I read the German public news (Tagesschau), the BBC, Spanish "El Pais", Al-Jazeera
All of these are sponsored by their respective governments and therefor undeniably tainted.
I believe I am qualified to say that CNN has a good quality to their journalism
Only in a sence, a men accustomed to eating excrement of buffaloes, elephants, and tigers, is "qualified" to judges that of cats and bisons.
I have yet to see blatant fake news on CNN.
Oh, please. The even Wikipedia has a list of what it gently calls CNN controversies. And that's just where they got caught... My "favorites" would be:
Operation Tailwind, 1998
CNN and Time-magazine accused Pentagon of using Sarin to kill American defectors in Vietnam
Assault weapons, 2003
CNN demonstrated the rapid firing of fully-automatic firearms while covering the federal Assault Weapons Ban, due to expire the following year. The ban was covering only the semi-automatic weapons.
Coverage of Serbia, 2008
CNN reported on pro-Karadzic protests in Belgrade as well as the protester clashes with the Serb police. However, the actual footage of the Belgrade clash in the report was inter-cut with sequences from the much more violent 2006 Budapest riot in which cars were set on fire and police used water cannons. The network falsely presented the mixed footage as video from the Belgrade protests.
Various channels of Putin-TV do this to Ukraine all the time nowadays, I wonder, where they got the idea...
These are just the established and verified "errors" of the past. Then there is scandalous coverage of Trayvon Martin's death, when the US media — CNN included — pushed a false narrative, that the killing was racially motivated. They even presented his killer as "White" and implied, he was a "Conservative", even though Mr. Zimmerman was of Hispanic origin and a registered Democrat.
The 2016 presidential campaign has shown all of the US "established" media as biased liars, but it will take years of tedious sorting out. CNN? The supposedly "objective" information source has leaked debate questions to one of the debate-participants ahead of time. Twice — that we know of! They got rid of the Donna Brazile over it, but she, obviously, was not acting alone — the rest remain at CNN. Great journalist organization...
Here's an example [johnpilger.com] of the wacky world of Julian Assange
So, he is wacky — not any more so, than the folks routinely comparing McCarthy with Beria, but wacky, yes. OP is still wrong about established news services shying away from illegally-obtained information.
Nor is this an example of "lies" or "outright lies".
Wikileaks doesn't just report news, they often encourage and even participate in these very same hacks
Are you going to sincerely claim, Mark Felt (a.k.a. Deep Throat) would've continued his leaking details of an ongoing investigation to the media, had New York Times and Washington Post told him, sorry, we can not publish illegally-obtained information?
There's a very good reason we don't allow news services that kind of power, and while I'm glad we finally got confirmation about it, let's not cheer it on to the point where this becomes normal.
Richard Nixon would beg to disagree. Not only do news services not disallow illegally-obtained information, using such is a fairly reliable way of getting a Pulitzer Prize. Especially, if the target is a RethugliKKKan, of course.
Had Assange embarrassed Trump instead of spraying water over Her Beautiful Wickedness, he would've been praised as a hero along with these guys.
one great scoop doesn't excuse months of lies, outright lies, stories we already knew, and some plainly pure bullshit.
The problem is they're trying to move into the general consumer market where it's not enough to be fully electric and cool
Yes... Tesla's original awesomeness was like that of a talking horse, who amazes by the mere fact of talking. That it talks with a heavy accent and has a very limited vocabulary does not diminish the awe. Initially.
But then, slowly, it gets treated like any other talker, and the audience begins noticing the flaws. Tesla is entering this stage now.
What I asked, was not "why is this posted", but why does it matter to the climate debate? People are saying (incorrectly), things like "See, even Trump agrees, it must be true!"
So, I ask, why would his agreeing make it true, if his disagreeing would not have made it false? See, what I mean, Sparky?
That certainly is a good rule — indeed, a very "Thanksgivingly" one.
And yet, there are certain signs and indicators, which give justified grounds for suspicion in the case of Climate Science.
