Is it more accurately said that we are a "half-hour from Doomsday", five minutes, or 10 seconds?
Please provide specific scientific rationales differentiating these possibilities and the respective evidence for each as being most accurate.
The actual position of the clock is not intended to be an accurate measurement of any kind. Its purpose is illustrative. The metaphor of a clock near midnight is intended to convey a relative sense of concern over world events. To put it another way, the actual setting of the clock is not as important as the reason its setting is changed.
The position of the clock was not changed during the Cuban Missile Crisis. From the Bulletin's FAQ page:
Were the hands moved during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? No. They were not moved during the 10-day crisis because too little was known at the time about the circumstances of the standoff or what the outcome would be. In fact, after the crisis, US and Soviet leaders installed a direct telephone line for communication, and within months signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty outlawing underground nuclear weapons testing—the first treaty addressing the nuclear weapons threat. On the basis of these steps, the Bulletin set the clock back from seven minutes to midnight to 12 minutes to midnight in 1963.
The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists did not change the position of the clock just from speculation, or because they "don't like Trump." They did so based on their observations of world events, including those surrounding Donald Trump. TFA quotes the Board:
Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity's most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change... This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a U.S. presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
But did they get the worst fake news sites like CNN, NBC and Huffington Post? How about Faux News?
To be sure, all of these sites occasionally (or even frequently) show bias in their reporting. But none of them are blatant purveyors of fake news.
Fake news is a deliberate fiction, written with the intent to deceive, frighten, or anger the reader. It is not the same as news written with a bias, or even news reported in good faith, but with errors.
No, this is not "fake news." It actually happened.
Even Buzzfeed mentions that the policy does not apply to peer-reviewed publications. But it's not clear what else is exempt, even with the follow-up clarifications from the USDA.
My take is that these agencies are trying to control their public messaging from a single source, and scrub anything that hints at policies from the Obama years. That's understandable, given the current White House administration's sensitivity to controlling communication. But it's still chilling nevertheless. What if researchers from these agencies speak at public conferences? Do they need pre-approval of their talks?
According to existing H1-B policies, every year up to 20,000 foreign students who receive a degree from a US university can obtain an H1-B, exempt from the main cap.
DeVos alone as education secretary is enough to make up for any slack in other picks. She may actually be able to help fix the dire state of public education.
The really worrying thing is that he is so easy to trigger.
No, the really worrying part is that the stock market is so fucking fragile that such a stupid comment can bring prices down. I mean, it can't be because millions of shareholders suddenly grew a conscious and realized "y'know, he's right, they are charging too much. I'm gonna sell my stock to show that I don't support such high drug prices">
I don't know about you, but when it comes to fragility, I'm a whole lot more concerned about Trump than the stock market.
The stock market has a multitude of agents across the world, pushing in different directions. Trump is one single person who has control of the most powerful bully pulpit on Earth. You tell me what/who is more likely to fly off the handle.
And to put a finer point on it: the stock market doesn't have nukes.
Other posts in this thread have pointed out that this is in fact news, because this is the first record of a previously sexually-active female shark giving birth asexually, with no DNA from the father.
And BTW, fake news is not what you seem to think it is. Fake news is written by fake reporters. It is a deliberate fiction intended to deceive, frighten, or enrage the reader. It is not old news. It is not a good-faith news story that contains errors.
My wife had the same thing happen to her as happened to that shark. I'd been working abroad 6 months and she managed to get pregnant completely on her own. Unbelievable.
Why do you think so many unions make it MANDATORY for workers to become members?
Because if they didn't, they'd have freeloaders who receive the benefits of union protection of their jobs without paying the dues.
And BTW, nowadays, it's a very fortunate union that can negotiate a "closed shop" (mandatory membership) contract.
If a union was useful to a worker, workers would be eager to join instead of being forced to. Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.
First of all, unions do provide goods and services to their members. You may not like what they do, or want what they provide, or be cynical about them in general. But you cannot claim that they don't provide goods and services.
I'm forced to pay taxes. I may not agree with what my government does with the money. But I don't question the fairness of paying my share of taxes.
I still cannot get over how you are somehow not allowed to USE YOUR BRAIN to count cards in order to win in a casino. Yes, I know it is not illegal to count cards (I mean how would someone go around proving it beyond reasonable doubt), but casinos (except in NJ) are allowed to ban players who can win, which is mostly the same thing.
It's the same in Las Vegas (in fact, all of Nevada.) Counting cards is not illegal, but casinos have the right to expel you and blacklist you if they suspect you're doing it. And they'll rat you out to other casinos, so you can't just go to a different one.
