I try to not speak about things I don't know about.
I try to avoid "news" like this that's so clearly biased, on any 'side'. They tend to skew and ignore facts to make a political point. A good test is if they can't refrain from childlike name calling.

I can't speak for down under, here, we see "both" sides (and I still strongly deny that the antifa people are really on the left, because fascism is not a politically left philosophy, and they are fascists) acting outrageously.

EDIT:That said, only one group has actually killed so far, and only one group has fired guns into crowds of women and children so far, and that side stands firmly with the right, and the right has so far stood with them, calling them peaceful protesters that only defended themselves from antifa. I have yet to hear of a single democratic representative say antifa are good people, or peaceful protesters, the right however has made that a mantra about the alt right, Nazis and KKK.

Hmmmm...I had to look up Sargon....you've got to be kidding...he's slightly LEFT OF CENTER?!? You are absolutely bat shit nuts. He's clearly, firmly far right. It didn't take me 5 minutes to be sure.
HAHAHA!!!! You start by giving me credit for watching it, then berate me for not watching it. I gave it a total fair hearing, and it took no time at all for it to show it's colors as totally hyper biased far right Nazi apologist bullshit.

Again, only the right wing media is claiming that main stream media is hiding antifa criminality. It's clearly being shown here, and they are called out for the violent idiots they are constantly, but if the right acknowledged that, they might have to deal with the Nazis and KKK and alt right on their 'side' (and sadly, they can't denounce them as easily since they clearly courted them in the election, unlike the left and antifa)
I have absolutely zero need to watch such tripe to be informed. Here, coverage isn't one sided, no matter what Bob and Hannity tell you.

I have no doubt that my arguments fall on deaf ears with Bob, but I can give other readers another rational point of view, denounce debunked fabrications, point out information that's intentionally omitted, and point them towards verifiable sources rather than opinion pieces masquerading as news. They are the minds I hope to reach, Bob's is closed, as, I'm starting to think, is yours.

Total BS answer.

WHAT shared beliefs? There is no color requirements or religious prerequisites to being on the right hand side of the political spectrum. I know the media and lefty fanbois try to paint it that way, but that is complete drivel.

Goals? What 'goals' do these white idiot racists have that black idiot racists or hispanic idiot racists don't ALSO have ? What makes one group's racism leftist and therefor tolerable/understandable/justifiable in the media and the other group's racism "right wing" and abhorrent? And yes, there ARE black and hispanic racist groups...

Nothing but political bullsh*t. Racism is racism and it ALL should be abhorrent.

At it's core today, the right-wing political ideal maintains that free markets and capitalism is the best economic system for a free people because it promotes the MOST interchange between classes of people (poor, rich, powerful, etc). As such, a true right wing government would be small and not so powerful in an individual's everyday life.

At it's core, the left-wing political ideal is that capitalism is not "fair" and that the Government should step in to make everyone "equal", trading away freedom to social engineer equality and redistribute wealth. Of course, this means the more power that can be consolidated into the government, the better and more "equal" we can all be. (Don't even get me started on how this path leads to the shores of Venezuela or every other failed socialist country before it)

Back on my point though, racism doesn't rely on free markets or capitalism. Racism CAN and I would argue DOES benefit from leftist ideas of social engineered equality though.

So if these white racists voted as a majority for Republicans this election cycle, I would suggest that they did NOT do it because the are "right wing" at all. I suggest they did it because the other side of the ticket represents nothing but more and more "social engineering" that would NOT benefit their preferred race. Further, I would suggest that had the "social engineering" over the time period of the last Presidency been skewed towards pro-white, that these same white racists would have voted Democrat.

No. The guy's not a cop, so acting like a cop by stopping the group was also totally wrong. He had no right to stop them in the first place, and absolutely no right to touch them or try to take their keys (what he seemed to be doing).

So...why were charges pressed against the accosted atv rider and not the gun waiving, officer impersonating prison guard? I'm sure it has something to do with color, I'm just not sure if it's brown or blue that skewed their reactions.

