yup. what if the standards of journalism return to the level before FN is often a quandary; would it be a boon or a bust?

i'd like it. 'tho many shepherds would lose their sheep.*

might take any news the same way a body would gather from people in their own lives. some folks are credible, some not, & some are a bear to get anything out of 'em. try that w/retail news sources.

personally, the FACT Hannity said this only underlines FN is a second-hand rag seller. poor quality product w/sales staff pushing the hard sale.

patrons get what they buy.

hope Murdoch & cronies get hammered for billions. they need to give back all those ill-gotten gains.



*the 'net has many CREDIBLE sources. some browsers have translation features built in, so impartial reports can be obtained if'n American media reviles yah so.

And due to the acknowledgment at the end (@8:20), I now know a little something about the Boon Wurrung people, whom i'd never heard of before seeing this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boon_wurrung

If it was a white Republican woman, he would be throwing a frothing fit and blaming democrats somehow, not saying she got a great deal being violated because she’s going to get paid. In fact, when it was a white scientist in Florida having her home raided he called it tyranny, this he calls a boon for the victim ignoring the fact that it took her lawyer ignoring a court order to bring it to light because the entire city government tried to hide it for over a year.

He loves to blame victims for not just complying with being violated (like she did) when they’re black, and loves to bemoan the draconian deep state police when they go after whites, even violent white right wingers, especially armed right wing thugs attacking government buildings and employees. He’s a bootlicker, but inconsistently.

It will be a boon to those with hip or knee injuries who don't want to take the balancing weight at intersections and aren't ready to buy a trike yet.

I'd like to see the gyro setup in this.

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

We all have our biases.

Conservatives are likely to believe conspiracy nonsense that appeals to their biases (Obama is a muslim/kenyan/communist, etc).

And progressives are just as likely to believe conspiracy nonsense that appeals to their biases (see: anything to do with monsanto).

The trick is acknowledging your biases and fact checking anyway.

I wasn't kidding about automating that. If someone could write a browser plug-in that detected when you were submitting a URL to twitter or facebook and ran it against a snopes-style DB, that would be a boon for humanity.

@dag

Depends on what goals you define Russia as wanting to achieve by that intervention.

Politically, intevening in Ukraine was a huge boon for Putin because his domestic media machine spun it into a irredentist initiative of national pride and basically suffocated his domestic political opposition. Diplomatically or economically, Russia has gained little from its intevention in Georgia, Ukraine and now Syria. If anything it has frayed alliances with Central Asian states and raised tensions with former Soviet Eastern European states, many of which have large minority Russian populations.

If the aim was to act as a bulwark to NATO or stem its expansion, he's preciptated the opposite. Countries neighboring Russia have every reason to fear they'll be next. Not that he had anything real to fear from NATO or the previously proposed anti-missile shield which was really proposed against Iran. I would say Putin's basically acting as a petulant child, throwing Russia's military around to reclaim some kind of atavastic relevance on the international stage to distract his people while he sinks the economy into the ground due to his government's corruption and cronyism.

If the conversations were like this the entire time they tried to sell things on these types of 24/7 channels, I just might watch them. For the comedy, and to get some of the best fracking video clips in the Universe to play and re-play...

I'd love it if they had to label a really complicated star system that has three stars (two that are satellites--and obviously if this star system existed it would fall apart really fast or if it achieved equilibrium then it still has, as I/you can imagine, amazingly low chances of staying in this semi-stable state; like our own system...which IS falling apart, but it's just doing it at a moderately slow pace); then add in planets revolving around the stars, moons around the planets...and it will become hard to decide what is a satellite or a planet in some instances (as it may count technically as both).

Throw in a large debris field (an asteroid belt, but with "chunks" the size of very large moons--like 1.5x the size of our own Moon) and an Oort Cloud, again with comets that are as big as small moons/satellites and they will literally have no idea how to label anything.

The sad part is that I bet a very large segment of our population would also have the same problems with this task.

Sometimes, it is bad that we have Google...because some people will rely on it too much (especially so if it's students--those going through K-12, or similar setups in whatever country you're reading this from; but, not college...though problems do exist there, but it gets FAR harder to "lie" your way to a degree, etc...). However, if you are older and you use the Internet to look up things you don't know and if you remember any of it--this is when the Internet (or "Google") becomes a great tool and boon for humanity.

Nothing is better than spreading knowledge and wisdom.

@newtboy
I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic!
If you'd read my post I didn't claim the people of Kiribati weren't in a position to panic. I actually went further in agreeing with you, to the point that they should have been panicked a hundred years ago in 1914 already. The distinction being that what ever the climate does wasn't going to save them. 200 hundred years of cooling and sea level decline from 1914 would still have them on an island a few feet on average above sea level and still a disaster waiting to happen.

