Just because the Democrats in the House and Senate and the Democrat President previously approved this doesn't mean it is right for Trump to do. Trump has caused a serious cyber security problem for the US.
Wow, that's the first time I've heard *that* one.
Mathematically speaking, from the "game theory" part of mathematics, what is the are the costs of the "serious cyber security problem" that Trump has caused, and which didn't exist prior to moving the embassy, compared with the costs of *not* moving the embassy?
(Hint: Take the current amount of cyber threat, subtract the amount from before moving the embassy, and discount the cost due to economies of scale. IOW, battling 12 threats isn't that much expensive if you're already battling 10.)
Extra credit: How does enacting something that was made law by Congress and a prior president (in 1995, by Democrats) somehow make us weaker, damage our credibility, or reflect poorly on Trump? Include in your discussion the ramifications of Trump's campaign promise to do this.
Would the cyber threats not have existed if Trump hadn't moved the embassy? Didn't those guys already hate us?
Is this one of those "If the shooter realizes his victims are unarmed, he will put down his gun and surrender - it's just human nature" things that Liberals keep talking about?
What results? Removal of healthcare, tax breaks for the better off, banging porn starts and paying them off, making it so anything negative is fake news, the wall? No mate, the rest of the world IS losing respect for you because they see you don't give a fuck about anyone else anymore. When did the US accept whatever shitty deals were given to them? All deals are a meeting of compromise and America has shown she is no longer willing. When you start slinging its our way or the highway about you'll be surprised how many people will let you go. You might be able to get a good deal out of the UK though because we've fucked ourselves so hard that we'll probably literally be begging for it, but that isn't out of respect.
Don't forget:
Defeating ISIS Withdrawing from TPP Withdrawing from Paris accord Ending the Korean war Kickstarting the economy Bringing jobs back Lowest unemployment ever
Any criticism of Trump is is instant press these days.
That's because he's the president and also because 99% of what he says is flat out fucking stupid.
While that may be true, you can't argue with results.
(And no, the world isn't losing respect for the US because of Trump. If anything the world is treating us with *more* respect because they see that we no longer back down and take whatever shitty deals they give us.)
Can you get a Nobel prize while serving concurrent life terms for treason in Leavenworth?
As it happens, you can get a Nobel peace prize while in prison. Most recently Liu Xiaobo was awarded the prize while jailed.
The Nobel committee apparently doesn't use "laws of other countries" as a criterion. Why would they?
Also as it happens, treason is specifically defined in the constitution. Nothing that Trump has been accused of comes under that definition.
Also also, I was reading about some of the trial transcripts from Mueller's indictments, and he'll be lucky if he doesn't get slapped by the court. The Manafort case in particular had the judge asking how Mueller's investigation can extend to actions that happened ten years before the election... and the prosecution being evasive and rude to the judge... causing the judge to demand prosecution submit the full, redacted indictment recommendation.
And in the Flynn case, the judge ordered prosecution to turn over any exculpatory evidence they have. This is unusual for a case where a guilty plea has been entered. The polite interpretation is that the judge feels Flynn might not have entered the plea because he was guilty, but because he couldn't afford a defense. The bad interpretation is that the judge might be looking into whether Flynn's plea was coerced. (Heard somewhere that prosecutors told Flynn that after they were done prosecuting him, they'd go after his wife and kids.)
And remember those 13 Russian nationals that were indicted? Turns out, it was 13 Russian nationals and four corporate entities. And one of the entities actually showed up in court to contest the charges. The indictments were widely viewed as a PR stunt, and that Mueller never expected anyone to contest them. He wasn't expecting to actually have to go to court, he's unprepared, and prosecutors tried to postpone the trial, saying "the plaintiffs were never served notice". Plaintiffs responded with "we're here voluntarily to answer charges and intend to enter a plea of "not guilty", let's have a trial!". Judge agreed, and now Mueller is scrambling to find evidence to support a bogus indictment.
Also, I heard that the IG report got postponed (last Wednesday) by "a couple of weeks" because they found new evidence about the Clinton E-mail investigation.
So overall, wait about 4 weeks or so and get back to me on whether Trump will be in jail, or whether we have a dozen high-level politicians indicted on corruption charges.
In fact, this very site has already had tests suspended indefinitely, likely because a mountain fell on it. From the article:
"The breakdown not only took off part of the mountain’s summit but also created a “chimney” that could allow fallout to rise from the blast centre into the air"
So, um good job Kim, taking a desperate attempt at mitigating a massive environmental disaster that could have blanketed half a hemisphere in radioactive fallout and trying to parlay it into a gesture of goodwill?
One potential problem with Korean negotiations is the optics, and the tendency of people to dislike being proven wrong, losing face, and being shown as disingenuous or hypocritical.
We could help the process along by giving Kim the widest exit-ramp from his situation. We don't have to be the sore, arrogant winners here.
So let's suppose that the existing test site was partially destroyed by the collapse, and still held significant development capability. We don't know that this is *not* true.
If the rest of the world were to take the positive view and assume the best, then this is Kim making a real effort to promote peace between the two nations.
A highly respectable gesture, and offered before negotiations.
Actually, that sounds 'kinda classy when you think about it.
For context: 3,393 advertisements purchased (a total 3,519 advertisements total were released after more were identified by the company); More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements; 470 IRA-created Facebook pages; 80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans. Half of Americans saw their content.
