I guess that depends on how you interpreted that information. I always have interpreted (and would like the media/govt to adopt) it to mean the Russian Government (the Kremlin, not the Russian people), the North Korean Government (not its people), etc. that were our enemies and when looked at that way, it is clear who the real enemy is; Government. It is inherently evil, a currently necessary evil, unfortunately, but an evil nonetheless. Our government is no different.

I suppose that depends on the power draw/demands of the camera you are using. For instance, I used to get a cheap USB-powered WiFi camera going off a cheap rechargable Li-On Battery pack. I'd get about 1.5-2 hours with a full battery. For longer times or a higher-powered camera, use a better battery all the way up to UPS (pure sine wave) size, these can get up to 20 KVA and still provide a 110V plug. It just depends on your budget and size restrictions.

You can go ahead and remove the "Battery-powered" from the requirements list as with a little ingenuity and resourcefulness one can turn a plug-in camera into a battery-powered one relatively easily.

Incorrect, what people believe is irrelevant. It has to directly call for imminent lawless destruction/violence to be incitement otherwise it is legally protected free speech.

That is correct it doesn't extend to incitement. What is at issue is what legally defines incitement and Trump's speech does not fit within that definition as he never called for violence, he called for peaceful protest, to cheer the lawmakers that are challenging the electoral votes, none of which can be construed as incitement. Trust me, if this speech can be considered incitement, then many people were guilty of incitement after the 2016 election and subsequent destructive/violent protests as well as the BLM riots over the summer.

One doesn't have an explicit constitutional right to play with fire though unlike speech so the comparison is irrelevant. Look up case law on incitement and see for yourself how his speech does not fall within it.

How about this? All posts can be posted. Posts suspected of being illegal are referred to the authorities for their follow-up with all available logs/identifying information of the poster. The post is not deleted because it is now evidence of a possible crime. Only after the crime has been adjudicated by the legal system to actually be illegal can it be deleted. Users have the option to hide suspected illegal posts from their view. I think this is reasonable and allows legal decisions to be handled by law enforcement and the courts and should absolve the platform of liability as they referred it to the authorities.

You are either an idiot or completely ignorant if you think the generic verb "fight" is a call for violence. That term is used all the time, by everybody, in contexts that clearly do not include violence. It is the opposite of give up, there are many ways to "fight" something you are against, most of which do not include violence. This verbal disagreement could be considered a fight by some. Stop putting meaning into words that isn't there, he clearly said peaceful patriotic protest to make your voices heard. Or shall we rewind the tape over the last 4 years and remove and silence every politician from office that told their supporters to fight Trump and his administration, or any high-profile person saying that they feel like blowing up the white house, or when the last time someone in their profession assassinate the President, or take to the streets. Open your eyes, no one survives with this low bar of incitement and you know it.

Actually, it can be considered a parody of the original video. The original video was an uplifting, innocent, moment between two toddlers, the modified video parodied that and turned into a ugly, apparently racist, chase between two toddlers simply by starting the video a later point in time than the original and suggesting the encounter is bad by mocking CNN with the ridiculous headline.

Because the 7th amendment says it's your constitutional to a trial by jury in all matters over 20 dollars. The founders knew the abuse of 'arbiters' that are not the defendants peers can cause, that's why it's in there. I don't understand where a corporation can attempt to force you to relinquish one (or more) inalienable constitutional rights by way of a contract. I think the courts forget what inalienable means.

The 10th Amendment, the one everyone forgets about.. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If Airplanes aren't mentioned they are within the State's or the People's powers, period.

While this may be true (and is probably true from recorded history data), it doesn't say anything about how fast they are happening compared with the last time the Planet turned extremely hot or extremely cold. It also doesn't consider the vast amount of unrecorded human history (from a climate/temperature point of view). For all we know, this is the Planet's normal climate trajectory, we just have such a small segment of data to look at, we can't see the forest from the trees.

Said another way, we are using an ridiculously small fraction of a percent of the Earth's climate data and using that to extrapolate (in both directions) when, in all reality, all of our data could represent a short anomaly period that over a more significant time period (based on Earth's time-scale) will normalize itself right out.

If the warming process is natural then how can it be called damage ? A warmer planet may be detrimental to us and our survival as a species (but probably not, we are adaptable) but it does no damage to the planet itself since the planet was doing it anyway on its own. Unless, of course, you think the planet is harming itself. The planet is bigger than any one species, including our own, to say the planet is being damaged, destroyed, etc. when it is only certain species on the planet that are being affected is incorrect. Humans do not equal the Planet. They are separate and distinct things, what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other and vice-verse. You lose people when you make obviously contradictory statements like the one I pointed to above. You lose them to semantics. Once they see you glossed over and combined two separate and distinct things into one, they lose trust. They begin to wonder where else you glossed over and simplified in order to make your point or arrive at your conclusion. This is why every article on a scientific study/topic should include all of the assumptions that were made as a simple error there can invalidate an entire study.

Only form the perspective of one trying to save Humanity not one trying to save the Planet. Obviously, they are not the same. To one who really thinks it is humans who are destroying the Earth and wants to protect the Planet, then the Earth becoming uninhabitable by humans is an ideal outcome.

Well then we picked a horrible spot to let our civilization take root, haven't we? The fact is the planet's climate will change to the extreme(s) (both warm and cold) over a long-enough time line, with or without humans. It has before and it will again. Trying to make enormous efforts, at enormous costs to attempt to slow down something that is inevitably going to happen is asinine. The time, effort and money would be better spent preparing for the inevitable so that our survival when it comes is better assured. We will have to do it anyway or die. Might as well start now and stop trying to kick the can down the road.

There is a close to 100% chance that it came out of the egg and a close to 0% chance that it came out of one of the rocks. Highly improbable does not equal impossible. Anything is possible.