There are roughly 15,000 murders a year in the US, and this year so far there have been 9 mass shootings. Sounds to me there's serious threats to those living in the US alright, but mostly not from those far right groups. Singling out one killing from all of these, although very emotive, in order to make your point probably doesn't do what you think it does...
Moreover, the point of posters above you is that the best tactic to employ when one of these far right groups or individuals wants to talk or protest is simply to let them. Now I in no way approve or support what happened to Heather but ask yourself, if she had followed the advice of these posters, (i.e. just carried on with her life and let the various groups march in protest against the removal of the statue) what do you think would have happened to her?
Now, I know whatever I say at this point is going to be 'tainted' by what I've just said but, it's possibly still worth emphasising:
What happened to Heather was a tragedy. She did not deserve it and she did not 'bring it on herself'. The only person responsible for her death was the driver. But, while she had a right to peacefully counter-protest, and props for standing up for what she believed in, everyone on 'the other side' also had a right to be there. If there had been no counter-protesters there would have been no violence*.
But the media got their 'story'...
*(Ok, this bit is actually an unprovable assertion, and one I'm not totally sure I believe myself. There are substantial questions over the entire affair, and it's entirely possible that 'quislings' within the protesters would have sparked violence anyway. But, even if that were the case, at least then the responsibility for it would be fully with the protesters.)
The definition, well one definition anyway, of "civil disobedience" is: the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest.
And that of a "riot": a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd
So, pretty much by definition, a riot is not a form of civil disobedience.
You can pretend to hold the moral high ground all you like, you can pretend that all you're doing is protesting an unjust system, an unfit president, whatever, but in reality we all know you're being a violent thug, and you deserve no hiding place from the consequences of your violent actions.
A well thought out and reasoned response to an inflammatory post.
Airbags are an interesting example. Even the best airbag systems kill some people who would not have died without airbags. But they save many more that would have. So, you accept the compromise.
Perfect example!
Realistically, we do wait longer than the point of net balance because the public does not understand statistically-based decisions very well. When it is your family member that died because the tech failed you want to blame the tech without looking at the whole picture. We often don't even know when our family member died because the tech that could have saved them was held back because it was being over-engineered.
Often, these hard decisions are the reason for regulation - not to protect the public but to allow the companies protection in deploying something that a big picture organization like the government has determined will be a net benefit to the public while being a detriment to some individuals. The engineers then have the excuse of having met the regulation. It seems to work better with our minds.
Absent specific regulations and tests to target (which is the ideal situation in a free society), the business leaders are usually the ones who make the tough calls.
And insightful!
Just wanted you to know, your efforts were appreciated.:-)
Motorcycle riders don't given they miss motorcycles at a rate 10 times higher than cars or pedestrians...
Evidence?
No, hyperbole!
Evidence would require research:
Number of Tesla cars on the road. Number of non-Tesla cars on the road. Number of motorcycle accidents involving a Tesla. Number of motorcycle accidents involving a car that wasn't a Tesla.
And some basic understanding of statistics:
Given the proportionally low number of Tesla vehicles compared to total vehicles you'd probably want to limit data to particular locales (i.e. continental USA), and, further, correct for 'error magnification'
Based on my observations there's little evidence GP is engaged in anything other than anti-Tesla FUD.
I will say that I tend to agree with thread parent though. By all means, Tesla, continue the research into fully autonomous driving but a little more focus on production of a reliable electric vehicle, and the scaling up of that production process, without sacrificing quality, would probably be sensible right now. The vehicles Tesla makes are already desirable, the bells and whistles they already incorporate are more than sufficient for 99% of their market. Full on autopilot, while being "the-time-is-right-sci-fi", and thus a draw to potential customers, is not the main reason most people are ordering and buying your cars (I'd actually go as far as to say that were it included as standard it'd put off as many people as it would attract - I love driving, I dislike, intensely, being driven).
At walmart it's near instantaneous and other places nearly so. At smaller stores I have indeed waited a full minute or more...
