Cue the droning on of $FAVORED_PARTY saying $UNFAVORED_PARTY crying about $PERCEIVED_SLIGHT.
All I know is Gab.ai got a massive bundle of new users in the last day or so.
Does that sound like something bots would do?
I think Twitter has reached the "we don't care about users" stage.
Next up will be the "We see some problems on the horizon" phase, followed by the "we've changed our direction" phase, then the "please come back - we're sorry" phase, then a couple of "we've reorganized and eliminated 10% of our employees" phases.
After that, maybe a year or two from now, we will look back on twitter with the same fondness as AOL and Yahoo.
(For those who didn't already know, Gab.ai is a replacement that promises free speech. Offensive posts are handled at the user's end - you are allowed to mute other people or words that you don't want to see in your feed. This ensures that you won't be offended, while allowing everyone else the right to speak their minds.)
I'm not American, I live in Canada, and I certainly admit posting a lot of comments on social networks during the last US election. Worse, a lot of prominent Canadian figures made comment after comment on social networks about both Trump and Clinton. I'm sure Canadians posted more than 200,000 tweets. So why not accuse Canada of interfering with the US elections?
It's fine when regular citizens do it. Regardless of nationality.
The flap is about groups *paying* other people to do it. When that happens, it becomes a foreign entity paying money to influence the American elections, which is a crime in the US.
And of course there is the question of collusion, so if you agreed to help get a candidate elected in return for favors, not only is that illegal but it could cause the elected official to lose their office. And again, an individual tweeting doesn't rise to that level - you'd have to pay money or direct an organization to help or something.
Overall, it would appear that this is a flap about nothing. At first glance there appears to be many, *many* examples of blatant corruption with obvious evidence which are being completely ignored(*), while the Russian investigation has taken up everyone's time and has found virtually nothing. The resources might be better used investigating other things.
I don't want to politicize a tragedy, but why is the Russian investigation still going on after all these months when a domestic incident with massive impact slipped through the cracks? (And for which the FBI was warned?)
(*) For an example (of many!), Reality Winner leaked classified information and sits in prison, while James Comey leaked classified information (and publicly admitted it) and gets a book deal.
There's this book, the canonical list, whose title literally translates to "The Book of Dead Names", and every geek and nerd I've ever met has heard of it. Many own a copy.
Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!
You're a science-illiterate fucking moron, never a doctor. Stay that way. You don't belong in medicine or any scholastic endeavor. You prove this every day with each comment pulled from your ample rectum.
I have to say, I find your response fascinating.
You clearly read the post, as shown by the "doctor" comment, so I'm wondering: what was your motivation for posting?
I have several possible explanations, none of which seem likely.
1) You want to chase reasonable and high-level discussion off of this board 2) You want to continuously attack people over politics 3) You take enjoyment from calling people names 4) You take enjoyment from stirring things up, causing a ruckus 5) You're getting paid to harass people 6) Someone close to you died after being put into suspended animation
You took time and effort to post something utterly without merit. Of the explanations above, only #6 sounds reasonable.
I don't suppose you could let us in on your motivations here, could you?
Does anyone else have an explanation that I missed?
Another medical tech that we don't have is quick, multiple diagnosis elimination systems.
For example, suppose you go to the doctor feeling tired. They could draw some blood and test for (or eliminate) the 10 most common problems with that as a symptom. Flu, cold, mono, lyme, infection (other), anemia, vitamin deficiency, thyroid, allergy, and so on.
Rather than rely on reported symptoms and playing odds by trying treatments (".., and see if it goes away") we should have ways to more accurately detect or eliminate the most common conditions.
I can't give you an answer for general tech, but medical tech would be greatly advanced by the ability to put people into suspended animation.
Basically, if the person's body isn't *operating* - needing to breathe, needing to circulate, and so on - then repairs could be done much more effectively and cheaply,
I read where gunshot victims would be suspended temporarily as an experimental method a couple of years back.
...before a bunch of angry old coots post telling us that none of this is AI.
Let's put some of that into context.
A 5-year old can recognize a dog in an image in about 1/2 a second. A neuron takes about 0.05 seconds to activate and fire, so on average the entire recognition process takes about 10 steps.
Those steps include reading the image (sensing and converting the image data to internal form), and activating the physical response: saying "dog" or clicking the right button or whatever.
So let me ask this: what AI algorithm takes ten *steps* to recognize something as complicated as a dog?
