Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 1) 224

by Karmashock (#49757059) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

As to WSJ being non-credible... tell us MR AC why is that?

You do realize that they're saying the same thing on this issue that the New York Times and MSNBC are saying right? There is no political division in so far as the facts are concerned here. The left wing media is turning on hillary. Its already over. All that remains is stripping anyone in her coalition dumb enough to think they can shrug this off of any remaining credibility. This is going to get uglier and uglier. And you're not going to be able to count on any credible media allies to back you up. The establishment media has already abandoned you. And most leftwing alternative media has also abandoned you. That includes politico and huffington post. Its over.

Do as your allies already did... turn on hillary and save what remains of your credibility. If you don't... you'll just lose.

Honestly, I hope as many of you refuse to listen to that sage advice as possible. It will just make the political bloodbath to come all the more complete. ;)

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 1) 224

by Karmashock (#49757031) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

I'm starting to understand why fire axes are so popular in the zombie apocalypse... they don't run out of ammo. These people are so fucking stupid. They just come at me drooling all over themselves while chewing their own tongues. I load another shell of logic into my boomstick of reason... blow the top of their rotten face off with an obvious fatal counter argument... then cock another logic shell and move on.

But my god there are a lot of these idiots.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 1) 224

by Karmashock (#49756999) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails


No. Tautology means you're defining a given with itself.

If I say someone is a thief because they're a thief then that is tautology.

It is a kind of circular logic.

You're saying news corp is untrustworthy... this is a given from you. You're not offering any justification for it.

Then you use that given to say that subsidiaries of news corp must be untrustworthy as well because news corp is untrustworthy. This is one of the several false association fallacies.

And then you're saying that because those subsidiaries are untrustworthy a given story from those subsidiaries is untrustworthy... even though the story in question is a FUCKING RAW DATA DUMP. This is another false association fallacy compounded with blind fucking pigheaded mulishness when confronted with fucking facts. That isn't even a fallacy. That is just some retard pointing at the Sun and saying it isn't there.

That's bullshit. And if you don't see the several logical fallacies in that then you're an idiot.

First, the entire line of logic is fallacious.

Second, even if news corp -> WSJ -> this story were untrustworthy, the issue is that this is a RAW data dump and therefore the trustworthiness of the people posting it is irrelevant unless you're claiming that the data itself has been tampered with?

Your entire position is laughable from any rational stand point. You're wrong. And I just validated that position above quite firmly. I am not interested in you wasting any more of my time. You can either apologize for being a jackass or I will just say "good day, sir".

Your choice. Either way, I'm done with you.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 1) 224

by Karmashock (#49756391) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

It is a tautology to say something is X because it is X though... and tautology is fallacious.

You're saying a parent organization doesn't share your political leanings and so all subsidiaries are going to be polluted with BADTHINK and BADTHINK is all lies and UNGOOD because it wasn't approved by one of your ministry of truth censorship outlets.

The WSJ is releasing the RAW emails. Explain to me how the Rupert Murdock cooties get on your new messiah's emails when they are not altering them at all?

Explain it.

Actually don't. There's no excuse for your position. Any source offering the RAW data cannot impune the raw data... by definition. The data is fucking raw. If I am the slimmest liar ever and I give you raw unmodified records then those records include none of my slimy lies because its fucking raw.

The pathetic kneejerk reaction against anything not part of the leftist echo chamber should make you ashamed of yourself.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 2) 224

by Karmashock (#49756373) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

Are you really so far gone that tautology doesn't look like a fallacy for you?

You say they're not credible... why? Because they're not credible? Oh well, glad that got sorted out.

So you must accept that the God invented the universe etc as well right? Because that is also backed up with tautology and circular logic.

You're expecting me to accept the GIVEN that a host organization is inherently non-credible and that therefore all subsidiaries are not credible and therefore that a given story submitted by such a subsidiary is also not credible.

