putting out a bit of money for a long-term payoff just doesn't register with corporations That is so true and it's sad. And it's true for not just some companies, but all companies. Take oil companies, for instance. When they drill into the ground for oil, lots and lots of natural gas comes out of the ground. They could harness this gas for profit if they paid a bit of money for some new equipment. But they make so much profit off of oil that they don't care about a little bit more and so natural gas just bleeds off into the atmosphere.
If you haven't seen reasons why warming is bad it's because you don't care to find out about it. There is information on why it's bad everywhere. It's much more complicated than "being able to grow crops 9-10 months out of the year". Warming of the environment is associated with erosion, desertification, deforestation, stronger hurricanes, acidification of the ocean killing hundreds of species of marine life, ecosystem disruption, forest fires, water scarcity, spread of disease, rise of sea levels killing multiple billions, and further warming from a positive feedback loop, enhancing all of the aforementioned effects. None of this has anything to do with whether humans are causing it or not, just that it is happening. If you try to deny that it is happening, go right ahead but if you accept that it IS happeing, those are the consequences.
Let's the history of "science facts" that the media has trumpeted in the last 40 years or so (remember when we would all die in a massive world-wide starvation as foretold in "The Population Bomb"?, the new ice age they said would come in the by the 80s? The mass extinction caused by DDT?)
You mention these as reasons to not believe in anthropogenic global warming as if it was all some myth but those are (and were) not myths. The reason that they did not come to be is what people are now advocating in response to global warming - some form of prevention.
We did not go through a world-wide starvation because of new technology in food production that allowed us to grow more food, quicker.
Not much was harmed by DDT because we severely restricted (outlawed?) it's use. Even then, some species have still not recovered from the damage dealt to them.
I don't know the reasons for the ice age that was feared in the 80s (I don't remember back that far) but I can tell you that, from what we know now, it would have been a valid concern. Human works release two things into the air, particulates and CO2. The particulates cause the earth to get colder and the CO2 causes the earth to get warmer. You could think of it as a giant seesaw, one side striving to overcome the other. The only problem is the CO2 is the 200lb 10-year-old who nobody wanted to go on the seesaw with. And, yes, CO2 is not the largest percentage of our atmosphere but it is more than methane. Nitrogen makes up about 78% of the atmosphere with Oxygen being a far second at 21%. Third is Argon at about 1% with CO2 weighing in at.038%. It's not a lot but the methane that you speculate about makes up way, way, less. Other than those four gasses and water vapor, all the rest of the elements in the atmosphere combined make up only.002% of the atmosphere. Assuming that the full.002% was methane, which it definitely isn't, CO2 still makes up 20 times more of the atmosphere than methane.
Do you know what I am sick of? People that just repeat the same tired, oft-debunked stuff over and over again. Such as giving the "global cooling" scare of the 80s as a reason, along with the "Population Bomb". It is ridiculous because if someone had lived through those times or, if you're too young for that, opened up a textbook you should know: those would have been problems had we not prevented it.
The reason that it is not as big as the original story is simple: this changes NOTHING. The overall trend is still there. The numbers are a bit different but nothing has changed, not a single thing.
Saying that we don't need to worry about the U.S. when China and India are putting out more is ridiculous. No matter how much more they put out, that doesn't mean we're putting out any less. Last I heard we were third, behind China and India.
I am not going to restrain my baser impulses and end with a snide comment just like you. Remember kids: we dunt need nun o dat fancay book-larnin'.
You probably won't read this, much less reply to it, but it needed to be said.
Or it could be the other way around: get shitty cops, treat cops like shit. Ever thought about why cops USED to be treated very well? They used to be good. People's attitudes didn't change for no reason.
And there is a lot of evidence for stuff on the Female Privilege Checklist, too (such as that 49% of female MBA graduates have tried flirting to advance their career). You cannot simply discount one and say the other is fact backed up my studies when they BOTH are. Furthermore the Male Privilege Checklist is apparently backed up by studies from Women's Studies groups and there is no way they did not have some sort of hidden bias. I'm not saying they purposely fudged statistics but anyone who has ever taken a Statistics class can tell you that just because people don't do that on purpose doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
But that is, again, besides the point. To say that that applies to even most males makes it guilty of what it is trying to prevent: the use of stereotypes. And it DOES show some sort of cognitive dissonance on your part, whether you admit it or not. You believe in your own stereotype of men while saying that man's alleged stereotyping of women is wrong.
You're right, I don't feel bad for you. I felt bad for you when I thought you were a woman because that would have been some enormous pressure you'd foisted onto your own shoulders. Now I know that you're a man I just think you're a bit... well... foolish, frankly. If a woman fails people do not strike it up as a blackmark against women in general. If that were true than Martha Stewart's conviction should have surely hurt womankind and yet, it didn't.