Note that this works with dogs partially obscured (half masked by a tree, for instance), any size, rotated, from any angle (top down, face on, from the side), any breed (dalmations and chihuahuas), toys made to look like dogs, and cartoon dogs.
The algorithm does this at a very high level of accuracy, and can tell dogs apart from other animals with similar features: cats, opossums, and so on.
And the algorithm does this without a zillion training examples. A typical 5-year old has seen far fewer dogs than the Tensor Flow algorithm training set.
So tell me again: in what measure is our current level of AI anywhere close to being "real" AI?
Has been busted fabricating news ON VIDEO, no less than 2 DOZEN times in the past decade alone... This "Study" is likely just more leftist BS.
I'm just going through the paper right now, but there's a ton of sketchy and indefensible assumptions.
For example, the study relies on a list of sites known to have fake news, with a "representative article" for each site.
Taking one at random, apparently this news article was enough to get Breitbart listed as a "fake news" site.
The problem is that the article in question is completely and totally accurate, but was probably branded "fake news" because it went against the narrative of many Hillary supporters.
Another entry shows hannity.com, and the link (no longer working at Hannity) was about an undercover journalist who managed to impersonate Huma Abedin at the polling station; effectively, able to vote as someone else.
It is immediately apparent that neither of these "representative" articles is fake in any way. I couldn't even find inaccuracies or bad framing in the articles - there's no sound reason to say that these are examples of fakery.
This paper does not at all rise to the level of quality and fact-checking that a published paper should have!
It's nothing more than a leftist hit piece.
Note: Check out the people who post one-line insults as a response to an organized argument with links. To mis-quote Chris Farley: "They're awesome"!:-)
The con artist administration doesn't want to upset private industry by holding them accountable for their actions (or inactions in this case). Wells Fargo is simply a feel-good tactic.
After all, if he won't take responsibility for all his failed businesses, because as he'll tell you none of those were his fault, why should other businesses have to be held liable?
Firstly, there seems to be a lot of deep-state resistance to Trump's agenda. So if someone doesn't do their job, when is it good and when is it bad? Is there a double standard here?
Secondly, the president is responsible for what happens, but not at fault for what happens in the administration. He's not the one making the decisions at the level of the OP, his appointees are. It's hard to tell if this is corruption, incompetence, or... working as intended. The CFPB has come under fire in the past for ridiculous rules and hamstringing business.
Thirdly, it's unnamed sources reporting this. The investigation is ongoing, and the department doesn't comment on those, so... fake news? Isn't this just wishful thinking on the part of the reporter?
Fourthly, even if the article is correct in all its details, you don't have to agree with everything the president stands for (and I don't), but you might want to agree or disagree with larger issues. We've tolerated corruption at all levels of government for so long, it's refreshing to have positive change in ONE aspect, let alone what's happening now. ISIS is all but defeated, we've withdrawn from TPP (and the Paris accord), the economy is doing well, and a lot of corruption in government and MSM is coming to light. Some issues are more important than others.
And finally, his business failures represent a smaller percentage of his total failuures than the average entrepreneur. Much smaller [percentage of failures], when numbers are actually cited.
So it seems the FBI/DOJ under Obama used smear information bought from Russian intelligence sources by the Clinton Campaign to justify secretly wiretapping and investigating their political rivals during a presidential election. Did someone say Russian Collusion?
None of it was Russian, Steele was an ex British Intelligence officer. The Russian angle was the made up part, out of whole cloth, by Steele.
You're confusing the Author with the story. Like saying "Pennywise the Clown" is real because Stephen King said so.
The misdirect seems to be "FISA reforms", as if the problems were a direct result of problems with the FISA process and if only those problems didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened.
In actuality, FISA (the court) was given bad information, but worked as expected. For example, in addition to the dossier the FBI cited a newspaper article as corroboration evidence and told the court that Steele did not provide the info for the article. In reality, Steele did, in fact provide the information for the newspaper to print the article, the FBI knew this, and didn't tell the court.
That's a clear-cut case of lying to the court in order to get the warrant. That's not a problem with the FISA process, it's a problem with the people involved, which is why everyone is running around right now.
To be clear: this is not a problem with the process, it's a problem with the people.
Certain people broke the law, and broke it in a way that tried to seriously compromise our political system.
Take a moment and think through the issues here. These people tried to take an axe to our tree of democracy.
Had they succeeded, the Deep State could have easily ended up running the country.
Taking control and functionality away from the web developer because browser developers think they know what's best for everyone.
Gab.ai has this for their pages, and it's awful.
