Land a probe on a comet? Fuck no, your shirt is sexist.
It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.
Two dudes joking over dongles? That's rape culture.
That was a (maybe not-so) tragic lesson for both the guy and the woman who got fired. She made a big deal over nothing, the company fired the one developer because he embarrassed the company and they already wanted to fire him (a sane employer wouldn't fire a good employee over a single minor incident), and the woman got fired for the backlash her actions caused (and rightly so, she deliberately and publicly made a fuss over a private conversation).
So I guess what I'm saying is if these are your biggest grievances, you should spend more time thinking about how good things must be for you, because if these pathetic examples of injustice are the biggest problems facing you, you don't have any problems at all.
Once the child is born, both parents are "forced" into "servitude for years" regardless of gender. However, since the woman has to spend 9 months as an incubator she gets final say on whether the child is born.
That is, of course, until we have early term fetus life support systems, in which case the man should be able to opt to become the sole parent if the woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy. Presumably, if that were possible, then a court could order that the woman pay parental support to the man.
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
Uh, what? If you outlaw abortion under ANY terms, women ARE forced to be incubators. Your comment no logic.
Drinky, you need to read closely, the claim is that abortion should be outlawed if and only if, the state outlawing abortion can (without risking the life of the pregnant woman), remove the fetus. Once the fetus is removed, it is then becomes the duty of the state to maintain and grow the fetus using whatever incubator technology they have available.
The second poster claims that position is not libertarian, presumably because he assumes the first poster was talking about forcing all women to give up their pregnancies. I believe the original poster was saying that if the state wishes to pass a law that someone (or something) must be kept alive, then the state also has to be prepared to pay all of the costs (and I'm not just talking about monetary costs) associated with such a law.
The real point was that a Libertarian government should only outlaw abortion when the fetus can be safely removed and raised. Because if the fetus can't be raised external to the woman, then it's tantamount to abortion and if the fetus can't be removed then it's tantamount to a legal form of slavery for women. However, when the fetus can be removed from the woman in a non-abortive procedure, the fetus would become a ward of the state and the woman would no longer has any say in the life (or lack thereof) of the fetus because it is no longer a part of her body (and had been removed at her request). The prohibition on abortion then becomes a prohibition that prevents the attending physician from destroying the fetus after removal, which would actually be consistent with standard libertarian values.
Only a related note, if we outlawed abortion except for rape victims, you and I both know that virtually every rape victim would be challenged in court to make sure it was really rape. I mean, it was just a year or two ago that we had an American congressman opine that there weren't really any children born from rape because a woman couldn't actually get pregnant from "real" rape.
In the end, we can't have nice things because too much money is being spent on harassing and haranguing the victims of tragedy and not enough on developing the technology we actually need to make things better.
No, they are a fact. The don't become fiction because you don't like the results.
Gore never requested one.
I didn't say they did. However, at least one of Gore's lawyers said they were in the process of requesting one, when the Florida Supreme court ordered it be done anyway.
The Florida courts only ordered a partial recount of undervotes.
False, the U.S. Supreme court stopped a state-wide recount where the judge had ordered that over-votes also be counted.
The media never had all ballots to do an actual complete statewide recount, thousands of troublesome ballots were never delivered to the media.
I doubt the veracity of that statement, and a quick bit of research turned up nothing to corroborate the claim. It is likely to be false.
But it is somewhat amusing to watch the racists and the feminists fight over it,
If it turns out the "racists" are correct in some fashion [gatestoneinstitute.org], does that make them "racists"?
Fortunately for everyone but the racists, their claims are not even close to true. For example, the very prominent claim of a 300% increase in violent crime since 1975, does not seem to be born out by actual data, which seems to show a modest decrease in crime over that time period.
Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.
Actually, the smart kid figures out that all the pieces go in very quickly if you take the top off...
You missed the words "state-wide" in that sentence. The state-wide recounts showed Gore winning under all of the state-wide recount scenarios (there were other recount scenarios that weren't state-wide that Gore would have lost). Now Gore hadn't (yet) requested state wide recounts, although I remember reading an article where one of Gore's campaign lawyers said they were in the process of requesting a state-wide recount when the case was appealed to the supreme court. Apparently, you need to request a recount in each county individually in Florida, there is no way to request a state-wide recount directly.
Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.
I'm not even American, and I know that's not what the actual investigations showed. They showed that Gore would have won under a state-wide recount, but that a recount of just the precincts that had obvious problems would have still left Bush with a very narrow lead.
