From a logical sense I would agree if, and only if, the service provider claimed Minimum 10Mbps Max 100Mbps and no matter what you could not be reduced below the minimum (regardless of traffic type). That's how it's advertised, and you can't find anything in the fine print saying "We'll screw with your traffic if it's something we don't like or competes with our other products". In other words, currently we have completely false advertising.
Anyone working in IT (especially in the ISP territory) understands that thin provisioning is how money gets made. Thin provisioning has the obvious side effect of throttling connections as individual points go up in usage.
This is absolutely not the same as throttling specific traffic because it competes with something else you want to sell. Comcast's competing movie service is why they are throttling, not because of usage.
It should not take "New" laws like Net Neutrality to fix this, it should be a a Sherman Act violation. Comcast (just like AT&T in the 70s) should be broken up to increase competition and remove the monopoly powers that are currently being abused illegally.
No, the point is that virtually none of these people are well intentioned. This is an unfortunate nature of politics, we have known about this nature for at least 2,600 years when our earliest writings of political thoughts started. I'm guessing, that like most Americans you have never been exposed to Plato and "The Republic". Ask why you have been dissuaded from reading this book, and why it's not part of your studies. Read the book, cover to cover and see what it says.
I will be the first to admit that i don't know all the ramifications of domestic surveillance
All i say is, I like my country, but I view my government as a collection of well-intentioned individuals with all the flaws that that entails.
I'm glad you admit your ignorance, but the second quote is a fools belief. If you believe that all people in authority are well intentioned, you really have not paid any attention to the world you live in.
Perhaps _you_ have not been abused (to your knowledge) but countless other people have been abused by these so called "well intentioned" people. You only have to read a bit to find what I'm referring to.
To what standard do you hold the US government as opposed to other governments?
A much higher standard, since I am actually supposed to be able to influence my Government. In fact it is my constitutional right to influence my Government, and my civic duty to do so. I have no constitutional rights to influence Cuba, or DPRK, or any other Government. Further, it is hoped that our Government functions so well that we are the model for others to adopt.
You can be damn sure that every other intelligence agency is doing exactly the same thing... but you're criticizing NSA why exactly?
The old "Two wrongs don't make a right" pops immediately to mind, but let us go a step further. The job of my Government is to protect me from foreign spies, not spy on me right along with them.
My government protects me as I expect your government to protect you.
This statement is completely asinine, because there is absolutely no measure involved. Kim Jong Un protects his people too, but the measures we use to determine how valid that is demonstrate that he is a tyrant, not a good guy just protecting his people. Notice I didn't even bother to quote your "quote" due to a lack of relevance.
I laughed at the Merkel spying thing... as if they didn't expect us to get as much information as possible, and as if we didn't expect them to return the favor. Faux outrage over common practices. IMO. If you don't want your leaders getting spied on... spend more money on your own agencies.
Well now, this does not jive up at all with you claiming that the US should be spying on it's own people. Completely different topic and relates to what I said in my second paragraph. The Government's job is to protect it's people from spying, not build databases on their activity and use that as weaponry against it's own citizens (as we have seen happen numerous times in the US in numerous conditions).
You didn't quote me so you either assume something that does not exist or neglected to cite the dictionary definition of discrimination. As I said to someone else...and yes my definition of discrimination matches exactly the dictionary definition.
Would Russia's laws regarding promotion of LGBT issues be better if it removed the wording and just said "no promoting any type of sexual lifestyle"? It would make a few people happy, but the reality is that nobody else is out parading and promoting their sexual preferences except for the LGBT community. Does a generality make sense given that fact? I don's see Mormon's parading to promote Polygamy, I don't see any racial group parading to promote interracial sex partners, and I don't see elderly people out parading to promote sex with barely legal teenagers. Those type of people all exist, and we can surely think what ever we want about their beliefs, but they are not out promoting. If they were out parading, perhaps we would see the Russian laws changed to a generality or include a different group name in addition to "gay".
