Oh, and obviously the dominant white male power has nothing to do with inequality of opportunity
I'm all for inequality of opportunity. I don't want retards like you having access to important, well paying jobs. You and your sub-70 IQ should absolutely not have the same opportunity to fly a commercial airliner as someone who isn't a microcephalic.
"Discrimination" is only a dirty word to those who suck at everything.
Really? Which ones? AFAIK only the orthodox Slavic countries have used Cyrillic in 19th or 20th century (Belarus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia), and none of those have switched.
Not "switched" per say, but several of the countries you listed have both Cyrillic and Latin versions of their alphabets. Both of them are in common use.
Also, while you mention Serbia and Macedonia, you fail to mention the other ex-yugoslav states (Croatia, Bosnia, Slovania) all of which used Cyrillic prior to the breakup of the country, and which now (iirc) only reckognize the Latin version as their official alphabet.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, basically: Obama's administration filled out the paperwork and submitted it in triplicate. Trump's administration just used blank paper with the words "Immagrints Bad" on it.
I think you're confusing "fine point" and "dull troll". No part of your comment comes even close to reflecting the reason, purpose, or methods at play. It's as if you were watching a baseball game and said "so, basically, the guy with the ball is trying to hit the guy with the bat, because he hates the Dutch".
Anyway doesnÃ(TM)t matter.... China is way cleaner than US per capita.
If you're measuring CO2, sure. It's just pretty stupid because CO2 isn't "dirty" in any meaningful sense of the word.
If you're measuring other environmental pollutants, it's not even close. China has done a decent job of cleaning up their act in recent years but their environmental standards are still a joke compared to the US.
It amounts to nothing more sophisticated than wishing everyone would just ignore people who are obviously wrong.
Everything else you've said is pretty stupid, but this is both stupid and ass backwards. I don't want everyone to ignore those who are obviously wrong; I want everyone to be able to point out that they're wrong. Chiropractic is obviously wrong. Homeopathy is obviously wrong. Holocaust deniers are obviously wrong. Alex Jones is obviously wrong about pretty much fucking everything. All of these people are wrong, and I certainly do not want everyone to ignore them. I want everyone to point it out and call them out for the frauds and idiots that they are... without the threat of then having to defend themselves in a lawsuit where their guilt is predetermined. Whereas you seem perfectly fine with a cunt like Alex Jones being able to sue me for pointing out that he's obviously wrong, and you honestly believe that I should be presumed guilty until I can prove that I'm innocent.
You obviously have no clue what justice is. Sit down; you're done.
Again, that's not a problem with the specifics of libel law but with courts that won't dismiss frivolous cases
If the burden of proof is on the defendant is to prove his innocence then there's no such thing as a frivolous case. In sane legal systems cases are considered to be frivolous in situations where, no matter what kind of evidence the prosecution/plaintiff presents, it is obvious that they will lose. How would that apply in your system? The plaintiff doesn't have to present any evidence at all. David Irving just had to say "she called me a holocaust denier but I'm a holocaust researcher". On what basis do you determine that the case is frivolous? Just because you don't like him?
Your idea of justice gets more muddled by the minute.
If I go on national television and say that you beat the daylights out of your late wife, why do I get to be the person who's "innocent until proven guilty" and you aren't?
You're not; you just don't understand what that phrase means. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a reference to fucking rumour mills. If you don't see the difference between someone gossiping about you and the government locking you up or forcing you to give someone money, you are not thinking rationally.
Basically, you're asking for the return of lynching as an acceptable social practise.
That's absolutely retarded. And, hey, when you say retarded things I can call you a retard without having to worry about defending myself in court. Because free societies understand that free speech is important no matter how many petty tyrants try to suppress it.
A billion+ people around the world, in 100+ countries, would beg to disagree.
But hey, the important thing here is that you get to feel superior to those ignorant rednecks and show the world how cultured and refined you are. Who cares what the help thinks, as long as they bring the tea and biscuits when you ring your bell.