One such is a conflict of interest. A scientist coming to a conclusion, that global warming is not a big deal, risks his very livelihood — the rest of us will politely thank him for his past work and eliminate funding for more of it. America's spending on climate research, for example, has about tripled since 1993 — is it unreasonable to suspect, that the vast body of people may be at least partially concerned about their careers and mortgages? Would they not frown on and denounce anyone breaking ranks, regardless of whether he is correct or not?
We dismiss judges and jurors because of the conflict of interest — and we are right. But a replacement juror unrelated to suspect is easy to find, whereas finding an independent group of scientists in the era of government paying for 100% of research is impossible...
The above is why we can — should! — question their collective sincerity. But what about their competence? Try as you might to find an actual scientific prediction made by these folks, that turned out to be true, and you'll fail...
Few people realize this, despite me posting this challenge on Slashdot every once in a while. Try it yourself. A valid citation would include a pair of links, one to prediction, the other — to its confirmation:
The prediction must be publicly made — you'll need to include a link to it.
A separate link should point at the confirmation of the predicted events happening or values achieved (within, say, 20% of the predicted).
The prediction and the confirmation publications must be a few years or more apart — predicting tomorrow's weather does not count.
The prediction needs to be marginally useful — claiming, it will get either colder or hotter next year is not acceptable
Could you come up with two or three such citations? Don't you think, after spending tens of billions of dollars on it, we are entitled to expect some such results from climate scientists? And, if they can not come up with anything, begin suspecting their competence and sincerity?
Add to that the growing calls by these scientists (not just their hangers-on) to criminalize skepticism, and our suspicion ought to develop into a full blown alarm!
But smart and educated electorate are a hindrance! Wouldn't an obedient and worshiping populace be easier to both maintain and lead — without having to spend too much effort explaining things to them?
they need to listen to actual scientists about the validity of scientific results and not to politicians
Didn't you just say, actual scientists have no time for such explanations? Who are we to listen to then? Our media is full of climate-related articles, most of them very alarming. Unfortunately, very few (if any) are penned by the scientists — the vast majority is by professional journalists, politicians, and popularizers. None of them apparently have a Ph.D., which you claimed is required to even understand the arguments — forget about verifying them. Even they talk to the actual scientists first hand — and I doubt, Al Gore ever had, for example — they are no more than first tier.
The rest of us are the second tier, if you will. We are expected to trust these people, who themselves can only take it on faith. No wonder, both proponents and detractors view the public debate on climate as more Religious than Scientific.
or that country is doomed
Could you offer some examples of such calamities from the past? Or are our times unique?
The problem is the mass of morons that think they have what it takes to judge the quality of a scientific result, when that actually takes at least a PhD in a not too remote field.
And yet, in a free and self-governing country, you have to convince these people too... (Hint, calling them names is not helping.)
Of course these people are then easy to manipulate because they are clueless about how extremely clueless they are.
Absolutely true. The vast majority of people can not judge the quality of the the climate-related arguments themselves — and must trust someone else. Trust to be a) sincere; b) competent... Politicians are generally the best at making themselves appear to possess these qualities...
If an article says someone has discovered a liquid form of a higgs-boson condensate, how would I know different? I mean, it's a condensate , obviously it must condense somehow.
You could as well have used Global Warming in your example...
GM bailout was given to keep the Unions solvent and their members employed.
And, in any case, there being more than one company receiving tax-payer cash does not make Fascism and Crony Capitalism any more acceptable. Your kind were screaming bloody murder, when Haliburton was getting government's orders. But now even bona-fide subsidies are Ok?
That SolarCity in particular was owned by Elon Musk's cousins is not mentioned in TFA either — do you think, such tidbit would not ha've been considered newsworthy, had the companies involved were military contractors, coal miners, or oil pumpers?
Bzzz, caught. I said, I no one knows, what the problem is, not issue. The terms are almost synonyms, but not quite... So, allow me to reiterate. We do know — from TFA — that only 13% of Dutch Science Academy are women. We do not know why — what is the problem the ladies have (though I suspect, it is their selfish desire to have children).
I further question, whether this objectively known figure of 13% is in any way problematic to begin with.
but you seem damn certain what the solution isn't.
