What the hell does that even mean? Does Facebook have some stated legally-binding policy somewhere which says that they will provide completely unbiased news coverage? Where is the corruption?
I can't answer this. Nor am I saying there was corruption - or other forms of corporate wrongdoing. I don't have any facts on the case nor do I know I know anything about the applicable laws.
What I do know is that if there is a "credible" allegation of corruption (whatever that means) that Congress can and should investigate it. Now - does Congress involve themselves in political witch hunts? Yes. Have they done that numerous times in the past? Yes. Am I happy with that? No. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to investigate corruption.
Is it the role of Congress to investigate corporate corruption? If yes then congress should investigate.
You ask the purpose? It airs out corruption. In the same way we know that Hillary is paying for internet trolls (and this affects how we view her) now we can have clear cut answers to the question - does Facebook skew news feeds? We can't do anything about Hillary shills; and we can't do anything about Facebook, but it's good to know,
They cannot pass a law about it but they can see if the allegations are correct. This is a legitimate action by congress,
?
The allegation is corruption on the part of a business. Are you saying that Congress may not investigate business to ascertain if corruption is part and parcel of their business plan? (Even if they cannot pass a law to rectify the situation?)
Generous? You're 20 years out of date. The US currently has one of the most onerous business tax structures in the world. Gee, I wonder why businesses aren't repatriating their earnings.
That's not the point of free trade. You're not depending on the 1% to take care of you. What you don't want is a sclerotic economy (witness France ) where new jobs don't exist. Right now we have the worst of both worlds. We do not a free market (or anything close to it) and we don't have protected labor.
One solution. Don't tax dollars earned outside the country (or if you do tax it a very low rate). This will remove the disincentive to keep dollars overseas (and hence use the money overseas.)
The 2 Amendment applies to two concepts (which is under attack by progressives).
1. In forming the social contracts we delegated away many things (including retribution) but we did not delegate away our right to self-defense.
2. An armed citizenry is a check and balance on oppressive government. We all hope that point 2 never comes to play. That would be horrible.
Three boxes of citizenship: “the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box” ~Frederick Douglass
The 2nd A is not there to have people shoot each other because they disagree politically. People were well armed in the 19th C and we did not have political violence. (Although we did have a civil war from 1860-1865). People are still well armed - and we still do not have political violence. Although progressives are being real d!cks with their anti-free-speech movement.
Large tracts of America have the same violence levels as the most peaceful areas of Europe despite the citizenry being well-armed, so guns are not the source of violence.
There are a lot of people who don't want to hear outside their bubble. But give modern conservatives credit - unlike "safe-zone" progressives they aren't trying to shut down the speech of those who disagree with them.
I've had more substantive conversations as a pro-choice atheist with conservatives than I have with liberals who talk about women having a right to their body (for abortions). But these same women who have the right to terminate a fetus don't have the right to decide whether or not to smoke weed or wear seat belts.
Calling someone a RINO makes sense IF you define what a Republican or Conservative is. Then, when someone takes too many opposing views then RINO may be an appropriate term.
You mean mocking adversaries (calling someone a Rino) is the same thing as censorship to you?
Free Speech zones is a little more complicated. People going to an abortion clinic should not have to walk through a gauntlet of people shouting murderer at them, just as people going to a Trump speech shouldn't have to go through a gauntlet of people yelling racist at them. How do we draw the line between competing rights on public property? It's not cut and dried and and it certainly is not censorship. (Unless there is more to free speech zones than I'm aware of).
Yes this sh!t is real bad in 'murica. Just go to Harvard or Brown or any elite college to witness it first hand with their safe zones and with students and faculty that protest speakers coming to their school.
If you have lung problems, them my insurance premiums will pay for your treatment (and vice versa) so we're kinda in this together.
Now you know why I'm against universal health care. (and yes there's a problem with private health care as well). It means that people like you will use this stop whatever behavior you find distasteful.
Let's ban an@l sex as it leads to more diseases and will raise health insurance rates.
Let's ban eating meat, or drinking coffee or whatever crosses your mind as you enhance government oppression and squash individual liberty under the guise of being helpful and reasonable.
Tyranny only leads to civil war. Think about how that will affect your insurance premiums.
Yes I'm not in favor of caveat emptor. I'm responding to the idea that cigarettes can be banned because someone doesn't like them. If that's the case lets ban alcohol, gay s3x, p0rn, and whatever else someone, somewhere finds offensive or bad for you.
How about personal freedom. How about you have a right to your own body. If you can abort a fetus certainly you can decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette.
