They always did, it's just that the rise of incontrovertible video evidence has made you realize it for the first time. The rest of us have been aware of it for decades.
I mean, think about it: if I had told you the story of Trigglypuff, would you have believed me? Without video? Hell no, it would sound ridiculous and made-up.
Confirmation bias, otherwise known as when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. He was expecting to see a hacked page, so he convinced himself he saw one and wrote it up. Luckily, most journalists (and highly educated people in general) are immune to this effect due to their sophisticated critical thinking techniques. I'm glad this is only a problem in a ghetto like IT journalism.
Yes, this is the "living Constitution" argument long used by the Left to attack the Constitution. It doesn't mean what it says, it means whatever we want it to mean. You can thank the Left for coming up with this idea as well as using it to ruthlessly batter at the Constitution for decades now.
USSR government? USSR government hasn't existed for about three decades, pal. Russia is a different country. The 1980s called, they want their Cold War and frizzy hairstyles back.
I love how it's the victim's fault when she gets her ipad ripped off by a scumbag criminal. Victim-blaming for theft: is there anything new on the Left? I love how you can stereotype the victim with insulting words but not a peep about the stereotypical perpetrator.
I used to think the Washington Post was one of the most objective papers out there. They used to do a good job of presenting both sides of most stories, certainly better than any of the other major American papers, except maybe the LA Times. But ever since Jeff Bezos took over and decided to turn the paper into a larger scale Politico, it's all gone south.
It's like every single writer at WaPo thinks Trump is literally worse than Hitler. I've never seen so much mocking and hostility from supposed professionals. And the writing style's gone to shit, too. Most of the editorials these days are pure stream of consciousness. They try to keep their fingers clean of outright lies, but the bias is incredible. I never thought I'd say it, but today you can find far more objective writing even in unashamedly political rags like the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle. It won't be long before they're plumbing the depths usually associated with British media at this rate.
And brilliant it is, too. He completely bypasses the media which only acts as a hostile filter. Before, they got to lie about what the President said, now he talks to the people directly. Kind of makes you wonder why we even have a media if their job is to be an arm of the Democratic Party. It's highly damaging to our democracy and has discredited the media entirely in the eyes of many in our society.
Ask Obama, the one who came up with all this SJW agenda for the military to implement. It has fuck-all to do with their mission to break things and kill people, but hey, it's what SJWs do best: inject their bullshit into healthy institutions until they die. Unfortunately while SJWs can get away with that shit on campus the military field is as hardcore reality as it gets.
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."
-- George Orwell (1903 - 1950)
The real problem is that the media has become a left-wing partisan force that will deliberately slant their coverage to achieve the desired political result. You simply can't trust them. If this had appeared in the alternative media, it might be worth a look, but even then only with additional vetting. The mainstream media are open borders supporters and will hardly carry a story that does not support their side of the argument.
Resorting to the ad hominem so quickly when you lack the evidence to back up a position. I've noticed your kind does that OFTEN. Moreover, it's the wrong ad hominem, the proper slur is transphobic. That's not even right either, because a phobia is an irrational fear.
. I have always felt far more European than just British
I think I found your problem.
If this is the sort of "democracy" that a "free" Britain will have then I want none of it thanks.
You hate democracy, what a surprise. Being ruled from abroad by unaccountable EU officials was part and parcel of Brexit, and good for them for doing it. With any luck, it will be the kick the brings the whole rotten structure down. The EU doesn't serve the interests of the people of Europe, that's why it's going down. It only serves its own interests, like any government attempts to do.
The biggest existential threat facing Europe right now is an exploding African population that don't want to stay in Africa because it's full of Africans. Somehow I don't think even more Africans is going to solve the problem.
The world doesn't shit on Africa, Africans shit on Africa.
So pointlessly grinding in a game is like climbing Mount Everest. OK, gotcha. Except the part where it's actually a challenge to climb a mountain, whereas grinding is just grinding. It is merely tedious. The guy should have spent his time grinding in an MMO instead, he'd probably have a thousand or two dollars worth of gear drops to sell instead.
1: Desalination plants on a large scale, combined with water pipelines. Once the warlords are out of the way, African droughts and famines would be over, and there would be a lot more arable, fertile land available.
So, you're saying that Africa's population would have constraints removed and the number of people in Africa would consequently explode. I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through...
