This oxford "study" never bothers to define in any objective way what they mean by "junk news", so what they are "measuring" is completely subjective.
Even worse, their 2 primary references about what constitute "junk news" are papers by some of the same authors, which in turn do not clearly define what "junk news" is.
So we have incestuous junk science trying to lecture us about fake news.
I never thought I'd see 'research' sink this low. And from Oxford... shameful.
It is a memo, a collection of *assertions* that cannot be corroborated by the writer, or anyone else. Those are quite distinct from facts.
No, that is not correct. Most of what is in the memo are established facts already known to the public.
The only part that wasn't already established public knowledge was corroborated by testimony under oath, by McCabe and others.
Jane Q. Public is purposefully gaslighting slashot commentary boards in order to paint the Nunes Memo has a collection of facts as opposed to what they really are, uncorroborated claims.
Utter nonsense.
Jane Q. Public is doing this because Putin is paying her.
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
No, they're not. If we assume for the sake of argument that the rest of the memo is accurate, then these are facts too, not conclusions.
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
The person to whom I was replying implied that Trump wrote the memo.
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
No, it isn't. It even begins with a misleading omission. The October 21 FISA application was not the first. They had tried to get a warrant prior to that, but the application was rejected for lack of evidence. That's why they had to produce the bogus "dossier" to bolster their "evidence".
1) Please explain precisely what part of the memo is biased. It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased.
2) What information does it lack, that it could have included? The actual documents it was based on are still classified, and of the Republicans only Trey Gowdy was allowed to see them.
3) What context was omitted? This is basically a repeat of #2. They couldn't include stuff that is still classified. In part because it's still part of an ongoing investigation.
4) How is it poorly researched? Please explain.
5) Interesting thing to say, given that it has no conclusions. It is simply a list of facts. It does not make conclusions from them.
6) In order to know they were cherry-picked, you'd have to know what's in the rest of the classified documents. What is your security clearance?
7) Remember, this memo did not originate with Trump. It was brought to him by members of Congress.
8) I'll offer a conclusion: I think you're talking out your ass.
I cannot just run any Linux software on a tablet (e.g. GIMP). Being based on linux is no more interesting than being based on electricity.
Sure you can.
There are various apps you can use (I use one called "Linux Deploy") that let you run a full Linux install in a "VM"-type arrangement on your Android tablet.
I can install a full Linux setup with a KDE or Ubuntu desktop, and get near-native performance. And run it either full-screen, or in an Android-type window.
You would need a big SD card if you're going to install a lot of apps, but big SD cards are available.
Nunes said today that the Democrats' memo is going to be released. And more yet.
Also, keep in mind that several people testified under oath that there would not have been a warrant if not for the so-called "dossier".
So if the dossier was presented without the evidence they definitely had that it was not reliable, and that it was produced on order by the DNC, then they misrepresented their evidence, which is a crime.
The timelines of events was already known. So the ONLY thing we don't have concrete evidence of (because it's classified) is that they deliberately withheld that exculpatory evidence from the FISC.
But people who did see that stuff said that's what they did.
But Freenet was intended to solve a somewhat different problem: how to share files without getting the copyright police on your butt.
Not the only purpose, of course. But it was a major motivator.
I think that rather than distributing data all the way to hell and back, which is very inefficient, instead we need some kind of distributed, decentralized DNS system.
This was China's own plan to bolster its own plastics industry.
The fact that they decided to end it suddenly and then blame the shutdown on others trying to "push" their waste onto China is a rather consistent pattern for the Chinese government.
Sources of ocean plastic From a peer-reviewed paper. (I apologize that I do not have a direct reference to the paper ready at hand).
So, I suppose what we should infer from this, is that we should help developing countries become developed countries, so they can clean themselves up, yes?
But we don't do that by redistributing wealth. The idea is not to drag everyone to the bottom, but to assist everyone to the top.
This has to be among the vaguest OPs I've read on Slashdot to date.
There is no description of how the physical attacks might affect the software, although that is the recurring theme. Am I to assume that this is about the fact that hitting the IP cam hard with a hammer, that might affect its ability to transmit video?
Are we supposed to infer from this amazingly vague word salad that we should write our software to account for such an event? If so, that might make sense, but it isn't actually stated anywhere.
The fact that access is limited to "certain team members" is irrelevant. This whole thing is about what those team members did once given that access.
If they don't have a policy like many police departments do (and all should), such that any non-job-related access to the database is grounds for immediate dismissal, then they aren't protecting your privacy.
