Wireless power is like the three shell game. It's been popular since 1891 and it's scam 99.9% of the time. Funny how people keep falling for the same scam for hundreds of years - technology changes, but we don't.
Heck, half of Slashdot is STILL falling for the "free electricity" scam, mostly the variety that's been popular since 1960. Practical solar- electric has been "just around the corner" for 55 years.
Talk about your false equivalences. You better tell all those people who are getting their power from solar - some for years now - that it isn't working.
But to the wireless charger point, you are correct. Just about the only practical wireless charging application that will work is achieved by turning the device being charged into the secondary coil of a transformer, and unless it is pretty precisely placed, efficiency will drastically suffer. So you have a little kiosk the device has to be laid on or placed into. In the end, you pretty much don't gain anything - no convenience, no efficiency gains, heavier, and larger devices No advantages at all.
Today's startups wouldn't exist if there hadn't been products in the past that seemed impossible at the time but were later able to become reality and make it to the market.
That doesn't mean that every stupid idea is possible.
The idea is not specifically impossible. But there are some basic laws of physics that have to be adhered to that make it 100 percent pointless. The amount of power needed to make an acouctic charging system work is so unlikely to be useful that even if not impossible, it isn't remotely practical. You have to transmit a helluva lot of power to transmit power.
I'm expecting kilowatts to charge phones reliably. Now just imagine a person sitting in a room bombarded with that level of sound. I suspect that without incredible filtering, people would still be blasted by harmonics of the ultrasound. Just the physical effects on us meatbags woulf be pretty scary.
When wealthy people actually think that this is ever going to be a practical system, it sheds light and insight on why there are creationists and denialists in the world.
No problem. Just use a language pack from the south.
Reminds me of years ago when I worked with a fellow from Talladega, Alabama. There I was with my weird Pennsylvania accent - which is more just a lot of made up words like "yinz" "outen" and "redd-up". Him with an incredibly thick southern accent. The other linesmen joked that I was his translator. Anyhow, he was a great guy, and we worked together well, after I figure out what he was saying. Over 6 months, our speech traits started merging, and when I was back at the home office, they wondered what the hell happened to me.
And he was a lot more intelligible to the other people he was working with.
and then you may understand why "30% unemployment" is unlikely to happen.
I'll do that right after you tell me what the largely unskilled people are going to do.
I'm not arguing that this will not happen, I'm not arguing anything but there will be a lot of idle people, I give no specific percentage rate.
I do argue that going into this brave new future needs more thought than just avoiding minimum wage.
So waddya think the new permanently unemployed are going to do.
BTW, this has already started with a different demographic. There are a lot of people in their 50's who have lost their factory jobs, live in small towns, and effectively will never work again. There are no jobs where they live, and uprooting themselves to move to a minimum wage job in another city while competing against younger people is a non-starter, because they won't be hired. And Wal Mart only needs one or two greeters per store. They are done.
I'm trying to find the article for the citation. I'll send that along when you tell me what you believe largely unskilled people will do.
As an actual parent of a child, ans as an actual person who managed to get whooping cough after herd immunity went away and after almost dying from it, perhaps I have a little different of a viewpoint.
Whooping cough did not come back because of vaccine refusers. It came back because the current vaccine is relatively ineffective.
And because herd immunity was lost. That's what I was told Yes, now people should get multiple vaccines.
The thing with people who make arguments like this is they rarely have children and usually state a desire to never have children. But they sure are concerned about what our children are doing. Being a parent is incredibly complex compared to what I expected. Even as a biomedical scientist, I can't bring myself to get on the case of parents who choose different paths. For those that think its such a big deal, they should have kids and get them vaccinated or whatever thing they will be bitching about what parents do next week.
As an actual parent of a child, ans as an actual person who managed to get whooping cough after herd immunity went away and after almost dying from it, perhaps I have a little different of a viewpoint. It's kinda interesting, did you know your vision kinda goes brownish as you near expiration? And the crazy ass thing is the spasms always seemed to come on when I was by myself.
Anyone who would willingly expose a child to That sort of thing is an abuser.
That little babies were not dying from whooping cough, or that children weren't ending up in iron lungs or shitting themselves to death made people think "Why should my kids get those shots - no one gets that any more."