Quite the opposite - you've become confused by the fact that there are two claims. A claims that B is a liar. B claims that A is being libellous and goes to court. The fact that technically, in court, B is prosecuting A doesn't change the fact that originally it was A that made the accusation and, quite rightly, is being told to prove it or fuck off.
Which results in wonderful cases like academics being forced to spend millions of pounds to try and prove that the holocaust actually happened, because a holocaust denier is upset that they called him a holocaust denier and wants to use the courts to bully them into silence.
Yes, "quite rightly".
It is B that is being treated as innocent until proven guilty and it is A's responsibility to produce the proof that backs up their claim. Which is fair and just.
You have a seriously messed up idea of fairness and justice. In your silly little world anyone who makes an honest mistake out of ignorance, or who uses hyperbole in a moment of passion, should be held liable in a court of law and forced to pay out the ass. And anyone who makes a factual statement which is difficult to prove should likewise be subject to a government led inquisition which can stretch on for years and cost a small fortune.
That's neither fair nor just; it's a gross misuse of the judicial system. Far more importantly, though, it has a chilling effect on public participation.
that big corporations can use this to silence critics is not a problem with the libel laws, but with the justice system in general which allows far too much power to rich people and companies on either side in ALL cases.
Not at all. Some lunatic like David Irving can accuse you, also, and represent himself. Then you get to spend 2 years of your life and a small fortune of money you don't actually have, trying to prove that yes, the holocaust did really happen, and yes, this maniac did lie about it.
It's not just those with deep pockets who can use it to silence critics; anyone with an axe to grind and some spare time can do the same. Had David Irving sued me instead of an author who was lucky enough to have the financial support of her publisher, I would have had no choice but to cave, apologize, and pay whatever settlement he offered me. Does that sound like justice to you?
I think that you maybe missed the substantial reform of libel law that happened in the wake of the Simon Singh case
You are absolutely correct; I wasn't even aware there was such an initiative, let alone that it had been implemented. Thanks for the links; I'll definitely check them out and then read up some more on it.
In short - things are pretty much closer to an even balance between accuser and accused now with more protections for uneven fights between individuals and corporate entities and special protections for scientific publications.
I sure hope so; the system they had was insane. The US system is far from perfect, but I would far rather err on the side of allowing people to voice their opinions rather than giving scam artists and lunatics the ability to shut down reasonable criticism.
It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US.
That doesn't make it better for the individual; it makes it better for the accuser. If you as the individual are the defendant, it really really sucks. You're presumed guiltily until proven innocent.
Ask Simon Singh how wonderful it was to be the individual sued by the British chiropractic industry.
Perhaps you meant 'being easily farmable'. Because that's definitely not true for many ocean fish that are being caught to extinction.
Well, it's a mix. We don't farm deer or ducks but we've activaly undertaken various efforts to keep their populations at healthy levels because they make for good eatin', and we don't wanna lose that. It's hard with ocean fisheries because we don't have legal control of international waters or the waters of other nation-states.
Basically you have to either be easily farmable or lucky enough to live within the borders of a semi-responsible country.
That's pretty funny. I guess Germany is a good example that "ethnically pure" states don't fail either, then. In which case, which ethnically pure states were you referring to exactly?
There are no pure cultures, and ethnically pure states always fail.
That's a completely vacuous statement. All states eventually fail in one way or another.
It's even more irrelevant in the context of this discussion given that Israel is one of the least "ethnically pure" states in existence. You're just looking for an excuse to inject your weird political talking points into the discussion.
Attempting to preserve "borders, language, and culture" is a fools errand.
Awesome. I'll just let every country in the world know that they're wasting their time with that whole borders thing. Because pope fatso says so.
You end up with some white supremacist jackoff stripping off his clothes and murdering people in a Waffle House.with an AR-15 after complaining on Facebook about the Illuminati and the Jews.
If you actually paid attention to what's going on in the world instead of getting yourself into a tizzy over the latest "news" outrage you might occasionally come up with a comment that's worth taking seriously. Luckily this seems to be a remote possibility.
Even if you accept the idea that they were well-hidden, they've only been gone, what, 2000 years or so? What would finding them be like if they had been gone millions of years ago?