I usually dislike these kind of videos because the context we are missing can skew what we are watching. I usually try and give the officers the benefit of the doubt in that case. Here, it's just plain as day the office standing in the wrong. What kind of police officer responds to a request to identify themselves by pulling out handcuffs? This is unreal and officer should be facing not only court, but the potential for jail time over this.

Syria is a prime example of a propaganda war. I have long thought this is why reporter's are being targeted by both sides, they interfere with the narratives of both sides by reporting facts.
We can't believe reports that come from those involved, they all clearly have an interest in preserving their narratives that excuse their actions. Without independent reporting on the ground, at best we're debating skewed versions of reality, and more likely pure fictions created by the involved parties.
That is their plan, because it denies a possibility of effective opposition to the actions they're hiding, skewing, or excusing.

Interesting and good, but it missed an opportunity to talk about another reason that Clinton removed the scrambling that reduced accuracy to ~100m in 2000:

It was fairly easily circumvented.

Your GPS device isn't sending anything TO the satellites -- just receiving FROM them. So, the scrambling had to be done on a system-wide scale; it couldn't skew your location 37m to the west and your friend a block away 62m northeast. So, every device in a particular area (that can see the same satellites) would be skewed by essentially the same distance and direction.

That means that all you needed to circumvent the scrambling was a GPS device relatively nearby at a known latitude and longitude. Then you took the GPS reported coordinates of that device and compared them to the known coordinates, and badda-bing you've got the skew figured out.

I remember that system being used to overcome the scrambling in the late 90's for robotics / AI competitions where things like early versions of drones or other robots had to autonomously navigate a maze or move towards some particular target coordinates.

Basically, if nerdy robotics enthusiasts could circumvent the scrambling, surely a motivated enemy military or terrorist group could too. So, there wasn't much point in continuing it. Ending the scrambling was a good thing for Clinton to do, but I'm sure that impracticality played just as much if not more of a part in his decision as benevolence towards citizens of the Earth / potential economic rewards for American companies did...

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

If you can find it check out the book about an Alice Cooper 1973 tour called "Billion Dollar Baby". James Randi was part of the tour as he designed the guillotine and gallows the band used. He's quite the character in the book.

That book is also interesting because it was written by Bob Greene, who became infamous for his own reasons. And the Cooper band members resented him for writing what they felt was a trashy skewed version of his time with them on that tour.

No, being on RT does not negate his reputation, but it tarnishes it, imo. It doesn't make him a liar, it makes him SUSPECT....less trustworthy, not untrustworthy.
I think using the reporter's chosen organization's reputation as one piece of evidence to make that determination is proper, I think we may just disagree on the weight we give that piece of evidence.

I explained that he doesn't have to stoop to the level of demagogue to serve the propaganda machine by lending them his reputation, and that harm's his rep. He may be 100% honest and factual, but he still helps spread obvious propaganda just by his presence, and I think both he and they know it well, and that's a huge disappointment from him for me.

Yes Chomsky is a good example of how, even though he's correct in his assertions, he gives a skewed view by omitting a comparison with the only alternatives (in speeches).

Again, imo, all news is suspect, there is hardly an example of "hard hitting journalism" in main stream media today that's not tainted with bias either by the reporters or the news organization that employs them. I'm not special, I don't have access to good news, and I'm not sure I could recognize it if I did, at this point. I think most reporting done today is at least in part an echo chamber/bubble meant to reinforce bias, which is why it bothers me so much when one of the few decent reporters takes a job with a propaganda factory...choices matter, who you surround yourself with matters, and surrounding yourself with unapologetic liars should hurt anyone's rep, especially a reporter with a reputation for telling unbiased truth.

Being critical of power doesn't cut it for me if it's designed to hide or excuse other criticism of another power....that's why I need to see him be critical of Putin on RT to regain some trust...until then, bye Felicia.

