I'm willing to bet there are a couple YouTubers who make a living riding roller coasters. I know for a fact there are a couple professional reviewers for coasters outside of YouTube. I doubt any of them are quite a 6-figures yet, but I hope they do alright for themselves.
I would say that you're mistaken about get out of jail free for water system pollution. They spend a ton on that. Antibiotics abuse has been severely curtailed in the US. Land degradation does not make economic sense because it would require buying new land.
But your original argument is interesting. There is currently no incentive for the meat industry to reduce methane emissions. They'd previously been able to argue, "what can we do? Stick a pipe up their butt and a mask on their face 24/7? Animal rights groups hate what we do as is. Make us do that and those guys will tear you out of office kicking and screaming." So the legislation and regulatory agencies do nothing.
If, however, the only change needed is in diet, then as long as there is sufficient supply, the cattle industry loses that argument, so it can start to be regulated. Naturally, if the change in feed cost isn't subsidized, then the cattle industry will argue the it wrecks the taste of the meat. And even if it is subsidized, the corn industry will make the same argument, and demand that "seaweed-meat" is appropriately labeled and run ad campaigns where people say that it tastes fishy and gross. And that'll probably work wonderfully, making any such beef worthless as anything more than dog-food.
I disagree with you here. The only potentially blatant racist so far is Bannon, and we only have one antisemetic statement that can be directly attributed to him. They may be permissive of racism, but that isn't "blatant".
I'll admit that, yes, I absolutely think he had a rough plan at that point. I think that was his true motivation for digging in on the whole Obama birth certificate thing. Trump has been thinking about the presidency since 1988. He ran briefly in 2000. So we know the interest was there. Then, in picking at that birther scab, he developed a following of conservative conspiracy theorists. I don't know if you remember, but Trump intentionally left us to wonder whether or not he would run until pretty late in the game. He addresses exactly this in his Comedy Central Roast. (He also hints at a bunch of this in his commentary for the History Channel program, The Men Who Built America) I think that birther diversion is where he started to discover that by appealing to that group, and then running an extremely negative, and unabashed campaign, heavily leveraging his reality TV success and twitter following, he could at least secure the republican nomination. And I think that's where he confirmed that you can talk about "things that my people are uncovering", and even when it's impossible that those things had any merit, you just stop mentioning it and your constituency will not fault you for it. So just keep using that technique. Say crazy stuff, get disproven, doesn't matter, say something new. And once you have the nomination, you can potentially largely rely upon the republican fear and contempt of the democratic party, especially when (lucky, but not surprising) going up against a woman with potential legal concerns to slingshot him into the White House.
The media was expecting that the latino vote would be the deciding factor in the Florida election, and you're correct, it turned out that it wasn't. Still, it certainly might have contributed in other swing states that he did lose, such as Virginia and Colorado. Obviously, that's of no help if you don't win the other, often larger swing states. Trump did a fantastic job in that respect. He chose the right states to focus on, and it seems to have helped.
Hillary lost for a lot of reasons. Trump won for a lot of reasons. I really admire the guy. I don't think I want him to be president, but I still admire him.
So, I've never heard liberals use that sort of language about conservative blacks. If I did, I'd want nothing to do with those individuals any longer. but I think we can agree that there are plenty of liberals who are vexed by why blacks would ever vote that way.
Regarding GamerGate, I've made the same comparison between BLM and GG, and I think it's an apt one; there is, however, one moderately important difference: BLM started as a hashtag from people unhappy about a defenseless black person being killed by a man pursuing him for no reason beyond him looking around the neighborhood, and that killer facing no criminal punishment. GamerGate started as a hashtag when a Baldwin brother heard a story from a scorned ex-boyfriend trying to get people on the Internet angry about the fact that his female game developer girlfriend cheated on him with a person in the gaming journalism industry. The backlash that resulted was a flood of threats and harassment against the woman, including death threats, rape threats, and repeated posting of her home address to sites like reddit, and posting bootleg copies of a nude photo-shoot she did, slut-shaming her the entire time. This, all despite the fact that the guy she slept with was never involved in writing any sort of review of her work.
