There's a very simple reason why carbon dioxide sequestration is a REALLY bad idea.
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy C6H12O6 + 6 O2
Running the reaction one way, you have the miracle of photosynthesis. Running it the other way, you have animals (including people) inhaling oxygen and eating food.
Carbon dioxide, far from being a pollutant, is a critically necessary component in food production.
Note also that photosynthesis is Mother Nature's way of recycling carbon dioxide, and "global warming" is the rate control on the reaction: More carbon dioxide, more warmth, longer growing season, more food grown, more CO2 removed from the atmosphere. This is negative feedback control and it is arguably part of why environmental conditions on Earth have been pretty stable for a very long time.
Fascinating! You should really tell a professional climate scientist about your amazing discovery that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing!
You might even be in line for a Nobel Prize or two!!
It's not wealthy vs not wealthy, it's the typical middle class up vs poor minorities from communities that don't typically attend university.
Motivation and hard work comes from a belief that you can succeed. I was atrocious at the start of my first year programming course, but fortunately I was an intelligent middle class white guy, it was really obvious I could succeed with sustained effort because I could see a lot of intelligent middle class white guys with the same upbringing who had succeeded.
If I was a poor minority I'm not sure that would have been the case, I might have very reasonably assumed those other students had been taught something in high school, or something by their parents, that made that stuff easy. Faced with that I would have been much less motivated to keep trying to understand the material and may have dropped the course.
I can fully understand why telling a poor minority student that they're no different than a typical student would help that poor minority student succeed.
There are multiple victims who have put their names and faces to specific accusations, they might be fake (it happens), but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of them being mostly legit.
Remember Rolling Stone? Tim Hunt? Emma Sulkowicz (mattress girl)? Duke Lacrosse?
There are a packet of anonymous smears and four other people insisting "oh yeah that's totes legit".
Even your handpicked list of anecdotes is problematic.
Rolling Stone and Duke Lacrosse are legitimate examples of false reporting, relevant to this discussion but as I said, it does happen.
But Tim Hunt was just a victim of the Internet rage machine taking his remarks in a public speech out of context, the only similarities are Internet + gender.
And Emma Sulkowicz's campaign was a specific response to her complaints of assault being dismissed by the authorities. You might think she's making a false accusation but it's a fundamentally different thing.
Oh, and the two cases that were false accusations, those were with a single witness, not four.
I don't know if they're also pursuing criminal charges or not, if they aren't it doesn't mean they're lying. Not everyone who wants to get their story out necessarily wants to go through legal proceedings or have the perpetrator put in prison.
We have a word for this. It's called Libel. We also have a word for when people try to stir up public outrage to cause extra-judicial harm to someone, we call it Lynching.
Well he's free to sue them for Libel just like they can press charges.
Frankly I think this has to do with the fact that the legal system is poorly designed to deal with a majority of sexual assault.
A lot of victims don't want the intensive scrutiny of a trial or the heavy punishment of a guilty verdict, this results in predators like Bill Cosby raping dozens of women over a series of decades, and he's hardly the first example.
I'd much prefer a system where the victim can opt (if they want) for a much weaker interventionist punishment where both sides can keep anonymity but the perpetrator is now on the radar, and things can be escalated if the behaviour persists. I suspect that this would really improve reporting and reduce assaults without smearing men with false reports.
If the FBI hasn't got anything yet regarding the private server I very much doubt it will ever be a real issue beyond some poo for republicans to fling at her.
The FBI has enough evidence that they believe is cause for an indictment.
They do? That's news to me.
Hell, that's the leading news story for every news service in the US.
The Department of Justice is just sitting on it and not pursuing the indictment. Why would they?
Because not every technical violation of the law is deemed serious enough to result in an indictment. If it was the vast majority of the people here would have a criminal record.
The larger risk to Hillary right now isn't even the email scandal. It's perjury
And what was her specific lie under oath?
Has she even made statements under oath?
and that's why there's pushes to get Obama to issue a preemptive pardon to Hillary for whatever crimes she may have committed.
You have listening devices planted inside the FBI and Whitehouse? You seemingly have access to a lot of information that has never shown up in a reputable news source (I'm hedging myself against the inevitable WND.net citations).
I am not able to find any account of what has happened that does not come with a strong political agenda attached. That is the core problem with public accusations as opposed to filing a complaint: It immediately muddies the waters as people on both sides jump on the issue and try to exploit it for their own agendas. I honestly have no idea of what to think of this because all possibilities from him having done exactly what is claimed to this being an orchestrated smear-campaign seem now equally probable. I even consider it possible that he was a mole and what happens now is the desired outcome. Not good at all.
(emphasis added)
Is he possibly innocent and this could just be a smear campaign? Sure.
But the odds are nowhere near equal.
There are multiple victims who have put their names and faces to specific accusations, they might be fake (it happens), but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of them being mostly legit.
I don't know if they're also pursuing criminal charges or not, if they aren't it doesn't mean they're lying. Not everyone who wants to get their story out necessarily wants to go through legal proceedings or have the perpetrator put in prison.
"He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 in damages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree," Vaidik wrote. "He sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted..."
Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.
