I can say rug muching, bull-dyking scissor sister. In fact, I just did. And I did put my finger in a dyke once, but I had a guy's dick in my mouth at the time, so I'm not sure if it counts.
The corporate structure of limited liability creates a climate of diffused responsibility. The emergent behavior of corporations is sociopathic, even if there are no sociopaths in positions of any power.
I'd be willing to wager that the majority of individuals responsible for BP's decisions do, in fact, feel very remorseful right now. But many of them, being actual sociopaths or at least narcissists, do not. Positions of power tend to accumulate an excess of sociopaths for some reason.
It is not a vast oversimplification because our consciousness is geared to sum up entities as if they were individuals. We can use the analogy (and legal fact) of corporations as persons and then ask, what kind of persons are they? They are sociopaths. They have no empathy or remorse, and desire nothing less than total domination of all existence. I base this analogy on observed characteristics of corporations.
Thank you for that false equivalency. Destroying a huge region of ecosystem and screwing up hundreds of thousands of lives is not the same thing as not buying reusable shopping bags, and you know it.
I never said everyone at BP was a sociopath. The problem with corporations is diffusion of responsibility. No single employee or officer has to be sociopathic in order for the emergent behavior of the corporation to be sociopathic.
BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.
Well, I am talking about distributing the fruits of production to the workers. In a really weird and unproductive way. Our tax money is going to help addicts and cops, which is redistribution of wealth to help the less fortunate. And it is about the state owning the means of production as well. If you could call the police force productive. Are jobs programs socialist? Then the drug war is socialist, because it is a jobs program for cops.
It is also an example of a nanny state. Although I tend to think of nannies as nice, supportive and nurturing. This is more of an abusive step-daddy state thing.
Fear based sales. Huh. And here I was thinking the drug war was just a work program for cops and socialism for potential addicts. I mean, seriously, what do you call it when society spends a bunch of money on a small minority to protect them from themselves? Socialism, right? The drug war is the worst kind of socialism.
I just read a Scientific American article discussing how plants selectively hold on to certain viruses that benefit them. A researcher inoculated tomato plants with mycorrhiza from plants found growing near very hot springs in Yellowstone. Viruses in the mycorrhiza infected the tomatoes, granting them the ability to grow in temperatures up to 140F. Best of all, the plants passed the beneficial viruses on to their offspring in the seed coating.
Section 1 only requires that redistribution rights be granted to people when made a part of an aggregate work from multiple sources.
This means you are not guaranteed the right to just copy the code out to anyone and everyone... without created an aggregate work.
How did this get marked as troll?
Because someone with mod points hasn't gotten laid in a while, and the user in question has the word 'girl' in his/her nick. Vengeance is mine sayeth the sexless.
Thanks, Comrade Obama! Your secret plan to turn America into a socialist paradise is proceeding well. Who would have thought that we could get the capitalists on board simply by promising them first dibs on the socialism?
It seems that whenever this 'futurist' gets a brain fart, he thinks the entire world needs to hear it. As his ideas always seem to be of the most out-there, fringe, wing-nutty type, I am left wondering, is he simply incredibly narcissistic or is he attempting to milk some venture capitalists? Either way, if I never hear another brain dead idea from this goofball, it will be too soon. There are plenty of real engineers out there toiling away in obscurity trying to come up with viable sustainable technology, Slashdot, why not do some pieces on them? Oh yes, the eternal flaw of all media: laziness. It's easier to parrot back a huckster's press release than to find the people making real innovations. Meat houses, really? Seriously, if we could grow meat in a lab, we could, oh I don't know, feed people with it or something. This is ludicrous.
Monkeedude said it already. I did not mean metaphorical. I meant, Literal. Fucking. Mountain. If you were to print out all the evidence in support of global warming, you could climb it and have a picnic on it quite easily. Not an Everest scale mountain, for sure, but easily a few thousand feet wide and high.
Slashdot Mirror
I can say rug muching, bull-dyking scissor sister. In fact, I just did. And I did put my finger in a dyke once, but I had a guy's dick in my mouth at the time, so I'm not sure if it counts.
The corporate structure of limited liability creates a climate of diffused responsibility. The emergent behavior of corporations is sociopathic, even if there are no sociopaths in positions of any power.
I'd be willing to wager that the majority of individuals responsible for BP's decisions do, in fact, feel very remorseful right now. But many of them, being actual sociopaths or at least narcissists, do not. Positions of power tend to accumulate an excess of sociopaths for some reason.
It is not a vast oversimplification because our consciousness is geared to sum up entities as if they were individuals. We can use the analogy (and legal fact) of corporations as persons and then ask, what kind of persons are they? They are sociopaths. They have no empathy or remorse, and desire nothing less than total domination of all existence. I base this analogy on observed characteristics of corporations.