Generally, casinos are good at spotting cheaters, because their business model depends on it. In the case of counting cards, they start to get suspicious when your luck is significantly out of line with the laws of probability.
But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.
Yes, the stuff about superstitions is all in TFA. That was the premise the players used to justify their requests.
But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.
He also got a green light from the casino on all the things he requested. I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all. They should have just denied his request knowing he was asking for these things to gain an advantage. They gambled that his requests would give him no advantage and they lost, but yet cry foul after the fact. A
As TFA explains, some baccarat players have may superstitions. The casinos have no problem indulging such superstitions when, on their face, they don't appear to impart an advantage to the player. The fact that the casino didn't notice what these players were doing until later is irrelevant. The players cheated. The judge made the right decision in finding with the casino.
The term "fake news" has been thrown about -- and misapplied -- far too freely of late.
Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive.
It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.
And BTW, it doesn't matter that it was the dealer who was rotating the cards, not the players. The players tricked the dealer into rotating them so as to change the odds of the game. You can't do that.
Oh please. No. Just no. Let's not even think about that.
Look, I don't like the guy. But wish death on him? That's just supremely uncool.
He did suggest darkly that the "second-amendment people" might handle Hillary Clinton in some way. But for the love of FSM, just let that go. Let's not think that there are bull's-eyes on the people who represent us in public office.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it more accurately said that we are a "half-hour from Doomsday", five minutes, or 10 seconds?
Please provide specific scientific rationales differentiating these possibilities and the respective evidence for each as being most accurate.
The actual position of the clock is not intended to be an accurate measurement of any kind. Its purpose is illustrative. The metaphor of a clock near midnight is intended to convey a relative sense of concern over world events. To put it another way, the actual setting of the clock is not as important as the reason its setting is changed.
The position of the clock was not changed during the Cuban Missile Crisis. From the Bulletin's FAQ page:
Were the hands moved during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? No. They were not moved during the 10-day crisis because too little was known at the time about the circumstances of the standoff or what the outcome would be. In fact, after the crisis, US and Soviet leaders installed a direct telephone line for communication, and within months signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty outlawing underground nuclear weapons testing—the first treaty addressing the nuclear weapons threat. On the basis of these steps, the Bulletin set the clock back from seven minutes to midnight to 12 minutes to midnight in 1963.
The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists did not change the position of the clock just from speculation, or because they "don't like Trump." They did so based on their observations of world events, including those surrounding Donald Trump. TFA quotes the Board:
Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity's most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change ... This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a U.S. presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
But did they get the worst fake news sites like CNN, NBC and Huffington Post? How about Faux News?
To be sure, all of these sites occasionally (or even frequently) show bias in their reporting. But none of them are blatant purveyors of fake news.
Fake news is a deliberate fiction, written with the intent to deceive, frighten, or anger the reader. It is not the same as news written with a bias, or even news reported in good faith, but with errors.
"chilling"
God I hate you fucking liberal pukes. Everything isn't the god-damned end of the world, FFS.
Exaggerate much? Who said "chilling" means the end of the world? It could just mean a shit-storm that will affect a generation or two.
Trying to control the narrative of scientists for political purposes is not a good thing.
No, this is not "fake news." It actually happened.
Even Buzzfeed mentions that the policy does not apply to peer-reviewed publications. But it's not clear what else is exempt, even with the follow-up clarifications from the USDA.
My take is that these agencies are trying to control their public messaging from a single source, and scrub anything that hints at policies from the Obama years. That's understandable, given the current White House administration's sensitivity to controlling communication. But it's still chilling nevertheless. What if researchers from these agencies speak at public conferences? Do they need pre-approval of their talks?
YouTube won. Every song is available on YouTube, and can easily be downloaded off YouTube for personal use. Why would anyone bother with Spotify?
Better sound quality? Spotify Premium offers 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis. Youtube streams at 126 kbps AAC to 165 kbps Ogg Vorbis, depending on the AV container.
According to existing H1-B policies, every year up to 20,000 foreign students who receive a degree from a US university can obtain an H1-B, exempt from the main cap.
So what's different here?
DeVos alone as education secretary is enough to make up for any slack in other picks. She may actually be able to help fix the dire state of public education.
***FACEPALM***
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com/edu...
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
The really worrying thing is that he is so easy to trigger.
No, the really worrying part is that the stock market is so fucking fragile that such a stupid comment can bring prices down. I mean, it can't be because millions of shareholders suddenly grew a conscious and realized "y'know, he's right, they are charging too much. I'm gonna sell my stock to show that I don't support such high drug prices">
I don't know about you, but when it comes to fragility, I'm a whole lot more concerned about Trump than the stock market.
