Hawaii isn't sovereign, they're a state and due to their strategic position they were going to be somebody's territory regardless. As things panned out, they got full statehood - they really shouldn't be bitching because had any other nation taken it they would have just slaughtered the inhabitants. Honestly though, they shouldn't even be a state but an occupied territory like Guam or Puerto Rico.
No, jackass, I mean today. Feel free to go check it out for yourself if you're a white guy, try the eastern or western shores of Oahu for getting your shit pushed in that extra bit.
Can you explain how Hawaii being a state negatively affects you? How would you personally be better off if Hawaii was an "occupied territory". How would the average West Virginian, or Floridian be better off if Hawaii was an "occupied territory"? And when you say "we'd all", who is the "we"?
Everyone who visits would be better off because the people enforcing the laws there would actually have incentive to do so against more than tourists. Dozens go missing there annually - usually because a local felt like attacking someone for being white and just dumped the corpse in the ocean, while the police there are complicit and work to conceal anything that happens.
I know you're flaming or trolling, but this is more or less why they actually did it. The only thing Hawaiians hate more than white people is America. We should never have allowed them to be a state, we'd all be better off if they were just another occupied territory like Guam.
I usually post questions on StackExchange sites whenever I run into some really out-there problem I'm struggling with for hours to days. The kinds of problems that maybe 2-3 people actually know how to even find the answer to. Those problems are handled particularly badly by StackExchange because you have to time the post with when people are awake and most active, if you don't the karma whores will quickly lock the post since they can't Google the answer while calling it ambiguous or broad or something of that nature. At that point you can't even repost it without investing considerable time to rephrase it because it will just get marked a duplicate (against the original locked post.) The biggest issue with StackExchange are the groups of people with 10k+ karma running moderation cartels.
Except this time around it was about who was more seditious. Obama did this when he signed away our control over the internet to an international governing body so he could have access to it when his term expired.
There's nothing wrong with killing an animal for food until we find a better solution (that doesn't turn you into a walking vagina,) that's simply biology, there's a lot wrong with torturing an animal.
Bacon isn't immoral - the slaughter is quick and relatively painless and moreover necessary for our survival, that's just nature, in fact that's significantly more kind than nature. This is evil because it involves taking a thing with some degree of sentience, keeping it in a sensory-deprived state and conscious with no hope of recovery, and just poking it. Think of the screeching monkey brain experiment from the movie Transcendence, the only difference here is that you can't hear the tortured animal's cries because the tech isn't even that advanced yet. Hell, this is more fucked up than Kosher or Halal slaughter where they string the animal up by its feet and slice the throat while letting it drain out over minutes fully conscious thanks to the preferential placement of the brain in regard to reduced blood availability. The thing can't even feel its heart beating, it knows it is fucked and all it can see/feel/hear is nothingness until someone flips the switch seemingly at random to shut it off. This is sick and the "scientists" involved are just would-be psychopathic serial killers without the balls to hunt and torture something more dangerous than an animal.
I agree, and I'm of the type to believe nature exists to serve us and that virtually any form of GM is perfectly acceptable on a moral basis. This is just torture, the best potential outcome of which is a means to control the minds of people. It ranks up there with sociology and psychology on the evil scale because even the best outcome is absolutely horrible while the other outcomes are just more horrible.
That would be interesting to see, last I had heard it was just the latest in a string of lawsuits spanning decades which all landed in favor of the manufacturer.
Good idea in theory, but in practice stipulate that the tenant is responsible for the cost of repairing anything which breaks these days (including paying their hourly rate to fix it.)
You think that's a troll attempt? Are you saying some sex deprived MRA moron ran someone over within the last couple hours? Because car attacks happen daily.
Hacking a tractor is actually usually illegal these days because farm suppliers like to lock in their customers to support contracts, and they are backed by the law in doing so. Hacking is objectively good in the context of freedom and bad in the context of anyone seeking control. Whether that control is from the government or over your own machines is irrelevant to the term "hacking." The word you're looking for in the case of malware is "theft," because that's what it is. The questions also comes down to who owns it - you, the company that made it, or whomever can control it. DIY hackers tend to universally say the person who bought it owns it, corporations and governments tend to say whomever built it owns it, script kiddies tend to think either they own it or "you can't own things, man." We already have words for all the things "hacking" can mean in any context, "hacking" is more akin to the word "fucking," it can be a wide variety of things.
^^^ This. How about a lively discussion about how we can use tech to stop people from running over crowds of other people with speeding vehicles instead?
You fucking islamaphobe, you need to be more accepting of other cultures.
