The fight to make a imbalanced treament of women 'equal' is only sexist if you pretend the problem it solves is not sexist. It solves a problem caused by sexism and enforces equality.
If you leave the US you won't have to pay US taxes. And you wont' get all of the things that those taxes pay for.
Let me guess.. You're not the 'better one'. You're using tax-paid benefit right now and are too deluded in meritocratic fantasy to realize it.
Who pays to protect you from invasion? A ghost? Voluntarily?
Do you think your 2nd amendment joke of a weapon would ever protect you from a trained and equipped military force? Check the 100:1 KDR in indigenous populations. You can't do better. You would be on the bad side of that ratio.
Take away what you've been paying for and you'd be a crying little baby.
Reasonable means 'of fact', which is the basis of a warrant. Thus, only with facts that warrant search/siezure, would those rights be overridden.
The language is not so old that it requires interpretation. Also, it is written plainly -- there is no basis for semantics in it.
What you, and the SCOTUS judges have done, is politicized the constitution and perverted its clear language with loose interpretations. The most likely definitions of the words are quite clear and ring true to the intent of the document -- but its people like you that play this 'not necessarily' b.s. and use uncommon definitions and semantic wizardry to attempt to win at things.
One fought for equal pay for women, the other fought against it.
Did you not notice this? It impacts all of us, and attempts to maintain the second-class treatment of women, who make up 51% of our population, who gave birth to you, and are best known as 'the people who gestate people'. Women are not second class. If you only noticed subsidies and taxes, you should care a little more and see when they talked about your momma (and mine, and everyone else's).
The GOP blocked bills that would attempt to get equal pay for women.
The GOP has backed its candidates that openly exhibit patriarchical ideologies, to include attempting to discredit women who claim to have been raped through classifications.
I have a mother, a wife, and two daughters. They are *not* the same. They are both pro-Corporate, and that is where they are the 'two sides of the same coin'. You won't see Obama doing much about that.
But when it comes to some of the finer details, please actually notice and get a clue. You clearly can't tell the difference between horseshit and your own shit. Look closer.
The Scientific Method is used by lower species and long predates Homo sapiens.... it may not have been defined so discretely, but the act of observation, action, reflection, and repeatin has been going on for a very long time.
Lower animals exhibit these same behaviors and "learn".
So, what you're saying, is for those who discredit science (a method) to go full retard. I ask you this: when a person discredits the very pursuit that tied their shoes, have they not already gone full retard?
But, in their eyes, God has the answers to any question you might ask. And furthermore, they will be insulted by your persistence in 'facts' in a world of fantastic factless 'philosophy'.
While these people enjoy the products/foundations of reason and science at every moment, they will credit those products/foundations to God. That credit is irrational, and yet that irrational basis is the same basis for every other decision they make.
The point is that when you argue facts with the faithful, you are arguing with self-medicating deliberate and semi-permanent insanity. Nothing will change that, and no argument will suffice. It is only in the mind of the faithful, after long hard life experience, that few can escape the pacifying faith and have the revelation of reason -- the acknowledgement that none of those elements of faith have actually impacted reality, and the acceptance of reproducible fact as, at a minimum, a partial explanation of reality.
TLDR: You can't use reason to convince the irrational. Willingness to be rational is an individual choice, and is the crux factor in one's ability to interact in reality on a factual basis.
Mod up! I've read two dozen posts on this topic, and all are biased to explain how the poster's preference is the winner. This is the first that actually talks about reality.
As a seasned gamer, I've seen it all, and I've seen all of the types of gamers out there. What is *really* happpening is a growth of gaming overall and some small shifts in popularity within that net growth.
The people playing angry birds didn't play games before that. The COD nut probably plays angry birds while on the toilet, but still plays COD on console every night. The console gamers like the reliability, controls, and accessibility to friends---and the PC gamers brew up awesome mods and implementations of games, like competition.
And most gamers fall into more than one category.
The only gaming I would predict is losing would be board games and maybe DnD. And that's not a serious claim, rather a guess at the two physcal game formats that may have been overshadowed by digital life.
