Slashdot Mirror

It is not that point you can't take practical measures, but when you go down the path of ridiculous measures for minor risks you they have won.

from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10...

For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns.

from that article 32 US citizens died from terrorism while 33,599 died from firearms. In other articles from 1976 to 2007 between 3,000 to 49,000 died from flu relate reasons.

They have won because people are living in fear and doing insane things to counter insignificant risks.

Everything you do in life involves risk and you might die, sad but true. You are much more likely to die of a cold or heart attack, or a car accident than a terrorist attack but doesn't stop you going out, driving or eating junk food. Heaven forbid paying for public health care, or even the basic of gun control measures in the US in order to save lives.

The point of terrorism is that once you concede to being terrorized, thats it, youve lost whatever war you thought you were fighting against it.

You are not being terrorized if your response is measured, practical and proportionate. When fear takes over rational thought then you are.

Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?

On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places?

Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it.

Let's see, who is committing the violence [rollingstone.com] and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.

Also, case in point, here, by a user named Raenex. Who will never look at the right's actions.

But you, you want us to be upset over Milo's hiring a bunch of guys in masks to disrupt his own rallies and get attention. But Milo is out so you didn't even get your memo about that.

Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading [breitbart.com] women marches?

The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.

Which political party denounces Islam and creates lies about Sharia law? Which political party tries to convince us that Islam is a material threat? Which political party wants to ignore the terrorists among us?

Which political party lies about Planned Parenthood? Which political party has been found in court to engage in unlawful gerrymandering? Which political party is threatening judges who dared to reject Trump's unlawful ban? Which political party attacks how women dressed? Which political party claims to be pro-life, but resents paying for maternity care?

The right is the party that loves everything about radical Islamists, except the name they operate under.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/2...

http://thehill.com/homenews/ne...

So take this with a grain of salt. It is part of a new advertising push to help shore up their image and recover from their self imposed failure. It's not about innovation as much as it is about trying to erase the past.

So take this with a grain of salt. It is part of a new advertising push to help shore up their image and recover from their self imposed failure. It's not about innovation as much as it is about trying to erase the past.

Well.. While we are making stupid claims... How about Obama's trips to the Med, where he and his wife took separate aircraft and a boat load of friends?

You mean the ones where Michelle Bachmann claimed it was 200 million a day? They're lying crap, that's what.

See, that's the issue, you start lying, you keep on lying, and nobody believes you.

But Trump's excursions are all too real. And far too expensive. And way too hypocritical from a guy who claimed to do the exact opposite.

And what makes you think protecting the president in FL is all that much more expensive than having him at the White House? It's not like they don't have SS staff in both places at this point...

There's all sorts of expenses, including the law enforcement in FL. And the NYPD for that matter, for Melania. It's quite a burden.

Why can't he go back to looking for a birth certificate he can't find?

Haters gota hate I guess....

You're the one carrying water for a liar and a fraud. How do you live with yourself?

Well.. While we are making stupid claims... How about Obama's trips to the Med, where he and his wife took separate aircraft and a boat load of friends?

You mean the ones where Michelle Bachmann claimed it was 200 million a day? They're lying crap, that's what.

See, that's the issue, you start lying, you keep on lying, and nobody believes you.

But Trump's excursions are all too real. And far too expensive. And way too hypocritical from a guy who claimed to do the exact opposite.

And what makes you think protecting the president in FL is all that much more expensive than having him at the White House? It's not like they don't have SS staff in both places at this point...

There's all sorts of expenses, including the law enforcement in FL. And the NYPD for that matter, for Melania. It's quite a burden.

Why can't he go back to looking for a birth certificate he can't find?

Haters gota hate I guess....

You're the one carrying water for a liar and a fraud. How do you live with yourself?

And why isn't everyone using Gmail or something better by now?

Google READS all of your emails. Real email services like Microsoft are more secure because they will never read your email!

a drivers license can be changed if you legally change sex. They chose 'birth certificate' on purpose - exactly because, unlike a drivers license, it cannot be changed.

North Carolina allows amending the birth certificate of a post-op trans person born in North Carolina.

And of course, most of them never think to add an exclusion for intersex people

For example, the bathroom bill in my home state of Indiana, if read literally, would have banned from both restrooms any person whose genital presentation at birth does not match his or her chromosomes, such as people with de la Chapelle syndrome where the SRY gene crosses over from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome. Fortunately, it died in committee before I had a chance to pass on my thoughts to my state representative and senator.

The moment you are proposing a law that subjects some citizens to a government scrutiny and not others - you have a violation of a basic human right: the right to equality before the law.

To conservatives, both cis and trans people choose to make themselves subject to government scrutiny by using a public restroom, just as people choose to make themselves subject to backscatter imaging by using an airline.

And seriously ... who the fuck carries their birth certificate around everywhere ?

Every licensed driver, as a valid driver's license is a proxy for a birth certificate for this purpose.

Plenty of moms are gonna have the same problem with their sons too.

Many of these bills exempt a single-digit-year-old child accompanied by his or her parent of the opposite sex (source).

Wrong.

False.

Waiting a few more days to due proper vetting on the new information

How do you want them to do 'proper vetting' without conducting a search? A search which required a warrant no less? Had the news of the warrant leaked to congress without them being informed of the change of status, then yes, legal jeopardy.

Per CNN, in 2014 there were about 250,000 illegal immigrants who committed crimes and were either in jail or deported after committing a crime. That represents about 13% of all those in prison. Even though illegal immigrants are about 4% of the total population. So their rate of criminal action to population is about 3 times higher than the average population.

News stories I've found indicate what you said is correct:

Seattle: Together with abusive companies and bad city management, Seattle is a miserable place.

Houses in Seattle are expensive: Seattle bumps Boston as the most expensive U.S. housing market that's not in California.

Rent is expensive: Seattle rent is 5th most expensive in U.S.

Traffic: Seattle one of the worst U.S. cities for traffic congestion, tied with NYC (March 31, 2015) Quote: "An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.)

Slow internet: Many areas of Seattle have poor internet connections. See the article, These places have the slowest Internet in the country. (June 25, 2015) Quote: "... Seattle ... CenturyLink (CTL) customers trying to access particular sites from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. will have unbearably slow speeds."

Microsoft: Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)

Amazon: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon's sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers (February 23, 2014)

Amazon: Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace (August 15, 2015) Quote: "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers..."

Amazon: Amazon Under Fire Over Alleged Worker Abuse in Germany (February 19, 2013)

There might be homesteaders, but the state has a median income of $65,028, that put's it at the top of the pack.

Come on, you'd have to be crazy to think that it would only cost $21 billion.

The best proposal I've seen that includes building a new border structure is for a ~$5B, 831-mile long fence. It's based on a request from the Border Patrol - They specifically want a fence, not a wall. Walls inhibit vision. A 2000-mile long cement and rebar wall would be enormously expensive and almost nobody who has thought this through wants it. I predict some degree of reason to set in between now and groundbreaking. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic.

Now we can decide which programs to bring back with the $16B saved from not building a $21B wall! If we don't build the wall twice, we could bring back twice as much!

I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it.

Oh, this is awesome! So, refusing to buy something — such as labor — from you justifies theft and even murder, in your opinion? This is the only interpretation of the quoted sentence, that makes sense in the context of the employment-discrimination...

I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia

No, we don't. This is a stupid meme invented by Illiberal morons, who project their own flaws on others and fail to recognize assholes of their own kind. Somalia was a Collectivist "paradise" — and that is, what lead to its current state. The path, I might add, Venezuela — a darling of Socialists world-wide — is now walking down on as well.

prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working

If you wish to support those, who can not support themselves, you are welcome to share your own earnings with them. But there is no moral/ethical justification to compel the rest of us — at the government's gun-point, which is how taxes are collected — to help anyone.

Whether they are destitute through no fault of their own or otherwise, the rest of us do not owe them anything. You can appeal to us to help those, you deem worthy of helping, but you must not be able to force us.

rather than face a much higher level of crime.

Ah! So it is not the benevolence, that drives you to help others out, but simply fear of criminals? Nice, for a second there I thought, I'm talking to Mother Theresa (reincarnated). Well, here are some numbers for you... The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" is four times that. So, if we eliminate those expenditures entirely — and the crime-levels as much triple, we'd still be saving a few hundred billion dollars a year.

That said, this has nothing to do with discrimination — real or imagined — so let's not get sidetracked.

Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?

National Socialist? You really are in denial about your own self. Those Collectivists also — like you — worshiped the State and expected it to provide them with everything: Education, Healthcare, Pensions... Unlike Socialists — of all stripes — Libertarians advocate for the Individual, however cantankerous, above the Collective, however Glorious.

So far, we've established, that you are a Socialist and that you approve of killing, when people don't want to hire you or otherwise supply you with "living". If you want to see a Nazi, look into a mirror...

