Compare the WMD fiasco to the Tonkin Gulf incident. Both were based on lies and both were used as justification to drag America into stupid wars. But the Tonkin Gulf lies were published with much less fact checking by "journalists", and were not exposed until nearly three decades later. That would not happen today. There is no justification for the claim that journalism is "getting worse". Today, there is less filtering of BS, but also less filtering of the truth.
You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?
No. This is wrong. I have peer reviewed nearly a hundred papers over my career, and I have never replicated the research. I read the paper, see if it makes sense, and if the conclusions are supported by the data. Sometimes I recommend the paper be rejected outright, sometimes I suggest revisions for clarification or completeness, sometimes I recommend that paper be published as-is. Typically I will spend a few hours to do the review, for research that would take a year or more to replicate.
Peer-review can detect sloppy writing and incompetent research. It rarely catches outright fraud.
Don't kid yourself, "journalists" disappeared a decade ago.
You are experiencing false nostalgia. There was never a golden age of "real" journalists. Journalists misreported the WMD evidence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Monica-gate and Iran-Contra were reported in alt-media, including tabloids, long before mainstream journalists start paying attention. Nixon almost got away with Watergate, and JFK did get away with a lot of philandering and cheating that the press covered up in exchange for access.
It is easier to find the truth today than ever before. You just need to filter through a lot of crap to get to it.
Coal power generates significant radioactive waste.
Almost all of that is thorium, which does not bioaccumulate, and is nearly harmless in the quantities and concentrations produced in coal ash. There are plenty of very good reasons to oppose coal power, but "radiation" isn't one of them.
I should have been more clear, but what I really meant was we aren't shutting down any coal power plants for a while...
No new coal plants are being built in America. None are being planned, and none are under construction. As existing plants reach the end of their economically useful life, they will be shutdown and replaced with new gas plants. This is all driven by economics, not ideology, and Trump can do little to slow things down, even if he wanted to, and it is unclear if he does. He will have limited funding and limited political capital. Squandering his resources and influence on "saving coal" is about the dumbest thing he could do.
If you want to read about Kim Kardashian instead, there are plenty of other sites. But this site is for nerds, and Elon is the king of the nerds. He is building electric cars, solar panels, rockets, and trying to put people on Mars. He co-founded an institute to open source AI. He is like a real life Tony Stark. All the boy nerds want to be him. All the girl nerds want to sleep with him, and still would even if he only had one billion.
Or because winning in a malicious prosecution suit recovers legal costs, while a claim for damages (usually) results in only recovery of actual damages
She would be very unlikely to prevail in a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Otherwise she would have won the current case. She would lose the case, win nothing, and still be stuck with paying her own legal expenses. It is even possible that she could be ordered to pay Getty's expenses, if Getty's lawyers are good and thus know about Rule 68.
in Japan some elections have actually been invalidated in their highest court because of such disparity
Vote disparity in Japan has reached absurd levels. Political power is based on population distribution at the end of WW2, when much of modern Tokyo was still farmland. So urban areas are extremely disenfranchised, while rural areas with nothing but a few elderly farmers have disproportionate power. One result of this is extreme tariffs on agricultural products. When I lived in Japan, rice was ten times the American price, and American servicemen would buy American rice at the base commissary and smuggle it off base to give to their Japanese girlfriends. There were "rice police" to stop this, and some of the women were caught and went to jail (they couldn't prosecute the American men because of SOFA).
In many countries, the elderly block change, and progress has to wait until they die off. But in Japan, that doesn't happen, because if one elderly farmer dies, his voting power just shifts to his equally elderly neighbors. Eventually, there will just be one 110 year old rice farmer in Shiname-Ken that will be able to out-vote everyone in greater Tokyo.
You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business.
The reason you can't use a phone to order an Uber, is because in many jurisdictions, that is illegal. Once the taxis are out of business, those laws can be repealed.
What if you're elderly? What if you have a neural disorder?
