I'm not advocating hate speech, but why is there the need to censor "n****r" when "fucking asshole" was printed in plaintext?
These are all just words. It's no different than "chink" or "beaner". By censoring them we elevate their status and perpetuate the undesirable meaning behind them. It's just stupid.
Even slashdot required me to censor it to post. wtf.
For "n****r" vs "fucking asshole", fucking assholes aren't really a distinct class of people, and to the extent they are they have a lot of control over whether they're a "fucking asshole" or not.
As for the other racial slurs, the percentage of black Americans coupled with the history of anti-black racism make anti-black racism an unusually taboo subject in the US.
On a more general note, if you freak out every time rules are applied inconsistently in the English language you're just end up looking like a fucking asshole.
Sure you'll watch the road like a hawk for the first few weeks...
This raises a question - if I have to pay as much or more attention to the road as if I am driving the car manually, then why would I need this feature? At least driving the car manually keeps me alert since I have to respond often instead of once every two hours.
I also think it answers the question, you don't need it, not if you want to be safe in your vehicle.
I think there's a role for this technology in collision avoidance, and you can work towards full self-driving from that. But I think the path that Tesla is taking is a dangerous one, I really wonder how much of it is Musk wanting to be the one who goes down in history as making the first self-driving car.
I seem to remember Finn being mediocre with the sabre. I don't think he won a single fight against anyone who had a weapon that could block, although I might be misremembering. He explicitly couldn't pilot, and his major surprise skill was...gunnery. It's plausible. He was a fine character.
I remember Rey was good at everything she attempted, and everyone she meets during the plot progression likes or is fascinated by her. "Force awakened desert mechanic" can perhaps explain her entire skillset if you wave your hand enough, but so what? Mary Sues aren't such because they lack an explanation but because they're too wonderful to be plausible protagonists.
Force-powers are basically magic so it kinda fits the universe.
But I think more to the point, in my experience JJ Abrams makes initially great TV shows and crappy movies.
When he gets a TV shows he actually builds interesting characters and universes until it gets away with him and starts going off the rails in latter seasons.
But in movies... he just seems to write fan-fiction. That's why Rey sucks as a character, she's not a Mary Sue or feminism gone awry, she's an underdeveloped character. Maybe Abrams doesn't think he has time to develop characters in film or maybe he's too awed by the franchises to take real creative decisions.
Watch the first 10 minutes of the force awakens, where you have 3 dimensional storm troopers and heroes making tough decisions. It's actually the start of a decent movie and a good reboot of the franchise.
I wonder what would have happened if he kept making that film instead of switching to a remake of A New Hope.
Too much grrl power feminism in rogue one. She went from nobody to jedi master in 17 minutes.
Because feminism is the only possible explanation for lazy writing.
Besides, the movie established that she was already a skilled fighter with a staff, those skills are at least somewhat transferable.
The reformed storm trooper on the other hand, he did massively outperform his plausible light sabre abilities, of course he's a guy so that doesn't really fit your anti-SJW narrative.
Or you could not be a tard and assume you should still pay "some" attention to the world flying by at 70 MPH outside that could, you know, kill you. But nah, keep facebooking and slowly making the world a better place by removing yourself from the gene pool.
You could assume that, you could also assume people will floss every day, eat healthy food, and get 8 hours of sleep every night. But then you'd be a poor judge of human nature.
Sure you'll watch the road like a hawk for the first few weeks, but then you'll realize it's been going without incident all that time and you just want to reply to a text message from your girlfriend, or respond to an important email from work, or maybe just zone out and start at the scenery.
Give people a car that drives without their constant interaction and a lot of those people, probably most, will become very complacent very quickly.
You say that as if it would be sold at the lower price were it not true.
If Tesla can sell the same hardware at different price points and still make a profit then the higher price point is simply profiteering. I would rather they sell it at a fair price.
Say it costs a company $2500 to develop product X, and they can manufacture 500 of them for $5 each. That's $5000 total so to cover costs on those 500 they have to sell each one for $10, $5 for the R&D and $5 for the manufacturing cost.
What happens if they build 1000? Well the R&D cost per unit is now $2.5, making the price $7.5 per unit, but maybe there aren't 1000 people willing to pay $7.5 for product X.
So you come up with a way to cripple X and sell it as product Y. And now you sell 500 of product X for $8 and 500 for product Y for $7.
The product X buyers save $2, and the product Y buyers get a product they couldn't have otherwise afforded.
So do you really consider it profiteering if the consumer comes out ahead?
The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.
And what's your evidence for this rather bold assertion?
