The idea that news organizations were ever unbiased is a lie itself. It was most successfully perpetrated by Edward R Murrow and his protege Walter Cronkite, two globalists who did propaganda for the U.S. government during the Second World War and after the war shilled for the left.
Like good propagandists they convinced their viewers that they were unbiased arbiters of the news while cleverly slanting their coverage by not reporting on certain stories.
Most of the media continued to do this for years. It is only recently that they forgo any attempt at journalism at all and have started to report on Twitter postings which are completely unverified.
Of course many of the news items on both the right and the left that get reported as lies are really just soundbites that have nuance removed, that is they are true when taken in a particular framework but lies when taken alone or absent that framework. That's why so many of them are reported by places like PolitiFact as "mostly true" or "mostly false", because in the real world things can seldom be explained in a soundbite.
Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by looking at data and making conclusions. At its most basic one takes data, makes a model to explain the data and then attempts to falsify the model against the real world.
When one side in a scientific debate refuses to make their data available for inspection, when they create false narratives and misleading graphs, when their models fail to predict future outcomes accurately, then it's no wonder some people are skeptical of their theories.
Yes how terrible it has become in the U.S. under Trump. Unemployment is at an all time low, particularly in certain segments which are seeing historic low numbers. The stock market, while not at the all time high it was in 2018 is nearly there. Oh wait Trump was president in Jan 2018 too. Yes I just don't know what to do with the extra money I'm not paying the government in taxes.
I'm not even going to talk about the large increase in money for research that the DOE facility I work for got under the present administration, after being starved for the whole previous administration.
Yep. It's really terrible how bad its been under Trump.
The European Parliament does not possess legislative initiative. It cannot propose laws, which means it cannot control policy. It is at best a rubber stamp for the Commission, at worst nothing but a ceremonial debating club.
Yes they do. Those trade deals are designed to ensure Germany and German companies benefit. An independent Britain can make trade deals designed to ensure Britain and the British people benefit.
The problem with this is that true information which questions the safety of a particular vaccine or vaccine from a particular vendor will be hidden along with the lies.
The answer to misinformation is always to refute it, not to hide it. When you drive speech underground it always flourishes, and now there is no one to refute the lies.
According to the polls the top candidates on the left are Bernie and Biden, the two old white dudes. The two guys who actually have enough support to give Trump a run for his money. And the two candidates the Left will never allow to win the primary because they're old white dudes.
That would be the group of liberals in the Democratic party that is determined to ban people on social media because they don't agree with their world view, force religious people to act in opposition to their beliefs if they want to run a business, and think it acceptible to punch people in the face who wear a hat supporting the opposition? Those personal freedom supporters?
You know there's a saying that armies always fail by fighting the last war. The Dems are almost sure to lose if they expect to run the last election. Trump sure won't.
Trump won because he was smart enough to campaign in the states where he could take the presidency without worrying about the popular vote. In the next election there are several states which have changed their laws to require Electors to vote for which ever candidate takes the popular vote. Ignoring the probable court challenge on that, the fact that it has already been established in court that states cannot punish feckless electors, the possibility that Republican electors would not vote for the Democrat even though state law directed them to, Trump will almost certainly run a different campaign against his next challenger.
For one thing he's almost certain to run on his record. Except for those with TDS that record is pretty good on economics, which is what most people in the middle care about. He will almost certainly strike out to get a popular vote victory as well as an electoral victory.
Clinton was a really bad candidate, but not as bad as most of the radical progressive socialists the Dems are thinking of running this time. All Trump has to do is run ads quoting the Green New Deal, which most of the most progressive candidates have endorsed and there will be massive lines at the poling places of people lining up to vote against teh Democrats.
Forget about Pelosi, as you said New York state democrats are P---ed at AOC for screwing up Cuomo and Blasio Amazon effort and costing New York State billions in tax revenue.
