If you preach that XYZ needs to be : * lose right they have now
* ened to be "eliminated", "purged", "kicked out of the countries"
Then your speech is most probably extreme.

Most Left political ideology in the US did not meet those criteria. In fact witch hunt from holywood and the FBI *did* meet that criteria.

Finally in europüe we have many hate speech law. I may be wrong, but they are speaking not of new law, which already cover the case, but rather speed up enfrocement.

We already have law on the book with respect to speech and hatred, and those being forbidden... It sounds to me it is only required to really enforce those law now in a speedy manner.

The novel was incredible for the time (that and "Friday" it was called, the one with the intersex assassin?). Spoiler below:









In the novel in the end practically all protagonist are the same persons on different point of the time line, in a very paradoxical way (e.g. , the main protagonist his himself, herself before the sex change, and her own daughter).

I thoought the title of the previous post would lead people to google it. Nonetheless here is an example among others :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Actually more than you would think. Still no justification for moslem to do the same or christian or anybody. I view both extremist as both equally sociopathic assholes.

You have that a little wrong. God *can* (in principle) be proven. If the sky breaks open, choirs of angels break forth, a 10km-long arm reaches down from the skies and an 8km golden-haired, bearded face looks down upon humanity and utters words of unshakable truth...then God is proven

No you have only proven an entity is capable of that. You have not provided evidence that that entity is a god or similar avatar. Misquoting clark : sufficientely advanced science can look like magic. How do you prove that entity you describe is a god, or in reality is not but a very advanced technologically civilisation with very advanced tech, with an unknown agenda wanting to make us believe they have/are god ? You can't.

God is essentially unknowable, as no matter what feat it does, there could be a technological ET having mastered tech being able to reproduce that. God can neither be proven nor disproven, except maybe if you meet him after death, instead of oblivion.

I mean other countries had president which believed in an apocalyptic religion (revelation) or that atheist should not given the right to vote. Being from outside, the apocalyptic believer make me far more fear than the plane-to-other-planet Veda believer.

"without knowing how the drive "failed" the court cannot prove that there was no evidence to destroy."

correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIR the US justice system, It is up to the prosecution side to prove there was evidence on teh HD, not on the side of the defense there was not. Therefore from the court in absence of proof of existence of evidence, the assumption should be by default there was no evidence. IF the prosecution has proof tehre was evidence they are free to provide them. But until then by presumption of innocence, the court has to assume the recyclage was lawful. Otherwise if the presumption was it was destruction of evidence, then it amounts of a presumption of guiltiness.

Especially not true in many countries where Uber was banned or is in the process of scrutinity. I have never had any dirty in Seoul, or in germany where I live, or in england (as a matter of disclosure I had a few dirty taxi in NY, true, but the vast majority of taxi I took in Dallas or other metropole in teh US were squicky clean). I had a few dirty taxi in Paris, but that was so long ago, and the few taxi I took in the last decade in france were clean too.

Anyway at least for germany I support the regulation and uber being forced to obey it. After all we do not have a medaillon system like in the US, everybody with the proper training driver licence, and the proper governemental check of their money counter, as well as the proper insurance (commercial passenger transport insurance) can become a taxi. In my city we have a lot of different taxi companies, some being simply a single person having repainted their own car (and having the proper papers). Nothing outrageous really, in fact those regulations make a lot of sense.

Which is why some country are using QWERTZ and AZERTY. And also why some electricity transportation and usage are DC.

NBC and CNN are far more likely to cave, foreign outfit much less. Now the problem would be for you to interrest them into your story. An alternatrive would be to publish it on ACLU or EFF forums or similars.

See if you increase the temperature to overcome some bonds which are too strong, you get confronted that other bonds become too weak (remember for any kT you have a temperature gaussian spread so your bonds are likely not surviving the high end) and you seriously limit some of the chemistry we know (oxy/reduction, what most likely any life is based on). C is good because it allows for a zone of relative stability which can still be broken. I am not a high pressure or high temperature chemist, but the few I know shows me that such island of stability does not exists in the "high" zone. Keep in mind my expertise is QM, so not the subject at hand which I know only from my studying years.

Email can be said to be a copyrighted work. They are also distributed only to one person, other person do not have the distribution right. Distirbution right is given temporary to an itnermediate to facilitate the email reaching its goal. Frankly I will take the contrary direction : DMCA is over reaching in all case, but using it for email is not an overreach.

Barring utterly unknown chemistry, other atoms offer limited chemistry, bonds too strong, bonds too weak, limited atoms to which they can bond. That's why we concentrate on carbon based chemistry, with Oxygen or sulfure. Sure we could be missing something, but is it likely ? We have to concentrate on what we know we CAN find, as we can't send too many intruments out there like on the mars rover.

If the approach followed here allows for a good detection of KNOWN organic life with p0.05, then it sounds a good approach.

I contend that anyone who achieves true objectivity on this issue will opt for agnosticism and just leave the debate behind.

Agnosticism alone is only about the contention that the existence of gods are unknowable and says nothing about the belief of the person.

The real category are IMNSHO :
* gnostic theist , I believe in god(s) existance and I know god(s) existence are knowable
* gnostic atheist , god(s) non existence is demonstrable (and logically do not believe in gods existence)
* agnostic theist , I believe in god(s) existance but god(s) existence cannot ever be demonstrated e.g. it is faith only, all the rest miracle and so forth is bunk
* agnostic atheist , god(s) are a construction of human mind, but this cannot ever be demonstrated to the point of knowing that god(s) do not exists.

In the very end if you shrug and say I do not know, but live your life without any token prayer , then you are de facto agnostic atheist. There are a few agnostic theist I met, they are quite rare, the vast majority of self declared "agnostic" I met, are actually agnostic atheist, but unwilling to admit the atheist part to themselves. I am an agnostic atheist by the way.