It goes both ways. We are currently using the principle behind this law to shield drone pilots from repercussions. There's also this case where the US says a border guard was within his rights to shoot a man in Mexico.

Given what we have to lose, it's unlikely that the US government will change its position on this issue.

Amazon: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon's sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers (February 23, 2014)

Amazon: Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace (August 15, 2015) Quote: "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers..."

Amazon: Amazon Under Fire Over Alleged Worker Abuse in Germany (February 19, 2013)

Microsoft: Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)

Seattle: Together with Microsoft and bad city management, Seattle is a miserable place:

Traffic: Seattle one of the worst U.S. cities for traffic congestion, tied with NYC (March 31, 2015) Quote: "An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.)

Slow internet: Many areas of Seattle have poor internet connections. See the article, These places have the slowest Internet in the country. (June 25, 2015) Quote: "... Seattle ... CenturyLink (CTL) customers trying to access particular sites from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. will have unbearably slow speeds."

The linked article can't be read if an adblocker is active.

The current state of the law:

Employees who refuse to participate in an employer wellness program can be charged up to 50% more for employer-provided health insurance.

If genetic testing is part of the wellness program then employees have to voluntarily authorize the genetic test. If an employee participates in the wellness program but declines included genetic testing then they can't be penalized with the higher insurance premiums.

The new state of the law, if this bill passes:

Employees who refuse genetic testing that is part of a wellness program can be considered non-participants in the wellness program and be charged the higher insurance premiums.

The comment in the summary that the new bill would "...let employers see that genetic and other health information." is the current state of the law as it relates to wellness programs (Work wellness programs put employee privacy at risk). There is nothing in the new bill that suddenly decreases patient/employee privacy.

"Mandatory" wellness programs, themselves, were controversial and lacked privacy protections when the Democrats insisted everyone participate. They're no less controversial today as the Republicans expand those wellness programs with additional components.

the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc)

Fake news got you down, learn the real news!

a) Stop abusing the term "fake news" to discredit mainstream media stories you disagree with.

b) Not only was I completely aware of the stuff you're referencing, I was actually talking about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/...

Trump nearly immediately denounced David Duke. The only reason it was nearly, and not just immediately is because he didn't even realize who was being spoken about. The environment was apparently noisy and he didn't hear what the interviewer asked. So, no Trump didn't fail to criticize anyone.

It strains credibility to claim that Trump didn't heard the original question clearly because he actually said the name "David Duke" in his answer. But, even if he were somehow confused about the question on Sunday it still took him till Thursday to disavow Duke, and when he did it was a very dismissive denial, far less hostile than his criticisms of virtually anyone else. Many actual racists saw that and thought "he's disavowing because he has to, but his heard isn't in it", and I can't disagree with them.

So yes, when I say he is "extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists" that is what I'm talking about it.

the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc)

Fake news got you down, learn the real news!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/...

Trump nearly immediately denounced David Duke. The only reason it was nearly, and not just immediately is because he didn't even realize who was being spoken about. The environment was apparently noisy and he didn't hear what the interviewer asked. So, no Trump didn't fail to criticize anyone.

Parachutes are totally a thing for smaller planes:
http://cirrusaircraft.com/flig...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...

The landing is still pretty harsh and I'm sure gliding down to a landing would be preferable when possible, but it seems to work pretty well.

Will the Ex-Im Bank Enable Boeing's Deal With Iran?

Boeing Says China Is Going to Buy $1 Trillion Worth of Planes

Boeing pitches China facility as Trump-friendly

Uber has higher valuation than companies that make the cars its drivers use At $70 billion, Uber would pass the market value of GM (GM), Honda (HMC) and Ford (F) -- three companies Uber CEO Travis Kalanick should thank simply for existing. Ford and Honda are worth about $60 billion, while GM has a market value of around $55 billion.

Apparently he wants to meet Trump. One interpretation is that he is firing missiles in hopes of getting a better negotiated deal (which is something the North Koreans have done in the past).

Though I did not vote for Trump, I have to say he is certainly right about all the fake news (on this topic at least)..

The "spin" regarding H1B in news articles spewing out since this was announced this morning is amazing...

Everyone (on this site at least), knows that H1B is all about getting rid of Americans in IT jobs in the USA to replace them with cheaper Indians onshore for roles that companies were not able to offshore to India for whatever reason..

