Friday morning links

Re: Being conservative is more stigmatizing than being gay

Hell, it's more stigmatizing than being trans! Ask Caitlyn Jenner.

Re: A sea change for sexual conduct on campus

Sorely needed. Now can we make some progress on school choice?

#1 mudbug on 2018-12-14 10:14 (Reply)

Conservatives aren't the only ones stigmatised. Increasingly, anyone who isn't leftist enough is stigmatised.

As for the Christmas songs - not a carol among them.

#2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-12-14 10:19 (Reply)

The Carols are really only for Christmas Eve and Day. JMO. Too special

#2.1 BD on 2018-12-14 10:38 (Reply)

QUOTE:

10 YEARS AGO TODAY – Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be COMPLETELY ICE FREE in Five Years

Misleading headline. Gore's statement had several caveats. Nonetheless, Arctic summer ice extent is still far below average.

#3 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 10:42 (Reply)

Artic sea ice extent has been oscillating since reliable measures have been available circa 1910. Recently, increased from 40s to 80s, decreased from 80s to present, but long term shows no decline.

On the other hand, Antarctic sea ice extent has been trending significantly upward since the 80s. Go figure.

Climate behavior is complex, well beyond our ability to predict via models.

Reference from Hydrological Sciences Journal (not exactly a right-wing propaganda arm) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2017.1324974

#3.1 peacelovewoodstock on 2018-12-14 11:31 (Reply)

peacelovewoodstock: Artic sea ice extent has been oscillating since reliable measures have been available circa 1910.

Arctic sea ice exhibits an overall decline. Over the last few centuries, the decline has been remarkable.

peacelovewoodstock: On the other hand, Antarctic sea ice extent has been trending significantly upward since the 80s.

Most of the Antarctic's ice is continental. Antarctic ice mass has decreased.

peacelovewoodstock: Climate behavior is complex, well beyond our ability to predict via models.

Many aspects of climate are still intractable; however, that the Earth's surface is warming is strongly supported by multiple lines of evidence, from fundamentals of physics to surface measurements to global radiation observations.

peacelovewoodstock: Reference from Hydrological Sciences Journal (not exactly a right-wing propaganda arm) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2017.1324974

Notably, Connolly et al.'s reconstruction shows that current Arctic sea ice extent is less than at any time since 1900.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 12:07 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: Arctic sea ice exhibits an overall decline. Over the last few centuries, the decline has been remarkable.

More cherry picked data.

For a great part of modern man's existence after the last ice age, the arctic was either free of sea ice completely or ice free for most of the year.

Explain to everyone why you now choose to cherry pick the period immediately following the Little Ice Age?

#3.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 12:27 (Reply)

Rusty: For a great part of modern man's existence after the last ice age, the arctic was either free of sea ice completely or ice free for most of the year.

And humans lived when much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered in glaciers.

There are a lot of reasons for climates to change. However, human civilization has prospered in relatively stable climatic conditions, and the evidence indicates that humans are unnecessarily threatening that stability.

Rusty: Explain to everyone why you now choose to cherry pick the period immediately following the Little Ice Age?

We linked to data from 1900-2010 and from 600-2000.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 12:39 (Reply)

when accused of cherry picking a data set, zachrielNPC counters the accusation by insisting that he actually cherry picked TWO data sets, not just one. So we obviously aren't dealing with a genius here.

Look, everybody, the historical record as science currently understands it is one of cyclical ice ages with intermittent warm periods. For a good chunk of the most recent warm period (ie: the last 10,000 years or so) the arctic was largely ICE FREE. This was long before fossil fuels and SUV's.

So when some fool comes on the internet and robotically repeats some miniscule, cherry picked data set like "1981-2010" and gets frothy about how scary and dangerous it appears, you can rest assured that she is simply an NPC programmed to repeat what she heard on NPR - and humanity will do just fine without ice in the arctic. We did for thousands of years.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 12:52 (Reply)

Rusty: he actually cherry picked TWO data sets, not just one.

The period 600-2000 encompasses both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Feel free to make a substantive reply with data.