I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.
There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.
During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.
Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.
Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?
You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.
You used to be able to trust polling results: the polling companies made it their business to be accurate. Even now polls that report inconvenient truths are being suppressed.
If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.
(Of note: CNN's ratings are down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)
You people have to stop getting your news from Fox and Breitbart. The homicide rate in London is not even 1/30th of the US' worst cities, and is nearly half that of New York (all per capita).
Let's do an experiment.
Starting next week, for the next 30 days let's keep track of all the high-profile murders and attacks in both London and NYC.
For the sake of consistency and ease of specification, let's say May 15 through June 15.
Anyone care to predict which city has more horrific attacks and murders?
Take two states that have towns with the same name, such as Westborough (a common town name in the US).
Fill out a change of address form, of your mark for Westborough, State1. Now all their mail will be going to Westborough, State1.
Fill out two other forms, one sending mail for your mark from Westborough, State1 to Westborough, State2, and the other sending mail for your mark from Westborough, State 2 to Westborough, State 1. This effectively makes a "loop" of mail forwarding at the endpoint.
(Consider adding a hand-written note "my address was changed to the wrong state by accident - please forward all my mail to the correct state until I can get it all fixed" to each side.)
I once asked a friend who works at the post office how long this would take to get sorted out, and he replied "the question is, would they be able to get this sorted out at all".
Why would a Climate Monitoring System be under NASA and not NOAA?
I would think that NASA's only role in this should be launching and maintaining the satellites. The Science and Climate Monitoring itself should be under NOAA control.
And why is this tacked to Trump? And why do we need to be told specifically "President Donald Trump"?
A headline further down reads "The White House Has Set Up a Task Force To Help Further the Country's AI Development ".
Why did the bad innuendo which was far-removed from the president need to be so specifically associated with Trump, while the encouraging subject directly involving the president need to be softened with indirect terms?
For that matter, why is Slashdot putting political spin on *anything*? Can't we just get pointers to articles without the editors trying to adjust our opinions?
A bait drop of the second generation anticoagulant toxin brodifacoum in cereal-based pellets will be distributed by helicopters using under-slung spreader buckets. This will be supplemented with hand spreading of baits in and around buildings and other areas inaccessible by air. Much of the interior of the island and the south coast will be unaffected by the baiting operations.
A little further in that document:
The baiting operation is likely to have negligible effects also on soil, water and vegetation as the toxin is not soluble and will break down to harmless products over a period of several months to a year. Similarly, effects on the marine environment are likely to be negligible due to the small amount of bait entering the sea and rapid break up and dispersal of the bait.
The eradication of the two reindeer herds on South Georgia is currently under consideration by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which has responsibility for this issue. Secondary poisoning due to feeding on poisoned carcasses is most likely for brown skua, snowy sheathbill and northern and southern giant petrels. Such losses should be sustainable at the population level, and numbers are predicted to recover on a scale of years.
And from the final report, this paragraph is interesting:
Over 4,600 inert devices, including chewsticks and tracking tunnels, were deployed and checked as part of the survey. The very best rodent detection experts were also brought in especially: three highly trained 'sniffer' dogs and their two skilled female handlers. In an incredible feat of endurance and teamwork reminiscent of Sir Ernest Shackleton’s epic crossing of the island just over a hundred years ago, the handlers walked a total of 1608km, with the dogs covering a total of 2420km, searching for signs of rats. This distance, roughly the equivalent of a return trip from London to Dundee, is all the more impressive given the rugged and challenging terrain of South Georgia.
Also, the Qualcomm thing was part of the China trade sanctions, for China turning a blind eye towards companies that did business with N.Korea.
This indirectly led to the end of the Korean war.
If you could go back in time and choose or reverse the Qualcomm decision, which choice would you make: the one for a healthy Qualcomm, high US unemployment, and North and South Korea rattling sabres?
First time I heard someone say it was regarding Iran sanctions as opposed to xenophobia. Almost as if all the previous stories were #FakeNews.
I believe this was also one of the bullet points for Chinese trade sanctions; meaning, it's one of the half-dozen or so ways in which China cheats on their end of the trade agreement. They turn a blind eye to their companies that do this (and trade with North Korea).
It's amazing how less useful Google maps is now than it used to be.
I wanted to find where a road goes in my home town... and couldn't. The road is rendered in white (color:255,255,255) and the surrounding landscape is "barely off white" (color:235,233,239). The contrast between those two colors is so poor I simply *couldn't* follow the road windings across the landscape.
Google maps is so useless that I had to get a real [paper] map to see where the road goes.
The rest of the world needs to recognize and appreciate that America is becoming a shithole country and move along without the US.
Isolationist, nationalist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, intolerant of its own people, warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed.
You know what? Screw it.
It doesn't matter how much of our wealth we give away, there will always be someone like you spewing lies and hatred, trying to guilt us into giving more. It will never be enough
We owe you nothing. We owe the world nothing. We sometimes enter into agreements with allies for a common goal, but these one-side giveaways are going to stop. It's not our problem, and we are tired of all the giving.
The US allows about 1.1 million immigrants into the country every year, which is remarkably generous by world standards. We are not anti-immigration, we are anti illegal immigration, and would like to look after the safety of our own citizens by filtering out the criminals.
