Tag Archives: camera

Rick Perry Reluctantly Accepts Gays in the Military

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A month before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, then-Texas governor Rick Perry tried to save his flailing presidential campaign by tacking hard to the religious right. At the center of his effort was an ad he released in December 2011 titled “Strong,” which opens with Perry looking at the camera and stating, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.”

The Rick Perry of the 2016 campaign is sporting a new look, between the Buddy Holly frames, the speeches demanding that his party reconcile itself with its history and appeal to African Americans, and the denouncements of Donald Trump’s comments about immigrants. And on gay rights, while he’s still far from marching in a pride parade—last month he criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide—Perry is singing a different tune on President Obama’s repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As flagged by Bloomberg Politics, Perry appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week, and when George Stephanopoulos asked if he stood by that ad, Perry sounded as though he still disliked the policy but was resigned to the fact that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell wouldn’t be restored. “I have no reason to think that is going to be able to be done,” Perry said. “I think—you know, that clearly has already—you know, the horse is out of the barn.”

Watch Perry on This Week:

ABC US News | World News

Excerpt from:

Rick Perry Reluctantly Accepts Gays in the Military

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rick Perry Reluctantly Accepts Gays in the Military

Creeper Rand Paul Staffer Licks Camera Lens at Town Hall Event

Mother Jones

Rand Paul is frequently dubbed the most interesting man in politics, but one of his staffers is apparently attempting to best the Republican presidential candidate for the dubious distinction. In the case of David Chesley, Paul’s political director in New Hampshire, however, “interesting” may be generous. Straight up bizarre is more like it.

An innocent tracker was recording video for a town hall event today, when Chesley, a bald middle-aged man, started bobbing his head directly in front of the camera, taking up the entire field of vision. After a few seconds of bobbing—perhaps pondering his next disruptive move—he opened his mouth, stuck out his tongue, and licked the lens.

Yes, lick.

The campaign has not yet explained why the man who is charged with helping Paul win the key state to New Hampshire did this. But frankly, who cares. Watch the incident below:

From: 

Creeper Rand Paul Staffer Licks Camera Lens at Town Hall Event

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Creeper Rand Paul Staffer Licks Camera Lens at Town Hall Event

This Video of the Moment the Avalanche Hit Everest Basecamp Is Terrifying

Mother Jones

“The ground is shaking,” a man’s voice says, sounding incredulous. “Shit,” he says, amid giggles of disbelief from others. Then, seconds later, the camera swings around to see something truly horrifying: a wall of snow and debris descending from all directions, about to engulf a collection of tents.

The video was uploaded to a YouTube channel operated by Jost Kobusch, a German mountaineer attempting to climb Everest, on Sunday. The title suggests that the footage captures one of the avalanches that struck Mount Everest during the massive quake that hit Nepal on Saturday, killing more than 2,400 people and injuring about 5,900. Kobusch also posted the video to his Twitter account—though it’s still unclear if he took the footage himself; Mother Jones has reached out to him for confirmation. Nepalese officials say that multiple avalanches triggered by the 7.8 magnitude earthquake killed at least 17 climbers and injured at least 37 others, with many still unaccounted for.

Warning: this video contains repeated explicit language, and is simply very scary, as it documents the climbers sheltering in a tent, and the intense panic in the immediate aftermath of the avalanche:

Originally posted here: 

This Video of the Moment the Avalanche Hit Everest Basecamp Is Terrifying

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Video of the Moment the Avalanche Hit Everest Basecamp Is Terrifying

Drum vs. Cowen: Three Laws

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today Tyler Cowen published his version of Cowen’s Three Laws:

1. Cowen’s First Law: There is something wrong with everything (by which I mean there are few decisive or knockdown articles or arguments, and furthermore until you have found the major flaws in an argument, you do not understand it)

2. Cowen’s Second Law: There is a literature on everything.

3. Cowen’s Third Law: All propositions about real interest rates are wrong.

I’d phrase these somewhat differently:

1. Drum’s First Law: For any any problem complex enough to be interesting, there is evidence pointing in multiple directions. You will never find a case where literally every research result supports either liberal or conservative orthodoxy.

