Every serious conflict big and small has been settled by violence, not diplomacy. Diplomacy as the lasting solution to all conflict is the masturbatory fantasy of the feminized left and it is in direct conflict to thousands of years of history, both globally and on an individual level.
I did the face busting myself a few times in high school. I tried patience and tolerance first, but at some point, every self respecting person has their limit. And you know what, those assholes changed their behavior after that, not only towards me, but towards others in general. Getting laid out in the school yard and then coming to school with busted face for a week tends to cause all of your other victims to start standing up to you as well and you learn that the verbal assaults that you thought were fun can suddenly and violently explode in your face with a lot of physical pain.
Just because you are a woman or a dickless beta male that will take shit forever doesn't validate your point. In the real world, there are lines you don't cross if you are smart. If you are an asshole and go around abusing people, eventually you will find the wrong person and regret it.
This is what you get when you have a near-stagnant economy for 8 years and simultaneously import ~1 million low skill/no skill workers through chain migration, immigration lotteries, and God only knows how many through illegal immigrant catch-and-release and the like. These immigrants (legal and illegal) create a glut of low skilled workers, driving down wages for everyone.
The average economy growth rate under Obama was 1.5% or thereabouts. For reference, growth under Regan and Clinton both were north of 3.5% per year (meaning the economy grew far faster than under Obama, since these numbers are compounding year over year). https://www.hudson.org/researc... The growth rate so far under Trump looks to be ~3%, or 2x that of Obama's tenure.
And the key ingredient indicated in that cartoon (as an Unreal Tournament junky in all it's incarnations back in the day) is anonymity (I still miss that announcer: MMMMMonster Kill!). We will probably have to take anonymity away from the internet at some point if it is to mature as a feature of society (much like we had to add license plates, turn signals and seat belts to cars for that technology to mature). It is sad but just a truth of the human condition.
And where the real world has self correcting mechanisms for assholes (when someone gets in your face screaming obscenities, you tend to knock their teeth out, most people only need that experience once to modify their behavior), there is no equivalent online where antisocial, uncivil behavior can be properly discouraged.
To be clear, we are not talking about unpopular ideas or positions you don't agree with, rather just basic, civil discourse and an understanding that the other humans you interact with online are more like you than not (with bad days, goals, triumphs and failures, dreams and fears, etc.) And should be treated with the golden rule.
Not just that, but if they confirm that Cuban agents attacked US diplomats at a US embassy, that is an act of war on US soil, and demands a response. I don't think we really want to go down to Cuba and wipe them out, but that is what the evidence would demand, even if it was only a rogue wing of Cuban intelligence that actually committed the attack.
ZERO indictments for collusion or obstruction of justice (so you can get off your high horse). If Trump just admitted to obstruction, why haven't they arrested and charged him with it? (Hint: because he didn't so they cant, regardless of whatever fever dream you heard from the alt left on MSNBC). All the Muller investigation has is 2 indictments for lying to the FBI contrived by a rank partisan FBI agent who may have tainted the entire investigation, as well as have been instrumental in getting Hillary off the hook for her classified private email server, and who 100% let Hillary advisers off the hook on lies to the FBI (what the two former Trump people are being charged with) and allowed Hillary to testify to the FBI without being on the record, shielding her from even the possibility of being charged with lying to the FBI (which is what those two indictments you are so proud of are for).
Now the FBI is illegally stonewalling congress, who has legal oversight on the FBI. The only conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that there are probably dozens of deep state Democrat political hacks in middle management, running the FBI as a political enforcement arm of the Democrat party. The only thing to do is the new FBI director must open internal investigations and anyone who was communicating with Democrats outside their official duties, leaking, showing impartial favor during the last 8 years etc. needs to be fired and replaced by solid rank and file FBI agents. This is apparently part of what must be done to drain the swamp.
The only reason the Clintons were not frog marched in cuffs for numerous felonies over the years was the swamp and the fact that the elites in both parties have been covering for each other for decades. Ask any active duty military. If they had done what Hillary did with her email sever and classified emails, they would be in jail. Nearly all politicians are crooked, but to try to claim that the Clintons are not outright mobsters is laughable to anyone who has been paying attention. Hell, Bill Clinton straight up raped several women and got away with it.
It is a lot easier to just have a few CO2 extinguishers on the plane and hit whatever is on fire with an extinguisher ASAP. The cabin may stink for the rest of the flight, but that is the quickest, safest way to put out something on fire.
