No... because less than 1 percent of 1 percent of that generation actually knows enough to even begin to cop to that claim.
So if you're argument is that 1 percent of 1 percent of that generation knows lots. I agree.
However, that is a politically insignificant portion of the population and so can be ignored if we are talking about POLITICS.
And we are... so I can. And I just did.
What is beyond obvious to even the most limited of semi humans is that the current generation is more fluent with new technology than the previous generation.
And you can see that in many different ways. But on topic, you can see that in political statistics that show young people as being more in favor of less NSA bullshit and the older generation being actively supportive of it.
Now, if you actually explain to the older generation what is happening, they tend to change their views.
I was talking to a 75 year old man the other day and he was for the whole NSA thing. He thought Snowden was a traitor... etc. I explained what actually happened... and because this fellow trusted me, he took my word for it on several things that he would have required proof for if we didn't have that bond of trust.
The reality of the matter is that on many of these issues, the older generations simply don't know what the fuck is going on. They are echo chambered into establishment media sources that are misleading them. And because they generally don't feel comfortable stepping outside of that box, they're are more easily manipulated by certain types of media manipulation.
The younger generations are likewise open to manipulation but of a different kind and generally with less uniform success because the media landscape at that level is more fragmented.
As to systemic bias, no more so than any other source. CNN, the BBC, PBS, the NYTs, The LA Times, the Guardian... etc. They all have their bias.
What is more, you're mostly reacting to the editorials on fox etc because their actual facts are the same as everyone else's facts. The facts are not in dispute.
And I should point out that pretty much the ENTIRE media has turned on hillary not just the right wing media.
The New York Times has turned on her and so has MSNBC.
Beyond that, you can't cite bias in this case because they're releasing RAW information.
You literally cannot with ANY credibility cite bias. So when you cite bias YOUR credibility is damaged because it is literally impossible.
And since you did do that... and you still don't realize it... that damages your credibility FURTHER.
Frankly, all the credibility you had was credibility gifted to you out of common courtesy. Given that you've proven that you are personally unworthy of it... I'm going to just conclude you're a fruitcake and move on.
Really, all the countries in the Euro zone should be on their own currencies.
Responsible governments will have low inflation and low interest rates.
Irresponsible governments will have high inflation and high interest rates.
In this way, those governments can continue to borrow money as much as they want. The interest rates will just go up.
And the governments will respond by jacking up inflation rates basically making their own people pay higher taxes by lowering the value of their money.... that difference in value being mostly used to pay off debt from the borrowing.
What is fun about this tax is that it is regressive. It doesn't impact the rich or corporations because they don't keep large amounts of money in cash. They keep their wealth in assets which do not depreciate with the currency. It mostly hurts poor people or anyone that has their money in cash. And that is sort of fair because the very people the entitlements are going to tend to be people at the bottom of society in any case.
So you're sort of taxing the people you're giving benefits to and that's reasonable.
Something I'd like to see is for all governments to have two currencies.
The first being a trade currency which most people would use for buying things and wages etc... but then have a debt currency for the government to borrow in.
The idea here is that you don't what to give the government an incentive to inflate the trade currency. If the government can only lower its debts by inflating the debt currency than they'll be less inclined to inflate the trade currency.
As to crowd sourcing information, in what way is that a bad way to do it?
As to crowdsourcing being an inherently right wing activity, explain how that is the case? it is more common of the open source kickstarter world than anything.
You're really just sounding like a closed minded bigot here... Just fyi. You might want to watch that least you actually become a bigot. And you'll regret that and hate yourself eventually.
Just trying to spare you some regret and the occasional humiliation.
As to the credibility of the WSJ, in what way are they not credible? If neither MSNBC nor the NYTs are left enough for you than what remains? Pravda? Tell me what you consider a credible news source so I can laugh at you.
And yet it would be a fallacy to say a stop clock has the wrong time. You don't know that. You also don't know that a working clock has the correct time. A working clock could have the wrong time always.
In fact, a working clock almost always has the wrong time and never has the right time. At least not to the second. But a stopped clock will be 100 percent accurate for two seconds out of the day.
Again... this is just simple logic and you either understand simple logic or I have to educate you which would require some humility from you and patience from me. Since neither is likely to happen... if you do not understand BASIC logic then I'm going to just deem you irrational by definition and move on.
If you DO grasp basic logic then you understand what is and is not a fallacy.
What is more, you've not established that fox etc is a stopped watch. In fact, the vast majority of what is printed even by very biased sources is entirely accurate. What changes is the framing of the discussion more than anything. The actual FACTS tend to be accurate.
