>It's documented that they were in fact carrying weapons. Furthermore, Assange himself even admitted to editing the video in order to manipulate the public:
Oh right... so the right to bear arms only applies to Americans ? Oh sorry, i forgot, WHITE Americans. Anybody else has a gun - their fair game to kill.
>There are armed men in the group
Yes, they are called bodyguards. The mere presence of a weapon does not make somebody an enemy combatant. The Geneva convention is supposed to mean you ONLY shoot at other soldiers.
For a start - a simple gene test would show her child had only her DNA, and the child would invariably be female. But seeing as it also has not been observed in any other mammal, and there is strong biomolecular reasons to believe it cannot happen in mammals - it would be an extraordinary find, and would raise well deserved scepticism if claimed. If somebody claimed it and agreed to a DNA test though - then it would be confirmed.
>I'm no fan of the Zuck, and I am a strong supporter of indigenous rights. I'm also well familiar with the history of the US annexation of Hawaii. But I'd have to learn more before condemning this particular move.
Because every other country has active measures in society to combat that pressure from companies. And in the others they are at least partially successful. Not entirely - much of Europe is having the exact same problem as Japan though at an earlier stage and not as severe yet. That's one reason it's ridiculous of Europe not to welcome the refugees with open arms - they desperately need an influx of able-bodied young people to keep their economies working. The US is earlier on the same road, mostly thanks to the immigrants Trump wants to kick out - without them, the US would be a lot further along. Already the US is worried that they can't sustain social security when people are living longer and there isn't a fast enough inflow of young people to fund it.
Japan is the furthest along that road, and thus gets to serve as the great big warning sign of where that road leads, but you're an idiot if you think those other places aren't on the exact same road and measurably moving forward on it. They are moving slower because of policies designed to combat this corporate pressure. Those policies, however, are being steadily eroded - which will accelerate the trip.
They need to be significantly strengthened if you want to change course. That means things like paid family leave, maternity leave with job protection, paternity leave with job protection, good (and affordable) childcare options - so that people don't have to choose between life and work. A healthy society needs people who work to live. When everybody lives to work - that society is doomed.
Thats not an unusual. People who die without wills in a few generations can leave land as a lot of tiny patches divided among descendents with no real idea which patch belongs to who. My great-grandfather owned a farm near Thabazimbi but none of his kids lived there and over generations the divides got tinier and tinier. A few years ago I was contacted by the government who wanted to add the farm to a nature reserve, asking my consent to give up title to my tiny share. I gave it, all the relatives I know did too. The land is now part of a nature park.
>Certain particular species seem to be more resilient than others as seen by how long they have been around. Sharks is one of them. Perhaps that trait is one of the reasons why. I wonder if alligators and crocodiles have similar traits? (and other seemingly ancient species)
We don't actually know that. There were crocodilians around with the dinosaurs - but not the same species we have today. In the case of sharks - we've found great white bones from back then, but we don't actually have any proof they were the same as the great whites we have today - in fact that is highly unlikely. All that proves is their skeletons haven't changed since then. But there is a LOT more to a body than it's bone structure. Odds are the great whites of the Jurassic era were notably different from their modern descendents. Perhaps they didn't yet have that astounding immune system ? Perhaps they had very different behaviour ? Nowadays they are an apex predator - they certainly were not when they shared the oceans with icthyosaurs and mosasaurs.
And there are quite a few long-lived species that don't seem to have asexual reproduction. Horse-shoe crabs are the last surviving species of a family that ruled the world some 300-million years ago - and they don't. But again - we don't know what soft-tissue changes they've had since their ancestors first crawled around in those ancient bays. Remember, as XKCD recently reminded us, if all we had of spiders were fossils -we'd have never known about webs.
For every question there is an answer that is simple, obvious and wrong.
Congratulations. You found the simple, obvious and wrong answer.
The real world is so much more interesting because humans are so much more variable than you realise.
And the sexual fetish of crossdressing has nothing to do with transgenderism, very many people are into cross-dressing for sexual purposes but it has nothing to do with their normal gender expression or feeling. It's no different than dressing up as a french maid or a nurse -it's just sexual fantasy roleplaying and the fantasy ends when the orgasm comes. Transgender people never stop identifying as what they are. It has very little to do with sex.
