> This definition is faulty, which is easily proven.
No. It's your idea that's bogus. It clearly demonstrates that the ancient Aristotle approach to defining species is horribly naieve and doesn't match up with modern ideas about inheritance.
Your kind of definition would have blacks as a separate species.
That's both stupid and terribly politically incorrect.
If you can't survive the HIV epidemic you won't have to worry about cancer. The advantage here is clear. If you can survive long enough to breed and have viable offspring, that's all that really matters.
You should be able to anonymize the data so that the relevant data is available to be examined by anyone and peer reviewed by anyone. Otherwise you can't trust it. Otherwise you will end up with studies where all of the meaningful information has been completely obscured by "statistics".
If I can't play with the data myself, the study is crap. It's untrustworthy. It's not science.
I say that as someone much more likely to benefit from this sort of thing than you.
> The problem is that much of the data that underpins the regulations is either proprietary, sensitive, or confidential, making it illegal for the EPA to publish.
It also makes that information completely untrustworthy and pretty much useless for the purposes of science.
> Enjoy your logarithmic cancer... just a little should be fine!
Nothing will cure you of the idea of "scientific certainty" quite like observing your own cancer treatment and the cancer treatment of others. Even in areas where they think they understand it well, it's remarkably random and haphazard.
That's not even getting into all of the contradictory nonsense that a rube like you might be exposed to via the news media.
In my own case of "benzene" exposure, the person responsible for it is fine.
I really think it's more a matter of luck and there's nothing you can do to stop it. No amount of "new age religion" will help you.
> You understand that it was the conservatives that held open the Supreme court for 10 months
Yeah. That's JUST LIKE wiping your ass with the Bill of Rights by embracing a lynch mob mentality in order to scuttle the other party's nominee.
THIS example is the perfect demonstration of why liberals have completely jumped the shark. It's anyone's guess what part of the Bill of Rights you will trash next.
I seriously worry about liberals now FAR more than fundies now. At least some fundies embrace the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin".
Democrats are FAR worse. With the Republicans, their lunatic fringe really is that. It's a fringe. It gets a lot of grief from the rest of the party. The Democrats fully embrace their wing nuts. They're far more numerous.
Although liberal wing nuts are magnified by the media that has largely dropped all pretense at this point.
> Yeah, who wants steady employment anyway! Stick with Obj-C and Rust and Lisp and the flavor of the month instead...
Never had a problem really.
As an added bonus of sound planning and not being located in Silicon Valley, I can work as much or as little as I like. I can take early retirement any time I want.
> Yeah, cause we know how anti-gun the government in Texas is.
Depends on who they work for. Feds in Texas will happily do their best to fuck over our local health care providers by trying to criminalize billing errors that Blue Cross wouldn't blink at.
> First off as a veteran of the Vietnam conflict I do not believe you understand what communism is.
Same goes for you. You don't even understand what MIGHT give you some standing to preach to someone else about their ignorance of communism.
This is ironic because I was just discussing this very topic with an actual ex-Soviet today.
The Soviets didn't even bother with the pretense of a legit looking prosecution. The coffee klatch at your office could rat you out and get you sent to a gulag.
I bet you will look at them differently on Monday.
> Nobodyâ(TM)s health or wellbeing is suffering from lack of new movies or music.
Piracy also never killed the profitability of a creative work that wasn't a festering pile of crap. People will pay for stuff if its' any good even if pirated copies are easy to get and readily available.
HELL, even vinyl is making a comeback. The way things are going, it looks like PCs will go out of style before physical media.
Not that "but it plays on a computer" is terribly meaningful. Most people have no interest in pulling out a PC to play something and curated mobile devices are even less controllable than DRM infested streaming libraries.
No it isn't. You repeating the Big Lie won't make it any more true.
Attempting to criminalize my use of what I've paid for it not something you can justify with any existing moral or ethical theory short of pure boot licking corporatism.
> Kid, you have spent too much time reading Ayn Rand.