So if you don't like fox, what you actually don't like is the way they frame a story.
Okay.
But in this case there is no framing. It is the literal raw data without context.
So you can't cite bias. Literally cannot. That you did merely speaks poorly for YOUR bias.
When someone releases RAW data and you claim bias... you're the bigot.;)
Make your own topic and wait for me to join it and then you can get upset when I don't get on YOUR topic. You commented on MY comment which put the context in my context.
If you just randomly join a thread and then start talking about shit that isn't even related to what the previous posts are about, do not be surprised when people do not follow down your tangents.
As to WSJ being non-credible... tell us MR AC why is that?
You do realize that they're saying the same thing on this issue that the New York Times and MSNBC are saying right? There is no political division in so far as the facts are concerned here. The left wing media is turning on hillary. Its already over. All that remains is stripping anyone in her coalition dumb enough to think they can shrug this off of any remaining credibility. This is going to get uglier and uglier. And you're not going to be able to count on any credible media allies to back you up. The establishment media has already abandoned you. And most leftwing alternative media has also abandoned you. That includes politico and huffington post. Its over.
Do as your allies already did... turn on hillary and save what remains of your credibility. If you don't... you'll just lose.
Honestly, I hope as many of you refuse to listen to that sage advice as possible. It will just make the political bloodbath to come all the more complete.;)
I'm starting to understand why fire axes are so popular in the zombie apocalypse... they don't run out of ammo. These people are so fucking stupid. They just come at me drooling all over themselves while chewing their own tongues. I load another shell of logic into my boomstick of reason... blow the top of their rotten face off with an obvious fatal counter argument... then cock another logic shell and move on.
No. Tautology means you're defining a given with itself.
If I say someone is a thief because they're a thief then that is tautology.
It is a kind of circular logic.
You're saying news corp is untrustworthy... this is a given from you. You're not offering any justification for it.
Then you use that given to say that subsidiaries of news corp must be untrustworthy as well because news corp is untrustworthy. This is one of the several false association fallacies.
And then you're saying that because those subsidiaries are untrustworthy a given story from those subsidiaries is untrustworthy... even though the story in question is a FUCKING RAW DATA DUMP. This is another false association fallacy compounded with blind fucking pigheaded mulishness when confronted with fucking facts. That isn't even a fallacy. That is just some retard pointing at the Sun and saying it isn't there.
That's bullshit. And if you don't see the several logical fallacies in that then you're an idiot.
First, the entire line of logic is fallacious.
Second, even if news corp -> WSJ -> this story were untrustworthy, the issue is that this is a RAW data dump and therefore the trustworthiness of the people posting it is irrelevant unless you're claiming that the data itself has been tampered with?
Your entire position is laughable from any rational stand point. You're wrong. And I just validated that position above quite firmly. I am not interested in you wasting any more of my time. You can either apologize for being a jackass or I will just say "good day, sir".
It is a tautology to say something is X because it is X though... and tautology is fallacious.
You're saying a parent organization doesn't share your political leanings and so all subsidiaries are going to be polluted with BADTHINK and BADTHINK is all lies and UNGOOD because it wasn't approved by one of your ministry of truth censorship outlets.
The WSJ is releasing the RAW emails. Explain to me how the Rupert Murdock cooties get on your new messiah's emails when they are not altering them at all?
Explain it.
Actually don't. There's no excuse for your position. Any source offering the RAW data cannot impune the raw data... by definition. The data is fucking raw. If I am the slimmest liar ever and I give you raw unmodified records then those records include none of my slimy lies because its fucking raw.
The pathetic kneejerk reaction against anything not part of the leftist echo chamber should make you ashamed of yourself.
Are you really so far gone that tautology doesn't look like a fallacy for you?
You say they're not credible... why? Because they're not credible? Oh well, glad that got sorted out.
So you must accept that the God invented the universe etc as well right? Because that is also backed up with tautology and circular logic.
You're expecting me to accept the GIVEN that a host organization is inherently non-credible and that therefore all subsidiaries are not credible and therefore that a given story submitted by such a subsidiary is also not credible.
Your entire argument is a cascading waterfall of fallacious shit where the shit flows through a logic tree supported by assumed givens at the top then pools at the bottom where it is pumped up and pours through the system all over again.
Genius.
As to you saying a financial adviser is credible or not... exactly how do you substantiate that position? You just saying " they don't know what they're talking about" is meaningless without some sort of supporting argument. Absent that you have an unqualified opinion that isn't worth anything.
