FactCheck is misleading you. Yes, Obama "added 11 million jobs". Obama also caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs (and for many of them, not regain them). The two statements are not incompatible.
Not really relevant when you're talking about relative weighting. Something has to be at the top of the search results.
MSNBC, CNN, and similar outfits publish so much garbage because it gets people angry and results in clickthroughs, and that's the same reason Google puts them at the top of search results. None of the corporate media, or Google, are interested in truth or good politics or rational debate, they want to maximize profit, and they will say and do whatever it takes.
If you link to the original research source, you'll also see that it's mostly independent/left-leaning people that actually try to find out the veracity of what they read
No, what Axios claims is that "Democrats are more likely to take additional steps to verify what they’ve read than Republicans". Since Republicans already assume or know at a much greater rate than Democrats that news stories are fake, they have less to verify.
But don't worry, Fox is still number one in the racist senior citizens demographic.
Don't bet on it: According to Nielsen Live +7-day data, in 2017 CNN’s median age was 60, while the median age of the Fox News and MSNBC viewer was 65.
And given the amount of racism on CNN and MSNBC, I think it's fair to say, they are giving Fox a run for its money when it comes to the "racist senior citizen demographic".
The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues... but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.
Obama did little to end the wars or NSA spying, but he expanded drone killings, massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable. Hear him debate himself.
Obama was no conservative. Neither was he a liberal. He might have been a progressive. But mostly, he was simply a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected and then did whatever his corporate and political masters told him to do. Maybe you confuse him with a conservative because that's what little Bush was like as well.
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Google is a single entity; they don't need to "conspire" with anybody to rig search results. And Google is a highly progressive company and takes strong political stances, so they certainly have motive to change search results to promote their preferred politics.
Most of the kind of pollution studied here (particulates) no longer comes out of the power plants in Western world, and hasn't been coming from power plants across Europe and US for something around two decades. Primary sources of it around here is automotive.
Correct. And air pollution is fairly low both in the US and Europe, in particular outside city centers.
Overall, in Europe and North America, this is mostly about city centres on days when it isn't windy.
Yes, big cities are dirty, unpleasant places. So why do progressives hate suburbia and country living so much? Why do they see living in shoe boxes on public transit lines as the objective of public policy?
And while IQ cannot be increased by any means to a significant degree, it can be decreased by everything from lowering oxygen content/increasing CO2 content in the room where test is being concluded all the way to to brain damage. In this case, the claim of "intelligence impact" is therefore valid.
I didn't say that the claim itself was invalid, I said it was questionable to express changes in IQ in terms of "years of education".
It will be, if Trump has his way. He'd like to turn back the clock on environmental protections
No, he likes to turn back the clock on environmental regulations. That's something different.
and eliminate California's legal right to maintain its own emissions standards.
It's not actually a "legal right" but an exemption from federal regulations that needs to be specifically granted. If it were a "legal right", the president couldn't take it away.
I took another look at the map the article is using. Apparently, it's a real time map [berkeleyearth.org], and the screen shot of the !Forbes article was taken at 16:00 UTC,
Nice observation. However, the article's statement is consistent with what we know about air pollution in general.
Air Pollution Causes 'Huge' Reduction in Intelligence, Study Reveals. The research was conducted in China but is relevant across the world, with 95% of the global population breathing unsafe air. It found that high pollution levels led to significant drops in test scores in language and arithmetic, with the average impact equivalent to having lost a year of the person's education.
Americans are blessed with clean air. The vast majority of the United States experiences “good” air quality. Even in the isolated areas without “good” air quality, air quality is merely “moderate.”
It's more of a concern for Europe:
European air quality isn’t too great, either. For all the hype about “green” energy programs in Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, and other European nations, “good” air quality is rare outside of Scandinavia. Central Europe fares worst, with the UK, France, and Germany not far behind.
As an aside, expressing intelligence in terms of "years of education" is questionable because intelligence cannot actually be increased significantly by education.
Yes, dimwit, so there is a gun that has metal in it so that it can be legal. This doesn't mean you can't 3D print illegal, working plastic guns without the metal component.
Just like you can make an all plastic gun on a lathe, using existing, published plans. And making a plastic gun by subtractive methods is going to be a hell of a lot better than making one by additive methods.
There are thousands of books on gun smithing. If you want a plastic gun, you can replace plastic for metal in any of the designs and end up with a plastic gun that is sturdier and more reliable than any 3D printed gun.
The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them...
It doesn't have to. In fact, even without the Second Amendment, Americans would have a right to keep and bear arms because neither the federal government nor the states have been granted the power to limit it.
