How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again?
Actually, environmentalists are very split on this. Some still are anti-nuke, but a large number of enviornmentalists actually do endorse nuclear power because it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. That group notably includes James Hansen, the climate scientist that the deniers most love to hate.
This guy posts exactly the same screed on every slashdot story about climate. It was slightly amusing the first time.
Basically, he's saying that the Jurassic period serves as an example case of greenhouse-induced global warming: it had higher carbon dioxide levels and as a result also had higher temperatures.
OK. We're working on putting in enough CO2 to start replicating the Jurassic, a time when the Earth had no ice caps. But we won't get the dinosaurs back.
Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.
That part is missing in the article linked, but is in other articles on the settlement:
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/gawker-settles-with-hulk-hogan-2016-11/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161102/10054035947/ridiculous-nick-denton-settles-remaining-charles-harder-lawsuits-agrees-to-delete-perfectly-true-stories.shtml
https://nickdenton.org/a-hard-peace-e161e19bfa
http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/11/gawker-reaches-settlement-with-hulk-hogan-004844
"Lax sense of operational security" you say? That seems to mean, here, that he took home a metric ton of hard drives with classified stuff on them.
- if you want to be sympathetic to him, maybe he was just an obsessive compulsive hoarder, but it seems to go a bit beyond merely a "lax sense of security"-
Really, I'd much rather not have the problem in the first place than have the consolation that if I want to, I could spend a portion of my life pursuing a lawsuit that might, if I spend the time on it, give me a few hundred or maybe even a thousand dollars back.
The point is that Google offloaded their security to Verizon, who turned out to be a bit lax on security. Security is only as strong as its weakest point.
Actually I did, but it was so dubious it was barely worth commenting on. These are cherry picked results: how many fact check articles did you have to go through to find two that support your pre-determined conclusion?
You were comparing two articles written by two different people, on different fact check sites (one was politifact Texas, one politifact Virginia), written years apart.
Nevertheless, they both said pretty much exactly the same thing. So, you're not objecting to the actual facts in the articles. Because the facts are the same. So, since you're not disputing that, let's start by agreeing that the actual text part of the fact check is accurate and not biased.
So, what you're objecting to is the fact that, in an article where the text concluded that the statement was partly true, one person labelled this "half true" and the other person labelled it "mostly true." That's within normal variation, I'm afraid: two people wrote the articles, years apart, and their judgement call was very slightly different. Your conclusion that it is "bias" is unsupported.
You'd have to show me some statistics before I can accept that hypothesis. Here's a challenge: why don't you fact-verify, say, the most recent 100 politifact fact checks (or any other set of data that you didn't cherry pick to find ones that support your conclusion), and show the statistics on error?
Politi-"fact" is a useless leftist partisan hack site.
I notice that people like to say that fact checking is biased whenever the facts turn out to be different from whatever their side is saying.
Yes, it's so easy to just say "the fact checking site is biased"! Once you've said that, you don't even need to look at what it says: you can say it's wrong without even bothering to know what it said. All of the fact check sites, of course, give citations and links and sources, but when you say "I don't need to look at that, it's biased!" it's like a "get out of fact-check free" card-- you can ignore the citations and links and sources without even looking at them.
Not even a particular thing of the right; the left does it too. But I do have to say, the right seems to be doing it more lately.
Just because he is not secretary of state does not mean that it's uninteresting that his e-mail servers are not secure.
It does bring up an interesting question: so, why are only DNC email being leaked? If the Trump servers are also insecure, why aren't we seeing leaks of them?
Um, as far as I can tell this has nothing to do with the DNC hack.
Russian hackers do do other types of breaking into computers and black-hat hacking, you know-- malware, ransomware, zombiebots, credit-card skimming, identity theft, stealing email from people other than Podesta, spamming, DDOS for hire. They don't spend all their time hacking into the Clinton campaign.
Yeah, the Wikileaks server isn't in the embassy, this isn't going to stop them from releasing whatever they have to release.
Basically, I think that the Ecuadorians are getting tired of having a guy live rent-free at their embassy, never leaving the premise, and acting like a privileged scumbag. I think it was fun for them for a week, and now they're having second thoughts and thinking OMG, is this ever going to end?
...despite his paranoid rantings on the subject it is unlikely that he would be extradited there from Sweden (staying in UK on the other hand is a risky decision for someone who thinks they are out to get him... )
it's a risky decision for him because he had paid bail on the promise he would appear (or, more specifically, his friends paid bail) but he jumped bail, and thus is subject to criminal charges in the UK.
