|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 05 2017 07:29 Tachion wrote: Aside from Tillerson actively trying to gut the state department, what is he doing that people find so respectable? Putting up with Trump and working damage control? I don't find him that respectable; except in comparison to Trump; he's appeared to at laest kinda try to do his job and tone down the crazy rhetoric. probably people are mostly referring to his damage control work.
|
Looks like the Vegas shooter didn't lose it recently, he's been planning this for a while according to the most recent police press conference.
Shot for about 10 minutes, police were on his floor within 12 minutes of the first shot but since the shooting had stopped they cleared the floor and took about 30 minutes before breaching the room (waiting on swat team).
Still don't why according to police.
|
No note left or anything?
|
On October 05 2017 09:32 Mohdoo wrote: No note left or anything?
Looked like there was one in some of the crime scene photos but they said it wasn't a suicide note. FBI sounded like they have a decent idea of why but are waiting for more facts to confirm it before they openly speculate.
Also sounds like the girl friend is cooperating with investigators and providing them some sort of useful information but the FBI hasn't told the police.
|
Embattled GOP Rep. Tim Murphy to retire
Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania announced Wednesday that he will retire at the end of his term, after allegations that the married lawmaker, who opposes abortion rights, asked his mistress to terminate a pregnancy.
Murphy admitted several weeks ago to an affair with forensic psychologist Shannon Edwards — news that came to light during the woman’s divorce proceedings with her husband.
"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in his statement. "I plan to spend my remaining months in office continuing my work as the national leader on mental health care reform, as well as issues affecting working families in southwestern Pennsylvania."
Murphy added: "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time.”
Murphy met privately with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) before his retirement announcement, as well as with Pennsylvania GOP Reps. Bill Shuster and Charlie Dent.
...
Edwards was responding to a Facebook post by Murphy touting his anti-abortion position in Congress. Murphy is a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus and voted Tuesday for legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
The story also highlighted a toxic work environment in Murphy’s office, citing a June 8 memo in which his chief of staff, Susan Mosychuk, warned Murphy about mistreating staff. The document, titled “Office Conduct and Behavior: Harassment/Legal Compliance,” suggests there was a “pattern of sustained inappropriate behavior.”
Mosychuk wrote that the office has experienced 100 percent staff turnover over the past several years and attributed it to the congressman's behavior. She said he often worked staff through the weekends, only to berate them for failing to meet expectations.
Murphy’s district leans heavily Republican, backing Donald Trump by almost 20 points in 2016 and Mitt Romney by nearly 17 points in 2012. It is likely to remain in Republican hands.
Indeed, national Democrats scoffed at the idea that Democrats might be able to retake the seat — even if Murphy, crippled from scandal, were to run again. One Democratic consultant called it “completely unwinnable” as an open seat.
"[Murphy] is certainly weaker today than he was yesterday, but it'd be a stretch to say this is a Democratic pickup opportunity," another national Democratic strategist said.
But Democrats on the ground are more hopeful, pointing to competitive down-ballot results in the district.
...
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/04/tim-murphy-abortion-mistress-243456
In case anyone was following the story of a certain hypocrite in the news.
|
|
given that he's a diplomat, that seems to be a reasonably important part of his job. Of course that would imply that Trump cares about anything that isn't his ego
|
|
To our readers: Publishing the cartoon by Randall Enos in Tuesday's Banner was not the right time or the right place, especially since Sunday's night's mass shooting hit so close to home for our readers and neighbors. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Sandy Casey, originally from East Dorset, Vermont, who are enduring grief beyond compare today. We apologize to them and others affected. Our interpretation of Randall Enos' cartoon was that little would be done with regard to gun control measures in the United States even after such an unprecedented tragedy. While we believe that is a conversation that needs to happen in this country, we must first mourn and honor the victims and provide comfort to their families and friends. We regret publishing the cartoon. For all other inquiries on the cartoon, we would direct them to Cagle Cartoons, which distributes Randall Enos' work. Kevin Moran, Executive Editor, New England Newspapers Inc.
www.facebook.com
|
Watch Pelosi argue for background checks already in place in response to a shooter that already would have/did pass them.
|
Pelosi just needs to retire but since she's a self appointed Queen she won't, the party needs new blood. And I'm sure she is talking about about more expansive background checks like nationally and so on.
