"No one before 1875 needed "permission to immigrate" you only needed a boat ticket, and it was only Asians who were excluded then, Europeans just needed that boat ticket until 1891"
I noted that it was 'only the Asians' who we 'excluded' then.
I do think I got it. Before 1891 Asians suffered discrimination where other immigrants mostly did not. Most European immigrants weren't really noticed. Later the Irish got quite a bit of discrimination, though that coincided with the Depression, a complication.
And despite the discrimination Asians came and came, and while they had enclaves much as others did, they thrived.
Then the implied and explicit support for open borders:
https://theweek.com/articles/7... ( Zack Beauchamp exchange with a reader, Tom Stephenson, and later Zach states explicitly he is an open borders supporter)
Which isn't the least unusual, nor new. Trying to argue that any burst of migrants from south of Mexico doesn't include nasty people, like felons or such, is kinda stupid. It's predictable. And it's not even the primary reason to stop them at the border and do the due diligence that is entirely reasonable for a nation with actual borders.
Remember, this is fortuitous timing for both sides of the debate on immigration. Just keep the popcorn coming, folks.
My great-great-great grandparents came, stood in line, and asked for permission to immigrate. Then they found land in a difficult region, farmed, and prospered.
On the other side of my family they came from England, carved a farm out of the woods, never met American Indians, and convinced the post-Revolution government to honor the land grant they received from the King of England. From then on they farmed hard, lumbered (both sides did this, odd), sent 19 sons and daughters to wars, smuggled booze, were actual sea pirates, and gave the town they lived in land for the town hall, fire station, high school and middle school, church, meeting house, and parsonage. And finally that line ended, 260+ years after they left England to first find success elsewhere, and then to become Americans. Both sides of my family exchanged the flag of their birth for a new one, and became Americans. Indeed, they left their native flags behind.
And yes, those here before them certainly considered them invaders, eventually. So yes, I see this mob headed north through Mexico, and waving their native flags, and I see them as nothing but invaders. That they don't carry arms doesn't change that, but it will inform our response at the border.
Project Choke Point is the model. We do need for government to stop talking like this, and then to start talking to corporations like they also need to stop being so evil.
The reality is that while governments are monopolies of their own making, more or less, and we can vote and vote and maybe get what we want, but corporations serve their profits, and can be even more entrenched. Competition is the answer, maybe.
It's best to keep government out of this though, as they will change the rules and own this.
Sure, when they come for your enemies, you cheer. Or just sit still and let them crush your enemies,
And then they come for you. Because they come for everyone, sooner or later.
No, no, no, in the US at least we do not want the government to either decide what is hate speech and shut down those who they claim spew it, nor do we want the government to charge corporations with the responsibility and authority to do so. We're stuck with corporations deciding what they will or will not publish or permit, but if they exercise that control they are, perhaps, taking responsibility, and we can expect them to be responsible. Perhaps.
Ads are not the issue. Content, speech is the issue. Whatever the Daily Stormer is, or Infowars, or the others, they are being censored. If that's OK with you, do let us know which of your favorite sources would similarly be no great loss to you if it were silenced. Sooner or later, one will, if you will not defend the right.
"Essentially, if your home already had a wood fireplace, wood stove, wood pellet stove, or wood boiler system, the new laws don't apply to you. However, you may not be permitted to operate existing wood-based heating systems in some of those localities, because, while the systems themselves are grandfathered, their emissions are still subject to the new regulations.)"
Sorry, but this form of doublespeak is long-standing in Maine. You could keep your log furnace, but you couldn't use it unless you cleaned up the emissions...
But I agree that no burn management has caused a lot of trouble.
"From a report: A new device that sits inside a shipping container can use clean energy to almost instantly bring clean drinking water anywhere"
In Maine, at least, some legislation was enacted to discourage using wood in a variety of systems to heat homes. IT seems that some of those were pretty dirty. Gasifiers were pretty large scale, and usually used a lot of otherwise unused biomass. And were, as mentioned elsewhere, mot often located where the biomass was. One I knew of was located at the chip and lumber mill it served to power.
Then I look at the Fast Company article (git yer own link) and recognize that it seems to be nowhere near any significant source of biomass. Maybe a great demonstration of the dehumidifier, but not an obviously sustainable example to me. But then I only know what I've seen and read about this. surely the smart people know how to deal with the gasifier, the necessary biomass, and the value of the exchange, since this is about turning wood into water by fire. How much will it cost per liter of clean water?
Of course the Fast Company article showed an example where solar power would be the obvious solution. If you think solar power is clean, well, you probably think vodka is dessert. It's really just a sugar, right? And health food, it's pretty much just potatoes, right?
Mind you, to solve clean water problems where there are no other solutions, well, darn, that's a stupid thing to say. Never mind about that.