Rusty: the historical record as science currently understands it is one of cyclical ice ages with intermittent warm periods.

Gosh! What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 12:57 (Reply)

A substantive argument should include the whole history of sea ice extent.

The fact that you only reference sets of data and statistics that support your scaremongering narrative indicates that you are less than substantive, and likely just a shill.

Truth is, the arctic was largely ice free during the most prosperous era of human existence.

Now go shill somewhere else.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 13:18 (Reply)

Rusty: A substantive argument should include the whole history of sea ice extent.

In the beginning was the singularity...

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know anything. Science is noted for its ability to decipher some knowledge, even while the rest of the universe is shrouded in mystery.

Rusty: Truth is, the arctic was largely ice free during the most prosperous era of human existence.

By any reasonable measure, humans are now in their "most prosperous era".

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 13:25 (Reply)

Meh. ManBearPig was scarier.

When things change, people move and wars happen and people adapt or they die.

Sounds like the whole of history.

But reversion to the holocene mean would result in an era of warm balmy temperatures, reforestation, greening of the Sahel, convenient northern shipping lanes, increased food production, etc.

Of course, Barbra Streisand's great-great-great-great-great great-great-great grandchildren might have to move out of Malibu in 900 years but I think humanity will be able to survive that tragedy.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 14:05 (Reply)

Rusty: When things change, people move and wars happen and people adapt or they die.

That's right. However, much of that suffering is avoidable. Science allows humans to project the future and come up with solutions. In this case, anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are warming the climate rapidly, which will disrupt human civilization and global ecosystems on which humans rely.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 14:19 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know anything.

You poor fool. My point was that we know considerably MORE than the scraps and bits of data you toss around. You say the usual benchmark period for comparison is 1981-2010, you grab chunks of data from historical trends that support your scare-narrative, yet you ignore the WHOLE of the modern interglatial warm period wherein the trend is currently toward LOWER temperatures over time and MORE ICE in the arctic.

It's foolish to look at a 2 minute downward blip on the stock market ticker and proclaim that the end is near and someone should do something drastic.

I encourage those who are capable of thought (NPC's are definitely NOT) to consider the big picture. We have been blessed with a brief reprieve from the coming ice age. Do not squander it in pseudoscientific hackneyed political cat scratching.

Go outside and plant something. Watch it gulp down CO2 and flourish. Enjoy the relative warmth while it lasts. History, and science, says it won't.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 14:32 (Reply)

Rusty: yet you ignore the WHOLE of the modern interglatial warm period wherein the trend is currently toward LOWER temperatures over time and MORE ICE in the arctic.

We already responded to this point several times. Current temperatures are above the Holocene average, and rising rapidly. This was the comparison you had insisted upon previously.

Rusty: It's foolish to look at a 2 minute downward blip on the stock market ticker and proclaim that the end is near and someone should do something drastic.

That is correct, however, anthropogenic global warming isn't based on simple correlation, but is based on known causative mechanisms.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 16:32 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: Keep in mind that anthropogenic global warming is based on known physical mechanisms, not simple correlation

Until you can explain why an ice age happens, you cannot explain why the next ice age will NOT happen.

You are ignorant. Far more ignorant than you imagine. A child playing with matches.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 16:54 (Reply)

Rusty: Until you can explain why an ice age happens, you cannot explain why the next ice age will NOT happen.

The science indicates that Earth's most recent glacial cycles are probably due to orbital variations, such as Milankovitch cycles. Over the longer term, glaciations are due to a combination of solar output, distance from Earth to Sun, position of continents, ocean circulation, along with various feedbacks, such as albedo and greenhouse gases.

The next glacial period was due in the next thousand years or so, but has been postponed indefinitely due to anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 17:00 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: The next glacial period was due in the next thousand years or so, but has been postponed indefinitely due to anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

The arctic sea ice extent is roughly where it was during the Medieval Warming Period. Long term trends indicate that neoglaciation has already begun and that the next ice age has already started it's slow, inexorable onset.

It's too bad you are too dumb to see it.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 17:30 (Reply)

Rusty: The arctic sea ice extent is roughly where it was during the Medieval Warming Period.