Yeah... you know what happens when you don't discourage your thinking ?
Japan, Japan happens. Aging population, young people who don't date or have sex because they all work 18 hours a day - because anybody who doesn't loses their job. Meanwhile the pension plan is going bankrupt because there are too many old people drawing from it and not enough young people paying in.
>But even on DS9 you still had Sisko's dad's restaurant
And if you had paid better attention - you would have noticed that he didn't charge the people who came to eat. He ran the restaurant because he got personal satisfaction from keeping his cultural cuisine heritage alive. His "wait staff" likewise did it because they got some or other personal benefit out of it.
>How did Sisko's dad get the property for the restaurant? That one wasn't well answered in the show, land is tricky since on the planet itself it's definitely finite. But there are many possible ways to solve it. For example those who require land for something could request it, and some democratic process would allocate available land to people based on what they want to use it for - the less beneficial it is to other people, the lower on the list it goes. You could easily factor in exceptions for things like ancestral land (and there is evidence in other episodes and series that such exist). There are economic philosophies NOW that have potential answers to that question. For example anarcho-communism rejects the idea of OWNING land but considers entirely legitimate the idea of USING land. So if you're using it - you get to keep it, if you stop using it, somebody else can use it. As long as you use it though - nobody else can lay claim to it.
>Why is anyone "doing what they love" busing tables? You'd have to ask them - but near the top of the list of possibilities would be: because they want to learn the recipes of their cultural cuisine heritage from a master, and working in his restaurant is their best opportunity to learn from him. But what any given individual finds rewarding - only that person can know. If I had an income that removed the need to ever work again - I would still do lots of work, I'd code FOSS projects and relish being able to do them full-time as long as I wanted, I'd write stories, I'd study aeronotical engineering, I'd finally make a really good video game... and I'd also spend weeks sitting on the couch playing with my daughter and just relaxing. And sometimes, I'd do some pretty serious manual labour - building cupboards and such, just because I want them and something you made yourself is special in a way something you bought can never be.
>Again, people acting like they're participating in an economy. They are- but it's a fundamentally different kind of economy. It's an economy without scarcity. So that changes the entire thing from the bottom up. The whole concept changes - what is valuable changes, what is tradeable is different. We're currently seeing some of the difficulties in making post-scarcity work in a scarcity-based economy in a topic that gets discussed on./ all the time: copyright law. When copyright was created - printing presses were huge, expensive things that few people had. It was a minor industrial regulation that affected almost nobody. But now, the means to copy things is cheap and ubiquitous, and any particular copy is essentially free to make, so ewe can make unlimited numbers of copies. It's a post-scarcity technology now. And it's messing up the scarcity based economy - so right now the answer being pursued is totalitarian market controls to induce artificial scarcity - that's a pretty terrible approach but it's also almost certainly doomed in the long term. When we solve that one, we can probably adapt that solution to all your other questions.
> I don't know what a post scarcity society would look like, but it wouldn't look like Star Trek. I never claimed it would. In fact I'm pretty sure you brought Star Trek up and I merely responded to it. And like I said, the ST depicted on screen was quite far removed economically from whatever Gene had envisioned - simply because an actual paradise leaves you no conflict and without conflict there's no drama. That's why diluthium crystals were supposedly impossible to replicate - there had to be something for peoples to fight over or you couldn't have fights. Roddenberry's vis
I actually did a google before writing that, to make sure my memory wasn't letting me down - and the only stories I could find were about human-induced parthenogenesis post-dolly using a modification of the same technique.
If what you're saying is true, then I don't know about it. I did however read quite a few scientists on those stories declare that what they have achieved is considered impossible for mammals, so it seems unlikely.
Life, as a whole has survived every extinction level event that happened -but each has caused massive extinctions. Individual species come and go, as long as they don't all go at once, life persists. Life could be reduced to a single species of extremeophile bacteria living around one volcanic vent in the pacific ocean tomorrow... and in a million years the world would, once again, be crawling with many different creatures. In fact, the immediate aftermath of mass extinctions tend to be the time when the greatest biodiversity is found. With all the old species gone, practically *anything* can survive - so some really weird creatures evolve and thrive for a while. Then the numbers get big enough for resources to stop being abundant and natural selection kicks in. The worst species start failing and die out. After a while you get into an equilibrium state - where every breeding pair of every species only produce, on average, two offspring the go on to breed again. That state lasts until the next major extinction level event.
