If you're talking about college, you're probably right on the money on most (and by most, I mean a vast majority of) cases, but I was actually talking about high school, ect. What I meant was, since rich kids usually have better pre-college resources, including a better school/general environment, therefore they do better in their pre-college years (on paper, anyway), allowing them to more easily attend a better college. After that, though, in may cases it does go downhill. (Where I grew up, we all said there was something in the water, because every year there would be a group of wealthy (by the area's standards, not millionaires on anything) males in the honors class in high school who would graduate in the top fifth, go to the local university campus, and party their way out in their second year.) However, by that point, the damage has already been done, they wealthy do average in a good college, those who understand education's value do good in an average college.
What you say is only partially correct. While there are opportunities for average incomes, the system vastly favors the wealthy. Just because a non-wealthy minority exists doesn't mean that its really fair. Paying for tuition isn't as bad as actually gaining admission. The fact is that that, while you can simply (not sure where you got that word) be smart and work hard, its much more likely that one who is given admission (assuming they're not a legacy) had the benefits that go along with money to compliment whatever effort they put forth. Its really only fair on paper.
Tuition isn't a barrier for anyone who really wants to attend the school No, getting in is the barrier. A quarter or more are legacies, 5/8 had access to the best education (aka money), and that leaves an eighth (or less, more likely) for people from average/below average economic backgrounds. (Note: statistics made up, but I'd bet they're close.) Of course, there's also a huge sociological aspect. For example, who's going to do better in school, a wealthy child with no worries who gets all of his/her whims and goes to a high quality school, or a lower class one who has to go through all the crap associated with that and goes to McSchool, where teachers teach the test? The answer's obvious.
How much does an iPhone cost? How much does the average college student have? Yet Duke has so many, they're causing problems. But don't worry folks, America's a classless society, people of any economic background can go to a prestigious university, money has nothing to do with it!!!/sarcasm
The pastor of your church is a moron, and I can only assume, by extension, that you are a moron too. Nice ad hominem
As to why AIDS gets lots of funding, well, perhaps it has something to do with an incredible crisis in Africa Assuming the parent wasn't just trolling (and that's assuming a lot), the parent poster was probably referring to the underfunded malaria crisis, although he probably wasn't thinking of non drug/sex related transfer (mother-child). IMHO, that alone warrants its massive funding, but I think the point was that other diseases are underfunded, while AIDS programs raise millions, and (unless you live in a third world country and haven't been educated/aside from mother-child transfer) its about the easiest disease to not get.
that I'm thinking neither you or your braindead religious leader care much about (or possibly even know of). Stereotypes save a lot of time and thought, don't they? Regardless of whatever preconceptions you may cling to, a lot (far from all, obviously) of people that you would likely consider 'braindead religious leaders' actually are reasonable, thinking, caring individuals.
Sometimes I wish there was a cure of retarded religious flunkies. They're one of the true threats to health and harmony. Cool. Anything else you don't agree with that you wish were a thought crime, because any thought possible can become a potential threat to health and harmony. How do you feel about capitalism and communism? During the Cuban Missile Crises, each said the other almost destroyed the world (and they each wanted a cure for the other's ideologies). Religion had no involvement. The type of 'religious flunkies' you're referring to haven't even come close to being threats. Obviously, there is a class of religious flunky that is a threat, as we saw in 9/11(and maybe this guy[I really hope I'm wrong here]), but not the people you're talking about.
Hopefully, they'll be smart enough to realize that robots are a tool, just like hand held tasers, guns, ect., and not an intelligent, thinking crowd control panacea, and treat them as such. Besides, I don't think armed robots roaming the streets would fly with a whole lot of folks.
