Your post contains no content relevant to any conversation here as far as I can see. No one reading your posts has the slightest idea of what your opinion is on the pollution situation that forms the backbone of this little discussion and (if you are indeed the same AC) you have shown yourself incapable of properly comprehending ~30 word posts even after being given two do-overs.
I also have never supported Trump.
Have you confused me with someone else or are you merely schizophrenic?
Well, I gave you a chance but you doubled down on looking like a dumbass.
Here, let me spell it out for you... well, no, let me give you another hint: I said "other than" the post you replied to. Perhaps you'd care to examine the words that appear to the right of "other than" ? It's one thing to miss an implicit context of a question, but I clearly spelled it out and in a post of perhaps 30 words.
An an adjunct to that "other than", I might further clarify that Denmark benefited from NATO whilst contributing very little in terms of dollars and cents. For all of the scaremongering you might rightly accuse the USA of during the Cold War, the Europeans were much more worried about the Russians than we ever were.
The official language of Bangladesh is Bengali, so exactly what connection are you alleging?
What an extraordinary question. Christians care about what other Christians are doing and pan-Muslim identity is, if anything, much stronger at this moment in time. This is somewhat strengthened by the fact that Arab is a second language for many educated Muslims, sense the Qu'ran is only considered truly authentic in its original language.
It may shock you to find out that the Muslims of the UK (mostly of South Asian ethnicity) also a deep interest in the goings-on of the Middle East, despite Arabic not been a native language of any region in Southern Asia.
the actions of a few trolls.
The point was Twitter's reaction, not existence of the trolls themselves. They did not remove the tweets. Go check out the Arabic post-Pulse nightclub tweets. I'll bet you anything they're still up.
Of course, if you were worried about the Bangladeshi, you'd show some concern about the tragedies in textile factories.
Go gratuitously change the topic somewhere else. These things have to be analyzed as they arrive in the inbox. If you spend all your time debating what should be debated, nothing gets done. The topic here, on this particular page, is clearly defined and it has very little to do with that tiny little list marked "tricky problems arising from globalization."
In summary, world domination. The protection that the USA gave Denmark against the dreaded communists from the East had the same intent as the protection that Russia gave Czechoslovakia against the dreaded fascists from the West.
Which is just a highly propogandized version of what I just said--protection from the Russians, which the Danish desired and obtained for a bargain price. Yes, a smaller Russian / USSR empire probably implies to some extent and in certain ways a stronger America, but it is almost universally acknowledged, except among some particularly sullen corners of the far left, that American "soft" power is (for all its evils) still very much the lesser evil, infinitely preferable to Russian imperialism or any other widespread imperialism the globe has yet seen.
I don't think the world domination you describe was the most effective use of our wealth. I think that it turned out--whether we intended it or not--much more altruistic than selfish because it enhanced the wealth of other nations much more than it enhanced our own, particularly if we're comparing this to a hypothetical world where we spent all that military money on better infrastructure or social safety nets.
I can spot the patterns in your writing style a mile away. I'm not wasting my time again. You're an intellectually bankrupt person who falls back on trolling techniques after you've lost an argument. And you can't even be bothered to register for an account, FFS.
PS: what did we gain, by the way? What could we have *possibly* gained other than that thing the Danish also wanted very, very much as well (protection from the Russians) ?
Maybe you genuinely believe our troops were there strip-mining it for gold or something?
The USA has done a lot of dumb and evil shit, particularly in the context of the cold war. That doesn't mean that the NATO powers in western Europe aren't generally a bunch of whining moochers who were, truth be told, utterly terrified of the Russians and have used the budget savings they reaped from having very small militaries (in addition to Marshall Plan assistance, if we go back far enough) to build themselves lovely little civilizations.
It's a bit rich for them to bitch at us, and insist on being given more money in the context of something they already abused to their advantage, whilst I'm sitting here unable to go to a specialist because I'm poor and my country (unlike Denmark) spent all of its billions on military bases instead of medical subsidy.
Pull your head out of your echo chamber and take a good look at the world around you. There are no good guys, just better or marginally-better guys disagreeing amongst themselves.