On major sites as of this morning..:

On Google News / CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/0...
"Large firms say they need the visas to bring in engineers and other high-skilled workers they can't find in the U.S. " ...the article has the above, plus a whole bunch of unrelated sob stories about people who cannot find doctors (an H1B edge case).

again, the fake "skills shortage"..while in reality our IT grads are working in $30K annual salary jobs, Best-Buy and Starbucks because they cannot find good IT work. I know plenty of smart folks in situations like this..

On Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article...
"The H-1B non-immigrant visa allows U.S. companies to employ graduate-level workers in several specialized fields, including information technology, medicine, engineering and mathematics." ..slightly better, but the article again fails to mention the actual issue anywhere in the piece..that virtually all the of the H1B visas issued are used by outsourcing or IT companies to replace Americans in IT roles in the USA with cheaper onshore Indians flown in from India.

I have to hand it to him, Trump may be rather nuts overall, but he is actually doing what he said he would do, and he is the first person in office to actually address this issue (or even mention it).., which is more than you can say for either the R's or D's that have been president up to now. (I don't really consider Trump to be an 'R', either, for what its worth..he is following his own agenda mostly unrelated to the R party from what I can see..)

Kudos to him, maybe I was wrong about him after all..

What did he do wrong?

Seriously, did you not read the headline? He uses AOL. He clearly can't be trusted with important decisions.

Compounded by the fact his account was compromised by phishing

Fun fact: Pence was hacked. Clintons email server was not.

Not just Pence. The entire state department was hacked, one of the biggest hacks of government systems yet.

Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'

ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS. It's founding prophet was a military warlord who imposed Sharia law.
That is wrong, at that time Sharia did not exit.
Muhamed btw. basically only proposed to fight against pagans, and mainly he fought against other muslims, ironic, isn't it?
Muhameds plan was to spread the "true god" ... the same god christians and jews worship ... to pagans.

ISIS is fundamental Islam, following the example of Mohamed.
No they are not. They follow their own weird mindset. Sharia was introduced and formalized in books to read long after Mohamed.
While Sharia popped up here and there 200 years after Mohameds death, it never was very popular. E.g. the biggest islamic nation probably was the Ottoman Empire. It never had Sharia. Big parts of the empire kept widely autonomous status. It was a so called multi culture, multi lingual empire, and multi religious. Converting to Islam, basically did not happen under "islamic rule".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Furthermore sharia is a big system of rights, laws and privileges, e.g. most countries you mention where regions have parts oh Sharia established have a pretty common legal system, and under Sharia falls only marriage, inheritance, child care, divorce etc. In other words: no beheading or stoning.

If those countries have regions that are violent (like indonesia): then it is because they want to separate, not because they want Sharia as the "better law".

Or do you really think every muslim is automatically an idiot?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WO...
https://www.famousscientists.o...

Ah, yes, Pakistan, how can you be so wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Regarding the other countries you listed: you seem to be interest, why don't you read up the history of them. Then you easily realize that the problems there have not really anything to do with what religion is dominant there (or not so dominant but practiced by the ruling class)

I'm actually pretty tired about this islam phobia ...

One problem with your theory. The rich can't get richer if the masses can't afford to buy the shiny new toys being made by the robots.

Technological advancements can't result in long-term widescale job loss. Because if it does, the masses wouldn't be able to buy as much stuff, and it would reduce the country's net productivity, meaning a smaller pie for the rich to take their disproportionate slice from. Free market economics views reduced productivity as an inefficiency, and tries to get rid of it (actually it simply offers greater rewards for higher-productivity activity, which has the side-effect of strangling low-productivity activity). Either the robot-produced products need to be lowered in price to just as or more affordable to the masses than before they were produced by robots (meaning poor people's standard of living stays the same or increases - i.e. they become richer), or the wages of the masses have to increase so they can afford to buy as many or more toys as before (meaning poor people become richer).

That's why historically in developed nations, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have also gotten richer. That the rich have gotten richer than the poor have gotten richer is certainly a valid complaint. And you can also complain that the changes are happening too quickly for the masses to retrain for new jobs. But casting it as a doom and gloom scenario where 1% control all the wealth and the rest of the population is jobless and lives on a starvation diet is simply unrealistic. Long before that happens, a free poor people would create a black market doing jobs for and trading with each other using an alternate currency, essentially invalidating the non-material wealth of the 1%. So any way to keep the masses employed, productive, and being paid results in a better outcome for both poor people and rich people. There is no us vs them here.

The only thing that can ruin an entire economy is a government on a misguided quest for economic equality - because only a government can deprive people of freedom to make their own economic decisions. That freedom is what allows people to increase their standard of living - by individually choosing more productive activities over less.

You been paying attention to what he's done and said?

