If the server settings are shitty, almost all outside emails get tagged as suspect. When servers cry wolf, that's a problem. Windows is bad about this, too. If I'm trying to move a file from a shared drive on a company-owned server, the Windows "This file could harm your computer." warning pops up. How is that useful?
????????????????? So the reason why you think it's ok for your ISP to throttle your Netflix connection unless they pay ransom is because Facebook doesn't like boobies? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Or maybe you don't want your employer finding out you were at the protest. Or maybe you fear retribution by your whackadoodle neighbor. There are a bunch of legitimate reasons to peaceably assemble while maintaining anonymity. Just look at furry conventions, or Pussy Riot. Not to mention first-amendment religious freedom to wear head coverings like niqabs or colanders. Also remember that agents of mayhem don't always put on their balaclavas until later on in the protest.
Claiming that the ballot box is a better way to protest is complete bullshit. When the sitting president was elected by 19.5% of the population, it makes your assertion laughable. In Texas there are no recall elections. When our elected officials do something stupid, the only way to get their attention is to band together in protest. Not that they listen, but it's better than doing nothing until the next election.
You seem to be claiming right-wing protestors would willingly hand over their own to the authorities. I somehow doubt the Bundy's would agree with you. I have never met anybody OK with antifa tactics, and most of my liberal friends are peaceful to a fault. On the other hand, I have seen the nominal leader of the Republican party encouraging people at his rallies to beat up peaceful protestors, offer to pay their legal fees, etc.
Not sure I understand the question. There are all sorts of protests in Texas. There were anti-war protests in 2003, anti-Obama protests in 2008, Occupy protests in 2011, BLM protests in 2016, countless anti-abortion protests, pro- and anti-immigration protests, pro-dildo, anti-ATF, I could go on and on. Some of these ended peacefully, some of them ended with cops beating and arresting people, one of them ended with a fucking sonuvabitch sniper picking off police (who were protecting the protestors!!). What kind of protests are you talking about that don't happen in Texas?
It seems to me, that since these bozos are against net neutrality, Google et al should give them a taste of their own medicine. They could feed Comcast and AT&T employees shitty search results, like "12 reasons why net neutrality is a good thing; number 7 will shock you!" Or just a bunch of links to the FSF donation page.
Lobbying is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Individuals should always have the right to redress grievances with their representatives. Now whether businesses have protections under the bill of rights is one for the constitutional lawyers, but it seems like bullshit to me.
This is a very confusing post. Can you please explain? What is "the liberal media narrative"? How does the prospect of cheap renewable energy demonstrate falsify it? What is a "screeching cripple"?
Also, why did you bring up plastics? You realize that the use of hydrocarbons for things other than burning for fuel does not appreciably contribute to climate change, right? Although, based on your comment history you probably don't believe anything man does contributes to climate change.
Thanks, you two, for an interesting debate. It's such a breath of fresh air compared to the usual online forum shouting matches we have all grown used to.
Unfortunately, letting the thinking happen outside of the government won't work when inside-the-government is stocked with conspiracy theorists who think that George Soros is paying off professors to falsify study results. You know, that's why all those environmental scientists are all ballin' in their Tesla Model S's. It's soooo lucrative to be a scientist these days, what with the anti-freedom cabal trying to take away our rights to... do something, haven't figured out what the cabal is doing, but it's nefarious.
He may represent his voters in that he pretends to be like them. I think that was your point. He sure as hell doesn't represent them in any other fashion. It's almost sad that so many of his policies are going to fuck his voters right in the ass. Ironically, they will find someway to blame it on "libtards" and "democRats" and whatever nasty nickname they have for Pelosi. Never mind the fact that they have almost zero power right now.
The issue at hand is that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically enumerated in the constitution therefore laws targeting to limit or control it are treated with the highest scrutiny.
So is your right to vote, but the orange one wants everybody listed in a federal database for that. Don't hear the right-wing nut jobs bitching about that one, do you? I wonder why????
Are you joking, or do you just not understand what rates are? As of 2010, over 2% of black people were incarcerated, nearly six times higher than whites, and more than double hispanics. Less than 60% of inmates are white, despite the fact that 3 in 4 Americans are white. For accidents: In 2015 one in four fatalities were a minority, even though the workforce is closer to one in five minority. I won't even get into the nonsense about lower class being mostly white.
