", just saturated fats. And nothing has changed that; it's still widely accepted my medical science that saturated fats are associated with heart disease.

No, that's actually completely false, and contradicted by current medical science. Yes, nutritionists and doctors have been propagating that message for years, and continue to do so even today. But that message is not based on science, it's based on tradition, and they should be held accountable for the crime they're committing on the American public.

There is a link between saturated fats and cholesterol, and another link between the ability of statins to lower cholesterol and, simultaneously, to reduce the incidence of heart disease. That suggested a link all the way from saturated fats to heart disease, but to this day, that link has never been found. The American Heart Association famously stated, in recommending that Americans consume less saturated fats, that the correlation was so strong that it was only a matter of time before a definitive link could be proven, and we should base our eating habits on the assumption that they would find that link. In point of fact, they never did.

In fact, the AHA has recently admitted their failure, but not in such a way that would make them look guilty of the atrocity on the American people that they are responsible for. Since statins really do lower the incidence of heart disease (independent of saturated fat consumption) they are now suggesting that nearly everyone take statins, not just those who have high cholesterol. This is a tacit admission that the link never existed.

What's appalling here is not only the fact that the AHA almost single-handedly made America obese over the last 40 or so years, but that the established science is *still* controversial -- so controversial that by posting this, a bunch of trolls are going to attack the messenger (me) because the message flies in the face of what they think they know.

Fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Saturated fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Trans fat is still bad, as far as anyone knows.

Most women won't make a decision as to whether to sleep with you based on the car you drive. This is especially true now that among millennials, women are the majority of car buyers, and that there are now more women drivers than men.

And of course post-millennials no longer see cars as all that big a deal either. A guy trying to get laid by using a car as a prop is more likely to have success if he's gay and trying to pick up a bro. Times have changed, and are continuing to change. Self-driving cars are going to make it less likely for people to bother with the expense of owning a car - and the concomitant attachment to it.

The whole "cars as chick magnets" is more a male fantasy today than a reality. I don't care what a guy drives, it doesn't magically have any sort of "halo effect" on my opinion of him. It would actually have a negative effect if it's obvious he sees his car as a shortcut into my panties.

Wow. Just wow. Where do I start? How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them. Never the less, we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and we have fewer. You like NOAA's stuff - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ . Look towards the bottom for a bar graph. If I were to take 2000-today by year and mix it up the years by that decade with say the 1950s randomized in the 1950s (so it's not obvious which one is which, however with correct data for that decade) and see if you can tell which one is which, I bet you'd lose that one. Unless you really studied the data carefully. I honestly don't understand how you can say there are more and they are worse. The NOAA graph just doesn't show that, at least not yet. Maybe next month it will after they "adjust" it so it's not a problem anymore like they're doing with the other stuff.

(previous stuff I showed you) You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you? The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW. If you're a TA or a Professor going over someone's scientific work, that is one of the things you look out for. Faked or wrong data. The fact NASA has been caught red handed changing this stuff REALLY should bother you.

Here are some references, but look below
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
You like the telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Here's one for you and you can see it with your own (as the Eagles would say - lying) eyes - Hansen's page (He no longer works for nasa BTW)- http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . Not as I remembered it. That's because they keep changing it - http://web.archive.org/web/*/h... Check out the 2007/2/24 version to today. Wow, same page where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record. Now 1930s looks a lot colder. I don't think anyone would say the 1930s was the hottest on record as Hansen had to admit to in the early 2000s looking at the new graph. He claimed 1990s were until he was shown to be wrong. He claimed it was a Y2K bug. I don't think anyone believed that one.

Greenland - what about Venice Italy? It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.

To me this captain obvious moment (shown by the documented change in web page above) really should concern you, and make you mad that you've been lied to all of this time. Could go on and show you page after page or as that other site did, he overlaid them for you. Not that you seem to care, or perhaps you don't understand the material. I'm reminded a lot that other people aren't like me. Things that are painfully obvious to me aren't obvious to others.

Now, about concensus? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... Yea, not so much.

Well I've enjoyed going down memory lane a bit here if you're not persuaded by the very definitive evidence I've shown you, you probably never will be. I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.

The comparison to tobacco is disingenuous BTW. I was a scientist back in those days, in the 1970s. I felt it was clear. Again, I could find where the tobacco industry had faked data and weren't being honest. It wasn't hard even without something like the Internet. This in a time when science wasn't so good, calling a lot of things cancer causing that weren't. Showing other people without something like the Internet was just about impossib

BMW figured this out a long time ago when they removed the oil dipsticks from their engines:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

I'm an IT guy - I'm perfectly capable of servicing any of the Macs in my possession - just like I am perfectly capable of changing my own oil.

The truth is, I like many, simply do not do these things. It's easier and more convenient to simply let the manufacturer do it. Sure, I was once a poor college kid and replaced my own hard drives and engine oil - but at that time I was neither a Mac owner or a German car owner.