Should people not get their children immunnizationd to go overseas? Should ebola patients be allowed unlimited access to healthy people? As a biomedical scientist, tell me - is a person expiring from second hand smoke or to more dead than one dying form whooping cough or measles?
but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work... just isn't sound business strategy
Yes it is. Try reading about the Broken Window Fallacy. It may help you understand why pointless make-work jobs are not "good for the economy".
So what is your prognostication on the jobs that largley unskilled workers are going to obtain. I don't say this as an idea to keep them employed at menial low paying jobs is a great thing, but like it or not, that is as far up the ladder as some people are going to get. Your idea that it is a positive thing to have 30 percent of Americans permanently unemployed, is interesting. Do you have any examples of flourishing economies with those kind of numbers?
As well, I think altogether too many people thik the world is like Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average. There are a lot of perfecty good law abiding people who just aren't going to be a part of the highly skilled group, Perhaps Slashdotters are in favor of Eugenics as a solution?
I'm just about finished with this subject, because the only person here that thinks some serious thought to what is inevitibly coming is me, most others think it is a great help to the givers, and you now are touting massive unemployment as a good thing - a goal perhaps?
If they are right, they will make a lot of money, if not they will lose it. Their personal fortunes are tied to this number. Sure they can go out in a flash, make a few million and retire to a small house in Malibu, but if they are super greedy, there is the possibility that they can make much more.
TL;DR: All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again. Are you similarly pissed off that your car wasn't hand-welded together by some guy named Burt that is still staggering around from pounding cans of Pabst the night before?
You mean Burt who, according to the grand theory of benevolent automation, is now building and maintaining robots that weld cars. That Burt?
Yup, that burt. THe only one left in the factory now that he maintains all of the Robots.
This automation thing is going to happen. We should probably think of what ll of the newly unemployed are going to do with their time, though.
I suppose it's useful if you're just ordering something basic and want to verify the slip says what you actually ordered, but realistically it's been more hassle than helpful when ordering anything slightly complicated (e.g. asking for a regular bun,no pickles, etc etc).
It's like how pumping your own gas is seen as a convenience by dumb-asses
It's funny how so many businesses that managed to be closed every Sunday and holiday while paying more money to more people (in adjusted dollars) now suddenly can't hack it.
In principle I am happy to see human labor done by machines instead. My objection is to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not making compensating changes that allow the bulk of society to enjoy the benefits of progress.
Even more hilarious is how these minimum wage places get taxpayers to subsidize their employees. In 2004, WalMart workers reliance on public assistance cost California 86 Million annually http://www.californiaprogressr....
They do graciously provide information so that their employees can get that gpvernment assistance, so we got that going for us.
McDonald's, the same,
So while these stalwart defenders of the American way whine and moan and bellyache about the restrictive regulations that are strangling them to death, and the socialistic un-American nature of it, they are most very happy to allow me, a taxpayer, and you - a taxpayer, to subsidize their employees livings.
So fuck you very much Walmart, and fuck you very much McDonald's, and all of you whiny cunts - If I am paying part of your employees wages, I fucking damn well will have a say in it, you commies in capitalist clothing.
He's not telling them they are making too much money. He's telling them that due to outside regulation, keeping them around is more expensive than automating the job. You even nailed the 'why' when you said that Wendy's doesn't exactly cater to the wealthy - they need to keep the average selling price down, so they can continue to exist.
Then I have some really really bad news for them. They are catering to a demographic that will soon not have any money, because their jobs are taken over by machinery.
And since machines don't eat what Wendy's produces, it doesn't sound like a very good business plan. If not in the immediate future, at some later point.
My point on this whole matter is that simply deciding tht it costs too much to employ people - and if the minimum wage was lowered to say 3 dollars an hour, th time will come when the machines are cheaper than even that. This is going to happen. If the war on employees continues, fear not, the automation will make it's way up the food chain.
the problem, such as it is, is that something needs to be done with the people who are going to be displaced. So merely impoverishing your likely customers is not the answer. And euthanizing anyone who isn't fit for jobs that require a lot of thinking isn't either. Extremely restrictive birth control and sterilization to get population down to a proper level, and reomving anyone that isn't the best, brightest, and ambitious enough?
It isn't that the emlpoyeeocalypse isn't going ot happen. We need to have cool calm and clever heard to manage it.
I'm betting the menu prices won't drop 10 cents even after they've replaced $30k/yr workers with a few $1000 kiosks.