You don't say. In any case, ice melt is delayed somewhat from rises in temperature, and current warming already exceeds that of the Medieval Warm Period. Furthermore, the warming trend is expected to continue, largely due to anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 17:40 (Reply)

Ah, back with the meaningless graphs...

It really is amazing how much you kiddiezz have ignored and/or just blew off because it doesn't conform to your narrative.
Like Rusty said you guyz really are dumb.
Y'all have been owned and are too stupid to realize it.
LOL.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-12-14 17:55 (Reply)

Aside from being a non-reactive natural 0.04% trace gas man has little influence over, CO2 changes follow temperature changes. You've been corrected on this countless times, paid resident Gasbot.

Overlay your little graph. CO2 lags temperature. Temperature doesn't even mirror your neat little CO2 trajectory. Further, when ice melts, it releases enormous amounts of sequestered CO2. CO2 follows temperature.

Earth changes. The sun is in two cyclical nulls (and in its circuit electrical phenomenon at the pole are therefore changing, differently for each pole). AGW investors have billions of dollars to make if their scam sticks. You have some work to do. If you're even capable of rational objective thought, do it on your own time and not your employers.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Yet the Gasbot abides. on 2018-12-15 07:22 (Reply)

Heh. The resident Gasbot has been factually, scientifically corrected for months, years even. It's just here to regurgitate talking points, courtesy of its employer.

If it had an interest in the subject it'd respond accordingly, not lie like a rug. QED.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.2 Yet the Gasbot Abides. on 2018-12-15 06:41 (Reply)

Ask the paid resident Gasbot if back when the Arctic was ice-free, did they deduce that by sailing it in wooden ships or by satellite?

#3.1.1.1.2 Yet the Gasbot Abides on 2018-12-15 06:53 (Reply)

Misleading response.

"Far below average"? What average? Current arctic ice extent is comparable to the Little Ice Age and is considerably greater than most of the holocene before neoglaciation began.

But yeah, keep spouting your cherry picked data like a good NPC.

#3.2 Rusty on 2018-12-14 11:37 (Reply)

"several caveats"

That's right! If we raised taxes, gave billions to specific left wing NGOs and unions and moved our policies left of Vladimir Lenin THEN magically AGW would be reversed.

#3.3 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-12-14 11:38 (Reply)

Interesting those caveats never seem to appear on the hysterical 'World Ending Tomorrow!' headlines when the predictions are made but when you warmists fall flat on your faces (again) it's because you were so misunderstood.

#3.4 Christopher B on 2018-12-14 11:42 (Reply)

The biggest caveat: He didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.

#3.5 B. Hammer on 2018-12-14 12:05 (Reply)

Rusty: "Far below average"? What average?

Sorry. The usual baseline is the average of 1981-2010. However, per the citation provided by peacelovewoodstock, current Arctic sea ice extent is lower than at any time since 1900. Also, Arctic sea ice extent is likely lower that at any time in the past millennium.

#3.6 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 12:24 (Reply)

Keep cherry picking your data, little NPC.

You can ignore science, but you cannot avoid it.

#3.6.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 12:30 (Reply)

Rusty: You can ignore science, but you cannot avoid it.

Notably, we keep pointing to the scientific data, and you keep saying "Is not!"

#3.6.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 12:40 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: Notably, we keep pointing to the scientific data, and you keep saying "Is not!"

More lies from the liar. I never said that.

To the contrary, I have mostly assumed that your data sets are correct.

And they are also meaningless in the broad scheme.

To cherry pick a data set from "1981-2010" and make grandiose implications while ignoring most of the modern geologic era is not just stupid, it's childish. The arctic was largely ice free for thousands and thousands of years. Humans flourished, although the less intelligent dolts like yourself usually found themselves being eaten by saber toothed tigers.

#3.6.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 13:05 (Reply)

Rusty: To cherry pick a data set from "1981-2010"

Once again, we linked to data from 1900-2010 and from 600-2000.