Your remark pretends to be snark and seems to imply, my stance is somehow illogical. But it is perfectly possible to reject certain "solutions" without knowing, what exactly the problem is (or whether, indeed, there is one). For example, I may have a mole on my skin — I do not know, whether it is benign or cancerous, but I certainly am not going to listen to proposals to "solve" it by redefining it as "skin pigmentation" or something else. Changing the criteria will neither tell me, whether I have a problem, nor solve it, if I do.
And that — changing the criteria — is what the discussed action does. If there is sexism in Dutch society, it is not addressing it. It simply lowers the requirements for women.
"lowering the quality of science" bullshit
It is perfectly real. It is safe to assume, membership in the Academy is not purely honorific — it bestows certain financial and otherwise tangible rewards and adds weight to the person's statements. If simply having a uterus helps someone achieve the distinction they would not otherwise have achieved, those rewards will be undeserved. Worse — someone else more deserving may be passed on, and thus unable to communicate his insights as comfortably and to as receptive an audience.
This is no different (if less dramatic) from American SJWs' efforts to increase the number of women in combat roles — even if that means lowering the requirements. Certainly you agree, that such lowering will mean a weaker force?
Read carefully. The still ongoing practice is to reward the GM-title to a woman winning championship among other women — the top WGM becomes a GM automatically regardless of how she'd stand against real GMs.
But, hey, at least, they got rid of the White Supremacists (or was it "far right", or "alt right"?) — selectively shutting people up is much more fun, than protecting account-security. That latter would be, you know, actually, doing their jobs.
No one — your pompous self included — know, what the problem is. You can only speculate. Indeed, it is not at all obvious, there is a problem to begin with. Only 13% of Dutch academics are women? So what?
But you do want to "reduce men's dominance" for some reason and look for excuses to justify your actions — even if that means lowering the overall quality (and prestige) of Science.
Yes, they are. Hint, it does not have to be 100% — Microsoft's hold on the desktop operating systems was not universal either. I for one, had used FreeBSD exclusively since 1993, and there were also MacOS and, gasp, Linux. It did not help Microsoft and they got convicted of abusing their monopoly.
It doesn't matter if scalping is "self evidently" wrong.
Whether it matters or not, the OP claimed, that it is. And that was simply incorrect.
The question asked of Obama was: "If 'undocumented citizens' vote, will they get into any trouble?" His answer was: "No, they will not." However you and Snopes spin it, that is encouraging people ineligible to vote to vote anyway, and people outraged by it had every right to be outraged.
Did you watch the video or even READ the short transcript where the quote comes from?
Of course, I read it. Snopes did provide greater context, which only reaffirmed the accusation. The accusation, which they, incredibly, denounced as "False" anyway... And why? Because he did not single out the illegal aliens to vote — he allowed all aliens to participate, according to Snopes. As if that is any less fraudulent...
Though being a monopoly is not illegal, using one's monopoly position in one market to break into another is. That was the goverment's claim against Microsoft, which was (alleged to) using their monopoly in desktop operating systems to break into web-browsers... We all cheered the government's prosecution of the company here.
Now, Google are using their monopoly in search-engine market, to gain in the market of cellular phones and associated services... And we are supposed to give them a pass?
After faithfully repeating President Obama's promise, any "undocumented citizens" who vote will not be prosecuted for such fraud, the site declared the claim, that he made such a promise "False" anyway.
That's when even my industrial strength bullshit-meter blew up...
Hillary Clinton: "The sky is blue".
Fact-checkers: "Though it is not always, the sky is generally perceived by humans as having a color known to humans as 'blue'. We rate Secretary Clinton's claim as 'Mostly True'".
Donald Trump: "The sky is blue".
Fact-checkers: "The sky is black at night and red at dawn. We rate Mister Trump's claim as 'Pants on Fire' and 'Bazillion Pinocchios'".
Being a high ranking chess player is probably not helping the men procreate either.
Actually, it does — winners are attractive. Man's participation in the actual reproduction is measured in minutes, so he can dedicate much more time and effort to becoming — and remaining — a winner. Though both parents take part in rearing children, the main burden, especially in the first couple of years, remains on the mother.
When you have children of your own, recall this conversation...