Not even remotely. That is not how this works. I'd expect price increases in fact. After an intitial 3 month period of delirious glee, Wendy's will have to increase profits again. Because it isn't about what you have done - it's what you have done for me this quarter? Any increased profits are instantly absorbed, and expected to increase at a similar or greater rate.
tl:dr version - Okay, so they get rid of almost all of their employees. Now what? Since we build business profits today by subtraction, what do they get rid of next?
They don't care if the business survives, they got theirs, F YOU! If Wendy's was wiped off the map somehow tomorrow, I doubt their CEO would give a crap, he probably has a clause where they have to pay him even more if that happens.
I don't disagree with you, but it makes me wonder why so many poor people drink that bullshit koolaid like they were going to end up as a CEO some day.
That also assumes that the people in question have the training and ability to DO these new jobs. Increasingly, tech skills require an extensive background of knowledge, and, frankly, not everyone is capable of that.
And how! As well, the concept of getting an education, then settling down into a career is over. Even during my career, I switched my tasking and skillsets many times. But I fear not many can do that as easily. Regardless, people need to get used to almost lifelong education to keep up
And, at least in.us, the schools are not delivering the kind of workers we will need.
The US is still stuck inside the early 70's college over everything paradigm, which appears to produce interesting conversationalists at parties. With the rapid shifting of technology and markets, this is no longer applicable. What is needed is a more technical approach of preparing students for the idea of lifelong education, and knowing that at any moment, more education might be needed.
The pushback against that will be enormous.
Given global trends, I do not see "basic income" as a solution likely to be implemented. And the likely long term solutions are not pleasant.
It is interesting, as many of the victims of this new world will be places like Wendy's. If the welfare Island concept happens, who is going to be buying Wendy's stuff? Their best hope is the Soylent Green hypothesis, as they'll probably get better meat products.
This latest "revolution" is very interesting. Usually these things end up as net gains, but a future where almost no one works allows for some strange results. We just have to solve that one huge problem of what to do with the resultant idle class, and how they can continue to support the industries they used to work for.
Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.
The problem perhaps, is not so much the idea that basic percentages of total sales is the bottom line, but what value is added by that 21 million dollar expense.
As well, would it look like such a small percentage if the 21 million dollars is compared against total profit instead of total sales? We all know the answer to that.
There is an inherent problem when Billionaires and multi-millionaires tell people making 20K a year that they are making too much money.
I dunno if my outlook is so screwed up or what, but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work - or at least have them work for as little as possible, just isn't sound business strategy, especially for substandard eateries like Wendy's, who don't exactly cater to the wealthy.
That is their motto, I think. I have managed to not ever have an account, although there has been pressure at times. But my better half does. Would they have liberal leanings? Wouldn't surprise me a bit. But now anyone would think of FB as their news source, I have no idea. I could be the oddball here, but I get my news from NPR, BBC, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.
And what gets my attention is the parts that each leaves out. I'll be pummelled for this, but the closest thing to unbiased is...... NPR. BBC second with a larger scope. Yes, a bit of a liberal slant, but overall less left or right leaning. Whoda thunk?
Oh, hadn't you heard? Trump is now saying it was "just a suggestion" to ban Muslims. Because, now that he's ridden that wave of xenophobia and stupidity to be the presumptive nominee, he's (shockingly) walking back some of his stupidities to seem slightly more moderate.
But don't worry, it's Trump. He'll say something amazingly stupid tomorrow to make up for it.
Just wait until his base finds out he isn't a conservative. That'll be fun.
They have an important role completely abdicated by the few remaining (any?) independent news organizations: Discomforting the Comfortable without favor nor tact.
SRSLY? This is FaceBook we are talking about, not a News organizations.
What's next, demanding that Blogs post dissenting viewpoints so that there is no "bias"?
If Facebook decides to show only (insert any political group here) flavored News, they have the right to do so.
Yeah, but they did this one right. They broke the story but held back evidence; just enough to make headlines but leave room for plausible denials. Naturally Fox Newscategorically denied everything. Boom; leaked editorial guidelines published; oh look, editors everywhere. "Blacklists." "Injection."
FTFY.
Seriously, getting your news from FB or Fox, might just be confirmation bias bubble world.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless power is like the three shell game. It's been popular since 1891 and it's scam 99.9% of the time. Funny how people keep falling for the same scam for hundreds of years - technology changes, but we don't.
Heck, half of Slashdot is STILL falling for the "free electricity" scam, mostly the variety that's been popular since 1960. Practical solar- electric has been "just around the corner" for 55 years.
