Yeah, I've had the same experience. Talk whatever shit you want about rightwing, no problem (you might get called out but you won't get banned), tho you'll probably be expected to present supporting facts. Talk the same shit about leftwing, and it's KILL THE HERETIC and how dare you post facts we don't like!
On a similar note (and I think it's basically the same problem seen from another angle) get to talking politics with a rightie and you may hear "Your candidate is stupid because [list of reasons]", but with a leftie it'll be just "You candidate is stupid." Ask 'em why and they'll respond "Because he's stupid," no actual reasons offered. Seen this over and over.
I understand there is an effective blockbot for Twitter, so you can block whomever you like. I've heard of people getting blocked just for following someone that is disliked, having never interacted at all.
The real problem, tho, is people who are not only thin-skinned but feel compelled to read and react to every word that comes their way, having never outgrown that teenage narcissism that everything is about them, hence having never learned to ignore the morons.
"He was removed because Twitter could only choose between pissing off the SJW crowd or the crowd following him."
And that only because they decided to take sides in the first place. If they'd just ignored the SJW crowd (and for that matter, the anti-crowd), in Milo's own words -- "nothing bad happens."
Please, spread them faster and everywhere. Mosquitoes and what they carry are one thing the world can do very well without.
Even if eliminating a few species of mosquito had drawbacks (unlikely since they are one of many in their niche) -- consider all the pesticides that would no longer be necessary, and the net gain to the environment.
While I like the idea of mosquitoes who drink blood and die... (and remember biting mosquitoes also transmit heartworm and other animal diseases, and are the leading cause of death in caribou, so why stop with making only human blood lethal? make it hemoglobin, that might do it),,,
A killing dominant would select more and more for the homozygous recessive normals, until pretty soon you had a totally immune population. This is why other critters have relatively few widespread lethal dominants -- they're too self-limiting.
OTOH, a recessive coupled with a stronger pheromone so the females would only want to mate with these... that could spread the drink-and-die gene far and wide in a hurry.
Tho it's not like the horseflies, blackflies, deerflies, and gnats aren't there regardless. We have horseflies and deerflies up in the mountains far above mosquito habitat, and they will eat you alive.
Tetracycline has a fairly short lifespan before it breaks down. Also less likely to be encountered in the wild than, say, penicillin produced by natural molds.
There are some 3000 species of mosquitoes. Only a handful bite humans or carry diseases. Eliminating one invasive species of the many present is not going to change the balance of nature enough to notice.
About a month ago my cellphone (a number that has never been posted anywhere) started getting several junk calls per day. They show as being from both random area codes, and really obviously bad numbers like 000-000-0000 (yes, really). I don't answer them, but even so it's to where I've turned the ringer off entirely.
The one drawback of having the world's dumbest phone is that it doesn't support blocking.
With some viruses, the problem isn't so much the virus as the secondary infections that get into tissue damaged by the inflammatory response. This is especially a problem with intestinal viruses. So taking antibiotics can be helpful in preventing those secondary infections, tho it does nothing against the virus itself.
But that's how it's =supposed= to work. As someone once pointed out, the Founders *designed* the system to promote legislative gridlock, under the theory that the less legislation gets passed, the less *stupid* legislation gets passed.
My feeling is that even if Trump sucks, it's better to have someone who will argue with Congress, rather than a rubberstamp for every lunacy that comes down the pike, as I expect would happen with Clinton in the office.
Exactly. And I don't see anyone trying to run off Milo, either... except the 'progressives' who try to prevent him from speaking at conservative events.
I think this is aimed more at people who have a fairly expensive phone and don't really need a fullblown PC, but still would like have better keyboard etc. for home use (not so much for dragging around). That, in my observation, is a LOT of people.
Given how you explain it -- if it could be assured that it's one person, one share, one vote -- it sounds like a reasonable idea.
As to sockpuppets, I'd be rather more leery of Soros than Koch. Soros has openly stated his objective is to disrupt and destroy western civilization (without which we would not be having this conversation). If you support Soros' objective, by all means support Tides.
Hell if I know what you watched; not everyone likes what Milo has to say, but I appreciate his advocacy for our Constitutional rights, in particular the rights of free speech and self-defense; admittedly I also enjoy his derision of special snowflakes. -- And since some disagree, we get people paid to disrupt his talks; frex, Trigglypuff.
Am I a bigot or a racist? Hmm. I'll have to think about that. Why can't I be both? -- I'm bigoted against stupid people, and I'm racist against anyone who comes to America and declines to become an American. (With no hyphen.)