Before I get worked up about this, I'd like to know what the damage is. Plants affected, wildlife in danger, people who want to settle there? Greenland is the least densely populated country on earth. Not having dug into the details yet, I immediately suspect there's a reasonable chance that this will affect very little if we just left it there.
I'm also inclined to say that if they want our military to clean up after themselves, they first owe us some back payment for the decades of protection after they voluntarily signed up for protection under NATO (and then, along with the rest of Western Europe, they left the USA to shoulder 95%+ of the costs.)
since the Danish long ago took responsibility for them.
That is a suspiciously polite way of saying that Greenland had long been a Danish territory/colony, and the mess was left there whilst Greenland was almost entirely under Danish sovereignty.
I'd offer to simplify it even further: the problem is that many progressives haven't made the jump from "oh wow, western civilization has done a bunch of crappy things" to "oh wow, everybody has done a bunch of crappy things."
The ignorance of, denial of and/or rigid prioritization of grievances is the overriding problem among most post-modernist / progressive / SJW crowds. From it flows all of the cancerous bullshit that has caused so many former self-described leftists to distance themselves.
I want to smack each and every one of them upside the head with pool noodle and explain that everyone everywhere has done a mountain of shitty things. Yes, people as a whole suck... but there are specific bits and pieces worth saving and these value need to be recognized and saved and promoted without regard to the owner of the brain or mouth from which they come tumbling out. Simply badmouthing America or the West or imperialism or neo-imperialism solves nothing, nothing at all, and their bleating often betrays a profound ignorance of the past and current crimes of China, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran or whomever else they deem exempt from criticism due to the fact that a few of our past politicians made a dick move or three.
I think you misinterpreted the general thrust of my post there.
The one-dimensional political spectrum is very problematic, yes. One of those problems is the enemy-of-my-enemy problem that has led many progressives to defend Islamists to an extent that they would never dream of defending the Christian extreme right.
Nevertheless, there are many similarities between far right Christians, far right Muslims (i.e. Islamists), and secular fascists. It would be foolish not to comment on this similarity. In fact, it's one of the best tools we have in pushing back against the pro-censorship agendas of many so-called progressives.
Somehow I don't think blocking a few rightwing nutjobs caused Twitter to lose value.
I agree insofar as I doubt that it's caused some kind of massive drop in traffic or ad revenue, but the existence of drama surrounding it might be the reason why some companies don't want to bother with the potential headaches.
For example, given the right crowd your little dismissive "a few right wing loons" is fuel enough for a rollicking debate. Twitter (and Youtube and others) only care about censoring the Christian and secular right wing. They do not censor Islamists, who are part of the extreme right by any reasonable measure. The left (and now more and more also the mainstream) defend them even as they try to silence the conventional secular/Christian right wing in America or western Europe, often silencing them precisely due to their criticism of the Islamic right wing.
Do you have any idea what the tweets look like on the Arab language version of Twitter? Go plug some into Google Translate and find out. While atheist bloggers were being hacked to death in Bangladesh, do you know what was trending on Arabic Twitter? #KillAllAtheists.
The new owners would have to decide whether or not they're going to do something about this stuff. The new owners would have to decide whether or not to re-ban Milo if he tried to create a new account. The new owners would have to decide whether or not to dissociate themselves from Anita Sarkeesian, an irrational, misandrist, anti-free speech lunatic whom Twitter should never have put in a position of power.
I don't think there's some sort of highly damaging boycotting of Twitter going on at this very moment, but that doesn't mean these things are entirely irrelevant.
This conversation is now about how airline food sucks. If you don't spend at least 10,000 words agreeing with me that airline food sucks, you are hereby deemed to be dodging the issue.
Heh. I remember when visited a Walmart gas station for the first time, immediately after it had opened for business. There was a little notice printed on the front of the pump with a smiley face and friendly, jaunty font on a blue background saying "Pump before you pay! We trust you!"
Less than a month later and all of these notices were all covered up with large stickers, with a severe and non-nonsense font, white letters on a solid red background: "PREPAY INSIDE FIRST."
We should start a pool here. Put me down for seven weeks. (I figure it's a bit harder to escape on foot.)