(As for police departments: in my state, if an officer uses the informational database without a legitimate, written reason, it is a crime.)
The claim is that offset one's own individual carbon usage doesn't right now take much.
But that in itself is a completely nonsensical claim, utterly bereft of any factual basis.
The fact is that NOTHING you can do, as an individual, short of becoming a vegetarian monk burning vegetable oil candles for light and using nothing but a bicycle for transportation, will make enough difference to matter.
This has been known unequivocally for many years now. Why did you not know it?
It could also work the other way around. A leader of high IQ engages speechwriters and other appointees who can arrange for better interfacing with the public.
Multiple studies have been done on this phenomenon, and I am rather surprised that this is presented as "news".
The simple fact is that people generally do not accept "leaders" who have IQs more than about 20 points higher than their own. And the reason -- according to current theory -- is that they just don't understand how each other think.
This has shown to hold for IQs between about 70 and 160.
Someone with an IQ of 70 does not well understand someone of IQ 100, someone of IQ 90 does not well understand someone of IQ 120 and someone of 120 does not well understand someone with an IQ of 150.
There is a rather large body of study and evidence to support this. It is no great mystery.
Slashdot Mirror
Modding this guy "troll" when he simply stated some demonstrable facts is not kosher, folks.
"I don't like what you said" does not equal "troll".
Well, it is interesting that this directly contradicts a few other recent papers, which say pretty much the opposite.
Like this one.
Hmmm... and this one.
Let's not forget this one.
And this one...
And so on, and so on.
Great. Call all Janes "it" if you want.
This is the stupidest thing I've read this month.
Using chroot, you can essentially install a VM on your Android device.
Yes, REAL, full-blown Linux. I keep having to repeat that when I tell them about this, because they tend to disbelieve.
For one way to do it, check out this.
If you would like more information about how to do this, go here.
This oxford "study" never bothers to define in any objective way what they mean by "junk news", so what they are "measuring" is completely subjective.
Even worse, their 2 primary references about what constitute "junk news" are papers by some of the same authors, which in turn do not clearly define what "junk news" is.
So we have incestuous junk science trying to lecture us about fake news.
I never thought I'd see 'research' sink this low. And from Oxford... shameful.
"her"? No. Please don't let Jane make all women look bad. Jane is actually a man posing as a woman on the internet.
Nonsense. I'm not "posing as a woman". There is a reason for the pseudonym, but I don't care to explain it to you.
It is a memo, a collection of *assertions* that cannot be corroborated by the writer, or anyone else. Those are quite distinct from facts.
No, that is not correct. Most of what is in the memo are established facts already known to the public.
The only part that wasn't already established public knowledge was corroborated by testimony under oath, by McCabe and others.
Jane Q. Public is purposefully gaslighting slashot commentary boards in order to paint the Nunes Memo has a collection of facts as opposed to what they really are, uncorroborated claims.
Utter nonsense.
Jane Q. Public is doing this because Putin is paying her.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
No, they're not. If we assume for the sake of argument that the rest of the memo is accurate, then these are facts too, not conclusions.
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
The person to whom I was replying implied that Trump wrote the memo.
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
No, it isn't. It even begins with a misleading omission. The October 21 FISA application was not the first. They had tried to get a warrant prior to that, but the application was rejected for lack of evidence. That's why they had to produce the bogus "dossier" to bolster their "evidence".
About all I can say is that this comment is bizarre.
"If the memo were actually true and correct and its conclusions were founded in law instead of wishy-thinking...
I'm going to repeat the question I asked above to another of your comments: To what "conclusions" do you refer?
The memo doesn't draw any conclusions. It's just a list of facts. Conclusions are what happens when you put those facts together.
"There's no possible need to fire mueller..."
Huh? Trump has expressed no desire to fire Mueller. McCabe and Rosenstein, on the other hand, may be in trouble.
"... and violate the separation between the exective and justice departments.
Huh? The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. It isn't part of the Judiciary. Different things.
Looks like it's back to school for you.
1) Please explain precisely what part of the memo is biased. It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased.
2) What information does it lack, that it could have included? The actual documents it was based on are still classified, and of the Republicans only Trey Gowdy was allowed to see them.
3) What context was omitted? This is basically a repeat of #2. They couldn't include stuff that is still classified. In part because it's still part of an ongoing investigation.
4) How is it poorly researched? Please explain.
