Nobody has to be trampled by the jackboots of your authoritarian scientific "facts" anymore, Bill Gates! People are free to choose their own facts in Trump's America!
It comes from a study on high-end solar panels used on satellites. Unlike everday solar panels, they did indeed take more energy to build than they produce over their lifetimes. This spread across right-wing blogs like wildfire a few years ago with the assumption that the same applied to all solar panels.
I know it's a biased source, unfortunately the only one with such an expansive compilation of statements, so I've verified them all. That's called using facts rather than acting on partisan reflex. I linked to Breitbart a couple weeks ago if it makes you feel better.
Obama got Iran closer to nuclear energy capabilities and further from nuclear weapons capabilities. But maybe you think trying to sanction Iran to death while just hoping that they don't develop nuclear weapons when they have nothing to lose from doing so was a better approach.
Authentication credentials that can't be hashed, can be stolen off your body, and can't be reset at will - but they do change with age, so maybe you can wait it out?
The flying car, as it could be made with today's technology, is just a novel alternative to a helicopter, as you point out (or perhaps a "roadable aircraft"). They'll suffer from all the same problems of the aircraft that people aren't already using, including the cost to own and run one.
But most people don't think of it that way. Most people think of the flying car as a poorly thought out idea from a cartoon. It'll be just like a regular car except you can get away from traffic by moving up or down! It would solve the problem of traffic congestion!
Unfortunately this idea is so far from attainable with today's technology that nobody alive today will live to see it. They'll need Star Trek batteries to carry a large amount of affordable power running affordable motors, first and foremost. The average person is already struggling to buy and run a small number of relatively very pedestrian combustion engines, they can't afford anything that has multiple exotic forms of the damn things ferociously guzzling precious fuel.
Did she profit from those encounters or does she regularly do so? If not, she's just an angry nutjob. The existence of angry nutjobs does not justify pre-emptive victim-blaming.
That isn't sticking up for your principles unless one of your principles is to spew gratuitous Islamophobia until the terrorism stops. The number of people in the US who actually want sharia law can probably be counted on your fingers, and won't be dissuaded if every conversation in America is peppered with Islamophobic jargon. Quite the opposite in fact.
Well if you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative, you're a libertarian, very different from a liberal. If you're socially conservative and fiscally liberal you're a...unicorn? I don't think there's a name for that. It seems that such views aren't common. But they're as different from "true" liberals as libertarians.
After some searching around it seems there is no name for this ideology.
There's a notion that a reason it is so hard to get rid of ISIS, and survivalists, and well, any kind of "nutter", is that nature keeps her options open.
Nope, nature is a cold-hearted bitch who doesn't give a fuck about anyone or their ideology and kills basically at random.
Not at all. Liberal (in the US) means a person who is fiscally and socially liberal. I've pointed out that he's not socially liberal at all. He's as different from a liberal as a conservative is from a libertarian.
About the only type speech that can be prohibited in the US, is that which actually incites violence against a real group of folks or individuals. Or incites other dangerous behavior (yelling fire in a movie theater)....
The other angle here is transchronoism. I expect I'll be modded as a troll for even mentioning it, but the law appears to have been lobbied for by transchrono groups. Basically they want to decouple a person's physical age from how they live, somewhat like how transgender people differentiate between the physical state of their bodies and the gender they live as. This mostly involves rejecting stereotypes and social norms associated with age, and not assuming that because someone is 20 they are inexperienced or that because they are 70 they are conservative and want you to get off their lawn.
Considering how bad age discrimination is in the tech sector, it would make sense for people in that sector to support transchronoism. Just because you are 55 doesn't mean you can't write a mobile app in Go.
To save others the googling, yes apparently this is a real thing.
No, I genuinely thought we were using the dictionary definition of "professional," weird huh? I think the word you're looking for may be "fraudulent" or "fictional."
How can anyone who is not a victim be a professional victim? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are closer to politicians than anything else. Like politicians they can rile up their base for donations.
The only successful "professional victims" are those who profited even though their lie was exposed. It's an incredibly risky and expensive fraud to attempt.
Successful "professional victims" are so rare they're not worth considering. The unsuccessful and exposed are still incredibly rare. To even suggest that any random person is a "professional victim" without solid evidence is just asinine victim blaming.
Attempted professional victims, sure, but they're almost always quickly found out. Nobody has found lasting success as a "professional victim" and it's an extremely risky and costly fraud to attempt. I think such attempts are vanishingly rare, but unfortunately because of those few, victimizers attempt to paint any and all of their victims with the same brush.
I'm glad you expanded your post because I don't really get what that image is saying. Maybe it's too US-centric for my understanding.
Trump's political positions are mostly a magic 8-ball and it was certainly too early to place him squarely on any political spectrum before the election. He frequently flips his stated positions on a whim. I think we can only judge him by his actions, so we'll have to see what he does when he's finished assembling what appears to be a corporatocratic government. He's putting a fox in every henhouse. I think he could be assembling easily the most fiscally right-wing government in living memory.
