Sucks that the man died during a charity event but there's an old adage among cyclists..
Its that triathletes have poor bike handling skills. It's really not a myth. When I'm out on rides I give those guys on their tri bikes wide berth because they really don't behave well for the speeds that they're traveling at. Cycling is sport that demands tremendous technical skill in addition to fitness and the tri guys usually treat the cycling portion of their sport as a necessary evil. (Ever notice how world class cyclists are in their mid-upper 30s and sometimes in to their early 40s? Well past the average male's peak athletic prime?)
So you're saying that the 'bad' cyclists don't make it to their 30s, because they die to stupid errors? And it takes those extra years of riding to get to be world-class? Interesting theory.
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
First, it was solely clarification.
No. I asked a question that has a simple answer, either YES or NO. You used some hand-waving to deflect from that, because the truth is hard to hear. I get it. You are not the first one to avoid the truth.
You deliberately used vague words
What part of "chick", "egg", or "species" is vague?
to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief.
Again, you are wrong. I'm trying to clear up a detail that many people can't accept. That detail is that an organism is indeed an organism. Whether it is a chick developing inside a calcium shell, or an oak tree shading the back yard, or even a human embryo inside its mother's womb. Each are separate organisms from the organism they descended from. This isn't disputable based on my beliefs, this is basic high school science lessons.
I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid.
And since there was no ambiguity, you have to make some. Good for you.
Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.
And you are still trying to pretend my question was not very clear. Maybe listing the definition of "organism" would help you out.
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
Notice it doesn't provide any qualification for where the organism is, or its dependence on others for food or protection. But, please feel free to post an alternate definition from a more scientifically rigorous site.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.
Quite right. I stated what I consider to be a likely case. But if you know scientists that work with birds, please have them post below.
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.
You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, and the other "complete", but they are both human or chicken.
No. Cut hair, or toenail clippings, or saliva, or even your missing appendix are not "instances of the species". They are parts of an organism, but are not organisms in their own right. Unlike a chick inside an egg.
Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.
And I find your lack of logical consistency appalling.
Oooooh. Touché. I didn't see that one coming.
Fix your own logical inconsistencies before trying so hard to search out others.
The only logical inconsistency you are claiming to find in my post is a strand of hair is in the exact same classification as a complete organism. I'll stand by my assertions.
And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stu
I was being polite and waiting for your answer to my question. Since I asked first, that's my prerogative. Good to see you not getting all bent out of shape over that.
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two. A chick inside the egg is certainly a chick one hour before it hatches. It is of the parents' particular species (assuming the parents are the same species), and was of that species even before it was fully developed a few days before hatching. There is no scientific argument that I am aware of that disputes this.
Finally, you said I was "deliberately swapping the two", apparently meaning human cells and a human. Not at all. Any organism is a member of its particular species, which generally is the same species as its parents' species. (Crossbreeds would of course be a combination of two similar species.) I find it fascinating that people who support abortion have such a hard time affirming a quite well established fact of science, especially considering how much that same fact is integral to evolution, which the same people vehemently defend against its own detractors.
Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.
And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stupid, arguments in support of abortion.
, and are longer with low flow shower heads because it takes longer to rinse away all of the soap.
This is exactly right. You might as well fill up a shot glass with water and pour it over one body part, while rubbing with the other hand, for all the good low-flow shower heads are.
A) Go fuck yourself already. I never said you 'deserve' homelessness. I'm saying you set yourself up for it, and you don't 'deserve' someone else's hard earned money to avoid it.
B) Who gives a shit which part of your body prevents you from doing your previous job? Incidentally, what were you doing when you got injured, and were you sober at the time?
C) The payment I receive is because I was in the military when my disability occurred. I was in the military because I didn't want to work in restaurants my whole life. But as I said before, I don't look down on restaurant workers, but I will hold them responsible for their own choices.
C) v2) Wait a second, I misread what you are saying. Do you think I support minimum income for myself, but not the country as a whole? Or do you think that I agree that I would be better off with this minimum income, but still reject the idea because it is bad for the country as a whole? The first would make me a hypocrite, but that isn't my stated position so that can't be what you are saying. So you think I am a hypocrite for agreeing I would be better off with a minimum income, but reject the concept because it would be bad for the country. How is that hypocritical?
D) (Which you forgot to separately label.) I am allowed to work while getting military disability compensation. If my income was above a certain dollar amount they would stop the compensation because that would mean the disability was not preventing me from making a lot of money. Fortunately for me, I don't make much money (did you catch the sarcasm?), so get to keep the disability compensation that I am contractually entitled to.