Scrolling down, you have to wait a moment or two to load each image as it comes into view. It's a complete time waster.
I run the slider up and down a few times to activate all the images, then go browse another page while the Gab page loads. I can't imagine doing this for *all* pages on the internet - it would be an unacceptable wast of my time.
It's similar to the google image search, which only shows a quarter page of thumbnails, but if you scroll down it suddenly loads another quarter page... jumping the slider and causing you to lose your place while scanning through the images.
Again, it's intended for some purpose which is not "convenience of the viewer". We're not the customer, so it probably saves their real customers (the advertizers) somehow.
Both of these are for non-phone browsing, for which data rates and caps don't apply. I can see why phone browsing might want to save data, but why inflict this on desktop PCs?
On what planet did Putin and his cronies think the West wouldn't throw the kitchen sink at them in retaliation for the election hack?
Did these mongs REALLY think they could hold us off forever simply by gaslighting us on Twitter? ("there is no proof of collusion, there is no proof of hacking, whatabout this, whatabout that, etc etc). So fucking stupid.
The arrogance and naivete defies belief.
First of all, chill. The purpose was to get people riled up and divisive, and by being outraged you are playing into their hand.
Furthermore, if you are outraged don't propagate by posting about it - that just amplifies the effect.
Secondly, does this de-ligitimize at least one major riot here in the US? Was there (at least) one instance where US people did not feel strongly enough to protest, but were egged on by outside influences?
Doesn't that mean that there is *less* discontent in the US than what might be inferred from protests?
Something that is both cooperative and science based... I'm surprised Trump didn't nuke it on his first day in office!
Let's put partisan politics aside and take a walk down memory lane.
Those of us who are old enough to remember a time *before* the ISS can also remember the arguments against building it in the first place.
The ISS had no compelling reason to be built. It was nice and all, held some public relations appeal, and there were a few experiments that could be done on it, but in general it was not a good use of the money. People point to all the innovations and advancements we made due to going to the moon - and that's a fair assessment - but none of that happened at the ISS.
IIRC, it was mostly *scientists* who argued against building the ISS, and politicians who argued for it.
There are several potential projects that are far more interesting and more worthy, things such as exoplanet exploration rovers, landing on a comet, new and innovative space telescopes, and perhaps other space-based experiments such as laser interferometer gravitational detectors or telescopes based on photon quantum correlation.
Perhaps we should let scientists recommend where to spend the money.
Getting back to partisan identity emotionalism, it would seem that bringing an end to the ISS is more of a "common sense" decision than a "keep the dream alive" decision.
As well as framing this in disparaging emotionalism, you could just also call this decision "common sense".
Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.
I thought the reason we didn't have as many recessions in the late 20th was due to the Glass Steagall act, and the reason we had the most recent one was because we dismantled that.
Is that not the case?
One could argue that TARP exacerbated our most recent depression (greater than "the great depression", by all accounts), because comparing our results with other countries that *didn't* bail out the banks (notably: Iceland) shows that we fared a lot worse by not simply letting the banks fail.
So what's really going on here?
Are you arguing a point of religious dogma, essentially a "school of thought"?
Or are there clear and unambiguous reasons for the great depression, with close parallels to our current situation? Do all economic models agree that tariffs are a bad idea?
I'm confused.
If we reinstitute Glass Steagall -style limitations (which we haven't yet), shouldn't that protect us from exacerbating depressions?
It is awful. basically you are now subsidising local less efficient manufacturing. Everyone loses, less panels will be installed, you may maintain a few manufacturing jobs but they should be offset by the reduction in retail and installer jobs you will lose by increasing costs by 30%.
The problem with modern economic theory is that it doesn't measure success in the right way. It's all about money coming into or out of a country, of the cost of goods, and the cost to manufacture.
Nowhere in those theories is the human cost taken into effect.
In the modern theories, it's always better when you have lower costs, even if those costs result in fewer people being employed. You can have lots of low cost products available, and yet no one can afford to purchase them because no one has the money to spare - employment is so low that no disposable cash drives the economy.
The original argument for Chinese manufacturing was exactly that: Shoes become $1 cheaper and 100 workers lose employment, but the total savings across the country of people purchasing shoes more than compensates for the loss of 100 salaries. Overall, it's better for everyone.
Do you see the flaw in the theory yet?
When you say "maintain a few manufacturing jobs but offset by loss of installed jobs" you are making the same argument.
It measures success as the cost of goods, and nothing else, without taking into account other aspects of the economy.
A successful economy depends on people having money, to drive the economy.