I have no doubt that self-driving cars *can* be safer than human-driven cars, but I'm quite dubious that they are there already. I'm even less certain that the current state of partially self-driving cars is safer than purely human-driven cars in the long run.
Because we will drop the sub after we watch the one show they have we want.
The rest of this study is irrelevant and honestly doesn't ring true. When a show is spread out too long I tend to lose much of the plot points due to other things going on in between. I tend to stop caring about some shows I might otherwise finish up. Possibly the last part of that sentence is the key point: when binge watching I might watch a show I'd ordinarily decide to give up on because it got stupid. When they're spaced a week apart I will just not bother to go back.
Alternately: When a show is spread out I have time to dwell on plot points a few days between viewings, that gives the corresponding events more significance and makes the show as a whole more enjoyable. The choice to binge watch isn't a reasoned decision so much as a failure of delayed gratification.
Not sure which is true, but I'm not convinced anecdotes can solve this one.
In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.
Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?
Whether an executive action is legal is a different standard than whether an executive action is moral or wise.
Some of these people were so young when they were brought to the US that they didn't even realize they were an immigrant until somebody told them.
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
There have just been too many situations like this where scientists say one thing, as if they're 100% sure they're right, and then sometime latter they have to backtrack on their claims. Sometimes it even turns out that the exact opposite of what they're saying is actually true!
The problem isn't that scientists are retracting their incorrect claims. That's exactly what they should be doing, and it's what science as a practice requires be done. The problem is that they should not be making claims that they can't substantiate, and they surely shouldn't be making claims that they'll need to retract just a few years later, especially if any sort of political policy will be based on their claims.
Nutrition science and climate science have shown themselves to be two fields where claims are made too easily, and what is claimed either ends up being obviously wrong, or the predictions being made do not come to pass.
The problem is the news is good at reporting new stuff, bad at reporting on how a single study has shifted the overall consensus.
How does the rest of the field interpret this study? How do the authors think the field should respond? A naive reading of the results suggests I should cut my carbs down to almost nothing and eat a ton of fat, I doubt that's a good approach to take. This result may be an outlier, it may shift the consensus slightly, or it might be completely in line with the current understanding, I don't really know which and it might take a while for the field to find out.
Scientists in other fields, especially ones that have a much better track record of consistently being right, should try to publicly separate themselves from scientific fields like nutrition science and climate science. Greater denouncing of scientific fields and scientists with poor track records may be the only way to maintain, never mind restore, any trust that the public at large may have in science.
And you just couldn't resist a global warming shot...
Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary? I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option but I feel like it's far more likely that tasers are considered by police to be non-lethal weapons when in fact they are merely less-lethal weapons. The "don't tase me, bro" incident is a perfect example of this abuse of force.
The problem with tasers is they aren't reliable enough to be a useful means of protection. When a situation arises where you really need to stop someone you use a gun.
So cops use tasers for the one thing they are good for, compliance. Sometimes this can save lives, ie a crazy person with a knife that you can't talk down and would have been shot when they inevitably changed. But more often they're used to subdue uncooperative subjects.
It's understandable why cops like them, they make the very unpleasant job of getting extremely stubborn people to cooperate much easier, but I have a growing suspicion they're an impediment to the goals of police work as a whole.
It sounds like the permafrost melting thing is an unstable equilibrium: the more it melts, the more carbon and methane goes into the atmosphere, the warmer it gets, and the more it melts.
So, here's my question: if we are sitting on an unstable equilibrium like that, why hasn't there been runaway carbon dioxide warming in the past?
Why doesn't any positive feedback react that way? If I have a single beer that triggers a positive feedback loop where I want another beer, but it doesn't end up with me dead of alcohol poisoning, it ends up with me drunk and deciding I've had enough. An avalanche is another positive feedback, a single snowball might not do anything, but once there's enough sliding snow it starts to trigger more snow to slide.
But the result isn't snow sliding to the centre of the earth, the positive feedback of sliding snow gives out as the snow reaches the bottom of the mountain.
Global warming feedbacks aren't fundamentally different, positive feedbacks diminish in effectiveness as the system moves in their direction. The positive feedbacks of global warming are like two meta-stable states of the snow, top of the mountain and bottom of the mountain. Just like we went from an ice age to a modern climate, we're on our way from a modern climate to global warming. And that climate won't be stable either, eventually something else will happen, another set of positive feedback will kick in, and the earth will move to yet another equilibrium.
It would only take a degree or two of variation to trigger the runaway event, but that's never happened due to variations in sun activity?