After the 2020 census New York state will be redrawing congressional districts. Come the resetting of congressional districts AOC won't have one and she'll be out. Hope she remembers how to make a Harvey Wallbanger.
The Dems have plenty of potential candidates which can beat Trump, unfortunately for them, not one of them could survive the primaries to get the nomination
So yeah the Democrats are almost surely going to nominate some far left of center fringe socialist. And when voters look around they'll see that the choice will be between some far left identitarian progressive and a moderate right Republican, and when it comes down to it the moderate Republican will be closer to their comfort level than the Democrat.
Please check your ideology at the door. The very fact that you're pulling out the Fox trope proves you live in the Liberal echo chamber.
Studies have shown and, Twitter for one admits, that when it comes to the Left they only follow each other and they only get their news from liberal sources. Conservatives follow everybody and get their news from both liberal and conservative sources. That means that while a Conservative is not likely to trust a liberal source at face value, they typically don't take anything Fox says at face value either. I can site legitimate sources for everyone of AM's statments and even site liberal sources that contest those same facts with absolutely no verified sources at all beyond "Orange man bad."
If that's true that Facebook has violated the Sherman Act or the Clayton Antitrust Act then prosecute them. That requires no additional laws be passed, sponsored by Warren or anyone else.
Let's also not pretend that this is anything more than a stunt by a person gearing up for a presidential run. Any bill Warren or any Democrat proposes has zero chance of passing in the Senate or being signed by the president. If Warren gets nomination, which I find about as unlikely a happening as anything I can think of, then it becomes worthy of discussing. Until then it's just a stunt.
I was alive in the '90s. At that time search was free because it was subsidized by sponsors. So basically by entities who expected to make money on the exposure through the search engine.
No one was making money off internet selling at that time. Just because search was free in 1998 doesn't mean that if Google was broken up now that free search wouldn't go away.
Remember it was never free. Just like it isn't really free now. You just pay for it by trading information about your browsing habits and searches to Google. Just because you externalize the cost doesn't make it free.
No mystery here. Disney wants Daredevil for their own streaming service, so they most likely raised the price Netflix would have to pay for the property. There's a two year embargo on Disney using the property once it's canceled by Netflix.. Kill it now so that in 2 years DIsney can pick it up.
I don't really see it as unclear. Basically Disney owns thier own library of classic Disney movies, Disney animated movies, classic cartoons, Disney channel programs, Fox's film library, Fox'e TV library, Star Wars, Marvel, ABC. They also own 2/3 of Hulu.
What happens when their IP doesn't appear on wider content aggregators is those aggregators fail. Netflix, for all their great exclusive content is spending a fortune they don't have to create that content. They are not profitable and are living on borrowed time. Once Disney pulls their content and has their own streaming service the choice becomes Netflix or Disney and I suspect Netflix loses.
From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means. He then instituted an immoral but totally legal program of attempted genocide of a whole people.
Moral and legal are often not only the same thing but contrary.
However, as everyone from Emerson to King understood, being morally right does not provide legal protect from the consequences of your actions. So when you act on your morality be ready to accept the consequences. The concept that you should not have to accept the consequences of your actions just because you are doing the right thing is a particularly modern notion and unrealistic in the extreme.
The settlement was fast because it was found that the woman was high on drugs and crossing illegally. The family knew that if they took it to court they would probably lose. Uber didn't want the bad publicity so they offered up enough to keep the family quiet.
I'm familiar with these kinds of pedestrians. They cross the street , in the dark, while wearing dark clothes, pushing (or even riding) a bicycle which has no reflectors or running lights and then step right in front of the lights of the oncoming vehicle, knowing that even though they are 100% in the wrong the driver will have to stop so they don't kill them. Hopefully not getting rear ended.
The safety monitor was in the wrong because they were not doing their job. Uber was in the clear because they had a safety monitor to act as a backup to their experimental control system.
Autonomous cars don't have to be better than the beat drivers. They only have to be better than the median drive, which, unfortunately is not a high bar.