Currently insurance is guaranteed-issue in the US, and treating early-stage cancers is easier/cheaper than catching them late. So yeah, this will save money, and not by blacklisting.
Also, $500 is cheaper than tests for cancer like scopes and CAT scans.
Talking to a researcher at Tufts, he pointed out that we have plenty of new diagnostics that can't be used because insurance won't cover them. The insurance companies are afraid that the diagnostic will uncover a condition that has to be treated, which would cost more than letting the condition go until it becomes untreatable and the patient dies quickly.
So even though this test might suggest an earlier treatment that is cheaper, you still have to compare the actuarial value of not doing the test and letting the cancers go until they are discovered by some other method.
We need some sort of game-theory change in how insurance companies operate, so that their goal is better health and not lower costs.
Perhaps penalizing the company for deaths under a certain age (to encourage the company to value life over costs), or something similar.
Simply mandating the test and other legislative directives won't work, because the companies still have the incentive to reduce costs - they will always be pulling in the opposite direction.
We need a way to get the insurance companies to pull in the same direction as their customers, so that they both have the same goals.
Those of us suffering under the current US administration want to know how citizens respond to stupid, irrational leaders
You're suffering only because you *choose* to suffer.
I've read of paraplegic people who learn to fly, people who get horribly burned and go on to start families, people who lose everything and turn their lives around.
You *choose* how you feel about what happens in your life. If you choose to be happy, then you can be happy. If you choose to be sad because of Trump, then you'll be sad.
And while you're at it, if you want to suffer then go ahead - it's your choice - but can you *please* stop pissing and moaning out lout where we can hear you?
It was old and tired a full year ago. No one cares, you can't change anything, and... the country's doing pretty well right now.
You could simply choose *not* to suffer under the administration. ISIS is all but defeated, jobs are coming back, taxes were reduced, many people are getting bonuses, North Korea is coming to the Olympics, and we're no longer in the TPP.
"Facebook is a living, breathing crime scene for what happened in the 2016 election -- and only they have full access to what happened,"
A couple of questions here.
1) What crime, exactly, was committed? 2) Is Sandy Parakilas, the manager in question, more intelligent or better informed than the average person? (The average person with a full-time job not related to understanding political issues.) 3) It this another example of a liberal who still, 18 months later, can't get over the loss of her candidate and has made a shocking pronouncement to get viewer engagement and generally get noticed?
Is this really a problem?
No one worries about issues of propaganda when it was the MSM's version of fake news.
It's been over and done with for 18 months, Trump isn't literally Hitler, and the country is doing pretty well. All things considered, we seem to have chosen the better of two candidates.
The national economy is up around 3%, and California revenues are also up about 2.9 %.
That's about a 1:1 ratio, but CA grew at twice the rate of the economy in 2016. Their growth is significantly slowed since about two years ago. Also, that 2.9% increase in revenues is offset by about 2% increase in expenses, so it's not going to reduce their deficit a lot.
The CA population has lost about 930,000 people(*) according to census data (linked in the article), mostly middle class. The middle-class in CA have moved away to Arizona, Washington, and Texas leaving the poor and ultra-rich behind. Not completely, of course, but losing that much middle class has gotta put stress on the CA economy.
Slashdot Mirror
You know how I can tell there's no science in any of that bullshit you just posted?
No one does science in "cubic miles".
Keep pounding away at that typewriter - it's arguments like these that will eventually win the day.
Some quick online research shows that Antarctica is about 14 million square kilometers covered with ice, and about 15 million square kilometers of Earth are covered with glacial ice.
So multiply the original estimate by 2 to include glaciers. That assumes that glacial ice is as thick as Antarctic ice, which is a big overestimation.
Also the Byrd sub-glacial basin, at about 2500 meters below sea level, would fill with a significant portion of the newly melted water.
So the original calculation, indicating that the sea levels won't rise very much, is still accurate.
Cue the alt-right cries of censorship...
Cue the droning on of $FAVORED_PARTY saying $UNFAVORED_PARTY crying about $PERCEIVED_SLIGHT.
All I know is Gab.ai got a massive bundle of new users in the last day or so.
Does that sound like something bots would do?
I think Twitter has reached the "we don't care about users" stage.
Next up will be the "We see some problems on the horizon" phase, followed by the "we've changed our direction" phase, then the "please come back - we're sorry" phase, then a couple of "we've reorganized and eliminated 10% of our employees" phases.
After that, maybe a year or two from now, we will look back on twitter with the same fondness as AOL and Yahoo.
