Apple is lying and exaggerating about something to make more money? WHAAAAAAAT? This is my surprised face. The only thing that will stop them is laws, the end. We need right to repair laws and that's that.
So when Apple is forced to write a repair manual, and sell you the replacement parts, will they also be required to sell you the machinery to repair the phones?
Or do we change all components over to through hole from SMT? While Apple detractors find this amusing, it isn't like it won't affect Samsung or other manufacturers.
First thing we have to do is define repairable. Then we have to define the level of acumen needed on the part of the user. I've got the equipment to work on SMT boards, you need a microscope, various methods of soldering, depending on what you are doing. But at a bare minimum, you need a tiny tip soldering iron, and your hands better be steady. So I can do rework.
So is the repair person defined as my ability, or by the hypothetical Grandma? Is the repair definition at the component level, which will mean the phone will almost certainly need a total redesign and will end up much larger.
I've done actual physical work on smartphones. Perhaps 1 percent of us will have the ability to work on those tiny components.
Will the cost of the (hundreds?) of different repair manuals and the required stockpiling of all of the components - and define how many years they must be available - 10 years perhaps? Will these be provided free of cost to the consumer? They have to buy them before hand.
And don't forget, this will apply to all devices, not just ones produced by the manufacturers you don't like. It's very easy to get some folks to support "something something because Apple". Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it, even if you never owned an Apple device.
there are usa cases where a sperm donor is required to pay child support, so its indirectly answered here as well...
Talk about a whatever could go wrong decision. Who on earth would donate when you could be held responsible for child support under those circumstances.
In England, they are haking some issues. Just 9 donors
In true men are at fault for everything fashion, they are resorting to manshaming to try to cue yet another abuse of the patriarchy. Of course, anonymity has been stripped from sperm donors since 2005, so you know damn well that these terrible men who in true selfish fashion, donated sperm, will be eventually required to give their money to these poor children. I wonder if they will have to pay a sort of alimony to the sperm's mother too? It's a losers game.
I guess with sperm it could be a little different, since you could conceivably freeze, store, unfreeze and... er... smear it onto a cervix yourself. I don't know where the law stands, but I imagine it's probably covered under medical uses of body tissue or something, but complicated by the fact that it could result in a child. I don' think it has ever been tested.
There have been a few cases here in North America. There was one in Canada where "gifted" sperm from a man was considered to be a woman's property to do with as she wished. As far as I know, there was no further children born. Then there was a rather creepy case od a woman, who's son was killed in 2009 in an assault, who had his sperm retrieved in the hopes of getting a grandchild from his sperm and a surrogate. There have been some other came where the male has retained ownership of his splooge. Hey, I'm tired of typing "sperm"!
Which brings up another weird issue. If a man is killed, and they extract his sperm, are any children born after his death his estate's responsibility? There is consent, which of course cannot be given. But in the 2009 case, it happened without consent. Oh, the complications...
Women and feminists will almost certainly never be able to get women to get rid of hypergamy. They wanted to get rid of gender roles, and the more that happens, the more panicked women get.
Reminds me of when the Australian and American Women's teams played some 15 year old boys teams. The Australians were beat by a score of 7-0, and the American women were beat by an under 15 team in Dallas and fared a little better, losing by 5-2.
This is not even to belittle the ladies teams. Women should compete in sports just like men. It is however, an illustration of the fallacy being taught to women today, that they are the physical equals of men in every way.
We even see this today as some women attack men and apparently believe they can physically defeat them. When the male has no other way out, and determines that he must fight, the results can be devastating for the woman. Youtube has a lot of that kind of thing.
This bullshit needs to stop. You cannot by force of will change the characteristics that effect bodily strength, and men should not be hitting women, but neither should women be hitting men. It isn't a fair fight.
We have no need to go back to barefoot and pregnant days I don't even know who would want to. But a healthy dose of realism might be nice. If there is no difference between men and women, why are all problems men's fault?
If the stronger of the species were to physically make certain that they survived, and it was everyone for themselves, we'd fail as a species pretty quickly.
You don't believe in evolution? Because that is literally evolution.
Evolution in a species that uses sex to reproduce, need both male and female. Think about it.
Feminism isn't about not needing men, it's about having a relationship with them that is a union of equals.
That is your definition of feminism. And it's a really nice one. But are you so naive to say that is the only definition, or that anyone who has a different definition is somehow not a feminist? We've had this argument before, and you simply reject my researched proof. Fugiddaboudit. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." I've heard that one a lot, and it doesn't sound like equality.
If there is anyone rejecting this kind of relationship, it seems to be men wanting a more traditional marriages.
Actually, if you ask them, they would just like to be treated well. But respect and lovingkindness with a member of the patriarchy is no more allowed than Gal Gadot shaving her armpits.
As for women not thinking men are "worthy", it's actually just a combination of modern life making children unaffordable and children having a very negative effect on women's careers.