I'd hazard a guess that this is because in smaller stores the terminals are not permanently connected to the network, hence the delay while they connect so they can verify your pin before authorising the transaction. You still see it in smaller shops over here in the UK, where the shop phone can't be used at the same time as the terminal.
While it can be a tad frustrating, I'd say people could probably do with relaxing a bit if a one minute delay is enough to wind them up. That said, I do prefer using cash for the vast majority of my 'in person' transactions.
And i'm suspecting that this synthetic meat can be processed organically.
While I accept that definitions vary the first one I can across for "organic food" was:
Organic food is the product of a farming system which avoids the use of man-made fertilisers, pesticides; growth regulators and livestock feed additives. Irradiation and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products produced from or by GMOs are generally prohibited by organic legislation.
I'm sure you don't think that vat grown meat can be produced without man-made growth regulators, but I'm not sure what this does mean for your version of organic. I'm also pretty sure that the cells will have to be 'modified', otherwise growing them will prove not only impractical but 'uneconomical'. Please note I'm not saying impossible, just impractical. The market for $35,000 hamburgers is somewhat limited!
And my last response is that I believe that this synthetic meat will advertise as such because a lot of people will want it.
It will be labeled as such because legislation will ensure it must be. It will be branded and advertised to make people want it. No vegan will eat it, as it is still very much an animal product. Most vegetarians will not eat it, either because of the taste or texture, or because it's still animal flesh at the end of the day. A reasonably large number of people will not eat it because of either trust issues or the yuck factor, and finally some people will eat it because it's cheap / expensive. People are funny like that...
No more... having a lightening attractor on the roof.
Not only does a white roof look better, it actively prevents global warming, as it reflects more sunlight back into space. If anything we need to lighten more of them!
Lower level flunkies at the working level lack direct reports, do not supervise anything, control nothing, and have little impact. They don't have the decision material, don't control resources, and don't dictate policy, and therefore would have little to no federal records.
Not missing the point, just disagreeing with it.
Any e-mail to or from a governmental e-mail address is government 'property'. As such they are also a record. When presented with a FOIA request, whether the government agency, in this case NASA, thinks it's a useful record or not is irrelevant.
In the specific case given in the summary where "Motherboard requested all emails from a specific NASA email address with a specific subject line" responding with "There were no emails found matching this search criteria" might have been a valid response, as might "We regret to inform you that the information you have requested has been classified Top Secret...", but responding that it was "unclear what specific NASA records you are requesting" is clearly taking the piss, and in violation of both letter and spirit of the FOIA.
Now, reading between the lines, in this particular instance (above), it sounds like someone was aggrieved at not getting through the tender process, and went, via Motherboard, to get to the bottom of the process. Someone involved in that process at NASA stymied that search. So a small favour to a friendly regular supplier (albeit one that violates acquisition protocols) has the potential to snowball into a nightmare case of misuse of funds etc. No wonder they'd want to delay, stall, cover it up and hope it all eventually just goes away...
Previous paragraph is, for the record, probably just my overactive imagination, and not in any way representative of the situation!
I can't help but read this comment as: Stop wasting everyone's time trying to teach them the basics of logic.
Or maybe: Stop using a really fun tool to assist in the teaching of mathematics, logic and art (not to mention the innumerable soft skills such lessons can impart).
The question is not about senior school pupils who are choosing specific courses based on their projected careers, it's about young children, who deserve to be exposed to everything useful we can throw at them.
As to the rest of your post, if you really think an 8 year old needs to "understand the very basic functionality of processors" etc. your name is strangely apposite. If not, Troll harder!
Programming didn't make sense to me until I took algebra
Or, you know, use programming as one of the tools to teach algebra.
Having multiple frames of reference makes learning both easier and more memorable.
I still think LOGO is a great tool, especially if you can get (or make) a robot turtle. I'm not so enthralled by Scratch, if I'm honest, but maybe that's just me getting old...
Who do you hold accountable when a smart machinegun mows down civilian refugees?
The cynical answer is: Depends on whether the machine gun was deployed by the winning side or not...
This ban must happen.
