Can't get the excerpt page but the main part is there, including their methodology. Which is flawed. It's based on this study. Which uses the number of unique/24 subnets and geolocation as a measurement of internet penetration in a country. No problem in that. Referenced study shows that there are pretty high correlations on both national and subnational level.
The problem with the original study (one this slashdot story is about) is where it claims to "show that politically excluded groups suffer from significantly lower Internet penetration rates compared with those in power, an effect that cannot be explained by economic or geographic factors. Except their study uses ONLY geographic factors (i.e. geolocation) to determine the "internet penetration" within the "excluded groups".
I.e. They are counting subnets in geographically remote places (away from the countries' main networks which tend to be in urban areas) and simply calling such groups of subnets "excluded". Implying "ethnic favoritism" and political motivation for "exclusion" but never presenting any. They never demonstrate the connection from subnets to actual people - "excluded" or not. They never demonstrate "ethnic favoritism" or "political exclusion". They never even demonstrate "exclusion". For this study it is a presupposed "fact" that people (i.e. subnets) are somehow "excluded" by the mere fact that there are few of them in one place and a lot of them elsewhere. It is borderline conspiracy theory nuttery, where being rural automagically means that "the man" is keeping you offline.
When they DO try to present SOME kind of evidence for "exclusion", they do so in the supplementary material (page 21), based on the Ethnic Power Relations Dataset. Where "exclusion effect" is presented across the entire country. And where USA is situated between Zimbabwe and Nigeria, right next to UK and Canada which are standing shoulder to shoulder between Gabon and India. While their error bars are universally so wide that South Africa (one of the countries in their study) has an "exclusion effect" just over zero and error bars ranging from -2.5 to 2.5. The entire graph shows values from -5 to 5. While Saudi Arabia, Butan, Congo and Egypt are near the bottom of the "exclusion" scale - the lands of internet freedom and political inclusion.
Only thing they actually DO determine is that, when controlled for local GDP indicators, "excluded" groups DO have negative regression coefficient (-0.481, standard error of 0.094) - which are about twice lower than "distance to capital" (-0.942, s.e. 0.133). I.e. Negative influence of being geographically distant from nation's capital is TWICE that from being "excluded". Even when controlled for the influence of having no electricity (nighttime lights per capita) instead of for GDP, being away from the capital is still a greater negative factor (-0.703, s.e. 0.130) than "being excluded" (-0.539, s.e. 0.090).
Meanwhile, higher GDP per capita (0.749, s.e. 0.155), road density (4.068, s.e. 0.833) and urbanization (2.782, s.e. 0.748) all show positive regression coefficients for "internet penetration". I.e. Closer you are to roads, cities and more money - the greater the number of subnets. Whodathunkit!
In other words, their "conclusion" is not only cherry picking - it is pure confirmation bias in the face of their own results showing the exact opposite of their claims.
Why, it's only the guy who founded Citizen's United, bringing about the world of "Superpacks" - over an anti-Hillary "documentary". Hey... remember that time he tried framing Bill Clinton for murder?
...is how that part is not in the summary - but there is a link to a 1990s-style website's article by a retired surgeon who dabbles in politics by advising Democrats not to vote in the Democratic primaries - cause "it makes no sense".
Not in this incarnation anyway. Too confusing for "mainstream audiences" while being completely outside of what said audience knows about Star Trek and feels comfortable with based on the cultural osmosis alone. While watching Star Trek characters jumping around on dirt bikes like Evel Knievel as "Sabotage" by Beastie Boys blares out of the speakers. You know... Star Trek.
Similarly, patching up of the time line will never happen. For the same reason that Robert Duncan McNeill plays the same character on TNG and on Voyager - but it is a different character on Voyager. Royalties and copyright.
Which is the underlying reason for reboots instead of sequels. If you make things different enough you don't have to pay any of the "old people", you just pay the "new people", whom you've gotten to work for a pittance.
these active ingredients are otherwise safe and widely used.
Tiger repelling rocks are also safe and widely used for purposes other than repelling tigers. Much like triclosan.
