Slashdot Mirror

I'm more interested in this "Men's Rights Activist" red herring. The SJWs just admitted that men are more likely to be an aspie? And if SJWs so revile "Men's Rights" it's probably worth looking into. brb.

Oh, snap, I just did a search on "men's rights" clicked a link about "domestic abuse" and found this:

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

Holy shit! Domestic Abuse is SJW's bread and butter for funding. No wonder they hate "Men's Rights", they link to science that blows SJW's primary "women = victim" narrative out of the water.

Here's one for you to think on. How long do you think a law that's meant for domestic violence will last if it's based on "emotional abuse." I'll give you a moment to think on that. Now that you have, I'm sure you've already realized which gender is the primary user of that type of abuse. I'm going to bet that off the top of your head you can now think of a dozen women who would be classified as domestic abusers if such a law was passed.

Now, I want to you to think on this one. Why is it in domestic abuse cases that roughly 70% of the time, women will be the instigator of abuse. But the man will take the blame for it even if he attempts to flee. Why is it that women are given a free pass in the legal system for the same acts that would land a man in jail. Why is there a push among feminists to stop women from going to jail, or pay at all in any form for domestic abuse or even the rape of minors. Oh and now that you've read all that? Now you can get to the wonderful sources. Let me know when you read the paper about how women are the primary actors of abuse in cases of divorce.

For added fun: You can now rationalize the following. A 30yr old women has sex with a 13yr old and receives no jail time, no fine, no punishment at all. A 30yr old man has sex with a 13yr old and receives a 10yr jail sentence. When you're finished rationalizing it, you can now rationalize why a women can make a false rape claim, destroy a persons life so badly that they commit suicide because of it and never receive any punishment or even be admonished under law. Except in the rarest of cases(usually requiring multiple cases where the women has filed false rape claims).

Now explain why this double standard is acceptable, and why 4th wave feminism supports this and not equality under the law. Or you can simply say that maybe, that "men's rights crap" is correct in there being a double standard that's unacceptable.

Example: the story of the man who tried to eat ten lions:

Shí shì sh shì sh shì, shì sh, shì shí shí sh. Shì shí shí shì shì shì sh. Shí shí, shì shí sh shì shì. Shì shí, shì Sh shì shì shì. Shì shì shì shí sh, shì shì shì, sh shì shí sh shì shì. Shì shí shì shí sh sh, shì shí shì. Shí shì shì, shì sh shì shù shí shì. Shí shì shì, shì sh shì shí shì shí sh. Shí shí, sh shì shì shí sh sh, shí shí sh. Shì shì shì shì

For the Chinese ideograph version and English translation, see slides 12 and 13 of

https://web.csulb.edu/~txie/38...

There are plenty of men who are killed by their wives too. Here is a handy list of domestic abuse studies http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...

It's still over three to one, with three times as many men killing their female spouses as women killing their male spouses.

So, when you say, "plenty", you are definitely not speaking relatively. For example, last year we had 1500 women killed by intimate men and 400 men killed by intimate women (and yes, that includes women who had a second man kill the husband).

Now, if you want to look at the ratios of non-fatal abuse, it's even more stark. Despite what you will see on PUA websites, men are far more likely to abuse their female spouses.

70% of non-reciprocal violence, 50% of all violence overall, and 40% of severe violence is committed by women against men. There are several HUNDRED studies proving this.

but it's the misogyny that is far, far more worse and embedded in social norms and power structures in jobs and schools,

Boys are killing themselves at 6 times the rate than in the 70's. Women dominate college enrollment and diploma earners. Furthermore, watch this, then tell me about "social norms". The fact that TFA is even being discussed shows that people actually do care about women, in fact, society is predisposed to rush to the aid of crying women. Prohibition was called for by some whiny puritan women, and they got it. You're a historical revisionist. Husbands used to go to jail for their wifes' crimes. Female serial killers were notoriously hard to prosecute thanks to the chivalry of male jurors and officials (see #6), and today men still serve longer sentences for the same crimes.

Here's a documentary about workplace sex differences from the most egalitarian country in the world. Researchers have found cross-culturally (thus not social norms) that the more egalitarian a country is, the more gender differences exist. This is likely because men and women are different and thus prefer different things (otherwise, reproduction wouldn't work); So, when you give them more freedom to decide what jobs they want they express their differences more. Humans are sexually dimorphic species, and it would be foolish to think that the same selection bias that created their very different bodies had no effect on one of the biggest and most complicated organs: Their brains.

Care to cite any facts? After 40 years of disproving social justice whiners I have mountains of evidence to back my claims. Here, have 286 studies that show women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men when it comes to domestic violence, but you won't hear any SJW advocating for Battered Men's homes, even though they're 40% of the victims of abuse, and the target of ~90% of all violent crimes, and make up over 80% of the homeless.

There are over 200 US government programs that exclusively benefit women, and few if any that benefit exclusively men (I couldn't find one). If you want to end sexism, why not have programs that grant assistance to any in need, regardless of race, creed or sex. I'm a poor white kid who grew up in the ghetto, and was beaten up regularly just for being white. My best friend was a black girl. I was every bit as disadvantaged as she, and she had government programs for housing and college available to her, I was excluded from assistance based on my sex and race. My skin and penis didn't win me any sympathy or "privilege". When I cried beaten bloody in the street no one came to my aid, but a startled women cried out at the site of me, men rushed to her aid.