The stock market has a multitude of agents across the world, pushing in different directions. Trump is one single person who has control of the most powerful bully pulpit on Earth. You tell me what/who is more likely to fly off the handle.
And to put a finer point on it: the stock market doesn't have nukes.
In Soviet Russia, a Beowulf cluster of female sharks swimming in grits heated by their lasers give birth to many Natalie Portmans who bite You!
There. That oughtta do it.
Other posts in this thread have pointed out that this is in fact news, because this is the first record of a previously sexually-active female shark giving birth asexually, with no DNA from the father.
And BTW, fake news is not what you seem to think it is. Fake news is written by fake reporters. It is a deliberate fiction intended to deceive, frighten, or enrage the reader. It is not old news. It is not a good-faith news story that contains errors.
My wife had the same thing happen to her as happened to that shark. I'd been working abroad 6 months and she managed to get pregnant completely on her own. Unbelievable.
You remind me of this guy.
Why do you think so many unions make it MANDATORY for workers to become members?
Because if they didn't, they'd have freeloaders who receive the benefits of union protection of their jobs without paying the dues.
And BTW, nowadays, it's a very fortunate union that can negotiate a "closed shop" (mandatory membership) contract.
If a union was useful to a worker, workers would be eager to join instead of being forced to. Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.
First of all, unions do provide goods and services to their members. You may not like what they do, or want what they provide, or be cynical about them in general. But you cannot claim that they don't provide goods and services.
I'm forced to pay taxes. I may not agree with what my government does with the money. But I don't question the fairness of paying my share of taxes.
I didn't state whether I wanted him shot or not. I merely stated, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he gets assassinated.
You're right. Sorry.
https://xkcd.com/893/
May need to be updated soon.
RIP, Gene.
I still cannot get over how you are somehow not allowed to USE YOUR BRAIN to count cards in order to win in a casino. Yes, I know it is not illegal to count cards (I mean how would someone go around proving it beyond reasonable doubt), but casinos (except in NJ) are allowed to ban players who can win, which is mostly the same thing.
It's the same in Las Vegas (in fact, all of Nevada.) Counting cards is not illegal, but casinos have the right to expel you and blacklist you if they suspect you're doing it. And they'll rat you out to other casinos, so you can't just go to a different one.
Generally, casinos are good at spotting cheaters, because their business model depends on it. In the case of counting cards, they start to get suspicious when your luck is significantly out of line with the laws of probability.
But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.
Why not? The casino agreed to do it.
It's not allowed because it's illegal.
It doesn't matter if the casino or the law don't realize what they did until later.
Yes, the stuff about superstitions is all in TFA. That was the premise the players used to justify their requests.
But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.
Con is the wrong word.
These players did not "con" the casino. They cheated.
It was clever, it was under the radar of the casino, and it was seemingly benign. That doesn't change the fact that it was wrong.
He also got a green light from the casino on all the things he requested. I can't understand the judge's logic in this at all. They should have just denied his request knowing he was asking for these things to gain an advantage. They gambled that his requests would give him no advantage and they lost, but yet cry foul after the fact. A
As TFA explains, some baccarat players have may superstitions. The casinos have no problem indulging such superstitions when, on their face, they don't appear to impart an advantage to the player. The fact that the casino didn't notice what these players were doing until later is irrelevant. The players cheated. The judge made the right decision in finding with the casino.
The term "fake news" has been thrown about -- and misapplied -- far too freely of late.
Fake news is a deliberate fiction on the part of the writer, with an intent to deceive.
It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.
And BTW, it doesn't matter that it was the dealer who was rotating the cards, not the players. The players tricked the dealer into rotating them so as to change the odds of the game. You can't do that.
The attendant has no steering wheel or break. What does the attendant have, a bucket and a mop?
From TFS:
The vehicle has a human attendant and computer monitor, but no steering wheel and no brake pedals.
Presumably the computer monitor is not just for show.
Oh please. No. Just no. Let's not even think about that.
Look, I don't like the guy. But wish death on him? That's just supremely uncool.
He did suggest darkly that the "second-amendment people" might handle Hillary Clinton in some way. But for the love of FSM, just let that go. Let's not think that there are bull's-eyes on the people who represent us in public office.
Puh-leeze.
Razer reported the theft to police:
http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/...
If Razer orchestrated all of this for publicity, then they risk a lot by filing a false police report.
And if Razer was behind it, why would they allow their goods to be sold on Taobao?
No, this doesn't add up as "fake news."