If I said - do x in return for y then yes I am giving an incentive (x) for action (y). But the incentive is explicit.
If a man rapes a woman with no incentive other than whats between his ears (thinking she's cute, thinking she is provocatively dressed, unattended by a husband or brother and therefore deserves to be raped). Then this man should rightfully be prosecuted for rape.
Someone can have a nice car parked on the street. I want it and think that the owner is mocking me therefore he is provoking me to key his car.
There is a difference between an agreement, an exchange, a quid pro quo, and the idle thoughts that go through someone's head.
If I think wouldn't it be cool to go fast and take pictures of drivin fast. It would make a great youtube video; I'll get tons of hits and get famous. Therefore if I get arrested for speeding I can sue Google for giving me incentive for speeding.
This thinking is disgusting. No. You are responsible for your actions. Anything can be incentive.
Example:
I think your idea is stupid and that is incentive for me to slap you. Therefore you are responsible (or partly responsible) for the slap.
Or (a less funny more real life expample)
Someone finds a girl to be pretty. She's obviously "asking for it." Therefore she asked to be raped.
No. "Incentive" is not an excuse. People are responsible for their actions,
Re desalination - I hear a concern that the melting of the ice caps will add so much fresh water to the oceans that it will greatly lower the oceans salt levels causing all sorts of problems. It may be true. But wouldn't all the previous ice ages have removed fresh water (thus increasing the ocean salinity) and then these ice ages were followed by periods of global warming which would then decrease ocean salinity?
First ice cores go back to 800,000 years. That's a good span of time in but still a short period geologically speaking. (For instance it appears that the 22 ice ages we've had over the last 2 million years exist due to continental drift altering ocean and wind currents.)
I'm not seeing (I am going through the links) any information on the frequency of the data points. Ideally we would be able to say that at 4:35 in the afternoon on May 4, -802,016 at latitude/longitude x/y the temperature was 72F./smile:-)
Obviously we don't need things to be that accurate to determine climate change.
Interesting, if we look at the chart provided by the article we see that temperatures were higher at least 4 times over the last 450,000 years.
I don't attribute the Syrian civil war to global warming.. Was environmental degradation a part of the problem? Yes. But Turkey has been diverting river water for decades. Soviet style economies (Syria) are not very responsive to change or efficiencies. Desalination of the oceans, if they occur, would be a major upheaval. But would they be any worse than all 22 changes in the previous 2 million years? The only way to know that is to know if the rate of change over the last 100 yars (and next 100 years) is much (much) greater than it was earlier.
I don't see answers to that.
I saw people comparing the present to 1700 (a mini-ice age). That raised my bullshit meter. Then the present was compared to 1300 (oops that was the beginning of the medieval cold period; then Al Gore compared the top of the sine wave with a bottom. (Hello? Isn't this a High School mistake?)
My point is based on this -- If I am making a point, and I'm sure of it, I don't need to bullshit, or massage my data. The data speaks for itself. So? Why the bullshit? Is it all, simply, reporter error? And if it's all reporter error why aren't these reporters being corrected?
It's interesting that you're saying that records are accurate to 10-100 years. Is that true for ice cores from 500,000 years ago,. I understand that tree rings are accurate but that only goes back a few thousand years at most..
We can't because we don't know the variation within those years. What fluctuation happened? How many wild swings were there that we don't know of? We have averages of (say) 5000 years and we are comparing them with daily/yearly data points. The two do not even up.
Take a look a stocks chart on a minute, by minute basis and then look at the same stock on a 14 day moving average and then on a 30 day moving average. Each time you go out the chart becomes flatter and the gyrations become less prominent. The same thing holds true with temperature and CO2 levels.
Case in point - temperatures have risen and fallen over the last two million years (22 ice ages and the intervening global warming periods) without any human cause. CO2 levels have also risen and fallen.
I'm not saying don't pay attention to the environment. I'm just saying that there is a lot of bullsh!t when Al Gore and reporters pick things up and ignore basic methodology (such as comparing temperatures from peak to peak to peak of a repeating wave as opposed to cherry picking troughs and peaks.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell does that even mean? Does Facebook have some stated legally-binding policy somewhere which says that they will provide completely unbiased news coverage? Where is the corruption?
I can't answer this. Nor am I saying there was corruption - or other forms of corporate wrongdoing. I don't have any facts on the case nor do I know I know anything about the applicable laws.
What I do know is that if there is a "credible" allegation of corruption (whatever that means) that Congress can and should investigate it. Now - does Congress involve themselves in political witch hunts? Yes. Have they done that numerous times in the past? Yes. Am I happy with that? No. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to investigate corruption.