Lets look at the definition of discrimination. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.. By definition, it would only be a biased law if there were competing groups and "Straights" and/or "Polygamists" and/or "interracial sex advocates", etc.. who were allowed to parade and the LGBT groups were not allowed to parade. There is no measure to say it's discriminating, outside of the wording which happens to specify a group that was not acting the same way as the rest of society. So in reality, would allowing them to parade and demonstrate be the discrimination? Is society going to be better off if all of these beliefs are paraded around and celebrated, or should that be an individual decision and choice?
Your claim that "straight pride parades are allowed" is wrong, because there is no such thing. There are no polygamy parades, or cougar parades either. Those are all mythical, and no you can't compare tangible measurable reality against myth. You may as well argue that the German Pillsner laws are discriminating because a mythical creature can piss beer (unfortunately for you, that is an absolutely correct analogy).
I have not done so, but another interesting thing to do would be to translate the law from Russian to English and see for yourself. It's not like we ever get "wrong" information for propaganda purposes in US media or anything..
I don't believe you read the link, or read any similar studies for that matter. The "precious snowflake" issue is due to psychologists claiming what you are (or seem to be). Praise alone makes the person. While self perception is important, it's not the only factor.
It's not praise alone that makes people smart, it's accomplishments and praise for those accomplishments. When Johnny fails a math test and the parent's say "Great Job Johnny, at least you tried" the person is praised for failure. What lesson does this teach, except that failure is a good thing (perhaps not "good", but it's surely acceptable). Billy loses a foot race and receives the same reward as the kid that won, and what does that teach? Failure is praised and doing better than everyone else will not yield any benefit. The guy who fails will receive the same in life as the guy that tries hard. Thirty years of public policy have advocated exactly this system, with what I believe are predictable results.
The better part of this social experiment that started in the 70s remains unspoken thus far. The experiment demonstrates that parents will do what ever a person of authority tells them to do if they believe their kids will benefit. Regardless of results. It also demonstrates that people in authority will abuse their power and trust for personal gain, even if this harms people.
All good if we end the experiment and provide the results, but I doubt that will happen.
By that logic, we could pass a law that states that only blacks are not allowed to smoke crack. Since whites don't smoke crack, it's not a discriminatory law.
Oh, so you make up a complete lie to back the point huh? Sad that your opinion relies on complete bullshit like this to remain valid.
Would Russia's laws regarding promotion of LGBT issues be better if it removed the wording and just said "no promoting any type of sexual lifestyle"? It would make a few people happy, but the reality is that nobody else is out parading and promoting their sexual preferences except for the LGBT community. Does a generality make sense given that fact? I don's see Mormon's parading to promote Polygamy, I don't see any racial group parading to promote interracial sex partners, and I don't see elderly people out parading to promote sex with barely legal teenagers. Those type of people all exist, and we can surely think what ever we want about their beliefs, but they are not out promoting. If they were out parading, perhaps we would see the Russian laws changed to a generality or include a different group name in addition to "gay".
Lets look at the definition of discrimination. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.. By definition, it would only be a biased law if there were competing groups and "Straights" and/or "Polygamists" and/or "interracial sex advocates", etc.. who were allowed to parade and the LGBT groups were not allowed to parade. There is no measure to say it's discriminating, outside of the wording which happens to specify a group that was not acting the same way as the rest of society. So in reality, would allowing them to parade and demonstrate be the discrimination? Is society going to be better off if all of these beliefs are paraded around and celebrated, or should that be an individual decision and choice?
Oh, I realize that this is rational and logical so you will probably make up something else to maintain your belief. If I don't buy your magazine, it's because I'm a bigot and not because your stories are not interesting or your writing is horrible.
I'm glad you admit your biases, it's a good first step. Accusing others of bias using your own bias is exactly the proverbial pot calling the kettle black isn't it?
I don't claim Russia is great or better than anyone else, I don't believe they are. At the same time, I don't agree that the US or UK is much better than Russia any longer (we have gained a lot of ground in being shit in the last couple decades). Funny that when I started to step back from the rhetoric about 3 decades ago I started to see both sides as similar. People are trained in bigotry, not humanity, and that's a huge problem with the state of the world.
