And would be almost impossible to prove short of a recording or multiple witnesses. However, this is ultimately going to be less about "collusion" (otherwise known as conspiracy) and more about Obstruction of Justice, which the president basically admitted to on national tv.
As long as their power extends to "Hey, that thing you are spreading has been determined to be bullshit, please do a little research and decide if you want to share it." I'm fine with it.
I just read axios' mission statement, about not injecting hyperbole. But if this is a "SLAM" then it is the weakest one I have ever seen in my life. Just imagine Pai in a rap battle spitting fire like this:
"I deeply disagree with your ability to construct rhymes and I question the moral fortitude of your mother."
No they shouldn't. They should be upset if the numbers are made up, or the science is bad. But if the science is good, and now we know things we didn't before, they should be happy. Sandwich gas isn't something I think we need to worry too much about. It came from carbon that was in the atmosphere already. And knowing those numbers might be helpful in calculating how the health of that carbon cycle system is at any point in time (though sandwiches would be a very small part of it.)
Who they should be mad at is anyone putting a POLITICAL spin on it. Including the scientist if he isn't also mentioning the carbon (potentially) neutral nature of that sandwich. And the website that published a political story based off of it.
And your silly ass for suggesting that any knowledge can be junk.
If oregon is rising faster than the sea over human time frames, they have a whole different problem. Fast geologic upheaval like that is an excellent indicator of an impending earthquake. Once the energy of the system that is providing that rapid rise is released, they will definitely be dealing with a very rapid coastal water rise. Natural processes are not going to save us from unchecked human activity. They are just too slow.
Also, thanks for shattering my dream of moving to the coast of oregon.
Oh, pardon me, i didn't realize your pearls of wisdom were so valuable. I guess i should be thanking you for your pro bono original reply. As content free as it was.
I'm sorry, let me correct that statement: 14 years ago, it was unthinkable that a car would be able to do more than "keep between the lanes", except for a bunch of graduate students who, after a year of trying, failed to secure a prize for automated driving through an open desert track with zero traffic.
For the record, I do remember when the Darpa Grand Challenge was announced for 2004, and the discussion here on slashdot, and the prevailing wisdom that winning the full prize was completely impossible because of the speed needed to get to the end in time.
I don't want to diminish the role of the grand challenges, but this was not in any way something that was being developed by the private sector until after the 2005 challenge. But either way, it was widely accepted until relatively recently that it would never be a thing, which was the point of my original statement.
Ironically cleaning toilets, moping floors, de-dusting offices and a lot of menial tasks are very hard to fully or cheaply automate.
Unfortunately you are describing the OLD kind of tech thinking. It is, as you say, super hard to engineer a robot and program it to clean as effectively as a human over a broad range of scenarios. Roombas represent a cheap version of that kind of thinking, not very effective, but good enough to sweep your floor.
However, that's not what we are talking about. We are in the process of a controlled deconstruction of that kind of automation. As computing power becomes cheaper and more ubiquitous, we have given up trying to design the whole solution, and rather let the applications teach THEMSELVES how to effectively handle general tasks. You know, the same way you learned to clean a bathroom.
10 years ago, it was unthinkable that a car would be able to do more than "keep between the lanes". Now we are seriously considering letting them be our new taxi drivers. With the financial success of the cleaning robots we have today, you better dang sure assume that someone is working on a neural network that can handle doing your dishes. This year there were not one but TWO laundry folding robots on show. Don't think that is a big deal? You might want to look up how insanely hard it is to program a solution to a wadded up shirt. Every day we are surpassing milestones that would have seemed impossible the day before.
And as the GP suggested, after they are cleaning your house, they will be fixing your car, and then fixing the robots that fix your car. And eventually, writing your programs for you. Now, depending on how close to retirement you are, you might not care. But in the immortal words of Tyler Durden, "you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." We are all on the road to being replaced. We might want to consider how to deal with that prior to waking up and finding it has happened.
Oh, thank god! I was looking for a salient argument with analysis and references to assuage my fears, but now that I know only idiots believe this, I can rest easy!
