I wonder if they've fixed the White Screen of Death that the latest version of Skype for Linux in the repos suffers with (start program, receive white screen with basic window controls and nothing else). I've rolled back to an older version and blocked updates for the package to work around it.
Yes the word bullshit was part of the metaphor. "Soft warm bullshit" is a metaphor for comforting lies.
Your argument was a strawman because I did not say "abandon facts presented in some mainstream outlets altogether," I said they "decide to abandon facts altogether." Facts are the same regardless of where they come from or what anybody's ideology thinks about them.
Trump is about to focus on geo-thermal, along with nuclear power.
He has mentioned some support those two, but he's mentioned support for coal power about 100x more often, and he just recently announced plans to gut government funding for renewable energy research. He's going to Make America Gross Again in terms of CO2 output.
It might not mean disaster though, it could just mean that the US will be paying out the nose for carbon credits from Europe and China for a while.
Effects would be slim to none unless much of the area you're irrigating is currently dry and below sea level (or is dry and cold enough that the water would freeze into a glacier above sea level). Otherwise you're literally trying to push water up a hill.
If they raise the right kinds of sea vegetables and salt water loving plants, people all over the world will pay at the grocery store for the project, and it will be extremely profitable.
Eating the vegetables would eventually put that carbon right back into the biosphere. People would have to bury those vegetables in underground caverns...or at least bury the poop they made from those vegetables.
It's probably not a good idea to start putting phosphorous permanently out of reach, so it would be best to find ways to extract the carbon from the poop first. And then you have another big industrial process involved...not looking so good now, is it?
Unfortunately afforestation was one of the approaches considered and found lacking.
This is extremely bad news. In effect, this is the hypothetical "Surprise! Global warming is much worse than previously thought!" news, just from the prevention side. Gigaton-scale carbon capture was necessary to prevent climate catastrophe and now it looks like it's not an option.
In a sane and responsible world this would be an emergency call to action, to replace all coal plants with the most renewable thing people can afford immediately to avoid the worst possible consequences.
Unfortunately this is a world where the world's now-3rd most powerful country and #2 carbon emitter is led by a reality TV star who thinks global warming is a hoax made up by the Chinese, and who just gutted renewable energy research.
Appeal to extremes, appeal to ridicule, reduction to absurd, appeal to authority, ad hominem
No, it's called a metaphor. I suggest you track down every English comprehension teacher you ever had, and sue them.
Follow your prepositions. They "abandon facts presented in some mainstream outlets altogether". That's a good thing. A position I've seen so many times on every f%&$&ing side of any major political question, it sickens - "our sources (or politicians, or ideas) are made from almost entirely pure BS. But the sources (or politicians, or ideas) of the opposition manage to spew something worthwhile from time to time. However, if anything - that makes them only worse! Those deceiving bastards use truth to their advantage!" There is no "better BS". Position along the lines "it better be our BS than theirs" is a near-definition of word "idiotic".
And here you prove my point. The US presents history written by the victor, therefore you're just as well off with manipulative intentional lies from Russia? What idiocy is that? There are reasons for Russiagate BTW.
Those of us who believe in an objective reality don't take whatever the mainstream media presents as gospel, so Cheney wouldn't have any luck trying to make such shortcuts. We check sources and use science. That's why we haven't been fooled by mistakes in the news, or even the occasional intentional lie that comes along every decade or two. Good luck with the Firehose of Falsehoods though.
Horseshit false equivalence. If you think that mainstream US media peddles lies nearly as often as Russian propaganda mills, even if you include the news channel that sued for its right to lie to viewers and won, you've lost your grip on reality. Just as the Russians want, I might add.
A common argument, people don't like the way that the facts are presented in some mainstream outlets - or so they claim - therefore, they decide to abandon facts altogether and comfort themselves with soft warm bullshit fresh from the Russian propaganda mills.
Ajit Pai probably never saw this coming! That's the problem with having a madman for an ally, you can never be sure when he'll suddenly decide to do some batshit crazy thing that goes against your interests.