"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...
The legislature wrote the law, not the court. My understanding is that the court isn't meant to function like a computer, executing whatever buggy code it's given. It's supposed to apply the rules with some degree of discretion, the higher the court the more discretion it gets.
That's what the appeals court you cited did. They threw out the judgement granting $30k basically saying the rule was written to speed up proceedings and it was absurd to apply the rule that way.
As this point the issues I see are
a) The lower court let the plaintiff use the exploit, they should have had some other option.
b) It cost $12k in legal fees for Costello to take the case to the appeals court and get the bogus ruling thrown out, that's a lot of money for procrastinating on a notice.
When companies have outages like this and don't want to talk about it it's usually a DDoS.
They don't want to brag they can be DDoSed nor do they want to help pump up the group who did it. They don't want to give any info which is feedback about how well it worked either so the attackers can tune their attacks or gauge their chance of success if it was a dry run.
Or motivate more attacks when the media starts digging and finds out Apple payed a ransom.
Not really a coincidence. Islam demands men seek retribution for their honor. It's one thing Muslim men take seriously.
So do Texans, you don't see calls to build a wall around Texas every time someone gets killed in a bar fight.
Look at the number of girls killed by their own fathers because of perceived honor.
And in those cases there is a clear religious/cultural motive.
This is nothing new. We in America are only now really seeing what Islam really is. I was in and around the US military for 26 years. One thing I know for absolute certain that is not being discussed is that Islam is not really a religion--it's a political system with a religious element. Islam and its adherents base their actions on Sharia Law. Full stop. The media is very, very reluctant to point this out.
Isn't the US having a big debate about gay marriage? There seems to be a lot of arguments popping up based on Christian law.
Sure most Islamic nations take it a bit further, as do many Muslims. There's also a lot of Muslims trying to go the other way as well.
Notice the difference between how Islam and Christianity are treated today in the US. Ask yourself this question: What do you think homosexual activists are not asking Muslim bakers to bake them a cake for their weddings? Do you honestly think that this line of action would even be considered? There answer is no.
Those activists are trying to change laws and establish new norms. You do that by confronting the majority, not by picking fights with a small politically irrelevant minority.
For those not believing what I said above about Islam being a political system with a religious element need to look at this for themselves. You will come to see I am correct. The military used to operate under this understanding, but the current administration has forbidden this. Why? We all know why. This administration does nothing but coddle Islam, refuses to use the term "Islamic terrorism", allows a known terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood into the WH, the list goes on.
They're trying to end fights, not start them.
You're basing this whole idea on speculation around the shooter's specific beliefs and motives, truthfully we have no idea of his specific motives or beliefs aside from the fact he probably agreed that the label "Muslim" described some of them.
Of course having that label "Muslim" I'm certain that a particular political candidate won't be able to keep their mouth shut.
worth a read. I had no idea massimo stole the idea from his student.
I think a lot less of massimo now, sad to say. yeah, he messed up the top.1 spaced headers (a crime in itself) but taking a student's work and calling it your own, that's really something to be publicly shamed over.
and yet, massimo does world tours claiming he's the arduino inventor guy.
just read the student's post about how HE came up with the concepts and had it stolen from him. I feel for him and I can imagine that happening, too.
The student may have gotten shafted in the history though I'm not sure it's right to say his work was stolen.
The student master's project consisted of creating a platform called Wired, this platform was released as open source.
The supervisor, who certainly had some significant input and guidance on the project, forked the Wired project and turned it into Arduino. This is a completely standard and proper thing to do with open source projects, heck I've done it. There are two different visions for the project, forking means that both have a chance to succeed, it would seems that Arduino was the more successful vision.
It could be something similar happened here, though obviously with a bunch of other personal issues added on the part of the shooter. Sarkar was working on a project and had some conflicts with his supervisor. The supervisor decided to put another student on the project. Sarkar felt like his work was being stolen and had some sort of break down.
It's tragic but I don't see any evidence that the supervisor did anything wrong other than not knowing how to help a student who was in a really bad state.
No she doesn't, in fact politifact gives her a slightly better score than Sanders.
That video is mostly just nitpicking on context, so what if she's not completely consistent in identifying as progressive or moderate? Neither am I. But I'm not lying as much as responding to the context and applying very subjective definitions.
Maybe if the progressives cared more about picking someone decent, we'd have Sanders and you'd have no reason to worry about Trump at all.
Maybe but I expect it would be a lot worse.
His numbers are good now but no one outside the Democratic base is paying attention to his policy, they just like him because he seems like a competent political outsider. They probably even think he's a moderate since his connections to the party are so weak.
The problem is that independents who don't identify as Democrats because the party is too moderate are not a good representation of the Democratic base.
Sanders isn't more popular right now because he's the stronger candidate.
He's popular because he's the weaker candidate, the Republicans haven't touched him all race because they'd love him as the Democratic nominee, or at least rile up the "Bernie or Bust" folks as much as possible so they won't support Hillary and give Trump the election.
I'm sorry but situations like Sanders are exactly the reason that match-up polls aren't considered predictive at this stage.
