It's a very complex example to use as well, because there's a weird cultural double standard: A black person saying it is perfectly acceptable, but a white person saying it has a good chance of getting them fired. Or punched in the face. So you couldn't just ban the word with a filter, you'd need someone to then judge if the speaker is dark enough to get away with it.
Please don't link to the Daily Mail. It's a scandal sheet and deserves no respect or recognition. The name "Kardashian" appears ten times on the page you linked, and the current headline is a story about Ben Affleck being dropped off at rehab by his ex-wife.
1. Such as? You need a lot of thrust to make orbit, which means chemicals are about the only option. Once you're up, ion drive gives bugger-all thrust - it's great for keeping satellites where they belong, but it's not going to move a multi-hundred-ton manned ship anywhere fast. The only other possible option is 2. 2. The barely-tested technology of hydrogen propellant directly heated by a fission reactor? Good luck getting the influential governments of the world to permit launching that accident waiting to happen. It's take years of diplomatic wrangling. Still, it'd be good for getting to mars, once you've invented it. 3. That's... actually pretty doable. You don't need a full 1G. Even one-tenth gravity would be a lot more convenient than zero. Probably easier to spin the entire ship though, except for a little platform with the antennas on. 4. Development in progress, both private and public efforts. 5. Nice simple engineering problem. But is anyone actually working on this? 6. There are theoretical problems with this. The size of magnetic field you'd need, with the corresponding solenoid, is impractical.
I'd like to see a moon base too. But once you dig into the engineering issues, you find the real problem: Money. Manned space exploration isn't just expensive - it's bankrupt-a-superpower level expensive. It's the type of expensive you usually only ever see in a military budget. Billions of dollars doesn't cover it. Hundreds of billions. Trillions, if you want a long term presence. The ISS alone cost $150 Billion, and that's practically on our doorstep. Worse, it needs consistent funding - and with the balance of political power shifting every few years, America is in no state to commit to anything. China could, maybe.
Censorship leads to people finding ways to indirectly speak of subjects, which in turn must be censored, and this can lead to some things that appear very strange.
I've tried to see what science has to say. But once you discount all organisations that are misrepresenting scientific studies to push a political agenda, all the personal anecdotes, and all the sensationalist reports just trying to get some views, science doesn't actually have much to say. There are studies that give contradictory results, but it's not an easy area to study. For one, good luck getting ethical approval for a controlled study.
Fight the New Drug looks superficially respectable. They don't have an obvious religious or political bias, and they do use a lot of citations. Promising. But the closer you look, the more suspicious they appear - a lot of the citations are either other anti-porn groups, dubious correlative studies, or selectively chosen experts. They make a lot of use of personal stories in their videos (not so much their writing though), and have close ties to a very shady 'rehab' program. If you dig around enough, you discover that the shady rehab program came first, and they share a founder (Clay Olsen).
You can also check out their team listing page. It uses a few humorous comments about each member, but you might notice that not a single one of them has any scientific background. At all. Nothing. Strangely, though, for a non-religiously-affiliated program... some people have done a little digging, and apparently (though this might be dated) it's almost entirely run by Mormons.
The problem isn't that they outright lie, it's that they present a very one-sided view. The old trick of selective citations. If you have one study saying A and ten saying B, it's easy to claim "Science says A, and here's a study to prove it."
It's a better attempt than most, but you can find plenty of expert columns that will savage their one-sided presentation.
Sometimes the truth, presented selectively, can be deceptive. I was reading an article on a right-leaning news site just this morning about a recent murder committed by an illegal immigrant in the US. If the murderer had been a citizen, I really doubt the site would have seen it as newsworthy. By just reporting every crime committed by an illegal they can create the impression that all illegal immigrants are murderous, rapist, thieving scum - regardless of how true that may or may not be, and without ever having to tell a single lie.
Trump is not going to prison. He'll just pardon himself, and every Republican will support him however they can to avoid dragging the party into scandal.
It's not about the money, it's about the deterrent: Ruin a few people, scare off the rest. The industry only stopped this approach because it was producing too much bad publicity. Rendering whole families homeless just to scare others into obedience is a good way to make people hate you.
Underrepresented? Don't you mean 'underpopulated?' Fairness requires all voters be equal.
If you set up a system which is designed to make sure that the votes of one demographic matter as much as the votes of another demographic of much larger population, that's not far. That's basically gerrymandering.
He won according to the rules, but the rules themselves are unfair. The electoral college was established as a political compromise - it has the effect of ensuring that some votes are worth a lot more than others. The reasons for it have long passed, but reform is not politically feasible.