"Mexican Officials Caught Off Guard by Ford’s Move to Cancel Plant Project" WSJ. Your entire point is based on the anti Trump propaganda coming out of the WaPo . The WaPo and you hasn't figured out that GM and Ford are different companies, they shouldn't be mixing what is happening with GM to discredit any positive action Trump accomplished with Ford. http://www.wsj.com/articles/me...

There is one positive thing happening, thanks to the combination of available software and other automation as well as strict regulation of employees, there are a growing number of one person businesses filling little niches and making a living for themselves.

Certainly I know a few one man businesses that without things like CNC or easy to use accounting software they simply wouldn't be viable.

I couldn't find the original journal article, but this WSJ article lays it out pretty clearly. The tests they use are from the 1960s and among other things, not checking for higher brain function with an EEG is a real problem for me.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

An excerpt: " In a 1999 article in the peer-reviewed journal Anesthesiology, Gail A. Van Norman, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Washington, reported a case in which a 30-year-old patient with severe head trauma began breathing spontaneously after being declared brain dead. The physicians said that, because there was no chance of recovery, he could still be considered dead. The harvest proceeded over the objections of the anesthesiologist, who saw the donor move, and then react to the scalpel with hypertension."

Those of you looking to avoid pain may not like it if you can feel yourself being slowly dissected...

Why does it matter if a dozen people made all of those billions?

But they didn't. The US has over 8,000,000 millionaires as of 2016. Maybe you should stop eating what they are feeding you over at MSNBC and try to educate yourself about your positions. Facts are your friend.

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

        And there are 7.4 million unemployed people, and that's not counting people who want full-time employment but only found part-time work.

I agree the economy is not great right now, but that is largely thanks to Obama, the ACA, and over regulation. You are free to think I am full of shit, but you have been enjoying Obama's economy for at least the last 6 years. Hide and watch for 12 months, I believe, as do most economists and the stock market, that the economy is going to come roaring back to life once Obama is gone, especially if Trump can get companies to bring $2.1T in off shore cash back and make the US competitive by bringing sanity back to regulations.

    Yeah and Bush did a real great job...

Actually, he did a pretty damn good job. Not perfect, but good. He inherited a recession (dot com bubble) and rampant terrorism from Clinton (USS Cole/9-11), but rather than whine like a little bitch for 8 years, he rolled up his sleeves and kick started the economy by cutting taxes (I remember my rebate check, but then again, I actually work for a living) and cutting regulation, kicked some terrorist ass around the world etc. His first mistake was leaving the lending rules in place that Democrats passed (modifications to the Community Reinvestment Act by Clinton around 1994) that required banks to give loans to otherwise unqualified borrowers and allowed banks to securitize those loans which caused the crisis in the first place. His second mistake was assuming Obama was competent and handing him the solution to the housing crisis rather than just passing it into law (this happened in part because Obama had the house and senate as well. Obama completely pooched the fix for the housing crisis that was handed to him (let Fannie and Freddie take over houses under water and then rent back to owners/sell once markets recovered) and instead pissed away the trillion dollars on "stimulus" to his political connections like Solyndra, many of whom took the money and never paid it back... So yah, you may have hated Bush, but that is on you, overall he did a good job. Bush's worst flaw was that he didn't like public speaking and did not react when empty heads on TV attacked him. Trump does not seem to have that problem, so don't expect to trash him like you did with Bush without consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
http://www.ocregister.com/opin...

> The only thing Softbank announced in October was the creation of the investment fund. The announcement did not mention any details about jobs.

Hello, McFly? Are you really trying to argue that a billion dollar investment would be job-free?

> it doesn't even specifically mention that the investments will be in the US -- just that they'll be in the technology sector.

The majority of world-wide tech investments are made in the US. A US destination is the default for any large scale investment unless otherwise specified. Your ignorance of the financial sector is not proof of anything more than the fact that you are ignorant.

They were routinely deleting songs legally bought from competitors for two years and now they should be forgiven? Lets reward the abusers because in this topic they appear to have changed.
But reports of itunes deleting personal music files are not a thing from the far (6 year) past. Last year and this year they deleted people's songs too. There was some famous musician that complained about it but I can't remember his name (they changed his personal edition to something they had in their store)

Last time Samsung won, but Apple got bailed out by Obama. Which has the unfortunate side-effect of encouraging companies to play chicken in the game of MAD because they might get a last-minute reprieve even after they've lost.

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic

My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Call me when Trump sets up an illegal email server with Top Secret emails on it - connected to the internet.

Call me when Clinton does. The FBI investigated and found no meaningful wrong doing. Stop pretending that this is a thing that matters. Your favorite asshole won the election. Let it go.

Then lies about it.

You're seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't lie constantly? You are seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't break any laws?

You are FULL OF SHIT.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information [the emails were classified WHEN THEY WERE SENT, and not retroactively]

...

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. ["extremely careless" == "grossly negligent", no?]

Note well that it is a FELONY to be "grossly negligent" in the handling of classified information.