Keep on hitting, it can't hurt. When the same issue occurred in Donesk it resulted in bombardment and murder of thousands people who were against the new government in the Ukraine. You know, the same Government that had people going into parliament with an AK-47s as the new "leaders" and said "Yeah, we have a democracy if we do it my way and if not you are dead.", pro Russian people were beaten and killed, etc... So Kiev in your opinion is okay right? It's only the people on the other side that are bad, because they don't believe what you do.
Sucks when a look at both sides of the story does not match your opinion, so hurry up and say it. "I refuse to see both sides"
Bullshit, your bias is showing. How is it singling out Gay people if the purpose is to limit public parades when the alternative (Straight) does not have parades? Is the only way to be "Gay" by having demonstrations in public waiving banners and yelling at people to support your choice of bed partner? I believe you know better than that, but the obvious is escaping you.
I gave the perfect example of where it would be discrimination. Gay parade squashed and Straight parade is allowed. This is not what happens, because there are no "Straight Pride" parades in Russia (or most of the world for that matter).
In the US, the exact opposite happens where any statements that are not pro-minority are labelled discrimination. Go ahead and try having a "Straight Pride" event in the US, I double dog dare you! You will be labelled and blacklisted everywhere for simply having a desire to celebrate the lifestyle of the majority. So who is really being discriminated against and where is this occurring?
Russia didn't invade and illegaly annex the Crimea either?
I should have also pulled this little gem out, because it demonstrates your absolute ignorance. Crimea voted with almost 90% margin to annex to Russia. Crimea leases numerous ports and bases to Russia for profit, so this magical invasion that CNN claimed never happened. Ships that were already there remained there, troops that were on bases remained in bases. You can't even keep the difference between Donesk and Crimea in your dialogue.
When a vote does not move the way the US wants the vote to move, the vote is claimed to be bad. There are numerous precedents with this scenario which are all historically documented. Have a look at the history of US and Iranian relationships for example.
That should not indicate that pressure was not exerted by Russia, but that pressure is no different than what the Ukraine has been getting from the US and EU nations. Neither side actually gives a shit about the people in the Ukraine or Crimea, they want power and control.
In conclusion, you are either yet another horribly misinformed person believing what they are told or a shill.
A political decision to remove a statue because of public pressure is now a "law"? Did we pass new laws in Iraq when we pulled down statues of Saddam Hussein, or did we remove the statues because they celebrated something that the populace saw as wrong? Did the Ukraine pull down statues of Stalin and Lenin because of "Laws", or because public opinion of those people changed?
I'm pretty sure that the answer to both of those questions would match the answers to removing the statue of Steve Jobs. Hint: It's not myself using distorted view, it's you.
I realize it's difficult to see a balanced field, especially coming from the US where any statement that does not appeal to a minority is automatically labelled "discrimination". The fact that you can't tell the difference between "Law" and public pressure is telling in and of itself.
You received the exact wrong impression. My comment was more that Biology is not the primary factor involved in social interactions, as GP seemed to claim.
I guess my thoughts were more along the lines of how animals and plants reproduce and grow based on what we recognize as mathematical principles. We also know that our laws of physics limit our world, just like they limit us. When free, 2 Hydrogen atoms + an Oxygen atom will create a water molecule if the conditions are correct. Bonded, the rule changes and we are stuck with a different molecule unless atoms are freed.
"Surely made up of" simply indicates that there seem to be a finite set of rules that make up the Universe. Often times our understanding is incorrect, but once the rule is found the world makes more sense.
For the most part I agree, though generalizations are always dangerous. I'm not actively looking, but my resume gets me lots of attention. 90% of all the recruiters that call are from overseas with poor English. From those overseas, 90% are demanding my time to review a job in a State I don't live in (in fairness, half of the offers I receive from US recruiters are not in the same State either but they are not demanding for the most part). Worse, 99% are for jobs that I don't have on my resume but related to some education or other SQL query hit. E. G. I have never held a Java Programmer job, but have my Sun Certification. I am not a DBA, but have certifications and know the Systems side of Databases (performance tuning, scaling, etc..). Demanding I review a UI developer job is a common request from foreign recruiters.
