bernie who was overall ranking higher than her against trump.
But nobody really attacked Bernie, though. There was a lot of stuff in his opposition file that's not really common knowledge. Hillary was never going to go heavy against Bernie because 1) she didn't need to super delegates lol and 2) she wanted his Safe Space Generation thralls who would have lost their shit if she actually attacked him. Hillary was an awful candidate because of the corruption, but nobody was going to vote for a commie except college kids, either. I bet against Bernie Trump would have picked up even more of the black vote.
IMHO, the solution for democrats is obvious: get rid of the superdelegates.
But the purpose of the parties isn't to represent the party members but the interests of the party leadership (or rather their donors). The Dems do it by force and the Republicans by deceit.
Yeah but Tay was just a chat bot trying to learn to have a personality. I'm talking about something that's supposed to tell the truth. Most things that are politically correct are not actually correct. If they were actually correct they wouldn't need the modifier "politically" in there. You could just say "correct."
When it is SEO marketing scum getting punished for gaming the search engine, no bats an eye.
No one has shown this is due to SEO tricks or fakery. The link on the article doesn't say what the article says it says. It's far more likely it's because there is more interest in conspiracy theories than in boring history. Go to youtube and search "moon landing." You find the official footage...and then pages and pages of stuff saying "it's faaaaaaaaaaake!" because it takes one video to show it happened but dozens and dozens and dozens to "prove" it's fake.
When it is actual white supremacists get their page rank tweaked, all the supposedly not racist alt-righters lose their fucking minds.
I just don't like google fucking with people's political speech. If you search for "Donald Trump" and instead of getting his campaign website or wikipedia entry you get a page of "WHY TRUMP IS NAZI" Huffington Post drivel I don't think that should be censored either. When you censor political speech it doesn't go away. It just gets driven underground where it festers, because people hate being told what they can and cannot say and think. Either ignore it, or counter it.
Eh, but the racist conspiracy theory stuff is political speech, which should be countered with truth and argument. There's a qualitative difference between squashing advertising spam and political speech. Squashing political speech drives it underground and lets it fester.
Watson starting to swear and that Microsoft Nazi killer teenage girl chatterbot come to mind.
That's a little different though. Watson was merely impolite, and Tay was intentionally turned into a meme spewing nazi by 4chan. But what happens when the smart AI says stuff that's true, but you just don't say? Like ask it why wealth inequality exists between the races and it starts talking about the average IQs of different ethnic groups instead of saying "because of systematic racism by the oppressive evil white male patriarchy."
It's like asking "can water be used for fuel?" or "was the moon landing a hoax?" and be surprised that you get results for sites that go against common wisdom.
Go to youtube and search "moon landing." Tell me what you find.
It's not just that fringe viewpoints are likely to generate lots of interlinked content, it's that they generate more content, period.
My four year old son and I were talking about the moon, and he was shocked to learn people had been there. I wanted to show him the moon landing, so I went to youtube. But when you search "moon landing" you get the official footage and then pages and pages of "MOON LANDING HOAX" results. If you just went by the volume of material one would conclude the moon landing must be faked.
While I can point and yell "slippery slope" as well as Chicken Little yelled that the sky was falling, I have no decent answer what to do about it.
Excuse me for slightly changing the subject from "holocaust and search" to "political correctness and AI," but I'm curious what happens when you make a question and answer AI (think Siri on steroids) and it tells the truth to the best of its ability instead of saying the politically correct but factually wrong thing? Will people change their ideas, or will they demand the robot be censored? My guess is the latter.
For instance, racial equality. The thought police have changed the idea of racial equality under the law to equivalence between all groups of people, which is of course wrong. 50,000 years of different selection pressures produced different traits. So, ask the AI "are all races equivalent" and the political correct answer is either "yes" or some dissembling distraction about race being a social construct, but the truth is not that.
I don't see in there where he's asking the Russians to hack the server, which at that time was in an evidence locker in Quantico. He was asking them to release anything they might have already hacked. This is not the same thing as asking them to hack.
If you can't figure out the difference, you're ready to run for office. Or work at CNN.
So you're just ignoring all the rest of that? The no power at the state and local level? The Supreme Court?
The cities produce financial malfeasance and trash. If Trump succeeds in shifting wealth back from Wall Street and to Main Street, there goes your "thriving blue state economy." Follow that up by deporting illegals and stripping anchor babies of citizenship (by unblockable constitutional amendment if needed because fuck that shit, nobody ever voted that sneaking past border patrol and shitting out a kid gives it political franchise) and there goes your voting base.
You don't have a plan B. You have impotent rage. And delicious tears.
Assange made Wikileaks an active player, a maker of news, rather than a reporting of news
Do you believe there's such a thing as a pure reporter of news? Can you give me an example of an unbiased news source?
and makes his now declarations that it wasn't the Russians (something I doubt he has any ability to determine) fairly unbelievable to me.