5) Interesting thing to say, given that it has no conclusions. It is simply a list of facts. It does not make conclusions from them.
6) In order to know they were cherry-picked, you'd have to know what's in the rest of the classified documents. What is your security clearance?
7) Remember, this memo did not originate with Trump. It was brought to him by members of Congress.
8) I'll offer a conclusion: I think you're talking out your ass.
I cannot just run any Linux software on a tablet (e.g. GIMP). Being based on linux is no more interesting than being based on electricity.
Sure you can.
There are various apps you can use (I use one called "Linux Deploy") that let you run a full Linux install in a "VM"-type arrangement on your Android tablet.
I can install a full Linux setup with a KDE or Ubuntu desktop, and get near-native performance. And run it either full-screen, or in an Android-type window.
You would need a big SD card if you're going to install a lot of apps, but big SD cards are available.
Nunes said today that the Democrats' memo is going to be released. And more yet.
Also, keep in mind that several people testified under oath that there would not have been a warrant if not for the so-called "dossier".
So if the dossier was presented without the evidence they definitely had that it was not reliable, and that it was produced on order by the DNC, then they misrepresented their evidence, which is a crime.
The timelines of events was already known. So the ONLY thing we don't have concrete evidence of (because it's classified) is that they deliberately withheld that exculpatory evidence from the FISC.
But people who did see that stuff said that's what they did.
It does seem basically to be Freenet.
But Freenet was intended to solve a somewhat different problem: how to share files without getting the copyright police on your butt.
Not the only purpose, of course. But it was a major motivator.
I think that rather than distributing data all the way to hell and back, which is very inefficient, instead we need some kind of distributed, decentralized DNS system.
Yes, I am aware that is far from a simple thing.
It doesn't appear from this study map (see comment below) that Sweden is a significant contributor to ocean plastic pollution.
This was China's own plan to bolster its own plastics industry.
The fact that they decided to end it suddenly and then blame the shutdown on others trying to "push" their waste onto China is a rather consistent pattern for the Chinese government.
See my reply below.
By the way: China ASKED for the waste, for use in recycling and putting it to its own use. Nobody was foisting it off on them.
Sources of ocean plastic From a peer-reviewed paper. (I apologize that I do not have a direct reference to the paper ready at hand).
So, I suppose what we should infer from this, is that we should help developing countries become developed countries, so they can clean themselves up, yes?
But we don't do that by redistributing wealth. The idea is not to drag everyone to the bottom, but to assist everyone to the top.
This has to be among the vaguest OPs I've read on Slashdot to date.
There is no description of how the physical attacks might affect the software, although that is the recurring theme. Am I to assume that this is about the fact that hitting the IP cam hard with a hammer, that might affect its ability to transmit video?
Are we supposed to infer from this amazingly vague word salad that we should write our software to account for such an event? If so, that might make sense, but it isn't actually stated anywhere.
The fact that access is limited to "certain team members" is irrelevant. This whole thing is about what those team members did once given that access.
If they don't have a policy like many police departments do (and all should), such that any non-job-related access to the database is grounds for immediate dismissal, then they aren't protecting your privacy.
(As for police departments: in my state, if an officer uses the informational database without a legitimate, written reason, it is a crime.)
The claim is that offset one's own individual carbon usage doesn't right now take much.
But that in itself is a completely nonsensical claim, utterly bereft of any factual basis.
The fact is that NOTHING you can do, as an individual, short of becoming a vegetarian monk burning vegetable oil candles for light and using nothing but a bicycle for transportation, will make enough difference to matter.
This has been known unequivocally for many years now. Why did you not know it?
It could also work the other way around. A leader of high IQ engages speechwriters and other appointees who can arrange for better interfacing with the public.
Multiple studies have been done on this phenomenon, and I am rather surprised that this is presented as "news".
The simple fact is that people generally do not accept "leaders" who have IQs more than about 20 points higher than their own. And the reason -- according to current theory -- is that they just don't understand how each other think.
This has shown to hold for IQs between about 70 and 160.
Someone with an IQ of 70 does not well understand someone of IQ 100, someone of IQ 90 does not well understand someone of IQ 120 and someone of 120 does not well understand someone with an IQ of 150.
There is a rather large body of study and evidence to support this. It is no great mystery.
I was going to say something similar.
Einstein's Special and General theories don't really explain gravity. Nor does our current understanding of quantum mechanics.
There are theories -- there always are -- but there is no solid evidence to support any single "grand unified theory" theory yet.