Just because they occasionally get some thing right doesn't mean they're not mixing it in with pushing a horrendous, barbaric (in the most literal meaning of the word: anti-civilization) crap that causes very real harm wherever it goes.
I really don't see why everyone's so worried about ISIS. They may talk big, but all of their "great victories" have consisted of the forces defending the cities they're attacking being utter cowards who run away from ISIS forces that they could easily crush. They've gone and proclaimed a new Caliphate, which is likely to be exactly as well-received in the Middle East as the UK Prime Minister proclaiming the re-establishment of the British Empire would be here or in India. And most of the people they're fighting against are people who hate us anyway!
If our enemies want to fight our enemies... why not just get out of their way, stand back and let them? Overblown scaremongering notwithstanding, ISIS has never actually attacked us or done anything to hurt us the way Al Qaeda did. So why are we so concerned about them again?
Are the two teams competitors or are they different entities within the same organization?
That would be an much less interesting question if they were both in the same league and thus literally competed with each other on a regular basis, but since they're not, this becomes a bit tricky. But who says they can't be both?
Interesting, but I think the most significant thing in the graphene article is the last paragraph, where it says that someone's discovered (or is coming close to working out) a process that brings down the cost of graphene manufacturing by a factor of 1000.
Look at what just a few researchers with the considerable resources required to manufacture graphene have already come up with. It's kind of amazing. But make graphene cheap enough that any scientist can get his hands on a few kilos of the stuff, and we'd have a new Industrial Revolution on our hands!
Of the roughly 1,700 people who submitted online comments for [Philadelphia]’s survey, around 99% of those were negative.
I have to wonder about that survey, based on the very simple observation that it's Philly. Keep in mind that the City of Brotherly Love has so much hate floating around that the locals booed Santa Claus!
Regardless, the Cardinals way is dead, unable to pull itself from a muck of its own making.
You really believe that? After living through the Clinton administration? After reporting on CIA officials lying to Congress? After the endless cycle of MPAA lies about new technology that always keeps getting believed each new iteration?
Remember the High Court/Low Court system. Someone powerful and influential like a manager of a major sports team does something wrong, they'll get a slap on the wrist, tops. Sad but true.
A few times I've heard innuendos about how "everyone knows" that PayPal is evil and loves to screw its customers over. It's a lot of the same stuff you hear about Google, except with even less in the way of actual examples of customers getting screwed over.
All I know personally is, I've been using PayPal pretty much forever and never once had a bad experience with their service.
What? Making it so easy to pay for stuff and send money around that they've become the default payment system for the Internet? Having a tech support system where it's easy to reach a real human being? Running a mature, stable platform that's been around since the 90s, so you can be confident it will still be there tomorrow?
Why would that track record make you want to not have anything to do with them?
As has been noted above, the article's focus is rather misleading. It emphasizes the Bitcoin stuff, and almost entirely ignores the part about actually sending someone over to join them, which is a legitimate crime no matter how you spin it.
Here's something that's bound to annoy a lot of fearmongers out there: You know what's the #1 most efficient thing the US government could do to inhibit the spread of Islamic terrorism?
First, a bit of background. Anyone remember The Troubles? Ireland had a serious terrorist problem for quite a while, people using religious fanaticism as an excuse for violent thuggery against people they had political differences with. Sound familiar?
It went on for decades, but you don't really hear about it much anymore, because it's over now. And how did it stop? To put it simply, it was perhaps the one truly good thing to come out of 9/11. There are a lot of people of Irish descent living in the northeastern United States, and 9/11 literally hit close to home for them. It took a lot of the "freedom fighter" romanticism out of the narrative and made it hard to ignore what terrorism was really about: murder and fear. Suddenly that wasn't cool anymore, and a whole lot of Irish-Americans who had been financially supporting the Irish terrorists stopped sending them money. And when their largest source of funding dried up, they found themselves unable to continue operations, and The Troubles ground to a halt very quickly.
If we'd like to apply the lessons learned, it's not actually that hard if we face the facts, because once again these terrorists are getting a whole lot of money from the USA. It's kind of an open secret, an elephant in the room that no one likes to talk about, that they get a lot of their funding from oil money. (How's that for a slogan? Filling up your gas tank is supporting terrorism! This one's actually true; does that make you uncomfortable?) So if the government really wanted to cut Islamic terrorism off at the knees, they should take a large percentage of the (often ineffective) military budget and retask it for subsidies for the development and deployment of solar power and electric cars, both in America and around the world!
Try telling that to a right-wing true believer (the people who yell the loudest about the threat of terrorism) sometime and watch their heads explode.
So if you subtract the part about arranging to help a person (a material component) join up with them and fight on their side, then you no longer have a story with a material component, and therefore he really didn't do anything wrong?
But if you subtract ISIS from the equation, what we have is someone arrested and charged primarily for talking about certain things on the internet
...so if you subtract the terrorist organization he was supporting from the picture, you no longer have a picture of someone supporting a terrorist organization, and therefore he didn't really do anything wrong?