A "brilliant mind" may manifest itself in ways other than science. None of Trump's opponents understand his strategy and have publicly stated so.
Success manifests in ways other than brilliance.
Trump is probably more intelligent than one would assume from his language, but I'd say he's far from brilliant.
His strategy actually seems pretty simple with a few main tactics.
- There's a lot of ideas that elites suppress because they're terrible ideas though it's hard to explain why, ie Birtherism, banning Muslims, mass deportations. Embrace those positions and you become a champion against the elites. - Take a negative characteristic and just keep repeating it until it sticks, ie "Little Rubio", "Lying Ted", "Crooked Hillary". I'm not actually certain how effective this was, since the GOP candidates who really fell to this were already flawed. - Make grandiose statement about yourself and keep repeating it until it sticks, ie "I have the brain", "I have the best words", etc, etc - Speak without nuance and make assertions, "we're going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it". This makes you sound pro-active and sincere. - Contradict yourself, ie claim your authoritative statements are part of a negotiation, talk about invading a lot of places and then claim you're against a bunch of wars. If you take two positions then everyone can assume the one they prefer.
Now I don't think a lot of those tactics are usable by actual politicians.
Playing the anti-elite card means the elites are against you and you'll end up in a position like Ted Cruz, or to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders.
The nicknames and bragging tend to alienate potential allies.
And the bold assertions and contradictions become unusable once you actually have a track record.
I think a lot of people were surprised the strategy worked, and they're not quite sure how to respond to it, but I don't think it means he has a brilliant understanding of persuasion and media however. It's really not that different than a troll on a comment board, it just turns out that the media is very susceptible to trolling.
If in the future Stephen Hawking has his science proven wrong is he then considered ignorant? Isaac Newton was proven wrong, he was ignorant. Did anyone prove Trump wrong? Or is it just opinion that doesn't have scientific merit?
If you think Newton was ignorant you have a bad definition of ignorant.
Ignorance is defined by your beliefs in relation to your society, both Hawking and Newton are far from ignorant by that definition.
Trump is a businessman/reality TV star who won a Presidential primary on the basis of ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories.
I find it hilarious how hypocritical you are.
You condemn President Trump for supposedly using "insults", yet we see your comment riddled with insults and attacks directed at President Trump!
If I called Trump an orange buffoon that would be insulting him.
Saying his success come from "ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories" is just harsh criticism.
I may be wrong in my criticism, but I don't think it's properly classified as an insult.
You ridicule President Trump for allegedly having "ignorant ideas", yet we see so much intolerance, anger, wrath and dislike displayed by you!
Again not hypocrisy. Intolerance, anger, wrath and dislike are often motives for spreading ignorant ideas, but you can have those qualities without being ignorant.
And I only really agree with "dislike", I don't think intolerance, anger, or wrath really motivate me with Trump.
You rail on about "conspiracy theories", yet you're the one projecting this weird notion of President Trump seeing success because of "ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories", rather than just admitting that he's successful because he has widespread public support!
It would be very comical, were it not for the fact that you're serious!
I was positing the reason for his public support... and you don't seem to understand what a conspiracy theory is.
Though as I mentioned in the very next line he got to be the nominee by relying on his authority as a businessman and a media personality. There's no reason to consider Trump a credible candidate while not consider Hawking qualified to comment on it.
> Except for the "brilliant mind" part of course.
He made billions and defeated the entire Republican establishment. But, I'm sure he's a dummy. You could probably have done those things. I guess you're just not almost 70 yet, you'll probably have the world in your hand by then, right?
I'm sure he's pretty good in his domain of real estate, but it also helps to start out with a ton of money, family connections, and a bit of luck too. His biggest legitimate success seems to be in personal branding. Don't assume business is a strict meritocracy.
There's also a lot of speculation that his net worth is a lot less than he lets on, possibly on the order of $250 million or so. That's the most popular theory for why he won't release his tax returns.
I don't understand why Hawking's opinions about anything outside of physics is given publicity. Although one of the most brilliant minds of our time, in his field, he's not a politician nor a businessman.
One could say something similar about Trump.
Except for the "brilliant mind" part of course.
Trump is a businessman/reality TV star who won a Presidential primary on the basis of ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories.
Why can't someone who's achieved celebrity through a combination of brilliance and science communication then speak up in response?
One problem with media reporting today is the perceived need to get emotional involvement.
In it's economic zeal to get eyeballs on articles, the media has resorted to sensationalizing and emotionalism. They compete for the most outrageous, most shocking headlines in an attempt to lure readers.
...and because of this the media has lost all credibility. The readers have wised up, and most don't seem to fall for these tricks any more.
The reason republicans have lost faith in the media is they were watching Fox News and finally realized the media was messing with them.
We only have to look at the Trump campaign to see how this happened. Taking one single issue as an example, we read all about how he hates and has a war against latinos. In reality, he said nothing of the sort, which is 'kinda why he's got such a huge support base right now.
The media is astonished that his supporters aren't leaving him in droves... he *is* the next Hitler, didn't you know?
What's Trump's health care policy? What's his education policy? What's his energy policy? The only time he mentions these is scripted readings of a teleprompter. He doesn't care about them and neither do his supporters.