Yes, it has been staggering in his lack of competence, and general inability to remain accurate to facts, combined with self-aggrandizement and deceit.

Do you think I didn't notice? Well, I think you haven't noticed. I bet you can't even name 10 of Trump's personal screw-ups. I'll even let you pick them out over his life time, even though you could likely do it in the last week if you paid attention.

Let me know when you get to the part where he's been keeping his promises, and putting people in place who would happily stand up to his views if they're bad.

Neither one of those things has happened. Ok, I heard maybe DeVos tried to push back on the transgender ruling, but that didn't lead to anything different. It's still gone. Because you know, that bathroom business is SO dreadful. But let's see, we have his military operation (a failure), his precious executive order (also a failure, a failure so bad he put it off again this week), and alternative facts out the wazoo.

Evidence indicates he doesn't listen to advice, and his parrots are trained to tell him whatever he wants to hear. And his promises are not kept.

Your thinking is still stuck in a period where politicians would lie through their teeth, and you're now in an era where you have a person who wasn't ever a politician until he was elected POTUS keeping his promises.

Your thinking seems to be stuck in the idea that Donald Trump doesn't have a history of lying through his teeth and out his ass, whose idea of keeping a promise is pretending he did something, when he did no such thing. His history as a businessman is one of scams and deceits, of self-promotion and failure, and has been known since the 1980s. After the election? See Boeing. (Railing at nothing, as the project to replace the VC-25's was in the planning stages) See Lockheed(nothing he did to accomplish any savings), see the deficit(he had boasting about a 200 billion dollar blip when he hasn't even passed a budget), see his executive order(a failure on its own, which he promised to fight in court, but he's not going to do that because that's a waste of time, and even now he put it off, because it'd just make him look bad), see his nominees to join the Swamp(A number of troubled individuals, from a racist to an unqualified bear-fearer).

And now the funny part. Where you can hear the former never-trump, anti-trump people who've flipped pro-trump because they've seen him keep his promises and do more in a month then the Obama administration did in 4 years. To paraphrase.

Nope. You should hear the real truth: People aren't flipping to Trump. He can claim to be beloved, and appreciated, but it turns out, he's still the guy who didn't win the popular vote. The things he's done include a flopped executive order, whining about his daughter's product line being dropped, nominating numerous incompetent or corrupt people into office(one who has already resigned, another who was just revealed to have lied in his nomination process), blathering out a litany of lies, oh wait, wait, he called them Alternative Facts, railing at the media(He really hates criticism, in case you haven't noticed), and otherwise totally striking out. No ACA repeal on the table. Instead, he just realized it would be complicated. Frankly, that's the most shocking thing I've heard out of him, it's basically demonstrating to me how badly he presented himself on the subject. Oh but wait, Ryan is doing something. Right? Oh wait, he's keeping that under wraps. Oh my.

I suppose you could count the Supreme Court nominee, bu

a government having a braindrain and becoming incapable of properly overseeing related aspects like elections, security systems or nuceal launch codes can become a huge liability.

I'm more worried about officials of the government — which is already a monopoly, by its very definition and function — turning those things into private cash-cows and sources of other undue influence, than I am about a corporation doing same.

The latter has already happened — numerous times in different countries, including the US. The former — not so much. And, even if/when it does happen, that standing army you mentioned will still be there to take over the miscreants.

Supposedly, NSA created a special Blackberry for President Obama — but they would not make one even for the Secretary of State. Today, aghast at the choice made the country's voters — the "little people", who "don't know any better" — the security apparatus are leaking embarrassing details about Trump's team. What hope do you and I have of prevailing against such organizations, if the POTUS is struggling against their sabotage?

With the braindrain you fear and lament, maybe, you and I and, indeed, anyone in the world will be able to buy a smartphone as secure as the President's. Secure not only against the US government's unwarranted searches, but against those of the really oppressive regimes. And the government's spies will be able to use the same off-the-shelf tech for their purposes...

French historian detained for 10 hours
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/...

Australian Children's author detained
http://www.smh.com.au/entertai...

Both of those stories are from this week. I think that qualifies them as "new".

French historian detained for 10 hours
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/...

Australian Children's author detained
http://www.smh.com.au/entertai...

The majourity of Muslims live in Asia! Particular Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China, and if you want to count it in: Pakistan. All those nations have no problems with radical Muslims or Sharia.

Indonesia: "Aceh Province, on the northern tip of Sumatra island, stands alone in having formally established Shariah law in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country with a relatively secular Constitution. In Aceh, women are required to dress modestly, alcohol is prohibited, and numerous offenses -- from adultery to homosexuality to selling alcohol -- are punishable by public whipping.