One of these is an intolerable tragedy that should not be forgotten, just like the questionable police shootings that also have been tied to the tag; the other is hatred for women who cheat on their boyfriends, shoehorned over to complaining about the fact that a bunch of game review companies give games inflatedly high review scores despite not even playing the finished game. And I totally admit that those problems in the game journalism industry exist, and they suck balls, but, I just sorta think that "GamerGate" has such pissy-drama circumstances surrounding it that I'd never want to uphold that as the best hashtag to use to represent my cause. Especially when a large portion of the people using the tag were doing so to lob insults and rage at other women in the industry pointing out things like "man, games sure do feel comfortable featuring a random murdered naked chick as a device to escalate a story...what's up with that?" which is not a problem related to games journalism, it's just a feminist pointing out a common roll of females in certain video games. Anyone who does think that it's a good label to park beneath, I must admit, I gotta seriously wonder about their actual thoughts and feelings.
Particularly, since, seriously, when is the last time anyone relied on a game journalist to decide whether or not to buy a game? If you think you might want a game, you pull up a "let's play" on youtube, see if it looks good or not, and decide based on that. So....problem solved, let the dumbass reviewers give every single game 99/100 or whatever, everyone knows they don't mean shit.
You can be considered "leftist" and either open or not open to diversity of thought. Some leftists are happy to discuss other thoughts and ideas, and others pigheadedly know themselves to be correct.
BLM is a movement. It is not an organized group. It doesn't have a leader, or anyone capable of defining it's principles. It doesn't advocate violence because it doesn't advocate anything beyond the fact that "black lives matter". If a person commits violence while saying "BLM" it doesn't mean that BLM is a violent hate-group.
So how about we compromise: I'll stop saying that GamerGate is about misogyny if you stop saying that BLM is a violent hate group. They both have the same problem: They both originated as ambiguous twitter hashtags.
Um...wow. What fictional world are you living in? The exact opposite is the case. Disney gave up on the thought of buying Twitter "partly out of concern that bullying and other uncivil forms of communication on the social media site might soil the company’s wholesome family image" If they had done a better job of suppressing and censoring hate speech, they would never need to worry about money again.
Not quite. The phrase originates from a decision (Schenck v. United States) that was indeed overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. However, Falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre may still fall within the Imminent lawless action test that was established in the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling.
He was absolutely building a constituency in 2012. He was thinking about running then, but decided it made more sense to wait another 4 years. Further, since then, he has doubled down on denying climate change. So if he was joking, then he was just joking about the Chinese involvement; not the hoax part.
When pressured on it, he'll just say the same as usual "It was something I heard. People send me this stuff, maybe I take a quick look at it, I pass it along."
Sooo, I looked at your links. The sort of actions CON appears to be doing are on the order of taking Trolls who are harrassing them pseudo-anonymously and revealing those actions to their employers. That's fine. Zoe Quinn found herself stuck in a shit-bomb of a reality show and she decided to sabotage it? That's fine too. Show me where a person is threatening violence via twitter in any manner other than self-defense.
When people talk about BLM engaging in violence, every time I look into it, it's just someone getting violent at a peaceful protest. Arrest that violent dumbass and move on. BLM is a slogan, it's a hashtag, it's a loose organization with no hierarchy. Anyone is able to do anything they like and claim to be acting under the name of BLM. So there's no entity to shut down. You just shut down the people who behave inappropriately. If you see one on twitter, report them.
You've successfully done the exact same thing that food-scientists have been doing for decades! That or the BBC managed to completely miss the point of the original publication.....Just checked. Yeah, BBC didn't get this at ALL. http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/...