Other, some would say civilised, countries have rules that say when the result is that close it is mandatory to do a recount by hand with scrutineers from all interested parties present to verify the count, so that there is not even the appearance of corruption in their elections.
So basically, you're saying you expect there to be no acceptable candidates for any party ever (or any acceptable independents), and that the victor will always be the person acclaimed when the people are too tired of election campaigns to vote "none of the above" any more?
You would think that in subsequent rounds new candidates that aren't terribly might decide, hey, that position is up for grabs, maybe say to themselves "Hey, maybe I can get elected by not being completely terrible". I know, it's a long shot that anyone running for any political office for any reasons, in any time, or any place, could actually not be terrible, but for just a moment, let us live the dream...
You seem to be extraordinarily concerned with getting people into power that somehow "represent" the population. But there is no way of doing that.
Are you sure about that? Because that's exactly what pretty much every voting system other than First Past the Post (plurality) does. It seeks to guarantee that the candidate that the electorate prefers gets elected and not the leading candidate that the electorate least dislikes. That's what "represent the population" means. It means that in a single seat elections, the candidate that the electorate most prefers wins, and in multiple seat elections, that the make up of the body of elected representatives resembles (within a certain granularity) the preferences of the electorate.
I'm not sure I understand how you can claim "there is no way of doing that" when there are clearly multiple different ways of doing that with differing results that we can evaluate. Maybe you need to watch the other videos on that page too...
Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.
I'm afraid that's not the case, the people using 1997 are the same charlatans who used to use 1998. Here's the key thing thing, they're choosing the start point so they can get the trend they want. It's literally the opposite of science, they have conclusions and they just trying things until they find something that looks like it supports their conclusion.
I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.
That should be informative for you, then. You searched for "temperature graph 1997" and the first person you found is a raging climate change denier.
I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point.
I don't actually need to do that, I already know why they did it, so they could claim that there's no warming trend. The fact that the author is transparently incompetent just makes his bumbling more amusing.
I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.
But he didn't say that, he asked if Jane Q. Public had ever used 1998 in an argument to claim that there had been no warming. I can't be bothered to look for it, but I'm pretty certain she has and the AC has her dead to rights on using a double-standard, when El Nino years are exception when they show things she doesn't want to see and normal when they show what she does want to see.
You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.
I didn't mention that the start and end temperatures are also obviously mislabelled as well to claim that there isn't a warming trend despite it being obvious that there is one. There are just so many errors in that graph...
But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.
They started a trend line on 1998, 1998 was one of the strongest El Ninos on record, 2004-2005 was one of weakest. If you start a trend line on an outlier, you will always get a deceptive result, so yes, it is clearly a case of "global warming doesn't exist because of 1998".
with the end result being that he has earned money at about the same rate as the market average.
If the previous statement was true, then he went from zero to billionaire in about 20 years. That's better than any market I know of.
I would hazard that it is not. Trump, despite his appearance and behaviour, isn't a complete idiot. He knows enough to incorporate all his businesses with limited liability. So maybe, if you had totaled up all of the debt that his companies had and subtracted that from Trump's net worth, it might have been negative, but his own wealth has always been legally protected from creditors, so that statement was would likely be more truthy than true, if it's not outright out-and-out false.
Frankly, your personal observations may be subservient to what you expect to see. The changes from climate change are generally going to be so gradual that you may not even notice that you've moved the bar.
On the other hand, each poorly sited thermometer contributes little to the overall average because there are thousands of thermometers. On the other hand, one error on the interpretation or measurement by a satellite (and there have been many such errors discovered so far) and you significantly disrupt the entire temperature series because there are only a handful of satellites.
Let me play devil's advocate here. Exactly this. We are still coming out of an ice age, of course temperatures are going up!
This is a bit interesting, because I think you mean we are coming out of a glacial period, where there are continent glaciers across most of the earth. But that would be wrong, because we would be headed toward a new glacial period without the human temperature effect. The recovery from a glacial period is relatively short, a few centuries to a thousand years, and occurred around 15,000 years ago. The recovery is followed by a long and slow decline that eventually triggers a new glacial period. We would be on that long slow decline for several thousand more years, except the human warming signal is completely overwhelming the natural signal. It's so overwhelmed, in fact, that for the first time in around 2.58 million of years, we may actually be coming out of the ice age. So that part of your sentence was unintentionally correct, but when combined with the second part, it's wrong. The correct statement would be: "Temperatures are going up so much, that we are coming out of the ice age."
