It is not about diversity of opinions, opinions are like assholes, everyone has them, it is about what you can prove. You are free to have an opinion and to argue for it but when it is bat shit crazy or based on FUD and propaganda adults can listen long enough to know you have no idea what you are talking about and then ignore you.
This is the exact opposite of liberalism btw but you and Turdblossum always attack other people's strengths. You will never PROVE anything related to something as complex as the climate all you can do is get close enough to make an educated guess. Is Earth warming due to non-human activities yes quite probably. We are in an ice-age right now, granted the very end of one. Every time it has started to really end a large scale fresh water even has refrozen the north pole. This has created abnormally uniform temperatures for about the last 10,000 years. Maybe the only reason wee have civilization is due to ABNORMALLY consistent conditions. If if we can't prove anything at all do you want to RISK climate change that makes it unreasonably hard for us to keep doing the things we like? You know like eating, fucking, and watching TV. As for what you think you're talking a out the LONG carbon cycle is controlled by volcanoes, erosion, shellfish and subduction. The reason fossil fuels are bad is because they are artificial volcanoes that are speeding up the total carbon in the system. C02 is a greenhouse gas. Look up a text book from the 1950s before conservatives conflated FREEDOM with fossil fuels and check. What are you defending anyway? FREEDOM! or just the interests of the most profitable system in human history.
The REAL idea of liberalism is"That makes me uncomfortable because it might lead to me rethinking my position, TAKE IT IN AND TEST FOR TRUTH AND REALITY !" Conservatism either American or Religious is the castle keep defense of the intellect. You lake the meta cognition skill to know that the thing you hate the most you are most guilty of your self. That is epistolic cloture, that is FOX. It is also why you lake the nuts to even use an anonymous internet name instead of AC because you will never actually listen to anyone else's answer, you will just wait impatiently for your turn to blather.
Round power connectors are crap. The jacks stretch and stop making proper contact in no time. Apple used to use them back in the PowerBook days, and on the PB 145, I broke at least three cables and at least two or three jacks on the back of the device over the course of three or four years.
What in the everloving god do you DO to your laptops? I just polled the guys around me and in a collective 30 years spanning thousands and thousands of machines we came up with TWO machines that needed repair due to power port problems.
Err, the church has always been learned, in fact most of the information that survived through the dark ages survived because of monks. If you're thinking of Galileo, the church knew he was correct but they didn't think that the populace should be exposed to it without preparation, that might have been very arrogant, but it hardly shows a lack of scientific knowledge by the Pope.
The problem Apple had is they wanted the entire front to be sapphire, but with holes for the buttons and such, your phone has the screen protected but nothing protruding through the crystal which makes it almost infinitely easier than what Apple was trying.
All well and good, but doesn't exactly solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
Sure it does. (Not that one small pilot project solves the problem, I mean if the tech is scaled up.) It's carbon-neutral just like biofuels are, it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere: it only puts in what it took out to make the fuel in the first place. (I suppose your could even use it to remove CO2, to get us back to 350ppm via carbon sequestration -- make up a bunch of "blue crude" and then stick it underground, running an oil well in reverse.) The problem with greenhouse gas emissions is fossil carbon, which puts in carbon that was captured millions of years ago.
Wonder what the efficiency is like though.
I'd assume it will end up somewhat close to Fischer–Tropsch, about 50-60% max efficiency.
Intel's new SoC's reduce what you need for a basic end-user computer to a motherboard the size of a stick of gum. And that's not an exaggeration.
Oh yes it most certainly IS an exaggeration, it's 10cm by 4cm, much larger than a gum stick at 8.5cm by 2cm. Plus the Intel needs a fairly large power brick. Now some of the Android sticks are as small as a pack of gum and are low enough power that they can run off the USB port built into some TV's (if they're made for charging a phone it will work, if they're only for running a flash drive then it won't) so they really are tiny.
Except the Apps can't be installed if you refuse
Xposed Framework + XPrivacy. Boom.
Shit, why not sync it to your cellphone? If it's a couple GB it'll fit on any reasonably sized phone and who leaves their phone anywhere? If you're really paranoid then encrypt it before the sync in case you somehow lose your phone.
A combination of the back yard and wallet idea, have a solar powered rPi in the back yard with an SD card acting as a backup target, there are plenty of waterproof rPi cases and solar to USB panels.
What rational argument is there that makes it right to strip ownership from the copyright holder after a few decades? Does real estate become public domain after 100 years of ownership?
You have confused ideas with property. The only rational argument for using state force to punish people or make them pay for making a copy of a work is that doing so promotes the creation of more works. That excuse falls off rather rapidly once the author is dead.
A song is not real estate -- if I go into Bob Dylan's house it affects his life, if I sing one of his songs it doesn't -- and so your comparison makes no sense.
So, are you ready to demonstrate, how copyrights have sniffled the development of Jazz, Rock-n-Roll, or Rap, for example?
Famous Copyright Infringement Plagiarism cases in Music
Music Lawsuits: Blurred Lines Thoughts
HTH. HAND.
We trade "freedom" for "security" every day; it's called civilization
If you're trading freedom for security, you're doing it wrong. They are mutually dependent. You have both or neither, not one or the other.
What does it mean to not be free? It means you can't live your life as you want because someone -- the state, the group with a "monopoly on violence", where one exists -- will use violence to stop you. You don't have security when you are subject to state violence that restricts freedom.
And what is the reason we desire security? Because we can only live as we choose -- we can only live freely -- when others do not violently impose their will upon us. You don't have freedom when you are subject to violence that threatens your security.
The question then becomes, how do we organize to defend ourselves against violence, while at the same time not creating an organization that commits violence? The modern police state fails this challenge.
Israel didn't start it, Hamas did.
No. The UK started it with the Balfour Declaration, then the Zionist Organization followed by with an invasion. Arabs started to resist the invasion, and the cycle began, with many sins since then by many players. But the origin was British colonialism and Jewish millenarianism. And the recent and ongoing brutality has been primarily of Israeli origin.
Who are the terrorists? The ones launching cowardly, hidden attacks, or the ones defending themselves?
There is nothing "cowardly" about hiding. That's how you win a battle. It's why we invented camouflage. That's the same charge the British leveled against American colonial fighters, that they wouldn't stand out in the open wearing bright colors and be shot like Real Men.
And the Palestinians have been on the defensive since 1917, that's the historical fact.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