I am hardly saying life is cushy. I realize how hard it is for SOME minority groups (minority in race). But to even compare that to women is being mentally dishonest. I'm sure there is sexism in some companies but to claim that the majority of companies prevent women from succeeding is ridiculous. I wonder what the women who HAVE succeeded think of that? I'm sure some agree but others may see it for what it is: a farce.
And what is wrong with determining the likelihood of her getting pregnant? It's a fact of nature: women get pregnant. An employer does not want to hire someone who will be leaving right away, no matter the reason. That's very similar to health insurance companies wanting to know if a person smokes. It impacts things, whether you want to admit it or not.
Actually, both of those are fair. They're actually the exact same thing except broken down into groups. One is "16 year old boys have an x% chance of a car accident so we charge them y" the other is "People in general have an x% chance of a car accident so we charge them y". It is the exact same thing. Either way you're charging someone a common averaged fee regardless of individual risk.
WARNING: ALL NUMBERS ARE MADE UP AS EXAMPLES
16 year old boys in general could have a 5% chance of getting in a car accident but a specific boy could have only a 1% chance - he will still be charged as if he had a 5% chance. People in general could have a 3% chance but a specific person could only have a 1% chance - he will still be charged as if he had a 3% chance.
No, I did not misnumber them. I was using a newer version of the checklist than you were. At the top of the page you used it gives a link that says it "always contains the newest version".
And by saying that several years ago you said you worked in a nice corporate environment kind of proves my point. Both of these lists are wrong. They think these apply to every single person out there in every single circumstance when it is simply not true. THAT is stereotyping at it's worst and kind of hypocritical.
"when a female fails, she fails her entire gender too."
If you feel that way I feel really bad for you but that is not a problem with males or society. That is a problem with you and you alone.
I never said that they were identical. I said they were "equally full of shit". And I disagree with your counting, too. For instance you say that "0 items allow females to receive praise for doing work expected of males". The list, meanwhile, says this:
13) If I pursue a career I'm commended as being an empowered female. 14) Anytime I do well in business, the media will look at me as some messiah because I'm a woman. Everyone will be impressed. 27) If I make more money than my husband, people will think more of me and less of him.
Granted, those aren't SPECIFICALLY about male-dominated fields, but they're about ALL jobs.
You say that #2, 3, 10, 13, 15, 19 are just not true in general on the female checklist. I say that #6, #9, #11, #13 (demonstrably wrong - just look at what a stir it caused that Giuliani's daughter was a member of the Facebook group "One million strong for Barack OBama"), #17, #20, #22 (again, demonstrably false - insurance companies charge women less by default and people know this), #26 (to think that women's clothing should fit just as well as men's when they are physically different, with more variation in women, is ridiculous), #28, #30 (true literally but not in meaning - they have different words for males, doesn't mean they don't have them), #32, #41, #42, #46. Those are the ones that are just wrong in what they say. There's a whole different list for those that are wrong in what they imply.
#4, #8, #10, #12, #19, #21, #23, #35 (statistically, women are more likely to leave the workforce for child-rearing - an employer does not want a person who will leave right after being hired, no matter the gender).
Also, it labels as "female privilege" items that allow a female to get away with aggressive/violent (and generally illegal) behavior (#4, 5, 6, 7); this in an implicit acceptance that the same acts -- even though illegal -- are *expected* of males, i.e. it directly assumes that males are incapable as a class of not being aggressive towards females.
I would not say that it is an "implicit acceptance" that the same acts are expected of males, I would say it is just saying what it is: if a man does it, they will get in trouble. If a female does it, they may not.
The female points out that males have greater public social flexibility and greater outright political and economic power
No, the female points out that males are more likely to encounter their own sex. That says nothing about their "political and economic power".
If you're going to recommend that people check out the "Male Privilege Checklist" then I'll point you to the "Female Privilege Checklist": http://mepersoner.livejournal.com/200705.html
Then you're either blind, lying, or using Kubuntu. There is no version of the Restricted Driver Manager for Kubuntu, though I believe that is planned for Gutsy.
Slashdot Mirror
He will.
Something that really puts humanity into perspective is the Powers of Ten.
I for one welcome our new ice-cooled overlords.