You can modify the drip method in various ways such that it's to whatever preference you may like...unless you like percolated coffee, in which case you are a monster. But yeah, I love my french press.
I will not defend your right to actively attempt to make people feel unsafe using threats of violence. I will not defend your right to attempt to incite riots. I will not defend your right to shout "fire!" in a crowded building. The concept of non-protected speech exists for good reason.
Both people among the Left and the Right are using hate speech. Hate transcends politics. This story happens to be about alt-right groups, but Twitter has begun taking all threats of violence seriously.
Yeah, I took econ too. There is a ceiling on the production capability of SK that is dependent on the total number of assembly lines available for operation. If the demand for not just phones, but the entire small electronics and appliances industry suddenly rises by 100-fold, there's going to be a ramp-up time needed to convert large chunks of S. Korea's farmland into factories. During this ramp-up time, prices will either rise, or there will be supply-shortages. Furthermore, if South Korea's production exploded in that manner, it could become a more attractive asset to powers such as North Korea or China. So this means more tax-money going to increase the military presence there, in hopes of acting as a deterrent.
Would things eventually achieve an equilibrium? Absolutely. Everything always does eventually. My point is that major shifts in global trade result in massive side effects; many of which can be tricky to predict, so such changes should not be taken lightly.
All that stuff you get for cheap from South Korea is cheap because the demand on it is fairly low. If China's supply is cut off, then demand for Korean goods rises. When you make a major change in the realm of global economics, it has an effect on everything.
This is like saying that Global Warming is false because it snowed all week. Global economics are so complicated that anyone who feels comfortable talking about them casually in a random Internet forum should not be listened to.
And it's a shame that the US hasn't built refineries lately, because modern refineries do not have this problem. Modern refineries hate to release much of anything, because it's nearly all got profit potential. Smelly things are smelly because they are volatile. Older refineries continue to operate merely because usually, the costs upgrading is too great to make it justifiable.
While this makes some good points, fracturing isn't releasing the "last remnants" of oil left. Fracturing is allowing us to use a source of oil that is bigger than all the oil drilled so far in the US.
It's not a question of "if" it works, because it does. It's a question of it's the most efficient method to extract usable energy from waste. And because it requires pressures of around 3000PSI, it almost certainly is not. The Fischer-Tropsch process is likewise able to produce liquid hydrocarbons from organic feedstocks, and it requires very little heat and a fraction of that pressure (granted it has its own set of problems).
At present, some waste is incinerated to drive turbines, some is composted into fertilizer, some is dried and sent to landfills. and some could certainly be converted into diesel to fuel vehicles. The only particularly bad scenario is the waste that is sequestered in such a way that it produces methane without reclaiming it, as that's a waste of energy and is a nasty greenhouse gas. What happens to which waste all depends on infrastructure and the laws of supply & demand. There needs to be an efficient means for the waste to get to the appropriate processing facility, and a way for the processing facility to get it's output to consumers. It pretty much requires government intervention to make even the most efficient of processes work out to be cheaper than drilled oil. That means subsidies on biocrude, or taxes on drilled oil, or creating laws that limit drilling and purchasing foreign oil.
A few years back, an entity tried to make a functional plant that converted turkey byproducts (mainly feathers) into oil. That crashed due to a combination of major complaints of odors (which, depending on who you ask, may have been untrue) and more importantly, the price of oil crashing. Tons of oil-alternative companies start and fail because of the variable price of oil.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm willing to bet there are a couple YouTubers who make a living riding roller coasters. I know for a fact there are a couple professional reviewers for coasters outside of YouTube. I doubt any of them are quite a 6-figures yet, but I hope they do alright for themselves.
But your original argument is interesting. There is currently no incentive for the meat industry to reduce methane emissions. They'd previously been able to argue, "what can we do? Stick a pipe up their butt and a mask on their face 24/7? Animal rights groups hate what we do as is. Make us do that and those guys will tear you out of office kicking and screaming." So the legislation and regulatory agencies do nothing.
