I pass wind at least a few times a day, but I don't feel the need to share it with others.
I didn't realize you were a lady.:P You may not have noticed, but us guys love nothing more than sharing our farts with others.
Back to the carriers though. Would you be surprised to find that mostly I agree with you? I think we could make do with somewhat fewer, perhaps seven, or one for each of the seven seas. I wonder, though, whether carriers per se will become obsolete with the development of small attack drones. We could put a bunch of those in a large nuclear sub.
Really?!? Ask anyone here who has gotten into a political debate with me, I'm sure they would disagree. I'm a socialist anarchist. We're like libertarians only we support personal freedoms rather than property rights. And, while I agree with conservatives about state's rights and a smaller Fed in theory, in practice our country is not ready to get rid of the Fed.
I forgot to mention the other important factor at play, which is that traits don't exist in a vacuum. Each gene interacts with all other genes. As an example, take three potential mutations. One codes for the production of a weak neurotoxin. Animals with this gene suffer mild muscle weakness. Another trait improves production of a useful organic catalyst, a good thing. But, it also greatly increases production of the neurotoxin. If an animal gets both these traits, it is stillborn because its heart can't beat. However, the third trait codes for resistance to the neurotoxin. If an animal gets all three traits, it now possesses a potent neurotoxin to which it is immune, a very advantageous trait.
Cold blooded creatures are not 'less evolved' than mammals. Hell, look at the size of their genes. They need twenty different versions of each catalyst to work over a range of temperatures where we need only one. We have lost that complexity because we no longer need it. They can do things we can not do, and in some sense are more adaptable.
That is still not correct. Remember, there are few universally unfavorable traits. Traits get reduced in frequency according to the balance between what good they do and what harm they do, like sickle cell anemia, which also provides resistance to malaria.
Your thinking on this is too absolute, and that is not how evolution works. It isn't pass/fail. It works on small margins. Learning disabilities make it slightly less likely that a person will breed. Over time, this small margin is all that it takes to reduce the prevalence of learning disabilities in the gene pool to an appropriate level. This may be zero, but probably not, as learning disabilities may actually provide some unrecognized benefit.
As for nuclear war and the destruction of society, you are correct. We are no longer as well adapted to living in the wild as we once were. We are less independent and more social, in some sense we are like whales who can no longer live on land. Whales live in water. We live in society. That is now our natural habitat and we continue to adapt to it. That is where evolution now plays out in the human species.
Because they are investing in their own future and the future of their country, for which, one would hope, they have some patriotic feeling. Life is more than just personal profit and most people recognize this and voluntarily work for what they see as the greater good. People who don't work for the greater good should be shunned from polite society.
What we need is lack of authority, not lack of government. Anarchy, not anocracy. Small, local governance with completely voluntary association into larger polities.
I did look and it is cherry picked data that has no relevance. They picked the worst possible date for the 'before.' There was nowhere to go but up from there.
Because violent revolutions are incredibly hard to pull off right, usually they end up replicating the regime they replaced. Russia has never been kind to her people, you did NOT want to be a serf there prior to communism.
When Britain was the dominant naval power, they maintained a navy as powerful as the next two biggest navies. I'd say we could reduce our naval force down to that. So, what, maybe four aircraft carriers? No one else has more than two. They do have other uses besides combat, for instance, they are the best in a disaster what with the mobile nuclear plant, airlift and hospital capabilities, and water purification plant.
They just outlawed burqas in public. They are far more socialist than we ever were (A good thing, IMHO, but still, bad example.) Their military is, ah, not very large by any standard, for instance, they have a grand total of one carrier of some 37 kilotons. We have eleven carriers over twice that size. They may have broken ground on an international effort to build a fusion reactor, but until it produces more energy than it consumes, I would hardly call them world leaders in important technology. Sarkozy has done pretty well for a "conservative" in France (their conservatives look like our liberal fringe), but he is no world leader. Maybe if he bought some stilts...
The Democrats? They aren't whining, they are dancing in the streets now that the Teatards have primaried all the electable Republicans and replaced them with certified unelectable teabag wingnuts. Go Rand Paul! Aqua Buddha RULEZ! Republicans were set to trounce the Dems this election, now the Dems will pick up even more seats. The Republican party is tearing itself apart like a sick and crazy animal, and they are killing off all the moderates first. Awesome!
I was trying to be nice. But mostly I wanted to defuse Jawnn's right wing retarded prejudices by refocusing the thread away from "Those idiot minorities and why do they get to vote? I bet they are LIBERALS!!1!"
Of course cops are conservative. If they weren't before they joined, being a cop and seeing the worst of humanity day after day will give anyone the kind of cynical, selfish attitude that is so prevalent in the right wing.
Your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the term 'survival of the fittest' means. There is no such thing as 'fittest for all possible situations.' There is only fitness for the conditions the entity finds itself in. Conditions change, and fitness criteria change. Having flat feet is no longer the impediment it once was. Being bad at math is now more of a hindrance than it used to be. Being an anaerobic single celled organism that farts out oxygen was the height of fitness at one time, but then all this pesky oxygen started appearing, and that wasn't such a good niche anymore.
Evolution does not proceed from "less evolved" to "more evolved." Some of the most successful creatures in existence have not had to evolve in hundreds of millions of years. Having eyes seems like a more evolved trait, you wouldn't expect a creature with them to evolve into something without them, but every biological structure carries an energy cost, and if it isn't doing any good anymore, it will be lost, as with cave fish. Are cave fish 'less evolved' than sighted fish? Well, they are far better adapted at living in caves, but put them in the open ocean and their name would be 'snack.'