You SJWs say that those who have privilege are blind to it. How ironic that in this gynocentric society, you would continue to be blind to the privileges afforded women, claiming that they are the most oppressed by sexism, meanwhile ignoring that any attempt to garner support for men's issues is typically met with contempt and loathing. Women are pandered to in everything from voting since women are the majority of voters and swing voters and women decide where ~70% of the nation's income is spent.

You want to talk about social norms? How about this: Men are disposed to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of women and children, and for the "privilege" of fulfilling such duty we get less empathy, less rights, less assistance, and a constantly whining bunch of idiots telling us how bad women still have it because they don't like doing the largel

Ahem:

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...

"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. "

Oh, look, an article objecting to a specific methodology, that in no way was made illegal.

It's a paper, not some smear of a blog entry.

Okay. Those are equal. Yep. Look, your objection requires people to believe in a huge-criminology wide conspiracy to suppress data, whereas my objection just references a law on the books.

My objection requires people to believe in well supported research, and I don't really give a shit what you're referencing. Want more? Here you go: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...

I'm not even going to refute what you're saying, because, hell, Straus is a criminologist, and I'm not. But I will accuse you of willful false equivalence. Don't do that.

Get fucked.

That's like telling Muslims that it's their responsibility for policing terrorists. Thinking like yours is what led to internment camps for Japanese and German American citizens.

Also: what proof do you even have that kick6's friends are raping or assaulting women?

When are you going to ask women to police their female friends about domestic violence? Study after study shows that women are equally as physically aggressive, or moreso, than the men in their relationships.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...

Want an even more authentic source? The CDC provides that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

You don't even want to know what the stats are for lesbian partner violence.

Do not ask a computer scientist to be an electrical engineer.

Except ... Wow. An early course in my computer science curriculum was:

201. Computer Logic Design I (3)
Prerequisite: MATH 113 or equivalent all with a grade of "C" or better.
Basic topics in combinational and sequential switching circuits with applications to the design of digital devices. Introduction to Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools. Laboratory projects with Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA).
(Lecture 2 hours, lab 3 hours) Letter grade only (A-F).

(We used Verilog and a Xilinx FPGA board.) I'm surprised a reputable CS degree wouldn't require at least a basic course in digital logic; Cal State Long Beach is a great school, but it's certainly not a standards bearer...

Correcting biased text is a thankless job for those Wikipedia editors — the literary-world equivalent of killing endless hordes of zombies approaching your protective fence. But that job gets even harder when a PR agency deploys dozens, or even hundreds of writers to systematically adjust clients' Wikipedia pages."

Interesting... You're aware that you also allow feminists to push their ideologically slanted non scientific Marxist agenda of marginalizing men's issues to dominate state funding allocation? I mean, granted, most folks are ignorant about the movement's hijacking and operate on the untested assumption that the ideology's re-branding as "Woman's Studies" courses actually furthers a fair and rational agenda; I'm a scientist, you must prove it's good for me to believe such... I have seen much evidence to the contrary. Feminism is the radical belief that no one needs unbiased peer reviewed evidence to turn Hypotheses based on emotional appeal into Theories, and these ideological Theories into actual Laws. Note: Neither Women's Rights, Human Rights, nor Men's Rights need an ideology to back them...

Perhaps the sock puppets merely took it as par for the course, since, e.g., all of the entries discussing Feminism are wholly biased, and indeed you welcome Women's Studies courses assigning their "armies" of impressionable students to work on cleaning up Feminism's image by spreading their easy to believe untruths, and removing negative discourse. Yep, that's mostly welcome unless anyone takes the time to go to war over some slanted edit, or the blatant bias makes you look too bad, you don't oppose such activity. You say you wouldn't tolerate a group of political ideologists organizing a campaign to do the same, but that's exactly what you embrace. Indeed, many edits are done as part of a project assigned by these biased groups; Some edits are reverted, but you also have fiefdoms where biased editors control which edits are and aren't included. It's telling indeed that the wiki fiefdoms of the ideologists cover their ideologies... The edit army is only one issue; IMO, the dictators are a bigger problem, but strangely Wikipedia embraces them once they gain control over an information territory.

Hell, I once tracked down and added some information to the 3D .OBJ file format page, but that showed up on the wiki-dictator's radar who had taken ownership of that page. They marked the page for delete then moved it to a private area that only they could see and edit -- I found out because I went back to add more data and reference the file format... However, the most widely supported 3D mesh file format in the world had been removed as "not notable". It came back some time later with my edits "corrected" to actually be incorrect. That was when I gave up on Wikipedia. Shit like that is commonplace. The data can disappear right from under your foot, without any real oversight, and when debating other important political topics -- such as boy's suicide rate being 8 times that of girls or over 90% of workplace deaths involving men, men being over 90% the victims of violent crimes, and over 90% of the homeless being male, and domestic abuse not being gendered, yet there's no support or funding for men's homes, only homes for battered women... that's equality? -- I've foolishly referenced factual information on Wikipedia only to have the very ideologues I'm arguing against retroactively edit the page and prevent reversions to make me out to be a misleading asshole.