It could also be a matter of personal first hand experience. A couple of my own cousins are welfare mothers. Those of us that avoided that pattern have done decently for ourselves. Some of us have even done VERY well.
Liberals these days just want an excuse to hand more and more power to the government. In order to do that, they have to destroy the idea of the individual. Upward mobility must become a myth. Personal responsibility must be a taboo idea. Can't have the proles fending for themselves. They won't clamor for a nanny state.
> I get where you are coming from. However, the fact remains that there is a fairly strong correlation between parental educational
Among my personal acquaintances are a college president, a real estate investor, a computing pioneer that sent his kids to ivy league schools, and a 3rd generation college graduate.
The idea that "minority" means "ghetto" is racist nonsense.
> Well, think of it like this. Imagine that your ancestors were slaves in the USA. You are the descendant of slaves.
If you want to fixate on ancient history that isn't really relevant to any body in the here and now, we were all slaves in the past. No particular race or ethnic group is a special snowflake in this regard.
Slashdot Mirror
> This definition is faulty, which is easily proven.
No. It's your idea that's bogus. It clearly demonstrates that the ancient Aristotle approach to defining species is horribly naieve and doesn't match up with modern ideas about inheritance.
Your kind of definition would have blacks as a separate species.
That's both stupid and terribly politically incorrect.
If you can't survive the HIV epidemic you won't have to worry about cancer. The advantage here is clear. If you can survive long enough to breed and have viable offspring, that's all that really matters.
The only one worth mentioning was Japan and it was on the other side of the planet entirely. It didn't get nearly as much "attention" as Germany did.
Mussolini was pretty much Hilter's mascot.
You should be able to anonymize the data so that the relevant data is available to be examined by anyone and peer reviewed by anyone. Otherwise you can't trust it. Otherwise you will end up with studies where all of the meaningful information has been completely obscured by "statistics".
If I can't play with the data myself, the study is crap. It's untrustworthy. It's not science.
I say that as someone much more likely to benefit from this sort of thing than you.
> The problem is that much of the data that underpins the regulations is either proprietary, sensitive, or confidential, making it illegal for the EPA to publish.
It also makes that information completely untrustworthy and pretty much useless for the purposes of science.
> So whatever the 'Doctors' say is okay. Let's just roll back to, say, 1860 and go get our buckets of leeches.
Depending on the cancer in question, leeches might not be a bad thing for you.
> What's a little mercury between friends?
It used to be the treatment for when you got a little too "friendly" with the wrong people.
> Enjoy your logarithmic cancer... just a little should be fine!
Nothing will cure you of the idea of "scientific certainty" quite like observing your own cancer treatment and the cancer treatment of others. Even in areas where they think they understand it well, it's remarkably random and haphazard.
That's not even getting into all of the contradictory nonsense that a rube like you might be exposed to via the news media.
In my own case of "benzene" exposure, the person responsible for it is fine.
I really think it's more a matter of luck and there's nothing you can do to stop it. No amount of "new age religion" will help you.
> You understand that it was the conservatives that held open the Supreme court for 10 months
Yeah. That's JUST LIKE wiping your ass with the Bill of Rights by embracing a lynch mob mentality in order to scuttle the other party's nominee.
THIS example is the perfect demonstration of why liberals have completely jumped the shark. It's anyone's guess what part of the Bill of Rights you will trash next.
I seriously worry about liberals now FAR more than fundies now. At least some fundies embrace the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin".
> Dang dude, whatever drugs you are on, I want some of those.
Perhaps if you spend less on substance abuse yourself, you could address his point about you not doing shit yourself to help fix things.
You probably virtue signal plenty, demand others do stuff, demand others PAY for stuff, and just sit on your own fat ass doing nothing yourself.
You're probably the paragon of "liberal compassion".
> A lot of Republicans treated Obama
A vanishingly small number compared to liberal wing nuts.
> Affordable Care Act-- which was largely a Republican bill,
This was a product of MASSACHUSETS. That is hardly a Republican bastion. You can't even lay off the obvious bullshit for a single minute.