I'm saddled with some business contacts on FB. All else is minimal, and I keep narrowing down my profile, but yeah I put up with a lot, especially ACs being righteous.
Ok, first, that was my point. Google is not actually the big problem. But we digress.
Usually my phone is NOT the last connection, not the last streaming device, it's just proving hard to find the survive that is causing this, and IHR and Lincoln are unable to help so far.
In fact, both dispute my claim, despite screenshots. I'm possibly going to have to root and dump logs.
"As much as the more hysterical EU/. contingent would prefer their companies to do what they want throughout the world, and government is flawed when it comes to regulation"
Right now my big complaint is that when my phone pairs/connects with my wife's car (Lincoln MKX, Base Sync), IHeartRadio starts and runs in the background on its own. No other time does IHR run on its own. And I cannot yet find out why.
IHR gives me no useful information. Anyone seen this?
It's not just Google. Facebook has notifications that cannot easily be cleared, items that you click without actually intending to, and ways of trapping you into interactions you didn't really want. Twitter and other social media repeatedly try to trick me into loading my contact list, all now 347 of them, half at least of which are incidental contacts in other social media or other Google stuff, like the auto-adds from Gmail, the CCs and BCCs accumulate. And the dupes. I'm not letting those go into my media feeds. Google isn't even the worst for me, though Google Maps asking me to rate a place because I sat through 2 traffic light cycles next to is is pretty stupid, especially when the location has been closed for a few months.
Privacy protection, such as pure 100% opt-in, or even calculated value for data, would be more useful to me. Google is charging phone sellers/makers for the convenience of loading their products in, the advantage of getting in first, and the privilege/value of being the default where there's an actual choice - right now Apple is not likely to open up an Android app store, not a lot of opportunity there I think.
It's all spyware, one reason why I reject a surprising number of app offers and use web services on my phone. I presume the app will grab every single bit of data it can, even if it isn't disclosed, and I'm not interested in fighting about it, so I don't use the app for some social media and similar sites like radio.com, who turns on notifications to me despite my choosing no, Snapchat, which is just annoying.
It's hard to reconcile Islamic invasions of Europe, those which occasioned the Crusades, with the peaceful Islam being presented. Perhaps I should be more specific, and recognize that while there is a radical Islamic movement globally, it should not be considered the majority movement today. Certainly Christianity has had its radical sects.
It is not the name we have for him, but his character, his proclamations to us, and his actions, that lead me to believe that the god I call 'God', that Jews call by several names, often even writing it as 'G-d', is not in any way the same god as what Muslims call Allah. No.
And Islamic claims to the contrary are false. The nature of Allah, as described by the Prophet Mohammed, is simply not that of the Christian God. His covenant with us, delivered by His son, is incompatible with Islam.
" Even a Hasidic Jew could tell you that that the god of Islam and Christianity is the exact same God. Ask an actual rabbi sometime."
First, I agree, and have tried to state that repeatedly, I do know that the Hebrew God and the Christian God are one and the same. Truly, you would have to be especially dense to not know that.
But to state that "Allah is Arabic for "God" means nothing. Allah is credited with a faith that is, on the face of it, incompatible with Christianity, for several reasons. These should be obvious to any who have made even a cursory study. And it is these incompatibilities that lead me to reject Allah as god.
I keep forgetting that/. readers rarely actually read.
Oh, please, do you have a brief defense for your claim that Allah is indeed Jehovah? And perhaps explain how Islam can be compatible with Judaism, as it seems to teach the destruction of Jews wherever they are found?
Or, perhaps, you're of the camp that will define the Christian God as duplicitous, even in triplicate? That I understand, but to conflate Allah with Jehovah I cannot.
I know full well that the Jewish God, Jehovah or whatever name used, is indeed the very same God as we Christians also worship.
I'm not at all certain Allah is the same God, nor that Islam is compatible with Christianity. Not at all
I'm not wrong in this. I understand the Old Testament, indeed I understand its place in my faith, that it informs me but it's not necessarily the final word on many things, for Christians have a new Covenant with God, one that in many ways replaces the covenants in the OT, though God himself has not changed.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole of the quote I read:
"No one before 1875 needed "permission to immigrate" you only needed a boat ticket, and it was only Asians who were excluded then, Europeans just needed that boat ticket until 1891"
I noted that it was 'only the Asians' who we 'excluded' then.
I do think I got it. Before 1891 Asians suffered discrimination where other immigrants mostly did not. Most European immigrants weren't really noticed. Later the Irish got quite a bit of discrimination, though that coincided with the Depression, a complication.
And despite the discrimination Asians came and came, and while they had enclaves much as others did, they thrived.
"it was only Asians who were excluded then"
And, so, you dispute your own statement...
Oh, citations:
https://twitter.com/banditelli...
https://thehill.com/opinion/im... (this article quotes Keith Ellison repeatedly)
Only two, I know. Like an iceberg...
