Each extra extreme weather event affects tens of millions of people to over a hundred million people. That adds up to a billion very fast. Now cast it over 20 years and you've got billions.
Property destruction, death, loss of infrastructure that leads to plagues of cholera and other serious disease, And for many in 50 years, complete loss of a place to live and being turned into impoverished refugees (which has never ended well).
In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[1] However, this default use has been the source of complaint by some residents of Latin America who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.[2][3] They argue instead that "American" should be broadened to include people from anywhere in North or South America, not just the United States; these critics admit their proposed usage is uncommon in English.
More to the point, words often have multiple usages.
It's permissable to refer to americans on the american continents and it is also permissible to call citizens of the united states of american americans.
Indeed, NOTHING is stopping mexicans from calling themselves americans or brazilians from calling themselves americans. They choose to self label themselves as something besides americans but it's perfectly legitimate for them to say "I'm an american from brazil" just as a u.s. citizen might say I'm an american from california in the united states or I'm an american from california (two distinct meanings of american).
Using the term american is certainly no worse than using "loose" instead of lose on the internet. It's short and convenient.
And you don't own the word. You have no special rights to it.
As an American, I support free speech. You are welcome to ask others to refrain from using it. But you have no right to expect it.
If I were your friend, I *might* refrain from saying I'm an american around you. And in some forums I use the term united states citizen. But as your friend I might mercilessly tease you by using american every chance I got. Just because I knew it irritated you. Because friends do that kinda shit some time. At least in America.
Absolutely, in this day and age of free phone calls via skype over the internet, it would be trivial to allow skype calls for nearly free to home.
$120 a month for a couple internet lines and a couple cheap tablets hard wired to only skype and watched over by guards.
Our prison industry is sick. We have the highest rate of incarceration in the free world (and actually higher than most of the unfree world too).
It's sickening.
The prison industry pays (lots of) money to a) criminalize activites that were not illegal before. b) extend prison sentences c) keep things illegal which should be legal
Except that when fact checked your statement isn't true. in fact, your statement isn't even remotely true. In fact the line between truth and lies when viewed from your statement is a dot on the horizon. It costs the truth $11.93 per minute to place a long distance call to where your statement was made and there is a 6 second delay on the call.
Since your statement is a blatant lie, it follows logically that you are very likely a trump supporter.
FYI - Hillary lies about 1/4 of the time- and that's less than typical politicians. I presume it is not because she's all noble and virtuous but rather she's been under constant attack for close to two decades and knows any thing she says will be fact checked by a hostile audience.
No, she's not wonderful at all. She is hard-nosed, experienced, rational, well-seasoned, a bit of a cold fish, has a terrible speaking voice after the first couple hours. She should have been completely unelectable.
The republicans had to try really hard to make her election possible. After losing with Romney, they went further right.
Trump is very popular with 25% of the voters. Some more will hold their nose and vote Trump once he is the party's nominee. But a recent FOX news poll shows him losing by double digits.
I look forward to him being the republican candidate for president. This would have been a miserable four years if the republicans hadn't been eaten up by their long term strategic plans.
You could, but most politicians lie about 1/4 of the time, tell half truths (including lies by omission) 1/4 of the time, and tell the truth about half the time.
Trump tells the truth less than 1/10th of the time. Lying is very natural to him. He's not a politician, he might be a sociopath, and he's displays narcissistic behavior often. A narcissist would be a terrible leader because the presidency would literally be about him and not the country.
Hillary Clinton lies and tells half truths less than 1/2 the time. She tells the truth a little more than half the time and makes mostly true statements for another 20ish percent. She's been under constant attack for so long (20 years now?) that she knows she damn well better tell the truth because everything she says is going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
When Brussels was bombed, Hillary called together her staff and got a wide range of inputs. She made a logical, rational, statement of her and the united state's position.
Trump shot from the hip.
I guess he's free to do that as a candidate (and not president) but I thought... there's a guy who is going to make war more likely.
I know you believe that but as a former republican, and now a former independent who is now "liberal" (and still far to the right of most other 1st world countries) I can tell you it's not true.
Both Obama and especially Bill Clinton were more traditional, negotiating politicians. Bill Clinton implemented a lot of conservative policies including significant welfare reforms.
Your post is a perfect example of what's wrong with politics these days.
You probably think of people who disagree with you as not being really american.
