Notice that where I say 'arable land' I also say 'tenement buildings'.
Neither of which are fixed at any given time. You also specifically said arable land was fixed. Consistently denying that might be what earned you the "raving" label. Arable and livable land may have an upper limit on Earth but it would be pretty bold to assert that we have reached that limit.
It doesn't matter what you thought your brilliant point was if it was false on basic principals. Correcting your incorrect assertions isn't "no point but to battle".
Make bold assertion, act incredulous and attempt to play victim when called on it, stamp feet and say "done". You certainly come off as a raving leftist whether or not you want self-identify as one.
That's the entire point of filtering out the "no degree" group. If you want to suggest a better filter then go ahead but I doubt you have one that will work.
Do you really want to hire someone who stuck at a degree even though they strongly believed it was a unproductive use of their time
Absolutely. Most people view a good chunk of their jobs as "unproductive wastes of their time"- they still have to do it. Have you ever met a programmer that didn't think at least 75% of what they had to do was a waste of time?
The article you first pointed to actually said the opposite of what you wanted.
You are repeating that statement again. It doesn't say the opposite of what I wanted- it says exactly what I wanted. There is plenty of evidence that there is a physiological difference between men and women that leads to differences in spatial skills. There is some piss-poor paper that "may" indicate that the difference isn't fully physiological. It in no way indicates that there is no physiological difference. It pretty much reinforces that there is an innate difference.
How would that help for target shooting? How would facial recognition help for either?
What the hell are you talking about? What are you trying to imply here? Why do you keep bringing up facial recognition? Facial recognition is a skill that is benefited by a higher "spatial intelligence". It has nothing to do with shooting you blithering idiot. One skill can lead to benefits in two separate things. A good sense of balance can help me ride a bicycle as well as do a cartwheel. Would you be stupid enough to say "what do cartwheels have to do with riding a bike" if I said balance was good for bicycles? You want to know what facial recognition and target shooting have to do with each other? They both happen to be positively affected by spatial skills.
It is indeed, but spatial reasoning measures very much more than that. Many of the tasks, e.g. face recognition which you persist in ignoring do not. Did you checkl the results with the irrelevant factors removed?
Again with the facial recognition!? Being good at spatial reasoning can help in lots of areas. Including but not limited to facial recognition. Facial recognition is not on topic. It it literally a strawman- it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and I've said nothing about it. I have never said nor implied that facial recognition has anything to do with shooting sports. You keep trying to bring it up as a red-herring. You would have to be an idiot to think it was relevant.
Possibly. But again, it's not my fault you started off by posting bad references
No possibly. It is fully supported. I did not post a bad reference. I posted a link to the Wikipedia article stating that there are serious differences between men and women in this area. The claim that I was supporting was "males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks" which is exactly what Wikipedia said.
You've now found a better article that actually supports your point. That's nice: quoting articles that say the opposite is not a good debating tactic.
I did not find a new article. I merely wrote that the article in question does not imply what you seem to think it implies.
No, the null hypothesis is not "men are better at it than women", because you could equally well select the opposite null hypothesis "women are better than men". So, you see there is nothing remotely null about it.
Strawman. Not what I said at all. I said that the null hypothesis of the root cause of differences between genders is physiological. You could make a null hypothesis of "women are better a shooting sports than men" but it would immediately be rejected because all evidence refutes it.
The hypothesis might be "there are differences" as you point out now, but your earlier argument was that "men are better" is the null hypothesis.
And that hypothesis is accepted because all evidence supports it. My statement was that "males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks" which I have repeated verbatim several time. I am unsure what exactly is eluding you about this. That has nothing to do with null hypotheses.
It wasn't hard. You keep surround yourself with straw men, after all. Mostly you say something deeply dubious then cla
Key word being "merge". No one was talking about merging safely a legally. If you cut someone off and they hit you because they didn't have enough time to stop then it is your fault. If there is a high volume of traffic merging safely and legally while traveling 20 to 30 km/s more slowly is not really a realistic proposition.
Your attempts at being condescending make you look like a complete idiot. "There's hope for me yet" because I read the research that you said disproved me? (Which of course did not.) You sure showed me... I guess?
Spatial reasoning and spatial intelligence is more than just abstract reasoning about shapes you bellend. For instance: " visualization of objects from different angles" [Wikipedia] would obviously be extremely helpful in skeet shooting where you have to track and predict a moving object in space. Judging distances and angles and how they relate to where you point a gun is also a spatial problem. Marksmanship involves a lot more than "looking at things".