I don't know how typical it is for the sun to cause a crazy hot year, but one really hot year doesn't do much. The permafrost doesn't melt in one hot year, it takes a lot of hot years in a row.
Every morning I read Breitbart first, then MSM (via Google News). Breitbart to find out what happened, and MSM to find out why it was Trump's fault.
I read a lot of MSM and Trump's administration has gone more or less how I expected, as has the climate over the past couple decades.
Somehow I suspect you end up being either surprised the state of reality a lot more often than I do.
Yes, and its part of a natural cycle. The polar caps on Mars are also melting, but we seem to be peaking and cycling back into the cold half again for another 11 or 22 or 28 or 88 years. There are several cycles that sometimes harmonize to cause the extremes.
FTA: Minimum sunspot years and the AMO index can combine to explain more than 54 percent of the variations in total tropical cyclones and nearly 46 percent of the variation in tropical cyclone days. Solar cycle extremes should be considered for more accurate seasonal tropical cyclone predictions.
So what does that have to do with the permafrost melting, or even global warming more generally?
Did you just find a peer reviewed article talking about sunspots and figured no one would realize it didn't support your argument?
There's absolutely no evidence there was a cyber-attack.
All we've had is a bunch of people speculating "cyber-attack" because it's a popular topic right now.
The Navy isn't denying because they haven't finished investigating the accident and don't want to start publicly ruling things out. Maybe it will turn out to be a cyber-attack, but the currently available information is completely consistent with a dozen other scenarios that have nothing to do with a cyber attack.
What I don't understand, is why bitcoin is being valued so stupidly highly. To me, this kind of instability is frightening. The risk of losing value is so high that only a fool would invest.
And yet in the real world, I'm the fool because if I had bought bitcoin earlier on, I'd be filthy rich now.
The question is what's the true price of Bitcoin? Everyone thought that back when it was trading at $100, and now that's a distant memory.
I think I'm going to drop $1000 into bitcoin and etherium, it's money I can afford to lose, but if one of those cryptocurrencies goes legit big time then at least I'll be able to stop kicking myself.
Seriously, what is going on, is that Chinese boats come across the pacific filling up, and then sells in America. This is what allows them to then sell fish DIRT CHEAP at home. The worst part is, that not only do they do their legal limits on the way over, but then fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for.
The only way to stop this is to prohibit their selling in America, or importing from Canada/Mexico if China sells there. Then no more licenses for CHinese boats to be in American economic zone.
As it is, they are fishing our waters and destroying these faster than their own.
Do you have sources for this? I have no doubt that China is doing a poor job of managing its fishery, but I'm really skeptical that they "fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for".
The one thing the US is really good at is military, and foreign vessels illegally fishing in US waters is something the US Coast Guard would care about.
The CNBC article says both that Bannon resigned and that Trump fired him.
Both, people at that level are very rarely fired, typically they are asked to submit a resignation. The idea is to preserve optics by making the departure seem as amicable as possible.
I've never had anybody actually explain what crime was committed by Trump or his Campaign here. I've heard a lot of people claiming that there was a crime or multiple crimes, but nobody can point to any actual laws that they think where broken,. I dare you, come up with an actual law that got broken by Trump or his Campaign related to the Russians...
1) Donald Jr. attended a meeting with the intent of getting campaign assistance in the form of Intel from the Russian Government. This arguably violated campaign finance law. It's not an open and shut legal argument, but it isn't absurd either, and that he tried to get the info from the Russian government is abundantly clear.
2) Multiple members of Trump's campaign have been caught omitting foreign contacts from security clearance forms, in violation of the law.
3) Multiple members of Trump's campaign have been caught concealing payments from foreign governments, spawning money laundering investigations.
4) Trump's Attorney General (also a member of his campaign) lied to congress while under oath during his confirmation hearing.
5) IF Trump and/or his campaign conspired with Russian agents in the DNC hack, or in how to spread the contents emails they knew were hacked, then they're involved in a criminal conspiracy.
6) There's a lot of Russian money and investment flowing through Trump's business empire, it's possibly one of the only things that saved him from bankruptcy. It's extremely speculative, but it opens up the doors to money laundering, bribery, and a whole lot of shady things that might affect Trump personally.
7) Mueller has gotten a grand jury together, he clearly has some very specific crimes in mind.
what crimes did the Russians commit that had any affect on the election?
Are you daft? Were you in a coma last year or did you just forget about the months of coverage about Podesta's emails and the DNC hack?
How on earth is he doing this? Firing Comey? Asking him to let Flynn go? Is that all you got or is there more? You do realize that neither of these things had any affect on your supposed investigations.
