What you want to have happen is completely irrelevant. If you want it badly enough, make it happen.
Else, don't.
That's right. it's an if/then statement.
The problem with your argument, and *ALL* arguments from Feminist SJW's is that there are unpleasant elements or barriers to entry for women that discourage them from participation, make them feel unwelcome or unwanted.
Well, tough crap. It happens to men too, all the time. No, not just sometimes. Everyone has to deal with things they don't like about their job, but most of us just suck it up and learn to deal with it, since we are generally assumed to be beyond high school.
You cannot change a culture if you're unwilling to participate in it in order to change it. If you expect any culture to change itself just because women want it to, that's not going to happen.
The amount of sheer idiocy that is a result of misunderstood statistics, studies and numbers is a plague endemic on all levels of our culture.
From News Media to Political Agendas, people have a very poor understanding of how numbers work and how statistics need to be studied to be understood.
Essentially, the vast proportion of the populace are morons or lazy armchair quarterbacks who don't feel they need to understand what they are spouting off to have an opinion.
My Aesthetics professor in College had the argument that you can say that some people's Opinions are worth less than others, despite the fact that people think the opposite.
I find this to be the case usually.
What they should do is legislate that an employer must pay the employee double their current wage while on jury and then limit it to volunteering once or twice a year.
The price of doing business in America is you support the balance of the legal system.
It is not a straw man if it is a response/criticism/pedantic extrapolation of something you have actually said.
Which you did in your original comment.
Please look up what "Straw Man" actually means.
Thank you for playing.
...So it's not going to happen soon is a fallacious argument.
So is, "This other person who was also a scientist predicted it would happen on X date and it didn't, so subsequent estimates must invariably wrong".
Great of you to speak for the majority of scientific, engineering and programming people.
There's obviously nothing at all to see regarding the singularity. That's why Google, IBM, Yahoo and the rest are ignoring it..
Oh wait, they're not.
...When Google itself seems to believe you don't deserve to have certain kinds of privacy? (In regards to Schmidt and Gundotra's perspective that the service they are pushing, Google Plus, is supposed to be an identification service used to make sure that real user information is being used).
Yes, this makes Google look bad, but it's also proof as to why not anonymizing yourself on the internet is stupid. (And yes, I realize that anonymization doesn't protect you from the NSA, but it is at least one additional layer of obfuscation, which apparently even Google should realize at this point is important).
My initial statement did not presume that the water disappeared, but water processed through biological systems pick up contaminants.
Also, I'm uncertain whether Omestes' original calculation was based only on consumption of drinking water per individual and was ignoring the obvious externalities of manufacturing usage of water per annum. I imagine if we included all manufacturing and industrial useages of water, the number is likely to be higher.
I am, of course, assuming that Omestes' was not including these latter factors.
Multiplying the Daily water useage into a year, then multiplying it out to an average 70 year lifespan gives 0.000007665
Which is still only 7/1,000,000 of a change in value, but that's assuming consumption and useage levels remain the same and Jevon's Paradox doesn't have a significant rebound from the drop in cost of desalinization.
And what about when the world is consuming trillions of gallons of Water from the oceans? I'm sure the oceans becoming saltier over time (As a result of removal of clean water from the system as well as salts/other chemicals being added from all the pissing people, cows and pigs will be doing with all the readily available water) isn't going to cause any problems.
Oh, wait, no, I mean the other thing.
Systems are not closed, coming up with a solution that makes consumption easier doesn't actually solve problems down the road.
Moral relativism is the theory that Morality is a subjective component and, thusly, relative to the viewer. Moral Relativism is directly antithetical to theological morality. Moral Relativism, as a theory, is that Morality does not exist and as such... it says nothing about Homosexuality being wrong.
Is Donglegate wedged into this description? It's completely irrelevant to the rest of the Article, not to mention it wasn't some Political storm, it was an in-group whine-fest of bitchy, epic proportions.
Even if Microsoft was making Rape Jokes, it's completely irrelevant to the rest of the article description.
...Where the 5th Amendment would result in a better outcome seems to me to be more a lack of imagination than of accuracy.
Pardon the slightly inflammatory comment.
Say there is a public figure, or an individual whose participation in the community is wholly a net positive. Perhaps they are an Official, the District Attorney, or perhaps they Work for a Charity or an outreach program for under-achieved Youth.
Now, say you have someone that doesn't like this person. Perhaps they want this person's job, or perhaps they were personally affronted or slighted by this person.