Well then they have made the choice, and their careers have taken the win. Odd they would complain.
And yet, somehow my wife and I have both managed to have lengthy professional careers. I know this sounds like anathema, but we planned our family and careers. We had a child first, her in her early 20's and I supported us both for the early part of the child rearing process. Then after he was around 3, she started her career. Rose rapidly to management and ended up second in command at a construction industry business. She ended up being the boss of a lot of men - as an aside.
Frankly, if a woman decides that she is going to have children when she reaches her mid 30's or 40's, she has made a decision that I consider very stupid on a few levels. Marry when you are young enough to have children while young, when you are reproductively designed to have children. Nature is not beatable by the power of the will. A 45 year old person who has a first child is going to be nearing 70 by the time the child is mature, and many may be dead by the time their children marry. Make your career after you have performed reproduction. Retire while you are still able to enjoy your children and then spoil your grandchildren.
I only suggest that what my spouse and I did as an alternative to cheating nature. Others may just be tickled pink to be dead when their grandchildren happen, and with their dying breath, utter "My only regret is that I didn't spend more time at the office".
The women and children will go in the boat because they can reproduce and continue the species.
By this logic boys and old women not supposed to be included into "first". Also, the species is doing just fine.
I'm talking about evolutionary traits more than social ones. Socially, you are correct, there are plenty of each sex and age group at this point, and a woman or child has no more right to survive than a grown man.
But think of a time when humans were first populating the planet, perhaps even at the transition between proto humans and homo sapiens sapiens.
You are in a village, roughly 50 percent male, and 50 percent female, some number of children of both sexes, and a typical lifespan is maybe 40 years. There is some life stressing events, a crop failure due to a drought, might suffice. It becomes obvious that most of your tribe is going to die over the winter. So who do you pick to get the food and resources?
There are different choices one might make, but the most expendable members of your tribe are men. Valuable members are fertile women, and girls who are near puberty. Very young boys and girls are likewise much less valuable, as are the elderly.
You'll obviously need some strang and healthy males to provide food as can be found, but after the winter ends, your tribe might be decimated, but will still be able to repopulate itself.
>"... except when the boat is sinking, then suddenly equality vanishes."
So which would have advantage in such a watery disaster? The women, who have more body fat for insulation and buoyancy, better communications skills, and more endurance? Or the men, with stronger and faster bodies, better coordination, and better spacial skills?
The women and children will go in the boat because they can reproduce and continue the species. Men are utilities to be used in furthering the species. The individual male is not important, but the individual female is critical in a survival situation. The children are important because once they reach reproductive age, they can reproduce. And a few males can impregnate a lot of females when needed.
The only time "women and children first" seem to have been a thing is when the people in charge, usually men, have declared it.
In many circumstances, it makes sense, no matter who declares it.
If the stronger of the species were to physically make certain that they survived, and it was everyone for themselves, we'd fail as a species pretty quickly.
Now we are not in such a situation any more, but like it or not, human males have a pretty strong protective instinct that rises to the level that we will often choose to die to save a woman or women. Same with children. But when puberty hits, the female gets the privilege of living, and the once protected male child is now a utility and can die with the rest of the surplus men.
I used the word privilege quite purposely, because what is considered male privilege is often the privilege to sacrifice your own life. Which by the way, in a truly equal society unconstrained by instinct, a female is as likely to give her seat on the lifeboat to any random male. We just have these inconvenient instincts, which allowed the species to avoid extinction.
No. Not true. This story is lies. Fake news. Everybody knows that men and women are exactly the same at everything. Claiming otherwise is sexist and misogynist and racist and fascist and placist and bassist.
Not necessarily fake news, but serving news.
I know you were making a funny - a good one by the way - but there is an angle to the news.
As feminism has convinced women for a long time that they don't need men, and as we now have more educated women than men, and no end of that trend in sight, single, educated women are hitting their 30's and suddenly realizing that their reproductive drive is on high alert. But there is a problem. They are having a hellava time meeting and sealing the deal with any male that they consider worthy. This is based on the inherent acceptability factor that the female of the species wants to marry up in class.
So we are seeing a lot of educated women in a panic, freezing their eggs in hopes of finding a male who lives up to their standards. Some companies actually pay for this process. But that's a loser's game, because as they age, their value to the males of the species drops, and unless they plan on marrying someone much younger, there are not going to be too many 50 year old men who want to have children at that age.
Now there are a couple solutions. Marry young and have children at a more physically appropriate age, then work your career, and the other is to make the educational environment less unpleasant for men. Having been through that, it is an issue when you are reminded every day of how terrible a sub-human you are. Because all nature versus nurture aside, women inherently call the shots on reproduction, and at present, have largely priced themselves out of the market.
Back to the subject at hand. As many women panic over their declining fertility, and are taking some big efforts to try to artificially extend it, there is a social need to try to pin blame for the issue on the male of the species. The underlying message is "Grow up men" "stop being immature and we need fresh young sperm, because if you don't give it to us when you are young, any problems are your fault."