E) (Which I'm just adding because I can.) You have shown why you can't get a job. You think the world owes you everything you want, because you did nothing at all to make a life for yourself. You thought you could get by until you die by waiting tables at high-end restaurants, and smoking dope on the weekends. Well, guess what? Your choices turned out to be really bad choices. Now you have to pay the price for them, without the government riding to your aid. I don't bring up my military service as a shield against all accusations, but at least I know I was serving my country when I became disabled, and I didn't become disabled through any bad choices of my own.
Wow, two more replies to the same post, each going further afield from reality.
As I say in my response above, I am not on Social Security, I am on military disability. I became disabled while in the employ of the government, and by contract they pay me a small amount each month. It isn't enough to live on, so I work full time despite my disability. I do the same computer and network support I was trained for, I just can't do the more physical labor for a long time. But I work for most of my income, which is a far cry from the minimum income program.
My wife was on SSI (Supplemental Security Income) for two or three years, and is now eligible for standard Social Security pension.
How do either of these conditions make me a hypocrite for opposing guaranteed minimum income for people who never bothered to get the education or training for a "better job"? I got the training for a good job, which I do, while receiving a stipend that was part of a contract I entered into. My wife is a college graduate who worked full time for two decades until quitting to have our child. When she wanted to get back in the workforce, she realized how much her health condition had degraded and filed for disability. Now she's able to draw her monthly pension that is due her from the money she paid in taxes. How is that hypocritical?
For my mistake in thinking you hurt your back, rather than your groin, what the fuck does it matter one way or the other. You have an injury that prevents you from doing your previous job. Just because I didn't google exactly what injury you mentioned has no bearing on whether you can work, or whether I agree with a minimum income program.
It's called alternative history, and is a very popular genre of fiction. Considering it is fiction to start with, it is a lie anyway. Why get your panties in a twist over that detail?
He only said that because he was being oppressed by the British.
I read a short story where Germany won World War I, and got all of Britain's colonies. So the Germans were in charge of India when Gandhi tried to press for independence. It didn't go so well for him or his followers.
I worked with XENIX back in the 90s when I was in the military. It was strange seeing Microsoft's name in the copyright, but not a big deal. As long as it worked, noone cared what company made that particular version.
If you had bothered to even google the condition I listed you would see it is not a back injury. It's a groin injury, as in I tore a muscle in my groin of some sort running.
I'll accept that I was mistaken as to which part of your body was injured, which then prevented you from fulfilling your lifelong dream of serving food to people.
Please note, I am not criticizing waiters, waitresses, busboys, cooks, dishwashers, hostesses, bartenders, or any of the other positions that people work in restaurants. I worked several when I was young, and my mom, sisters, cousins, friends, etc worked or still work in restaurants. It is as good as any other legal source of income.
My issue with your story is simply that you made choices in life that you have to account for. Your lack of training in anything other than waiting on customers is no one's responsibility but your own. You thought you could get by with a steady income because you worked at a high end restaurant. Now you can't do that, and think society owes you this "guaranteed minimum income" crap because you made choices that were, in the end, bad.
If all that is impacted is that you can't walk quickly, there are plenty of jobs where people sit all day. They usually do things like typing, talking on the phone, or drawing cartoons. Get a desk job if that is all you are able to do now, and good luck in that job.
MRI in this area is nearly useless as everything is so small. I wanted to resort to name calling, but I will be calm and clear: it really stops me from being able to walk, with short notice, and randomly. I went to the best Dr on my insurance many times. He said he could operate but recommended against it based on his experience. I cook and eat as cleanly as I can on a budget. I do not smoke tobacco. My injury was quite sudden and left me *unable to walk at any reasonable speed* for over 6 months! I needed my parents to help me buy groceries! I didn't get a sore back randomly and now demand $! I can't run any more, even 1/10 of what I used to. Probably never again! Other activities like cycling and lifting are impacted, but still possible. I didn't party more than anyone else in HS, I don't know what you're implying.
I know people who didn't party at all in high school, and I partied about once every four months (that's three times a year). You undoubtedly did party more than someone, unless your entire school was nothing but drunken jocks and skanks. So what I was implying is that you probably partied the same amount as most of my fellow students, which would be after every football game and school dance. And you probably studied the same amount as them, cramming the night before any big test. So, yes, if you had partied less and studied more, and made an effort to get into college, even community college, you would be trained and educated to be something other than a waiter.