Triclosan breaks open the cell walls of bacteria, killing them. But it takes several hours to do this, so it does little good in the time it takes to wash and dry hands.
And much like triclosan, one of the purposes tiger repelling rocks can be widely used for is hurting people.
At best, you're half-parroting stuff without any basis to back it up. You jump from claims and statements to what YOU "wouldn't think" is a problem - then in that same breath you say that it IS a problem for puritans. So what did you just prove as wrong by that "example"? Nothing.
You didn't disprove the "negative images" THEY talk about. You didn't even disprove that such imagery can be problematic for some - in fact you claim that it IS problematic.
As for make-female actors and males not being sexualized or how "for men as looks are less important"... Sure-sure. Do you even watch movies or TV? How about seeing regular humans?
Actors, MALE OR FEMALE, are ALWAYS of above average beauty. Hell... even "ugly" men are "sexy". http://www.worldoffemale.com/1... And that's just grabbing a random link from Google. Pick any "ugly" male actor other than MAYBE Danny DeVito (cause he really scored a trifecta of short, fat and balding) and you'll find an article whose writer is trying to figure out how come he's so sexy despite being "ugly". Hell, even Peter Dinklage is a sex symbol.
Being attractive is a part of that profession's job description. It's the ONLY profession (apart maybe for modelling) where people ALWAYS wear makeup to work. It's just that the "sexy dresses" for men are cut to emphasize different parts of the body. Namely broad chests and shoulders - and height. Why do you think that of all clothing garments which have become unisex over the ages - ties never took off with women? Cause long vertical lines make an object seem longer - i.e. taller in the chest region. Bigger. And that's not "ladylike". Longer legs are fine... but a female should not be wide or buff. Do pay attention to Robert Downey Jr.'s and Tom Cruise's shoes next time you see them. They are walking on phonebooks.
Just because you are blind to the ideal of a young, tall, thin, muscular and pretty (but not TOO pretty) man it doesn't mean that it is not there. Hell... it's not even considered nudity as long as the man has SOMETHING covering his penis. Not that's anything wrong with that - but that's the male version of a thin young blond with big tits and a sizable ass.
It's me making fun of their "logic and reasoning". Do also note that said "negative imagery" of women showing skin is from "FAMILY FILMS" - not porn or even action movies where one might see some "sex sells" scenes. They are complaining about beach scenes and short skirts and sleeves. Unless they are watching some other kind of "family films".
Which is just half a step away from women covering their hair cause its smell clouds the minds of men - and cause a woman whose smell you can sense on the air is a harlot and a prostitute. Thus, a hijab, niqab, chador and a burka. To protect men from raping women (belonging to other men) by accident, thinking them to be common whores. Hey! It's the desert. It gets hot. People's minds go crazy. SOMETHING had to be done about it.
Or if you don't like Islamic insanity, there's plenty of puritan Christian insanity as well. Just look up St. Mary frescoes (not the modern ones, which show hair) - she's wearing a hijab. Nuns are closer to a niqab but stop just short of covering the entire face. Except this is all coming from "Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media" and not some religious sect. And DO NOTE how that entire bit is an "additional" point. Women are underrepresented in media - oh and by the way there's too much naked skin in family pictures.
I'm not saying that it is necessarily "foot in the door" or "door in the face" push for puritan values. It could be simply that they are overeager to push their message that they are tripping over themselves and coming off as puritan nuts.
Just like the way they are bragging that "The Institute has amassed the largest body of research on gender prevalence in entertainment, which spans more than 20 years". Few paragraphs down, it's "over 25 years". The institute was founded by Davis in 2006.
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo... Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil. Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image". It's the only way to be sure.
And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above. We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo... Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil. Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image". It's the only way to be sure.
You do realize that by drawing that hasty (and false) equivalency you're arguing that the problem with iPhone 4 not working properly if "held wrong" or without a "bumper" or a piece of tape over the antenna - was a "human beings" and "human nature" problem? Not the fact that it was a bad design, not present in past or future versions of the phone.
I.e. That people really WERE holding it wrong.