And it did turn out differently once people were aware of the facts involved and not the passions that were inflamed. Or is there some other reason for May's disastrous attempt to consolidate her power for her party with her so called "brexit election." Turns out facebook rage can only sustain you so long if your policies are crap. But seemingly, they can play a big part in getting you elected.
Except that the people who enabled the corruption and the candidate that took advantage of it are out. But keep spouting ignorant rhetoric, people are usually unimpressed with actual facts.
Or it could be that IQ is a terribly flawed way of measuring anything more than how good you are at I.Q. tests. Wikipedia show some of the standard arguments. It is unsurprising that there is an intersection between people who are hyper focused in spacial acuity, pattern prediction, etc. that have low social development. But that no means demonstrates that intelligence (not iq test results) necessitate that the human mind has to somehow select out sociality to excel at logical thinking.
I will see your random smattering of near geniuses with social disorders and raise you a Winston Churchill and a Carl Sagan.
Pardon me, I am officially an idiot. I was posting this in reply to a different post, and was not logged in. I copied it, logged in, hit reply and pasted it. Unfortunately it was the wrong "reply to this comment" button. Please excuse my incoherent ramblings.
You are confusing "smart" with "morally bankrupt." He was quite willing to be on one side of a position at lunch, and the other by dinner. He so brazenly lied that you could literally see him take both positions in one breath. Couple that with his full willingness to appeal to the worst of peoples motivations and fears, and he ended up being able to just out-slime everyone else. And unfortunately, our media confused "informing voters" with giving this braying jackass all the free advertisement he could possibly want.
This guy is nothing more than an Idiot Savant P. T. Barnum.
Downplaying is different than the store hiring a vet to tell you that dogs don't cause dog shit. You buying a "shitless dog" that shits up your yard is not your fault.
CO2 Doesn't have to be toxic to be harmful. NYC and other coastal towns have quite a bit of property that stands to suffer damage from an industry that fought like hell to "muddy" the science for several decades. It was important enough that the industry spent millions of dollars lobbying, which is not something companies do without a clear goal.
But luckily, all of this pontificating is useless, because once the case goes to court, if it is legally baseless as you suggest, it will be dismissed.
My personal belief is that cities like miami, that suffer massive amounts of property damage due to circumstances most scientist agree we were capable of mitigating have standing to sue federal governments at the very least, and probably companies that perpetrated public fraud to profit.
If you mounted a huge pr campaign that nuclear waste wasn't the cause of all this radiation poisoning going around, and using millions to buy politicians to subvert the best interests of the people they represent, could I at least sue you for fraud?
Or, in your philosophy, are only individuals responsible for their own actions?
Am I the only one seeing the steam coming off this post? Evidently it was delieverd hot and fresh, directly from the posterior of a bull. I'm curious if you could put numbers to "Most" jobs, and the salaries of "primary" earners in a 2 or 3 earner household? I would like to know what you assume a "very small percentage" is.
FiveThirtyEight has some numbers. First of all, on behalf of the ~20% of minimum wage workers living on a single minimum wage income of 15,000 bucks or less (468,000 souls) allow me to say fuck you for trying to muddy their plight with your fever dream politics.
And secondly, since the median income is in the mid 50s these days, the first two lines (adding to 51%) blow your "on average, above median income" out of the water right there.
Try looking at more numbers and less opinion pieces. People's wellbeing are decided by debates like this, stop spreading fud.
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your post. Are you suggesting that AGW predictions aren't falsifiable? Because a lot have been made (outside of sensational headlines) and confirmed.
Or are you asserting that global warming can't be correllated to individual weather events and make predictions based off of their intensity/duration/frequency?
Or are you suggesting that without knowing specific mechanisms in complex systems, you can't make a scientific prediction that is falsifiable? For instance, such as predicting the emergence of antibiotic resistance in a bacterial population without making assertions as to WHICH genes will change, even though it is fairly easy to predict the period in which it will take resistance to evolve?
but again my perception has been that more people don't care than because of any barrier (suppression as an example).
The barrier to action isn't how much you care, but how much you care vs the effort required to do a thing. I doubt you would take your lunch break to drive down to the local school and vote on a slashdot poll, but you have probably clicked on one on the side of your screen.
