Comment Alas, (Score 5, Funny) 140
The only thing more annoying than a computer is a computer that tries to be helpful.
The only thing more annoying than a computer is a computer that tries to be helpful.
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.
I'm glad to hear that someone is trying to out-stupid *my* country.
"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira