Slashdot Mirror

Remember BNP Paribas, was punished for violated sanctions [reuters.com]. Yes, Cuba is only sanctioned by one country, the most powerful country which dominates the world's monetary system.

That's because they have a presence in the US, which means they're bound to US laws (including things like RICO.) They can still do business with American customers if they don't have a presence here, but because they chose to do so means they have to follow US laws. The reverse also applies to US companies doing business in Europe.

If you don't believe, read "Red brotherhood at wars", which showed after the Vietnam War, Vietnam actively opened the economy and tried to make relations with Western countries, but feared of sanction by USA, only France provide several thousand dollars.

I'm aware of this actually, and they have similar restrictions on internet access without any involvement of the US. Oh and by the way, it was France who started the whole mess there. The US only got involved after France caused them to distrust the west and join the eastern bloc.

And, It seems that you don't read the report, or try not to understand.

Or option c: Your report throws a 404 error and is thus unreadable.

The report claimed Cuba restricts internet connection as a dictatorial country would do, as one knew about the "Iron Curtain".

Yeah, no shit.

Forbidden for everyday citizens because they have limited resource or expensive satellite option.

Either you fail at English or you fail at logic. Forbidden doesn't mean "can't afford", rather it means that the government doesn't want you to have access to it unless you are closely affiliated with their party and toe the line. In case you haven't noticed, Cuba even forbids their citizens from having a satellite dish. That doesn't mean they don't have them, but they'll go to jail (or worse) if caught, under the charge of being a counterrevolutionary. It is absolutely illegal for anybody in Cuba to have internet access in their private home, and for them to receive foreign television broadcasts. The only way a private citizen can access it is if they go to a public internet cafe, where it's restricted. Also, the Cuban government decides the price for internet access for the public, and they set it to $2 per hour. Nobody decided that price except for the Cuban government themselves. It wasn't the US, or Venezuela, or US corporations; it's entirely the decision of the Cuban government.

The most common way they get access to forbidden foreign artwork and news is through an illegal sneakernet.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Why does it have to be either "left wing" or "right wing" books that win?

Without diving into it again, I seem to recall that this wasn't strictly a political left vs political right battle despite the inferences, it started off as a spat betwixt 'traditionalists' and 'reformers' (for given values of both terms).
Now, if I had to place myself on the political left-right spectrum I'd be a left winger, if I could be really bothered getting worked up over something as inane as a book award, no matter how many authors I like have won it in the past, I'd be magically a 'right winger' as far as the articles published about this are concerned. Politics eh?, strange bedfellows, go figure..

I'll not deny that there is now a strong left-right political divide at work here as well, I fall into the camp that believes that the awards should be based on the quality of the writing, not some misguided 'leftist' attempt at fostering diversity, being politically correct, being 'inclusive' or whatever the hell else they're calling it nowadays, so, in the interests of fairness, balance and sheer bloody mindedness I'll support anything that turns what was a politically motivated farce into literary grand guignol..

Why not just choose good books, regardless of politics?

(I have to restrict this to Science fiction, as I've books on politics as well)

Good books, hmm, If I look at the science fiction folder on my ebook the thing that is fairly noticeable is the lack of 'modern' science fiction, ebooks of works originally published after the 1970s are remarkable in my collection by their general absence..science fiction ebooks published in the last couple of years, only a select few authors. As the topic is the Hugos, looking at the list for best Novel here, of the titles listed, I currently have on my ebook reader for the time spans listed below;

2006 - 2016: 5 (all the same author)
1996 - 2005: 3 (2 by the same author)
1986 - 1995: 2
1976 - 1985: 17
1966 - 1975: 14
1953 - 1965: 14

This is a fairly good indicator as to the average ages of the titles in my science fiction collection, both ebook and paper, and is a very good indicator of the age of the material I like to keep with me at all times on my ebook reader (on the main fileserver there's a far wider date range and author selection). Of the titles listed of Hugo nominees and winners in the Novels (and the other categories), I have read most of them up till about 2003 (minus Rowling and Martin, Rowling's writing style 'grates', I'm not saying Martin's stuff is bad by lumping it here with Rowling, it isn't, but just of no interest to me).

