But that was enough reason to get congress to open up the purse strings.
Every president this millennium has said that they want to go to Mars, but not one of them has been able to get the funds available to do this. Talk without money will go absolutely nowhere.
Please don't try to tell me that Pew is "right wing."
However, this IS a thorny issue. "Persecution" has many levels, from simple name-calling all the way to death. So a person who is shunned for their religion is not the same as a person killed for their religion. As I mentioned in the grandparent post, Islam is most likely to kill you for religious violations. Unfortunately, hard, unbiased numbers for actual death an imprisonment for religious reasons is hard to find.
But from the pew article that I linked above, it says:
Among the 25 most populous countries in the world, Egypt, Russia, India, Indonesia and Turkey had the highest overall levels of religious restrictions.
I should like to point out that of these five worst countries, three are Islamic. None have a Christian majority.
Another example of religious "tolerance" is where the movie "Wonder Woman" was banned in Lebanon -- simply because the lead actress is Israeli... https://www.aljazeera.com/news...
But, in all fairness to Islam, some countries are becoming more tolerant. Saudi Arabia just started allowing women to vote in the past few years. Let's all welcome Saudi Arabia to the 20th century. https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
And in the United States, police can execute you without a trial just for being black.
And am I supposed to just believe some stranger on the Intertubes? Sorry, but I need a bit more proof.
But, to actually address your claim, false. We have LAWS. The "execution" of an unarmed person is completely illegal if they are not attacking anybody. While it is true that some people may have gotten away with this, the increasing use of cameras worn by police officers should be reducing this type of activity. If a truly non-threatening person is shot (of any color) then the citizens have a right to demand criminal prosecution against the officer in question.
Probably because Muslims are more often the victim than the perpetrator. There's a lot of countries in Africa too where xians are performing ethnic cleansing on Muslim populations.
You might want to research. The west practices tolerance, but in areas that are majority Muslim, not so much.
Here, you can find a list of countries that allow the DEATH PENALTY for apostasy and blasphemy. You will never guess the dominant religion for most of them... http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Well, "blasphemy" laws can be applied to pretty much anybody that you disagree with. In Pakistan, a Christian woman was pretty much railroaded and sentenced to death, despite the lack of any actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
One telling quote (from the article):
In December 2010, a month after Noreen's conviction, a Muslim cleric announced a 500,000 Pakistani rupee award (the equivalent of $10,000)[7] to anyone who would kill her. One survey reported that around 10 million Pakistanis had said that they would be willing to personally kill her out of either religious conviction or for the reward.
Also, even if you DON'T actually commit blasphemy, here is a list of 13 countries where begin an Atheist can get you killed. You get three guesses about the dominant religion for 12 of these countries (the 13th country, Nigeria, is evenly divided between Christian and Islam). Yes, being the wrong religion (or lack thereof) is LEGAL grounds for execution. https://www.theatlantic.com/in...
But as to who is the VICTIM of persecution, I will leave this article (cliff notes: Christians). The source data appears to be Pew (who is generally regarded as unbiased), but you can analyze the data for skew yourself.
Actually, that is what universities are for: going down rabbit holes.
I am sure that there are tons of thesis papers just waiting to be written on this subject. Coming up with new methods seems like a great way to get a PhD, even if it is not significantly better -- it just has to be different.
people with criminal records/people who have been deported
Given that it is not that hard to enter this country and completely bypass the checkpoints, that is not really much of an argument. Honest people come in via the real crossing points. Criminals enter as far away from them as possible. This is easily proven by the number of people that have been deported three or more times, but still wind up here.
So he will judge based on his biases. If he agrees with the position, positive karma. Otherwise, negative. Just like pretty much every other news outlet.
Well, supply and demand is a great force. If prices rise, there is incentive to create more supply..
This works great for cars, computers, clothes, and silverware.