Is it the role of Congress to investigate corporate corruption? If yes then congress should investigate.
You ask the purpose? It airs out corruption. In the same way we know that Hillary is paying for internet trolls (and this affects how we view her) now we can have clear cut answers to the question - does Facebook skew news feeds? We can't do anything about Hillary shills; and we can't do anything about Facebook, but it's good to know,
They cannot pass a law about it but they can see if the allegations are correct. This is a legitimate action by congress,
? The allegation is corruption on the part of a business. Are you saying that Congress may not investigate business to ascertain if corruption is part and parcel of their business plan? (Even if they cannot pass a law to rectify the situation?)
Generous? You're 20 years out of date. The US currently has one of the most onerous business tax structures in the world. Gee, I wonder why businesses aren't repatriating their earnings.
That's not the point of free trade. You're not depending on the 1% to take care of you. What you don't want is a sclerotic economy (witness France ) where new jobs don't exist. Right now we have the worst of both worlds. We do not a free market (or anything close to it) and we don't have protected labor.
One solution. Don't tax dollars earned outside the country (or if you do tax it a very low rate). This will remove the disincentive to keep dollars overseas (and hence use the money overseas.)
The 2 Amendment applies to two concepts (which is under attack by progressives).
1. In forming the social contracts we delegated away many things (including retribution) but we did not delegate away our right to self-defense.
2. An armed citizenry is a check and balance on oppressive government. We all hope that point 2 never comes to play. That would be horrible.
Three boxes of citizenship: “the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box” ~Frederick Douglass
The 2nd A is not there to have people shoot each other because they disagree politically. People were well armed in the 19th C and we did not have political violence. (Although we did have a civil war from 1860-1865). People are still well armed - and we still do not have political violence. Although progressives are being real d!cks with their anti-free-speech movement.
Large tracts of America have the same violence levels as the most peaceful areas of Europe despite the citizenry being well-armed, so guns are not the source of violence.
There are a lot of people who don't want to hear outside their bubble. But give modern conservatives credit - unlike "safe-zone" progressives they aren't trying to shut down the speech of those who disagree with them.
I've had more substantive conversations as a pro-choice atheist with conservatives than I have with liberals who talk about women having a right to their body (for abortions). But these same women who have the right to terminate a fetus don't have the right to decide whether or not to smoke weed or wear seat belts.
Calling someone a RINO makes sense IF you define what a Republican or Conservative is. Then, when someone takes too many opposing views then RINO may be an appropriate term.
You mean mocking adversaries (calling someone a Rino) is the same thing as censorship to you?
Free Speech zones is a little more complicated. People going to an abortion clinic should not have to walk through a gauntlet of people shouting murderer at them, just as people going to a Trump speech shouldn't have to go through a gauntlet of people yelling racist at them. How do we draw the line between competing rights on public property? It's not cut and dried and and it certainly is not censorship. (Unless there is more to free speech zones than I'm aware of).
Yes this sh!t is real bad in 'murica. Just go to Harvard or Brown or any elite college to witness it first hand with their safe zones and with students and faculty that protest speakers coming to their school.
In what way does Austin have more personal freedom than San Antonio or Houston or Waco?
Right. Sic the precogs on them now - before they commit a crime.
We need a revolt against stupid people like you. Full stop.
If you have lung problems, them my insurance premiums will pay for your treatment (and vice versa) so we're kinda in this together.
Now you know why I'm against universal health care. (and yes there's a problem with private health care as well). It means that people like you will use this stop whatever behavior you find distasteful.
Let's ban an@l sex as it leads to more diseases and will raise health insurance rates.
Let's ban eating meat, or drinking coffee or whatever crosses your mind as you enhance government oppression and squash individual liberty under the guise of being helpful and reasonable.
Tyranny only leads to civil war. Think about how that will affect your insurance premiums.
Yes I'm not in favor of caveat emptor. I'm responding to the idea that cigarettes can be banned because someone doesn't like them. If that's the case lets ban alcohol, gay s3x, p0rn, and whatever else someone, somewhere finds offensive or bad for you.
Well. Either you own your own body or you don't. Either the government can tell you what you can do with it or they can't.
Anyone who is pro-choice on abortion but not on cigarettes, weed, cocaine and heroin are hypocrites.
I think I own my own body. Therefore I can smoke if I so chose. (And I did as a teenager because I was so fu&&ing cool.)