Aceh (pronounced AH-chay) began its experiment with Shariah in 2001, after receiving special authorization from Indonesia's central government, which was intent on calming separatist sentiment in the deeply conservative region. Now, Shariah police officers roam the province, raiding everything from hotel rooms to beaches in a hunt for immoral activity.

In the decade and a half since, Indonesia as a whole has drifted in a conservative direction, and Aceh, once an outlier, has become a model for other regions of the country seeking to impose their own Shariah-based ordinances, alarming those who worry about the nation's drift from secularism."

Malaysia: "The Malaysian Parliament is set to debate a controversial bill that could see stricter forms of sharia law introduced in the state of Kelantan, but critics have warned the so called hudud bill would result in whippings and even the amputations of limbs for crimes such as theft. [..] Kelantan's state capital Kota Bahru is deeply religious and many of its citizens live by a strict adherence to Islam. At shops and supermarkets there are separate queues for males and females, while signs advising women to cover up are common outside offices and government buildings."

India: An interesting political situation with a complex history. The Muslims there are said to be very much not extremists. But maybe that's more because of the history and the current political climate, where Hindus are the dominant population and agitators (after having been dominated earlier by Muslims themselves), and the Muslims that are there were the ones who stayed in India, while practically all the Indians left Pakistan during the split. Even so, India still suffers Islamic terror attacks, especially from neighboring Pakistan (remember those bloody borders), and there are calls for Muslim-rule areas within India.

Pakistan: A hotbed of terrorism and militant Islam, and dominated by Sharia.

China has problems with Islamic separatists, but they are an authoritarian state and have managed to keep a lid on it.

Other countries you haven't mentioned:

Afghanistan: Taliban and al Qaeda.

Philippines: Home to an Islamic separatist movement. In the news recently.

Or I can name several countries in Africa, like Mali, Nigeria, and Somalia.

Or I could talk about Russia.

I'm going to stop here because I don't want to make an exhaustive list.

Turkey was "safe" before Erdogan came

Yes, because a popular military commander picked up the pieces from the Ottoman empire and forced a secular government on the nation. Several military coups and a nearly century later, it's being undone by an elected Muslim leader, and the last military coup has failed.

Do you see a pattern here? ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS. It's founding prophet was a military warlord who imposed Sharia law.

The ISIS idiots on the other hands are simply power hungry idiots. That they es

Kamel: "Competitors? You had the business model in your hands you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride."

What? That's just idiotic. Of course, Uber had competition — even before the rise of Lyft, they had taxis to compete with. And, in some cities, the "limos" or "black cars".

Personally, I forswore Uber, when they hired David Plouffe — the jerk, that helped impose an incompetent nincompoop on our country for eight years — who started spamming the customers (such as myself) with bullshit like how "Uber helps minority drivers" (I imagine, it must've been a hit with the pro-Obama crowd!) So, from then on I always start with Lyft, when searching for a ride.

But now, seeing this evident ganging-up on Uber, maybe, I'll try to use them first again...

It is only thanks to the thoughtful regulation by the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats, that the giant and heartless KKKorporation$ can be forced to improve services and lower costs.

Had Trump won, he would've appointed a RethugliKKKan to head the FCC and the consumer would've gotten butt-raped again!

So nice to have a sensible woman at the helm instead!

Cool solar cells.... by blocking the sunlight *facepalm*.

No. It seems you missed the part in the article where they said you'd first need to remove the mirror backing in order to use it with solar cells. I.e. It would let (nearly) all of the light through while still providing the heat dissipation properties.

Also I'm thinking how big a deal is the "not blocked by the atmosphere" really, I mean it's not like heat reflected of a little building significantly changes the ambient temperature.

I take it you're unaware of urban heat islands?

Controlling how light and heat get reflected from buildings is of growing importance to architects and engineers. Unfortunately, buildings melting cars is a thing that has happened, and urban heat islands are a contributing factor to global warming. Plus, if you can reduce the ambient temperature by pushing the energy out into space, you've effectively reduced your cooling needs, which is a double win.

If you wish to redefine the meaning of "race" (or "sex" for that matter), you need to change the law that bans discrimination based on it.

I'm not redefining it, I'm merely informing you that the definition of race has improved since the 19th century when everyone was either Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid

Funny, this argument — But I identify as Black! — didn't help certain Ms. Dolezal keep her job at, of all places, NAACP...