The reason life can survive whatever the universe throws at it is because life doesn't rely on any particular species, any of them can be lost - it just needs SOMETHING to survive.
>There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".
That would be a concern... if ANYBODY was proposing THAT as a solution. Why would we propose something that wouldn't work ? The proposed solution is "replace archaic 19th century technology with the best of 21st century technological ingenuity"
You know what happens when you invest in major technological advances ? Economies GROW - they do NOT get crippled, the exact opposite happens. You know what we do NOT need to do to achieve this ? Control anybody's activities.
ALL we need to do is invest in the right technologies... and these technologies have so many other benefits that it becomes irellevant even if climate change wasn't true because we would STILL win a massive and absolutely unqualified victory for mankind. We'd all be wealthier and better off.
So the ONLY thing holding back the right kind of progress is not economics or science - it's political games played by the people who invested heavily in the old 19th century technology and don't want to lose those investments. We're dooming mankind over the fucking sunk cost fallacy...
Trump has announced he wants to end the NASA Earth Sciences division... because if you stop doing the science the stuff they were studying goes away or something. So enjoy getting actual scientific reports from NASA about the state of our climate, providing valuable data to other scientists, while it still lasts...
>The feminist groups will then argue that women should not be punished for taking time off for raising kids or not being able to work extra hours, etc. You left out the most important part of the argument: BECAUSE SOCIETY DEMANDS THAT THEY DO.
Hell fixing that benefits MEN to. Suddenly - ME wanting to not work such long hours so I can spend time with MY kid should not be a reason to punish me either.
Why should the rest of us have to be compared to a few workaholic mentally ill morons with no life ? We work to live, they live to work - and no we should NOT be rewarding that because it's killing them AND us.
And apparently they think the same thing about Google ?
So er... who do you think they consider tough ? What, do you need to change the company's mission statement "America ! FUCK YEAH!" to be scary enough ?
You know that Trump has four, that's right FOUR senior cabinet members who are ex-Goldman Sachs ? Tell me again how republicans don't suck bankster cock.
When a similar case was brought against google a while ago, a bunch of people here defended the company and their refusal to hand over compensation data - so let's hear it, will you defend the prime evil of tech as well ? Will you felate Ellison like you slobbered on Schmidt ? Or is refusing to cooperate into an investigation of your own compliance with the law only heroic when google does it ?
They really don't. There are overwhelming studies that prove chartter schools NEVER outperform public schools - not anywhere. School performance is, at least 80%, determined by school neighbourhood and surrounding social conditions - budgets cannot change that, neither can privatisation (By any name).
The fastest way to improve school performance in the USA would be to set a 15 dollar minimum wage, set up a really solid childcare plan (Trump actually promised one but his cabinent candidate made no mention of it when asked - another forgotten promise ?) and decriminalize drug use with a focus on quality, free, treatment (Which will cost a lot less than all those people in prison for weed).
Those reforms - would increase school performance levels across the USA in a year. The problems with American schools are not in American schools, they are in American societies. You can't fix them with school budgets because the budget has less than nothing to do with it.
Using "wisdom" and "libertarian" in the same sentence... libertarianism contains all the wisdom of sticking your condoms to the bedpost with thumbtacks for easy access.
Most of those things use IDs that republicans have conveniently declared you can't use to vote with.
Student IDs for example are not acceptable for voting... fuck knows why, there aren't any SANE reasons to exclude them so we have to assume an insane one... like racism.
Dead people on voter registrations does not equal, or even IMPLY that a SINGLE dead person voted. All it implies is that in the time between voter registrations happening and elections - some people die and sometimes the rolls aren't updated fast enough.
This is by no means indicative of any risk that those names are voting - if you look for actual dead registered voters who SHOWED UP TO VOTE - the numbers drop to basically zero.
>1. Are you saying that minorities are not capable enough to go to the DMV? How racist of you.