Now, you need to understand, for people without cars, voting is a major time sink. My polling place is across town from where I live. Luckily my little town has a bus system, but having had to use it before, I can tell you quite confidently that with the required transfer, that will be 45 minutes of riding, waiting, and walking by itself. And that is only if a bus doesn't break down, which they frequently do. Since the buses here are on a 1 hour schedule, using my lunch hour to vote is actually risking my job.
Now, keep in mind, since I live in a voter id state, I have to figure out how to get to the dmv (by the friggin airport), wait in a lunchtime queue (which took 2 hours last time I had to renew my license) just to get my picture snapped for my free voter id. Since I can only do this during hours in which I would normally work, the 3 hour ordeal is no longer "free." And all of this is just to get an opportunity to risk my job on election day.
And, while I live in a metro area of 50,000 that has a bus system, our sister city literally 800 feet across the river doesn't. 25,000 people there have to hoof it or pay for a cab. And that is not to mention the HALF of our county's population that doesn't live in towns at all. What are they expected to do, hitch hike?
And none of this even hints at the added difficulty the elderly and sick face. For some people, voting is simply an all day affair (it was for my grandmother.)
Now, I understand that you probably have never had to deal with anything like this because of a combination of accident of birth and choices, but there are a lot of people for who this is a day to day reality. Faced with this level of difficulty, I am pretty sure you wouldn't bother to vote. There is your why.
The founding fathers seemed to think that 14 years + a 14 year renewal was a good balance. But back then, America wasn't about get rich quick, lottery mentality.
I mean, honestly, if you can't make your money off of something you've written in 28 years, you never will.
Any moron can sift through auto generated comments. I've looked at them, and mostly it would just take a quick "select * from comments where comment not like ''" That said, the real problem is that the FCC believes some of the auto generated comments were from sites that had "click to post this form generated comment if you agree." Even then, though, it wouldn't be too hard to identify the legitimate ones from the fake. Just google the comment. Either way, Ajit seems to think that the whole comment process is worthless, and his benefactors.... er um... he knows better than the american people.
Slashdot Mirror
And would be almost impossible to prove short of a recording or multiple witnesses. However, this is ultimately going to be less about "collusion" (otherwise known as conspiracy) and more about Obstruction of Justice, which the president basically admitted to on national tv.
Good, start by not trusting yourself.
As long as their power extends to "Hey, that thing you are spreading has been determined to be bullshit, please do a little research and decide if you want to share it." I'm fine with it.
I just read axios' mission statement, about not injecting hyperbole. But if this is a "SLAM" then it is the weakest one I have ever seen in my life. Just imagine Pai in a rap battle spitting fire like this:
"I deeply disagree with your ability to construct rhymes and I question the moral fortitude of your mother."
No they shouldn't. They should be upset if the numbers are made up, or the science is bad. But if the science is good, and now we know things we didn't before, they should be happy. Sandwich gas isn't something I think we need to worry too much about. It came from carbon that was in the atmosphere already. And knowing those numbers might be helpful in calculating how the health of that carbon cycle system is at any point in time (though sandwiches would be a very small part of it.)
Who they should be mad at is anyone putting a POLITICAL spin on it. Including the scientist if he isn't also mentioning the carbon (potentially) neutral nature of that sandwich. And the website that published a political story based off of it.
And your silly ass for suggesting that any knowledge can be junk.
If oregon is rising faster than the sea over human time frames, they have a whole different problem. Fast geologic upheaval like that is an excellent indicator of an impending earthquake. Once the energy of the system that is providing that rapid rise is released, they will definitely be dealing with a very rapid coastal water rise. Natural processes are not going to save us from unchecked human activity. They are just too slow.
Also, thanks for shattering my dream of moving to the coast of oregon.
Oh, pardon me, i didn't realize your pearls of wisdom were so valuable. I guess i should be thanking you for your pro bono original reply. As content free as it was.
I'm sorry, let me correct that statement: 14 years ago, it was unthinkable that a car would be able to do more than "keep between the lanes", except for a bunch of graduate students who, after a year of trying, failed to secure a prize for automated driving through an open desert track with zero traffic.
For the record, I do remember when the Darpa Grand Challenge was announced for 2004, and the discussion here on slashdot, and the prevailing wisdom that winning the full prize was completely impossible because of the speed needed to get to the end in time.