The real question is how hot was it before the start of the previous ice age ? Shame no one ever mentions that bit of data, do they even have it ?
No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.
Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.
Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.
Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all? Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?
No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".
On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".
As far as I understand, Trump went from rich to richer, with no period of bankruptcy at any point in his career. His companies, however, have an above-average rate of filing for bankruptcy protection. Apparently, there is some disagreement over whether Trump would have faired better or worse if he had invested his money in the stock market, with the end result being that he has earned money at about the same rate as the market average.
The point being that Trump's actual performance is average, except when it comes to bragging about himself, where he is an outstanding success.
I'd have to say in all my many interactions with people involved with Gamergate, "pro good journalism", "socially liberal", "left politically", "pro gay rights", "feminists" and "anti-racist" are all adjectives I have yet to see any evidence for. When I specifically went looking to find out more about GG people I found basically libertarian douche-bags with far-right views who don't want to see women (unless they're scantily dressed), gays or minorities represented in the games they play.
That might be a bit harsh, because not all the Gamergate people are like, however, most are, in my experience. The rest are either so clueless that they don't see what the others are like, or they seem to be in denial about it.
All you have to do is the read the rest of the comments in this thread to see for yourself, form whining about SJWs to claiming that there's no such thing as "privilege", it's a right-wing bitchfest.
Gamergate has apparently pulled a bunch of gamers into the right-wing bubble universe where everything is the fault of minorities and the people who don't hate them.
I looked at the entry and it's in "Non-final action", which could mean that Sony has been handed the preliminary judgement and now has to decide whether to accept it or appeal the judgement? I'm not familiar with the Trademark process so I'm guessing here. However, the story from the PC Mag site seems pretty plausible. The "Let'z Play" trademark appears to be in the same domain as Sony's "Let's Play" trademark would be, if it were approved.
Slashdot Mirror
Land a probe on a comet? Fuck no, your shirt is sexist.
It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.
Two dudes joking over dongles? That's rape culture.
That was a (maybe not-so) tragic lesson for both the guy and the woman who got fired. She made a big deal over nothing, the company fired the one developer because he embarrassed the company and they already wanted to fire him (a sane employer wouldn't fire a good employee over a single minor incident), and the woman got fired for the backlash her actions caused (and rightly so, she deliberately and publicly made a fuss over a private conversation).
So I guess what I'm saying is if these are your biggest grievances, you should spend more time thinking about how good things must be for you, because if these pathetic examples of injustice are the biggest problems facing you, you don't have any problems at all.
Once the child is born, both parents are "forced" into "servitude for years" regardless of gender. However, since the woman has to spend 9 months as an incubator she gets final say on whether the child is born.
That is, of course, until we have early term fetus life support systems, in which case the man should be able to opt to become the sole parent if the woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy. Presumably, if that were possible, then a court could order that the woman pay parental support to the man.
Hurray for equality!
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
Uh, what? If you outlaw abortion under ANY terms, women ARE forced to be incubators. Your comment no logic.
Drinky, you need to read closely, the claim is that abortion should be outlawed if and only if, the state outlawing abortion can (without risking the life of the pregnant woman), remove the fetus. Once the fetus is removed, it is then becomes the duty of the state to maintain and grow the fetus using whatever incubator technology they have available.
The second poster claims that position is not libertarian, presumably because he assumes the first poster was talking about forcing all women to give up their pregnancies. I believe the original poster was saying that if the state wishes to pass a law that someone (or something) must be kept alive, then the state also has to be prepared to pay all of the costs (and I'm not just talking about monetary costs) associated with such a law.
The real point was that a Libertarian government should only outlaw abortion when the fetus can be safely removed and raised. Because if the fetus can't be raised external to the woman, then it's tantamount to abortion and if the fetus can't be removed then it's tantamount to a legal form of slavery for women. However, when the fetus can be removed from the woman in a non-abortive procedure, the fetus would become a ward of the state and the woman would no longer has any say in the life (or lack thereof) of the fetus because it is no longer a part of her body (and had been removed at her request). The prohibition on abortion then becomes a prohibition that prevents the attending physician from destroying the fetus after removal, which would actually be consistent with standard libertarian values.