So, the problem is, my definition of a good book might not be yours, and, as is evident from the above that as the years go on my idea of a good SF book doesn't square with that of the voters of the Hugos either, obviously, I'm in the right, the rest of the Universe is skewed...

Now, politics. When this whole thing first blew up I thought 'ah, popcorn time, let's sit back and have a laugh' then I read some of the nominated material and thought 'hold on, isn't this the Hugos we're talking about?, why is this drek being nominated?'. Again, I state I'm a left-winger if you have to place me on the scales, someone(s) with nothing better to do, no doubt on the political left of things, decided to make the Hugos 'inclusive', so nominations were being 'skewed' to fit this agenda, now, if they'd actually bothered picking some decently written stories, then we still wouldn't be going on about this.

I don't usually care about the political, sexual or religious leanings of the authors, and I don't care if they permeate their works with whatever message they're trying to get across

But it lowers nutrition of some food.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Of course there is the fact that some crops are not as nutritious when grown in an environment with an elevated CO2 level. This study tested certain crops with the expected CO2 level at the middle of the century and found:

"Wheat grown in high CO2 levels had 9% less zinc and 5% less iron, as well as 6% less protein, while rice had 3% less iron, 5% less iron and 8% less protein. Maize saw similar falls while soybeans lost similar levels of zinc and iron but, being a legume not a grass, did not see lower protein."

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

The Guardian has a story currently on a Los Angeles 'conspiracy'. But then I'm from Melbourne and we're very patriotic about our trams. :)

He threatened to give all refugees Schengen visa

Can you find an actual quote of him saying exactly this? Not some journalistic trash from "Die Bild", something more reputable. Not to mention that the immigration crisis started when he had already left.

He threatened to demand wartime reparation from Germany even though Greece had received their reparations

A lawsuit is not a "threat". And I don't see why Germany should be afraid of that, unless it has some reason to think it could lose (does it...?). And once again, this would be a german problem only. You keep confusing your own country with "europe".

He threatened to start a lot of lawsuits if the rest of the Eurozone kicks Greece out of the currency union

It's actually the opposite. He said that, without a deal, Greece would get out of the eurozone by its own will, and declare default. He had started preparations for that before resigning:
http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

And it wouldn't be be bad for Greece, because its exports would immediately skyrocket due to a devalued currency. It's hard for a recession to go on after it has already shed 25% of a country's GDP. Instead, it would be a disaster for Germany and its banks:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/2...

And, most importantly, it would be very bad for the IMF, the ECB, the EU, international banks, and all the other "bilderberg guys" who advocate a globalized world without protectionism, national sovereignties, and democracy. If one country exits a currency and trade agreement and suddenly starts thriving, then many others would follow the example. I guess that's probably why he "was" resigned.

Probably not, but there's plenty of dislike in the US for Brazil's leftwing government, with plenty of attacking propaganda by US political pundits. The last time a coup happen in Brazil it was directly supported by the US. Combine that with the fact that the current president (the one they're trying to impeach) was tortured by US and UK-trained torturers, it's not that far-fetched to assume that some US citizens are also involved in these trolling campaigns (but again, I doubt it's the case for this Igw guy; he's probably just badly informed).

"In the US, women are paid a fraction of what men are paid."

I think the poster made a comment about Sharia Law because it is so awful to women. How can anyone have a meaningful conversation about differences in wage equality, compared to being stoned to death under Sharia Law?

"...the reality is that human beings can be pretty cruel to each other, with or without religion."

Yes, but religion codifies barbaric practices and provides twisted opportunities to justify horrific behavior. I'd much rather a world free of religion though permeated with your inevitable* latent barbarism and cruel behaviour than *both* the cruel behaviour and religion.

*probably not actually, but that's a different argument, let's assume it to be true for now.

