Archived threads in /news/ - Current News - 216. page

>>80776
Maybe authorities don't have definitive proof that she's what people say she is, and are waiting until she is 100% proven to be a fraud before they reveal her identity and ruin her career.

I'm not defending her, she probably is guilty, I'm just basing this off of how things are done in the USA. For all I know I'm dead wrong.

>>80776
hey, norwegianfag here

Con-docs sucks. got a friend of a friend who got scammed

To refine the algorithm, researchers are asking humans to vote on which faces are scariest. (Though, as someone who can’t get through a horror flick without turning down the volume and googling what’s about to happen, I voted “scary” on all of them.) You can go to the Nightmare Machine website to participate.

“Creating a visceral emotion such [as] fear remains one of the cornerstones of human creativity,” the researchers wrote on their website. “This challenge is especially important in a time where we wonder what the limits of artificial intelligence are: Can machines learn to scare us?”

>>80793
WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS?!

>>80800
They serve their robot masters and wish to help them conquer and rule all humans, they are essentially pets.

slightly better sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37649597

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/18/498281083/higgs-bison-is-the-missing-link-in-european-bison-ancestral-tree

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/how-we-discovered-the-higgs-bison/7945666

Does a Higgs Bison have a mass of 125 GeV?

What makes hybrids have low fertility rates? Why did this guy overcome that?

This story touches on one aspect i've always really liked about biology or zoology: It's kind of like jeopardy. In many sciences, you have rigorous methods to solve open problems, but in biology, you already have the answers, it's just a matter of filling in the details.


>>80490
let's see if i still have it:

125GeV = 125 * 10^9 eV = 125*10^9*1.6*10^(-19) J = 200*10^(-10) J = 2*10^(-8) J

Ok and then use our trusty equation: E=mc^2 => m= E/c^2 and drop units because i worked them out earlier

m = 2*10^(-8)/c^2 = 2*10^(-8) * (0.5*10^(-8))^2 = 2*10^(-8) * 2.5 * 10^(-17) = 5*10^(-25) kg

how'd i do

>>78285
God damn would you fuck off with these clown movie advertisements?

>>78318
What makes you so triggered?

>>78318
It's self fueling now. People are willingly participating because it's a new funny fad.
This movie is going to have so much fucking hype by the time it comes out.
Fuck this gay earth.

>>80568
This isn't new.
Scientists already know there was a gigantic impact that scarred the earth in the mentioned area.
This impact is credited with creating the moon.

>>80719
Take this straight to /pol/

>>80719
Wrong forum for this, go sit on a /pol/ Op

ok got it - sorry didnt see the pol

If i remember right, it was also one of the tamest rides there.

This is messed up.
There all from the same family to.
That ride was closed this morning for safety saftey reasons.
I guess it checked out ok....

Can confirm from reports that the victims involved were "incompatible with life" and from all the stories I've heard thats involving things grievous bodily harm and decapitation, makes you question how safe half of the fucking rides there are let alone around all of those theme Parks

>>80461
>a tree branch is considered criminal possession of a weapon
What is this, Britain?

When will the US deal properly with its mentally ill and stop having to lock them up?
Or voting for them?

>>80465
no Anon, we used to lock them up

Now they stay at home and are expected to medicate themselves

Hopefully someone finds the raw cctv footage of the incident happening, really interested in how it happened.

>>80702
There's already a thread on this you slowpoke, keep up

>>80614

>>80714
It came down the conveyor to the disembarking area but because the water had stopped flowing, another empty raft had not been cleared and blocked the path of occupied raft and prevented it from moving away from the the conveyor. The motion of the conveyor caught/grabbed the end of the raft and dragged one side down causing the whole raft to tip vertical. Two people fell onto the conveyor where they where entangled in the mechanics of it and the other two people were hanging from the seats by the belts with their upper bodies caught underwater at the end of the conveyor...apparently. Sounds very grizzly.

Here is the conveyor in action at 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btmi_5bi04I

>>79678
Someone hasn't checked their privilege today.

>Literally a numale

Is PC activism a replacement for religious ideologies? Is Privilege a form of Original Sin? Will you give up your right to not self-incriminate?
Will you join the Salem Witch Trial reboot, or be accused of witch craft so you can apologize for making your attacker abuse you?
https://youtu.be/GSi3lYg75Tc

>>80777
>how you gonna threatened
You sound melanin enriched

inb4 he goes to work for samsung

Government of S.Korea,Korean people and Korea medias praise Ban Ki moon for his achievement during his office.

Ban Ki moon is being called "President of the World(Secretary-General of the United Nations)" in South Korea.

A rather ineffectual Sec Gen.
South Korea has no reason to be proud. He has been unable to reform the dysfucntional UN, the especially fucked up Security Council and it's veto powers.
The cluster fuck that was Syria happened on his watch and the UN has done fuck all to resolve it.