Letting kids stream videos and send photos... Whoever came up with that option at Facebook is a complete moron. Simple text with a profanity filter that replicates all conversations to the parent account for review is probably fine, but photos and video are just too easy to get in trouble with.
Just wait til one kid sends another a nude selfie, now you have a real problem.
IMHO smart phones (note there are still dumb cell phones to be had for kids) and social media should be regulated like tobacco and alcohol and should not be available to kids under 18. There are all kinds of studies that are showing the detrimental effect that both are having on young kids.
No, you are 100% wrong. Epic has ALREADY invested millions in the development of the game. Anything that damages the game or player base can be judged against that investment. Just because a company allows you to use their software and is not currently monetizing it does not give you carte-blanc to do whatever you want.
Whoever modded you insightful is a complete moron. Epic invested over $50M in the development of Fortnite and has spent years developing it (since at least 2011). Free to play |= free. They may not have rolled out their monetization strategy yet, but if cheaters ruin the game and chase off the player base, they stand to lose all of their investment and the cheaters would naturally be on the hook to pay them back.
What cheaters like you clearly do not understand is that cheating in nearly all circumstances damages the online community in some way, which in turn damages the game that relies on that community staying healthy and growing. An online game with no players is a dead game. Companies invest a lot of time and money to make games successful, but with online games, you also have to have the player base and players who will invest their time in the game. If cheaters ruin that, the game is over.
I am sure that even you would not tolerate cheating in a game of football or basketball, why would you tolerate cheating in your online games? The only difference is, cheating in real life is likely to get you an ass kicking, whereas virtually you just ruin others play experience and then the game company comes after you with a huge lawsuit for ruining their game and bankrupts your ass for the rest of your life.
OTOH, go ahead and cheat all you want in your offline or single player games, but I don't think you have a clue how the courts would view this.
Free to play |= free. Epic spent well over $50M in development of Fortnite which started at least in 2011. Their monetization/game payback may well be ruined by cheaters. I take cheating just as seriously in online games as if I were on the ball field. The only difference is the opposing team won't come beat your ass up for cheating online, but it is still a big issue. Companies invest millions in online games, players invest their time and effort, and cheating little shits can ruin it and should be banned and sued. As a culture we should shun anyone who would cheat someone else, out of money, time or anything else, and that is what online cheaters do, and in doing it they damage the entire community.
Cheating in single player offline games is a totally different issue. If you want to cheat in your single player games, I am pretty sure no one gives a shit.
That's the thing here. The kid is in the wrong for spreading cheats, and he can be sued for damaging Epic's business (I believe Blizzard and others have successfully done this in the past). Epic is in the wrong for trying to use DMCA, which does not apply in this case. They should have gone to court and gotten a cease and desist order, at which point the kid (and YouTube would have had to pull down the video or be in contempt of court). The parents are in the wrong for defending their cheating little shit instead of grounding him for a year, forcing him to post an apology on YouTube and just calling Epic on the phone and letting them know it was handled.
As it stands Epic is liable for filing a false DMCA (not that there is really any recourse there), the kid is liable for damaging Epic's business, and the parents behavior largely explains the kids behavior.
Disney is trying to conflate Federal Copyright Law with unenforceable post purchase terms found inside the box (per US supreme court decision). Disney may not like it, but the digital code is part of what is purchased (and in fact propping up the price of Bluray discs to an extent) and is covered under the first sale principle. The sad fact is that this is really Congress fault over at least the last 14 years. The Democrat controlled congress (2006 to 2014?) did nothing to fix or clarify ownership rights or pass any kind of consumer rights bill for digital goods. Now that the Republicans control the Congress,I am pretty sure nothing will be done on that front.
I hope that Redbox also counter sues Disney for legal costs and punitive damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit that has already been decided by the supreme court... At least Redbox has the cash to bend Disney over. A lot of smaller companies would just give in because the legal battle will be expensive.
Arguing about the historical existence of the good Samaritan is essentially unknowable, you either take it on faith or don't.