I'd like to see footage of what happened directly before the slam. It's hard to judge whether the slam was justified or not when you don't have objective context. Witness testimony is inherently unreliable, as it is skewed by bias and students are far more likely to side with a fellow student over a cop.

Do you get your info from, faux or Trump?
I'm...wow...where to start?
"Neo-liberals" are anti war, so positive peaceful relations are what they're after, not illegal collusion and absolute capitulation to our (and our allies') detriment. The 'neoliberals' didn't even use the military to protect the Ukraine, even though we are bound to do so by treaties.
War profiteering companies are almost 100% owned and run by neocons, not liberals.

There is proof, publicly released proof. There is not yet a completed report submitted to congress, those take time to put together, verify, edit, recertify, sign off, and submit. 17 intelligence agencies have publicly stated they have plenty of 'proof', some hackers have gone on record as working on this project for the Russians at their direction, the methods and programs used have easily identified 'fingerprints' from previous Russian hacks.

The contents of the emails were completely innocuous, with absolutely no smoking gun. If you think differently, I think you've been duped by the fake news industry.
'No one cares' about the RNC emails because the Russians didn't release them, they weren't trying to hurt Trump, he's their dream president, a moron under their thumb that doesn't understand the idea of diplomacy, much less how to practice it. (That no one cares is totally not true, btw, I care...I even care that they were hacked, but I care far more that they were protected and helped repeatedly by a foreign nation they invited to illegally become involved in our election with the clearly stated intention of skewing our election for their benefit).
Sweet zombie Jesus, if Clinton had won after asking a national enemy to illicitly and illegally help her like Trump did, the right would be inconsolable and frothing at the mouth calling for revolution and blood.

...that and maybe use your tools properly (or a different one)?

Fingerboards or rollers work great, especially ones that mount to the fence that you can use to apply pressure from the top to help keep the piece of tipping. A sled/jig would have helped too.

But yeah, I learned the hard way how powerful table saws can be when a piece of 1/8" mdf I was cutting somehow skewed a bit, rode up onto the saw blade and was flung back into my abdomen. It felt like I got hit with a baseball bat and the welt it left was impressive. Never made that mistake again. It was frustrating too because I'm super cautious when it comes to hand placement, etc (push sticks, rollers, fingerboards all get used) - but I didn't really think about a piece of 1/8" mdf turning into a projectile!

I can't wait to be disappointed. Hollywood will once again destroy and skew a character's image to appease the public. Talk to me when Harley Quinn gets the lasso of truth, breaks it's bounds and makes Wonder Woman her bitch. Amazonian queen my ass, this will be just another attempt to get 16 year old girls to drag their sex starved hormone men to shell out money to get laid, and it'll work. At least for the women. This is exactly why I bring my own popcorn bucket to the movies, drill a hole in the bottom, and hope she doesn't ask for extra hot butter.

Think about it this way. Stack the corn trays just once and you just doubled your output for a given area.

You're right about getting less mileage from taller crops. But every vertical layer would in theory still double the area you have to work with each time you added one.

Scale this up to a skyscraper sized building and you could supply any city with all the food it could need locally.

It probably could start to skew the market towards squatter plants as you say, but I can't see why most if not all of the things we grow now couldn't be viable. (doubly so if they ever nail the process of growing meat)

There just doesnt seem to be enough to be gained either by leaving or by staying in at this stage. A lose-lose situation.

Britain has avoided adopting Schengen rules and the Euro, so there is little it can complain about regarding the EU, really.

There is also little to cheer for, the Euro and Schengen area are not working as intended, rules are bent and broken at will, the "democratic" political process is at best incomprehensible, but apparently skewed toward unelected clerks applying social engineering solutions to imaginary problems.

Really leaving (not bindingly decided in this referendum) would lead to short term chaos and economic loss for both the EU and Britain. With what long term gains, exactly?

Democracy should be used to pick representatives who make responsible decisions, not to vote about what mood people are in on a given day.