The OP's use of a sharia law was a red herring type of fallacy (specifically called an Appeal to Emothion), which seemed to serve his/her purpose based on your response. Nobody is arguing that shariah law is terrible. It just doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand, or only does so on a tangent path.

That said, it does not change the fact that institutionalized wage discrimination (the value of a person in the workplace) and the way sharia law treats women are just two injustices on a continuum. To be abusive to another human being, psychologist hold that you must first not value them as a person. Once their value is lessened, it is much easier to deny them rights, to physically and emotionally beat them. After all, they are not a person, they are a thing.

One only has to examine the Stanford prison experiment to see this in action. Porn, as opposed to sensuality, is just one more way to objectify a person or a class of people and see them as objects. It is this devaluation that is abusive and this abuse that leads to further abuses. Likewise, for various discriminatory actions against women or minorities or any group. Once a society no longer values a class of people, it is very easy for things like the Holocaust or sharia law to occur. That is why there is such an outcry of pornography by many different groups.

As for religion codifying barbaric practices, is that inherent in religion or in some religions? If only some, then it is not religion that codifies the practice. In most case, the religion doesn't either, but the religion is used by individuals in power, to devalue classes of people and then atrocities are enacted. Of course, religion can also be used to produce much good. In the end, religion is neither good or bad, it is how the leaders of such religious groups use it that is good or bad. Take Islamic terrorist attacks. The Koran expressly prohibits harming non-combatants, particularly women and children. That is the part that is actually codified by the religion. However, individual practitioners of that religion have twisted the teaching so that it is not only permissible but encouraged. Is all of Islam to be blamed (some 1.57 billion proponents) for the actions of a few (estimated at less than 40,000)?

Often, when people complain about religion, they are really complaining about the "faithful's" adherence to an ideology. Blind adherence to any ideology, not just a religious one, is dangerous. It's just that religious ideologies are very evident, but we often are blind to the other ideologies that we have bought into and influence our actions and decisions.

but that doesn't mean he has to be tortured What torture? What he is experiencing doesn't even register on the scale of torture. Solitary confinement is a human rights violation. No, it's not. It serves two purposes. 1) to prevent people like him from harming others as they have already done and 2) prevent others from harming him because of what they have done.

Experts disagree. Solitary confinement isn't punishment. It's torture [...] The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has specifically condemned Woodfox’s treatment as torture and called on the United States to eliminate the use of prolonged isolation. As discussed, solitary confinement inflicts psychological injury on inmates subjected to it for more than a brief period of time.156 Though such suffering may be mental rather than physical, the punishment is still likely to be found "severe" under international laws prohibiting torture. [...] Solitary confinement use in the United States contravenes international law because it fulfills all four elements of torture.

But as always, it's easy to be generous with other people's money.

The Norwegian tax payers overall seem to be very happy with the system. Maybe because it works. Or maybe because they are understand international human rights standards.

"In the US, women are paid a fraction of what men are paid."

I think the poster made a comment about Sharia Law because it is so awful to women. How can anyone have a meaningful conversation about differences in wage equality, compared to being stoned to death under Sharia Law?

"...the reality is that human beings can be pretty cruel to each other, with or without religion."

Yes, but religion codifies barbaric practices and provides twisted opportunities to justify horrific behavior. I'd much rather a world free of religion though permeated with your inevitable* latent barbarism and cruel behaviour than *both* the cruel behaviour and religion.

*probably not actually, but that's a different argument, let's assume it to be true for now.

The both of them engaged in play acting. The FBI wanted to oblige Apple to respond to thousands (or tens of thousands) of FISA requests a year. Also, Apple was happy to have a PR image of being secure while the FBI was happy if dumb criminals thought the iPhones were safe to store incriminating information on.

Citation, please, or STFU.

Well I can't respond to the "Apple was happy to ..." blabla that is sheer speculation, but for the first part, Director Comey is on record for saying that he hoped the Apple case could set a precedent (after saying the case would not be used to set a precedent) and be used by other courts to order the unlocking of phones in ordinary criminal cases. Source

I know, right? Three years without an ice cap, not a single Seychelles island left, constant category seven hurricanes. The AGW have been making nothing but accurate predictions for decades.

