dungdongdang

> the onus is on you to persuade and I am saying this is false. but it is expected you believe this. the status quo was people believing in a god. now we don't. it is not on us to prove there is not one. it is still on you to prove there is one. just like it is on you to prove an exemption should still be given, or you don't get one anymore.

yes, that is my opinion. this is what we do in comments on a subject matter. state our opinions on it. there is no need to prove to the irs churches should not be taxed. they take tax rules all the time and reexamine them, and drop ones that are no longer appropriate, which is soon coming for churches. as can literally be seen in this article being discussed.

one day, when mars has high energy requirements, it will still be easier to mine on earth and bring uranium to mars. there will never be a time when it is not. not sure what you are not getting here. unless you mean millions of years in the future, when humanity is dead, and mars is terraformed and as friendly an environment to build a mine as earth.

don't be so quick to make up stuff people never said.

yes, churches not being taxes is a flaw in the tax system, not churches. churches and everyone else can be and do whatever they want to. welcome to the discussion.

correct.

umm, no I don't. everyone pays taxes by default. it is you who needs to say something more persuasive than churches should not pay taxes because they are churches.

communities? no. churches are where a group of people from the community meet, that exclude others on the basis of religion. if a bagel shop did that, people would be up in arms. if they want to give away free food, why would getting taxed on profits stop that?

i'm also not sure what this has to do with taxes.

and why in the world would we do that? you don't need a lot of uranium, and there's plenty on earth. yeah, let's get a bunch of equipment to mars and build a mine bumblefuck miles away where we can't even get a little toy car to function without breaking down in several years.

speaking of exciting possibilities: did you know we have the possibility of refining oil into jet fuel, right on an airplane? then we can use that jet fuel directly on the airplane.

and statistically none of what you describe happens, so the only way you're tired of it, is if you make stuff up, or take the .001% of cases and pretend that's all of them.

if you are blocking every road in the middle of the day, that is illegal. we have sidewalks for you. it's not "any order" - you're breaking the law, and are warned not to.

as far as police being wrong with a suspect - that is not for the courts to decide. that is decided immediately. and the procedure for that, is when they think you may be an armed suspect, for you to follow the order to get into a position safe for them, so they can verify your identity. not to keep standing there talking and refusing to lay down and put your hands on your head. because if they do have the correct suspect, he can take out his gun and kill them. if you don't comply, absolutely they force you to, and you are charged with not complying.

and if you look at all of those cases you're raging about, no - the suspects did not comply like they have to by law. yes, there are a dozen cops over the last decade that literally murdered someone, in the whole country. there are 12000 cops in my city alone.

"But the vast majority of police were entirely peaceful. And and even greater number of individual officers have done nothing wrong."

by the way, peaceful to you is not peaceful to me. when I'm driving home from work and literally every road is filled with people on the road, and I am unable to get home till midnight - you are not peaceful, and you are breaking the law. when you refuse to clear the road and let me come home so I can sleep before the next day at work starts, I'm glad to pay for the tear gas and the rubber bullet that hits you in the head. you clearly don't care about my well-being, so I not only don't care about yours - I want physical harm to come to you.

this is why assemblies outside get a permit, and a designated route to follow. so the majority of people, who are not a part of your rage party, can get routed around and live their lives. you choose not to follow the social contract with the rest of society - I see zero issue with police not following the social contract with you. you have escalated the situation, so expect an escalation from the people you're "peacefully" harming - the majority of people.

Your claim is made by taking a sentence out of context - context which says the reason they are told to disperse is that they are breaking the law. You made up a strawman, and are highlighting it as incorrect. I never made the claim you are highlighting as incorrect. Only you did. So you could prove it incorrect. Good job, very good argument you had with yourself, and you won it.

FYI, people don't twit in twitter. In real language, we speak in sentences, not a single sentence, to communicate an idea. The narrative doesn't end with the first period.

And there is no "large groups" exception to walking in the middle of the road blocking traffic.

Free speech does not allow you to break other laws. Your freedom stops when it destroys the freedom of your fellow man.