It is comical to see these articles and opinions. Its like predicting the death of carnivory because people are increasingly liking soy products. Wtf? There will always be meat eaters, and many will enjoy the vegetable and meat protein together.
I play casuals on my phone in idleness. I play ps3 games with friends in games that benefit from the controls, reliability, and general central-entertainment-device elements (netflix stream, bluray player, gaming, youtube). I play PC games for the cutting edge graphics and mouse/keyboard benefit. I play scrabble with my kids and father. I make games out of day to day life actvities.
The original article reeks of this polarizing extremist psyche that is becoming more prevalent in culture. But I argue that just because you take sides, it doesn't mean that we have to.
I came hre to say exactly the same thing. Why wasn't the obvious answer, that even a teenager could imagine in under a minute, carried out sooner??
Maybe capitalism doesn't move so fast on issues where those on the receiving and transacting sides of the problem are afloat and only the consumer gets screwed. What happened to that consumer protection agency idea??? Bad for business? No. Bad for bad business, good for good business and people.
How does "oops" play into the story of people deliberately falsifying information and representation in the public sphere?
Secondly, how is Fraud not a crime?
Thirdly, when did you decide to take arguments that have substantial validity and point, gloss over the relevance in reality that supports those points, and then use hyperbolic absolutes (leaving the facts behind) to make your argument seem valid? I only ask this because on Slashdot, people love to play the 'not absolutely' and 'not necessarily' style b.s. arguments in discussions that are inclusive of a variety of important topics, facts, and realities that cannot be cleanly and fully described in the context of time/space/effort of a slashdot post. By this, I mean in your own example, when did you think that you could sum up every single potential reason that the original point may be valid, as being 'oops'. That's absurd.
These are people who are misrepresenting the truth, often creating online profiles as people whom they actually are not, and that action is hurtful to society.
I'm a Research Associate at a highly respected lab. I am paid to work 40 hours a week. I do between 50-60 for my own development and pleasure. This is what passion does in academia.
Nobody is here for the money, and most aren't here for the prestige.
As a Freshman in 1995, I was taught that I was a faggot and a nerd for being into computers, BBS's, technology in general.... (The sentiment of my peers, permitted by my teachers. One teacher even enjoyed chiming in, but I was too strong to care or even report anyone.)
As a Senior in 1999, I was taught that everyone wished they could know as much as me about computers, and that the ability to type and print a book report was way easier and looked better, garnering higher grades with lower effort. The same people that dissed me in 1995, later, begged me for help. ---------------------
But at the time, you had to take a course in computers to specifically learn anything about them in the school setting. Obviously all my learning was from around 1989 and onward, and at home.
The way the tech is proliferated and involved in daily life, I doubt much needs to be instructed about computers in general --- maybe there should be classes on specific foci, like programming, engineering, etc?
Why wouldn't a party that opposes logic and reason want a person who does exactly that on committees that are most highly focused on the biggest logic/reason branches of human activity?
It makes sense to me. Not that I agree with it, but I see why. They want the irrational GOP voice/meme to have direct influence in the political involvement in the opposing views (called 'rational') in the sciences.
Please don't act like so many people and start drawing all kinds of loose/false inferences from a claim/argument.
She said what she said. What she said was an explanation that is plausible, and that is all she said. Absolutely *NOTHING* about that explanation suggests that her opinion is that it is ok. And maybe she does think that, but, again, absolutely nothing about that claim suggests anything about what you've decided to ask about.
In communication you should focus your attention more on the facts and arguments of those communicating, and less on what you want to know from that communication. In this, you can remain in a more clear discussion with less unnecessary explanation.
Slashdot, and the rest of the interwebz, is famous for responses that are full of assumptions and unnecessary questions. Please help reduce this. Stay on point.
I loathe slashdot responses that attempt to normalize/equate all points that are not absolutely true or false. The people that do this 'not necessarily' type of crap are usually pretty confident that they won't get a 2-hour response full of carefully considered references and data to prove the grey-area point.... why? Because after 2 hours are spent, no acknowledgement of that effort will surmise. And so you get a pass on your slashdot grey area 'not necessarily' bullshit argument.