Only a related note, if we outlawed abortion except for rape victims, you and I both know that virtually every rape victim would be challenged in court to make sure it was really rape. I mean, it was just a year or two ago that we had an American congressman opine that there weren't really any children born from rape because a woman couldn't actually get pregnant from "real" rape.
In the end, we can't have nice things because too much money is being spent on harassing and haranguing the victims of tragedy and not enough on developing the technology we actually need to make things better.
The state-wide recounts are a fiction.
No, they are a fact. The don't become fiction because you don't like the results.
Gore never requested one.
I didn't say they did. However, at least one of Gore's lawyers said they were in the process of requesting one, when the Florida Supreme court ordered it be done anyway.
The Florida courts only ordered a partial recount of undervotes.
False, the U.S. Supreme court stopped a state-wide recount where the judge had ordered that over-votes also be counted.
The media never had all ballots to do an actual complete statewide recount, thousands of troublesome ballots were never delivered to the media.
I doubt the veracity of that statement, and a quick bit of research turned up nothing to corroborate the claim. It is likely to be false.
But it is somewhat amusing to watch the racists and the feminists fight over it,
If it turns out the "racists" are correct in some fashion [gatestoneinstitute.org], does that make them "racists"?
Fortunately for everyone but the racists, their claims are not even close to true. For example, the very prominent claim of a 300% increase in violent crime since 1975, does not seem to be born out by actual data, which seems to show a modest decrease in crime over that time period.
Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.
Actually, the smart kid figures out that all the pieces go in very quickly if you take the top off...
You missed the words "state-wide" in that sentence. The state-wide recounts showed Gore winning under all of the state-wide recount scenarios (there were other recount scenarios that weren't state-wide that Gore would have lost). Now Gore hadn't (yet) requested state wide recounts, although I remember reading an article where one of Gore's campaign lawyers said they were in the process of requesting a state-wide recount when the case was appealed to the supreme court. Apparently, you need to request a recount in each county individually in Florida, there is no way to request a state-wide recount directly.
Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.
I'm not even American, and I know that's not what the actual investigations showed. They showed that Gore would have won under a state-wide recount, but that a recount of just the precincts that had obvious problems would have still left Bush with a very narrow lead.
Other, some would say civilised, countries have rules that say when the result is that close it is mandatory to do a recount by hand with scrutineers from all interested parties present to verify the count, so that there is not even the appearance of corruption in their elections.
So basically, you're saying you expect there to be no acceptable candidates for any party ever (or any acceptable independents), and that the victor will always be the person acclaimed when the people are too tired of election campaigns to vote "none of the above" any more?
You would think that in subsequent rounds new candidates that aren't terribly might decide, hey, that position is up for grabs, maybe say to themselves "Hey, maybe I can get elected by not being completely terrible". I know, it's a long shot that anyone running for any political office for any reasons, in any time, or any place, could actually not be terrible, but for just a moment, let us live the dream...
You seem to be extraordinarily concerned with getting people into power that somehow "represent" the population. But there is no way of doing that.
Are you sure about that? Because that's exactly what pretty much every voting system other than First Past the Post (plurality) does. It seeks to guarantee that the candidate that the electorate prefers gets elected and not the leading candidate that the electorate least dislikes. That's what "represent the population" means. It means that in a single seat elections, the candidate that the electorate most prefers wins, and in multiple seat elections, that the make up of the body of elected representatives resembles (within a certain granularity) the preferences of the electorate.
I'm not sure I understand how you can claim "there is no way of doing that" when there are clearly multiple different ways of doing that with differing results that we can evaluate. Maybe you need to watch the other videos on that page too...
Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.
I'm afraid that's not the case, the people using 1997 are the same charlatans who used to use 1998. Here's the key thing thing, they're choosing the start point so they can get the trend they want. It's literally the opposite of science, they have conclusions and they just trying things until they find something that looks like it supports their conclusion.
I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.
That should be informative for you, then. You searched for "temperature graph 1997" and the first person you found is a raging climate change denier.
I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point.
I don't actually need to do that, I already know why they did it, so they could claim that there's no warming trend. The fact that the author is transparently incompetent just makes his bumbling more amusing.
I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.
But he didn't say that, he asked if Jane Q. Public had ever used 1998 in an argument to claim that there had been no warming. I can't be bothered to look for it, but I'm pretty certain she has and the AC has her dead to rights on using a double-standard, when El Nino years are exception when they show things she doesn't want to see and normal when they show what she does want to see.
