How bad would putting a mesh around the area where the turbines spin impact their input?
That said, consensus is a really shitty way of determining courses of action in important matters.
So...you prefer force, then? Fine, I'll kick your ass until you agree that consensus is a better way to make decisions than force.
...the atheist "thumpers" were one of the great scourges of human life in the last 100 years.
Really? Do tell how promoting non-belief in god(s) was such a great scourge.
âoeAtheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.â - G. K. Chesterton
No more "daring" than the assertion of the universal negative to the existence of invisible pink unicorns.
Chesterton was a good writer. Shame that his views on religion were so childish.
People confuse two groups: atheist and anti theist,
Don't forget antithesists, who believe in arguing about everything.
For the record, the oft-quoted statement "Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law" does not mean what people think.
Especially if people think it's related to Satanism. Crowley delighted in playing a wicked character, the "Great Beast", but he was very definitely not a Satanist.
Man, these guys are total fucktards:
Ahem. Perhaps you should calibrate your sarcasm detector.
The funny thing is anti-vax started out on the hippie left, and spread to the religiot right.
If I am Netflix, Google/YouTube, Amazon, etc. and an ISP comes to me asking for money for preferential treatment, I would just say: "Pay me $1/subscriber, or I will block your users from my site--you know, just like how you pay ESPN for their content..." I find it hard to believe these sites need ISPs more than ISPs need these sites.
That is precisely what will happen next. Of course, only the big players will have the guns to show down the ISPs; presto -- the big players will get best QoS and the indies will all have to pay or be put in the slow lane. One more hobble on small businesses and independent media; a bit less oxygen for disruptive competition.
The only down side is that you would have an actual phone used for talking to other people with phones, rather than disgruntled avian simulator. Some folks consider that to be a problem.
The Yota will let you display a map, a book, or other useful stuff on its e-ink display.
The Fone apparently couldn't even display SMS messages properly.
Sorry if I missed a joke, but if you're serious, there's no comparison.
If someone made a phone like the Yota in a slider format (or some other way to get a keyboard in there), I could be all over it.
And socialist, at that... Naziism was hardly socialist, name notwithstanding.
We are long past the age where women are trained from childhood to take certain jobs, accept certain careers, or forego careers.
No, in fact, we are not. The training and biasing may be more subtle, but it certainly still exists.
Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations
Free speech is a real right. Copy"right" is a synthetic one. Free speech trumps copyright each and every time.
If someone steals your digital coins, they may end up virtually (ha!) anywhere, with little or no chance of ever find them again.
Yes. That's the way cash works. It's a consequence of anonymity. The answer to it is, don't leave your cash where it can get stolen. If your system doesn't allow for unattended tokens to be stolen, don't call it digital cash.
Bitcoin is the most useless thing ever. It's not as good as cash for anonymity, not as good as credit cards for acceptance. It's the dot-com stock of the 2010s.
Because unless there is a physical barrier, you're already being recorded by people's smart phones, which are also HD camcorders and video phones.
If someone is using a smart phone or more traditional format camera to record me, it will be obviously pointed at me. I will approach them and we will have words. It would be a deliberate act and probably an obvious one.
If someone is covertly recording me, of course, I will not see it, but if such video is ever published, we will have words in court. And if they should fail to successfully hide their surveillance -- the camera falls out of their purse, whatever -- they run the risk of having both their property and their person damaged, a significant disincentive to engage in such recording.
However, if someone with a wearable camera has failed to have the common courtesy to remove it when entering an establishment, it is not obvious whether they are recording me, and they could be recording me without intent, merely because they (for some brain-damaged reason) record everything. It is a substantially different case, and apologies for rude use of wearables that are based on the ubiquity of camera-phones are not not valid.
it's that cameras are getting so small and integrated that such bans are pointless. In a few years, everybody will carry body-mounted cameras everywhere. You might as well get used to it now.