Are you really going to try to argue Hillary! wasn't "grossly negligent"? When there is actual evidence that she directed the removal of classification markings and ordered underlings to send data "unsecure"?

Why did Comey say there was no intent?

Gee, you think the $500,000 the FBI deputy director's wife got from Terry McAuliffe had anything to do with that?

Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

Exactly, where are these automated factories that are displacing workers.

The new factories in the U.S. are automated and require fewer users to operate.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-factories-are-working-again-factory-workers-not-so-much-1482080400

There were 3.78 billion packages delivered in the U.S. in 2013. Judging by the trendline we're probably over 4 billion by now. If 10 million were stolen, that's a theft rate of about 0.25%. FedEx reports a lost package rate of 0.55%, so they're actually losing more packages during delivery than are stolen.

125 million households in the U.S., so on average a house gets a package stolen once every 12.5 years. If you figure the average package value is $50, that's a cost of $4 per year due to theft. A small enough amount that most people would just shrug and let the retailer's/shipper's insurance take care of it rather than actively try to combat it.

Whether they hacked the RNC or not, that they hacked either side is what's scary. If they hacked only the DNC, we should be concerned that they only went after one candidate and not the other, showing clear favor for the other. On their other hand if they hacked both and only released the DNC emails, now they possibly have dirt on the incoming president for leverage. We should be concerned about that too.

In terms of whether this would have mattered, Nate Silver at 538 points out that if the voters in swing states had swung 1% back to Clinton overall, she would have won. So the possibility that the leaks could have swayed 1 out of 100 people to vote against her is very very real.

Looks like the Russians tried to hack the RNC, but weren't successful:

Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers

Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.

But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said. ...

Note also this quote:

The Obama administration warned for months that Russian hackers had tried to interfere with U.S. elections, and intelligence agencies issued an unusual public assessment in October warning Russia was behind the cyberattack.

October was BEFORE the election. If the Russian hacking was so dangerous, why didn't Obama do ANYTHING about it?

I guess people just don't like knowing that it was nothing but hype from a Republican official looking to make waves.

WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security has reached a preliminary conclusion that what appeared to be an attempted breach of Georgia’s computer systems was due to an inadvertent configuration of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection computer, an official familiar with the matter said.

Georgia's Secretary of State is wasting resources on something that their firewall vendor should tell them was nothing.

It's like "OMG OMG Hacks!" but the substance to it is zero. Much like ArchangelMichael's complaints about this Russian Hacking story.

Which is one thing, if you're equally opposed to all of it, but not when you favor one side over the other.
 

The Friends of Putin Club

The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

Here is, what real friendship looks like

• The idiotic "Reset" of 2009.
• The 2010 abolition of all sanctions imposed on Russia for Putin's invasion of Georgia — in the (wane) hope of gaining cooperation on Iran — thus, as predicted, inviting Putin to repeat the same scenario in Ukraine and Syria.
• In 2012 ridiculing Mitt Romney's suggestion, Russia may be hostile to the US. Hillary Clinton was particularly scathing.
• Routing billions of dollars of investment into Russian high-tech industry, some of it, obviously, with military connections.
• Getting richly rewarded by Russian companies (all of them on Kremlin's tight leash).

Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...

It's common knowledge. Google sells ads - it's really their only successful business. There's enough common infrastructure that the marginal cost of operating something like gmail is small compared to the ad revenue. YouTube is the exception, because the bandwidth costs are relatively high - http://www.wsj.com/articles/vi...

Android is a bit of an odd duck, and profits were total guesswork outside of Google until the court case: https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

You can still get fakes if the order is fulfilled by Amazon, at least for some products. Affiliates who sign up for their "Fulfilled by Amazon" program can inject fakes into process if they have the same UPC as products purchased and sold by Amazon itself because they might all be comingled in the warehouse. I read somewhere (can't find the article right now) that these third parties are supposed to slap a sticker on their product identifying who was responsible for putting the specific item into the mixed inventory. So if your phone battery explodes, you might know which fly-by-night counterfeiter to blame (assuming you saved the packaging). Here's an article about the problem:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/on...

Once you get a couple of Indian folks into management positions they just tend to recruit other Indian people and gradually remove whites.

This is a bit OT for TFA but Indians have been taking over the US hotel business for at least the last 20-30 years. From a random article from 2012

Nearly half of the motels in the U.S. are owned by Indian Americans.

Why Indian Americans Dominate the U.S. Motel Industry

Or, you can believe there were Hack Attempts, that they were made by "Unknown" but "suspected" russian attackers. While ignoring the fact that there were ALSO hack attempt(s) made by the US government on state Election Offices.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ge...

Part of the whole "Conspiracy" claim is that it doesn't need to have any evidence of truth. But, if you believe, it is part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (where have we heard that before???) or "Trump is an idiot for believing" if you don't.

See how that works? No proof is needed, people asking for proof are "deniers", OR .... the people are idiots and we don't need to prove anything.

Both sides try to play this game.