Nobody has made any of those predictions as things that would happen by 2016.

Yes somebody did make some of those claims,

Prof Wadhams said: "His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.

"It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that's when it will happen."
Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015',

Professor Peter Wadhams, from Cambridge University, told BBC News: "A number of scientists who have actually been working with sea ice measurement had predicted some years ago that the retreat would accelerate and that the summer Arctic would become ice-free by 2015 or 2016. Arctic sea ice reaches record low, Nasa says

"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates".

Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming."

"As the sea ice retreats in summer the ocean warms up (to 7C in 2011) and this warms the seabed too. The continental shelves of the Arctic are composed of offshore permafrost, frozen sediment left over from the last ice age. As the water warms the permafrost melts and releases huge quantities of trapped methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas so this will give a big boost to global warming." Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

Let's hope so. US government agencies have caused a lot of damage by the way they handled this case, blowing everything hugely out of proportion, making heaps of false and/or questionable accusations and acting like this is the first case of tampering with emission tests ever. The whole affair seems very dishonest and hypocritical. It is nothing more than an attempt to grab money, to damage the reputation of a competitor to U.S. government-backed car manufacturers and to distract from EPA's own failures in the recent past. It is suspicously similar to the way Toyota was attacked because of a problem with accelerator pedals that probably never existed.

It is more than fair that VW should fix the issues at its own cost and that owners should be compensated for their inconvenience. If it can be established that any environmental damage was done, it is also reasonable that VW should pay for compensation projects administered by an independent third party. Anything beyond that is, in my opinion, unfairly taking advantage of the situation. Let's not forget that only a few VW employees, who are already facing criminal prosecution, were responsible for this violation and similar cases involving American manufacturers (e.g. GM's Cadillacs) were handled with small fines and little publicity. Moreover, the EA189-equipped cars do not actually pollute more than most comparable Euro 5 diesels (or even many Euro 6 diesels). The only difference is that other manufacturers (as far as we know) design around test conditions, rather than checking for them explicitly (although the Opel Zafira case suggests otherwise and the Renault Espace case is also very fishy).

Let's hope so. US government agencies have caused a lot of damage by the way they handled this case, blowing everything hugely out of proportion, making heaps of false and/or questionable accusations and acting like this is the first case of tampering with emission tests ever. The whole affair seems very dishonest and hypocritical. It is nothing more than an attempt to grab money, to damage the reputation of a competitor to U.S. government-backed car manufacturers and to distract from EPA's own failures in the recent past. It is suspicously similar to the way Toyota was attacked because of a problem with accelerator pedals that probably never existed.

It is more than fair that VW should fix the issues at its own cost and that owners should be compensated for their inconvenience. If it can be established that any environmental damage was done, it is also reasonable that VW should pay for compensation projects administered by an independent third party. Anything beyond that is, in my opinion, unfairly taking advantage of the situation. Let's not forget that only a few VW employees, who are already facing criminal prosecution, were responsible for this violation and similar cases involving American manufacturers (e.g. GM's Cadillacs) were handled with small fines and little publicity. Moreover, the EA189-equipped cars do not actually pollute more than most comparable Euro 5 diesels (or even many Euro 6 diesels). The only difference is that other manufacturers (as far as we know) design around test conditions, rather than checking for them explicitly (although the Opel Zafira case suggests otherwise and the Renault Espace case is also very fishy).

• President Cameron Davis campaigns to keep England on the Euro
• Kandahar bombed by IS fighter jets
• Congress fines NBA $1 MILLION over heart attacks
• Che Guevara ovulates while standing for Congress

Well, natural gas has its own problems, since fracking in its current form produces a lot of methane which is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2 and this has contributed to a spike in methane levels http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/us-likely-culprit-of-global-spike-in-methane-emissions-over-last-decade. But if we can get that under control and get the technology to be well-regulated, then yes, natural gas looks really appealing then.

Sorry, maybe this is more suitable to your tastes...