That is why the 9th Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to manufacture guns and the right to speak about how to manufacture guns are retained by the people because the power to restrict those rights was never delegated to the government.
The thing is, you're presenting it as a bad option, but you're failing to account for the other option, which is making the decision on even less information.
That's a false dichotomy. See, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't use all available science to make their decisions, I'm saying that society shouldn't do so.
I think you've misread my observation of flaws in our current system as an advocacy for some other system. Take what I wrote at face value, rather than assuming motive. Honestly, I haven't taken the time to form a thoughtful opinion about what we should do to address our system's flaws, but I do think that change is necessary lest we end up in a situation that isn't tenable.
No, I don't think I misread it. The "flaw" you see in our current system is too much "free market capitalism", i.e., too much individual liberty. And the answer you see is "to make changes to the Constitution", which in context means limiting that individual liberty further. Those have been the impulses common to a lot of people. It really doesn't matter that you haven't come up with your own, new proposal for how to limit individual liberties, because all those different variants of limiting individual freedoms have been tried and they all end up in the same place: tyranny.
Our system has flaws, which I would hope we can agree on.
We do agree on that. Ironically, you misattribute those flaws to free market capitalism (=voluntary interactions and individual liberties), when in fact they are the result of too little individual liberty.
There are really only two political options: a society based on voluntary interactions and individual liberties, or a society based on collectivism and totalitarianism. Take your pick.
n, it's inevitable that the greed of some will outpace that of others
True. Just look at Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Tom Steyer, and all the other crony capitalists and their political lackeys. And those are the people you want to put in charge.
resulting in the system approaching a state where wealth has accumulated in the hands of a few
Here's what the researchers found for Americans by age 60:
70 percent will spend at least a year in the top 20 percent of earners 53 percent will spend at least a year in the top 10 percent 36 percent will spend at least a year in the top 5 percent 11 percent will spend at least a year in the top 1 percent
Given that capitalism is fundamentally based on an assumption of greed
Free market capitalism is fundamentally based on the assumption of freedom: the freedom to decide who to do business with and under what conditions; the freedom to own and keep private property; the freedom to associate with who we ant to associate. It is those freedoms you want to destroy. The fact that free market capitalism also produces greater wealth than another other system is a nice byproduct of freedom.
A climate change-fueled switch away from fossil fuels means the worldwide economy will fundamentally need to change. Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General.
Thanks for being honest: the UN is just using climate change as a tool to push socialist/fascist economic ideas.
Thanks, but no thanks. Civilization can easily deal with 2-5C global warming; civilization cannot survive the kind of totalitarian system these people want to put in place.
Failing to replicate isn't definitive proof that a finding is false, particularly in cases where other studies support the same general idea. And some scientists told BuzzFeed News they do not agree with how the replications were done. Still, the new findings are part of an overwhelming, and troubling, trend. The so-called reproducibility crisis has hit research in many fields of science, from artificial intelligence to cancer.
The crisis isn't really in research: it's neither surprising nor problematic that most experimental and theoretical results reported in the literature have problems, are hard/impossible to replicate, or contain outright errors. That's a normal and healthy part of science.
The actual crisis is in the rush of modern society has to use scientific results as the basis of decision making. You should usually only consider scientific results to be "established" or "true" after several generations of scientists have passed and after they have been reproduced many times by many different approaches. If you use scientific results earlier than that, it's a big gamble.
But the land increases in value. Otherwise real estate wouldn't be considered an investment.
Sometimes land increases in value, sometimes it decreases in value. Coastal land in particular is always risky and usually at risk of eroding away or flooding.
Also even though the structure is "depreciated" the cost of new construction is increasing so the market value may actually still be higher than when purchased.
The reason depreciated structures retain any market value after their depreciation period is because they are continuously maintained. Stop spending money on maintenance and save it for a new home, and by the time the old home has depreciated, it will be close to uninhabitable, but you will have money to buy a new one somewhere else.
In other places, the appreciation is part of their financial plans.
Tough cookies. Coastal real estate is not a sensible investment in the absence of massive government subsidies. And just because someone has come to rely on government subsidies isn't justification for continuing those subsidies, which is why there is a strong push to end the federal flood insurance program.
But, as I was saying, all of this has nothing to do with climate change anyway, since continuing sea level rise is inevitable and will continue to occur at about the same rate as it has over the last few decades. Therefore, home owners have already priced that in decades ago, and there is nothing society can do about it anyway.