We are not anti-refugee, but after awhile the refugees need to go home. The [minor] hurricane refugees have been here for 10 years, we're done supporting them, now it's time for them to go home.
Paris accord? We foot the bill. TPP? A horribly one-sided deal. Iran agreement? Billions in aid, which they used to further develop nuclear weapons *and* funneled money to terrorist organizations.
You may not have noticed, but America's beacon has brightened considerably in the last year or so.
Unemployment is down, and the economy is up. ISIS is defeated, the Korean war is over. Jobs are coming back, and we got money back from the IRS.
Presidential approval is up around 50%.
We're doing actually pretty well for a change, despite all the knee-jerk negativity.
Take a look around and see what's happening.
People are starting to feel good about our country once again.
We're done giving away our wealth, we need to look after our own citizens for a change.
While I agree with the intent, and even the assessment of Bail Bond providers, Google should not be the entity deciding and enforcing what is correct speech!
That is entirely the purview of government, and once we let private companies start using their judgment we're in for a whole world of hurt.
For example, a legal proceeding (judgment and enforcement by government) usually has well-defined definitions that have been tested in court, refined by previous cases, and there's a clear-cut path for disagreement and appeal.
We're starting to feel the pinch of ambiguous rules and selective enforcement right now, as more people get pissed off because their previously acceptable videos get taken down, stored documents get locked away, accounts get locked and shadow-banned, and E-mails get scanned. (And caused at least one person to snap and go shoot up a bunch of Google employees.)
Instead of suppressing the ads, why doesn't Google suggest and throw its weight behind legislation? They seem to have no problem encouraging legislation in other areas.
There's a lot of smart people at Google. You would think that they could write simple legislation that could be submitted for debate that would make everyone's life better. Such as, for example, legislation about net neutrality.
Instead of forcing everyone into prim and proper behaviour.
Search for 'flat earth', 'vaccine autism', 'creation science', 'labor economics', 'sociology' etc etc.
The thing they have in common? The people involved wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass. Instead they grind axes.
And all of the "real science" that encourages citizen participation only has the citizens doing trivial things.
Things like running "Folding@Home", viewing astronomical photographs looking for potentially interesting things, sending in local samples for analysis - things that any high-school kid could do.
Find something in the astronomical photograph and you'll be listed as the discoverer, along with the *real* scientist who did the analysis. Send in a sample and you'll be listed as the contributor, along with the *real* scientists who wrote the paper.
(St. Louis zoo was passing out vials, asking people to find local samples of algae and send them back to be cultured. They were looking for high-yield cultures that could be used for aquaculture. A fine idea, and interesting for a child, but not actual citizen science.)
I've seen a bunch of YouTube videos that did brilliant technical comparisons of techniques or materials. One in particular - that I can't find at the moment - had everything one would need for a paper: background, hypothesis, test, measurement, and results. It would make a typical paper in materials science, except it was in video format. It was simple, concise, and had a clear result. (Update: it's here.)
If you want a platform for citizen science, you might try Hackaday.io. They are trying to start an actual scientific journal to collect some of the results that amateurs are coming up with, The Hackaday Journal of What You Don't Know.
Whether the journal goes anywhere is anybody's guess, but the.io system has a lot of cool scientific projects that might make for good research. Such as this one, or this one.
Not to inject facts into a good discussion, but the reality is that Tesla stock dropped about 2% after the call, and it's already rebounded. (If you include the part of the drop that occurred right before the call, it would be about 5%. Figure $301 to $284 and back.)
Look at the 1-month variation in this link and note that the variation after the call is about the same as four other similar variations in the past 30 days.
Big, fat hairy deal.
Also, the questions that Musk avoided weren't "sober questions by respected Wall Street analysts", they were leading questions intended to elicit a response that could be taken in a negative light. In one case, the question was answered completely by the filed papers, and illustrated that the asker didn't do his homework.
Tesla is the most shorted stock in history right now (not most shorted in todays market, by some measures it's the most shorted stock of all time), and a lot of people would like to see it fall so they can make some money.
You won't get an honest opinion about Tesla for awhile, not until the short sellers realize that they can't bring the stock down using hype.
Zuckerberg is a demon lord, so nothing that simple will work.
It has to be a full summoning circle, with protection circles for the summoner, acolyte minor, and familiar.
The full incant goes something like:
Here have I scribed the true URLs of power, Forward and backward anagrammatized, The abbreviated names of holy CEOs, Figures of every adjunct to the internet, And characters of signs and evening stars, By which the spirits are enforced to rise. And do the utmost magic can perform.
You also need something to appease Zuckerberg once he gets there. The life of a small child, or the promise of toothless regulation, or something similar.
The big players (Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al.) should not determine what's acceptable speech, or attempt to enforce it.
That's the job of the government, there's lots of existing precedent to rely on, and there are clear avenues of appeal and change.
So here's what will happen: things will get really bad for awhile, then something will happen that breaks the dam. There will be a flood of calls to break up Google (in particular), and twitter and facebook and all the others.
Facebook's problem wasn't that they gave information to an outside party, it's that the party was associated with Trump that got them in trouble. Largely the same thing happened with Obama, and Facebook didn't care.
Recently published research shows that google manipulated search results to make Clinton seem more favorable to Trump. The research uses comparisons of search keys between Google, Bing, and Yahoo to make it's point, and is based on results published in PNAS. An excerpt:
overall, manipulating search suggestions can shift a 50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.