Cause in every case of Tesla crashes so far - that was exactly the case. They WERE using it wrong. While ignoring repeated warnings.
A decade is not a very long period of time in the context of the climate system.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
If a decade (and I didn't say a decade) is not a very long time in the context of the climate system, then how come there are measurable and visible changes in the climate during last decades? How come there are visible and measurable changes in the ozone layer - for the better? Besides - I was talking of wood being explicitly left to the elements and the ecosystem to reclaim it. I.e. Left to "rot".
On the other hand, while "decades and decades" which may take a piece of wood to rot naturally and decompose back to carbon (which basically never happens as it gets used up by the ecosystem centuries before that can happen) - a bullshit time period or physical state like "permanently" doesn't even exist. If it did - we wouldn't be able to use fossil fuels in the first place. Carbon would have been "permanently sequestered".
Also, you should really go to a museum. Primarily to look up how long have we actually had museums AND ways to preserve stuff in them. Then look up all the wooden artifacts found. All they needed to stay preserved for millennia was a thin layer of dirt or water to keep all those aerobic bacteria out. Hell, we got processed wood from over 4000 years ago.
Sequestering carbon is a piece of cake. Literally. We make cakes out of sequestered carbon. If we wanted to, we could sequester it all into the ground. We don't want to. Nor do we need to. We're keeping it sequestered in mobile form. As humans and food for humans. And you need to grab a lot of carbon from the air to feed 7.4 billion humans (and growing) and all our pets and food. And when we're done with using our carbon we put it under ground. Or we reclaim it and use it to trap more carbon. Or we put it in a large pile and cover it with more stuff until no air can get to it. Just like we always did.
The earth cannot "bounce back" from such a rapid change, it will take millions and millions of years for geological processes to bring carbon back into the Earth's crust.
Who said it needs to go into the crust? You know what really likes carbon on this planet? Everything.
Also, while tree-sequestered carbon can stay in that form for millennia after the tree is cut - carbon sequestered into plastic takes millions of years to become CO2 again. And we could just suck it out of the air and pour it into a hole in the ground. It's just that the trees are far more efficient and a LOT cheaper to produce.
Also, forget rainforests. It's plankton that's making most of the air.
And even that CO2 is only permanently sequestered if the tree is neither burned nor allowed to rot - otherwise it just turns back into CO2.
Ever been to a museum? Ever saw an old piece of wood in there?
CO2 sequestered by trees takes CENTURIES to return to CO2 again - unless you burn it. Even left to rot it will take decades. Ever seen an old tree stump, sticking out of the ground, all covered in moss and mushrooms? Decades and decades.
You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb. We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists. When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.
BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promotedlikethis came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office. Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.
Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose? By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.
Do you see thousand of people on slashdot re-slashdotting slashes of people they dot on to the people that dot on them? Slashdot doesn't even notify you about your "friends, fans, foes and freaks" posting something - AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. It is a very different thing to moderate slashdot compared to twitter. And that's just regarding the whole nature of the social network. Let's not forget that slashdot predates twitter by decades, has a smaller and more tech/science oriented following, which is growing older faster than twitter's - and that people here CAN express in sentences longer than a bee's neck.
And then there's the whole thing of treating both sides of a trolling the same... Which would be kinda like a government organizing an execution of their own random citizens - every time the terrorists attack. "Ha-HA! That'll show em! Take that ISIS! You can't kill nowhere as near as many of us as we can! Who's got a small dick now?!"
"So if guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat" - I have no idea who wrote that but I think they have a point.
And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above as "Offtopic". We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.
"So if guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat" - I have no idea who wrote that but I think they have a point.
They can pry my previously texted pistol emojis from my cold dead hands.
Cold WET hands from now on. It is a water pistol.
On a side note, I wonder how long will it take for people to start describing it as a water pistol "full of acid" or "gasoline water pistol" or "pee-pistol".
Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.
You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever. Well, since the last millennium at least.
Would you look a that? Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least. And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".