Harder, but given that we have fossolized examples of non-technological hominids which went extinct millions of years ago it seems absurd to postulate that we would be extremely unlikely to find signs of a technological civilisation which existed at the same time.
Building near water is obvious, but this assumes that water has always been where it is now.
No, I'm not talking about "always", I'm talking about the same date ranges which the authors were referring to in that section.
I'm glad you're so sure of your conclusions. Maybe you could write the paper's authors and share your analysis and relevant research experience.
Why? The section which he quoted is prefaced by them noting that they are "speculating" about the probability. Their expertise doesn't play into it much; they're engaging in a thought exercise rather than crunching numbers or examining data.
The rest of the paper is actually quite interesting. You really should read it.
the current area of urbanization is less than 1% of the Earthâ(TM)s surface (Schneider et al., 2009), and exposed sections and drilling sites for pre-Quaternary surfaces are orders of magnitude less as fractions of the original surface
And yet we keep finding buried and hidden signs of civilisations in the middle of the Amazon, and fossilized remnants of long extinct species in the middle of Africa.
They're also ignoring that any reasonable civilisation would have been likely to build their urban centres in many of the same locations we have; near water. This isn't a cultural preference; it's a huge logistical advantage. Given that we've been doing a hell of a lot more excavating near coastlines than we have in the middle of the Canadian tundra, the odds of finding signs of a past culture are WAY higher than the stated 1%.
Slashdot Mirror
60 years ago, all groups were men-only groups
You think that 60 years ago women didn't have any groups?
Let me guess ... Born in 1995, right?
Oh, and obviously the dominant white male power has nothing to do with inequality of opportunity
I'm all for inequality of opportunity. I don't want retards like you having access to important, well paying jobs. You and your sub-70 IQ should absolutely not have the same opportunity to fly a commercial airliner as someone who isn't a microcephalic.
"Discrimination" is only a dirty word to those who suck at everything.
Really? Which ones? AFAIK only the orthodox Slavic countries have used Cyrillic in 19th or 20th century (Belarus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia), and none of those have switched.
Not "switched" per say, but several of the countries you listed have both Cyrillic and Latin versions of their alphabets. Both of them are in common use.
Also, while you mention Serbia and Macedonia, you fail to mention the other ex-yugoslav states (Croatia, Bosnia, Slovania) all of which used Cyrillic prior to the breakup of the country, and which now (iirc) only reckognize the Latin version as their official alphabet.
If someone is giving away their ebook for free, are you prohibited from making a copy to give to your friend?
No, but you also can't burn that e-book to a disc and then sell it to a customer. Which is more analogous to what he was actually doing.
Convince your representative to change a law that was bought paid for by corporations? What kind of fantasy land do you live in?
Which corporations paid for copyright law, and when did this happen? Be specific.
Man, that gay marriage lobby must have had a lot of money.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, basically:
Obama's administration filled out the paperwork and submitted it in triplicate.
Trump's administration just used blank paper with the words "Immagrints Bad" on it.
I think you're confusing "fine point" and "dull troll". No part of your comment comes even close to reflecting the reason, purpose, or methods at play. It's as if you were watching a baseball game and said "so, basically, the guy with the ball is trying to hit the guy with the bat, because he hates the Dutch".
ie. They're working hard on it. ...and will soon pass the USA in everything.
People were saying the same thing about Japan a while back. Unlike you guys I don't pretend to be psychic.
Anyway doesnÃ(TM)t matter.... China is way cleaner than US per capita.
If you're measuring CO2, sure. It's just pretty stupid because CO2 isn't "dirty" in any meaningful sense of the word.
If you're measuring other environmental pollutants, it's not even close. China has done a decent job of cleaning up their act in recent years but their environmental standards are still a joke compared to the US.
It amounts to nothing more sophisticated than wishing everyone would just ignore people who are obviously wrong.