Whereas the real issue is that if you want children, you don't wait until you are at an age when most earlier humans were grandparents or dead. We have had some success with the artificial extension of childhood, but cannot extend that much more without a lot of bad issues. My great grandparents were married at 13 years old, but they had to to have a good chance of raising children before they died.
Today, it's the opposite. Some people are concerned they will die before having any children.
Unfortunately we don't really want evolution any more, at least not individually. Most evolution is failures, the kind of genetic downgrade that natural selection would deselect through premature death.
The chapter on humanity isn't finished yet. Humanity has a real Achilles's heel in it''s propensity toward killing other humans. The smart part of our brain is in a big struggle with our primitive brain, which is hyperagressive and enjoys handing out death. This is important now that we are fully capable of rendering the planet uninhabitable as easily as defeating the next tribe over.
I wonder if this might lead to more men freezing sperm as teenagers, when the mutation rate is lowest.
The freezing process might lead to a higher rate of mutations - this is conjecture, so if someone knows, chime in.
I believe there would have to be a reason that men in general would want to do that. As well, there are legal issues. Does a spouse have access to that sperm regardless of the presumptive father's wishes? If the female person in a divorced couple is inseminated with her ex-spouse's sperm after divorce, is he liable for child support?
Is 50 percent of that frozen sperm by law hers in a divorce settlement?
If a woman gains access to the sperm and impregnates herself without his consent, is that sexual assault?
I suspect you will reject the questions as frivolous, but if men started freezing sperm, as many women over thirty have taken to freezing their eggs with some idea that they will eventually find a man who meets their standards (a friend of my wife's daughter works for a Silicon Valley company that actually paid for her to freeze some of her eggs, and she still hasn't found Mr right) the whole process leaves itself open to a lot of legal fun and games.
TLDR: Your employees are shit because they're not college graduates and they often lack the interpersonal skills needed for projects of extended duration.
My employees? Not quite certain where I was talking about my employees.
I have a Philosophy degree. ("hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt"? You don't know what you're talking about on that one, Ol.)
Just so you know, http://blog.readyforzero.com/h... , https://www.theguardian.com/mo... , and there are more that you can google. 100K is higher than the average debt, but as a philosophy major, surely you can parse my post, and not pick out of it that I was saying everyone was 100,000 dollars in debt? Notice the difference between the apparent belief on your part that I said that everyone graduates with 100 K in debt, with the more accurate reading - based on teh exact words I wrote: "it's a terribly broken system when a person can come out of college with a degree in Philosophy or Women's Studies, over a hundred thousand dollars in debt,
I'll leave it up to you to expound on the various meanings of can. One does not have to delve into Clintonesque definitions of "is" to understand that "can" is more related to possibilities, or perhaps a metal device to hold matter in. But if I was not clear to you, I used the word "can" in the manner of "it is possible" or "might" when "can is used as an auxiliary verb.
College should absolutely not be about preparing people for the workforce.
Then they should work very hard and diligently to disabuse almost everyone's notion that they are.
College already produces people who make better employees than someone with the same "real world" experience.
Oh my sphincter! Sorry, This is hilarious, As a philosophy major, if you even had the experience of graduates in completely unrealated fields being superior employees based on them having spent 4 years in college, studying anythiing at all, versus a person without who has actually made a living already, by actually doing the needed work, they must be teaching some hella good stuff in philosophy.
What is NEEDED is for business to align itself with reality. Your employees are shit because they're not college graduates and they often lack the interpersonal skills needed for projects of extended duration.
Well first, as a philosophy major, you are using a lot of straw man arguments. And unless you are remarkably different than the philosophy majors I am personally familiar with, interpersonal skills are pretty far down the list of their qualifications. I'll enjoy an afternoon of chatting and no doubt, but not one would work for me, they have a certain ability to not be very motivated, rather intractable in their opinion, and enjoy disagreeing with you and chatting for the afternoon rather than getting work done.
Sounds like you'd really love for the university system to completely fail and all universities to close down. Be careful what you wish for.
What is needed is for the University system to align itself with reality. There needs to be a distinction between majors that prepare you to get employment, and ones that essentially are you giving your opinion, and agreement with the professor assures you of a 4.0.
There needs to be a way of allowing students to help pay for their education. I am always amazed at the young people working at the shore. Almost all from outside the US. American college students used to hold most of those jobs, but they cannot since most Universities start fall term before the summer season is over. This isn't even a disparagement of the young people working there now, they've all been very nice.
Point is, it's a terribly broken system when a person can come out of college with a degree in Philosophy or Women's Studies, over a hundred thousand dollars in debt, and having not one useful thing learned that will qualify them for a job, and in some cases a negative at hiring time for that job at McDonald's. That opinion everyone stood and clapped for you in class is worthless.