I will take news from ANY source and evaluate it rationally. MSNBC does some good reporting sometimes and sometimes Fox does some good reporting. No one is all bad or all good. And discounting any given story simply because of the source is fallacious.
Let me explain what that means again because I don't think you understand what a fallacy is in the first place.
A statement is fallacious if it is not 100 percent true. If you say "everyone in my car is hungry after six hours in the car"... well, you might know YOU are hungry and MOST of the people in the car might be hungry but you don't know that EVERYONE in the car is hungry. It is fallacious because it isn't known to actually be true. It doesnt' follow that because YOU are hungry and everyone else SHOULD be hungry that they all actually ARE hungry. Maybe someone is dead. Maybe someone has been pigging out in the back eating snacks. Maybe anything. You don't know.
That is what it means for something to be fallacious. This passive slippery shit logic that so many people are comfortable with is inherently fallacious because people are not giving any attention to whether things MUST be true or MUST be false. You simply go with "probably" and "maybe" and "should" and thus don't actually fucking know anything.
As to bias, simply dismissing a source out of hand especially when they're passing no judgement on the source material but literally offering the RAW data for public evaluation is itself bias... on your part.
Admit it, apologize, and promise not to do it again. Or surrender any shred of intellectual credibility you were presumed out of common courtesy.
As to the cost, they are already doing it. Raw sewage goes through a water treatment facility that does all those things.
You're an idiot.
As to 471 million plastic micro beads... if they're.01 mm then as someone else pointed out, you're talking about maybe a kilo of micro beads per day. The mass of them isn't actually that relevant.
As to your misunderstanding as to my position... that can only be attributed to your stupidity. I said in the first post that I don't care if you ban it. So suggesting that I am against the ban is merely evidence that you're stupid.:)
In the name of intellectual health, I ask that you keep your mouth shut. Nothing good comes out of it.
wow... so, that's more evidence that you're stupid.
You can filter water without using a grate. Rivers for example filter water yet contain no "filter" as you term it. Oceans filter water yet also contain no "filter".
The treatment plants DO actually use a filter though it is quite large and only stops large things from passing certain pipes.
The filtration process is mostly done through density separation. That is, the filter is gravity. And guess what, the microbeads have a lower density than water. So they should be filterable by that method.
How can people be so god damn thick? It is remarkable to me.
You're asking me why I'm not a fan of the ban on the beads? Really? Even though in my first post I said I didn't care if you banned it.
So your comment about cranberries is FUCKING STUPID. BAN THE BEADS.
I
Do
Not
Care.
Moron.
What I am saying is that if that is getting through the system there are probably a lot of other things in there that you don't even know exist. A better system would not only deal with this bead issue which is irrelevant to me. But it would also deal with a wide variety of other contaminants that you don't even know are in there.
Consider further we're looking increasingly to closed loop sewage treatment facilities that output water INTO your tap directly from the sewage treatment facility. They're already strongly considering that in California.
My point is that the stupid beads don't matter and what this really indicates is that the water treatment systems needs to be upgraded.
Here you say "oh its so expensive"... well, consider seperating out your sewage rather than running ONE pipe from each house or factory or whatever. Have different TYPES of sewage. Then process each individually using a unique process customized for that sewage type. take your cranberries... clearly they need a special treatment process. Should the tax payers be paying for that? Obviously not. Ocean spray can process their own shit and that is not unreasonable for any large processing facility. Frankly, I think it is weird that they're even throwing it out. It probably makes a great fertilizer/mulch. Have a skimmer that sorts out all the solid material and sell that to farmers to spread on fields.
As to JUICE that gets into the water... I don't even know why we're sending that to the sewage treatment facilities. A little sugar released into a river isn't going to hurt anything. Bacteria in the water will eat it almost instantly.
I have been pretty clear from my FIRST post that I don't really care.
Ban the fucking beads. I don't care.
Did that process in your little brain? How many times do I have to say that for you morons to grasp that?
Okay, so you righteous chewing out concluded, my point is that if these beads are making it through and they have a lower density... why are they getting through the settling tanks? Am saying "if this is a problem, we probably have OTHER problems that we don't even know about." Thus shouldn't we just make the treatment process better? Not because of these beads... because again... ban them... I do not care... but rather this should be a wake up call that the treatment facilities need to be improved.
Do you understand NOW? Or are you just that stupid?:)
And I love that you suggested that I suggested that we use a medical centrifuge to clean sewage. I did no such thing. I was pointing out that they would absolutely sort by density. that is all. I also pointed out that maybe we could use an INDUSTRIAL centrifuge to further filter water.
