And let's not forget the Christians and Jews. They've been committing acts of terrorism and mass murder for 2500 years.
And only stopped doing so when stripped of temporal power. I don't know if Islam can share in the Enlightenment or if they need their own version, but unless and until Islamic theocracy stops being an idea that carries actual weight within it this shit will keep going on.
Because we're talking about a group (ISIS) that employs huge fleets of vehicles, operates oil facilities and transportation systems, conducts international banking, and involves tens of thousands of people operating in the open.
ISIS operates in the open in areas it is occupying, just like the Nazis did for most of Europe during WWII. You're confusing resignation for approval.
This will not help their cause, it will just make it worse. They are yanking the tail of the tiger, they will find they are unprepared for the other end when it turns around.
Doesn't really matter if you think God is on your side and paradise awaits you. And the victims are all pagans - excuse me, "infidels" - so their suffering is less important than staking a claim to your heavenly harem. Heck, callousness towards the suffering of deserving victims is precisely how you prove your personal piety and holiness, which in turn is the only thing that matters, in the sociopathic fringe of all religions and ideologies.
Because ultimately this is not about religion per se. This is about the divine right of kings vs. the rule of law. ISIS represents the worldview where the only thing that matters is power, and laws are there only to demonstrate your subjugation to authority of the god-king who's pictured as a bigger version of an absolute earthly monarch, their content being irrelevant. In Western culture such insanity has been mostly neutered with the advance of democracy, but with Islam the tipping point has yet to come.
ISIS keeps yanking the tail of the tiger because the only world where something like ISIS has a future is one where beasts prowl the earth and eat whomever they will. ISIS is, after all, a beast itself.
Chewing bubblegum is illegal in Singapore. Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal
Yes, it does.
Certainly. However, I wrote (emphasis added):
Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal, at least in any sense of the word that should mean anything to anyone lucky enough to be born elsewhere.
You're confusing legality with morality.
No, SuperKendall is. The post I was answering to wrote:
If you can't understand why someone who does not want people who are by definition criminals entering the country in large numbers, then heaven help you - because reality certainly will not and history just laughs at you.
The most egregious yet prevalent error in modern news reporting, is to conflate someone being against ILLEGAL immigration with someone being against LEGAL immigration.
The problem is that we have huge numbers of people fleeing to EU for various reasons when it's already shaky from economic mismanagement and the resulting fascist resurgence. Paperwork seems irrelevant to the issue.
by definition criminals
Chewing bubblegum is illegal in Singapore. Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal, at least in any sense of the word that should mean anything to anyone lucky enough to be born elsewhere.
What happens when the government kills one of my relatives through penny-pinching on diagnostic tests or it decides that expensive cancer drug keeping you alive is just too expensive?
They lose your vote, I'd imagine. What happens when a private insurance company does the same? Nothing.
And since when does being a genius somehow give one a free pass on being "prickly"?
Since people decided they care more about what they can get than the price other people must pay. Linus gets away with being "prickly" to other people because you want the Linux kernel and fuck them.
One of the worst aspects of DNA databases is that they criminalize family members of people on the database.
Worst? It means the state holds your family hostage for your good behaviour, and can pretend it's not their fault if called for it. Perhaps that is an unintended side effect. Perhaps.
You can't blame the isolationist argument / strategy for failing when the so called refugee crisis is at its root a failure to follow that strategy.
That strategy can't be followed because both EU and the US have multi-ethnic populations, which will tear themselves apart if the meme "members of other groups are less valuable than members of your group" grows too strong. A modern nation-state exists in a world where anyone who cares to can get their hands on weapons and explosives (and increasingly bioweapons). That's not a situation sustainable without copious amounts of what could reasonably be called bleeding-heart propaganda. And that propaganda is unsustainable for a state that closes its borders against people fleeing a war.
So, in short, your strategy is unworkable because to make it politically possible would require corrupting the entire nation into the kind of monstrosity that tends to meet a swift end, like for example Nazi Germany did.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ, and people wonder where the "deniers" come from.
Some are paid shills, and some simply believe - or at least post - whatever helps them reinforce their self-image or score social points with or for their tribe. But for most I suspect the main motivator is the sunk cost fallacy: they simply don't want to admit being wrong, since at this point that would also mean admitting either dishonesty or stupidity or both.
When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".
Everything isn't a fundamental right. Very few things are, in fact. But one of them is the ability, not just a purely theoretical liberty, to live and partake in society on equal footing with everyone else - and today that requires the Internet.
That said, it might be clearer if fundamental rights and consequently required rights were separated to their own groups. In that case, "broadband Internet connection" would be in the "required rights" group.
When you create a super-layer of petty bureaucrats to run your lives, you can't be overly surprised when they create a bunch of petty and stupid rules.
The problem is, the only known alternative is "whoever has the biggest stick rules", which is even worse.
And because the stupid console games have "aim assist" because gamepads suck for first-person shooters, they keep thinking they're great players and that the mouse+keyboard combo suck.