The arctic was largely ice free for thousands and thousands of years. Humans flourished[/i]

Humans live quite a bit differently than they did thousands and thousands of years ago. The population is hundreds of times higher, with settlements crowding the ocean, and reliant on steady agricultural production. When climate changes, it causes people to migrate. Even in a loosely populated world, migration resulted in war. Today, even a tiny migration of people from violence in Honduras has caused a severe reaction in the U.S. Imagine when millions more are forced to move due to desertification or sea level rise.

Sure. Humans will persevere. But fouling your own home is not the best strategy for long term prosperity.

#3.6.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 13:23 (Reply)

#3.6.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 14:18 (Reply)

Rusty: But reversion to the holocene mean would result in an era of warm balmy temperatures

The current warming is warmer than the Holocene mean temperature, and projected to continue to increase.

#3.6.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 14:22 (Reply)

zachrielNPC:
The current warming is warmer than the Holocene mean temperature, and projected to continue to increase.

Do you even know what "reversion to the mean" means? Do you understand how it works?

Try reading one of those graphs instead of blindly linking to them next time. Wild swings are normal. They have happened all throughout history. They will continue throughout history.

As climate scientists recently found out the hard way, they are incapable of predicting even the shorter trends, much less the longer term trends on the scale of thousands of years.

You seem incapable of taking your eye off of your politically biased microscope in order to see the big picture. This lends credibility to my theory that you are an NPC bot.

#3.6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 14:47 (Reply)

Rusty: Do you even know what "reversion to the mean" means?

Sure, but that's not what is happening. Without anthropogenic warming, the Earth's surface would probably be cooling slightly. Instead, the Earth's surface is warming rapidly.

Keep in mind that anthropogenic global warming is based on known physical mechanisms, not simple correlation.

#3.6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 16:37 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: Without anthropogenic warming, the Earth's surface would probably be cooling slightly.

The long term trend is that the earth is cooling. But neither you nor I can account for why that is happening. It would be nice if you would stop pretending that you can.

#3.6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 17:14 (Reply)

Rusty: The long term trend is that the earth is cooling. But neither you nor I can account for why that is happening.

Actually, Milankovitch cycles reducing insolation do much to explain the recent cycles of glaciation, along with feedbacks, such as albedo and greenhouse gases. From this scientists believe the Earth would have entered a new glacial period in the new thousand years or so.

#3.6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 17:37 (Reply)

"Gore's statement had several caveats." Yes, but he routinely leaves all of his caveats behind, you know, for the cabin crew on his private jet to clean up. It's a convenience thing.

#3.7 Aggie on 2018-12-14 14:28 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Google CEO Exposes Shocking "Full Extent" Of Russian Meddling In 2016

Misleading headline. Russian meddling was extensive, and included an army of trolls, hacking the DNC then releasing the hacked emails to cause maximum political damage, and at least one spy directly influencing conservative groups.

#4 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 10:45 (Reply)

Wow, I wonder how many votes Russian meddling caused to flip from Clinton to Trump.

#4.1 peacelovewoodstock on 2018-12-14 11:42 (Reply)

Russian meddling was extensive...

Yup. Russians spent $4,700 on Google ads, $95,000 on Facebook ads.

I once owned a car that cost more than all of that "extensive meddling".

Your trolling skills are weak, my little NPC.

#4.2 Rusty on 2018-12-14 11:55 (Reply)

peacelovewoodstock: Wow, I wonder how many votes Russian meddling caused to flip from Clinton to Trump.

There's no way to know for sure, but the release of stolen DNC emails threw the Democratic Convention into disarray. It's quite possible they also funneled money directly into the campaign through surrogates, such as the NRA.

Rusty: Yup. Russians spent $4,700 on Google ads, $95,000 on Facebook ads.

The headline said the Google ad buy was the "full extent" of Russian meddling, which is simply not the case. Russian meddling was extensive, and included an army of trolls, hacking the DNC then releasing the hacked emails to cause maximum political damage, and at least one spy directly influencing conservative groups.

#4.3 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 12:27 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: The headline said the Google ad buy was the "full extent" of Russian meddling, which is simply not the case.