As well, the campus environment has become pretty toxic for some people. I've been recommending on-line degrees in viable fields to people for several years now.
True, but these days people have largely forgotten the actual purpose of university and treat it more like a factory for churning out wage slaves. You really shouldn't need a tertiary degree for a lot of jobs. Hell for some jobs you'd be better prepared if you left half way through secondary school and did an apprenticeship.
I was talking with a professor of mine about how his graduates were all woefully unprepared when they applied for jobs with us. He agreed, then told me that it was not designed to prepare graduates for employment.
I then asked if the students were informed of that little fact. No answer
My job title changed to "engineer" when my duties started to include things like:
- Going through contracts and turning them into milestones.
- Timeline and budget estimation, and tracking projects relative to the estimate.
- Managing a team and mentoring other people.
- Appraisal of and response to issues raised by professional ethics, safety, privacy, environmental impact, and other legal requirements and the public interest.
Did they give you an additional title when you learned all the meaningless jargon?
When people ask me what I do, I tell them "I conceptualize, initialize and bring action items to fruition". The ones who think that gibberish is cool are permanently ignored
However, I asked around, and apparently most hardware and RF engineers don't have such certificates, it's only necessary when a name is needed on some official documents.
Exactly this. The certificate is important when one is called to testify as an expert witness in a court of law. But it has nothing to do with competence. It just means you have a certificate that lawyers have to accept. I'm a polymath, and while a lot of engineers and scientists want me on their teams, my testimony would never be accepted in court. That's not a bad thing, mind you.
So now you are thinking about the memory, and using your adult brain to justify why you think you remembered it. Now next time you think about this memory, this will be added to it, even though it may not have been present at the initial formation of the memory.
I told my parents about this when I was like 5, and never forgot it. Perhaps you are not capable of having long term memories.
Regardless, it sounds like you simply do not want to believe that a little kid can have memories at an early age, or believe that humans just make shit up, and aren't actually having any memory that is real. Have fun.
Actually, Windows has had a backup utility called "NTBackup" for quite awhile, and then there's the Volume Snapshot Backup. But neither is as simple to setup nor administer as Time Machine. Not by a LONG shot.
Did those back up applications as well? I had the first occasion to restore an entire volume from scratch from Time machine a few weeks ago, and it was flawless. Just haven't been able to figure why nothing like that made it to Windows.
Frank Herbert had an interesting take on that in Dune. You might have human form, but unless and until you can control the lizard brain, you're just an advanced animal. To be human requires more.
I know these are genuine memories because my family talked about this recently, and I described things to them that they had completely forgotten about and were surprised I could recall. Meanwhile, I can't remember what I did yesterday. Memories are strange.
And in different people, minds operate so differently. I can remember those early memories easily. I can memorize a list of numbers easily. But I am horrible with names without little mental tricks - like repeating a person's name I've been introduced to. And the funniest one I've discovered is with television and movie actors. I can name an actor's filmography or television history without being able to give their name. Wife calls me RainMan some times.
Are you sure you remember. Or did you hear your mum tell the story so many times that you subconsciously rewrote the experience in your mind. And now you remember that instead? Every time the brain thinks about something, remembers it, it can easily be subtly changed. All those changes can and do add up to what amounts to a memory of something that never actually happened.
Well, I brought it up first when I was older. What I think etched the memory was me being quite angry about the diaper, and looking outside the window and wishing I was outside. As well, there was a feeling that pissing on the floor because I didn't want to go in the diaper was an act that I believed would piss off the nurses, and was a sort of revenge feeling.
My memory was of being angry and taking revenge, while my mother's memory and apparently the nurses was one of it being kind of cute. So while I understand how people can get memories implanted in their head, I also am pretty convinced that the different reactions, as well as my longstanding dislike - think suppressed panic - of hospitals are part and parcel of this.
It's not approximating bullshit, it's straight up species based racism/bigotry. Which is how things have always been, and is a big part of the macro attitudes that allow exploitation of the natural world to a point that we're going to collapse its ability to support the human race. But, hey, that's mostly my grandkids' problem, why should I even care?
Well, since we are on the human bashing bit, I believe that humanity has a fatal flaw that will lead to our eventual extinction. While we have evolved a big smart brain that allows us to do many things, we are constrained by our "lizard brain" which largely rules most of us. We delight in killing other humans - if there is no good reason, we'll make one up, such as an "enemy" believing in the wrong nonexistent entity that wants us to kill others. That's the seeds of our destruction, and I believe at some point in the near future, we'll gleefully destroy ourselves. There are many in the US who are actively seeking that day already.
Crazy-ass overly aggressive death wishing hooomans.
Note this has nothing to do with killing other life, be it plant or animal, in order to live - as only chemoautotrophs can directly process and live off minerals. This is the great enjoyment that humans have for killing other humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is lying and exaggerating about something to make more money? WHAAAAAAAT? This is my surprised face. The only thing that will stop them is laws, the end. We need right to repair laws and that's that.