Google engages in unfair media manipulation at its worst, they are literally trying to sway the results of an election to a candidate they prefer. Facebook and Twitter are doing the same. Facebook does the same thing indirectly, by selling personal information to companies who themselves do the manipulation.
It was thought to be "the smart move" when the Obama campaign did it, and at the time no one realized that the same effect could be turned the other way.
The big players are right now laying the grounds for the upcoming election by eliminating certain opinions. Gun proponents explaining how to clean and care for their guns get their accounts locked, videos get demonetized, commentary gets shadow-banned... despite claims of "it was a mistake" and "it's our AI", the results have been largely one-sided.
I don't expect Facebook to be smart enough to notice what's happening (or Google or Twitter), so the most likely outcome is that this will come to a head with enormous public outcry over something in the future (possibly the upcoming US midterm elections), and the companies will be forceably broken down into smaller pieces or made to submit to regulation.
A pity, really. Facebook could probably get a lot of consumer good will by being the champions of human rights.
Instead, they seem hell-bent on forcing governments to step in with regulation.
Do some research and try a "$30 experiment", see if it eases your "fibromyalgia" a little. Done right, there's really very little risk, and it's cheaper than going to a doctor.
Careful. If that research is a few slick websites with results-are-not-typical testimonials this feeds the woo-verse that is filled with supplements, homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic and natural remedies all getting rich off $30 experiments while distracting people from what actually works.
If traditional medicine "actually worked", as you put it, people wouldn't need to desperately search for alternatives.
I'd like to point out that the previous post was the opinion of a single person.
While what he says is true, his explanations and descriptions are "correct, but not complete".
Firstly, there definitely are many nootropics one can take that enhance mental ability. As an example of this, a bottle of "5-hour energy"(*) is mostly Taurine and Tyrosine (and a little caffeine), two amino acids that you would get normally in your diet. There are quite a few things you can get that will have an effect,
Secondly, saying "the idea that there is a single non-food molecule that will make it work better is pretty-far fetched" is science by rationalization, it's how Aristotle came up with his laws of motion. A better way is to look at the evidence. What do the studies actually say?
Thirdly, not knowing the mechanism of action is not evidence of... well, it's not evidence of anything, really.
(I'm always astonished that our current medical field requires knowledge of the mechanism of action before allowing a drug on the market. I've come across treatments and potential cures that appear to work when based only on the evidence, yet can't be marketed because their mechanism of action is unknown.)
Medical research has stagnated, for about the last 30 years. The backlash from this is that people are trying things on their own in an attempt to find cures and to make their lives better. Supplements are only one of the ways people are responding.
Medical studies and the guidance of your local doctor would be nice, but the system is simply not set up for curing people or even trying something new.
Go online, look at what people recommend, and do some research:
a) Is the company selling the supplements of good reputation? (ie - do they stand behind the product, do they delist products that are poor quality?) There are definitely companies out there that value their reputation and standing within the community.
b) Is the supplement backed by studies? Lots of supplements actually *do* have studies, and while they may not show the complete picture, it will at least tell you how well the product is tolerated, and whether it has side effects.
c) Does the supplement have recommendations by doctors online? Lots and lots of doctors out there recommending one product or another, but beware of fake doctors. Many doctors will claim to be giving a supplement to their patients, which (if the claims are legit) would be further evidence of an effect, and of safety.
d) Are product reviews favorable? It's possible to fake a couple of reviews, but if something has over a hundred reviews and is received favorably, it's probably legitimately good. Check out the 1-star ratings and see if it's complaints about the product, or about the service.
e) Has the product been out long enough that side-effects would be reported? If something's been out for 5 years and lots of people are taking it... this is fair evidence that it's safe to try.
Do some research and try a "$30 experiment", see if it eases your "fibromyalgia" a little. Done right, there's really very little risk, and it's cheaper than going to a doctor.
(*) There are a lot of knock-off energy drinks that use other mechanisms, such as high sugar content. I'm talking specifically about the product "5-hour energy".
There's tremendous liability here. Telling people to try drug X without a medical license [...]
This is argument by misdirection.
1) Google should bear no liability for what it's users say, and
2) Google should not be making legal decisions.
Once you go down the path of "it's the carriers' responsibility", it's really very easy to suppress all kinds of speech. Make one flashy arrest very public, and watch how the "chilling effect" causes all the carriers to clamp down on everything even remotely related, out of fear.
It's very, *very* clear that the current situation is untenable and unfair to the population.
The situation is now so bad that there is a grassroots movement calling for the breakup of the big players (google, facebook, twitter, and so on) on monopoly/antitrust grounds.
Google could be smart, recognize the growing trend, and go back to a "public commons" mode before that happens.
Or, they could continue to try to adjust public thought, try to "bring home" the election for their preferred candidates, and then get chopped up like so much cordwood.
(OTOH, that would probably be good for the users. Google has turned decidedly evil over the past few years, and "not being evil" is a competitive advantage that the smaller pieces could use to compete against each other.)
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the Democrats in the House and Senate and the Democrat President previously approved this doesn't mean it is right for Trump to do. Trump has caused a serious cyber security problem for the US.
Wow, that's the first time I've heard *that* one.