I'm sure these people try hard, but at the end of the day, psychology just can't explain a lot of this stuff. There is no innate, subconscious, hardwired by evolution, ect., reason for a vast majority of this stuff. Give me a sociological reason instead, and then you'll have my attention. Seriously, an evolutionary reason as to men liking certain hair/eye colors, breast sizes, body ratios, and other crap? Bullshit in its purest form. Okay, you can find a very (VERY) slight reason as to why it might be slightly beneficial, but when was the last time every slightly beneficial thing just up and evolved into a population? Muslims being prone to suicidal bombings for a sexual reasons? No, it because of political reasons, and what they're told. In the same circumstances, that could be anyone, of any belief, to blow themselves up. Of course, someone drags sex into it. Sons keeping families together? Could that possibly be because for thousands of years, sons were considered more valuable than daughters and we still have those archaic values, although weaker, laying around? I don't know whose ass they pulled 'Beautiful people have more daughters' out of. Midlife crises in men is because of menopause in women? Male politicians will risk everything to get laid? What, because Clinton made a bad choice in his personal life, this is an evolutionary fact?! In other news, Darwin spinning so fast in his grave he's been deemed an F2 tornado. And what's with this 'men are all about sex' crap. That can be sociologically explained too, but noooo, gotta say its evolution. This article is just plain sad, not just because of how wrong it is, but because a lot of it is very easily explained, and yet these jackholes want to act like they know something by rehashing Freudian ideas and bastardizing Darwinian ones. Someone please tag this shill extremelyslownewsday.
I know many atheists and when pressed we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god. Tell that to Richard Dawkins. As for the stamp thing, you're right, not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, and for many atheists, not believing in God is good enough. But if you read books about how great not collecting stamps is and go to meetings about not collecting stamps, then not collecting stamps is a hobby, and, unfortunately, some people feel the need to bastardize true atheism by turning it into a pseudo-religious belief.
An RFID chip from an employer? Call me paranoid, but there seems to be too much potential for abuse. All it'd take is a few systematically placed RFID readers spread across a location, and your employer becomes a sort of Big Brother. Its unlikely that everyone would be constantly monitored, but if it can be done, it will be. Say, for example, that you go to a rival corporations building, you know, to investigate your options, and the next day find that you've been downsized. What baffles me is that a bill that forbids mandatory implants would meet criticism. If anyone wanted me to get one of those, I'd tell them where to implant that chip.
I agree with the point you're trying to make, but eugenics is a bad example, and I'm going to give a little rant about it.
First, there's a difference between Nazi eugenics and selecting and/or breeding superior cultivars. Only one of them hurts people.
Second, eugenics fails to take social influences into consideration. Isn't it obvious that someone raised to believe in their own innate superiority will be, generally speaking, better than the average person. People are not plants. They are not limited by their inherent nature like superior varieties will, due to their genes, produce a superior crop. They can learn, grow, and put fourth effort. Plants just do in encoded in their DNA. Read The Mismeasure of Man sometime.
Third, eugenics is only a short term deal. Keeping with the agricultural reference, think about bananas. The genetics of the banana of commerce are identical because of its breeding, and a single disease could decimate the commercial banana population. Granted, they've got identical genes because of vegative propagation methods, but similar genes, the result a eugenics program would have, are still a liability for a species. Diversity is not beneficial for a species survival; its essential. Eugenics is nothing more than Darwin simplified, and it only works on paper.
Fourth, it doesn't matter what the results are, with eugenics, the ends do not justify the means.
Back in the day, cavemen would breed these things. They'd take two of them, and have them mate. Then they'd take a select male and a select female offspring mate them. Then they'd pick out a male and female pair from that litter and mate those! Then, maybe they'd do it one more time. The result was a bird so fucked up, it couldn't walk, let alone run. Then they'd race them.
This story was posted at 9:35. This comment was posted at 9:39. Thats a whole four minutes on a story about dinosaurs, ect., without someone trying to be funny by making a lame creationist joke. Yep, didn't see that coming. Seriously, could someone please tell me so many people on/. feel so threatened by creationism that they feel the need to make bad jokes about it every other story? You'd swear that half the people here are closet creationists who are trying to deny it by doing this stuff.
Orkut is apparently like MySpace, with forums and the like. Just thought I'd throw that out there, since TFA did such a great job of not saying what it is. Here's the wiki
The Cuban Missile Crises was quite possibly the closest we've ever come to a nuclear war. If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general? Or would you like to add economic systems (Capitalism vs. Communism) to another silly little thing you'd like to be a thought crime?
I'm no evolutionary biologist, but isn't variation, not what we think is good, the cause of evolution? I don't imagine a world of healthy people, I imagine a world of genetically similar people who could be potentially wiped out by a single disease. Not only is eugenics morally wrong, but it is also scientifically flawed.
A republic is not a democracy. A democracy is when the people rule. A republic is when officials are elected. If three random senators picked the next president, America would still be a republic, just not a democracy. IMHO, America isn't a true democracy, but a plutocratic republic. Do the people really choose a person to rule? No, they pick the rich guy they hate the least. Its not perfect, but its probably the closest thing we'll get to a real democracy.