I've seen drivers on their phones totally oblivious to what was happening on the road. Several times I've seen people reading books, newspapers and magazines while driving. People are generally speaking lousy drivers.
If autonomous cars reduce the number of accidents and the cost to insurance companies they will be on the roads. Only knee jerk emotion will keep them off, and only in some countries. If the U.S. does not develop the technology someone else will and they will garner the benefits.
It is an experimental self driving car. The only reason to have a "mission specialist" is to monitor the car and ensure that it's experimental control system does not fail and cause damage.
I would expect that Uber absolutely informed the "mission specialists" they were responsible for the operation of the vehicle, else why have them? There is absolutely no proof they did not.
You are trying to cover up for the incompetent behavior of the "mission specialist" in question, who was streaming a TV show while they were suppose to be working.
Because this was an experimental vehicle. There was no passenger. There was a safety observer who was being paid to stay alert and monitor the car's operation.
When a fully autonomous vehicle becomes available it will not require someone to monitor it. That's why it will be autonomous and why people will pony up the money for it.
This was an experimental vehicle. You might say that an experimental vehicle should not be on the public roads, but no matter what bar you set for autonomous vehicles at some time there will be a point where you let them on the roads. At that point they will still, by definition be experimental.
The problem here wasn't that the vehicle was experimental. It was that the safety driver was not doing their job. The only important question here for culpability is: Was the safety backup driver, in the view of a competent person, behaving in a manner that allowed them to do their job or were they negligent? If the answer is no they might be criminally libel.
Fully autonomous vehicle will not require a backup safety driver, but we are not there yet. The only way we will get there is to allow experimental vehicles on the roads with competent human backup drivers.
When autonomous vehicles are finally sold to the public the liability will be held by the manufacturers. They will likely turn to insurance companies to cover that liability and bake the cost into the price of the vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that news organizations were ever unbiased is a lie itself. It was most successfully perpetrated by Edward R Murrow and his protege Walter Cronkite, two globalists who did propaganda for the U.S. government during the Second World War and after the war shilled for the left.
Like good propagandists they convinced their viewers that they were unbiased arbiters of the news while cleverly slanting their coverage by not reporting on certain stories.
Most of the media continued to do this for years. It is only recently that they forgo any attempt at journalism at all and have started to report on Twitter postings which are completely unverified.
Of course many of the news items on both the right and the left that get reported as lies are really just soundbites that have nuance removed, that is they are true when taken in a particular framework but lies when taken alone or absent that framework. That's why so many of them are reported by places like PolitiFact as "mostly true" or "mostly false", because in the real world things can seldom be explained in a soundbite.
How about lies a few weeks old?
Covington Catholic students.
Hundreds of TSA workers called in sick during the partial gobernment shutdown.
Any story saying Trump ordered anyone to lie to congress.
Everytime CNN says they are the most trusted name in news.
Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by looking at data and making conclusions. At its most basic one takes data, makes a model to explain the data and then attempts to falsify the model against the real world.
When one side in a scientific debate refuses to make their data available for inspection, when they create false narratives and misleading graphs, when their models fail to predict future outcomes accurately, then it's no wonder some people are skeptical of their theories.
Pot calling kettle black. News at 11.
Yes how terrible it has become in the U.S. under Trump. Unemployment is at an all time low, particularly in certain segments which are seeing historic low numbers. The stock market, while not at the all time high it was in 2018 is nearly there. Oh wait Trump was president in Jan 2018 too. Yes I just don't know what to do with the extra money I'm not paying the government in taxes.
I'm not even going to talk about the large increase in money for research that the DOE facility I work for got under the present administration, after being starved for the whole previous administration.
Yep. It's really terrible how bad its been under Trump.
The European Parliament does not possess legislative initiative. It cannot propose laws, which means it cannot control policy. It is at best a rubber stamp for the Commission, at worst nothing but a ceremonial debating club.