2. Do not trespass on anyone's private property without their express permission.
3. Do not use any of the radio spectrum.
4. Do not use shell companies or sign deals with other companies that allow you to evade the above three restrictions on a technicality.
If you can somehow figure out how to do all of these things and still get me an internet connection to my house, then I (tentatively) agree that you should be free of this sort of regulation.
Oh wait, you can't realistically do any of that? But you still want to play the ultra-libertarian card? Well, screw you then. The RF spectrum is limited. Space for telephone poles is limited. Space to string wires on those poles is limited. The government is granting you a partial monopoly by allowing you to use these things to generate a profit for yourself.
And this grant should not come without conditions; specifically, conditions that help to foster healthy competition. One such condition, problematic as it may sometimes be, is or should be traffic equality.
Where do VPNs fit in your scheme? Because that's all my ISP ever sees, and that's all its ever going to see. My average performance has gone up ever since I started doing this, by the way.
It's very naive to assume that ISPs should be running things by inspecting packets. Instead, if need be they could partition each connection into different-priority lanes each with their own separate cap rules, and let the OS and/or router figure out the proper QoS. Yes I know that's non-trivial, but otherwise you're going to run into all kinds of issues, not the least of which is the VPN problem.
And sure, one day they could simply choose to screw me and my VPN over, but then they're also going to be screwing over every single person who uses secure teleconferencing, video conferencing or other performance-critical remote applications that need to be run over secure tunnels for security purposes.
I have a 64 bit kernel. This error appears when you've enabled i386 packages on an amd64 install of Debian. It doesn't prevent installation or usage of Chrome but the error is breaking some additional stuff for me since I'm encountering it in a Qubes Debian 8 template. See this page for some more details on the error.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post contains no content relevant to any conversation here as far as I can see. No one reading your posts has the slightest idea of what your opinion is on the pollution situation that forms the backbone of this little discussion and (if you are indeed the same AC) you have shown yourself incapable of properly comprehending ~30 word posts even after being given two do-overs.
I also have never supported Trump.
Have you confused me with someone else or are you merely schizophrenic?
*as an
Well, I gave you a chance but you doubled down on looking like a dumbass.
Here, let me spell it out for you... well, no, let me give you another hint: I said "other than" the post you replied to. Perhaps you'd care to examine the words that appear to the right of "other than" ? It's one thing to miss an implicit context of a question, but I clearly spelled it out and in a post of perhaps 30 words.
An an adjunct to that "other than", I might further clarify that Denmark benefited from NATO whilst contributing very little in terms of dollars and cents. For all of the scaremongering you might rightly accuse the USA of during the Cold War, the Europeans were much more worried about the Russians than we ever were.
and about ten other typos. Say something smarter next time and maybe I'll take the time to proofread my reply.
sense the Qu'ran
since* ! Fuck me, been hanging too long around the semi-literate. Also, *Arabic.
The official language of Bangladesh is Bengali, so exactly what connection are you alleging?
What an extraordinary question. Christians care about what other Christians are doing and pan-Muslim identity is, if anything, much stronger at this moment in time. This is somewhat strengthened by the fact that Arab is a second language for many educated Muslims, sense the Qu'ran is only considered truly authentic in its original language. It may shock you to find out that the Muslims of the UK (mostly of South Asian ethnicity) also a deep interest in the goings-on of the Middle East, despite Arabic not been a native language of any region in Southern Asia.
the actions of a few trolls.
The point was Twitter's reaction, not existence of the trolls themselves. They did not remove the tweets. Go check out the Arabic post-Pulse nightclub tweets. I'll bet you anything they're still up.
Of course, if you were worried about the Bangladeshi, you'd show some concern about the tragedies in textile factories.
Go gratuitously change the topic somewhere else. These things have to be analyzed as they arrive in the inbox. If you spend all your time debating what should be debated, nothing gets done. The topic here, on this particular page, is clearly defined and it has very little to do with that tiny little list marked "tricky problems arising from globalization."
Holy shit your reading comprehension sucks. Care to take another run at that?
In summary, world domination. The protection that the USA gave Denmark against the dreaded communists from the East had the same intent as the protection that Russia gave Czechoslovakia against the dreaded fascists from the West.
