The thing is, the broader the market access the internet provides and the ability to search Google provides could give authors the chance to unshackle themselves from the publishers. This is why the publishers freaked out about ebooks originally and worked with Apple to price fix them above the cost of printed material. The publishers are deathly afraid that authors will direct publish and eliminate the middleman job of publisher (who also gets the lions share of profit).
If anything the work Google is doing will make it easier for Authors to make money.
Google has lots of money and we wanted some. We are angry the court didn't recognize we are entitled to some of Google's money. We think depriving authors of part of Google's money will irreparably harm American Culture because they can't have money for all of Google's work to preserve that culture. Congress must act to eliminate this activist court ruling or we will get angry and stamp our feet more!
Yes I do. The engineer uses scientifically derived knowledge of loading, strengths of materials in multiple dimensions, scientifically derived equations on the interplay of these forces and strengths and uses that knowledge and applies it in designing the structural details. Using the theoretical average strength of concrete they will develop a size of structure and then direct that the concrete in it meet the strength's they've designed for and develop construction plans and specifications to meet those goals. In other words they take all their scientific knowledge and develop a method and plan to apply that science in the real world. Engineering is Applied science.
If you aren't using science in the design of a structure you're doing what humanity did before engineers. That is simply find someone that built a building before that didn't fall down and try to replicate it without any understanding of why it didn't fall down and the other way did. There are a lot of structures in this world that are still built like that. By using science you can build bigger, taller and better using less materials and in a safer manner both for the builder and the eventual occupants.
Engineer's do things like design buildings, that even if the building is severely damaged by some event (say a earthquake hitting it) that the building doesn't fall down while people are still inside it. They couldn't do that without science.
Engineering is Applied Science. Science is a method of studying the natural world, engineering uses scientific principles and methods in applications in the real world, rather than theoretical one.
Engineers are scientists. You'd have to be a moron to believe they aren't.
You don't need a degree, research budget and to be published to be a scientist.
Science is a methodology for studying the natural world that is the best method we have for separating out human weaknesses in the process, anyone can do it. But to do science and practice it you need to follow the methods. Sarah Palin hasn't followed those methods at any time in her entire life, Bill Nye has.
Maybe I'm the only one that will say it but overall Feinstein isn't a bad senator. She's done a good job on a lot of things but she's got one wickedly bad weakness and that's she's scared of terrorists and criminals and is a true believer that government can be trusted with our personal information. She's willing to take away rights and grant government sweeping power over our personal lives to prevent terrorism and crime.
I don't know why she's like this but she's always been like this on this issue. There are other issues she's fantastic in and she's a good negotiator and good at finding compromise. But I've got to tell you, when people like Carly are the people that run against her you can't do anything but Vote for her. If the republicans could run someone against her that wasn't bat shit crazy they might take the seat but the only people they run against her are people like Carly. And Carly would grant government the same fucking powers and kill all the same rights, but she'd also fuck everything else up as well.
So your choice is a bad Feinstein or a worse Fiorino, and that's not much of a choice IMO.
To me, "highly inaccurate" translates directly to "it doesn't work".
What if it's the right result 9 times out of 10? Because that level of incorrectness is unacceptable in the medical field. Medical tests need to have accuracy in the four to five nines to be considered accurate. Most of the non-medical world would consider a 9 out of 10 result pretty good, hell a 300 batting average is a 30% success rate and is considered good.
I believe the hope at Theranos was that they could get to medical level of accuracy in time which they apparently couldn't do. It's that coverup that they should be punished for. Had they been up front about everything and openly worked to improve they wouldn't be in the predicament they are. And that predicament is tied to the CEO lying.
So what your saying is that to receive his $38,000 he should have been pepper sprayed and arrested and spent a day in jail like the protestors. Oh no, you are saying he's a special little fairy that got $80k for not working then another $38K for the emotional trauma of pepper spraying a bunch of innocent people. If I come pepper spray you can I have $108K and a 8 month vacation as well?
They did nothing to deserve pepper spray. If I warn you I'm going to shoot you if you don't move does that absolve me of all responsibility for shooting you if you don't move? The cop pepper sprayed people to punish them, he should be in jail for what he did.
I dare you to stand at a bathroom sink and wash your hands for 20 seconds with vigorous scrubbing. 99.999999% of people wash their hands for no more than a few seconds (usually 1 or 2). I've never seen anyone do it for more than 5 and everyone was looking at him like he was a weirdo. 20 Seconds is a long time, the 4 minutes hospitals recommend? I doubt you could even do it.