Yes they do. Those trade deals are designed to ensure Germany and German companies benefit. An independent Britain can make trade deals designed to ensure Britain and the British people benefit.
The problem with this is that true information which questions the safety of a particular vaccine or vaccine from a particular vendor will be hidden along with the lies.
The answer to misinformation is always to refute it, not to hide it. When you drive speech underground it always flourishes, and now there is no one to refute the lies.
According to the polls the top candidates on the left are Bernie and Biden, the two old white dudes. The two guys who actually have enough support to give Trump a run for his money. And the two candidates the Left will never allow to win the primary because they're old white dudes.
That would be the group of liberals in the Democratic party that is determined to ban people on social media because they don't agree with their world view, force religious people to act in opposition to their beliefs if they want to run a business, and think it acceptible to punch people in the face who wear a hat supporting the opposition? Those personal freedom supporters?
You know there's a saying that armies always fail by fighting the last war. The Dems are almost sure to lose if they expect to run the last election. Trump sure won't.
Trump won because he was smart enough to campaign in the states where he could take the presidency without worrying about the popular vote. In the next election there are several states which have changed their laws to require Electors to vote for which ever candidate takes the popular vote. Ignoring the probable court challenge on that, the fact that it has already been established in court that states cannot punish feckless electors, the possibility that Republican electors would not vote for the Democrat even though state law directed them to, Trump will almost certainly run a different campaign against his next challenger.
For one thing he's almost certain to run on his record. Except for those with TDS that record is pretty good on economics, which is what most people in the middle care about. He will almost certainly strike out to get a popular vote victory as well as an electoral victory.
Clinton was a really bad candidate, but not as bad as most of the radical progressive socialists the Dems are thinking of running this time. All Trump has to do is run ads quoting the Green New Deal, which most of the most progressive candidates have endorsed and there will be massive lines at the poling places of people lining up to vote against teh Democrats.
After the 2020 census New York state will be redrawing congressional districts. Come the resetting of congressional districts AOC won't have one and she'll be out. Hope she remembers how to make a Harvey Wallbanger.
The Dems have plenty of potential candidates which can beat Trump, unfortunately for them, not one of them could survive the primaries to get the nomination
So yeah the Democrats are almost surely going to nominate some far left of center fringe socialist. And when voters look around they'll see that the choice will be between some far left identitarian progressive and a moderate right Republican, and when it comes down to it the moderate Republican will be closer to their comfort level than the Democrat.
Please check your ideology at the door. The very fact that you're pulling out the Fox trope proves you live in the Liberal echo chamber.
Studies have shown and, Twitter for one admits, that when it comes to the Left they only follow each other and they only get their news from liberal sources. Conservatives follow everybody and get their news from both liberal and conservative sources. That means that while a Conservative is not likely to trust a liberal source at face value, they typically don't take anything Fox says at face value either. I can site legitimate sources for everyone of AM's statments and even site liberal sources that contest those same facts with absolutely no verified sources at all beyond "Orange man bad."
If that's true that Facebook has violated the Sherman Act or the Clayton Antitrust Act then prosecute them. That requires no additional laws be passed, sponsored by Warren or anyone else.
Let's also not pretend that this is anything more than a stunt by a person gearing up for a presidential run. Any bill Warren or any Democrat proposes has zero chance of passing in the Senate or being signed by the president. If Warren gets nomination, which I find about as unlikely a happening as anything I can think of, then it becomes worthy of discussing. Until then it's just a stunt.
I was alive in the '90s. At that time search was free because it was subsidized by sponsors. So basically by entities who expected to make money on the exposure through the search engine.
No one was making money off internet selling at that time. Just because search was free in 1998 doesn't mean that if Google was broken up now that free search wouldn't go away.
Remember it was never free. Just like it isn't really free now. You just pay for it by trading information about your browsing habits and searches to Google. Just because you externalize the cost doesn't make it free.
