I agree, +1 insightful, but perhaps not for the same reason as yours.
Temperatures are trending upwards. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.
Look at human history. War is a frequent consequence of competition for limited resources. In the case of climate-change, that resource will be land. Land that is not underwater. Land that you can still grow crops on. Land that has not been rendered uninhabitable due to violent weather-fluctuations.
Sadly, preparing a military that can manage such a dystopic future may be a grim necessity.
When I think of government-involvement with school textbooks, I immediately think of the Texas Board of Education.
I welcome government efforts to reduce the price of textbooks (and thus the price of education.) It's government-involvement with their content that would concern me.
Now that the seventh shell is complete the next man-made element will have to be in a new shell. Does this make it much harder, or impossible, to create element 119?
Naah. Piece of cake. It'll be called Trumpium. It'll be a huuuuge element. Really classy.
It's primary chemical properties are to insult any other elements that compete in chemical reactions with it.
It is radioactive, and emits particles called twitterons, but only at 3 AM local time.
Its spectral properties are orange. Just orange.
Its electron-shell structure displays a comb-over to cover the lack of structure in certain areas around it.
And finally, all of the elements that it forms with are right-handed. Do I even need to say that?
For the record, Christianity has an equally terrifying concept: That God punishes the faithful for the sins of the unfaithful, thus making the sinner an existent threat to the Christian (and indeed, him/herself and all mankind).
I don't mean to sound all churchy, but one of the most important principles of Christianity is that Jesus died to pay for all sins, and that his sacrifice can provide salvation to all who request it. Some Christians even believe that non-Christians can receive that salvation implicitly (so-called baptism of desire.)
Also, at the risk of going true-Scotsman, Christians aren't supposed to consider themselves to be better than anyone else when it comes to sin.
Rights of Gays > Free Speech Rights of Gays > Freedom of Religion
That is your post
Would you be comfortable with the following?
Rights of blacks < Free Speech? Rights of blacks < Freedom of Religion?
You shit on people because they are Christians
I do no such thing. I consider Christianity to be a noble faith. I was raised in it.
What I do not tolerate is discrimination of others on the basis of sexual orientation. If you think that conflicts with your religions views, then fine, you can still hold those views, but you can't use them to justify discrimination. That argument has been settled for other factors such as race, creed, national origin, disability, and so on. The law is still evolving on this issue as it pertains to gays, but IMHO it is headed in the right direction.
Can you still call it terrorism if it's carried out too ineptly to inspire terror?
Well yes, if the intent was to inflict terror. And that speaks to the frame of mind of the person doing it.
At this point, I'm not sure whether it has been established that Abdul Razak Ali Artan was a terrorist or a wacko. But I'm leaning heavily to the former, because there is evidence that he was inspired by online material from ISIS.
A baker deciding to not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple from their ovens.That seems reasonable to me.
Oh god, not this again.
At one time, it was legal for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple, because free speech. The Civil Rights Act put an end to that, because equal protection.
When two rights come into conflict, you have to decide which one wins. The rights of gays to equal protection are not uniformly in place, but they're catching up to those of non-gays.
In no way am I trying to excuse the twisted evil actions of Abdul Razak Ali Artan. But for the record, he didn't kill anyone (although it's pretty clear he tried.) He injured eleven people, one critically. He was the only one who was killed.
No, they're not banning white male Republicans, and they haven't banned Trump (yet.)
They're banning people who break the rules. There's no rule against being a white male Republican on Twitter. But someone who breaks the rules could get banned, no matter their $RACE $GENDER $POLITICALPARTY.
Someone that is white can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet. Someone that is Male can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet. Someone that is Republican can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet.
eh
If you can't see how refusing to serve a gay person is exactly the same as banning the speech of some then you're a moron.
If you can't see that Twitter is not banning white male Republicans, then you might want to look in a mirror and ask yourself whether you see a moron.
Someone that is gay can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Fixed that for you.
Really? Well how does this sound:
Someone that is black can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake. Someone that is disabled can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake. Someone that is Mexican can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake. Someone that is Hindu can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Refusing to go somewhere else to get a cake is not a physical condition.
Should a black person go somewhere else? Should a dwarf person go somewhere else? Should a disabled person go somewhere else? Should an HIV-positive person go somewhere else?
There's nothing sensational, leftist, or tabloidish about this story.
Net neutrality is a frequent topic of discussion on Slashdot. Anything that the President-elect does that could affect it is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
I didn't see this article as fear-mongering. Abuse of the WEA for political purposes could result in it being ignored in a real crisis. As much as I distrust Trump, I think he knows this.
What makes this news is not that it's fear-mongering, but that it's ironic.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, +1 insightful, but perhaps not for the same reason as yours.
Temperatures are trending upwards. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.
Look at human history. War is a frequent consequence of competition for limited resources. In the case of climate-change, that resource will be land. Land that is not underwater. Land that you can still grow crops on. Land that has not been rendered uninhabitable due to violent weather-fluctuations.
Sadly, preparing a military that can manage such a dystopic future may be a grim necessity.
When I think of government-involvement with school textbooks, I immediately think of the Texas Board of Education.
I welcome government efforts to reduce the price of textbooks (and thus the price of education.) It's government-involvement with their content that would concern me.
Now that the seventh shell is complete the next man-made element will have to be in a new shell.
Does this make it much harder, or impossible, to create element 119?
Naah. Piece of cake. It'll be called Trumpium. It'll be a huuuuge element. Really classy.
It's primary chemical properties are to insult any other elements that compete in chemical reactions with it.
