No surprise, she is among the first to adopt his methods, and even the more prudent politicians will soon have to do it just to remain competitive. It already happened to TV make-up, robo-callers, and teleprompters...
Maybe, there will be a silver-lining in this for the perpetually-struggling "established" journalists — their having been bought may be harder to conceal/easier to prove than the same for tens and hundreds of anonymous nobodies.
The burden of proof is on you — we aren't living in your totalitarian dream land. Not yet, anyway.
You want me to change my way of life — you still have to convince me. You wish to appeal to authority of "scientific experts" — fine, but you have to establish their credentials first. Pointing out successful scientific predictions made by that bunch earlier is necessary (though not sufficient), if you wish to go that route.
You once mentioned someone named "Arrhenius", who, according to you, successfully predicted something about CO2 in the 19th century. How is that relevant to today's "climate scientists" and their peculiar inability to make a successful prediction remains unclear.
But we already know, you'd rather use police than scientific arguments, so kindly drop the pretense and simply denounce me as a "denialist fraud" to the Democrat Attorney General near you. When I'm sent to Gulag for it, you may expect my house as a reward. That's the best way to "save the planet", is not it?
However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, 88% of the current population will live in areas where the weather is less pleasant than it was before.
That's almost scientific. It has a measurable number and it does not use the evasive "may" or "could", using a solid "will" instead.
What's missing is the when. 2021? 2026?
Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.
I'd still not say that he is "more likely than not" to be a member of the DSA.
What, I wonder, does "being a party member" mean, in your opinion? If decades-long cooperation with the party and the party itself calling one "a member" is not enough, what will? Do you need him to also openly announce membership — and will remain unconvinced until then?
Socialism is not necessarily Communism-lite. It certainly can be, it can be full fledged Communism or whatever you'd like to call that practiced by Stalin.
Yeah? So, if Trotsky prevailed back then, you think, it would've all been somehow different? Maybe in some details, but it still would've been both evil and destructive.
What do you call Venezuela? "Chavizm" replaced by "Madurism"? You've not read Marx enough I see — the man made it abundantly clear, how unimportant an actual single person is, compared to the "historical process". The weak Socialism is followed by hard Communism — it is happening in Venezuela right now. Once you allow the glorious Collective to overrule the silly and cantankerous Individual, it is all downhill and no amount of "Democratic" qualifiers will help.
Sanders is not a zealot.
I don't care, if he is or not — what you are saying is that he'll likely fail to bring about, what he promises. But that's irrelevant: a sympathizer of a patently evil ideology can neither be mentioned in a polite company other than with disdain, nor voted other than against — regardless of whether he is personally deemed to have a sufficient zeal to repeat the gruesome acts of the earlier followers of the same evil.
Whether Bernie Sanders deliberately wishes for America to suffer the destruction already exemplified by Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, or is too stupid to realize, that's what his ideas will lead to, it is his Communist sympathies that make him a Communist (as exemplified by his decades-long association with DSA — whether you call it "membership" or not). There is no upside in supporting him — at best he will fail to accomplish what he promises. The downside, however, is an abyss.
Ya gotta have a bit of each to have a healthy diet
No, you don't need to eat poison to have "a healthy diet". I ate enough of the Socialist arsenic growing up in the USSR to build up tolerance, but I'd rather my children didn't have to suffer through it at all. A wise man can learn from other people's mistakes without repeating them himself. Wise up.
I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican
Is there a picture of yourself giving a speech at a podium, while President Bush looks at you (admiringly)? Probably, not...
Ok, to rehash. You agree that Communism is evil, that's a relief. You seem to agree, that DSA are Communist enough to taint any member — if he is a member.
But you insist that:
Sanders is a Democrat.
Sanders is not a member of Democratic Socialists of America
The first point is not entirely relevant, so I'll just point out, that Sanders is constantly identified as "an Independent" — he is caucusing with Democrats in Senate, but he is not one of them. The usual state/party designation next to his name is (VT, I.).