No mystery here. Disney wants Daredevil for their own streaming service, so they most likely raised the price Netflix would have to pay for the property. There's a two year embargo on Disney using the property once it's canceled by Netflix.. Kill it now so that in 2 years DIsney can pick it up.
I don't really see it as unclear. Basically Disney owns thier own library of classic Disney movies, Disney animated movies, classic cartoons, Disney channel programs, Fox's film library, Fox'e TV library, Star Wars, Marvel, ABC. They also own 2/3 of Hulu.
What happens when their IP doesn't appear on wider content aggregators is those aggregators fail. Netflix, for all their great exclusive content is spending a fortune they don't have to create that content. They are not profitable and are living on borrowed time. Once Disney pulls their content and has their own streaming service the choice becomes Netflix or Disney and I suspect Netflix loses.
From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means. He then instituted an immoral but totally legal program of attempted genocide of a whole people.
Moral and legal are often not only the same thing but contrary.
However, as everyone from Emerson to King understood, being morally right does not provide legal protect from the consequences of your actions. So when you act on your morality be ready to accept the consequences. The concept that you should not have to accept the consequences of your actions just because you are doing the right thing is a particularly modern notion and unrealistic in the extreme.
The settlement was fast because it was found that the woman was high on drugs and crossing illegally. The family knew that if they took it to court they would probably lose. Uber didn't want the bad publicity so they offered up enough to keep the family quiet.
I'm familiar with these kinds of pedestrians. They cross the street , in the dark, while wearing dark clothes, pushing (or even riding) a bicycle which has no reflectors or running lights and then step right in front of the lights of the oncoming vehicle, knowing that even though they are 100% in the wrong the driver will have to stop so they don't kill them. Hopefully not getting rear ended.
The safety monitor was in the wrong because they were not doing their job. Uber was in the clear because they had a safety monitor to act as a backup to their experimental control system.
Autonomous cars don't have to be better than the beat drivers. They only have to be better than the median drive, which, unfortunately is not a high bar.
I've seen drivers on their phones totally oblivious to what was happening on the road. Several times I've seen people reading books, newspapers and magazines while driving. People are generally speaking lousy drivers.
If autonomous cars reduce the number of accidents and the cost to insurance companies they will be on the roads. Only knee jerk emotion will keep them off, and only in some countries. If the U.S. does not develop the technology someone else will and they will garner the benefits.
It is an experimental self driving car. The only reason to have a "mission specialist" is to monitor the car and ensure that it's experimental control system does not fail and cause damage.
I would expect that Uber absolutely informed the "mission specialists" they were responsible for the operation of the vehicle, else why have them? There is absolutely no proof they did not.
You are trying to cover up for the incompetent behavior of the "mission specialist" in question, who was streaming a TV show while they were suppose to be working.
Because this was an experimental vehicle. There was no passenger. There was a safety observer who was being paid to stay alert and monitor the car's operation.
When a fully autonomous vehicle becomes available it will not require someone to monitor it. That's why it will be autonomous and why people will pony up the money for it.
This was an experimental vehicle. You might say that an experimental vehicle should not be on the public roads, but no matter what bar you set for autonomous vehicles at some time there will be a point where you let them on the roads. At that point they will still, by definition be experimental.
The problem here wasn't that the vehicle was experimental. It was that the safety driver was not doing their job. The only important question here for culpability is: Was the safety backup driver, in the view of a competent person, behaving in a manner that allowed them to do their job or were they negligent? If the answer is no they might be criminally libel.
Fully autonomous vehicle will not require a backup safety driver, but we are not there yet. The only way we will get there is to allow experimental vehicles on the roads with competent human backup drivers.
When autonomous vehicles are finally sold to the public the liability will be held by the manufacturers. They will likely turn to insurance companies to cover that liability and bake the cost into the price of the vehicle.
The real problem for media companies is the cat videos are winning.