Jesus was a real person who historically existed and tens of thousands of people were first hand witnesses to his supernatural acts, including coming back to life after being 100% dead. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or just plain ignoring historical fact. The key question is who he was. Was he who he said he was, was he demon possessed (as claimed by the Pharisees who also recognized his supernatural power), or was he an insane megalomaniac master illusionist with followers willing to propagate his deception, keep his secrets even after he figured out a way to die, cause a solar eclipse as he was dying, along with an earthquake (it was spectacle enough to convince the pagan Roman soldiers the he was actually the son of God) and simultaneously shredding the temple veil that was guarded at all times and then come back to life and then disappear in a cloud never to be seen by his closest friends again. Saul/Paul saw him on the road to Damascus and he appeared to a few in visions, but not to the 11 original Apostles who were all subsequently martyred for their beliefs... You would think that Judas would have spilled the beans when he betrayed Jesus, but he didn't.
The point of knowing the facts behind your belief grounds you in reality and gives you reasoned faith, which is far stronger and more durable than blind faith, which may get you to heaven, but which may be eroded by modern Atheists, Agnostics, mystics, etc. Blind faith is the reason that most people today think that science supports Atheism and religion is diametrically opposed to science (except that most scientists from the last 400 years were devout Christians).
Executing murderers who have been duly tried in a court of law by a jury of citizens and afforded every opportunity of due process and appeal is so far from what goes on in Russia or most of the rest of the world it is incomparable. The fact that you cannot grasp that simple fact makes you a microcepallic in the first degree and not worth further conversation...
Because clearly, incarceration numbers, regardless of what those people did, is the key metric to determine if a society is just or not. Never mind that North Korea is more likely to just execute people who disagree with the government... Talk about infantile logic.
Critics offer two services, one they offer intelligent analysis of art and contribute to the public conversation around art, second, they help people decide what art to seek out.
And therein lies a key distinction. While movies can be art, they can also be entertainment media. This is one of the things that the video game industry has done a much better job of understanding. While both movies and video games can be art, most commercial productions are entertainment media first and foremost (which is why if they don't make a profit, they are considered failures. As far as I am concerned, watching any of the superhero movies and expecting art is doing it wrong. They are entertainment, just like the comic books they originated from are not Homers Odyssey. If you go in expecting art, you will have a bad time and rate the movie poorly, if you go in looking for entertainment you will have a good time.
Not to say there aren't still garbage movies with huge plot holes, terrible acting and shoddy writing, but the only way to fairly measure a work is by how it reaches it's target audience and if entertainment was it's goal, how effective it is in that goal.
First of all, I just have to say: First world problems on this one...
Second of all, people have to realize that critic reviews have, almost since the time of Shakespeare, been overly critical of media that is primarily audience targeted and for lack of a better term fun to experience. Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical. The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year are for the most part just looking for a good time. The best barometer I have found to figure out if I will enjoy a movie or not is the Amazon reviews score and reading the top positive and top negative. There is always the risk of a spoiler, but it is a far better barometer because normal people are giving their impressions. As traditional media and newspapers die, so too should the movie critic industry. It is an antiquated system that is neither useful nor necessary in the modern era.
First off, I generally agree with your post, with the exception of point one. I find it highly ironic that you later quote that very book (Mathew 5:7 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.)
Your assumption is predicated on the false narrative propagated by the God haters that belief in the Bible is blind faith. While is it certainly true that many people do blindly believe (and by the way, blindly believing that one should love every person as they love themselves, being faithful to their spouse, not stealing, lying or murdering are hardly things to be scorned) not all believers have blind faith, many have reasoned faith. There are many of us that have arrived at our faith through skeptical investigation. If you are a true skeptic, a true seeker of truth, you need to read "Case for Christ" https://www.amazon.com/Case-Ch... If you chose to continue in your bigoted ignorance, just be aware that it is your personal choice and not a reflection on the reality of the matter.
Setting aside the AGW argument, it is entirely possible that everyone who ate GMO corn (or pick your GMO crop) will have liver failure in 20 years (or pick your unintended consequences, hell, we could accidentally kill all the bees with a insecticide producing plant or an accidental cross pollination of said plant in the wild). The near term side effects are fairly well know. The risks when released from the lab are un-knowable. The long term health effects are only poorly understood at best because to get real results, you need 20 years of testing. The truth of the matter is that we have been doing just fine with crop yields and commercial farming. I believe the stat is that if the US alone actively farmed all currently available farmland and we didn't pay farmers to plow crops under or not plant fields, we could not only feed ourselves, but every hungry person in the world (people that can't grow enough food on their own). GMO is a solution looking for a problem, and doing it in a dangerously unquantifiable way.