He is running for a Democratic Party nomination this year, but that's neither here nor there. Ron Paul ran for Republican nomination several times, but he is a Libertarian...
Now, is he a member of DSA? Here is my evidence:
He gave speeches at their events — more than once. (1991, 1994, 2006.)
He is referred to as a member by the party's own materials: Bernie Sanders — the independent Maine [sic] Senator and DSA member.
The party's current strategy lists "grassroots work for Bernie Sanders" as its number one priority. And it is not mere words.
He refers to himself in conversations as a "democratic socialist" (carefully leaving ambiguous, whether that means a political philosophy or a particular party).
His own site promotes "talks" about both DSA and "democratic socialism".
With so much evidence, it is way past time he repudiated their support, don't you think? Unless he welcomes it, of course. Far less evidence was ever presented, that Donald Trump was a KKK-member, for example, before angry voices and sneaky interviewers demanded, he "repudiates" that organization. Talk about "intellectual honesty"...
Even if a stubborn juror may insist, the above evidence does not convict Bernie Sanders of being a Communist beyond reasonable doubt, there is certainly enough to rule against him on the slightly lower preponderance of evidence standard. He is a Communist alright...
Lastly, about your (and others') attempts to distinguish between Communism and Socialism... The distinction is without difference — Socialism is merely Communism-lite.
But even if you disagree, who would want a Hugo Chavez — another "Socialist not a Communist" — to become President of their country? Because, other than the late Presidente's anti-Semitism, the Senator's ideas are indistinguishable from his...
He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.
Bullshit. Parodies are protected speech, which would've covered this case even if the person's name were a trade-mark. No, we are seeing the good old legal intimidation — as in "I can pay my lawyers more, so I'll drive you out of business before we get to a judge".
After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.
I wish this were true, but it is not. Che Guevara T-shirts and other paraphernalia remain all the rage — one can be found, in fact, by scratching any climate change alarmist. Seriously — please, cite the Federal Law you are referring to.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing)
Whatever the fook "democratic socialist" means, Bernie Sanders is not that. He is a "Democratic Socialist" — an important distinction not easily obvious in verbal communications — a member of an American party, which adores Karl Marx and other Communists of the past and is arguing in support of collective ownership of the means of production. Page 10 from Exhibit A:
Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Our immediate task is to limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace
That is Communism by definition. And the guy, who wrote the above is David Green — a member of DSA National Committee — is standing right next to Senator Sanders during his speech at a DSA convention...
If you choose to engage in a dialogue, be sure to state unambiguously upfront, whether:
You agree, that DSA are Communists (wholly or in a substantial part).
You accept, that Bernie Sanders is a member of that party.
Speculation is not "making stuff up" — it is perfectly valid to inquire, how much they've spent and, in the absence of a clear answer, attempt to estimate.
You've now missed the third chance to offer your own estimates or explain, why mine are incorrect. This confirms, you aren't arguing here in good faith. I shall not continue. *Plonk*...
From here, it was easy to reach into their email server and steal all the company's emails
Aren't we reminded, over and over, that the terms like "steal" (and "theft") apply only to tangible things? But not to, for example, music and video files?
Should not this read:
From here, it was easy to reach into their email server and copied all the company's emails
The company still theircopies of the messages, right? Why is it "theft", when we disapprove of the the activity, but a mere "downloading", when we do not?
In the absence of actual data, speculating is perfectly justified. And it is not my laziness — Apple is playing the cards close to chest. From a rather laudatory article about Apple:
Apple declined to comment on how much it cost to build Liam.