What if an elderly or disabled person needs a ride on a busy rainy night, but there are no rides available because of government imposed fix prices that don't incentivize additional drivers to go out and provide rides?
What if that elderly person needs to eat? Should we require grocery stores to be licensed, and provide food at fixed prices to ensure people aren't exposed to market based groceries?
Sometimes for a good reason, but often for bad reasons, like cronyism and corruption. Do we really need to arrest people for painting toenails without a license?
Can you point to any data that indicates that Uber is less safe or "worse" in some measurable way, compared to regulated taxis? If not, then what is the "reason" for the laws and regulations inhibiting competition and pushing up prices?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
If it looks like a shotgun, and operates like a shotgun, then you can use it to shoot a duck. Then the duck won't quack anymore.
Perhaps a class action lawsuit is required by all of those who've paid for a "valid license" when no valid license was required
They would likely lose. It is not illegal to sell licenses to public domain works, and it is not illegal to claim copyright. Go to Amazon, and type in the name of a public domain work, like say "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", then click on "Look Inside", and then click on "copyright". What do you see?
... countersued for malicious/abusive prosecution.
That would cost her way way way more than she would have a prayer of a chance of collecting. She could save time by just stuffing her life savings into the garbage disposal. The end result would be the same.
The people that starve won't be the folks that put Trump in power...
The people that will likely suffer the most under Trump are the working class people that voted for him. He plans to cut taxes on the wealthy, cut business taxes, and generally make taxes more regressive. If he starts a trade war, it will likely destroy more jobs than are created, and good paying jobs in high end manufacturing and technology, will be replaced by low wage jobs making the plastic junk that Walmart currently imports from China.
Not more for all. More for those who still have incomes.
As supply increases and costs fall, it will take less income to afford the same food.
In America, less than 1% of workers are farmers. In Ethiopia, 80% are farmers. Do you think Ethiopians are better off because they have more farm jobs?
Target calls you up to ask you to review the box of Cheerios that you recently purchased and were entirely satisfied with.
No. That is not at all what it is. It is more like this:
I buy a box of Cheerios at Target, and Target then gives my phone number to General Mills, and then General Mills calls me. I tell them I DO NOT want their phone calls. They keep calling. So I go down to Target and warn people not to buy from General Mills because they will continue to call after you tell them not to. Then Target bans me from their property because I am NOT ALLOWED to complain about unsolicited phone calls, because that isn't about the actual box of cereal that I bought, but I will be unbanned and allowed to stay and complain about something else. So instead I complain about bugs in the cereal. When General Mills calls me to ask about the bugs in their cereal, I explain that there were no bugs, and I tell them the real reason I am complaining. And what do they do? Then they continue the unsolicited marketing calls!
You're not hurting Amazon by leaving fraudulent reviews, you're hurting the manufacturer of that product.
I am hurting both, and both deserve to be hurt. The manufacturers are the ones sending the email, and they know, or they should know, that many of the customers do NOT want to receive their marketing garbage. And I am helping them learn that lesson better.
SWITCH TO ANOTHER RESELLER.
That is not easy, or convenient. I would rather fix Amazon. Since my original post is modded +5, I am clearly not the only one upset at Amazon's no-opt-out spamming policy. If we work together, they will eventually get the message.
Did you Google "stop amazon marketing email"? Did you find this page, which tells you how to unsubscribe from Amazon marketing e-mails?
Do you know how to read? Did your read my post? I specifically said that I REPEATEDLY asked to be taken off their spam list, and they DID NOT HONOR the request. Furthermore, they have specifically told me that there is NO WAY to be removed from "marketplace" spam. There is NO opt-out.
Follow your own directions, then order a few products. You WILL be spammed.
I'd still say "whore" - anyone, male or female, who sells out is a whore in my book.
Why not just say "sell-out"? Even if you want to be sexist and offensive, wouldn't "prostitute" be a better word choice? After all, "whore" just implies promiscuity, and not necessarily payment.