Which is just a highly propogandized version of what I just said--protection from the Russians, which the Danish desired and obtained for a bargain price. Yes, a smaller Russian / USSR empire probably implies to some extent and in certain ways a stronger America, but it is almost universally acknowledged, except among some particularly sullen corners of the far left, that American "soft" power is (for all its evils) still very much the lesser evil, infinitely preferable to Russian imperialism or any other widespread imperialism the globe has yet seen.
I don't think the world domination you describe was the most effective use of our wealth. I think that it turned out--whether we intended it or not--much more altruistic than selfish because it enhanced the wealth of other nations much more than it enhanced our own, particularly if we're comparing this to a hypothetical world where we spent all that military money on better infrastructure or social safety nets.
I can spot the patterns in your writing style a mile away. I'm not wasting my time again. You're an intellectually bankrupt person who falls back on trolling techniques after you've lost an argument. And you can't even be bothered to register for an account, FFS.
Is that strictly true? No Inuit lived there before that?
Too lazy to go digging on Wikipedia at the moment.
PS: what did we gain, by the way? What could we have *possibly* gained other than that thing the Danish also wanted very, very much as well (protection from the Russians) ?
Maybe you genuinely believe our troops were there strip-mining it for gold or something?
The USA has done a lot of dumb and evil shit, particularly in the context of the cold war. That doesn't mean that the NATO powers in western Europe aren't generally a bunch of whining moochers who were, truth be told, utterly terrified of the Russians and have used the budget savings they reaped from having very small militaries (in addition to Marshall Plan assistance, if we go back far enough) to build themselves lovely little civilizations.
It's a bit rich for them to bitch at us, and insist on being given more money in the context of something they already abused to their advantage, whilst I'm sitting here unable to go to a specialist because I'm poor and my country (unlike Denmark) spent all of its billions on military bases instead of medical subsidy.
Pull your head out of your echo chamber and take a good look at the world around you. There are no good guys, just better or marginally-better guys disagreeing amongst themselves.
I'm also inclined to say that if they want our military to clean up after themselves, they first owe us some back payment for the decades of protection after they voluntarily signed up for protection under NATO (and then, along with the rest of Western Europe, they left the USA to shoulder 95%+ of the costs.)
since the Danish long ago took responsibility for them.
That is a suspiciously polite way of saying that Greenland had long been a Danish territory/colony, and the mess was left there whilst Greenland was almost entirely under Danish sovereignty.
I'd offer to simplify it even further: the problem is that many progressives haven't made the jump from "oh wow, western civilization has done a bunch of crappy things" to "oh wow, everybody has done a bunch of crappy things."
The ignorance of, denial of and/or rigid prioritization of grievances is the overriding problem among most post-modernist / progressive / SJW crowds. From it flows all of the cancerous bullshit that has caused so many former self-described leftists to distance themselves.
I want to smack each and every one of them upside the head with pool noodle and explain that everyone everywhere has done a mountain of shitty things. Yes, people as a whole suck... but there are specific bits and pieces worth saving and these value need to be recognized and saved and promoted without regard to the owner of the brain or mouth from which they come tumbling out. Simply badmouthing America or the West or imperialism or neo-imperialism solves nothing, nothing at all, and their bleating often betrays a profound ignorance of the past and current crimes of China, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran or whomever else they deem exempt from criticism due to the fact that a few of our past politicians made a dick move or three.
I think you misinterpreted the general thrust of my post there.
The one-dimensional political spectrum is very problematic, yes. One of those problems is the enemy-of-my-enemy problem that has led many progressives to defend Islamists to an extent that they would never dream of defending the Christian extreme right.
Nevertheless, there are many similarities between far right Christians, far right Muslims (i.e. Islamists), and secular fascists. It would be foolish not to comment on this similarity. In fact, it's one of the best tools we have in pushing back against the pro-censorship agendas of many so-called progressives.
Somehow I don't think blocking a few rightwing nutjobs caused Twitter to lose value.
I agree insofar as I doubt that it's caused some kind of massive drop in traffic or ad revenue, but the existence of drama surrounding it might be the reason why some companies don't want to bother with the potential headaches.