So run the water through the settling tanks to remove most of the particulates. Then power up a giant centrifuge to filter the product of the tanks.
Maybe that isn't practical. I don't know how much energy that would gobble. But that was the closest I got to that idea. I at no point suggested we use tiny medical centrifuges to process municipal levels of sewage.
Not at all. As I keep telling you, I don't care if you ban this shit. It is fucking meaningless to me and I expect industry doesn't care either. They have lots of alternatives. Sand or something should be just fine. Do you really think it is hard for them to make silica spheroids of fairly uniform size? Think again. Easy peasy.
So understand, I am not arguing against your ban.
I DO NOT CARE.
However, I am questioning the quality of your water treatment process if this is actually a problem.
they have about the same density as oil... so are we to conclude that sewage plants are not filtering OIL from WATER?
Because that seems pretty fucking simple.
My understanding of the process is that they first blend the sewage to break up chunks. The slurry goes through a series very large tanks where the sewage collects and sorts by density. The fluid in the middle is assumed to be mostly water. Then that water is sterilized by some means to kill micro organisms and the water is released.
The settling tanks are so far as I understand it... the PRIMARY means of filtration. Given that the microbeads have about the same density as OIL... I am confused as to why they're making it through the settling tanks.
Are the tanks not deep enough?Is the water outlet too close to the surface of the tank thus causing suction to pull particulate matter off the surface?
This sounds like something you could fix pretty easily.
Given that the "program" is my conscious mind, you presume to demand that I write out the code for my consciousness here to be evaluated?
How does that make any sense?
What we write out here is OUTPUT which then serves as further INPUT if anyone bothers to read it.
The underlying program is largely beyond audit.
The most I could do would be to break down individual statements and justify them. Since I didn't cite my thinking to that extent questioning whether such a thing would compile is inherently idiotic. That's like saying "your log file won't compile"... no shit? Really? How fucking stupid are you?
You say you won't take me seriously? What a laugh. Explain why anyone should take you seriously when you won't even log in?
yeah but why are the microbeads making it through the water treatment process at all if they've lower density than water?
These microbeads have a similar density to OIL. So if you're not filtering out microbeads one can assume you're also not filtering out oils... either organic or inorganic.
Why is that a good idea? Surely we we should be filtering out oils.
Well again, yes it will sort out if you give it enough time. The question is how long does it take?
As to collecting in tissues... that's great and I don't really want to talk about that. What is interesting to me is why the settling tanks aren't removing them.
What is the cycle time of sewage in to treated water out? How long? Maybe if it spent more time in the tanks we could filter this out.
ANd again, I'm not trying to argue against banning the crap. ban it. I do not care. My issue is that if this is making it through then there is something else wrong in the system.
The first statement was actually an error check because it cited a contradiction or inability to perform an action.
That compiles just fine.
As to the second line, that is output stating that given input is MINDLESSLY hostile. You are doubtless too stupid to grasp the distinction between constructive hostility and non-constructive hostility. I've only forced to explain this to you because you're stupid.:)
That compiles again. There's no logical contradiction.
Then the final statement is for someone to perform an action they shouldn't find especially difficult.
That compiles also.
So... why don't you explain why my statements didn't "compile"...
When you imply you're more rational than someone... do try to pick someone that isn't vastly more rational than you... you probably don't even know what rational means.
Not really. The credibility of the source does not mean what they report automatically true or false.
What I'm talking about is more elemental than what you're talking about.
Philosophy sits on top of logic as logic sits above math in the way that math is above physics and the way that physics is above biology.
Mathematics is applied symbolic logic. But logic itself is a different persuit and cannot be conflated with mathematics. And logic is itself a product of philosophy which can be neither conflated with logic nor mathematics.
When one speaks of fallacious logic, one speaks of logic... not math. You can represent most logical concepts in symbolic form though rarely with sustainable accuracy. There is a translation when you go from logic to math and frequently there are conflations of similar concepts and terms which leads to fallacies.
As such it is far more reliable to maintain the logic in a more conceptual context since it is less likely to go through translations and thus introduce errors.
Your example did just that thus baring out the wisdom of what I just said.
Sometimes it is helpful to express things in purely symbolic forms. But only when you have defined your variables properly and have not made the extremely common mistake of conflating similar concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
No... because less than 1 percent of 1 percent of that generation actually knows enough to even begin to cop to that claim.
So if you're argument is that 1 percent of 1 percent of that generation knows lots. I agree.
However, that is a politically insignificant portion of the population and so can be ignored if we are talking about POLITICS.
And we are... so I can. And I just did.