If strawberries are too expensive because of the labor to pick them, the solution is not to grow 5lb mutant strawberries, the solution is to invent methods of growing and harvesting that lend themselves to automation or sell growing kits for people to grow their own in a small green house or some other of a thousand options.
AFAIK it is not about the energy required to produce more acid, but the time constant required to produce said acid. Your stomach carries some acid at all times, but it takes ~2 hours to digest a meal in the stomach, more if it is a lot of meat or other hard to digest food. During that digestion, acid is continuously produced to break down the meal. If you ate some table sugar with that meal, it is not going to get broken down instantly, but rather it will gradually get broken down with the rest of the meal as acid is available.
As far as eating HFCS vs table sugar on an empty stomach, again it depends on the amount, but in general, they are about the same assuming there is enough pooled stomach acid to convert the table sugar immediately.
Well, science doesn't tell us anything. Science is simply a collection of facts and theories of various quality. We draw our own conclusions. Anyone who tells you that the climate debate is over is full of shit and not a scientist in any way. The AGW crowd wants to shut down debate because their theory isn't panning out and more people are blowing them off by the day.
FYI, the Paris climate accord is non binding, meaning that agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on... I am 99% certain that China will wipe their ass with it before they flush it into the ocean, along with the metric tons of toxic waste that they discharge. If China does anything it is because they have a true pollution problem (with serious pollution that will damage your lungs if you breathe it unprotected.)
Regarding CO2 being a problem, I would be right there with you that CO2 is a problem if we got up into the 850PPM range. Unfortunately for you, the current levels are around 400 (we think; that value is from a single observatory in Hawii that can see the daily CO2 levels vary 400 ppm IN 24 HOURS). It is scientific and historical fact that pre industrial revolution CO2 levels were measured as high as 550 ppm and the average of all the measurements (essentially what they do today) were about 400ppm... Oh look at that! The same CO2 level as we have today! This is shocking, almost like there is some other mechanism that is absorbing the CO2 released by fossil fuels, like for instance PLANTS... If you want to wrap your head around some actual science instead of the horse shit shoveld by the MSM, "climate scientists" and politicians, give this article a read:
http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... BTW, it is not valid to argument that this is just one guy and his data is invalid. That is not how science works. One guy with the truth can be right (and often is, see Heliocentric orbit, flat earth theory, etc.). Before we accepted many scientific theories as fact, the majority of scientists were wrong. Majority rule works for government, not truth. You must show that either his data (pulled from historical documents) is invalid (which you can't) or explain how the pre industrial scientists got it wrong (you can't because they didn't).
Beyond that, the entire thesis that CO2 is creating an increasing green house effect is pure bullshit foisted on the ignorant masses. CO2 absorbs 3 frequencies in the IR band. The earth's atmosphere is already completely opaque in those 3 bands, and probably always has been. Heat still escapes quite nicely (which is why on a clear night you will freeze your nuts off outside, all that radiant heat is just escaping between the bands that CO2 blocks. CO2 is not nor has it ever been a wide band IR absorber/reflector like water and glass. http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.htm...
I have 20 years experience in applied thermodynamics and heat transfer. I have researched the global warming topic thoroughly and at least at this point, from a global warming perspective, CO2 just isn't a problem. If it got close to 1000 ppm then it becomes a problem for human and animal health (plants would love it though). The only reason the AGW myth is still even around is because there is money to be made and "climate deniers" in academia are excommunicated (i.e. their work can't get published and they usually get fired). But yeah, in another 30 years the AGW crowd will be viewed the same as the anti vaxers an the Luddites, unless they take over the world and go 1984 on our asses.
Sorry, my implied assumption was that if global warming actually becomes a real problem for real people, not just some fevered nightmare of the eco nuts and a tool for the environmental lobby to generate more research grants and funds for their pet projects, we would first globally convert to solar, wind and nuclear power, chopping back 95% or more of our fossil fuel emissions (or switching to biofuel, etc.) since that is a cheaper first step. After we take that step, then if the CO2 levels aren't dropping fast enough, we pursue the plan that I described above.
You can't tank the global economy because a few thousand savages on some pacific island are going to have to move. All animals and humans must adapt to an ever changing environment, that is just reality. And by the way, the sea levels have been rising for thousands of years (just google underwater ruins if you were unaware). Cant blame that on fossil fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
Every serious conflict big and small has been settled by violence, not diplomacy. Diplomacy as the lasting solution to all conflict is the masturbatory fantasy of the feminized left and it is in direct conflict to thousands of years of history, both globally and on an individual level.