My main point was to counter the idea that you can remove all pathogens at a bathroom sink in your average bathroom. That we need sinks to warn people to keep washing to remove all pathogens and that any of this is even possible because it's not possible to remove all bacteria from your hands, only to reduce the number. Hand dryers are a scam IMO. They do a worse job, cost more, waste energy and cause hearing damage. They shouldn't be used, hell I think they should be banned except as a backup drying source. I'd like to see us go back to the cloth towel on a reel that wound up as it was used. Everyone got a clean towel that could actually dry their hands and the cloth towels were easy to wash. But I haven't seen those in decades.
Urine is sterile. It's one of the few things biologically that has absolutely no bacteria in it (as long as you don't have a bladder infection that is). Now it won't remain that way once it's out of your body as it's stuff bacteria absolutely love to eat. But it is 100% sterile, right up until bacteria contact it and start multiplying because it's full of nutrients. So it probably would clean your hands for a few microseconds until the bacteria start growing like mad from all the food. I'm sure dipping your hands in pure sugar (also sterile) would clean them as well for a few seconds until the bacteria start growing from all the food.
She's being banned from Federal contracting and participating in anything federally funded. It's called a federal contracting death sentence and it will pretty much end her career in anything involving federal research dollars (which is almost all research). Basically the only research she can participate in during this time frame is something entirely funded by private dollars and there is very little research that is funded like that.
Everyone? Please there are a lot of people that believed her and your hindsight is 20/20 bullshit is just that. The idea itself is plausible.
If you can design an IC microchip that could measure chemical composition in blood you'd make billions on a device that could measure things with a finger prick and provide instantaneous results that right now require a plunger in the arm and days to measure. They've got a few similar tests that do work already out there (mainly in the insulin area) and it's not implausible that you could build a circuit to measure the things she was claiming. Some of Theronos's stuff does work, it's just highly inaccurate and that's what she's covered up, probably in the hope she could fix the inaccuracy problem. But as time went on they moved more and more to conventional tests because they couldn't fix the inaccuracy.
Hopefully as the company implodes the intellectual property will transfer to a company with the resources to figure out if it can actually work accurately. Such processes would save the healthcare industry trillions of dollars.
For all your talk I doubt you have a clue how to wash your hand. People like you think running your hands under the water for a few seconds is washing your hands but the reality is it takes MINUTES of scrubbing to actually remove bacteria. A typical hospital policy is more than 4 minutes of scrubbing with an abrasive sponge. I'll bet you've never scrubbed your hands for more than 10 seconds.
The premise is to make people feel better. The reality is that unless you soap your hands for 2 minutes and 30 seconds every single time you are doing next to nothing. And none of that pre foamed soap, it does nothing to reduce the waters surface tension but it does save a lot of money on soap because no one is really using any.
You are literally covered in bacteria, viruses and other living things. They cover every square inch of your skin, they are on everything you touch and they are even all throughout your intestinal system, mouth, nose, etc. The entire point of washing your hands is to remove any pathogenic bacteria and to reduce the number of bacteria, not to eliminate them completely which short of a soak in 100% pure bleach nothing is going to eliminate them all.
Air dryers take this to another step, so instead of washing off some of the bacteria and getting a few more with a towel when you wipe the water off the air dryer simply sprays all those bacteria across the bathroom. Your are probably 10000% more likely to end up with these bacteria in your lungs due to air dryers. I personally hate air dryers and think they are great ways to cause more infections.
I have a hard time fitting plastic into effused concrete. Concrete is poured all the time. Though I think you meant infused, in which case I'd rather not as I can imagine it would result in death of significant numbers of people. Plastic infused concrete would likely offer no benefits and significant problems. Without some special plastics the results would be plastic that wasn't bonded into the concrete where the strength of concrete is from the bonding that forms. Now if you could construct it like fiberglass where it was stranded and had sufficient angular surfaces that the concrete could hold onto the plastic you might have something but I doubt it. Fiberglass reinforced concrete trades compressive strength for flexibility and additional tensile strength. Plastic infused concrete would likely weaken compressive strength and tensile strength while providing no actual improvement. Honestly if there was any benefit to such a combination it would already exist because plastic is already dirt cheap. Some plastics are already significantly cheaper per volume than aggregate.
