Really? I don't think I've ever seen it used in any other way.

Here's the Webster's definition of SJW:

SJW (noun): A term used by fuckwits to describe people they don't like.

Seems accurate.

Probably, but those death threats were from good American Christians and thus probably not news worthy. Or were you under the impression that there aren't any religious nut jobs in the ranks of the Christian Fundamentalists.

Seriously, the publication was cancelled not because they received death threats, but because the Christian group promised to bring the death threats by making them a target. It was most definitely cancelled because they were afraid of violence from Christian nut jobs, not because they feared this group of people would continue not buying the comics that DC publishes, they even said as much near the end of the article.

Frankly, those aren't very flashy "superpowers". Transmutation of materials and walking on water aren't nearly as impressive as super strength, shooting lasers, or flying. Healing and raising the dead, on the other hand are pretty impressive powers in their own right, but those powers push the user into a supporting role. In stories, the healer keeps the other people alive so they can do their stuff, the healer is rarely the main protagonist in a heroic epic. The healer tends to be the sidekick.

Although, the transmutation ability could become a first class ability if it's scaled and applied correctly. Imagine a man who can transmute a wall into air with a wave of his hand or the reverse, or who could wave away a hail of bullets, instead of, say, turning a jug of water into wine.

As I was thinking about this, I realized that on many levels, Dr. Manhattan's power are just the scaled up powers of Jesus, except, of course, that I don't think that Dr. Manhattan could actually return the dead to life. I think the point, is that while Biblical Jesus has amazing powers for the real world, in a superhero comic book world, his powers are far less impressive than those of many well-known superheroes.

Well, if you want to reduce the absolute number of violent crimes in America, clearly the more efficient option would be to deport all the legal Americans and leave only the illegal immigrants behind. That would reduce the violent crime rate by far more than deporting all the illegal immigrants, because not only do illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than American citizens, they are also fewer of them.

Clearly, you are just not willing to go too far enough to get the results you want.

Your estimate appears to be low. According this fact check, around 40-45% of illegal immigrants were overstays during the 90s. There is no real current reporting on the source of illegal immigration right now, the department that previous published that report no longer exists. However, that was near the peak of illegal border crossings, they peaked in 2000, and since then border crossings have dropped by around 70% (they are now the lowest they have been since 1971), and it seems the best estimate is that around two thirds (or more) of new illegal immigrants are overstays.

From a Disney point of view, owning their own streaming service makes perfect sense, they already have 2 (or more?) Disney channels. They will just make everything they put on the Disney channel available for streaming. Unfortunately, it will probably work. Parents with kids (especially girls) will fork over the subscription rate for access to all of the Disney content (especially Disney princess shows and movies) until their kids outgrow Disney.

I'm not sure if any of the other company specific streaming services can make it, though. They don't have Disney's catalogue, reputation, or captive audience.

Let's say you are a coral and you can live in water of temperature 20-24 degrees Celsius. Which is convenient, because the water you live in is usually between 21-23 degrees. Now add global warming, over the course of the last century the water temperature increased by ~0.4 degrees on average. Before you could survive a hot period where the water temperature increased by a full degree, which is not an unreasonable increase for El Nino years. Now, however, you can only survive a hot period of 0.6 degrees before you start to die off. By the end of the century, if ocean temperatures increase by another 0.6 degrees, you may have trouble surviving every summer that not a La Nina year and you may be devastated if not completely wiped out by a moderate El Nino year.

If we're lucky, you will be replaced by a coral that is better adapted to those warmer temperatures, if we're not, the coral in your area goes extinct.

The fluctuations neither help nor hinder, because the baseline increase increases both the minimum and maximum values, and if the maximum values will kill you, you only have to hit those values once to get killed. The fact that you didn't die on a different day doesn't help you much, you're still dead.

Specifically that article said that the water that between 1.8 and 2.6 km below the pacific ocean surface was cooling at rate of around 0.02 degrees per century. If we assume all of the measurements are accurate, then the volume of water above 1.8 km and below 2.6 km would still be warming (at rates of about 0.4 degrees and 0.1 degrees per century, respectively), so the other parts of the pacific represent a larger volume of water and they are warming faster than this smaller band is cooling, and that means that there is more than enough warming water to offset the smaller band of cooling water. So overall the ocean is warming, even though there is band of water that hasn't seen the surface in 200-1000 years that is still cooling.

Why steal the actual physical device, when you (or someone else) can reverse engineer it (or steal the plans) and release instructions on how to build your own stopper onto the internet? Imagine the fun of being able to stop random (or not-so-random) cars on the highway!

Yeah, that's a huge security hole that no matter how much you tried to protect it, would eventually fall into the hands of criminals and be abused.

Maybe I've misunderstood the real process of the American budget, but it was my impression that the White House writes a budget and then submits it to Congress, where it is read, debated, and possibly modified and then eventually sent back to the White House for signing.

If the Trump administration wrote the budget, shouldn't they get both the credit and the blame for the budget?

That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year under Obama.

The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.

You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

No, the other poster clearly indicated he wants to crucify Assange for using Wikileaks for personal gain and/or vendettas.

The problem is he didn't really expose the truth, he exposed half a truth and mislead many people. We all know that he allowed Wikileaks to be used a vehicle for propaganda and helped the Russian intelligence agencies interfere in the U.S. election. He did so because he wanted to pursue a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. The amusing part is that he hated Clinton because she wanted to do what the Trump administration is trying to do to him now.

This looks like a case of being hoisted by your own petard, and I have little sympathy for someone who deliberately helped Trump get elected when they are facing the consequences of Trump having been elected.

That's ok. Sometimes people just want to enjoy a little schaedenfreude.

Actually Keynes said it had a stimulative effect even if you paid half the people to dig ditches and the other half to fill them in, and it does. He was making a point about how effective it is, not making a recommendation about what should be done with the money. Keynes would likely agree with you completely that spending the money on public infrastructure is better than spending it on make work projects.

You know the car is fresh because the welds are still glowing!

Yeah, sure, Net Neutrality obviously leads to death camps. That's why Finland is the happiest country in the world, it's all the grinning skulls...

Do you even read the stuff you write?