I'm not too familiar with the case but wiki tells me she resigned from her job because she had been caught lying about her background. While I'm sure activists from all sides use this case for whatever ideological reason, the fact is that lying and misconduct are real things that you can be fired for.

Evidently, some races — whatever the term means — are more equal than others.

Of course, because historically humans were more ignorant than today which created unequal societies. We try to fix this over time, but some people think that going back to the 'good old days , whenever they were supposed to be, will solve all of this.

While more people find Trump credible than the old-school media, it still less than half the people who find him credible.

They don't.

Sorry, but they don't.

The destruction of credibility of the old-school media was self-inflicted - Trump merely comments on the obvious fact

You mean Trump tries to distract us from the General Sherman stuck in his eye. When your best excuse for your lies is that you don't know what you're saying, you are in serious trouble.

Have you never been directly involved in something that was reported by a journalist?

Dude, one of the first things you learn, whether a police investigator, journalist, or divorce counselor, is that a dozen people can have twenty different stories about the same event.

Only if your definition of race comes from the 19th century, which in itself is a little racist.

If you wish to redefine the meaning of "race" (or "sex" for that matter), you need to change the law that bans discrimination based on it.

Because, unless the law has explicitly changed in between — as in, passed by Legislature and signed by the Executive — what was legal at one point shall remain legal at another.

These days race is a social or cultural construct

Funny, this argument — But I identify as Black! — didn't help certain Ms. Dolezal keep her job at, of all places, NAACP... Evidently, some races — whatever the term means — are more equal than others. Had she been fired for being Black while masquerading as White, she and her team of lawyers would've all been millionaires by now.

As for the United States, the life expectancy is "predicted to be among the lowest of these countries by 2030; 80 for men (similar to the Czech Republic) and 83 for women (similar to Mexico)."

I'm quite horrified that all the commentary on the article is almost entirely sarcasm and jokes. In fact, this is relatively horrifying. Not only is the life expectancy in the U.S. currently less than that in any of the developed countries in Europe, it's decreasing.

This is bad. It's easy enough to make fun of Europe's universal health care, but apparently they're doing something right.

"The culprits for our declining years, the report says, were increases in mortality from heart disease, chronic lower respiratory diseases, unintentional injuries, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, kidney disease and suicide. Not surprisingly, that group plus cancer and the flu make up the top 10 causes of death in the U.S....
He (the report author) did highlight a 3% increase in "unintentional injuries." The heading includes, among other things, traffic accidents and drug overdoses — both of which often involve relatively young victims whose deaths can have a strong impact on the numbers."
source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

See also:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/...
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds

All this earnings losses doesn't mean anything to a expanding company like Tesla. Do we really want them to stall their growth just to be little bit profitable? They have the advantage with big car companies dragging their feet. They have to do everything they can to gain marketshare now before others catch up.

There was a big stink about Amazon during the late 90s and early 00s about how they are posting losses. Where are all those shortsighted investors now.

The amount of Tesla disinformation in the financial news is staggering.

I read an article three weeks ago that said that 38% of Tesla stock was shorted, with a due date a couple of weeks from then. I then read another mainstream financial media was reporting that Tesla was expected to hit zero by the middle of the summer, and you should sell your stock right now!

Sure enough, Tesla inked a deal to sell electric cars to the middle East, and its stock jumped 10% on that news and has held relatively steady.

One financial news report suggests to sell your Tesla stock and take the profits and invest in Twitter. Of course, Twitter has yet to make a profit and no *clear* way to do so, but hey... Tesla will be burning through cash and be bankrupt real soon now - take your profits out of Tesla and run!

I think there's a lot of "self interested" reporting going on. Most analysts want to bring Tesla down because a) they've bet heavily on the stock dropping, or b) have clients who would benefit from the stock dropping, or c) have clients heavily invested in oil and natural gas.

Tesla has been laying a firm foundation on which to build its future, and is posed to dominate a very big section of the economy. It shows every indication of being the next Microsoft or Apple.

If only those pesky financial analysts would stop and look at it objectively.

And you are now an excellent example of WHY people need to be taught to identify bullshit, like what you are spreading.

Actually, you are an excellent example of WHY people need to be taught to identify bullshit, like what you are spreading.

A specific school, with some hypothetical problem of dubious validity (the research indicates that firearms are a poor choice of method for defense against bears), used to justify refusing to answer a question on policies applicable across the nation, are why what she had to say shows she is so much of a lying bullshit artist. Even the school she named...Doesn't have a gun for that purpose. That means you are wrong, though to give her credit, her actually only indicated that she believed they would probably have one. But they don't, and so what's she going to do, repudiate it?