I just provided a dozen citations from prominent people saying that global warming is a scam, and you didn't exactly refute any of it. It's not a giant conspiracy where they meet in a boardroom under a volcano with COUNCIL OF EVIL written above it. It's more like a hivemind. Many actors taking individual actions in service of a destructive goal. It's for-real. Remember the fuss over the Paris Accords? Turns out that was nothing but a scam, too. Wouldn't have done a damn thing for the climate.
"They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didnâ(TM)t stop to think if they should."
I just really don't get why grinding away pointlessly at a low level of an RPG and getting level 99 is some kind of worthwhile. Even in the "playing Desert Bus" kind of way. I guess it's a generation gap: I didn't get why lying down and having people take photos of you "planking" was such a big deal, either. It makes sense to someone, for some reason.
It's not a "better world". It's all about ridiculous exaggeration and globalization and creating the structures necessary to confiscate money from nations that create wealth and move it to others that only consume, and once and for all get rid of that poverty eliminator, capitalism. It's a precursor to world government and the end of democracy. But don't listen to me, let's hear their own words:
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history."
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: "We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
This is why a fair system, where the government decides which companies are funded, is needed. In fact, why have a middleman, just have the government deal out the money directly. It'll work much better than the idiot VC system, that's for sure.
Look, it's not a debate. The USA, specifically VCs, are sexist scumbags who should be ended. Things have just gotten worse and worse lately and women are unwelcome in tech, not to mention the boardroom. We don't need any more enlightenment, these vile facts have been known for a long time. America has a lot to answer for with its backwards, sexist tech culture. Other countries are far more welcoming and provide a model for America to follow with regards to equality and lack of sexism.
Jeez you're remarkably dense. For someone with a name like "Shanghai Bill", you'd figure you'd know more about China. The Hui muslims aren't engaged in trying to revolt against the government. The Uighurs are. I just can't imagine how someone could make a comment like that and not mention the difference between the Uighurs and the Hui. It's a baffling lack of context from someone who should damn well know better.
Slashdot Mirror
They always did, it's just that the rise of incontrovertible video evidence has made you realize it for the first time. The rest of us have been aware of it for decades.
I mean, think about it: if I had told you the story of Trigglypuff, would you have believed me? Without video? Hell no, it would sound ridiculous and made-up.
Confirmation bias, otherwise known as when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. He was expecting to see a hacked page, so he convinced himself he saw one and wrote it up. Luckily, most journalists (and highly educated people in general) are immune to this effect due to their sophisticated critical thinking techniques. I'm glad this is only a problem in a ghetto like IT journalism.
Yes, this is the "living Constitution" argument long used by the Left to attack the Constitution. It doesn't mean what it says, it means whatever we want it to mean. You can thank the Left for coming up with this idea as well as using it to ruthlessly batter at the Constitution for decades now.
USSR government? USSR government hasn't existed for about three decades, pal. Russia is a different country. The 1980s called, they want their Cold War and frizzy hairstyles back.
I love how it's the victim's fault when she gets her ipad ripped off by a scumbag criminal. Victim-blaming for theft: is there anything new on the Left? I love how you can stereotype the victim with insulting words but not a peep about the stereotypical perpetrator.
The PRI rigged elections in Mexico for 80 years using nothing but paper ballots. Let's not pretend that they're a great improvement.
I used to think the Washington Post was one of the most objective papers out there. They used to do a good job of presenting both sides of most stories, certainly better than any of the other major American papers, except maybe the LA Times. But ever since Jeff Bezos took over and decided to turn the paper into a larger scale Politico, it's all gone south.
It's like every single writer at WaPo thinks Trump is literally worse than Hitler. I've never seen so much mocking and hostility from supposed professionals. And the writing style's gone to shit, too. Most of the editorials these days are pure stream of consciousness. They try to keep their fingers clean of outright lies, but the bias is incredible. I never thought I'd say it, but today you can find far more objective writing even in unashamedly political rags like the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle. It won't be long before they're plumbing the depths usually associated with British media at this rate.
And brilliant it is, too. He completely bypasses the media which only acts as a hostile filter. Before, they got to lie about what the President said, now he talks to the people directly. Kind of makes you wonder why we even have a media if their job is to be an arm of the Democratic Party. It's highly damaging to our democracy and has discredited the media entirely in the eyes of many in our society.
Do you ever get bored, trolling Slashdot at Score: 0? So few people click through to read anon posts. Seems like a lot of work for little reward.