Science is about making measurements not sweeping generalisations.
Great, so all the measurements show that males have an advantage in spatial tasks. Glad we've cleared that up.
Do you even understand what phsyiology and nature versus nurture even are?
Obviously I do. Let me dumb it down for you. Males have a statistical advantage in spatial tasks. Some people (like you) want to assert that this is not a physiological difference. There is very little reason to assume that this is not a physiological difference. Worded another way: There is very little reason to assume it is nurture.
YOU made the claim that women are less suited, physiologically than men.
No, that is not what I said at all. Someone asserted that there was no physiological advantage men have in shooting sports. That is not an assertable fact. Men have a distinct advantage which is most likely caused, at least partially, by physiological differences. To claim that it is not physiological just cannot be done.
[*] And you still are apparently "dumbfounded" that I cannot understand how navigation skills and facial recognition (two of the small number of tasks in the skillset known as spatial intelligence) relate to shooting. Please will you enlighten the ignorant masses including me?
Holy strawman! Is this the quality of your thought-process? That is an absurdly moronic thing to write. Spatial skills can bring benefit to different areas. Do you not understand that? Kind of like how they can benefit abstract math skills as well as sports skills. "Well what does Trigonometry have to do with throwing a ball?! Herp derp." Is that what you were trying to get across?
The problem with the "burden of proof" thing is it seems to lead random people on the internet that the first personto say something requires the burden of proof whereas the person (you) making the opposite claim doesn't need it merely by virtue of being second. That is not so.
Well that's why I explained the burden of proof and it clearly had nothing to do with the order of claims. Men and women are physiologically different. The default assumption when there is a significant difference between men and women is therefore that it has to do with physiological differences. What do you disagree with here? Do you think that your alternative assumption should get a higher precedence? If so- why? Did you have a point or were you just trying to poison the well and make another strawman?
We are debating about physiology.
Well really we were talking about whether or not men had an advantage.
Except you're the one suggesting the more complex system (there's some physiological difference...
Except physiological differences are not the "more complex system". We know for a fact that there are physiological differences. The "more complex system" would be if it wasn't physiological differences.
The only claim I've made so far is that you arguments are crap and don't hold up to even the evidence you presented yourself.
Men have an advantage in spatial tasks. There is no evidence that disproves or even suggests
I am simply dumbfounded by your continued denying of spatial abilities being directly linked to marksmanship. I honestly cannot even fathom how someone could fail to realize that. Hitting a target is a spatial problem- practically by definition.
My point was supported by the fact that it is a fact (as much of a statistical fact as can be obtained) that males have stronger spatial skills than females (statistically). The only uncertainty is around people asserting that this is nurture instead of nature. There is very little reason to say that this is not a physiological difference. There is no debate about there being a difference between the genders. Do you see how that works as a reference now?
There is irrefutable evidence that males have higher spatial skills than females. Your (or anyone else's) desire to assert that this is not a physiological difference does not put the burden of proof onto me. If there is a difference between males and females the null hypothesis is that it is a physiological difference (we are physiologically different, remember). It is up to you to prove the alternative hypothesis that this is not physiological.
It being innate and physiological is largely a red-herring anyway. The gap exists and you can debate about its cause until you are blue in the face but that doesn't erase the gap. If the gap was as easy to erase as "playing a video game for 10 hours" you would think that women that train to compete in international challenges would not lag behind the men.
You reason like a creationist, "dude". "You can't prove that life came from nothing so therefore God done it."
Addendum: I just read through the research paper that "disproves" it being physiological. A total sample size of 20. 6 men and 14 women. This can be used as a reason to perform more research but to use it as a reason to assume there is no physiological difference is pretty foolish. That the only evidence that it is not physiological you have found is a statistically insignificant research paper from 2007 is not good evidence (although I do not expect Wikipedia to be state of the art or anything).
Addendum 2: Although the women had a greater improvement overall their improved position was barely higher than the men's starting position. Which also left them well below the men's improved position. I'm not sure that paper even supports the claim it is being used to support on Wikipedia.
You are not sure what "spacial judgement" has to do with lining things up or shooting targets? Judging objects in a spacial sense has nothing to do with this? Exactly what skills do you think hitting a target requires? I'm seriously asking here.
The gender difference may be linked to other things. Whether or not it is innate is irrelevant (and in no way settled). The difference is there and is statistically significant. I am entirely unsure how someone theorizing what causes the difference refutes the difference's existence. Especially since your refutation includes a bunch of "may"s, "some"s and "largely"s. Sounds like a solid case to me.
Spacial reasoning is probably the most important skill in shooting. How could you possibly think that judging distances and positions and how to align them is not paramount to shooting?
When tracking and hitting a moving target I would think that reaction time's importance would be obvious.
That's not what you said at all. What you "ACTUALLY" said was:
And, of course, the difference between slavery and an NC is that you can choose not to sign an NC.
You were clearly saying that the fact that someone can choose not to sign this contract is somehow relevant. Which is why you kept going on about choosing to sign a contract.
A slave or an indentured servant has no choice of "employer". Their employment is at the discretion of their employer. A slave owner can choose to free a slave or give/sell them to someone else. Just because unruly slaves have the "choice" of being sent to the mines does not make them any less a slave. That an indentured servant's employer might agree to let them work for another does not make them any less an indentured servant. This is why people argue that an NC is not ethical and similar to indentured servitude.
You clearly stated that the choice to sign the contract was the most important part that made this not indentured servitude. Stop trying to back-track and deny that now.
The reason you can't choose to sign yourself into slavery is because it is a non-enforceable contract- not because it's against any definition of slavery.
You are totally free to. The courts just wouldn't (and couldn't) enforce it.
The point is everyone is supposed to clear the intersection. That extra time might be enough for you or I to cross the street three times but some people are slow or cross when they don't have time anyway.
And then another one after that. You would think knowing exactly when the light would turn yellow would help drivers not behave like this. I certainly enjoy seeing the countdown timers to help avoid that split second decision of whether or not to slam on the brakes (especially with someone trying to run the yellow behind you). If red light cameras weren't so abused they might have been a good deterrent to this behaviour.
Isn't the first rule of science to begin with "I don't know"?
Not when used as an excuse to believe in things which all evidence points to not existing. Science relies very heavily on testability, measurability and evidence. "I can't prove this is false so I better assume it is true" is the opposite of science. Science is "Assume false until evidence".
If something is not being used in any other consumer technology it is not a far stretch to consider it "advanced". Just because we have working models does not mean something is not advanced. In fact you might say if it's not in my cheap Chinese knockoff it is pretty advanced for this area. Roads have to be wildly cheap to produce.
"Wind, vehicle friction, and precipitation"? That is an extremely stupid thing to say. Put on a white shirt and go roll around on a concrete road surface and tell me how clean that wind keeps it. Cars constantly spew a lot of crap all over the road. A lot of heavy, sticky crap. The part of the road affected by "vehicle friction" will actually be more dirty. The rubber should lose in the friction war or your surface is going to get worn away pretty darn quickly.
You are not paying attention, listening, or even thinking critically.
Projecting much? You are obtusely trying to defend this moronic idea with more fervor than a fundamentalist Christian.
All the LEDs you keep listing are pointed directly at the viewer. How many times do I have to repeat this? All the LEDs you keep listing are pointed directly at the viewer. Viewing them through several centimeters of glass at a very high angle and in direct sunlight will not make them magically easier to see. You know what the most easily visible marker in direct sunlight is? Paint. It is also orders of magnitude less expensive, lasts longer, doesn't require laying down a whole new road to replace, and causes less eye-strain. Sweet.
If you don't trust the USB stick why are you plugging it into your Windows machine?
It is fine if it comes straight from the factory vacuum sealed (although still open to certain risk). If there is common module swapping between phones you get the risk of the device silently transmitting viruses from phone to phone if it simply loads its own driver on plug.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice that where I say 'arable land' I also say 'tenement buildings'.
Neither of which are fixed at any given time. You also specifically said arable land was fixed. Consistently denying that might be what earned you the "raving" label. Arable and livable land may have an upper limit on Earth but it would be pretty bold to assert that we have reached that limit.
It doesn't matter what you thought your brilliant point was if it was false on basic principals. Correcting your incorrect assertions isn't "no point but to battle".
Make bold assertion, act incredulous and attempt to play victim when called on it, stamp feet and say "done". You certainly come off as a raving leftist whether or not you want self-identify as one.