Talk about your false equivalences. You better tell all those people who are getting their power from solar - some for years now - that it isn't working.
But to the wireless charger point, you are correct. Just about the only practical wireless charging application that will work is achieved by turning the device being charged into the secondary coil of a transformer, and unless it is pretty precisely placed, efficiency will drastically suffer. So you have a little kiosk the device has to be laid on or placed into. In the end, you pretty much don't gain anything - no convenience, no efficiency gains, heavier, and larger devices No advantages at all.
Today's startups wouldn't exist if there hadn't been products in the past that seemed impossible at the time but were later able to become reality and make it to the market.
That doesn't mean that every stupid idea is possible.
The idea is not specifically impossible. But there are some basic laws of physics that have to be adhered to that make it 100 percent pointless. The amount of power needed to make an acouctic charging system work is so unlikely to be useful that even if not impossible, it isn't remotely practical. You have to transmit a helluva lot of power to transmit power.
I'm expecting kilowatts to charge phones reliably. Now just imagine a person sitting in a room bombarded with that level of sound. I suspect that without incredible filtering, people would still be blasted by harmonics of the ultrasound. Just the physical effects on us meatbags woulf be pretty scary.
When wealthy people actually think that this is ever going to be a practical system, it sheds light and insight on why there are creationists and denialists in the world.
No problem. Just use a language pack from the south.
Reminds me of years ago when I worked with a fellow from Talladega, Alabama. There I was with my weird Pennsylvania accent - which is more just a lot of made up words like "yinz" "outen" and "redd-up". Him with an incredibly thick southern accent. The other linesmen joked that I was his translator. Anyhow, he was a great guy, and we worked together well, after I figure out what he was saying. Over 6 months, our speech traits started merging, and when I was back at the home office, they wondered what the hell happened to me.
And he was a lot more intelligible to the other people he was working with.
and then you may understand why "30% unemployment" is unlikely to happen.
I'll do that right after you tell me what the largely unskilled people are going to do.
I'm not arguing that this will not happen, I'm not arguing anything but there will be a lot of idle people, I give no specific percentage rate.
I do argue that going into this brave new future needs more thought than just avoiding minimum wage.
So waddya think the new permanently unemployed are going to do.
BTW, this has already started with a different demographic. There are a lot of people in their 50's who have lost their factory jobs, live in small towns, and effectively will never work again. There are no jobs where they live, and uprooting themselves to move to a minimum wage job in another city while competing against younger people is a non-starter, because they won't be hired. And Wal Mart only needs one or two greeters per store. They are done.
I'm trying to find the article for the citation. I'll send that along when you tell me what you believe largely unskilled people will do.
>
Herd immunity is not possible with the current pertussis vaccine, even at 100% immunization.
Musta been lucky not ever getting until I was 55, eh?
Whooping cough did not come back because of vaccine refusers. It came back because the current vaccine is relatively ineffective.
And because herd immunity was lost. That's what I was told Yes, now people should get multiple vaccines.
I've been in American college classrooms. This won't work unless Jill has a thick, unintelligble accent.
The thing with people who make arguments like this is they rarely have children and usually state a desire to never have children. But they sure are concerned about what our children are doing. Being a parent is incredibly complex compared to what I expected. Even as a biomedical scientist, I can't bring myself to get on the case of parents who choose different paths. For those that think its such a big deal, they should have kids and get them vaccinated or whatever thing they will be bitching about what parents do next week.
As an actual parent of a child, ans as an actual person who managed to get whooping cough after herd immunity went away and after almost dying from it, perhaps I have a little different of a viewpoint. It's kinda interesting, did you know your vision kinda goes brownish as you near expiration? And the crazy ass thing is the spasms always seemed to come on when I was by myself.
Anyone who would willingly expose a child to That sort of thing is an abuser.
That little babies were not dying from whooping cough, or that children weren't ending up in iron lungs or shitting themselves to death made people think "Why should my kids get those shots - no one gets that any more."
Should people not get their children immunnizationd to go overseas? Should ebola patients be allowed unlimited access to healthy people? As a biomedical scientist, tell me - is a person expiring from second hand smoke or to more dead than one dying form whooping cough or measles?
but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work ... just isn't sound business strategy
Yes it is. Try reading about the Broken Window Fallacy. It may help you understand why pointless make-work jobs are not "good for the economy".