I did the face busting myself a few times in high school. I tried patience and tolerance first, but at some point, every self respecting person has their limit. And you know what, those assholes changed their behavior after that, not only towards me, but towards others in general. Getting laid out in the school yard and then coming to school with busted face for a week tends to cause all of your other victims to start standing up to you as well and you learn that the verbal assaults that you thought were fun can suddenly and violently explode in your face with a lot of physical pain.
Just because you are a woman or a dickless beta male that will take shit forever doesn't validate your point. In the real world, there are lines you don't cross if you are smart. If you are an asshole and go around abusing people, eventually you will find the wrong person and regret it.
This is what you get when you have a near-stagnant economy for 8 years and simultaneously import ~1 million low skill/no skill workers through chain migration, immigration lotteries, and God only knows how many through illegal immigrant catch-and-release and the like. These immigrants (legal and illegal) create a glut of low skilled workers, driving down wages for everyone.
The average economy growth rate under Obama was 1.5% or thereabouts. For reference, growth under Regan and Clinton both were north of 3.5% per year (meaning the economy grew far faster than under Obama, since these numbers are compounding year over year). https://www.hudson.org/researc... The growth rate so far under Trump looks to be ~3%, or 2x that of Obama's tenure.
And the key ingredient indicated in that cartoon (as an Unreal Tournament junky in all it's incarnations back in the day) is anonymity (I still miss that announcer: MMMMMonster Kill!). We will probably have to take anonymity away from the internet at some point if it is to mature as a feature of society (much like we had to add license plates, turn signals and seat belts to cars for that technology to mature). It is sad but just a truth of the human condition.
And where the real world has self correcting mechanisms for assholes (when someone gets in your face screaming obscenities, you tend to knock their teeth out, most people only need that experience once to modify their behavior), there is no equivalent online where antisocial, uncivil behavior can be properly discouraged.
To be clear, we are not talking about unpopular ideas or positions you don't agree with, rather just basic, civil discourse and an understanding that the other humans you interact with online are more like you than not (with bad days, goals, triumphs and failures, dreams and fears, etc.) And should be treated with the golden rule.
Not just that, but if they confirm that Cuban agents attacked US diplomats at a US embassy, that is an act of war on US soil, and demands a response. I don't think we really want to go down to Cuba and wipe them out, but that is what the evidence would demand, even if it was only a rogue wing of Cuban intelligence that actually committed the attack.
ZERO indictments for collusion or obstruction of justice (so you can get off your high horse). If Trump just admitted to obstruction, why haven't they arrested and charged him with it? (Hint: because he didn't so they cant, regardless of whatever fever dream you heard from the alt left on MSNBC). All the Muller investigation has is 2 indictments for lying to the FBI contrived by a rank partisan FBI agent who may have tainted the entire investigation, as well as have been instrumental in getting Hillary off the hook for her classified private email server, and who 100% let Hillary advisers off the hook on lies to the FBI (what the two former Trump people are being charged with) and allowed Hillary to testify to the FBI without being on the record, shielding her from even the possibility of being charged with lying to the FBI (which is what those two indictments you are so proud of are for).
Now the FBI is illegally stonewalling congress, who has legal oversight on the FBI. The only conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that there are probably dozens of deep state Democrat political hacks in middle management, running the FBI as a political enforcement arm of the Democrat party. The only thing to do is the new FBI director must open internal investigations and anyone who was communicating with Democrats outside their official duties, leaking, showing impartial favor during the last 8 years etc. needs to be fired and replaced by solid rank and file FBI agents. This is apparently part of what must be done to drain the swamp.
The only reason the Clintons were not frog marched in cuffs for numerous felonies over the years was the swamp and the fact that the elites in both parties have been covering for each other for decades. Ask any active duty military. If they had done what Hillary did with her email sever and classified emails, they would be in jail. Nearly all politicians are crooked, but to try to claim that the Clintons are not outright mobsters is laughable to anyone who has been paying attention. Hell, Bill Clinton straight up raped several women and got away with it.
It is a lot easier to just have a few CO2 extinguishers on the plane and hit whatever is on fire with an extinguisher ASAP. The cabin may stink for the rest of the flight, but that is the quickest, safest way to put out something on fire.