If you haven't seen reasons why warming is bad it's because you don't care to find out about it. There is information on why it's bad everywhere. It's much more complicated than "being able to grow crops 9-10 months out of the year". Warming of the environment is associated with erosion, desertification, deforestation, stronger hurricanes, acidification of the ocean killing hundreds of species of marine life, ecosystem disruption, forest fires, water scarcity, spread of disease, rise of sea levels killing multiple billions, and further warming from a positive feedback loop, enhancing all of the aforementioned effects. None of this has anything to do with whether humans are causing it or not, just that it is happening. If you try to deny that it is happening, go right ahead but if you accept that it IS happeing, those are the consequences.
Googline for "disproving global warming" does not count as "do[ing] research".
Microsoft for instance has excelled in marketing the operating system, and has a good track record in fending off competition.
Too bad that's the only thing!
Yep, the projects of a high school class outweigh all the projects of people with PHDs.
Let's the history of "science facts" that the media has trumpeted in the last 40 years or so (remember when we would all die in a massive world-wide starvation as foretold in "The Population Bomb"?, the new ice age they said would come in the by the 80s? The mass extinction caused by DDT?)
.038%. It's not a lot but the methane that you speculate about makes up way, way, less. Other than those four gasses and water vapor, all the rest of the elements in the atmosphere combined make up only .002% of the atmosphere. Assuming that the full .002% was methane, which it definitely isn't, CO2 still makes up 20 times more of the atmosphere than methane.
You mention these as reasons to not believe in anthropogenic global warming as if it was all some myth but those are (and were) not myths. The reason that they did not come to be is what people are now advocating in response to global warming - some form of prevention.
We did not go through a world-wide starvation because of new technology in food production that allowed us to grow more food, quicker.
Not much was harmed by DDT because we severely restricted (outlawed?) it's use. Even then, some species have still not recovered from the damage dealt to them.
I don't know the reasons for the ice age that was feared in the 80s (I don't remember back that far) but I can tell you that, from what we know now, it would have been a valid concern. Human works release two things into the air, particulates and CO2. The particulates cause the earth to get colder and the CO2 causes the earth to get warmer. You could think of it as a giant seesaw, one side striving to overcome the other. The only problem is the CO2 is the 200lb 10-year-old who nobody wanted to go on the seesaw with. And, yes, CO2 is not the largest percentage of our atmosphere but it is more than methane. Nitrogen makes up about 78% of the atmosphere with Oxygen being a far second at 21%. Third is Argon at about 1% with CO2 weighing in at
Do you know what I am sick of? People that just repeat the same tired, oft-debunked stuff over and over again. Such as giving the "global cooling" scare of the 80s as a reason, along with the "Population Bomb". It is ridiculous because if someone had lived through those times or, if you're too young for that, opened up a textbook you should know: those would have been problems had we not prevented it.
The reason that it is not as big as the original story is simple: this changes NOTHING. The overall trend is still there. The numbers are a bit different but nothing has changed, not a single thing.
Saying that we don't need to worry about the U.S. when China and India are putting out more is ridiculous. No matter how much more they put out, that doesn't mean we're putting out any less. Last I heard we were third, behind China and India.
I am not going to restrain my baser impulses and end with a snide comment just like you. Remember kids: we dunt need nun o dat fancay book-larnin'.
You probably won't read this, much less reply to it, but it needed to be said.
Actually, this is him:
"The vast majority of airline stewardesses have treat me rudely. Therefore, most airline stewardesses are rude."
You're the only one with a gross bias.
Note that I'm not saying ALL cops are like this (there are some very, very good officers), only that it is prevalent enough that people take notice.
Or it could be the other way around: get shitty cops, treat cops like shit. Ever thought about why cops USED to be treated very well? They used to be good. People's attitudes didn't change for no reason.
Bah, I forgot my break tags.
And there is a lot of evidence for stuff on the Female Privilege Checklist, too (such as that 49% of female MBA graduates have tried flirting to advance their career). You cannot simply discount one and say the other is fact backed up my studies when they BOTH are. Furthermore the Male Privilege Checklist is apparently backed up by studies from Women's Studies groups and there is no way they did not have some sort of hidden bias. I'm not saying they purposely fudged statistics but anyone who has ever taken a Statistics class can tell you that just because people don't do that on purpose doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But that is, again, besides the point. To say that that applies to even most males makes it guilty of what it is trying to prevent: the use of stereotypes. And it DOES show some sort of cognitive dissonance on your part, whether you admit it or not. You believe in your own stereotype of men while saying that man's alleged stereotyping of women is wrong. You're right, I don't feel bad for you. I felt bad for you when I thought you were a woman because that would have been some enormous pressure you'd foisted onto your own shoulders. Now I know that you're a man I just think you're a bit... well... foolish, frankly. If a woman fails people do not strike it up as a blackmark against women in general. If that were true than Martha Stewart's conviction should have surely hurt womankind and yet, it didn't. I am hardly saying life is cushy. I realize how hard it is for SOME minority groups (minority in race). But to even compare that to women is being mentally dishonest. I'm sure there is sexism in some companies but to claim that the majority of companies prevent women from succeeding is ridiculous. I wonder what the women who HAVE succeeded think of that? I'm sure some agree but others may see it for what it is: a farce. And what is wrong with determining the likelihood of her getting pregnant? It's a fact of nature: women get pregnant. An employer does not want to hire someone who will be leaving right away, no matter the reason. That's very similar to health insurance companies wanting to know if a person smokes. It impacts things, whether you want to admit it or not.
for members of MENSA?