Why wouldn't he have the ability to determine the source of the leak? I was under the impression Wikileaks knows who their sources are as part of their verification process. Of course it could be a double-fake, where the Ruskies hacked the DNC and then slipped the info to a DNC staffer who identified himself to Assange, but that seems odd. Again, you're decrying "conspiracy theories" while inventing your own.
And Brexit and the US are just the start. The fake news being used to try to muck up the Austrian election is going to be followed by all kinds of fun for other European races coming up.
Fake news, gag me. This is the fundamental problem with your leftist worldview. You believe there's such a thing as unbiased, honest journalism and stuff that's contrary to your worldview is "fake news." No. There's just points of view and propaganda. CNN is lying to you (at times), shilling for their corporate masters. RT is lying to you (at times), shilling for Putin. Breitbart is lying to you (at times) begging for populist clicks. Huffington Post is just run by hysterical women and should be mocked mercilessly. Look at all sides and figure out who's saying what and why about what topics. But Martian I've talked with you long enough over the years to see your pattern. You decry conspiracy theories while you concoct your own. You rage against right-wing fake news while you spread left-wing fake news with abandon. Snap out of it, friend. The difference between the wise man and the fool is the wise man knows he's a fool.
A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor,
No one says Assange isn't biased. All humans are biased. I'm pretty sure Assange hates Hillary because 1) wars and 2) she wanted to drone strike him. But name one provable lie Assange has ever told.
and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.
Or it indicates Assange didn't have dirt on Trump. Assange deals in hacked or leaked computer data. Trump barely uses email. What is there to hack?
And here we go again with the Clintons As Mafioso conspiracy theory once again...
You don't get to bitch about conspiracy theories while shilling for the "PUTIN HAXX0RS EVERYTHING!!!!" conspiracy theory.
I mean we have an anti war preaching military budget cutting democrat on one side and what ever Trump is on the other.
Wat. Are you joking? Hillary has never met a war she didn't love. "We came, we saw, he died! cackle cackle cackle!" She's the one who wanted to set up a no-fly zone in Syria which would almost certainly lead to war with Russia (it is after all Russia flying planes to bomb ISIS in Syria...ISIS doesn't have an air force).
Ultimately it comes down to the pipeline. Assad wanted to side with regional partner Russia to build the Iran -> Iraq -> Syria -> Med pipeline. So Saudi Arabia and Qatar gave lots of money to Hillary to arm the moderate beheaders in Syria to topple Assad so they could get the the Qatar -> SA -> Syria -> Turkey -> Europe pipeline.
So who does Putin want? The neocon warhawk Hillary who will go to war with them to enrich her Saudi/Qatar paymasters, or Trump who doesn't give a fuck about the pipelines and will join with Putin to bomb the hell out of ISIS and then leave them alone?
While there's no evidence Putin hacked the emails, it's obvious who he'd want. And I think it's the correct decision. I really don't want to go to war with Russia and have lots of people die to make some goatfuckers richer. I'd much rather the US stay the hell out of the middle east and be on good terms with Russia.
Also a year when hackers (or leakers) reveal the truth about political corruption, and the journalists try to cover it up! Can you imagine Woodward and Bernstein attacking Deep Throat instead of reporting what he revealed?
Well in this case the democrats have lost so badly over the last 8 years I'm not even sure they can be called a national party anymore. Coastal and urban, but that's all. They've lost the house, the senate, the presidency, soon the Supreme Court, and they've only got about a quarter of the governor's mansions and state legislatures. If they lose one more state legislature the Republicans can pass constitutional amendments without opposition. And not having those state party up and comers means they don't have a bench to draw from. The Republicans fielded 17 people for president this year, a good many of which voters had heard of before. Do you think the dems can even find 5 come 2020?
If they want to start winning again they'd have to change their message, and I don't see that happening. They still delusionally believe everyone who doesn't vote for them is basing their decisions on pure, irrational racial hatred and this can be corrected by screaming "RACIST!!!!" at them over and over again. Of course, the vast, vast, vast majority of white voters aren't racists, so the Dems just sound like crazy people to them.
You have completely delusional people about to lose power forever. It will definitely get worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I really want a glimpse at the alternate reality where goofy, low energy Jeb Bush was the nominee.
"Do you know who else had an awesome guacamole recipe?!?!?! HITLER!!!!!"
"Fuhrer Jeb keeps turtles in his pockets!!! Do you know who else loved animals?!?!?!? HITLER!!!!!"
"Jeb Bush says illegal immagation is an 'act of love.' Do you know who else illegally 'immigrated' into Poland and France?!?!!!?"
It wouldn't have been any different.
bernie who was overall ranking higher than her against trump.
