To be fair, google spends more than comcast because google, along with facebook, are constantly being attacked by the media and special interest groups.
If comcast was being attacked everyday, they would hike their lobbying budget.
I wouldn't say google is better at playing the game than comcast. Comcast has been playing the game for decades and they have far more political clout than google.
It's funny how people underestimate the power of comcast. They own nbc, msnbc, cnbc, universal, sky and a significant portion of the internet connections as a major ISP provider.
Google is a joke compared to comcast in terms of political power and influence.
China has 7% of the world's fresh water but that 7% can easily sustain every human being on earth. China controls the tibetan plateau which is the source of the water for a significant portion of the world's largest rivers and a source for a significant amount of fresh water.
If 48 million people in china lack drinking water, that's a problem of resource management rather than resource.
China has a 5th of the world's population but they also have ridiculously rich soil along it's many large rivers - especially towards the southern portion of china. The same thing with india. They have immensely rich lands that can support a huge number of people. Unlike canada who has a lot of freshwater but is mostly frozen tundra.
This is why stats are so deceiving. India is about 1/4th the size of siberia but india can support 1000X the population of siberia because india's land/soil is rich and productive while siberia is not.
It most definitely is not illegal. Many colleges have race and gender based quota systems. Governments have race and gender quota systems. Many federal, state and local governments set aside X percentage of their contracts solely for minority or female owned businesses.
Whether this is right or wrong is another debate. But race, gender or "diversity" hiring or recruiting certainly isn't illegal. It happens all the time.
Rather than bringing the big banks to justice, the "authorities" decided to scapegoat a small community asian american bank. That's the "justice" system for you.
It isn't an argument against action. It is an argument against exaggeration and hyperbole though.
What studies are you referring to? In any case, a small change in suicide rates would affect a dozen people. A small change in heart disease, cancer and diabetes would affect tens of thousands of people.
It would be great to cure cancer, but we don't have to cure cancer to affect change. We can't cure suicide either. There will always be suicide.
But we know that less processed food, less sugary drinks, etc leads to less heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Even a slight reduction in heart disease, cancer and diabetes would save more people than all the people who die of suicide. Simple things like less soda, less microwave dinners and more walking could mean hundreds of thousands of less deaths, but I guess we can focus on the few thousand suicides and the possibility of saving dozens of lives.
I'm sorry that facts, stats and reality made you lose a few brain cells.
"Students attending schools located near and downwind from busy highways had lower rates of academic performance, higher absenteeism and higher rates of disciplinary problems than those attending less polluted schools."
Is it because of the pollution or because kids who live near highways come from poorer socio-economic environments? Kids who grow up in poor rural areas nowhere near cars also have performance and behavioral problems.
Also, some of the top schools in the NYC metro area are situated near highways or high traffic areas. Why aren't these kids affected as negatively? Could it be many of them come from higher socio-economic situations?
Finally, isn't it a bit disingenous to say poor kids pay for it when they don't pay taxes. Also, the article claims these kids receive free lunches, so most likely they parents don't make enough money to pay much in taxes. So the "wealthy" who pay taxes are already paying for the poor kids, their school and their air filtration system are already paying taxes to clean up the pollution. So they already paid, what more do they have to pay for?
Ideally, it would be great if every kid had a school in a middle of prisinte woods without any pollution, but then people would complain about the destruction of pristine nature.
Everyone here is celebrating "people leaving facebook" as if it is a victory. People are simply moving from facebook to instragram as instragram is viewed as more "hip" and "young".
The title could be "Instragram gaining millions of users in the US" but I guess that doesn't sell as well.
Also, facebook may be losing users in the US, but it's gaining users overseas. So overall, facebook's overall user count is going to continue to climb for a while.
The data clearly doesn't not say what you claim. As for trending? I wouldn't call anything going from 1.9% of deaths to 2% of deaths as trending. Focusing on the 2% rather than the 98% seems also doesn't seem to be sensible.
There isn't a "safe or bug free" codebase in any language for any complex software project. The only code that you could possibly verify as "safe" are simplest of programs.
There is always a trade-off between complexity, security and performance.
If we really wanted to help people, we'd focus more on heart disease, diabetes, etc. But I guess we don't want to tackle the food industry, soda industry, process food industry, etc.