I can't be arsed to particularly hate any of them, tho the term does make for a convenient shorthand, especially if the objective is to silence the opposition.
As to Islam, I direct your attention to this document: http://www.allenbwest.com/wp-c... Any faction which openly states its objective is to infiltrate my country is NOT my friend.
So long as anyone can shout "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah" and become a Muslim, methinks the answer there is obvious.
I might have preferred Scott Walker or maybe Gary Johnson, but lacking those choices (voting for 3rd parties merely splits the vote and mathematically ensures that the candidate you like *least* wins), I became interested in Trump when I realised there was no filter between his mouth and his brain. I prefer my elected officials say what they think, however crazy that may sound, rather than tell carefully crafted lies.
But I agree with him about cutting back and becoming more selective about who we let immigrate, and about building the wall. First, the U.S. is the only country in the world that doesn't cherrypick; we let almost anyone immigrate, which is damn foolish. Let's just adopt Mexico's common-sense rules. Second, I grew up in Montana, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I used to believe in a borderless world and free immigration and all that. Then I spent 28 years in southern California, and experienced firsthand what uncontrolled immigration is doing to our country. Now I'm all for gun turrets at the border.
I fail to see how "charity shares" wouldn't devolve into "funding channels for them with the most gold". For that matter, we already have that with outfits like the Tides Foundation.
I don't think she's being shafted; I think she's totally skating, and became convinced of that after reading even just a random dipping into the leaked emails. I didn't need and don't drink anyone else's koolaid.
As to my rationale about Trump, I'll let someone more articulate speak for me.
Well, I use here, Soylent, and Pipedot -- not concerned about their relative sizes. Each has its own "personality" so to speak, and I find all three useful.
Don't know; don't care that much -- more a curiosity of Hillary's history at this point. I'm rather more concerned about her current demonstrable... shall we say teflon attitude toward personal responsibility. (A perception which got worse after I read some of the leaked materials.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I've had the same experience. Talk whatever shit you want about rightwing, no problem (you might get called out but you won't get banned), tho you'll probably be expected to present supporting facts. Talk the same shit about leftwing, and it's KILL THE HERETIC and how dare you post facts we don't like!
On a similar note (and I think it's basically the same problem seen from another angle) get to talking politics with a rightie and you may hear "Your candidate is stupid because [list of reasons]", but with a leftie it'll be just "You candidate is stupid." Ask 'em why and they'll respond "Because he's stupid," no actual reasons offered. Seen this over and over.
I understand there is an effective blockbot for Twitter, so you can block whomever you like. I've heard of people getting blocked just for following someone that is disliked, having never interacted at all.
The real problem, tho, is people who are not only thin-skinned but feel compelled to read and react to every word that comes their way, having never outgrown that teenage narcissism that everything is about them, hence having never learned to ignore the morons.
"He was removed because Twitter could only choose between pissing off the SJW crowd or the crowd following him."
And that only because they decided to take sides in the first place. If they'd just ignored the SJW crowd (and for that matter, the anti-crowd), in Milo's own words -- "nothing bad happens."
Please, spread them faster and everywhere. Mosquitoes and what they carry are one thing the world can do very well without.
Even if eliminating a few species of mosquito had drawbacks (unlikely since they are one of many in their niche) -- consider all the pesticides that would no longer be necessary, and the net gain to the environment.
While I like the idea of mosquitoes who drink blood and die... (and remember biting mosquitoes also transmit heartworm and other animal diseases, and are the leading cause of death in caribou, so why stop with making only human blood lethal? make it hemoglobin, that might do it),,,
A killing dominant would select more and more for the homozygous recessive normals, until pretty soon you had a totally immune population. This is why other critters have relatively few widespread lethal dominants -- they're too self-limiting.
OTOH, a recessive coupled with a stronger pheromone so the females would only want to mate with these... that could spread the drink-and-die gene far and wide in a hurry.
Warez mosquitoes. ;)
Tho it's not like the horseflies, blackflies, deerflies, and gnats aren't there regardless. We have horseflies and deerflies up in the mountains far above mosquito habitat, and they will eat you alive.
Tetracycline has a fairly short lifespan before it breaks down. Also less likely to be encountered in the wild than, say, penicillin produced by natural molds.
There are some 3000 species of mosquitoes. Only a handful bite humans or carry diseases. Eliminating one invasive species of the many present is not going to change the balance of nature enough to notice.
Good idea! And now I'm wondering if we could DDoS these call centers by directing them back on themselves.
No (since we need anonymity for the obvious reasons), but what's broken is my ability to reliably block those anonymous or spoofed calls.