The problem is that you can't import more land from China, like you can with other goods. If every acre of land is already taken in town, then you have to build out. But to the east of Seattle is water, so that way is blocked off. How many miles out of town do you have to travel to get affordable housing, and can you handle the commute in less than three hours?
BOTH sides agree that people shooting children is a bad thing. However, both sides completely differ in their approach on how to prevent this.
One side thinks that if we pass enough gun laws, a person willing to break murder laws will decide to obey gun laws. They also assume that murderers can't use other weapons. America's two largest attacks did not use guns. Nice, France -- 86 people killed with a truck, and that was more deadly than our largest mass shooting.
The other side accepts that guns exist, but that the problem is with the criminal. They want the victims to have a chance against an armed enemy by being armed themselves.
But we have constitutional amendments protecting both speech and arms. However, if it is perfectly OK to infringe on one, then certainly it must be OK to infringe on the other, right?
Seems like a nice way to legislate backdoors into all devices with the added bonus of an increased attack surface
Have you ever heard of public key cryptography? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If the manufacturer can keep their private key secret, then only they could push an update. Of course this requires hardware beefy enough to handle either ECC or RSA calculations in a reasonable amount of time... Yeah, this also assumes that they do the cryptography properly (which can be harder than it sounds).
Anyways, that takes care of attack surfaces. It does nothing for back doors, however. But I would imagine that if a back door caused a death, one law suit would change the mind of the manufacturer real quick.
Businesses absolutely need to make a profit -- overall and long term.
However, this does NOT mean that they need to profit off of everything they do. They could use profits from one product to help subsidize non-profit operations elsewhere, and gain good will in the process.
The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia".
The 2nd Amendment mentions the militia as a REASON for having the right (and not necessarily the only reason). But note that it says that the right belongs to "the PEOPLE" and not "the MILITIA."
But, let's assume that you are right. So, you are encouraging anybody who wants to own guns to join a local organized militia. Is that what your argument is? Do you really WANT people joining militias? Or would the thought of your neighbors being a part of a militia terrify you?
Yet nobody will fight it. We have find a way to make censorship impossible.
You use the term "1st amendment" like it means something.
We also have a 2nd amendment, but that only means what a judge wants it to mean, and they can happily ignore what it clearly says. Yeah, ban guns with certain cosmetic features. That does not qualify as "infringing."
The 4th amendment clearly means that you can't have property arbitrarily taken, but we have "civil forfeiture." Pulled over with a bunch of cash? That belongs to the police now.
Oh, while we are violating the 4th amendment, why not ban certain people from owning guns, without being charged with any crime, nor with oversight of a judge or jury.
So, yeah, if one amendment can fall, then the precedent is set for them all to fall. Judges and politicians are both complicit in this.
You have to balance this against what happens if gun permits are easier to get, because that's likely to cost lives also.
You are making a false assumption -- that a criminal will not be able to obtain a gun illegally.
Broadly speaking, people can be put into two categories: those who intend to break the law and those who don't.
People who DON'T intend to break the law are no threat to anybody, no matter what type of gun they own.
People who DO intend to break the law don't mind getting a gun illegally. Keep in mind that we ALREADY HAVE background checks to buy guns. What MORE should be done besides that? If a person has BROKEN NO LAW and has not been mentally institutionalized, what else do you require before you treat them as an honest citizen?
Has there been research into what people in the middle of shootings actually want? I doubt that most people wish they, themselves, have guns.
Let me ask YOU a question... Imagine that you are in a classroom at a local community college. You hear gun shots. You have two choices -- which one would you prefer?
1) Nobody is armed. You lock the door and pray that the police (the racist, trigger-happy police that BLM hates) show up in time.
2) You lock the door. One guy pulls out a pistol and says that he can shoot any criminal that breaks down the door.
Well, she would have stood a much BETTER chance of living if she had been armed. Men are generally physically stronger, and experience with sports often makes them more agile than women. So with a sheer physical confrontation, men usually have a significant advantage. With a gun, she would have at least had a fighting chance.