If the large crowd is told to disperse by government agents, you are no longer a peaceful protester. You are free to protest, but you are not free to protest at any location at any time. If once told to move, you do not, you can, and were always able to be removed by use of physical force.

The reason these peaceful crowds are told to disperse, is they are often not peaceful, they leave much damage to regular citizen's and business property behind, and it's not your call whether the crowd poses a danger to my car parked on the street, or my place of work. It's up to the law enforcement assessing risk of the crowd causing damage, and if they think it will, even if they have not, they have to disperse. Like when the crowd starts ignoring the fact that cars drive on the streets trying to get home from work, and starts walking through and blocking traffic. Or even leaving a pile of trash and destroying the lawn of public or private property, which I have to pay to restore with taxes.

Does your peaceful protest stay on the sidewalk? Does it carry its trash to the nearest garbage can instead of dropping it on the street? Does it destroy zero property and wait for the walk sign at intersections? Because if not, the issue is not with the protest. It's with the things you are doing which are not peaceful, to people not part of your peaceful protest.

I was moving apartments during one of these "peaceful" protests in Chicago. At that point, they weren't burning buildings and destroying stores yet. It took me 12 hours to move 2 minivan-loads of stuff. My brother was helping me. When the police tried to get people to clear the roads, the people did not. Instead, they threw a bunch of flamable shit in the parking lot where regular people's cars were, and destroyed those cars. Because the cops tried to clear the road so people, on the last of the month, could move their shit into the new apartment. after working a full day. and having to work the next day. after having 2 hours of sleep.

by the way, when my brother got home, his girlfriend's shitty old car was broken into and needed to be repaired. good thing she was unemployed and couldn't pay for it, otherwise it might have cost $200 instead of the free ducktape + plastic bag combo.

peaceful for you does not mean peaceful for everyone. and the cops, and the feds, are there to make it peaceful for everyone - not just you. when told to disperse, so people like me can simply live our already stressful lives, you refuse to, you are no longer peaceful, and should be thrown into a van and removed. and if that takes tear gas, I'm cool with that, just like you're cool with completely fucking up my life.

let me ask you this: forget protests. regular workday, mid-afternoon. a group of people decide to just start walking in the middle of the road dropping garbage everywhere and won't leave. what do you think should happen to them? nothing? does the group being large make it ok?

a commonly used feature that has been a part of the unix standard since before "bash" only meant to hit something with a heavy object, while linus was getting his diaper changed is not an "obscure feature."

a five year old took his first aware car ride, and at a gas station saw the trunk of the car next to theirs open. he said "seriously, bmw has too many obscure features." after all, a car for him was where you put the baby seat. and why would you put that in a compartment with no windows or air, that's too small to even fit a baby seat.

did you enjoy the ride?

It's not "preconditions." It's one condition. That the user wants to visit a website that uses the camera. The rest are details of that one condition. He might as well have said things like "turn on phone" "install the firefox app" "short-press the firefox icon" (to launch it).

by replacing a cable instead of taking apart your iphone and soldering the chip in the phone when an electrical spike comes through from your open contact getting water on it. but you're asking about throughput. the reason active cables exist is because the amount of interference in a cable varies - that little sheath of tin foil in a lightning cable does almost nothing. you need an axial cable for that - which is what ethernet uses for passive direct connection. it's as thick as the coax cable for your tv antenna. your idea I guess is to plug in that thick non-bendable cable into your phone? or is it to put that chip into every usb-A power source in the world? or is it to only use approved apple usb power supplies - instead of the millions of plugs out there at airports, hotels, laptops, existing ac/dc converters from hundreds of vendors? so which of these is your plan instead of the chip in the cable?