(For those who didn't already know, Gab.ai is a replacement that promises free speech. Offensive posts are handled at the user's end - you are allowed to mute other people or words that you don't want to see in your feed. This ensures that you won't be offended, while allowing everyone else the right to speak their minds.)
I'm not American, I live in Canada, and I certainly admit posting a lot of comments on social networks during the last US election. Worse, a lot of prominent Canadian figures made comment after comment on social networks about both Trump and Clinton. I'm sure Canadians posted more than 200,000 tweets. So why not accuse Canada of interfering with the US elections?
It's fine when regular citizens do it. Regardless of nationality.
The flap is about groups *paying* other people to do it. When that happens, it becomes a foreign entity paying money to influence the American elections, which is a crime in the US.
And of course there is the question of collusion, so if you agreed to help get a candidate elected in return for favors, not only is that illegal but it could cause the elected official to lose their office. And again, an individual tweeting doesn't rise to that level - you'd have to pay money or direct an organization to help or something.
Overall, it would appear that this is a flap about nothing. At first glance there appears to be many, *many* examples of blatant corruption with obvious evidence which are being completely ignored(*), while the Russian investigation has taken up everyone's time and has found virtually nothing. The resources might be better used investigating other things.
I don't want to politicize a tragedy, but why is the Russian investigation still going on after all these months when a domestic incident with massive impact slipped through the cracks? (And for which the FBI was warned?)
(*) For an example (of many!), Reality Winner leaked classified information and sits in prison, while James Comey leaked classified information (and publicly admitted it) and gets a book deal.
What in the hell is a "dead name"?
With all due respect, turn in your geek card.
There's this book, the canonical list, whose title literally translates to "The Book of Dead Names", and every geek and nerd I've ever met has heard of it. Many own a copy.
I thought everybody knew that.
Ia f'tagn!
Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!
He doesn't say it's a myth, he says it's a hoax.
He agrees that the climate is changing, but believes that it's not due to man-made changes in the environment.
You're a science-illiterate fucking moron, never a doctor. Stay that way. You don't belong in medicine or any scholastic endeavor. You prove this every day with each comment pulled from your ample rectum.
I have to say, I find your response fascinating.
You clearly read the post, as shown by the "doctor" comment, so I'm wondering: what was your motivation for posting?
I have several possible explanations, none of which seem likely.
1) You want to chase reasonable and high-level discussion off of this board
2) You want to continuously attack people over politics
3) You take enjoyment from calling people names
4) You take enjoyment from stirring things up, causing a ruckus
5) You're getting paid to harass people
6) Someone close to you died after being put into suspended animation
You took time and effort to post something utterly without merit. Of the explanations above, only #6 sounds reasonable.
I don't suppose you could let us in on your motivations here, could you?
Does anyone else have an explanation that I missed?
It's a mystery.
Another medical tech that we don't have is quick, multiple diagnosis elimination systems.
For example, suppose you go to the doctor feeling tired. They could draw some blood and test for (or eliminate) the 10 most common problems with that as a symptom. Flu, cold, mono, lyme, infection (other), anemia, vitamin deficiency, thyroid, allergy, and so on.
Rather than rely on reported symptoms and playing odds by trying treatments (".., and see if it goes away") we should have ways to more accurately detect or eliminate the most common conditions.
I can't give you an answer for general tech, but medical tech would be greatly advanced by the ability to put people into suspended animation.
Basically, if the person's body isn't *operating* - needing to breathe, needing to circulate, and so on - then repairs could be done much more effectively and cheaply,
I read where gunshot victims would be suspended temporarily as an experimental method a couple of years back.
Whatever happened to that?
Perhaps a combination of sudden hypoothermia coupled with sulphur dioxide treatment or something.
...before a bunch of angry old coots post telling us that none of this is AI.
Let's put some of that into context.
A 5-year old can recognize a dog in an image in about 1/2 a second. A neuron takes about 0.05 seconds to activate and fire, so on average the entire recognition process takes about 10 steps.
Those steps include reading the image (sensing and converting the image data to internal form), and activating the physical response: saying "dog" or clicking the right button or whatever.
So let me ask this: what AI algorithm takes ten *steps* to recognize something as complicated as a dog?
Note that this works with dogs partially obscured (half masked by a tree, for instance), any size, rotated, from any angle (top down, face on, from the side), any breed (dalmations and chihuahuas), toys made to look like dogs, and cartoon dogs.