Nobody is saying that. We're saying poor minimum wage hourly workers generally can't go to the DMV because if they miss a day of work they get fired. That these are overwhelmingly minorities is not something wrong with the people - it's just a convenient fact of historic economics which current racist lawmakers are exploiting.
>. Yeah, they definitely don't care about voter fraud. I'm sure a lot of their supporters do. But those supporters are idiots. Voter ID doesn't prevent voter fraud - it IS voter fraud, the single largest and most common kind ! Stopping legitimate voters from being able to vote is the ONLY significant voter fraud that happens in America.
>Sorry sweetie, you used your "racism" card too much, and now it's alllll worn out. Google "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." So you won't FIX the racism... you'll just go neener-neener "I can't hear you" little white snowflake ? Racism has not been cried too much - hell current uses don't even cover most current instances of the problem ! If anything it's underreported. That there is enough cries for you to not sound completely crazy to YOURSELF pretending it's said to much just PROVES HOW FUCKING RACIST YOU REALLY ARE.
Eeeeehhh WRONG ! At every point in history, no matter how bad society looks to us, there are voices sounding LIKE us. For every past evil there were people speaking out against it AS IT HAPPENED. So there was NEVER a time it was OKAY to do those things and there were ALWAYS people saying it's not.
Columbus set up a slave trade and committed several mass slaughters as soon as he met native Americans. The death toll from his actions is estimated at 5 million people in 50 years. BUT At exactly the SAME time that was happening: Bartolome De Las Casas was out there saving their lives. Politically advocating for them to have equal rights, calling for an end to slavery.
No, these things were always evil, and there were ALWAYS people saying so. All that changed is that it took decades (or centuries) for the majority to listen to them.
But being the ones who are following in the spirit of those who demanded better of mankind, and demanding better of our own peers now... no my friend, we will NOT be looked at the same way. Homophobes and Transphobes will. We will be looked at like I look at Las Casas.
When it comes to how you treat other people there IS a clear morally superior and morally inferior line - and that line is clearly defined and has been for 3000 years. You're just standing on the wrong side of it and you imagine everybody else does too.
You think there were no whites in America in the 1940's and 1950s who were utterly disgusted with the behaviour you're describing ? You think there weren't some white people on the busses with the freedom riders, standing in solidarity with them, getting beaten up with them ? They are always there. A few months ago in South Africa when black student protestors marched on parliament to protest fee increases - a row of white volunteers walked at the front of the march, not because they were in charge: but so if the police got brutal there would be white people between them, they were there as voluntary human shields.
So - go fuck yourself telling me this generation isn't capable and prepared to fight, not prepared to face severe violence from deadly armed enemies (that same policemen, remember, were the ones who brutally massacred 34 strking miners just brief while before). This generation is happy to be human shields to protect those without a voice so they can speak up. To put their lives on the line so that others can get a chance to be heard. There has never been a generation MORE like the greatest generation than this one. The babyboomers were a disgraceful bunch of fat slobs who were extremely happy to use every government handout they could get (or invent) to raise their own lives up, and then dismantled those very same systems so that the next generation wouldn't have them (because once they didn't need them anymore, they didn't want ot fund them anymore). Now considering that they only got to use these things in the first place because the greatest generation WAS funding it - they were the exact opposite of that generation.
The only thing that changed - is what they consider worth fighting for, the world is different. They don't want to kill Muslims because they know you're an idiot to be afraid of Muslims. They don't want to bash gays, and they don't care if their friend has a penis under her dress. They do care about you not making her difficult life harder and they WILL fight to protect her. And if need be - they will stand in front of her so you have to shoot them first.
>What would have happened if he'd been hit by a bus?
To answer your question I set up an experiment in which over 3000 people were hit by a bus under laboratory conditions. I carefully monitored the outcomes in all cases and can report my preliminary findings. With 99% probability, when a human being is hit by a bus, that human dies. The full paper will be submitted to NATURE for peer review and publication later this year after dealing with some anomalies in the test data (in one case... the bus died).