There's only two policy areas he ever talks about. Mexicans and Muslims and all the things he'll do to keep them out of the country. And a weird mishmash of foreign policy that seems to be centred around invading places and stealing their oil.
It's not the media's fault that white supremacists are treating him as the chosen one. Just like everyone else they're noticing the things he actually talks about.
You think they have an ugly website and therefore their reporting on the cellphone study is wrong??
No, those are two separate conditions. The first is true and the second is false. My wanting cell phones to cause cancer is not going to make it so.
Well your claim that they did bad journalism seemed predicated on the idea their design was poor.
However, that Vox is an ugly website is not a matter of opinion.
If anyone doesn't believe me, here, go look for yourself. I want someone here to come back and tell us that it's not an ugly website. If one person (not an AC) believes that this is a well-designed and attractive website, I will retract my words and refund your money.
Structurally the main page is a bit of a mess conflating their big current stories and topics but every site does that. If I click on one of the stories it's fairly clean text and all on one page, I'd say that's well above average.
The cards are a new idea, I don't know if they're a good one, but they seem well executed.
The only issue I can see is they've gone away from the traditional newspaper design and are getting their inspiration from "Promoted Stories" and other click bait sites. There's a bit of a negative connotation from that but once you get over the association it's fine.
Vox is strongly criticizing coverage of a supposed link between cellphones and cancer
Vox is a highly-leveraged company that makes money with a news site that's designed for use on mobile devices. What the fuck you think they're gonna say?
That strikes me as a bit of a stretch as far as conflicts of interest go.
Plus, Vox is the absolute ugliest news site every on the internet. I'm not joking. If you visit their page, be careful ow whiplash when you involuntarily turn your head away in horror. And their stock in trade are these hot-take "explainer cardstacks" which is some jargon bullshit for a web page with almost no information that prompts you to click on many other pages in order to read the whole story, which inevitably turns out to be disappointing, with mostly pictures and great big infographics without labels that make you come away feeling like you learned something when in fact you are stupider than when you started.
A bunch of refugees from other hipster publications started Vox, and they stand as a shining example of bad journalism, bad design and a bad business model.
You think they have an ugly website and therefore their reporting on the cellphone study is wrong??
Honestly I read a fair bit of Vox. I haven't looked at the card stacks but I think they're intended as a very high level basic overview (in case you're completely ignorant of the subject) but the stories, aside from their annoying click baity design, are generally pretty solid. They essentially come at things with a wonky left-leaning perspective and I haven't found them to be too far off the mark.
And that includes their coverage of this study which seems to be pretty balanced.
Perhaps males had larger physical bodies?. Thus the males would have absorbed more energy. (i.e. ~40mm cross section or larger,note: adj absorption for 1/2 wavelength, and velocity factor)..
Then I'd expect to more of an effect in the females at the highest dose, and a stronger dose-response curve in both sexes.
As I said it's interesting, but there's too much noise and not enough signal.
If you look at the study they only had ~90 rats per group so all the cancer incidences were pretty low, I think the worst-off group had 7 positives and I don't see any good reason why the males would be so cancer ridden while the females were fine.
This is a cool experiment for an initial investigation but you can't really conclude anything. I think the next stage is to repeat the experiment by getting as many male rates as you can and splitting them between the control and the two highest exposure male groups for GSM and CDMA.
Misogeny and misandry are not two unrelated problems - they are two sides of the same coin. Studying only part of the problem means that we miss out on properly understanding the problem as a whole. And without properly understanding the problem, how are we going to find a proper solution?
There's also things that are fairly specific to misogyny.
The fact that there's good studies you can do of misogyny and misandry doesn't mean every study has to be a study of misogyny and misandry.
No. You're just applying the usual double standard. Men are expected to be strong and women are expected to be weak and you are just feeding that whole bit of social indoctrination.
You're doing more harm than good with the pity party.
Ahh yes the old "any attempt to defend women from misogyny is really misogynist!"
Your comment would be fair if men and women received similar amounts of online abuse, particularly abused based on their gender. But women do get more harassment, especially harassment based on their gender, it's a bad thing and I'm not going to stop fighting it because of some cheap rhetorical trick.
So when do they study misandry and start to treat that as seriously as misogyny? You can't be gender inclusive when you officially ignore hate speech and discrimination against half the population.
When it's as serious a problem as misogyny.
I'm not saying to ignore misandry, it should be studied and I'm sure people are studying it. But misogyny, especially online, is far more prevalent, arguably a much bigger problem, and rightly deserves the majority of the attention.
you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton
Is this supposed to be some kind of Trump-inspired misogynist insult?
What? He's QUOTING HER. A reporter asked her if she wiped the server before allowing the FBI to see it. And she said, "What, like with a towel?"
I know, you already know that, and you're hoping that other people don't so you can pretend otherwise. Just another Shillary, trying to distract from her own words.
I'm sorry if I haven't mentioned every Hillary quote out there.
I thought the poster was referencing one of Trump's debate insults.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a very simple reason why carbon dioxide sequestration is a REALLY bad idea.
