2) the hacking is... Well as hollywoodian as ever
3) the film villain reach is unebliavable and cartoonish
4) it ends with ana ction scene.
Let us get real a real hacker film would be boring for your average hollywood audience. But that does not excuse the rest above which is your average poor heroe trope full film with just "hacking" thin coated over.
In particular, devoting some educational effort towards eradication of irrational beliefs
If that worked religion would have disappeared a some tiems ago with the itnernet. But it does not, because you cannot use rationality to convince people (rare exception may happen) that belief they came to in irrational way are wrong. Try thisd : go into a creationist forum and try to argue that radiometric dating works and explain why. Good luck with that. So if we are not even able to get ride of creationism in the west , a domain (natural selection) where there is a lot of supportive and solid science, what chance do you think you have with other irrational belief ? I will tell you what, as soon as the GOP accept as a whole global warming I will give you a smmmmaaal bit of chance.
In the absence of obvious abuse, the simple test should be: is the child fed, clothed, sheltered, and schooled?
Actually science has given us evidence to think that simplistic thought wrong. There were studies made on monkeys which showed the monkey child would prefer a "caring" mother to a feeding one which is uncaring. Further study IIRC showed that placing kids in a big home where they are all feds but not "cared" for make a lot of fucks up.
Take this with a grain of salt naturally as i am not a psychologist, I just read that.
here is a non provocation "you are going to hell because you do not believe, suicide is a mortal sin and you land in hell, gay and lesbian are doing a sin"
Here is a provocation
basically all they believe told to others => not provocatif because it is their belief. All they do not believe told to them => provocatif.
I used christianity as an example but frankly all those who feel blasphemed or insulted or provocated function on the same level.
Bunch of goddamn hypocrite, that's why they like to have "limit" or freedom of expression : because they count on THEIR speech to be the one as being recognized as unprovocative, as they are the majority. But if you limit freedom of speech to what is not provocatif... Then you ain't a shit worth freedom of speech.
what areas have humans consumed so many natural resources that they can no longer survive there
There isn't that many, but i think easter island would qualify.
* 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 europÃ¼e 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.