This is just starting some per-emptive whining because Trump has mentioned that he's going to make Apple manufacture in the USA.
I'm not sure how he thinks he can legally do that. A better solution would to to make Apple pay its taxes.
Right. And that could come in the form of a special tariff. I'm told the cost to make an iPhone is around $178. So add a $178 tariff to each one, and it makes the choice very easy for Apple. They can either start making them in the US, providing jobs to Americans that can then more easily afford an iPhone, or keep making them in China where pollution controls are very low and worker protections are even lower.
Sending a tweet is not "harassment" just because you disagree with it.
I never said I disagreed with it. I never said tweets are harassment. The thread went off into more general discussion on rights, and the application thereof.
Is it your stance that no tweet or series of tweets could ever constitute harassment? If not, what is your stance on harassment on Twitter?
My stance is that it is perfectly acceptable to harass Twitter, and I encourage everyone to do so!
Seriously, Twitter provides tools to block, silence or ban anyone that annoys you, but if you want to remain engaged with someone they can certainly do things that seem harassing. Politicians use Twitter mainly to broadcast things rather than try to engage because the verbal attacks are so bad. But can you, without using credible threats of violence, actually reach the level of criminal harassment just using tweets? No, I don't think so.
By 2040 they will stop being majority using official projections
By then, racism will have been put under completely new management, and white people will still be vilified as "privileged" and deserving of suppression, because of their history of keeping people of color down.
In my state, it is just as illegal to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation as it is based on their race, gender, national origin, etc.
Massive false equivalency. I certainly remember the "tea party march" - one of the most peaceful and non-disruptive protests I've ever seen or heard of in DC. And, no, I don't remember any burning going on at all. Maybe you have a citation?
Incredible that this is supposed to be "the same" as the riots we've seen lately, the smashed windows, vandalized public and private property, and even people getting beaten in the street. No, I don't remember Obama protestors doing anything like that.
Sorry, no, I don't remember anything like this, or like this, and certainly not like this or this!
Sending a tweet is not "harassment" just because you disagree with it. The right to free speech is useless if it only protects speech that you think is okay. Twitter can do anything they want with their platform, but I see people claiming "harassment" as nothing more than the fact that someone said something they don't like. Sorry, but that absolutely is in the Constitution.
BTW - The Constitution doesn't provide rights, it simply provides a written guarantee that the government cannot violate them. Free Speech is an inherent human right, Constitution or not. There are lots of rights that people have that are not mentioned in the Constitution at all, except in that 10th Amendment where it mentions "powers not delegated". If it's something you cannot find in the Constitution, that is implicitly a right of the people.
Surprised to see all the hate (or lukewarm meh-ness) for Stranger in a Strange Land on here. Maybe it's younger folks that never understood the social shifts and conflicts occurring at the time, I don't know. But the novel actually had a major affect on culture when it came out. I found it to be incredibly insightful.
Updating it for current times might be a good idea for the series. Someone from Mars with no contact with human culture comes to earth. Religion has taken a backseat and sex has exploded into polyamorous and fluid gender orgies, with more labels than species of frogs. And group politics has divided humans into pools vying for elevated victimhood status while countries with world-ending nuclear arsenals fight proxy wars over energy pipelines. Could be quite entertaining.
I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".
They may have made that claim, I don't know. But the real reason they changed the name was because the trademark for "SciFi" was rejected. SyFy is now a trademark.
Also when they cancelled Farscape
They cancelled a lot of decent stuff when the program director changed. It was a mistake to take off in that direction. But I think they have learned *some* lessons from it as evidenced by The Expanse, The Magicians, and even Killjoys is a decent effort. I've even been surprised by 12 Monkeys. I couldn't imagine trying to do that story line as a series, but they pulled it off as a solidly entertaining show, at least for the first two seasons.
It's being reported this morning that over 3 million illegals voted for Clinton this election and she actually lost the popular vote by 1.7 million. Liberal heads are exploding gloriously.
Well I, for one, certainly don't want to go to war with them, which is clearly what Hillary was poised to do. Probably just go get at Snowden if nothing else. Go watch the 2nd debate again. All those times she pivoted to talking about what to do about Russia or how evil Putin is were mostly responses to questions that were completely unrelated to foreign policy.