What is beyond obvious to even the most limited of semi humans is that the current generation is more fluent with new technology than the previous generation.
And you can see that in many different ways. But on topic, you can see that in political statistics that show young people as being more in favor of less NSA bullshit and the older generation being actively supportive of it.
Now, if you actually explain to the older generation what is happening, they tend to change their views.
I was talking to a 75 year old man the other day and he was for the whole NSA thing. He thought Snowden was a traitor... etc. I explained what actually happened... and because this fellow trusted me, he took my word for it on several things that he would have required proof for if we didn't have that bond of trust.
The reality of the matter is that on many of these issues, the older generations simply don't know what the fuck is going on. They are echo chambered into establishment media sources that are misleading them. And because they generally don't feel comfortable stepping outside of that box, they're are more easily manipulated by certain types of media manipulation.
The younger generations are likewise open to manipulation but of a different kind and generally with less uniform success because the media landscape at that level is more fragmented.
As to systemic bias, no more so than any other source. CNN, the BBC, PBS, the NYTs, The LA Times, the Guardian... etc. They all have their bias.
What is more, you're mostly reacting to the editorials on fox etc because their actual facts are the same as everyone else's facts. The facts are not in dispute.
And I should point out that pretty much the ENTIRE media has turned on hillary not just the right wing media.
The New York Times has turned on her and so has MSNBC.
Beyond that, you can't cite bias in this case because they're releasing RAW information.
You literally cannot with ANY credibility cite bias. So when you cite bias YOUR credibility is damaged because it is literally impossible.
And since you did do that... and you still don't realize it... that damages your credibility FURTHER.
Frankly, all the credibility you had was credibility gifted to you out of common courtesy. Given that you've proven that you are personally unworthy of it... I'm going to just conclude you're a fruitcake and move on.
Good day.
Really, all the countries in the Euro zone should be on their own currencies.
Responsible governments will have low inflation and low interest rates.
Irresponsible governments will have high inflation and high interest rates.
In this way, those governments can continue to borrow money as much as they want. The interest rates will just go up.
And the governments will respond by jacking up inflation rates basically making their own people pay higher taxes by lowering the value of their money.... that difference in value being mostly used to pay off debt from the borrowing.
What is fun about this tax is that it is regressive. It doesn't impact the rich or corporations because they don't keep large amounts of money in cash. They keep their wealth in assets which do not depreciate with the currency. It mostly hurts poor people or anyone that has their money in cash. And that is sort of fair because the very people the entitlements are going to tend to be people at the bottom of society in any case.
So you're sort of taxing the people you're giving benefits to and that's reasonable.
Something I'd like to see is for all governments to have two currencies.
The first being a trade currency which most people would use for buying things and wages etc... but then have a debt currency for the government to borrow in.
The idea here is that you don't what to give the government an incentive to inflate the trade currency. If the government can only lower its debts by inflating the debt currency than they'll be less inclined to inflate the trade currency.
As to crowd sourcing information, in what way is that a bad way to do it?
As to crowdsourcing being an inherently right wing activity, explain how that is the case? it is more common of the open source kickstarter world than anything.
You're really just sounding like a closed minded bigot here... Just fyi. You might want to watch that least you actually become a bigot. And you'll regret that and hate yourself eventually.
Just trying to spare you some regret and the occasional humiliation.
As to the credibility of the WSJ, in what way are they not credible? If neither MSNBC nor the NYTs are left enough for you than what remains? Pravda? Tell me what you consider a credible news source so I can laugh at you.
Dare you.
And yet it would be a fallacy to say a stop clock has the wrong time. You don't know that. You also don't know that a working clock has the correct time. A working clock could have the wrong time always.
In fact, a working clock almost always has the wrong time and never has the right time. At least not to the second. But a stopped clock will be 100 percent accurate for two seconds out of the day.
Again... this is just simple logic and you either understand simple logic or I have to educate you which would require some humility from you and patience from me. Since neither is likely to happen... if you do not understand BASIC logic then I'm going to just deem you irrational by definition and move on.
If you DO grasp basic logic then you understand what is and is not a fallacy.
What is more, you've not established that fox etc is a stopped watch. In fact, the vast majority of what is printed even by very biased sources is entirely accurate. What changes is the framing of the discussion more than anything. The actual FACTS tend to be accurate.
So if you don't like fox, what you actually don't like is the way they frame a story.
Okay.
But in this case there is no framing. It is the literal raw data without context.
So you can't cite bias. Literally cannot. That you did merely speaks poorly for YOUR bias.