I suspect that while the most vocal and prolific posters on Slashdot seem to be pro-Democrats
I haven't notice that.
I'd like to see statistics.
, the vast majority of silent readers are more pro-Republicans.
That was an argument originally made by Richard Nixon! How can you disprove that the "silent majority" favored him, when they're silent? The really great thing about that argument is that it is supported by the absence of facts: you're pointing to the silence as support for what you say.
How could he know that the internet was cut "by a state actor" but not know which state actor?
I don't know either whether it was the US acting directly or ordering their colony to do so.
That was a rhetorical question. If he actually had known that it was cut by a state actor, he would have known which. The fact that he can't tell which hypothetical state actor means that he's just stating that the outage was done by a state actor with no particular evidence.
Could be the Ecuadorians are getting annoyed with having to live with a random, annoying guy 24/7 and cut it themselves, hoping it might convince him to go somewhere else.
The correct answer is: "I don't know, and you don't know either."
It's hard to believe it was the Democrats, since all the polls and all the indications show that they're winning. Why in the world would they want to change a winning game?
Throwing bombs isn't something you do if you're winning; it's what you do if you're losing.
But, with that said, I doubt it's the Trump campaign. I expect it was lunatic fanatic crazies.
Whether the lunatic fanatic crazies thought they were on Trump's side, or on Clinton's side, is yet to be seen.
Seriously? You listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as sources of evidence?
No. He listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as "liberal media" that did cover the story, showing that the statement "the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack" is false.
They are proven to be owned and or controlled by rich and powerful friends of Clinton.
In which case, his post shows that the original post was completely and totally false, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again?
Actually, environmentalists are very split on this. Some still are anti-nuke, but a large number of enviornmentalists actually do endorse nuclear power because it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. That group notably includes James Hansen, the climate scientist that the deniers most love to hate.
Some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/189068-climate-scientists-to-green-activists-embrace-nuke-power
https://cna.ca/news/prominent-environmentalists-embrace-nuclear/
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-and-global-warming#.WBynCeErLOQ
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
Basically, he's saying that the Jurassic period serves as an example case of greenhouse-induced global warming: it had higher carbon dioxide levels and as a result also had higher temperatures.
OK. We're working on putting in enough CO2 to start replicating the Jurassic, a time when the Earth had no ice caps. But we won't get the dinosaurs back.
Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.
That part is missing in the article linked, but is in other articles on the settlement:
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/gawker-settles-with-hulk-hogan-2016-11/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161102/10054035947/ridiculous-nick-denton-settles-remaining-charles-harder-lawsuits-agrees-to-delete-perfectly-true-stories.shtml
https://nickdenton.org/a-hard-peace-e161e19bfa
http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/11/gawker-reaches-settlement-with-hulk-hogan-004844
"Lax sense of operational security" you say? That seems to mean, here, that he took home a metric ton of hard drives with classified stuff on them. - if you want to be sympathetic to him, maybe he was just an obsessive compulsive hoarder, but it seems to go a bit beyond merely a "lax sense of security"-
Lets be realistic. AI will probably, like most tech, cost more than advertised, and fall short of its promises.
and incorporate that annoying bug common to all software, that it does what it's programmed to do, and not what you want it to do.
The point is that Google offloaded their security to Verizon, who turned out to be a bit lax on security. Security is only as strong as its weakest point.
Actually I did, but it was so dubious it was barely worth commenting on. These are cherry picked results: how many fact check articles did you have to go through to find two that support your pre-determined conclusion?
You were comparing two articles written by two different people, on different fact check sites (one was politifact Texas, one politifact Virginia), written years apart.
Nevertheless, they both said pretty much exactly the same thing. So, you're not objecting to the actual facts in the articles. Because the facts are the same. So, since you're not disputing that, let's start by agreeing that the actual text part of the fact check is accurate and not biased.
So, what you're objecting to is the fact that, in an article where the text concluded that the statement was partly true, one person labelled this "half true" and the other person labelled it "mostly true." That's within normal variation, I'm afraid: two people wrote the articles, years apart, and their judgement call was very slightly different. Your conclusion that it is "bias" is unsupported.
You'd have to show me some statistics before I can accept that hypothesis. Here's a challenge: why don't you fact-verify, say, the most recent 100 politifact fact checks (or any other set of data that you didn't cherry pick to find ones that support your conclusion), and show the statistics on error?