Fascism is a conservative, rightwing ideology which has been and is supported and encouraged by capitalism.
Fascism is a virulently anti-capitalist ideology closely linked to modernism and early 20th century American progressivism. It is neither "supported by" nor "encouraged by" free market capitalism. Mussolini and many of the German fascists were former communists. This is how fascists described themselves:
We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!
Prior to splitting with socialism, Mussolini was the editor of Avanti!, the official newspaper of Italy's socialist party.
I suggest you read the NSDAP 25 Point Program; it strongly overlaps with Bernie Sanders. And it likely strongly overlaps with your own political preferences.
Just like Democrats, progressives and "democratic socialists" today are supported by many billionaires, so were the Nazis supported by the uber-wealthy of their time; some of those supporters believed in the political message, others simply thought that an alignment with the Nazi party was advantageous to them, typical government cronyism and corruption. Big industrialists getting into bed with government isn't free market capitalism.
Fascists have suppressed and killed socialists since its inception
Yes, similar to how protestants and Catholics used to kill each other, and how Shiites and Sunnis do today: followers of similar ideologies often hate and kill each other.
Oh sigh. More of this fucking idiocy.
First of all, I said nothing in my original posting about the relationship between fascism and socialism, other than that they share a single economic belief, yet this triggered a knee jerk reaction on your part.
Second, even if socialism and fascism were diametrically opposed ideologies, they are both utterly evil. Socialism killed even more people in the 20th century than fascism.
But the "fucking idiocy" (to use your terms) is your ignorance about the history and ideology of fascism. Such ignorance is bad enough for Americans, but it is inexcusable in any European or "Norseman", particularly given the large number of Nazi sympathizers and collaborators in the Nordic countries. Europeans have a moral and historical responsibility to learn about fascism and understand its origins.
It's stated quite plainly on their web site. It'll be the top result if you Google "grsecurity license". (Kinda sad you didn't bother to Google it before arguing about it.)
I'm way ahead of you. That is what they distribute public patches under.
It's not only the new lines derived from the original (a derivative work), but also which lines to remove, copy-pasted exactly from the original GPL kernel.
Most people assume that context diffs consider fair use, just like quotations, and hence do not fall under the GPL. But if this were the origin of a copyright claim, then they could switch to non-context diffs.
You've put up a bunch of red herrings. Nothing you have said addresses the core question: in what way does Grsecurity's distribution of patches violate the GPL.
Furthermore, my point remains: if creating some work that depends on a GPL'ed work but does not include it constitutes a GPL violation, then the same principle would apply to other copyrighted works, and that would be really bad for FOSS.
But they aren't. They are neither selling kernel sources nor are they distributing kernel sources. All they are distributing is their own patches. It is the end user that creates the "modified version of GPL software".
I forgot to say they COULD legally use a license that is similar to thr GPL, but different, and call it by a different name. They haven't chosen to do that.
How do you know what license they distribute their kernel patches under to paying customers? Are you a paying customer?
They have said their software is GPL licensed. Therefore if they try to say "no, we mean our own special 'GPL', with extra terms added", that would violate the GPL trademark.
That might be the case, but that's a different claim from what Perens claims. Perens claims that they violate the GPL on the kernel.
Now, I have no reason to believe that they distribute their patches to paying customers under the GPL; do you know?
A derivative work doesn't belong to the original creator.
Discussing who the software "belongs to" is a red herring and legally irrelevant. What matters is that if you distribute the derivative work, you must comply with all legal obligations you have, under the original GPL, under the patches, and under any other legal agreements you have entered.
but the creator of the derivative work has obligations to the creator of the original work under the law
The GPL only imposes obligations when you distribute, not when you create derivatives.
Grsecurity is accused of not following those obligations.
Grsecurity has no obligations under the kernel GPL because they aren't distributing the GPL'ed kernel code. All they distribute is patches. The derivative work is created by the people who are applying the patches to the original kernel. And those people then cannot redistribute the combined work under their legal agreement with Grsecurity.
This is pretty much the same when you work for a corporation and use GPL code: you may be creating derivative works from the GPL'ed software as part of your job, but you cannot redistribute that because your employment contracts forbids it, even though the GPL allows it.
Slashdot Mirror
FactCheck is misleading you. Yes, Obama "added 11 million jobs". Obama also caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs (and for many of them, not regain them). The two statements are not incompatible.
To be precise, what I was referring to was the massive drop in labor force participation rate under Obama. And that's not just due to demographic changes, you also see in in the 25-54 male demographic.
