So what, exactly, is the benefit to Russians to "fuel divisions" in US politics? And isn't the US two party political charade inclined to fuel divisions perfectly well on its own? They used to call it "muckraking", it's an old tradition in US politics.
The question must be asked, "hacked the DNC and DCCC *to what end*?" If the answer is simply, "To air their dirty laundry to the public," all I can say is, bravo.
This brings up another important piece of evidence we haven't seen- who, how, and where Russian agents caused Hillary to separate her emails onto an insecure server and write character revealing information that she would have preferred to remain hidden. If she hadn't have done that, Russians hacking her emails would not have had damaging effects even if such hacks did occur. If what the Russians are accused of is hacking Hillary's email and uncovering the seamy side of her character, they did us a favor that only a corrupt government would have a problem with.
Some of us still remember the evidence some of these agencies offered for WMD in Iraq. Hearsay by US intelligence agencies is not what I consider "evidence." What I want to see is names of actual Russian controlled accounts, specific evidence (not intelligence hearsay), of who the account owners are (actual names, not some generic characterization), along with the contents of the postings they made that are being characterized as election influencing.
For one example, take the current rate, and project it back to Roman times. The difference would be in the 4 or 5 meter range if the rate had been relatively constant since then. But the Romans built structures at the shoreline that would be several meters underwater today if the rate had been constant, which is now only barely underwater: https://green.blogs.nytimes.co...
I hate advertising so I only watch YouTube videos that advertisers won't touch with a 10-ft pole. I only subscribe to the controversial channels who've been demonetized, and have been known to send them contributions now and then.
Some of these corporations recognize that people are going to boot the GOP candidates out if the tax cuts don't "trickle down" as promised. And knowing full well that "trickle down" isn't the effect it's been sold to be, they are manually doing a little trickle down in order to keep the pitchforks at bay.
Yes, nuclear power in theory, can be perfectly safe. But in practice, it is not possible to reduce the risk level to zero. And a non-zero risk level with nuclear power means that once in some period of time, be it 50 or 100 or 200 years, there is a chance of a serious problem. With any other technology, the possible severity of a serious incident is limited by the nature of the technology, where nuclear is not as limited. It was thought the Titanic couldn't sink. it was thought the o-rings on the Challenger were sufficient. The original Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed at a time when engineers were unaware of the potential of aeroelastic flutter. It was thought that Fukushima could withstand the earthquake it was hit with and wouldn't be compounded with associated events. Risk assessment is an estimate of things that often can't be accurately quantified, and compound risks exist in all but the simplest risk calculations. Ultimately, evaluations of acceptable risk must include the magnitude of worst-case events, and not presume they can be avoided entirely.
It seems to me the root of the problem is the fact that companies want to hire based on "merit" but that is contradictory to diversity because external to the company, educational opportunities are not equal and penalize people that to an extent can be connected with their diversity. Since a given corporation doesn't see itself as responsible for the lack of diversity in the surrounding society, it doesn't see that it should be the one to fix the problem. And since the problem is external to individual companies, and it isn't being held to account (and in fact, often made worse by government undermining educational institutions in favor of moneyed interests), the problem isn't getting fixed so people are looking to blame at the result rather than at the cause, because it is the result that individual people actually have to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, employee loyalty doesn't come for free or by threats. Better to rely on self-interest. We're capitalists, after all.
If it happens to me, I'm changing my name to "F***K Wikipedia"...
What if a scientist DOESN'T WANT a Wikipedia entry? Who do they sue to keep their name out of such things?
"As an online discussion about Trump grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Putin approaches 1" - Boris Godwin's Law
How is Waze any different than a GPS that handles traffic re-routing, like my TomTom, or Garmin or any other GPS?
I guess if the light exposure only affects your eyes that might work, but do we know that it does?
Well, that's the last time an owner will report one of these occurrences...
I unfollow blue-ticked accounts.
Ignore comments. Comments lie. Code never lies.
So it WASN'T the RUSSIANS! It was GOOGLE! We've heard enough talk, STRING 'EM UP!
That's a hot one.
Must be a Russian bot trying to log in as me.
Stopped using it entirely about a year ago. Haven't missed any of this crap.
So what, exactly, is the benefit to Russians to "fuel divisions" in US politics? And isn't the US two party political charade inclined to fuel divisions perfectly well on its own? They used to call it "muckraking", it's an old tradition in US politics.
The question must be asked, "hacked the DNC and DCCC *to what end*?" If the answer is simply, "To air their dirty laundry to the public," all I can say is, bravo.
This brings up another important piece of evidence we haven't seen- who, how, and where Russian agents caused Hillary to separate her emails onto an insecure server and write character revealing information that she would have preferred to remain hidden. If she hadn't have done that, Russians hacking her emails would not have had damaging effects even if such hacks did occur. If what the Russians are accused of is hacking Hillary's email and uncovering the seamy side of her character, they did us a favor that only a corrupt government would have a problem with.
Some of us still remember the evidence some of these agencies offered for WMD in Iraq. Hearsay by US intelligence agencies is not what I consider "evidence." What I want to see is names of actual Russian controlled accounts, specific evidence (not intelligence hearsay), of who the account owners are (actual names, not some generic characterization), along with the contents of the postings they made that are being characterized as election influencing.
For one example, take the current rate, and project it back to Roman times. The difference would be in the 4 or 5 meter range if the rate had been relatively constant since then. But the Romans built structures at the shoreline that would be several meters underwater today if the rate had been constant, which is now only barely underwater: https://green.blogs.nytimes.co...
Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age?
FALSE as clearly shown by multiple independent lines of evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I hate advertising so I only watch YouTube videos that advertisers won't touch with a 10-ft pole. I only subscribe to the controversial channels who've been demonetized, and have been known to send them contributions now and then.
Some of these corporations recognize that people are going to boot the GOP candidates out if the tax cuts don't "trickle down" as promised. And knowing full well that "trickle down" isn't the effect it's been sold to be, they are manually doing a little trickle down in order to keep the pitchforks at bay.
Yes, nuclear power in theory, can be perfectly safe. But in practice, it is not possible to reduce the risk level to zero. And a non-zero risk level with nuclear power means that once in some period of time, be it 50 or 100 or 200 years, there is a chance of a serious problem. With any other technology, the possible severity of a serious incident is limited by the nature of the technology, where nuclear is not as limited. It was thought the Titanic couldn't sink. it was thought the o-rings on the Challenger were sufficient. The original Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed at a time when engineers were unaware of the potential of aeroelastic flutter. It was thought that Fukushima could withstand the earthquake it was hit with and wouldn't be compounded with associated events. Risk assessment is an estimate of things that often can't be accurately quantified, and compound risks exist in all but the simplest risk calculations. Ultimately, evaluations of acceptable risk must include the magnitude of worst-case events, and not presume they can be avoided entirely.
Yeah, not new but it makes for good hype if you pretend it is.
It seems to me the root of the problem is the fact that companies want to hire based on "merit" but that is contradictory to diversity because external to the company, educational opportunities are not equal and penalize people that to an extent can be connected with their diversity. Since a given corporation doesn't see itself as responsible for the lack of diversity in the surrounding society, it doesn't see that it should be the one to fix the problem. And since the problem is external to individual companies, and it isn't being held to account (and in fact, often made worse by government undermining educational institutions in favor of moneyed interests), the problem isn't getting fixed so people are looking to blame at the result rather than at the cause, because it is the result that individual people actually have to deal with.
Not distorting "people's understanding of complex issues," but distorting "establishment spin of complex issues."