So when Apple is forced to write a repair manual, and sell you the replacement parts, will they also be required to sell you the machinery to repair the phones?
Or do we change all components over to through hole from SMT? While Apple detractors find this amusing, it isn't like it won't affect Samsung or other manufacturers.
First thing we have to do is define repairable. Then we have to define the level of acumen needed on the part of the user. I've got the equipment to work on SMT boards, you need a microscope, various methods of soldering, depending on what you are doing. But at a bare minimum, you need a tiny tip soldering iron, and your hands better be steady. So I can do rework.
So is the repair person defined as my ability, or by the hypothetical Grandma? Is the repair definition at the component level, which will mean the phone will almost certainly need a total redesign and will end up much larger.
I've done actual physical work on smartphones. Perhaps 1 percent of us will have the ability to work on those tiny components.
Will the cost of the (hundreds?) of different repair manuals and the required stockpiling of all of the components - and define how many years they must be available - 10 years perhaps? Will these be provided free of cost to the consumer? They have to buy them before hand.
And don't forget, this will apply to all devices, not just ones produced by the manufacturers you don't like. It's very easy to get some folks to support "something something because Apple". Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it, even if you never owned an Apple device.
there are usa cases where a sperm donor is required to pay child support, so its indirectly answered here as well...
Talk about a whatever could go wrong decision. Who on earth would donate when you could be held responsible for child support under those circumstances. In England, they are haking some issues. Just 9 donors
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... .
In true men are at fault for everything fashion, they are resorting to manshaming to try to cue yet another abuse of the patriarchy. Of course, anonymity has been stripped from sperm donors since 2005, so you know damn well that these terrible men who in true selfish fashion, donated sperm, will be eventually required to give their money to these poor children. I wonder if they will have to pay a sort of alimony to the sperm's mother too? It's a losers game.
I guess with sperm it could be a little different, since you could conceivably freeze, store, unfreeze and... er... smear it onto a cervix yourself. I don't know where the law stands, but I imagine it's probably covered under medical uses of body tissue or something, but complicated by the fact that it could result in a child. I don' think it has ever been tested.
There have been a few cases here in North America. There was one in Canada where "gifted" sperm from a man was considered to be a woman's property to do with as she wished. As far as I know, there was no further children born. Then there was a rather creepy case od a woman, who's son was killed in 2009 in an assault, who had his sperm retrieved in the hopes of getting a grandchild from his sperm and a surrogate. There have been some other came where the male has retained ownership of his splooge. Hey, I'm tired of typing "sperm"!
Which brings up another weird issue. If a man is killed, and they extract his sperm, are any children born after his death his estate's responsibility? There is consent, which of course cannot be given. But in the 2009 case, it happened without consent. Oh, the complications...
Women and feminists will almost certainly never be able to get women to get rid of hypergamy. They wanted to get rid of gender roles, and the more that happens, the more panicked women get.
Reminds me of when the Australian and American Women's teams played some 15 year old boys teams. The Australians were beat by a score of 7-0, and the American women were beat by an under 15 team in Dallas and fared a little better, losing by 5-2.
This is not even to belittle the ladies teams. Women should compete in sports just like men. It is however, an illustration of the fallacy being taught to women today, that they are the physical equals of men in every way.
We even see this today as some women attack men and apparently believe they can physically defeat them. When the male has no other way out, and determines that he must fight, the results can be devastating for the woman. Youtube has a lot of that kind of thing.
This bullshit needs to stop. You cannot by force of will change the characteristics that effect bodily strength, and men should not be hitting women, but neither should women be hitting men. It isn't a fair fight.
We have no need to go back to barefoot and pregnant days I don't even know who would want to. But a healthy dose of realism might be nice. If there is no difference between men and women, why are all problems men's fault?
I do not support the freezing of my sperm.
The process of reinserting the frozen sperm into my junk is invasive, cold and generally causes shrinkage!
AAGH! Just the thought creeps me out. Damn - that would be good birth control.
To be statistically significant there would need to be an awful lot of disasters happening on a regular basis.
Do you know how life was for early humans?
If the stronger of the species were to physically make certain that they survived, and it was everyone for themselves, we'd fail as a species pretty quickly.
You don't believe in evolution? Because that is literally evolution.
Evolution in a species that uses sex to reproduce, need both male and female. Think about it.
Wrong on two accounts.
Feminism isn't about not needing men, it's about having a relationship with them that is a union of equals.
That is your definition of feminism. And it's a really nice one. But are you so naive to say that is the only definition, or that anyone who has a different definition is somehow not a feminist? We've had this argument before, and you simply reject my researched proof. Fugiddaboudit. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." I've heard that one a lot, and it doesn't sound like equality.
If there is anyone rejecting this kind of relationship, it seems to be men wanting a more traditional marriages.
Actually, if you ask them, they would just like to be treated well. But respect and lovingkindness with a member of the patriarchy is no more allowed than Gal Gadot shaving her armpits.
As for women not thinking men are "worthy", it's actually just a combination of modern life making children unaffordable and children having a very negative effect on women's careers.
Well then they have made the choice, and their careers have taken the win. Odd they would complain.
And yet, somehow my wife and I have both managed to have lengthy professional careers. I know this sounds like anathema, but we planned our family and careers. We had a child first, her in her early 20's and I supported us both for the early part of the child rearing process. Then after he was around 3, she started her career. Rose rapidly to management and ended up second in command at a construction industry business. She ended up being the boss of a lot of men - as an aside.
Frankly, if a woman decides that she is going to have children when she reaches her mid 30's or 40's, she has made a decision that I consider very stupid on a few levels. Marry when you are young enough to have children while young, when you are reproductively designed to have children. Nature is not beatable by the power of the will. A 45 year old person who has a first child is going to be nearing 70 by the time the child is mature, and many may be dead by the time their children marry. Make your career after you have performed reproduction. Retire while you are still able to enjoy your children and then spoil your grandchildren.
I only suggest that what my spouse and I did as an alternative to cheating nature. Others may just be tickled pink to be dead when their grandchildren happen, and with their dying breath, utter "My only regret is that I didn't spend more time at the office".
The women and children will go in the boat because they can reproduce and continue the species.
By this logic boys and old women not supposed to be included into "first". Also, the species is doing just fine.
I'm talking about evolutionary traits more than social ones. Socially, you are correct, there are plenty of each sex and age group at this point, and a woman or child has no more right to survive than a grown man.
But think of a time when humans were first populating the planet, perhaps even at the transition between proto humans and homo sapiens sapiens.
You are in a village, roughly 50 percent male, and 50 percent female, some number of children of both sexes, and a typical lifespan is maybe 40 years. There is some life stressing events, a crop failure due to a drought, might suffice. It becomes obvious that most of your tribe is going to die over the winter. So who do you pick to get the food and resources?
There are different choices one might make, but the most expendable members of your tribe are men. Valuable members are fertile women, and girls who are near puberty. Very young boys and girls are likewise much less valuable, as are the elderly.
You'll obviously need some strang and healthy males to provide food as can be found, but after the winter ends, your tribe might be decimated, but will still be able to repopulate itself.
>"... except when the boat is sinking, then suddenly equality vanishes."
So which would have advantage in such a watery disaster? The women, who have more body fat for insulation and buoyancy, better communications skills, and more endurance? Or the men, with stronger and faster bodies, better coordination, and better spacial skills?
The women and children will go in the boat because they can reproduce and continue the species. Men are utilities to be used in furthering the species. The individual male is not important, but the individual female is critical in a survival situation. The children are important because once they reach reproductive age, they can reproduce. And a few males can impregnate a lot of females when needed.
Do you have any evidence of this?
The only time "women and children first" seem to have been a thing is when the people in charge, usually men, have declared it.
In many circumstances, it makes sense, no matter who declares it.
If the stronger of the species were to physically make certain that they survived, and it was everyone for themselves, we'd fail as a species pretty quickly.
Now we are not in such a situation any more, but like it or not, human males have a pretty strong protective instinct that rises to the level that we will often choose to die to save a woman or women. Same with children. But when puberty hits, the female gets the privilege of living, and the once protected male child is now a utility and can die with the rest of the surplus men.
I used the word privilege quite purposely, because what is considered male privilege is often the privilege to sacrifice your own life. Which by the way, in a truly equal society unconstrained by instinct, a female is as likely to give her seat on the lifeboat to any random male. We just have these inconvenient instincts, which allowed the species to avoid extinction.
What boat?
(Queue cheesy 70's music) The Looooove Boat....
No. Not true. This story is lies. Fake news. Everybody knows that men and women are exactly the same at everything. Claiming otherwise is sexist and misogynist and racist and fascist and placist and bassist.
Not necessarily fake news, but serving news.
I know you were making a funny - a good one by the way - but there is an angle to the news.
As feminism has convinced women for a long time that they don't need men, and as we now have more educated women than men, and no end of that trend in sight, single, educated women are hitting their 30's and suddenly realizing that their reproductive drive is on high alert. But there is a problem. They are having a hellava time meeting and sealing the deal with any male that they consider worthy. This is based on the inherent acceptability factor that the female of the species wants to marry up in class.
So we are seeing a lot of educated women in a panic, freezing their eggs in hopes of finding a male who lives up to their standards. Some companies actually pay for this process. But that's a loser's game, because as they age, their value to the males of the species drops, and unless they plan on marrying someone much younger, there are not going to be too many 50 year old men who want to have children at that age.