Even if coal was free it wouldn't significantly lower the cost of plastics because the additional processing steps would more than compensate for the cost of the base materials. Most plastic is made from very light hydrocarbons (gasoline and lighter). To use coal for plastic production you would need to refine the coal and frack off lighter hydrocarbons, this would be extremely energy and process intensive. Probably on the order of the Fischer-Tropsch process, which is wickedly inefficient, and then throw on a bunch of sub-processes and you'd even still need a hydrogen source like natural gas. We won't be making plastic from coal until every drop of oil is used up.
The problem with these tax avoidance scheme and Europe's ability to stop them is tied entirely to the fact that several of your own countries are facilitating this. Rather than singling out certain size companies the EU should be going after the countries for creating tax rules that aren't in compliance with Union rules. As it is, the EU is trying to single out several companies rather than attacking the real problem. This distracts the electorate but doesn't actually solve the problem, the problem will continue just with companies smaller than the limit identified.
If the EU wants to actually solve the problem they need to go after the actual problem and that is Denmark, Luxembourg and Ireland (probably others as well) facilitating tax avoidance in other member countries. That's the only thing that's going to solve this, but that's hard so they won't try to fix the actual problem.
Welcome to the presidency for as long as I can remember going back well past Roosevelt. I can't comment before that but I'm willing to bet it goes all the way back to Washington. You're naive if you don't think that's true.
The proper society accepted way to respond to speech you don't like falls into two categories. 1. You ignore them. 2. You engage in speech yourself.
Boycotts, refusing to associate and other actions are ALL speech. The idea that you can't say or do things to someone for things they say is absolutely anti-speech. It's the very basis of hate speech laws that are 99% of the time used to silence minorities and attack unpopular opinions. Look to Turkey as an example of how well these restrictions work out.
Everyone should be encouraged to use your speech to counter speech you don't like. Boycott the speaker, stand on a soap box on the sidewalk and speak endlessly about how they are horrible people. Petition retailers to stop selling products they sponsor. These are all valid responses to speech you don't agree with.
Creating a "safe space" where people can say things without counter speech or social consequences is nothing more than a step away from fascism.
There is no reason quantum entanglement would violate general relativity. We have not done the experiments to verify if the signal would arrive as it's sent or if it would suffer the same delay (mainly because they couldn't figure out how to send or receive). It could be that the quantum frame of reference is actually outside relativistic effects as data is being exchanged, not mass. Regardless general relativity and quantum effects aren't exactly the best of friends. Einstein spent the remainder of his career trying to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics and couldn't.
IMO there is something fundamental about the interaction between quantum and relativistic frames of reference (or about the universe in general) that humanity doesn't understand. At some point in the future a new Einstein will come along and explain this just like Einstein did with Newtonian mechanics. In the meantime all us people with normal brains will sit around scratching our heads.
Tall buildings cost a lot more money per sq foot than one/two story buildings that can have their walls poured on site and tipped up. They don't build data centers tall because land is cheaper than tall buildings.
Petitioning Amazon to remove a product with Amazon's Speech and freedom of association is a boycott as much as tossing tea into a harbor is! Get out of your partisan mindset and realize you are arguing against speech. Perfectly valid and reasonable speech! You can do the same, you can create petitions and send Amazon emails telling them to not do this. That is counter speech, not calling for government action to silence these people!
Don't support speech restrictions because you are too lazy to counter the speech of another group with your own speech.
The Boston tea Party is probably one of the oldest Boycotts in this country. It was an effort through a boycott of a product whose profits went entirely to the King to extract a political message about representation by denying the King those profits.
Getting a product removed from Amazon is as much speech as refusing to buy the product. It's an attempt to get Amazon to exercise their speech and freedom of association in refusing to sell Trump branded products. It is the ESSENCE of speech. Rather than call for a government ban on speech you should use your right to speech to propose a counter boycott or letter writing campaign. More speech is never a problem.
Your answer is to restrict the speech of the people involved because they are infringing Donald's "right to make money"? You ask for government to restrict not only someones right to speech but their right to free association? All boycotts are speech, one of the oldest forms of political speech in this country. The Boston tea party was a boycott. Think about that.