Everything else you've said is pretty stupid, but this is both stupid and ass backwards. I don't want everyone to ignore those who are obviously wrong; I want everyone to be able to point out that they're wrong. Chiropractic is obviously wrong. Homeopathy is obviously wrong. Holocaust deniers are obviously wrong. Alex Jones is obviously wrong about pretty much fucking everything. All of these people are wrong, and I certainly do not want everyone to ignore them. I want everyone to point it out and call them out for the frauds and idiots that they are ... without the threat of then having to defend themselves in a lawsuit where their guilt is predetermined. Whereas you seem perfectly fine with a cunt like Alex Jones being able to sue me for pointing out that he's obviously wrong, and you honestly believe that I should be presumed guilty until I can prove that I'm innocent.
You obviously have no clue what justice is. Sit down; you're done.
Again, that's not a problem with the specifics of libel law but with courts that won't dismiss frivolous cases
If the burden of proof is on the defendant is to prove his innocence then there's no such thing as a frivolous case. In sane legal systems cases are considered to be frivolous in situations where, no matter what kind of evidence the prosecution/plaintiff presents, it is obvious that they will lose. How would that apply in your system? The plaintiff doesn't have to present any evidence at all. David Irving just had to say "she called me a holocaust denier but I'm a holocaust researcher". On what basis do you determine that the case is frivolous? Just because you don't like him?
Your idea of justice gets more muddled by the minute.
If I go on national television and say that you beat the daylights out of your late wife, why do I get to be the person who's "innocent until proven guilty" and you aren't?
You're not; you just don't understand what that phrase means. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a reference to fucking rumour mills. If you don't see the difference between someone gossiping about you and the government locking you up or forcing you to give someone money, you are not thinking rationally.
Basically, you're asking for the return of lynching as an acceptable social practise.
That's absolutely retarded. And, hey, when you say retarded things I can call you a retard without having to worry about defending myself in court. Because free societies understand that free speech is important no matter how many petty tyrants try to suppress it.
You (meaning Americans) can't have nice content
A billion+ people around the world, in 100+ countries, would beg to disagree.
But hey, the important thing here is that you get to feel superior to those ignorant rednecks and show the world how cultured and refined you are. Who cares what the help thinks, as long as they bring the tea and biscuits when you ring your bell.
AC won't even notice unless he catches you in the act or is watching
Which is why it's totally cool to copy his homemade porn videos and post them on the torrent sites.
Quite the opposite - you've become confused by the fact that there are two claims. A claims that B is a liar. B claims that A is being libellous and goes to court. The fact that technically, in court, B is prosecuting A doesn't change the fact that originally it was A that made the accusation and, quite rightly, is being told to prove it or fuck off.
Which results in wonderful cases like academics being forced to spend millions of pounds to try and prove that the holocaust actually happened, because a holocaust denier is upset that they called him a holocaust denier and wants to use the courts to bully them into silence.
Yes, "quite rightly".
It is B that is being treated as innocent until proven guilty and it is A's responsibility to produce the proof that backs up their claim. Which is fair and just.
You have a seriously messed up idea of fairness and justice. In your silly little world anyone who makes an honest mistake out of ignorance, or who uses hyperbole in a moment of passion, should be held liable in a court of law and forced to pay out the ass. And anyone who makes a factual statement which is difficult to prove should likewise be subject to a government led inquisition which can stretch on for years and cost a small fortune.
That's neither fair nor just; it's a gross misuse of the judicial system. Far more importantly, though, it has a chilling effect on public participation.
that big corporations can use this to silence critics is not a problem with the libel laws, but with the justice system in general which allows far too much power to rich people and companies on either side in ALL cases.
Not at all. Some lunatic like David Irving can accuse you, also, and represent himself. Then you get to spend 2 years of your life and a small fortune of money you don't actually have, trying to prove that yes, the holocaust did really happen, and yes, this maniac did lie about it.
It's not just those with deep pockets who can use it to silence critics; anyone with an axe to grind and some spare time can do the same. Had David Irving sued me instead of an author who was lucky enough to have the financial support of her publisher, I would have had no choice but to cave, apologize, and pay whatever settlement he offered me. Does that sound like justice to you?
Thank you Professor Pedantic. Your input is always appreciated.
