It strikes me that we aren't really arguing about the same things. My position is that history has value in lessons learned but the arguments used at the time are not applicable.
The Suffragettes argued for the right to vote. Arguing for the right to vote today would be an anachronism at best. Your parent post seemed to be arguing against Gender Discrimination using it's loss to society as an example of why Gender Discrimination was bad, a position that's accepted unquestionably in the US.
My position is that Gender Discrimination is a minor aspect in today society that is shrinking rapidly, therefor the old arguments against Gender Discrimination are marginally relevant to today's society.
Since we both hold the position that Gender Discrimination is morally wrong the key here is what we should be arguing over, which is A) What exactly is Gender Discrimination, and B) Whether or not Gender Discrimination still exists in any large way.
I believe Gender Discrimination to be any negative or POSITIVE treatment based on gender by individuals or institutions. I also believe that Gender Discrimination is marginal and shrinking fast, therefore arguments against it are marginally relevant.
I know all about Qualitative studies of the Wage Gap and Glass Ceiling that show American business to be Sexist pigs, I also know a lot about Quantitative studies of the economics, and woman's differing career goals, that show the results are not clear enough to make a call one way or the other. Females make $.75 for every $1 a male makes, but it is not proof of Gender Discrimination, only different goals and motives.
I've read the reports and I don't see the Gender Discrimination on the part of the state or society, you can call me a trained monkey but I only go by the facts as presented.
Another place where we seemed to lose touch is about violating social mores. What I should have said is 'it doesn't mean jack about systematic gender discrimination.' There is widespread discrimination against culture and things that violate the excepted social mores, this is true, but it is not Gender Discrimination, it is run of the mill Discrimination.
You seem to be of the position that gender differences in GENERAL mean systematic discrimination, Which is a position that has merit but one I do not agree with.
I believe gender and culture roles that are IMPOSED are discrimination, and that there is a lot of work to be done to end discrimination on that front. I also believe that most gender roles and their norms are a continuation of biology(nature, not nurture) and willingly taken on by individuals, not Patriarchal or cultural repression. I also believe that education is vital to overcoming "our genes" and "poo flinging" urges, but the fact that it is human behavior can not be denied. We've managed to cut back the human urge to murder anyone who looks at you cross-ways, so I think we can move forward.
That is Liberation in general not Woman's Liberation. Arguing that Florence Nightingale's discrimination because she was a woman was a detriment to society is not relevant today. The lessons learned from it that discriminating against someone because they do not follow traditional norms is a completely different argument and not one you were making.
You are talking about successors, not the parent issues now, Hard Labor for a crime is a far cry ethically from forced labor. Lessons are learned from past events, society moves on, the arguments from those past events are then marginally applicable, and are changed into something new, Thesis vs. anti-thesis creates a new synthesis, leading to new arguments about new issues. The arguments of VHS v. Beta are not applicable today even if the debate of blue ray and HDDVD were similar and drew a lot of lessons from it. Womans Lib has died down because there are not a lot of arguments to be won about equality of the sexes. There is still progress to be made but nothing like what has been made. Nightengale's patriarchal repression IS only marginally relevant seeing as she would be surgeon general in todays society.
Consider this as my challenge to your statement: Go to work for the next week in female attire appropriate to your work environment and tell me how well that works for you.
Why would I? I know what will happen and so do you, but it doesn't mean jack about systematic discrimination. The social mores that exist have more to do with Sexual Dimorphism and gender differences that even baboons exhibit. I will guarantee you they are supported just as strongly by women It is not patriarchal repression that makes dumb girls slaves to fashion, but the same force that also makes dumb men slaves to power tools and guns. You can rail against gender differences if you want, I've yet to hear a good argument though.
If the problems facing this country were government actions killing whole races then it would be relevant today, as it stands the Holocaust is marginally relevant today.
If slavery existed in this country than abolitionism would be relevant today. It is not.
The constitution is still relevant today because the issue of the rights and power of the government is still ongoing, the rights of slaves and Jews aren't. Battles fought, won, buried. womans lib is still hanging on.