Letting kids stream videos and send photos... Whoever came up with that option at Facebook is a complete moron. Simple text with a profanity filter that replicates all conversations to the parent account for review is probably fine, but photos and video are just too easy to get in trouble with.
Just wait til one kid sends another a nude selfie, now you have a real problem.
IMHO smart phones (note there are still dumb cell phones to be had for kids) and social media should be regulated like tobacco and alcohol and should not be available to kids under 18. There are all kinds of studies that are showing the detrimental effect that both are having on young kids.
No, you are 100% wrong. Epic has ALREADY invested millions in the development of the game. Anything that damages the game or player base can be judged against that investment. Just because a company allows you to use their software and is not currently monetizing it does not give you carte-blanc to do whatever you want.
Whoever modded you insightful is a complete moron. Epic invested over $50M in the development of Fortnite and has spent years developing it (since at least 2011). Free to play |= free. They may not have rolled out their monetization strategy yet, but if cheaters ruin the game and chase off the player base, they stand to lose all of their investment and the cheaters would naturally be on the hook to pay them back.
What cheaters like you clearly do not understand is that cheating in nearly all circumstances damages the online community in some way, which in turn damages the game that relies on that community staying healthy and growing. An online game with no players is a dead game. Companies invest a lot of time and money to make games successful, but with online games, you also have to have the player base and players who will invest their time in the game. If cheaters ruin that, the game is over.
I am sure that even you would not tolerate cheating in a game of football or basketball, why would you tolerate cheating in your online games? The only difference is, cheating in real life is likely to get you an ass kicking, whereas virtually you just ruin others play experience and then the game company comes after you with a huge lawsuit for ruining their game and bankrupts your ass for the rest of your life.
OTOH, go ahead and cheat all you want in your offline or single player games, but I don't think you have a clue how the courts would view this.
Free to play |= free. Epic spent well over $50M in development of Fortnite which started at least in 2011. Their monetization/game payback may well be ruined by cheaters. I take cheating just as seriously in online games as if I were on the ball field. The only difference is the opposing team won't come beat your ass up for cheating online, but it is still a big issue. Companies invest millions in online games, players invest their time and effort, and cheating little shits can ruin it and should be banned and sued. As a culture we should shun anyone who would cheat someone else, out of money, time or anything else, and that is what online cheaters do, and in doing it they damage the entire community.
Cheating in single player offline games is a totally different issue. If you want to cheat in your single player games, I am pretty sure no one gives a shit.
That's the thing here. The kid is in the wrong for spreading cheats, and he can be sued for damaging Epic's business (I believe Blizzard and others have successfully done this in the past). Epic is in the wrong for trying to use DMCA, which does not apply in this case. They should have gone to court and gotten a cease and desist order, at which point the kid (and YouTube would have had to pull down the video or be in contempt of court). The parents are in the wrong for defending their cheating little shit instead of grounding him for a year, forcing him to post an apology on YouTube and just calling Epic on the phone and letting them know it was handled.
As it stands Epic is liable for filing a false DMCA (not that there is really any recourse there), the kid is liable for damaging Epic's business, and the parents behavior largely explains the kids behavior.
Disney is trying to conflate Federal Copyright Law with unenforceable post purchase terms found inside the box (per US supreme court decision). Disney may not like it, but the digital code is part of what is purchased (and in fact propping up the price of Bluray discs to an extent) and is covered under the first sale principle. The sad fact is that this is really Congress fault over at least the last 14 years. The Democrat controlled congress (2006 to 2014?) did nothing to fix or clarify ownership rights or pass any kind of consumer rights bill for digital goods. Now that the Republicans control the Congress,I am pretty sure nothing will be done on that front.
I hope that Redbox also counter sues Disney for legal costs and punitive damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit that has already been decided by the supreme court... At least Redbox has the cash to bend Disney over. A lot of smaller companies would just give in because the legal battle will be expensive.
Arguing about the historical existence of the good Samaritan is essentially unknowable, you either take it on faith or don't.