MSNBC, CNN, and similar outfits publish so much garbage because it gets people angry and results in clickthroughs, and that's the same reason Google puts them at the top of search results. None of the corporate media, or Google, are interested in truth or good politics or rational debate, they want to maximize profit, and they will say and do whatever it takes.
No, what Axios claims is that "Democrats are more likely to take additional steps to verify what they’ve read than Republicans". Since Republicans already assume or know at a much greater rate than Democrats that news stories are fake, they have less to verify.
Poll: 72 percent say traditional outlets 'report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading'
Don't bet on it: According to Nielsen Live +7-day data, in 2017 CNN’s median age was 60, while the median age of the Fox News and MSNBC viewer was 65.
And given the amount of racism on CNN and MSNBC, I think it's fair to say, they are giving Fox a run for its money when it comes to the "racist senior citizen demographic".
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.
Obama did little to end the wars or NSA spying, but he expanded drone killings, massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable. Hear him debate himself.
Obama was no conservative. Neither was he a liberal. He might have been a progressive. But mostly, he was simply a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected and then did whatever his corporate and political masters told him to do. Maybe you confuse him with a conservative because that's what little Bush was like as well.
Google is a single entity; they don't need to "conspire" with anybody to rig search results. And Google is a highly progressive company and takes strong political stances, so they certainly have motive to change search results to promote their preferred politics.
Correct. And air pollution is fairly low both in the US and Europe, in particular outside city centers.
Yes, big cities are dirty, unpleasant places. So why do progressives hate suburbia and country living so much? Why do they see living in shoe boxes on public transit lines as the objective of public policy?
I didn't say that the claim itself was invalid, I said it was questionable to express changes in IQ in terms of "years of education".
No, he likes to turn back the clock on environmental regulations. That's something different.
It's not actually a "legal right" but an exemption from federal regulations that needs to be specifically granted. If it were a "legal right", the president couldn't take it away.
Nice observation. However, the article's statement is consistent with what we know about air pollution in general.
Fortunately, this isn't much of a concern for the US:
It's more of a concern for Europe:
As an aside, expressing intelligence in terms of "years of education" is questionable because intelligence cannot actually be increased significantly by education.
Just like you can make an all plastic gun on a lathe, using existing, published plans. And making a plastic gun by subtractive methods is going to be a hell of a lot better than making one by additive methods.
There are thousands of books on gun smithing. If you want a plastic gun, you can replace plastic for metal in any of the designs and end up with a plastic gun that is sturdier and more reliable than any 3D printed gun.
It doesn't have to. In fact, even without the Second Amendment, Americans would have a right to keep and bear arms because neither the federal government nor the states have been granted the power to limit it.
That is why the 9th Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to manufacture guns and the right to speak about how to manufacture guns are retained by the people because the power to restrict those rights was never delegated to the government.
Fortunately, Gunsmithing Made Easy is still available. As are thousands of other titles on making firearms at home.
That's a false dichotomy. See, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't use all available science to make their decisions, I'm saying that society shouldn't do so.
No, I don't think I misread it. The "flaw" you see in our current system is too much "free market capitalism", i.e., too much individual liberty. And the answer you see is "to make changes to the Constitution", which in context means limiting that individual liberty further. Those have been the impulses common to a lot of people. It really doesn't matter that you haven't come up with your own, new proposal for how to limit individual liberties, because all those different variants of limiting individual freedoms have been tried and they all end up in the same place: tyranny.
We do agree on that. Ironically, you misattribute those flaws to free market capitalism (=voluntary interactions and individual liberties), when in fact they are the result of too little individual liberty.
There are really only two political options: a society based on voluntary interactions and individual liberties, or a society based on collectivism and totalitarianism. Take your pick.
True. Just look at Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Tom Steyer, and all the other crony capitalists and their political lackeys. And those are the people you want to put in charge.
You're confusing increasing inequality with wealth accumulation: the top 1%/10% and the bottom 10% are not static populations in the US. In fact, Americans have a more than 50% chance of joining the top 10%:
Free market capitalism is fundamentally based on the assumption of freedom: the freedom to decide who to do business with and under what conditions; the freedom to own and keep private property; the freedom to associate with who we ant to associate. It is those freedoms you want to destroy. The fact that free market capitalism also produces greater wealth than another other system is a nice byproduct of freedom.
Thanks for being honest: the UN is just using climate change as a tool to push socialist/fascist economic ideas.
Thanks, but no thanks. Civilization can easily deal with 2-5C global warming; civilization cannot survive the kind of totalitarian system these people want to put in place.