Hmm... where did I hear that kind of rhetoric recently... Calling personal political goals "the will of the people"? Oh that's right! It's the guys running for office in order to shut down the government against the will of the ACTUAL people. Imagine people like that also labeling as "trolls" anyone disagreeing with them. Naaaah... They wouldn't do THAT?
You just went so hilariously overboard with ad hominems and lack of knowledge of history - you would be elected the local rightwing loon faster than you could come up with another crazy conspiracy. If only you had the balls to sign your name...
Ah well... It is the roads not taken that made you the man you are today... or the man you're not, to be precise. All those times you lacked the courage to voice your opinion, hiding in the crowds, helplessness and despair silently eating you from inside... To the point you don't even have the balls to be an internet tough guy any more. And prepubescent boys whose balls haven't dropped yet can do THAT. What a truly pathetic creature you are.
During much of the Cold War typewriters were state of the art, so they were the focus of spooks and spies just as mobile phone networks, emails and social networks are today. Techniques were developed to use cheap microphones to listen to key taps and decipher what was being written, spy cameras could peer over typist's shoulders and undercover agents could photograph and leak documents. Debonair KGB agents were even tasked with seducing typists and winkling information from them. Missile-equipped Aston Martins aside, some of what you see in James Bond films actually went on.
In 1984 the NSA became paranoid about the extent of this sort of Russian infiltration and began what it called Project Gunman, under which it replaced every piece of communications equipment at embassies in Moscow and Leningrad. It shipped the old devices back to the US for analysis, and when they were X-rayed it was discovered that 16 IBM Selectric typewriters had been bugged. For eight years they had sent the contents of every single document to the Kremlin, via a man crouching outside with a radio receiver.
OP suggests that the right course of action if you don't want neither Trump nor Hillary as president is to vote third party candidate, in order to rob both said candidates of electoral votes. Thus making sure that neither candidate has enough votes to secure the win. Which, according to the OP is the right thing to do if you don't want Trump nor Hillary - cause then the House of Representatives must make the call. House of representatives which is loaded with a Republican majority.
So that alone makes danbert8 a liar - cause saying that only way to avoid Trump AND Hillary is to give the decision to people who will elect Trump IS A LIE.
Except, in this case there's also all that deliberate stalling to even hold a hearing for the Supreme Court judge nominated back in MARCH. Who is stalling? Republicans. Why is that important? Cause right now Supreme Court is deadlocked between "republican" and "democrat" judges. There is no tie-breaker.
Meaning that should there be a contentious election like the Bush-Gore one was (which is what danbert8 is hoping for) Supreme Court will not be able to make that decision.
I.e. Not only is danbert8 lying - he is pretending that aside from his little "modest proposal" everything is "as usual". When actually Republicans have been stalling the nomination cause they are hoping for an election which would be made in the House - by Republicans. While hypocritically claiming it's all about "the American people should have a say in the court's direction."
Which is why danbert8 is not a mere liar, but a sniveling coward with no balls. None. Null testicle. Nothing dangling down below.
Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.
You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever. Well, since the last millennium at least.
And that's AFTER Republicans have done all they can to stall the Supreme Court nomination by Obama. Why must Republicans always resort to stealing? Isn't lying (Hey! They're politicians. They have to lie to SOMEONE.) enough?
Slashdot Mirror
Try here. For the supplementary material go here.
Can't get the excerpt page but the main part is there, including their methodology. Which is flawed. /24 subnets and geolocation as a measurement of internet penetration in a country.
It's based on this study.
Which uses the number of unique
No problem in that. Referenced study shows that there are pretty high correlations on both national and subnational level.
The problem with the original study (one this slashdot story is about) is where it claims to "show that politically excluded groups suffer from significantly lower Internet penetration rates compared with those in power, an effect that cannot be explained by economic or geographic factors.
Except their study uses ONLY geographic factors (i.e. geolocation) to determine the "internet penetration" within the "excluded groups".
I.e. They are counting subnets in geographically remote places (away from the countries' main networks which tend to be in urban areas) and simply calling such groups of subnets "excluded".