Here is John McCain making propaganda broadcasts for the Communists. I wouldn't call that a loser, I'd call it a traitor.
The real problem is that the media has become a left-wing partisan force that will deliberately slant their coverage to achieve the desired political result. You simply can't trust them. If this had appeared in the alternative media, it might be worth a look, but even then only with additional vetting. The mainstream media are open borders supporters and will hardly carry a story that does not support their side of the argument.
Resorting to the ad hominem so quickly when you lack the evidence to back up a position. I've noticed your kind does that OFTEN. Moreover, it's the wrong ad hominem, the proper slur is transphobic. That's not even right either, because a phobia is an irrational fear.
. I have always felt far more European than just British
I think I found your problem.
If this is the sort of "democracy" that a "free" Britain will have then I want none of it thanks.
You hate democracy, what a surprise. Being ruled from abroad by unaccountable EU officials was part and parcel of Brexit, and good for them for doing it. With any luck, it will be the kick the brings the whole rotten structure down. The EU doesn't serve the interests of the people of Europe, that's why it's going down. It only serves its own interests, like any government attempts to do.
David Curry, a thirty-four-year-old cashier from Southern California
There's your answer. Honestly I'm surprised he doesn't have a Slashdot account and didn't pop up in the comments. Probably too young.
The biggest existential threat facing Europe right now is an exploding African population that don't want to stay in Africa because it's full of Africans. Somehow I don't think even more Africans is going to solve the problem.
The world doesn't shit on Africa, Africans shit on Africa.
So pointlessly grinding in a game is like climbing Mount Everest. OK, gotcha. Except the part where it's actually a challenge to climb a mountain, whereas grinding is just grinding. It is merely tedious. The guy should have spent his time grinding in an MMO instead, he'd probably have a thousand or two dollars worth of gear drops to sell instead.
1: Desalination plants on a large scale, combined with water pipelines. Once the warlords are out of the way, African droughts and famines would be over, and there would be a lot more arable, fertile land available.
So, you're saying that Africa's population would have constraints removed and the number of people in Africa would consequently explode. I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through...
[citation needed]
I just provided a dozen citations from prominent people saying that global warming is a scam, and you didn't exactly refute any of it. It's not a giant conspiracy where they meet in a boardroom under a volcano with COUNCIL OF EVIL written above it. It's more like a hivemind. Many actors taking individual actions in service of a destructive goal. It's for-real. Remember the fuss over the Paris Accords? Turns out that was nothing but a scam, too. Wouldn't have done a damn thing for the climate.
"They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didnâ(TM)t stop to think if they should."
I just really don't get why grinding away pointlessly at a low level of an RPG and getting level 99 is some kind of worthwhile. Even in the "playing Desert Bus" kind of way. I guess it's a generation gap: I didn't get why lying down and having people take photos of you "planking" was such a big deal, either. It makes sense to someone, for some reason.
It's not a "better world". It's all about ridiculous exaggeration and globalization and creating the structures necessary to confiscate money from nations that create wealth and move it to others that only consume, and once and for all get rid of that poverty eliminator, capitalism. It's a precursor to world government and the end of democracy. But don't listen to me, let's hear their own words:
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history."
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: "We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
This is why a fair system, where the government decides which companies are funded, is needed. In fact, why have a middleman, just have the government deal out the money directly. It'll work much better than the idiot VC system, that's for sure.
Look, it's not a debate. The USA, specifically VCs, are sexist scumbags who should be ended. Things have just gotten worse and worse lately and women are unwelcome in tech, not to mention the boardroom. We don't need any more enlightenment, these vile facts have been known for a long time. America has a lot to answer for with its backwards, sexist tech culture. Other countries are far more welcoming and provide a model for America to follow with regards to equality and lack of sexism.
You poor dear...that "Informative" moderation triggered you, didn't it? You just had to come out and tell that awful disagreeing person that she's wrong. Now that equilibrium has been restored, you might want to sculpt some Play-Doh or play with a stuffed animal until you calm down.
Jeez you're remarkably dense. For someone with a name like "Shanghai Bill", you'd figure you'd know more about China. The Hui muslims aren't engaged in trying to revolt against the government. The Uighurs are. I just can't imagine how someone could make a comment like that and not mention the difference between the Uighurs and the Hui. It's a baffling lack of context from someone who should damn well know better.