I hear the don wants a milatary parade too. here is a video of someone who looks remarkably like the don at his own parade a while back
its mostly how the facial expressions match up. The only difference is the don is paranoid about his loss of hair and fakes it while Mussolini reveled in his egg dome. takes all sorts.
Agree with all except the strength of Russia and Putin. It's economy is a busted flush. All of the sabre rattling by Putin is to distract his people that he and his mates have stolen the family savings Same with the Jewish ****e. Blame the "other". As at other times in history the only thing dangerous about a hot war with Russia is the amount of men it can put on the ground and it's preparedness to use chemical and I assume biological weapons. For all his guff Russia is decades behind the yanks in military technology. Even this poisoning smacks of Putin wanted to be identified... he wants a higher turn out in the sham election to claim even the smallest bit of legitimacy. The new cold war as Russia has shown will be IT. If I was the western powers I'd start locating and stealing the oligarchs funds that have been squirreled away in every country but Russia. Of course since it appears a lot Of our politicians have a nose in that trough that might be a tad difficult. You're right though. Trump is a fan boy at a time when we all needed a dominant US with a good economy slapping Putin back behind the lines. Mito points to the eastern states. I disagree slightly. If the West was going to do what they did they needed to have the balls to back it up... or not do it at all. It gave Putin a victory it wasn't necessary to give.
What we do and don’t know about how to prevent gun violence Lack of research makes it hard to determine laws’ effect on saving lives BY RACHEL EHRENBERG 3:52PM, MARCH 9, 2018 please log in to view this image JUMP THE GUN Arguments about which gun laws might reduce gun violence are hard to settle, given how little research there is on gun policy effectiveness, but a new study has some answers. In the fraught days following a mass shooting, people often ask if an assault weapons ban or allowing concealed carry permits would reduce the likelihood of further violence. But reliable evidence on the effects of those policies can be hard to find. Now the largest comprehensive analysis of research on U.S. gun policy in years offers some answers, but also troublingly little guidance. A glaring finding of the study, published by the RAND Corporation March 2, is how little work has been done to know which policies work. “The research literature on gun policies is really very thin,” says Andrew Morral, a behavioral scientist at RAND, a nonpartisan institute based in Santa Monica, Calif. Ideally, solid research leads to effective public health policies, which then reduce deaths, be it from guns, car accidents or fires. But when it comes to gun research, good science is lacking, says Morral, who led the study. So legislators typically turn to experts and advocates who can disagree vehemently about the effects of laws. The goal of the report is to help people understand “what is reasonably well-known and what isn’t,” says Morral. “Hopefully we can work from there and identify where research can be most helpful.” Gun shy Compared with other leading causes of death, research into gun violence is among the least funded, an analysis of U.S. mortality data and federal funding from 2004 to 2015 reveals. Funding for research on gun violence is 1.6 percent of what would be expected, given the number of gun deaths. please log in to view this image T. TIBBITTS Source: D.E. Stark and N.H. Shah/JAMA 2017 Morral and his colleagues reviewed existing research on 13 types of gun policies, including concealed carry laws and waiting periods, and their impact on health, and safety, including mass shootings, suicides and accidental deaths. Next the researchers looked to see if those studies were any good. Out of thousands of studies considered for the analysis, a mere 63 met the research team’s strict criteria: Studies had to use rigorous methods and establish cause and effect. The team ranked the strength of the evidence of a given policy’s effectiveness as limited (at least one study showed an effect, which wasn’t contradicted by other studies), moderate (two or more studies showed the same effect, no contradictory studies) or supported (three or more studies with at least two independent datasets found an effect with no contradictory studies). Here are the biggest takeaways: 1. There’s not enough data to show what would prevent mass shootings. There is no universal definition of a mass shooting, which, along with their relative rarity, makes it hard it hard to spot trends, such as whether mass shootings are on the rise. Studies looking at seven of the investigated policies, including concealed carry laws and background checks, were inconclusive about whether those policies lowered the likelihood of a mass shooting. For nearly half the gun policies, including gun-free zones, prohibitions associated with mental illness and stand-your-ground laws, no studies met the researchers’ criteria. 2. Keeping guns out of the hands of kids is good policy. There’s solid evidence that these laws reduce unintentional firearm injuries and deaths among children. There’s some evidence these laws also reduce adult unintentional firearm injuries and deaths. 3. Gun policies can decrease the number of suicides. This is no small thing: Of the more than 36,000 U.S. gun deaths each year, two-thirds are suicides. Laws that prevent kids from getting access to guns reduce the number of suicides by young people. And there’s some limited evidence that keeping guns away from people with certain mental illnesses, minimum-age requirements and background checks all prevent suicides. 4. Background checks can work. Designed to prevent certain people, such as convicted felons or those subject to a restraining order, from buying guns, background checks do reduce some gun violence. There’s moderate evidence that these laws can reduce the number of firearm homicides and suicides and limited evidence that background checks reduce violent crime and homicides in general. 5. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill has mixed effects. While there’s limited evidence that these laws can reduce the number of suicides, there’s slightly stronger proof that these laws reduce the amount of violent crime in general. 