It's not really homophobic, it's more simply denigrating. Regardless, the people who are really complaining AREN'T complaining about Colbert's objectifying of gay people or his choice to use the crude remark on broadcast television. What they're pointing out is the gigantic dose of hypocrisy on the liberal side. If someone they hate (say, a host on Fox, whatever) made the same remark, liberals would absolutely HOWL with outrage and fits of phony SJW hand-wringing and fainting couch use.
But because it's one of their guys making the snark, of course it's just a little humor, blah blah. It's the hypocrisy. It's always about the hypocrisy. The election results in November were about the hypocrisy.
Anthrax isn't a "dormant disease." There's live anthrax running around all over the place. It's not some ancient disease that's suddenly re-emerging because of global warming. What nonsense.
Well, sure. As long as you don't need connectivity while in even the second-to-top level of a parking garage. Or in a parking lot under some trees. Or when it's snowing.
Love the use of that loaded "linked to" phrase. Like, "Linked to Russia!" or "Linked to the Rothschild family!" Please, Slashdot, what's with the phony tone, these days? The slide towards full-on clickbaitism is accelerating.
you're dumb enough to esteem the judgment of a guy who hired someone dumb enough to take money from foreign sources and not report it
Oh, you're referring to the guy THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION gave a security clearance to in 2016, following a review of his business dealings in Russia? That guy? One of the reasons he didn't get even more scrutiny while being considered for that job was the fact that the previous administration had just vetted him post Russian involvement and considered him worthy of an unsponsored security clearance. Which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can spew your usual phony ad hominem. Thanks for tending so carefully to your ongoing hypocrisy display. Continue!
It's one of the few things the EPA does that's useful and efficient. Setting a national standard is well within the things that government should do. Compared to all the really wasteful things they do this should certainly be kept.
Except it's the manufacturers that self-report their own idea of efficiency, essentially self-awarding themselves this meaningless label. You'll recall the famous experiment where someone sent in an Energy Star application featuring their design for a gasoline powered alarm clock. Which was of course granted Energy Star status, not only sight-unseen, but obviously without even a moment's critical thinking on the part of whatever bureaucratic clerk is holding the exact job that Trump very reasonably considers a waste of your taxes. If consumers want a real standard, they should embrace something the Underwriters Laboratories standard for safety. Privately run, and rigorous.
Which part? Referencing Wolf Blitzer referring to a non-existent "Muslim ban?" Or MSNBC spending a day lying about how Rachel Maddow was going to "release Trump's taxes?" Typical liberal, you, carefully avoiding the topic and going for lazy ad hominem instead. Because you sure wouldn't want to address the points being made - that would require you to acknowledge that they refer to actual things that make your preferred narrative less truthy-feeling. Can't have that. No! I love how in a discussion about fake news, you're asserting that the person relaying simple (and verifiable by you) facts is virulently ignorant. Thanks for proving my point. Good to have your help.
So you are unable to actually understand that a temporary immigration halt that impacts under 10% of Muslims in the world (only a tiny, tiny fraction of which would be looking to immigrate anyway) is... something that it's not? Please explain how the current Muslim ban works. Details, please.
You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.
Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.
It is the easiest way to make money there.
It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative)... when that happens, and they get a big ratings boost from that lie, yeah - easy money if they don't care about the fact they have to lie to do it.
Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent
Professional journalists are some of the highest-profile PRODUCERS of fake news. I accidentally tuned to CNN the other night. Holy mackerel. I had no idea that Chicago's rampant crime problem only got really bad when the new administration put the new nation-wide Muslim ban in place. Hopefully Jimmy Wales won't be looking to get Wolf Blitzer involved in fighting fake news, because that's like getting gasoline involved in fighting a fire.
The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes.
The kid having the wrong genes is the direct fruit of the clinic's malpractice. It's no different than a baby being dropped on its head by the doctor. You don't sue ONLY for the mistake, you sue for the consequences of the mistake. Two parents decide to merge their DNA and make a baby. They do so knowing their, and their families' histories. The clinic chooses to negligently upend that planning with an unknown set of consequences - and robbing the parents of having allowed the father to contribute his traits to the child they've chosen to make. The ramifications are numerous, both emotionally and quite possibly medically, intellectually, etc., for the child. You can't separate the negligence from the life-long consequences.
Yeah. Clients are always kind of shocked at the downdraft created when I use mid-sized hex to lift a camera while we're shooting some video. And that's something that weighs, oh, 15 pounds. It takes a LOT of moving air to keep a suitcase or a watermelon hovering in the air. To say nothing of my over-two-hundred-pounds and my passenger and the thing we're sitting in. NOT back yard material, here, never mind the enormous racket it's going to make.
Does anybody want to have to compete? Some do, but most people are lazy and want stuff for free, including customers. The government should be out of that loop. Lacking the ACA's forcing me to do business with my choice of two vendors who are themselves forced to replicate their businesses and all of their overhead in fifty different states, that should all be torn down.