Because Boycotts are speech. They are one of the oldest forms of commercial speech in this country and have been in use since the republic was founded. There are over 100 active boycotts by Christian groups in this country. Disney is one of their popular targets and has been under active boycott by one group or another for probably more than 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, the broader the market access the internet provides and the ability to search Google provides could give authors the chance to unshackle themselves from the publishers. This is why the publishers freaked out about ebooks originally and worked with Apple to price fix them above the cost of printed material. The publishers are deathly afraid that authors will direct publish and eliminate the middleman job of publisher (who also gets the lions share of profit).
If anything the work Google is doing will make it easier for Authors to make money.
Author's Guild Reponse auto-translation:
Google has lots of money and we wanted some. We are angry the court didn't recognize we are entitled to some of Google's money. We think depriving authors of part of Google's money will irreparably harm American Culture because they can't have money for all of Google's work to preserve that culture. Congress must act to eliminate this activist court ruling or we will get angry and stamp our feet more!
Yes I do. The engineer uses scientifically derived knowledge of loading, strengths of materials in multiple dimensions, scientifically derived equations on the interplay of these forces and strengths and uses that knowledge and applies it in designing the structural details. Using the theoretical average strength of concrete they will develop a size of structure and then direct that the concrete in it meet the strength's they've designed for and develop construction plans and specifications to meet those goals. In other words they take all their scientific knowledge and develop a method and plan to apply that science in the real world. Engineering is Applied science.
If you aren't using science in the design of a structure you're doing what humanity did before engineers. That is simply find someone that built a building before that didn't fall down and try to replicate it without any understanding of why it didn't fall down and the other way did. There are a lot of structures in this world that are still built like that. By using science you can build bigger, taller and better using less materials and in a safer manner both for the builder and the eventual occupants.
Engineer's do things like design buildings, that even if the building is severely damaged by some event (say a earthquake hitting it) that the building doesn't fall down while people are still inside it. They couldn't do that without science.
Engineering is Applied Science. Science is a method of studying the natural world, engineering uses scientific principles and methods in applications in the real world, rather than theoretical one.
Engineers are scientists. You'd have to be a moron to believe they aren't.
You don't need a degree, research budget and to be published to be a scientist.
Science is a methodology for studying the natural world that is the best method we have for separating out human weaknesses in the process, anyone can do it. But to do science and practice it you need to follow the methods. Sarah Palin hasn't followed those methods at any time in her entire life, Bill Nye has.
Maybe I'm the only one that will say it but overall Feinstein isn't a bad senator. She's done a good job on a lot of things but she's got one wickedly bad weakness and that's she's scared of terrorists and criminals and is a true believer that government can be trusted with our personal information. She's willing to take away rights and grant government sweeping power over our personal lives to prevent terrorism and crime.
I don't know why she's like this but she's always been like this on this issue. There are other issues she's fantastic in and she's a good negotiator and good at finding compromise. But I've got to tell you, when people like Carly are the people that run against her you can't do anything but Vote for her. If the republicans could run someone against her that wasn't bat shit crazy they might take the seat but the only people they run against her are people like Carly. And Carly would grant government the same fucking powers and kill all the same rights, but she'd also fuck everything else up as well.
So your choice is a bad Feinstein or a worse Fiorino, and that's not much of a choice IMO.
What if it's the right result 9 times out of 10? Because that level of incorrectness is unacceptable in the medical field. Medical tests need to have accuracy in the four to five nines to be considered accurate. Most of the non-medical world would consider a 9 out of 10 result pretty good, hell a 300 batting average is a 30% success rate and is considered good.
I believe the hope at Theranos was that they could get to medical level of accuracy in time which they apparently couldn't do. It's that coverup that they should be punished for. Had they been up front about everything and openly worked to improve they wouldn't be in the predicament they are. And that predicament is tied to the CEO lying.
So what your saying is that to receive his $38,000 he should have been pepper sprayed and arrested and spent a day in jail like the protestors. Oh no, you are saying he's a special little fairy that got $80k for not working then another $38K for the emotional trauma of pepper spraying a bunch of innocent people. If I come pepper spray you can I have $108K and a 8 month vacation as well?
They did nothing to deserve pepper spray. If I warn you I'm going to shoot you if you don't move does that absolve me of all responsibility for shooting you if you don't move? The cop pepper sprayed people to punish them, he should be in jail for what he did.
I dare you to stand at a bathroom sink and wash your hands for 20 seconds with vigorous scrubbing. 99.999999% of people wash their hands for no more than a few seconds (usually 1 or 2). I've never seen anyone do it for more than 5 and everyone was looking at him like he was a weirdo. 20 Seconds is a long time, the 4 minutes hospitals recommend? I doubt you could even do it.