That's the entire point of filtering out the "no degree" group. If you want to suggest a better filter then go ahead but I doubt you have one that will work.
Do you really want to hire someone who stuck at a degree even though they strongly believed it was a unproductive use of their time
Absolutely. Most people view a good chunk of their jobs as "unproductive wastes of their time"- they still have to do it. Have you ever met a programmer that didn't think at least 75% of what they had to do was a waste of time?
Probably just outside of your opinion-bubble.
The article you first pointed to actually said the opposite of what you wanted.
You are repeating that statement again. It doesn't say the opposite of what I wanted- it says exactly what I wanted. There is plenty of evidence that there is a physiological difference between men and women that leads to differences in spatial skills. There is some piss-poor paper that "may" indicate that the difference isn't fully physiological. It in no way indicates that there is no physiological difference. It pretty much reinforces that there is an innate difference.
How would that help for target shooting? How would facial recognition help for either?
What the hell are you talking about? What are you trying to imply here? Why do you keep bringing up facial recognition? Facial recognition is a skill that is benefited by a higher "spatial intelligence". It has nothing to do with shooting you blithering idiot. One skill can lead to benefits in two separate things. A good sense of balance can help me ride a bicycle as well as do a cartwheel. Would you be stupid enough to say "what do cartwheels have to do with riding a bike" if I said balance was good for bicycles? You want to know what facial recognition and target shooting have to do with each other? They both happen to be positively affected by spatial skills.
It is indeed, but spatial reasoning measures very much more than that. Many of the tasks, e.g. face recognition which you persist in ignoring do not. Did you checkl the results with the irrelevant factors removed?
Again with the facial recognition!? Being good at spatial reasoning can help in lots of areas. Including but not limited to facial recognition. Facial recognition is not on topic. It it literally a strawman- it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and I've said nothing about it. I have never said nor implied that facial recognition has anything to do with shooting sports. You keep trying to bring it up as a red-herring. You would have to be an idiot to think it was relevant.
Possibly. But again, it's not my fault you started off by posting bad references
No possibly. It is fully supported. I did not post a bad reference. I posted a link to the Wikipedia article stating that there are serious differences between men and women in this area. The claim that I was supporting was "males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks" which is exactly what Wikipedia said.
You've now found a better article that actually supports your point. That's nice: quoting articles that say the opposite is not a good debating tactic.
I did not find a new article. I merely wrote that the article in question does not imply what you seem to think it implies.
No, the null hypothesis is not "men are better at it than women", because you could equally well select the opposite null hypothesis "women are better than men". So, you see there is nothing remotely null about it.
Strawman. Not what I said at all. I said that the null hypothesis of the root cause of differences between genders is physiological. You could make a null hypothesis of "women are better a shooting sports than men" but it would immediately be rejected because all evidence refutes it.
The hypothesis might be "there are differences" as you point out now, but your earlier argument was that "men are better" is the null hypothesis.
And that hypothesis is accepted because all evidence supports it. My statement was that "males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks" which I have repeated verbatim several time. I am unsure what exactly is eluding you about this. That has nothing to do with null hypotheses.
It wasn't hard. You keep surround yourself with straw men, after all. Mostly you say something deeply dubious then cla
Is that "male unless otherwise specified" or "male because 90% of bathroom signs use it to signify male"?
Unsafe lane changes cause accidents quite frequently too.
Key word being "merge". No one was talking about merging safely a legally. If you cut someone off and they hit you because they didn't have enough time to stop then it is your fault. If there is a high volume of traffic merging safely and legally while traveling 20 to 30 km/s more slowly is not really a realistic proposition.
Yes that's definitely what the parent said. Good one.
Your attempts at being condescending make you look like a complete idiot. "There's hope for me yet" because I read the research that you said disproved me? (Which of course did not.) You sure showed me... I guess?
Spatial reasoning and spatial intelligence is more than just abstract reasoning about shapes you bellend. For instance: " visualization of objects from different angles" [Wikipedia] would obviously be extremely helpful in skeet shooting where you have to track and predict a moving object in space. Judging distances and angles and how they relate to where you point a gun is also a spatial problem. Marksmanship involves a lot more than "looking at things".
Science is about making measurements not sweeping generalisations.
Great, so all the measurements show that males have an advantage in spatial tasks. Glad we've cleared that up.