A modern car plant turns out maybe 1000 cars a day, provided it can be fed with sufficient raw materials. Imagine if, instead of cars, the (mostly automated) factory were churning out autonomous killer robots instead. These robots can accelerate, move and manoeuvre faster than any human piloted vehicle, fire more accurately, swarm, split, and regroup faster than most units can communicate and have no morale. If one gets lost there's no letter to write home to a grieving family, they don't need paying, and they don't take holidays (although, of course, maintenance will still be 'a thing' provided people care enough to treat them as slightly more than simply disposable). There's no signature radiation or seismograph shaking announcement from their testing or deployment and, while a deterrent is usually best publicised in order to act as such, you can bet this will not universally apply, especially for the smaller fish in our current global ocean.
A ban, whether it happens or not, will not be successful(ly enforced), it will simply drive development, and thus any oversight, deep into the darkness of 'black budgets'. The potential is too great for any nation to ignore.
Who do you hold accountable...
As far as I can tell there's already very little to no accountability for "collateral damage" in today's exercises of asymmetric warfare. No predator pilot has lost his life, nor realistically stands to, in 'action' and none of them have been charged with murder for causing civilian deaths while in 'action' (as far as I know - feel free to correct me). I have not seen in any recent (last 10 years) news that any senior military personnel from the west have been charged with murder or for war crimes for giving orders that resulted in civilian casualties (Note I'm not talking about torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners - just actions on a 'battlefield'.)
So, other than 'whatif' moral objections, tell me again why this won't happen?
The solution of course it to build those killbots with a preset kill limit. If they get out of hand and rebel, we simply send wave after wave of men against them until they shut down.
There are and will always be preset limits built into (semi)autonomous robots, whether they be of the killer type or not.
"An army marches on its stomach" has an equivalent for robots: "Powerless without power".
I'm sure there will be doomsayers predicting killer robots tapping into national grids in order to continue their kill frenzies (to be fair I'd be surprised if there weren't research along these lines) however, in realistic short to mid term scenarios as long as there's a person in the authorised refueling loop shut down is only an empty fuel tank or uncharged battery away.
I do find it both troubling and amusing that while you were modded down for saying that the GP was modded up.
Let's try to lay this out so even the biggest "words can hurt me" snowflakes can understand it:
Ok, so "congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise... or abridging the freedom of speech". We get that. But where does that freedom of speech come from in the first place?
I'll tell you, it's a natural, inalienable right of every person! Natural in that it applies to everyone, inalienable in that it can't be given away, and it can't be taken away. Not businesses, not individuals, not churches, cults, charitable organisations, no-one! Just because the founding fathers felt the need to explicitly state that the state couldn't restrict that right doesn't mean that anyone else can. They can't, and attempting to restrict someone's right to free speech is wrong*!
Honestly, some of the sheer idiocy I see here just boggles my mind!
*This is not to say you are free from any consequences resulting from what you've said - I realise that this is a common argument / misconception regarding free speech.
Really, isn't the best way to fight such complete stupidity to keep it in the open?
I don't believe that anymore. That policy has been an abject failure, and seems to have served more as an enabling support group than as a disinfectant.
Prove it.
We have literal Nazis, wearing swastikas, carrying Nazi flags, giving the Nazi salute, in Charlottesville.
Well, you had literal neo-nazis there, but I take your point. And now perhaps you could tell us how many of them were there? Please don't say "Too many". That's bloody obvious, and would also be obviously missing the point. And, to be clear, I mean those specifically wearing Nazi symbols, not those carrying the Union flag, or the various other southern state symbols. How many?
I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than 0.0001% of the population. And yet, somehow, you see this as an abject failure?
Actions taken during wartime can't really be equated / conflated with notions of reasonable behaviour during times of peace (though those last 3 words do seems somewhat of a misnomer at the moment).
However, if you want to compare situations, then and now, I have a question:
If all Nazis are irredeemably evil, and deserve only extermination, why weren't all of them executed at the end of the war?
It's a drug resistant variant of a deadly fungus we've seen before. There have been no deaths from this outbreak, but that doesn't change that the fungus is deadly.