I think you missed what the Anon Coward was poking at... I see it clearly...
What the AC was trying to say, as I said in my other reply, is that you seem to think you are perfect in your response to what I had previously said about reflection, understanding, and forgiveness. That you seemed to gloss over your youthful wrongs, or pretend they never happened, and then maintain stringent disgust for the current youthful generation.
At least that's what I'm taking from the 1% comment...
(you know.. the 1% connotation derived from OWS... it's not like the AC was trying to show statistics)
I think you missed the "...something you thought was fun..." part of my suggestion to reflect on one's past.
I highly doubt you were an angel and completely upstanding citizen as a child/teen. It is nearly impossible, and being inconsiderate is a natural product of the natural naivety of youth.
Let me guess.... now that you're 30 or 40, or whatever, you're projecting your current approach to the world into your past, and thus not reflecting at all... You were perfect back then? Just like now? *whoosh*
He was specifically talking about Harleys.... No other bikes on the road are obnoxious like those... and as far as I know, only Harley is allowed to breach exhaust level laws because it 'impedes capitalism' (based on a court ruling whereby the loud exhaust was a sales feature).
You're defending against the point you agree with.
I've come to accept the loud bass ---- when you were a teen and you enjoyed it in your own car, or your friends' car, you basically asked for it.
When I hear the loud annoying bass cars go by, I get frustrated, and then I reflect on the youth, including my youth, and I sympathize with their carelessness and then forgive.
Reflect on your own foolish crap with honesty. You'll understand that you, too, used to piss off a lot of people doing something you thought was fun. And then maybe some tolerance and understanding can help...
Slashdot Mirror
The fight to make a imbalanced treament of women 'equal' is only sexist if you pretend the problem it solves is not sexist. It solves a problem caused by sexism and enforces equality.
You are wrong.
There is mounds of research that sows that, across the board, controlling for all other factors including merit, a woman is paid significantly less.
If you don't know, now you know. You can quit sounding like an ass with this 'merit' and 'overpay' nonsense. Fixing underpayment is not overpayment.
If you leave the US you won't have to pay US taxes. And you wont' get all of the things that those taxes pay for.
Let me guess.. You're not the 'better one'. You're using tax-paid benefit right now and are too deluded in meritocratic fantasy to realize it.
Who pays to protect you from invasion? A ghost? Voluntarily?
Do you think your 2nd amendment joke of a weapon would ever protect you from a trained and equipped military force? Check the 100:1 KDR in indigenous populations. You can't do better. You would be on the bad side of that ratio.
Take away what you've been paying for and you'd be a crying little baby.
Reasonable means 'of fact', which is the basis of a warrant. Thus, only with facts that warrant search/siezure, would those rights be overridden.
The language is not so old that it requires interpretation. Also, it is written plainly -- there is no basis for semantics in it.
What you, and the SCOTUS judges have done, is politicized the constitution and perverted its clear language with loose interpretations. The most likely definitions of the words are quite clear and ring true to the intent of the document -- but its people like you that play this 'not necessarily' b.s. and use uncommon definitions and semantic wizardry to attempt to win at things.
One fought for equal pay for women, the other fought against it.
Did you not notice this? It impacts all of us, and attempts to maintain the second-class treatment of women, who make up 51% of our population, who gave birth to you, and are best known as 'the people who gestate people'. Women are not second class. If you only noticed subsidies and taxes, you should care a little more and see when they talked about your momma (and mine, and everyone else's).
I'm glad to have informed you.
The GOP blocked bills that would attempt to get equal pay for women.
The GOP has backed its candidates that openly exhibit patriarchical ideologies, to include attempting to discredit women who claim to have been raped through classifications.
I have a mother, a wife, and two daughters. They are *not* the same. They are both pro-Corporate, and that is where they are the 'two sides of the same coin'. You won't see Obama doing much about that.
But when it comes to some of the finer details, please actually notice and get a clue. You clearly can't tell the difference between horseshit and your own shit. Look closer.
Reddit has a wonderful array of articles citing Republican attacks on democracy.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/
The Scientific Method is used by lower species and long predates Homo sapiens.... it may not have been defined so discretely, but the act of observation, action, reflection, and repeatin has been going on for a very long time.