There have been so many studies showing that is not the case in most parts of the country. A recent resume audit study was looking into day care centers. While they were actually looking for effects of other qualifications (degree, experience, etc.), they also found strong effects of having an ethnic-sounding name. Unfortunately, even though they specifically pointed out that male teachers make more than female teachers, they didn't actually test male vs. female resume callbacks/interviews. Dumb oversight if you ask me.
What the fuck are you talking about? The only time white guys get any shit on line is when they do things like whine about how women are taking their ghostbuster jobs. Brings a whole new meaning to "snowflake." Pretty sure you're trolling, but let's go through your claims one at a time for fun.
Claim: In every other forum, it is perfectly normal and acceptable to ridicule and rant against white guys. Counterargument: I have never seen any ranting against white guys in the following forums: Daily Stormer, The Blaze, Zero Hedge, Gateway Pundit, but even broader forums like XKCD and Slashdot do not condone racism or sexism against white males. Hell even Wonkette would put down the banhammer if your sole argument was "Trump is bad because he's a white guy and all white guys are bad."
Claim: Commercials and TV shows always make the white male the butt of the joke. Counterarguments: Statistically, the plurality of actors on TV and in commercials are white males. It makes sense then, that the plurality of heels would also be white males. There are numerous examples of minority and female buffoons (Blackish) and villains (How to Get Away with Murder), so your claim that it's always a white male is plainly false. Finally, I've met many more real-life goofs who were white males than any other group, so perhaps it's just art imitating life.
Claim: If you make fun of a black person or a woman you will get crapflooded. No argument here. If you make fun of anybody you pretty much get crapflooded by some butthurt group. Lesson: If you don't want to get crapflooded by whiny babies, don't be a dick in the first place.
Claim: Commercials disproportionately show mixed-race couples. Context: Seeing as miscegenation was illegal in the south until 50 years ago, it only makes sense that there would be an uptick in mixed race couples in real life. Interestingly, prior to 2008, the rate was somewhere below 5%, but in 2010, that number was up to 15%. That's a pretty dramatic increase. Counterclaim: I don't see many married couples in commercials at all. I guess boner pill commercials would be an obvious exception, and the ones I can think of have same-race couples. But even if one in eight were mixed-race couples, that would still be in keeping with the latest census statistics. They simply are a common subset of the predominant demographic most advertisers are trying to reach (young adults with money).
Interestingly, nearly 20% of Americans still disapprove of interracial marriages. I say interesting, because even in a very conservative county, I have not actually met anybody who is openly against mixed-race couples. But I digress.
Your final claim: Post #54708625 will get modded down. Counterargument: It's at a +3, Insightful as I read it.
But that doesn't support the right-wing narrative of "Muslims never police their own, so we must keep them out of our country!" So clearly you are wrong.
I read about this one extreme religion where if a woman gets raped, she must be stoned to death, because she clearly didn't scream loud enough. The same religion says that women should not speak, and must submit to their husbands. It also says you have to pluck out your own eyes if you look at a woman with lust. My personal favorite is that if your child talks back to you, you should definitely beat him, and if that doesn't work, you can have the elders stone him to death.
Sounds pretty bad, right? Maybe we need to ban everybody from that religion, too. Oh wait, that's all from Christianity. Better pack your fucking bags, asshole.
I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans hold the First Amendment in such low regard that they would support any ban on any religion. Hell, I even tolerate L. Ron Hubbard's dipshit cult. You can dislike whoever you want, but don't assume for a second that you hold the majority opinion on this.
Wow. I've never seen this argument before. "XXXXX is great because at least it's better than torture!" I'll have to keep that in my back pocket next time I go a-trolling.
Yes, it's clearly a "wild stretch of the imagination" when a president campaigns on a promise, and then tries to keep that promise, even though his own vice-president said it was "offensive and unconstitutional".
I wonder if there's a lot of overlap between "people who are worried about being killed by a refugee terrorist" and "people who buy Powerball tickets." It wouldn't surprise me. People really don't have any idea about things involving low probabilities, especially when the payoff (or cost) is huge.
Why in the world did you get marked troll? The whole point of science is that it's not a priesthood and that you can research for yourself. A buddy of mine didn't believe in photon entanglement. I showed him on hackaday a way to make an entanglement rig yourself. In college I didn't believe Poisson's spot. We set it up in the lab and did it. If you have questions about the climate science, you can set up your own temperature recording stations and collect data for a few decades. Sure it will take a while, but the point is that you CAN do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Convenience wins over quality most of the time.
Hence the old saying: f/8 and be there.