There are however a couple of recruiters in the SF Bay area who are pretty good at being real recruiters. Taos is at the top of my list for a no bullshit contracting firm which is exceptionally honest and technically sound. You are technically rated by other people working in the industry to gauge your strong points, weak points, and interests. Taos is _only_ a contractor, and you will almost never get a contract to hire job through them. They don't hide that fact, so I'm fine with it. They also offer training and education, certification reimbursement, and some other nice perks.
A few others are good as well, but I'm not going to make this a sales pitch.. just show an exception to the generalization.
Russia does not have anti-gay laws, you can be gay in Russia all you want and nobody cares. In fact the Daily show went out with a camera crew during the Sochi games trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people (in both Sochi and Moscow) and could not find any. That report was not discussed on any major News station of course, but it's there for your review as are other people doing similar reporting trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people.
What Russia does have is laws that prevent gays from demonstrating and promoting being gay in places where minors visit. You can go to the gay bar where it's adults only and put up all the banners you want promoting being gay, but not on a public street. It would be akin to the US making fast food advertising illegal (which in some contexts it is), then claiming that the US made fast food illegal. The latter is false, the former is true.
In my opinion, this is not discriminating or oppressive. It would be discriminating and oppressive if they had competing "Hetero Pride" and "Gay Pride" parades, or "Hetero Lifestyle" and "Gay Lifestyle" public debates and only one side received talk time. Neither receive talk time, which seems to be a fair policy.
Internet searching is really not that difficult. I have yet to hear the death tolls from the current campaign (Syria/ISIL/ISIS), and other numbers are simply non-existent. Such as how many died in Libya to US bombs, incidental deaths from remaining DU and starvation/exposure due to US intervention in foreign aide, etc...
That said, I probably should have separated the generalization into two categories. One for deaths of enemy military troops, the other for deaths to everyone else and theaters of operations. At a certain point, details are not worth delving into.
While the world is surely made up of math and physics, we learn to observe, measure, and act based on our social interactions. If nobody bothered to teach you math, language, etc.. you would be no better than an animal (and most likely eaten by one).
Biology gives us basics, such as survival instincts. Interaction, observation, and accumulated knowledge give us Physics and Music. Young birds seem to learn learn to call just like we learn to yell if we need something, and they progress beyond that basic yell just like we do. Based on other birds (and other influences depending on the bird), they learn more complex songs.
If you look at your point about the R and the point you responded to about the D, it should become apparent that the party does not make any difference. R&D have become the same damn thing, each side being bought and paid for long before you know them. These people don't get on the ticket without advertising, and advertising costs money.
Obama continued Bush's policies and practices. Bush continued Clinton's policies and practices, etc.. etc... This shit is not new by any stretch of the imagination.
Google is not broken, do you need me to really provide LMGT for you? http://www.politicususa.com/20..., but I can find hundreds of links with a simple search. Now lets see if you man up and apologize for the ad hominem, but I'm guessing that you will simply try and yell louder.
You seem to be suffering amnesia. Do you remember this statement in your post?
At the time of the event, there was no report of the officer being attacked. In fact there was no named officer at the time of the shooting. If the Officer was actually harmed, this would have made front page news and calmed the riots that started to ensue days later. Any claim of harm to the officer (named nearly a month after the fact) is tainted (cui bono seems to back the entrenched who want this to remain an black vs. white issue instead of a corruption issue). The appeal to authority does not make you correct, no matter how often you use argumentum ad nauseam as an attempt to prove your appeal to authority..
My opinion is based on easy to prove facts, not a long string of fallacies and questionable information. Of course to you, a mouthpiece for the establishment, facts are a dangerous thing hence you claim "crank" and "look over there!" as often as possible.
At the time of the shooting there were only 2 people present and one was on the phone. The dialogue was recorded, and does not back that statement. After the shooting there were other people on the street providing their own "opinion", but not "eye witness reports". Reading and Quoting a Newspaper that has had numerous journalists quit and blow the whistle on the NYP censoring information to control the narrative is not impressive. Try reading facts and basing _YOUR_ opinion on facts instead of relying on others to give you an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
From a logical sense I would agree if, and only if, the service provider claimed Minimum 10Mbps Max 100Mbps and no matter what you could not be reduced below the minimum (regardless of traffic type). That's how it's advertised, and you can't find anything in the fine print saying "We'll screw with your traffic if it's something we don't like or competes with our other products". In other words, currently we have completely false advertising.
Anyone working in IT (especially in the ISP territory) understands that thin provisioning is how money gets made. Thin provisioning has the obvious side effect of throttling connections as individual points go up in usage.
This is absolutely not the same as throttling specific traffic because it competes with something else you want to sell. Comcast's competing movie service is why they are throttling, not because of usage.
It should not take "New" laws like Net Neutrality to fix this, it should be a a Sherman Act violation. Comcast (just like AT&T in the 70s) should be broken up to increase competition and remove the monopoly powers that are currently being abused illegally.
No, the point is that virtually none of these people are well intentioned. This is an unfortunate nature of politics, we have known about this nature for at least 2,600 years when our earliest writings of political thoughts started. I'm guessing, that like most Americans you have never been exposed to Plato and "The Republic". Ask why you have been dissuaded from reading this book, and why it's not part of your studies. Read the book, cover to cover and see what it says.
I will be the first to admit that i don't know all the ramifications of domestic surveillance
All i say is, I like my country, but I view my government as a collection of well-intentioned individuals with all the flaws that that entails.
I'm glad you admit your ignorance, but the second quote is a fools belief. If you believe that all people in authority are well intentioned, you really have not paid any attention to the world you live in.
Perhaps _you_ have not been abused (to your knowledge) but countless other people have been abused by these so called "well intentioned" people. You only have to read a bit to find what I'm referring to.
To what standard do you hold the US government as opposed to other governments?
A much higher standard, since I am actually supposed to be able to influence my Government. In fact it is my constitutional right to influence my Government, and my civic duty to do so. I have no constitutional rights to influence Cuba, or DPRK, or any other Government. Further, it is hoped that our Government functions so well that we are the model for others to adopt.
You can be damn sure that every other intelligence agency is doing exactly the same thing... but you're criticizing NSA why exactly?
The old "Two wrongs don't make a right" pops immediately to mind, but let us go a step further. The job of my Government is to protect me from foreign spies, not spy on me right along with them.
My government protects me as I expect your government to protect you.
This statement is completely asinine, because there is absolutely no measure involved. Kim Jong Un protects his people too, but the measures we use to determine how valid that is demonstrate that he is a tyrant, not a good guy just protecting his people. Notice I didn't even bother to quote your "quote" due to a lack of relevance.
I laughed at the Merkel spying thing... as if they didn't expect us to get as much information as possible, and as if we didn't expect them to return the favor. Faux outrage over common practices. IMO. If you don't want your leaders getting spied on... spend more money on your own agencies.
Well now, this does not jive up at all with you claiming that the US should be spying on it's own people. Completely different topic and relates to what I said in my second paragraph. The Government's job is to protect it's people from spying, not build databases on their activity and use that as weaponry against it's own citizens (as we have seen happen numerous times in the US in numerous conditions).
The second message "I came to say the same" is redundant, not the first message in the stack.
You didn't quote me so you either assume something that does not exist or neglected to cite the dictionary definition of discrimination. As I said to someone else...and yes my definition of discrimination matches exactly the dictionary definition.
Would Russia's laws regarding promotion of LGBT issues be better if it removed the wording and just said "no promoting any type of sexual lifestyle"? It would make a few people happy, but the reality is that nobody else is out parading and promoting their sexual preferences except for the LGBT community. Does a generality make sense given that fact? I don's see Mormon's parading to promote Polygamy, I don't see any racial group parading to promote interracial sex partners, and I don't see elderly people out parading to promote sex with barely legal teenagers. Those type of people all exist, and we can surely think what ever we want about their beliefs, but they are not out promoting. If they were out parading, perhaps we would see the Russian laws changed to a generality or include a different group name in addition to "gay".
Lets look at the definition of discrimination. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.. By definition, it would only be a biased law if there were competing groups and "Straights" and/or "Polygamists" and/or "interracial sex advocates", etc.. who were allowed to parade and the LGBT groups were not allowed to parade. There is no measure to say it's discriminating, outside of the wording which happens to specify a group that was not acting the same way as the rest of society. So in reality, would allowing them to parade and demonstrate be the discrimination? Is society going to be better off if all of these beliefs are paraded around and celebrated, or should that be an individual decision and choice?