With free trade, we'd be getting the TV, prescription drugs, dvd movies, clothing, etc. for a much lower price.
But instead companies get to use $400 a month labor and then sell the same product there for 10% of what they sell it to us here. Essentially, it's pumping the wealth out of the U.S.
It's not free trade if we can't go to the country, buy the products there and import them to the U.S.
You need to dig deeper into the politically correct thing as many of the stories are later retracted or turn out to be fabrications.
Good example: Student win of track race retracted after he makes a gesture thanking god... reality... later the parents and the student both retracted their statements and admitted that he had made taunting gestures to the other team.
Don't get me wrong-- I think the left does suppress free speach and does do the political correctness thing.
But the right has played into that and used it to their advantage to make it seem much more outrageous than it really is.
The teacher who was fired for giving her personal bible to a student... turns out she gave lots of personal bibles to lots of students.
And so on.
One of the main reasons I left the republican party was because they passed the normal level of lying by politicians. They turned strongly to "the ends justify the means" They abandoned the political tradition required to make this country function: Argue in chambers and then go to dinner together afterwards. Negotiate and compromise. They just don't do that any more since GW Bush Jr's 1st term. And they became the party of "NO" in 2009. At that point, I stopped voting for them entirely. Even local offices.
Trump has a majority (about 52%) of a minority (about 45%) of the countries voters.
23% isn't going to get him elected.
The latest Fox news polls tonight showed Trump losing by double digits to Clinton- who I personally considered unelectable a year ago. I had no clue the republican party would run so many unelectable far right candidates. Apparently the lesson they learned from Romney's loss was to double down on everything that made him lose.
Crossing my fingers they'll lose control in the senate so that the government can actually function properly again.
The anonymous coward who posed an interesting but biased question and was modded into oblivian said...
"What I'm curious about is what the Slashdot summary would have been like if this bot had started promoting the leftist, so-called "social justice" ideology instead of the rightist ideology it apparently adopted.
Would the Slashdot summary still have described it so negatively?
Would an anti-Trump jab still have been worked into the summary?"
The --Sanitized-- version?
How would the story have been treated if the chatbot had become a left wing reactionary or promoted "social justice" ideology instead of right wing ideology?
Would there have been an anti-trump statement in the summary?
--- It's an interesting, and loaded question....
Well, the anti-trump statement wouldn't be there because trump has displayed facist tendencies, is frequently compared to hitler, in various discussion boards and supports violence by his followers. So the tie between a neo-nazi chatbot and trump followed naturally.
Perhaps the comparison would have been to Mao instead?
What a frightening idea... building 10 nuclear power plants a year in any country... much less in china where they are still battling heavy corruption.
Better to build 100 small, standardized nuclear power plants that are designed from the start to shut down than to build 10 traditional nuke plants per year. The odds of a literal china syndrome would be very high.
I have friends who are autistic and most have food issues. Some only eat white food, some won't mix food colors on the plate, etc.
As they get diabetes, it's very hard for those who only eat carbs to manage it. And what they eat isn't really a choice for them. There may be some tricky way to educate them but short of that it's the only way they can eat.
Unlike the tiny connectors which are too expensive. The connector in the device is tough and rarely breaks. The cheap, easily replaceable part breaks occasionally (but rarely unless you are plugging and unplugging it).
I don't see a reason for changing it other than to artificially drive sales.
Slashdot Mirror
-nt-
Yes... but your correction was more in the direction i wanted to go but was to tired to validate that as a true statement at the time.
You have served me well, young padwan.
It's not histronic at all. It's simple math.
Each extra extreme weather event affects tens of millions of people to over a hundred million people. That adds up to a billion very fast. Now cast it over 20 years and you've got billions.
Property destruction, death, loss of infrastructure that leads to plagues of cholera and other serious disease, And for many in 50 years, complete loss of a place to live and being turned into impoverished refugees (which has never ended well).
It's the interstate highway of the modern age.
It should be built nationally to the degree the highway system was built, with fiber and then allow competition to use its services.
In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[1] However, this default use has been the source of complaint by some residents of Latin America who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.[2][3] They argue instead that "American" should be broadened to include people from anywhere in North or South America, not just the United States; these critics admit their proposed usage is uncommon in English.
More to the point, words often have multiple usages.