Edit armies are only opposed when the owners of Wikipedia are opposed to their political agenda. A blind eye is turned when the shoe is on the other foot. I think the problem is that Wikipedia is sending mixed messages; No one knows if their sock-puppet army will be welcomed or shunned until they try to add their bias to the site. So, the answer seems plain to me.

Why not actually make a big difference if we're going to have a team of "expert" psychologists debunk something? You know, like get the bogus Duluth Model thrown out since it's used as the framework for almost all domestic abuse therapy / explanation. Since it presents abuse as gendered, but men and women are equally aggressive. Hell, there's plenty of evidence... So, Shouldn't be hard, eh?

Oh, that's right. It's fucking Psychiatry / Psychology -- Damn non-sciences. Whoopdee fucking do, let's debunk some shit everyone knows is bunk to begin with and doesn't fucking matter. I got a better idea: Let's throw out any and all existing shit about predicting why folks act certain ways and let the Neroscientists and Cyberneticians handle it -- You know, the actual sciences based on real evidence and repeatable observable physical phenomena linked to reality by more than uninformed guesses.

I guess everyone's scratching their own itches, but I mean, if we're not going to do the right thing and declassify psychology as science, then if I were looking at making a positive impact I'd start at the Duluth Model since abuse is largely cyclic: Most rapists and abusers were themselves abused. So, the current most wide spread approach to domestic violence counseling creates more female victims in the next cycle. I mean, if we're going to debunk shit, why not take your pick of other crap that's sticking out like a sore thumb, is obviously blatantly wrong, and just plain ol' sexist? Oh, I think you know why... Because you're not fucking scientists.

I seem to recall various atheist countries that were afraid of their people getting loose used Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and others to control their people.

I seem to recall Marxist Feminism being born as a way to control women, convince them that they were oppressed by men and thus enter the work force, doubling the workers. It did not bring equility, it merely burdened women. It did not bring the choice to the family of which parent would raise the child, but instead normalized the method of human reproduction by having children raised by the state. Radical Feminism was born by adding to Marxist Feminism the idea that oppression was Patriarchal in nature; New-wave / 3rd wave / "mainstream" Feminism adds to these the idea that males can also be harmed by Patriarchy, and extends their narrative to all issues of gender -- All without any unbiased, peer reviewed evidence. All are examples of Marxist us-vs them divisionism applied to gender. Hilariously, a new Feminist theory of Kyriachy says that it is the elite rulers in power which cause the oppression... It is plain-jane Marxism! ha ha... oh, it would be funny if it weren't so sad, that this ideology is in control of nearly every political debate. Few speak out against it because they are labeled as villainous women haters. Womens Rights does not need Feminism, or any other ideology for that matter.

G.P. says, "Fear and Freedom don't mix well." Well, if that's true then why is it that fear of rape, abuse, and oppression of women are prominently used by Feminists in world governments to control the dialog of "gender equality" with no push back from those who would seek freedom from fear? Painting all men as potential rapists is as egregious as painting all blacks as murderous thieves simply due to crime stats. Even more egregious in the case of Feminism since they ignore the troves of evidence that men are over 90% the victims of violent crimes, and that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men., the Feminists in the CDC have even redefined rape to exclude male victims and female perpetrators, saying that only penetration can be rape so vaginas can't rape (tell that to the guy tied to the bed with a q-tip shoved is his penis) -- Since most rapists and abusers have been victims of such abuse themselves this means the feminists are actually creating more female victims in the next cycle of abuse... Yet, speak out against them in order to fight for equality of both men and women, and reduce abuse, and you find yourself skewered by the ideologists for challenging their world views.

The ideologies care not for freedom, but perpetuating fear to further their fanatical and financial support. Ideologies are primarily the same in that they preach fear of harm coming to our women, and have no evidence to back their claims. From Islamic fundamentalists to Feminists, this holds true. For instance: Feminists harp on about equal pay, but there is no "wage gap", it hasn't existed for a very long time. Never married men make the same money as never married women... (and this has been true since the 70's). As a sexually dimorphic race women and men simply make different life choices, and men don't give birth. Additionally, ideologists cry out for "equal representation", but equal isn't 50% men and women. It's X% women vs men in at the bottom == X% women vs men out at the top. If the jobs are available to all, but 40% of women vs men apply for the bottom rung jobs then women should percolate up to the top jobs at a rate of 40%, eh? Same for 30%, 20%, 10%, even 0%. Women should be allowed to make different life choices, and not shamed for not being a stressed out workaholic CEO, in the same way we don't shame them for not being Coal Miners or Janitors or Game Developers -- the latter is i

I recently opted out of Google targeted ads because of the interests it thought I liked. Among them: Women's Issues, Defense and Aerospace, Arts and Crafts, etc. I'm interested in Men's Issues (90%+ workplace deaths are males, 80%+ homeless are men, 40%+ of domestic abuse victims are male, and women are as violent or more so than men yet there are only "battered womens' shelters" no men's shelters), I don't really care about Defense just Space (why these are linked in their interests might be to fuzz defense nuts as possible space nuts? Maybe cryptography = defense?), I make inde games as a hobby but could give a fuck less about arts and cratfs... The list goes on and on -- over 20 interests, 5 were half right, the rest were just WAY off base.