To argue that he's fiscally further left than Hillary requires a lot of cherry-picking and optimism, especially now that we've seen some of his actions.
One thing he doesn't waver on is a general tendency toward extreme authoritarianism and extreme social backwardness. I shouldn't have to elaborate on his history of racism and his many socially backward proposals. He's chosen Mike Pence, a leading proponent of "pray the gay away" programs and "Jim Queer" laws, as his VP. He's chosen Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions for his cabinet. He's far to the right of Hillary on most social issues.
And so are you, which might explain why you're OK with Trump, but not why you'd have any interest in Hillary or Bernie or why you call yourself a liberal while calling the left regressive over wacko fringe college politics, using "SJW," the modern general-purpose descendant of "n****r-lover," (side note: Slashdot now triggers the lameness filter if you use the N-word even once) and otherwise spewing what looks like standard alt-right rhetoric. It's bizarre.
Democrats have a problem, sure, obviously, but I'm not too interested in discussing that. We probably agree on most things there.
BTW, the alt-right at the time was indeed broadly a white nationalist movement. It was a hodgepodge of different factions led by a core of neo-nazis. The factions have since split up. I hate to link to Breitbart, but I think this article gives a good overview of the state of things at the time, straight from the horse's mouth. Its only mistake in analyzing the movement is that like many centipedes did, it mistook the neo-nazis for unfortunate hangers-on rather than the the people pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Hahaha your movement's already unraveling because the neo-nazis that were pulling the strings in the background pulled a little too hard and heiled a little too publicly. Now you've got the "1488 crowd," the more toned-down white nationalists, and the garden-variety closet racists all fracturing away. You'll be lucky if Trump doesn't get himself impeached before 2020 anyway, and only his most hardcore supporters might want him back in when they see what he fails (and doesn't bother) to accomplish.
It looks like you elected a corporatocrat who doesn't care much for the riffraff's social concerns beyond playing to them to get elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody has to be trampled by the jackboots of your authoritarian scientific "facts" anymore, Bill Gates! People are free to choose their own facts in Trump's America!
Wow so breitbart is more trustworthy than thinkprogress? Now that's being deep in an ideological hole.
I don't know where you got this information,
It comes from a study on high-end solar panels used on satellites. Unlike everday solar panels, they did indeed take more energy to build than they produce over their lifetimes. This spread across right-wing blogs like wildfire a few years ago with the assumption that the same applied to all solar panels.
I know it's a biased source, unfortunately the only one with such an expansive compilation of statements, so I've verified them all. That's called using facts rather than acting on partisan reflex. I linked to Breitbart a couple weeks ago if it makes you feel better.
Obama got Iran closer to nuclear energy capabilities and further from nuclear weapons capabilities. But maybe you think trying to sanction Iran to death while just hoping that they don't develop nuclear weapons when they have nothing to lose from doing so was a better approach.
It's a fact that Donald Trump has said some scary stupid shit about nuclear weapons. It's not just speculation to reason that the President of the US might act in accordance with his stated positions.
Authentication credentials that can't be hashed, can be stolen off your body, and can't be reset at will - but they do change with age, so maybe you can wait it out?
You should really be thanking Reagan and Bush Sr for kickstarting the trend. Bush Jr. and Obama merely did nothing to halt it.
The flying car, as it could be made with today's technology, is just a novel alternative to a helicopter, as you point out (or perhaps a "roadable aircraft"). They'll suffer from all the same problems of the aircraft that people aren't already using, including the cost to own and run one.
But most people don't think of it that way. Most people think of the flying car as a poorly thought out idea from a cartoon. It'll be just like a regular car except you can get away from traffic by moving up or down! It would solve the problem of traffic congestion!
Unfortunately this idea is so far from attainable with today's technology that nobody alive today will live to see it. They'll need Star Trek batteries to carry a large amount of affordable power running affordable motors, first and foremost. The average person is already struggling to buy and run a small number of relatively very pedestrian combustion engines, they can't afford anything that has multiple exotic forms of the damn things ferociously guzzling precious fuel.
It feels more like 30~50%. But I'm sure trickle-down turbo-inequality will start to pay off for for the middle and lower classes any day now.
Did she profit from those encounters or does she regularly do so? If not, she's just an angry nutjob. The existence of angry nutjobs does not justify pre-emptive victim-blaming.
That isn't sticking up for your principles unless one of your principles is to spew gratuitous Islamophobia until the terrorism stops. The number of people in the US who actually want sharia law can probably be counted on your fingers, and won't be dissuaded if every conversation in America is peppered with Islamophobic jargon. Quite the opposite in fact.
Well if you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative, you're a libertarian, very different from a liberal. If you're socially conservative and fiscally liberal you're a...unicorn? I don't think there's a name for that. It seems that such views aren't common. But they're as different from "true" liberals as libertarians.