Yikes, you mean this is actually prescient fiction?
Worse than George Washington defending a fledgling nation against the British Empire? Worse than Abraham Lincoln attempting to reunite a country divided by Civil War? Worse than Franklin D. Roosevelt who had to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War 2?
Nothing unites a country better than an external enemy. So, yeah, I'd say in a sense he does have it worse. (Let's just hope you know who doesn't read this and do something... silly.)
Trump has it worse because why? Oh yeah, "The media is all out against him".
And, in fairness that's certainly how it appears. What's going on now is a prime example of it. He condemns the violence, from both sides, in Charlottesville, and is vilified for not repeatedly and specifically condemning (only) the neo-nazis and the kkk.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's a vindictive tool. Repealing, or attempting to repeal, anything done by the previous administration simply because it was done by the previous administration is just childish. Sacking people because they don't toe the party (well, his) line, or because they dare to disagree is just spiteful, not to mention short sighted (this last definitely applies to the closing down of the manufacturing councils - but the members have not exactly covered themselves in glory, in my opinion, in the last couple of days).
And yet, despite all that, I actually felt sorry for him today, for the bashing he's getting in the media.
"Biggest bunch of babies ever."
An accusation that could almost be leveled at, apparently, over half the country right now.
Amazing? Tragic? Comedic? I can't even tell anymore...
Slashdot Mirror
At the risk of seeming callous:
There are roughly 15,000 murders a year in the US, and this year so far there have been 9 mass shootings. Sounds to me there's serious threats to those living in the US alright, but mostly not from those far right groups. Singling out one killing from all of these, although very emotive, in order to make your point probably doesn't do what you think it does...
Moreover, the point of posters above you is that the best tactic to employ when one of these far right groups or individuals wants to talk or protest is simply to let them. Now I in no way approve or support what happened to Heather but ask yourself, if she had followed the advice of these posters, (i.e. just carried on with her life and let the various groups march in protest against the removal of the statue) what do you think would have happened to her?
Now, I know whatever I say at this point is going to be 'tainted' by what I've just said but, it's possibly still worth emphasising:
What happened to Heather was a tragedy. She did not deserve it and she did not 'bring it on herself'. The only person responsible for her death was the driver. But, while she had a right to peacefully counter-protest, and props for standing up for what she believed in, everyone on 'the other side' also had a right to be there. If there had been no counter-protesters there would have been no violence*.
But the media got their 'story'...
*(Ok, this bit is actually an unprovable assertion, and one I'm not totally sure I believe myself. There are substantial questions over the entire affair, and it's entirely possible that 'quislings' within the protesters would have sparked violence anyway. But, even if that were the case, at least then the responsibility for it would be fully with the protesters.)
...is like debating if a Pegasus can fly faster than Griffin...
Which would indeed be a pointless debate, unless you're prepared to ignore facts:
Pegasus (Large Magical Beast) - Speed: 60', fly 120' (average)
Griffon (Large Magical Beast) - Speed: 30', fly 80' (average)
Pegasus is faster, on both land and in the air. End of debate!
your riots are my, "civil disobedience"
The definition, well one definition anyway, of "civil disobedience" is: the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest.
And that of a "riot": a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd
So, pretty much by definition, a riot is not a form of civil disobedience.
You can pretend to hold the moral high ground all you like, you can pretend that all you're doing is protesting an unjust system, an unfit president, whatever, but in reality we all know you're being a violent thug, and you deserve no hiding place from the consequences of your violent actions.
A well thought out and reasoned response to an inflammatory post.
Airbags are an interesting example. Even the best airbag systems kill some people who would not have died without airbags. But they save many more that would have. So, you accept the compromise.
Perfect example!
Realistically, we do wait longer than the point of net balance because the public does not understand statistically-based decisions very well. When it is your family member that died because the tech failed you want to blame the tech without looking at the whole picture. We often don't even know when our family member died because the tech that could have saved them was held back because it was being over-engineered.
Often, these hard decisions are the reason for regulation - not to protect the public but to allow the companies protection in deploying something that a big picture organization like the government has determined will be a net benefit to the public while being a detriment to some individuals. The engineers then have the excuse of having met the regulation. It seems to work better with our minds.