I understand history very well, and I stand by my statement. Womans lib has destroyed itself through success. It has become marginalized in todays society because there really isn't any systematic discrimination left for them to strike down. I'm sure you'll disagree with that statement, but I have stopped listening to fringe groups spout about their relevance years ago, be them Marxists, La Rouch, Gold-bugs, neo-cons or feminists. If your so big on womans lib go to Afghanistan where there are still battles to be fought. In the US all thats left is marginalized gripes about textbooks, maternity leave, sexual advertising, and pushing statistically dubious arguments about wage gaps.
So, when you say "our brains" in relation to graphical representation and statistics are you talking about humanity, or are you one of those sexists who mean "mens" brains? I think theres some distinction needed.
Also saying "no offense" is kind of negated by saying "Sorry to burst your shiny little bubbles, girl". No offense, but "No offense" isn't a Get to Act Like an Ass Free Card.
Actually, all statistics books I've read that have a section on history mention her graphs, and Charles Joseph Minard's graph of Napoleons losses in Russia. Most people I've meet and discussed statistics with have heard this before, and I was taught it like the first week of class, so save me the bleeding heart rant about social injustice.
So she didn't get to a high station because she was a woman in a society thats over 100 years dead, that really sucks for her, but only marginally relevant today.
An unregulated market is rarely the answer, as shown by the deregulation in the financial sector.
Really? which financial sector? 'Cause you're obviously not talking about the US financial sector. Much of the problem we are having is that the financial market was not "deregulated" in the ICC or Airline sense (ala Carter BTW), but in the lets avert our eyes while they steal sense.
Just because bush was a terrible leader and called his brand of corporate welfare "deregulation" doesn't mean actual deregulation is bad. I expect Obama will follow the Democrat model and increase trade liberalization and deregulation. I doubt the new administration is going to step in and push hard for electric when there next election(like this one did) will likely hinge on how fiscally responsible they are.
lets see, $1 trillion spent badly - $500 million spent well = $999,500,000,000 spent badly.
I'm no libertarian but it seems to me that the $1T war and $500M car subsidy are really two sides of the same coin. You can't give a body of people who are only marginally representing you the right to throw money at whatever they feel like and expect them to buy the things you want. Seems to me it would be better if they had much more accountability to the people or didn't have the power to go to war and finance car research at all.
Yes, because thats exactly what I said, lets pack up a piece of Pittsburgh and launch it.
Have you ever seen a Straw Man? Looks like someone paid attention in rhetoric class. To bad you didn't pay attention to any classes actual dealing with long term utilization of space.
Your response actually lead me to the conclusion that you don't know much about space, or just don't care to evaluate any plans other then your favored one. There is a growing opinion that advocates that any Mars plans are pointless and that the focus should shift to cheaper space based construction if anything meaningful is to be done.
Would it be cheaper to launch solar powered fuel distillation equipment from Earth to the Moon, then create the fuel for a launch of a probe from the Moon to Mars and still have it functionally producing afterwards for use in other probes, rather then a gigantic one-off rocket to get from the Earth straight to Mars? I think so.
While the Moon lacks abundant iron ore it has plenty of the building blocks of aluminum, titanium and fiberglass(you know those "other" components in space craft). The Moon has more then enough energy crashing into its day side to cheaply smelt small quantities of ore and fiberglass. Iron would be needed only for the complicated rockets that would need to be built on earth with skilled labor anyways. Much of the structural components for large probes would be cheaper to construct with lunar materials out of fiber glass and aluminum rather then pushing through the gravity well.
Focusing on space based construction of components would increase our ability to explore the universe and actually benefit people on Earth. There are a lot of resources in space, and the biggest cost to exploration is the gravity well. Would it be complicated and expensive to produce fuel on the moon? yes, but it would be cheaper then pushing it up to space from earth.
I agree that sending humans to Mars or Alpha-Centauri would be pointless and wasteful, but doing it all with probes from Earth materials and giant rockets would be just as pointless and wasteful.