When someone releases RAW data and you claim bias... you're the bigot. ;)
Make your own topic and wait for me to join it and then you can get upset when I don't get on YOUR topic. You commented on MY comment which put the context in my context.
If you just randomly join a thread and then start talking about shit that isn't even related to what the previous posts are about, do not be surprised when people do not follow down your tangents.
It is a recurring thing... and the polls show that this issue is a generational thing.
No one is reading 10,000 emails. You're going to want someone to pick an email interest out of the flock. for closer scrutiny.
As to WSJ being non-credible... tell us MR AC why is that?
You do realize that they're saying the same thing on this issue that the New York Times and MSNBC are saying right? There is no political division in so far as the facts are concerned here. The left wing media is turning on hillary. Its already over. All that remains is stripping anyone in her coalition dumb enough to think they can shrug this off of any remaining credibility. This is going to get uglier and uglier. And you're not going to be able to count on any credible media allies to back you up. The establishment media has already abandoned you. And most leftwing alternative media has also abandoned you. That includes politico and huffington post. Its over.
Do as your allies already did... turn on hillary and save what remains of your credibility. If you don't... you'll just lose.
Honestly, I hope as many of you refuse to listen to that sage advice as possible. It will just make the political bloodbath to come all the more complete. ;)
I'm starting to understand why fire axes are so popular in the zombie apocalypse... they don't run out of ammo. These people are so fucking stupid. They just come at me drooling all over themselves while chewing their own tongues. I load another shell of logic into my boomstick of reason... blow the top of their rotten face off with an obvious fatal counter argument... then cock another logic shell and move on.
But my god there are a lot of these idiots.
Wow.
No. Tautology means you're defining a given with itself.
If I say someone is a thief because they're a thief then that is tautology.
It is a kind of circular logic.
You're saying news corp is untrustworthy... this is a given from you. You're not offering any justification for it.
Then you use that given to say that subsidiaries of news corp must be untrustworthy as well because news corp is untrustworthy. This is one of the several false association fallacies.
And then you're saying that because those subsidiaries are untrustworthy a given story from those subsidiaries is untrustworthy... even though the story in question is a FUCKING RAW DATA DUMP. This is another false association fallacy compounded with blind fucking pigheaded mulishness when confronted with fucking facts. That isn't even a fallacy. That is just some retard pointing at the Sun and saying it isn't there.
That's bullshit. And if you don't see the several logical fallacies in that then you're an idiot.
First, the entire line of logic is fallacious.
Second, even if news corp -> WSJ -> this story were untrustworthy, the issue is that this is a RAW data dump and therefore the trustworthiness of the people posting it is irrelevant unless you're claiming that the data itself has been tampered with?
Your entire position is laughable from any rational stand point. You're wrong. And I just validated that position above quite firmly. I am not interested in you wasting any more of my time. You can either apologize for being a jackass or I will just say "good day, sir".
Your choice. Either way, I'm done with you.
It is a tautology to say something is X because it is X though... and tautology is fallacious.
You're saying a parent organization doesn't share your political leanings and so all subsidiaries are going to be polluted with BADTHINK and BADTHINK is all lies and UNGOOD because it wasn't approved by one of your ministry of truth censorship outlets.
The WSJ is releasing the RAW emails. Explain to me how the Rupert Murdock cooties get on your new messiah's emails when they are not altering them at all?
Explain it.
Actually don't. There's no excuse for your position. Any source offering the RAW data cannot impune the raw data... by definition. The data is fucking raw. If I am the slimmest liar ever and I give you raw unmodified records then those records include none of my slimy lies because its fucking raw.
The pathetic kneejerk reaction against anything not part of the leftist echo chamber should make you ashamed of yourself.
Are you really so far gone that tautology doesn't look like a fallacy for you?
You say they're not credible... why? Because they're not credible? Oh well, glad that got sorted out.
So you must accept that the God invented the universe etc as well right? Because that is also backed up with tautology and circular logic.
You're expecting me to accept the GIVEN that a host organization is inherently non-credible and that therefore all subsidiaries are not credible and therefore that a given story submitted by such a subsidiary is also not credible.
Your entire argument is a cascading waterfall of fallacious shit where the shit flows through a logic tree supported by assumed givens at the top then pools at the bottom where it is pumped up and pours through the system all over again.
Genius.
As to you saying a financial adviser is credible or not... exactly how do you substantiate that position? You just saying " they don't know what they're talking about" is meaningless without some sort of supporting argument. Absent that you have an unqualified opinion that isn't worth anything.
