Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:sounds like North Korea news (Score 1) 104

by ultranova (#47435159) Attached to: Google's Experimental Newsroom Avoids Negative Headlines

Worse than that. It's like Brave New World news. The only things fit to publish are the things that keep us happy(and thus amendable to advertisements in this case). It's not trying to make on specific entity look good, it's trying to engage in actual mind control via selection bias.

Ironically, this might actually end up giving a more accurate picture of the world, because disasters and scandals tend to be big and flashy, while good news come as constant stream of small things. Overall, the stream drowns out the flames - our civilization would had never gotten off the ground otherwise - but it's the odd flame that becomes ever so more newsworthy by its very rareness.

Politics of fear are based on and enabled by this very phenomenom, and we've all seen them cause completely irrational - and often very destructive - decisions. So feel-good popular newsfeed could very well end up undermining demagogues by acting as counterpoison to fearmongering.

Comment: Re:Hi speed chase, hum? (Score 1) 352

by ultranova (#47434957) Attached to: The First Person Ever To Die In a Tesla Is a Guy Who Stole One

Nature -- specifically evolution -- disagrees.

Evolution doesn't deal with life or death, it deals with the relative abundance of properties in populations. If anything, our innovation - cultural evolution - is such success precisely because it removes death from the equation. Now the main thrust is on the evolution of our various superorganisms - cultures - rather than our bodies, thus allowing adaptation at blitzkrieg speeds compared to even bacteria, much less any other complex organisms.

Comment: Re:Why is this news? (Score 1) 352

by ultranova (#47434641) Attached to: The First Person Ever To Die In a Tesla Is a Guy Who Stole One

In other words, even though the statement about cars kill a lot of people is true, the statement does NOT make the cyclist are menace to be false.

"Menace" is a subjective value judgement. "Cars kill a lot of people" does affect "cyclists are a menace" because both are statements about the dangers of various forms of locomotion. Locomotion itself is unavoidable, so the question becomes which form is safest, and "menace" implies cycling is far from it.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 401

You just don't get it, do you? I'm beginning to firmly believe -- this is my OPINION, you understand -- that you're a fucking idiot. I've explained this to you on a number of occasions now. THIS:

one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent

... is a statement of opinion. I did not make any claim of fact. I did not, in fact, "accuse" anyone of fraud.

Further, using words like "asshole", "jerk", etc. are generally accepted statements of opinion. It seems pretty clear that you are a human being (albeit one I have cause to greatly dislike), therefore you could not literally be an asshole. Again no claim of fact was made.

Your failure to understand this has likely already gotten you pretty deeply into trouble. I don't know what you think you're doing here now, but I suspect you aren't helping yourself or anyone else with all this harassment.

As for the "97%" BS, it is easy to show that it was indeed a statistical lie. That one was a claim of fact. But it's pretty easy to show that I have very, very good evidence to back it up. So again: I had -- still have -- very damned good reason to believe I was telling the truth.

You haven't caught me in any "lies". Period. For the simple reason that I am not in the habit of uttering them.

Comment: Re:Why in America? (Score 1) 142

by Jane Q. Public (#47434307) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones
I should add:

You might not have realized it, but you are pointing out exactly the issue that is raised here: the difference between current regulations, and the laws that authorized them.

My point was that the judge's decision says Congress did not intend to give FAA the authority to make all of those regulations. Some of them exceed FAA's authority. Obviously they did it anyway, but that was the whole point.

You are showing us the regulations in question, and trying to use them as proof of themselves. It doesn't work that way.

Comment: Re:Why in America? (Score 1) 142

by Jane Q. Public (#47434287) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones
Tell it to the judge. I repeat: this was his decision, not mine. And he very clearly disagreed with you.

Regardless of what the REGULATIONS say, the judge's ruling -- in part for reasons I gave above -- was that it was not Congress' intent to give FAA authority over non-navigable airspace, in the actual law that was passed.

Regulation and Congressional law are different things. And what rules the law is the intent of those who passed it.

Those are the rules. I didn't make them up.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 401

Whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

Yet again, this is bullshit. You're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

My comments such as "asshole" -- EXPECIALLY given the context in which they were written, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the entire threads -- are very clearly statements of my OPINION about your observed behavior. They are not claims of anything else. Not even claims about your general character. They are observations about THINGS YOU DID.

I haven't done that "when my 'misinformation' was challenged". I stated those things when YOUR BEHAVIOR was, in my opinion, that of an asshole, not that of someone who wanted to have a scientific discussion.

And of course, it's only gotten worse since.

You seem to forget that other people can read these things too. I can pretty much promise you that an awful lot of them don't see things quite the way you do.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 401

Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

To what "accusations" are you referring? You have kept saying that, but I have no idea what you mean. Certainly, I have criticized climate science, when I thought it deserved criticism. But where are these "accusations" that YOU are accusing ME of making? I don't understand what you're getting at... because in fact you aren't saying anything here.

Yes, indeed: statements of fact and libel are different things. Where are your statements of fact here? You just wrote an entire post that doesn't say anything.

An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.