Your entire argument is a cascading waterfall of fallacious shit where the shit flows through a logic tree supported by assumed givens at the top then pools at the bottom where it is pumped up and pours through the system all over again.


As to you saying a financial adviser is credible or not... exactly how do you substantiate that position? You just saying " they don't know what they're talking about" is meaningless without some sort of supporting argument. Absent that you have an unqualified opinion that isn't worth anything.

I will take news from ANY source and evaluate it rationally. MSNBC does some good reporting sometimes and sometimes Fox does some good reporting. No one is all bad or all good. And discounting any given story simply because of the source is fallacious.

Let me explain what that means again because I don't think you understand what a fallacy is in the first place.

A statement is fallacious if it is not 100 percent true. If you say "everyone in my car is hungry after six hours in the car"... well, you might know YOU are hungry and MOST of the people in the car might be hungry but you don't know that EVERYONE in the car is hungry. It is fallacious because it isn't known to actually be true. It doesnt' follow that because YOU are hungry and everyone else SHOULD be hungry that they all actually ARE hungry. Maybe someone is dead. Maybe someone has been pigging out in the back eating snacks. Maybe anything. You don't know.

That is what it means for something to be fallacious. This passive slippery shit logic that so many people are comfortable with is inherently fallacious because people are not giving any attention to whether things MUST be true or MUST be false. You simply go with "probably" and "maybe" and "should" and thus don't actually fucking know anything.

As to bias, simply dismissing a source out of hand especially when they're passing no judgement on the source material but literally offering the RAW data for public evaluation is itself bias... on your part.

Admit it, apologize, and promise not to do it again. Or surrender any shred of intellectual credibility you were presumed out of common courtesy.

I have no patience for this shit.

Comment: Re:Meh... (Score -1, Troll) 234

by Karmashock (#49756325) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

As to the cost, they are already doing it. Raw sewage goes through a water treatment facility that does all those things.

You're an idiot.

As to 471 million plastic micro beads... if they're .01 mm then as someone else pointed out, you're talking about maybe a kilo of micro beads per day. The mass of them isn't actually that relevant.

As to your misunderstanding as to my position... that can only be attributed to your stupidity. I said in the first post that I don't care if you ban it. So suggesting that I am against the ban is merely evidence that you're stupid. :)

In the name of intellectual health, I ask that you keep your mouth shut. Nothing good comes out of it.

Comment: Re:Meh... (Score 0) 234

by Karmashock (#49756275) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

wow... so, that's more evidence that you're stupid.

You can filter water without using a grate. Rivers for example filter water yet contain no "filter" as you term it. Oceans filter water yet also contain no "filter".

The treatment plants DO actually use a filter though it is quite large and only stops large things from passing certain pipes.

The filtration process is mostly done through density separation. That is, the filter is gravity. And guess what, the microbeads have a lower density than water. So they should be filterable by that method.

Next issue.

Comment: Re:Meh... (Score -1, Troll) 234

by Karmashock (#49756247) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

How can people be so god damn thick? It is remarkable to me.

You're asking me why I'm not a fan of the ban on the beads? Really? Even though in my first post I said I didn't care if you banned it.

So your comment about cranberries is FUCKING STUPID. BAN THE BEADS.






What I am saying is that if that is getting through the system there are probably a lot of other things in there that you don't even know exist. A better system would not only deal with this bead issue which is irrelevant to me. But it would also deal with a wide variety of other contaminants that you don't even know are in there.

Consider further we're looking increasingly to closed loop sewage treatment facilities that output water INTO your tap directly from the sewage treatment facility. They're already strongly considering that in California.

My point is that the stupid beads don't matter and what this really indicates is that the water treatment systems needs to be upgraded.