Slashdot Mirror
>It's documented that they were in fact carrying weapons. Furthermore, Assange himself even admitted to editing the video in order to manipulate the public:
Oh right... so the right to bear arms only applies to Americans ? Oh sorry, i forgot, WHITE Americans. Anybody else has a gun - their fair game to kill.
>There are armed men in the group
Yes, they are called bodyguards. The mere presence of a weapon does not make somebody an enemy combatant. The Geneva convention is supposed to mean you ONLY shoot at other soldiers.
For a start - a simple gene test would show her child had only her DNA, and the child would invariably be female. But seeing as it also has not been observed in any other mammal, and there is strong biomolecular reasons to believe it cannot happen in mammals - it would be an extraordinary find, and would raise well deserved scepticism if claimed. If somebody claimed it and agreed to a DNA test though - then it would be confirmed.
>I'm no fan of the Zuck, and I am a strong supporter of indigenous rights. I'm also well familiar with the history of the US annexation of Hawaii. But I'd have to learn more before condemning this particular move.
Yep, agreed on every point.
Because every other country has active measures in society to combat that pressure from companies. And in the others they are at least partially successful. Not entirely - much of Europe is having the exact same problem as Japan though at an earlier stage and not as severe yet. That's one reason it's ridiculous of Europe not to welcome the refugees with open arms - they desperately need an influx of able-bodied young people to keep their economies working.
The US is earlier on the same road, mostly thanks to the immigrants Trump wants to kick out - without them, the US would be a lot further along. Already the US is worried that they can't sustain social security when people are living longer and there isn't a fast enough inflow of young people to fund it.
Japan is the furthest along that road, and thus gets to serve as the great big warning sign of where that road leads, but you're an idiot if you think those other places aren't on the exact same road and measurably moving forward on it. They are moving slower because of policies designed to combat this corporate pressure. Those policies, however, are being steadily eroded - which will accelerate the trip.
They need to be significantly strengthened if you want to change course. That means things like paid family leave, maternity leave with job protection, paternity leave with job protection, good (and affordable) childcare options - so that people don't have to choose between life and work.
A healthy society needs people who work to live. When everybody lives to work - that society is doomed.
Thats not an unusual. People who die without wills in a few generations can leave land as a lot of tiny patches divided among descendents with no real idea which patch belongs to who.
My great-grandfather owned a farm near Thabazimbi but none of his kids lived there and over generations the divides got tinier and tinier. A few years ago I was contacted by the government who wanted to add the farm to a nature reserve, asking my consent to give up title to my tiny share. I gave it, all the relatives I know did too. The land is now part of a nature park.
>Certain particular species seem to be more resilient than others as seen by how long they have been around. Sharks is one of them. Perhaps that trait is one of the reasons why. I wonder if alligators and crocodiles have similar traits? (and other seemingly ancient species)
We don't actually know that. There were crocodilians around with the dinosaurs - but not the same species we have today. In the case of sharks - we've found great white bones from back then, but we don't actually have any proof they were the same as the great whites we have today - in fact that is highly unlikely. All that proves is their skeletons haven't changed since then. But there is a LOT more to a body than it's bone structure. Odds are the great whites of the Jurassic era were notably different from their modern descendents. Perhaps they didn't yet have that astounding immune system ? Perhaps they had very different behaviour ? Nowadays they are an apex predator - they certainly were not when they shared the oceans with icthyosaurs and mosasaurs.
And there are quite a few long-lived species that don't seem to have asexual reproduction. Horse-shoe crabs are the last surviving species of a family that ruled the world some 300-million years ago - and they don't. But again - we don't know what soft-tissue changes they've had since their ancestors first crawled around in those ancient bays.
Remember, as XKCD recently reminded us, if all we had of spiders were fossils -we'd have never known about webs.
For every question there is an answer that is simple, obvious and wrong.
Congratulations. You found the simple, obvious and wrong answer.
The real world is so much more interesting because humans are so much more variable than you realise.
And the sexual fetish of crossdressing has nothing to do with transgenderism, very many people are into cross-dressing for sexual purposes but it has nothing to do with their normal gender expression or feeling. It's no different than dressing up as a french maid or a nurse -it's just sexual fantasy roleplaying and the fantasy ends when the orgasm comes.
