The ONLY conclusion I can come to is that both sources need additional verification and corroboration and nobody should blindly follow their lead.
And both moonshine and orange juice contain alcohol - yet they are very much not the same.
Bias is more than how something is reported, but also what isn't reported that should. I mean how important is it to report that he drinks a twelve-pack of coke a day? Did the news report on Obama's smoking habit in the same manner?
Well, spending a minute with Google tells me that the NYT did in 2008,
2009, 2010, and 2012 - and that is just a small selection from one newspaper.
A serious question for you: if an equivalent study to this one came out of a right-wing think tank, saying that fake news is a left-wing thing, would you simply accept the results? Even if their definition of "fake news" was based on subjective criteria applied by their own internal assessors?
Probably not. But this was not work done by any think tank, left or right. It was done by the University of Oxford, the oldest university in the English-speaking world, and generally recognised as one of the best universities in the world - and that consistently for at last the 30 years I'm aware of university rankings. If such a study came out of, say, Stanford or even GMU, I might at least take it serious.
They classified the news by whether it was sensational, extremist, conspiratorial, fake or otherwise junk. This is completely subjective and the source of their bias.
So you say there is no objective way to distinguish the reporting of, say, the NYT from that of the National Enquirer? Let me guess, you also think that the Institute of Creation Research publications are just as valid as those in PNAS?
If it was possible to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to a nine year old it would mean that Einstein was only as smart as a nine year old, which, obviously is not correct.
But your argument is just as incorrect. The complexity of relativity gives us a lower bound for Einstein's smartiness, not an upper one. And quite often, as we understand things better, they do actually become simpler - the move from Aristotle to Kepler and Newton made the solar system a lot simpler.
It's one wrong fucking word. Which of course invalidates everything I said, eh?
No, the fact that you ignore important other considerations and instead put up straw men is what invalidates most of what you say. Do you have anything to rebut the meat of my comment?
Second, Not relying on tests means relying on transcripts. Setting aside the stupid Pass/No Pass thing, relying on letter grades, however they are derived, is questionable since the grades are so variable. An A in one school could be equivalent to a C in another. Or, in the case of AP classes, an A in a regular class could be a C in an AP class.
While grades may be bad at measuring absolute achievement, they may be better at measuring aptitude. If you get an A from a "bad" school, you may know less than someone with an A, or even a C from a better school. But you probably belong to the best pupils in your school - that you were not able to learn more may be more a problem of the school, not of you ability to learn and think. So in a different environment, you may be able to flourish and catch up.
As the original article states: high school grades are a better predictor of success in university than SAT scores.
What we have here is the gradual degradation of the US higher Education system due to the lessor of its graduates gravitating towards education where they implement their lessor standards.(emphasis mine)
Nuclear is pretty straight forward... rods go in or out and affect the amount of heat generated.
Well, maybe your uncle should go back to university or get some remedial courses in nuclear engineering. Yes, nuclear reactors are controlled with control rods. And yes, if all goes according to plan, you can quickly shut the chain reaction down. But you cannot quickly vary the output of the reactor. First, because this leads to the build-up of undesirable fission products ("neutron poisons"), and secondly, because there is a large amount of residual decay heat. Nuclear powerplants typically provide base loads only, possibly changing at the several hours to days timescale. Like all thermal plants, they can in principle vent heat, but that is non-trivial on a large scale, and, of course, very inefficient.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: "We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
John F. Kennedy, “For, in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, 'holds office'; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities."
Lyndon B. Johnson: "There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our Democracy in what is happening here tonight" (from the We-Shall-Overcome-Speech)
...and, skipping a few:
Ronald Reagan: "Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."
But then, these are all dead white men, so what do they know!
A pure democracy will never work as there will always be way too many idiots wanting to tinker with the engine of civilization. They have no idea what a intake valve or piston is for, and they have protests about the unfair treatment of the bacteria trapped in the air filter.
Let me rephrase for people who prefer non-constructively narrow readings: In a republic ("if you can keep it", with apologies to Ben Franklin), politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
This is what happens when you try to play politics instead of minding your own fucking business.
I toss you into the toilet.
In a democracy, politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.
[...] As of now, in many areas, guns is the only effective protection many have.
[...]
Rambling on, but point is one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have. Don't like it, but that's the reality in the U.S.
What is reality is that all statistics say that one of the best ways to increase your risk of getting killed is to carry a gun. Maybe you are the exception (just like in Germany 95% of all drivers believe they drive better than average), but the odds are against you. You may get a warm and fuzzy feeling from your gun, but the effective protection it affords is negative.