That women are achieving some success in Science (and, indeed, Sports) at all, is a testament to technology, that makes these burdens easier.
Ennis-Hill took some time out to have a child and still won back to back Olympic medals.
We aren't talking about outliers here, we are talking about averages. According to TFA, 13% of Dutch academics are already female too...
Seems like it would matter even less with chess.
A close relative of mine was and remains a chess-player with a rating well above 2000. After high school, he had to choose between going to college or continuing to train for another 6-12 months to become a GM. No, he could not have done both — that's how demanding the sport is.
Having witnessed it closely, I can confirm, that pregnancy — even early pregnancy — is only more taxing, than merely attending college.
Slashdot Mirror
All of these are sponsored by their respective governments and therefor undeniably tainted.
Only in a sence, a men accustomed to eating excrement of buffaloes, elephants, and tigers, is "qualified" to judges that of cats and bisons.
Oh, please. The even Wikipedia has a list of what it gently calls CNN controversies . And that's just where they got caught... My "favorites" would be:
Operation Tailwind, 1998 CNN and Time-magazine accused Pentagon of using Sarin to kill American defectors in Vietnam Assault weapons, 2003 CNN demonstrated the rapid firing of fully-automatic firearms while covering the federal Assault Weapons Ban, due to expire the following year. The ban was covering only the semi-automatic weapons. Coverage of Serbia, 2008 CNN reported on pro-Karadzic protests in Belgrade as well as the protester clashes with the Serb police. However, the actual footage of the Belgrade clash in the report was inter-cut with sequences from the much more violent 2006 Budapest riot in which cars were set on fire and police used water cannons. The network falsely presented the mixed footage as video from the Belgrade protests.Various channels of Putin-TV do this to Ukraine all the time nowadays, I wonder, where they got the idea...
These are just the established and verified "errors" of the past. Then there is scandalous coverage of Trayvon Martin's death, when the US media — CNN included — pushed a false narrative, that the killing was racially motivated. They even presented his killer as "White" and implied, he was a "Conservative", even though Mr. Zimmerman was of Hispanic origin and a registered Democrat.
The 2016 presidential campaign has shown all of the US "established" media as biased liars, but it will take years of tedious sorting out. CNN? The supposedly "objective" information source has leaked debate questions to one of the debate-participants ahead of time. Twice — that we know of! They got rid of the Donna Brazile over it, but she, obviously, was not acting alone — the rest remain at CNN. Great journalist organization...
So, he is wacky — not any more so, than the folks routinely comparing McCarthy with Beria, but wacky, yes. OP is still wrong about established news services shying away from illegally-obtained information.
Nor is this an example of "lies" or "outright lies".
Are you going to sincerely claim, Mark Felt (a.k.a. Deep Throat) would've continued his leaking details of an ongoing investigation to the media, had New York Times and Washington Post told him, sorry, we can not publish illegally-obtained information?
Richard Nixon would beg to disagree. Not only do news services not disallow illegally-obtained information, using such is a fairly reliable way of getting a Pulitzer Prize. Especially, if the target is a RethugliKKKan, of course.
Had Assange embarrassed Trump instead of spraying water over Her Beautiful Wickedness, he would've been praised as a hero along with these guys.
Notable absence of any citations here...
Yes... Tesla's original awesomeness was like that of a talking horse, who amazes by the mere fact of talking. That it talks with a heavy accent and has a very limited vocabulary does not diminish the awe. Initially.
But then, slowly, it gets treated like any other talker, and the audience begins noticing the flaws. Tesla is entering this stage now.
What I asked, was not "why is this posted", but why does it matter to the climate debate? People are saying (incorrectly), things like "See, even Trump agrees, it must be true!"
So, I ask, why would his agreeing make it true, if his disagreeing would not have made it false? See, what I mean, Sparky?
That certainly is a good rule — indeed, a very "Thanksgivingly" one.
And yet, there are certain signs and indicators, which give justified grounds for suspicion in the case of Climate Science.