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy C6H12O6 + 6 O2
Running the reaction one way, you have the miracle of photosynthesis. Running it the other way, you have animals (including people) inhaling oxygen and eating food.
Carbon dioxide, far from being a pollutant, is a critically necessary component in food production.
Note also that photosynthesis is Mother Nature's way of recycling carbon dioxide, and "global warming" is the rate control on the reaction: More carbon dioxide, more warmth, longer growing season, more food grown, more CO2 removed from the atmosphere. This is negative feedback control and it is arguably part of why environmental conditions on Earth have been pretty stable for a very long time.
Fascinating! You should really tell a professional climate scientist about your amazing discovery that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing!
You might even be in line for a Nobel Prize or two!!
It's not wealthy vs not wealthy, it's the typical middle class up vs poor minorities from communities that don't typically attend university.
Motivation and hard work comes from a belief that you can succeed. I was atrocious at the start of my first year programming course, but fortunately I was an intelligent middle class white guy, it was really obvious I could succeed with sustained effort because I could see a lot of intelligent middle class white guys with the same upbringing who had succeeded.
If I was a poor minority I'm not sure that would have been the case, I might have very reasonably assumed those other students had been taught something in high school, or something by their parents, that made that stuff easy. Faced with that I would have been much less motivated to keep trying to understand the material and may have dropped the course.
I can fully understand why telling a poor minority student that they're no different than a typical student would help that poor minority student succeed.
There are multiple victims who have put their names and faces to specific accusations, they might be fake (it happens), but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of them being mostly legit.
Remember Rolling Stone? Tim Hunt? Emma Sulkowicz (mattress girl)? Duke Lacrosse?
There are a packet of anonymous smears and four other people insisting "oh yeah that's totes legit".
Even your handpicked list of anecdotes is problematic.
Rolling Stone and Duke Lacrosse are legitimate examples of false reporting, relevant to this discussion but as I said, it does happen.
But Tim Hunt was just a victim of the Internet rage machine taking his remarks in a public speech out of context, the only similarities are Internet + gender.
And Emma Sulkowicz's campaign was a specific response to her complaints of assault being dismissed by the authorities. You might think she's making a false accusation but it's a fundamentally different thing.
Oh, and the two cases that were false accusations, those were with a single witness, not four.
I don't know if they're also pursuing criminal charges or not, if they aren't it doesn't mean they're lying. Not everyone who wants to get their story out necessarily wants to go through legal proceedings or have the perpetrator put in prison.
We have a word for this. It's called Libel. We also have a word for when people try to stir up public outrage to cause extra-judicial harm to someone, we call it Lynching.
Well he's free to sue them for Libel just like they can press charges.
Frankly I think this has to do with the fact that the legal system is poorly designed to deal with a majority of sexual assault.
A lot of victims don't want the intensive scrutiny of a trial or the heavy punishment of a guilty verdict, this results in predators like Bill Cosby raping dozens of women over a series of decades, and he's hardly the first example.
I'd much prefer a system where the victim can opt (if they want) for a much weaker interventionist punishment where both sides can keep anonymity but the perpetrator is now on the radar, and things can be escalated if the behaviour persists. I suspect that this would really improve reporting and reduce assaults without smearing men with false reports.
This has described every Presidential election in my lifetime. If Sanders were the nominee it would have been different for once...
For the Sanders voters at least.
For everyone else there would still be only bad choices.
If the FBI hasn't got anything yet regarding the private server I very much doubt it will ever be a real issue beyond some poo for republicans to fling at her.
The FBI has enough evidence that they believe is cause for an indictment.
They do? That's news to me.
Hell, that's the leading news story for every news service in the US.
The Department of Justice is just sitting on it and not pursuing the indictment. Why would they?
Because not every technical violation of the law is deemed serious enough to result in an indictment. If it was the vast majority of the people here would have a criminal record.
The larger risk to Hillary right now isn't even the email scandal. It's perjury
And what was her specific lie under oath?
Has she even made statements under oath?
and that's why there's pushes to get Obama to issue a preemptive pardon to Hillary for whatever crimes she may have committed.
You have listening devices planted inside the FBI and Whitehouse? You seemingly have access to a lot of information that has never shown up in a reputable news source (I'm hedging myself against the inevitable WND.net citations).
I am not able to find any account of what has happened that does not come with a strong political agenda attached. That is the core problem with public accusations as opposed to filing a complaint: It immediately muddies the waters as people on both sides jump on the issue and try to exploit it for their own agendas. I honestly have no idea of what to think of this because all possibilities from him having done exactly what is claimed to this being an orchestrated smear-campaign seem now equally probable. I even consider it possible that he was a mole and what happens now is the desired outcome. Not good at all.
(emphasis added)
Is he possibly innocent and this could just be a smear campaign? Sure.
But the odds are nowhere near equal.
There are multiple victims who have put their names and faces to specific accusations, they might be fake (it happens), but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of them being mostly legit.
I don't know if they're also pursuing criminal charges or not, if they aren't it doesn't mean they're lying. Not everyone who wants to get their story out necessarily wants to go through legal proceedings or have the perpetrator put in prison.
The appeal court noted:
Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.
"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...