Absent specific regulations and tests to target (which is the ideal situation in a free society), the business leaders are usually the ones who make the tough calls.
And insightful!
Just wanted you to know, your efforts were appreciated. :-)
Motorcycle riders don't given they miss motorcycles at a rate 10 times higher than cars or pedestrians...
Evidence?
No, hyperbole!
Evidence would require research:
Number of Tesla cars on the road. Number of non-Tesla cars on the road. Number of motorcycle accidents involving a Tesla. Number of motorcycle accidents involving a car that wasn't a Tesla.
And some basic understanding of statistics:
Given the proportionally low number of Tesla vehicles compared to total vehicles you'd probably want to limit data to particular locales (i.e. continental USA), and, further, correct for 'error magnification'
Based on my observations there's little evidence GP is engaged in anything other than anti-Tesla FUD.
I will say that I tend to agree with thread parent though. By all means, Tesla, continue the research into fully autonomous driving but a little more focus on production of a reliable electric vehicle, and the scaling up of that production process, without sacrificing quality, would probably be sensible right now. The vehicles Tesla makes are already desirable, the bells and whistles they already incorporate are more than sufficient for 99% of their market. Full on autopilot, while being "the-time-is-right-sci-fi", and thus a draw to potential customers, is not the main reason most people are ordering and buying your cars (I'd actually go as far as to say that were it included as standard it'd put off as many people as it would attract - I love driving, I dislike, intensely, being driven).
At walmart it's near instantaneous and other places nearly so. At smaller stores I have indeed waited a full minute or more ...
I'd hazard a guess that this is because in smaller stores the terminals are not permanently connected to the network, hence the delay while they connect so they can verify your pin before authorising the transaction. You still see it in smaller shops over here in the UK, where the shop phone can't be used at the same time as the terminal.
While it can be a tad frustrating, I'd say people could probably do with relaxing a bit if a one minute delay is enough to wind them up. That said, I do prefer using cash for the vast majority of my 'in person' transactions.
And i'm suspecting that this synthetic meat can be processed organically.
While I accept that definitions vary the first one I can across for "organic food" was:
Organic food is the product of a farming system which avoids the use of man-made fertilisers, pesticides; growth regulators and livestock feed additives. Irradiation and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products produced from or by GMOs are generally prohibited by organic legislation.
I'm sure you don't think that vat grown meat can be produced without man-made growth regulators, but I'm not sure what this does mean for your version of organic. I'm also pretty sure that the cells will have to be 'modified', otherwise growing them will prove not only impractical but 'uneconomical'. Please note I'm not saying impossible, just impractical. The market for $35,000 hamburgers is somewhat limited!
And my last response is that I believe that this synthetic meat will advertise as such because a lot of people will want it.
It will be labeled as such because legislation will ensure it must be. It will be branded and advertised to make people want it. No vegan will eat it, as it is still very much an animal product. Most vegetarians will not eat it, either because of the taste or texture, or because it's still animal flesh at the end of the day. A reasonably large number of people will not eat it because of either trust issues or the yuck factor, and finally some people will eat it because it's cheap / expensive. People are funny like that...
No more ... having a lightening attractor on the roof.
Not only does a white roof look better, it actively prevents global warming, as it reflects more sunlight back into space. If anything we need to lighten more of them!
Point missed completely...
Lower level flunkies at the working level lack direct reports, do not supervise anything, control nothing, and have little impact. They don't have the decision material, don't control resources, and don't dictate policy, and therefore would have little to no federal records.
Not missing the point, just disagreeing with it.
Any e-mail to or from a governmental e-mail address is government 'property'. As such they are also a record. When presented with a FOIA request, whether the government agency, in this case NASA, thinks it's a useful record or not is irrelevant.
In the specific case given in the summary where "Motherboard requested all emails from a specific NASA email address with a specific subject line" responding with "There were no emails found matching this search criteria" might have been a valid response, as might "We regret to inform you that the information you have requested has been classified Top Secret...", but responding that it was "unclear what specific NASA records you are requesting" is clearly taking the piss, and in violation of both letter and spirit of the FOIA.