It is radioactive, and emits particles called twitterons, but only at 3 AM local time.
Its spectral properties are orange. Just orange.
Its electron-shell structure displays a comb-over to cover the lack of structure in certain areas around it.
And finally, all of the elements that it forms with are right-handed. Do I even need to say that?
In other news ... water is wet. Film at 11.
For the record, Christianity has an equally terrifying concept: That God punishes the faithful for the sins of the unfaithful, thus making the sinner an existent threat to the Christian (and indeed, him/herself and all mankind).
I don't mean to sound all churchy, but one of the most important principles of Christianity is that Jesus died to pay for all sins, and that his sacrifice can provide salvation to all who request it. Some Christians even believe that non-Christians can receive that salvation implicitly (so-called baptism of desire.)
Also, at the risk of going true-Scotsman, Christians aren't supposed to consider themselves to be better than anyone else when it comes to sin.
Rights of Gays > Free Speech
Rights of Gays > Freedom of Religion
That is your post
Would you be comfortable with the following?
Rights of blacks < Free Speech?
Rights of blacks < Freedom of Religion?
You shit on people because they are Christians
I do no such thing. I consider Christianity to be a noble faith. I was raised in it.
What I do not tolerate is discrimination of others on the basis of sexual orientation. If you think that conflicts with your religions views, then fine, you can still hold those views, but you can't use them to justify discrimination. That argument has been settled for other factors such as race, creed, national origin, disability, and so on. The law is still evolving on this issue as it pertains to gays, but IMHO it is headed in the right direction.
Can you still call it terrorism if it's carried out too ineptly to inspire terror?
Well yes, if the intent was to inflict terror. And that speaks to the frame of mind of the person doing it.
At this point, I'm not sure whether it has been established that Abdul Razak Ali Artan was a terrorist or a wacko. But I'm leaning heavily to the former, because there is evidence that he was inspired by online material from ISIS.
A baker deciding to not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple from their ovens.That seems reasonable to me.
Oh god, not this again.
At one time, it was legal for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple, because free speech. The Civil Rights Act put an end to that, because equal protection.
When two rights come into conflict, you have to decide which one wins. The rights of gays to equal protection are not uniformly in place, but they're catching up to those of non-gays.
Facebook deciding what's offensive, thats exactly what I want.
Facebook is deciding what's offensive when it comes to material that appears on their site.
That seems reasonable to me.
In no way am I trying to excuse the twisted evil actions of Abdul Razak Ali Artan. But for the record, he didn't kill anyone (although it's pretty clear he tried.) He injured eleven people, one critically. He was the only one who was killed.
This entire discussion has nothing to do with the first amendment.
The first amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
Twitter is not the government. Therefore it is not bound by the first amendment.
No, they're not banning white male Republicans, and they haven't banned Trump (yet.)
They're banning people who break the rules. There's no rule against being a white male Republican on Twitter. But someone who breaks the rules could get banned, no matter their $RACE $GENDER $POLITICALPARTY.
No, it is not the same. Not even close.
Being gay is a physical condition.
Bullshit. It's a personal choice. People claim that it's a physical condition just to stop other people from blaming them for that personal choice.
Are you straight? (I'm guessing yes.) Do you remember choosing to be straight?
I'm straight, and I don't remember choosing. I just am.
Really? Well how does this sound:
Someone that is white can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet.
Someone that is Male can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet.
Someone that is Republican can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet.
eh
If you can't see how refusing to serve a gay person is exactly the same as banning the speech of some then you're a moron.
If you can't see that Twitter is not banning white male Republicans, then you might want to look in a mirror and ask yourself whether you see a moron.
Someone that is gay can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Fixed that for you.
Really? Well how does this sound:
Someone that is black can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Someone that is disabled can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Someone that is Mexican can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Someone that is Hindu can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Refusing to go somewhere else to get a cake is not a physical condition.
Should a black person go somewhere else?
Should a dwarf person go somewhere else?
Should a disabled person go somewhere else?
Should an HIV-positive person go somewhere else?
A corporation banning me for saying hateful things is exactly the same as a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a couple because they're gay!
No, it is not the same. Not even close.
Being gay is a physical condition. Saying hateful things is a conscious choice.
Actually no, they're not that simple. You can read them here.
I reaffirm: nobody is banning speech. Twitter is banning people who break their rules of conduct on their forum.
Nobody is talking about banning speech. Twitter is talking about banning users who violate their rules. That's it.
There's nothing sensational, leftist, or tabloidish about this story.
Net neutrality is a frequent topic of discussion on Slashdot. Anything that the President-elect does that could affect it is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
Trump will soon have the power and authority to launch a Preemptive Nuclear Strike and you are worried about the misuse of the WEA's Text Messages?!
Unlikely, nuclear war is just plain bad for business in general. Remember, he's a business man first.
From the Ferengi rules of acquisition:
34 War is good for business.
35 Peace is good for business.
As Quark said, it's easy to mix them up.
Any actual comparisons to Trump and Ferengi are left to the reader.
I didn't see this article as fear-mongering. Abuse of the WEA for political purposes could result in it being ignored in a real crisis. As much as I distrust Trump, I think he knows this.
What makes this news is not that it's fear-mongering, but that it's ironic.
God, you sound just like my jerk-DAD. I should be able to listen to my music at whatever volume I want, jeez.
Fine, son. But if you want to do that at 3 am, then kindly move out and get your own place.
Your mom and I want to sleep now.
AuMatar is right, but it makes sense to see this story on Slashdot, because technology and, well, irony.
/thread