I think that you maybe missed the substantial reform of libel law that happened in the wake of the Simon Singh case
You are absolutely correct; I wasn't even aware there was such an initiative, let alone that it had been implemented. Thanks for the links; I'll definitely check them out and then read up some more on it.
In short - things are pretty much closer to an even balance between accuser and accused now with more protections for uneven fights between individuals and corporate entities and special protections for scientific publications.
I sure hope so; the system they had was insane. The US system is far from perfect, but I would far rather err on the side of allowing people to voice their opinions rather than giving scam artists and lunatics the ability to shut down reasonable criticism.
It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US.
That doesn't make it better for the individual; it makes it better for the accuser. If you as the individual are the defendant, it really really sucks. You're presumed guiltily until proven innocent.
Ask Simon Singh how wonderful it was to be the individual sued by the British chiropractic industry.
All of them
Awesome, thanks for being so specific.
Perhaps you meant 'being easily farmable'. Because that's definitely not true for many ocean fish that are being caught to extinction.
Well, it's a mix. We don't farm deer or ducks but we've activaly undertaken various efforts to keep their populations at healthy levels because they make for good eatin', and we don't wanna lose that. It's hard with ocean fisheries because we don't have legal control of international waters or the waters of other nation-states.
Basically you have to either be easily farmable or lucky enough to live within the borders of a semi-responsible country.
That's pretty funny. I guess Germany is a good example that "ethnically pure" states don't fail either, then. In which case, which ethnically pure states were you referring to exactly?
There are no pure cultures, and ethnically pure states always fail.
That's a completely vacuous statement. All states eventually fail in one way or another.
It's even more irrelevant in the context of this discussion given that Israel is one of the least "ethnically pure" states in existence. You're just looking for an excuse to inject your weird political talking points into the discussion.
Attempting to preserve "borders, language, and culture" is a fools errand.
Awesome. I'll just let every country in the world know that they're wasting their time with that whole borders thing. Because pope fatso says so.
You end up with some white supremacist jackoff stripping off his clothes and murdering people in a Waffle House.with an AR-15 after complaining on Facebook about the Illuminati and the Jews.
If you actually paid attention to what's going on in the world instead of getting yourself into a tizzy over the latest "news" outrage you might occasionally come up with a comment that's worth taking seriously. Luckily this seems to be a remote possibility.
It's a miracle; we're actually in agreement for one. Must be a Jewish conspiracy.
Even if you accept the idea that they were well-hidden, they've only been gone, what, 2000 years or so? What would finding them be like if they had been gone millions of years ago?
Harder, but given that we have fossolized examples of non-technological hominids which went extinct millions of years ago it seems absurd to postulate that we would be extremely unlikely to find signs of a technological civilisation which existed at the same time.
Building near water is obvious, but this assumes that water has always been where it is now.
No, I'm not talking about "always", I'm talking about the same date ranges which the authors were referring to in that section.
I'm glad you're so sure of your conclusions. Maybe you could write the paper's authors and share your analysis and relevant research experience.
Why? The section which he quoted is prefaced by them noting that they are "speculating" about the probability. Their expertise doesn't play into it much; they're engaging in a thought exercise rather than crunching numbers or examining data.
The rest of the paper is actually quite interesting. You really should read it.
the current area of urbanization is less than 1% of the Earthâ(TM)s surface (Schneider et al., 2009), and exposed sections and drilling sites for pre-Quaternary surfaces are orders of magnitude less as fractions of the original surface
And yet we keep finding buried and hidden signs of civilisations in the middle of the Amazon, and fossilized remnants of long extinct species in the middle of Africa.
They're also ignoring that any reasonable civilisation would have been likely to build their urban centres in many of the same locations we have; near water. This isn't a cultural preference; it's a huge logistical advantage. Given that we've been doing a hell of a lot more excavating near coastlines than we have in the middle of the Canadian tundra, the odds of finding signs of a past culture are WAY higher than the stated 1%.
Verizon already blocks 4k streams
If you're really stupid enough to demand the right to watch 4k video on a friggin smartphone, you can pay them an extra $10 a month and stream away.
I mean .... oooo ... scary. QOS measures will doom us all!