Your claim that "straight pride parades are allowed" is wrong, because there is no such thing. There are no polygamy parades, or cougar parades either. Those are all mythical, and no you can't compare tangible measurable reality against myth. You may as well argue that the German Pillsner laws are discriminating because a mythical creature can piss beer (unfortunately for you, that is an absolutely correct analogy).
I have not done so, but another interesting thing to do would be to translate the law from Russian to English and see for yourself. It's not like we ever get "wrong" information for propaganda purposes in US media or anything..
I don't believe you read the link, or read any similar studies for that matter. The "precious snowflake" issue is due to psychologists claiming what you are (or seem to be). Praise alone makes the person. While self perception is important, it's not the only factor.
It's not praise alone that makes people smart, it's accomplishments and praise for those accomplishments. When Johnny fails a math test and the parent's say "Great Job Johnny, at least you tried" the person is praised for failure. What lesson does this teach, except that failure is a good thing (perhaps not "good", but it's surely acceptable). Billy loses a foot race and receives the same reward as the kid that won, and what does that teach? Failure is praised and doing better than everyone else will not yield any benefit. The guy who fails will receive the same in life as the guy that tries hard. Thirty years of public policy have advocated exactly this system, with what I believe are predictable results.
The better part of this social experiment that started in the 70s remains unspoken thus far. The experiment demonstrates that parents will do what ever a person of authority tells them to do if they believe their kids will benefit. Regardless of results. It also demonstrates that people in authority will abuse their power and trust for personal gain, even if this harms people.
All good if we end the experiment and provide the results, but I doubt that will happen.
By that logic, we could pass a law that states that only blacks are not allowed to smoke crack. Since whites don't smoke crack, it's not a discriminatory law.
Oh, so you make up a complete lie to back the point huh? Sad that your opinion relies on complete bullshit like this to remain valid.
Would Russia's laws regarding promotion of LGBT issues be better if it removed the wording and just said "no promoting any type of sexual lifestyle"? It would make a few people happy, but the reality is that nobody else is out parading and promoting their sexual preferences except for the LGBT community. Does a generality make sense given that fact? I don's see Mormon's parading to promote Polygamy, I don't see any racial group parading to promote interracial sex partners, and I don't see elderly people out parading to promote sex with barely legal teenagers. Those type of people all exist, and we can surely think what ever we want about their beliefs, but they are not out promoting. If they were out parading, perhaps we would see the Russian laws changed to a generality or include a different group name in addition to "gay".
Lets look at the definition of discrimination. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.. By definition, it would only be a biased law if there were competing groups and "Straights" and/or "Polygamists" and/or "interracial sex advocates", etc.. who were allowed to parade and the LGBT groups were not allowed to parade. There is no measure to say it's discriminating, outside of the wording which happens to specify a group that was not acting the same way as the rest of society. So in reality, would allowing them to parade and demonstrate be the discrimination? Is society going to be better off if all of these beliefs are paraded around and celebrated, or should that be an individual decision and choice?
Oh, I realize that this is rational and logical so you will probably make up something else to maintain your belief. If I don't buy your magazine, it's because I'm a bigot and not because your stories are not interesting or your writing is horrible.
I'm glad you admit your biases, it's a good first step. Accusing others of bias using your own bias is exactly the proverbial pot calling the kettle black isn't it?
I don't claim Russia is great or better than anyone else, I don't believe they are. At the same time, I don't agree that the US or UK is much better than Russia any longer (we have gained a lot of ground in being shit in the last couple decades). Funny that when I started to step back from the rhetoric about 3 decades ago I started to see both sides as similar. People are trained in bigotry, not humanity, and that's a huge problem with the state of the world.
Keep on hitting, it can't hurt. When the same issue occurred in Donesk it resulted in bombardment and murder of thousands people who were against the new government in the Ukraine. You know, the same Government that had people going into parliament with an AK-47s as the new "leaders" and said "Yeah, we have a democracy if we do it my way and if not you are dead.", pro Russian people were beaten and killed, etc... So Kiev in your opinion is okay right? It's only the people on the other side that are bad, because they don't believe what you do.