2. Drum’s Second Law: There’s literature on a lot of things, but with some surprising gaps. Furthermore, in many cases the literature is so contradictory and ambiguous as to be almost useless in practical terms.

3. Drum’s Third Law: Really? Isn’t there a correlation between real interest rates and future inflationary expectations? In general, don’t low real interest rates make capital investment more likely by lowering hurdle rates? Or am I just being naive here?

In any case, you can take your choice. Or mix and match!

Excerpt from – 

Drum vs. Cowen: Three Laws

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Drum vs. Cowen: Three Laws

Half of Emails Are Answered in 47 Minutes or Less

Mother Jones

Many people seem to agree that email sucks, and almost as many of us are annoyed by “inbox zero” coworkers telling everybody in earshot how damn productive they are. We get it.

But while we all agree that email is slow, tedious, annoying, and perhaps impersonal, it turns out that many of us are actually pretty decent at returning the messages we need to. According to a new study by the folks at Yahoo Labs on how quickly emails get answered, about 90 percent of emails are returned within a day. In fact, half of emails are answered within 47 minutes, with the most likely return time being just about two minutes. (Of course many of those replies are short, coming in at about five words.)

The study—which, as the largest ever of its kind, analyzed more than 16 billion email messages sent between 2 million (randomized and opt-in) Yahoo! email users over a several month period—went a little deeper than reply times. It also studied how extended email threads play out (the longer the thread, the quicker the replies come until there’s a measurable pause before a concluding message); what time of day is best for getting a long response (morning); and demographics. Teens work the reply button the fastest, with a median reply time of about 13 minutes. Adults 20 to 35 years old came in at about 16 minutes. Adults aged 36 to 50 took about 24 minutes, and “mature” adults, aged 51 and over, took the longest at about 47 minutes. Gender seems to make less of a difference than age, with males replying in about 24 minutes and women taking about 28 (insert joke about women being more thoughtful here).

As you might expect, all those numbers go out the window when an attachment is involved: it takes emailers almost twice the time to respond to messages containing additional files. Another not-so-surprising tidbit from the study suggests that we’re quickest to reply from our phones, then our tablets, and finally our desktops. And predictably the more emails you get, the fewer you actually respond to: the data indicates that people receiving 100 emails a day may answer just five.

Continue reading – 

Half of Emails Are Answered in 47 Minutes or Less

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Half of Emails Are Answered in 47 Minutes or Less

Let the 2016 Presidential Poster Wars Commence!

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Michael Mechanic

Is this the first salvo in the 2016 presidential campaign poster wars? This past week, somebody plastered this poster—guerilla style—at well-trod locations around San Francisco.

What was the artist thinking? Was this a subtle jab at Cruz’s hubris or a bona fide attempt to promote the guy—or just a cool design? I could see it psyching up the GOP base in Kevin’s Orange County stomping grounds. But in San Francisco? Only 13 percent of this city voted for Romney. A Ted Cruz fan hoping to boost the Texas senator’s presidential hopes would be wasting his time posting these around here—even if they are pretty cool looking.

Maybe the message was meant to reach rich tech libertarians who have moved north from Silicon Valley and might be game to donate. You know, the crew who admire Ron and Rand Paul and seem to have forgotten that the tech industry was built on massive government funding. Then again, given Cruz’s head-scratching position against net neutrality—he’s called it “the biggest regulatory threat to the internet”—he’s not likely to get much love from the tech world. Even the Obama-haters on Cruz’s Facebook page had to ridicule his position.

My favorite Cruz poster to date went up last March around Beverly Hills, where Cruz was slated to appear at the annual dinner of the conservative Claremont Institute. (The artists, being artists, got the hotel wrong.) But Cruz was indeed, as the poster joked, “loving it.” Here’s what he tweeted:

I just hope Bernie Sanders, the left’s favorite bomb thrower, decides to run. I’m dying to see what street artists will make of him.

View post:

Let the 2016 Presidential Poster Wars Commence!