For example, given the right crowd your little dismissive "a few right wing loons" is fuel enough for a rollicking debate. Twitter (and Youtube and others) only care about censoring the Christian and secular right wing. They do not censor Islamists, who are part of the extreme right by any reasonable measure. The left (and now more and more also the mainstream) defend them even as they try to silence the conventional secular/Christian right wing in America or western Europe, often silencing them precisely due to their criticism of the Islamic right wing.
Do you have any idea what the tweets look like on the Arab language version of Twitter? Go plug some into Google Translate and find out. While atheist bloggers were being hacked to death in Bangladesh, do you know what was trending on Arabic Twitter? #KillAllAtheists.
The new owners would have to decide whether or not they're going to do something about this stuff. The new owners would have to decide whether or not to re-ban Milo if he tried to create a new account. The new owners would have to decide whether or not to dissociate themselves from Anita Sarkeesian, an irrational, misandrist, anti-free speech lunatic whom Twitter should never have put in a position of power.
I don't think there's some sort of highly damaging boycotting of Twitter going on at this very moment, but that doesn't mean these things are entirely irrelevant.
The is the stupidist troll attempt I've ever seen.
You are blatantly trying to change the subject from a clearly defined, interesting one to something entirely different (and something that's rather boring and cliché) and you are *whining* that I won't talk about it at length, even when I provide you with a short summary of my position and state that I'm in broad agreement with you.
It might be infuriating if it weren't so dumb.
This conversation is now about how airline food sucks. If you don't spend at least 10,000 words agreeing with me that airline food sucks, you are hereby deemed to be dodging the issue.
Heh. I remember when visited a Walmart gas station for the first time, immediately after it had opened for business. There was a little notice printed on the front of the pump with a smiley face and friendly, jaunty font on a blue background saying "Pump before you pay! We trust you!"
Less than a month later and all of these notices were all covered up with large stickers, with a severe and non-nonsense font, white letters on a solid red background: "PREPAY INSIDE FIRST."
We should start a pool here. Put me down for seven weeks. (I figure it's a bit harder to escape on foot.)
That's fine by me, as long as you:
1. Do not trespass on any public land.
2. Do not trespass on anyone's private property without their express permission.
3. Do not use any of the radio spectrum.
4. Do not use shell companies or sign deals with other companies that allow you to evade the above three restrictions on a technicality.
If you can somehow figure out how to do all of these things and still get me an internet connection to my house, then I (tentatively) agree that you should be free of this sort of regulation.
Oh wait, you can't realistically do any of that? But you still want to play the ultra-libertarian card? Well, screw you then. The RF spectrum is limited. Space for telephone poles is limited. Space to string wires on those poles is limited. The government is granting you a partial monopoly by allowing you to use these things to generate a profit for yourself.
And this grant should not come without conditions; specifically, conditions that help to foster healthy competition. One such condition, problematic as it may sometimes be, is or should be traffic equality.
(This was meant to be a somewhat less well known reference. The vulgarity is integral and not gratuitous, by the way.)
They only do that in Soviet Russia, not China.
Did you remember your towel?
The towel was easy. The real question is, did you remember how to get the motherfucking Babel fish from the motherfucking Babel fish dispenser?
Where do VPNs fit in your scheme? Because that's all my ISP ever sees, and that's all its ever going to see. My average performance has gone up ever since I started doing this, by the way.
It's very naive to assume that ISPs should be running things by inspecting packets. Instead, if need be they could partition each connection into different-priority lanes each with their own separate cap rules, and let the OS and/or router figure out the proper QoS. Yes I know that's non-trivial, but otherwise you're going to run into all kinds of issues, not the least of which is the VPN problem.
And sure, one day they could simply choose to screw me and my VPN over, but then they're also going to be screwing over every single person who uses secure teleconferencing, video conferencing or other performance-critical remote applications that need to be run over secure tunnels for security purposes.
The worst part was the liquid it ended up producing was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
I have a 64 bit kernel. This error appears when you've enabled i386 packages on an amd64 install of Debian. It doesn't prevent installation or usage of Chrome but the error is breaking some additional stuff for me since I'm encountering it in a Qubes Debian 8 template. See this page for some more details on the error.