So do bears, but neither are likely to attack a child wondering through the woods alone with even the slightest common sense (e.g. don't harass the animals, stay clear of a mother with her cubs, etc.) Things like cougars, rhinos, hippos, tigers, lions, jaguars, European wolves, etc will gladly do so - so they tend to get wiped out by anyone who can do so. Things like mammoths had a LOT of utility for people who hunted (literally every part of them was useful something to people living in that kind of extreme cold. If we reduce the wild populations to black bears (borderline tame) and moose it would only be a loss because of the genetics we might want to use some day (e.g. if we stumble upon some aliens and find it cheaper to release a horde of genetically modified kill-happy jaguars the size of elephants with rhino-like hides than to actually invade,) barring that they have potential medical benefits from their study and potential benefits in the realm of synthetic biology simply for being a large stable system of proteins and metabolic pathways - but as far as the environment goes - that's for us to do with as we please. GM them to be smaller and make them pets if you want to conserve them.
Moose don't get poached like that and they don't outright target Humans for food so they're safe. The issue is that as Humans evolve intellectually we destroy things which can destroy us, this happened in Europe and it's now happening in the developing world. Elephants might actually be the exception to this rule but for the most part if it is dangerous we kill it, until the local population reaches a level of intellect at which they see the benefit to preserving the genetic diversity of a species. To put that in perspective: the debate about mosquitoes is still up in the air and we might end up deciding that in spite of genetic diversity we want to wipe them out - far from being megafauna.
That was MySpace, before they prevented users from using the search/browse/filter functionality to find exactly who they wanted to interact with by interests, demographics, job networking, etc. Facebook bought and killed that by locking down all the features then auctioned it off after it lost the userbase and wasn't a threat. They want to be the ones controlling Facebook.
He's a shitbag for even thinking he has the right to steer public sentiment or discourse. If everyone wants to call each other a fuck tard what right does he have to even consider changing that? He's no more special than his shitty shitty users, he just had a ban hammer at his disposal which made him an arrogant fucking shitstain of Humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA didn't design the EMDrive, they just tested it. The EMDrive does require electricity to run.
Hawaii isn't sovereign, they're a state and due to their strategic position they were going to be somebody's territory regardless. As things panned out, they got full statehood - they really shouldn't be bitching because had any other nation taken it they would have just slaughtered the inhabitants. Honestly though, they shouldn't even be a state but an occupied territory like Guam or Puerto Rico.
No, jackass, I mean today. Feel free to go check it out for yourself if you're a white guy, try the eastern or western shores of Oahu for getting your shit pushed in that extra bit.
Can you explain how Hawaii being a state negatively affects you? How would you personally be better off if Hawaii was an "occupied territory". How would the average West Virginian, or Floridian be better off if Hawaii was an "occupied territory"? And when you say "we'd all", who is the "we"?
Everyone who visits would be better off because the people enforcing the laws there would actually have incentive to do so against more than tourists. Dozens go missing there annually - usually because a local felt like attacking someone for being white and just dumped the corpse in the ocean, while the police there are complicit and work to conceal anything that happens.
Really? AI is a valid subject for certain, but this isn't a serious discussion on AI in any regard, it's just viral marketing for a TV show.
I know you're flaming or trolling, but this is more or less why they actually did it. The only thing Hawaiians hate more than white people is America. We should never have allowed them to be a state, we'd all be better off if they were just another occupied territory like Guam.
I usually post questions on StackExchange sites whenever I run into some really out-there problem I'm struggling with for hours to days. The kinds of problems that maybe 2-3 people actually know how to even find the answer to. Those problems are handled particularly badly by StackExchange because you have to time the post with when people are awake and most active, if you don't the karma whores will quickly lock the post since they can't Google the answer while calling it ambiguous or broad or something of that nature. At that point you can't even repost it without investing considerable time to rephrase it because it will just get marked a duplicate (against the original locked post.) The biggest issue with StackExchange are the groups of people with 10k+ karma running moderation cartels.
Except this time around it was about who was more seditious. Obama did this when he signed away our control over the internet to an international governing body so he could have access to it when his term expired.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQd_5as_cMY
It's almost like IQ puts a hard limit on what a person can conceive of and process, who'd-a-thunk-it.
There's nothing wrong with killing an animal for food until we find a better solution (that doesn't turn you into a walking vagina,) that's simply biology, there's a lot wrong with torturing an animal.