One such is a conflict of interest. A scientist coming to a conclusion, that global warming is not a big deal, risks his very livelihood — the rest of us will politely thank him for his past work and eliminate funding for more of it. America's spending on climate research, for example, has about tripled since 1993 — is it unreasonable to suspect, that the vast body of people may be at least partially concerned about their careers and mortgages? Would they not frown on and denounce anyone breaking ranks, regardless of whether he is correct or not?
We dismiss judges and jurors because of the conflict of interest — and we are right. But a replacement juror unrelated to suspect is easy to find, whereas finding an independent group of scientists in the era of government paying for 100% of research is impossible...
The above is why we can — should! — question their collective sincerity. But what about their competence? Try as you might to find an actual scientific prediction made by these folks, that turned out to be true, and you'll fail...
Few people realize this, despite me posting this challenge on Slashdot every once in a while. Try it yourself. A valid citation would include a pair of links, one to prediction, the other — to its confirmation:
Could you come up with two or three such citations? Don't you think, after spending tens of billions of dollars on it, we are entitled to expect some such results from climate scientists? And, if they can not come up with anything, begin suspecting their competence and sincerity?
Add to that the growing calls by these scientists (not just their hangers-on) to criminalize skepticism, and our suspicion ought to develop into a full blown alarm!
If Politifact rejects claims of rigging, then they just can not be true, can they be?
Sigh... Haterz gonna hate...
No excrescence, brother, you got it!
But smart and educated electorate are a hindrance! Wouldn't an obedient and worshiping populace be easier to both maintain and lead — without having to spend too much effort explaining things to them?
Didn't you just say, actual scientists have no time for such explanations? Who are we to listen to then? Our media is full of climate-related articles, most of them very alarming. Unfortunately, very few (if any) are penned by the scientists — the vast majority is by professional journalists, politicians, and popularizers. None of them apparently have a Ph.D., which you claimed is required to even understand the arguments — forget about verifying them. Even they talk to the actual scientists first hand — and I doubt, Al Gore ever had, for example — they are no more than first tier.
The rest of us are the second tier, if you will. We are expected to trust these people, who themselves can only take it on faith. No wonder, both proponents and detractors view the public debate on climate as more Religious than Scientific.
Could you offer some examples of such calamities from the past? Or are our times unique?
Ah, so this is about him — rather than about Global Warming?
Were he to deny it, he would've been denounced as a moron too uneducated to understand the problem — because a Ph.D. is required to grasp it.
Why is his admission carrying more weight, than his denial would have?
And yet, in a free and self-governing country, you have to convince these people too... (Hint, calling them names is not helping.)
Absolutely true. The vast majority of people can not judge the quality of the the climate-related arguments themselves — and must trust someone else. Trust to be a) sincere; b) competent... Politicians are generally the best at making themselves appear to possess these qualities...
You could as well have used Global Warming in your example...
To paraphrase a certain highly-acclaimed movie, I Wish I Knew How to Quit You, Slashdot...
GM bailout was given to keep the Unions solvent and their members employed.
And, in any case, there being more than one company receiving tax-payer cash does not make Fascism and Crony Capitalism any more acceptable. Your kind were screaming bloody murder, when Haliburton was getting government's orders. But now even bona-fide subsidies are Ok?
That SolarCity in particular was owned by Elon Musk's cousins is not mentioned in TFA either — do you think, such tidbit would not ha've been considered newsworthy, had the companies involved were military contractors, coal miners, or oil pumpers?
Bzzz, caught. I said, I no one knows, what the problem is, not issue. The terms are almost synonyms, but not quite... So, allow me to reiterate. We do know — from TFA — that only 13% of Dutch Science Academy are women. We do not know why — what is the problem the ladies have (though I suspect, it is their selfish desire to have children).
I further question, whether this objectively known figure of 13% is in any way problematic to begin with.
Your remark pretends to be snark and seems to imply, my stance is somehow illogical. But it is perfectly possible to reject certain "solutions" without knowing, what exactly the problem is (or whether, indeed, there is one). For example, I may have a mole on my skin — I do not know, whether it is benign or cancerous, but I certainly am not going to listen to proposals to "solve" it by redefining it as "skin pigmentation" or something else. Changing the criteria will neither tell me, whether I have a problem, nor solve it, if I do.
