Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Fake news is making up facts [Re:Fake news an...] (Score 1) 893

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Seems you realize what I'm saying and chose to ignore it.

I'm realizing what you're saying, and pointing out that it is wrong.

I really can't say it more clearly. Fake news means making up facts . You are saying people should be outraged by the leaks out of the Trump administration. Well, fine, you can think that if you want. That's perfectly valid opinion. However, if a news article does not happen to write that opinion in the body of an article, not writing it does not make that news article fake news. Fake news means making up facts .

OK, there may be a huge difference between one type of leak and another. You may even label that "false equivalence" if you like. But it's not fake news unless they are making up facts.

Got it? Fake news is news that is incorrect because it is made up with no regard to facts. Fake news is not "an article that didn't express an opinion that I personally think should have been expressed."

Look, this is important: there is a clear and bright distinction between news that expresses an opinion that you think is wrong, and "news" that simply makes shit up with the intent to outrage without any intent whatsoever to be consistent with reality. Making shit up is fake news.

Comment Fake news and journalism (Score 1) 893

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Here are a few other sources that appear to say the same thing:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15...
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Comment Re:Is there a product these patents protect? (Score 4, Insightful) 69

"Re:Is there a product these patents protect?"
Yes.
In (overly broad) summary, Jennifer Doudna and collaborators showed that CRISPR could cut DNA at targeted sites. Zhang and collaborators used that targeting capability to edit DNA. Editing DNA is the product you asked about (in patent terminology, a method of doing something is patentable). That product use uses the cutting that Dudna demonstrated.

A quick (and still overly broad) analysis is that Dudna et al discovered the science, and Zhang et al reduced it to practice. However, reducing it to practice only gets you a patent if it's not obvious.

Comment Two different things (Score 3, Informative) 69

"The patent ruling suggests that the work done by Jennifer Doudna of the University of California and her colleagues on CRISPR wasn't so groundbreaking as to make any other advance obvious. But that legal opinion isn't how the science world views her work, STAT points out: "Doudna and her chief collaborator, Emmanuelle Charpentier, won the $3 million Breakthrough Prize in the life sciences in 2015, the $500,000 Gruber Genetics Prize in 2015, and the $450,000 Ja..."

These are two different things. The patent ruling was only about whether the work by Doudna, Charpentier et al. made the MIT/Harvard work "obvious". The Breakthrough and other prizes didn't care whether the MIT/Harvard work was obvious or not, it was an award for heir work being a breakthrough, whether it led to any applications or not.

Comment Look at the signal and ignore the noise (Score 1) 893

look again: his approval rating is roughly the same. his disapproval rating is up (worse) 10% in that time.

Look again, and this time pay attention to the scatter in the measurements. A 10% change in half of the population is way less than the variation from poll to poll. Don't let the nice straight trend lines fool you: that's noise, not signal.

... less than a month is a small sample size...

Exactly.

Comment The difference between fake news and journalism. (Score 1) 893

The story that the bust had been removed was posted at 7:31p.m.. By 8:41 p.m. the reporter had sent out e-mails and tweets correcting the information. At 8:46 p.m., Press Secretary Sean Spicer retweeted that message with the words “Apology accepted.”

So: it took an hour to run the correction.

That's the difference between fake news and journalism. Fake news doesn't make corrections.

Go to the next looney left rally and ask the, um, "protestors" about the bust of MLK. You'll find that most of them think it was removed.

This is fake news, since you in fact have not done that experiment. You are making shit up, but stating your speculation as if it were fact.

Do the experiment, and get back to me with the results.

Comment Wrong is not the same as fake (Score 4, Informative) 893

Wrong is not the same as "fake". Fake news is stuff that's made up.

One way you can tell the difference is by whether a correction is made when the error is pointed out. The Time story about the MLK bust you list as fake news, for example, was followed by a correction and an apology. That's journalism. Nobody is perfect; journalism consists of acknowledging and correcting mistakes.
Check here:
http://time.com/4645541/donald...

To verify, here is the article, dated 20 January. Note that the incorrect information is removed, and the article has a correction also dated 20 January:
http://time.com/4642088/trump-...

The correction reads: Correction: An earlier version of the story said that a bust of Martin Luther King had been moved. It is still in the Oval Office.

To verify that the correction wasn't backdated, here's the archived version of the article as of 1AM on Jan 21. Notice the correction: http://web.archive.org/web/201...

That's the difference.

Comment Fake news is real (Score 4, Informative) 893

Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way.

No, the term "fake news" is looney left propaganda made up in the face of Hillary's loss to explain why she lost.

No, fake news really exists, although it the term has been coopted to mean "stuff I don't agree with." There were web sites that basically completely made stuff up. some of them had small print claiming that they were satire, like this one http://www.thatsfake.com/did-e... but some of them were just clickbait sites, making shit up and trying to go viral with links reposted so that they could score with clicks, like this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

You're right to this extent, though, the term is much over-used recently.

Comment Zero sum game [Re:Pence is consolidating...] (Score 1) 893

Sadly, we don't live in a world where everyone is playing a zero sum game for the most positive outcome for the entire human race...

Those two phrases contradict each other. If it's a zero-sum game, there is no "most positive outcome"; the sum of positive and negative is fixed at zero.

I think what you mean is more like "we live in a world where everyone is playing a zero sum game instead of playing for the most positive outcome for the entire human race.

Comment Replace it... with what? (Score 4, Insightful) 893

...And, sorry, Obamacare actually *is* something to oppose. It's amazing how many of my friends lost their insurance and are now paying double or triple for less coverage. And this was all fully predictable to anyone paying attention....

I would think it would be prudent to wait to hear what the politicians who are cancelling it tell us what they are going to implement instead.

So far, it's a pig in a poke-- they're saying "we'll come up with something much much better, trust us, it will be great"-- but they don't seem to have any idea what this "better" system is going to be or how it will work.

Sorry, but I'm skeptical: I want to see some details before I'm convinced.

Comment No fall, no change (Score 3, Informative) 893

I think that ability on their part is fading fast. The polls showing Trump's precipitous fall in popularity.. .

The polls are not showing a "precipitous fall in popularity". So far, three weeks after inauguration, the people who liked Trump before still like him and think he's doing good; the people who didn't like Trump before still don't like him and think he's doing badly.

Really. Look at the actual poll numbers, not the misleading headlines: no real change.
http://elections.huffingtonpos...

His approval ratings almost certainly will change as people start to judge him on what he does, not what his campaign said-- but this has not happened yet.

Comment Not a desert [Re:Drought is over!] (Score 4, Informative) 457

First, Oroville, California, gets 52 inches of rain per year. NOT a desert.

According to US climate data 30.7 inches of precipitation per year
http://www.usclimatedata.com/c...
which is about 20% less than the national average
https://rainfall.weatherdb.com...

Still: not a desert.

Comment Why AC? [Re:So what are the stats on /.?] (Score 2) 174

Having a recognizable user name doesn't automatically make someone right. But having the ability to go back and view their comments in prior conversations sure makes it easier to gauge if their opinion is worth a shit or not.

Yep. And after a while you get to notice that some usernames are usually very insightful.

There are only 2 uses I've seen for AC: Trolls, and people who claim they can't comment under their name because their employer would recognize them (or some flavor of that).

Yes on 1, no on two: these people could simply chose a username like "haX0r42" or "Pringleeater" that their boss won't recognize.
You're right, though, the worst of the drive-by flaming and pugnacious idiocy is almost always anonymous.
Due to the particular nature of /., there's one more reason a person might comment as AC: they have already moderated the thread and don't want to remove their moderations..

Slashdot Top Deals

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.

Working...