Not that a nationalized 5G network is an inherently crazy idea, but it's certainly batshit by Republican standards.
If you try using an Apple toy with anything that isn't another Apple toy, you're going to spend at least as much time as that Linux user trying to troubleshoot it, except you're far less likely to find a way to fix it in the end other than to -surprise!- buy more Apple stuff.
But in the U.S., people love to hate on Uber because “their drivers are slave labor.” The driver has to pay for a car, maintain the car, insure it, pay for fuel, clean it, etc., so on the whole Uber is viewed as somewhat predatory. I honestly don’t know how much of this is truth vs. perception. But given that millions of drivers are opting in, and given that people are generally pretty clever about optimizing their income, the economics would seem to be at worst a moral gray area in the States and Europe, and more likely a pretty good deal for most drivers.
It's a pretty big and highly questionable assumption that people are good at optimizing their income. If he did just a little math on being a ride-sharing driver, he'd see that it amounts to something like a reverse mortgage against your car. You're not making money, you're just extracting bits of it over time against something you own.
Well the wealth will be moving from the middle and lower classes when those temporary breaks run out, to the rich where it has already begun flowing. Looks like a transfer to me. Your argument is a transparent word game intended to support arbitrary ratcheting-down of taxes.
Yes, yes, relish your little prize, worker bee, and keep on voting for those massive tax breaks for the 1%, maybe you'll get another!
This is all by design. The bonuses and time-limited tax breaks for the middle and lower classes, designed to keep your taxes from going up while Trump still needs your votes, are a one-time thing, but the wealth transfer to the rich is forever.
Exactly, and companies will keep playing this game until the loopholes allowing them to stash cash overseas in the first place are closed. They can wait out governments for decades, no problem. Stashing the cash doesn't even really inconvenience them.
Yes I know about all of those, and I think we're too old to be having Google Fights. So we're starting with a sample size of 4, but should it really be 4? The story about the Trump campaign getting early access to the DNC emails was a typo, so it's not really fair to suggest any bias played a part there. And it might turn out to be accidentally correct anyway.
Next, to assume that there is some biased intent in making mistakes in a consistent way, you first have to believe in the idea of a Kamikaze Journalist, one who will sacrifice their career in pursuit of affecting some political influence with an erroneous news story that will soon be retracted. These people were all disciplined after all, mostly by firing. The idea of a Kamikaze Journalist is plainly ridiculous.
Finally, the "direction" of the mistakes and the journalists' motivations can be explained by the potential payoff. A lack of evidence isn't a big story - that's pretty much the status quo, but new evidence is, being the first to break the story of new evidence would be a career-defining win for any journalist. That's why they're jumping at shadows of big news in ways that put their careers at risk: not partisanship, just fame, glory, and capital.
Again, the media hasn't changed position. A party has moved relative to them, specifically the Republican party has moved far to the right and has mired itself more deeply into factually wrong conspiracy theories and anti-intellectualism.
Does the media appear to be an arm of the Democratic Party because it hasn't struck a balance between their position and Trump's far-right alternative-fact-powered authoritarianism? That would require the media to change positions, and to spread untruths in order to strike a balance between truths and untruths. If the truth is that Trump's inauguration crowd was much smaller than Obama's, and the "alternative fact" was that Trump's was the biggest of all time, should the media report that the two crowds were about the same size? Should the media not point out when Trump expresses a desire to commit a war crime to avoid accusations of partisanship? Turn a blind eye to Trump's racism and his campaign's interactions with Russia? Should they entertain factually nonsensical conspiracy theories about the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they've fixed the White Screen of Death that the latest version of Skype for Linux in the repos suffers with (start program, receive white screen with basic window controls and nothing else). I've rolled back to an older version and blocked updates for the package to work around it.
They also have more total renewable energy capacity than anybody, and that share is growing rapidly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Meanwhile Trump's sending the US on opposite trends.
Indeed they don't, but they do have something to do with pulling trapped carbon-heavy fuels from deep underground and burning it in the atmosphere.