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let the 2016 Presidential Poster Wars Commence!

More Fabulous Health News

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I continue to be a star patient. Final results from yesterday clocked in at 5.2 million stem cells. Apparently I only need two million for the transplant, but they like to get a double sample in case I need another transplant a few years down the road. So four million is the goal.

So why am I still here? Good question. I don’t really have a good answer, though. Just in case? More is always better? This is actually a SPECTRE front and they use excess stem cells to breed an undefeatable clone army that will take over the world?

Not sure. In any case, stem cell collection has gone swimmingly and I’ll soon be out of here. Now there’s only one step left: the actual second round chemo itself followed by transplanting my stem cells back into my body. That begins on April 20.

BY THE WAY: The folks here, who have much more experience with cancer meds than your standard ER facility, are quite certain that my excruciating back pain on Friday was a side effect of the Neupogen. So that’s that. Today was my last shot of Neupogen, which means I can get off the pain meds in the next day or two.

Original link:

More Fabulous Health News

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More Fabulous Health News

Does the Internet Really Make Dumb People Dumber?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I don’t normally get to hear what Bill Gates thinks of one of my ideas, but today’s the exception. Because Ezra Klein asked him:

Ezra Klein: ….Kevin Drum, who writes for Mother Jones, has a line I’ve always thought was interesting, which is that the internet makes dumb people dumber, and smart people smarter. Do you worry about the possibility that the vast resources the internet gives the motivated, including online education, will give rise o a big increase in, for lack of a better tterm, cognitive or knowledge inequality that leads to further rises in global inequality?

Bill Gates: Well, you always have the challenge that when you create a tool to make activity X easier, like the internet makes it easier to find out facts or to learn new things, that there are some outliers who use that thing extremely well. It’s way easier to be polymathic today than it was in the past because your access to materials and your ability if you ever get stuck to find people that you can engage with is so strong.

But to say that there’s actually some negative side, that there actually will be people that are dumber, I disagree with that. I mean, I’m as upset as anyone at the wrong stuff about vaccination that’s out there on the internet that actually confuses some small number of people. There’s a communications challenge to get past.

But look at IQ test capability over time. Or even take a TV show today and how complex it is — that’s responding to the marketplace. You take Breaking Bad versus, I don’t know, Leave it to Beaver, or Combat!, or The Wild, Wild West. You know, yeah, take Combat! because that was sort of pushing the edge of should kids be allowed to watch it.

The interest and complexity really does say that, broadly, these tools have meant that market-driven people are turning out more complex things. Now, you can say, “Why hasn’t that mapped to more sophistication in politics or something like that?” That’s very complicated. But I don’t see a counter trend where there’s some group of people who are less curious or less informed because of the internet.

I’m sure that was said when the printing press came along and people saw romance novels and thought people would stay indoors and read all the time. But I just don’t see there being a big negative to the empowerment.

Unsurprisingly, Gates agrees that the internet can make smart people smarter. By analogy, the printing press also made smart people smarter because it gave them cheap, easy access to far more information. Since they were capable of processing the information, they were effectively smarter than they used to be.

It’s equally unsurprisingly that he disagrees about the internet making dumb people dumber. It’s a pretty anti-tech opinion, after all, and that’s not the business Bill Gates is in. But I think his answer actually belies his disagreement, since he immediately acknowledges an example of precisely this phenomenon: the anti-vax movement, something that happens to be close to his heart. Unfortunately, to call this merely a “communications challenge” discounts the problem. Sure, it’s a communications challenge, but that’s the whole point. The internet is all about communication, and it does two things in this case. First, it empower the anti-vax nutballs, giving them a far more powerful medium for spreading their nonsense. On the flip side, it makes a lot more people vulnerable to bad information. If you lack the context to evaluate arguments about vaccination, the internet is much more likely to make you dumber about vaccinating your kids than any previous medium in history.