Implying "ethnic favoritism" and political motivation for "exclusion" but never presenting any.
They never demonstrate the connection from subnets to actual people - "excluded" or not.
They never demonstrate "ethnic favoritism" or "political exclusion".
They never even demonstrate "exclusion".
For this study it is a presupposed "fact" that people (i.e. subnets) are somehow "excluded" by the mere fact that there are few of them in one place and a lot of them elsewhere.
It is borderline conspiracy theory nuttery, where being rural automagically means that "the man" is keeping you offline.
When they DO try to present SOME kind of evidence for "exclusion", they do so in the supplementary material (page 21), based on the Ethnic Power Relations Dataset.
Where "exclusion effect" is presented across the entire country.
And where USA is situated between Zimbabwe and Nigeria, right next to UK and Canada which are standing shoulder to shoulder between Gabon and India.
While their error bars are universally so wide that South Africa (one of the countries in their study) has an "exclusion effect" just over zero and error bars ranging from -2.5 to 2.5.
The entire graph shows values from -5 to 5.
While Saudi Arabia, Butan, Congo and Egypt are near the bottom of the "exclusion" scale - the lands of internet freedom and political inclusion.
Only thing they actually DO determine is that, when controlled for local GDP indicators, "excluded" groups DO have negative regression coefficient (-0.481, standard error of 0.094) - which are about twice lower than "distance to capital" (-0.942, s.e. 0.133).
I.e. Negative influence of being geographically distant from nation's capital is TWICE that from being "excluded".
Even when controlled for the influence of having no electricity (nighttime lights per capita) instead of for GDP, being away from the capital is still a greater negative factor (-0.703, s.e. 0.130) than "being excluded" (-0.539, s.e. 0.090).
Meanwhile, higher GDP per capita (0.749, s.e. 0.155), road density (4.068, s.e. 0.833) and urbanization (2.782, s.e. 0.748) all show positive regression coefficients for "internet penetration".
I.e. Closer you are to roads, cities and more money - the greater the number of subnets.
Whodathunkit!
In other words, their "conclusion" is not only cherry picking - it is pure confirmation bias in the face of their own results showing the exact opposite of their claims.
Why, it's only the guy who founded Citizen's United, bringing about the world of "Superpacks" - over an anti-Hillary "documentary".
Hey... remember that time he tried framing Bill Clinton for murder?
That's your world now, at least until elections.
...is how that part is not in the summary - but there is a link to a 1990s-style website's article by a retired surgeon who dabbles in politics by advising Democrats not to vote in the Democratic primaries - cause "it makes no sense".
Or even the mirror universe would be cool.
Not in this incarnation anyway.
Too confusing for "mainstream audiences" while being completely outside of what said audience knows about Star Trek and feels comfortable with based on the cultural osmosis alone.
While watching Star Trek characters jumping around on dirt bikes like Evel Knievel as "Sabotage" by Beastie Boys blares out of the speakers.
You know... Star Trek.
Similarly, patching up of the time line will never happen.
For the same reason that Robert Duncan McNeill plays the same character on TNG and on Voyager - but it is a different character on Voyager.
Royalties and copyright.
Which is the underlying reason for reboots instead of sequels.
If you make things different enough you don't have to pay any of the "old people", you just pay the "new people", whom you've gotten to work for a pittance.
these active ingredients are otherwise safe and widely used.
Tiger repelling rocks are also safe and widely used for purposes other than repelling tigers.
Much like triclosan.
Triclosan breaks open the cell walls of bacteria, killing them. But it takes several hours to do this, so it does little good in the time it takes to wash and dry hands.
And much like triclosan, one of the purposes tiger repelling rocks can be widely used for is hurting people.
At best, you're half-parroting stuff without any basis to back it up.
You jump from claims and statements to what YOU "wouldn't think" is a problem - then in that same breath you say that it IS a problem for puritans.
So what did you just prove as wrong by that "example"? Nothing.
You didn't disprove the "negative images" THEY talk about.
You didn't even disprove that such imagery can be problematic for some - in fact you claim that it IS problematic.