Ask yourself why?... The same article adds:
While Liam makes up the entire system, its 29 robotic helpers do the handy work. [...] It's clear this is a well-oiled operation; after all, it took years to perfect
Do you honestly believe, this required less than a $100 mln dollar initial investment? The 30 robots plus facility itself cost more — not counting the research, that has gone into it. For comparison, Intel's new chip-making plant in Arizona cost $5 bln just to build — fifty times more... Maybe, now that they have it, the marginal costs of running it can be paid off by the extracted materials themselves? Maybe... But, if this were actually true — or even close to being true — Apple would've been the first to point it out. For it would've looked much better to both the customers and the investors than the current secrecy.
Stop making up stuff, boy.
Talk decent, young lady, or you'll find yourself conversing with a mirror...
Actually, it was just a cost of $5,37. See I can pull numbers from your ass too.
The $100 mln figure appears in delt0r's post above. I now realize, he said "if". The actual number is likely much bigger, actually — otherwise Apple would've been glad to publish it...
Actually, no, we do not. Some times an earthquake explains it, but not always.
Not an expert, not some expert, but the experts.
Appeal to authority. Fail. Today's experts may be right. But simply their being considered experts does not prove anything.
What can you and Mr. Nye say today in support of prosecuting opponents of the anthropogenic global warming, that couldn't have been said only 3 years ago to prosecute people feeding children butter?
The "experts' opinions" on the evils of fat were no less "settled" — and only the fraudsters in the pocket of Big Butter would argue against it.
Experimental program not instantly profitable? Say it isn't so!
So, is the experiment a success in your opinion? They've extracted a total of about $52 million dollars worth of material for the cost of $100 million...
Do you expect it to become profitable some time in the future?
I'm sure they can improve the efficiency of the extraction process.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is part of the Executive branch. They don't write the laws, they enforce compliance — to the best of their understanding. Next time a cop beats you up, will you accept an argument, that he has done so in accordance with his department's rules?
What makes your link even more off-topic is that they are enforcing the laws of employment only.
then island property should be a bargain in paradise
Island (and coastal) property in general remains very attractive — even among the staunchest alarmists.
But that the Maldives in particular are sinking because our cars are too big remains a rather dubious conjecture. Plenty of places went under centuries and millennia before the industrial revolution.
Now the FAA is confirming that drone shooting is a federal offense, citing regulations against aircraft sabotage.
Ah, so they are confirming, that it always has been a crime.
The title: "Drone-Shooting is Now a Federal Crime," — could've lead someone to believe, a part of the Executive-branch has written a law. Not that they haven't been doing so de facto before, but dropping the pretense and doing it de jure would've been a new low...
Much as I share the judge's doubts about sincerity of the plaintiff, I suspect, the ruling will not stand.
"there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. [...] The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line."
He is right — in this case. But it is difficult (if not impossible) to define a criteria — like in that earlier case, where judges where asked to distinguish between erotic art and pornography: "I know it when I see it. Religion is even more difficult to define.
But the whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military, wherever — recognizing a religion and making special accommodations for followers seems like a violation of the First Amendment. I mean the establishing part of it — you can still freely exercise whatever as long as it does not require special accommodations.
Neat how the RWNJ's are ignoring the part where that's talking about prosecuting companies
Distinction without difference. The First Amendment protects us all. Of course, the totalitarian assholes seeking to prosecute opinions would start with the most prominent targets. But they'll get to the less known eventually. Right here is another such asshole, allowing his opponents to hear his sacred truth only once. If they aren't convinced the first time, they are "deliberately lying" and should be prosecuted: "why WOULDN'T we?" — he passionately asks.
What would such bigotry achieve? The serene unanimity as in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and today's North Korea, that's what. Scratch a "climate alarmist", and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...
Same as the cigarette and asbestos industries spent decades denying that their products were inherently harmful.
Cigarettes caused discernible harm. Perhaps, asbestos did too (if you snorted it). No real harm has been caused by "deniers" — whether they are right or wrong. And even Mr. Nye is not accusing them of such — only of hurting his feelings: "hurting my quality of life as a public citizen".
Look, Denialists, lets make a deal: you guys can all move out to the Maldives.