The shit they know is WRONG. And if this is any indication of the power of "big data" (a new buzword for Analytics) then I'm even more wary of what the NSA thinks they can glean from their aggregate bullshit. With the things I research for my fictional writing & game plots, and my outspoken stance on government accountability, anti-war posts, and patent/copyright reform, etc. they probably think I'm a terrorist, when in reality, I would sooner die than kill another sentient being.

The road to despotism is paved with absolutist notions. Do not try to create absolute security, that is impossible. This complete intolerance for risk is ridiculous and destructive. You have more risk of heart attack or automobile accident than terrorist attack.... The funding should be in tastier health food, not killing brown people and spying on every citizen. Of course the message to the people is one of protection from drummed up threat. The reality is that those doing the spying know their ends can't fit the means; They have completely other set of agendas, and practically have to manufacture offenders to prove they're protecting you. Only thing you could really do with the data on that scale is controlling the world's financial markets. Protip: the CIA and other black-ops are funded not by tax money primarily, but by investments via shell corps...

You don't have anything to fear, citizen, unless you use uncontrollable currencies, like bitcoins, or develop new cryptographic ciphers, or use untrackable data transfers.

Truth is, I live not in fear of terrorists, but in fear of being hit by a bus or disappeared by a black van... I refuse to NOT post things online that could be taken the wrong way. Fuck 'em. Live free or Die, I say, like an American of braver times.

Additionally, my websites know when you're using Ghostery, NoScript, and AdBlock, or user agent spoofers, fingerprint normalizers, etc. Your use of these damn near perfectly profiles the kind of user you are... I just use the data to serve you the page for a downloadable game instead of the WebGL or flash version, but others could do much more...

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies only in court. Nobody is advocating throwing this guy in jail without a fair trial.

But she has the right to blog about being attacked, and I have the right to believe her based on my experience (that people with stories like that generally aren't making them up).

So they had a fight. Maybe she started it? Maybe her blog is a way to attack him further after figuring the police wouldn't buy her story? Who knows. Point is, you're being completely irrational by believing her. Gather some evidence. Has he or she ever done something like this before?

I walked in on my ex trying to slit her wrists, she was emotionally unstable and managed to cut us both with the knife. During the struggle to save her life we both wound up with bruises, and I had a black eye from a head-butt. We broke up, but not before she told the entire apartment complex I had abused her -- She craved attention, and that got it. No police report was filed, guess I should have filed one... Because people like you egged my car, and got me evicted for trying to save someone's life.

Here are 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. Your bias comes from non-scientific demonization of men in the media and wrong feminist propaganda.

TL;DR: You are being a fool.

a recognition that lawyers are not scientists

I may need to draw you a Venn diagram (and then, based on your 8-digit UID, explain, patiently, what a Venn diagram is ;)), but, this lawyer is a member of Tau Beta Pi and has personally helped design, assemble, and been a "core team" member on static engine tests and launches of, CALVEIN lifters...

Oh, and 45000 feet at Mach 1.2 is the beginning of the real stress zone for the frame. Not too surprising it flopped over there.

Anytime you hit or exceed transonic speeds you're getting into all new worlds of potential hurt. (Ask anyone who worked with us on Prospector 8A: http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/mae/views/projects/rocket/background/ :) )

You're right, it is all about the user experience. And you can get the full ios flash experience right here and now in your browser.

I'm not certain linking to someone else's work is completely under the umbrella of speech

I am. I think we can agree that "you can find X by going to example.com and clicking the link called foo" is protected speech, yes? If you want to argue that deep-linking is no covered by free speech, then you must show that either:

1. A URL and the aforementioned sentence are dissimilar
2. The URL itself it protected speech, but its machine-readable form, the link, is not

I reject #1 above because any linguistic transformation of protected speech is still protected speech, and can think of no contrary precedent. I reject #2 because I think of no situation in which a machine-readable form of speech is treated differently from the same speech in a different, non-machine-readable fixed medium.

Now, some very powerful people have argued that sentence #2 should be true, but perceived (or even actual) economic harm is not a justification for abridgment of free speech. The traditionally-recognized exceptions to free speech are:

• Defamation
• Causing panic
• Fighting words (an exception seldom used today)
• Incitement to crime
• Sedition
• Obscenity
• Establishment of religion

Deep linking is not exempted from being free speech by falling into any of the above categories. Therefore, it is protected speech.

There is no category called "likely to cause economic harm to a corporation with lobbyists".

Do we have to put up with yet another mythologizing of dead white males? Thank God for his Chosen Americans or we might not have had the Immigration and Nationalities Act of 1965 to terminate that hideously white nation.

Laser Standard Operating Procedures

Laser Safety

Check your particular DVD Rom, chances are fairly good that it's rated as a class I laser (non hazardous, but try not to stare directly at it...because like everything else it's probably made in china I wouldn't be surprised if to save a penny they underclassy the mW output to skip a safety inspection over in the usa heh)

However, if it's a class II....

The reason I am offering these links is because I doubt many people know that a class II laser beam will cause eye damage within as little as .026 seconds? 1-2 seconds could be more than enough to cause snow blindness style affects, headaches, and temporary eye tissue scarring?