Democrats are FAR worse. With the Republicans, their lunatic fringe really is that. It's a fringe. It gets a lot of grief from the rest of the party. The Democrats fully embrace their wing nuts. They're far more numerous.
Although liberal wing nuts are magnified by the media that has largely dropped all pretense at this point.
You're just peddling more of the same deranged hysterics that are used to sell suckers like you ads.
The whining over disappointing entertainment products is just a part of the whole package.
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass, freeloader.
Star Trek is ad supported content.
Payment avoidance has always been possible.
> Yeah, who wants steady employment anyway! Stick with Obj-C and Rust and Lisp and the flavor of the month instead...
Never had a problem really.
As an added bonus of sound planning and not being located in Silicon Valley, I can work as much or as little as I like. I can take early retirement any time I want.
> Yeah, cause we know how anti-gun the government in Texas is.
Depends on who they work for. Feds in Texas will happily do their best to fuck over our local health care providers by trying to criminalize billing errors that Blue Cross wouldn't blink at.
> First off as a veteran of the Vietnam conflict I do not believe you understand what communism is.
Same goes for you. You don't even understand what MIGHT give you some standing to preach to someone else about their ignorance of communism.
This is ironic because I was just discussing this very topic with an actual ex-Soviet today.
The Soviets didn't even bother with the pretense of a legit looking prosecution. The coffee klatch at your office could rat you out and get you sent to a gulag.
I bet you will look at them differently on Monday.
> Nobodyâ(TM)s health or wellbeing is suffering from lack of new movies or music.
Piracy also never killed the profitability of a creative work that wasn't a festering pile of crap. People will pay for stuff if its' any good even if pirated copies are easy to get and readily available.
CD is not going anywhere.
HELL, even vinyl is making a comeback. The way things are going, it looks like PCs will go out of style before physical media.
Not that "but it plays on a computer" is terribly meaningful. Most people have no interest in pulling out a PC to play something and curated mobile devices are even less controllable than DRM infested streaming libraries.
No it isn't. You repeating the Big Lie won't make it any more true.
Attempting to criminalize my use of what I've paid for it not something you can justify with any existing moral or ethical theory short of pure boot licking corporatism.
I'm a paying customer. You can just fuck off.
> You are not okay with some amount of copyright?
Except this isn't copyright. This is someone fucking with you after you've paid them.
Copyright makes it illegal for you to give other people copies and gives artists the standing to sue you and the government the standing to jail you.
Being fucked with after you've paid is not necessary.
Being fucked with if you haven't given anyone else a copy, is not necessary.
Job ads and housing ads are treated exactly the same. That's why this issue has come up in the past on that very subject (housing).
Civil Rights laws have rather loose "result based" standards that probably seem counter-intutitive to a lot of civil libertines.
You can't even avoid advertising to people. What constitutes that sort of thing isn't intuitive to a layman.
Even excluding convicted criminals can be a problem.
> Kid, you have spent too much time reading Ayn Rand.
It could also be a matter of personal first hand experience. A couple of my own cousins are welfare mothers. Those of us that avoided that pattern have done decently for ourselves. Some of us have even done VERY well.
Liberals these days just want an excuse to hand more and more power to the government. In order to do that, they have to destroy the idea of the individual. Upward mobility must become a myth. Personal responsibility must be a taboo idea. Can't have the proles fending for themselves. They won't clamor for a nanny state.
> I get where you are coming from. However, the fact remains that there is a fairly strong correlation between parental educational
Among my personal acquaintances are a college president, a real estate investor, a computing pioneer that sent his kids to ivy league schools, and a 3rd generation college graduate.
The idea that "minority" means "ghetto" is racist nonsense.
> Well, think of it like this. Imagine that your ancestors were slaves in the USA. You are the descendant of slaves.
If you want to fixate on ancient history that isn't really relevant to any body in the here and now, we were all slaves in the past. No particular race or ethnic group is a special snowflake in this regard.