The islands of Tasmania and Kodiak stopped being peninsulas only a few thousands years ago. Are you going to blame the early humans' burning fires for that?
Is it, perhaps, the fault of ancient Egyptians and Greek, that some of their cities are under the waters of Mediterranean? No? Why not? Surely plenty of contemporary priests blamed the populace's sins for angering the contemporary gods...
I find your attempts to blame Maldives' difficulties on me about as justified. Curiously, some alarmists have taken the same religious attitude too.
Slashdot Mirror
Read up on this concept of "burden of proof", dimwit.
Wow, asshole, you really are running ahead of everyone here. "Unable to prove" is equal to "lying" in your opinion?..
That all this persecution of anonymity — in direct violation of the First Amendment — does not even bother anyone anymore, is the scariest part...
Keeping scores of people on payroll to advance your propaganda worked — and continues to work — for Putin (with whom Secretary Clinton has "an interesting" relationship).
No surprise, she is among the first to adopt his methods, and even the more prudent politicians will soon have to do it just to remain competitive. It already happened to TV make-up, robo-callers, and teleprompters...
Maybe, there will be a silver-lining in this for the perpetually-struggling "established" journalists — their having been bought may be harder to conceal/easier to prove than the same for tens and hundreds of anonymous nobodies.
You can't demand, I prove a negative.
The burden of proof is on you — we aren't living in your totalitarian dream land. Not yet, anyway.
You want me to change my way of life — you still have to convince me. You wish to appeal to authority of "scientific experts" — fine, but you have to establish their credentials first. Pointing out successful scientific predictions made by that bunch earlier is necessary (though not sufficient), if you wish to go that route.
You once mentioned someone named "Arrhenius", who, according to you, successfully predicted something about CO2 in the 19th century. How is that relevant to today's "climate scientists" and their peculiar inability to make a successful prediction remains unclear.
But we already know, you'd rather use police than scientific arguments, so kindly drop the pretense and simply denounce me as a "denialist fraud" to the Democrat Attorney General near you. When I'm sent to Gulag for it, you may expect my house as a reward. That's the best way to "save the planet", is not it?
A statement like "It may rain tomorrow" is not falsifiable and therefor non scientific...
"15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance."
That's almost scientific. It has a measurable number and it does not use the evasive "may" or "could", using a solid "will" instead.
What's missing is the when. 2021? 2026?
Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.
What, I wonder, does "being a party member" mean, in your opinion? If decades-long cooperation with the party and the party itself calling one "a member" is not enough, what will? Do you need him to also openly announce membership — and will remain unconvinced until then?
Yeah? So, if Trotsky prevailed back then, you think, it would've all been somehow different? Maybe in some details, but it still would've been both evil and destructive.
What do you call Venezuela? "Chavizm" replaced by "Madurism"? You've not read Marx enough I see — the man made it abundantly clear, how unimportant an actual single person is, compared to the "historical process". The weak Socialism is followed by hard Communism — it is happening in Venezuela right now. Once you allow the glorious Collective to overrule the silly and cantankerous Individual, it is all downhill and no amount of "Democratic" qualifiers will help.
I don't care, if he is or not — what you are saying is that he'll likely fail to bring about, what he promises. But that's irrelevant: a sympathizer of a patently evil ideology can neither be mentioned in a polite company other than with disdain, nor voted other than against — regardless of whether he is personally deemed to have a sufficient zeal to repeat the gruesome acts of the earlier followers of the same evil.
Whether Bernie Sanders deliberately wishes for America to suffer the destruction already exemplified by Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, or is too stupid to realize, that's what his ideas will lead to, it is his Communist sympathies that make him a Communist (as exemplified by his decades-long association with DSA — whether you call it "membership" or not). There is no upside in supporting him — at best he will fail to accomplish what he promises. The downside, however, is an abyss.
No, you don't need to eat poison to have "a healthy diet". I ate enough of the Socialist arsenic growing up in the USSR to build up tolerance, but I'd rather my children didn't have to suffer through it at all. A wise man can learn from other people's mistakes without repeating them himself. Wise up.