You posted 2 articles about the same college campus protest (2 arrests, no injuries or vandalism), and one about someone's protest display in their yard.
Meanwhile, the protests last night featured hundreds of arrests, several injuries, tons of property damage and vandalism of public and private property in many cities all over the country.
It's pretty clear which side is the one that turns violent when they don't get their way. The Clinton campaign was so full of hyperbolic fear about a Trump election that they now have people frightened into thinking that inflammatory rhetoric was actually true.
On the other hand, Hillary has a proven track record of involving the USA in wars.
Not only that, she is constantly hating on Russia and Putin and blaming them for everything. She hates Snowden and wants to get at him. She wants to shoot down Russian planes over Syria. I really think part of her campaign for President involves also drumming up support for a war with Russia.
It's not the fact that the climate is changing that people are worried about. It's the fact that it's changing exponentially faster than it ever has in earth's known history.
This is the actual part of AGW theory that only propagandists and alarmists promote. It's demonstrably untrue. There is also plenty of unknowns in the amount of contribution to climate change is man-made vs. natural, and how much humanity's efforts can affect those changes. The types of things people throw out as "facts" often are not. This is an example, and so is the "95% of climate scientists agree", because everyone always leaves out "of those climate scientists that provided an opinion". They also leave out the fact that there is nothing like a consensus on the amount of contribution is man-made. And that's only referring to CO2, while it's clear that deforestation (also mostly man-made) is also a major contributor.
This is incorrect by your use of "in the blip of man's existence". Even your "credible" scientists agree it is the hottest humans or human-like ancestors have ever experienced, by some way; this is going back tens of thousands of years.
That's a foregone conclusion, whether the most dire predictions of AGW come true or not. Civilization as we know it today will not exist. Fossil fuel is a finite resource, so eventually we won't have gas stations, ICI cars, cheap crap shipping from China on giant diesel ships and trucked to your local Walmart in diesel trucks. People won't be flying coast to coast. DiCaprio (or his progenitors) won't be jetting around the world on concern tours.
There's no technology now or on the horizon to replace any of those things.
The path we're on now - slow climate change by ending the use of fossil fuels - leaves us with a rather bleak future where most of the world population is subservient to a wealth cadre of global elites, preserving the dense energy-rich resources for use by themselves alone. The only realistic hopeful vision of the future for humanity is creating and growing a vibrant commercial space program. The resources in our solar system are vast and rich. But I fear we will never be able to exploit them due to the selfishness of a few.
Look at the raising costs for tropical storms and other freak events alone.
I still have not seen any convincing evidence that climate change is making tropical storms worse or more frequent, or causing any additional "freak events". "Because Bill Nye said so" is not convincing evidence. The "rising costs" of damage is completely explained by the rising cost of development in areas affected by tropical storms.
Can the effects be reasonably limited or reversed?
Not well understood at all. Estimates are that Kyoto and the Paris Accords fully implemented will have pretty minimal impact on climate (if all the models are perfect, which they are not). An investment of $13.5 trillion, plus pressures to raise the cost of carbon energy, preventing 3rd world countries from growth that involves any carbon-based energy, are all pretty aggressive measures.
it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now
I seem to remember the republican, close-minded conservatives throwing punches at Trump rallies attacking people who are just simply different and think differently than they do.
Actually, those were operatives paid by Democrat Super PACs to attend Trump rallies for the express purpose of inciting violence. Nobody was attacked because they were different.
I can provide 1000s of examples of violence from the conservative side in just a few minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just starting some per-emptive whining because Trump has mentioned that he's going to make Apple manufacture in the USA.
I'm not sure how he thinks he can legally do that. A better solution would to to make Apple pay its taxes.
Right. And that could come in the form of a special tariff. I'm told the cost to make an iPhone is around $178. So add a $178 tariff to each one, and it makes the choice very easy for Apple. They can either start making them in the US, providing jobs to Americans that can then more easily afford an iPhone, or keep making them in China where pollution controls are very low and worker protections are even lower.