Lower animals exhibit these same behaviors and "learn".
So, what you're saying, is for those who discredit science (a method) to go full retard. I ask you this: when a person discredits the very pursuit that tied their shoes, have they not already gone full retard?
But, in their eyes, God has the answers to any question you might ask. And furthermore, they will be insulted by your persistence in 'facts' in a world of fantastic factless 'philosophy'.
While these people enjoy the products/foundations of reason and science at every moment, they will credit those products/foundations to God. That credit is irrational, and yet that irrational basis is the same basis for every other decision they make.
The point is that when you argue facts with the faithful, you are arguing with self-medicating deliberate and semi-permanent insanity. Nothing will change that, and no argument will suffice. It is only in the mind of the faithful, after long hard life experience, that few can escape the pacifying faith and have the revelation of reason -- the acknowledgement that none of those elements of faith have actually impacted reality, and the acceptance of reproducible fact as, at a minimum, a partial explanation of reality.
TLDR: You can't use reason to convince the irrational. Willingness to be rational is an individual choice, and is the crux factor in one's ability to interact in reality on a factual basis.
When an individual kills, it is murder.
When a union of people kills, its a casualty of war.
Both killers have reasons, but current cultures would hold th individual to greater wrongdoing.
Mod up! I've read two dozen posts on this topic, and all are biased to explain how the poster's preference is the winner. This is the first that actually talks about reality.
As a seasned gamer, I've seen it all, and I've seen all of the types of gamers out there. What is *really* happpening is a growth of gaming overall and some small shifts in popularity within that net growth.
The people playing angry birds didn't play games before that. The COD nut probably plays angry birds while on the toilet, but still plays COD on console every night. The console gamers like the reliability, controls, and accessibility to friends---and the PC gamers brew up awesome mods and implementations of games, like competition.
And most gamers fall into more than one category.
The only gaming I would predict is losing would be board games and maybe DnD. And that's not a serious claim, rather a guess at the two physcal game formats that may have been overshadowed by digital life.
It is comical to see these articles and opinions. Its like predicting the death of carnivory because people are increasingly liking soy products. Wtf? There will always be meat eaters, and many will enjoy the vegetable and meat protein together.
I play casuals on my phone in idleness.
I play ps3 games with friends in games that benefit from the controls, reliability, and general central-entertainment-device elements (netflix stream, bluray player, gaming, youtube).
I play PC games for the cutting edge graphics and mouse/keyboard benefit.
I play scrabble with my kids and father.
I make games out of day to day life actvities.
The original article reeks of this polarizing extremist psyche that is becoming more prevalent in culture. But I argue that just because you take sides, it doesn't mean that we have to.
We love games.
+10000000
I came hre to say exactly the same thing. Why wasn't the obvious answer, that even a teenager could imagine in under a minute, carried out sooner??
Maybe capitalism doesn't move so fast on issues where those on the receiving and transacting sides of the problem are afloat and only the consumer gets screwed. What happened to that consumer protection agency idea??? Bad for business? No. Bad for bad business, good for good business and people.
How does "oops" play into the story of people deliberately falsifying information and representation in the public sphere?
Secondly, how is Fraud not a crime?
Thirdly, when did you decide to take arguments that have substantial validity and point, gloss over the relevance in reality that supports those points, and then use hyperbolic absolutes (leaving the facts behind) to make your argument seem valid? I only ask this because on Slashdot, people love to play the 'not absolutely' and 'not necessarily' style b.s. arguments in discussions that are inclusive of a variety of important topics, facts, and realities that cannot be cleanly and fully described in the context of time/space/effort of a slashdot post. By this, I mean in your own example, when did you think that you could sum up every single potential reason that the original point may be valid, as being 'oops'. That's absurd.
Let's stay on topic.
These are people who are misrepresenting the truth, often creating online profiles as people whom they actually are not, and that action is hurtful to society.
It's not a simple case of "I don't like that."
Done here.
I'm a Research Associate at a highly respected lab. I am paid to work 40 hours a week. I do between 50-60 for my own development and pleasure. This is what passion does in academia.