|
Stunningly accurate about Drudge.
|
(1) It is coming out that the Vegas shooter was on some pretty stiff meds. Under Dem/Pelosi gun control, being on stiff meds could a basis for sequestering firearms under some circumstances (maybe not diazepam, but I am not a psychiatrist). When people say we have a mental health problem dressed up as a gun problem, that means we need to start thinking of sequestering firearms when people start getting hopped up on the stiff stuff. https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/
(2) The BK checks are there to stop ex-cons and criminals from buying common guns. That it won't stop some shooters doesn't mean it won't stop others. Gun control has always been about and continues to be about the low dollar street criminal who wants to buy a cheap and poorly traced piece. Gun control is never going to stop a person with enormous resources and a clean criminal record (unless of course the state hears they are taking anti-psychotic medication).
|
On October 05 2017 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Silicon Valley celebrates artificial intelligence and robotics as fields that have the power to improve people’s lives, through inventions like driverless cars and robot carers for the elderly.
That message isn’t getting through to the rest of the country, where more than 70% of Americans express wariness or concern about a world where machines perform many of the tasks done by humans, according to Pew Research.
The findings have wide-reaching implications for technology companies working in these fields and indicates the need for greater public hand-holding.
“Ordinary Americans are very wary and concerned about the growing trend in automation and place a lot of value in human decision-making,” said Aaron Smith, the author of the research, which surveyed more than 4,000 US adults. “They are not incredibly excited about machines taking over those responsibilities.”
Pew gauged public perception of automation technologies by presenting respondents with four scenarios, including the development of completely driverless cars; a future in which machines replace many human jobs; the possibility of fully autonomous robot carers and the possibility that a computer program could evaluate and select job candidates with no human oversight .
According to the findings, 72% of Americans are very or somewhat worried about a future where robots and computers are capable of performing many human jobs – more than double the 33% of people who were enthusiastic about the prospect. Seventy-six per cent are concerned that automation of jobs will exacerbate economic inequality and a similar share (75%) anticipate that the economy will not create many new, better-paying jobs for those human workers who lose their jobs to machines.
One of the most visible examples of automation that’s likely to disrupt daily life is driverless vehicles. There’s a broad agreement among proponents of the technology that driverless cars will be safer than those driven by humans, who are often distracted, drunk or falling asleep at the wheel.
The American public disagrees.
“People are not buying the safety argument about driverless vehicles,” Smith said. “There’s widespread concern about being on the roads with them, which conflicts with what is consensus in the technology world.”
A slim majority of Americans (54%) express more worry than enthusiasm for the development of driverless vehicles, with 30% expecting that they would lead to an increase in road fatalities. Fifty-six per cent said they would not want to ride in one if given the opportunity, citing a lack of trust in the technology or an unwillingness to cede control to a machine in a potentially life-or-death situation.
Another unexpected finding was the vehement opposition to robots making hiring decisions, despite the fact that such technology is already starting to creep into the hiring process as well as other areas such as assessing individuals for loans or parole from prison. Proponents say that using AI can make these decisions less biased, but the public is not convinced.
Seventy-six per cent of respondents said they would not want to apply for jobs that use such a computer program to make hiring decisions.
“A computer cannot measure the emotional intelligence or intangible assets that many humans have,” said one 22-year-old female respondent. “Not every quality can be quantitatively measured by a computer when hiring someone; there is much more learned by face-to-face interactions.”
Smith said: “It speaks to the general lack of recognition of just how widespread algorithmic decision making is in our lives by the average people in the street.”
The survey also asked people about their attitudes towards existing workforce technologies such as social media, industrial robots and technologies that help customers serve themselves without the assistance of humans. The findings revealed a big split between college educated respondents (typically white collar workers) and those who didn’t attend college (typically blue collar workers).
“White collar workers see tech as something positive that helps them get ahead and has improved their opportunities for career advancement, giving them agency to do their jobs better, make more money and get promotions,” said Smith.
“When we asked the same questions of working class folk, you don’t get the same sense that it’s something that is helpful to them or improves access to career opportunities.”
These social factors play into people’s attitudes towards the coming wave of automation technologies.
“Those folks who are optimistic hope it will take over the dull and boring work we hate and create new categories of work for humans to do,” said Smith, “but the American public does not buy the notion that it will be good for everyone.”