My charge was well after HS, and although it was undoubtedly my fault the situation would remain similar without it. PS: I'm about to get my associates and continue to work toward my bachelors degree.
Good. Despite my tone above and prior, I wish you all the luck in the world at whatever career you are now aiming for.
I participate in extracurricular activities at the college including but not limited to student government. I hope your SS is enough, no sarcasm.
I wasn't planning on expanding on this, but since you mention it, my disability is from the military. It isn't combat related, but it puts me in a situation similar to yours of limited physical activity. And the VA thinks it has caused a couple heart attacks that I didn't notice. My wife quit her job when she was pregnant with our daughter. Her scoliosis got worse with time, and she has been receiving disability for a couple years now, although it was cut off for a few months this year, for no reason at all, and then reinstated. (Yeah government.) Thankfully, she ha
Hoover is only generic in one country. Well, maybe two; I don't know what the Scots say. Here in the US we say "vacuum". Hoover is still a brand name of vacuum cleaners.
So, the best job you ever trained for was as a waiter, and want my sympathy because your back injury made you unable to do that. Maybe if you had spent time in high school learning instead of partying, you wouldn't have been in that situation.
For comparison, both myself and my wife are disabled. Yes, we get disability payments, but not enough to live on, so I still work for a living. This "basic income" would be very beneficial to us. However it would be doom for the country overall, even faster than our current system is destroying us. So, go get a job that you can do with a bad back, just like the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the AC just wants to put them all in single line?
Sucks that the man died during a charity event but there's an old adage among cyclists..
Its that triathletes have poor bike handling skills. It's really not a myth. When I'm out on rides I give those guys on their tri bikes wide berth because they really don't behave well for the speeds that they're traveling at. Cycling is sport that demands tremendous technical skill in addition to fitness and the tri guys usually treat the cycling portion of their sport as a necessary evil. (Ever notice how world class cyclists are in their mid-upper 30s and sometimes in to their early 40s? Well past the average male's peak athletic prime?)
So you're saying that the 'bad' cyclists don't make it to their 30s, because they die to stupid errors? And it takes those extra years of riding to get to be world-class? Interesting theory.
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
First, it was solely clarification.
No. I asked a question that has a simple answer, either YES or NO. You used some hand-waving to deflect from that, because the truth is hard to hear. I get it. You are not the first one to avoid the truth.
You deliberately used vague words
What part of "chick", "egg", or "species" is vague?
to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief.
Again, you are wrong. I'm trying to clear up a detail that many people can't accept. That detail is that an organism is indeed an organism. Whether it is a chick developing inside a calcium shell, or an oak tree shading the back yard, or even a human embryo inside its mother's womb. Each are separate organisms from the organism they descended from. This isn't disputable based on my beliefs, this is basic high school science lessons.
I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid.
And since there was no ambiguity, you have to make some. Good for you.
Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.
And you are still trying to pretend my question was not very clear. Maybe listing the definition of "organism" would help you out.
From http://www.biology-online.org/...
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
Notice it doesn't provide any qualification for where the organism is, or its dependence on others for food or protection.
But, please feel free to post an alternate definition from a more scientifically rigorous site.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.
Quite right. I stated what I consider to be a likely case. But if you know scientists that work with birds, please have them post below.
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.
You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, and the other "complete", but they are both human or chicken.
No. Cut hair, or toenail clippings, or saliva, or even your missing appendix are not "instances of the species". They are parts of an organism, but are not organisms in their own right. Unlike a chick inside an egg.
Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.
And I find your lack of logical consistency appalling.
Oooooh. Touché. I didn't see that one coming.
Fix your own logical inconsistencies before trying so hard to search out others.
The only logical inconsistency you are claiming to find in my post is a strand of hair is in the exact same classification as a complete organism. I'll stand by my assertions.
And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stu
But only when they are on the side that's wrong.
I was being polite and waiting for your answer to my question. Since I asked first, that's my prerogative. Good to see you not getting all bent out of shape over that.
First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.
Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".
Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two. A chick inside the egg is certainly a chick one hour before it hatches. It is of the parents' particular species (assuming the parents are the same species), and was of that species even before it was fully developed a few days before hatching. There is no scientific argument that I am aware of that disputes this.
