Stating specifically what they are concerned with in this particular case doesn't state that they aren't also concerned with other behaviors if they see them. They mentioned the specific behaviors they found problematic in this case.
However, by all means, if you see advertisers on this network engaging in hate speech against majority groups, you should bring it to their attention.
They're certain he won fair and square and keep on saying there's a mandate for him, right?
If they're smart, they'll insist on a recount so that they can remove any doubt about the legitimacy of this election.
If they're actually interested in democracy, they'll want to make sure that everything is above board.
I actually don't know why we don't automatically recount after an election, period, if only to make sure we got something this important correct.
You don't have to wonder - just look at migration to the US in the 18th and 19th centuries.
My grandfather came here from a farm in Mongolia in 1906, alone, at the age of 12, and found himself in New York City. That might as well have been going 500 years into the future, just he did it by boat rather than time machine. Given the difficulties at the time as well, there was no going back.
People did it all the time back then, and still kind of do today, though arguably globalization has made it substantially less jarring. Some fail, some merely survive, and some manage to thrive.
Of course it's unrealistic armchair-libertarian drivel: the magnetosphere is a harsh mistress, after all.
What's interesting about this development is that it isn't a nearly-entirely American endeavour, which is often the case with such ambitions; Asgardia seems to be Russian and the AIRC supporting it is Viennese. I suspect we'll see a lot more anti-authoritarian behaviour from Europeans in the coming years as a) the EU weakens, b) the Internet transmits political memes that were previously comparatively contained by media limitations like talk radio and poor English literacy, and c) people already exposed to (b) come of age.
The much more feasible version of "let's get off the Earth so we can get away from our countries' laws" is called seasteading, and generally involves a platform in international waters. There's one clear non-Libertarian, non-American example of seasteading (Sealand, UK) which is fairly old and unusually successful by micronation standards. These days, however, the idea is generally associated with these guys, who have been funded by Peter Thiel. They, unquestionably, are primarily concerned with ways to dodge regulation. Without a realistic means of building such a gigantic physical presence, though, they certainly aren't going to be doing much of that; at best they'd end up creating their own passports that no one would accept.
The McCain campaign did not publicly release his birth certificate.
But you have never actually presented scientific evidence
My phrasing was deliberate - you are hand-waving away the vast amount of evidence that's out there, not just what I'm presenting. I'm pretty sure you know how to use Google too, and don't need to rely on me to lead you to it.
This isn't even new stuff - I'm mainly working off the memory of a deep dive I did into this topic about ten years ago; not much has changed since then.
Also, please see note (*1) above.
This link? Works for me:
I looked at the complete report
Try the PDF.
And now we've come full circle. Let me see if I can recap this conversation.
anon: There's no data
me: here's data
you: but not controlled studies
me: here are controlled studies
you: but not the right kind of controlled studies
me: here's a report with descriptions and references to controlled studies about harms (surgeon general's report, I linked it above).
you: I haven't seen a positive study(*1). And it's all political(*2).
(*1) Yet later you talk about the 'the very few that dare report any negative finding', implying you think that most have a positive finding.
(*2) You should look at the sources in that report - many come from places like Japan, Switzerland, China, and a number of other countries. I really doubt the political constraints that you think exist are going to apply everywhere on the planet.
If you're just going to hand-wave away the huge amount of evidence that's out there, then continuing this part of the conversation is kinda pointless. So, I'm going to move on to speculating about your motives and politics. Some possibilities on your agenda here:
- You work for a tobacco firm in some capacity, and have let your paycheck skew your reasoning.
- You have been exposing family and friends to second-hand smoke, and are trying to find a rationalization for your behavior.
- You like arguing.
- You like being the special guy who can see though the vast conspiracies in this world, and next you'll want to move on to discussing WTC7 and thermite.
Any other explanations you want to offer?
Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.