Here you say "oh its so expensive"... well, consider seperating out your sewage rather than running ONE pipe from each house or factory or whatever. Have different TYPES of sewage. Then process each individually using a unique process customized for that sewage type. take your cranberries... clearly they need a special treatment process. Should the tax payers be paying for that? Obviously not. Ocean spray can process their own shit and that is not unreasonable for any large processing facility. Frankly, I think it is weird that they're even throwing it out. It probably makes a great fertilizer/mulch. Have a skimmer that sorts out all the solid material and sell that to farmers to spread on fields.

As to JUICE that gets into the water... I don't even know why we're sending that to the sewage treatment facilities. A little sugar released into a river isn't going to hurt anything. Bacteria in the water will eat it almost instantly.

Comment: Re: RTFA (Score -1, Troll) 234

by Karmashock (#49756163) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

Did I suggest that or are you a halfwit?

I have been pretty clear from my FIRST post that I don't really care.

Ban the fucking beads. I don't care.

Did that process in your little brain? How many times do I have to say that for you morons to grasp that?

Okay, so you righteous chewing out concluded, my point is that if these beads are making it through and they have a lower density... why are they getting through the settling tanks? Am saying "if this is a problem, we probably have OTHER problems that we don't even know about." Thus shouldn't we just make the treatment process better? Not because of these beads... because again... ban them... I do not care... but rather this should be a wake up call that the treatment facilities need to be improved.

Do you understand NOW? Or are you just that stupid? :)

And I love that you suggested that I suggested that we use a medical centrifuge to clean sewage. I did no such thing. I was pointing out that they would absolutely sort by density. that is all. I also pointed out that maybe we could use an INDUSTRIAL centrifuge to further filter water.

So run the water through the settling tanks to remove most of the particulates. Then power up a giant centrifuge to filter the product of the tanks.

Maybe that isn't practical. I don't know how much energy that would gobble. But that was the closest I got to that idea. I at no point suggested we use tiny medical centrifuges to process municipal levels of sewage.

You're an idiot. ;)

Comment: Re:Meh... (Score 0) 234

by Karmashock (#49756143) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

Not at all. As I keep telling you, I don't care if you ban this shit. It is fucking meaningless to me and I expect industry doesn't care either. They have lots of alternatives. Sand or something should be just fine. Do you really think it is hard for them to make silica spheroids of fairly uniform size? Think again. Easy peasy.

So understand, I am not arguing against your ban.


However, I am questioning the quality of your water treatment process if this is actually a problem.

Comment: Re: Meh... (Score 0) 234

by Karmashock (#49756111) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

they have about the same density as oil... so are we to conclude that sewage plants are not filtering OIL from WATER?

Because that seems pretty fucking simple.

My understanding of the process is that they first blend the sewage to break up chunks. The slurry goes through a series very large tanks where the sewage collects and sorts by density. The fluid in the middle is assumed to be mostly water. Then that water is sterilized by some means to kill micro organisms and the water is released.

The settling tanks are so far as I understand it... the PRIMARY means of filtration. Given that the microbeads have about the same density as OIL... I am confused as to why they're making it through the settling tanks.

Are the tanks not deep enough?Is the water outlet too close to the surface of the tank thus causing suction to pull particulate matter off the surface?

This sounds like something you could fix pretty easily.

Comment: Re:Meh... (Score -1, Flamebait) 234

by Karmashock (#49756069) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads


Given that the "program" is my conscious mind, you presume to demand that I write out the code for my consciousness here to be evaluated?

How does that make any sense?

What we write out here is OUTPUT which then serves as further INPUT if anyone bothers to read it.

The underlying program is largely beyond audit.

The most I could do would be to break down individual statements and justify them. Since I didn't cite my thinking to that extent questioning whether such a thing would compile is inherently idiotic. That's like saying "your log file won't compile"... no shit? Really? How fucking stupid are you?

You say you won't take me seriously? What a laugh. Explain why anyone should take you seriously when you won't even log in?

Go fuck yourself.

Maternity pay? Now every Tom, Dick and Harry will get pregnant. -- Malcolm Smith