Only a jolt? I'm not out of bed until the seventh cup.
Actually, both of those are fair. They're actually the exact same thing except broken down into groups. One is "16 year old boys have an x% chance of a car accident so we charge them y" the other is "People in general have an x% chance of a car accident so we charge them y". It is the exact same thing. Either way you're charging someone a common averaged fee regardless of individual risk.
WARNING: ALL NUMBERS ARE MADE UP AS EXAMPLES
16 year old boys in general could have a 5% chance of getting in a car accident but a specific boy could have only a 1% chance - he will still be charged as if he had a 5% chance. People in general could have a 3% chance but a specific person could only have a 1% chance - he will still be charged as if he had a 3% chance.
Shaving more kids? Haven't we already tortured them enough?
No, I did not misnumber them. I was using a newer version of the checklist than you were. At the top of the page you used it gives a link that says it "always contains the newest version". And by saying that several years ago you said you worked in a nice corporate environment kind of proves my point. Both of these lists are wrong. They think these apply to every single person out there in every single circumstance when it is simply not true. THAT is stereotyping at it's worst and kind of hypocritical. "when a female fails, she fails her entire gender too."
If you feel that way I feel really bad for you but that is not a problem with males or society. That is a problem with you and you alone.
I never said that they were identical. I said they were "equally full of shit". And I disagree with your counting, too. For instance you say that "0 items allow females to receive praise for doing work expected of males". The list, meanwhile, says this:
13) If I pursue a career I'm commended as being an empowered female.
14) Anytime I do well in business, the media will look at me as some messiah because I'm a woman. Everyone will be impressed.
27) If I make more money than my husband, people will think more of me and less of him.
Granted, those aren't SPECIFICALLY about male-dominated fields, but they're about ALL jobs.
You say that #2, 3, 10, 13, 15, 19 are just not true in general on the female checklist. I say that #6, #9, #11, #13 (demonstrably wrong - just look at what a stir it caused that Giuliani's daughter was a member of the Facebook group "One million strong for Barack OBama"), #17, #20, #22 (again, demonstrably false - insurance companies charge women less by default and people know this), #26 (to think that women's clothing should fit just as well as men's when they are physically different, with more variation in women, is ridiculous), #28, #30 (true literally but not in meaning - they have different words for males, doesn't mean they don't have them), #32, #41, #42, #46. Those are the ones that are just wrong in what they say. There's a whole different list for those that are wrong in what they imply.
#4, #8, #10, #12, #19, #21, #23, #35 (statistically, women are more likely to leave the workforce for child-rearing - an employer does not want a person who will leave right after being hired, no matter the gender).
Also, it labels as "female privilege" items that allow a female to get away with aggressive/violent (and generally illegal) behavior (#4, 5, 6, 7); this in an implicit acceptance that the same acts -- even though illegal -- are *expected* of males, i.e. it directly assumes that males are incapable as a class of not being aggressive towards females.
I would not say that it is an "implicit acceptance" that the same acts are expected of males, I would say it is just saying what it is: if a man does it, they will get in trouble. If a female does it, they may not.
The female points out that males have greater public social flexibility and greater outright political and economic power
No, the female points out that males are more likely to encounter their own sex. That says nothing about their "political and economic power".
I should note that I wasn't saying that that was true. I was saying that BOTH of those checklists are equally full of shit.
If you're going to recommend that people check out the "Male Privilege Checklist" then I'll point you to the "Female Privilege Checklist": http://mepersoner.livejournal.com/200705.html
4/13/2029?
4+1+3+2+2+9=21
Then add how many people you would need left after the event to repopulate the earth (assuming no Slashdotters)...
21+2=23
My god. It has come for us all.
Then you're either blind, lying, or using Kubuntu. There is no version of the Restricted Driver Manager for Kubuntu, though I believe that is planned for Gutsy.
He clearly stated from assembly to bash. I is not between A and B in the alphabet!
(Sorry, too many Centrum commercials)