You don't actually have to be successful in obstructing an investigation to be guilty of obstructing justice.
You also heard that Comey admitted that Trump wasn't under investigation before h was let go, under oath, after his departure, before congress. There is no obstruction here.
Obstructing justice on an investigation of your associates, and investigation that may grow to include you, is still obstruction of justice.
Also, the sky is blue.
Donald Trump's behavior is the literal definition of treason.
Only in your contrived "Trumped up" accusations of criminal activity by Trump would this be Treason. EVEN IF he did what you claim, you are claiming that what he did meets the Constitutional definition of Treason? LOL.. I think you are nuts..
I'm with you on this one, the literal definition of treason requires a state of war.
I don't know about John Goodman but as I teen I thought stuff like Austin Powers was disgusting, and I positively avoided any "comedy" if the movie trailers reek attempts grossing people out in hit-and-misss jabs of body / bathroom humours, and that certainly included half-naked guys with beer bellies.
I don't watch a lot of movies so I may be biased, but some of the actresses that try to push as "average" in the body positive movement certainly does not look average to me. I'm not talking about the face, I'm talking about ladies that look at least 15kg overweight featured as "average weight" . Likes of Amy Schmer should not be featured in bikinis.
Some of the attempts to correct the lookism trend are way over the top, the pushback shows up in one-star ratings of likes of Amy Schmer movies and the all-girl Ghost Busters flop.
You're missing the same point as the OP.
The OP was claiming that movies shouldn't have fat women because he didn't want to look at fat women in bikinis. But that presumes that the only reason a woman would be in a movie is to provide sex appeal.
I don't mind some unusually attractive or skinny women being in movies on the basis of their sex appeal, there's a lot of unusually attractive and fit guys who are in movies for the exact same reason.
But we also have male movie stars who are fat, old, and kinda funny looking. That's because they're not there for their sex appeal, they're there to be interesting characters, and some of the things that make them interesting are their weight, age, and weird appearances.
Women tend to be cast only as objects of sexual desire, not as characters in their own right, that's why they're always skinny and attractive.
Casting non-models in the Ghost Busters was one of the smartest things they did, it made them actual characters instead of the passive objects of romantic attention for every guy that wandered on screen. The screw-up of the new Ghost Busters wasn't the cast, it was the writing and over-reliance on big CGI sequences.
Look at Spy to see what I'm talking about. The female protagonists are fairly unattractive and the male characters are mostly sex symbols, make the female leads just as talented but more attractive and it's not as good a film.
Customers spend more money on what they're attracted to. Stop trying to do "conversion therapy" on them like a 20th century Puritan who can't stand the thought of a gay man.
Or, directors and producers have convinced themselves that you should never hire a woman of below average attractiveness or above average weight.
Movies are supposed to be entertaining, and you know what's entertaining? Variety.
A world consisting of super-models is fairly dull, a large female actress who is written with a personality can actually be really entertaining to watch.
Those willing to do anything to hurt the President at all costs need to remember that there will be more Presidents after Trump.
Yeah, there's even some dumbasses who claimed that previous Presidents weren't even born in the US!
Congress has already usurped some of the historical Executive powers with their limitations on how the President can handle the current sanctions against Russia.
Then go whining to a court.
Since he has already been judged, without any evidence, of being a Russian agent he is effectively barred from trying to cooperate and improve the US-Russian relationship.
You've apparently missed like the past year of news. There was enough evidence for a DOJ investigation months ago, and it's only grown since then.
It is know looked upon as criminal suspicion when any elected or appointed officials talk to their foreign counterparts.
Only when they fail to disclose those meetings when legally obliged to, and then get caught lying about the contents of the meetings over and over.
Let's be honest, the only reason of Carry Fisher's success was the bikini scene RofJ, not the depth of the Princess Leia.
So was Mark Hamill's success a result of his brilliant acting or did he have a shirtless scene I forgot about?
Let's be honest, Carry Fisher and Mark Hamill were both decent performers who achieved fame beyond their talent because they were well cast in a massively successful movie.
To insist that Carry Fisher's success was only because of her bikini scene is the definition of sexism.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not advocating hate speech, but why is there the need to censor "n****r" when "fucking asshole" was printed in plaintext?
These are all just words. It's no different than "chink" or "beaner". By censoring them we elevate their status and perpetuate the undesirable meaning behind them. It's just stupid.
Even slashdot required me to censor it to post. wtf.
For "n****r" vs "fucking asshole", fucking assholes aren't really a distinct class of people, and to the extent they are they have a lot of control over whether they're a "fucking asshole" or not.