I will take news from ANY source and evaluate it rationally. MSNBC does some good reporting sometimes and sometimes Fox does some good reporting. No one is all bad or all good. And discounting any given story simply because of the source is fallacious.
Let me explain what that means again because I don't think you understand what a fallacy is in the first place.
A statement is fallacious if it is not 100 percent true. If you say "everyone in my car is hungry after six hours in the car"... well, you might know YOU are hungry and MOST of the people in the car might be hungry but you don't know that EVERYONE in the car is hungry. It is fallacious because it isn't known to actually be true. It doesnt' follow that because YOU are hungry and everyone else SHOULD be hungry that they all actually ARE hungry. Maybe someone is dead. Maybe someone has been pigging out in the back eating snacks. Maybe anything. You don't know.
That is what it means for something to be fallacious. This passive slippery shit logic that so many people are comfortable with is inherently fallacious because people are not giving any attention to whether things MUST be true or MUST be false. You simply go with "probably" and "maybe" and "should" and thus don't actually fucking know anything.
As to bias, simply dismissing a source out of hand especially when they're passing no judgement on the source material but literally offering the RAW data for public evaluation is itself bias... on your part.
Admit it, apologize, and promise not to do it again. Or surrender any shred of intellectual credibility you were presumed out of common courtesy.
I have no patience for this shit.
As to the cost, they are already doing it. Raw sewage goes through a water treatment facility that does all those things.
You're an idiot.
As to 471 million plastic micro beads... if they're .01 mm then as someone else pointed out, you're talking about maybe a kilo of micro beads per day. The mass of them isn't actually that relevant.
As to your misunderstanding as to my position... that can only be attributed to your stupidity. I said in the first post that I don't care if you ban it. So suggesting that I am against the ban is merely evidence that you're stupid. :)
In the name of intellectual health, I ask that you keep your mouth shut. Nothing good comes out of it.
wow... so, that's more evidence that you're stupid.
You can filter water without using a grate. Rivers for example filter water yet contain no "filter" as you term it. Oceans filter water yet also contain no "filter".
The treatment plants DO actually use a filter though it is quite large and only stops large things from passing certain pipes.
The filtration process is mostly done through density separation. That is, the filter is gravity. And guess what, the microbeads have a lower density than water. So they should be filterable by that method.
Next issue.
How can people be so god damn thick? It is remarkable to me.
You're asking me why I'm not a fan of the ban on the beads? Really? Even though in my first post I said I didn't care if you banned it.
So your comment about cranberries is FUCKING STUPID. BAN THE BEADS.
I
Do
Not
Care.
Moron.
What I am saying is that if that is getting through the system there are probably a lot of other things in there that you don't even know exist. A better system would not only deal with this bead issue which is irrelevant to me. But it would also deal with a wide variety of other contaminants that you don't even know are in there.
Consider further we're looking increasingly to closed loop sewage treatment facilities that output water INTO your tap directly from the sewage treatment facility. They're already strongly considering that in California.
My point is that the stupid beads don't matter and what this really indicates is that the water treatment systems needs to be upgraded.
Here you say "oh its so expensive"... well, consider seperating out your sewage rather than running ONE pipe from each house or factory or whatever. Have different TYPES of sewage. Then process each individually using a unique process customized for that sewage type. take your cranberries... clearly they need a special treatment process. Should the tax payers be paying for that? Obviously not. Ocean spray can process their own shit and that is not unreasonable for any large processing facility. Frankly, I think it is weird that they're even throwing it out. It probably makes a great fertilizer/mulch. Have a skimmer that sorts out all the solid material and sell that to farmers to spread on fields.
As to JUICE that gets into the water... I don't even know why we're sending that to the sewage treatment facilities. A little sugar released into a river isn't going to hurt anything. Bacteria in the water will eat it almost instantly.
oops, you did log in... got you confused with someone else... my bad.
You can still go fuck yourself though. :)
Did I suggest that or are you a halfwit?
I have been pretty clear from my FIRST post that I don't really care.
Ban the fucking beads. I don't care.
Did that process in your little brain? How many times do I have to say that for you morons to grasp that?
Okay, so you righteous chewing out concluded, my point is that if these beads are making it through and they have a lower density... why are they getting through the settling tanks? Am saying "if this is a problem, we probably have OTHER problems that we don't even know about." Thus shouldn't we just make the treatment process better? Not because of these beads... because again... ban them... I do not care... but rather this should be a wake up call that the treatment facilities need to be improved.