Yes the word bullshit was part of the metaphor. "Soft warm bullshit" is a metaphor for comforting lies.
Your argument was a strawman because I did not say "abandon facts presented in some mainstream outlets altogether," I said they "decide to abandon facts altogether." Facts are the same regardless of where they come from or what anybody's ideology thinks about them.
Trump is about to focus on geo-thermal, along with nuclear power.
He has mentioned some support those two, but he's mentioned support for coal power about 100x more often, and he just recently announced plans to gut government funding for renewable energy research. He's going to Make America Gross Again in terms of CO2 output.
It might not mean disaster though, it could just mean that the US will be paying out the nose for carbon credits from Europe and China for a while.
Effects would be slim to none unless much of the area you're irrigating is currently dry and below sea level (or is dry and cold enough that the water would freeze into a glacier above sea level). Otherwise you're literally trying to push water up a hill.
If they raise the right kinds of sea vegetables and salt water loving plants, people all over the world will pay at the grocery store for the project, and it will be extremely profitable.
Eating the vegetables would eventually put that carbon right back into the biosphere. People would have to bury those vegetables in underground caverns...or at least bury the poop they made from those vegetables.
It's probably not a good idea to start putting phosphorous permanently out of reach, so it would be best to find ways to extract the carbon from the poop first. And then you have another big industrial process involved...not looking so good now, is it?
Unfortunately afforestation was one of the approaches considered and found lacking.
This is extremely bad news. In effect, this is the hypothetical "Surprise! Global warming is much worse than previously thought!" news, just from the prevention side. Gigaton-scale carbon capture was necessary to prevent climate catastrophe and now it looks like it's not an option.
In a sane and responsible world this would be an emergency call to action, to replace all coal plants with the most renewable thing people can afford immediately to avoid the worst possible consequences.
Unfortunately this is a world where the world's now-3rd most powerful country and #2 carbon emitter is led by a reality TV star who thinks global warming is a hoax made up by the Chinese, and who just gutted renewable energy research.
Appeal to extremes, appeal to ridicule, reduction to absurd, appeal to authority, ad hominem
No, it's called a metaphor. I suggest you track down every English comprehension teacher you ever had, and sue them.
Follow your prepositions. They "abandon facts presented in some mainstream outlets altogether". That's a good thing. A position I've seen so many times on every f%&$&ing side of any major political question, it sickens - "our sources (or politicians, or ideas) are made from almost entirely pure BS. But the sources (or politicians, or ideas) of the opposition manage to spew something worthwhile from time to time. However, if anything - that makes them only worse! Those deceiving bastards use truth to their advantage!" There is no "better BS". Position along the lines "it better be our BS than theirs" is a near-definition of word "idiotic".
And this is a strawman argument.
And here you prove my point. The US presents history written by the victor, therefore you're just as well off with manipulative intentional lies from Russia? What idiocy is that? There are reasons for Russiagate BTW.
Those of us who believe in an objective reality don't take whatever the mainstream media presents as gospel, so Cheney wouldn't have any luck trying to make such shortcuts. We check sources and use science. That's why we haven't been fooled by mistakes in the news, or even the occasional intentional lie that comes along every decade or two. Good luck with the Firehose of Falsehoods though.
That doesn't allow domestic propaganda. This does:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/...
Oddly enough, hardly a peep was made about the news then or since.
Horseshit false equivalence. If you think that mainstream US media peddles lies nearly as often as Russian propaganda mills, even if you include the news channel that sued for its right to lie to viewers and won, you've lost your grip on reality. Just as the Russians want, I might add.
A common argument, people don't like the way that the facts are presented in some mainstream outlets - or so they claim - therefore, they decide to abandon facts altogether and comfort themselves with soft warm bullshit fresh from the Russian propaganda mills.
I look forward to seeing the fully decoded text. Until now all indications were that it was a "spooky" coffee table book full of nonsense text.
Ajit Pai probably never saw this coming! That's the problem with having a madman for an ally, you can never be sure when he'll suddenly decide to do some batshit crazy thing that goes against your interests.