BTW, your mom told me you were a fag while I was fucking her last night, so any opinion you have is kind of negligible since someone as queer as you obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. I'm just surprised you were able to even type a response with so may dicks in your mouth.
The rest of the world is screaming past us because we are burdened with debt and financial issues caused by the government making far reaching decisions that pissed in the face of the constitution. There was a reason the founding fathers decided that there were laws about the governing of the nation even congress had to follow that would take massive consensus to change. The founding fathers probably forgot more about large nations becoming bloated and failing due to lack of oversight then you ever will.
Sure, but sending even probes through the earths gravity well is expensive. What we need is resource utilization from the moon. Mars should wait, it would be so much cheaper to build the probes needed to colonize it from lunar materials. Plus lunar materials would be more valuable in capturing a NEO.
A bunch of kids teasing him for being an "ape" could not be fun.
Not fun for him. sounds like a hell of a time for me. Throw in a six pack and some clubs and we can get this party started.
Seriously though, I doubt he will be in any situation where he will get teased in any significant way. most likely if he were intelligent he would be adopted by a family the scientists picked and raised in a very sheltered environment, remember there are people who raise actual monkeys as kids, or if they are not too different, even a group home. They really seem like humans, just lacking in frontal abstract reasoning. Maybe more creative and impulsive. They did copy perfectly more advanced tools once they saw them, so they seem to have been a less abstract modern person, built for physically coping since their bodies were able to take amazing amounts of damage. I've heard it suggested that all they really lacked was our developed speech.
Wouldn't that be like knowingly bringing someone into the world knowing that they are going to be horrendously ugly and live their life lonely?
Seeing as there are people who willingly do it with goats and dogs that doesn't seem to be a problem. The real question is would it get ethical treatment in general? How would they treat and raise the creature if it turned out to be stuck in a thirteen year old mentality? it would need parents more then a sex partner, actual parents, not people treating it like a pet.(though there are people who raise monkeys like children, so also maybe not an issue)
GOOD LORD! Worst case scenario is they are really sensitive and artistic! In todays society they'd be like super poon getting machines as they wail incredibly insightful lyrics during insanely awesome guitar rifts. We'd be doomed to be outbred.
Our only hope will be to plant a DNA strand in females that make them attracted to cocky assholes.
A man who wrote an entire book where the driving force of action was cryptography goes on to write a book with a suspiciously large amount of "made up" words.
My respect for the man would reach new levels if all the words were really an anagram for some vile limerick.
So what your saying is that if you have a Spacestation, and I have a spacestation, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the void, and starts to drink your piss coffee... I... drink... your... piss coffee!
So why didn't it go anywhere with all that thrust? Any physicists?
Well you see Jimmy, scientists have big brains, so all they had to do was have a really smart one stand on it and weigh it down. This is also why they need such big rockets, to get scientists big brains up to space.
I'm sure you've never had that problem and could reach orbit in a light breeze.
You see where the politicians choked is on economics and markets.
See when asked what a free market was the politicians kept looking for the box that said "where you get things for free from helping a business expand their market"
Or when asked why free markets secure more prosperity then government central planing they kept looking for "Because you are free to go work for a business in the market after you help it through central planing"
Or why a levee is a public good they were looking for "cause whats good for my contractor buddy with a no bid contract is good for the public"
HAHA at some jobs I worked at(construction) the union guys would show up, clock in, then go to the toilet for 20 minutes. Seriously the boot thing is dumb, you're right. If they show up they are getting paid. If the boss doesn't like them sitting around shooting the breeze while the comps start he should just be a dick and make them itemize todays priorities or some other BS busy work.
First off, the Pickens plan is marketing hype, AKA rhetoric. It has no sound basis. It is a "plan" to get the gooberment to force an inferior product on the market, just like ethanol. THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE THROUGH LAW. That is the definitional of central planing. The gooberment making the decisions on what you buy, not you. It has been shown time and time again to destroy wealth.