That doesn't make sense. The government has been funding ISIS (and Al Qaeda, more money is made by playing both sides) for years. Must be part of the overall power grab the government has been engaged in since the turn of the century.

Too bad it doesn't work that way in reality

Self-publishing also comes under fire, he said – but this is "even less of a way of earning money from your writing if you're any good than conventional publishing".

The average professional published author would be better off working at a McJob. The decline in income over the last 12 years should be an eye-opener.

Free speech for me, but not for thee?

Trump seems to believe so

i'm talking about stuff like this, not normal running expenses/capital expenditure http://www.theguardian.com/env...

You seem to think you know about this internet thingy but you could just try this thing call Google. It's amazing what it can find:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
BEIJING — China has released new statistics indicating that it used less coal last year than in 2014, lending support to the view that the country, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, may have reached a peak in coal consumption.

That would be a boon for global efforts to limit climate change, since industrial coal burning is the primary source of greenhouse gases. The new data, released on Monday by the National Bureau of Statistics, said coal consumption had fallen 3.7 percent in 2015 compared with the previous year. It was the second straight year of decline, according to the bureau, which said coal use had dropped 2.9 percent in 2014.
Coal use fell 3.7% in 2015, following 2.9% drop in 2014, as China tries to wean itself off fuel that causes local air pollution problems and global warming

I keep repeating it. It's very well documented in this 42 page paper:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

News article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”

Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike.
The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.

No, not tax credits. It would be good if you would read the paper first:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

News article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”

Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike.
The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.

Don't need islam for that.

Every time a some one kills their kid because they might be gay, that's an honor killing.
Every time a husband kills his wife because he thinks she cheated on him, that's an honor killing.

Blame the neoliberals. Hayek and Mises started the ideology which has destroyed incentive for everyone except the rich.
Here's a good history and insight into the problem:
http://www.theguardian.com/boo...
"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."
"Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."

Perhaps there is a reason for that. Immigration should not be taken lightly, it is a tremendous decision, and it is something that harms the country you are leaving. It should not be easy to just leave your country of birth and move to another just because you don't like your home country anymore.

A study for the National Foundation for American Policy estimated that to hire someone on an H-1B visa, a U.S. employer has to pay about $2,500 in legal fees; a $1,500 training fee; a $1,000 “premium processing” fee; a $500 antifraud fee; a $190 immigration service fee; around $125 in additional incidental costs; and a $100 visa fee. That totals almost $6,000. Complicated immigration cases can cost eligible applicants $10,000 or more in legal fees alone. Meanwhile, even unauthorized immigrants from Central America pay between $7,000 and $10,000 in smuggling fees to get across the border, according to Alex Nowrasteh at the Competitive Enterprise Institute—often more than once, because they get caught, thrown out, and try to return.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

So, a difficult immigration can cost around $10k, however, people are paying that amount to come in illegally in smuggling fees. So it must not be an issue how much it costs. The $6000 they list for hiring a H1B sounds pretty fair too, it costs around that to hire a citizen instead.

Adoption costs around this much, and it is just as much of a decision.

This site says that some Visas cost as little as $465, so it is just too much money!
http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

The problem for me is that a lot of denialist articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies to get people to deny climate change. So much of the denialist FUD looks like a power grab by fossil energy companies to give to pet politicians and astroturfing organisations to funnel the money back to their coffers.

FTFY

Looks like we do have concensus... or settlement... (whatever you want to call it).
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N?=?2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

So, I cobbled some highly inefficient javascript together with nodejs and have left it parsing comments for the following article. The censored comments are fairly innocuous. You're apparently not allowed to cite Breitbart articles either.

violation of community standards

What's with the "community"? There are no "community" standards — the removed messages were deemed offensive by a handful of moderators. Moderators prone to keeping some posts more equal than others and susceptible to manipulation by evil regimes.

Calling them "community" is redefining terms...

gravely harm an innocent person .. No way.