My main point was to counter the idea that you can remove all pathogens at a bathroom sink in your average bathroom. That we need sinks to warn people to keep washing to remove all pathogens and that any of this is even possible because it's not possible to remove all bacteria from your hands, only to reduce the number. Hand dryers are a scam IMO. They do a worse job, cost more, waste energy and cause hearing damage. They shouldn't be used, hell I think they should be banned except as a backup drying source. I'd like to see us go back to the cloth towel on a reel that wound up as it was used. Everyone got a clean towel that could actually dry their hands and the cloth towels were easy to wash. But I haven't seen those in decades.
Urine is sterile. It's one of the few things biologically that has absolutely no bacteria in it (as long as you don't have a bladder infection that is). Now it won't remain that way once it's out of your body as it's stuff bacteria absolutely love to eat. But it is 100% sterile, right up until bacteria contact it and start multiplying because it's full of nutrients. So it probably would clean your hands for a few microseconds until the bacteria start growing like mad from all the food. I'm sure dipping your hands in pure sugar (also sterile) would clean them as well for a few seconds until the bacteria start growing from all the food.
She's being banned from Federal contracting and participating in anything federally funded. It's called a federal contracting death sentence and it will pretty much end her career in anything involving federal research dollars (which is almost all research). Basically the only research she can participate in during this time frame is something entirely funded by private dollars and there is very little research that is funded like that.
Everyone? Please there are a lot of people that believed her and your hindsight is 20/20 bullshit is just that. The idea itself is plausible.
If you can design an IC microchip that could measure chemical composition in blood you'd make billions on a device that could measure things with a finger prick and provide instantaneous results that right now require a plunger in the arm and days to measure. They've got a few similar tests that do work already out there (mainly in the insulin area) and it's not implausible that you could build a circuit to measure the things she was claiming. Some of Theronos's stuff does work, it's just highly inaccurate and that's what she's covered up, probably in the hope she could fix the inaccuracy problem. But as time went on they moved more and more to conventional tests because they couldn't fix the inaccuracy.
Hopefully as the company implodes the intellectual property will transfer to a company with the resources to figure out if it can actually work accurately. Such processes would save the healthcare industry trillions of dollars.
For all your talk I doubt you have a clue how to wash your hand. People like you think running your hands under the water for a few seconds is washing your hands but the reality is it takes MINUTES of scrubbing to actually remove bacteria. A typical hospital policy is more than 4 minutes of scrubbing with an abrasive sponge. I'll bet you've never scrubbed your hands for more than 10 seconds.
The premise is to make people feel better. The reality is that unless you soap your hands for 2 minutes and 30 seconds every single time you are doing next to nothing. And none of that pre foamed soap, it does nothing to reduce the waters surface tension but it does save a lot of money on soap because no one is really using any.
You are literally covered in bacteria, viruses and other living things. They cover every square inch of your skin, they are on everything you touch and they are even all throughout your intestinal system, mouth, nose, etc. The entire point of washing your hands is to remove any pathogenic bacteria and to reduce the number of bacteria, not to eliminate them completely which short of a soak in 100% pure bleach nothing is going to eliminate them all.
Air dryers take this to another step, so instead of washing off some of the bacteria and getting a few more with a towel when you wipe the water off the air dryer simply sprays all those bacteria across the bathroom. Your are probably 10000% more likely to end up with these bacteria in your lungs due to air dryers. I personally hate air dryers and think they are great ways to cause more infections.
I have a hard time fitting plastic into effused concrete. Concrete is poured all the time. Though I think you meant infused, in which case I'd rather not as I can imagine it would result in death of significant numbers of people. Plastic infused concrete would likely offer no benefits and significant problems. Without some special plastics the results would be plastic that wasn't bonded into the concrete where the strength of concrete is from the bonding that forms. Now if you could construct it like fiberglass where it was stranded and had sufficient angular surfaces that the concrete could hold onto the plastic you might have something but I doubt it. Fiberglass reinforced concrete trades compressive strength for flexibility and additional tensile strength. Plastic infused concrete would likely weaken compressive strength and tensile strength while providing no actual improvement. Honestly if there was any benefit to such a combination it would already exist because plastic is already dirt cheap. Some plastics are already significantly cheaper per volume than aggregate.