Sending a tweet is not "harassment" just because you disagree with it.
I never said I disagreed with it. I never said tweets are harassment. The thread went off into more general discussion on rights, and the application thereof. Is it your stance that no tweet or series of tweets could ever constitute harassment? If not, what is your stance on harassment on Twitter?
My stance is that it is perfectly acceptable to harass Twitter, and I encourage everyone to do so!
Seriously, Twitter provides tools to block, silence or ban anyone that annoys you, but if you want to remain engaged with someone they can certainly do things that seem harassing. Politicians use Twitter mainly to broadcast things rather than try to engage because the verbal attacks are so bad. But can you, without using credible threats of violence, actually reach the level of criminal harassment just using tweets? No, I don't think so.
By 2040 they will stop being majority using official projections
By then, racism will have been put under completely new management, and white people will still be vilified as "privileged" and deserving of suppression, because of their history of keeping people of color down.
In my state, it is just as illegal to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation as it is based on their race, gender, national origin, etc.
Massive false equivalency. I certainly remember the "tea party march" - one of the most peaceful and non-disruptive protests I've ever seen or heard of in DC. And, no, I don't remember any burning going on at all. Maybe you have a citation?
Incredible that this is supposed to be "the same" as the riots we've seen lately, the smashed windows, vandalized public and private property, and even people getting beaten in the street. No, I don't remember Obama protestors doing anything like that.
Sorry, no, I don't remember anything like this, or like this, and certainly not like this or this!
The freedom to harass isn't in the Constitution.
Sending a tweet is not "harassment" just because you disagree with it. The right to free speech is useless if it only protects speech that you think is okay. Twitter can do anything they want with their platform, but I see people claiming "harassment" as nothing more than the fact that someone said something they don't like. Sorry, but that absolutely is in the Constitution.
BTW - The Constitution doesn't provide rights, it simply provides a written guarantee that the government cannot violate them. Free Speech is an inherent human right, Constitution or not. There are lots of rights that people have that are not mentioned in the Constitution at all, except in that 10th Amendment where it mentions "powers not delegated". If it's something you cannot find in the Constitution, that is implicitly a right of the people.
Surprised to see all the hate (or lukewarm meh-ness) for Stranger in a Strange Land on here. Maybe it's younger folks that never understood the social shifts and conflicts occurring at the time, I don't know. But the novel actually had a major affect on culture when it came out. I found it to be incredibly insightful.
Updating it for current times might be a good idea for the series. Someone from Mars with no contact with human culture comes to earth. Religion has taken a backseat and sex has exploded into polyamorous and fluid gender orgies, with more labels than species of frogs. And group politics has divided humans into pools vying for elevated victimhood status while countries with world-ending nuclear arsenals fight proxy wars over energy pipelines. Could be quite entertaining.
I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".
They may have made that claim, I don't know. But the real reason they changed the name was because the trademark for "SciFi" was rejected. SyFy is now a trademark.
Also when they cancelled Farscape
They cancelled a lot of decent stuff when the program director changed. It was a mistake to take off in that direction. But I think they have learned *some* lessons from it as evidenced by The Expanse, The Magicians, and even Killjoys is a decent effort. I've even been surprised by 12 Monkeys. I couldn't imagine trying to do that story line as a series, but they pulled it off as a solidly entertaining show, at least for the first two seasons.
It's being reported this morning that over 3 million illegals voted for Clinton this election and she actually lost the popular vote by 1.7 million. Liberal heads are exploding gloriously.
Are you sure that's not fake news?
Really? We're scared of Russia now?
Well I, for one, certainly don't want to go to war with them, which is clearly what Hillary was poised to do. Probably just go get at Snowden if nothing else. Go watch the 2nd debate again. All those times she pivoted to talking about what to do about Russia or how evil Putin is were mostly responses to questions that were completely unrelated to foreign policy.
Homophobic? Isn't Peter Theil gay?
Reminds me of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a toy they wanted in Walmart.
I was going to say Hillary Clinton , but hey we're both right.
FTFY
You posted 2 articles about the same college campus protest (2 arrests, no injuries or vandalism), and one about someone's protest display in their yard.