Also, can you explain how you equate being a "whore" with being a "sell-out"? Do you believe a woman's vagina is public property, and she is betraying society's trust by using it for unapproved purposes?
Yes. It all makes sense if they are intentionally trying to obscure their real ownership and objectives. There are many rumors that they are actually a front organization for another company. Most rumors focus on Apple as the real owner behind the curtain, and the money is being channelled through a Chinese company so they aren't taxed on repatriated profit.
Obviously "ShanghaiBill" doesn't care that his children are money grubbing whores.
When you criticize someone for behavior that has nothing to do with their gender, you should avoid loaded terms like "whore" and "bitch". How would you describe her behavior if she was male?
Correcting is HARD. You can't just apply some simple formula. More Democrats have only a single phone, while Republicans are more likely to have both a a landline, and a mobile, so they are more likely to receive a random call. Democrats are more likely to be home to answer the phone, while Republicans are more likely to be at work or wherever, and more likely to let their calls roll to voicemail even if they are home. Also, Republicans are more likely to hang up on pollsters and refuse to participate in surveys... yet they are more likely to show up and vote on election day.
The big question is how much each of these factors has changed since 2012. You need to apply a fudge-factor for each source of bias, and hope you get it right.
Basically the polls have been severely politicized. This is Propaganda 101.
Many polls have been politicized. But many, including professional pollsters that get paid based on their reputation for accuracy, are not politicized. They were all wrong.
Does anything about her doing this bother you, from a moral or ethical standpoint?
Yes, but she is a 19 year old adult, so she makes her own decisions. I can think of about a zillion other things she could be doing that would bother me more.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have plenty of problems to solve in their own country.
I prefer that they focus on Africa, rather than trying to "fix" America.
Why are they looking for trouble half a world away?
They just failed to bribe the right people.
Compare the WMD fiasco to the Tonkin Gulf incident. Both were based on lies and both were used as justification to drag America into stupid wars. But the Tonkin Gulf lies were published with much less fact checking by "journalists", and were not exposed until nearly three decades later. That would not happen today. There is no justification for the claim that journalism is "getting worse". Today, there is less filtering of BS, but also less filtering of the truth.
You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?
No. This is wrong. I have peer reviewed nearly a hundred papers over my career, and I have never replicated the research. I read the paper, see if it makes sense, and if the conclusions are supported by the data. Sometimes I recommend the paper be rejected outright, sometimes I suggest revisions for clarification or completeness, sometimes I recommend that paper be published as-is. Typically I will spend a few hours to do the review, for research that would take a year or more to replicate.
Peer-review can detect sloppy writing and incompetent research. It rarely catches outright fraud.
Don't kid yourself, "journalists" disappeared a decade ago.
You are experiencing false nostalgia. There was never a golden age of "real" journalists. Journalists misreported the WMD evidence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Monica-gate and Iran-Contra were reported in alt-media, including tabloids, long before mainstream journalists start paying attention. Nixon almost got away with Watergate, and JFK did get away with a lot of philandering and cheating that the press covered up in exchange for access.
It is easier to find the truth today than ever before. You just need to filter through a lot of crap to get to it.
Coal power generates significant radioactive waste.
Almost all of that is thorium, which does not bioaccumulate, and is nearly harmless in the quantities and concentrations produced in coal ash. There are plenty of very good reasons to oppose coal power, but "radiation" isn't one of them.
I should have been more clear, but what I really meant was we aren't shutting down any coal power plants for a while...
No new coal plants are being built in America. None are being planned, and none are under construction. As existing plants reach the end of their economically useful life, they will be shutdown and replaced with new gas plants. This is all driven by economics, not ideology, and Trump can do little to slow things down, even if he wanted to, and it is unclear if he does. He will have limited funding and limited political capital. Squandering his resources and influence on "saving coal" is about the dumbest thing he could do.