As for the other racial slurs, the percentage of black Americans coupled with the history of anti-black racism make anti-black racism an unusually taboo subject in the US.
On a more general note, if you freak out every time rules are applied inconsistently in the English language you're just end up looking like a fucking asshole.
Sure you'll watch the road like a hawk for the first few weeks...
This raises a question - if I have to pay as much or more attention to the road as if I am driving the car manually, then why would I need this feature? At least driving the car manually keeps me alert since I have to respond often instead of once every two hours.
I also think it answers the question, you don't need it, not if you want to be safe in your vehicle.
I think there's a role for this technology in collision avoidance, and you can work towards full self-driving from that. But I think the path that Tesla is taking is a dangerous one, I really wonder how much of it is Musk wanting to be the one who goes down in history as making the first self-driving car.
I seem to remember Finn being mediocre with the sabre. I don't think he won a single fight against anyone who had a weapon that could block, although I might be misremembering. He explicitly couldn't pilot, and his major surprise skill was...gunnery. It's plausible. He was a fine character.
I remember Rey was good at everything she attempted, and everyone she meets during the plot progression likes or is fascinated by her. "Force awakened desert mechanic" can perhaps explain her entire skillset if you wave your hand enough, but so what? Mary Sues aren't such because they lack an explanation but because they're too wonderful to be plausible protagonists.
Force-powers are basically magic so it kinda fits the universe.
But I think more to the point, in my experience JJ Abrams makes initially great TV shows and crappy movies.
When he gets a TV shows he actually builds interesting characters and universes until it gets away with him and starts going off the rails in latter seasons.
But in movies... he just seems to write fan-fiction. That's why Rey sucks as a character, she's not a Mary Sue or feminism gone awry, she's an underdeveloped character. Maybe Abrams doesn't think he has time to develop characters in film or maybe he's too awed by the franchises to take real creative decisions.
Watch the first 10 minutes of the force awakens, where you have 3 dimensional storm troopers and heroes making tough decisions. It's actually the start of a decent movie and a good reboot of the franchise.
I wonder what would have happened if he kept making that film instead of switching to a remake of A New Hope.
Too much grrl power feminism in rogue one. She went from nobody to jedi master in 17 minutes.
Because feminism is the only possible explanation for lazy writing.
Besides, the movie established that she was already a skilled fighter with a staff, those skills are at least somewhat transferable.
The reformed storm trooper on the other hand, he did massively outperform his plausible light sabre abilities, of course he's a guy so that doesn't really fit your anti-SJW narrative.
Or you could not be a tard and assume you should still pay "some" attention to the world flying by at 70 MPH outside that could, you know, kill you. But nah, keep facebooking and slowly making the world a better place by removing yourself from the gene pool.
You could assume that, you could also assume people will floss every day, eat healthy food, and get 8 hours of sleep every night. But then you'd be a poor judge of human nature.
Sure you'll watch the road like a hawk for the first few weeks, but then you'll realize it's been going without incident all that time and you just want to reply to a text message from your girlfriend, or respond to an important email from work, or maybe just zone out and start at the scenery.
Give people a car that drives without their constant interaction and a lot of those people, probably most, will become very complacent very quickly.
"""Monitoring driver attention by measuring the driver's touching of the steering wheel "was a poor surrogate for monitored driving engagement." """
How would you monitor their engagement? Eye tracking? Manual corrections to the car's path/speed?
What happens when people ignore the "please grab the wheel?" Does the car pull over and park? Is that what it should do?
It means that it's really hard to make a partially self-driving car that is safe.
People have two mode, driving and not-driving. If the car isn't safe while you're not-driving then the car isn't safe.
If Tesla can sell the same hardware at different price points and still make a profit then the higher price point is simply profiteering. I would rather they sell it at a fair price.
Say it costs a company $2500 to develop product X, and they can manufacture 500 of them for $5 each. That's $5000 total so to cover costs on those 500 they have to sell each one for $10, $5 for the R&D and $5 for the manufacturing cost.
What happens if they build 1000? Well the R&D cost per unit is now $2.5, making the price $7.5 per unit, but maybe there aren't 1000 people willing to pay $7.5 for product X.
So you come up with a way to cripple X and sell it as product Y. And now you sell 500 of product X for $8 and 500 for product Y for $7.
The product X buyers save $2, and the product Y buyers get a product they couldn't have otherwise afforded.
So do you really consider it profiteering if the consumer comes out ahead?
The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.
And what's your evidence for this rather bold assertion?