The algorithm does this at a very high level of accuracy, and can tell dogs apart from other animals with similar features: cats, opossums, and so on.
And the algorithm does this without a zillion training examples. A typical 5-year old has seen far fewer dogs than the Tensor Flow algorithm training set.
So tell me again: in what measure is our current level of AI anywhere close to being "real" AI?
Has been busted fabricating news ON VIDEO, no less than 2 DOZEN times in the past decade alone... This "Study" is likely just more leftist BS.
I'm just going through the paper right now, but there's a ton of sketchy and indefensible assumptions.
For example, the study relies on a list of sites known to have fake news, with a "representative article" for each site.
Taking one at random, apparently this news article was enough to get Breitbart listed as a "fake news" site.
The problem is that the article in question is completely and totally accurate, but was probably branded "fake news" because it went against the narrative of many Hillary supporters.
Another entry shows hannity.com, and the link (no longer working at Hannity) was about an undercover journalist who managed to impersonate Huma Abedin at the polling station; effectively, able to vote as someone else.
A quick search shows that this actually happened, it's a Project Veritas sting, and there's a youtube.com video of the incident.
It is immediately apparent that neither of these "representative" articles is fake in any way. I couldn't even find inaccuracies or bad framing in the articles - there's no sound reason to say that these are examples of fakery.
This paper does not at all rise to the level of quality and fact-checking that a published paper should have!
It's nothing more than a leftist hit piece.
Note: Check out the people who post one-line insults as a response to an organized argument with links. To mis-quote Chris Farley: "They're awesome"! :-)
The con artist administration doesn't want to upset private industry by holding them accountable for their actions (or inactions in this case). Wells Fargo is simply a feel-good tactic.
After all, if he won't take responsibility for all his failed businesses, because as he'll tell you none of those were his fault, why should other businesses have to be held liable?
Firstly, there seems to be a lot of deep-state resistance to Trump's agenda. So if someone doesn't do their job, when is it good and when is it bad? Is there a double standard here?
Secondly, the president is responsible for what happens, but not at fault for what happens in the administration. He's not the one making the decisions at the level of the OP, his appointees are. It's hard to tell if this is corruption, incompetence, or... working as intended. The CFPB has come under fire in the past for ridiculous rules and hamstringing business.
Thirdly, it's unnamed sources reporting this. The investigation is ongoing, and the department doesn't comment on those, so... fake news? Isn't this just wishful thinking on the part of the reporter?
Fourthly, even if the article is correct in all its details, you don't have to agree with everything the president stands for (and I don't), but you might want to agree or disagree with larger issues. We've tolerated corruption at all levels of government for so long, it's refreshing to have positive change in ONE aspect, let alone what's happening now. ISIS is all but defeated, we've withdrawn from TPP (and the Paris accord), the economy is doing well, and a lot of corruption in government and MSM is coming to light. Some issues are more important than others.
And finally, his business failures represent a smaller percentage of his total failuures than the average entrepreneur. Much smaller [percentage of failures], when numbers are actually cited.
So it seems the FBI/DOJ under Obama used smear information bought from Russian intelligence sources by the Clinton Campaign to justify secretly wiretapping and investigating their political rivals during a presidential election. Did someone say Russian Collusion?
None of it was Russian, Steele was an ex British Intelligence officer. The Russian angle was the made up part, out of whole cloth, by Steele.
You're confusing the Author with the story. Like saying "Pennywise the Clown" is real because Stephen King said so.
The misdirect seems to be "FISA reforms", as if the problems were a direct result of problems with the FISA process and if only those problems didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened.
In actuality, FISA (the court) was given bad information, but worked as expected. For example, in addition to the dossier the FBI cited a newspaper article as corroboration evidence and told the court that Steele did not provide the info for the article. In reality, Steele did, in fact provide the information for the newspaper to print the article, the FBI knew this, and didn't tell the court.
That's a clear-cut case of lying to the court in order to get the warrant. That's not a problem with the FISA process, it's a problem with the people involved, which is why everyone is running around right now.
To be clear: this is not a problem with the process, it's a problem with the people.
Certain people broke the law, and broke it in a way that tried to seriously compromise our political system.
Take a moment and think through the issues here. These people tried to take an axe to our tree of democracy.
Had they succeeded, the Deep State could have easily ended up running the country.
Take a moment and let that sink in.
Taking control and functionality away from the web developer because browser developers think they know what's best for everyone.
Gab.ai has this for their pages, and it's awful.
Scrolling down, you have to wait a moment or two to load each image as it comes into view. It's a complete time waster.