Thank you for that false equivalency. Destroying a huge region of ecosystem and screwing up hundreds of thousands of lives is not the same thing as not buying reusable shopping bags, and you know it.
Externalities are the bane of a free market system.
I never said everyone at BP was a sociopath. The problem with corporations is diffusion of responsibility. No single employee or officer has to be sociopathic in order for the emergent behavior of the corporation to be sociopathic.
It involved a Dutch boy in a wet suit.
I put my finger in a dyke last night. She didn't seem to appreciate it very much.
BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.
Well, I am talking about distributing the fruits of production to the workers. In a really weird and unproductive way. Our tax money is going to help addicts and cops, which is redistribution of wealth to help the less fortunate. And it is about the state owning the means of production as well. If you could call the police force productive. Are jobs programs socialist? Then the drug war is socialist, because it is a jobs program for cops.
It is also an example of a nanny state. Although I tend to think of nannies as nice, supportive and nurturing. This is more of an abusive step-daddy state thing.
Fear based sales. Huh. And here I was thinking the drug war was just a work program for cops and socialism for potential addicts. I mean, seriously, what do you call it when society spends a bunch of money on a small minority to protect them from themselves? Socialism, right? The drug war is the worst kind of socialism.
According to SciAm, there are now tomatoes that can grow at the internal temperature of a steak done medium.
I think the virus lives in the fungus as well as the plant. It's actually a three way mutualistic relationship.
I just read a Scientific American article discussing how plants selectively hold on to certain viruses that benefit them. A researcher inoculated tomato plants with mycorrhiza from plants found growing near very hot springs in Yellowstone. Viruses in the mycorrhiza infected the tomatoes, granting them the ability to grow in temperatures up to 140F. Best of all, the plants passed the beneficial viruses on to their offspring in the seed coating.
Section 1 only requires that redistribution rights be granted to people when made a part of an aggregate work from multiple sources.
This means you are not guaranteed the right to just copy the code out to anyone and everyone... without created an aggregate work.
How did this get marked as troll?
Because someone with mod points hasn't gotten laid in a while, and the user in question has the word 'girl' in his/her nick. Vengeance is mine sayeth the sexless.
Anyway, like I was saying, shrimp are the wingnuts of the sea. There's suicidal shrimp, paranoid shrimp, depressed shrimp, manic shrimp, psychotic shrimp, neurotic shrimp, borderline personality shrimp, obsessive compulsive shrimp, narcissistic shrimp, agoraphobic shrimp, social anxiety disordered shrimp, schizophrenic shrimp, munchausen's by proxy shrimp, cyclothymic shrimp, anorexic shrimp, catatonic shrimp, tourette's shrimp, PTSD shrimp, Asperger's shrimp, that's... that's about it.
Thanks, Comrade Obama! Your secret plan to turn America into a socialist paradise is proceeding well. Who would have thought that we could get the capitalists on board simply by promising them first dibs on the socialism?
It seems that whenever this 'futurist' gets a brain fart, he thinks the entire world needs to hear it. As his ideas always seem to be of the most out-there, fringe, wing-nutty type, I am left wondering, is he simply incredibly narcissistic or is he attempting to milk some venture capitalists? Either way, if I never hear another brain dead idea from this goofball, it will be too soon. There are plenty of real engineers out there toiling away in obscurity trying to come up with viable sustainable technology, Slashdot, why not do some pieces on them? Oh yes, the eternal flaw of all media: laziness. It's easier to parrot back a huckster's press release than to find the people making real innovations. Meat houses, really? Seriously, if we could grow meat in a lab, we could, oh I don't know, feed people with it or something. This is ludicrous.
Did you remember to stick your thumb up your ass? You can't get first post unless you have your thumb up your ass. Try it, you'll see.
Wrong, it is on the scale of hundreds of millions of pages, when you count all of the figures and numerical data as well.
I knew which xkcd you were referring to, it makes fun of people who use the word literal when they mean figurative or metaphorical. I meant literal.
Calling your opponent a fucktard hardly helps make your case. In fact, reasonable undecided readers will likely write you off for using the word.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
http://www.ecosalon.com/top-10-global-warming-denier-arguments-debunked-part-2/
http://earthfirst.com/desmogblog-debunks-the-global-warming-skeptics-handbook/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200601250007
Hope this helps.
No. I said literal, and I meant literal. If you were to print out all the evidence, it would be a mountain several thousand feet high.
Monkeedude said it already. I did not mean metaphorical. I meant, Literal. Fucking. Mountain. If you were to print out all the evidence in support of global warming, you could climb it and have a picnic on it quite easily. Not an Everest scale mountain, for sure, but easily a few thousand feet wide and high.
We aren't assholes, and we have proved our claims. It is not our problem that you have not read or understood the proof.