Transgender people never stop identifying as what they are. It has very little to do with sex.
Yeah... you know what happens when you don't discourage your thinking ?
Japan, Japan happens. Aging population, young people who don't date or have sex because they all work 18 hours a day - because anybody who doesn't loses their job. Meanwhile the pension plan is going bankrupt because there are too many old people drawing from it and not enough young people paying in.
>But even on DS9 you still had Sisko's dad's restaurant
And if you had paid better attention - you would have noticed that he didn't charge the people who came to eat. He ran the restaurant because he got personal satisfaction from keeping his cultural cuisine heritage alive. His "wait staff" likewise did it because they got some or other personal benefit out of it.
>How did Sisko's dad get the property for the restaurant?
That one wasn't well answered in the show, land is tricky since on the planet itself it's definitely finite. But there are many possible ways to solve it. For example those who require land for something could request it, and some democratic process would allocate available land to people based on what they want to use it for - the less beneficial it is to other people, the lower on the list it goes. You could easily factor in exceptions for things like ancestral land (and there is evidence in other episodes and series that such exist). There are economic philosophies NOW that have potential answers to that question. For example anarcho-communism rejects the idea of OWNING land but considers entirely legitimate the idea of USING land. So if you're using it - you get to keep it, if you stop using it, somebody else can use it. As long as you use it though - nobody else can lay claim to it.
>Why is anyone "doing what they love" busing tables?
You'd have to ask them - but near the top of the list of possibilities would be: because they want to learn the recipes of their cultural cuisine heritage from a master, and working in his restaurant is their best opportunity to learn from him. But what any given individual finds rewarding - only that person can know.
If I had an income that removed the need to ever work again - I would still do lots of work, I'd code FOSS projects and relish being able to do them full-time as long as I wanted, I'd write stories, I'd study aeronotical engineering, I'd finally make a really good video game... and I'd also spend weeks sitting on the couch playing with my daughter and just relaxing. And sometimes, I'd do some pretty serious manual labour - building cupboards and such, just because I want them and something you made yourself is special in a way something you bought can never be.
>Again, people acting like they're participating in an economy. ./ all the time: copyright law. When copyright was created - printing presses were huge, expensive things that few people had. It was a minor industrial regulation that affected almost nobody. But now, the means to copy things is cheap and ubiquitous, and any particular copy is essentially free to make, so ewe can make unlimited numbers of copies. It's a post-scarcity technology now.
They are- but it's a fundamentally different kind of economy. It's an economy without scarcity. So that changes the entire thing from the bottom up. The whole concept changes - what is valuable changes, what is tradeable is different. We're currently seeing some of the difficulties in making post-scarcity work in a scarcity-based economy in a topic that gets discussed on
And it's messing up the scarcity based economy - so right now the answer being pursued is totalitarian market controls to induce artificial scarcity - that's a pretty terrible approach but it's also almost certainly doomed in the long term. When we solve that one, we can probably adapt that solution to all your other questions.
> I don't know what a post scarcity society would look like, but it wouldn't look like Star Trek.
I never claimed it would. In fact I'm pretty sure you brought Star Trek up and I merely responded to it. And like I said, the ST depicted on screen was quite far removed economically from whatever Gene had envisioned - simply because an actual paradise leaves you no conflict and without conflict there's no drama. That's why diluthium crystals were supposedly impossible to replicate - there had to be something for peoples to fight over or you couldn't have fights.
Roddenberry's vis
I actually did a google before writing that, to make sure my memory wasn't letting me down - and the only stories I could find were about human-induced parthenogenesis post-dolly using a modification of the same technique.
If what you're saying is true, then I don't know about it. I did however read quite a few scientists on those stories declare that what they have achieved is considered impossible for mammals, so it seems unlikely.
Life, as a whole has survived every extinction level event that happened -but each has caused massive extinctions. Individual species come and go, as long as they don't all go at once, life persists.
Life could be reduced to a single species of extremeophile bacteria living around one volcanic vent in the pacific ocean tomorrow... and in a million years the world would, once again, be crawling with many different creatures.