Now there are a couple solutions. Marry young and have children at a more physically appropriate age, then work your career, and the other is to make the educational environment less unpleasant for men. Having been through that, it is an issue when you are reminded every day of how terrible a sub-human you are. Because all nature versus nurture aside, women inherently call the shots on reproduction, and at present, have largely priced themselves out of the market.
Back to the subject at hand. As many women panic over their declining fertility, and are taking some big efforts to try to artificially extend it, there is a social need to try to pin blame for the issue on the male of the species. The underlying message is "Grow up men" "stop being immature and we need fresh young sperm, because if you don't give it to us when you are young, any problems are your fault."
Whereas the real issue is that if you want children, you don't wait until you are at an age when most earlier humans were grandparents or dead. We have had some success with the artificial extension of childhood, but cannot extend that much more without a lot of bad issues. My great grandparents were married at 13 years old, but they had to to have a good chance of raising children before they died.
Today, it's the opposite. Some people are concerned they will die before having any children.
Unfortunately we don't really want evolution any more, at least not individually. Most evolution is failures, the kind of genetic downgrade that natural selection would deselect through premature death.
The chapter on humanity isn't finished yet. Humanity has a real Achilles's heel in it''s propensity toward killing other humans. The smart part of our brain is in a big struggle with our primitive brain, which is hyperagressive and enjoys handing out death. This is important now that we are fully capable of rendering the planet uninhabitable as easily as defeating the next tribe over.
I wonder if this might lead to more men freezing sperm as teenagers, when the mutation rate is lowest.
The freezing process might lead to a higher rate of mutations - this is conjecture, so if someone knows, chime in. I believe there would have to be a reason that men in general would want to do that. As well, there are legal issues. Does a spouse have access to that sperm regardless of the presumptive father's wishes? If the female person in a divorced couple is inseminated with her ex-spouse's sperm after divorce, is he liable for child support?
Is 50 percent of that frozen sperm by law hers in a divorce settlement?
If a woman gains access to the sperm and impregnates herself without his consent, is that sexual assault? I suspect you will reject the questions as frivolous, but if men started freezing sperm, as many women over thirty have taken to freezing their eggs with some idea that they will eventually find a man who meets their standards (a friend of my wife's daughter works for a Silicon Valley company that actually paid for her to freeze some of her eggs, and she still hasn't found Mr right) the whole process leaves itself open to a lot of legal fun and games.
TLDR: Your employees are shit because they're not college graduates and they often lack the interpersonal skills needed for projects of extended duration.
My employees? Not quite certain where I was talking about my employees.
I have a Philosophy degree. ("hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt"? You don't know what you're talking about on that one, Ol.)
Just so you know, http://blog.readyforzero.com/h... , https://www.theguardian.com/mo... , and there are more that you can google. 100K is higher than the average debt, but as a philosophy major, surely you can parse my post, and not pick out of it that I was saying everyone was 100,000 dollars in debt? Notice the difference between the apparent belief on your part that I said that everyone graduates with 100 K in debt, with the more accurate reading - based on teh exact words I wrote: "it's a terribly broken system when a person can come out of college with a degree in Philosophy or Women's Studies, over a hundred thousand dollars in debt,
I'll leave it up to you to expound on the various meanings of can. One does not have to delve into Clintonesque definitions of "is" to understand that "can" is more related to possibilities, or perhaps a metal device to hold matter in. But if I was not clear to you, I used the word "can" in the manner of "it is possible" or "might" when "can is used as an auxiliary verb.
College should absolutely not be about preparing people for the workforce.
Then they should work very hard and diligently to disabuse almost everyone's notion that they are.
College already produces people who make better employees than someone with the same "real world" experience.
Oh my sphincter! Sorry, This is hilarious, As a philosophy major, if you even had the experience of graduates in completely unrealated fields being superior employees based on them having spent 4 years in college, studying anythiing at all, versus a person without who has actually made a living already, by actually doing the needed work, they must be teaching some hella good stuff in philosophy.
What is NEEDED is for business to align itself with reality. Your employees are shit because they're not college graduates and they often lack the interpersonal skills needed for projects of extended duration.
Well first, as a philosophy major, you are using a lot of straw man arguments. And unless you are remarkably different than the philosophy majors I am personally familiar with, interpersonal skills are pretty far down the list of their qualifications. I'll enjoy an afternoon of chatting and no doubt, but not one would work for me, they have a certain ability to not be very motivated, rather intractable in their opinion, and enjoy disagreeing with you and chatting for the afternoon rather than getting work done.
Sounds like you'd really love for the university system to completely fail and all universities to close down. Be careful what you wish for.
What is needed is for the University system to align itself with reality. There needs to be a distinction between majors that prepare you to get employment, and ones that essentially are you giving your opinion, and agreement with the professor assures you of a 4.0.
There needs to be a way of allowing students to help pay for their education. I am always amazed at the young people working at the shore. Almost all from outside the US. American college students used to hold most of those jobs, but they cannot since most Universities start fall term before the summer season is over. This isn't even a disparagement of the young people working there now, they've all been very nice.