Three-quarters of Americans expect that machines doing human jobs will increase inequality between the rich and the poor.
“They believe that a small number of people do well and everyone else loses their jobs to the robots,” said Smith. Source
Self-driving cars are an obvious win. But for some AI pessimism see this article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608911/is-ai-riding-a-one-trick-pony/
There’s a sort of reality distortion field that Hinton creates, an air of certainty and enthusiasm, that gives you the feeling there’s nothing that vectors can’t do. After all, look at what they’ve been able to produce already: cars that drive themselves, computers that detect cancer, machines that instantly translate spoken language. And look at this charming British scientist talking about gradient descent in high-dimensional spaces!
It’s only when you leave the room that you remember: these “deep learning” systems are still pretty dumb, in spite of how smart they sometimes seem. A computer that sees a picture of a pile of doughnuts piled up on a table and captions it, automatically, as “a pile of doughnuts piled on a table” seems to understand the world; but when that same program sees a picture of a girl brushing her teeth and says “The boy is holding a baseball bat,” you realize how thin that understanding really is, if ever it was there at all.
Neural nets are just thoughtless fuzzy pattern recognizers, and as useful as fuzzy pattern recognizers can be—hence the rush to integrate them into just about every kind of software—they represent, at best, a limited brand of intelligence, one that is easily fooled. A deep neural net that recognizes images can be totally stymied when you change a single pixel, or add visual noise that’s imperceptible to a human. Indeed, almost as often as we’re finding new ways to apply deep learning, we’re finding more of its limits. Self-driving cars can fail to navigate conditions they’ve never seen before. Machines have trouble parsing sentences that demand common-sense understanding of how the world works.
|
A group of influential senators rolled out a sweeping bill to overhaul the nation’s criminal justice system and sentencing laws, reviving a bipartisan effort that had been left for dead last year.
The new legislation, led by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), is aimed at easing sentences for some non-violent offenders, such as for drug crimes, while beefing up other tough-on-crime laws. For example, it gets rid of the three-strike mandatory life sentence for some repeat drug offenders, but would also allow some people with previous convictions for serious violent and serious drug felonies to face enhanced penalties.
“This bill strikes the right balance of improving public safety and ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system,” said Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee. “It is the product of much thoughtful deliberation, and we will continue to welcome input from stakeholders as we move forward.”
Grassley did not lay out a timetable for marking up the bill, a version of which sailed through his committee 15-5 during the last Congress but never made it to the floor due to objections from conservative law-and-order Republicans in the conference.
A broad coalition of senators lined up Wednesday behind the bill, including Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Cory Booker of New Jersey.
Senators this year have a critical ally in the White House: Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who has taken an interest in reforming the nation’s criminal justice system and has met privately with senators about the issue.
At the same time, the coalition will still face opposition from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who helped sink the bill when he served in the Senate.
Source
|
White Americans Are Biggest Terror Threat in U.S.
Almost twice as many people have died in attacks by right-wing groups in America than have died in attacks by Muslim extremists. Of the 26 attacks since 9/11 that the group defined as terror, 19 were carried out by non-Muslims. Yet there are no white Americans languishing inside the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. And there are no drones dropping bombs on gatherings of military-age males in the country's lawless border regions.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-24/white-americans-are-biggest-terror-threat-united-states
Should we ban them until we know what is going on?
|
EDIT: realized who posted. Won't take the bait.
|
If the article says "since 9/11" that means 9/11 is not included right? Seems a bit arbitrary to exclude the biggest attack.
|
On October 05 2017 16:08 Laurens wrote: If the article says "since 9/11" that means 9/11 is not included right? Seems a bit arbitrary to exclude the biggest attack.
It is a bit of an outlier. But we're on our third president since that, so in the interim, it's been White Americans. For more than a decade White Americans have been the biggest terror threat in the US.
For comparison, that's about as long as the 'Crack epidemic'
EDIT: Another way of looking at it would be 15 out of the last 16 years, including 9/11.
|
On October 05 2017 16:08 Laurens wrote: If the article says "since 9/11" that means 9/11 is not included right? Seems a bit arbitrary to exclude the biggest attack.
We do not count events before 9/11 because 9/11 is what prompted Billions of dollars of spending to stop terrorism.
|
|
|
|