I am lost without the emotional trademarks of FUD andor cars!
I am lost without the emotional trademarks of FUD andor cars!
Everyone in the developed world thinks it's common sense to restrict access to firearms. Not the USA - That's Theft of Freedom.
When the right to have access to firearms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment (e.g. the right to firearms is second ONLY TO SPEECH) then restricting it is "theft of freedom" in exaggerated words.
Think about it, the bill of rights in the first two amendments basically say. You can saw what you want* and defend yourself to say it.**
* obviously there are exceptions, e.g. yelling fire
** The definition of arms may be contentions but no one argues the right to defend oneself.
Pathetic online petitions are a waste of time.
Compared to anonymous coward posts to
This just in. Politicians say retarded shit. News at 11.
If the cartoon was not of Mohammed but of the ISIS leader, How was it slander against Mohammed? It seems to me that this was more of a political message than a religious one.
Short answer: Political ambitions, greed, and corruption - all things the Christian religion condemns.
Islam condemns that as well.
These things happened because Christendom wasn't following the teachings of its own religion.
You don't say. And how many interpretations are there of those teachings? What makes your interpretation right and over another? The KKK (or an abortion bomber, $(insert any violent idiot claiming to be christian) isn't following Christianity even when they say they are... But that logic doesn't apply to ISIS?
You can't blame the religion itself for the misdeeds of its followers. You must blame the followers themselves for not living according to their stated values.
But you can for Islam? And specifically for this instance, wasn't the cartoon an image of the ISIS leader and not of Mohammed? I don't think the Quran says anything about pictures of its leaders... So, why the double standard?
Sorry to burst your straw man. You do not need to hear the gurgling screams to know that someone is royally fucked up in the head to decapitate someone, or shoot someone begging for their life. I have watched a number of those beheading videos and will probably watch this one (when at home). And every time I hear about how violent Islam is, I find it disingenuous because logical fallacies and abandonment of reason. That is what most of those arguments come down to: fallacious reasoning.
Islam is a religion of peace just like every other Abrahamic faith is. I.e. they all are not inherently peaceful.
I don't need to watch a shock video to lose my rational.
Never heard of the Islamic Golden Age have you? While European Christians were burning witches, the Middle East was too busy with science, art and math. Or did you think algebra, algorithms, and Arabic numerals were from Christian superiority in rational thought?
"focusing on projects that improve humanities chance of surviving the mass extinction"
What kind of research is that? Are you so certain that their experiments and studies are exclusive to that idea? "Fascinating ivory tower work" is a harsh judgement. Yet, how do you know it is just "ivory tower work" that has no influence on what you think they should focus on? You seem to have this idea that all science must have a profitable and useful end or else it should not be pursued. But how do you know until you do the science in the first place?
I don't understand your cognitive dissonance. They should only study the global warming so we can survive as a species but not research anything else! Many studies, experiments, satellites, etc( you know, stuff NASA does) directly help with what you think they should be focusing on and more. Yet, you go on to say they should have to prove that they are relevant and not just "Ivory tower work."
How do we know about runaway green house effects? Isn't that part of planetary science? How do we know what effect the sun has on our climate models? Isn't that astrophysics? How do we validate or invalidate our theories if not for experiments and measurements? How can you have science if you are not willing to fund the research? Why would you disregard other planets when studying global phenomena occurring on earth?
To be honest. You sound like a cynical arm chair economist whose only argument is: "They are not as efficient as I want them to be and they don't help me personally, therefore bad! Dismantle and de-fund.".
If you don't like NASA because of its inefficiencies I understand but that is not a fault of NASA in and of itself. That is especially not a fault of the research they conduct or the large bulk of scientific data they gather.
This. I have yet to see a difference between her and Jack Thompson. Violence or misogyny which is it? Either way it is the same logic and evidence. Non-existent, cherry picked, lies andor self projection.
Driverless cars? A better feature proposition (it'd make the commute much easier and enjoyable), but the feature is limited to certain roads/speeds, and after seeing the price hikes for a hybrid, one can only imagine what the driverless feature set will cost you as someone out shopping for a new car.
I think you underestimate the potential demographic of drivers that only need limited access to roads and speeds. The elderly for one.
How many large demographics would jump at the opportunity for even "limited road access and limited speed "? My guess is large enough to be a descent success at the right price.
As for the costs, I am sure there is a point at which it is still profitable for Google and affordable to customers. Even if the first generation is a luxury item for wealthy andor semi-wealthy, prices will eventually come down. If Musk can do it with Tesla (assuming he accomplishes a 30k roadster) why can't Google do it for a driver-less car in a some odd years?
You may not "win" with your vote but it is definitely NOT throwing your vote away. Throwing your vote away would be not voting entirely which happens too often in the USA.
At least with a 3rd party vote, the growing disparity would at least signal to politicians that there is a larger (and growing) voting bloc that could be won. Or signals to the major parties that they are losing their support. Why should either politicians or the party's change if either A) most people do not vote or B) the people who do vote will vote for them regardless to ensure the other lizard doesn't win?
There is every reason in the world to vote. Just like there is a reason to vote for what you believe and not against what you are afraid of. Apathy is a bigger problem in the American voting system than first-past-the-post. (Even if the later may contribute to the former).