Now, reading between the lines, in this particular instance (above), it sounds like someone was aggrieved at not getting through the tender process, and went, via Motherboard, to get to the bottom of the process. Someone involved in that process at NASA stymied that search. So a small favour to a friendly regular supplier (albeit one that violates acquisition protocols) has the potential to snowball into a nightmare case of misuse of funds etc. No wonder they'd want to delay, stall, cover it up and hope it all eventually just goes away...
Previous paragraph is, for the record, probably just my overactive imagination, and not in any way representative of the situation!
I can't help but read this comment as: Stop wasting everyone's time trying to teach them the basics of logic.
Or maybe: Stop using a really fun tool to assist in the teaching of mathematics, logic and art (not to mention the innumerable soft skills such lessons can impart).
The question is not about senior school pupils who are choosing specific courses based on their projected careers, it's about young children, who deserve to be exposed to everything useful we can throw at them.
As to the rest of your post, if you really think an 8 year old needs to "understand the very basic functionality of processors" etc. your name is strangely apposite. If not, Troll harder!
Programming didn't make sense to me until I took algebra
Or, you know, use programming as one of the tools to teach algebra.
Having multiple frames of reference makes learning both easier and more memorable.
I still think LOGO is a great tool, especially if you can get (or make) a robot turtle. I'm not so enthralled by Scratch, if I'm honest, but maybe that's just me getting old...
Who do you hold accountable when a smart machinegun mows down civilian refugees?
The cynical answer is: Depends on whether the machine gun was deployed by the winning side or not...
This ban must happen.
A modern car plant turns out maybe 1000 cars a day, provided it can be fed with sufficient raw materials. Imagine if, instead of cars, the (mostly automated) factory were churning out autonomous killer robots instead. These robots can accelerate, move and manoeuvre faster than any human piloted vehicle, fire more accurately, swarm, split, and regroup faster than most units can communicate and have no morale. If one gets lost there's no letter to write home to a grieving family, they don't need paying, and they don't take holidays (although, of course, maintenance will still be 'a thing' provided people care enough to treat them as slightly more than simply disposable). There's no signature radiation or seismograph shaking announcement from their testing or deployment and, while a deterrent is usually best publicised in order to act as such, you can bet this will not universally apply, especially for the smaller fish in our current global ocean.
A ban, whether it happens or not, will not be successful(ly enforced), it will simply drive development, and thus any oversight, deep into the darkness of 'black budgets'. The potential is too great for any nation to ignore.
Who do you hold accountable...
As far as I can tell there's already very little to no accountability for "collateral damage" in today's exercises of asymmetric warfare. No predator pilot has lost his life, nor realistically stands to, in 'action' and none of them have been charged with murder for causing civilian deaths while in 'action' (as far as I know - feel free to correct me). I have not seen in any recent (last 10 years) news that any senior military personnel from the west have been charged with murder or for war crimes for giving orders that resulted in civilian casualties (Note I'm not talking about torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners - just actions on a 'battlefield'.)
So, other than 'whatif' moral objections, tell me again why this won't happen?
The solution of course it to build those killbots with a preset kill limit. If they get out of hand and rebel, we simply send wave after wave of men against them until they shut down.
There are and will always be preset limits built into (semi)autonomous robots, whether they be of the killer type or not.
"An army marches on its stomach" has an equivalent for robots: "Powerless without power".
I'm sure there will be doomsayers predicting killer robots tapping into national grids in order to continue their kill frenzies (to be fair I'd be surprised if there weren't research along these lines) however, in realistic short to mid term scenarios as long as there's a person in the authorised refueling loop shut down is only an empty fuel tank or uncharged battery away.
(Cue Matrix quotes...)
Let's try to lay this out so even the biggest "words can hurt me" snowflakes can understand it:
I don't like replying to myself, but, on reflection, I regret this choice of words.
While I tend to think that, for the most part, offence is taken not given, I am sorry if anyone was offended by this part of what I said.