The whole point was, waterboarding does not cause "grave harm". Even the scientists opposing the procedure, god bless their mighty hearts, can fault it only for the potential of dirty water seeping into nostrils and the high levels of stress-hormones. Nothing, in other words, that can't happen to a prisoner of an ordinary detention facility, military or civilian alike...

Inconvenience, maybe .. But gravely harm an innocent person .. No way.

You seem to use the term "innocent" as in "not convicted of wrong-doing by any court". Fine — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was certainly innocent in that sense, when he was waterboarded. Ok, now, are you going to condemn President Obama for his extensive killing of similarly innocent people? Why not? Mind you, Obama has already done it — on numerous occasions — whereas Trump merely says, he will.

If Obama got reelected comfortably despite such outrageous killings — with enthusiastic support of most Slashdotters — why should mere waterboarding be a problem for Trump?

But, if those killed by "Hellfire" on President Obama's orders were not quite innocent — and thus acceptable in your opinion — what makes you suspect, President Trump will order waterboarding of suspects with less evidence against them?

I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).

Has he said something else that I have missed?

Donald Trump: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So being a Mexican immigrant means you're either a drug dealer or a rapist according to Trump. That's racism.

Donald Trump: "But you have people coming in and I'm not just saying Mexicans, I'm talking about people that are killers and they're coming into this country." And that's xenophobic.

Donald Trump: "Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border." Linking a community with disease. Where did I hear this before?

Donald Trump: "I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.” Treating hispanics like dogs he can throw a bone to, that's racist too.

Donald Trump: "No surprise that China was caught cheating in the Olympics. That's the Chinese M.O. - Lie, Cheat & Steal in all international dealings." Note how he said it's the "Chinese modus operandi", not the "Chinese *government* M.O.". Claiming 1+ billion people are liars, cheaters and thieves, just for their ethnicity or the country they live in is racism.

Has Trump ever actually issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.

Well he certainly did against protestors at his rallies.

But more importantly, "Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." and "Donald Trump said that he would 'absolutely' institute mandatory registration." So he says he will use the force of law to discriminate on the basis of religion. In other words he is against freedom of religion and against the bill of rights.

While those are not direct threats of violence, it's already too much for someone who wants to be the chief of the world's most powerful army.

http://www.theguardian.com/mon...
"Women in 20s earn more than men"

Women are already making more than men as is

Your mental visual is entertaining. It's not like you describe it but does indeed happen that I am looked askance as I described.

My worry is that the activities mentioned in OPs post will serve to magnify this effect into something that has more of a detrimental impact on individuals innocent of wrong-doing other than being born male.

As another sonewhat related example, women are parading through city streets with nothing but tape on their nipples and being applauded as heros, while a man that helped land a probe on a comet is required to apologize for his shirt.

https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/t...

I just see this getting worse.

Actually, the bathroom issue is also generating outrage. For an example a college in New York has removed all gender identification from bathroom doors.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/29/gender-bathrooms-cooper-union-college-new-york

My home bathroom is gender neutral.

This is a good example. I am not to blame for rapists. Rapists are to blame for rapists. I have no influence over the behaviour of people I don't know. I am not some asshole frat boy or rape apologist and I have zero influence over those who are. Those are the kind of people who used to bully me at school and equating me with them is incredibly insulting.

Here's another one. I'm not a murderer or a rapist. I don't harass women on the internet. I have no interest in Gamergate. But because I share the same genitalia with bad people it's my fault too.

Dismissal of male suicide. A small amount of men are rich and powerful so those of us who aren't and that suffer from mental illnesses don't deserve any sympathy. Four times as many men as women kill themselves every year but meh it's their fault for not embracing feminism and not a lot more complicated than that.

More white men have all the power. No I don't. I'm not even a manager, never mind a CEO.

There's plenty more bollocks like this about and this isn't the rantings of Twitter trolls but mainstream media journalists.

If your plan is to rebut me by trotting out some shit from the Daily Mail, then I'm not interested. Just because they're a bunch of tossers doesn't mean Jessica Valenti et al get a free pass to be sexist and racist towards people that have done nothing wrong and actually would rather be supporters and an allies. Telling us that our problems are irrelevant and that everything that's wrong in the world is our fault is a good way to get us to stick two fingers up and walk away.