Politi-"fact" is a useless leftist partisan hack site.
I notice that people like to say that fact checking is biased whenever the facts turn out to be different from whatever their side is saying.
Yes, it's so easy to just say "the fact checking site is biased"! Once you've said that, you don't even need to look at what it says: you can say it's wrong without even bothering to know what it said. All of the fact check sites, of course, give citations and links and sources, but when you say "I don't need to look at that, it's biased!" it's like a "get out of fact-check free" card-- you can ignore the citations and links and sources without even looking at them.
Not even a particular thing of the right; the left does it too. But I do have to say, the right seems to be doing it more lately.
Irony tends to become invisible on the internet, because it's camouflaged by so much stuff from which it is indistinguishable
But if I had mod points I'd mod it troll just on general principles.
Exactly. Thread closed.
Just because he is not secretary of state does not mean that it's uninteresting that his e-mail servers are not secure.
It does bring up an interesting question: so, why are only DNC email being leaked? If the Trump servers are also insecure, why aren't we seeing leaks of them?
Russian hackers do do other types of breaking into computers and black-hat hacking, you know-- malware, ransomware, zombiebots, credit-card skimming, identity theft, stealing email from people other than Podesta, spamming, DDOS for hire. They don't spend all their time hacking into the Clinton campaign.
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity.
Politifact rates that statement: false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
"Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?"
https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
Especially since we have now seen that the Trump campaign isn't running particularly secure servers: https://politics.slashdot.org/...
That's one sided, as the original poster claimed.
Basically, I think that the Ecuadorians are getting tired of having a guy live rent-free at their embassy, never leaving the premise, and acting like a privileged scumbag. I think it was fun for them for a week, and now they're having second thoughts and thinking OMG, is this ever going to end?
preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.
And, pray tell, which "one side" are we talking about?
Wikileaks is leaking material only stolen from the Democrats, not anything stolen from Republicans.
That's one sided, by definition.
Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.
...despite his paranoid rantings on the subject it is unlikely that he would be extradited there from Sweden (staying in UK on the other hand is a risky decision for someone who thinks they are out to get him... )
it's a risky decision for him because he had paid bail on the promise he would appear (or, more specifically, his friends paid bail) but he jumped bail, and thus is subject to criminal charges in the UK.
I suspect that while the most vocal and prolific posters on Slashdot seem to be pro-Democrats
I haven't notice that.
I'd like to see statistics.
, the vast majority of silent readers are more pro-Republicans.
That was an argument originally made by Richard Nixon! How can you disprove that the "silent majority" favored him, when they're silent? The really great thing about that argument is that it is supported by the absence of facts: you're pointing to the silence as support for what you say.
Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy-- technically part of Ecuador-- in Great Britain.
Neither one of these contries use the United States Constitution's bill of rights.
How could he know that the internet was cut "by a state actor" but not know which state actor?
I don't know either whether it was the US acting directly or ordering their colony to do so.
That was a rhetorical question. If he actually had known that it was cut by a state actor, he would have known which. The fact that he can't tell which hypothetical state actor means that he's just stating that the outage was done by a state actor with no particular evidence.
No, I don't believe him.
Still believe his line of bullshit?
How could he know that the internet was cut "by a state actor" but not know which state actor?
No, I don't believe him.
Could be the Ecuadorians are getting annoyed with having to live with a random, annoying guy 24/7 and cut it themselves, hoping it might convince him to go somewhere else.
Explain. You think the e-mails he is disseminating have been falsified? If not, what is your point?
What he actually said is that we don't know if any of the e-mail in the links were altered.
This would be the first thing I'd wonder about in a disinformation campaign.
The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else". Who else do you think would have done it?
The correct answer is: "I don't know, and you don't know either."
It's hard to believe it was the Democrats, since all the polls and all the indications show that they're winning. Why in the world would they want to change a winning game?
Throwing bombs isn't something you do if you're winning; it's what you do if you're losing.
But, with that said, I doubt it's the Trump campaign. I expect it was lunatic fanatic crazies.
Whether the lunatic fanatic crazies thought they were on Trump's side, or on Clinton's side, is yet to be seen.
Seriously? You listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as sources of evidence?
No. He listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as "liberal media" that did cover the story, showing that the statement "the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack" is false.
They are proven to be owned and or controlled by rich and powerful friends of Clinton.
In which case, his post shows that the original post was completely and totally false, doesn't it?