As for fake money, your right, the gooberment wouldn't be handing out fake money, to pay for all this they will float massive bonds to give loans to nonprofitable, lobbyist infested, cons that will have to be paid back with interest, and force you to hand your money to these people.
Calling for energy independence makes as much sense as any protectionist, gooberment money grabbing ploy. Why don't you call for steel independence? and textile independence? or microchip independence? The fact is the middle east can produce "Energy" cheaper then we can. just like the Chines can make shirts cheaper. it's a basic comparative advantage. If we pass laws saying we have to buy a more expensive "American Made" product American citizens will get poorer while people like Pickens will get richer all in the name of some abstract ideology.
The Pickens plan isn't profitable. If it were he would be doing it. It is only profitable if he can get the gooberment to let him rob from your pocket. This man is a terrible person, he showed that in the 80's when he was a corporate raider, and he showed it again in 2004 when he was a swift boater. He has no morals, he only wants to get money. Do you really believe he woke up after a bad dream and decided he wanted to help Tiny Tim?
What do you suppose would happen if we invested that money into domestic energy sources like wind and natural gas?
Uhh we stagnate and lose more jobs in the entire economy than can be produced as fuel costs sky rocket leading to high food costs and stagflation causes massive layoffs. Further off shoring explodes forcing the government to enact import tariffs to try to stem the hemorrhaging, causing foreign countries to tariff us, killing more jobs. While every other countries gets gas cheap as fuck leading the nation to be in a worse situations security wise. The US would eventually revoke the policy as heating fuel riots rock the north east, food riots the south, and California can't get to work.
You are like the perfect example of more rhetoric than fact. Get some classes in basic economics, you can't just take away a gallon of gas and give someone $100 in fake money and say problem solved.
God Damn, how many fucking times does central planning have to be proven to be completely wrong before you get it. Alternative fuels are not cost effective, imposing them by mandate will rob this country or more wealth then the middle east ever could.
$250m would buy around 8574 gallons of water to the space station. At a gallon a day, for 4 people, it would take about 5.8 years for that thing to be in the black. It's certainly worth it, but trying to ship anything through the gravity well that doesn't stay up is pointless. When are we going to send a probe to find out if there really is water on the moon?
I don't know about the selling of bootlegs being that profitable, but the ones I have seen actually have fake covers and are out by like the third day of release. The quality on some cam rips is actually pretty good. I watched a rip of Wall-E, it was great. Remember, some of those cameras can record in HD, and they don't shake if resting on something.
WOW did you just call me a market fundamentalist? do it again! do it again! WEE! I'm mister big business. Haha, good times. The term market fundamentalist is an insult used by people on the far left, much like leftist is used by the far right. Leftist BTW is what I was called the other day for defending Obamas tax cuts. I'm a complete centrist. Removing laws to pretty much steal from producers is commie, and bad for society. My speech wasn't rabid capitalist, it was based on the constitution, it wasn't a excuse to steal.
My kid would never get arrested for sharing a DVD because the law will never get that draconian. Getting a 1.5k for blatantly stealing isn't that bad. Using the horrors of what the law would be like if allowed to go too far right doesn't justify a policy move too far left.
the society itself decides what is in its interest, and selects leaders to fashion rules (legislators) and apply it (executive and judiciary) according to those common conceptions.
In the US, and most countries, we don't have direct democracies to add a level of insulation to the law. Most also have a piece of paper somewhere new laws have to be measured against to see if they fly. This is so we don't have moral majority's commonly accepted morality ruling, but the law as written, to be modified, after careful consideration.
The myth of the billion dollar industry is nothing more than an artificial barrier to entry. Sure, you need a $5k camera to get a good picture, but you do *not* need a $5m actor.