I know, I know, usb cables don't need a chip inside, why does lightning. because usb cables are a useless random mess. lightning cables are not - they run at the guaranteed speed, they charge at the guaranteed watts, and they have no issues with shorts despite having contacts exposed and reversible, unlike usb. and usb-C? well, there are active cables available for that, which tackle the issues described with a chip in the cable. just like lightning does.

there is no such thing as 40G ethernet. you can see this easier with optical - there are literally 4 cables inside the one thick cable. you're talking about quad ports - 4x 10G connections in one wide QSFP. in fact, all a breakout cable does is take the 4 wires in that 40G cable, and unwraps them. Ethernet currently goes to SFP28, which is a 25G connection. fibre channel (as in SAN, not LAN) in theory currently goes to 128G, and in practice you can buy buy hardware that goes to 64G. FC cannot run over copper.

Second, yes, some does require active cables with DAC. which does not stand for "cable" like the other comment says. DAC is direct attach copper (as opposed to optical). Without an active cable you're limited to 5 meters, although you can risk it and get a 7 meter passive cable. usually, 7m is already active, and 10m+ is guaranteed to be active. The reason you can even do 10G over copper is because it's cat6. Have you seen that cable? It's twinax - more like the cable from your TV antenna. That's not viable for a phone.

What you are talking about is 10G base-T. That does not need active cabling. but again, you can't compare that to a tiny thin lightning cable.

you are exactly proving my point. they sell a lot of phones. which means a huge chunk of their revenue is 1 product. app store is not a separate product. phone goes away, store goes away. itunes? I'm sorry, but it's an archaic piece of software that people install because it's the only way to get music onto apple playback devices. you know - the iphones. phone goes away, itunes goes away. there are a million other places to get all the same music.

the apple watch? the one that only iphone users have, because they have an iphone?

headphones? who buys apple headphones for their android phone again?

ipad? the thing that runs the os and the store from the iphone, which no one who isn't interested in phones would buy? people who don't like iphones won't buy an ipad. it is literally the same target market. whoever makes the new 'cool phone to have' is going to also make a new pad. phones and pads are tied.

and the accessories for all that - again, dependent on the phone 100%.

lots of people want to buy it (if by lots you mean a tiny fraction of the people). margin is high - it's not tricking people, it's selling the product as 'premium.' that tiny percentage of people agree. it's not actually premium for everyone else, since you don't own the device, and features are limited. when's the last time you chromecast hn to your big tv screen from your iphone again? how about plugging into a friend's computer and grabbing a music folder? he doesn't have itunes, and it's not a mac. how about storing your presentation meetings and some vm images for a product demo you want to do for work - or do you need a usb flash stick for that.

it's not 'really good stuff.' it's 'fad' - who in their right mind would wrap a phone in glass - those things fall a lot. would you buy a car made of glass?

everything you gave as an example is a fad that goes away in a minute when it's not cool anymore. it's no mark of a successful company. it's like calling a guy with a #1 hit a success. do you remember 'who let the dogs out?' so does everyone else. now, the iphone is no dog. it's pretty and shiny. a better example is rico suave. he makes shampoo now i hear.

Valuation is fine, but as mentioned, that is short-term success. Enron was good at that. Myspace was good at that. RIM/blackberry and the nokia phones had that. And almost overnight, it's gone.

Apple is a fad that got propped up by phones. They're behind all other major computer vendors. They have a very small marketshare for phones. They have the biggest profit margin out of anyone, and it's because of literally a couple of products.

People who go for things with a huge profit margin (overpriced things) do so based on emotional response (a fad) as opposed to logical reasoning. This is why they buy a phone wrapped in glass - it's shiny. That makes them liking your product volatile. A company enjoying 15 minutes of fame on limited SKUs is not a successful company. It's a rich company, that won the lottery from people who like shiny things.

Yes, they do make things that "just work" better than the competition. They limit choice, put you behind a wall, give you no control - and there is that group of people who want that. The problem is, that group will overnight change to some new fad phone vendor that comes out, and apple will become uncool overnight. Same thing will happen to facebook, instagram, twitter, etc.

If you do take microsoft or google for example - they have a thousand eggs in a hundred baskets. This is stability. Heck, even amazon - cloud services and selling goods, book store, mechanical turk - they're in everything. Apple is selling a phone and a computer.

right. and something like 4g of sand is a very small volume. ever cough up a mucus thing when you're sick? that's about the same weight for a couple of those. so smoke from smoking under 5 packs of cigs over a full year. we probably get that amount over a year from second-hand smoke. There are plenty of people who smoke a pack a day. This is one cig every 3 days. Tiny amount, easily cleared out. the flour example would be a cig every day. I'd say that's a pretty big difference. kinda like going 30 vs going 90 on a side street in your car.