Well, whatever you are babbling about seems popular. Its a load of bull, but popular bull, apparently.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda. There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
Well, we've got a tax break for private jet owners added in
I know reading is hard... but couldn't you even make it to the 6th paragraph of the article you linked to?
"This provision in no way cuts taxes for private jet owners," said Jennifer Donahue, a spokeswoman for Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) who sponsored Senate legislation on the matter.
You should learn to distinguish actual reporting from claims made directly by involved parties. According to Stalin, Attila the Hun, Pol Pot, and Blackbeard the Pirate, they all wanted to create heaven on Earth.
Maybe you should stop and ask WHY it costs so much to live in blue states, and why for blue states, the metrics that matter are so awful.
Because it's actually worth living there? Check e.g. the life expectancy per state.
As for taxes: Surprising as it may seem, government is not sucking in money like a vacuum cleaner and then burning it in huge bonfires. It's spending the money, to a large part on services like roads, schools, policing, health services (well, in civilised societies), defence, and so on. Many of these services benefit from an enormous economy of scale (a road from one end of your private plot to the other end is unlikely to be particularly useful unless connected to other pieces of road), others have huge network benefits (even if you have a genius Harvard education, it will not be of much use in a society of uneducated dumbasses).
Governments are not perfect, but the US social security service operates at much higher efficiency than private insurance companies.
Taxation is the price which we pay for civilization
It doesn't take a radical fucking conservative to look out the window and see that depopulation has already hit white countries, hard.
Well, the country I live in is only white in small parts, and mostly in wintertime. I'll give you Greenland, but what other countries are predominantly white?
New Science Suggests the Ocean Could Rise More -- and Faster -- Than We Thought
Maybe. Possibly.
But aren't we already suppose to be under ten feet of water?
I don't know what you suppose, but the first IPCC report, published 1990, said "For the IPCC Business-as-Usual scenario at year 2030 global-mean sea level is 8-29 cm higher than today, with a best-estimate of 18 cm. At the year 2070, the rise is 21-71 cm, with a best-estimate of 44 cm." (page 261) According to NASA satellite data, we are at ~8.5cm since 1990 (and the IPCC AR5 has similar results (SPM page 11)) We have 13 years at (currently) ~3.5mm/year left, so we probably will end up at about 14cm, well within the uncertainty interval, and not far from the best estimate - and very far from the 10 feet you have apparently heard from some crap source.
"money is speech"
Considering people's mouths are more or less the same size, no one should be allowed to contribute more money than anyone else.
Unfortunately that runs afoul of that pesky concept of "no taxation without representation." If you believe in that (as most red-blooded Americans do), then the fact that we tax corporations means they should have some form of representation in government.
The companies are represented via their owners. Giving them a separate voice just means the owners are over-represented.
Having typeset almost 20 conference proceedings volumes myself as well as several science books, I know first hand that the work is a complete PITA and that the journals should be somehow compensated.
That very much depends on the field and the technical expertise of the authors. In computer science, nearly all conferences and journals expect LaTeX generated PDF, often "camera ready". Some publishers want the LaTeX sources and do some minor editing, more often than not introducing errors. My impression is that this is a desperate attempt to add some value, but it rarely improves the papers. The main business propositions of publishers used to be the production of printed papers from typewritten manuscripts. At least in computer science, that model has evaporated. There is some small value in actual printing, and significant value in quality control. That, however, is mostly done by academic editors and reviewers working for free, and pissed if they then can't freely distribute their own papers.
To be fair, some publishers try to offer new kinds of value - e.g. the preparation of different formats, and long-term organised archival and indexing. And at least Springer has increasingly lenient copyright forms (and has never complained when I added exceptions to the older forms).
Actually there is DNA evidence that the original founders of Egypt were Indo-European.
Since Indo-European is a language, part of a cultural complex that spread over many different populations, I find that hard to believe. Do you have any reliable sources? Of course there is European DNA in Egypt - it was very much part of the Greek and Roman worlds. However, I'm not aware of any linguistic evidence for PIE ever playing a role in Egypt before Alexander's conquest.
Slashdot Mirror
The National Enquirer [and] the NYT [...]
The ONLY conclusion I can come to is that both sources need additional verification and corroboration and nobody should blindly follow their lead.
And both moonshine and orange juice contain alcohol - yet they are very much not the same.