Now, perhaps this person isn't guilty of Murder or some other capital felony, but chances are they are guilty of SOMETHING. The individual (Or group, because it could be a group) reports this individual for a crime they know the person committed. The result of this prosecution and subsequently finding the person guilty of something they are in fact guilty of is that the individual in question is removed from the community, or removed from power, resulting in a net loss for the citizenry. In weighing the costs and benefits, this result is a negative as it harms the community as a whole.
This is one example.
Then, take for example, that an individual may have done something that is perfectly legal in many places, perhaps took an ethical stance. Say.... conducted a series of abortions as a doctor, although technically illegal where they reside (This is a theoretical situation, because this COULD happen and has happened some places, particularly during prohibition). Should their technically illegal act result in their imprisonment?
I think the problem with your premise is you are expecting that the ideal society wouldn't prosecute people for reasons that are technically sound, but ethically harmful to the community. The 5th Amendment is to protect individuals who have not, largely, harmed society.
However, it also protects people who have harmed society, because in order to protect the former the latter must also have protections. This is a result of a judicial system that is intended to assume innocence of all individuals, rather than guilt by fiat of presence in the court.
The burden of our judicial system is to prove innocent people as guilty, with the presumption of innocence a forebearance of the law. While this allows guilty people to go free due to the burden of proof as well as things like the 5th amendment, it is also intended to prevent abuses of the system on technicalities such as the examples listed previously.
The United States at this time, largely, is Wile E. Coyote standing in mid-air as he chases after the Road Runner, having not looked down at it's situation as of yet...
...Then yes, Al Qaeda is losing.
However, if you are familiar with the term "Pyrrhic Victory," you should be familiar with the idea that a person can win technically while also having pragmatically lost.
The reverse is also true and has historical precident; a loser can have won their idealogical goal through turning the winning party into a more hated figure than they were.
The GP was indicating an implicit inferrence that these things would be illegal in a hypothetical future. I cannot say as I don't believe that criminality will be broadened in the coming years, evidenced by the expansion of laws in the previous years.
A future where it's illegal to have contact with anyone who is considered a criminal or enemy of the state does not seem that far fetched, and with total surveillance, it makes it easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Minecraft.
What you want to have happen is completely irrelevant. If you want it badly enough, make it happen.
Else, don't.
That's right. it's an if/then statement.
The problem with your argument, and *ALL* arguments from Feminist SJW's is that there are unpleasant elements or barriers to entry for women that discourage them from participation, make them feel unwelcome or unwanted.
Well, tough crap. It happens to men too, all the time. No, not just sometimes. Everyone has to deal with things they don't like about their job, but most of us just suck it up and learn to deal with it, since we are generally assumed to be beyond high school.
You cannot change a culture if you're unwilling to participate in it in order to change it. If you expect any culture to change itself just because women want it to, that's not going to happen.
Roll your sleeves up and get to work.
The amount of sheer idiocy that is a result of misunderstood statistics, studies and numbers is a plague endemic on all levels of our culture. From News Media to Political Agendas, people have a very poor understanding of how numbers work and how statistics need to be studied to be understood. Essentially, the vast proportion of the populace are morons or lazy armchair quarterbacks who don't feel they need to understand what they are spouting off to have an opinion. My Aesthetics professor in College had the argument that you can say that some people's Opinions are worth less than others, despite the fact that people think the opposite. I find this to be the case usually.
Hail Hydra.
...After characters from Game of Thrones.
What they should do is legislate that an employer must pay the employee double their current wage while on jury and then limit it to volunteering once or twice a year. The price of doing business in America is you support the balance of the legal system.
It is not a straw man if it is a response/criticism/pedantic extrapolation of something you have actually said. Which you did in your original comment. Please look up what "Straw Man" actually means. Thank you for playing.
...So it's not going to happen soon is a fallacious argument. So is, "This other person who was also a scientist predicted it would happen on X date and it didn't, so subsequent estimates must invariably wrong".
Great of you to speak for the majority of scientific, engineering and programming people. There's obviously nothing at all to see regarding the singularity. That's why Google, IBM, Yahoo and the rest are ignoring it.. Oh wait, they're not.
...to the problem that is the NSA is the entire dismantling of the NSA as an agency. This indicates that won't happen. I'm, of course, not surprised.
"We Are Not Recording" also doesn't indicate whether they are actively listening or not.
...When Google itself seems to believe you don't deserve to have certain kinds of privacy? (In regards to Schmidt and Gundotra's perspective that the service they are pushing, Google Plus, is supposed to be an identification service used to make sure that real user information is being used). Yes, this makes Google look bad, but it's also proof as to why not anonymizing yourself on the internet is stupid. (And yes, I realize that anonymization doesn't protect you from the NSA, but it is at least one additional layer of obfuscation, which apparently even Google should realize at this point is important).