Nobody is here for the money, and most aren't here for the prestige.
As a Freshman in 1995, I was taught that I was a faggot and a nerd for being into computers, BBS's, technology in general.... (The sentiment of my peers, permitted by my teachers. One teacher even enjoyed chiming in, but I was too strong to care or even report anyone.)
As a Senior in 1999, I was taught that everyone wished they could know as much as me about computers, and that the ability to type and print a book report was way easier and looked better, garnering higher grades with lower effort. The same people that dissed me in 1995, later, begged me for help.
---------------------
But at the time, you had to take a course in computers to specifically learn anything about them in the school setting. Obviously all my learning was from around 1989 and onward, and at home.
The way the tech is proliferated and involved in daily life, I doubt much needs to be instructed about computers in general --- maybe there should be classes on specific foci, like programming, engineering, etc?
I didn't say that. I was talking about the GOP. Nice try at retelling what I said backwards with your own words. F U for that.
Why wouldn't a party that opposes logic and reason want a person who does exactly that on committees that are most highly focused on the biggest logic/reason branches of human activity?
It makes sense to me. Not that I agree with it, but I see why. They want the irrational GOP voice/meme to have direct influence in the political involvement in the opposing views (called 'rational') in the sciences.
Please don't act like so many people and start drawing all kinds of loose/false inferences from a claim/argument.
She said what she said. What she said was an explanation that is plausible, and that is all she said. Absolutely *NOTHING* about that explanation suggests that her opinion is that it is ok. And maybe she does think that, but, again, absolutely nothing about that claim suggests anything about what you've decided to ask about.
In communication you should focus your attention more on the facts and arguments of those communicating, and less on what you want to know from that communication. In this, you can remain in a more clear discussion with less unnecessary explanation.
Slashdot, and the rest of the interwebz, is famous for responses that are full of assumptions and unnecessary questions. Please help reduce this. Stay on point.
"Best pasta in town" Beth barista big town
No.. "highest rated pasta". Highest raped it pasta
No.. "great italian food" great stallion fooled
Fuckit.... typing it now...
I loathe slashdot responses that attempt to normalize/equate all points that are not absolutely true or false. The people that do this 'not necessarily' type of crap are usually pretty confident that they won't get a 2-hour response full of carefully considered references and data to prove the grey-area point.... why? Because after 2 hours are spent, no acknowledgement of that effort will surmise. And so you get a pass on your slashdot grey area 'not necessarily' bullshit argument.
Bye.
I think you missed what the Anon Coward was poking at... I see it clearly...
What the AC was trying to say, as I said in my other reply, is that you seem to think you are perfect in your response to what I had previously said about reflection, understanding, and forgiveness. That you seemed to gloss over your youthful wrongs, or pretend they never happened, and then maintain stringent disgust for the current youthful generation.
At least that's what I'm taking from the 1% comment...
(you know.. the 1% connotation derived from OWS... it's not like the AC was trying to show statistics)
I think you missed the "...something you thought was fun..." part of my suggestion to reflect on one's past.
I highly doubt you were an angel and completely upstanding citizen as a child/teen. It is nearly impossible, and being inconsiderate is a natural product of the natural naivety of youth.
Let me guess.... now that you're 30 or 40, or whatever, you're projecting your current approach to the world into your past, and thus not reflecting at all... You were perfect back then? Just like now? *whoosh*
He was specifically talking about Harleys.... No other bikes on the road are obnoxious like those... and as far as I know, only Harley is allowed to breach exhaust level laws because it 'impedes capitalism' (based on a court ruling whereby the loud exhaust was a sales feature).
You're defending against the point you agree with.
I've come to accept the loud bass ---- when you were a teen and you enjoyed it in your own car, or your friends' car, you basically asked for it.
When I hear the loud annoying bass cars go by, I get frustrated, and then I reflect on the youth, including my youth, and I sympathize with their carelessness and then forgive.
Reflect on your own foolish crap with honesty. You'll understand that you, too, used to piss off a lot of people doing something you thought was fun. And then maybe some tolerance and understanding can help...