As for make-female actors and males not being sexualized or how "for men as looks are less important"... Sure-sure.
Do you even watch movies or TV? How about seeing regular humans?
Actors, MALE OR FEMALE, are ALWAYS of above average beauty. Hell... even "ugly" men are "sexy".
http://www.worldoffemale.com/1...
And that's just grabbing a random link from Google.
Pick any "ugly" male actor other than MAYBE Danny DeVito (cause he really scored a trifecta of short, fat and balding) and you'll find an article whose writer is trying to figure out how come he's so sexy despite being "ugly".
Hell, even Peter Dinklage is a sex symbol.
Being attractive is a part of that profession's job description.
It's the ONLY profession (apart maybe for modelling) where people ALWAYS wear makeup to work.
It's just that the "sexy dresses" for men are cut to emphasize different parts of the body. Namely broad chests and shoulders - and height.
Why do you think that of all clothing garments which have become unisex over the ages - ties never took off with women?
Cause long vertical lines make an object seem longer - i.e. taller in the chest region. Bigger. And that's not "ladylike". Longer legs are fine... but a female should not be wide or buff.
Do pay attention to Robert Downey Jr.'s and Tom Cruise's shoes next time you see them. They are walking on phonebooks.
Just because you are blind to the ideal of a young, tall, thin, muscular and pretty (but not TOO pretty) man it doesn't mean that it is not there.
Hell... it's not even considered nudity as long as the man has SOMETHING covering his penis.
Not that's anything wrong with that - but that's the male version of a thin young blond with big tits and a sizable ass.
They don't say "female skin is evil".
It's me making fun of their "logic and reasoning".
Do also note that said "negative imagery" of women showing skin is from "FAMILY FILMS" - not porn or even action movies where one might see some "sex sells" scenes.
They are complaining about beach scenes and short skirts and sleeves. Unless they are watching some other kind of "family films".
Which is just half a step away from women covering their hair cause its smell clouds the minds of men - and cause a woman whose smell you can sense on the air is a harlot and a prostitute.
Thus, a hijab, niqab, chador and a burka. To protect men from raping women (belonging to other men) by accident, thinking them to be common whores.
Hey! It's the desert. It gets hot. People's minds go crazy. SOMETHING had to be done about it.
Or if you don't like Islamic insanity, there's plenty of puritan Christian insanity as well.
Just look up St. Mary frescoes (not the modern ones, which show hair) - she's wearing a hijab.
Nuns are closer to a niqab but stop just short of covering the entire face.
Except this is all coming from "Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media" and not some religious sect.
And DO NOTE how that entire bit is an "additional" point.
Women are underrepresented in media - oh and by the way there's too much naked skin in family pictures.
It's like that site about overpopulation being a myth (Which is true).
Oh... BTW, have you tried "natural family planing"? It's this totally the bestest thing ever.
Unlike the evils of "plan b", contraception that will give you AIDS and Obamacare. Think about it.
What a surprise from a group proudly describing themselves and their found as "pro-life".
I'm not saying that it is necessarily "foot in the door" or "door in the face" push for puritan values.
It could be simply that they are overeager to push their message that they are tripping over themselves and coming off as puritan nuts.
Just like the way they are bragging that "The Institute has amassed the largest body of research on gender prevalence in entertainment, which spans more than 20 years". Few paragraphs down, it's "over 25 years".
The institute was founded by Davis in 2006.
Or how they brag about influencing SONY so they "added more females in the crowd scenes and gave the non-lead females a line or two" - in Hotel Transylvania.
Cause nothing says equality like more female monsters. There AND in Monster University. With a "line or two".
Not to mention the Geena Davis' Transylvanian connotations.
Or how they've helped "fix" the inequality in The Little Prince.
Cause nothing says equality like shoehorning female characters into a classic story - and making them into no-fun, gray-colored fun-haters who must be re-educated to learn how to have fun and to love.
By a man.
They may be good-natured, but their approach sure is flawed.
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo...
Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
It's the only way to be sure.
And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above.
We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo...
Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
It's the only way to be sure.
