You don't like it, then change the law. Don't go crying because the cop did their job.

In a sane society, it is the job of a cop to use the law as a tool to keep the peace and protect people's rights, not to enforce every minor idiotic whim of those mentally and morally twisted enough to secure for themselves a place in the legislature. Separation of powers has a purpose.

And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.

But I want everyone to be a "freeloader". I want everyone to block ads, at least ads-as-they-are-now, intrusive and tracking. Then when the system falls apart we can replace it with something better. (And almost anything would be better. Perhaps a combination of non-intrusive and non-tracking sponsorships along with a fee charged every ISP and distributed to content creators via statistics sampled from a set of volunteers, a la the Nielsen ratings.)

...it's about the fact that culturally we (usually) are comfortable about men being pushy about their salary, while women tend to be treated negatively if they do the same thing.

Or perhaps because we generally socialize men to be more assertive from childhood, when women attempt to negotiate they have less experience and do a poorer job. (And then there's the un-PC possibility that men are, on average, more assertive for biological reasons that no amount of socialization will change.)

Negotiating is a subtle skill and I'm not convinced that we can say that two people who are both attempting it are "doing the same thing" without very careful observation.

As another poster pointed out, it's just posturing for anyone to say they are going to shoot down the drones.

Not from the ground. From another drone. Don't even need to shoot, just get above it and drop something sufficiently nasty on its rotors. Collect the wreckage and sell what's salvageable...maybe even in your Amazon store.

The do retire. Think big picture for a minute?

I am. I believe in annullment of non fruitful unions. Fuck who you like, cohabitate as you like, but make marriage about nurturing families has ALWAYS been my position. I came to this position when my tasks as a life insurance agent/financial planner led me to help rich DINKs pay less taxes using marriage laws, and felt strongly enough about it to change careers.

My position may not be to your liking, but it is still based on logical long term social best interests as I see them, and not extremism or prejudice.

I have one that can carry 2kg...

They're talking 25 kg / 55lbs pound load here, so you're off by more than an order of magnitude.

Having a system that supports the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind is in the long term best interests of homosexuals just as much as anyone else. Corrupting it into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.

The problem is where do you draw the line?

Why is there a line to be drawn?

Photographer refuses to take photographs at a non-white wedding because of "religious" beliefs. Will take photos of any white ceremony.

And? Can the couple still get married? Can they find a photographer? Pretty sure they can. The photographer's bigotry does not pick anyone's pocket or break anyone's leg. It does not interfere with anyone's rights. Let him turn down paying customers and give opportunity to his competition, it's sort of a self-limiting problem.There is no need for any action here, any more than if a Catholic music composer accepts a commission from the diocese but doesn't accept a commission from the local synagogue (or from the Westborough Baptist Church).

Explain to us then the rational opposing position then. Explain to us the pro-discrimination position whereby we should be permitted to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation when none of those things should matter.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all things except what the state have decided are proper should be forbidden.

Yes, among enlightened people race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation should not matter. That does not imply that unenlightened people should be subject to criminal prosecution or lawsuits.

You should be permitted to discriminate in some areas because you should be permitted to do anything you want that does not interfere with the fundamental rights of others. Housing is a fundamental right, so you shouldn't be legally able to discriminate in renting out a house. But hiring a specific person to take your wedding pictures is not a fundamental right, so a photographer should be legally able to turn down a paying customer for whatever reason they want, even bigotry.

Doing the math with the wrong numbers isn't informative. You've ignored the atmospheric losses suffered by ground-based systems -- clouds, dust, the opacity of air. I think you're also being much more generous in estimating the potential lifetime of ground-based systems than space-based ones, which skews your numbers.

It may be that the gains are small enough to not justify the launch costs, though that depends on how much we value land taken up by solar arrays.

The fact that no attack occured gives the talking heads leeway to claim there was no "terrorist attack."

A terrorist is a person who attempts to bring about political change by "illegitimate" (i.e., non-state) violence.

Mass murder is only terrorism if it is an attack on a political entity, or is an attempt to scare a nation's population into something.

Unless someone says, "We're going to keep crash your planes until you do such-and-such", this isn't terrorism. There's no attempt to bring about political change involved, only murder, motive unknown.

Here is what is also true: greenpeace and other "green" organizations have been found to be taking millions of dollars in money from Russian oil interests, through shell corporations

Hey, you left out your link to a reliable source for this claim.

According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010.

A total over an unstated number of years is meaningless. According to Forbes -- hardly a lefty source, and this is a denialist article -- the U.S. Government spent $32.5 billion on climate studies over 20 years between 1989 and 2009. That's $1.6 billion a year. About $5 per American per year. Accoridng to the GAO (notice the hyperlink, please starting using them, thanks) federal climate change acivities in 2010 were $8.8 billion, but that includes "technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes" -- so climate research is only a small part of that. Figure a quarter to a third of it is climate research. So we're looking at something on the order of $2 or $3 billion a year spent by the federal government on climate change research.

For comparison, the Iraq war was is estimated to have cost $1,100 billion in total.

Exxon Mobills's profits -- not revenues, profits -- last year were $32.5 billion. And that's just one company.

The Army's R&D budget -- not the whole military, just the Army -- is around $21 - 32 billion.Climate research funding is chump change. I kind of liked this line of bullshit better when it was "those scientists telling us smoking causes cancer are just riding the research gravy train!" At least it was a fresh and audacious sort of intellectual dishonesty then. Now it's just pathetic.

No warming for nearly twenty years.

How do people still believe "no warming" bullshit? There is no pause. Please stop speading misinformation. Thank you.

Elite doesn't mean anything without context. You've determined that playing well with others is the context, so, those who do play well with others are elite, and the rest crap.

You're incapable of creating an inclusive community. They require acceptance of all.