Well, no. Stem cells don't develop into babies if they're just out there. Stem cells forming an embryo can turn into a baby. If what you said were true, then amphibians that can regenerate limbs would be able to reproduce asexually, by cuttings. Anyway, that should throw the troll crowd for a loop.
What I would like to know is: how do the researchers who found this measure on their own scale. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this study was slightly fudged. Keep in mind that Francis Galton, inventor of the IQ test, had an IQ of over 200. Go figure. This would be interesting, but I, for one, am very skeptical of anything that lends itself to fatalism. And yes, if it can be used for eugenic means, it probably will. Maybe not now, but once the middle class is thinned out a bit more and the ruling class needs something, any stupid thing at all, to justify themselves...well, its happened before.
There are legitimate complaints about the very concept of Zionism (the argument that Jews should immigrate to the Middle East to form a homeland, even if it means displacing the locals). They have made themselves a homeland in the Middle East. Now, people are being born there, and have set up homes there. Wanting them to leave now is like wanting everyone who's been born in America, who's not an Americian Idian, to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're talking about college, you're probably right on the money on most (and by most, I mean a vast majority of) cases, but I was actually talking about high school, ect. What I meant was, since rich kids usually have better pre-college resources, including a better school/general environment, therefore they do better in their pre-college years (on paper, anyway), allowing them to more easily attend a better college. After that, though, in may cases it does go downhill. (Where I grew up, we all said there was something in the water, because every year there would be a group of wealthy (by the area's standards, not millionaires on anything) males in the honors class in high school who would graduate in the top fifth, go to the local university campus, and party their way out in their second year.) However, by that point, the damage has already been done, they wealthy do average in a good college, those who understand education's value do good in an average college.
What you say is only partially correct. While there are opportunities for average incomes, the system vastly favors the wealthy. Just because a non-wealthy minority exists doesn't mean that its really fair. Paying for tuition isn't as bad as actually gaining admission. The fact is that that, while you can simply (not sure where you got that word) be smart and work hard, its much more likely that one who is given admission (assuming they're not a legacy) had the benefits that go along with money to compliment whatever effort they put forth. Its really only fair on paper.
How much does an iPhone cost? How much does the average college student have? Yet Duke has so many, they're causing problems. But don't worry folks, America's a classless society, people of any economic background can go to a prestigious university, money has nothing to do with it!!! /sarcasm
I guess I can't argue with that. Personally, I hate the way that Bush uses Christianity as a battering ram to help push his agenda.
Hopefully, they'll be smart enough to realize that robots are a tool, just like hand held tasers, guns, ect., and not an intelligent, thinking crowd control panacea, and treat them as such. Besides, I don't think armed robots roaming the streets would fly with a whole lot of folks.
I'm sure these people try hard, but at the end of the day, psychology just can't explain a lot of this stuff. There is no innate, subconscious, hardwired by evolution, ect., reason for a vast majority of this stuff. Give me a sociological reason instead, and then you'll have my attention. Seriously, an evolutionary reason as to men liking certain hair/eye colors, breast sizes, body ratios, and other crap? Bullshit in its purest form. Okay, you can find a very (VERY) slight reason as to why it might be slightly beneficial, but when was the last time every slightly beneficial thing just up and evolved into a population? Muslims being prone to suicidal bombings for a sexual reasons? No, it because of political reasons, and what they're told. In the same circumstances, that could be anyone, of any belief, to blow themselves up. Of course, someone drags sex into it. Sons keeping families together? Could that possibly be because for thousands of years, sons were considered more valuable than daughters and we still have those archaic values, although weaker, laying around? I don't know whose ass they pulled 'Beautiful people have more daughters' out of. Midlife crises in men is because of menopause in women? Male politicians will risk everything to get laid? What, because Clinton made a bad choice in his personal life, this is an evolutionary fact?! In other news, Darwin spinning so fast in his grave he's been deemed an F2 tornado. And what's with this 'men are all about sex' crap. That can be sociologically explained too, but noooo, gotta say its evolution. This article is just plain sad, not just because of how wrong it is, but because a lot of it is very easily explained, and yet these jackholes want to act like they know something by rehashing Freudian ideas and bastardizing Darwinian ones. Someone please tag this shill extremelyslownewsday.