The crisis isn't really in research: it's neither surprising nor problematic that most experimental and theoretical results reported in the literature have problems, are hard/impossible to replicate, or contain outright errors. That's a normal and healthy part of science.
The actual crisis is in the rush of modern society has to use scientific results as the basis of decision making. You should usually only consider scientific results to be "established" or "true" after several generations of scientists have passed and after they have been reproduced many times by many different approaches. If you use scientific results earlier than that, it's a big gamble.
Sometimes land increases in value, sometimes it decreases in value. Coastal land in particular is always risky and usually at risk of eroding away or flooding.
The reason depreciated structures retain any market value after their depreciation period is because they are continuously maintained. Stop spending money on maintenance and save it for a new home, and by the time the old home has depreciated, it will be close to uninhabitable, but you will have money to buy a new one somewhere else.
Tough cookies. Coastal real estate is not a sensible investment in the absence of massive government subsidies. And just because someone has come to rely on government subsidies isn't justification for continuing those subsidies, which is why there is a strong push to end the federal flood insurance program.
But, as I was saying, all of this has nothing to do with climate change anyway, since continuing sea level rise is inevitable and will continue to occur at about the same rate as it has over the last few decades. Therefore, home owners have already priced that in decades ago, and there is nothing society can do about it anyway.
Fascism is a virulently anti-capitalist ideology closely linked to modernism and early 20th century American progressivism. It is neither "supported by" nor "encouraged by" free market capitalism. Mussolini and many of the German fascists were former communists. This is how fascists described themselves:
Prior to splitting with socialism, Mussolini was the editor of Avanti!, the official newspaper of Italy's socialist party.
I suggest you read the NSDAP 25 Point Program; it strongly overlaps with Bernie Sanders. And it likely strongly overlaps with your own political preferences.
Just like Democrats, progressives and "democratic socialists" today are supported by many billionaires, so were the Nazis supported by the uber-wealthy of their time; some of those supporters believed in the political message, others simply thought that an alignment with the Nazi party was advantageous to them, typical government cronyism and corruption. Big industrialists getting into bed with government isn't free market capitalism.
Yes, similar to how protestants and Catholics used to kill each other, and how Shiites and Sunnis do today: followers of similar ideologies often hate and kill each other.
First of all, I said nothing in my original posting about the relationship between fascism and socialism, other than that they share a single economic belief, yet this triggered a knee jerk reaction on your part.
Second, even if socialism and fascism were diametrically opposed ideologies, they are both utterly evil. Socialism killed even more people in the 20th century than fascism.
But the "fucking idiocy" (to use your terms) is your ignorance about the history and ideology of fascism. Such ignorance is bad enough for Americans, but it is inexcusable in any European or "Norseman", particularly given the large number of Nazi sympathizers and collaborators in the Nordic countries. Europeans have a moral and historical responsibility to learn about fascism and understand its origins.
I'm way ahead of you. That is what they distribute public patches under.
Most people assume that context diffs consider fair use, just like quotations, and hence do not fall under the GPL. But if this were the origin of a copyright claim, then they could switch to non-context diffs.
You've put up a bunch of red herrings. Nothing you have said addresses the core question: in what way does Grsecurity's distribution of patches violate the GPL.
Furthermore, my point remains: if creating some work that depends on a GPL'ed work but does not include it constitutes a GPL violation, then the same principle would apply to other copyrighted works, and that would be really bad for FOSS.
But they aren't. They are neither selling kernel sources nor are they distributing kernel sources. All they are distributing is their own patches. It is the end user that creates the "modified version of GPL software".
How do you know what license they distribute their kernel patches under to paying customers? Are you a paying customer?
That might be the case, but that's a different claim from what Perens claims. Perens claims that they violate the GPL on the kernel.
Now, I have no reason to believe that they distribute their patches to paying customers under the GPL; do you know?
Discussing who the software "belongs to" is a red herring and legally irrelevant. What matters is that if you distribute the derivative work, you must comply with all legal obligations you have, under the original GPL, under the patches, and under any other legal agreements you have entered.
The GPL only imposes obligations when you distribute, not when you create derivatives.
Grsecurity has no obligations under the kernel GPL because they aren't distributing the GPL'ed kernel code. All they distribute is patches. The derivative work is created by the people who are applying the patches to the original kernel. And those people then cannot redistribute the combined work under their legal agreement with Grsecurity.
This is pretty much the same when you work for a corporation and use GPL code: you may be creating derivative works from the GPL'ed software as part of your job, but you cannot redistribute that because your employment contracts forbids it, even though the GPL allows it.