Jesus was a real person who historically existed and tens of thousands of people were first hand witnesses to his supernatural acts, including coming back to life after being 100% dead. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or just plain ignoring historical fact. The key question is who he was. Was he who he said he was, was he demon possessed (as claimed by the Pharisees who also recognized his supernatural power), or was he an insane megalomaniac master illusionist with followers willing to propagate his deception, keep his secrets even after he figured out a way to die, cause a solar eclipse as he was dying, along with an earthquake (it was spectacle enough to convince the pagan Roman soldiers the he was actually the son of God) and simultaneously shredding the temple veil that was guarded at all times and then come back to life and then disappear in a cloud never to be seen by his closest friends again. Saul/Paul saw him on the road to Damascus and he appeared to a few in visions, but not to the 11 original Apostles who were all subsequently martyred for their beliefs... You would think that Judas would have spilled the beans when he betrayed Jesus, but he didn't.
The point of knowing the facts behind your belief grounds you in reality and gives you reasoned faith, which is far stronger and more durable than blind faith, which may get you to heaven, but which may be eroded by modern Atheists, Agnostics, mystics, etc. Blind faith is the reason that most people today think that science supports Atheism and religion is diametrically opposed to science (except that most scientists from the last 400 years were devout Christians).
Executing murderers who have been duly tried in a court of law by a jury of citizens and afforded every opportunity of due process and appeal is so far from what goes on in Russia or most of the rest of the world it is incomparable. The fact that you cannot grasp that simple fact makes you a microcepallic in the first degree and not worth further conversation...
Because clearly, incarceration numbers, regardless of what those people did, is the key metric to determine if a society is just or not. Never mind that North Korea is more likely to just execute people who disagree with the government... Talk about infantile logic.
...which only exist in first world countries who have the money to build to them and spend the money to enforce building codes...
Get a life... Seriously.
Critics offer two services, one they offer intelligent analysis of art and contribute to the public conversation around art, second, they help people decide what art to seek out.
And therein lies a key distinction. While movies can be art, they can also be entertainment media. This is one of the things that the video game industry has done a much better job of understanding. While both movies and video games can be art, most commercial productions are entertainment media first and foremost (which is why if they don't make a profit, they are considered failures. As far as I am concerned, watching any of the superhero movies and expecting art is doing it wrong. They are entertainment, just like the comic books they originated from are not Homers Odyssey. If you go in expecting art, you will have a bad time and rate the movie poorly, if you go in looking for entertainment you will have a good time.
Not to say there aren't still garbage movies with huge plot holes, terrible acting and shoddy writing, but the only way to fairly measure a work is by how it reaches it's target audience and if entertainment was it's goal, how effective it is in that goal.
First of all, I just have to say: First world problems on this one...
Second of all, people have to realize that critic reviews have, almost since the time of Shakespeare, been overly critical of media that is primarily audience targeted and for lack of a better term fun to experience. Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical. The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year are for the most part just looking for a good time. The best barometer I have found to figure out if I will enjoy a movie or not is the Amazon reviews score and reading the top positive and top negative. There is always the risk of a spoiler, but it is a far better barometer because normal people are giving their impressions. As traditional media and newspapers die, so too should the movie critic industry. It is an antiquated system that is neither useful nor necessary in the modern era.
First off, I generally agree with your post, with the exception of point one. I find it highly ironic that you later quote that very book (Mathew 5:7 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.)
Your assumption is predicated on the false narrative propagated by the God haters that belief in the Bible is blind faith. While is it certainly true that many people do blindly believe (and by the way, blindly believing that one should love every person as they love themselves, being faithful to their spouse, not stealing, lying or murdering are hardly things to be scorned) not all believers have blind faith, many have reasoned faith. There are many of us that have arrived at our faith through skeptical investigation. If you are a true skeptic, a true seeker of truth, you need to read "Case for Christ" https://www.amazon.com/Case-Ch...
If you chose to continue in your bigoted ignorance, just be aware that it is your personal choice and not a reflection on the reality of the matter.
Setting aside the AGW argument, it is entirely possible that everyone who ate GMO corn (or pick your GMO crop) will have liver failure in 20 years (or pick your unintended consequences, hell, we could accidentally kill all the bees with a insecticide producing plant or an accidental cross pollination of said plant in the wild). The near term side effects are fairly well know. The risks when released from the lab are un-knowable. The long term health effects are only poorly understood at best because to get real results, you need 20 years of testing. The truth of the matter is that we have been doing just fine with crop yields and commercial farming. I believe the stat is that if the US alone actively farmed all currently available farmland and we didn't pay farmers to plow crops under or not plant fields, we could not only feed ourselves, but every hungry person in the world (people that can't grow enough food on their own). GMO is a solution looking for a problem, and doing it in a dangerously unquantifiable way.