After some searching around it seems there is no name for this ideology.
capitalism works and communism fails
More like communism can be toppled and capitalism continues to stomp on the human face forever.
There's a notion that a reason it is so hard to get rid of ISIS, and survivalists, and well, any kind of "nutter", is that nature keeps her options open.
Nope, nature is a cold-hearted bitch who doesn't give a fuck about anyone or their ideology and kills basically at random.
It's not actually prohibited speech in the US, I think that makes it a bad example of prohibited speech in the US.
Not at all. Liberal (in the US) means a person who is fiscally and socially liberal. I've pointed out that he's not socially liberal at all. He's as different from a liberal as a conservative is from a libertarian.
About the only type speech that can be prohibited in the US, is that which actually incites violence against a real group of folks or individuals. Or incites other dangerous behavior (yelling fire in a movie theater)....
Bad example:
https://www.theatlantic.com/na...
The other angle here is transchronoism. I expect I'll be modded as a troll for even mentioning it, but the law appears to have been lobbied for by transchrono groups. Basically they want to decouple a person's physical age from how they live, somewhat like how transgender people differentiate between the physical state of their bodies and the gender they live as. This mostly involves rejecting stereotypes and social norms associated with age, and not assuming that because someone is 20 they are inexperienced or that because they are 70 they are conservative and want you to get off their lawn.
Considering how bad age discrimination is in the tech sector, it would make sense for people in that sector to support transchronoism. Just because you are 55 doesn't mean you can't write a mobile app in Go.
To save others the googling, yes apparently this is a real thing.
I guess half of women over 29 are transchrono :-P
No, I genuinely thought we were using the dictionary definition of "professional," weird huh? I think the word you're looking for may be "fraudulent" or "fictional."
And we know those hate crimes are fake because the attempted "professional victim" was exposed. Not a professional. They did not profit.
How can anyone who is not a victim be a professional victim? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are closer to politicians than anything else. Like politicians they can rile up their base for donations.
The only successful "professional victims" are those who profited even though their lie was exposed. It's an incredibly risky and expensive fraud to attempt.
Successful "professional victims" are so rare they're not worth considering. The unsuccessful and exposed are still incredibly rare. To even suggest that any random person is a "professional victim" without solid evidence is just asinine victim blaming.
Attempted professional victims, sure, but they're almost always quickly found out. Nobody has found lasting success as a "professional victim" and it's an extremely risky and costly fraud to attempt. I think such attempts are vanishingly rare, but unfortunately because of those few, victimizers attempt to paint any and all of their victims with the same brush.
I'm glad you expanded your post because I don't really get what that image is saying. Maybe it's too US-centric for my understanding.
Trump's political positions are mostly a magic 8-ball and it was certainly too early to place him squarely on any political spectrum before the election. He frequently flips his stated positions on a whim. I think we can only judge him by his actions, so we'll have to see what he does when he's finished assembling what appears to be a corporatocratic government. He's putting a fox in every henhouse. I think he could be assembling easily the most fiscally right-wing government in living memory.
To argue that he's fiscally further left than Hillary requires a lot of cherry-picking and optimism, especially now that we've seen some of his actions.
One thing he doesn't waver on is a general tendency toward extreme authoritarianism and extreme social backwardness. I shouldn't have to elaborate on his history of racism and his many socially backward proposals. He's chosen Mike Pence, a leading proponent of "pray the gay away" programs and "Jim Queer" laws, as his VP. He's chosen Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions for his cabinet. He's far to the right of Hillary on most social issues.
And so are you, which might explain why you're OK with Trump, but not why you'd have any interest in Hillary or Bernie or why you call yourself a liberal while calling the left regressive over wacko fringe college politics, using "SJW," the modern general-purpose descendant of "n****r-lover," (side note: Slashdot now triggers the lameness filter if you use the N-word even once) and otherwise spewing what looks like standard alt-right rhetoric. It's bizarre.
Democrats have a problem, sure, obviously, but I'm not too interested in discussing that. We probably agree on most things there.
BTW, the alt-right at the time was indeed broadly a white nationalist movement. It was a hodgepodge of different factions led by a core of neo-nazis. The factions have since split up. I hate to link to Breitbart, but I think this article gives a good overview of the state of things at the time, straight from the horse's mouth. Its only mistake in analyzing the movement is that like many centipedes did, it mistook the neo-nazis for unfortunate hangers-on rather than the the people pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Hahaha your movement's already unraveling because the neo-nazis that were pulling the strings in the background pulled a little too hard and heiled a little too publicly. Now you've got the "1488 crowd," the more toned-down white nationalists, and the garden-variety closet racists all fracturing away. You'll be lucky if Trump doesn't get himself impeached before 2020 anyway, and only his most hardcore supporters might want him back in when they see what he fails (and doesn't bother) to accomplish.
It looks like you elected a corporatocrat who doesn't care much for the riffraff's social concerns beyond playing to them to get elected.