I have no doubt that self-driving cars *can* be safer than human-driven cars, but I'm quite dubious that they are there already. I'm even less certain that the current state of partially self-driving cars is safer than purely human-driven cars in the long run.
Because we will drop the sub after we watch the one show they have we want.
The rest of this study is irrelevant and honestly doesn't ring true. When a show is spread out too long I tend to lose much of the plot points due to other things going on in between. I tend to stop caring about some shows I might otherwise finish up. Possibly the last part of that sentence is the key point: when binge watching I might watch a show I'd ordinarily decide to give up on because it got stupid. When they're spaced a week apart I will just not bother to go back.
Alternately:
When a show is spread out I have time to dwell on plot points a few days between viewings, that gives the corresponding events more significance and makes the show as a whole more enjoyable. The choice to binge watch isn't a reasoned decision so much as a failure of delayed gratification.
Not sure which is true, but I'm not convinced anecdotes can solve this one.
In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.
Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?
Whether an executive action is legal is a different standard than whether an executive action is moral or wise.
Some of these people were so young when they were brought to the US that they didn't even realize they were an immigrant until somebody told them.
Do you really want to deport them?
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
There have just been too many situations like this where scientists say one thing, as if they're 100% sure they're right, and then sometime latter they have to backtrack on their claims. Sometimes it even turns out that the exact opposite of what they're saying is actually true!
The problem isn't that scientists are retracting their incorrect claims. That's exactly what they should be doing, and it's what science as a practice requires be done. The problem is that they should not be making claims that they can't substantiate, and they surely shouldn't be making claims that they'll need to retract just a few years later, especially if any sort of political policy will be based on their claims.
Nutrition science and climate science have shown themselves to be two fields where claims are made too easily, and what is claimed either ends up being obviously wrong, or the predictions being made do not come to pass.
The problem is the news is good at reporting new stuff, bad at reporting on how a single study has shifted the overall consensus.
How does the rest of the field interpret this study? How do the authors think the field should respond? A naive reading of the results suggests I should cut my carbs down to almost nothing and eat a ton of fat, I doubt that's a good approach to take. This result may be an outlier, it may shift the consensus slightly, or it might be completely in line with the current understanding, I don't really know which and it might take a while for the field to find out.
Scientists in other fields, especially ones that have a much better track record of consistently being right, should try to publicly separate themselves from scientific fields like nutrition science and climate science. Greater denouncing of scientific fields and scientists with poor track records may be the only way to maintain, never mind restore, any trust that the public at large may have in science.
And you just couldn't resist a global warming shot...
Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary? I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option but I feel like it's far more likely that tasers are considered by police to be non-lethal weapons when in fact they are merely less-lethal weapons. The "don't tase me, bro" incident is a perfect example of this abuse of force.
The problem with tasers is they aren't reliable enough to be a useful means of protection. When a situation arises where you really need to stop someone you use a gun.
So cops use tasers for the one thing they are good for, compliance. Sometimes this can save lives, ie a crazy person with a knife that you can't talk down and would have been shot when they inevitably changed. But more often they're used to subdue uncooperative subjects.
It's understandable why cops like them, they make the very unpleasant job of getting extremely stubborn people to cooperate much easier, but I have a growing suspicion they're an impediment to the goals of police work as a whole.
It sounds like the permafrost melting thing is an unstable equilibrium: the more it melts, the more carbon and methane goes into the atmosphere, the warmer it gets, and the more it melts.
So, here's my question: if we are sitting on an unstable equilibrium like that, why hasn't there been runaway carbon dioxide warming in the past?
Why doesn't any positive feedback react that way? If I have a single beer that triggers a positive feedback loop where I want another beer, but it doesn't end up with me dead of alcohol poisoning, it ends up with me drunk and deciding I've had enough. An avalanche is another positive feedback, a single snowball might not do anything, but once there's enough sliding snow it starts to trigger more snow to slide.
But the result isn't snow sliding to the centre of the earth, the positive feedback of sliding snow gives out as the snow reaches the bottom of the mountain.
Global warming feedbacks aren't fundamentally different, positive feedbacks diminish in effectiveness as the system moves in their direction. The positive feedbacks of global warming are like two meta-stable states of the snow, top of the mountain and bottom of the mountain. Just like we went from an ice age to a modern climate, we're on our way from a modern climate to global warming. And that climate won't be stable either, eventually something else will happen, another set of positive feedback will kick in, and the earth will move to yet another equilibrium.
It would only take a degree or two of variation to trigger the runaway event, but that's never happened due to variations in sun activity?