As far as your question - I'm not sure what you're asking here. the soot statistic is in grams. the statistic for weight of crap in cig smoke is per puff, and is in mg. when you add up the crap in a pack of cigs, it's about 2000mg as the simple arithmetic shows. you are free to google factor/label method, or take an 8th grade science class.

strange. I would have thought "take 10g of flour" - something 2-5 times the comparable volume, is "never intending to engage in good faith." it's certainly a false statement.

I'm sorry, but saying the equivalent of 5 packs of cigarettes, smoked over an entire year, is "literally a massive amount of pollution," is not only in bad faith, it's quite literally crazy thinking.

my intention was for facts. I guess by your definition, facts and calculations are "bad faith," and "good faith" is screaming the sky is falling.

here's another comparison. we shed about half a kilo of skin per year. when you cough up a loogie, that's a couple of grams by the way, for that one loogie. that comes from your lungs too.

as opposed to the comment I was replying to, which is straight up misinformation to prove the opposite of what is actually happening. so someone who works at fox news.

volume of 4mg of flour vs the 10 proposed is not "a bit heavier" - it's quite a bit less flour. A single puff of a cigarette I believe deposits about 6-20mg (depending on study) of crap into your lungs. I'm guessing about 10-15 puffs per cig.

so, 10mg/puff * 10 puffs/cig * 20cigs = 2g per pack of cigs. so the comment is saying 4-5 packs of cigs worth of soot, over a Year. that's literally nothing.

Things are not evil or good. They do not give birth, because they are things. A chair does not feel pain because it's not a person.

You seem to think nature is a person, with a purpose, and designs things for that purpose. There is a christian unintelligent design subreddit for that. I believe this site is for technical and scientific discussion.

Now, let's start a nice healthy 5-page discussion about appropriate harshness of tone, ending with a shadowban of the IP of this hilton hotel.

Weight from a full Year? Absolutely. Volume - probably not.

It won't take up even close to as much space as the flour. That diesel exhaust also weighs much more than the hydro(1)carbon(12) chains flour is made from, simply because things like N(14)O(16) and metals in the particulate matter are much, much heavier.

fortunately producing the original cotton plants those tshirts are made from captures hundreds of times more CO2 from the air. you know, because they're plants.

What is the point you are trying to make though? Are you saying to make a cotton tshirt a chemical reaction takes place and 2700 liters of water is destroyed and is no longer water?

The Aral Sea, a place I have visited, was dried up by digging to redirect rivers that filled it to irrigate crops.

Now, let's say they made tshirts instead by pulling the water out of those rivers. They'd make the tshirt, and dump the dirty water. That dirty water would then get cleaned, evaporate and rain into the soil or rivers, or get dumped into a river directly.

Maybe you meant "potable water." Using potable water for tshirts is good - not bad. After making the tshirt, the water is no longer clean. You can't make more tshirts with it, you can't shower with it, you can't drink it. Just like the water in lake michigan where my city gets its water from.

When we need 2700 liters of water per tshirt, we need to make more potable water from the lake. We build bigger industrial cleaning systems. They are more efficient, and the water becomes cheaper. That factory that paid for the extra water, helped pay for those cleaning systems, and made the water cheaper for people.

Now, here's the biggest lie made of eco-spin strawman. The 2700 liters. Most of that is to water the cotton plants, so they can pull carbon out of the atmosphere and give us that sweet oxygen and stop global warming. Are you saying that growing plants is bad because it uses water? Well, let's cut down the rainforest then!! That's a lot more plants than the tshirt water.

As far as pesticides... We're not eating the tshirts buddy. "Pesticide use" is bad because it gets into our food. It's not bad on its own. You know what else kills insects? A bar of soap. If you stop showering you'll save the insects and the water.