I would consider that to be just fine. If you want to live a bit on the outskirts, it's never about paying, it's about being able to get high speed service at all, regardless of who's buying.
I know it's hardly a new complaint, but Slashdot's recent trend towards not merely provocative but 100%-contrary-to-the-facts-of-the-matter headlines is really getting ridiculous.
Yes, the city/state government could have spent a bunch of money to "give the fastest internet for free" to the people inside the urban bounds of Chattanooga. OR, they could use that money to make it worth the providers' time to extend that lovely fast service out in to the surrounding areas that have no access at all. Which is what they're doing. They didn't "give" the money to the infrastructure people. They're funding an expansion of the infrastructure into areas of the state where the availability of such business offerings will eventually do a lot to grow the state's economy and tax base. The headline is very and deliberately misleading. We can certainly debate whether or not TN should be spending money in this way, but that's not the same as purposefully misrepresenting the situation in a fit of juvenile clickbaiting. Knock it off, Slashdot.
I didn't have much reason to doubt the military's own report on how long it took them to get all of those aloft. Perhaps they have some of the usual strategic reasons to sound like they're slower than they really are, who knows. But the point is it's academic - the Tomahawks can loiter. That was news to me, though it makes perfect sense.
It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that an area the size of Earth is considered huge when measuring the massive black hole that sits at the center of our galaxy.
But what is it a symptom of when somebody complaining about that description completely fails to understand that the description compares the array to the size of a traditional, single observatory or an array located in one area... and was not a comparison to the intended observational target? It's not "hubris." It's... what? "Totally missing the point, but not missing the opportunity to sound a bit patronizing anyway?"
Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.
For this strike, they used the newer type "E" flavor, which have two-way satellite communication features, rather than being strictly program, fire, forget.
That allows them to be re-targeted while in flight (and some of those flights can be lengthy) in reaction to revised intel about, say, the presence of someone or something in a spot they don't want to hit.
Interestingly, it took the two destroyers a good half an hour to get all of these in the air, so the early units actually loitered above the target, doing laps until the rest of them could catch up, and then all were used on their targets within just a couple of minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really homophobic, it's more simply denigrating. Regardless, the people who are really complaining AREN'T complaining about Colbert's objectifying of gay people or his choice to use the crude remark on broadcast television. What they're pointing out is the gigantic dose of hypocrisy on the liberal side. If someone they hate (say, a host on Fox, whatever) made the same remark, liberals would absolutely HOWL with outrage and fits of phony SJW hand-wringing and fainting couch use.
But because it's one of their guys making the snark, of course it's just a little humor, blah blah. It's the hypocrisy. It's always about the hypocrisy. The election results in November were about the hypocrisy.
Come ON, Slashdot.
Anthrax isn't a "dormant disease." There's live anthrax running around all over the place. It's not some ancient disease that's suddenly re-emerging because of global warming. What nonsense.
Well, sure. As long as you don't need connectivity while in even the second-to-top level of a parking garage. Or in a parking lot under some trees. Or when it's snowing.
Love the use of that loaded "linked to" phrase. Like, "Linked to Russia!" or "Linked to the Rothschild family!" Please, Slashdot, what's with the phony tone, these days? The slide towards full-on clickbaitism is accelerating.
you're dumb enough to esteem the judgment of a guy who hired someone dumb enough to take money from foreign sources and not report it
Oh, you're referring to the guy THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION gave a security clearance to in 2016, following a review of his business dealings in Russia? That guy? One of the reasons he didn't get even more scrutiny while being considered for that job was the fact that the previous administration had just vetted him post Russian involvement and considered him worthy of an unsponsored security clearance. Which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can spew your usual phony ad hominem. Thanks for tending so carefully to your ongoing hypocrisy display. Continue!
It's one of the few things the EPA does that's useful and efficient. Setting a national standard is well within the things that government should do. Compared to all the really wasteful things they do this should certainly be kept.
Except it's the manufacturers that self-report their own idea of efficiency, essentially self-awarding themselves this meaningless label. You'll recall the famous experiment where someone sent in an Energy Star application featuring their design for a gasoline powered alarm clock. Which was of course granted Energy Star status, not only sight-unseen, but obviously without even a moment's critical thinking on the part of whatever bureaucratic clerk is holding the exact job that Trump very reasonably considers a waste of your taxes. If consumers want a real standard, they should embrace something the Underwriters Laboratories standard for safety. Privately run, and rigorous.
Hey, look! Still making my point for me! Thanks.
Which part? Referencing Wolf Blitzer referring to a non-existent "Muslim ban?" Or MSNBC spending a day lying about how Rachel Maddow was going to "release Trump's taxes?" Typical liberal, you, carefully avoiding the topic and going for lazy ad hominem instead. Because you sure wouldn't want to address the points being made - that would require you to acknowledge that they refer to actual things that make your preferred narrative less truthy-feeling. Can't have that. No! I love how in a discussion about fake news, you're asserting that the person relaying simple (and verifiable by you) facts is virulently ignorant. Thanks for proving my point. Good to have your help.