How about personal freedom. How about you have a right to your own body. If you can abort a fetus certainly you can decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette.
If I said - do x in return for y then yes I am giving an incentive (x) for action (y). But the incentive is explicit.
If a man rapes a woman with no incentive other than whats between his ears (thinking she's cute, thinking she is provocatively dressed, unattended by a husband or brother and therefore deserves to be raped). Then this man should rightfully be prosecuted for rape.
Someone can have a nice car parked on the street. I want it and think that the owner is mocking me therefore he is provoking me to key his car.
There is a difference between an agreement, an exchange, a quid pro quo, and the idle thoughts that go through someone's head.
If I think wouldn't it be cool to go fast and take pictures of drivin fast. It would make a great youtube video; I'll get tons of hits and get famous. Therefore if I get arrested for speeding I can sue Google for giving me incentive for speeding.
No. I don't think so.
This thinking is disgusting. No. You are responsible for your actions. Anything can be incentive.
Example:
I think your idea is stupid and that is incentive for me to slap you. Therefore you are responsible (or partly responsible) for the slap.
Or (a less funny more real life expample)
Someone finds a girl to be pretty. She's obviously "asking for it." Therefore she asked to be raped.
No. "Incentive" is not an excuse. People are responsible for their actions,
Of course. Get with the times. :-)
/sarc
And if people disagree with you then don't forget to demand a safe room to hide from all the mean criticism.
I'll look at that. Thanks for the link.
Re desalination - I hear a concern that the melting of the ice caps will add so much fresh water to the oceans that it will greatly lower the oceans salt levels causing all sorts of problems. It may be true. But wouldn't all the previous ice ages have removed fresh water (thus increasing the ocean salinity) and then these ice ages were followed by periods of global warming which would then decrease ocean salinity?
All the events occurred naturally.
Thank you. I'm not concerned about AGW but I am concerned about pollutants.
Thank you. I went there and read the article. :-)
/smile :-)
Howz that for a slashdotter?
First ice cores go back to 800,000 years. That's a good span of time in but still a short period geologically speaking. (For instance it appears that the 22 ice ages we've had over the last 2 million years exist due to continental drift altering ocean and wind currents.)
I'm not seeing (I am going through the links) any information on the frequency of the data points. Ideally we would be able to say that at 4:35 in the afternoon on May 4, -802,016 at latitude/longitude x/y the temperature was 72F.
Obviously we don't need things to be that accurate to determine climate change.
Interesting, if we look at the chart provided by the article we see that temperatures were higher at least 4 times over the last 450,000 years.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.o...
I don't attribute the Syrian civil war to global warming.. Was environmental degradation a part of the problem? Yes. But Turkey has been diverting river water for decades. Soviet style economies (Syria) are not very responsive to change or efficiencies. Desalination of the oceans, if they occur, would be a major upheaval. But would they be any worse than all 22 changes in the previous 2 million years? The only way to know that is to know if the rate of change over the last 100 yars (and next 100 years) is much (much) greater than it was earlier.
I don't see answers to that.
I saw people comparing the present to 1700 (a mini-ice age). That raised my bullshit meter. Then the present was compared to 1300 (oops that was the beginning of the medieval cold period; then Al Gore compared the top of the sine wave with a bottom. (Hello? Isn't this a High School mistake?)
My point is based on this -- If I am making a point, and I'm sure of it, I don't need to bullshit, or massage my data. The data speaks for itself. So? Why the bullshit? Is it all, simply, reporter error? And if it's all reporter error why aren't these reporters being corrected?
It's interesting that you're saying that records are accurate to 10-100 years. Is that true for ice cores from 500,000 years ago,. I understand that tree rings are accurate but that only goes back a few thousand years at most..
We can't because we don't know the variation within those years. What fluctuation happened? How many wild swings were there that we don't know of? We have averages of (say) 5000 years and we are comparing them with daily/yearly data points. The two do not even up.
Take a look a stocks chart on a minute, by minute basis and then look at the same stock on a 14 day moving average and then on a 30 day moving average. Each time you go out the chart becomes flatter and the gyrations become less prominent. The same thing holds true with temperature and CO2 levels.
Case in point - temperatures have risen and fallen over the last two million years (22 ice ages and the intervening global warming periods) without any human cause. CO2 levels have also risen and fallen.
I'm not saying don't pay attention to the environment. I'm just saying that there is a lot of bullsh!t when Al Gore and reporters pick things up and ignore basic methodology (such as comparing temperatures from peak to peak to peak of a repeating wave as opposed to cherry picking troughs and peaks.