Sucks when a look at both sides of the story does not match your opinion, so hurry up and say it. "I refuse to see both sides"
Bullshit, your bias is showing. How is it singling out Gay people if the purpose is to limit public parades when the alternative (Straight) does not have parades? Is the only way to be "Gay" by having demonstrations in public waiving banners and yelling at people to support your choice of bed partner? I believe you know better than that, but the obvious is escaping you.
I gave the perfect example of where it would be discrimination. Gay parade squashed and Straight parade is allowed. This is not what happens, because there are no "Straight Pride" parades in Russia (or most of the world for that matter).
In the US, the exact opposite happens where any statements that are not pro-minority are labelled discrimination. Go ahead and try having a "Straight Pride" event in the US, I double dog dare you! You will be labelled and blacklisted everywhere for simply having a desire to celebrate the lifestyle of the majority. So who is really being discriminated against and where is this occurring?
Russia didn't invade and illegaly annex the Crimea either?
I should have also pulled this little gem out, because it demonstrates your absolute ignorance. Crimea voted with almost 90% margin to annex to Russia. Crimea leases numerous ports and bases to Russia for profit, so this magical invasion that CNN claimed never happened. Ships that were already there remained there, troops that were on bases remained in bases. You can't even keep the difference between Donesk and Crimea in your dialogue.
When a vote does not move the way the US wants the vote to move, the vote is claimed to be bad. There are numerous precedents with this scenario which are all historically documented. Have a look at the history of US and Iranian relationships for example.
That should not indicate that pressure was not exerted by Russia, but that pressure is no different than what the Ukraine has been getting from the US and EU nations. Neither side actually gives a shit about the people in the Ukraine or Crimea, they want power and control.
In conclusion, you are either yet another horribly misinformed person believing what they are told or a shill.
A political decision to remove a statue because of public pressure is now a "law"? Did we pass new laws in Iraq when we pulled down statues of Saddam Hussein, or did we remove the statues because they celebrated something that the populace saw as wrong? Did the Ukraine pull down statues of Stalin and Lenin because of "Laws", or because public opinion of those people changed?
I'm pretty sure that the answer to both of those questions would match the answers to removing the statue of Steve Jobs. Hint: It's not myself using distorted view, it's you.
I realize it's difficult to see a balanced field, especially coming from the US where any statement that does not appeal to a minority is automatically labelled "discrimination". The fact that you can't tell the difference between "Law" and public pressure is telling in and of itself.
You received the exact wrong impression. My comment was more that Biology is not the primary factor involved in social interactions, as GP seemed to claim.
I guess my thoughts were more along the lines of how animals and plants reproduce and grow based on what we recognize as mathematical principles. We also know that our laws of physics limit our world, just like they limit us. When free, 2 Hydrogen atoms + an Oxygen atom will create a water molecule if the conditions are correct. Bonded, the rule changes and we are stuck with a different molecule unless atoms are freed.
"Surely made up of" simply indicates that there seem to be a finite set of rules that make up the Universe. Often times our understanding is incorrect, but once the rule is found the world makes more sense.
For the most part I agree, though generalizations are always dangerous. I'm not actively looking, but my resume gets me lots of attention. 90% of all the recruiters that call are from overseas with poor English. From those overseas, 90% are demanding my time to review a job in a State I don't live in (in fairness, half of the offers I receive from US recruiters are not in the same State either but they are not demanding for the most part). Worse, 99% are for jobs that I don't have on my resume but related to some education or other SQL query hit. E. G. I have never held a Java Programmer job, but have my Sun Certification. I am not a DBA, but have certifications and know the Systems side of Databases (performance tuning, scaling, etc..). Demanding I review a UI developer job is a common request from foreign recruiters.