An RFID chip from an employer? Call me paranoid, but there seems to be too much potential for abuse. All it'd take is a few systematically placed RFID readers spread across a location, and your employer becomes a sort of Big Brother. Its unlikely that everyone would be constantly monitored, but if it can be done, it will be. Say, for example, that you go to a rival corporations building, you know, to investigate your options, and the next day find that you've been downsized. What baffles me is that a bill that forbids mandatory implants would meet criticism. If anyone wanted me to get one of those, I'd tell them where to implant that chip.
Some would prefer the good old fashioned branding iron.
Hey! Quit demonizing RFID you luddite! You're as bad as those guys who think this shouldn't forced on people!
I agree with the point you're trying to make, but eugenics is a bad example, and I'm going to give a little rant about it.
First, there's a difference between Nazi eugenics and selecting and/or breeding superior cultivars. Only one of them hurts people.
Second, eugenics fails to take social influences into consideration. Isn't it obvious that someone raised to believe in their own innate superiority will be, generally speaking, better than the average person. People are not plants. They are not limited by their inherent nature like superior varieties will, due to their genes, produce a superior crop. They can learn, grow, and put fourth effort. Plants just do in encoded in their DNA. Read The Mismeasure of Man sometime.
Third, eugenics is only a short term deal. Keeping with the agricultural reference, think about bananas. The genetics of the banana of commerce are identical because of its breeding, and a single disease could decimate the commercial banana population. Granted, they've got identical genes because of vegative propagation methods, but similar genes, the result a eugenics program would have, are still a liability for a species. Diversity is not beneficial for a species survival; its essential. Eugenics is nothing more than Darwin simplified, and it only works on paper.
Fourth, it doesn't matter what the results are, with eugenics, the ends do not justify the means.
Back in the day, cavemen would breed these things. They'd take two of them, and have them mate. Then they'd take a select male and a select female offspring mate them. Then they'd pick out a male and female pair from that litter and mate those! Then, maybe they'd do it one more time. The result was a bird so fucked up, it couldn't walk, let alone run. Then they'd race them.
This story was posted at 9:35. This comment was posted at 9:39. Thats a whole four minutes on a story about dinosaurs, ect., without someone trying to be funny by making a lame creationist joke. Yep, didn't see that coming. Seriously, could someone please tell me so many people on /. feel so threatened by creationism that they feel the need to make bad jokes about it every other story? You'd swear that half the people here are closet creationists who are trying to deny it by doing this stuff.
Orkut is apparently like MySpace, with forums and the like. Just thought I'd throw that out there, since TFA did such a great job of not saying what it is. Here's the wiki
The Cuban Missile Crises was quite possibly the closest we've ever come to a nuclear war. If religion truly is the only thing stopping world peace, tell me, just how did religion cause the Cuban Missile Crises, or the Cold War in general? Or would you like to add economic systems (Capitalism vs. Communism) to another silly little thing you'd like to be a thought crime?
I'm no evolutionary biologist, but isn't variation, not what we think is good, the cause of evolution? I don't imagine a world of healthy people, I imagine a world of genetically similar people who could be potentially wiped out by a single disease. Not only is eugenics morally wrong, but it is also scientifically flawed.
If everyone's entertained, they're easier to control. Considering the times, I'd guess that had something to do with it.
A republic is not a democracy. A democracy is when the people rule. A republic is when officials are elected. If three random senators picked the next president, America would still be a republic, just not a democracy. IMHO, America isn't a true democracy, but a plutocratic republic. Do the people really choose a person to rule? No, they pick the rich guy they hate the least. Its not perfect, but its probably the closest thing we'll get to a real democracy.
I want one just like Nute Gunray had.
Well, no. Stem cells don't develop into babies if they're just out there. Stem cells forming an embryo can turn into a baby. If what you said were true, then amphibians that can regenerate limbs would be able to reproduce asexually, by cuttings. Anyway, that should throw the troll crowd for a loop.
What I would like to know is: how do the researchers who found this measure on their own scale. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this study was slightly fudged. Keep in mind that Francis Galton, inventor of the IQ test, had an IQ of over 200. Go figure. This would be interesting, but I, for one, am very skeptical of anything that lends itself to fatalism. And yes, if it can be used for eugenic means, it probably will. Maybe not now, but once the middle class is thinned out a bit more and the ruling class needs something, any stupid thing at all, to justify themselves...well, its happened before.