The legislature wrote the law, not the court. My understanding is that the court isn't meant to function like a computer, executing whatever buggy code it's given. It's supposed to apply the rules with some degree of discretion, the higher the court the more discretion it gets.
That's what the appeals court you cited did. They threw out the judgement granting $30k basically saying the rule was written to speed up proceedings and it was absurd to apply the rule that way.
As this point the issues I see are
a) The lower court let the plaintiff use the exploit, they should have had some other option.
b) It cost $12k in legal fees for Costello to take the case to the appeals court and get the bogus ruling thrown out, that's a lot of money for procrastinating on a notice.
When companies have outages like this and don't want to talk about it it's usually a DDoS.
They don't want to brag they can be DDoSed nor do they want to help pump up the group who did it. They don't want to give any info which is feedback about how well it worked either so the attackers can tune their attacks or gauge their chance of success if it was a dry run.
Or motivate more attacks when the media starts digging and finds out Apple payed a ransom.
Not really a coincidence. Islam demands men seek retribution for their honor. It's one thing Muslim men take seriously.
So do Texans, you don't see calls to build a wall around Texas every time someone gets killed in a bar fight.
Look at the number of girls killed by their own fathers because of perceived honor.
And in those cases there is a clear religious/cultural motive.
This is nothing new. We in America are only now really seeing what Islam really is. I was in and around the US military for 26 years. One thing I know for absolute certain that is not being discussed is that Islam is not really a religion--it's a political system with a religious element. Islam and its adherents base their actions on Sharia Law. Full stop. The media is very, very reluctant to point this out.
Isn't the US having a big debate about gay marriage? There seems to be a lot of arguments popping up based on Christian law.
Sure most Islamic nations take it a bit further, as do many Muslims. There's also a lot of Muslims trying to go the other way as well.
Notice the difference between how Islam and Christianity are treated today in the US. Ask yourself this question: What do you think homosexual activists are not asking Muslim bakers to bake them a cake for their weddings? Do you honestly think that this line of action would even be considered? There answer is no.
Those activists are trying to change laws and establish new norms. You do that by confronting the majority, not by picking fights with a small politically irrelevant minority.
For those not believing what I said above about Islam being a political system with a religious element need to look at this for themselves. You will come to see I am correct. The military used to operate under this understanding, but the current administration has forbidden this. Why? We all know why. This administration does nothing but coddle Islam, refuses to use the term "Islamic terrorism", allows a known terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood into the WH, the list goes on.
They're trying to end fights, not start them.
You're basing this whole idea on speculation around the shooter's specific beliefs and motives, truthfully we have no idea of his specific motives or beliefs aside from the fact he probably agreed that the label "Muslim" described some of them.
Of course having that label "Muslim" I'm certain that a particular political candidate won't be able to keep their mouth shut.
https://arduinohistory.github....
worth a read. I had no idea massimo stole the idea from his student.
I think a lot less of massimo now, sad to say. yeah, he messed up the top .1 spaced headers (a crime in itself) but taking a student's work and calling it your own, that's really something to be publicly shamed over.
and yet, massimo does world tours claiming he's the arduino inventor guy.
just read the student's post about how HE came up with the concepts and had it stolen from him. I feel for him and I can imagine that happening, too.
The student may have gotten shafted in the history though I'm not sure it's right to say his work was stolen.
The student master's project consisted of creating a platform called Wired, this platform was released as open source.
The supervisor, who certainly had some significant input and guidance on the project, forked the Wired project and turned it into Arduino. This is a completely standard and proper thing to do with open source projects, heck I've done it. There are two different visions for the project, forking means that both have a chance to succeed, it would seems that Arduino was the more successful vision.
It could be something similar happened here, though obviously with a bunch of other personal issues added on the part of the shooter. Sarkar was working on a project and had some conflicts with his supervisor. The supervisor decided to put another student on the project. Sarkar felt like his work was being stolen and had some sort of break down.
It's tragic but I don't see any evidence that the supervisor did anything wrong other than not knowing how to help a student who was in a really bad state.
> Trump makes factually incorrect statements at a ridiculous rate
And Hillary doesn't? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No she doesn't, in fact politifact gives her a slightly better score than Sanders.
That video is mostly just nitpicking on context, so what if she's not completely consistent in identifying as progressive or moderate? Neither am I. But I'm not lying as much as responding to the context and applying very subjective definitions.
Maybe if the progressives cared more about picking someone decent, we'd have Sanders and you'd have no reason to worry about Trump at all.
Maybe but I expect it would be a lot worse.
His numbers are good now but no one outside the Democratic base is paying attention to his policy, they just like him because he seems like a competent political outsider. They probably even think he's a moderate since his connections to the party are so weak.
The problem is that independents who don't identify as Democrats because the party is too moderate are not a good representation of the Democratic base.
Sanders isn't more popular right now because he's the stronger candidate.
He's popular because he's the weaker candidate, the Republicans haven't touched him all race because they'd love him as the Democratic nominee, or at least rile up the "Bernie or Bust" folks as much as possible so they won't support Hillary and give Trump the election.
I'm sorry but situations like Sanders are exactly the reason that match-up polls aren't considered predictive at this stage.