Now you are lying. Bird Dog mentioned nothing about an "Ad buy" being the full extent of meddling. The headline was about the "Full extent" that the Google platform had been used by the Russians - which we now know was practically negligible.

Either you willfully misread his headline or you are a total dunce.

#4.3.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 12:39 (Reply)

Rusty: Bird Dog mentioned nothing about an "Ad buy" being the full extent of meddling.

Bird Dog didn't write the headline. He just linked to it.

QUOTE:

Google CEO Exposes Shocking "Full Extent" Of Russian Meddling In 2016

Yup. That's what it said. The headline is misleading. Most Russian meddling on social media wasn't through paid advertising, but with an army of trolls, not only individual posts, but pseudo-groups set up to co-opt existing political currents, to stoke confusion and dissension. They even organized rallies, especially on the right, but on the left as well — anything to damage Clinton and help Trump.

#4.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 12:46 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: The headline said the Google ad buy was the "full extent" of Russian meddling

The headline said no such thing. Are you really this dumb?

#4.3.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 13:09 (Reply)

Lather, rinse, repeat!
Along with an occasional tap dance ...
Aw, those kiddiezzz and their assumptions... they never disappoint.

#4.3.1.1.2 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-12-14 13:09 (Reply)

Rusty: The headline said no such thing.

QUOTE:

Google CEO Exposes Shocking "Full Extent" Of Russian Meddling In 2016

Yup. That's what it says. Google ad buys are not the "full extent" of Russian meddling in 2016. It's not even the "full extent" of Russian meddling on the Google platform.

#4.3.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 13:27 (Reply)

Nothing about "ad buys" in the headline.

Sorry. You lose this one.

#4.3.1.1.3.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 13:52 (Reply)

Rusty: Nothing about "ad buys" in the headline.

That's exactly right. The headline was missing an important qualifier.

#4.3.1.1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 13:55 (Reply)

zachrielNPC: The headline was missing an important qualifier.

Nope. Normal people expect the CEO of Google to testify about GOOGLE, not Hillary's emails or Russian spies.

NPC's like yourself are the only ones confused by that headline because it goes against your programming.

#4.3.1.1.3.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 14:16 (Reply)

Rusty: Normal people expect the CEO of Google to testify about GOOGLE

You may want to try and read more carefully. Google ad buys is not even the "full extent" of Russian meddling on the Google platform.

#4.3.1.1.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 14:21 (Reply)

zachrielNPC Google ad buys is not even the "full extent" of Russian meddling on the Google platform.

The CEO was asked if he knew the full extent. He said "Yes", and went on to describe that full extent.

Ergo, the headline makes perfect sense.

You are stuck on this whole "ad buys" thing which neither the headline or the interrogators brought up. Must be an NPC programming glitch.

#4.3.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 14:38 (Reply)

Rusty: The CEO was asked if he knew the full extent. He said "Yes", and went on to describe that full extent.

Except it wasn't the full extent. For instance, Russian operatives created over a thousand YouTube videos (a Google product) during the 2016 campaign, many with overt political messages. Videos are free to post on YouTube, though it cost the Russians money for production and placement.

#4.3.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 16:46 (Reply)

You should totally tell the Google CEO about your findings. I'm sure he will be as enthralled with your autistic babbling as we all are.

#4.3.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2018-12-14 17:20 (Reply)

Russia 'meddled in all big social media' in US election, says report: "The report suggests YouTube, Tumblr, PayPal and Google+ were all affected, with Russia adapting techniques from digital marketing to target audiences across multiple channels."

YouTube and Google+ are Google products.

#4.3.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-17 10:05 (Reply)

QUOTE:

China readying plan to widen foreign access to its economy: WSJ

Unless and until you see the details, there is no reason to think this will be much more than what happened with NAFTA, a few modest changes, and a declaration of victory.

Bird Dog: Thank you, Pres. Trump. Crazy dumb guy wins again

It's not "winning" if it damages long-term trade relationships, especially if the changes could have been achieved with less controversy.