I got caught not wearing my ansi rated safety goggles at corning from a light gun and I couldn't see for about 3 days (snow blindness from intense UV exposure for 2 seconds). So let's practice some good sense people.

Laser Standard Operating Procedures

Laser Safety

Check your particular DVD Rom, chances are fairly good that it's rated as a class I laser (non hazardous, but try not to stare directly at it...because like everything else it's probably made in china I wouldn't be surprised if to save a penny they underclassy the mW output to skip a safety inspection over in the usa heh)

However, if it's a class II....

The reason I am offering these links is because I doubt many people know that a class II laser beam will cause eye damage within as little as .026 seconds? 1-2 seconds could be more than enough to cause snow blindness style affects, headaches, and temporary eye tissue scarring?

I got caught not wearing my ansi rated safety goggles at corning from a light gun and I couldn't see for about 3 days (snow blindness from intense UV exposure for 2 seconds). So let's practice some good sense people.

No on all counts.

• Copyrights (in the US and most countries) are automatic and do NOT require registration, unlike patents or trademarks.
• Poor copies are still copies. If I release a crappy cover version of a song, I still owe the songwriter money (however, there is a mandatory licensing scheme for music in the US, so that once it's been released as a recording anyone else can cover it). An abridged or even adapted version of a book can still be in violation.
• As others have pointed out, choreography is copyrightable (there are people who make their livings, for example, choreographing ballet). However, this has only been the case since 1978: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html, so it may not apply here (the claim is from 1976).

What's the "fair market value" of a unique species? What's the replacement cost?

And it sounds like you're mostly afraid of getting financially burned by the "unknown", which is a reasonable concern. So, do the obvious fix: do an environmental impact study, including a field study of the flora and fauna, *BEFORE* you put up your money to buy the land, so that you *know* it isn't an issue. Think of it as insurance. You probably wouldn't think twice about a home inspection before buying it. Why not a "land inspection"? Especially in California, such an inspection can cover multiple risks and protect you from being hung out to dry because you bought a piece of land with a geological hazard on it that wasn't obvious either -- landslides are *really* common in California, for example, and have ruined alot of poorly-planned developments and killed unsuspecting residents, EVEN when there were warning signs preceding the deadly events.

Basically, don't get financially ruined (or worse) by the unknown. This is not rocket science. Some risks can be mitigated by a bit of study, and if that takes a bit of money and time, it is worth it if you are spending hundreds or thousands of times more on the land itself, and your financial neck is on the line. Make the risks known.

I'm not sleuth of disasters, but how about these:

Italian dam causes tidal wave

Chernobyl

Space shuttle disasters (pretty worthless program, costing 145 Billion dollars)

Columbia
Challenger

Chemical explosion in India

Galloping Gertie

Having looked at The Escape Ladder, Nocturne, and The Beautiful Bird..., I don't see where they "incorporated images" directly from any of these paintings. Certainly the style is the same, but that is the purpose of the tribute.

The sad part is I'd never heard of Miro before and usually enjoy learning from the little sporadic tidbits Google provides. It would be a shame if Google decided to stop including artists because ARS is over-protective. I could understand their point if Google was trying to profit from using Miro's art in any way, but it just seems to be a fun way to raise awareness.

Does anyone else find it ironic that you can't buy advertising on Google's front-page and people who get some free publicity on one of the most-visited pages on the 'net are complaining.

"What Is Art?"

I can't comprehend how dwelling on horrific memories (e.g. how you felt when your buddy got burned alive while you watched, pinned down by a sniper) could help at all to get on with one's life. Yet that is the sort of things that psychiatrists encourage.

Since you asked, that is a link to a website that does a fair job of learning about the process of Systematic Desensitization. In your sniper example, a person suffering from PTSD would feel anxious (and probably behave in a way that's not adaptive) in situations that reminded him of the traumatic event. So if he was walking through a park, and triggered some memory of the traumatic event (let's say the trees reminded him of the jungle where this all occurred, whether the memory was conscious or unconsciously recalled), he might suddenly get scared, angry, and nervous. Which is pretty understandable, given his experience. But if he lashes out at his partner, or the only way he can finish the walk in the park is to get drunk, then you've got problems.

So you talk about your feelings of anxiety, anger, frustration, helplessness, etc. surrounding that experience, to normalize them, and to make them less "charged." And then if they're less powerful, then you can deal with situations in a better manner.

Beercola, meet Radler.
http://www.csulb.edu/~parayner/Radler.html
Yeesh!
What's next? Spezi?
http://www.spezi.com/startseite/1,,,0.php

Diversity is our strength

Feminism isn't a nuanced socio-political critique and attacking databyss on this point shows that you're merely trying to frame the argument in such a way as to get your agenda across.
Feminism is and can be many things but in practice it is: an ideology, a socio-political agenda to advance the rights of (genetic) women, and a belief system much like a religion that appears to hold women as victims above all else/others.In some hands it is even a human and civil rights struggle.However, given the level of oppression in thought and of others (treatment of bisexual women, transgenders and men)I don't see feminism as the paragon of virtue you apparently do.