Bias is more than how something is reported, but also what isn't reported that should. I mean how important is it to report that he drinks a twelve-pack of coke a day? Did the news report on Obama's smoking habit in the same manner?
Well, spending a minute with Google tells me that the NYT did in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012 - and that is just a small selection from one newspaper.
A serious question for you: if an equivalent study to this one came out of a right-wing think tank, saying that fake news is a left-wing thing, would you simply accept the results? Even if their definition of "fake news" was based on subjective criteria applied by their own internal assessors?
Probably not. But this was not work done by any think tank, left or right. It was done by the University of Oxford, the oldest university in the English-speaking world, and generally recognised as one of the best universities in the world - and that consistently for at last the 30 years I'm aware of university rankings. If such a study came out of, say, Stanford or even GMU, I might at least take it serious.
They classified the news by whether it was sensational, extremist, conspiratorial, fake or otherwise junk. This is completely subjective and the source of their bias.
So you say there is no objective way to distinguish the reporting of, say, the NYT from that of the National Enquirer? Let me guess, you also think that the Institute of Creation Research publications are just as valid as those in PNAS?
Exactly.
If it was possible to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to a nine year old it would mean that Einstein was only as smart as a nine year old, which, obviously is not correct.
But your argument is just as incorrect. The complexity of relativity gives us a lower bound for Einstein's smartiness, not an upper one. And quite often, as we understand things better, they do actually become simpler - the move from Aristotle to Kepler and Newton made the solar system a lot simpler.
The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. There is no "historical norm".
And people have being dying from natural causes since the beginning of the human race. Hence there is neither murder nor war. Open the prisons.
Letting them all die cuts down on the population problem, and thus the energy and pollution problems.
You are a fine example for a human being. Right up there with Pol Pot and Adolf Eichmann.
It's one wrong fucking word. Which of course invalidates everything I said, eh?
No, the fact that you ignore important other considerations and instead put up straw men is what invalidates most of what you say. Do you have anything to rebut the meat of my comment?
Second, Not relying on tests means relying on transcripts. Setting aside the stupid Pass/No Pass thing, relying on letter grades, however they are derived, is questionable since the grades are so variable. An A in one school could be equivalent to a C in another. Or, in the case of AP classes, an A in a regular class could be a C in an AP class.
While grades may be bad at measuring absolute achievement, they may be better at measuring aptitude. If you get an A from a "bad" school, you may know less than someone with an A, or even a C from a better school. But you probably belong to the best pupils in your school - that you were not able to learn more may be more a problem of the school, not of you ability to learn and think. So in a different environment, you may be able to flourish and catch up.
As the original article states: high school grades are a better predictor of success in university than SAT scores.
What we have here is the gradual degradation of the US higher Education system due to the lessor of its graduates gravitating towards education where they implement their lessor standards.(emphasis mine)
I assume that is involuntary irony?
Nuclear is pretty straight forward... rods go in or out and affect the amount of heat generated.
Well, maybe your uncle should go back to university or get some remedial courses in nuclear engineering. Yes, nuclear reactors are controlled with control rods. And yes, if all goes according to plan, you can quickly shut the chain reaction down. But you cannot quickly vary the output of the reactor. First, because this leads to the build-up of undesirable fission products ("neutron poisons"), and secondly, because there is a large amount of residual decay heat. Nuclear powerplants typically provide base loads only, possibly changing at the several hours to days timescale. Like all thermal plants, they can in principle vent heat, but that is non-trivial on a large scale, and, of course, very inefficient.
Good thing this is a republic then!
See my other reply, but also see e.g.
But then, these are all dead white men, so what do they know!
A pure democracy will never work as there will always be way too many idiots wanting to tinker with the engine of civilization. They have no idea what a intake valve or piston is for, and they have protests about the unfair treatment of the bacteria trapped in the air filter.
Let me rephrase for people who prefer non-constructively narrow readings: In a republic ("if you can keep it", with apologies to Ben Franklin), politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
This is what happens when you try to play politics instead of minding your own fucking business.
I toss you into the toilet.
In a democracy, politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
[...]
The National Review is great at cheerleading Trump, but it is not a qualified or reliable source for legal questions.
[...] As of now, in many areas, guns is the only effective protection many have.
[...]
Rambling on, but point is one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have. Don't like it, but that's the reality in the U.S.
What is reality is that all statistics say that one of the best ways to increase your risk of getting killed is to carry a gun. Maybe you are the exception (just like in Germany 95% of all drivers believe they drive better than average), but the odds are against you. You may get a warm and fuzzy feeling from your gun, but the effective protection it affords is negative.