If, however, the only change needed is in diet, then as long as there is sufficient supply, the cattle industry loses that argument, so it can start to be regulated. Naturally, if the change in feed cost isn't subsidized, then the cattle industry will argue the it wrecks the taste of the meat. And even if it is subsidized, the corn industry will make the same argument, and demand that "seaweed-meat" is appropriately labeled and run ad campaigns where people say that it tastes fishy and gross. And that'll probably work wonderfully, making any such beef worthless as anything more than dog-food.
I disagree with you here. The only potentially blatant racist so far is Bannon, and we only have one antisemetic statement that can be directly attributed to him. They may be permissive of racism, but that isn't "blatant".
The media was expecting that the latino vote would be the deciding factor in the Florida election, and you're correct, it turned out that it wasn't. Still, it certainly might have contributed in other swing states that he did lose, such as Virginia and Colorado. Obviously, that's of no help if you don't win the other, often larger swing states. Trump did a fantastic job in that respect. He chose the right states to focus on, and it seems to have helped.
Hillary lost for a lot of reasons. Trump won for a lot of reasons. I really admire the guy. I don't think I want him to be president, but I still admire him.
Regarding GamerGate, I've made the same comparison between BLM and GG, and I think it's an apt one; there is, however, one moderately important difference: BLM started as a hashtag from people unhappy about a defenseless black person being killed by a man pursuing him for no reason beyond him looking around the neighborhood, and that killer facing no criminal punishment. GamerGate started as a hashtag when a Baldwin brother heard a story from a scorned ex-boyfriend trying to get people on the Internet angry about the fact that his female game developer girlfriend cheated on him with a person in the gaming journalism industry. The backlash that resulted was a flood of threats and harassment against the woman, including death threats, rape threats, and repeated posting of her home address to sites like reddit, and posting bootleg copies of a nude photo-shoot she did, slut-shaming her the entire time. This, all despite the fact that the guy she slept with was never involved in writing any sort of review of her work.
One of these is an intolerable tragedy that should not be forgotten, just like the questionable police shootings that also have been tied to the tag; the other is hatred for women who cheat on their boyfriends, shoehorned over to complaining about the fact that a bunch of game review companies give games inflatedly high review scores despite not even playing the finished game. And I totally admit that those problems in the game journalism industry exist, and they suck balls, but, I just sorta think that "GamerGate" has such pissy-drama circumstances surrounding it that I'd never want to uphold that as the best hashtag to use to represent my cause. Especially when a large portion of the people using the tag were doing so to lob insults and rage at other women in the industry pointing out things like "man, games sure do feel comfortable featuring a random murdered naked chick as a device to escalate a story...what's up with that?" which is not a problem related to games journalism, it's just a feminist pointing out a common roll of females in certain video games. Anyone who does think that it's a good label to park beneath, I must admit, I gotta seriously wonder about their actual thoughts and feelings.
Particularly, since, seriously, when is the last time anyone relied on a game journalist to decide whether or not to buy a game? If you think you might want a game, you pull up a "let's play" on youtube, see if it looks good or not, and decide based on that. So....problem solved, let the dumbass reviewers give every single game 99/100 or whatever, everyone knows they don't mean shit.
I mean, if you want to stick to new testament, its even easier. Matthew 22:39 and Matthew 5:44, Love your neighbors and love your enemies.
You can be considered "leftist" and either open or not open to diversity of thought. Some leftists are happy to discuss other thoughts and ideas, and others pigheadedly know themselves to be correct.
So how about we compromise: I'll stop saying that GamerGate is about misogyny if you stop saying that BLM is a violent hate group. They both have the same problem: They both originated as ambiguous twitter hashtags.
Um...wow. What fictional world are you living in? The exact opposite is the case. Disney gave up on the thought of buying Twitter "partly out of concern that bullying and other uncivil forms of communication on the social media site might soil the company’s wholesome family image" If they had done a better job of suppressing and censoring hate speech, they would never need to worry about money again.