I don't want to diminish the role of the grand challenges, but this was not in any way something that was being developed by the private sector until after the 2005 challenge. But either way, it was widely accepted until relatively recently that it would never be a thing, which was the point of my original statement.
Ironically cleaning toilets, moping floors, de-dusting offices and a lot of menial tasks are very hard to fully or cheaply automate.
Unfortunately you are describing the OLD kind of tech thinking. It is, as you say, super hard to engineer a robot and program it to clean as effectively as a human over a broad range of scenarios. Roombas represent a cheap version of that kind of thinking, not very effective, but good enough to sweep your floor.
However, that's not what we are talking about. We are in the process of a controlled deconstruction of that kind of automation. As computing power becomes cheaper and more ubiquitous, we have given up trying to design the whole solution, and rather let the applications teach THEMSELVES how to effectively handle general tasks. You know, the same way you learned to clean a bathroom.
10 years ago, it was unthinkable that a car would be able to do more than "keep between the lanes". Now we are seriously considering letting them be our new taxi drivers. With the financial success of the cleaning robots we have today, you better dang sure assume that someone is working on a neural network that can handle doing your dishes. This year there were not one but TWO laundry folding robots on show. Don't think that is a big deal? You might want to look up how insanely hard it is to program a solution to a wadded up shirt. Every day we are surpassing milestones that would have seemed impossible the day before.
And as the GP suggested, after they are cleaning your house, they will be fixing your car, and then fixing the robots that fix your car. And eventually, writing your programs for you. Now, depending on how close to retirement you are, you might not care. But in the immortal words of Tyler Durden, "you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." We are all on the road to being replaced. We might want to consider how to deal with that prior to waking up and finding it has happened.
Oh, thank god! I was looking for a salient argument with analysis and references to assuage my fears, but now that I know only idiots believe this, I can rest easy!
Who the hell keeps modding up these trolls?
And it did turn out differently once people were aware of the facts involved and not the passions that were inflamed. Or is there some other reason for May's disastrous attempt to consolidate her power for her party with her so called "brexit election." Turns out facebook rage can only sustain you so long if your policies are crap. But seemingly, they can play a big part in getting you elected.
Except that the people who enabled the corruption and the candidate that took advantage of it are out. But keep spouting ignorant rhetoric, people are usually unimpressed with actual facts.
Or it could be that IQ is a terribly flawed way of measuring anything more than how good you are at I.Q. tests.
Wikipedia show some of the standard arguments. It is unsurprising that there is an intersection between people who are hyper focused in spacial acuity, pattern prediction, etc. that have low social development. But that no means demonstrates that intelligence (not iq test results) necessitate that the human mind has to somehow select out sociality to excel at logical thinking.
I will see your random smattering of near geniuses with social disorders and raise you a Winston Churchill and a Carl Sagan.
Pardon me, I am officially an idiot. I was posting this in reply to a different post, and was not logged in. I copied it, logged in, hit reply and pasted it. Unfortunately it was the wrong "reply to this comment" button. Please excuse my incoherent ramblings.
Ah, yes, but there is no evidence of him being a GOOD con man. His bankruptcy record should show that.
You are confusing "smart" with "morally bankrupt." He was quite willing to be on one side of a position at lunch, and the other by dinner. He so brazenly lied that you could literally see him take both positions in one breath. Couple that with his full willingness to appeal to the worst of peoples motivations and fears, and he ended up being able to just out-slime everyone else. And unfortunately, our media confused "informing voters" with giving this braying jackass all the free advertisement he could possibly want.
This guy is nothing more than an Idiot Savant P. T. Barnum.
Downplaying is different than the store hiring a vet to tell you that dogs don't cause dog shit. You buying a "shitless dog" that shits up your yard is not your fault.
CO2 Doesn't have to be toxic to be harmful. NYC and other coastal towns have quite a bit of property that stands to suffer damage from an industry that fought like hell to "muddy" the science for several decades. It was important enough that the industry spent millions of dollars lobbying, which is not something companies do without a clear goal.
But luckily, all of this pontificating is useless, because once the case goes to court, if it is legally baseless as you suggest, it will be dismissed.