And? If you're playing the fantasy of being a (Hollywood version of a) highly-trained elite soldier, it makes perfect sense that every shot hits where it's intended to. If you're playing "digital sports", then by all means, have a different button for every move; but I'd much rather be Batman in Arkham Whatever and just have the batfists land on the nearest enemy rather than on empty space because I missed. I'm neither an elite soldier nor a costumed crimefighter, after all.
The NSA, perhaps seeking to repair its reputation, has started talking about how it handles vulnerabilities in computer software. But in doing so, they've only confirmed their own questionable behavior.
Questionable perhaps, but the article also provides a pretty good answer by mentioning Stuxnet, which was used to halt Iran's enrichment of uranium. Surely being able to stop what's at best an oppressive theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons with no casualties or collateral damage has some value?
As you'll note above, I said it is worth investigating, but for the time being there's no evidence that it is harmful to humans.
They liquid form is definitely harmful, according to Formlab material safety sheets (bottom of page). A more interesting question is: what if you wash the object first? After all, the Form 1 printer solidifies the object inside a tank filled with the liquid form, so it'll inevitably end up carrying some for a while after manufacture. So does the harmful effect come from the solid object itself (that is, material dissolving from it) or from leftover liquid resin, which will wear off pretty soon (and could potentially be solved by re-lasering the finished object)?
Or IMHO, they tried to inject social and political awareness into the site and a large number of their users lost interest and left.
Slashdot was always about "stuff that matters", including politics and social issues. In fact those stories always got the greatest amounts of comments. It's just become fashionable to pretend you're a victim because you're no longer allowed to victimize others, and that causes a lot of noise, that's all.
Not to be too cynical, but I don't suspect the company behind this app is so much a "moral company" as it is a front for a law firm(s).
So... are you saying it's a bad thing that lawyers are targeting corrupt cops? Isn't that about as moral as a company can get? It's the Chris Hansen of companies.
Not sure if it works the same in the UK, but in the U.S. at least, that kind of data would be very valuable to lawyers wanting to sue the city/state for damages; and it would also be very valuable as a way to connect with potential clients.
"Have your encounter with the police overseen by a lawyer looking to sue them" seems like a pretty good deal for the user, even better than just having it recorded in fact.
Openly published research that can convince truly great scientists.
And a "truly great" scientist is one who agrees with your preconceptions, otherwise they're not "truly great", amirite?
The person who convinced the rest of the smart people that a couple of other smart people were onto something with this quantum stuff is definitely a smart man and he says that AGW is bullshit.
Who says so, and on what basis? Also, quantum physics is around a century old at this point, with all its pioneers in their graves for a long time now, so I also need to ask: when did they say this?
Only if one ignores that a key driver of that population growth was the poverty induced by Marxism.
I didn't know that the British and Japanese Empires were Marxist.
If instead, they had adopted a capitalism-based technocracy policy like the Japanese did back in 1950, when the communists took over, they could have population control, freedom, and a developed world population now.
Japan was an industrialized power well before WWII and China was a colony force-fed opium by those capitalists you so adore. That's why the Japanese Empire invaded China, not the other way around.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of ideology.
Solar plants like this are situated in desert conditions where bird populations are very low to start with. It is not valid to equate the impact of loosing some birds in a high bird population area with losing the same number of birds in a low bird population area.
It's also not valid to equate the number of bird fatalities in areas with high bird population area with the number of bird fatalities in ares with a low bird population.
Besides, since it's a power plant and in the middle of a desert, can't you just rig strobo lights or loudspeakers or something to drive away whatever birds wander near?
Putting electric heaters inside a pump would make the pump more complex and therefore more expensive and prone to breakdown.
Which is why you don't put the heater inside the pump. Instead, you use an ordinary pump and pipe, and simply run an off-the-shelf (cheap) heating wire alongside them. Then you wrap the whole thing in insulation.
See how the complexity of pumping molten salt around quickly rises?
No, but I have seen how factories that have to do so do it. It's not a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And only stopped doing so when stripped of temporal power. I don't know if Islam can share in the Enlightenment or if they need their own version, but unless and until Islamic theocracy stops being an idea that carries actual weight within it this shit will keep going on.
ISIS operates in the open in areas it is occupying, just like the Nazis did for most of Europe during WWII. You're confusing resignation for approval.
Doesn't really matter if you think God is on your side and paradise awaits you. And the victims are all pagans - excuse me, "infidels" - so their suffering is less important than staking a claim to your heavenly harem. Heck, callousness towards the suffering of deserving victims is precisely how you prove your personal piety and holiness, which in turn is the only thing that matters, in the sociopathic fringe of all religions and ideologies.
Because ultimately this is not about religion per se. This is about the divine right of kings vs. the rule of law. ISIS represents the worldview where the only thing that matters is power, and laws are there only to demonstrate your subjugation to authority of the god-king who's pictured as a bigger version of an absolute earthly monarch, their content being irrelevant. In Western culture such insanity has been mostly neutered with the advance of democracy, but with Islam the tipping point has yet to come.
ISIS keeps yanking the tail of the tiger because the only world where something like ISIS has a future is one where beasts prowl the earth and eat whomever they will. ISIS is, after all, a beast itself.