Every. Fucking. Day. Musk Tesla musk Tesla.
If you want to read about Kim Kardashian instead, there are plenty of other sites. But this site is for nerds, and Elon is the king of the nerds. He is building electric cars, solar panels, rockets, and trying to put people on Mars. He co-founded an institute to open source AI. He is like a real life Tony Stark. All the boy nerds want to be him. All the girl nerds want to sleep with him, and still would even if he only had one billion.
Or because winning in a malicious prosecution suit recovers legal costs, while a claim for damages (usually) results in only recovery of actual damages
She would be very unlikely to prevail in a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Otherwise she would have won the current case. She would lose the case, win nothing, and still be stuck with paying her own legal expenses. It is even possible that she could be ordered to pay Getty's expenses, if Getty's lawyers are good and thus know about Rule 68.
in Japan some elections have actually been invalidated in their highest court because of such disparity
Vote disparity in Japan has reached absurd levels. Political power is based on population distribution at the end of WW2, when much of modern Tokyo was still farmland. So urban areas are extremely disenfranchised, while rural areas with nothing but a few elderly farmers have disproportionate power. One result of this is extreme tariffs on agricultural products. When I lived in Japan, rice was ten times the American price, and American servicemen would buy American rice at the base commissary and smuggle it off base to give to their Japanese girlfriends. There were "rice police" to stop this, and some of the women were caught and went to jail (they couldn't prosecute the American men because of SOFA).
In many countries, the elderly block change, and progress has to wait until they die off. But in Japan, that doesn't happen, because if one elderly farmer dies, his voting power just shifts to his equally elderly neighbors. Eventually, there will just be one 110 year old rice farmer in Shiname-Ken that will be able to out-vote everyone in greater Tokyo.
You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business.
The reason you can't use a phone to order an Uber, is because in many jurisdictions, that is illegal. Once the taxis are out of business, those laws can be repealed.
What if you're elderly? What if you have a neural disorder?
What if an elderly or disabled person needs a ride on a busy rainy night, but there are no rides available because of government imposed fix prices that don't incentivize additional drivers to go out and provide rides?
What if that elderly person needs to eat? Should we require grocery stores to be licensed, and provide food at fixed prices to ensure people aren't exposed to market based groceries?
these laws and regulations exist for a reason
Sometimes for a good reason, but often for bad reasons, like cronyism and corruption. Do we really need to arrest people for painting toenails without a license?
Can you point to any data that indicates that Uber is less safe or "worse" in some measurable way, compared to regulated taxis? If not, then what is the "reason" for the laws and regulations inhibiting competition and pushing up prices?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
If it looks like a shotgun, and operates like a shotgun, then you can use it to shoot a duck. Then the duck won't quack anymore.
Perhaps a class action lawsuit is required by all of those who've paid for a "valid license" when no valid license was required
They would likely lose. It is not illegal to sell licenses to public domain works, and it is not illegal to claim copyright. Go to Amazon, and type in the name of a public domain work, like say "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", then click on "Look Inside", and then click on "copyright". What do you see?
... countersued for malicious/abusive prosecution.
That would cost her way way way more than she would have a prayer of a chance of collecting. She could save time by just stuffing her life savings into the garbage disposal. The end result would be the same.
The people that starve won't be the folks that put Trump in power...
The people that will likely suffer the most under Trump are the working class people that voted for him. He plans to cut taxes on the wealthy, cut business taxes, and generally make taxes more regressive. If he starts a trade war, it will likely destroy more jobs than are created, and good paying jobs in high end manufacturing and technology, will be replaced by low wage jobs making the plastic junk that Walmart currently imports from China.
Not more for all. More for those who still have incomes.
As supply increases and costs fall, it will take less income to afford the same food.
In America, less than 1% of workers are farmers. In Ethiopia, 80% are farmers. Do you think Ethiopians are better off because they have more farm jobs?
someone remembered that "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'."
