That sounds good, until you see the quasi-religious fervor with which people like Bjorn Lomborg are publicly savaged when they dare to question the orthodoxy of AGW.
...is simply to be disconnected. That way, all the people tweeting stupid shit can pretend the rest of the universe cared about their idiotic crap, but then we don't actually have to read it, and they are in fact safe from the logical consequences of their inane comments.
"I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners."
Allies or Partners being...the DNC, at whose behest we're all playing along.
Exactly that. I was going to liken it to doing levels for games like Doom.
Back in the day, with QERadiant and an illegitimate copy of Photoshop, you could whip up a sweet little PVP quake level even with some custom textures in a half a day. And it looked fine, was fun, everyone was happy.
Now, with the AAA level standard we're all used to, anything you do in a half day is going to look like complete shit, for textures you practically need an art team, and you're going to spend weeks building the sorts of detail-intensive models that are now fundamental architecture in most levels. Who's got that sort of time?
A cheetah is genetically more than 99% identical to other cheetahs because they suffered not one, but TWO population bottlenecks where the population was wiped out but for a small number of breeding pairs - the first about 100k years ago, the second about 10k years ago. This leaves them all basically as related as identical twins.
Their doom isn't necessarily humans (at least, not any more than any other large predator) it's their lack of genetic diversity that means a local population can be devastated by a single nasty disease.
They may NOT be saveable, and it's only peripherally due to humans.
His reasoning is pretty flawed: "..."Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are," he tells the Times) But he also believes judges should consider the lack of emotional control when sentencing defendants..." You don't think that lack of emotional control *might* lead younger voters to be more easily manipulated with emotional appeals to vague concepts of what's "right"* and "fair"* and "just"* in precisely the same way that militaries around the world have appealed to the younger demographic with concepts of nationalism and pride?
*If you don't have an issue with it, please define these terms objectively.
Further, this research isn't really news, http://www.npr.org/templates/s... discussed back in 2010 that younger brains lack full connection between cause and effect.
So despite naked tendentiousness (younger voters vote STRONGLY liberal and in the US, democrat), the evidence would suggest that really the voting age should be raised to, say, 26 or so.
...because I'd rather get the DNC/Obama Admin "message of the day" directly first thing in the morning, instead of having to wait for it to filter through their shills and then social media.
...er, what does Uber (the corporation) actually spend money on to the tune of $800 million?
It's not like they're running the cars themselves - the owners pay for that.
I mean, their revenue trail seems pretty simple: Inflow: 1) payments from users Outflow A) payments to drivers (should be entirely covered by 1, with some left over) and B) maintaining the app & corporate overhead (salaries, etc for non-revenue-generating positions like accountants)
Dumb shit, read my link. He was asked the question, and he clearly confused it with someone asking something about the BORDER, and his reply has been cherry picked to induce your rage.
Remember, this is the NYT that famously decided that Trump was 'so dangerous' they should just set aside the norms of objectivity.
"âoePresident-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false," Jason Miller, Communications Director of the Presidential Transition Team, wrote in a statement. "The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama Administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe the President-elect will release his own vetting policies after he is sworn in.""
The article goes on to illustrate where the idea apparently came from, in a probably-misheard question during a rally.
From what I can see, a good 50% of the panic the left is feeling over the Trump presidency is being startled by THEIR OWN STRAWMEN.
So attacking 'random blogs and op eds' for what they are, and not arguing their proposed facts (I trust them by default no more than I do the AGW academics), is that the scientific equivalent of the lawyers' dictum: "if you can't argue the facts, attack the source"? Because it smells like it.
1) I never said the grant money gravy train is their motivation. I don't believe there is that much money in it either. Yet...the left has been peddling a constant stream of foretold disasters 'just around the corner' for my entire lifetime (50 years) - from peak oil, to mass starvation, to DDT, to the catastrophic danger of nuclear power, to ANYthing to do with Republicans in office, to imminent nuclear war, to climate change. Same chorus, different fucking verse. I don't care to speculate WHY they do it (I don't honestly care) but they've been hammering away INSISTING the sky is 'just about to fall any moment now if we don't (X) right away'.