Then the implied and explicit support for open borders:
https://theweek.com/articles/7... ( Zack Beauchamp exchange with a reader, Tom Stephenson, and later Zach states explicitly he is an open borders supporter)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... (Hillary Clinton 'dreamed of “open trade and open borders” throughout the Western Hemisphere.')
Hillary seems pretty mainstream Democrat unless you're trying to hide the details.
"why should people in a one geographic region control who can come and go to said region"
This idea is similar, superficially, to the concept of controlling who can come into your home, though for similar and still superficial reasons.
"I am liberal. I do not support 'wide open borders'. I do not know anyone that does."
I am aware many who support 'wide open borders'. And you are too, unless you've self-censored your info feeds.
I'm not including Angela Merkel in this, just the American politicians...
Actually, it's likely there are...
Which isn't the least unusual, nor new. Trying to argue that any burst of migrants from south of Mexico doesn't include nasty people, like felons or such, is kinda stupid. It's predictable. And it's not even the primary reason to stop them at the border and do the due diligence that is entirely reasonable for a nation with actual borders.
Remember, this is fortuitous timing for both sides of the debate on immigration. Just keep the popcorn coming, folks.
My great-great-great grandparents came, stood in line, and asked for permission to immigrate. Then they found land in a difficult region, farmed, and prospered.
On the other side of my family they came from England, carved a farm out of the woods, never met American Indians, and convinced the post-Revolution government to honor the land grant they received from the King of England. From then on they farmed hard, lumbered (both sides did this, odd), sent 19 sons and daughters to wars, smuggled booze, were actual sea pirates, and gave the town they lived in land for the town hall, fire station, high school and middle school, church, meeting house, and parsonage. And finally that line ended, 260+ years after they left England to first find success elsewhere, and then to become Americans. Both sides of my family exchanged the flag of their birth for a new one, and became Americans. Indeed, they left their native flags behind.
And yes, those here before them certainly considered them invaders, eventually. So yes, I see this mob headed north through Mexico, and waving their native flags, and I see them as nothing but invaders. That they don't carry arms doesn't change that, but it will inform our response at the border.
Ah, 1968, halcyon days...
On April 4, Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.
The Orangeburg Massacre on February 18.
The Black Panthers emerged, with their own special brand of protests.
Bobby Kennedy was assassinated on June 5.
And the Democrat Party National Convention, a festival of peace and nonviolence. Not.
Yeah, we need more of that like we need a new strain of smallpox.
Errr, wha?
Project Choke Point is the model. We do need for government to stop talking like this, and then to start talking to corporations like they also need to stop being so evil.
The reality is that while governments are monopolies of their own making, more or less, and we can vote and vote and maybe get what we want, but corporations serve their profits, and can be even more entrenched. Competition is the answer, maybe.
It's best to keep government out of this though, as they will change the rules and own this.
Do you not get it?
Sure, when they come for your enemies, you cheer. Or just sit still and let them crush your enemies,
And then they come for you. Because they come for everyone, sooner or later.
No, no, no, in the US at least we do not want the government to either decide what is hate speech and shut down those who they claim spew it, nor do we want the government to charge corporations with the responsibility and authority to do so. We're stuck with corporations deciding what they will or will not publish or permit, but if they exercise that control they are, perhaps, taking responsibility, and we can expect them to be responsible. Perhaps.
Ads are not the issue. Content, speech is the issue. Whatever the Daily Stormer is, or Infowars, or the others, they are being censored. If that's OK with you, do let us know which of your favorite sources would similarly be no great loss to you if it were silenced. Sooner or later, one will, if you will not defend the right.
"Essentially, if your home already had a wood fireplace, wood stove, wood pellet stove, or wood boiler system, the new laws don't apply to you. However, you may not be permitted to operate existing wood-based heating systems in some of those localities, because, while the systems themselves are grandfathered, their emissions are still subject to the new regulations.)"
Sorry, but this form of doublespeak is long-standing in Maine. You could keep your log furnace, but you couldn't use it unless you cleaned up the emissions...
But I agree that no burn management has caused a lot of trouble.
"From a report: A new device that sits inside a shipping container can use clean energy to almost instantly bring clean drinking water anywhere"
In Maine, at least, some legislation was enacted to discourage using wood in a variety of systems to heat homes. IT seems that some of those were pretty dirty. Gasifiers were pretty large scale, and usually used a lot of otherwise unused biomass. And were, as mentioned elsewhere, mot often located where the biomass was. One I knew of was located at the chip and lumber mill it served to power.
Then I look at the Fast Company article (git yer own link) and recognize that it seems to be nowhere near any significant source of biomass. Maybe a great demonstration of the dehumidifier, but not an obviously sustainable example to me. But then I only know what I've seen and read about this. surely the smart people know how to deal with the gasifier, the necessary biomass, and the value of the exchange, since this is about turning wood into water by fire. How much will it cost per liter of clean water?
