Turning a fossil fuel into a carbon-neutral renewable fuel that most vehicles on the roads could switch to overnight even if their owners don't have 5 digits to blow isn't "exciting" to you? I know ICEs are horrifically inefficient but that's still big news.
Maybe the patents won't get bought out by an oil company this time...unlike automotive nimh batteries and butanol. We gotta keep trying until something gets through.
Hydrocarbons aren't totally irreplaceable, batteries could match their energy density and replace them for cars. Turning battery power into kinetic energy is far more efficient than you could ever hope for with hydrocarbons.
"Intolerant pro-tolerance folks?" Sounds like you've conflated the political and mechanical definitions of tolerance, a common mistake. The political meaning of tolerance is closer to "anti-discrimination" than it is to the meaning of "tolerance" in the mechanical context. This is why allowing bigotry, as the WBC often calls for, is not considered "tolerance."
Pretty much all of them do...looks like you'll have to become a voodoo witch-doctor. And avoid any of the natural cures they used that modern scientists have found to actually work.
I don't know if you actually read TFA, I didn't, but from reading this news elsewhere they found that the creatures' hearing organs were damaged. They weren't just scared into beaching themselves.
Is this real or a joke? I'm looking forward to finding out how simple of a cause-effect relationship can be denied. This is basically the equivalent of finding that the neighbor's eardrums were blown out due to you setting off explosions in your back yard, so it's pretty straightforward.
The purpose is simply to avoid putting my resources into speech I don't like. Intimidation may be a secondary effect depending on how much money I'm cutting off or how many others do the same as I do. But I'm not threatening anyone, I just stop buying their stuff.
Let's go back to the soap company example, say instead of kicking puppies I promote and organize boycotts, including those against homophobic companies. Would you continue to buy my soap?
I wasn't pointing out any particular real-world example, and I didn't think that you'd deny that anti-gay sentiment exists to the point that no business would avoid supporting a known gay rights activist, but since you want some examples, see the entire history of companies discriminating against gay employees. They didn't want to buy the work of a pro-gay entity in those instances.
Nice derail though, attack my examples instead of answering the question.
I'm allowing all that speech. I'm not asking for censorship. I simply choose not to actively support speech I don't like. And I can argue for others to do the same, it's free speech. Others can do the same to me if they disagree. They can't censor me, they can just not actively support me.
You're right, but the CEO should have avoided exposing his personal bigotry at all costs to avoid losing the money of that 10%. Purely from a business standpoint.
You're willing to allow more evil than I am. I would stop supporting a company and encourage others to do so if they merely advocated puppy-kicking.
If you think speech should ONLY be answered with speech, consider that the US government classifies money as speech, allowing companies to spend unlimited money on political lobbying. So if you answer speech with (ending the flow of) money, maybe it's still speech...
Why not use a right you have in this society when that same right is being used against you? If I spoke about my views about how we're living in the second gilded age with my real name, some companies wouldn't want to buy from me because they don't like that speech. If you were a gay rights activist some companies would refuse to buy from you because they don't like that speech. It's a right we have in this society, to choose not to purchase from others for any reason including their speech, and argue that others should follow. I'm not going to argue whether it's an ethical right to use because you think it isn't and we'll just have to disagree on that, so now I'm going to ask why you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage.
Also I love when people say "gay agenda," one of the most efficient phrases ever. It says "I am rabidly homophobic to the point that I have built overarching conspiracy theories about it."
In the US, historically "attempting to bully or marginalize" half the nation's population has been exactly the path to "progress." See: slavery, segregation.
Not exactly, It says I will not support you if you spread this viewpoint (in the case of boycotts over speech). How is that wrong? Say I'm the CEO of the company you buy soap from, and i decide to start extolling the virtues of kicking puppies. Would it be wrong and censorious for you to start buying soap from someone else instead of giving me your money because of this?
Indeed, it's a pity that the OP f*cked up a rather interesting point: homosexuality is not an equivalent position to heterosexuality, because we can't all resort to it. If science comes to the rescue with an artificial way to procreate, I bet in short term society loses control over natural birth, in a "brave new world" fashion.
I'm trying really hard to understand this...do you think all gay men are bisexual? And how is artificial procreation related?
Homosexuals reject procreation? I'm pretty sure they're not all VHE supporters, none of those I know are. Many not only support the concept of procreation, but want to adopt children.
There's far from a shortage of children in the world, never mind the means to have more.
Do you have any problems with infertile heterosexual people, just out of curiosity? I assume you wouldn't like those who could procreate and choose not to. My cousin and his wife decided they never want to have kids - not their own or adopted.
Slashdot Mirror
Turning a fossil fuel into a carbon-neutral renewable fuel that most vehicles on the roads could switch to overnight even if their owners don't have 5 digits to blow isn't "exciting" to you? I know ICEs are horrifically inefficient but that's still big news.
Maybe the patents won't get bought out by an oil company this time...unlike automotive nimh batteries and butanol. We gotta keep trying until something gets through.
Hydrocarbons aren't totally irreplaceable, batteries could match their energy density and replace them for cars. Turning battery power into kinetic energy is far more efficient than you could ever hope for with hydrocarbons.