The rest of Gates’ argument doesn’t really hold water either. Sure, IQ scores have been rising. But they’ve been rising for a long time. This long predates the internet and has nothing to do with it. As for TV shows, he picked the wrong example. It’s true that Breaking Bad is far more sophisticated than Leave it to Beaver, but Breaking Bad was always a niche show, averaging 1-2 million viewers for nearly its entire run. Instead, you should compare Leave it to Beaver with, say, The Big Bang Theory, which gets 10-20 million viewers per episode. Is Big Bang the more sophisticated show? Maybe. But if so, it’s not by much.

In any case, the heart of Gates’ response is this: “I don’t see a counter trend where there’s some group of people who are less curious or less informed because of the internet.” I won’t pretend that I have ironclad evidence one way or the other, but I wouldn’t dismiss the problem so blithely. I’m not trying to make a broad claim that the internet is making us generally stupider or anything like that. But it’s a far more powerful medium for spreading conspiracy theories and other assorted crap than anything we’ve had before. If you lack the background and context to evaluate information about a particular subject, you’re highly likely to be misinformed if you do a simple Google search and just start reading whatever comes up first. And that describes an awful lot of people.

Obviously this has been a problem for as long humans have been able to communicate. The anti-fluoridation nutballs did just fine with only dead-tree technology. Still, I think the internet makes this a more widespread problem, simply because it’s a more widespread medium, and it’s one that’s especially difficult to navigate wisely. Hopefully that will change in the future, but for now it is what it is. It doesn’t have to make dumb people dumber, but in practice, I think it very often does.

View original article:

Does the Internet Really Make Dumb People Dumber?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Does the Internet Really Make Dumb People Dumber?

Climate change could be happening 2,400 feet under Antarctic ice

Climate change could be happening 2,400 feet under Antarctic ice

By on 19 Jan 2015commentsShare

In case you missed out on the bad news du jour, let me both enlighten and disturb you (the primary job description here at Grist): The world is now experiencing skyrocketing temperatures and ocean death spirals, all while humans are sucking the living daylights out of the planet. And now, scientists have uncovered data that suggests climate change could be affecting a place where humans have never even set foot: 2,400 feet below Antarctic ice.

We’ve known for a while that the warming planet is causing massive, irreparable collapse of glaciers in Western Antarctica. What’s new here is that even the muddy floor beneath these glaciers, which was previously thought to be resistant to ocean-driven changes, now shows evidence of instability.

On a massive ice sheet on coast of West Antarctica, there’s currently a camp of 40 scientists, ice drillers, and technicians. The team was reportedly successful in their attempt to reach one of the most isolated areas in the ocean when, at 3:55 P.M. PST on Jan. 7, their drill hit the bottom of the ice sheet. With the help of a video camera, the researchers are able to observe life (or, lack thereof) on the Arctic seafloor.

Scientific American reported on the scientists’ first look and (nerd alert), it gives me full-body goosebumps.

Through nearly a kilometer of slow descent the camera showed the undulating, mirrorlike walls of the ice borehole scrolling past. Then, 715 meters down, the image suddenly want black, clouded by thick wisps of silt and clay that had been liberated from the ice as the drill melted its way through. The bottom few feet of ice is probably cluttered with such debris, picked up by the glacier as it slid over the hidden face of Antarctica for thousands of years.

The camera soon emerged from this “black zone” (as people at camp are calling it) into an open expanse of crystal clear seawater beneath the ice. This thin sliver of ocean reaching under the ice turned out to be 10 meters deep, and the camera came to rest on the bottom beneath it, revealing it to be muddy and strewn with pebbles — a flat, barren tract, devoid of any obvious signs of large marine life such as brittle stars, sponges or worms.

Science, guys. It’s awesome.

But here’s where a mysterious and beautiful scene turns towards a dubious discovery: The pebbles the scientists found scattered on the seafloor aren’t normal to find at that depth. It would be more normal to see just very fine material, like silt or dust, that could be carried far beneath the ice by wind or currents. The pebbles would only be there if the ice underbelly were melting at an unprecedented rate, leaving them to drop from the glacier as it melts.