California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food,
Here we do have a difference of fact. I don't know what measure you've imagined up, but the cattle in texas alone are more than double the food produced in California. The corn and other crops in any number of prairie states to the same. You can't just invent numbers. Yields across crops have been increasing steadily year on year in North America for decades.

The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so.
I'm sorry, read more history, you are just wrong on this. 10 guys with guns against 10 farmers with food and the farmers lose every time. The guys with guns eat for the year. The farmers maybe even are able to beg or slave for scraps that year. The next year maybe only 5 farmers bother to grow anything, and next harvest there are 15 guys with guns. Look at the Russian revolution and that's exactly the road that led to Stalin's mass starvations and lack of food. It's actually why I am a Canadian as my grandfather's family left their farm in Russia with the clothes on his back after the his neighbours farm was razed to the ground enough times.

The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear
Food doesn't create itself as noted above. The cycle is less and less food as the thugs destroy all incentive to bother trying to grow something.

adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon
I agree. I hadn't realized that adoption of new tech was that simple. I was under the impression one also had to take the time to, you know, invent it. The existing technology for replacing oil and coal cost effectively doesn't exist yet. Electric cars and nuclear power are the closest thing. The market will adopt electric cars without us doing a thing. Switching from coal to nuclear though, even if universally agreed and adopted yesterday, would still take decades for a conversion. Those decades are enough that even if we got to zero emissions by then(~2050), the sea level and temperature at 2100 aren't going to look much if any different(by IPCC best estimates).
So I repeat, if you want meaningful emission reductions, you have no other option but restricting consumption across the globe. That hasn't been accomplished in the past without setting of wars, so I keep my vote as cure is worse than disease.

The 78% glacial mass loss was worst case if CO2 emissions are still accelerating in 2100. The mountains with the glaciers will still be bulking each winter and running off each summer, just to a 78% smaller size in the depth of summer. As in, absolutely not 78% less run off. And they are not 'my' numbers as you wish to refer, but the IPCC's numbers. Your effort to somehow leave question to their veracity is the very campaign of 'doubt' in the science the video is talking about.

We, meaning people, but yes, I did really mean America, the most prolific space fairing nation in the past. The Chinese may go there again soon, but not yet. I'll reserve my opinion about their ability until I see their manned rocket land there and return.

Florida is thousands of times the size of Kiribati and probably tens of thousands of times the population...and is FAR from the only place in jeopardy. I was not ignoring Kiribati, or the dozens of other island nations, or Venice, or Alaska, or, well, any place with a coast line, I was giving one example. It's a little funny that you decided to say 'Florida?!? It's far worse over in Kiribati' while you're trying also to say 'Don't panic, it's not bad'. WHAT?!? I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic! ;-)

That's not the data I've seen. What I've read (from numerous sources) said the rate of rise is accelerating, not a steady rate over the last 100+ years, and it is expected to continue accelerating. When you say they can "cope" with it, what do you mean, because even the little amount of rise we've seen so far has already displaced tens of thousands of people, and very few have just adapted to the new situation? What evidence have you that there's a solution to the loss of useable land?
Oh, from your volcano example, I see that by "cope" you mean "die". That's not how I intend to "cope", thanks. ;-)
Kiribati has seen tsunamis, and survived them. Being in open ocean, most are barely perceptible. There's no continental shelf to make them 'grow'. That said, 1 foot of sea rise puts a large portion of the island underwater and makes the rest FAR more susceptible to damage from even a small tsunami.

Really? That's not what I've been reading for decades. California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food, is in the worst drought ever recorded due to climate change, and production is falling like a stone there. They are not alone by any means. Africa, Australia, etc have the same issues. It's not mainly an issue of violence world wide, it's an issue of lack of water. The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so. Africa did have the means to grow their own food, before they stopped getting enough water. That's the biggest road block, the seed can be donated and fertilizer only increases yields, it's not needed in most cases to sustain crops.
Because some war torn countries have issues with roving gangs of gun toting thugs does not make gun toting thugs the reason Africa is food poor. The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear, it still gets eaten, and there's still a huge famine, so.....

Yes, adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon, just not for the oil companies in this instance. Just consider the adoption of the automobile, it was fast, and great for the economy in numerous ways.

EDIT:And I have said clearly that I don't think anything done today will effect 2100. The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere that long or longer, so today's change in emissions will only equate to a change in the climate after 2115, so we can't avoid 1 foot of sea level rise. We can, however, stop increasing the rate of change (the system reacts to greenhouse gas addition right away, but takes 100+ years to react to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can make it worse, but not better than that prediction...and that's the road we're on, making it worse daily).