About a month ago my cellphone (a number that has never been posted anywhere) started getting several junk calls per day. They show as being from both random area codes, and really obviously bad numbers like 000-000-0000 (yes, really). I don't answer them, but even so it's to where I've turned the ringer off entirely.
The one drawback of having the world's dumbest phone is that it doesn't support blocking.
With some viruses, the problem isn't so much the virus as the secondary infections that get into tissue damaged by the inflammatory response. This is especially a problem with intestinal viruses. So taking antibiotics can be helpful in preventing those secondary infections, tho it does nothing against the virus itself.
Slashdot, I don't so much mind the blatantly-whatever articles, but could you at least not make your bias so flamingly evident in the headlines?
Haha, yes. Boy, has that been a circus.
But that's how it's =supposed= to work. As someone once pointed out, the Founders *designed* the system to promote legislative gridlock, under the theory that the less legislation gets passed, the less *stupid* legislation gets passed.
My feeling is that even if Trump sucks, it's better to have someone who will argue with Congress, rather than a rubberstamp for every lunacy that comes down the pike, as I expect would happen with Clinton in the office.
Exactly. And I don't see anyone trying to run off Milo, either... except the 'progressives' who try to prevent him from speaking at conservative events.
Not all of us.
https://mises.org/library/open...
Or if you prefer to listen,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
One suspects the support of "open borders" got into the supposed-libertarian platform by way of a metasticized "You can't tell me what to do!"
I think this is aimed more at people who have a fairly expensive phone and don't really need a fullblown PC, but still would like have better keyboard etc. for home use (not so much for dragging around). That, in my observation, is a LOT of people.
New life for outdated/discarded phones, too.
Wonder if it works with phones that are in provider limbo, but still work fine otherwise.
Given how you explain it -- if it could be assured that it's one person, one share, one vote -- it sounds like a reasonable idea.
As to sockpuppets, I'd be rather more leery of Soros than Koch. Soros has openly stated his objective is to disrupt and destroy western civilization (without which we would not be having this conversation). If you support Soros' objective, by all means support Tides.
Hell if I know what you watched; not everyone likes what Milo has to say, but I appreciate his advocacy for our Constitutional rights, in particular the rights of free speech and self-defense; admittedly I also enjoy his derision of special snowflakes. -- And since some disagree, we get people paid to disrupt his talks; frex, Trigglypuff.
Am I a bigot or a racist? Hmm. I'll have to think about that. Why can't I be both? -- I'm bigoted against stupid people, and I'm racist against anyone who comes to America and declines to become an American. (With no hyphen.)
I can't be arsed to particularly hate any of them, tho the term does make for a convenient shorthand, especially if the objective is to silence the opposition.
As to Islam, I direct your attention to this document:
http://www.allenbwest.com/wp-c...
Any faction which openly states its objective is to infiltrate my country is NOT my friend.
So long as anyone can shout "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah" and become a Muslim, methinks the answer there is obvious.
I might have preferred Scott Walker or maybe Gary Johnson, but lacking those choices (voting for 3rd parties merely splits the vote and mathematically ensures that the candidate you like *least* wins), I became interested in Trump when I realised there was no filter between his mouth and his brain. I prefer my elected officials say what they think, however crazy that may sound, rather than tell carefully crafted lies.
But I agree with him about cutting back and becoming more selective about who we let immigrate, and about building the wall. First, the U.S. is the only country in the world that doesn't cherrypick; we let almost anyone immigrate, which is damn foolish. Let's just adopt Mexico's common-sense rules. Second, I grew up in Montana, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I used to believe in a borderless world and free immigration and all that. Then I spent 28 years in southern California, and experienced firsthand what uncontrolled immigration is doing to our country. Now I'm all for gun turrets at the border.
https://pipedot.org/
I fail to see how "charity shares" wouldn't devolve into "funding channels for them with the most gold". For that matter, we already have that with outfits like the Tides Foundation.
I don't think she's being shafted; I think she's totally skating, and became convinced of that after reading even just a random dipping into the leaked emails. I didn't need and don't drink anyone else's koolaid.
As to my rationale about Trump, I'll let someone more articulate speak for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Well, I use here, Soylent, and Pipedot -- not concerned about their relative sizes. Each has its own "personality" so to speak, and I find all three useful.
Don't know; don't care that much -- more a curiosity of Hillary's history at this point. I'm rather more concerned about her current demonstrable ... shall we say teflon attitude toward personal responsibility. (A perception which got worse after I read some of the leaked materials.)