This is a good example. I am not to blame for rapists. Rapists are to blame for rapists. I have no influence over the behaviour of people I don't know. I am not some asshole frat boy or rape apologist and I have zero influence over those who are. Those are the kind of people who used to bully me at school and equating me with them is incredibly insulting.

Here's another one. I'm not a murderer or a rapist. I don't harass women on the internet. I have no interest in Gamergate. But because I share the same genitalia with bad people it's my fault too.

Dismissal of male suicide. A small amount of men are rich and powerful so those of us who aren't and that suffer from mental illnesses don't deserve any sympathy. Four times as many men as women kill themselves every year but meh it's their fault for not embracing feminism and not a lot more complicated than that.

More white men have all the power. No I don't. I'm not even a manager, never mind a CEO.

There's plenty more bollocks like this about and this isn't the rantings of Twitter trolls but mainstream media journalists.

If your plan is to rebut me by trotting out some shit from the Daily Mail, then I'm not interested. Just because they're a bunch of tossers doesn't mean Jessica Valenti et al get a free pass to be sexist and racist towards people that have done nothing wrong and actually would rather be supporters and an allies. Telling us that our problems are irrelevant and that everything that's wrong in the world is our fault is a good way to get us to stick two fingers up and walk away.

Re for what? Why do you need this DNA
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... (Tuesday 12 July 2011)

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

As to sea levels, we have good records going back in a few places on earth. I have looked at Dutch sea level rise charts that go back as far as they've kept records which is farther than anyone else has done with accuracy. They show a consistent sea level rise between the beginning of their record keeping and now. We can also see similar charts in New England. Manhattan for example was something that Hanson claimed would be half underwater by now. Well... it isn't. And the historic charts on Manhattan's sea levels show over time change in the Delta.

As to majorities of papers... Science is not a democracy. It doesn't work by voting. Your argument is ad populum and is a dead give away that you rely on sophistic thinking. I don't say that to suggest you are a liar. Rather, I think you have been educated in how to think by sophists and simply don't know what you're doing wrong.

You're attempting to argue science with politics. Don't do that.

As to the term "denier" you do know that term was coined to conflate questioning climate change theory with Holocaust Denial, right? Its basically argumentum ad Hitlarium... or Godwin's law. I'd prefer if you used the term skeptic or anything that wasn't transparently crafted to insult the opposition. I could just refer to the pro-we're-all-going-die faction as sophistic alarmists in their raw designation. Would that be agreeable to you?

As to people being inclined to do things that are novel and shocking... you mean like the heading figures of your position making novel and shocking claims that turn out to be false? Yes. That was my point. New York is not half under water. Is it? Shall I list all the predictions of the climate lobby that turned out not to happen?

We've been going back and forth on this issue for a long time now. And that means I can pull claims your faction has made from the beginning of this discussion. The things they said would happen should have happened by now in their own words. Basically none of their predictions have come true. And yet you expect to lose no face despite being unable to predict, model, or describe anything with actual accuracy? That isn't how science works.

As to you doubling down on the Himalayan glaciers... Allow me to take what remains of your undeserved credibility in a stroke then.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

They've already conceded the point. They have already admitted to making a mistake and being "wrong".

As to you not going over points... I think this clip sums up my opinion of that:
https://youtu.be/z2mXrndt1ZI?t...

You made a false claim on sea levels.
You used ad populum
You used godwin's law - I'll give you a pass on that one because its so commonly done that you probably don't realize you did it.
You used a double standard with the shocking and novel comment.
You failed to grasp that this has been going on long enough that we can just look at predictions that were made at the start and see if they happened. They haven't.
And then you doubled down on the Himalayan thing.

And then you presume to high hat me and say but 'I'm not going to lower myself to going through the details with a filthy peasant like you'... Okay then. Don't. What do you have to offer to the discussion that would be of value in the first place? By the above display, I'm going to assume little to nothing.