In fact, the immediate aftermath of mass extinctions tend to be the time when the greatest biodiversity is found. With all the old species gone, practically *anything* can survive - so some really weird creatures evolve and thrive for a while. Then the numbers get big enough for resources to stop being abundant and natural selection kicks in. The worst species start failing and die out.
After a while you get into an equilibrium state - where every breeding pair of every species only produce, on average, two offspring the go on to breed again. That state lasts until the next major extinction level event.
The reason life can survive whatever the universe throws at it is because life doesn't rely on any particular species, any of them can be lost - it just needs SOMETHING to survive.
>There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".
That would be a concern... if ANYBODY was proposing THAT as a solution. Why would we propose something that wouldn't work ? The proposed solution is "replace archaic 19th century technology with the best of 21st century technological ingenuity"
You know what happens when you invest in major technological advances ? Economies GROW - they do NOT get crippled, the exact opposite happens.
You know what we do NOT need to do to achieve this ? Control anybody's activities.
ALL we need to do is invest in the right technologies... and these technologies have so many other benefits that it becomes irellevant even if climate change wasn't true because we would STILL win a massive and absolutely unqualified victory for mankind. We'd all be wealthier and better off.
So the ONLY thing holding back the right kind of progress is not economics or science - it's political games played by the people who invested heavily in the old 19th century technology and don't want to lose those investments. ...
We're dooming mankind over the fucking sunk cost fallacy
You joke... but he basically did already. Trump has announced his intention to shut down NASA's earth sciences division.
Because apparently Earth is not a planet in space.
Trump has announced he wants to end the NASA Earth Sciences division... because if you stop doing the science the stuff they were studying goes away or something. So enjoy getting actual scientific reports from NASA about the state of our climate, providing valuable data to other scientists, while it still lasts...
>The feminist groups will then argue that women should not be punished for taking time off for raising kids or not being able to work extra hours, etc.
You left out the most important part of the argument: BECAUSE SOCIETY DEMANDS THAT THEY DO.
Hell fixing that benefits MEN to. Suddenly - ME wanting to not work such long hours so I can spend time with MY kid should not be a reason to punish me either.
Why should the rest of us have to be compared to a few workaholic mentally ill morons with no life ? We work to live, they live to work - and no we should NOT be rewarding that because it's killing them AND us.
And apparently they think the same thing about Google ?
So er... who do you think they consider tough ? What, do you need to change the company's mission statement "America ! FUCK YEAH!" to be scary enough ?
You know that Trump has four, that's right FOUR senior cabinet members who are ex-Goldman Sachs ? Tell me again how republicans don't suck bankster cock.
When a similar case was brought against google a while ago, a bunch of people here defended the company and their refusal to hand over compensation data - so let's hear it, will you defend the prime evil of tech as well ? Will you felate Ellison like you slobbered on Schmidt ? Or is refusing to cooperate into an investigation of your own compliance with the law only heroic when google does it ?
They really don't. There are overwhelming studies that prove chartter schools NEVER outperform public schools - not anywhere. School performance is, at least 80%, determined by school neighbourhood and surrounding social conditions - budgets cannot change that, neither can privatisation (By any name).
The fastest way to improve school performance in the USA would be to set a 15 dollar minimum wage, set up a really solid childcare plan (Trump actually promised one but his cabinent candidate made no mention of it when asked - another forgotten promise ?) and decriminalize drug use with a focus on quality, free, treatment (Which will cost a lot less than all those people in prison for weed).
Those reforms - would increase school performance levels across the USA in a year. The problems with American schools are not in American schools, they are in American societies. You can't fix them with school budgets because the budget has less than nothing to do with it.
Using "wisdom" and "libertarian" in the same sentence... libertarianism contains all the wisdom of sticking your condoms to the bedpost with thumbtacks for easy access.
Most of those things use IDs that republicans have conveniently declared you can't use to vote with.
Student IDs for example are not acceptable for voting... fuck knows why, there aren't any SANE reasons to exclude them so we have to assume an insane one... like racism.
Dead people on voter registrations does not equal, or even IMPLY that a SINGLE dead person voted. All it implies is that in the time between voter registrations happening and elections - some people die and sometimes the rolls aren't updated fast enough.
This is by no means indicative of any risk that those names are voting - if you look for actual dead registered voters who SHOWED UP TO VOTE - the numbers drop to basically zero.