That works with the far-left too. The extremes tend to dominate public awareness and political debate because they shout the loudest, get the most coverage, and have the fanatical devotion it takes to seriously engage with political activism - but they don't actually have the numbers to be a lucrative market, and their presence easily drives away the more moderate and more profitable majority.
I don't think it need go that far, but perhaps the suggestion is not entirely unreasonable. Some corporations, the biggest ones with a regional monopoly, or which so completely dominate a market as to almost exclude all others, do have a level of power which is on a par with that of governments. If they are wielding powers akin to government, should they perhaps be subject to the same restrictions as government too?
I'm under the impression, loosely gathered from various articles, that Alex Jones is very careful not to explicitly call for violence because he knows doing so is an invitation to get banned from many platforms. That doesn't mean he encourages violence: It means he does so implicitly, by stoking a focused hate in his audience towards whatever group he is targetting that day.
For example, he won't actually urge his audience to go out and start beating up homosexuals. But he will claim that all homosexuals are prowling in search of some children they can rape in order to create more homosexuals by traumatising them, and express his anger that the government is trying to cover it up because they have been infiltrated, so it falls upon his viewers to protect their family from any homosexuals they learn of. No *explicit* call for violence, but you don't have to extrapolate far to reach that point.
Oh, I found the article. I was just wondering what it says about Slashdot that all the comments prior to yours were apparently by people who didn't try to read the article, just the summary.
You're both right and you're both wrong. It just depends where you live. The property market is one of the few markets which cannot be globalised. The situation people face depends upon where they happen to live, and on how their government is managing, not managing or mismanaging the situation.
Only because they have the power to do the killing. If you went back in a time machine and gave the native Americans modern machine weapons and a stack of ammo, you can be sure they would show no more mercy towards the Europeans than the Europeans showed towards them. That is just human nature, and it is not easily changed.
If the aim is to attract views, and thus advertising money, all that matters is being well-known enough to draw the attention. It does not matter if your viewers love you, or just love to scream in anger about you. So long as they watch you.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right - Hillary got more votes. The electoral collage is fundamentally undemocratic.
It's a very complex example to use as well, because there's a weird cultural double standard: A black person saying it is perfectly acceptable, but a white person saying it has a good chance of getting them fired. Or punched in the face. So you couldn't just ban the word with a filter, you'd need someone to then judge if the speaker is dark enough to get away with it.
Please don't link to the Daily Mail. It's a scandal sheet and deserves no respect or recognition. The name "Kardashian" appears ten times on the page you linked, and the current headline is a story about Ben Affleck being dropped off at rehab by his ex-wife.
1. Such as? You need a lot of thrust to make orbit, which means chemicals are about the only option. Once you're up, ion drive gives bugger-all thrust - it's great for keeping satellites where they belong, but it's not going to move a multi-hundred-ton manned ship anywhere fast. The only other possible option is 2.
2. The barely-tested technology of hydrogen propellant directly heated by a fission reactor? Good luck getting the influential governments of the world to permit launching that accident waiting to happen. It's take years of diplomatic wrangling. Still, it'd be good for getting to mars, once you've invented it.
3. That's... actually pretty doable. You don't need a full 1G. Even one-tenth gravity would be a lot more convenient than zero. Probably easier to spin the entire ship though, except for a little platform with the antennas on.
4. Development in progress, both private and public efforts.
5. Nice simple engineering problem. But is anyone actually working on this?
6. There are theoretical problems with this. The size of magnetic field you'd need, with the corresponding solenoid, is impractical.
I'd like to see a moon base too. But once you dig into the engineering issues, you find the real problem: Money. Manned space exploration isn't just expensive - it's bankrupt-a-superpower level expensive. It's the type of expensive you usually only ever see in a military budget. Billions of dollars doesn't cover it. Hundreds of billions. Trillions, if you want a long term presence. The ISS alone cost $150 Billion, and that's practically on our doorstep. Worse, it needs consistent funding - and with the balance of political power shifting every few years, America is in no state to commit to anything. China could, maybe.
Censorship leads to people finding ways to indirectly speak of subjects, which in turn must be censored, and this can lead to some things that appear very strange.
I've tried to see what science has to say. But once you discount all organisations that are misrepresenting scientific studies to push a political agenda, all the personal anecdotes, and all the sensationalist reports just trying to get some views, science doesn't actually have much to say. There are studies that give contradictory results, but it's not an easy area to study. For one, good luck getting ethical approval for a controlled study.
Fight the New Drug looks superficially respectable. They don't have an obvious religious or political bias, and they do use a lot of citations. Promising. But the closer you look, the more suspicious they appear - a lot of the citations are either other anti-porn groups, dubious correlative studies, or selectively chosen experts. They make a lot of use of personal stories in their videos (not so much their writing though), and have close ties to a very shady 'rehab' program. If you dig around enough, you discover that the shady rehab program came first, and they share a founder (Clay Olsen).