The conspiracy theorists are playing right along by saying there are no Americans mentioned in the Panama Papers so it must have been scrubbed, despite (1) hundreds of Americans being named in them, and (2) you don't have to go offshore to hide money. The US works just fine for hiding money.

The conspiracy theorists are playing right along by saying there are no Americans mentioned in the Panama Papers so it must have been scrubbed, despite (1) hundreds of Americans being named in them, and (2) you don't have to go offshore to hide money. The US works just fine for hiding money.

Second If you use a Stingray to intercept the call you would not be violating the robbers 4th Amendment rights, since there is probably cause.

The probable cause may help you get a warrant from a judge — but you still need a warrant. One fairly high court has already said so...

What you would be doing in violating everyone one else's rights who's cell phone connects to the Stingray and their data is captured

Maybe, but I doubt it. But, suppose it is a violation — would you rather the robber escaped?

Yeah, sad... The actual iPhone case did not violate anybody's Constitutional rights, of course, but there are other questionable cases, so I shan't quibble.

But what if, seriously, doing one's job requires departing from this oath?

Don't say, it can't happen — it can. For example, you are chasing a guy, who just robbed a bank, and he gets into a car which speed of. The last thing you see him is, he pulls out a cell phone and starts dialing.

You can't catch him, but you can ask the nearby Stingray to intercept the call. Will you violate his 4th Amendment rights, or will you let him escape?

In the seven years of Obama, things aren't any better. The changes you posit are window dressing to the real issues underneath.

If you want a really good example, take a look at what major figures in both the (D) and (R) parties say about Snowden ... "he is a traitor"

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/...

The only person who REMOTELY understands is Rand Paul, who says Snowden needs Jail (alongside Clapper).

I am a libertarian, and while Snowden may have violated the law (and I don't care why), he exposed to the world that nothing has really changed. And still, nothing has really changed.

All you need to know is that there are secret courts issuing secret documents that nobody can talk about. Obama has done NOTHING to stop them

http://www.engadget.com/2016/0...

Go ahead, and make excuses why one party is "better" than the other. IMHO that is equivalent to saying one turd smells better that another.

what his dad did, is still not illegal

Actually, we don't know that yet. Pretty soon, we’ll know more about which of these important people were doing it for bad reasons and which were doing it for good reasons. But almost everyone is in trouble regardless.

It is at least an order of magnitude more rare than people who have only one set of bits at birth.

So you're happy for the govenment to pass a law which makes live very hard for 10%[*] of the population because you're (a) too stupid to understand the topic and (b) petrified of evil men?

Wow.

[*]You do know an order of magnitude is a factor of 10, right? Right?

Regardless, this whole thing is just another example of a very small part of the population wanting to change things for the majority,

Except no they don't. This is cowardly, ignorant and fearful people wanting to tyrannize that small majority because of some imagined fear.

Anything other than normal, straight males and females of all types is by far the minority, even if you combine all groups together.

It's odd that you're lumping gay people in with something that's a transgender issue, not a gay one. It's almost like you think of everyone not identical to you as some nebulous "other" to be feared and punished with punitive laws.

even if you combine all groups together.

Yep. Why bother considering the rights of 6% of the population. I mean we outnumber them. While we're at it, fuck disabled people too, because we outnumber them and could totally beat them up in a fight.

If you're not careful, you'll get a nasty backlash at some point, us normal folk get really tired of it after awhile.

Ah so you think it's "normal folk" versus the werirdos. Right. As a moderately normal person (to outside appearances), I think it's funny that you lump yourself together with me.

We are NOT against you,

Yeah you are. I mean you claim to not be, but you advocate laws wo make their life difficult. "I 'm not against you, I just want to make your life hard because I'm afraid of something that has never happened".

Okey dokey.

Imagine the insanity if I held a "straight-pride" parade.

Go ahead, and allow me to laugh when you're literally the only person who turns up.

Anyone interested in watching a person being confronted with the first bits of evidence of malfeasance and totally being guilty is here: http://www.theguardian.com/new... .
Icelandic PM walks out of interview