2) You're certainly right in my experience, but I think you are either mistakenly or deliberately disregarding the omnipresent herd mentality in academia as well. Sure, *maybe* 1% will hit the academic jackpot of overturning some orthodoxy by discovering ulcers are bacterial or a reactionless drive that nobody can explain. 99% will go down in ignominy as fools (maybe to be validated someday, long after they're dead and don't care any more).
I'm not proposing any sort of vast left-wing conspiracy, I'm not HRC, seeing conspiracies instead of recognizing my own shortcomings. No, what I'm suggesting is that there are a number of factions on the left that, while they may not be singing explicitly from the same sheet of music, are certainly comfortable harmonizing together and seeking goals that are in the same ballpark. Combined with the echo-chamber of eco-marxist, hard-leftist academia in the US, it's certainly plausible without imagining some sort of coordinating cabal. It's really more the Left's thing to see the Koch brothers behind everything, or to posit some grey eminence pulling hypothetical strings (it was Cheney from 2000-2007). No, I think it's far easier to observe herd mentality, plus well-meaning but gullible, naive people, all very comfortable agreeing with each other.
And as far as AGW is concerned, I don't even honestly dispute it, because I don't really care. My position on it is much like Bjorn Lomborgs: there are a CRAPTON of more tangible, direct, better uses of resources to improve the lives of the poorest half of humanity than chasing some stupid AGW chimera to save 0.5 deg C over the next century. https://www.ted.com/talks/bjor...
"You've got a bunch of folks with PHds, usually with a heavy emphasis on math and statistics, but the implication I get again and again from folks is that they're somehow trying to cheat us all for the mountains of grant money."
Because it's been proved (at least as well as AGW)?
In case you're not following the money: 1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case one in Canada.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing more than $33 million. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries To untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result -- foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.
Subsequent drones should just have their anti-tampering system wired to a bunch of claymores.
I don't for a moment believe that this was as innocuous as the US purports, but then China's actions in the S China Sea are bullshittery of the highest order and need to be directly countered. The US should build an island there, too, PRECISELY like China is.
Frankly you're both right or wrong depending on how you look at it.
Raisey's response to the article and to its source was reasonably calling out their obvious agenda and use of biased language.
However, the word 'shattered' doesn't appear to have appeared in the original study (they used fragmented), so it was at least mostly scientific (again, with an agenda but not quite so inflammatory)
My objection to the original study would be their arbitrary addition of 1km margins to every road before calculating, which would obviously bias their resulting calculations. Does an unpaved logging road through a forest that gets used twice a year merit that?
Notice that the coverage has gone from Russians "hacking" the voting machines, to the subtly different "hacking" the elections, ie trying to manipulate the elections. This is of course as the plausibility of the DNCs original intimation of hacked voting machines falls after the WI recount.
In that EXACT same syntax, Martin Sheen's bitchfest video begging electors not to vote for Trump is trying to "hack" (ie manipulate) the election.
For that matter, why aren't we talking just as much about the $millions$ HRC took from Qatar and other Gulf States for her campaign? Weren't they trying to 'hack' the election in their much more direct and documented way?
That doesn't really make sense as a comparison? Watergate break ins were not really about the documents, but about the planting of listening devices, or the replacement of broken ones.
They planned to photograph some campaign docs, but I'd guess that these were of value only in the short-term context of the campaign and not really otherwise interesting.
Read the article, it (as far as I checked, correctly) notes that her 'fact checking' is more cheerleading than empirical, and that things she says are "incorrect facts" (and on which, ostensibly the validity of an article is measured) are merely opinions.
I'm not saying Dailycaller is any great shakes but of the points they referenced, they got correct.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds good, until you see the quasi-religious fervor with which people like Bjorn Lomborg are publicly savaged when they dare to question the orthodoxy of AGW.
...they've just started that campaign against "Fake News"?
...is simply to be disconnected.
That way, all the people tweeting stupid shit can pretend the rest of the universe cared about their idiotic crap, but then we don't actually have to read it, and they are in fact safe from the logical consequences of their inane comments.
Everybody wins.
"I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners."
Allies or Partners being ...the DNC, at whose behest we're all playing along.
Exactly that.
I was going to liken it to doing levels for games like Doom.
Back in the day, with QERadiant and an illegitimate copy of Photoshop, you could whip up a sweet little PVP quake level even with some custom textures in a half a day. And it looked fine, was fun, everyone was happy.