What if the headline is "Can any headline that ends in a question mark be answered by the word 'no'?"?
Target calls you up to ask you to review the box of Cheerios that you recently purchased and were entirely satisfied with.
No. That is not at all what it is. It is more like this:
I buy a box of Cheerios at Target, and Target then gives my phone number to General Mills, and then General Mills calls me. I tell them I DO NOT want their phone calls. They keep calling. So I go down to Target and warn people not to buy from General Mills because they will continue to call after you tell them not to. Then Target bans me from their property because I am NOT ALLOWED to complain about unsolicited phone calls, because that isn't about the actual box of cereal that I bought, but I will be unbanned and allowed to stay and complain about something else. So instead I complain about bugs in the cereal. When General Mills calls me to ask about the bugs in their cereal, I explain that there were no bugs, and I tell them the real reason I am complaining. And what do they do? Then they continue the unsolicited marketing calls!
Disclaimer: I actually like Cheerios.
You're not hurting Amazon by leaving fraudulent reviews, you're hurting the manufacturer of that product.
I am hurting both, and both deserve to be hurt. The manufacturers are the ones sending the email, and they know, or they should know, that many of the customers do NOT want to receive their marketing garbage. And I am helping them learn that lesson better.
SWITCH TO ANOTHER RESELLER.
That is not easy, or convenient. I would rather fix Amazon. Since my original post is modded +5, I am clearly not the only one upset at Amazon's no-opt-out spamming policy. If we work together, they will eventually get the message.
Did you Google "stop amazon marketing email"? Did you find this page, which tells you how to unsubscribe from Amazon marketing e-mails?
Do you know how to read? Did your read my post? I specifically said that I REPEATEDLY asked to be taken off their spam list, and they DID NOT HONOR the request. Furthermore, they have specifically told me that there is NO WAY to be removed from "marketplace" spam. There is NO opt-out.
Follow your own directions, then order a few products. You WILL be spammed.
I'd still say "whore" - anyone, male or female, who sells out is a whore in my book.
Why not just say "sell-out"? Even if you want to be sexist and offensive, wouldn't "prostitute" be a better word choice? After all, "whore" just implies promiscuity, and not necessarily payment.
Also, can you explain how you equate being a "whore" with being a "sell-out"? Do you believe a woman's vagina is public property, and she is betraying society's trust by using it for unapproved purposes?
Can anyone make sense of this?
Yes. It all makes sense if they are intentionally trying to obscure their real ownership and objectives. There are many rumors that they are actually a front organization for another company. Most rumors focus on Apple as the real owner behind the curtain, and the money is being channelled through a Chinese company so they aren't taxed on repatriated profit.
Obviously "ShanghaiBill" doesn't care that his children are money grubbing whores.
When you criticize someone for behavior that has nothing to do with their gender, you should avoid loaded terms like "whore" and "bitch". How would you describe her behavior if she was male?
... and did NOT correct accordingly.
Correcting is HARD. You can't just apply some simple formula. More Democrats have only a single phone, while Republicans are more likely to have both a a landline, and a mobile, so they are more likely to receive a random call. Democrats are more likely to be home to answer the phone, while Republicans are more likely to be at work or wherever, and more likely to let their calls roll to voicemail even if they are home. Also, Republicans are more likely to hang up on pollsters and refuse to participate in surveys ... yet they are more likely to show up and vote on election day.
The big question is how much each of these factors has changed since 2012. You need to apply a fudge-factor for each source of bias, and hope you get it right.
Basically the polls have been severely politicized. This is Propaganda 101.
Many polls have been politicized. But many, including professional pollsters that get paid based on their reputation for accuracy, are not politicized. They were all wrong.
Does anything about her doing this bother you, from a moral or ethical standpoint?
Yes, but she is a 19 year old adult, so she makes her own decisions. I can think of about a zillion other things she could be doing that would bother me more.