After a shooting, the reaction is to always want to take away guns. DURING a shooting, people usually just wish that they had a gun of their own.
DisplayLink is not exactly an "older hardware." They are still actively marketed, chips are updated as new USB standards come out, and drivers are updated regularly. The latest driver release is from last month (Windows, Mac, Android, and Ubuntu). Chrome support is baked into the OS so no drivers needed.
So, yeah, it isn't like this is old-fashioned hardware that isn't being updated any more.
So wait. We are not allowed to have an AR-15 because it is a "weapon of war" but they would be ineffective in a war. Hmmm. Which is it. It can't be both.
Statistically speaking, this woman had a RESTRAINING ORDER against somebody who had threatened her, which kind of skews the numbers. Shouldn't it have been up to her to make that choice about the relative risks, instead of having the government make her safe while allowing her murder?
But you ignored the other examples. Only a small percentage of people every year are the subject of a search warrant or probable cause. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with such things, right?
The whole "if it saves even one life" can be used to justify a LOT of things...
Gun control has even CAUSED deaths. One case that I know of in New Jersey where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still in process when she was killed. Gun control killed her. If she did not have to get a permit, then it could have saved her life. Why is her REAL life not as important as a hypothetical "even one life?"
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the "convenient" rights or the rights of "most" people. It is there to protect ALL rights for EVERYBODY. The 1st amendment even allows horrid groups like the KKK to speak. While we COULD infringe in their rights, the unpopular speech is the one that needs the most protecting.
Would you be OK with using public money to see how many lives have been lost due to the 4th amendment? Requiring a warrant slows down the police, and has certainly resulted in many criminals not being caught. So clearly we need public money to go towards studying how many lives would be saved if only we took away basic constitutional freedoms.
Now, as to that pesky 1st Amendment, if the "Communist Manifesto" had never been allowed to be published, how many millions of lives would be saved?
Slashdot Mirror
But that was enough reason to get congress to open up the purse strings.
Every president this millennium has said that they want to go to Mars, but not one of them has been able to get the funds available to do this. Talk without money will go absolutely nowhere.
I must admit that I know nothing about "The Express." However, I did a little "Google" magic and found this...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Please don't try to tell me that Pew is "right wing."
However, this IS a thorny issue. "Persecution" has many levels, from simple name-calling all the way to death. So a person who is shunned for their religion is not the same as a person killed for their religion. As I mentioned in the grandparent post, Islam is most likely to kill you for religious violations. Unfortunately, hard, unbiased numbers for actual death an imprisonment for religious reasons is hard to find.
But from the pew article that I linked above, it says:
I should like to point out that of these five worst countries, three are Islamic. None have a Christian majority.
Another example of religious "tolerance" is where the movie "Wonder Woman" was banned in Lebanon -- simply because the lead actress is Israeli... https://www.aljazeera.com/news...
But, in all fairness to Islam, some countries are becoming more tolerant. Saudi Arabia just started allowing women to vote in the past few years. Let's all welcome Saudi Arabia to the 20th century. https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
And am I supposed to just believe some stranger on the Intertubes? Sorry, but I need a bit more proof.
But, to actually address your claim, false. We have LAWS. The "execution" of an unarmed person is completely illegal if they are not attacking anybody. While it is true that some people may have gotten away with this, the increasing use of cameras worn by police officers should be reducing this type of activity. If a truly non-threatening person is shot (of any color) then the citizens have a right to demand criminal prosecution against the officer in question.
You might want to research. The west practices tolerance, but in areas that are majority Muslim, not so much.
Here, you can find a list of countries that allow the DEATH PENALTY for apostasy and blasphemy. You will never guess the dominant religion for most of them... http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Well, "blasphemy" laws can be applied to pretty much anybody that you disagree with. In Pakistan, a Christian woman was pretty much railroaded and sentenced to death, despite the lack of any actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
One telling quote (from the article):
Also, even if you DON'T actually commit blasphemy, here is a list of 13 countries where begin an Atheist can get you killed. You get three guesses about the dominant religion for 12 of these countries (the 13th country, Nigeria, is evenly divided between Christian and Islam). Yes, being the wrong religion (or lack thereof) is LEGAL grounds for execution. https://www.theatlantic.com/in...