And that — changing the criteria — is what the discussed action does. If there is sexism in Dutch society, it is not addressing it. It simply lowers the requirements for women.
It is perfectly real. It is safe to assume, membership in the Academy is not purely honorific — it bestows certain financial and otherwise tangible rewards and adds weight to the person's statements. If simply having a uterus helps someone achieve the distinction they would not otherwise have achieved, those rewards will be undeserved. Worse — someone else more deserving may be passed on, and thus unable to communicate his insights as comfortably and to as receptive an audience.
This is no different (if less dramatic) from American SJWs' efforts to increase the number of women in combat roles — even if that means lowering the requirements . Certainly you agree, that such lowering will mean a weaker force?
Read carefully. The still ongoing practice is to reward the GM-title to a woman winning championship among other women — the top WGM becomes a GM automatically regardless of how she'd stand against real GMs.
But, hey, at least, they got rid of the White Supremacists (or was it "far right", or "alt right"?) — selectively shutting people up is much more fun, than protecting account-security. That latter would be, you know, actually, doing their jobs.
But you do want to "reduce men's dominance" for some reason and look for excuses to justify your actions — even if that means lowering the overall quality (and prestige) of Science.
Yes, they are. Hint, it does not have to be 100% — Microsoft's hold on the desktop operating systems was not universal either. I for one, had used FreeBSD exclusively since 1993, and there were also MacOS and, gasp, Linux. It did not help Microsoft and they got convicted of abusing their monopoly.
Whether it matters or not, the OP claimed, that it is. And that was simply incorrect.
The question asked of Obama was: "If 'undocumented citizens' vote, will they get into any trouble?" His answer was: "No, they will not." However you and Snopes spin it, that is encouraging people ineligible to vote to vote anyway, and people outraged by it had every right to be outraged.
Of course, I read it. Snopes did provide greater context, which only reaffirmed the accusation. The accusation, which they, incredibly, denounced as "False" anyway... And why? Because he did not single out the illegal aliens to vote — he allowed all aliens to participate, according to Snopes. As if that is any less fraudulent...
Though being a monopoly is not illegal, using one's monopoly position in one market to break into another is. That was the goverment's claim against Microsoft, which was (alleged to) using their monopoly in desktop operating systems to break into web-browsers... We all cheered the government's prosecution of the company here.
Now, Google are using their monopoly in search-engine market, to gain in the market of cellular phones and associated services... And we are supposed to give them a pass?
Scalping is not at all "self evidently wrong"...
Snopes included.
After faithfully repeating President Obama's promise, any "undocumented citizens" who vote will not be prosecuted for such fraud, the site declared the claim, that he made such a promise "False" anyway.
That's when even my industrial strength bullshit-meter blew up...
Fact-checkers are now grossly partisan and, to borrow a phrase, should not be doing a lot of talking. Consider the following hilarious example:
Hillary Clinton: "The sky is blue". Fact-checkers: "Though it is not always, the sky is generally perceived by humans as having a color known to humans as 'blue'. We rate Secretary Clinton's claim as 'Mostly True'". Donald Trump: "The sky is blue". Fact-checkers: "The sky is black at night and red at dawn. We rate Mister Trump's claim as 'Pants on Fire' and 'Bazillion Pinocchios'".There are non-funny examples too.
Actually, it does — winners are attractive. Man's participation in the actual reproduction is measured in minutes, so he can dedicate much more time and effort to becoming — and remaining — a winner. Though both parents take part in rearing children, the main burden, especially in the first couple of years, remains on the mother.
When you have children of your own, recall this conversation...
That women are achieving some success in Science (and, indeed, Sports) at all, is a testament to technology, that makes these burdens easier.
We aren't talking about outliers here, we are talking about averages. According to TFA, 13% of Dutch academics are already female too...
A close relative of mine was and remains a chess-player with a rating well above 2000. After high school, he had to choose between going to college or continuing to train for another 6-12 months to become a GM. No, he could not have done both — that's how demanding the sport is.
Having witnessed it closely, I can confirm, that pregnancy — even early pregnancy — is only more taxing, than merely attending college.