A "brilliant mind" may manifest itself in ways other than science. None of Trump's opponents understand his strategy and have publicly stated so.
Success manifests in ways other than brilliance.
Trump is probably more intelligent than one would assume from his language, but I'd say he's far from brilliant.
His strategy actually seems pretty simple with a few main tactics.
- There's a lot of ideas that elites suppress because they're terrible ideas though it's hard to explain why, ie Birtherism, banning Muslims, mass deportations. Embrace those positions and you become a champion against the elites.
- Take a negative characteristic and just keep repeating it until it sticks, ie "Little Rubio", "Lying Ted", "Crooked Hillary". I'm not actually certain how effective this was, since the GOP candidates who really fell to this were already flawed.
- Make grandiose statement about yourself and keep repeating it until it sticks, ie "I have the brain", "I have the best words", etc, etc
- Speak without nuance and make assertions, "we're going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it". This makes you sound pro-active and sincere.
- Contradict yourself, ie claim your authoritative statements are part of a negotiation, talk about invading a lot of places and then claim you're against a bunch of wars. If you take two positions then everyone can assume the one they prefer.
Now I don't think a lot of those tactics are usable by actual politicians.
Playing the anti-elite card means the elites are against you and you'll end up in a position like Ted Cruz, or to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders.
The nicknames and bragging tend to alienate potential allies.
And the bold assertions and contradictions become unusable once you actually have a track record.
I think a lot of people were surprised the strategy worked, and they're not quite sure how to respond to it, but I don't think it means he has a brilliant understanding of persuasion and media however. It's really not that different than a troll on a comment board, it just turns out that the media is very susceptible to trolling.
If in the future Stephen Hawking has his science proven wrong is he then considered ignorant? Isaac Newton was proven wrong, he was ignorant. Did anyone prove Trump wrong? Or is it just opinion that doesn't have scientific merit?
If you think Newton was ignorant you have a bad definition of ignorant.
Ignorance is defined by your beliefs in relation to your society, both Hawking and Newton are far from ignorant by that definition.
Trump makes factually incorrect statements at a ridiculous rate. That is a verifiable fact.
I think a scientist would be well justified in calling his ideas and statements ignorant.
I find it hilarious how hypocritical you are.
You condemn President Trump for supposedly using "insults", yet we see your comment riddled with insults and attacks directed at President Trump!
If I called Trump an orange buffoon that would be insulting him.
Saying his success come from "ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories" is just harsh criticism.
I may be wrong in my criticism, but I don't think it's properly classified as an insult.
You ridicule President Trump for allegedly having "ignorant ideas", yet we see so much intolerance, anger, wrath and dislike displayed by you!
Again not hypocrisy. Intolerance, anger, wrath and dislike are often motives for spreading ignorant ideas, but you can have those qualities without being ignorant.
And I only really agree with "dislike", I don't think intolerance, anger, or wrath really motivate me with Trump.
You rail on about "conspiracy theories", yet you're the one projecting this weird notion of President Trump seeing success because of "ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories", rather than just admitting that he's successful because he has widespread public support!
It would be very comical, were it not for the fact that you're serious!
I was positing the reason for his public support... and you don't seem to understand what a conspiracy theory is.
> One could say something similar about Trump.
Well, one of them is the Republican nominee now.
Though as I mentioned in the very next line he got to be the nominee by relying on his authority as a businessman and a media personality. There's no reason to consider Trump a credible candidate while not consider Hawking qualified to comment on it.
> Except for the "brilliant mind" part of course.
He made billions and defeated the entire Republican establishment. But, I'm sure he's a dummy. You could probably have done those things. I guess you're just not almost 70 yet, you'll probably have the world in your hand by then, right?
I'm sure he's pretty good in his domain of real estate, but it also helps to start out with a ton of money, family connections, and a bit of luck too. His biggest legitimate success seems to be in personal branding. Don't assume business is a strict meritocracy.
There's also a lot of speculation that his net worth is a lot less than he lets on, possibly on the order of $250 million or so. That's the most popular theory for why he won't release his tax returns.
I don't understand why Hawking's opinions about anything outside of physics is given publicity. Although one of the most brilliant minds of our time, in his field, he's not a politician nor a businessman.
One could say something similar about Trump.
Except for the "brilliant mind" part of course.
Trump is a businessman/reality TV star who won a Presidential primary on the basis of ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories.
Why can't someone who's achieved celebrity through a combination of brilliance and science communication then speak up in response?
One problem with media reporting today is the perceived need to get emotional involvement.
In it's economic zeal to get eyeballs on articles, the media has resorted to sensationalizing and emotionalism. They compete for the most outrageous, most shocking headlines in an attempt to lure readers.
The reason republicans have lost faith in the media is they were watching Fox News and finally realized the media was messing with them.
We only have to look at the Trump campaign to see how this happened. Taking one single issue as an example, we read all about how he hates and has a war against latinos. In reality, he said nothing of the sort, which is 'kinda why he's got such a huge support base right now.
The media is astonished that his supporters aren't leaving him in droves... he *is* the next Hitler, didn't you know?