Another page with a similar map: https://www.indy100.com/articl...
But as to who is the VICTIM of persecution, I will leave this article (cliff notes: Christians). The source data appears to be Pew (who is generally regarded as unbiased), but you can analyze the data for skew yourself.
https://www.express.co.uk/news...
I, for one, appreciate having an included cable. The cables have a finite life, so getting a spare cable is never a bad thing.
The wall adapter, on the other hand, I have way too many of.
But is SHOULD go away because the Russians are on the "right" side now...
Facebook just busted the Russians for supporting anti-Trump demonstrations.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31...
Also, during the 2016 election, the Russians backed Bernie...
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
This should be enough to prove the Russia is one of the "good guys" and should be left alone to meddle -- as long as they are on the right side.
Yup. The local restaurants can hire the cooks that were laid off from the company cafeterias. That should help unemployment a lot.
Actually, that is what universities are for: going down rabbit holes.
I am sure that there are tons of thesis papers just waiting to be written on this subject. Coming up with new methods seems like a great way to get a PhD, even if it is not significantly better -- it just has to be different.
Given that it is not that hard to enter this country and completely bypass the checkpoints, that is not really much of an argument. Honest people come in via the real crossing points. Criminals enter as far away from them as possible. This is easily proven by the number of people that have been deported three or more times, but still wind up here.
So he will judge based on his biases. If he agrees with the position, positive karma. Otherwise, negative. Just like pretty much every other news outlet.
Yeah, just like this, but replace "standards" with "news." https://xkcd.com/927/
Well, supply and demand is a great force. If prices rise, there is incentive to create more supply..
This works great for cars, computers, clothes, and silverware.
The problem is that you can't import more land from China, like you can with other goods. If every acre of land is already taken in town, then you have to build out. But to the east of Seattle is water, so that way is blocked off. How many miles out of town do you have to travel to get affordable housing, and can you handle the commute in less than three hours?
Wow. Completely wrong.
BOTH sides agree that people shooting children is a bad thing. However, both sides completely differ in their approach on how to prevent this.
One side thinks that if we pass enough gun laws, a person willing to break murder laws will decide to obey gun laws. They also assume that murderers can't use other weapons. America's two largest attacks did not use guns. Nice, France -- 86 people killed with a truck, and that was more deadly than our largest mass shooting.
The other side accepts that guns exist, but that the problem is with the criminal. They want the victims to have a chance against an armed enemy by being armed themselves.
But we have constitutional amendments protecting both speech and arms. However, if it is perfectly OK to infringe on one, then certainly it must be OK to infringe on the other, right?
Have you ever heard of public key cryptography? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If the manufacturer can keep their private key secret, then only they could push an update. Of course this requires hardware beefy enough to handle either ECC or RSA calculations in a reasonable amount of time... Yeah, this also assumes that they do the cryptography properly (which can be harder than it sounds).
Anyways, that takes care of attack surfaces. It does nothing for back doors, however. But I would imagine that if a back door caused a death, one law suit would change the mind of the manufacturer real quick.
So researchers should develop new drugs in their free time? Yeah, that will work.
And before you say "government," let me remind you that nobody wants the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV in their health care.
Businesses absolutely need to make a profit -- overall and long term.
However, this does NOT mean that they need to profit off of everything they do. They could use profits from one product to help subsidize non-profit operations elsewhere, and gain good will in the process.
The 2nd Amendment mentions the militia as a REASON for having the right (and not necessarily the only reason). But note that it says that the right belongs to "the PEOPLE" and not "the MILITIA."