Not quite. The phrase originates from a decision (Schenck v. United States) that was indeed overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. However, Falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre may still fall within the Imminent lawless action test that was established in the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling.
He was absolutely building a constituency in 2012. He was thinking about running then, but decided it made more sense to wait another 4 years. Further, since then, he has doubled down on denying climate change. So if he was joking, then he was just joking about the Chinese involvement; not the hoax part.
When pressured on it, he'll just say the same as usual "It was something I heard. People send me this stuff, maybe I take a quick look at it, I pass it along."
When people talk about BLM engaging in violence, every time I look into it, it's just someone getting violent at a peaceful protest. Arrest that violent dumbass and move on. BLM is a slogan, it's a hashtag, it's a loose organization with no hierarchy. Anyone is able to do anything they like and claim to be acting under the name of BLM. So there's no entity to shut down. You just shut down the people who behave inappropriately. If you see one on twitter, report them.
You've successfully done the exact same thing that food-scientists have been doing for decades! That or the BBC managed to completely miss the point of the original publication.....Just checked. Yeah, BBC didn't get this at ALL. http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/...
You can modify the drip method in various ways such that it's to whatever preference you may like...unless you like percolated coffee, in which case you are a monster. But yeah, I love my french press.
I will not defend your right to actively attempt to make people feel unsafe using threats of violence. I will not defend your right to attempt to incite riots. I will not defend your right to shout "fire!" in a crowded building. The concept of non-protected speech exists for good reason.
Both people among the Left and the Right are using hate speech. Hate transcends politics. This story happens to be about alt-right groups, but Twitter has begun taking all threats of violence seriously.
Would things eventually achieve an equilibrium? Absolutely. Everything always does eventually. My point is that major shifts in global trade result in massive side effects; many of which can be tricky to predict, so such changes should not be taken lightly.
All that stuff you get for cheap from South Korea is cheap because the demand on it is fairly low. If China's supply is cut off, then demand for Korean goods rises. When you make a major change in the realm of global economics, it has an effect on everything.
Global economics is massively more complicated than this. And ramping up America's manufacturing capabilities would take over a decade.
This is like saying that Global Warming is false because it snowed all week. Global economics are so complicated that anyone who feels comfortable talking about them casually in a random Internet forum should not be listened to.
Guy answers high school freshman-level tech support question. We'll have details on this exciting story as they develop.
And it's a shame that the US hasn't built refineries lately, because modern refineries do not have this problem. Modern refineries hate to release much of anything, because it's nearly all got profit potential. Smelly things are smelly because they are volatile. Older refineries continue to operate merely because usually, the costs upgrading is too great to make it justifiable.
While this makes some good points, fracturing isn't releasing the "last remnants" of oil left. Fracturing is allowing us to use a source of oil that is bigger than all the oil drilled so far in the US.
At present, some waste is incinerated to drive turbines, some is composted into fertilizer, some is dried and sent to landfills. and some could certainly be converted into diesel to fuel vehicles. The only particularly bad scenario is the waste that is sequestered in such a way that it produces methane without reclaiming it, as that's a waste of energy and is a nasty greenhouse gas. What happens to which waste all depends on infrastructure and the laws of supply & demand. There needs to be an efficient means for the waste to get to the appropriate processing facility, and a way for the processing facility to get it's output to consumers. It pretty much requires government intervention to make even the most efficient of processes work out to be cheaper than drilled oil. That means subsidies on biocrude, or taxes on drilled oil, or creating laws that limit drilling and purchasing foreign oil.
A few years back, an entity tried to make a functional plant that converted turkey byproducts (mainly feathers) into oil. That crashed due to a combination of major complaints of odors (which, depending on who you ask, may have been untrue) and more importantly, the price of oil crashing. Tons of oil-alternative companies start and fail because of the variable price of oil.