Personally, if I want a record to give me the experience of space travel, I'll stick with Hawkwind.
What's the alternative, C.E., (Christian Era)? I really don't see what difference it could possibly make. Either way, it's just a convention. First, the aliens would have to know it's an abbreviation for a particular Latin phrase, then they'd have to be able to translate that into their language, getting their equivalent of "Year of our Lord". Who knows what they'd make of that? But of course, they'd have no way of knowing what the letters "A.D." stand for, in the first place. It's pathetic, really.
If it's a choice, could you choose to believe again? If not, how do we know your choice isn't an illusion?
I couldn't, but people do. Not sure what you mean in the second sentence. Do you mean legitimate? Here's the thing - many people are very good at fooling themselves. You have to be, to be a believer.
Regardless, I don't see how choice factors in on whether people should face discrimination. But, I'm one of those people who believe that people should be free to live as they like, as long as they're not interfering in that same right in others. Crazy, huh?
As a truck driver, I'm having a difficult time understanding how left turns are more dangerous than right turns. This is the opposite of both my training and my experience. It's not for nothing that the passenger side of the truck is called the "blind side". When turning left, I have a full view of the truck, and where it's going. Not so much while turning right. I think the same applies to cars, although not to such a degree. They're talking about hitting children, but again, you have a much better view of the crosswalk, turning left, as well as a little more distance.
One more thing - I've driven a big truck on the streets of NYC. It's almost impossible to make a right turn in a tractor-trailer. There simply isn't enough room on most streets. Even left turns are a MF, because cars will be parked all the way up to the corner.
Yep, it's the dumbing-down of security. Companies have to make things safe for people too lazy, or too ignorant, to take some simple precautions, because these same people have a lot of energy for complaining and crying. Note that Mac OS has come with a password manager since at least 2002, so none of its customers should ever have need of two-step authentication.
That's nice! Although, you're still better off with a VPN.
I don't understand how they're going to know you use the service, unless you pay by credit card. I use PayPal for all online purchases. You can make up any "delivery" address that you like. If you use a VPN, Netflix won't know where it's going, and Comcast won't know what you're getting. Of course, few people bother with this privacy nonsense.
Oh, you needed the full pseudo to get the point? My bad. Probably would've been smarter to use a realistic-sounding pseudo, but I don't see how it makes any material difference to the story. Nevertheless, this sentence comes at the first break:
I’ve been going by the first name “Nads”—a nickname my friends, family, and colleagues all use, but does not exist on any official paperwork.
That's seven short paragraphs down. Again, what difference does it make what pseudo she used? It's not like Facebook saw that and thought, "Hmm, looks like a fake name". One of her trolls snitched her out, so it wouldn't have mattered how "realistic" her pseudo was. Yet, you make it sound as if she were being dishonest, somehow. Then you accuse her of conflating the separate issue of Native American names, as if she were trying to ride their coattails. She's simply pointing out that there are a number of reasons, all legit, that one would want to use a pseudo. Her particular issue, as she makes clear, is stalking and trolls.
Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex. Religion is a choice and does not deserve to be put next to things that you are.
First off, I don't see why that's any reason to discriminate. Why should the choices we make, as long as we're not interfering with others, be a reason to mistreat us?
The reason religion, in particular, is "lumped in there" is that because arguments over irrational beliefs cannot be settled by reason or evidence, and so, tend to lead to violence. We had to enshrine this in law because, as a nation of immigrants with various religious beliefs, we couldn't afford to have everyone killing each other all the time. Other immigrant nations adopted this idea, and eventually, other, more enlightened nations, began to see what a sensible policy this was, even if not all their citizens have.
Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.
Give it a try.
Really? I wonder how there are atheists, as almost every child is inculcated with their parent's religious beliefs. I certainly became one of my own volition, long before there was an internet, or even another person to influence me. Any belief is subject to change, as long as the holder is willing to examine and question it. Give it a try.
Why so much? Netflix manages it for $8 per month. Nevertheless, people are willing to pay a fair price for a good product. I wouldn't watch Hulu for free, when it was free, because of the commercials. More recently, my roommate decided to pay for Hulu Premium, (or whatever they call it), but after trying it a couple of times, neither of us would watch it, and he eventually cancelled.
Here's the deal: Commercials are suppose to equal free TV. But these people want to have their cake, and eat it, too. Unfortunately for them, people now have other choices.
Today, half of broadcast and cable's income is non-advertising based.
Right. I don't know what he's talking about here, unless he means only the handful of "premium" channels, like HBO. Last time I peeked at the tube, it was commercials galore. If they're only getting half their money from the bazillions of commercials they show, maybe there is another way?
Are We Too Quick to Act on Social Media Outrage?
Sure. Probably. But, it should have no bearing upon how institutions, (employers, law enforcement, schools, government, news media, etc...), behave. We can't have the Twitterverse making decisions for us, especially in this era where people seem to derive identity from victimhood, and derive victimhood from the mildest transgressions. And, the last thing one can expect from the internet, on any topic, is a proportionate response.
Unless you give me a more concrete reason...
The gods, (or spirits, or whatever), aren't a good enough reason?
Seriously, I'm all for respecting people's religious sensibilities, (and that's what this is about), especially native peoples who've been fucked so hard, in so many ways...up to a point. But when you want to give a burial to a five-thousand-year-old set of bones? C'mon, now. I can understand not wanting mining on "sacred" land, because that really does desecrate, by anyone's definition, any land it's done on. But a telescope?
There has to be some limit, because the religious imagination is unlimited.
But that's not how Dr. Claes sees the technique being used in a criminal investigation.
Yeah, I can see it being used in a lot of ways. A lot of unsavory ways.