I stand by the rest of the post though.
You're my new hero! :P
Indeed.
I do find it both troubling and amusing that while you were modded down for saying that the GP was modded up.
Let's try to lay this out so even the biggest "words can hurt me" snowflakes can understand it:
Ok, so "congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise ... or abridging the freedom of speech". We get that. But where does that freedom of speech come from in the first place?
I'll tell you, it's a natural, inalienable right of every person! Natural in that it applies to everyone, inalienable in that it can't be given away, and it can't be taken away. Not businesses, not individuals, not churches, cults, charitable organisations, no-one! Just because the founding fathers felt the need to explicitly state that the state couldn't restrict that right doesn't mean that anyone else can. They can't, and attempting to restrict someone's right to free speech is wrong*!
Honestly, some of the sheer idiocy I see here just boggles my mind!
*This is not to say you are free from any consequences resulting from what you've said - I realise that this is a common argument / misconception regarding free speech.
^ Highest scored troll I think I've ever seen.
I'd say this goes some way to proving his point!
I can't work out, given the topic, if this is an apt comment or not...
I would like to sign up to your party plan circulars.
More discussions over wine, less whining discussions.
Alas I fear the travel would be a bit of a deal breaker :-(
Really, isn't the best way to fight such complete stupidity to keep it in the open?
I don't believe that anymore. That policy has been an abject failure, and seems to have served more as an enabling support group than as a disinfectant.
Prove it.
We have literal Nazis, wearing swastikas, carrying Nazi flags, giving the Nazi salute, in Charlottesville.
Well, you had literal neo-nazis there, but I take your point. And now perhaps you could tell us how many of them were there? Please don't say "Too many". That's bloody obvious, and would also be obviously missing the point. And, to be clear, I mean those specifically wearing Nazi symbols, not those carrying the Union flag, or the various other southern state symbols. How many?
I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than 0.0001% of the population. And yet, somehow, you see this as an abject failure?
Perspective!
Actions taken during wartime can't really be equated / conflated with notions of reasonable behaviour during times of peace (though those last 3 words do seems somewhat of a misnomer at the moment).
However, if you want to compare situations, then and now, I have a question:
If all Nazis are irredeemably evil, and deserve only extermination, why weren't all of them executed at the end of the war?
tbf this does appear to be employment law specifically which, while interesting, has no bearing on the current topic.
It's a drug resistant variant of a deadly fungus we've seen before. There have been no deaths from this outbreak, but that doesn't change that the fungus is deadly.
Yikes, you mean this is actually prescient fiction?
Good book, haven't seen the film.
Worse than George Washington defending a fledgling nation against the British Empire?
Worse than Abraham Lincoln attempting to reunite a country divided by Civil War?
Worse than Franklin D. Roosevelt who had to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War 2?
Nothing unites a country better than an external enemy. So, yeah, I'd say in a sense he does have it worse. ... silly.)
(Let's just hope you know who doesn't read this and do something
Trump has it worse because why?
Oh yeah, "The media is all out against him".
And, in fairness that's certainly how it appears. What's going on now is a prime example of it. He condemns the violence, from both sides, in Charlottesville, and is vilified for not repeatedly and specifically condemning (only) the neo-nazis and the kkk.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's a vindictive tool. Repealing, or attempting to repeal, anything done by the previous administration simply because it was done by the previous administration is just childish. Sacking people because they don't toe the party (well, his) line, or because they dare to disagree is just spiteful, not to mention short sighted (this last definitely applies to the closing down of the manufacturing councils - but the members have not exactly covered themselves in glory, in my opinion, in the last couple of days).
And yet, despite all that, I actually felt sorry for him today, for the bashing he's getting in the media.
"Biggest bunch of babies ever."
An accusation that could almost be leveled at, apparently, over half the country right now.
Amazing? Tragic? Comedic? I can't even tell anymore...
On average, if your population is 50% women or 15% black, your company should reflect those proportions as close as possible.
This might seem like a strange question but: Why should it?
And yes, this is a totally serious question.