You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.
I didn't mention that the start and end temperatures are also obviously mislabelled as well to claim that there isn't a warming trend despite it being obvious that there is one. There are just so many errors in that graph...
But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.
They started a trend line on 1998, 1998 was one of the strongest El Ninos on record, 2004-2005 was one of weakest. If you start a trend line on an outlier, you will always get a deceptive result, so yes, it is clearly a case of "global warming doesn't exist because of 1998".
with the end result being that he has earned money at about the same rate as the market average.
If the previous statement was true, then he went from zero to billionaire in about 20 years. That's better than any market I know of.
I would hazard that it is not. Trump, despite his appearance and behaviour, isn't a complete idiot. He knows enough to incorporate all his businesses with limited liability. So maybe, if you had totaled up all of the debt that his companies had and subtracted that from Trump's net worth, it might have been negative, but his own wealth has always been legally protected from creditors, so that statement was would likely be more truthy than true, if it's not outright out-and-out false.
Leftist activists trying to promote foist their hippy lifestyle on the rest of us.
Damn those hippy Koch brothers!. Get a hair cut!
Frankly, your personal observations may be subservient to what you expect to see. The changes from climate change are generally going to be so gradual that you may not even notice that you've moved the bar.
On the other hand, each poorly sited thermometer contributes little to the overall average because there are thousands of thermometers. On the other hand, one error on the interpretation or measurement by a satellite (and there have been many such errors discovered so far) and you significantly disrupt the entire temperature series because there are only a handful of satellites.
He's bored, and doing it just so he can do the theatrical reveal during his acceptance speech.
And the diabolical laugh too, of course...
Let me play devil's advocate here. Exactly this. We are still coming out of an ice age, of course temperatures are going up!
This is a bit interesting, because I think you mean we are coming out of a glacial period, where there are continent glaciers across most of the earth. But that would be wrong, because we would be headed toward a new glacial period without the human temperature effect. The recovery from a glacial period is relatively short, a few centuries to a thousand years, and occurred around 15,000 years ago. The recovery is followed by a long and slow decline that eventually triggers a new glacial period. We would be on that long slow decline for several thousand more years, except the human warming signal is completely overwhelming the natural signal. It's so overwhelmed, in fact, that for the first time in around 2.58 million of years, we may actually be coming out of the ice age. So that part of your sentence was unintentionally correct, but when combined with the second part, it's wrong. The correct statement would be: "Temperatures are going up so much, that we are coming out of the ice age."
The real question is how hot was it before the start of the previous ice age ? Shame no one ever mentions that bit of data, do they even have it ?
They do, whether you mean glacial period or ice age.
No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.
Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.
Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.
Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all? Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?
No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".
On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".
As far as I understand, Trump went from rich to richer, with no period of bankruptcy at any point in his career. His companies, however, have an above-average rate of filing for bankruptcy protection. Apparently, there is some disagreement over whether Trump would have faired better or worse if he had invested his money in the stock market, with the end result being that he has earned money at about the same rate as the market average.
The point being that Trump's actual performance is average, except when it comes to bragging about himself, where he is an outstanding success.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken
Or maybe False Consensus?
I'd have to say in all my many interactions with people involved with Gamergate, "pro good journalism", "socially liberal", "left politically", "pro gay rights", "feminists" and "anti-racist" are all adjectives I have yet to see any evidence for. When I specifically went looking to find out more about GG people I found basically libertarian douche-bags with far-right views who don't want to see women (unless they're scantily dressed), gays or minorities represented in the games they play.
That might be a bit harsh, because not all the Gamergate people are like, however, most are, in my experience. The rest are either so clueless that they don't see what the others are like, or they seem to be in denial about it.
All you have to do is the read the rest of the comments in this thread to see for yourself, form whining about SJWs to claiming that there's no such thing as "privilege", it's a right-wing bitchfest.
Gamergate has apparently pulled a bunch of gamers into the right-wing bubble universe where everything is the fault of minorities and the people who don't hate them.
I looked at the entry and it's in "Non-final action", which could mean that Sony has been handed the preliminary judgement and now has to decide whether to accept it or appeal the judgement? I'm not familiar with the Trademark process so I'm guessing here. However, the story from the PC Mag site seems pretty plausible. The "Let'z Play" trademark appears to be in the same domain as Sony's "Let's Play" trademark would be, if it were approved.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.