Do you even understand what phsyiology and nature versus nurture even are?
Obviously I do. Let me dumb it down for you. Males have a statistical advantage in spatial tasks. Some people (like you) want to assert that this is not a physiological difference. There is very little reason to assume that this is not a physiological difference. Worded another way: There is very little reason to assume it is nurture.
YOU made the claim that women are less suited, physiologically than men.
No, that is not what I said at all. Someone asserted that there was no physiological advantage men have in shooting sports. That is not an assertable fact. Men have a distinct advantage which is most likely caused, at least partially, by physiological differences. To claim that it is not physiological just cannot be done.
[*] And you still are apparently "dumbfounded" that I cannot understand how navigation skills and facial recognition (two of the small number of tasks in the skillset known as spatial intelligence) relate to shooting. Please will you enlighten the ignorant masses including me?
Holy strawman! Is this the quality of your thought-process? That is an absurdly moronic thing to write. Spatial skills can bring benefit to different areas. Do you not understand that? Kind of like how they can benefit abstract math skills as well as sports skills. "Well what does Trigonometry have to do with throwing a ball?! Herp derp." Is that what you were trying to get across?
The problem with the "burden of proof" thing is it seems to lead random people on the internet that the first personto say something requires the burden of proof whereas the person (you) making the opposite claim doesn't need it merely by virtue of being second. That is not so.
Well that's why I explained the burden of proof and it clearly had nothing to do with the order of claims. Men and women are physiologically different. The default assumption when there is a significant difference between men and women is therefore that it has to do with physiological differences. What do you disagree with here? Do you think that your alternative assumption should get a higher precedence? If so- why? Did you have a point or were you just trying to poison the well and make another strawman?
We are debating about physiology.
Well really we were talking about whether or not men had an advantage.
Except you're the one suggesting the more complex system (there's some physiological difference...
Except physiological differences are not the "more complex system". We know for a fact that there are physiological differences. The "more complex system" would be if it wasn't physiological differences.
The only claim I've made so far is that you arguments are crap and don't hold up to even the evidence you presented yourself.
Men have an advantage in spatial tasks. There is no evidence that disproves or even suggests
I am simply dumbfounded by your continued denying of spatial abilities being directly linked to marksmanship. I honestly cannot even fathom how someone could fail to realize that. Hitting a target is a spatial problem- practically by definition.
My point was supported by the fact that it is a fact (as much of a statistical fact as can be obtained) that males have stronger spatial skills than females (statistically). The only uncertainty is around people asserting that this is nurture instead of nature. There is very little reason to say that this is not a physiological difference. There is no debate about there being a difference between the genders. Do you see how that works as a reference now?
There is irrefutable evidence that males have higher spatial skills than females. Your (or anyone else's) desire to assert that this is not a physiological difference does not put the burden of proof onto me. If there is a difference between males and females the null hypothesis is that it is a physiological difference (we are physiologically different, remember). It is up to you to prove the alternative hypothesis that this is not physiological.
It being innate and physiological is largely a red-herring anyway. The gap exists and you can debate about its cause until you are blue in the face but that doesn't erase the gap. If the gap was as easy to erase as "playing a video game for 10 hours" you would think that women that train to compete in international challenges would not lag behind the men.
You reason like a creationist, "dude". "You can't prove that life came from nothing so therefore God done it."
Addendum: I just read through the research paper that "disproves" it being physiological. A total sample size of 20. 6 men and 14 women. This can be used as a reason to perform more research but to use it as a reason to assume there is no physiological difference is pretty foolish. That the only evidence that it is not physiological you have found is a statistically insignificant research paper from 2007 is not good evidence (although I do not expect Wikipedia to be state of the art or anything).
Addendum 2: Although the women had a greater improvement overall their improved position was barely higher than the men's starting position. Which also left them well below the men's improved position. I'm not sure that paper even supports the claim it is being used to support on Wikipedia.
You are not sure what "spacial judgement" has to do with lining things up or shooting targets? Judging objects in a spacial sense has nothing to do with this? Exactly what skills do you think hitting a target requires? I'm seriously asking here.
The gender difference may be linked to other things. Whether or not it is innate is irrelevant (and in no way settled). The difference is there and is statistically significant. I am entirely unsure how someone theorizing what causes the difference refutes the difference's existence. Especially since your refutation includes a bunch of "may"s, "some"s and "largely"s. Sounds like a solid case to me.