Mathematically speaking, from the "game theory" part of mathematics, what is the are the costs of the "serious cyber security problem" that Trump has caused, and which didn't exist prior to moving the embassy, compared with the costs of *not* moving the embassy?
(Hint: Take the current amount of cyber threat, subtract the amount from before moving the embassy, and discount the cost due to economies of scale. IOW, battling 12 threats isn't that much expensive if you're already battling 10.)
Extra credit: How does enacting something that was made law by Congress and a prior president (in 1995, by Democrats) somehow make us weaker, damage our credibility, or reflect poorly on Trump? Include in your discussion the ramifications of Trump's campaign promise to do this.
Would the cyber threats not have existed if Trump hadn't moved the embassy? Didn't those guys already hate us?
Is this one of those "If the shooter realizes his victims are unarmed, he will put down his gun and surrender - it's just human nature" things that Liberals keep talking about?
What results? Removal of healthcare, tax breaks for the better off, banging porn starts and paying them off, making it so anything negative is fake news, the wall? No mate, the rest of the world IS losing respect for you because they see you don't give a fuck about anyone else anymore. When did the US accept whatever shitty deals were given to them? All deals are a meeting of compromise and America has shown she is no longer willing. When you start slinging its our way or the highway about you'll be surprised how many people will let you go. You might be able to get a good deal out of the UK though because we've fucked ourselves so hard that we'll probably literally be begging for it, but that isn't out of respect.
Don't forget:
Defeating ISIS
Withdrawing from TPP
Withdrawing from Paris accord
Ending the Korean war
Kickstarting the economy
Bringing jobs back
Lowest unemployment ever
Any criticism of Trump is is instant press these days.
That's because he's the president and also because 99% of what he says is flat out fucking stupid.
While that may be true, you can't argue with results.
(And no, the world isn't losing respect for the US because of Trump. If anything the world is treating us with *more* respect because they see that we no longer back down and take whatever shitty deals they give us.)
Can you get a Nobel prize while serving concurrent life terms for treason in Leavenworth?
As it happens, you can get a Nobel peace prize while in prison. Most recently Liu Xiaobo was awarded the prize while jailed.
The Nobel committee apparently doesn't use "laws of other countries" as a criterion. Why would they?
Also as it happens, treason is specifically defined in the constitution. Nothing that Trump has been accused of comes under that definition.
Also also, I was reading about some of the trial transcripts from Mueller's indictments, and he'll be lucky if he doesn't get slapped by the court. The Manafort case in particular had the judge asking how Mueller's investigation can extend to actions that happened ten years before the election... and the prosecution being evasive and rude to the judge... causing the judge to demand prosecution submit the full, redacted indictment recommendation.
And in the Flynn case, the judge ordered prosecution to turn over any exculpatory evidence they have. This is unusual for a case where a guilty plea has been entered. The polite interpretation is that the judge feels Flynn might not have entered the plea because he was guilty, but because he couldn't afford a defense. The bad interpretation is that the judge might be looking into whether Flynn's plea was coerced. (Heard somewhere that prosecutors told Flynn that after they were done prosecuting him, they'd go after his wife and kids.)
And remember those 13 Russian nationals that were indicted? Turns out, it was 13 Russian nationals and four corporate entities. And one of the entities actually showed up in court to contest the charges. The indictments were widely viewed as a PR stunt, and that Mueller never expected anyone to contest them. He wasn't expecting to actually have to go to court, he's unprepared, and prosecutors tried to postpone the trial, saying "the plaintiffs were never served notice". Plaintiffs responded with "we're here voluntarily to answer charges and intend to enter a plea of "not guilty", let's have a trial!". Judge agreed, and now Mueller is scrambling to find evidence to support a bogus indictment.
Also, I heard that the IG report got postponed (last Wednesday) by "a couple of weeks" because they found new evidence about the Clinton E-mail investigation.
So overall, wait about 4 weeks or so and get back to me on whether Trump will be in jail, or whether we have a dozen high-level politicians indicted on corruption charges.
In fact, this very site has already had tests suspended indefinitely, likely because a mountain fell on it. From the article:
"The breakdown not only took off part of the mountain’s summit but also created a “chimney” that could allow fallout to rise from the blast centre into the air"
So, um good job Kim, taking a desperate attempt at mitigating a massive environmental disaster that could have blanketed half a hemisphere in radioactive fallout and trying to parlay it into a gesture of goodwill?
One potential problem with Korean negotiations is the optics, and the tendency of people to dislike being proven wrong, losing face, and being shown as disingenuous or hypocritical.
We could help the process along by giving Kim the widest exit-ramp from his situation. We don't have to be the sore, arrogant winners here.
So let's suppose that the existing test site was partially destroyed by the collapse, and still held significant development capability. We don't know that this is *not* true.
If the rest of the world were to take the positive view and assume the best, then this is Kim making a real effort to promote peace between the two nations.
A highly respectable gesture, and offered before negotiations.
Actually, that sounds 'kinda classy when you think about it.
Shouldn't the headline read:
"Border Patrol Agents under the Trump Administration Need Suspicion to Search Cell Phones"?
I mean, everything else is tacked on to the president... why not this?
For context:
3,393 advertisements purchased (a total 3,519 advertisements total were released after more were identified by the company);
More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements;
470 IRA-created Facebook pages;
80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and
Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans.
Half of Americans saw their content.
I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.
There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.
During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.
Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.
Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?
You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.