You're jumping all over the place here. Just how you get from one person's personal experiences to extrapolating an entirely specious statistic (Did you not read what the project was about? It isn't about Domestic Violence in general) is a leap of logic (by way of a particularly horrible comic strip) that defies description.
You have not credibly shown by your comments that women as a class are disempowered. You have also not credibly proven that women haven't in some form or fashion chosen these roles even if true (I clearly remember times when women were chastized for raising children ,whether they stayed home or not, rather than join the workforce full time).
Additionally there is no possible way that any reasonable accounting of domestic violence not account for: male on male, female on female and female on male (and this isn't even taking into account transgender and intersexed people) violence making any commentary on a mythic 95% entirely suspect.Certainly when those other potentials are eliminated (and they haven't been explored in general amongst U.S. studies).While you're formulating your response I offer these links to other positions on domestic violence:
http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13q.htm http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13c.htm http://www.dvmen.org/dv-28.htm http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/domesticviolence4 2.htm http://www.batteredmen.com/batfact.htm http://www.dvmen.org/dv-32.htm#pgfId-1353321 http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm http://www.teamcares.org/alternative_abuse.html http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/whodv.html http://www.wyrdsmiths.com/index.php?fid=lawrdv

Where are most women generally humiliated? Unless this is the case in Podunk, Arkansas I don't see it. I also don't see how it is that women don't objectify or attempt to enforce their own versions of "appropriate" gender roles. I've certainly seen it often enough.

First of all databyss never said he knew what feminists want. Heck, I'd argue that feminists don't know what feminists want. By stating that you know what "feminists" want is to state that there is a single unifying delineation of what feminism means and stands for. Despite the attempts of many to have the "one true feminism" there's a great deal of debate on what those goals should be. I'd argue that your "feminists" are merely a different selection of random women than databyss's. Still, nice of you to excuse women wanting to have it both ways

"There's a lot of FUD surrounding gender issues, mainly because everyone thinks they understand "men" and "women" as social classes based solely on their own interpersonal experience."

There is indeed a lot of FUD surrounding gender (or rather in this case - sex)issues and you're contributing

Except that the ratio of gases dissolved in the ocean is different to that of gases in the air. Oxygen makes up about 35% of the gas dissolved in the surface water of the ocean. So given that Oxygen toxicity kicks in at about 1.6 atm partial pressure, that would be at about 35 metres underwater.

From http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/rmorris/oxy/oxy4.html


The three major dissolved gases in the surface waters of the ocean are oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. The ratio that they exist dissolved in the ocean is not the same as is the ratio existing in the atmosphere. The ratio of O2:N2:Ar in the surface waters is approximately 20:36:1 [5b]. The atmospheric ratio of 21:78:1 shows that more oxygen gas dissolves in the sea than does nitrogen gas. Nitrogen gas is not as soluble as oxygen and argon, so when water releases its dissolved atmospheric gases, the air becomes relatively enriched in oxygen.

PeopleSoft is kind of an open-ended money hole. The implementation at the CSU system is hundreds of millions of dollars over-budget

http://www.csulb.edu/~cfa/peoplesoftlat.html
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary.php?id=390
http://www.csus.edu/org/cfa/CFACMSBrief.htm

The CSU system did not do a feasibility study, they didn't establish a business case, it is not going to achieve the goals they did establish, it won't even have all the functionality of the systems it is replacing, it will cost more to maintain, and the money is coming out of the general fund.

Actually, this story (the veracity of I do not know) predates our modern concepts of "neural networks" - that is, multi-layer networks of nodes (typically three - input, output, and intermediary layers), in which the nodes simulate neurons via weighted thresholds and other mechanisms for "firing" an output based on inputs aggregated over time and/or frequency - coupled with back-propagation "learning"...

Instead, the story seems to have popped up soon after the introduction of, in the late 1950's to early 1960's - of the ideas behind the perceptron, the direct precursor to modern neural networks. Historical perceptrons could be conceptually visualized as simple, single layer neural networks.

So, your original statement applies, but I wanted to clarify where and how this story seems to have originated (computer science, on the whole, seems to be one area of research where almost nobody knows, remembers, nor seems to care - about its history, thus we seem to be forever reinventing the wheel in many areas). You find it brought up as an apocryphal story everywhere in liturature about neural networks, seemingly no matter how far back you go, until you get into the Minsky era (late 1950's - early 1960's) of such machines.

You know, global warming isn't necessarily going to warm evenly across the globe. While some areas will definitely get warmer, others might have their environment thrown off kilter in ways that are hard to predict. Here in the Great Lakes region of the USA, we're looking at the unpleasant prospect of more snow and rain from climate change. There is speculation that, if too many glaciers melt into the ocean and the water loses salinity (salt concentration) because of it, the water current in the atlantic "conveyor belt" that brings warm temperatures to the surrounding landmasses will shut down. This means a frosty future for your great-great-great grandchildren. Regardless of such a doomsday scenario, short-term warming in frozen areas isn't all that grand either - the permafrost ground turns to mush. What happens to structures built upon it?

Back to my original point, this is global warming we're talking about. It simply means that when you add up all the temperatures across the planet, the number is higher than the years before. This can mean 3 degrees warmer in Siberia, and 2 degrees colder in southwest Russia.