I knew you were going to bring up that crap. You might like independent movies distributed over P2P. I really liked Batman: TDK which I was forced *gasp* to pay for because of copyright, and produced because they were assured, by the law, they would be able to profit. The value and cost of movies is determined by many things like utility and supply and demand(thats econ 101 BTW, which is a "Market Fundamental") Stars get paid, and cost, a lot because they can perform very well and pack a theater. You might think it's a myth, but I guarantee you it's not, Heath Ledger was worth every cent. That $5k camera can capture the right picture, but that $5m actor is the one who can create the right feeling.
You can keep the "Imaginary property" idealism to yourself, it's utter BS given the current state of affairs. The system needs reform, not people justifying theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Today a black President, tomorrow ...
Pailin! Woo Woo! 2012 Here We Come!
It strikes me that we aren't really arguing about the same things. My position is that history has value in lessons learned but the arguments used at the time are not applicable.
The Suffragettes argued for the right to vote. Arguing for the right to vote today would be an anachronism at best. Your parent post seemed to be arguing against Gender Discrimination using it's loss to society as an example of why Gender Discrimination was bad, a position that's accepted unquestionably in the US.
My position is that Gender Discrimination is a minor aspect in today society that is shrinking rapidly, therefor the old arguments against Gender Discrimination are marginally relevant to today's society.
Since we both hold the position that Gender Discrimination is morally wrong the key here is what we should be arguing over, which is A) What exactly is Gender Discrimination, and B) Whether or not Gender Discrimination still exists in any large way.
I believe Gender Discrimination to be any negative or POSITIVE treatment based on gender by individuals or institutions. I also believe that Gender Discrimination is marginal and shrinking fast, therefore arguments against it are marginally relevant.
I know all about Qualitative studies of the Wage Gap and Glass Ceiling that show American business to be Sexist pigs, I also know a lot about Quantitative studies of the economics, and woman's differing career goals, that show the results are not clear enough to make a call one way or the other. Females make $.75 for every $1 a male makes, but it is not proof of Gender Discrimination, only different goals and motives.
I've read the reports and I don't see the Gender Discrimination on the part of the state or society, you can call me a trained monkey but I only go by the facts as presented.
Another place where we seemed to lose touch is about violating social mores. What I should have said is 'it doesn't mean jack about systematic gender discrimination.' There is widespread discrimination against culture and things that violate the excepted social mores, this is true, but it is not Gender Discrimination, it is run of the mill Discrimination.
You seem to be of the position that gender differences in GENERAL mean systematic discrimination, Which is a position that has merit but one I do not agree with.
I believe gender and culture roles that are IMPOSED are discrimination, and that there is a lot of work to be done to end discrimination on that front. I also believe that most gender roles and their norms are a continuation of biology(nature, not nurture) and willingly taken on by individuals, not Patriarchal or cultural repression. I also believe that education is vital to overcoming "our genes" and "poo flinging" urges, but the fact that it is human behavior can not be denied. We've managed to cut back the human urge to murder anyone who looks at you cross-ways, so I think we can move forward.
That is Liberation in general not Woman's Liberation. Arguing that Florence Nightingale's discrimination because she was a woman was a detriment to society is not relevant today. The lessons learned from it that discriminating against someone because they do not follow traditional norms is a completely different argument and not one you were making.
Consider this as my challenge to your statement: Go to work for the next week in female attire appropriate to your work environment and tell me how well that works for you.
Why would I? I know what will happen and so do you, but it doesn't mean jack about systematic discrimination. The social mores that exist have more to do with Sexual Dimorphism and gender differences that even baboons exhibit. I will guarantee you they are supported just as strongly by women It is not patriarchal repression that makes dumb girls slaves to fashion, but the same force that also makes dumb men slaves to power tools and guns. You can rail against gender differences if you want, I've yet to hear a good argument though.
:-p
Besides I look terrible in Heels
If the problems facing this country were government actions killing whole races then it would be relevant today, as it stands the Holocaust is marginally relevant today.
If slavery existed in this country than abolitionism would be relevant today. It is not.
The constitution is still relevant today because the issue of the rights and power of the government is still ongoing, the rights of slaves and Jews aren't. Battles fought, won, buried. womans lib is still hanging on.