But nobody really attacked Bernie, though. There was a lot of stuff in his opposition file that's not really common knowledge. Hillary was never going to go heavy against Bernie because 1) she didn't need to super delegates lol and 2) she wanted his Safe Space Generation thralls who would have lost their shit if she actually attacked him. Hillary was an awful candidate because of the corruption, but nobody was going to vote for a commie except college kids, either. I bet against Bernie Trump would have picked up even more of the black vote.
IMHO, the solution for democrats is obvious: get rid of the superdelegates.
But the purpose of the parties isn't to represent the party members but the interests of the party leadership (or rather their donors). The Dems do it by force and the Republicans by deceit.
Yeah but Tay was just a chat bot trying to learn to have a personality. I'm talking about something that's supposed to tell the truth. Most things that are politically correct are not actually correct. If they were actually correct they wouldn't need the modifier "politically" in there. You could just say "correct."
When it is SEO marketing scum getting punished for gaming the search engine, no bats an eye.
No one has shown this is due to SEO tricks or fakery. The link on the article doesn't say what the article says it says. It's far more likely it's because there is more interest in conspiracy theories than in boring history. Go to youtube and search "moon landing." You find the official footage...and then pages and pages of stuff saying "it's faaaaaaaaaaake!" because it takes one video to show it happened but dozens and dozens and dozens to "prove" it's fake.
When it is actual white supremacists get their page rank tweaked, all the supposedly not racist alt-righters lose their fucking minds.
I just don't like google fucking with people's political speech. If you search for "Donald Trump" and instead of getting his campaign website or wikipedia entry you get a page of "WHY TRUMP IS NAZI" Huffington Post drivel I don't think that should be censored either. When you censor political speech it doesn't go away. It just gets driven underground where it festers, because people hate being told what they can and cannot say and think. Either ignore it, or counter it.
Eh, but the racist conspiracy theory stuff is political speech, which should be countered with truth and argument. There's a qualitative difference between squashing advertising spam and political speech. Squashing political speech drives it underground and lets it fester.
Watson starting to swear and that Microsoft Nazi killer teenage girl chatterbot come to mind.
That's a little different though. Watson was merely impolite, and Tay was intentionally turned into a meme spewing nazi by 4chan. But what happens when the smart AI says stuff that's true, but you just don't say? Like ask it why wealth inequality exists between the races and it starts talking about the average IQs of different ethnic groups instead of saying "because of systematic racism by the oppressive evil white male patriarchy."
It's like asking "can water be used for fuel?" or "was the moon landing a hoax?" and be surprised that you get results for sites that go against common wisdom.
Go to youtube and search "moon landing." Tell me what you find.
It's not just that fringe viewpoints are likely to generate lots of interlinked content, it's that they generate more content, period.
My four year old son and I were talking about the moon, and he was shocked to learn people had been there. I wanted to show him the moon landing, so I went to youtube. But when you search "moon landing" you get the official footage and then pages and pages of "MOON LANDING HOAX" results. If you just went by the volume of material one would conclude the moon landing must be faked.
Keep doing this shit. Dems will never win another election.
While I can point and yell "slippery slope" as well as Chicken Little yelled that the sky was falling, I have no decent answer what to do about it.
Excuse me for slightly changing the subject from "holocaust and search" to "political correctness and AI," but I'm curious what happens when you make a question and answer AI (think Siri on steroids) and it tells the truth to the best of its ability instead of saying the politically correct but factually wrong thing? Will people change their ideas, or will they demand the robot be censored? My guess is the latter.
For instance, racial equality. The thought police have changed the idea of racial equality under the law to equivalence between all groups of people, which is of course wrong. 50,000 years of different selection pressures produced different traits. So, ask the AI "are all races equivalent" and the political correct answer is either "yes" or some dissembling distraction about race being a social construct, but the truth is not that.
I don't see in there where he's asking the Russians to hack the server, which at that time was in an evidence locker in Quantico. He was asking them to release anything they might have already hacked. This is not the same thing as asking them to hack.
If you can't figure out the difference, you're ready to run for office. Or work at CNN.
But have you seen the state governments? The Democratic party has a deep structural problem they need to address.
You seem upset, friend. Why so mad?
AC said they admitted to it. They did the opposite. It doesn't mean they're telling the truth, but they sure as shit didn't admit it.
Ok, except Trump himself at one point publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary emails.
No he didn't. You leftists haven't gotten the memo yet: you can't lie on the internet.
CNN told people it was illegal for them to look at Wikileaks.
So you're just ignoring all the rest of that? The no power at the state and local level? The Supreme Court?
The cities produce financial malfeasance and trash. If Trump succeeds in shifting wealth back from Wall Street and to Main Street, there goes your "thriving blue state economy." Follow that up by deporting illegals and stripping anchor babies of citizenship (by unblockable constitutional amendment if needed because fuck that shit, nobody ever voted that sneaking past border patrol and shitting out a kid gives it political franchise) and there goes your voting base.