I run the slider up and down a few times to activate all the images, then go browse another page while the Gab page loads. I can't imagine doing this for *all* pages on the internet - it would be an unacceptable wast of my time.
It's similar to the google image search, which only shows a quarter page of thumbnails, but if you scroll down it suddenly loads another quarter page... jumping the slider and causing you to lose your place while scanning through the images.
Again, it's intended for some purpose which is not "convenience of the viewer". We're not the customer, so it probably saves their real customers (the advertizers) somehow.
Both of these are for non-phone browsing, for which data rates and caps don't apply. I can see why phone browsing might want to save data, but why inflict this on desktop PCs?
On what planet did Putin and his cronies think the West wouldn't throw the kitchen sink at them in retaliation for the election hack?
Did these mongs REALLY think they could hold us off forever simply by gaslighting us on Twitter? ("there is no proof of collusion, there is no proof of hacking, whatabout this, whatabout that, etc etc). So fucking stupid.
The arrogance and naivete defies belief.
First of all, chill. The purpose was to get people riled up and divisive, and by being outraged you are playing into their hand.
Furthermore, if you are outraged don't propagate by posting about it - that just amplifies the effect.
Secondly, does this de-ligitimize at least one major riot here in the US? Was there (at least) one instance where US people did not feel strongly enough to protest, but were egged on by outside influences?
Doesn't that mean that there is *less* discontent in the US than what might be inferred from protests?
This is a very interesting find.
Apparently NASA will try to contact the satellite using the Deep Space Network, and assess it's condition.
Right now JPL is in the process of digging up the 13-year old "owner's manual" :-)
Something that is both cooperative and science based... I'm surprised Trump didn't nuke it on his first day in office!
Let's put partisan politics aside and take a walk down memory lane.
Those of us who are old enough to remember a time *before* the ISS can also remember the arguments against building it in the first place.
The ISS had no compelling reason to be built. It was nice and all, held some public relations appeal, and there were a few experiments that could be done on it, but in general it was not a good use of the money. People point to all the innovations and advancements we made due to going to the moon - and that's a fair assessment - but none of that happened at the ISS.
IIRC, it was mostly *scientists* who argued against building the ISS, and politicians who argued for it.
There are several potential projects that are far more interesting and more worthy, things such as exoplanet exploration rovers, landing on a comet, new and innovative space telescopes, and perhaps other space-based experiments such as laser interferometer gravitational detectors or telescopes based on photon quantum correlation.
Perhaps we should let scientists recommend where to spend the money.
Getting back to partisan identity emotionalism, it would seem that bringing an end to the ISS is more of a "common sense" decision than a "keep the dream alive" decision.
As well as framing this in disparaging emotionalism, you could just also call this decision "common sense".
Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.
I thought the reason we didn't have as many recessions in the late 20th was due to the Glass Steagall act, and the reason we had the most recent one was because we dismantled that.
Is that not the case?
One could argue that TARP exacerbated our most recent depression (greater than "the great depression", by all accounts), because comparing our results with other countries that *didn't* bail out the banks (notably: Iceland) shows that we fared a lot worse by not simply letting the banks fail.
So what's really going on here?
Are you arguing a point of religious dogma, essentially a "school of thought"?
Or are there clear and unambiguous reasons for the great depression, with close parallels to our current situation? Do all economic models agree that tariffs are a bad idea?
I'm confused.
If we reinstitute Glass Steagall -style limitations (which we haven't yet), shouldn't that protect us from exacerbating depressions?
It is awful. basically you are now subsidising local less efficient manufacturing. Everyone loses, less panels will be installed, you may maintain a few manufacturing jobs but they should be offset by the reduction in retail and installer jobs you will lose by increasing costs by 30%.
The problem with modern economic theory is that it doesn't measure success in the right way. It's all about money coming into or out of a country, of the cost of goods, and the cost to manufacture.
Nowhere in those theories is the human cost taken into effect.
In the modern theories, it's always better when you have lower costs, even if those costs result in fewer people being employed. You can have lots of low cost products available, and yet no one can afford to purchase them because no one has the money to spare - employment is so low that no disposable cash drives the economy.
The original argument for Chinese manufacturing was exactly that: Shoes become $1 cheaper and 100 workers lose employment, but the total savings across the country of people purchasing shoes more than compensates for the loss of 100 salaries. Overall, it's better for everyone.
Do you see the flaw in the theory yet?
When you say "maintain a few manufacturing jobs but offset by loss of installed jobs" you are making the same argument.