Certainly. However, I wrote (emphasis added):
No, SuperKendall is. The post I was answering to wrote:
The problem is that we have huge numbers of people fleeing to EU for various reasons when it's already shaky from economic mismanagement and the resulting fascist resurgence. Paperwork seems irrelevant to the issue.
Chewing bubblegum is illegal in Singapore. Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal, at least in any sense of the word that should mean anything to anyone lucky enough to be born elsewhere.
They lose your vote, I'd imagine. What happens when a private insurance company does the same? Nothing.
No, it means everyone having at least a certain baseline.
Nordic welfare states are the closest to "everyone having as much of everything as everyone else" this planet has seen in modern times, and seem to be doing just fine.
Since people decided they care more about what they can get than the price other people must pay. Linus gets away with being "prickly" to other people because you want the Linux kernel and fuck them.
Worst? It means the state holds your family hostage for your good behaviour, and can pretend it's not their fault if called for it. Perhaps that is an unintended side effect. Perhaps.
That strategy can't be followed because both EU and the US have multi-ethnic populations, which will tear themselves apart if the meme "members of other groups are less valuable than members of your group" grows too strong. A modern nation-state exists in a world where anyone who cares to can get their hands on weapons and explosives (and increasingly bioweapons). That's not a situation sustainable without copious amounts of what could reasonably be called bleeding-heart propaganda. And that propaganda is unsustainable for a state that closes its borders against people fleeing a war.
So, in short, your strategy is unworkable because to make it politically possible would require corrupting the entire nation into the kind of monstrosity that tends to meet a swift end, like for example Nazi Germany did.
Some are paid shills, and some simply believe - or at least post - whatever helps them reinforce their self-image or score social points with or for their tribe. But for most I suspect the main motivator is the sunk cost fallacy: they simply don't want to admit being wrong, since at this point that would also mean admitting either dishonesty or stupidity or both.
Everything isn't a fundamental right. Very few things are, in fact. But one of them is the ability, not just a purely theoretical liberty, to live and partake in society on equal footing with everyone else - and today that requires the Internet.
That said, it might be clearer if fundamental rights and consequently required rights were separated to their own groups. In that case, "broadband Internet connection" would be in the "required rights" group.
The problem is, the only known alternative is "whoever has the biggest stick rules", which is even worse.
And? If you're playing the fantasy of being a (Hollywood version of a) highly-trained elite soldier, it makes perfect sense that every shot hits where it's intended to. If you're playing "digital sports", then by all means, have a different button for every move; but I'd much rather be Batman in Arkham Whatever and just have the batfists land on the nearest enemy rather than on empty space because I missed. I'm neither an elite soldier nor a costumed crimefighter, after all.
Questionable perhaps, but the article also provides a pretty good answer by mentioning Stuxnet, which was used to halt Iran's enrichment of uranium. Surely being able to stop what's at best an oppressive theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons with no casualties or collateral damage has some value?
They liquid form is definitely harmful, according to Formlab material safety sheets (bottom of page). A more interesting question is: what if you wash the object first? After all, the Form 1 printer solidifies the object inside a tank filled with the liquid form, so it'll inevitably end up carrying some for a while after manufacture. So does the harmful effect come from the solid object itself (that is, material dissolving from it) or from leftover liquid resin, which will wear off pretty soon (and could potentially be solved by re-lasering the finished object)?
Why?
Slashdot was always about "stuff that matters", including politics and social issues. In fact those stories always got the greatest amounts of comments. It's just become fashionable to pretend you're a victim because you're no longer allowed to victimize others, and that causes a lot of noise, that's all.
So... are you saying it's a bad thing that lawyers are targeting corrupt cops? Isn't that about as moral as a company can get? It's the Chris Hansen of companies.
"Have your encounter with the police overseen by a lawyer looking to sue them" seems like a pretty good deal for the user, even better than just having it recorded in fact.
And a "truly great" scientist is one who agrees with your preconceptions, otherwise they're not "truly great", amirite?
Who says so, and on what basis? Also, quantum physics is around a century old at this point, with all its pioneers in their graves for a long time now, so I also need to ask: when did they say this?
Life also flourishes in Chernobyl, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be nice to live there.
I didn't know that the British and Japanese Empires were Marxist.
Japan was an industrialized power well before WWII and China was a colony force-fed opium by those capitalists you so adore. That's why the Japanese Empire invaded China, not the other way around.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of ideology.
It's also not valid to equate the number of bird fatalities in areas with high bird population area with the number of bird fatalities in ares with a low bird population.
Besides, since it's a power plant and in the middle of a desert, can't you just rig strobo lights or loudspeakers or something to drive away whatever birds wander near?
Which is why you don't put the heater inside the pump. Instead, you use an ordinary pump and pipe, and simply run an off-the-shelf (cheap) heating wire alongside them. Then you wrap the whole thing in insulation.
No, but I have seen how factories that have to do so do it. It's not a problem.
That requires either paid parental leave or ridiculous levels of savings.
The things a second job affords is increasingly including such luxuries as a roof over your head.