It's permissable to refer to americans on the american continents and it is also permissible to call citizens of the united states of american americans.
Indeed, NOTHING is stopping mexicans from calling themselves americans or brazilians from calling themselves americans. They choose to self label themselves as something besides americans but it's perfectly legitimate for them to say "I'm an american from brazil" just as a u.s. citizen might say I'm an american from california in the united states or I'm an american from california (two distinct meanings of american).
Using the term american is certainly no worse than using "loose" instead of lose on the internet. It's short and convenient.
And you don't own the word. You have no special rights to it.
As an American, I support free speech. You are welcome to ask others to refrain from using it. But you have no right to expect it.
If I were your friend, I *might* refrain from saying I'm an american around you. And in some forums I use the term united states citizen. But as your friend I might mercilessly tease you by using american every chance I got. Just because I knew it irritated you. Because friends do that kinda shit some time. At least in America.
Absolutely correct. Nothing wrong with moderating and then posting anonymously (or vice versa).
Nothing sneaky about it either.
And besides, from my personal experience it's an extreme edge case affecting less than 0.1% of my posts.
It's the internet... if there were some country... Outer Moldavia... that had a higher iincarceration rate, I was sure I'd here it.
The way I phrased it, any correction would be more in the direction i wanted to go.
on the internet, to find something out, never ask a question. The response will be crickets.
Make a statement and people will rush to give you correct information.
Absolutely, in this day and age of free phone calls via skype over the internet, it would be trivial to allow skype calls for nearly free to home.
$120 a month for a couple internet lines and a couple cheap tablets hard wired to only skype and watched over by guards.
Our prison industry is sick. We have the highest rate of incarceration in the free world (and actually higher than most of the unfree world too).
It's sickening.
The prison industry pays (lots of) money to
a) criminalize activites that were not illegal before.
b) extend prison sentences
c) keep things illegal which should be legal
Correct. Also Jeb Bush tends to tell the truth.
Except that when fact checked your statement isn't true. in fact, your statement isn't even remotely true. In fact the line between truth and lies when viewed from your statement is a dot on the horizon. It costs the truth $11.93 per minute to place a long distance call to where your statement was made and there is a 6 second delay on the call.
Since your statement is a blatant lie, it follows logically that you are very likely a trump supporter.
FYI - Hillary lies about 1/4 of the time- and that's less than typical politicians. I presume it is not because she's all noble and virtuous but rather she's been under constant attack for close to two decades and knows any thing she says will be fact checked by a hostile audience.
Be that as it may, government employees are not supposed to push religion.
And my point was that it was spun as if she had given one bible and then completely without warning, SJW's had her fired.
And that was a lie, which by the way, was created by conservatives.
No, she's not wonderful at all. She is hard-nosed, experienced, rational, well-seasoned, a bit of a cold fish, has a terrible speaking voice after the first couple hours. She should have been completely unelectable.
The republicans had to try really hard to make her election possible. After losing with Romney, they went further right.
Trump is very popular with 25% of the voters. Some more will hold their nose and vote Trump once he is the party's nominee. But a recent FOX news poll shows him losing by double digits.
I look forward to him being the republican candidate for president. This would have been a miserable four years if the republicans hadn't been eaten up by their long term strategic plans.
You could, but most politicians lie about 1/4 of the time, tell half truths (including lies by omission) 1/4 of the time, and tell the truth about half the time.
Trump tells the truth less than 1/10th of the time. Lying is very natural to him. He's not a politician, he might be a sociopath, and he's displays narcissistic behavior often. A narcissist would be a terrible leader because the presidency would literally be about him and not the country.
Hillary Clinton lies and tells half truths less than 1/2 the time. She tells the truth a little more than half the time and makes mostly true statements for another 20ish percent. She's been under constant attack for so long (20 years now?) that she knows she damn well better tell the truth because everything she says is going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
When Brussels was bombed, Hillary called together her staff and got a wide range of inputs. She made a logical, rational, statement of her and the united state's position.
Trump shot from the hip.
I guess he's free to do that as a candidate (and not president) but I thought... there's a guy who is going to make war more likely.
I know you believe that but as a former republican, and now a former independent who is now "liberal" (and still far to the right of most other 1st world countries) I can tell you it's not true.
Both Obama and especially Bill Clinton were more traditional, negotiating politicians. Bill Clinton implemented a lot of conservative policies including significant welfare reforms.