It sometimes amazes me the bullshit that I read on a daily basis. Lately, there has been this odd reoccurrence in the media that has left me a bit aghast. It seems that the old fear of Orwell's (in the book 1984) was that jack-booted government thugs would come down and "re-educate" the masses who did not go along with their ideology. It was a common theme that has been analyzed repeatedly over the past 20 years.

But what is really amazing to me is the group responsible for the actual indoctrination and re-education of the masses. Twenty years ago, it was the government and some vast right-wing organization who were painted as the evil ones. But in reality it is the lefties and their hydra-like organizations. Just look at two instances of political correctness and the big-brother speak that flourishes:

CSULB students angered by flyer - In this instance, the students are to under go cultural sensitivity indoctrination. "...mandatory attendance for all organizations at the Cultural Awareness Fair."

Mascot Mishap - This is a similar instance of a politically correct "no-no". The people involved wiil be re-educated and shown the true meaning of happiness through being politically correct. "Members of the foundation agreed to...attend a sensitivity training session to learn about diversity."

It seems that if you don't think and act like the hive mind on the left...you are doomed to "re-education" and indoctrination of some sort. For those that do not follow these PC rules...you will be branded a harbinger of hate and a bigot.

Here is another example...

"At the conference, students in the college learned the importance of firm handshakes and direct eye contact when meeting with potential employers. When a student of color raised concerns that her culture does not encourage such interactions, a comment by Springfield school district's Director of Human Resources Roger Jordan was perceived to be culturally insensitive. Jordan said he had explained what he calls "the blemish effect," which is something that might distract a potential employer during the interviewing process, such as cultural differences. He said the meaning was misconstrued and that he did not intend to propose that the student's culture was a blemish."

I really don't get it. They are being taught how to conduct themselves in an interview and possibly land a job here in the States. They don't like the fact that what they are being taught does not jibe with their culture in their own country, so they take offense and are probably hyper-sensitive about the entire situation. Of course, the school will use the following tactics to "right any wrong" that was committed:

* The creation of a 5-year plan to address the issues;
* standardized and enforced procedures for handling complaints;
* and diversity training for staff and faculty.

I think that my biggest problem with the whole situation is that the school actually has a "Bias Response Team". Political correctness run amok. Common sense is missing in this whole situation and the diversity police (or the Bias Response Team, in this case) come to the rescue and mandate forced re-education. Lovely.

From the site provided in another link:

The graphite outer ring (blue) was not perfectly sealed with the bottom of the chamber (grey) and moved downward very slightly. This opened several gas paths between the ring and the ablative material (beige) which then melted the back of the chamber and led to thrust vectoring. This phenomenon did not occur during the static fire test.

So it looks like the test did ultimately fail due to a problem with the engine. Nevertheless, the rocket did fly.

__

Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist.

Read this article. Their primary objective was to "get the vehicle into the air using the liquid-propellant aerospike engine.". They certainly achieved that.

Incidentally, anyone else thinks that the Lineair Aerospike engine on the Boeing site (link in main Slashdot article) looks like something out of the movie Dune?

http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/ae/rockets/aeros pike/ft-1/flight-1.htm

The operative word in that story was "salinity".

Warm salt water floats. Cold salt water sinks. BUT... cold fresh water floats on warm salt water. And when it does, it displaces the warm salt water towards the south. And that, of course, pushes the "great conveyor" to the south.

What's that mean? Well, for an ice-age to happen in the past, it means there had to be one heck of a lot of fresh water disrupting the conveyor up north.

So, to the experts who scream, "See? Warming!" I might suggest that you consider that the fresh water doesn't just *go away* when it has melted. It has a definite impact, and it doesn't make things warmer, either.

Next time, learn a little before you open your mouth.

People who think there is basically no difference between offshore outsourcing and labor importation need to think a bit more carefully.

It is one thing to transfer a person between nations. It is another thing to transfer a job between nations.

There are some things they have in common of course. For example, industries with substantial national security implications need to avoid importing labor as well as exporting jobs, for obvious reasons, and there are more industries with substantial national security implications than the globalists are willing to admit. Moreover such irresponsible globalism is more pervasive than many detractors of globalism may think. Even the "White Nationalist FAQ" at a leading white nationalism site is insistent that "labor markets are global" and does not see any particularly important security implication to exporting industries wholesale if that is what global competition demands. According to traditional political axes this is impossible. If even an openly and racially nationalist organization cannot protect industries with national security implications, it says something is seriously out of whack with the political axes used to map ideas against real world concerns.

Having said that, the importation of labor is a more serious problem than is exportation of jobs for the simple reason that, just as possession is 9/10ths of the law, residency is 9/10ths of citizenship. Integrity of citizenship is important to the world for the simple reason such integrity is the source of all knowledge about what works and what doesn't work in social organization. When citizenship ceases to represent the principles upon which a society is founded, the experiment represented by that society is destroyed and consequent events in it are uninterpretable. Experiments need controls and if there is one thing we learned from the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation it is that revelation must be accompanied by experimentation.