I understand history very well, and I stand by my statement. Womans lib has destroyed itself through success. It has become marginalized in todays society because there really isn't any systematic discrimination left for them to strike down. I'm sure you'll disagree with that statement, but I have stopped listening to fringe groups spout about their relevance years ago, be them Marxists, La Rouch, Gold-bugs, neo-cons or feminists. If your so big on womans lib go to Afghanistan where there are still battles to be fought. In the US all thats left is marginalized gripes about textbooks, maternity leave, sexual advertising, and pushing statistically dubious arguments about wage gaps.
So, when you say "our brains" in relation to graphical representation and statistics are you talking about humanity, or are you one of those sexists who mean "mens" brains? I think theres some distinction needed.
Also saying "no offense" is kind of negated by saying "Sorry to burst your shiny little bubbles, girl". No offense, but "No offense" isn't a Get to Act Like an Ass Free Card.
Actually, all statistics books I've read that have a section on history mention her graphs, and Charles Joseph Minard's graph of Napoleons losses in Russia. Most people I've meet and discussed statistics with have heard this before, and I was taught it like the first week of class, so save me the bleeding heart rant about social injustice.
So she didn't get to a high station because she was a woman in a society thats over 100 years dead, that really sucks for her, but only marginally relevant today.
An unregulated market is rarely the answer, as shown by the deregulation in the financial sector.
Really? which financial sector? 'Cause you're obviously not talking about the US financial sector. Much of the problem we are having is that the financial market was not "deregulated" in the ICC or Airline sense (ala Carter BTW), but in the lets avert our eyes while they steal sense.
Just because bush was a terrible leader and called his brand of corporate welfare "deregulation" doesn't mean actual deregulation is bad. I expect Obama will follow the Democrat model and increase trade liberalization and deregulation. I doubt the new administration is going to step in and push hard for electric when there next election(like this one did) will likely hinge on how fiscally responsible they are.
lets see, $1 trillion spent badly - $500 million spent well = $999,500,000,000 spent badly.
I'm no libertarian but it seems to me that the $1T war and $500M car subsidy are really two sides of the same coin. You can't give a body of people who are only marginally representing you the right to throw money at whatever they feel like and expect them to buy the things you want. Seems to me it would be better if they had much more accountability to the people or didn't have the power to go to war and finance car research at all.
Yes, because thats exactly what I said, lets pack up a piece of Pittsburgh and launch it.
Have you ever seen a Straw Man? Looks like someone paid attention in rhetoric class. To bad you didn't pay attention to any classes actual dealing with long term utilization of space.
Your response actually lead me to the conclusion that you don't know much about space, or just don't care to evaluate any plans other then your favored one. There is a growing opinion that advocates that any Mars plans are pointless and that the focus should shift to cheaper space based construction if anything meaningful is to be done.
Would it be cheaper to launch solar powered fuel distillation equipment from Earth to the Moon, then create the fuel for a launch of a probe from the Moon to Mars and still have it functionally producing afterwards for use in other probes, rather then a gigantic one-off rocket to get from the Earth straight to Mars? I think so.
While the Moon lacks abundant iron ore it has plenty of the building blocks of aluminum, titanium and fiberglass(you know those "other" components in space craft). The Moon has more then enough energy crashing into its day side to cheaply smelt small quantities of ore and fiberglass. Iron would be needed only for the complicated rockets that would need to be built on earth with skilled labor anyways. Much of the structural components for large probes would be cheaper to construct with lunar materials out of fiber glass and aluminum rather then pushing through the gravity well.
Focusing on space based construction of components would increase our ability to explore the universe and actually benefit people on Earth. There are a lot of resources in space, and the biggest cost to exploration is the gravity well. Would it be complicated and expensive to produce fuel on the moon? yes, but it would be cheaper then pushing it up to space from earth.
I agree that sending humans to Mars or Alpha-Centauri would be pointless and wasteful, but doing it all with probes from Earth materials and giant rockets would be just as pointless and wasteful.