Are you serious?
Spacial reasoning is probably the most important skill in shooting. How could you possibly think that judging distances and positions and how to align them is not paramount to shooting?
When tracking and hitting a moving target I would think that reaction time's importance would be obvious.
As to the rest: reaction time males vs female and spacial
These are both fairly well understood. I put "[Citation needed]" because the GP's statement was demonstrably false.
Male physiology is no advantage whatsoever in shooting sports.
[Citation needed]
I may be wrong but I am fairly certain males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks as well as reaction times.
That's not what you said at all. What you "ACTUALLY" said was:
And, of course, the difference between slavery and an NC is that you can choose not to sign an NC.
You were clearly saying that the fact that someone can choose not to sign this contract is somehow relevant. Which is why you kept going on about choosing to sign a contract.
A slave or an indentured servant has no choice of "employer". Their employment is at the discretion of their employer. A slave owner can choose to free a slave or give/sell them to someone else. Just because unruly slaves have the "choice" of being sent to the mines does not make them any less a slave. That an indentured servant's employer might agree to let them work for another does not make them any less an indentured servant. This is why people argue that an NC is not ethical and similar to indentured servitude.
You clearly stated that the choice to sign the contract was the most important part that made this not indentured servitude. Stop trying to back-track and deny that now.
Yes, let's censor science because somebody might get offended.
And, of course, the difference between slavery and an NC is that you can choose not to sign an NC.
And
Saying "no" to a NC is expressing your right to choose, which is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose.
Saying "no" to signing yourself into slavery is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose and therefore slave contracts should be enforceable?
The choice to sign the contract has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is (or should be) enforceable.
The reason you can't choose to sign yourself into slavery is because it is a non-enforceable contract- not because it's against any definition of slavery.
You are totally free to. The courts just wouldn't (and couldn't) enforce it.
There should be exactly no legal protection of trade secrets. It is not up to the courts to defend your business model.
The point is everyone is supposed to clear the intersection. That extra time might be enough for you or I to cross the street three times but some people are slow or cross when they don't have time anyway.
And then another one after that. You would think knowing exactly when the light would turn yellow would help drivers not behave like this. I certainly enjoy seeing the countdown timers to help avoid that split second decision of whether or not to slam on the brakes (especially with someone trying to run the yellow behind you). If red light cameras weren't so abused they might have been a good deterrent to this behaviour.
Isn't the first rule of science to begin with "I don't know"?
Not when used as an excuse to believe in things which all evidence points to not existing. Science relies very heavily on testability, measurability and evidence. "I can't prove this is false so I better assume it is true" is the opposite of science. Science is "Assume false until evidence".
If something is not being used in any other consumer technology it is not a far stretch to consider it "advanced". Just because we have working models does not mean something is not advanced. In fact you might say if it's not in my cheap Chinese knockoff it is pretty advanced for this area. Roads have to be wildly cheap to produce.
"Wind, vehicle friction, and precipitation"? That is an extremely stupid thing to say. Put on a white shirt and go roll around on a concrete road surface and tell me how clean that wind keeps it. Cars constantly spew a lot of crap all over the road. A lot of heavy, sticky crap. The part of the road affected by "vehicle friction" will actually be more dirty. The rubber should lose in the friction war or your surface is going to get worn away pretty darn quickly.
You are not paying attention, listening, or even thinking critically.
Projecting much? You are obtusely trying to defend this moronic idea with more fervor than a fundamentalist Christian.
All the LEDs you keep listing are pointed directly at the viewer. How many times do I have to repeat this? All the LEDs you keep listing are pointed directly at the viewer. Viewing them through several centimeters of glass at a very high angle and in direct sunlight will not make them magically easier to see. You know what the most easily visible marker in direct sunlight is? Paint. It is also orders of magnitude less expensive, lasts longer, doesn't require laying down a whole new road to replace, and causes less eye-strain. Sweet.
increase Flash: just get a phone with MicroSD support...
Google: funds and markets a "modular and upgradeable" phone for sustainability points; has blanket ban on storage expansion on Nexus devices.
If you don't trust the USB stick why are you plugging it into your Windows machine?
It is fine if it comes straight from the factory vacuum sealed (although still open to certain risk). If there is common module swapping between phones you get the risk of the device silently transmitting viruses from phone to phone if it simply loads its own driver on plug.