6. Allowing people to carry concealed guns ups gun violence. There’s limited evidence that laws that guarantee a right to carry increase unintentional firearm injuries among adults and increase violent crime. 7. Saying it’s OK to “stand your ground” can also lead to gun violence. Rather than curtailing gun deaths, there’s moderate evidence that laws that let people claim self-defense even if they don’t ty to retreat from a perceived threat lead to an uptick in homicide rates. There were no studies that met the researchers’ strict criteria demonstrating that stand-your-ground laws lower the likelihood of any gun-related violence. Few smoking guns Some gun policies, such as background checks, do curtail gun violence (down arrows), while others, like concealed carry laws, lead to an uptick (up arrows). But for most policies, the data are inconclusive or lacking entirely (light and dark gray). Effects of gun laws please log in to view this image T. TIBBITTS Source: A.R. Morral et al/RAND Corporation 2018 The analysts found little or no research on the impact of other policies, including gun-free zones, firearm sales reporting requirements and bans on assault weapons. Many scientists, including the authors of the RAND report, blame federal directives that, for the past two decades, have forbidden the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from “advocating or promoting gun control” and slashed its funding. “That sent a very loud signal that firearms research was dangerous to your budget,” Morral says. Similar language was added to the funding bill for the National Institutes of Health in 2012 and the end result is today the U.S. government invests very little in research on firearms and public health (SN: 5/14/16, p. 16). A recent JAMA study comparing spending on leading causes of mortality, such as cancer, malnutrition and hypertension, found that gun violence research funding was only 1.6 percent of what would be expected, given the number of people that die from guns each year. The same analysis looked at the volume of scientific papers published for each cause of death and, relative to mortality rates, guns were the least researched. Good data are needed for good policy, says David Hemenway, an expert on injury and violence prevention at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. To understand, for example, whether collapsible steering columns in cars prevent driver deaths, it takes data on head-on collisions, says Hemenway, not just motor vehicle deaths in general. Such fine-grained data are lacking for much of gun-related violence. Those data likely will reveal that there’s no one-size-fits-all policy to reduce gun-related violence, says Hemenway. Interventions that reduce gun violence in at-risk communities might be very different than, say, policies for reducing mass shootings. But without the research, it’s hard to know. Hemenway is confident that over time, data and science will win out. “Every success in public health meets with opposition,” he says. “You have to fight and fight and it takes much longer than you hope.”
The amount of tinfoil hat feckers responding on social media blaming everyone, anyone but Russia on the attempted assassination via a highly specialised nerve agent is hilarious. A little bit of me wishes we got taken over by the likes of Russia or China just to see these nutbags pissing in their pants as they suddenly realise they no have the option to speak at all never mind the garbage currently floating through their tiny little minds.
I like how this data has ZERO and i mean ZERO "no guns at all" data when theres plenty form round the world. Tats another yank attitude. did happen inside the 50 states it doesn't exist. theres enough data form a couple countries alone where gun bans were implemented that have biggest impact on all these categories.
" You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all the people some of the time. Which is just long enough to be President of the United States. " Thank you Spike Milligan
Where is George C Scott when you need him, genuine film by the way from the 70's please log in to view this image
The attorney general for the state of Massachusetts is launching an investigation into alleged harvesting of Facebook profiles by a firm employed by Donald Trump's election campaign. Investigations by the Observer and New York Times newspapers claim details from 50 million profiles were gathered without the users' knowledge. The company, Cambridge Analytica, was suspended from Facebook on Friday. Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica deny any wrongdoing. The American data analysis firm - which is not associated with the famous British university - is well known for the role it played in President Trump's election campaign, where it provided intricate data on the thoughts of American voters. Allegations against it centre on a professor from the University of Cambridge, Aleksandr Kogan, who designed a personality testing Facebook app called thisisyourdigitallife. The app was a private enterprise, and not part of his university work. The app, created in November 2013, asked users for permission to access their profile information - and also that of their friends'. It is alleged that Mr Kogan then sold that data on to Cambridge Analytica, in violation of Facebook's policies. A whistleblower who worked at Cambridge Analytica spoke to The Guardian, claiming that he worked with Mr Kogan "to harvest millions of people's profiles." "We exploited Facebook... and built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on," he said. Cambridge Analytica, however, said that once the company learned about how the data provided by Mr Kogan was sourced, it deleted all the relevant records, in December 2015. It said none of that data was used in the services it provided to Mr Trump's campaign. It added that it did not use or hold data from Facebook profiles. A Facebook spokesperson, meanwhile, said that the data collection was not a hack or a breach. "People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked," the company said. The Observer newspaper reports that the incident was known about more than two years ago. But the newspaper said Facebook's action to ban Cambridge Analytica this week happened four days after its reporters contacted the social network for comment about its upcoming story. On Saturday, as the story emerged in newspapers, the UK Information Commissioner released a statement saying it was "investigating the circumstances in which Facebook data may have been illegally acquired and used".