If the server settings are shitty, almost all outside emails get tagged as suspect. When servers cry wolf, that's a problem. Windows is bad about this, too. If I'm trying to move a file from a shared drive on a company-owned server, the Windows "This file could harm your computer." warning pops up. How is that useful?
????????????????? So the reason why you think it's ok for your ISP to throttle your Netflix connection unless they pay ransom is because Facebook doesn't like boobies? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Or maybe you don't want your employer finding out you were at the protest. Or maybe you fear retribution by your whackadoodle neighbor. There are a bunch of legitimate reasons to peaceably assemble while maintaining anonymity. Just look at furry conventions, or Pussy Riot. Not to mention first-amendment religious freedom to wear head coverings like niqabs or colanders. Also remember that agents of mayhem don't always put on their balaclavas until later on in the protest.
Claiming that the ballot box is a better way to protest is complete bullshit. When the sitting president was elected by 19.5% of the population, it makes your assertion laughable. In Texas there are no recall elections. When our elected officials do something stupid, the only way to get their attention is to band together in protest. Not that they listen, but it's better than doing nothing until the next election.
You seem to be claiming right-wing protestors would willingly hand over their own to the authorities. I somehow doubt the Bundy's would agree with you. I have never met anybody OK with antifa tactics, and most of my liberal friends are peaceful to a fault. On the other hand, I have seen the nominal leader of the Republican party encouraging people at his rallies to beat up peaceful protestors, offer to pay their legal fees, etc.
Not sure I understand the question. There are all sorts of protests in Texas. There were anti-war protests in 2003, anti-Obama protests in 2008, Occupy protests in 2011, BLM protests in 2016, countless anti-abortion protests, pro- and anti-immigration protests, pro-dildo, anti-ATF, I could go on and on. Some of these ended peacefully, some of them ended with cops beating and arresting people, one of them ended with a fucking sonuvabitch sniper picking off police (who were protecting the protestors!!). What kind of protests are you talking about that don't happen in Texas?
It seems to me, that since these bozos are against net neutrality, Google et al should give them a taste of their own medicine. They could feed Comcast and AT&T employees shitty search results, like "12 reasons why net neutrality is a good thing; number 7 will shock you!" Or just a bunch of links to the FSF donation page.
Lobbying is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Individuals should always have the right to redress grievances with their representatives. Now whether businesses have protections under the bill of rights is one for the constitutional lawyers, but it seems like bullshit to me.
This is a very confusing post. Can you please explain? What is "the liberal media narrative"? How does the prospect of cheap renewable energy demonstrate falsify it? What is a "screeching cripple"?
Also, why did you bring up plastics? You realize that the use of hydrocarbons for things other than burning for fuel does not appreciably contribute to climate change, right? Although, based on your comment history you probably don't believe anything man does contributes to climate change.
Standard Oil was split up, too. But they're almost completely back together now, as well. Everything cycles.
I'm confused. What does CNN have against Angela Merkel?
Thanks, you two, for an interesting debate. It's such a breath of fresh air compared to the usual online forum shouting matches we have all grown used to.
Unfortunately, letting the thinking happen outside of the government won't work when inside-the-government is stocked with conspiracy theorists who think that George Soros is paying off professors to falsify study results. You know, that's why all those environmental scientists are all ballin' in their Tesla Model S's. It's soooo lucrative to be a scientist these days, what with the anti-freedom cabal trying to take away our rights to... do something, haven't figured out what the cabal is doing, but it's nefarious.
He may represent his voters in that he pretends to be like them. I think that was your point. He sure as hell doesn't represent them in any other fashion. It's almost sad that so many of his policies are going to fuck his voters right in the ass. Ironically, they will find someway to blame it on "libtards" and "democRats" and whatever nasty nickname they have for Pelosi. Never mind the fact that they have almost zero power right now.
The issue at hand is that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically enumerated in the constitution therefore laws targeting to limit or control it are treated with the highest scrutiny.
So is your right to vote, but the orange one wants everybody listed in a federal database for that. Don't hear the right-wing nut jobs bitching about that one, do you? I wonder why????
Are you joking, or do you just not understand what rates are? As of 2010, over 2% of black people were incarcerated, nearly six times higher than whites, and more than double hispanics. Less than 60% of inmates are white, despite the fact that 3 in 4 Americans are white. For accidents: In 2015 one in four fatalities were a minority, even though the workforce is closer to one in five minority. I won't even get into the nonsense about lower class being mostly white.
What company was that? I'd love to know so I don't ever apply there.