But, let's assume that you are right. So, you are encouraging anybody who wants to own guns to join a local organized militia. Is that what your argument is? Do you really WANT people joining militias? Or would the thought of your neighbors being a part of a militia terrify you?
So, this isn't good enough for you? They have to settle on your preferred flavor of distro?
If only there was a way to wipe a hard drive and install a different OS on it. I wonder why this hasn't been done before.
You use the term "1st amendment" like it means something.
We also have a 2nd amendment, but that only means what a judge wants it to mean, and they can happily ignore what it clearly says. Yeah, ban guns with certain cosmetic features. That does not qualify as "infringing."
The 4th amendment clearly means that you can't have property arbitrarily taken, but we have "civil forfeiture." Pulled over with a bunch of cash? That belongs to the police now.
Oh, while we are violating the 4th amendment, why not ban certain people from owning guns, without being charged with any crime, nor with oversight of a judge or jury.
So, yeah, if one amendment can fall, then the precedent is set for them all to fall. Judges and politicians are both complicit in this.
You are making a false assumption -- that a criminal will not be able to obtain a gun illegally.
Broadly speaking, people can be put into two categories: those who intend to break the law and those who don't.
People who DON'T intend to break the law are no threat to anybody, no matter what type of gun they own.
People who DO intend to break the law don't mind getting a gun illegally. Keep in mind that we ALREADY HAVE background checks to buy guns. What MORE should be done besides that? If a person has BROKEN NO LAW and has not been mentally institutionalized, what else do you require before you treat them as an honest citizen?
Let me ask YOU a question... Imagine that you are in a classroom at a local community college. You hear gun shots. You have two choices -- which one would you prefer?
1) Nobody is armed. You lock the door and pray that the police (the racist, trigger-happy police that BLM hates) show up in time.
2) You lock the door. One guy pulls out a pistol and says that he can shoot any criminal that breaks down the door.
I know which one I would prefer...
Well, she would have stood a much BETTER chance of living if she had been armed. Men are generally physically stronger, and experience with sports often makes them more agile than women. So with a sheer physical confrontation, men usually have a significant advantage. With a gun, she would have at least had a fighting chance.
After a shooting, the reaction is to always want to take away guns. DURING a shooting, people usually just wish that they had a gun of their own.
DisplayLink is not exactly an "older hardware." They are still actively marketed, chips are updated as new USB standards come out, and drivers are updated regularly. The latest driver release is from last month (Windows, Mac, Android, and Ubuntu). Chrome support is baked into the OS so no drivers needed.
So, yeah, it isn't like this is old-fashioned hardware that isn't being updated any more.
So wait. We are not allowed to have an AR-15 because it is a "weapon of war" but they would be ineffective in a war. Hmmm. Which is it. It can't be both.
Statistically speaking, this woman had a RESTRAINING ORDER against somebody who had threatened her, which kind of skews the numbers. Shouldn't it have been up to her to make that choice about the relative risks, instead of having the government make her safe while allowing her murder?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...
But you ignored the other examples. Only a small percentage of people every year are the subject of a search warrant or probable cause. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with such things, right?
The whole "if it saves even one life" can be used to justify a LOT of things...
Gun control has even CAUSED deaths. One case that I know of in New Jersey where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still in process when she was killed. Gun control killed her. If she did not have to get a permit, then it could have saved her life. Why is her REAL life not as important as a hypothetical "even one life?"
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the "convenient" rights or the rights of "most" people. It is there to protect ALL rights for EVERYBODY. The 1st amendment even allows horrid groups like the KKK to speak. While we COULD infringe in their rights, the unpopular speech is the one that needs the most protecting.
Would you be OK with using public money to see how many lives have been lost due to the 4th amendment? Requiring a warrant slows down the police, and has certainly resulted in many criminals not being caught. So clearly we need public money to go towards studying how many lives would be saved if only we took away basic constitutional freedoms.
Now, as to that pesky 1st Amendment, if the "Communist Manifesto" had never been allowed to be published, how many millions of lives would be saved?