Do you understand NOW? Or are you just that stupid? :)
And I love that you suggested that I suggested that we use a medical centrifuge to clean sewage. I did no such thing. I was pointing out that they would absolutely sort by density. that is all. I also pointed out that maybe we could use an INDUSTRIAL centrifuge to further filter water.
So run the water through the settling tanks to remove most of the particulates. Then power up a giant centrifuge to filter the product of the tanks.
Maybe that isn't practical. I don't know how much energy that would gobble. But that was the closest I got to that idea. I at no point suggested we use tiny medical centrifuges to process municipal levels of sewage.
You're an idiot. ;)
Not at all. As I keep telling you, I don't care if you ban this shit. It is fucking meaningless to me and I expect industry doesn't care either. They have lots of alternatives. Sand or something should be just fine. Do you really think it is hard for them to make silica spheroids of fairly uniform size? Think again. Easy peasy.
So understand, I am not arguing against your ban.
I DO NOT CARE.
However, I am questioning the quality of your water treatment process if this is actually a problem.
they have about the same density as oil... so are we to conclude that sewage plants are not filtering OIL from WATER?
Because that seems pretty fucking simple.
My understanding of the process is that they first blend the sewage to break up chunks. The slurry goes through a series very large tanks where the sewage collects and sorts by density. The fluid in the middle is assumed to be mostly water. Then that water is sterilized by some means to kill micro organisms and the water is released.
The settling tanks are so far as I understand it... the PRIMARY means of filtration. Given that the microbeads have about the same density as OIL... I am confused as to why they're making it through the settling tanks.
Are the tanks not deep enough?Is the water outlet too close to the surface of the tank thus causing suction to pull particulate matter off the surface?
This sounds like something you could fix pretty easily.
Idiocy.
Given that the "program" is my conscious mind, you presume to demand that I write out the code for my consciousness here to be evaluated?
How does that make any sense?
What we write out here is OUTPUT which then serves as further INPUT if anyone bothers to read it.
The underlying program is largely beyond audit.
The most I could do would be to break down individual statements and justify them. Since I didn't cite my thinking to that extent questioning whether such a thing would compile is inherently idiotic. That's like saying "your log file won't compile"... no shit? Really? How fucking stupid are you?
You say you won't take me seriously? What a laugh. Explain why anyone should take you seriously when you won't even log in?
Go fuck yourself.
yeah but why are the microbeads making it through the water treatment process at all if they've lower density than water?
These microbeads have a similar density to OIL. So if you're not filtering out microbeads one can assume you're also not filtering out oils... either organic or inorganic.
Why is that a good idea? Surely we we should be filtering out oils.
Well again, yes it will sort out if you give it enough time. The question is how long does it take?
As to collecting in tissues... that's great and I don't really want to talk about that. What is interesting to me is why the settling tanks aren't removing them.
What is the cycle time of sewage in to treated water out? How long? Maybe if it spent more time in the tanks we could filter this out.
ANd again, I'm not trying to argue against banning the crap. ban it. I do not care. My issue is that if this is making it through then there is something else wrong in the system.
Really? Lets take that literally shall we?
The first statement was actually an error check because it cited a contradiction or inability to perform an action.
That compiles just fine.
As to the second line, that is output stating that given input is MINDLESSLY hostile. You are doubtless too stupid to grasp the distinction between constructive hostility and non-constructive hostility. I've only forced to explain this to you because you're stupid. :)
That compiles again. There's no logical contradiction.
Then the final statement is for someone to perform an action they shouldn't find especially difficult.
That compiles also.
So... why don't you explain why my statements didn't "compile"...
When you imply you're more rational than someone... do try to pick someone that isn't vastly more rational than you... you probably don't even know what rational means.
Fucking peasant garbage.
Not really. The credibility of the source does not mean what they report automatically true or false.
What I'm talking about is more elemental than what you're talking about.
Philosophy sits on top of logic as logic sits above math in the way that math is above physics and the way that physics is above biology.
Mathematics is applied symbolic logic. But logic itself is a different persuit and cannot be conflated with mathematics. And logic is itself a product of philosophy which can be neither conflated with logic nor mathematics.
When one speaks of fallacious logic, one speaks of logic... not math. You can represent most logical concepts in symbolic form though rarely with sustainable accuracy. There is a translation when you go from logic to math and frequently there are conflations of similar concepts and terms which leads to fallacies.
As such it is far more reliable to maintain the logic in a more conceptual context since it is less likely to go through translations and thus introduce errors.
Your example did just that thus baring out the wisdom of what I just said.
Sometimes it is helpful to express things in purely symbolic forms. But only when you have defined your variables properly and have not made the extremely common mistake of conflating similar concepts.