Your post is a perfect example of what's wrong with politics these days.
You probably think of people who disagree with you as not being really american.
Free trade is great.
We don't have that.
With free trade, we'd be getting the TV, prescription drugs, dvd movies, clothing, etc. for a much lower price.
But instead companies get to use $400 a month labor and then sell the same product there for 10% of what they sell it to us here. Essentially, it's pumping the wealth out of the U.S.
It's not free trade if we can't go to the country, buy the products there and import them to the U.S.
Don't bother them with facts.
It's a scary strong man fascist charisma thing.
He lies 93% of the time when checked-- when questioned about a lie, he doubles down with an even bigger lie.
His supporters don't care if he is caught in a lie.
I'm really looking forward to Trump being the republican candidate.
You need to dig deeper into the politically correct thing as many of the stories are later retracted or turn out to be fabrications.
Good example: Student win of track race retracted after he makes a gesture thanking god... reality... later the parents and the student both retracted their statements and admitted that he had made taunting gestures to the other team.
Don't get me wrong-- I think the left does suppress free speach and does do the political correctness thing.
But the right has played into that and used it to their advantage to make it seem much more outrageous than it really is.
The teacher who was fired for giving her personal bible to a student... turns out she gave lots of personal bibles to lots of students.
And so on.
One of the main reasons I left the republican party was because they passed the normal level of lying by politicians. They turned strongly to "the ends justify the means"
They abandoned the political tradition required to make this country function: Argue in chambers and then go to dinner together afterwards. Negotiate and compromise. They just don't do that any more since GW Bush Jr's 1st term. And they became the party of "NO" in 2009. At that point, I stopped voting for them entirely. Even local offices.
It's not good behavior for the country.
Trump has a majority (about 52%) of a minority (about 45%) of the countries voters.
23% isn't going to get him elected.
The latest Fox news polls tonight showed Trump losing by double digits to Clinton- who I personally considered unelectable a year ago. I had no clue the republican party would run so many unelectable far right candidates. Apparently the lesson they learned from Romney's loss was to double down on everything that made him lose.
Crossing my fingers they'll lose control in the senate so that the government can actually function properly again.
The anonymous coward who posed an interesting but biased question and was modded into oblivian said...
"What I'm curious about is what the Slashdot summary would have been like if this bot had started promoting the leftist, so-called "social justice" ideology instead of the rightist ideology it apparently adopted.
Would the Slashdot summary still have described it so negatively?
Would an anti-Trump jab still have been worked into the summary?"
The --Sanitized-- version?
How would the story have been treated if the chatbot had become a left wing reactionary or promoted "social justice" ideology instead of right wing ideology?
Would there have been an anti-trump statement in the summary?
---
It's an interesting, and loaded question....
Well, the anti-trump statement wouldn't be there because trump has displayed facist tendencies, is frequently compared to hitler, in various discussion boards and supports violence by his followers. So the tie between a neo-nazi chatbot and trump followed naturally.
Perhaps the comparison would have been to Mao instead?
What a frightening idea... building 10 nuclear power plants a year in any country... much less in china where they are still battling heavy corruption.
Better to build 100 small, standardized nuclear power plants that are designed from the start to shut down than to build 10 traditional nuke plants per year. The odds of a literal china syndrome would be very high.
If developers are working under a license where they can withdraw their source, there is risk to anyone using their code downstream.
Inflation adjusted $100 a barrel oil again is increasingly unlikely due to improvements in alternative energy and battery technology.
And peak oil will be pushed off as alternative energy and conservation measures reduce consumption.
Actually, you have it backwards. Ultimately capitalism depends on factors besides self interest to function.
When driven purely and solely by self interest, it rapidly collapses into one of several degenerative non capitalistic states.
I have friends who are autistic and most have food issues. Some only eat white food, some won't mix food colors on the plate, etc.
As they get diabetes, it's very hard for those who only eat carbs to manage it. And what they eat isn't really a choice for them. There may be some tricky way to educate them but short of that it's the only way they can eat.
Unlike the tiny connectors which are too expensive. The connector in the device is tough and rarely breaks. The cheap, easily replaceable part breaks occasionally (but rarely unless you are plugging and unplugging it).
I don't see a reason for changing it other than to artificially drive sales.