Registered Democrats in many areas of Florida in 2000 (and to a certain extent today) are Dixiecrats, not people to the left of the editorial columns in the Washington Post. They tend to vote Republican for everything except local politics. They may vote for a Democratic Senator, Congressman, or State Governor, but only if the candidate is a Dixiecrat too.
I'm not entirely sure why it's considered terrible by the average Slashdotter to ask someone, or a group of people, to stop being an asshole.
Surprisingly, with Chrome, if you enter your Google password in the Subject box of a new comment and then press the "Submit" button, the warning dialog comes up and your post won't get sent until you confirm it. Only discovered that because my Google password is (well, was) "systemd?".
Yeah I thought the summary's equation of "Protestors" and "Rioters" (headline uses the latter, main text the former, apparently referring to the same people - for the record, the number of protestors in Baltimore last week was some figure conservatively estimated in the tens of thousands; the number of rioters was less than 2,000 - probably much less, being made up largely of local gangs) was rather reflective of the kneejerk reaction against any politicial activity by "the masses" in this country.
The other day I mentioned the (thankfully debunked) neo-urban-legend about a nearby Florida sheriff saying it was OK to run over protestors if they get in your way to some people in the office. At least one was fully in favor, giving a whoop when he heard it.
I was brought up in the UK, moving to the US when I was 25. The idea of treating political protests as something horrific astounds me, it's normal activity over there, you'd expect it to be accepted and supported in the country that invented the first amendment. But apparently not.
Link to Original Source
Psychologists who collaborate with torturers are ethically complicit
Absolutely, which is obviously something you and I agree upon completely.
Boycotting the torturers is the only ethical stance here
If it is (and it isn't) then ethics be damned. The only moral stance is to do whatever is in your power to prevent torture from happening. Standing idly and refusing to intervene by is utterly reprehensible, even if it's an ethical one according to some code of ethics I'm unfamiliar with.
Well in fairness some modern operating system components that ship with Debian, such as recent GNOMEs, are transitioning (or have transitioned) to having systemd as a dependency. Yeah, you can "just not use GNOME", but over time more and more of the operating system will transition that way.
And it kinda ignores why systemd exists. Over time, I'd expect Debian to make itself more systemd dependent, as doing so allows Debian to introduce long awaited security and stability improvements by allowing it to transparently use cgroups and run unprivileged daemons that can listen to privileged ports, things that are not practical under sysvinit (though might be under Upstart.)
What I'd like to see is Hurd to introduce the functionality that systemd is reliant upon so it too can be ported.
It's a radio transmitter in a can. It would take an even larger departure from known physics to make it go boom. We have a good deal of experience with radio transmitters in space.
OK, I will try to restate in my baby talk since I don't remember this correctly.
Given that you are accelerating, the appearance to you is that you are doing so linearly, and time dilation is happening to you. It could appear to you that you reach your destination in a very short time, much shorter than light would allow. To the outside observer, however, time passes at a different rate and you never achieve light speed.
I am having an equally hard time thinking of how Earth is more habitable than Mars while atomic bombs are going off or impactors are impacting. If you wait a while, sure it's more habitable than Mars. But for that moment, no.
No, that's actually why the U.S. patent office stopped accepting applications for perpetual motion machine patents. They wasted uncountable hours debunking experiments that seemed plausible at first glance but always just ended up wasting everyone's time.
It's not just that Shawyer's claims violate conservation of momentum. The Alcubierre and Natario drives also violate conservation of momentum, but at least they explain that violation in the context of Noether's theorem. In contrast, Shawyer just made a ridiculous mistake by forgetting that the normal force a microwave photon exerts on a surface is always normal to that surface. Sadly, Shawyer seems to have duped a lot of otherwise skeptical people into uncritically cheerleading his absurd claims.
Then if that were her reason, she'd be wrong.
The science is what the reviewer is supposed to review. Truth is that if it had happened the other way, this thread would consist entirely of people yelling "It's PC gone mad/SJWs suck/Feminists want to take away our computer games!"
For some reason, however, when a woman is shat upon for being a woman everyone's so eager to try to find excuses for the jerk who did it. I'm not seeing this as a positive trend.
Good. Now we've gone from "they're all scum" to "some of them (possibly including Rand Paul") are good and trying but the Repubican machine and its operators will block them."
At this point we're mostly on the same page.
Ron Paul is clearly one of those good guys. And the Neocons controlling the R party machine (one of the four major factions) steamrollered him and his supporters (sometimes violently), and changed the rules to make it even harder for a grass roots uprising to displace them.
Two debates are going on right now. One is between working through the R party (is it salvagable?) or coming in with a "third" party - either an existing one or a new one (is that doable or do the big two have too much of a lock?)
The other is whether Rand is a sellout to the Neocons or if he's just more savvy than his dad and trying to look non-threatening to them in order to get the nomination. Andrew Napolitano, who knows him personally, says he knows him to be a genuine liberty advocate, and I trust A. N. on this subject.