Point is, it's a terribly broken system when a person can come out of college with a degree in Philosophy or Women's Studies, over a hundred thousand dollars in debt, and having not one useful thing learned that will qualify them for a job, and in some cases a negative at hiring time for that job at McDonald's. That opinion everyone stood and clapped for you in class is worthless.
As well, the campus environment has become pretty toxic for some people. I've been recommending on-line degrees in viable fields to people for several years now.
True, but these days people have largely forgotten the actual purpose of university and treat it more like a factory for churning out wage slaves. You really shouldn't need a tertiary degree for a lot of jobs. Hell for some jobs you'd be better prepared if you left half way through secondary school and did an apprenticeship.
I was talking with a professor of mine about how his graduates were all woefully unprepared when they applied for jobs with us. He agreed, then told me that it was not designed to prepare graduates for employment.
I then asked if the students were informed of that little fact. No answer
Did they give you an additional title when you learned all the meaningless jargon?
When people ask me what I do, I tell them "I conceptualize, initialize and bring action items to fruition". The ones who think that gibberish is cool are permanently ignored
However, I asked around, and apparently most hardware and RF engineers don't have such certificates, it's only necessary when a name is needed on some official documents.
Exactly this. The certificate is important when one is called to testify as an expert witness in a court of law. But it has nothing to do with competence. It just means you have a certificate that lawyers have to accept. I'm a polymath, and while a lot of engineers and scientists want me on their teams, my testimony would never be accepted in court. That's not a bad thing, mind you.
So now you are thinking about the memory, and using your adult brain to justify why you think you remembered it. Now next time you think about this memory, this will be added to it, even though it may not have been present at the initial formation of the memory.
I told my parents about this when I was like 5, and never forgot it. Perhaps you are not capable of having long term memories.
Regardless, it sounds like you simply do not want to believe that a little kid can have memories at an early age, or believe that humans just make shit up, and aren't actually having any memory that is real. Have fun.
Because Windows sucks?
Actually, Windows has had a backup utility called "NTBackup" for quite awhile, and then there's the Volume Snapshot Backup. But neither is as simple to setup nor administer as Time Machine. Not by a LONG shot.
Did those back up applications as well? I had the first occasion to restore an entire volume from scratch from Time machine a few weeks ago, and it was flawless. Just haven't been able to figure why nothing like that made it to Windows.
Frank Herbert had an interesting take on that in Dune. You might have human form, but unless and until you can control the lizard brain, you're just an advanced animal. To be human requires more.
That makes for a remarkable few of us.
I know these are genuine memories because my family talked about this recently, and I described things to them that they had completely forgotten about and were surprised I could recall. Meanwhile, I can't remember what I did yesterday. Memories are strange.
And in different people, minds operate so differently. I can remember those early memories easily. I can memorize a list of numbers easily. But I am horrible with names without little mental tricks - like repeating a person's name I've been introduced to. And the funniest one I've discovered is with television and movie actors. I can name an actor's filmography or television history without being able to give their name. Wife calls me RainMan some times.
Are you sure you remember. Or did you hear your mum tell the story so many times that you subconsciously rewrote the experience in your mind. And now you remember that instead? Every time the brain thinks about something, remembers it, it can easily be subtly changed. All those changes can and do add up to what amounts to a memory of something that never actually happened.
Well, I brought it up first when I was older. What I think etched the memory was me being quite angry about the diaper, and looking outside the window and wishing I was outside. As well, there was a feeling that pissing on the floor because I didn't want to go in the diaper was an act that I believed would piss off the nurses, and was a sort of revenge feeling.
My memory was of being angry and taking revenge, while my mother's memory and apparently the nurses was one of it being kind of cute. So while I understand how people can get memories implanted in their head, I also am pretty convinced that the different reactions, as well as my longstanding dislike - think suppressed panic - of hospitals are part and parcel of this.
It's not approximating bullshit, it's straight up species based racism/bigotry. Which is how things have always been, and is a big part of the macro attitudes that allow exploitation of the natural world to a point that we're going to collapse its ability to support the human race. But, hey, that's mostly my grandkids' problem, why should I even care?
Well, since we are on the human bashing bit, I believe that humanity has a fatal flaw that will lead to our eventual extinction. While we have evolved a big smart brain that allows us to do many things, we are constrained by our "lizard brain" which largely rules most of us. We delight in killing other humans - if there is no good reason, we'll make one up, such as an "enemy" believing in the wrong nonexistent entity that wants us to kill others. That's the seeds of our destruction, and I believe at some point in the near future, we'll gleefully destroy ourselves. There are many in the US who are actively seeking that day already.
Crazy-ass overly aggressive death wishing hooomans.
Note this has nothing to do with killing other life, be it plant or animal, in order to live - as only chemoautotrophs can directly process and live off minerals. This is the great enjoyment that humans have for killing other humans.