Even if coal was free it wouldn't significantly lower the cost of plastics because the additional processing steps would more than compensate for the cost of the base materials. Most plastic is made from very light hydrocarbons (gasoline and lighter). To use coal for plastic production you would need to refine the coal and frack off lighter hydrocarbons, this would be extremely energy and process intensive. Probably on the order of the Fischer-Tropsch process, which is wickedly inefficient, and then throw on a bunch of sub-processes and you'd even still need a hydrogen source like natural gas. We won't be making plastic from coal until every drop of oil is used up.
The problem with these tax avoidance scheme and Europe's ability to stop them is tied entirely to the fact that several of your own countries are facilitating this. Rather than singling out certain size companies the EU should be going after the countries for creating tax rules that aren't in compliance with Union rules. As it is, the EU is trying to single out several companies rather than attacking the real problem. This distracts the electorate but doesn't actually solve the problem, the problem will continue just with companies smaller than the limit identified.
If the EU wants to actually solve the problem they need to go after the actual problem and that is Denmark, Luxembourg and Ireland (probably others as well) facilitating tax avoidance in other member countries. That's the only thing that's going to solve this, but that's hard so they won't try to fix the actual problem.
Welcome to the presidency for as long as I can remember going back well past Roosevelt. I can't comment before that but I'm willing to bet it goes all the way back to Washington. You're naive if you don't think that's true.
The proper society accepted way to respond to speech you don't like falls into two categories. 1. You ignore them. 2. You engage in speech yourself.
Boycotts, refusing to associate and other actions are ALL speech. The idea that you can't say or do things to someone for things they say is absolutely anti-speech. It's the very basis of hate speech laws that are 99% of the time used to silence minorities and attack unpopular opinions. Look to Turkey as an example of how well these restrictions work out.
Everyone should be encouraged to use your speech to counter speech you don't like. Boycott the speaker, stand on a soap box on the sidewalk and speak endlessly about how they are horrible people. Petition retailers to stop selling products they sponsor. These are all valid responses to speech you don't agree with.
Creating a "safe space" where people can say things without counter speech or social consequences is nothing more than a step away from fascism.
There is no reason quantum entanglement would violate general relativity. We have not done the experiments to verify if the signal would arrive as it's sent or if it would suffer the same delay (mainly because they couldn't figure out how to send or receive). It could be that the quantum frame of reference is actually outside relativistic effects as data is being exchanged, not mass. Regardless general relativity and quantum effects aren't exactly the best of friends. Einstein spent the remainder of his career trying to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics and couldn't.
IMO there is something fundamental about the interaction between quantum and relativistic frames of reference (or about the universe in general) that humanity doesn't understand. At some point in the future a new Einstein will come along and explain this just like Einstein did with Newtonian mechanics. In the meantime all us people with normal brains will sit around scratching our heads.
Tall buildings cost a lot more money per sq foot than one/two story buildings that can have their walls poured on site and tipped up. They don't build data centers tall because land is cheaper than tall buildings.
Petitioning Amazon to remove a product with Amazon's Speech and freedom of association is a boycott as much as tossing tea into a harbor is! Get out of your partisan mindset and realize you are arguing against speech. Perfectly valid and reasonable speech! You can do the same, you can create petitions and send Amazon emails telling them to not do this. That is counter speech, not calling for government action to silence these people!
Don't support speech restrictions because you are too lazy to counter the speech of another group with your own speech.
The Boston tea Party is probably one of the oldest Boycotts in this country. It was an effort through a boycott of a product whose profits went entirely to the King to extract a political message about representation by denying the King those profits.
Getting a product removed from Amazon is as much speech as refusing to buy the product. It's an attempt to get Amazon to exercise their speech and freedom of association in refusing to sell Trump branded products. It is the ESSENCE of speech. Rather than call for a government ban on speech you should use your right to speech to propose a counter boycott or letter writing campaign. More speech is never a problem.
Your answer is to restrict the speech of the people involved because they are infringing Donald's "right to make money"? You ask for government to restrict not only someones right to speech but their right to free association? All boycotts are speech, one of the oldest forms of political speech in this country. The Boston tea party was a boycott. Think about that.
So you are against an open democratic society eh?
Because Boycotts are speech. They are one of the oldest forms of commercial speech in this country and have been in use since the republic was founded. There are over 100 active boycotts by Christian groups in this country. Disney is one of their popular targets and has been under active boycott by one group or another for probably more than 20 years.