You can also check out their team listing page. It uses a few humorous comments about each member, but you might notice that not a single one of them has any scientific background. At all. Nothing. Strangely, though, for a non-religiously-affiliated program... some people have done a little digging, and apparently (though this might be dated) it's almost entirely run by Mormons.
The problem isn't that they outright lie, it's that they present a very one-sided view. The old trick of selective citations. If you have one study saying A and ten saying B, it's easy to claim "Science says A, and here's a study to prove it."
It's a better attempt than most, but you can find plenty of expert columns that will savage their one-sided presentation.
Difference of magnitude. Both countries censor, but China censors a lot more.
It may have been. I don't know - I don't recall the name, and it's gone off the main page now, so I'd have to go searching the archives to find it.
Sometimes the truth, presented selectively, can be deceptive. I was reading an article on a right-leaning news site just this morning about a recent murder committed by an illegal immigrant in the US. If the murderer had been a citizen, I really doubt the site would have seen it as newsworthy. By just reporting every crime committed by an illegal they can create the impression that all illegal immigrants are murderous, rapist, thieving scum - regardless of how true that may or may not be, and without ever having to tell a single lie.
Trump is not going to prison. He'll just pardon himself, and every Republican will support him however they can to avoid dragging the party into scandal.
There's a quote, of origin I forget: "Americans watch the news for comedy, and comedy for the news."
It's not about the money, it's about the deterrent: Ruin a few people, scare off the rest. The industry only stopped this approach because it was producing too much bad publicity. Rendering whole families homeless just to scare others into obedience is a good way to make people hate you.
Underrepresented? Don't you mean 'underpopulated?' Fairness requires all voters be equal.
If you set up a system which is designed to make sure that the votes of one demographic matter as much as the votes of another demographic of much larger population, that's not far. That's basically gerrymandering.
He won according to the rules, but the rules themselves are unfair. The electoral college was established as a political compromise - it has the effect of ensuring that some votes are worth a lot more than others. The reasons for it have long passed, but reform is not politically feasible.
That works with the far-left too. The extremes tend to dominate public awareness and political debate because they shout the loudest, get the most coverage, and have the fanatical devotion it takes to seriously engage with political activism - but they don't actually have the numbers to be a lucrative market, and their presence easily drives away the more moderate and more profitable majority.
It's all relative. I'm over in Europe. From our perspective, the entire US is far-right. From the US perspective, Europe is a bunch of socialists.
I don't think it need go that far, but perhaps the suggestion is not entirely unreasonable. Some corporations, the biggest ones with a regional monopoly, or which so completely dominate a market as to almost exclude all others, do have a level of power which is on a par with that of governments. If they are wielding powers akin to government, should they perhaps be subject to the same restrictions as government too?
I'm under the impression, loosely gathered from various articles, that Alex Jones is very careful not to explicitly call for violence because he knows doing so is an invitation to get banned from many platforms. That doesn't mean he encourages violence: It means he does so implicitly, by stoking a focused hate in his audience towards whatever group he is targetting that day.
For example, he won't actually urge his audience to go out and start beating up homosexuals. But he will claim that all homosexuals are prowling in search of some children they can rape in order to create more homosexuals by traumatising them, and express his anger that the government is trying to cover it up because they have been infiltrated, so it falls upon his viewers to protect their family from any homosexuals they learn of. No *explicit* call for violence, but you don't have to extrapolate far to reach that point.
Oh, I found the article. I was just wondering what it says about Slashdot that all the comments prior to yours were apparently by people who didn't try to read the article, just the summary.
Except for military parts. They did not mess around when it came to fighting the capitalist pigs.
You're both right and you're both wrong. It just depends where you live. The property market is one of the few markets which cannot be globalised. The situation people face depends upon where they happen to live, and on how their government is managing, not managing or mismanaging the situation.
You seem to be the first commenter to notice that. Guess no-one prior wanted to read the article?
"Credit travels upwards, blame travels downwards. That's the way it works." - The Pointy-Haired Boss, from the Dilbert animated series.
Only because they have the power to do the killing. If you went back in a time machine and gave the native Americans modern machine weapons and a stack of ammo, you can be sure they would show no more mercy towards the Europeans than the Europeans showed towards them. That is just human nature, and it is not easily changed.
If the aim is to attract views, and thus advertising money, all that matters is being well-known enough to draw the attention. It does not matter if your viewers love you, or just love to scream in anger about you. So long as they watch you.