Meanwhile, the protests last night featured hundreds of arrests, several injuries, tons of property damage and vandalism of public and private property in many cities all over the country.
It's pretty clear which side is the one that turns violent when they don't get their way. The Clinton campaign was so full of hyperbolic fear about a Trump election that they now have people frightened into thinking that inflammatory rhetoric was actually true.
If you think that there is an entire branch of science that is advocating such a thing, you should think again.
On the other hand, Hillary has a proven track record of involving the USA in wars.
Not only that, she is constantly hating on Russia and Putin and blaming them for everything. She hates Snowden and wants to get at him. She wants to shoot down Russian planes over Syria. I really think part of her campaign for President involves also drumming up support for a war with Russia.
It's not the fact that the climate is changing that people are worried about. It's the fact that it's changing exponentially faster than it ever has in earth's known history.
This is the actual part of AGW theory that only propagandists and alarmists promote. It's demonstrably untrue. There is also plenty of unknowns in the amount of contribution to climate change is man-made vs. natural, and how much humanity's efforts can affect those changes. The types of things people throw out as "facts" often are not. This is an example, and so is the "95% of climate scientists agree", because everyone always leaves out "of those climate scientists that provided an opinion". They also leave out the fact that there is nothing like a consensus on the amount of contribution is man-made. And that's only referring to CO2, while it's clear that deforestation (also mostly man-made) is also a major contributor.
being labeled a "denier" is probably the least of your problems.
You really should be asking yourself at this point if you are part of the problem or part of the solution...
This is incorrect by your use of "in the blip of man's existence". Even your "credible" scientists agree it is the hottest humans or human-like ancestors have ever experienced, by some way; this is going back tens of thousands of years.
False. Study, study, study.
But civilisation as we know it won't survive.
That's a foregone conclusion, whether the most dire predictions of AGW come true or not. Civilization as we know it today will not exist. Fossil fuel is a finite resource, so eventually we won't have gas stations, ICI cars, cheap crap shipping from China on giant diesel ships and trucked to your local Walmart in diesel trucks. People won't be flying coast to coast. DiCaprio (or his progenitors) won't be jetting around the world on concern tours.
There's no technology now or on the horizon to replace any of those things.
The path we're on now - slow climate change by ending the use of fossil fuels - leaves us with a rather bleak future where most of the world population is subservient to a wealth cadre of global elites, preserving the dense energy-rich resources for use by themselves alone. The only realistic hopeful vision of the future for humanity is creating and growing a vibrant commercial space program. The resources in our solar system are vast and rich. But I fear we will never be able to exploit them due to the selfishness of a few.
You do know that Al Gore and DiCaprio aren't scientists, right?
Neither is Bill Nye.
Behavior modification is necessary
... for everyone that is not a member of the globalist elite club, who will be enforcing the desired behavior of the serfs.
Look at the raising costs for tropical storms and other freak events alone.
I still have not seen any convincing evidence that climate change is making tropical storms worse or more frequent, or causing any additional "freak events". "Because Bill Nye said so" is not convincing evidence. The "rising costs" of damage is completely explained by the rising cost of development in areas affected by tropical storms.
Quick! Mod parent Troll (like all the others) before someone sees a dissenting opinion!
Can the effects be reasonably limited or reversed?
Not well understood at all. Estimates are that Kyoto and the Paris Accords fully implemented will have pretty minimal impact on climate (if all the models are perfect, which they are not). An investment of $13.5 trillion, plus pressures to raise the cost of carbon energy, preventing 3rd world countries from growth that involves any carbon-based energy, are all pretty aggressive measures.
it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now
That doesn't follow.
I seem to remember the republican, close-minded conservatives throwing punches at Trump rallies attacking people who are just simply different and think differently than they do.
Actually, those were operatives paid by Democrat Super PACs to attend Trump rallies for the express purpose of inciting violence. Nobody was attacked because they were different.
I can provide 1000s of examples of violence from the conservative side in just a few minutes.
And yet failed to provide any.
Can you do the same of the liberals?
There's actually a subreddit for that.