Finally, you said I was "deliberately swapping the two", apparently meaning human cells and a human. Not at all. Any organism is a member of its particular species, which generally is the same species as its parents' species. (Crossbreeds would of course be a combination of two similar species.) I find it fascinating that people who support abortion have such a hard time affirming a quite well established fact of science, especially considering how much that same fact is integral to evolution, which the same people vehemently defend against its own detractors.
Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.
And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stupid, arguments in support of abortion.
So an independent organism is at the same level as a piece of cut hair?
Why don't you just answer the question? Why avoid it with so much effort?
Is the offspring of two domestic chickens a chicken, while it is still in the egg?
It seems like a very straight forward question, with a very simple response.
Oh no! An anonymous coward on a webpage called me names! How will I ever sleep tonight? You are a mean man, mr ac.
Did you get this idiotic idea all on your own, or did someone pour stupidity into your ears?
You guys have the most convoluted reasoning to support the killing of individual organisms that are indisputably of the species homo sapiens.
And for the record, I am not opposed to abortion. I'm opposed to the death cult that the pro-abortion camp has become.
Wait a sec. It's gonna let illegals invade your webpage? Who thinks up these stupid policies?
Is a baby chick inside the egg a member of its mother's species?
, and are longer with low flow shower heads because it takes longer to rinse away all of the soap.
This is exactly right. You might as well fill up a shot glass with water and pour it over one body part, while rubbing with the other hand, for all the good low-flow shower heads are.
A) Go fuck yourself already. I never said you 'deserve' homelessness. I'm saying you set yourself up for it, and you don't 'deserve' someone else's hard earned money to avoid it.
B) Who gives a shit which part of your body prevents you from doing your previous job? Incidentally, what were you doing when you got injured, and were you sober at the time?
C) The payment I receive is because I was in the military when my disability occurred. I was in the military because I didn't want to work in restaurants my whole life. But as I said before, I don't look down on restaurant workers, but I will hold them responsible for their own choices.
C) v2) Wait a second, I misread what you are saying. Do you think I support minimum income for myself, but not the country as a whole? Or do you think that I agree that I would be better off with this minimum income, but still reject the idea because it is bad for the country as a whole? The first would make me a hypocrite, but that isn't my stated position so that can't be what you are saying. So you think I am a hypocrite for agreeing I would be better off with a minimum income, but reject the concept because it would be bad for the country. How is that hypocritical?
D) (Which you forgot to separately label.) I am allowed to work while getting military disability compensation. If my income was above a certain dollar amount they would stop the compensation because that would mean the disability was not preventing me from making a lot of money. Fortunately for me, I don't make much money (did you catch the sarcasm?), so get to keep the disability compensation that I am contractually entitled to.
E) (Which I'm just adding because I can.) You have shown why you can't get a job. You think the world owes you everything you want, because you did nothing at all to make a life for yourself. You thought you could get by until you die by waiting tables at high-end restaurants, and smoking dope on the weekends. Well, guess what? Your choices turned out to be really bad choices. Now you have to pay the price for them, without the government riding to your aid. I don't bring up my military service as a shield against all accusations, but at least I know I was serving my country when I became disabled, and I didn't become disabled through any bad choices of my own.
Good night, you said? Good night, indeed.
Wow, two more replies to the same post, each going further afield from reality.
As I say in my response above, I am not on Social Security, I am on military disability. I became disabled while in the employ of the government, and by contract they pay me a small amount each month. It isn't enough to live on, so I work full time despite my disability. I do the same computer and network support I was trained for, I just can't do the more physical labor for a long time. But I work for most of my income, which is a far cry from the minimum income program.
My wife was on SSI (Supplemental Security Income) for two or three years, and is now eligible for standard Social Security pension.
How do either of these conditions make me a hypocrite for opposing guaranteed minimum income for people who never bothered to get the education or training for a "better job"? I got the training for a good job, which I do, while receiving a stipend that was part of a contract I entered into. My wife is a college graduate who worked full time for two decades until quitting to have our child. When she wanted to get back in the workforce, she realized how much her health condition had degraded and filed for disability. Now she's able to draw her monthly pension that is due her from the money she paid in taxes. How is that hypocritical?
For my mistake in thinking you hurt your back, rather than your groin, what the fuck does it matter one way or the other. You have an injury that prevents you from doing your previous job. Just because I didn't google exactly what injury you mentioned has no bearing on whether you can work, or whether I agree with a minimum income program.
Huh?
It's called alternative history, and is a very popular genre of fiction. Considering it is fiction to start with, it is a lie anyway. Why get your panties in a twist over that detail?
He only said that because he was being oppressed by the British.