You used to be able to trust polling results: the polling companies made it their business to be accurate. Even now polls that report inconvenient truths are being suppressed.
If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.
(Of note: CNN's ratings are down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)
What's the point?
Ramadan (May 15 -> June 14).
You people have to stop getting your news from Fox and Breitbart. The homicide rate in London is not even 1/30th of the US' worst cities, and is nearly half that of New York (all per capita).
Let's do an experiment.
Starting next week, for the next 30 days let's keep track of all the high-profile murders and attacks in both London and NYC.
For the sake of consistency and ease of specification, let's say May 15 through June 15.
Anyone care to predict which city has more horrific attacks and murders?
Take two states that have towns with the same name, such as Westborough (a common town name in the US).
Fill out a change of address form, of your mark for Westborough, State1. Now all their mail will be going to Westborough, State1.
Fill out two other forms, one sending mail for your mark from Westborough, State1 to Westborough, State2, and the other sending mail for your mark from Westborough, State 2 to Westborough, State 1. This effectively makes a "loop" of mail forwarding at the endpoint.
(Consider adding a hand-written note "my address was changed to the wrong state by accident - please forward all my mail to the correct state until I can get it all fixed" to each side.)
I once asked a friend who works at the post office how long this would take to get sorted out, and he replied "the question is, would they be able to get this sorted out at all".
Why would a Climate Monitoring System be under NASA and not NOAA?
I would think that NASA's only role in this should be launching and maintaining the satellites. The Science and Climate Monitoring itself should be under NOAA control.
And why is this tacked to Trump? And why do we need to be told specifically "President Donald Trump"?
A headline further down reads "The White House Has Set Up a Task Force To Help Further the Country's AI Development ".
Why did the bad innuendo which was far-removed from the president need to be so specifically associated with Trump, while the encouraging subject directly involving the president need to be softened with indirect terms?
For that matter, why is Slashdot putting political spin on *anything*? Can't we just get pointers to articles without the editors trying to adjust our opinions?
You can find all the relevant documents here.
From the environmental impact study of Phase I:
A bait drop of the second generation anticoagulant toxin brodifacoum in cereal-based pellets will be distributed by helicopters using under-slung spreader buckets. This will be supplemented with hand spreading of baits in and around buildings and other areas inaccessible by air. Much of the interior of the island and the south coast will be unaffected by the baiting operations.
A little further in that document:
The baiting operation is likely to have negligible effects also on soil, water and vegetation as the toxin is not soluble and will break down to harmless products over a period of several months to a year. Similarly, effects on the marine environment are likely to be negligible due to the small amount of bait entering the sea and rapid break up and dispersal of the bait.
The eradication of the two reindeer herds on South Georgia is currently under consideration by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which has responsibility for this issue. Secondary poisoning due to feeding on poisoned carcasses is most likely for brown skua, snowy sheathbill and northern and southern giant petrels. Such losses should be sustainable at the population level, and numbers are predicted to recover on a scale of years.
And from the final report, this paragraph is interesting:
Over 4,600 inert devices, including chewsticks and tracking tunnels, were deployed and checked as part of the survey. The very best rodent detection experts were also brought in especially: three highly trained 'sniffer' dogs and their two skilled female handlers. In an incredible feat of endurance and teamwork reminiscent of Sir Ernest Shackleton’s epic crossing of the island just over a hundred years ago, the handlers walked a total of 1608km, with the dogs covering a total of 2420km, searching for signs of rats. This distance, roughly the equivalent of a return trip from London to Dundee, is all the more impressive given the rugged and challenging terrain of South Georgia.
The US is like a 3rd world country now where politics drive trade decisions rather than rules.
Dude, we now have just as many job openings as we have unemployed, for the first time in ever.
Also, the Qualcomm thing was part of the China trade sanctions, for China turning a blind eye towards companies that did business with N.Korea.
This indirectly led to the end of the Korean war.
If you could go back in time and choose or reverse the Qualcomm decision, which choice would you make: the one for a healthy Qualcomm, high US unemployment, and North and South Korea rattling sabres?
Or would you choose the situation we have today?
First time I heard someone say it was regarding Iran sanctions as opposed to xenophobia. Almost as if all the previous stories were #FakeNews.
I believe this was also one of the bullet points for Chinese trade sanctions; meaning, it's one of the half-dozen or so ways in which China cheats on their end of the trade agreement. They turn a blind eye to their companies that do this (and trade with North Korea).
It's amazing how less useful Google maps is now than it used to be.
I wanted to find where a road goes in my home town... and couldn't. The road is rendered in white (color:255,255,255) and the surrounding landscape is "barely off white" (color:235,233,239). The contrast between those two colors is so poor I simply *couldn't* follow the road windings across the landscape.
Google maps is so useless that I had to get a real [paper] map to see where the road goes.
The rest of the world needs to recognize and appreciate that America is becoming a shithole country and move along without the US.
Isolationist, nationalist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, intolerant of its own people, warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed.
You know what? Screw it.
It doesn't matter how much of our wealth we give away, there will always be someone like you spewing lies and hatred, trying to guilt us into giving more. It will never be enough
We owe you nothing. We owe the world nothing. We sometimes enter into agreements with allies for a common goal, but these one-side giveaways are going to stop. It's not our problem, and we are tired of all the giving.