My personal belief is that cities like miami, that suffer massive amounts of property damage due to circumstances most scientist agree we were capable of mitigating have standing to sue federal governments at the very least, and probably companies that perpetrated public fraud to profit.
If you mounted a huge pr campaign that nuclear waste wasn't the cause of all this radiation poisoning going around, and using millions to buy politicians to subvert the best interests of the people they represent, could I at least sue you for fraud?
Or, in your philosophy, are only individuals responsible for their own actions?
Am I the only one seeing the steam coming off this post? Evidently it was delieverd hot and fresh, directly from the posterior of a bull. I'm curious if you could put numbers to "Most" jobs, and the salaries of "primary" earners in a 2 or 3 earner household? I would like to know what you assume a "very small percentage" is.
FiveThirtyEight has some numbers. First of all, on behalf of the ~20% of minimum wage workers living on a single minimum wage income of 15,000 bucks or less (468,000 souls) allow me to say fuck you for trying to muddy their plight with your fever dream politics.
And secondly, since the median income is in the mid 50s these days, the first two lines (adding to 51%) blow your "on average, above median income" out of the water right there.
Try looking at more numbers and less opinion pieces. People's wellbeing are decided by debates like this, stop spreading fud.
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your post. Are you suggesting that AGW predictions aren't falsifiable? Because a lot have been made (outside of sensational headlines) and confirmed.
Or are you asserting that global warming can't be correllated to individual weather events and make predictions based off of their intensity/duration/frequency?
Or are you suggesting that without knowing specific mechanisms in complex systems, you can't make a scientific prediction that is falsifiable? For instance, such as predicting the emergence of antibiotic resistance in a bacterial population without making assertions as to WHICH genes will change, even though it is fairly easy to predict the period in which it will take resistance to evolve?
Or is it that you just didn't read TFA?
but again my perception has been that more people don't care than because of any barrier (suppression as an example).
The barrier to action isn't how much you care, but how much you care vs the effort required to do a thing. I doubt you would take your lunch break to drive down to the local school and vote on a slashdot poll, but you have probably clicked on one on the side of your screen.
Now, you need to understand, for people without cars, voting is a major time sink. My polling place is across town from where I live. Luckily my little town has a bus system, but having had to use it before, I can tell you quite confidently that with the required transfer, that will be 45 minutes of riding, waiting, and walking by itself. And that is only if a bus doesn't break down, which they frequently do. Since the buses here are on a 1 hour schedule, using my lunch hour to vote is actually risking my job.
Now, keep in mind, since I live in a voter id state, I have to figure out how to get to the dmv (by the friggin airport), wait in a lunchtime queue (which took 2 hours last time I had to renew my license) just to get my picture snapped for my free voter id. Since I can only do this during hours in which I would normally work, the 3 hour ordeal is no longer "free." And all of this is just to get an opportunity to risk my job on election day.
And, while I live in a metro area of 50,000 that has a bus system, our sister city literally 800 feet across the river doesn't. 25,000 people there have to hoof it or pay for a cab. And that is not to mention the HALF of our county's population that doesn't live in towns at all. What are they expected to do, hitch hike?
And none of this even hints at the added difficulty the elderly and sick face. For some people, voting is simply an all day affair (it was for my grandmother.)
Now, I understand that you probably have never had to deal with anything like this because of a combination of accident of birth and choices, but there are a lot of people for who this is a day to day reality. Faced with this level of difficulty, I am pretty sure you wouldn't bother to vote. There is your why.
Whereas people who don't understand economics but think they do are called "conservatives".
The founding fathers seemed to think that 14 years + a 14 year renewal was a good balance. But back then, America wasn't about get rich quick, lottery mentality.
I mean, honestly, if you can't make your money off of something you've written in 28 years, you never will.
Any moron can sift through auto generated comments. I've looked at them, and mostly it would just take a quick "select * from comments where comment not like ''" That said, the real problem is that the FCC believes some of the auto generated comments were from sites that had "click to post this form generated comment if you agree." Even then, though, it wouldn't be too hard to identify the legitimate ones from the fake. Just google the comment. Either way, Ajit seems to think that the whole comment process is worthless, and his benefactors.... er um... he knows better than the american people.