...Is so that he can work on the review board that is set to investigate the NSA. At least, that's what I imagine will happen.
You chummers know what I mean. When corruption and corporate rule have crushed the future, the only real option is Shadowrunning.
My initial statement did not presume that the water disappeared, but water processed through biological systems pick up contaminants.
Also, I'm uncertain whether Omestes' original calculation was based only on consumption of drinking water per individual and was ignoring the obvious externalities of manufacturing usage of water per annum. I imagine if we included all manufacturing and industrial useages of water, the number is likely to be higher.
I am, of course, assuming that Omestes' was not including these latter factors.
Multiplying the Daily water useage into a year, then multiplying it out to an average 70 year lifespan gives 0.000007665
Which is still only 7/1,000,000 of a change in value, but that's assuming consumption and useage levels remain the same and Jevon's Paradox doesn't have a significant rebound from the drop in cost of desalinization.
And what about when the world is consuming trillions of gallons of Water from the oceans? I'm sure the oceans becoming saltier over time (As a result of removal of clean water from the system as well as salts/other chemicals being added from all the pissing people, cows and pigs will be doing with all the readily available water) isn't going to cause any problems.
Oh, wait, no, I mean the other thing.
Systems are not closed, coming up with a solution that makes consumption easier doesn't actually solve problems down the road.
Moral relativism is the theory that Morality is a subjective component and, thusly, relative to the viewer. Moral Relativism is directly antithetical to theological morality. Moral Relativism, as a theory, is that Morality does not exist and as such... it says nothing about Homosexuality being wrong.
Is Donglegate wedged into this description? It's completely irrelevant to the rest of the Article, not to mention it wasn't some Political storm, it was an in-group whine-fest of bitchy, epic proportions. Even if Microsoft was making Rape Jokes, it's completely irrelevant to the rest of the article description.
...Where the 5th Amendment would result in a better outcome seems to me to be more a lack of imagination than of accuracy.
Pardon the slightly inflammatory comment.
Say there is a public figure, or an individual whose participation in the community is wholly a net positive. Perhaps they are an Official, the District Attorney, or perhaps they Work for a Charity or an outreach program for under-achieved Youth.
Now, say you have someone that doesn't like this person. Perhaps they want this person's job, or perhaps they were personally affronted or slighted by this person.
Now, perhaps this person isn't guilty of Murder or some other capital felony, but chances are they are guilty of SOMETHING. The individual (Or group, because it could be a group) reports this individual for a crime they know the person committed. The result of this prosecution and subsequently finding the person guilty of something they are in fact guilty of is that the individual in question is removed from the community, or removed from power, resulting in a net loss for the citizenry. In weighing the costs and benefits, this result is a negative as it harms the community as a whole.
This is one example.
Then, take for example, that an individual may have done something that is perfectly legal in many places, perhaps took an ethical stance. Say.... conducted a series of abortions as a doctor, although technically illegal where they reside (This is a theoretical situation, because this COULD happen and has happened some places, particularly during prohibition). Should their technically illegal act result in their imprisonment?
I think the problem with your premise is you are expecting that the ideal society wouldn't prosecute people for reasons that are technically sound, but ethically harmful to the community. The 5th Amendment is to protect individuals who have not, largely, harmed society.
However, it also protects people who have harmed society, because in order to protect the former the latter must also have protections. This is a result of a judicial system that is intended to assume innocence of all individuals, rather than guilt by fiat of presence in the court.
The burden of our judicial system is to prove innocent people as guilty, with the presumption of innocence a forebearance of the law. While this allows guilty people to go free due to the burden of proof as well as things like the 5th amendment, it is also intended to prevent abuses of the system on technicalities such as the examples listed previously.
The United States at this time, largely, is Wile E. Coyote standing in mid-air as he chases after the Road Runner, having not looked down at it's situation as of yet...
...Then yes, Al Qaeda is losing. However, if you are familiar with the term "Pyrrhic Victory," you should be familiar with the idea that a person can win technically while also having pragmatically lost. The reverse is also true and has historical precident; a loser can have won their idealogical goal through turning the winning party into a more hated figure than they were.
You mean my Protection from Tiger's Stone doesn't work as advertised?
The government does not believe this. The government wants you to believe this.
The GP was indicating an implicit inferrence that these things would be illegal in a hypothetical future. I cannot say as I don't believe that criminality will be broadened in the coming years, evidenced by the expansion of laws in the previous years. A future where it's illegal to have contact with anyone who is considered a criminal or enemy of the state does not seem that far fetched, and with total surveillance, it makes it easier.