So what is your prognostication on the jobs that largley unskilled workers are going to obtain. I don't say this as an idea to keep them employed at menial low paying jobs is a great thing, but like it or not, that is as far up the ladder as some people are going to get. Your idea that it is a positive thing to have 30 percent of Americans permanently unemployed, is interesting. Do you have any examples of flourishing economies with those kind of numbers?
As well, I think altogether too many people thik the world is like Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average. There are a lot of perfecty good law abiding people who just aren't going to be a part of the highly skilled group, Perhaps Slashdotters are in favor of Eugenics as a solution? I'm just about finished with this subject, because the only person here that thinks some serious thought to what is inevitibly coming is me, most others think it is a great help to the givers, and you now are touting massive unemployment as a good thing - a goal perhaps?
Odd at best.
If they are right, they will make a lot of money, if not they will lose it. Their personal fortunes are tied to this number. Sure they can go out in a flash, make a few million and retire to a small house in Malibu, but if they are super greedy, there is the possibility that they can make much more.
Or they can pull a Fiorina.
TL;DR: All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again. Are you similarly pissed off that your car wasn't hand-welded together by some guy named Burt that is still staggering around from pounding cans of Pabst the night before?
You mean Burt who, according to the grand theory of benevolent automation, is now building and maintaining robots that weld cars. That Burt?
Yup, that burt. THe only one left in the factory now that he maintains all of the Robots.
This automation thing is going to happen. We should probably think of what ll of the newly unemployed are going to do with their time, though.
I suppose it's useful if you're just ordering something basic and want to verify the slip says what you actually ordered, but realistically it's been more hassle than helpful when ordering anything slightly complicated (e.g. asking for a regular bun,no pickles, etc etc).
It's like how pumping your own gas is seen as a convenience by dumb-asses
It's funny how so many businesses that managed to be closed every Sunday and holiday while paying more money to more people (in adjusted dollars) now suddenly can't hack it.
In principle I am happy to see human labor done by machines instead. My objection is to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not making compensating changes that allow the bulk of society to enjoy the benefits of progress.
Even more hilarious is how these minimum wage places get taxpayers to subsidize their employees. In 2004, WalMart workers reliance on public assistance cost California 86 Million annually http://www.californiaprogressr....
They do graciously provide information so that their employees can get that gpvernment assistance, so we got that going for us.
McDonald's, the same,
So while these stalwart defenders of the American way whine and moan and bellyache about the restrictive regulations that are strangling them to death, and the socialistic un-American nature of it, they are most very happy to allow me, a taxpayer, and you - a taxpayer, to subsidize their employees livings.
So fuck you very much Walmart, and fuck you very much McDonald's, and all of you whiny cunts - If I am paying part of your employees wages, I fucking damn well will have a say in it , you commies in capitalist clothing.
You have the general premise wrong.
He's not telling them they are making too much money. He's telling them that due to outside regulation, keeping them around is more expensive than automating the job. You even nailed the 'why' when you said that Wendy's doesn't exactly cater to the wealthy - they need to keep the average selling price down, so they can continue to exist.
Then I have some really really bad news for them. They are catering to a demographic that will soon not have any money, because their jobs are taken over by machinery.
And since machines don't eat what Wendy's produces, it doesn't sound like a very good business plan. If not in the immediate future, at some later point.
My point on this whole matter is that simply deciding tht it costs too much to employ people - and if the minimum wage was lowered to say 3 dollars an hour, th time will come when the machines are cheaper than even that. This is going to happen. If the war on employees continues, fear not, the automation will make it's way up the food chain.
the problem, such as it is, is that something needs to be done with the people who are going to be displaced. So merely impoverishing your likely customers is not the answer. And euthanizing anyone who isn't fit for jobs that require a lot of thinking isn't either. Extremely restrictive birth control and sterilization to get population down to a proper level, and reomving anyone that isn't the best, brightest, and ambitious enough?
It isn't that the emlpoyeeocalypse isn't going ot happen. We need to have cool calm and clever heard to manage it.
I'm betting the menu prices won't drop 10 cents even after they've replaced $30k/yr workers with a few $1000 kiosks.
Not even remotely. That is not how this works. I'd expect price increases in fact. After an intitial 3 month period of delirious glee, Wendy's will have to increase profits again. Because it isn't about what you have done - it's what you have done for me this quarter? Any increased profits are instantly absorbed, and expected to increase at a similar or greater rate.
tl:dr version - Okay, so they get rid of almost all of their employees. Now what? Since we build business profits today by subtraction, what do they get rid of next?