BTW, your mom told me you were a fag while I was fucking her last night, so any opinion you have is kind of negligible since someone as queer as you obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. I'm just surprised you were able to even type a response with so may dicks in your mouth.
The rest of the world is screaming past us because we are burdened with debt and financial issues caused by the government making far reaching decisions that pissed in the face of the constitution. There was a reason the founding fathers decided that there were laws about the governing of the nation even congress had to follow that would take massive consensus to change. The founding fathers probably forgot more about large nations becoming bloated and failing due to lack of oversight then you ever will.
Sure, but sending even probes through the earths gravity well is expensive. What we need is resource utilization from the moon. Mars should wait, it would be so much cheaper to build the probes needed to colonize it from lunar materials. Plus lunar materials would be more valuable in capturing a NEO.
A bunch of kids teasing him for being an "ape" could not be fun.
Not fun for him. sounds like a hell of a time for me. Throw in a six pack and some clubs and we can get this party started.
Seriously though, I doubt he will be in any situation where he will get teased in any significant way. most likely if he were intelligent he would be adopted by a family the scientists picked and raised in a very sheltered environment, remember there are people who raise actual monkeys as kids, or if they are not too different, even a group home. They really seem like humans, just lacking in frontal abstract reasoning. Maybe more creative and impulsive. They did copy perfectly more advanced tools once they saw them, so they seem to have been a less abstract modern person, built for physically coping since their bodies were able to take amazing amounts of damage. I've heard it suggested that all they really lacked was our developed speech.
Wouldn't that be like knowingly bringing someone into the world knowing that they are going to be horrendously ugly and live their life lonely?
Seeing as there are people who willingly do it with goats and dogs that doesn't seem to be a problem. The real question is would it get ethical treatment in general? How would they treat and raise the creature if it turned out to be stuck in a thirteen year old mentality? it would need parents more then a sex partner, actual parents, not people treating it like a pet.(though there are people who raise monkeys like children, so also maybe not an issue)
GOOD LORD! Worst case scenario is they are really sensitive and artistic! In todays society they'd be like super poon getting machines as they wail incredibly insightful lyrics during insanely awesome guitar rifts. We'd be doomed to be outbred.
Our only hope will be to plant a DNA strand in females that make them attracted to cocky assholes.
Oh wait....
A man who wrote an entire book where the driving force of action was cryptography goes on to write a book with a suspiciously large amount of "made up" words.
My respect for the man would reach new levels if all the words were really an anagram for some vile limerick.
So what your saying is that if you have a Spacestation, and I have a spacestation, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the void, and starts to drink your piss coffee... I... drink... your... piss coffee!
As long as the straw is less than 10 meters long.
So why didn't it go anywhere with all that thrust? Any physicists?
Well you see Jimmy, scientists have big brains, so all they had to do was have a really smart one stand on it and weigh it down. This is also why they need such big rockets, to get scientists big brains up to space.
I'm sure you've never had that problem and could reach orbit in a light breeze.
You see where the politicians choked is on economics and markets.
See when asked what a free market was the politicians kept looking for the box that said "where you get things for free from helping a business expand their market"
Or when asked why free markets secure more prosperity then government central planing they kept looking for "Because you are free to go work for a business in the market after you help it through central planing"
Or why a levee is a public good they were looking for "cause whats good for my contractor buddy with a no bid contract is good for the public"
HAHA at some jobs I worked at(construction) the union guys would show up, clock in, then go to the toilet for 20 minutes. Seriously the boot thing is dumb, you're right. If they show up they are getting paid. If the boss doesn't like them sitting around shooting the breeze while the comps start he should just be a dick and make them itemize todays priorities or some other BS busy work.
First off, the Pickens plan is marketing hype, AKA rhetoric. It has no sound basis. It is a "plan" to get the gooberment to force an inferior product on the market, just like ethanol. THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE THROUGH LAW. That is the definitional of central planing. The gooberment making the decisions on what you buy, not you. It has been shown time and time again to destroy wealth.