You do realize that by drawing that hasty (and false) equivalency you're arguing that the problem with iPhone 4 not working properly if "held wrong" or without a "bumper" or a piece of tape over the antenna - was a "human beings" and "human nature" problem?
Not the fact that it was a bad design, not present in past or future versions of the phone.
I.e. That people really WERE holding it wrong.
Cause in every case of Tesla crashes so far - that was exactly the case. They WERE using it wrong.
While ignoring repeated warnings.
Most wood is, however, not in a museum.
Indeed, most of it actually lives to be alive for hundreds of years. Even thousands.
A decade is not a very long period of time in the context of the climate system.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
If a decade (and I didn't say a decade) is not a very long time in the context of the climate system, then how come there are measurable and visible changes in the climate during last decades?
How come there are visible and measurable changes in the ozone layer - for the better?
Besides - I was talking of wood being explicitly left to the elements and the ecosystem to reclaim it. I.e. Left to "rot".
On the other hand, while "decades and decades" which may take a piece of wood to rot naturally and decompose back to carbon (which basically never happens as it gets used up by the ecosystem centuries before that can happen) - a bullshit time period or physical state like "permanently" doesn't even exist.
If it did - we wouldn't be able to use fossil fuels in the first place. Carbon would have been "permanently sequestered".
Also, you should really go to a museum.
Primarily to look up how long have we actually had museums AND ways to preserve stuff in them.
Then look up all the wooden artifacts found. All they needed to stay preserved for millennia was a thin layer of dirt or water to keep all those aerobic bacteria out.
Hell, we got processed wood from over 4000 years ago.
Sequestering carbon is a piece of cake. Literally. We make cakes out of sequestered carbon.
If we wanted to, we could sequester it all into the ground. We don't want to. Nor do we need to.
We're keeping it sequestered in mobile form. As humans and food for humans. And you need to grab a lot of carbon from the air to feed 7.4 billion humans (and growing) and all our pets and food.
And when we're done with using our carbon we put it under ground. Or we reclaim it and use it to trap more carbon.
Or we put it in a large pile and cover it with more stuff until no air can get to it. Just like we always did.
The earth cannot "bounce back" from such a rapid change, it will take millions and millions of years for geological processes to bring carbon back into the Earth's crust.
Who said it needs to go into the crust? You know what really likes carbon on this planet? Everything.
Also, while tree-sequestered carbon can stay in that form for millennia after the tree is cut - carbon sequestered into plastic takes millions of years to become CO2 again.
And we could just suck it out of the air and pour it into a hole in the ground.
It's just that the trees are far more efficient and a LOT cheaper to produce.
Also, forget rainforests. It's plankton that's making most of the air.
And even that CO2 is only permanently sequestered if the tree is neither burned nor allowed to rot - otherwise it just turns back into CO2.
Ever been to a museum? Ever saw an old piece of wood in there?
CO2 sequestered by trees takes CENTURIES to return to CO2 again - unless you burn it.
Even left to rot it will take decades. Ever seen an old tree stump, sticking out of the ground, all covered in moss and mushrooms?
Decades and decades.
I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.
Men ARE from Mars.
And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.
You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.
BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.
Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.
The middle ground is to moderate them both down.
Do you see thousand of people on slashdot re-slashdotting slashes of people they dot on to the people that dot on them?
Slashdot doesn't even notify you about your "friends, fans, foes and freaks" posting something - AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.
It is a very different thing to moderate slashdot compared to twitter.
And that's just regarding the whole nature of the social network.
Let's not forget that slashdot predates twitter by decades, has a smaller and more tech/science oriented following, which is growing older faster than twitter's - and that people here CAN express in sentences longer than a bee's neck.
And then there's the whole thing of treating both sides of a trolling the same...
Which would be kinda like a government organizing an execution of their own random citizens - every time the terrorists attack.
"Ha-HA! That'll show em! Take that ISIS! You can't kill nowhere as near as many of us as we can! Who's got a small dick now?!"
"So if guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat" - I have no idea who wrote that but I think they have a point.