There have been so many studies showing that is not the case in most parts of the country. A recent resume audit study was looking into day care centers. While they were actually looking for effects of other qualifications (degree, experience, etc.), they also found strong effects of having an ethnic-sounding name. Unfortunately, even though they specifically pointed out that male teachers make more than female teachers, they didn't actually test male vs. female resume callbacks/interviews. Dumb oversight if you ask me.
What the fuck are you talking about? The only time white guys get any shit on line is when they do things like whine about how women are taking their ghostbuster jobs. Brings a whole new meaning to "snowflake." Pretty sure you're trolling, but let's go through your claims one at a time for fun.
Claim: In every other forum, it is perfectly normal and acceptable to ridicule and rant against white guys. Counterargument: I have never seen any ranting against white guys in the following forums: Daily Stormer, The Blaze, Zero Hedge, Gateway Pundit, but even broader forums like XKCD and Slashdot do not condone racism or sexism against white males. Hell even Wonkette would put down the banhammer if your sole argument was "Trump is bad because he's a white guy and all white guys are bad."
Claim: Commercials and TV shows always make the white male the butt of the joke. Counterarguments: Statistically, the plurality of actors on TV and in commercials are white males. It makes sense then, that the plurality of heels would also be white males. There are numerous examples of minority and female buffoons (Blackish) and villains (How to Get Away with Murder), so your claim that it's always a white male is plainly false. Finally, I've met many more real-life goofs who were white males than any other group, so perhaps it's just art imitating life.
Claim: If you make fun of a black person or a woman you will get crapflooded. No argument here. If you make fun of anybody you pretty much get crapflooded by some butthurt group. Lesson: If you don't want to get crapflooded by whiny babies, don't be a dick in the first place.
Claim: Commercials disproportionately show mixed-race couples. Context: Seeing as miscegenation was illegal in the south until 50 years ago, it only makes sense that there would be an uptick in mixed race couples in real life. Interestingly, prior to 2008, the rate was somewhere below 5%, but in 2010, that number was up to 15%. That's a pretty dramatic increase. Counterclaim: I don't see many married couples in commercials at all. I guess boner pill commercials would be an obvious exception, and the ones I can think of have same-race couples. But even if one in eight were mixed-race couples, that would still be in keeping with the latest census statistics. They simply are a common subset of the predominant demographic most advertisers are trying to reach (young adults with money).
Interestingly, nearly 20% of Americans still disapprove of interracial marriages. I say interesting, because even in a very conservative county, I have not actually met anybody who is openly against mixed-race couples. But I digress.
Your final claim: Post #54708625 will get modded down. Counterargument: It's at a +3, Insightful as I read it.
But that doesn't support the right-wing narrative of "Muslims never police their own, so we must keep them out of our country!" So clearly you are wrong.
I read about this one extreme religion where if a woman gets raped, she must be stoned to death, because she clearly didn't scream loud enough. The same religion says that women should not speak, and must submit to their husbands. It also says you have to pluck out your own eyes if you look at a woman with lust. My personal favorite is that if your child talks back to you, you should definitely beat him, and if that doesn't work, you can have the elders stone him to death.
Sounds pretty bad, right? Maybe we need to ban everybody from that religion, too. Oh wait, that's all from Christianity. Better pack your fucking bags, asshole.
I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans hold the First Amendment in such low regard that they would support any ban on any religion. Hell, I even tolerate L. Ron Hubbard's dipshit cult. You can dislike whoever you want, but don't assume for a second that you hold the majority opinion on this.
Wow. I've never seen this argument before. "XXXXX is great because at least it's better than torture!" I'll have to keep that in my back pocket next time I go a-trolling.
Yes, it's clearly a "wild stretch of the imagination" when a president campaigns on a promise, and then tries to keep that promise, even though his own vice-president said it was "offensive and unconstitutional".
I wonder if there's a lot of overlap between "people who are worried about being killed by a refugee terrorist" and "people who buy Powerball tickets." It wouldn't surprise me. People really don't have any idea about things involving low probabilities, especially when the payoff (or cost) is huge.
Why in the world did you get marked troll? The whole point of science is that it's not a priesthood and that you can research for yourself. A buddy of mine didn't believe in photon entanglement. I showed him on hackaday a way to make an entanglement rig yourself. In college I didn't believe Poisson's spot. We set it up in the lab and did it. If you have questions about the climate science, you can set up your own temperature recording stations and collect data for a few decades. Sure it will take a while, but the point is that you CAN do it.