There are however a couple of recruiters in the SF Bay area who are pretty good at being real recruiters. Taos is at the top of my list for a no bullshit contracting firm which is exceptionally honest and technically sound. You are technically rated by other people working in the industry to gauge your strong points, weak points, and interests. Taos is _only_ a contractor, and you will almost never get a contract to hire job through them. They don't hide that fact, so I'm fine with it. They also offer training and education, certification reimbursement, and some other nice perks.
A few others are good as well, but I'm not going to make this a sales pitch.. just show an exception to the generalization.
Russia does not have anti-gay laws, you can be gay in Russia all you want and nobody cares. In fact the Daily show went out with a camera crew during the Sochi games trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people (in both Sochi and Moscow) and could not find any. That report was not discussed on any major News station of course, but it's there for your review as are other people doing similar reporting trying to find the alleged persecuted gay people.
What Russia does have is laws that prevent gays from demonstrating and promoting being gay in places where minors visit. You can go to the gay bar where it's adults only and put up all the banners you want promoting being gay, but not on a public street. It would be akin to the US making fast food advertising illegal (which in some contexts it is), then claiming that the US made fast food illegal. The latter is false, the former is true.
In my opinion, this is not discriminating or oppressive. It would be discriminating and oppressive if they had competing "Hetero Pride" and "Gay Pride" parades, or "Hetero Lifestyle" and "Gay Lifestyle" public debates and only one side received talk time. Neither receive talk time, which seems to be a fair policy.
Internet searching is really not that difficult. I have yet to hear the death tolls from the current campaign (Syria/ISIL/ISIS), and other numbers are simply non-existent. Such as how many died in Libya to US bombs, incidental deaths from remaining DU and starvation/exposure due to US intervention in foreign aide, etc...
That said, I probably should have separated the generalization into two categories. One for deaths of enemy military troops, the other for deaths to everyone else and theaters of operations. At a certain point, details are not worth delving into.
While the world is surely made up of math and physics, we learn to observe, measure, and act based on our social interactions. If nobody bothered to teach you math, language, etc.. you would be no better than an animal (and most likely eaten by one).
Biology gives us basics, such as survival instincts. Interaction, observation, and accumulated knowledge give us Physics and Music. Young birds seem to learn learn to call just like we learn to yell if we need something, and they progress beyond that basic yell just like we do. Based on other birds (and other influences depending on the bird), they learn more complex songs.
If you look at your point about the R and the point you responded to about the D, it should become apparent that the party does not make any difference. R&D have become the same damn thing, each side being bought and paid for long before you know them. These people don't get on the ticket without advertising, and advertising costs money.
Obama continued Bush's policies and practices. Bush continued Clinton's policies and practices, etc.. etc... This shit is not new by any stretch of the imagination.
Just to be suere, here are 2 more links. One and Two
Google is not broken, do you need me to really provide LMGT for you? http://www.politicususa.com/20..., but I can find hundreds of links with a simple search. Now lets see if you man up and apologize for the ad hominem, but I'm guessing that you will simply try and yell louder.
You seem to be suffering amnesia. Do you remember this statement in your post?
At the time of the event, there was no report of the officer being attacked. In fact there was no named officer at the time of the shooting. If the Officer was actually harmed, this would have made front page news and calmed the riots that started to ensue days later. Any claim of harm to the officer (named nearly a month after the fact) is tainted (cui bono seems to back the entrenched who want this to remain an black vs. white issue instead of a corruption issue). The appeal to authority does not make you correct, no matter how often you use argumentum ad nauseam as an attempt to prove your appeal to authority..
My opinion is based on easy to prove facts, not a long string of fallacies and questionable information. Of course to you, a mouthpiece for the establishment, facts are a dangerous thing hence you claim "crank" and "look over there!" as often as possible.
Nothing you claim can be trusted.
At the time of the shooting there were only 2 people present and one was on the phone. The dialogue was recorded, and does not back that statement. After the shooting there were other people on the street providing their own "opinion", but not "eye witness reports". Reading and Quoting a Newspaper that has had numerous journalists quit and blow the whistle on the NYP censoring information to control the narrative is not impressive. Try reading facts and basing _YOUR_ opinion on facts instead of relying on others to give you an opinion.
Yeah yeah, the problem is keeping track of Who and Where we are bombing in Africa since we get sketchy information (if any at all).