>1. Are you saying that minorities are not capable enough to go to the DMV? How racist of you.
Nobody is saying that. We're saying poor minimum wage hourly workers generally can't go to the DMV because if they miss a day of work they get fired. That these are overwhelmingly minorities is not something wrong with the people - it's just a convenient fact of historic economics which current racist lawmakers are exploiting.
>. Yeah, they definitely don't care about voter fraud.
I'm sure a lot of their supporters do. But those supporters are idiots. Voter ID doesn't prevent voter fraud - it IS voter fraud, the single largest and most common kind !
Stopping legitimate voters from being able to vote is the ONLY significant voter fraud that happens in America.
>Sorry sweetie, you used your "racism" card too much, and now it's alllll worn out. Google "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
So you won't FIX the racism... you'll just go neener-neener "I can't hear you" little white snowflake ? Racism has not been cried too much - hell current uses don't even cover most current instances of the problem ! If anything it's underreported. That there is enough cries for you to not sound completely crazy to YOURSELF pretending it's said to much just PROVES HOW FUCKING RACIST YOU REALLY ARE.
Eeeeehhh WRONG !
At every point in history, no matter how bad society looks to us, there are voices sounding LIKE us. For every past evil there were people speaking out against it AS IT HAPPENED. So there was NEVER a time it was OKAY to do those things and there were ALWAYS people saying it's not.
Columbus set up a slave trade and committed several mass slaughters as soon as he met native Americans. The death toll from his actions is estimated at 5 million people in 50 years.
BUT At exactly the SAME time that was happening: Bartolome De Las Casas was out there saving their lives. Politically advocating for them to have equal rights, calling for an end to slavery.
No, these things were always evil, and there were ALWAYS people saying so. All that changed is that it took decades (or centuries) for the majority to listen to them.
But being the ones who are following in the spirit of those who demanded better of mankind, and demanding better of our own peers now... no my friend, we will NOT be looked at the same way. Homophobes and Transphobes will. We will be looked at like I look at Las Casas.
When it comes to how you treat other people there IS a clear morally superior and morally inferior line - and that line is clearly defined and has been for 3000 years. You're just standing on the wrong side of it and you imagine everybody else does too.
You think there were no whites in America in the 1940's and 1950s who were utterly disgusted with the behaviour you're describing ? You think there weren't some white people on the busses with the freedom riders, standing in solidarity with them, getting beaten up with them ?
They are always there. A few months ago in South Africa when black student protestors marched on parliament to protest fee increases - a row of white volunteers walked at the front of the march, not because they were in charge: but so if the police got brutal there would be white people between them, they were there as voluntary human shields.
So - go fuck yourself telling me this generation isn't capable and prepared to fight, not prepared to face severe violence from deadly armed enemies (that same policemen, remember, were the ones who brutally massacred 34 strking miners just brief while before). This generation is happy to be human shields to protect those without a voice so they can speak up. To put their lives on the line so that others can get a chance to be heard.
There has never been a generation MORE like the greatest generation than this one. The babyboomers were a disgraceful bunch of fat slobs who were extremely happy to use every government handout they could get (or invent) to raise their own lives up, and then dismantled those very same systems so that the next generation wouldn't have them (because once they didn't need them anymore, they didn't want ot fund them anymore). Now considering that they only got to use these things in the first place because the greatest generation WAS funding it - they were the exact opposite of that generation.
The only thing that changed - is what they consider worth fighting for, the world is different. They don't want to kill Muslims because they know you're an idiot to be afraid of Muslims. They don't want to bash gays, and they don't care if their friend has a penis under her dress. They do care about you not making her difficult life harder and they WILL fight to protect her.
And if need be - they will stand in front of her so you have to shoot them first.
>What would have happened if he'd been hit by a bus?
To answer your question I set up an experiment in which over 3000 people were hit by a bus under laboratory conditions. I carefully monitored the outcomes in all cases and can report my preliminary findings. With 99% probability, when a human being is hit by a bus, that human dies. The full paper will be submitted to NATURE for peer review and publication later this year after dealing with some anomalies in the test data (in one case... the bus died).