Or was there some other set of "rights" or policies you think are backfiring? Take for instance: Yes, Violent Crime Has Spiked In Sweden Since Open Immigration Germany: Migrant Crime Spiked in 2016
Well, whatever you are babbling about seems popular. Its a load of bull, but popular bull, apparently.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda. There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
I know reading is hard... but couldn't you even make it to the 6th paragraph of the article you linked to?
You should learn to distinguish actual reporting from claims made directly by involved parties. According to Stalin, Attila the Hun, Pol Pot, and Blackbeard the Pirate, they all wanted to create heaven on Earth.
Maybe you should stop and ask WHY it costs so much to live in blue states, and why for blue states, the metrics that matter are so awful.
Because it's actually worth living there? Check e.g. the life expectancy per state.
As for taxes: Surprising as it may seem, government is not sucking in money like a vacuum cleaner and then burning it in huge bonfires. It's spending the money, to a large part on services like roads, schools, policing, health services (well, in civilised societies), defence, and so on. Many of these services benefit from an enormous economy of scale (a road from one end of your private plot to the other end is unlikely to be particularly useful unless connected to other pieces of road), others have huge network benefits (even if you have a genius Harvard education, it will not be of much use in a society of uneducated dumbasses). Governments are not perfect, but the US social security service operates at much higher efficiency than private insurance companies.
Taxation is the price which we pay for civilization
It doesn't take a radical fucking conservative to look out the window and see that depopulation has already hit white countries, hard.
Well, the country I live in is only white in small parts, and mostly in wintertime. I'll give you Greenland, but what other countries are predominantly white?
[About 15.5 old-style tweets, not counting "... ...", with approximately zero useful information]
That's more then 140 characters, Mr. President!
New Science Suggests the Ocean Could Rise More -- and Faster -- Than We Thought
Maybe. Possibly.
But aren't we already suppose to be under ten feet of water?
I don't know what you suppose, but the first IPCC report, published 1990, said "For the IPCC Business-as-Usual scenario at year 2030 global-mean sea level is 8-29 cm higher than today, with a best-estimate of 18 cm. At the year 2070, the rise is 21-71 cm, with a best-estimate of 44 cm." (page 261) According to NASA satellite data, we are at ~8.5cm since 1990 (and the IPCC AR5 has similar results (SPM page 11)) We have 13 years at (currently) ~3.5mm/year left, so we probably will end up at about 14cm, well within the uncertainty interval, and not far from the best estimate - and very far from the 10 feet you have apparently heard from some crap source.
Unfortunately that runs afoul of that pesky concept of "no taxation without representation." If you believe in that (as most red-blooded Americans do), then the fact that we tax corporations means they should have some form of representation in government.
The companies are represented via their owners. Giving them a separate voice just means the owners are over-represented.
Having typeset almost 20 conference proceedings volumes myself as well as several science books, I know first hand that the work is a complete PITA and that the journals should be somehow compensated.
That very much depends on the field and the technical expertise of the authors. In computer science, nearly all conferences and journals expect LaTeX generated PDF, often "camera ready". Some publishers want the LaTeX sources and do some minor editing, more often than not introducing errors. My impression is that this is a desperate attempt to add some value, but it rarely improves the papers. The main business propositions of publishers used to be the production of printed papers from typewritten manuscripts. At least in computer science, that model has evaporated. There is some small value in actual printing, and significant value in quality control. That, however, is mostly done by academic editors and reviewers working for free, and pissed if they then can't freely distribute their own papers.
To be fair, some publishers try to offer new kinds of value - e.g. the preparation of different formats, and long-term organised archival and indexing. And at least Springer has increasingly lenient copyright forms (and has never complained when I added exceptions to the older forms).
Actually there is DNA evidence that the original founders of Egypt were Indo-European.
Since Indo-European is a language, part of a cultural complex that spread over many different populations, I find that hard to believe. Do you have any reliable sources? Of course there is European DNA in Egypt - it was very much part of the Greek and Roman worlds. However, I'm not aware of any linguistic evidence for PIE ever playing a role in Egypt before Alexander's conquest.
Whatever race they were, they were using slaves. We should hate the Egyptians solely because they used slavery.
Well, Yul Brunner notwithstanding, the currently accepted theory is that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by paid labourers.
You think Trump is a dangerous lunatic,
Yes.
in contrast to Obama,
Yes.
a sympathizer of Islam and communism.
No.