I don't know how typical it is for the sun to cause a crazy hot year, but one really hot year doesn't do much. The permafrost doesn't melt in one hot year, it takes a lot of hot years in a row.
Every morning I read Breitbart first, then MSM (via Google News). Breitbart to find out what happened, and MSM to find out why it was Trump's fault.
I read a lot of MSM and Trump's administration has gone more or less how I expected, as has the climate over the past couple decades.
Somehow I suspect you end up being either surprised the state of reality a lot more often than I do.
Yes, and its part of a natural cycle. The polar caps on Mars are also melting, but we seem to be peaking and cycling back into the cold half again for another 11 or 22 or 28 or 88 years. There are several cycles that sometimes harmonize to cause the extremes.
Solar cycle extremes as a seasonal predictor of Atlantic-Basin tropical cyclones
FTA:
Minimum sunspot years and the AMO index can combine to explain more than 54 percent of the variations in total tropical cyclones and nearly 46 percent of the variation in tropical cyclone days. Solar cycle extremes should be considered for more accurate seasonal tropical cyclone predictions.
So what does that have to do with the permafrost melting, or even global warming more generally?
Did you just find a peer reviewed article talking about sunspots and figured no one would realize it didn't support your argument?
There's absolutely no evidence there was a cyber-attack.
All we've had is a bunch of people speculating "cyber-attack" because it's a popular topic right now.
The Navy isn't denying because they haven't finished investigating the accident and don't want to start publicly ruling things out. Maybe it will turn out to be a cyber-attack, but the currently available information is completely consistent with a dozen other scenarios that have nothing to do with a cyber attack.
What I don't understand, is why bitcoin is being valued so stupidly highly. To me, this kind of instability is frightening. The risk of losing value is so high that only a fool would invest.
And yet in the real world, I'm the fool because if I had bought bitcoin earlier on, I'd be filthy rich now.
The question is what's the true price of Bitcoin? Everyone thought that back when it was trading at $100, and now that's a distant memory.
I think I'm going to drop $1000 into bitcoin and etherium, it's money I can afford to lose, but if one of those cryptocurrencies goes legit big time then at least I'll be able to stop kicking myself.
Seriously, what is going on, is that Chinese boats come across the pacific filling up, and then sells in America. This is what allows them to then sell fish DIRT CHEAP at home. The worst part is, that not only do they do their legal limits on the way over, but then fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for.
The only way to stop this is to prohibit their selling in America, or importing from Canada/Mexico if China sells there. Then no more licenses for CHinese boats to be in American economic zone.
As it is, they are fishing our waters and destroying these faster than their own.
Do you have sources for this? I have no doubt that China is doing a poor job of managing its fishery, but I'm really skeptical that they "fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for".
The one thing the US is really good at is military, and foreign vessels illegally fishing in US waters is something the US Coast Guard would care about.
The CNBC article says both that Bannon resigned and that Trump fired him.
Both, people at that level are very rarely fired, typically they are asked to submit a resignation. The idea is to preserve optics by making the departure seem as amicable as possible.
Donald Trump colluded....
By committing what crime(s)?
I've never had anybody actually explain what crime was committed by Trump or his Campaign here. I've heard a lot of people claiming that there was a crime or multiple crimes, but nobody can point to any actual laws that they think where broken,. I dare you, come up with an actual law that got broken by Trump or his Campaign related to the Russians...
1) Donald Jr. attended a meeting with the intent of getting campaign assistance in the form of Intel from the Russian Government. This arguably violated campaign finance law. It's not an open and shut legal argument, but it isn't absurd either, and that he tried to get the info from the Russian government is abundantly clear.
2) Multiple members of Trump's campaign have been caught omitting foreign contacts from security clearance forms, in violation of the law.
3) Multiple members of Trump's campaign have been caught concealing payments from foreign governments, spawning money laundering investigations.
4) Trump's Attorney General (also a member of his campaign) lied to congress while under oath during his confirmation hearing.
5) IF Trump and/or his campaign conspired with Russian agents in the DNC hack, or in how to spread the contents emails they knew were hacked, then they're involved in a criminal conspiracy.
6) There's a lot of Russian money and investment flowing through Trump's business empire, it's possibly one of the only things that saved him from bankruptcy. It's extremely speculative, but it opens up the doors to money laundering, bribery, and a whole lot of shady things that might affect Trump personally.
7) Mueller has gotten a grand jury together, he clearly has some very specific crimes in mind.
what crimes did the Russians commit that had any affect on the election?
Are you daft? Were you in a coma last year or did you just forget about the months of coverage about Podesta's emails and the DNC hack?