Is there a picture of yourself giving a speech at a podium, while President Bush looks at you (admiringly)? Probably, not...
Ok, to rehash. You agree that Communism is evil, that's a relief. You seem to agree, that DSA are Communist enough to taint any member — if he is a member.
But you insist that:
The first point is not entirely relevant, so I'll just point out, that Sanders is constantly identified as "an Independent" — he is caucusing with Democrats in Senate, but he is not one of them. The usual state/party designation next to his name is (VT, I.).
He is running for a Democratic Party nomination this year, but that's neither here nor there. Ron Paul ran for Republican nomination several times, but he is a Libertarian...
Now, is he a member of DSA? Here is my evidence:
With so much evidence, it is way past time he repudiated their support, don't you think? Unless he welcomes it, of course. Far less evidence was ever presented, that Donald Trump was a KKK-member, for example, before angry voices and sneaky interviewers demanded, he "repudiates" that organization. Talk about "intellectual honesty"...
Even if a stubborn juror may insist, the above evidence does not convict Bernie Sanders of being a Communist beyond reasonable doubt, there is certainly enough to rule against him on the slightly lower preponderance of evidence standard. He is a Communist alright...
Lastly, about your (and others') attempts to distinguish between Communism and Socialism... The distinction is without difference — Socialism is merely Communism-lite.
But even if you disagree, who would want a Hugo Chavez — another "Socialist not a Communist" — to become President of their country? Because, other than the late Presidente's anti-Semitism, the Senator's ideas are indistinguishable from his...
Well, it works for tax-evasion accusations — why not for terrorism ones?
And has had almost immediately after the invention of telephones.
Bullshit. Parodies are protected speech, which would've covered this case even if the person's name were a trade-mark. No, we are seeing the good old legal intimidation — as in "I can pay my lawyers more, so I'll drive you out of business before we get to a judge".
I wish this were true, but it is not. Che Guevara T-shirts and other paraphernalia remain all the rage — one can be found, in fact, by scratching any climate change alarmist. Seriously — please, cite the Federal Law you are referring to.
Bernie Sanders is a Communist — sue me.
Whatever the fook "democratic socialist" means, Bernie Sanders is not that. He is a "Democratic Socialist" — an important distinction not easily obvious in verbal communications — a member of an American party, which adores Karl Marx and other Communists of the past and is arguing in support of collective ownership of the means of production. Page 10 from Exhibit A:
That is Communism by definition. And the guy, who wrote the above is David Green — a member of DSA National Committee — is standing right next to Senator Sanders during his speech at a DSA convention...
If you choose to engage in a dialogue, be sure to state unambiguously upfront, whether:
Responses without clear answers to the above three questions will be returned unopened.
You've now missed the third chance to offer your own estimates or explain, why mine are incorrect. This confirms, you aren't arguing here in good faith. I shall not continue. *Plonk*...
Aren't we reminded, over and over, that the terms like "steal" (and "theft") apply only to tangible things? But not to, for example, music and video files?
Should not this read:
The company still theircopies of the messages, right? Why is it "theft", when we disapprove of the the activity, but a mere "downloading", when we do not?
Ask yourself why?... The same article adds:
Do you honestly believe, this required less than a $100 mln dollar initial investment? The 30 robots plus facility itself cost more — not counting the research, that has gone into it. For comparison, Intel's new chip-making plant in Arizona cost $5 bln just to build — fifty times more... Maybe, now that they have it, the marginal costs of running it can be paid off by the extracted materials themselves? Maybe... But, if this were actually true — or even close to being true — Apple would've been the first to point it out. For it would've looked much better to both the customers and the investors than the current secrecy.
Talk decent, young lady, or you'll find yourself conversing with a mirror...
The $100 mln figure appears in delt0r's post above. I now realize, he said "if". The actual number is likely much bigger, actually — otherwise Apple would've been glad to publish it...