Now, with the AAA level standard we're all used to, anything you do in a half day is going to look like complete shit, for textures you practically need an art team, and you're going to spend weeks building the sorts of detail-intensive models that are now fundamental architecture in most levels. Who's got that sort of time?
" I can believe that no matter how badly Apple treats it's faithful, they'll just keep giving Apple money."
Isn't that the way with pretty much every religion?
You missed the "...not any more than any other large predator..." part?
A cheetah is genetically more than 99% identical to other cheetahs because they suffered not one, but TWO population bottlenecks where the population was wiped out but for a small number of breeding pairs - the first about 100k years ago, the second about 10k years ago. This leaves them all basically as related as identical twins.
Their doom isn't necessarily humans (at least, not any more than any other large predator) it's their lack of genetic diversity that means a local population can be devastated by a single nasty disease.
They may NOT be saveable, and it's only peripherally due to humans.
His reasoning is pretty flawed: ..."
"..."Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are," he tells the Times) But he also believes judges should consider the lack of emotional control when sentencing defendants
You don't think that lack of emotional control *might* lead younger voters to be more easily manipulated with emotional appeals to vague concepts of what's "right"* and "fair"* and "just"* in precisely the same way that militaries around the world have appealed to the younger demographic with concepts of nationalism and pride?
*If you don't have an issue with it, please define these terms objectively.
Further, this research isn't really news, http://www.npr.org/templates/s... discussed back in 2010 that younger brains lack full connection between cause and effect.
So despite naked tendentiousness (younger voters vote STRONGLY liberal and in the US, democrat), the evidence would suggest that really the voting age should be raised to, say, 26 or so.
...because I'd rather get the DNC/Obama Admin "message of the day" directly first thing in the morning, instead of having to wait for it to filter through their shills and then social media.
Thanks!
...er, what does Uber (the corporation) actually spend money on to the tune of $800 million?
It's not like they're running the cars themselves - the owners pay for that.
I mean, their revenue trail seems pretty simple:
Inflow:
1) payments from users
Outflow
A) payments to drivers (should be entirely covered by 1, with some left over) and
B) maintaining the app & corporate overhead (salaries, etc for non-revenue-generating positions like accountants)
Dumb shit, read my link.
He was asked the question, and he clearly confused it with someone asking something about the BORDER, and his reply has been cherry picked to induce your rage.
Remember, this is the NYT that famously decided that Trump was 'so dangerous' they should just set aside the norms of objectivity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...?
Think about that next time one of their stories seems to confirm your bias.
Seriously, how much of your own kool-aide can you drink?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
(warning, bs autoplaying video)
"âoePresident-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false," Jason Miller, Communications Director of the Presidential Transition Team, wrote in a statement. "The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama Administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe the President-elect will release his own vetting policies after he is sworn in.""
The article goes on to illustrate where the idea apparently came from, in a probably-misheard question during a rally.
From what I can see, a good 50% of the panic the left is feeling over the Trump presidency is being startled by THEIR OWN STRAWMEN.
So attacking 'random blogs and op eds' for what they are, and not arguing their proposed facts (I trust them by default no more than I do the AGW academics), is that the scientific equivalent of the lawyers' dictum: "if you can't argue the facts, attack the source"? Because it smells like it.
1) I never said the grant money gravy train is their motivation. I don't believe there is that much money in it either. Yet...the left has been peddling a constant stream of foretold disasters 'just around the corner' for my entire lifetime (50 years) - from peak oil, to mass starvation, to DDT, to the catastrophic danger of nuclear power, to ANYthing to do with Republicans in office, to imminent nuclear war, to climate change. Same chorus, different fucking verse. I don't care to speculate WHY they do it (I don't honestly care) but they've been hammering away INSISTING the sky is 'just about to fall any moment now if we don't (X) right away'.
2) You're certainly right in my experience, but I think you are either mistakenly or deliberately disregarding the omnipresent herd mentality in academia as well. Sure, *maybe* 1% will hit the academic jackpot of overturning some orthodoxy by discovering ulcers are bacterial or a reactionless drive that nobody can explain. 99% will go down in ignominy as fools (maybe to be validated someday, long after they're dead and don't care any more).