QUOTE:

And this: Trump Gets Win as Xi Makes Good on Pledge to Buy U.S. Soy

China buying a modest amount of soy beans when they had been buying soy beans for years isn't "winning". Chinese stocks are low and the Brazilian crop won't be ready for a couple of months. America's unreliability will lead China and others to diversify their supply chains.

#5 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 10:55 (Reply)

re China readying plan to widen foreign access to its economy: WSJ

Unless and until you see the details, there is no reason to think this will be much more than what happened with NAFTA, a few modest changes, and a declaration of victory.

Zach is right. China's so-called 'easing access' is in all likelihood nothing more than window dressing.

China plays by China's rules.

They don't want US there.

As for the soybeans, if China buys South American Beans, then South America's former buyers will have to come here for supplies. In the end it makes the market less efficient and US producers will take less for their crop as a result.

#5.1 feeblemind on 2018-12-14 13:43 (Reply)

The Chinese also lowered tariffs on US cars. It sure bugs the progressives and US chamber of Commerce that Trump eventually gets what he was after.

#5.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-12-14 20:19 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The Chinese also lowered tariffs on US cars.

The cut in auto tariffs is temporary. Hopefully, the U.S. and China will negotiate a new trade arrangement.

#5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-15 09:20 (Reply)

Everything is temporary even in the long run.

#5.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-12-15 11:56 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Everything is temporary even in the long run.

Heh. Sure, but—Trump's erraticism aside—a commitment to a trade deal is much more likely to lead to a stable trade relationship.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-15 13:15 (Reply)

China lowering tariffs on US cars does not mean they will actually buy any.

In any event there is a number of ways they can thwart the purchase of US cars through taxes and the bureaucracy.

So let's revisit this issue in a year and see how many cars they actually buy.

#5.1.1.2 feeblemind on 2018-12-15 10:56 (Reply)

feeblemind: China lowering tariffs on US cars does not mean they will actually buy any.

U.S. makes are popular in China, and while the U.S. does exports cars to China, most are produced in China. Interestingly, German makes produced in the U.S. may be the biggest beneficiaries.

#5.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-15 11:43 (Reply)

Regarding the "Christmas Tip" .. what do you do when you run out of children?

#6 peacelovewoodstock on 2018-12-14 11:13 (Reply)

peacelovewoodstock: Regarding the "Christmas Tip" .. what do you do when you run out of children?

Science shows that you rarely have to throw more than one in the fire before the remaining children stop acting up. Either way, problem solved.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 11:26 (Reply)

The Congressional slush fund for perverts, must have been paying off democrat victims, otherwise the democrat media complex (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, HOLLYWOOD, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, All newspapers, most magazines, College professors, etc ad infinitum) would have been telling us all about it.

#7 B. Hammer on 2018-12-14 12:26 (Reply)

"Scientific American" is now a wholly-owned rag of the left.

#8 Sam L. on 2018-12-14 12:46 (Reply)

I believe the polite modern term is sanitary napkin

#8.1 JK Brown on 2018-12-14 15:22 (Reply)

This new law is going to create big problems with the Congressional Black Caucus.

#9 FRP on 2018-12-14 14:17 (Reply)

Google CEO Exposes Shocking "Full Extent" Of Russian Meddling In 2016

Could Russia manipulate search order and results? No, but Google can.

This interview shows how impactful Google's ordering of search is on elections and other choices.

And how do we know this guy is on to something? He's banned from Google.com. Yes, he's not permitted to use Google's search....directly.

#10 JK Brown on 2018-12-14 15:27 (Reply)

JK Brown: No, but Google can.

Google doesn't have to manipulate search results. The standard algorithm returns what people are talking about.

#10.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-14 16:49 (Reply)

And the alien Borg knows they are using the standard algorithm?

#10.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-12-14 20:25 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: And the alien Borg knows they are using the standard algorithm?

That's not the claim. The claim is that they don't have to manipulate the results. The standard algorithm returns what people are talking about. For instance, when Congress asked about the Google Image result, they actually increased the placement — as does this discussion.

Bing also places Trump high in the same idiot search.

#10.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-15 09:33 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, December 14. 2018

Friday morning links