I don't who is behind all the "alcohol, drugs, suicide" scaremongering. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the "solution" will be pump people with more pharmaceuticals.
I'm not saying suicide is not a terrible thing, but it certainly isn't a "national emergency" compared to heart disease, strokes, cancer or diabetes.
Who is denying that sleep has rejuvenative benefit? I'm not. I know that sleep has a rejuvenative benefit.
Please try reading my comment or following the thread. I'll paste it here : "I was specifically addressing his point about the drawbacks of sleep - "There are several survival drawbacks from sleep, as it leaves one vulnerable."."
In other words, sleep has rejuvenative benefits and it keeps us away from predators. Sleep can have many benefits. You can stay up all night, but you'd miss out on the rejuvenative benefits of sleep. Or you can safely tuck away and sleep and gain benefits of safety and rejuvenation.
The Central Bank isn't regulated, isn't transparent and certainly doesn't have any external auditors either. I don't think you understand how cryptocurrencies, central banks and regulations work. Also, regulations doesn't protect against hacks or theft or shady practices.
There is no denying that sleep is beneficial and I agree with that assertion. I was specifically addressing his point about the drawbacks of sleep - "There are several survival drawbacks from sleep, as it leaves one vulnerable.".
Sleep wasn't a liability to our survival, especially our ancestors. It actually aided in our survival. Human beings who were active at night would have been the vulnerable ones as they would attract predators and were more likely to perish as a result. Especially considering out vision would be limited in the dark.
In short, sleep kept us away from the dangers at night.
How is that any different than the new yorker or traditional media spreading lies and hate about jussie smollet, covington or any other incident and causing mentally unstable people to attack others?
I find it strange how new yorker feels they should be allowed to be toxic but everyone else isn't. It's strange how they feel they aren't responsible for the mentally unstable they accidentally influence but everyone else is responsible.
Using that logic, every movie director, author, journalist, musician, etc would be liable for the actions of the mentally unstable. That would be the end of all media, including the new yorker.
Is that why reddit is so popular? It was "toxic" and yet it grew and normal people used it in droves. Your argument contradicts itself. Most people don't mind reddit or usenet or the "toxicity". It's a handful of busybodies with power trying justify censorship. No different than the church ladies whining about "toxic" rap or "toxic" tv or "toxic" whatever when they themselves are toxic too.
And who defines normal? The saudis? The chinese? The catholic church? The US government? The media? Or do you get to decide?
If you find it unpleasant, then don't use it. If you don't like baseball, then don't watch it. Go watch something else. Everytime we as a society get beyond the puritanical blasphemy craze, it rears its ugly head again.
What about it? What you find "toxic", others might not find "toxic". That's my point. And if there is "toxicity" in usenet, don't use it. Or use the newsgroups that you find less "toxic".
But you are missing my point. My point isn't about "toxicity", it's about censorship. "Toxicity" is just an excuse to censor and control.
Usenet had been around for decades and has always been "toxic". So what? Did the world end?
Actually, sleep would have been evolutionarily beneficial to us since we can't see well at night and it would keep us out of way of predators at night. Sleep wouldn't be a drawback, it would be a benefit to our survival.
It's why hamsters are nocturnal. Their predators hunt during the day, so they sleep during the day and play at night.
Evolutionary theory would say the hamsters that like to play during the day got eaten so that only those who slept during the day got to mate and pass on their genes, etc.
If you think sleep is a drawback for humans, trying visiting a forest at night without a flashlight.
"Detoxify"? Reddit and the internet was fine until the establishment decided to take control of it and censor it. If people didn't like reddit's or the internet's "toxicity", they wouldn't use it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use reddit. If the puritans at the new yorker or the rest of the media don't like reddit, they simply don't have to use it. It would be like me complaining about the toxicity of the new yorker and demanding the new yorker be "detoxified". Or, I could simply not consume the new yorker's content.
The new yorker along with the rest of the media uses the same excuse that china, russia and others use to censor. I guess "detoxify" sounds better than "clean up".
If comcast was being attacked everyday, they would hike their lobbying budget.
I wouldn't say google is better at playing the game than comcast. Comcast has been playing the game for decades and they have far more political clout than google.
It's funny how people underestimate the power of comcast. They own nbc, msnbc, cnbc, universal, sky and a significant portion of the internet connections as a major ISP provider.
Google is a joke compared to comcast in terms of political power and influence.