If strawberries are too expensive because of the labor to pick them, the solution is not to grow 5lb mutant strawberries, the solution is to invent methods of growing and harvesting that lend themselves to automation or sell growing kits for people to grow their own in a small green house or some other of a thousand options.
AFAIK it is not about the energy required to produce more acid, but the time constant required to produce said acid. Your stomach carries some acid at all times, but it takes ~2 hours to digest a meal in the stomach, more if it is a lot of meat or other hard to digest food. During that digestion, acid is continuously produced to break down the meal. If you ate some table sugar with that meal, it is not going to get broken down instantly, but rather it will gradually get broken down with the rest of the meal as acid is available.
As far as eating HFCS vs table sugar on an empty stomach, again it depends on the amount, but in general, they are about the same assuming there is enough pooled stomach acid to convert the table sugar immediately.
Well, science doesn't tell us anything. Science is simply a collection of facts and theories of various quality. We draw our own conclusions. Anyone who tells you that the climate debate is over is full of shit and not a scientist in any way. The AGW crowd wants to shut down debate because their theory isn't panning out and more people are blowing them off by the day.
FYI, the Paris climate accord is non binding, meaning that agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on... I am 99% certain that China will wipe their ass with it before they flush it into the ocean, along with the metric tons of toxic waste that they discharge. If China does anything it is because they have a true pollution problem (with serious pollution that will damage your lungs if you breathe it unprotected.)
Regarding CO2 being a problem, I would be right there with you that CO2 is a problem if we got up into the 850PPM range. Unfortunately for you, the current levels are around 400 (we think; that value is from a single observatory in Hawii that can see the daily CO2 levels vary 400 ppm IN 24 HOURS). It is scientific and historical fact that pre industrial revolution CO2 levels were measured as high as 550 ppm and the average of all the measurements (essentially what they do today) were about 400ppm... Oh look at that! The same CO2 level as we have today! This is shocking, almost like there is some other mechanism that is absorbing the CO2 released by fossil fuels, like for instance PLANTS... If you want to wrap your head around some actual science instead of the horse shit shoveld by the MSM, "climate scientists" and politicians, give this article a read:
http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... BTW, it is not valid to argument that this is just one guy and his data is invalid. That is not how science works. One guy with the truth can be right (and often is, see Heliocentric orbit, flat earth theory, etc.). Before we accepted many scientific theories as fact, the majority of scientists were wrong. Majority rule works for government, not truth. You must show that either his data (pulled from historical documents) is invalid (which you can't) or explain how the pre industrial scientists got it wrong (you can't because they didn't).
Beyond that, the entire thesis that CO2 is creating an increasing green house effect is pure bullshit foisted on the ignorant masses. CO2 absorbs 3 frequencies in the IR band. The earth's atmosphere is already completely opaque in those 3 bands, and probably always has been. Heat still escapes quite nicely (which is why on a clear night you will freeze your nuts off outside, all that radiant heat is just escaping between the bands that CO2 blocks. CO2 is not nor has it ever been a wide band IR absorber/reflector like water and glass. http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.htm...
I have 20 years experience in applied thermodynamics and heat transfer. I have researched the global warming topic thoroughly and at least at this point, from a global warming perspective, CO2 just isn't a problem. If it got close to 1000 ppm then it becomes a problem for human and animal health (plants would love it though). The only reason the AGW myth is still even around is because there is money to be made and "climate deniers" in academia are excommunicated (i.e. their work can't get published and they usually get fired). But yeah, in another 30 years the AGW crowd will be viewed the same as the anti vaxers an the Luddites, unless they take over the world and go 1984 on our asses.
Sorry, my implied assumption was that if global warming actually becomes a real problem for real people, not just some fevered nightmare of the eco nuts and a tool for the environmental lobby to generate more research grants and funds for their pet projects, we would first globally convert to solar, wind and nuclear power, chopping back 95% or more of our fossil fuel emissions (or switching to biofuel, etc.) since that is a cheaper first step. After we take that step, then if the CO2 levels aren't dropping fast enough, we pursue the plan that I described above.
You can't tank the global economy because a few thousand savages on some pacific island are going to have to move. All animals and humans must adapt to an ever changing environment, that is just reality. And by the way, the sea levels have been rising for thousands of years (just google underwater ruins if you were unaware). Cant blame that on fossil fuels.