Not that a nationalized 5G network is an inherently crazy idea, but it's certainly batshit by Republican standards.
Automation, post-scarcity effects, and a finite world put a hard limit on its lifespan as a system that could hope to serve a majority of humanity.
If you try using an Apple toy with anything that isn't another Apple toy, you're going to spend at least as much time as that Linux user trying to troubleshoot it, except you're far less likely to find a way to fix it in the end other than to -surprise!- buy more Apple stuff.
Yet Another Trojan Horse
Their proposal does nothing to prevent paid traffic prioritization or zero-rating, the meat and potatoes of actual net neutrality rules.
From one of the links in TFS:
But in the U.S., people love to hate on Uber because “their drivers are slave labor.” The driver has to pay for a car, maintain the car, insure it, pay for fuel, clean it, etc., so on the whole Uber is viewed as somewhat predatory. I honestly don’t know how much of this is truth vs. perception. But given that millions of drivers are opting in, and given that people are generally pretty clever about optimizing their income, the economics would seem to be at worst a moral gray area in the States and Europe, and more likely a pretty good deal for most drivers.
It's a pretty big and highly questionable assumption that people are good at optimizing their income. If he did just a little math on being a ride-sharing driver, he'd see that it amounts to something like a reverse mortgage against your car. You're not making money, you're just extracting bits of it over time against something you own.
Well the wealth will be moving from the middle and lower classes when those temporary breaks run out, to the rich where it has already begun flowing. Looks like a transfer to me. Your argument is a transparent word game intended to support arbitrary ratcheting-down of taxes.
Yes, yes, relish your little prize, worker bee, and keep on voting for those massive tax breaks for the 1%, maybe you'll get another!
This is all by design. The bonuses and time-limited tax breaks for the middle and lower classes, designed to keep your taxes from going up while Trump still needs your votes, are a one-time thing, but the wealth transfer to the rich is forever.
Exactly, and companies will keep playing this game until the loopholes allowing them to stash cash overseas in the first place are closed. They can wait out governments for decades, no problem. Stashing the cash doesn't even really inconvenience them.
Yes I know about all of those, and I think we're too old to be having Google Fights. So we're starting with a sample size of 4, but should it really be 4? The story about the Trump campaign getting early access to the DNC emails was a typo, so it's not really fair to suggest any bias played a part there. And it might turn out to be accidentally correct anyway.
Next, to assume that there is some biased intent in making mistakes in a consistent way, you first have to believe in the idea of a Kamikaze Journalist, one who will sacrifice their career in pursuit of affecting some political influence with an erroneous news story that will soon be retracted. These people were all disciplined after all, mostly by firing. The idea of a Kamikaze Journalist is plainly ridiculous.
Finally, the "direction" of the mistakes and the journalists' motivations can be explained by the potential payoff. A lack of evidence isn't a big story - that's pretty much the status quo, but new evidence is, being the first to break the story of new evidence would be a career-defining win for any journalist. That's why they're jumping at shadows of big news in ways that put their careers at risk: not partisanship, just fame, glory, and capital.
What you see as political motive is a combination of a failure to recognize the actual motive and extrapolation from a small data set.
My point exactly, if he's smart he never, ever shows it.
Again, the media hasn't changed position. A party has moved relative to them, specifically the Republican party has moved far to the right and has mired itself more deeply into factually wrong conspiracy theories and anti-intellectualism.
Does the media appear to be an arm of the Democratic Party because it hasn't struck a balance between their position and Trump's far-right alternative-fact-powered authoritarianism? That would require the media to change positions, and to spread untruths in order to strike a balance between truths and untruths. If the truth is that Trump's inauguration crowd was much smaller than Obama's, and the "alternative fact" was that Trump's was the biggest of all time, should the media report that the two crowds were about the same size? Should the media not point out when Trump expresses a desire to commit a war crime to avoid accusations of partisanship? Turn a blind eye to Trump's racism and his campaign's interactions with Russia? Should they entertain factually nonsensical conspiracy theories about the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One?