Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Um, so? (Score 4, Interesting) 153

I think the point is that major corporations are using US bonds as a tax shelter, and if they had paid taxes instead of investing in US debt, the US debt might not be at it's present level of 100% of GDP.

OTOH, this is kind of good news. If Trump pisses off China so that it begins to dump US public debt, it will be nice that US corporations have significant incentive to pick up the debt.

Comment Re:The Founder (Score 1) 551

Well now that is a cogent and reasonable argument, thank you.

However, you didn't cite any source to the claim that the Weather Channel has climate scientists on staff, or what their credentials or peer-reviewed papers may have been or said. The Post article (hit piece, really, but that's expected) quotes the current CEO of TWC, David Kenny, provides some glowing praise of his staff, but it's just an attempt to distance the company from Coleman's statements (might be bad for business). There is nothing there that justifies TWC or their meteorologists (and, yes, "people that look good on TV") as authorities on climate change.

Comment Re:The Founder (Score 1) 551

Nope. They are both meteorologists. Both backed by meteorological science. You can argue that Coleman has more experience and credentials in the field than the younger meteorologists working for the weather center. But that's it. You accept both as an authority or neither.

To only accept one as an authority and not the other is nothing but confirmation bias on your part.

Sort of like the confirmation bias that immediately buried my comments regarding this hypocrisy.

Comment Re:The Founder (Score -1) 551

So you make a case that a _reporter_ of weather is a climate sceptic and dismiss all the _researchers_ of weather and climate that says otherwise. I cannot see why we should listen to John Coleman based on his credentials.

Then why are you listening to the Weather Channel, which has credentials even less impressive than John Coleman. That's the point. What makes the less experienced meteorologists at the Weather Channel a better authority than the more experienced and awarded meteorologist that founded it?

Comment Re:Once truth gasps its last breath... (Score 4, Interesting) 551

then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.

"Traveling toward"? Really? Take a look in the rear view mirror, buddy, that fork in the road is WAY back behind you. You've been on the road for a LONG time!

Comment The Founder (Score -1) 551

It's funny because John Coleman, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, and winner of the American Meteorological -- that's a tough one -- Meteorological Society's award for broadcast meteorologist of the year spent more than 60 years reporting on the weather, and he is incensed that the station he started has decided to use it's platform for spreading propaganda about global warming.

He was so upset about the claims of manmade global warming that he wrote a letter to the UCLA's Hammer Museum for their forum that was called Tackling Climate Change. He said "You don't have both sides represented, and I'm here to tell you that manmade global climate change is a myth."

A few choice quotes from John Coleman:

You know, a climate skeptic can rarely get on TV, ever since Al Gore made it a plank of the Democratic Party. This is a tough go for people who don't believe in climate change. A lot study on this.

Well, it's very difficult for anybody to be against it [manmade climate change] because the media has told the nation over and over again, day after day for 20 years that the oceans are rising, the polar bears are dying, the sea -- the ice is melting, the storms are going to sweep the earth and that we're all gonna die of a heat wave. I mean, this is an incredible bad, bad science.

There are 9,000 PhDs and 31 scientists who have signed the petition that says [CO2] is not a significant greenhouse gas. Oh, it's small itsy bitsy but in greenhouse gas but it's not in any ways significant. And we are sure of it. It's not like, something I made up or just thought of. I've studied and studied and studied. And Roger Revelle, the great scientist who wrote that paper back in 1957 with Hans Suess changed his mind a decade later and said, Wait a minute, I think we were wrong. Don't anybody panic. I don't think there's any global warming." And that's when Al Gore said he was senile.

Al Gore had one class in science. Roger Revelle taught it to him. He got a D and yet he's made a billion dollars off to climate change. Shame on you Al Gore.

The sky is falling. ‘Climate Change’ is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to ‘green energy’ to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk.

So the Weather Channel is upset that Breitbart is using it's video - AFTER PAYING FOR IT - to illustrate his stories. And the founder of the Weather Channel is upset that the media network he created is being used for things HE doesn't agree with.

Par for the course. And the usual suspects praise the Weather Channel for championing the AGW catechism, but they are no more of an authority on the issue than the very founder of that channel, who is excoriated for having an opinion.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 278

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?

That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.

That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 278

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

Comment Re:EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 370

This, combined with the fact that the ruling banned the pamphlet, i.e. restricted free speech, would seem to belie what you're saying.

You're quoting an opinion that was (rightly) overturned. In 1969, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced it with the "imminent lawless action" test, one that protects a broader range of speech. This test states that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful action sooner than the police can arrive to prevent that action.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 278

"General Welfare" does NOT provide ANY powers to the Federal government above and beyond the enumerated powers. Because the Federal government is limited. If you just point to the "General Welfare" clause and claim it provides powers, you're saying that the Federal government power is unlimited. Full stop.

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 252

Like that nut who recently shot up the sandwich shop, because fake news made it seem like they were doing human trafficking from those Evil Democrats. Other than blind censoring where the radicalized people just discuss off the grid, and build up their anger from not feeling the ability to speak their believes. I would like to find some way to flag truthfulness of stories. So we can get a good idea on the nature of the story.

Well, you can start by not embellishing stories to make a point. The guy that went into Comet Ping Pong fired one shot into the floor, which is bad enough, but your description made it sound like he did lots of damage with multiple gunshots. Should your post be censored as "fake news"? I would flag it "mostly true", since he did fire a shot inside the place. 7 out of 10 for truthfulness, but still misleading.

Unfortunately I think you'd be hard pressed to find much that fits into the "News - Validated: News with validated facts" category, even using mainstream sources. They send out LOTS of stuff with nothing to back it up but some vague "sources say" statement, indicating some anonymous statement from who-knows-who, far from anything "validated". How long did the story about Libyan soldier using viagra to rape thousands of women before it was outed as bullshit?

Comment Re:Liberty To Censor (Score 1) 252

Social networks are TWO-WAY. Its a VERY different thing, which is why different rules should apply. You want to start applying rules to private companies telling them what they can and cannot publish? THAT'S totalitarian.

These companies already take advantage of rules that were provided to protect them, so if they are doing that, it's certainly within our purview to provide some restrictions on them in exchange for that. Providers of Internet services are protected under the DMCA and other laws from being held liable for user-provided content. Well, if they're going to start censoring that content, shouldn't they lose their protection from liability?

Slashdot Top Deals

System checkpoint complete.

Working...