The American Experiment has already been severely disrupted by early 20th century immigration from portions of Europe that supported theocracy during the Protestant Reformation and Enlightenment. This resulted in the centralization of powers during the 20th century replacing the laboratory of the States with strong central governmental control, in direct contravention of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. This then resulted in the immigration liberalizations of the last half of the 20th century and the present condition in which massive amnesty programs for illegal immigrants are routinely proposed and passed as a means of importing not only labor but voters and activists from cultures that have no history of successfully resisting theocratic rule. That this pro-theocratic liberalization came primarily from the founding culture of Western theocracy, Judaism, is an important, if heretical, topic under the current theocracy that dominates thought in the United States. See "Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review" by Prof. Kevin MacDonald. It is always the case that the most threatening ideas to a theocracy are heresies -- and this is no exception.

The 'scientists' I mentioned have made real world accomplishments for the future, though.

Healthy discussion. Good points all.

I am not yet convinced that the technology exists to make space travel inexpensive enough for any organization that does not have the capability to spend hundreds of millions without seeing a return

Consider that there are multiple private organizations, on a relatively shoestring budgets, in the USA alone, who are doing their own stuff in this area. Check for Microcosm, Flometrics, even a department of a university, not to mention John Carmack's company, XCOR, Burt Rutan's Scaled, all regularly mentioned on the Slashdot. Add other countries - in Europe, for example - in short, a lot of guys are thinking different than you do.

And you won't believe how unsophisticated by today's standards is the technology of the first rockets. Just imagine, they were made out of steel, with almost no computers in the whole lifecycle of devices! It's literally a technology of times half a century back. It's not a technological issues anymore, you just use off-the-shelf components, well, for most of things you need. And you have tons of knowledge for what and how and why to do and not to do. Having all this in, one can wonder, why we still don't fly economically :) .

Ah, very good. I did actually realize that there are scientists who think there is more to evolution than the modern synthesis includes. There are plenty. There are few if any who believe in a young earth.

James Valentine is apparently one of the discoverers of HOX genes. He seems to have an idea called the "Cell-Type Hypothesis" which I can't find any information about. Not a creationist.

Google could find nothing about Stanley Awamril. But Stanley Awamrik is a researcher on the early history of life on earth. Not a creationist.

Philip Signor I found less about, but judging by this book he's not a creationist.

Peter Sadler published a paper with this incomprehensible abstract. References here and here (PDF) indicate that he is (drum roll) not a creationist.

I didn't research further. Really, is this the best you can come up with?

This was a lot funnier the first time!

*sigh*

At my school they have been trying to block all the P2P programs for about a year. Because the the bandwidth was starting to affect what they considered "Mission Cridical Applications" such as all the administration software and and the courseware that they have going. The only problem is that every time they block a program, i run across another one that seems to work fine.

You're saying that gossip isnt protected? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Yes I am saying that it isn't protected if it turns to slander and gossip could very well do just that. The DMCA is a bad law and in my opinion has NOTHING to do with free speech (unless you say your speech is held back because you can't copy a movie or afford a DVD blank/burner because of the cost.....which is laughable.). You simply cannot go about saying stuff that is untrue without getting into trouble dude. Both with the law, and with the person. I say to you read the first amendment and thne THINK about what the authors went through. Even they had admitted that there can and should be limits (within reason). You impress me a slipery slope kind of person who says that once it happens once, it all goes down hill. I quite frankly never believed in the slippery slope. There is none. Our government was designed to prevent it. Also, I frankly DON'T agree with some of the anti terrorist things implemented since 9/11 and do believe they are unconstitutional. If the government would have actually had the manpower to actually enforce existing immigration laws, then 9/11 would never had happened or if it did have to happen, it may hve happened differently. Several of our high jackers were in the country illegally in the first place. If they were actually deported, sure, someone else may have done it or they may have done it a different way (like from a airline that is not US based), but the attacks would have been seen long before they happened and we may have had time to react.

Believe what you must about the first amendment. I agree that 99 percent of speech can be and shoud be free, but that 1 percent would cause a whole lot of people greif. Also, go an try and test this in your own life. Go and start dropping tips on some upcoming stock IPO and see if the SEC doesn't come after you if they turn out to be false. Go and tell your boss your cube mate smokes pot everyday. You will see how fast you get smacked with a lawsuit. Oh and as for references, search for them yourself. The court records are public you know. Also, I found a good PDF that logically defends my position here at this URL. Here is another page covering it as well. I mean really alot of this is common sense and to say ALL SPEECH SHALL BE PROTECTED is irresponsible.

Will these two phenomenon affect sea water salinity?

Counties sorted by (Gore+Bush)*log(Bush/Gore)

Gore, Bush, County, State

338047, 466232, Orange, CA
173705, 286843, Tarrant, TX
415514, 525679, Harris, TX

...

445196, 89377, Brooklyn, NY
1291805, 541208, Cook, IL
1598375, 812154, LosAngeles, CA

It's a good place to get mass for earth orbital facilities. What's the point of being human?

If there was some sort of econimical point, rather then braging rights sure we would go to the moon again.

There is, and "we" aren't therefore "we" can't. QED

Lunar oxygen for use in orbital transfer of geostationary satellites will be the first material to be sold for large amounts of cash and it will not be the United States of America ("we") or any of its companies that does it because that pioneering culture of the USA has now been successfully destroyed by The Culture of Critique.