Someone without understanding of false equivalence?
And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above as "Offtopic".
We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.
"So if guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat" - I have no idea who wrote that but I think they have a point.
Someone without understanding of false equivalence?
That does sound a lot more elegant...
They can pry my previously texted pistol emojis from my cold dead hands.
Cold WET hands from now on. It is a water pistol.
On a side note, I wonder how long will it take for people to start describing it as a water pistol "full of acid" or "gasoline water pistol" or "pee-pistol".
Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.
You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.
Would you look a that?
Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least.
And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".
Hmm... where did I hear that kind of rhetoric recently... Calling personal political goals "the will of the people"? Oh that's right!
It's the guys running for office in order to shut down the government against the will of the ACTUAL people.
Imagine people like that also labeling as "trolls" anyone disagreeing with them. Naaaah... They wouldn't do THAT?
You just went so hilariously overboard with ad hominems and lack of knowledge of history - you would be elected the local rightwing loon faster than you could come up with another crazy conspiracy.
If only you had the balls to sign your name...
Ah well... It is the roads not taken that made you the man you are today... or the man you're not, to be precise.
All those times you lacked the courage to voice your opinion, hiding in the crowds, helplessness and despair silently eating you from inside...
To the point you don't even have the balls to be an internet tough guy any more. And prepubescent boys whose balls haven't dropped yet can do THAT.
What a truly pathetic creature you are.
It's just a Russian version of security theater.
They should know.
During much of the Cold War typewriters were state of the art, so they were the focus of spooks and spies just as mobile phone networks, emails and social networks are today.
Techniques were developed to use cheap microphones to listen to key taps and decipher what was being written, spy cameras could peer over typist's shoulders and undercover agents could photograph and leak documents.
Debonair KGB agents were even tasked with seducing typists and winkling information from them.
Missile-equipped Aston Martins aside, some of what you see in James Bond films actually went on.
In 1984 the NSA became paranoid about the extent of this sort of Russian infiltration and began what it called Project Gunman, under which it replaced every piece of communications equipment at embassies in Moscow and Leningrad.
It shipped the old devices back to the US for analysis, and when they were X-rayed it was discovered that 16 IBM Selectric typewriters had been bugged.
For eight years they had sent the contents of every single document to the Kremlin, via a man crouching outside with a radio receiver.
OK, may be you really don't understand.
OP suggests that the right course of action if you don't want neither Trump nor Hillary as president is to vote third party candidate, in order to rob both said candidates of electoral votes.
Thus making sure that neither candidate has enough votes to secure the win.
Which, according to the OP is the right thing to do if you don't want Trump nor Hillary - cause then the House of Representatives must make the call.
House of representatives which is loaded with a Republican majority.
So that alone makes danbert8 a liar - cause saying that only way to avoid Trump AND Hillary is to give the decision to people who will elect Trump IS A LIE.
Except, in this case there's also all that deliberate stalling to even hold a hearing for the Supreme Court judge nominated back in MARCH.
Who is stalling? Republicans.
Why is that important?
Cause right now Supreme Court is deadlocked between "republican" and "democrat" judges. There is no tie-breaker.
Meaning that should there be a contentious election like the Bush-Gore one was (which is what danbert8 is hoping for) Supreme Court will not be able to make that decision.
I.e. Not only is danbert8 lying - he is pretending that aside from his little "modest proposal" everything is "as usual".
When actually Republicans have been stalling the nomination cause they are hoping for an election which would be made in the House - by Republicans.
While hypocritically claiming it's all about "the American people should have a say in the court's direction."
Which is why danbert8 is not a mere liar, but a sniveling coward with no balls.
None. Null testicle. Nothing dangling down below.
Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.
You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.
...to say "Vote Republican."
I.e. Vote Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Political groups Majority (247)
Republican (247)
Minority (187)
Democratic (186)
And that's AFTER Republicans have done all they can to stall the Supreme Court nomination by Obama.
Why must Republicans always resort to stealing? Isn't lying (Hey! They're politicians. They have to lie to SOMEONE.) enough?