Ki-moon is a failure and should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Imagine if America’s college administrators, journalists and other culturally influential figures adopted the view that diversity of viewpoint is at least as important as diversity of identity groups.

On second thought, don’t imagine it unless you want to be even more dispirited by reality. Slate published a piece last week titled “Should Silicon Valley Tolerate Peter Thiel?”; the author, Will Oremus, manages only a qualified “yes.” That BoingBoing piece describes Trump as a “white-supremacist/pro-rape presidential candidate” and responds to Zuckerberg’s (and another Thiel associate’s) defense of Thiel: “Presumably, they feel the same way about the millions who believe in the ideology of Osama bin Laden.”

We withhold the third cheer because Zuckerberg is not entirely consistent about all this. The Journal reports that at a January meeting, “a Muslim employee asked how [Zuckerberg] could condone Mr. Trump’s comments”:

Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that Mr. Trump’s call for a ban [on Muslim immigration] did qualify as hate speech, but said the implications of removing them were too drastic, according to two people who attended the meeting.
The story quotes one unidentified employee who elaborated: “Banning a U.S. presidential candidate is not something you do lightly.”

The implication would seem to be that there is one standard for presidential candidates and another for ordinary Facebook users. Had you published exactly the same proposal and somebody complained, Facebook might have censored you.

It’s also unclear exactly where the line would have been drawn. By December, Trump was generally recognized as a major candidate, leading in most Republican primary polls. Would, say, Jim Gilmore or Jim Webb have had the same latitude?

Thiel, similarly, is in a privileged position vis-à-vis Facebook, as the company’s first major outside investor.

If, say, a Facebook middle manager were discovered to be supporting the Trump campaign on his own time and with his own money, would Zuckerberg resist the inevitable pressures from within his workforce and protect the manager in the name of diversity?

If you’re a Facebook user with politically incorrect views, the Journal story has some good news:

In a statement provided Wednesday evening, a Facebook spokeswoman said its reviewers consider the context of a post when assessing whether to take it down. “That context can include the value of political discourse,” she said. “Many people are voicing opinions about this particular content and it has become an important part of the conversation around who the next U.S. president will be.”
On Friday, senior members of Facebook’s policy team posted more details on its policy. “In the weeks ahead, we’re going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest—even if they might otherwise violate our standards,” they wrote.
Fortune’s Matthew Ingram suggests the policy shift is the result of a recent kerfuffle “in which Facebook deleted posts containing an iconic Vietnam War image of 9-year-old Kim Phuc running down the road naked after her village was bombed”:

Not only did Facebook delete the original image after a Norwegian newspaper editor uploaded it as part of a series on war photography, but the site deleted the editor’s post about the deletion as well. It then blocked his account, and even deleted a post by Norway’s prime minister, who protested Facebook’s censorship of the image.
The social network eventually apologized for the deletions, and said that staffers were compelled to remove the image because it was of a naked child and that it [sic] violated the site’s community standards.

We should note that when we discuss free speech in this context, we are not making an argument about the First Amendment. The Constitution limits only the government’s power; it recognizes no obligation on the part of a private company to permit its customers to speak or publish freely. But the imposition of a corporate monoculture can jeopardize the culture of free speech, even (or especially) if there is no legal recourse.

There is, however, a secondary legal question here. Ingram notes that Facebook insists “it’s not a media company”; in an August piece, he cited “a couple of reasons why”:

One is the risk that it might be forced to pay more attention to issues like free speech and censorship and journalistic integrity than it really wants to, which would be a huge hassle.
Another reason is that tech companies are valued much more highly by investors than media companies, which also helps explain why some media startups, including BuzzFeed, have also tried to argue that they are tech companies. But just saying it doesn’t make it true.
Ingram leaves out a third possible reason—that if Facebook exercises editorial control, it is likelier to be liable for speech-related torts such as defamation, invasion of privacy and copyright infringement. The less it does so, the stronger would be its case that it is a “common carrier,” like a cable-TV or internet-service provider, exempt from such liability.

At any rate, Facebook’s latest moves are at least moderately encouraging. Mark Zuckerberg may not be a free-speech hero, but at least he's an ally, if only because of the exigencies of running a business with a diverse customer base.

Hai dozo famalamby bobandy https://66.media.tumblr.com/792426db7bbfdd9cd8dacf5ab1a2c1f5/tumblr_ocabdqUOdF1ubpyeoo1_500.jpg

>>80496
>there is only marxism and capitalism

>>80492
If you want a thinly veiled /pol/ thread, at least attempt to pretend you're just posting the link and not your side/bait/whatever.

>>80005
Nice

>>80005
>UK

There's your problem.

That's the new America for ya.
I'm not even religious but this country is turning into cesspool.