Something’s moving things around under the ice. It’s either deep-sea poltergeists, or traces of possibly human-caused “environmental change.” (Guess which we’re voting?) We should note that this change could have happened two years ago or hundreds, as these findings are — the researchers emphasize — preliminary and inconclusive. Nonetheless, trip co-leader Russ Powell and his team believe that change may be well underway underneath the ice — and if so, it will impact how quickly ice sheets melt, and how rapidly global sea levels will continue to tick higher.

If further study turns up more bad news, humanity may be forced to fall back on its last-ditch effort to escape a changing climate: Burrow somewhere deep underground in the most remote place on Earth, and — oh, wait. Nvm.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

sponsored post

Use energy wisely and save money

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Original source: 

Climate change could be happening 2,400 feet under Antarctic ice

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Hello Kitty, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate change could be happening 2,400 feet under Antarctic ice

Did Market Monetarist Predictions Trounce Everyone Else During the Great Recession?

Mother Jones

Via James Pethokoukis, Scott Sumner claims that Market Monetarists got things right during the aftermath of the Great Recession when others didn’t:

It must be a major embarrassment to the profession that us lowly MMs turned out to be more correct during the crisis than any other major group (New Keynesians, New Classical, RBC-types, etc.) and indeed more accurate than other groups on the fringes (old Keynesians, old monetarists, Austrians, MMTers, etc.):

1. It’s now obvious that Fed, ECB, and BOJ policy was far too tight in late 2008 and early 2009, but MMs were just about the only people saying so at the time.

2. We correctly pointed out that fiscal austerity in 2013 would not slow growth in the US because of monetary offset, whereas in a poll of 50 elite economists by the University of Chicago, all but one gave answers implying it would slow growth.

3. We pointed out that massive QE would not lead to high inflation, while many other economists on the right said it would.

4. We correctly predicted that the BOJ and Swiss National Bank could depreciate their currency at the zero bound, while many on the left said monetary policy was pushing on a string at the zero bound.

5. We pointed out that the ECB’s tightening of policy in 2011 was a huge mistake, which now almost everyone recognizes.

I’m a little puzzled by this. Unless I’m misremembering badly, prominent lefty economists like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong have been saying most of these things all along. And while I’m not really quite sure if these guys think of themselves as New Keynesians or Neo-Paleo Keynesians or modified Old Keynesians or what, they’re basically Keynesians.

The only one of Sumner’s five points where there’s disagreement, I think, is #2, and I’d argue that this is a very difficult point to prove one way or the other. My own read of the evidence is that the modest austerity of 2013 might very well have had a modest effect on growth, but frankly, a single year of data is all but impossible to draw any firm conclusions from. However, it’s certainly true that there were no huge changes in the trend growth rate.

As for the others, the Keynesian types argued strongly that (a) conventional Taylor Rule calculations called for much looser Fed policy in 2008-09, (b) QE would not lead to inflation in the face of a huge demand shortfall and continued deleveraging, (c) monetary policy in countries with their own currency still had traction, but fiscal policy had a powerful role too at the ZLB, and (d) the ECB’s tight monetary policy in 2011 was nothing short of a cataclysmic disaster.

I’m sympathetic to the market monetarist advocacy of NGDP level targeting, but then again, so are folks like Krugman and DeLong. So in a way, it’s sometimes unclear to me exactly how far they diverge in practice, even if they subscribe to different theoretical fundamentals. My own tentativeness about NGDPLT is mostly practical: it’s not clear to me that central banks can even target inflation as powerfully as many people think, let alone NGDP levels. Part of the reason is that I simply have less faith in the expectations channel than many NGDPLT advocates. It seems like something that will work fine until markets test it to find out if the Fed really has the independent power to set NGDP levels anywhere it wants even in the face of investor panic, and then suddenly it won’t work anymore and the Fed’s aura of invincibility will be broken. And that will be that. But that may simply reflect a lack of understanding my part. Or perhaps just a lack of faith.

Visit link:  

Did Market Monetarist Predictions Trounce Everyone Else During the Great Recession?

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did Market Monetarist Predictions Trounce Everyone Else During the Great Recession?