Bacon isn't immoral - the slaughter is quick and relatively painless and moreover necessary for our survival, that's just nature, in fact that's significantly more kind than nature. This is evil because it involves taking a thing with some degree of sentience, keeping it in a sensory-deprived state and conscious with no hope of recovery, and just poking it. Think of the screeching monkey brain experiment from the movie Transcendence, the only difference here is that you can't hear the tortured animal's cries because the tech isn't even that advanced yet. Hell, this is more fucked up than Kosher or Halal slaughter where they string the animal up by its feet and slice the throat while letting it drain out over minutes fully conscious thanks to the preferential placement of the brain in regard to reduced blood availability. The thing can't even feel its heart beating, it knows it is fucked and all it can see/feel/hear is nothingness until someone flips the switch seemingly at random to shut it off. This is sick and the "scientists" involved are just would-be psychopathic serial killers without the balls to hunt and torture something more dangerous than an animal.
I agree, and I'm of the type to believe nature exists to serve us and that virtually any form of GM is perfectly acceptable on a moral basis. This is just torture, the best potential outcome of which is a means to control the minds of people. It ranks up there with sociology and psychology on the evil scale because even the best outcome is absolutely horrible while the other outcomes are just more horrible.
That would be interesting to see, last I had heard it was just the latest in a string of lawsuits spanning decades which all landed in favor of the manufacturer.
Good idea in theory, but in practice stipulate that the tenant is responsible for the cost of repairing anything which breaks these days (including paying their hourly rate to fix it.)
You think that's a troll attempt? Are you saying some sex deprived MRA moron ran someone over within the last couple hours? Because car attacks happen daily.
Hacking a tractor is actually usually illegal these days because farm suppliers like to lock in their customers to support contracts, and they are backed by the law in doing so. Hacking is objectively good in the context of freedom and bad in the context of anyone seeking control. Whether that control is from the government or over your own machines is irrelevant to the term "hacking." The word you're looking for in the case of malware is "theft," because that's what it is. The questions also comes down to who owns it - you, the company that made it, or whomever can control it. DIY hackers tend to universally say the person who bought it owns it, corporations and governments tend to say whomever built it owns it, script kiddies tend to think either they own it or "you can't own things, man." We already have words for all the things "hacking" can mean in any context, "hacking" is more akin to the word "fucking," it can be a wide variety of things.
^^^ This. How about a lively discussion about how we can use tech to stop people from running over crowds of other people with speeding vehicles instead?
You fucking islamaphobe, you need to be more accepting of other cultures.
So do bears, but neither are likely to attack a child wondering through the woods alone with even the slightest common sense (e.g. don't harass the animals, stay clear of a mother with her cubs, etc.) Things like cougars, rhinos, hippos, tigers, lions, jaguars, European wolves, etc will gladly do so - so they tend to get wiped out by anyone who can do so. Things like mammoths had a LOT of utility for people who hunted (literally every part of them was useful something to people living in that kind of extreme cold. If we reduce the wild populations to black bears (borderline tame) and moose it would only be a loss because of the genetics we might want to use some day (e.g. if we stumble upon some aliens and find it cheaper to release a horde of genetically modified kill-happy jaguars the size of elephants with rhino-like hides than to actually invade,) barring that they have potential medical benefits from their study and potential benefits in the realm of synthetic biology simply for being a large stable system of proteins and metabolic pathways - but as far as the environment goes - that's for us to do with as we please. GM them to be smaller and make them pets if you want to conserve them.
Moose don't get poached like that and they don't outright target Humans for food so they're safe. The issue is that as Humans evolve intellectually we destroy things which can destroy us, this happened in Europe and it's now happening in the developing world. Elephants might actually be the exception to this rule but for the most part if it is dangerous we kill it, until the local population reaches a level of intellect at which they see the benefit to preserving the genetic diversity of a species. To put that in perspective: the debate about mosquitoes is still up in the air and we might end up deciding that in spite of genetic diversity we want to wipe them out - far from being megafauna.
Don't forget:
-Someone will pay Calacanis money to hype this shit repeatedly.
Can't lose sight of the big picture.
That was MySpace, before they prevented users from using the search/browse/filter functionality to find exactly who they wanted to interact with by interests, demographics, job networking, etc. Facebook bought and killed that by locking down all the features then auctioned it off after it lost the userbase and wasn't a threat. They want to be the ones controlling Facebook.
He's a shitbag for even thinking he has the right to steer public sentiment or discourse. If everyone wants to call each other a fuck tard what right does he have to even consider changing that? He's no more special than his shitty shitty users, he just had a ban hammer at his disposal which made him an arrogant fucking shitstain of Humanity.
The 2-year-old form of argument, nice.
That's not even close to accurate.