The US allows about 1.1 million immigrants into the country every year, which is remarkably generous by world standards. We are not anti-immigration, we are anti illegal immigration, and would like to look after the safety of our own citizens by filtering out the criminals.
We are not anti-refugee, but after awhile the refugees need to go home. The [minor] hurricane refugees have been here for 10 years, we're done supporting them, now it's time for them to go home.
Paris accord? We foot the bill. TPP? A horribly one-sided deal. Iran agreement? Billions in aid, which they used to further develop nuclear weapons *and* funneled money to terrorist organizations.
You may not have noticed, but America's beacon has brightened considerably in the last year or so.
Unemployment is down, and the economy is up. ISIS is defeated, the Korean war is over. Jobs are coming back, and we got money back from the IRS.
Presidential approval is up around 50%.
We're doing actually pretty well for a change, despite all the knee-jerk negativity.
Take a look around and see what's happening.
People are starting to feel good about our country once again.
We're done giving away our wealth, we need to look after our own citizens for a change.
We owe you nothing.
While I agree with the intent, and even the assessment of Bail Bond providers, Google should not be the entity deciding and enforcing what is correct speech!
That is entirely the purview of government, and once we let private companies start using their judgment we're in for a whole world of hurt.
For example, a legal proceeding (judgment and enforcement by government) usually has well-defined definitions that have been tested in court, refined by previous cases, and there's a clear-cut path for disagreement and appeal.
We're starting to feel the pinch of ambiguous rules and selective enforcement right now, as more people get pissed off because their previously acceptable videos get taken down, stored documents get locked away, accounts get locked and shadow-banned, and E-mails get scanned. (And caused at least one person to snap and go shoot up a bunch of Google employees.)
Instead of suppressing the ads, why doesn't Google suggest and throw its weight behind legislation? They seem to have no problem encouraging legislation in other areas.
There's a lot of smart people at Google. You would think that they could write simple legislation that could be submitted for debate that would make everyone's life better. Such as, for example, legislation about net neutrality.
Instead of forcing everyone into prim and proper behaviour.
Search for 'flat earth', 'vaccine autism', 'creation science', 'labor economics', 'sociology' etc etc.
The thing they have in common? The people involved wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass. Instead they grind axes.
And all of the "real science" that encourages citizen participation only has the citizens doing trivial things.
Things like running "Folding@Home", viewing astronomical photographs looking for potentially interesting things, sending in local samples for analysis - things that any high-school kid could do.
Find something in the astronomical photograph and you'll be listed as the discoverer, along with the *real* scientist who did the analysis. Send in a sample and you'll be listed as the contributor, along with the *real* scientists who wrote the paper.
(St. Louis zoo was passing out vials, asking people to find local samples of algae and send them back to be cultured. They were looking for high-yield cultures that could be used for aquaculture. A fine idea, and interesting for a child, but not actual citizen science.)
I've seen a bunch of YouTube videos that did brilliant technical comparisons of techniques or materials. One in particular - that I can't find at the moment - had everything one would need for a paper: background, hypothesis, test, measurement, and results. It would make a typical paper in materials science, except it was in video format. It was simple, concise, and had a clear result. (Update: it's here.)
If you want a platform for citizen science, you might try Hackaday.io. They are trying to start an actual scientific journal to collect some of the results that amateurs are coming up with, The Hackaday Journal of What You Don't Know.
Whether the journal goes anywhere is anybody's guess, but the .io system has a lot of cool scientific projects that might make for good research. Such as this one, or this one.
Not to inject facts into a good discussion, but the reality is that Tesla stock dropped about 2% after the call, and it's already rebounded. (If you include the part of the drop that occurred right before the call, it would be about 5%. Figure $301 to $284 and back.)
Look at the 1-month variation in this link and note that the variation after the call is about the same as four other similar variations in the past 30 days.
Big, fat hairy deal.
Also, the questions that Musk avoided weren't "sober questions by respected Wall Street analysts", they were leading questions intended to elicit a response that could be taken in a negative light. In one case, the question was answered completely by the filed papers, and illustrated that the asker didn't do his homework.
Tesla is the most shorted stock in history right now (not most shorted in todays market, by some measures it's the most shorted stock of all time), and a lot of people would like to see it fall so they can make some money.
You won't get an honest opinion about Tesla for awhile, not until the short sellers realize that they can't bring the stock down using hype.
Zuckerberg is a demon lord, so nothing that simple will work.
It has to be a full summoning circle, with protection circles for the summoner, acolyte minor, and familiar.
The full incant goes something like:
Here have I scribed the true URLs of power,
Forward and backward anagrammatized,
The abbreviated names of holy CEOs,
Figures of every adjunct to the internet,
And characters of signs and evening stars,
By which the spirits are enforced to rise.
And do the utmost magic can perform.
You also need something to appease Zuckerberg once he gets there. The life of a small child, or the promise of toothless regulation, or something similar.
The difference between medicine and alternative medicine, is that medicine actually works.
Just sayin'
Having my car repaired "just works".
Traditional medicine is more like: "try this and see if the symptoms go away".
I can see how this will play out.
The big players (Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al.) should not determine what's acceptable speech, or attempt to enforce it.
That's the job of the government, there's lots of existing precedent to rely on, and there are clear avenues of appeal and change.
So here's what will happen: things will get really bad for awhile, then something will happen that breaks the dam. There will be a flood of calls to break up Google (in particular), and twitter and facebook and all the others.