As for fake money, your right, the gooberment wouldn't be handing out fake money, to pay for all this they will float massive bonds to give loans to nonprofitable, lobbyist infested, cons that will have to be paid back with interest, and force you to hand your money to these people.
Calling for energy independence makes as much sense as any protectionist, gooberment money grabbing ploy. Why don't you call for steel independence? and textile independence? or microchip independence? The fact is the middle east can produce "Energy" cheaper then we can. just like the Chines can make shirts cheaper. it's a basic comparative advantage. If we pass laws saying we have to buy a more expensive "American Made" product American citizens will get poorer while people like Pickens will get richer all in the name of some abstract ideology.
The Pickens plan isn't profitable. If it were he would be doing it. It is only profitable if he can get the gooberment to let him rob from your pocket. This man is a terrible person, he showed that in the 80's when he was a corporate raider, and he showed it again in 2004 when he was a swift boater. He has no morals, he only wants to get money. Do you really believe he woke up after a bad dream and decided he wanted to help Tiny Tim?
What do you suppose would happen if we invested that money into domestic energy sources like wind and natural gas?
Uhh we stagnate and lose more jobs in the entire economy than can be produced as fuel costs sky rocket leading to high food costs and stagflation causes massive layoffs. Further off shoring explodes forcing the government to enact import tariffs to try to stem the hemorrhaging, causing foreign countries to tariff us, killing more jobs. While every other countries gets gas cheap as fuck leading the nation to be in a worse situations security wise. The US would eventually revoke the policy as heating fuel riots rock the north east, food riots the south, and California can't get to work.
You are like the perfect example of more rhetoric than fact. Get some classes in basic economics, you can't just take away a gallon of gas and give someone $100 in fake money and say problem solved.
God Damn, how many fucking times does central planning have to be proven to be completely wrong before you get it. Alternative fuels are not cost effective, imposing them by mandate will rob this country or more wealth then the middle east ever could.
$250m would buy around 8574 gallons of water to the space station. At a gallon a day, for 4 people, it would take about 5.8 years for that thing to be in the black. It's certainly worth it, but trying to ship anything through the gravity well that doesn't stay up is pointless. When are we going to send a probe to find out if there really is water on the moon?
Well I try to help every time I go to the beach ;-)
I don't know about the selling of bootlegs being that profitable, but the ones I have seen actually have fake covers and are out by like the third day of release. The quality on some cam rips is actually pretty good. I watched a rip of Wall-E, it was great. Remember, some of those cameras can record in HD, and they don't shake if resting on something.
My kid would never get arrested for sharing a DVD because the law will never get that draconian. Getting a 1.5k for blatantly stealing isn't that bad. Using the horrors of what the law would be like if allowed to go too far right doesn't justify a policy move too far left.
the society itself decides what is in its interest, and selects leaders to fashion rules (legislators) and apply it (executive and judiciary) according to those common conceptions.
In the US, and most countries, we don't have direct democracies to add a level of insulation to the law. Most also have a piece of paper somewhere new laws have to be measured against to see if they fly. This is so we don't have moral majority's commonly accepted morality ruling, but the law as written, to be modified, after careful consideration.
The myth of the billion dollar industry is nothing more than an artificial barrier to entry. Sure, you need a $5k camera to get a good picture, but you do *not* need a $5m actor.
I knew you were going to bring up that crap. You might like independent movies distributed over P2P. I really liked Batman: TDK which I was forced *gasp* to pay for because of copyright, and produced because they were assured, by the law, they would be able to profit. The value and cost of movies is determined by many things like utility and supply and demand(thats econ 101 BTW, which is a "Market Fundamental") Stars get paid, and cost, a lot because they can perform very well and pack a theater. You might think it's a myth, but I guarantee you it's not, Heath Ledger was worth every cent. That $5k camera can capture the right picture, but that $5m actor is the one who can create the right feeling.
You can keep the "Imaginary property" idealism to yourself, it's utter BS given the current state of affairs. The system needs reform, not people justifying theft.