What's Trump's health care policy? What's his education policy? What's his energy policy? The only time he mentions these is scripted readings of a teleprompter. He doesn't care about them and neither do his supporters.
There's only two policy areas he ever talks about. Mexicans and Muslims and all the things he'll do to keep them out of the country. And a weird mishmash of foreign policy that seems to be centred around invading places and stealing their oil.
It's not the media's fault that white supremacists are treating him as the chosen one. Just like everyone else they're noticing the things he actually talks about.
No, those are two separate conditions. The first is true and the second is false. My wanting cell phones to cause cancer is not going to make it so.
Well your claim that they did bad journalism seemed predicated on the idea their design was poor.
However, that Vox is an ugly website is not a matter of opinion.
If anyone doesn't believe me, here, go look for yourself. I want someone here to come back and tell us that it's not an ugly website. If one person (not an AC) believes that this is a well-designed and attractive website, I will retract my words and refund your money.
http://www.vox.com/
Fine, I think it's good.
Structurally the main page is a bit of a mess conflating their big current stories and topics but every site does that. If I click on one of the stories it's fairly clean text and all on one page, I'd say that's well above average.
The cards are a new idea, I don't know if they're a good one, but they seem well executed.
The only issue I can see is they've gone away from the traditional newspaper design and are getting their inspiration from "Promoted Stories" and other click bait sites. There's a bit of a negative connotation from that but once you get over the association it's fine.
Vox is a highly-leveraged company that makes money with a news site that's designed for use on mobile devices. What the fuck you think they're gonna say?
That strikes me as a bit of a stretch as far as conflicts of interest go.
Plus, Vox is the absolute ugliest news site every on the internet. I'm not joking. If you visit their page, be careful ow whiplash when you involuntarily turn your head away in horror. And their stock in trade are these hot-take "explainer cardstacks" which is some jargon bullshit for a web page with almost no information that prompts you to click on many other pages in order to read the whole story, which inevitably turns out to be disappointing, with mostly pictures and great big infographics without labels that make you come away feeling like you learned something when in fact you are stupider than when you started.
A bunch of refugees from other hipster publications started Vox, and they stand as a shining example of bad journalism, bad design and a bad business model.
You think they have an ugly website and therefore their reporting on the cellphone study is wrong??
Honestly I read a fair bit of Vox. I haven't looked at the card stacks but I think they're intended as a very high level basic overview (in case you're completely ignorant of the subject) but the stories, aside from their annoying click baity design, are generally pretty solid. They essentially come at things with a wonky left-leaning perspective and I haven't found them to be too far off the mark.
And that includes their coverage of this study which seems to be pretty balanced.
Perhaps males had larger physical bodies?. Thus the males would have absorbed more energy. (i.e. ~40mm cross section or larger,note: adj absorption for 1/2 wavelength, and velocity factor)..
Then I'd expect to more of an effect in the females at the highest dose, and a stronger dose-response curve in both sexes.
As I said it's interesting, but there's too much noise and not enough signal.
More than that.
If you look at the study they only had ~90 rats per group so all the cancer incidences were pretty low, I think the worst-off group had 7 positives and I don't see any good reason why the males would be so cancer ridden while the females were fine.
This is a cool experiment for an initial investigation but you can't really conclude anything. I think the next stage is to repeat the experiment by getting as many male rates as you can and splitting them between the control and the two highest exposure male groups for GSM and CDMA.
If this effect is real it should show up there.
Misogeny and misandry are not two unrelated problems - they are two sides of the same coin. Studying only part of the problem means that we miss out on properly understanding the problem as a whole. And without properly understanding the problem, how are we going to find a proper solution?
There's also things that are fairly specific to misogyny.
The fact that there's good studies you can do of misogyny and misandry doesn't mean every study has to be a study of misogyny and misandry.
No. You're just applying the usual double standard. Men are expected to be strong and women are expected to be weak and you are just feeding that whole bit of social indoctrination.
You're doing more harm than good with the pity party.
Ahh yes the old "any attempt to defend women from misogyny is really misogynist!"
Your comment would be fair if men and women received similar amounts of online abuse, particularly abused based on their gender. But women do get more harassment, especially harassment based on their gender, it's a bad thing and I'm not going to stop fighting it because of some cheap rhetorical trick.
So when do they study misandry and start to treat that as seriously as misogyny? You can't be gender inclusive when you officially ignore hate speech and discrimination against half the population.
When it's as serious a problem as misogyny.
I'm not saying to ignore misandry, it should be studied and I'm sure people are studying it. But misogyny, especially online, is far more prevalent, arguably a much bigger problem, and rightly deserves the majority of the attention.
you think Hillary 'wipe - you mean like with a towel' Clinton
Is this supposed to be some kind of Trump-inspired misogynist insult?
What? He's QUOTING HER. A reporter asked her if she wiped the server before allowing the FBI to see it. And she said, "What, like with a towel?"
I know, you already know that, and you're hoping that other people don't so you can pretend otherwise. Just another Shillary, trying to distract from her own words.
I'm sorry if I haven't mentioned every Hillary quote out there.
I thought the poster was referencing one of Trump's debate insults.