Of course the Fast Company article showed an example where solar power would be the obvious solution. If you think solar power is clean, well, you probably think vodka is dessert. It's really just a sugar, right? And health food, it's pretty much just potatoes, right?
Mind you, to solve clean water problems where there are no other solutions, well, darn, that's a stupid thing to say. Never mind about that.
As an example of 0) potentially intrusive, privacy violating app behavior not of Google's making, and 1) how it's not just Google.
I'm saddled with some business contacts on FB. All else is minimal, and I keep narrowing down my profile, but yeah I put up with a lot, especially ACs being righteous.
Ok, first, that was my point. Google is not actually the big problem. But we digress.
Usually my phone is NOT the last connection, not the last streaming device, it's just proving hard to find the survive that is causing this, and IHR and Lincoln are unable to help so far.
In fact, both dispute my claim, despite screenshots. I'm possibly going to have to root and dump logs.
Sure. Identifying it is the challenge.
"As much as the more hysterical EU /. contingent would prefer their companies to do what they want throughout the world, and government is flawed when it comes to regulation"
FTFY
Well, bangers and mashed splits the difference.
Right now my big complaint is that when my phone pairs/connects with my wife's car (Lincoln MKX, Base Sync), IHeartRadio starts and runs in the background on its own. No other time does IHR run on its own. And I cannot yet find out why.
IHR gives me no useful information. Anyone seen this?
It's not just Google. Facebook has notifications that cannot easily be cleared, items that you click without actually intending to, and ways of trapping you into interactions you didn't really want. Twitter and other social media repeatedly try to trick me into loading my contact list, all now 347 of them, half at least of which are incidental contacts in other social media or other Google stuff, like the auto-adds from Gmail, the CCs and BCCs accumulate. And the dupes. I'm not letting those go into my media feeds. Google isn't even the worst for me, though Google Maps asking me to rate a place because I sat through 2 traffic light cycles next to is is pretty stupid, especially when the location has been closed for a few months.
Privacy protection, such as pure 100% opt-in, or even calculated value for data, would be more useful to me. Google is charging phone sellers/makers for the convenience of loading their products in, the advantage of getting in first, and the privilege/value of being the default where there's an actual choice - right now Apple is not likely to open up an Android app store, not a lot of opportunity there I think.
It's all spyware, one reason why I reject a surprising number of app offers and use web services on my phone. I presume the app will grab every single bit of data it can, even if it isn't disclosed, and I'm not interested in fighting about it, so I don't use the app for some social media and similar sites like radio.com, who turns on notifications to me despite my choosing no, Snapchat, which is just annoying.
It's hard to reconcile Islamic invasions of Europe, those which occasioned the Crusades, with the peaceful Islam being presented. Perhaps I should be more specific, and recognize that while there is a radical Islamic movement globally, it should not be considered the majority movement today. Certainly Christianity has had its radical sects.
It is not the name we have for him, but his character, his proclamations to us, and his actions, that lead me to believe that the god I call 'God', that Jews call by several names, often even writing it as 'G-d', is not in any way the same god as what Muslims call Allah. No.
And Islamic claims to the contrary are false. The nature of Allah, as described by the Prophet Mohammed, is simply not that of the Christian God. His covenant with us, delivered by His son, is incompatible with Islam.
" Even a Hasidic Jew could tell you that that the god of Islam and Christianity is the exact same God. Ask an actual rabbi sometime."
First, I agree, and have tried to state that repeatedly, I do know that the Hebrew God and the Christian God are one and the same. Truly, you would have to be especially dense to not know that.
But to state that "Allah is Arabic for "God" means nothing. Allah is credited with a faith that is, on the face of it, incompatible with Christianity, for several reasons. These should be obvious to any who have made even a cursory study. And it is these incompatibilities that lead me to reject Allah as god.
I keep forgetting that /. readers rarely actually read.
Oh, please, do you have a brief defense for your claim that Allah is indeed Jehovah? And perhaps explain how Islam can be compatible with Judaism, as it seems to teach the destruction of Jews wherever they are found?
Or, perhaps, you're of the camp that will define the Christian God as duplicitous, even in triplicate? That I understand, but to conflate Allah with Jehovah I cannot.
I know full well that the Jewish God, Jehovah or whatever name used, is indeed the very same God as we Christians also worship.
I'm not at all certain Allah is the same God, nor that Islam is compatible with Christianity. Not at all
I'm not wrong in this. I understand the Old Testament, indeed I understand its place in my faith, that it informs me but it's not necessarily the final word on many things, for Christians have a new Covenant with God, one that in many ways replaces the covenants in the OT, though God himself has not changed.