I'm not proposing any sort of vast left-wing conspiracy, I'm not HRC, seeing conspiracies instead of recognizing my own shortcomings.
No, what I'm suggesting is that there are a number of factions on the left that, while they may not be singing explicitly from the same sheet of music, are certainly comfortable harmonizing together and seeking goals that are in the same ballpark. Combined with the echo-chamber of eco-marxist, hard-leftist academia in the US, it's certainly plausible without imagining some sort of coordinating cabal. It's really more the Left's thing to see the Koch brothers behind everything, or to posit some grey eminence pulling hypothetical strings (it was Cheney from 2000-2007).
No, I think it's far easier to observe herd mentality, plus well-meaning but gullible, naive people, all very comfortable agreeing with each other.
And as far as AGW is concerned, I don't even honestly dispute it, because I don't really care. My position on it is much like Bjorn Lomborgs: there are a CRAPTON of more tangible, direct, better uses of resources to improve the lives of the poorest half of humanity than chasing some stupid AGW chimera to save 0.5 deg C over the next century.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bjor...
"You've got a bunch of folks with PHds, usually with a heavy emphasis on math and statistics, but the implication I get again and again from folks is that they're somehow trying to cheat us all for the mountains of grant money."
Because it's been proved (at least as well as AGW)?
- http://a-sceptical-mind.com/th... That trickey 'hockey stick' graph that so motivated the world?
- http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.... "We don't have the original climate data"
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com... and
- https://notalotofpeopleknowtha... Massive, and repeated 'creative' manipulation of the data;
>How does a donation to a charitable foundation turn into a campaign donation?
Simple, when there is no firewall whatsoever between the 'charitable foundation'* and the campaign.
*charitable, mainly, for the Clintons; for example https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
In case you're not following the money:
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case one in Canada.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing more than $33 million. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries To untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result -- foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.
Is ANYONE (aside from CNN and the NYT) buying this bullshit?
Subsequent drones should just have their anti-tampering system wired to a bunch of claymores.
I don't for a moment believe that this was as innocuous as the US purports, but then China's actions in the S China Sea are bullshittery of the highest order and need to be directly countered. The US should build an island there, too, PRECISELY like China is.
Frankly you're both right or wrong depending on how you look at it.
Raisey's response to the article and to its source was reasonably calling out their obvious agenda and use of biased language.
However, the word 'shattered' doesn't appear to have appeared in the original study (they used fragmented), so it was at least mostly scientific (again, with an agenda but not quite so inflammatory)
My objection to the original study would be their arbitrary addition of 1km margins to every road before calculating, which would obviously bias their resulting calculations. Does an unpaved logging road through a forest that gets used twice a year merit that?
Notice that the coverage has gone from Russians "hacking" the voting machines, to the subtly different "hacking" the elections, ie trying to manipulate the elections. This is of course as the plausibility of the DNCs original intimation of hacked voting machines falls after the WI recount.
In that EXACT same syntax, Martin Sheen's bitchfest video begging electors not to vote for Trump is trying to "hack" (ie manipulate) the election.
For that matter, why aren't we talking just as much about the $millions$ HRC took from Qatar and other Gulf States for her campaign? Weren't they trying to 'hack' the election in their much more direct and documented way?
That doesn't really make sense as a comparison?
Watergate break ins were not really about the documents, but about the planting of listening devices, or the replacement of broken ones.
They planned to photograph some campaign docs, but I'd guess that these were of value only in the short-term context of the campaign and not really otherwise interesting.
Read the article, it (as far as I checked, correctly) notes that her 'fact checking' is more cheerleading than empirical, and that things she says are "incorrect facts" (and on which, ostensibly the validity of an article is measured) are merely opinions.
I'm not saying Dailycaller is any great shakes but of the points they referenced, they got correct.
1) any system allowing people to flag things as false news will be bias driven. "Oh, it says X is a liar, that's not true, so (flag)"!
2) Snopes? http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...
Let's all remember, evolution is largely driven by women's choices in reproduction.
Who the fuck is "racing to e-cash"?
"Cash has lost its credibility"
To whom? Bureaucrats? Banks? The NSA?
This sounds very much like that contrived "Internet of Things" we're supposed to all need.