Yes, changing the resolution changed the measurements ON THAT ONE OUTLYING GLACIER ONLY. It explained why it alone wasn't following the models, which was because a large portion of it was incredibly high up, making it colder, but on average it was below the 'melt line', skewing the data.
78% less glacier (your figures) still mean more than 78% less runoff, so >78% less water....in areas that are already completely dependent on glacial water to support humans and already have water supply issues today. Even the low 65% number is disastrous.
The glaciers do not need to be gone in order to be useless as sources of fresh water. I did not say all glaciers would be 'gone' I said they would no longer supply the demand, and there's no known tech in the pipeline that can.
So, in short, please stop twisting and exaggerating what I write to create strawman arguments to shoot down. It gets old fast.

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

Actually it was rhetorical, I knew where I was going to start, I was not asking you in a real way or expecting you to answer...that's what rhetorical means.
Because the video was limited to American schools and systems does not mean the comments will be, we have a diverse bunch of sifters from all over the globe that might want to comment, and might not stick to America as the only place that counts. It is logical to ASSUME you might have meant only American schools, but some of us don't assume we know another's meaning and just go with what you wrote. If you wanted to limit your comment to American schools, you could easily have written exactly that. There's not a character limit on posts!
Or, perhaps Bareboards2 knows some Americans that would be insulted by your painting them as lowest common denominators at their basest. I would be one. I admitted those you describe exist, and may even be a majority, but Americans are not homogenous by far, and there are many that do exactly what you claimed they don't.
It's not hard to CARE, it's hard to retain, it's hard to focus, it's hard to attend at times, it's hard to come up with supplies, it's not hard at all to CARE about education, and I've never met a person of lesser means that didn't wish they could get more education. Saying they don't care is insulting, saying they don't achieve (as well as rich counterparts) is fact, sad tragic fact.
Yes, I agree, we need to help the poor a LOT more, their plight is getting worse daily while those not in need are the only ones succeeding.
I'm right there with you on free higher education, for the betterment of the nation AND it's citizens. College grads are far less likely to commit violent crimes or otherwise be drains on society, so are a boon for all.
It sounds like you may be confusing a lack of time, money, ability, and energy with a lack of caring, or perhaps not. As I said, those you describe do exist, in large numbers, they are simply not the ONLY variety of American student.
What?!? If this woman is in class working and paying for a degree while trying to raise 3 kids, one disabled, it sure sounds to me like she CARES about education, and that she's not lacking in educational pursuance or lack of drive, she's possibly failing for lack of energy and time would be my guess, or maybe from lack of educational preparation, or innate ability. If she didn't care, she shouldn't be spending money and time being in class working for a degree that no longer guarantees more money, she should be in welding class, or making bank cleaning up the school. There's nothing wrong with that, I've done both. People who only want to get more money and don't care about knowledge should go that route, they'll have a much better chance of success and not be in crippling debt for a chance they'll use their diploma for financial gain.
WTF?!? When they stopped the abuse, did you care then? The poor have tribulations, but are not constantly working to the bone unable to even contemplate a better future because they're outrageously accosted by life every second of the day. Be real. When there's time to think, many people of all social strata think how they would like to lean something new. You obviously cared enough to be in classes now even with this abuse you speak of, just like I did when and after all those things happened to me (but with only one brother. For me it was actually incentive to learn more and be 'better' than my brother whenever possible, in order to have a better life, I know I'm a freak though ), so what's your point? The poor don't think about furthering their education 100% of the waking day because they're too busy being poor, so they don't care about it at all? That's just silly. I think many if not most don't think about it much because they've determined there's no reasonable opportunity for them to achieve it, so why dwell on what you can't have. It' s not an issue of not careing.
I think we should help them have the opportunity to gain higher education and ability to make use of that opportunity because we know most of them DO CARE about education, but could certainly use help to achieve it. Those that don't care (I again admit they exist, but not only among the poor) should be helped to care, because it's important for them and us to have everyone educated.
Jon Stewart was generalizing, not making a statement about each and every American. I only take issue with the broad brush strokes painting all Americans in the same ugly color, I think we're a quite varied and interesting group, and I don't resemble your generalization in the least...and I'm American. I did admit that I think many, if not most Americans do fit your description, but you seem to still take exception to that viewpoint.

To the kind, considerate, and generous individual that proffered this gracious boon, thank you, I am unworthy.

Sorry, however, for the lag in expressing my appreciation. It is good to be free from the black hole. Blacklisted, you know. Whew.

Umm, yeah, I am aware of Noz and his functions... =)

The point was, Draenor is Outland prior to the accidental shattering by Nerzhul. Ergo, for it to be in one piece again, I'd say you'd have to be going back in time.

CoT has proven to be an enormous boon (and a crutch) for Blizz, but to create an entire expansion around the past seems a bit strange. Particularly since Velen is installed on those islands off the Kalimdor coast. Do we end up with Back to the Future-esque meetings of the same people?

ps. I'm such a bloody nerd... =\