Yes the heat from the stove helps to keep the ovaries supple and healthy!
"Intolerant pro-tolerance folks?" Sounds like you've conflated the political and mechanical definitions of tolerance, a common mistake. The political meaning of tolerance is closer to "anti-discrimination" than it is to the meaning of "tolerance" in the mechanical context. This is why allowing bigotry, as the WBC often calls for, is not considered "tolerance."
Please learn the meaning of tolerance in the political context, it's not the same as in the mechanical context.
Pretty much all of them do...looks like you'll have to become a voodoo witch-doctor. And avoid any of the natural cures they used that modern scientists have found to actually work.
1. They wouldn't be loud enough, they need very powerful sound for this mapping, that's what damaged the whales' hearing.
2. Don't you think mimicking whale calls might confuse the whales?
I don't know if you actually read TFA, I didn't, but from reading this news elsewhere they found that the creatures' hearing organs were damaged. They weren't just scared into beaching themselves.
Is this real or a joke? I'm looking forward to finding out how simple of a cause-effect relationship can be denied. This is basically the equivalent of finding that the neighbor's eardrums were blown out due to you setting off explosions in your back yard, so it's pretty straightforward.
The purpose is simply to avoid putting my resources into speech I don't like. Intimidation may be a secondary effect depending on how much money I'm cutting off or how many others do the same as I do. But I'm not threatening anyone, I just stop buying their stuff.
Let's go back to the soap company example, say instead of kicking puppies I promote and organize boycotts, including those against homophobic companies. Would you continue to buy my soap?
I wasn't pointing out any particular real-world example, and I didn't think that you'd deny that anti-gay sentiment exists to the point that no business would avoid supporting a known gay rights activist, but since you want some examples, see the entire history of companies discriminating against gay employees. They didn't want to buy the work of a pro-gay entity in those instances.
Nice derail though, attack my examples instead of answering the question.
All the groups we're discussing?
I'm allowing all that speech. I'm not asking for censorship. I simply choose not to actively support speech I don't like. And I can argue for others to do the same, it's free speech. Others can do the same to me if they disagree. They can't censor me, they can just not actively support me.
You're right, but the CEO should have avoided exposing his personal bigotry at all costs to avoid losing the money of that 10%. Purely from a business standpoint.
You're willing to allow more evil than I am. I would stop supporting a company and encourage others to do so if they merely advocated puppy-kicking.
If you think speech should ONLY be answered with speech, consider that the US government classifies money as speech, allowing companies to spend unlimited money on political lobbying. So if you answer speech with (ending the flow of) money, maybe it's still speech...
Why not use a right you have in this society when that same right is being used against you? If I spoke about my views about how we're living in the second gilded age with my real name, some companies wouldn't want to buy from me because they don't like that speech. If you were a gay rights activist some companies would refuse to buy from you because they don't like that speech. It's a right we have in this society, to choose not to purchase from others for any reason including their speech, and argue that others should follow. I'm not going to argue whether it's an ethical right to use because you think it isn't and we'll just have to disagree on that, so now I'm going to ask why you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage.
Guido Barilla should stick to his guns. Standing up to bullying by gay activists wins more customers than does capitulation, just ask Chik-Fil-A.
Chick-Fil-A "capitulated:"
http://www.queerty.com/chick-fil-a-stops-anti-gay-donations-adopts-anti-discrimination-policy-20120919/
Also I love when people say "gay agenda," one of the most efficient phrases ever. It says "I am rabidly homophobic to the point that I have built overarching conspiracy theories about it."
Maybe that kick-up in profit had something to do with this?
http://www.queerty.com/chick-fil-a-stops-anti-gay-donations-adopts-anti-discrimination-policy-20120919/
Sounds like a success for the boycotters.
In the US, historically "attempting to bully or marginalize" half the nation's population has been exactly the path to "progress." See: slavery, segregation.
Not exactly, It says I will not support you if you spread this viewpoint (in the case of boycotts over speech). How is that wrong? Say I'm the CEO of the company you buy soap from, and i decide to start extolling the virtues of kicking puppies. Would it be wrong and censorious for you to start buying soap from someone else instead of giving me your money because of this?
Why's that? There can be consequences whenever someone says something others don't like, why should this exec's homophobia be different?
Indeed, it's a pity that the OP f*cked up a rather interesting point: homosexuality is not an equivalent position to heterosexuality, because we can't all resort to it. If science comes to the rescue with an artificial way to procreate, I bet in short term society loses control over natural birth, in a "brave new world" fashion.
I'm trying really hard to understand this...do you think all gay men are bisexual? And how is artificial procreation related?
Homosexuals reject procreation? I'm pretty sure they're not all VHE supporters, none of those I know are. Many not only support the concept of procreation, but want to adopt children.
There's far from a shortage of children in the world, never mind the means to have more.
Do you have any problems with infertile heterosexual people, just out of curiosity? I assume you wouldn't like those who could procreate and choose not to. My cousin and his wife decided they never want to have kids - not their own or adopted.
Have you tried delving deep into the rumors circulating right-wing forums? Fictional bogeymen like to hide there when pursued.
No it's a good thing that this happened. This fight has been fought before, and restaurants can't refuse to serve black people today because of it.