I read a short story where Germany won World War I, and got all of Britain's colonies. So the Germans were in charge of India when Gandhi tried to press for independence. It didn't go so well for him or his followers.
I worked with XENIX back in the 90s when I was in the military. It was strange seeing Microsoft's name in the copyright, but not a big deal. As long as it worked, noone cared what company made that particular version.
If you had bothered to even google the condition I listed you would see it is not a back injury. It's a groin injury, as in I tore a muscle in my groin of some sort running.
I'll accept that I was mistaken as to which part of your body was injured, which then prevented you from fulfilling your lifelong dream of serving food to people.
Please note, I am not criticizing waiters, waitresses, busboys, cooks, dishwashers, hostesses, bartenders, or any of the other positions that people work in restaurants. I worked several when I was young, and my mom, sisters, cousins, friends, etc worked or still work in restaurants. It is as good as any other legal source of income.
My issue with your story is simply that you made choices in life that you have to account for. Your lack of training in anything other than waiting on customers is no one's responsibility but your own. You thought you could get by with a steady income because you worked at a high end restaurant. Now you can't do that, and think society owes you this "guaranteed minimum income" crap because you made choices that were, in the end, bad.
If all that is impacted is that you can't walk quickly, there are plenty of jobs where people sit all day. They usually do things like typing, talking on the phone, or drawing cartoons. Get a desk job if that is all you are able to do now, and good luck in that job.
MRI in this area is nearly useless as everything is so small. I wanted to resort to name calling, but I will be calm and clear: it really stops me from being able to walk, with short notice, and randomly. I went to the best Dr on my insurance many times. He said he could operate but recommended against it based on his experience. I cook and eat as cleanly as I can on a budget. I do not smoke tobacco. My injury was quite sudden and left me *unable to walk at any reasonable speed* for over 6 months! I needed my parents to help me buy groceries! I didn't get a sore back randomly and now demand $! I can't run any more, even 1/10 of what I used to. Probably never again! Other activities like cycling and lifting are impacted, but still possible. I didn't party more than anyone else in HS, I don't know what you're implying.
I know people who didn't party at all in high school, and I partied about once every four months (that's three times a year). You undoubtedly did party more than someone, unless your entire school was nothing but drunken jocks and skanks. So what I was implying is that you probably partied the same amount as most of my fellow students, which would be after every football game and school dance. And you probably studied the same amount as them, cramming the night before any big test. So, yes, if you had partied less and studied more, and made an effort to get into college, even community college, you would be trained and educated to be something other than a waiter.
My charge was well after HS, and although it was undoubtedly my fault the situation would remain similar without it. PS: I'm about to get my associates and continue to work toward my bachelors degree.
Good. Despite my tone above and prior, I wish you all the luck in the world at whatever career you are now aiming for.
I participate in extracurricular activities at the college including but not limited to student government. I hope your SS is enough, no sarcasm.
I wasn't planning on expanding on this, but since you mention it, my disability is from the military. It isn't combat related, but it puts me in a situation similar to yours of limited physical activity. And the VA thinks it has caused a couple heart attacks that I didn't notice. My wife quit her job when she was pregnant with our daughter. Her scoliosis got worse with time, and she has been receiving disability for a couple years now, although it was cut off for a few months this year, for no reason at all, and then reinstated. (Yeah government.) Thankfully, she ha
Hoover is only generic in one country. Well, maybe two; I don't know what the Scots say. Here in the US we say "vacuum". Hoover is still a brand name of vacuum cleaners.
Does the iWatch have a microphone too?
http://www.apple.com/watch/
I don't know if it does. Who makes it? We'll check their website.
Just like Smokey the Bear.
So, the best job you ever trained for was as a waiter, and want my sympathy because your back injury made you unable to do that. Maybe if you had spent time in high school learning instead of partying, you wouldn't have been in that situation.
For comparison, both myself and my wife are disabled. Yes, we get disability payments, but not enough to live on, so I still work for a living. This "basic income" would be very beneficial to us. However it would be doom for the country overall, even faster than our current system is destroying us. So, go get a job that you can do with a bad back, just like the rest of us.
But you have to work. Your taxes would be what pays all the other people who quit working, plus the current crop of welfare lifers.
Are you serious? Do you really think the bureaucracy is going to go away?
Those guys have been stuck in that capsule a long time waiting for the "go - no go" decision. Hope they didn't have to pee when they got in.
2010 eh?
Proofreading - it's not just for college papers.