the thing is its not really about stealing account details its about using existing data to target groups interests with ads to exploit thier own views. facebook calculates what people want to see so it feeds their wants amd make more on adverts. the same kind of data can be used to feed stories at different groups to poison them against clinton or make trump look good option. the data is there. we are into an era where one single like like 350mil for nhs is obsolete. tell 1000 lies instead. . just tell each on to the right group.
I am surprised that the developments on this Cambridge analytica company have not been discussed more on here. It seems the starting point for discussing interference in elections and public opinion should start much closer to home Facebook says hmm i thought you all knew we sell your data. we see a classic sting job done where bribery, blackmail and corruption are standard offerings. we will send a couple of girls along to get pictured that will get the guy onside!
Mweh .... social media is just the latest. Tv, radio, newspapers, pamphlets all targeted a lazy minded section of the populace to reinforce fears ...greed etc. It's about a lack of education. If you are taught at school not only to recognise your own bias and to identify who and why people are publishing something you won't believe everything that's put in front of you. As for data sharing to target you . It's not new. Your Credit companies and banks have been selling that info for years. Google, Amazon etc etc. Zuckerburg has been very open about his goals regarding our data even if his company hide the process as much as possible. Take Facebook.... I put in minimal info. Rarely like or share anything political... do not open any other app I use through Facebook or link them. I looked at all the security and information settings to make sure my friends couldn't inadvertently share the little info from other than my location at times through pictures and location tags. I'm more confident that the algorithms used show less about me than the info my credit card company sells. And as I said after all that if I'm still somehow targeted with propaganda then I'm intelligent enough to look behind it. Sane with the idea that Facebook could in the future be selective in who gets to promote their agenda on the platform....say eg Labour message gets silenced .... we are already ****ed as a society if the population is waiting for Facebook to tell them who to vote for or how to form opinions on issues.
I personally don't think any company should be allowed to sell, trade, or giveaway your data to another company without first getting your specific approval to share that data with that specific company. (No general catchalls allowed). Sure, they can say "can't use our service without signing away rights" and a lot of people will sign without thinking... But I feel like any barrier to make corporations sharing data, any barrier that makes it harder to cross should be considered. Make it a pain to share data with a new company because it requires an extra approval. Allow the consumer to back out of the approval at any time too.
I agree with this 100% but then there will be repercussions. Lots of sites are free, search engines, even loan rates shop prices are lower because of an offset from the sale of that data. If the default is no info... how many will then click "share away"? I suspect none lol So revenue would have to come from somewhere else. I suppose it'll come to either pay x to use this platform or say "yes" to data sharing. Can't see it going any other way without the current formats collapsing. Just think education is the key. An example. 2 of my aunt's were wives of service personnel. I noticed that both had liked a story on Facebook appearing to be pro services but also noticed that it originated from Britain First. This was a deliberate ploy by them to get their platform shared using pro forces posts that didn't include any of their more insidious views. Messaged both aunt's, explained who Britain First were and what they stood for and what they'd tried to do with those posts .... both aunt's, horrified, deleted the shares etc and now are more vigilant about looking at what they share.
Facebook is gathering information on all of the websites you visit even when you’re not logged in to it.
More importantly, even if you don't have an account with Facebook. I don't have a Facebook account but I know they have lots of data on me.
I've switched that function off within Facebook. ..there's a specific item in privacy. If they continued to do it afterwards then it's against my specific declaration. That's illegal. I know that clearly doesn't matter to them but that's what the ICO is supposedly for. Of course the current fines will mean little to Facebook .... take the 50 million figure being quoted. Even if all of these individuals pay the 10 quid foi request to prove it; Facebook would actually make a profit after fines off FOI requests alone lol