Actually, no, we do not. Some times an earthquake explains it, but not always.
Appeal to authority. Fail. Today's experts may be right. But simply their being considered experts does not prove anything.
What can you and Mr. Nye say today in support of prosecuting opponents of the anthropogenic global warming, that couldn't have been said only 3 years ago to prosecute people feeding children butter?
The "experts' opinions" on the evils of fat were no less "settled" — and only the fraudsters in the pocket of Big Butter would argue against it.
So, is the experiment a success in your opinion? They've extracted a total of about $52 million dollars worth of material for the cost of $100 million...
Do you expect it to become profitable some time in the future?
They'll need to not just improve, but double it just to break even. That recycling is a fraud is increasingly obvious — even its cheerleaders have to cite consumers' liking products made from recycled materials to support claims, that it is profitable. Those with a totalitarian streak acknowledge, that without increasing government oppression (such as banning plastic bags in supermarkets) the recycling is too difficult and expensive.
Apple is not doing it for (direct) profit. They expect clueless customers to feel better — and buy more — thus helping the profit indirectly.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is part of the Executive branch. They don't write the laws, they enforce compliance — to the best of their understanding. Next time a cop beats you up, will you accept an argument, that he has done so in accordance with his department's rules?
What makes your link even more off-topic is that they are enforcing the laws of employment only.
Much of it is, yes.
Certainly is.
Island (and coastal) property in general remains very attractive — even among the staunchest alarmists.
But that the Maldives in particular are sinking because our cars are too big remains a rather dubious conjecture. Plenty of places went under centuries and millennia before the industrial revolution.
Maybe, that's because beards do not, in fact, require any special accommodations. Or, maybe, SCOTUS simply made a mistake this time.
Ah, so they are confirming, that it always has been a crime.
The title: "Drone-Shooting is Now a Federal Crime," — could've lead someone to believe, a part of the Executive-branch has written a law. Not that they haven't been doing so de facto before, but dropping the pretense and doing it de jure would've been a new low...
No, asshole. You'll much sooner find yourself hanging from a lamp-post with your Che Guevara T-shirt stuffed into your mouth.
Much as I share the judge's doubts about sincerity of the plaintiff, I suspect, the ruling will not stand.
He is right — in this case. But it is difficult (if not impossible) to define a criteria — like in that earlier case, where judges where asked to distinguish between erotic art and pornography: "I know it when I see it. Religion is even more difficult to define.
But the whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military, wherever — recognizing a religion and making special accommodations for followers seems like a violation of the First Amendment. I mean the establishing part of it — you can still freely exercise whatever as long as it does not require special accommodations.
Distinction without difference. The First Amendment protects us all. Of course, the totalitarian assholes seeking to prosecute opinions would start with the most prominent targets. But they'll get to the less known eventually. Right here is another such asshole, allowing his opponents to hear his sacred truth only once. If they aren't convinced the first time, they are "deliberately lying" and should be prosecuted: "why WOULDN'T we?" — he passionately asks.
What would such bigotry achieve? The serene unanimity as in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and today's North Korea, that's what. Scratch a "climate alarmist", and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...
Cigarettes caused discernible harm. Perhaps, asbestos did too (if you snorted it). No real harm has been caused by "deniers" — whether they are right or wrong. And even Mr. Nye is not accusing them of such — only of hurting his feelings: "hurting my quality of life as a public citizen".
The islands of Tasmania and Kodiak stopped being peninsulas only a few thousands years ago. Are you going to blame the early humans' burning fires for that?
Is it, perhaps, the fault of ancient Egyptians and Greek, that some of their cities are under the waters of Mediterranean? No? Why not? Surely plenty of contemporary priests blamed the populace's sins for angering the contemporary gods...
I find your attempts to blame Maldives' difficulties on me about as justified. Curiously, some alarmists have taken the same religious attitude too.