singularity

Ah using photos of some landmarks to show there hasn't been a rise in sea level. Well done as you can obviously discriminate any change in sea level from them.
Uses a source then denigrates information from the same source.
Post pictures of newspaper articles from 33 years ago as supportive evidence.
 Good job scientific knowledge hasn't increased or there is better understanding of the science behind changes since then.
You can cherry pick graphs that you believe back up your viewpoint. You can cherry pick statements from sources that appear to back up your viewpoint but when you then attack those who use the same source as falling onto appeals of authority then you just show your hypocrisy and weak style of argument.

our precious authorities–NOAA, NASA, the Department of Agriculture, ET. AL.–say exactly what I am saying. Not what you are saying.

seems some of them might have a differing viewpoint
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

 All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php
and thats after the change new administrations attempt at silencing anyone who thinks differently to the guys at the top.

SpamSandwich said:

adamc said:

SpamSandwich said:

DanielEran said:

JessiReturns said:

Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist.

"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money. You might get upset by media reports that you don't like or assume to be biased, but that's another thing entirely. The rest of your word salad is as completely nuts as the president's 4AM tweets.

"Fake news" is itself a propaganda term created by the Left to suppress dissent. Thanks to the President's unwillingness to play along with that game, it's really blown up in the faces of CNN, BuzzFeed and the many mainstream outlets that have been pushing it.

I suspect this thread will soon be locked, so with regard to Apple creating yet another social network, I just don't see it. They're bad at it. They can't make money at it and it's not in their DNA. 

I normally find your argument very logical but this one really piqued my curiosity as to why you consider 'fake news' as a propaganda terms by the Left to suppress dissent so in other words you are saying fake news are factual news that one can counter check with other websites. Is there a sarcasm tag missing or you really meant whatever you are saying that you are a trump supporter.

The term "fake news" was, in fact, created by the Left. That's indisputable. It is a redefinition and dumbing down of the term "propaganda" and has been repurposed by the Left to quash opposing viewpoints, regardless of the source being attacked.

I didn't know Trump is considered to be from the left!

tallest skil said:

Our children's education will sink even further down the ladder of in comparison to other wester nations.

Be very, VERY, VERY careful now. Otherwise I’ll have to respond to this with facts that will hurt your feelings.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-education

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/



looks like there is plenty of room for improvement.

sog35 said:

levi said:

anantksundaram said:

"Riding off the success..."? Oh c'mon. Prove it. With even one iota of a data point. (No, the "1.3% market share" quoted in some shady article does not count, and even if it did, 1.3% is not "success").

Prediction: The second Pixel will be as DOA as the first one.

I suspect sales were ok, and better than expectations.  Best Buy and other retailers, carriers said as much, and indicated they were seeing stock outs. Were sales anywhere near iPhone? Of course not. But they seem to have gotten some traction relative to past attempts. 

fake demand.

Google made very few phones and ship very few. To give the false impression it was a 'hot' seller.

I've yet to see a single Google phone in the wild. And i live in one of the most tech forward cities in the USA

if we are going on anecdotal evidence I have seen a few, therefore it has been a roaring success!!!!