How on earth is he doing this? Firing Comey? Asking him to let Flynn go? Is that all you got or is there more? You do realize that neither of these things had any affect on your supposed investigations.
You don't actually have to be successful in obstructing an investigation to be guilty of obstructing justice.
You also heard that Comey admitted that Trump wasn't under investigation before h was let go, under oath, after his departure, before congress. There is no obstruction here.
Obstructing justice on an investigation of your associates, and investigation that may grow to include you, is still obstruction of justice.
Also, the sky is blue.
Donald Trump's behavior is the literal definition of treason.
Only in your contrived "Trumped up" accusations of criminal activity by Trump would this be Treason. EVEN IF he did what you claim, you are claiming that what he did meets the Constitutional definition of Treason? LOL.. I think you are nuts..
I'm with you on this one, the literal definition of treason requires a state of war.
Lots of people have long commutes to work....Who cares?
Elon Musk, which is why his people are (likely) pushing these stories through the media to try and build political support for his hyperloop.
I don't know about John Goodman but as I teen I thought stuff like Austin Powers was disgusting, and I positively avoided any "comedy" if the movie trailers reek attempts grossing people out in hit-and-misss jabs of body / bathroom humours, and that certainly included half-naked guys with beer bellies.
I don't watch a lot of movies so I may be biased, but some of the actresses that try to push as "average" in the body positive movement certainly does not look average to me. I'm not talking about the face, I'm talking about ladies that look at least 15kg overweight featured as "average weight" . Likes of Amy Schmer should not be featured in bikinis.
Some of the attempts to correct the lookism trend are way over the top, the pushback shows up in one-star ratings of likes of Amy Schmer movies and the all-girl Ghost Busters flop.
You're missing the same point as the OP.
The OP was claiming that movies shouldn't have fat women because he didn't want to look at fat women in bikinis. But that presumes that the only reason a woman would be in a movie is to provide sex appeal.
I don't mind some unusually attractive or skinny women being in movies on the basis of their sex appeal, there's a lot of unusually attractive and fit guys who are in movies for the exact same reason.
But we also have male movie stars who are fat, old, and kinda funny looking. That's because they're not there for their sex appeal, they're there to be interesting characters, and some of the things that make them interesting are their weight, age, and weird appearances.
Women tend to be cast only as objects of sexual desire, not as characters in their own right, that's why they're always skinny and attractive.
Casting non-models in the Ghost Busters was one of the smartest things they did, it made them actual characters instead of the passive objects of romantic attention for every guy that wandered on screen. The screw-up of the new Ghost Busters wasn't the cast, it was the writing and over-reliance on big CGI sequences.
Look at Spy to see what I'm talking about. The female protagonists are fairly unattractive and the male characters are mostly sex symbols, make the female leads just as talented but more attractive and it's not as good a film.
Movies aren't supposed to make me puke, which is what I'd want to do if I saw any of a number of famous bloated females in a bikini.
So do you also avoid any movies with John Goodman because you don't want to see him in a speedo?
Customers spend more money on what they're attracted to. Stop trying to do "conversion therapy" on them like a 20th century Puritan who can't stand the thought of a gay man.
Or, directors and producers have convinced themselves that you should never hire a woman of below average attractiveness or above average weight.
Movies are supposed to be entertaining, and you know what's entertaining? Variety.
A world consisting of super-models is fairly dull, a large female actress who is written with a personality can actually be really entertaining to watch.
Those willing to do anything to hurt the President at all costs need to remember that there will be more Presidents after Trump.
Yeah, there's even some dumbasses who claimed that previous Presidents weren't even born in the US!
Congress has already usurped some of the historical Executive powers with their limitations on how the President can handle the current sanctions against Russia.
Then go whining to a court.
Since he has already been judged, without any evidence, of being a Russian agent he is effectively barred from trying to cooperate and improve the US-Russian relationship.
You've apparently missed like the past year of news. There was enough evidence for a DOJ investigation months ago, and it's only grown since then.
It is know looked upon as criminal suspicion when any elected or appointed officials talk to their foreign counterparts.
Only when they fail to disclose those meetings when legally obliged to, and then get caught lying about the contents of the meetings over and over.
Let's be honest, the only reason of Carry Fisher's success was the bikini scene RofJ, not the depth of the Princess Leia.
So was Mark Hamill's success a result of his brilliant acting or did he have a shirtless scene I forgot about?
Let's be honest, Carry Fisher and Mark Hamill were both decent performers who achieved fame beyond their talent because they were well cast in a massively successful movie.
To insist that Carry Fisher's success was only because of her bikini scene is the definition of sexism.