It measures success as the cost of goods, and nothing else, without taking into account other aspects of the economy.
A successful economy depends on people having money, to drive the economy.
Currently insurance is guaranteed-issue in the US, and treating early-stage cancers is easier/cheaper than catching them late. So yeah, this will save money, and not by blacklisting.
Also, $500 is cheaper than tests for cancer like scopes and CAT scans.
Talking to a researcher at Tufts, he pointed out that we have plenty of new diagnostics that can't be used because insurance won't cover them. The insurance companies are afraid that the diagnostic will uncover a condition that has to be treated, which would cost more than letting the condition go until it becomes untreatable and the patient dies quickly.
So even though this test might suggest an earlier treatment that is cheaper, you still have to compare the actuarial value of not doing the test and letting the cancers go until they are discovered by some other method.
We need some sort of game-theory change in how insurance companies operate, so that their goal is better health and not lower costs.
Perhaps penalizing the company for deaths under a certain age (to encourage the company to value life over costs), or something similar.
Simply mandating the test and other legislative directives won't work, because the companies still have the incentive to reduce costs - they will always be pulling in the opposite direction.
We need a way to get the insurance companies to pull in the same direction as their customers, so that they both have the same goals.
That being, better health.
Those of us suffering under the current US administration want to know how citizens respond to stupid, irrational leaders
You're suffering only because you *choose* to suffer.
I've read of paraplegic people who learn to fly, people who get horribly burned and go on to start families, people who lose everything and turn their lives around.
You *choose* how you feel about what happens in your life. If you choose to be happy, then you can be happy. If you choose to be sad because of Trump, then you'll be sad.
And while you're at it, if you want to suffer then go ahead - it's your choice - but can you *please* stop pissing and moaning out lout where we can hear you?
It was old and tired a full year ago. No one cares, you can't change anything, and... the country's doing pretty well right now.
You could simply choose *not* to suffer under the administration. ISIS is all but defeated, jobs are coming back, taxes were reduced, many people are getting bonuses, North Korea is coming to the Olympics, and we're no longer in the TPP.
Why not take some time off and enjoy the moment?
Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting a Nature study that states that the most dire predictions of global warming are unlikely.
Being, the prediction that the Earth will warm 4-5 degrees C by 2100 is not credible.
"Facebook is a living, breathing crime scene for what happened in the 2016 election -- and only they have full access to what happened,"
A couple of questions here.
1) What crime, exactly, was committed?
2) Is Sandy Parakilas, the manager in question, more intelligent or better informed than the average person? (The average person with a full-time job not related to understanding political issues.)
3) It this another example of a liberal who still, 18 months later, can't get over the loss of her candidate and has made a shocking pronouncement to get viewer engagement and generally get noticed?
Is this really a problem?
No one worries about issues of propaganda when it was the MSM's version of fake news.
It's been over and done with for 18 months, Trump isn't literally Hitler, and the country is doing pretty well. All things considered, we seem to have chosen the better of two candidates.
Why is it such a big issue?
I am shocked and appalled [...] States rights is also racist. Why are all these [...]
Oh racism - is there nothing it can't be applied to?
I am wondering - do the AG's have standing to file suit here?
Can a bunch of AGs just get together and appeal to a judge to get the government to do something?
(Assuming the topic was not legislated by congress. NN actually went against a legislative directive.)
It just seems really weird that, in the future, random groups of AGs can file suit to force the federal government to do stuff.
Can they really do that?
California is currently failing in many respects.
The national economy is up around 3%, and California revenues are also up about 2.9 %.
That's about a 1:1 ratio, but CA grew at twice the rate of the economy in 2016. Their growth is significantly slowed since about two years ago. Also, that 2.9% increase in revenues is offset by about 2% increase in expenses, so it's not going to reduce their deficit a lot.
The CA population has lost about 930,000 people(*) according to census data (linked in the article), mostly middle class. The middle-class in CA have moved away to Arizona, Washington, and Texas leaving the poor and ultra-rich behind. Not completely, of course, but losing that much middle class has gotta put stress on the CA economy.
Their labor force shrank from 62.1% to 59.1% in that same time - a huge decrease to happen in just over a year.
CA is dead last (50th out of 50) in economic freedom.
Some analysts are suggesting that CA is already in a recession.
So... yeah. It's entirely reasonable to predict that California is facing very bad times in the near future.
And by extension, the California management.
(*) Don't bitch about linking to Breitbart. The link to the census bureau report is right there in the linked article.