It was their state's decision.

But of course, bullshitters like you, try to deceive us over the issue, making her out as if she was being unfairly persecuted for some wise and profound statement, but instead, she is really being derided for making such a flimsy and transparent excuse to duck and evade a question, obviously demonstrating that she was not professionally qualified to administer the Department of Education.

Because you know, the actual question was about guns in schools in the general sense, rather than the applied sense, her deflection demonstrated a poor commitment to the issue that made her a joke, fit for further mockery. Or do you think police officers are routinely charged for carrying firearms in schools?

At the least, she should be properly prepared enough to not make herself look stupid by citing one irrelevant discussion point.

Or do you think that Wyoming School would benefit by having students, visitors, and the like armed?

Haha! You are funny! Romney and McCain are not a Conservatives, they are RINOs.

I already asked you: How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repeating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original [wikipedia.org] sense of the phrase?

Because it really takes some chutzpah to say that your last 3 nominees are RINOs. And their VPs.

They're just not politically correct enough for you.

Using Politifact, an extremely left wing organization, to debunk my claim is just sad.

Denying that Politifact, has shown the lack of truth in the statements of a a number of Republican leaders is pretty sad...but not uncommon, Trump actually lies about fact-checkers too.

Funny though, that the Mitch McConnell link yields mostly trues.

Oh that's even sadder. You're trying to use Politifact for a comparative analysis, which would require them to be a comprehensive examiner, a standard which would be rather hard to establish. I merely offered the evidence of untruthfulness among the right, yet refrained from what you now want to say.

Some philosopher you are.

I'd honestly have to fact check your fact checker, because as mentioned they are grossly biased and remove context to make political claims.

Oh my, the sadness continues. Not only do you not want to admit to the lies, you want to believe, desperately, that they are false in their fact-checking.

Nope, you are not paying me to be your researcher so won't happen.

You're the one who has to establish your own words, that you so pretentiously claim this excuse only makes you more laughable.

If you want to talk cash, leave contact information.

If you have to be paid to seek the truth, you will tell the truth of the highest bidder.

I don't know anyone on the Right who assumes someone is honest, even on their own team.

That would be back to the questions I asked you earlier:

How many people do you know?

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Really, you say you don't know anyone.

We have to debate each other as much as we do the left.

Nope. Not really. You swallow all sorts of lies and deceits. You don't even like it when others point them out. Heck, you've gone so far as to disown the last 3 standard-bearers of the right.

Gowdy and Chavez question Republicans just like they do the Dems.

Nope. They have refused to have numerous investigations and inquiries, meanwhile they spend endless hours on Benghazi.

Sorry dude, you really can't keep spreading the bullshit and expecting us to believe it.

Meanwhile, the "Left" is still claiming women make 70c on the dollar.

Nope.. Nuance . exists.

You're tilting at a strawman.

I won't get into their other lies, the list is way too long and not relevant to the conversation.

Don't worry, you've made your partisan bias and hypocrisy relevant. It's really your own fault. You ego made you take a stance, and purport to superiority, but show no willingness to examine your own dirty hands.

WTF?? More revisionist history. The republicans are the party that supported the civil rights act. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/...

Like this bright spark.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01...

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

So the Clinton's go to some city to do some charity work and to give some paid speeches. How should they do that?

Should they use two different staffs? That's a lot of extra money and hassle.

Should they personally pay their staff to work for the charity? Sure, but they're spending a lot of their own money.

Or they could do what they did, have the charity pay for the same staff when that staff is working for the charity.

Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

I don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State. But if she was President they'd be completely detached from the foundation, there would be no opportunity for someone to donate to a Clinton charity because there would be none.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

A "power player" is not a government official, former politicians cashing in is not new, even if the politician might return to a position of power.

The difference is that Trump is currently President.

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

ay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

The Trump trademark was granted several months ago, when the majority of news sources still put him at a huge disadvantage in the polls. There was a 3 month period where you could dispute the trademark which ended last week.

Making up stories does nothing good to the press, it only makes people distrust them more.

Not quite

China's trademark review board announced in September it had invalidated a rival claim for the Trump trademark, clearing the way for Trump to move in. In November, soon after the election, it awarded the trademark to the Trump Organization. The trademark was officially registered this week after a three-month notice period for objections expired.

Of course it could just be coincidence... but yeah, China was trying to curry favour and/or giving Trump something they could later threaten to take away.