So you are unable to actually understand that a temporary immigration halt that impacts under 10% of Muslims in the world (only a tiny, tiny fraction of which would be looking to immigrate anyway) is ... something that it's not? Please explain how the current Muslim ban works. Details, please.
You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.
Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.
It is the easiest way to make money there.
It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative) ... when that happens, and they get a big ratings boost from that lie, yeah - easy money if they don't care about the fact they have to lie to do it.
Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent
Hilarious.
Professional journalists are some of the highest-profile PRODUCERS of fake news. I accidentally tuned to CNN the other night. Holy mackerel. I had no idea that Chicago's rampant crime problem only got really bad when the new administration put the new nation-wide Muslim ban in place. Hopefully Jimmy Wales won't be looking to get Wolf Blitzer involved in fighting fake news, because that's like getting gasoline involved in fighting a fire.
Just what we need: a plan that makes the chemtrail loons even more sure they're right.
The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes.
The kid having the wrong genes is the direct fruit of the clinic's malpractice. It's no different than a baby being dropped on its head by the doctor. You don't sue ONLY for the mistake, you sue for the consequences of the mistake. Two parents decide to merge their DNA and make a baby. They do so knowing their, and their families' histories. The clinic chooses to negligently upend that planning with an unknown set of consequences - and robbing the parents of having allowed the father to contribute his traits to the child they've chosen to make. The ramifications are numerous, both emotionally and quite possibly medically, intellectually, etc., for the child. You can't separate the negligence from the life-long consequences.
Yeah. Clients are always kind of shocked at the downdraft created when I use mid-sized hex to lift a camera while we're shooting some video. And that's something that weighs, oh, 15 pounds. It takes a LOT of moving air to keep a suitcase or a watermelon hovering in the air. To say nothing of my over-two-hundred-pounds and my passenger and the thing we're sitting in. NOT back yard material, here, never mind the enormous racket it's going to make.
Does anybody want to have to compete? Some do, but most people are lazy and want stuff for free, including customers. The government should be out of that loop. Lacking the ACA's forcing me to do business with my choice of two vendors who are themselves forced to replicate their businesses and all of their overhead in fifty different states, that should all be torn down.
Only if the insurance company chooses to pass on the savings.
No, only if they are allowed to actually compete with each other for your business.
Right - there WAS NO TALK of making it free. EXCEPT IN THE SLASHDOT HEADLINE. That's my entire point.
I would consider that to be just fine. If you want to live a bit on the outskirts, it's never about paying, it's about being able to get high speed service at all, regardless of who's buying.
Really? You consider reporting what the SUMMARY SAYS instead of what the clickbait headline says to be doing "mental gymnastics?"
Sure, it was a misleading, clickbait headline. But maybe you should at least read the summary.
I know it's hardly a new complaint, but Slashdot's recent trend towards not merely provocative but 100%-contrary-to-the-facts-of-the-matter headlines is really getting ridiculous.
Yes, the city/state government could have spent a bunch of money to "give the fastest internet for free" to the people inside the urban bounds of Chattanooga. OR, they could use that money to make it worth the providers' time to extend that lovely fast service out in to the surrounding areas that have no access at all. Which is what they're doing. They didn't "give" the money to the infrastructure people. They're funding an expansion of the infrastructure into areas of the state where the availability of such business offerings will eventually do a lot to grow the state's economy and tax base. The headline is very and deliberately misleading. We can certainly debate whether or not TN should be spending money in this way, but that's not the same as purposefully misrepresenting the situation in a fit of juvenile clickbaiting. Knock it off, Slashdot.
adding that after Massachusetts passed a similar lar
Ermehgerd they persed a similar lar!
I didn't have much reason to doubt the military's own report on how long it took them to get all of those aloft. Perhaps they have some of the usual strategic reasons to sound like they're slower than they really are, who knows. But the point is it's academic - the Tomahawks can loiter. That was news to me, though it makes perfect sense.
It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that an area the size of Earth is considered huge when measuring the massive black hole that sits at the center of our galaxy.
But what is it a symptom of when somebody complaining about that description completely fails to understand that the description compares the array to the size of a traditional, single observatory or an array located in one area ... and was not a comparison to the intended observational target? It's not "hubris." It's ... what? "Totally missing the point, but not missing the opportunity to sound a bit patronizing anyway?"
Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.
For this strike, they used the newer type "E" flavor, which have two-way satellite communication features, rather than being strictly program, fire, forget.
That allows them to be re-targeted while in flight (and some of those flights can be lengthy) in reaction to revised intel about, say, the presence of someone or something in a spot they don't want to hit.
Interestingly, it took the two destroyers a good half an hour to get all of these in the air, so the early units actually loitered above the target, doing laps until the rest of them could catch up, and then all were used on their targets within just a couple of minutes.