They don't care if the business survives, they got theirs, F YOU! If Wendy's was wiped off the map somehow tomorrow, I doubt their CEO would give a crap, he probably has a clause where they have to pay him even more if that happens.
I don't disagree with you, but it makes me wonder why so many poor people drink that bullshit koolaid like they were going to end up as a CEO some day.
That also assumes that the people in question have the training and ability to DO these new jobs. Increasingly, tech skills require an extensive background of knowledge, and, frankly, not everyone is capable of that.
And how! As well, the concept of getting an education, then settling down into a career is over. Even during my career, I switched my tasking and skillsets many times. But I fear not many can do that as easily. Regardless, people need to get used to almost lifelong education to keep up
And, at least in .us, the schools are not delivering the kind of workers we will need.
The US is still stuck inside the early 70's college over everything paradigm, which appears to produce interesting conversationalists at parties. With the rapid shifting of technology and markets, this is no longer applicable. What is needed is a more technical approach of preparing students for the idea of lifelong education, and knowing that at any moment, more education might be needed.
The pushback against that will be enormous.
Given global trends, I do not see "basic income" as a solution likely to be implemented. And the likely long term solutions are not pleasant.
It is interesting, as many of the victims of this new world will be places like Wendy's. If the welfare Island concept happens, who is going to be buying Wendy's stuff? Their best hope is the Soylent Green hypothesis, as they'll probably get better meat products.
This latest "revolution" is very interesting. Usually these things end up as net gains, but a future where almost no one works allows for some strange results. We just have to solve that one huge problem of what to do with the resultant idle class, and how they can continue to support the industries they used to work for.
Total CEO compensation was $21 Million out of sales of $2.4 Billion.
The problem perhaps, is not so much the idea that basic percentages of total sales is the bottom line, but what value is added by that 21 million dollar expense.
As well, would it look like such a small percentage if the 21 million dollars is compared against total profit instead of total sales? We all know the answer to that.
There is an inherent problem when Billionaires and multi-millionaires tell people making 20K a year that they are making too much money.
I dunno if my outlook is so screwed up or what, but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work - or at least have them work for as little as possible, just isn't sound business strategy, especially for substandard eateries like Wendy's, who don't exactly cater to the wealthy.
Don't like it, and don't want others to eat at Wendy's? FUCK OFF AND DIE. You have no right to tell others what they should think is right.
Says AC that feels it has the right to tell other people what to do.
Really, what's the difference?
I am sure disguising it as something else would be easy enough.
Someone has a sense of humor.
It's how a Domino's pizza delivery van
Oh yes we did!
It's a steaming pile of shit.
That is their motto, I think. I have managed to not ever have an account, although there has been pressure at times. But my better half does. Would they have liberal leanings? Wouldn't surprise me a bit. But now anyone would think of FB as their news source, I have no idea. I could be the oddball here, but I get my news from NPR, BBC, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.
And what gets my attention is the parts that each leaves out. I'll be pummelled for this, but the closest thing to unbiased is...... NPR. BBC second with a larger scope. Yes, a bit of a liberal slant, but overall less left or right leaning. Whoda thunk?
Oh, hadn't you heard? Trump is now saying it was "just a suggestion" to ban Muslims. Because, now that he's ridden that wave of xenophobia and stupidity to be the presumptive nominee, he's (shockingly) walking back some of his stupidities to seem slightly more moderate.
But don't worry, it's Trump. He'll say something amazingly stupid tomorrow to make up for it.
Just wait until his base finds out he isn't a conservative. That'll be fun.
They have an important role completely abdicated by the few remaining (any?) independent news organizations: Discomforting the Comfortable without favor nor tact.
SRSLY? This is FaceBook we are talking about, not a News organizations.
What's next, demanding that Blogs post dissenting viewpoints so that there is no "bias"?
If Facebook decides to show only (insert any political group here) flavored News, they have the right to do so.
Where did they make that claim?
I dunno, but they need to get over to Fox News so they can learn how to do the news fair and balanced.
Yeah, but they did this one right. They broke the story but held back evidence; just enough to make headlines but leave room for plausible denials. Naturally Fox Newscategorically denied everything. Boom; leaked editorial guidelines published; oh look, editors everywhere. "Blacklists." "Injection." FTFY.
Seriously, getting your news from FB or Fox, might just be confirmation bias bubble world.