Facebook's problem wasn't that they gave information to an outside party, it's that the party was associated with Trump that got them in trouble. Largely the same thing happened with Obama, and Facebook didn't care.
Recently published research shows that google manipulated search results to make Clinton seem more favorable to Trump. The research uses comparisons of search keys between Google, Bing, and Yahoo to make it's point, and is based on results published in PNAS. An excerpt:
overall, manipulating search suggestions can shift a 50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.
Google engages in unfair media manipulation at its worst, they are literally trying to sway the results of an election to a candidate they prefer. Facebook and Twitter are doing the same. Facebook does the same thing indirectly, by selling personal information to companies who themselves do the manipulation.
It was thought to be "the smart move" when the Obama campaign did it, and at the time no one realized that the same effect could be turned the other way.
The big players are right now laying the grounds for the upcoming election by eliminating certain opinions. Gun proponents explaining how to clean and care for their guns get their accounts locked, videos get demonetized, commentary gets shadow-banned... despite claims of "it was a mistake" and "it's our AI", the results have been largely one-sided.
I don't expect Facebook to be smart enough to notice what's happening (or Google or Twitter), so the most likely outcome is that this will come to a head with enormous public outcry over something in the future (possibly the upcoming US midterm elections), and the companies will be forceably broken down into smaller pieces or made to submit to regulation.
A pity, really. Facebook could probably get a lot of consumer good will by being the champions of human rights.
Instead, they seem hell-bent on forcing governments to step in with regulation.
Careful. If that research is a few slick websites with results-are-not-typical testimonials this feeds the woo-verse that is filled with supplements, homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic and natural remedies all getting rich off $30 experiments while distracting people from what actually works.
If traditional medicine "actually worked", as you put it, people wouldn't need to desperately search for alternatives.
Just 'sayin...
I'd like to point out that the previous post was the opinion of a single person.
While what he says is true, his explanations and descriptions are "correct, but not complete".
Firstly, there definitely are many nootropics one can take that enhance mental ability. As an example of this, a bottle of "5-hour energy"(*) is mostly Taurine and Tyrosine (and a little caffeine), two amino acids that you would get normally in your diet. There are quite a few things you can get that will have an effect,
Secondly, saying "the idea that there is a single non-food molecule that will make it work better is pretty-far fetched" is science by rationalization, it's how Aristotle came up with his laws of motion. A better way is to look at the evidence. What do the studies actually say?
Thirdly, not knowing the mechanism of action is not evidence of... well, it's not evidence of anything, really.
(I'm always astonished that our current medical field requires knowledge of the mechanism of action before allowing a drug on the market. I've come across treatments and potential cures that appear to work when based only on the evidence, yet can't be marketed because their mechanism of action is unknown.)
Medical research has stagnated, for about the last 30 years. The backlash from this is that people are trying things on their own in an attempt to find cures and to make their lives better. Supplements are only one of the ways people are responding.
Medical studies and the guidance of your local doctor would be nice, but the system is simply not set up for curing people or even trying something new.
Go online, look at what people recommend, and do some research:
a) Is the company selling the supplements of good reputation? (ie - do they stand behind the product, do they delist products that are poor quality?) There are definitely companies out there that value their reputation and standing within the community.
b) Is the supplement backed by studies? Lots of supplements actually *do* have studies, and while they may not show the complete picture, it will at least tell you how well the product is tolerated, and whether it has side effects.
c) Does the supplement have recommendations by doctors online? Lots and lots of doctors out there recommending one product or another, but beware of fake doctors. Many doctors will claim to be giving a supplement to their patients, which (if the claims are legit) would be further evidence of an effect, and of safety.
d) Are product reviews favorable? It's possible to fake a couple of reviews, but if something has over a hundred reviews and is received favorably, it's probably legitimately good. Check out the 1-star ratings and see if it's complaints about the product, or about the service.
e) Has the product been out long enough that side-effects would be reported? If something's been out for 5 years and lots of people are taking it... this is fair evidence that it's safe to try.
Do some research and try a "$30 experiment", see if it eases your "fibromyalgia" a little. Done right, there's really very little risk, and it's cheaper than going to a doctor.
(*) There are a lot of knock-off energy drinks that use other mechanisms, such as high sugar content. I'm talking specifically about the product "5-hour energy".
There's tremendous liability here. Telling people to try drug X without a medical license [...]
This is argument by misdirection.
1) Google should bear no liability for what it's users say, and
2) Google should not be making legal decisions.
Once you go down the path of "it's the carriers' responsibility", it's really very easy to suppress all kinds of speech. Make one flashy arrest very public, and watch how the "chilling effect" causes all the carriers to clamp down on everything even remotely related, out of fear.
It's very, *very* clear that the current situation is untenable and unfair to the population.
The situation is now so bad that there is a grassroots movement calling for the breakup of the big players (google, facebook, twitter, and so on) on monopoly/antitrust grounds.
Google could be smart, recognize the growing trend, and go back to a "public commons" mode before that happens.
Or, they could continue to try to adjust public thought, try to "bring home" the election for their preferred candidates, and then get chopped up like so much cordwood.
(OTOH, that would probably be good for the users. Google has turned decidedly evil over the past few years, and "not being evil" is a competitive advantage that the smaller pieces could use to compete against each other.)