You don't have a plan B. You have impotent rage. And delicious tears.
Link? Putin denied having anything to do with it, and Assange backed him up. Quit spreading fake news.
Assange made Wikileaks an active player, a maker of news, rather than a reporting of news
Do you believe there's such a thing as a pure reporter of news? Can you give me an example of an unbiased news source?
and makes his now declarations that it wasn't the Russians (something I doubt he has any ability to determine) fairly unbelievable to me.
Why wouldn't he have the ability to determine the source of the leak? I was under the impression Wikileaks knows who their sources are as part of their verification process. Of course it could be a double-fake, where the Ruskies hacked the DNC and then slipped the info to a DNC staffer who identified himself to Assange, but that seems odd. Again, you're decrying "conspiracy theories" while inventing your own.
And Brexit and the US are just the start. The fake news being used to try to muck up the Austrian election is going to be followed by all kinds of fun for other European races coming up.
Fake news, gag me. This is the fundamental problem with your leftist worldview. You believe there's such a thing as unbiased, honest journalism and stuff that's contrary to your worldview is "fake news." No. There's just points of view and propaganda. CNN is lying to you (at times), shilling for their corporate masters. RT is lying to you (at times), shilling for Putin. Breitbart is lying to you (at times) begging for populist clicks. Huffington Post is just run by hysterical women and should be mocked mercilessly. Look at all sides and figure out who's saying what and why about what topics. But Martian I've talked with you long enough over the years to see your pattern. You decry conspiracy theories while you concoct your own. You rage against right-wing fake news while you spread left-wing fake news with abandon. Snap out of it, friend. The difference between the wise man and the fool is the wise man knows he's a fool.
Can you give me a specific example?
And to be honest if you're talking about a man lying to a woman for sex, well, that's a man.
A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor,
No one says Assange isn't biased. All humans are biased. I'm pretty sure Assange hates Hillary because 1) wars and 2) she wanted to drone strike him. But name one provable lie Assange has ever told.
and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.
Or it indicates Assange didn't have dirt on Trump. Assange deals in hacked or leaked computer data. Trump barely uses email. What is there to hack?
And here we go again with the Clintons As Mafioso conspiracy theory once again...
You don't get to bitch about conspiracy theories while shilling for the "PUTIN HAXX0RS EVERYTHING!!!!" conspiracy theory.
I mean we have an anti war preaching military budget cutting democrat on one side and what ever Trump is on the other.
Wat. Are you joking? Hillary has never met a war she didn't love. "We came, we saw, he died! cackle cackle cackle!" She's the one who wanted to set up a no-fly zone in Syria which would almost certainly lead to war with Russia (it is after all Russia flying planes to bomb ISIS in Syria...ISIS doesn't have an air force).
Ultimately it comes down to the pipeline. Assad wanted to side with regional partner Russia to build the Iran -> Iraq -> Syria -> Med pipeline. So Saudi Arabia and Qatar gave lots of money to Hillary to arm the moderate beheaders in Syria to topple Assad so they could get the the Qatar -> SA -> Syria -> Turkey -> Europe pipeline.
So who does Putin want? The neocon warhawk Hillary who will go to war with them to enrich her Saudi/Qatar paymasters, or Trump who doesn't give a fuck about the pipelines and will join with Putin to bomb the hell out of ISIS and then leave them alone?
While there's no evidence Putin hacked the emails, it's obvious who he'd want. And I think it's the correct decision. I really don't want to go to war with Russia and have lots of people die to make some goatfuckers richer. I'd much rather the US stay the hell out of the middle east and be on good terms with Russia.
Also a year when hackers (or leakers) reveal the truth about political corruption, and the journalists try to cover it up! Can you imagine Woodward and Bernstein attacking Deep Throat instead of reporting what he revealed?
Well in this case the democrats have lost so badly over the last 8 years I'm not even sure they can be called a national party anymore. Coastal and urban, but that's all. They've lost the house, the senate, the presidency, soon the Supreme Court, and they've only got about a quarter of the governor's mansions and state legislatures. If they lose one more state legislature the Republicans can pass constitutional amendments without opposition. And not having those state party up and comers means they don't have a bench to draw from. The Republicans fielded 17 people for president this year, a good many of which voters had heard of before. Do you think the dems can even find 5 come 2020?
If they want to start winning again they'd have to change their message, and I don't see that happening. They still delusionally believe everyone who doesn't vote for them is basing their decisions on pure, irrational racial hatred and this can be corrected by screaming "RACIST!!!!" at them over and over again. Of course, the vast, vast, vast majority of white voters aren't racists, so the Dems just sound like crazy people to them.
You have completely delusional people about to lose power forever. It will definitely get worse.