Evolution has no direction. It is not moving away from anything or towards anything in particular, but it is constantly moving. Survival of the fittest always applies, it just doesn't mean what you think it means.
Lefties have a tendency to believe they're being discriminated against when they're really just occasionally not taken into consideration on accident.
Wow, that sounds like most people who don't get what they want anymore...
What do you mean, anymore? Republicans have always been like that. "Oh, poor me, I'm an old white man who has slightly less privilege than I did back in the good old days." Cry me a river.
During the first two years of the revolution when workers' soviets practiced shop floor and local government participatory democracy. When people were practicing Marx's original idea rather than the bastard form of totalitarian communism that came later.
Present day examples include the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain, which is more a "third way" hybrid of socialism and capitalism. That sort of system is what I support. I believe in private ownership and reward for hard work and excellence. But only to a point, and that point is very clearly the point at which money and power begin to destroy democracy. I value a society that provides true democracy over individual gain, as that provides a better society for a larger number of people.
Capitalization is a cycle that builds on industrialization. If we, the people, had invested in it instead of the rich, we would have reaped the rewards. In fact, we could have borrowed against our own future expansion.
I'll bite. Which way do cops lean? IMHO they lean towards "more jobs for cops with better pay and less work." This only looks right wing because their interests coincide with those of the right wing when it comes to "more jobs for cops with better pay and less work." Are cops for a balanced budget? Not if it means cuts for them. Are they for states rights? Not hardly! They are for cops' rights, they don't really care if they get them from the fed or the state. Socially, they may be somewhat conservative, especially when it comes to punishing criminals (of course.) And how do cops feel about unions? Great! As long as it is their union. Your union is useful as a cop employment program, you and or the boss need protection from each other, right? Overtime, baby!
A lot of what looks like partisan politics on bothy sides is actually lazy, selfish politics and people only tend to agree with party planks that directly benefit them.
Yes, the industrial revolution was good for the middle class and poor despite, not because of, the depredations of unscrupulous industrialists. Defining cultural myths is one of the primary prerogatives of the ruling class, so of course, in their view, they were indispensable. They were not, and their actions hindered the industrial revolution rather than helped it.
No, the profit motive is not necessary to grow an economy. Karl Marx's ideas were successful for several years until proto-fascists took over the revolution. The defenders of the status quo did the same thing to communism they did to the French revolution, they fought it so violently that only the most vicious and brutal leaders could resist them, and in so doing, became them. The brutality of communism was a direct consequence of the brutality the capitalists directed against it.
Think about all the ways that economic imbalances harm people. It puts people's backs up against the wall and makes them easy prey for powerful people. Sure, they 'chose' to do what the boss said, because they wanted to eat, feed their family, survive. We limit the freedom to kill directly, but not indirectly. Force can take many forms, especially when absolute property rights are backed up by force. What choice does the landless man have?
No, I'm just suggesting we do to them what they do to us all the time, play hardball. Let's start soaking them and ratchet it up until they start to run away. If they don't like the deal society offers them, they are free to leave. So this is just business, as they are so fond of saying. They are getting a great bargain right now, I say we even things out. In any bargaining, there's the point at which one side will walk away, and there's the point where the other side will and a nice person will try to meet you in the middle. They haven't been. They have, in fact, pushed us right to the edge where if they push a little more, we will walk away. All I'm saying is, let's even it out. The rich are making out like bandits while the middle class stagnates and the poor are worse off than ever.
Slashdot Mirror
I pass wind at least a few times a day, but I don't feel the need to share it with others.
I didn't realize you were a lady. :P You may not have noticed, but us guys love nothing more than sharing our farts with others.
Back to the carriers though. Would you be surprised to find that mostly I agree with you? I think we could make do with somewhat fewer, perhaps seven, or one for each of the seven seas. I wonder, though, whether carriers per se will become obsolete with the development of small attack drones. We could put a bunch of those in a large nuclear sub.
Really?!? Ask anyone here who has gotten into a political debate with me, I'm sure they would disagree. I'm a socialist anarchist. We're like libertarians only we support personal freedoms rather than property rights. And, while I agree with conservatives about state's rights and a smaller Fed in theory, in practice our country is not ready to get rid of the Fed.
I forgot to mention the other important factor at play, which is that traits don't exist in a vacuum. Each gene interacts with all other genes. As an example, take three potential mutations. One codes for the production of a weak neurotoxin. Animals with this gene suffer mild muscle weakness. Another trait improves production of a useful organic catalyst, a good thing. But, it also greatly increases production of the neurotoxin. If an animal gets both these traits, it is stillborn because its heart can't beat. However, the third trait codes for resistance to the neurotoxin. If an animal gets all three traits, it now possesses a potent neurotoxin to which it is immune, a very advantageous trait.
Evolution is complicated.
Cold blooded creatures are not 'less evolved' than mammals. Hell, look at the size of their genes. They need twenty different versions of each catalyst to work over a range of temperatures where we need only one. We have lost that complexity because we no longer need it. They can do things we can not do, and in some sense are more adaptable.
That is still not correct. Remember, there are few universally unfavorable traits. Traits get reduced in frequency according to the balance between what good they do and what harm they do, like sickle cell anemia, which also provides resistance to malaria.
Your thinking on this is too absolute, and that is not how evolution works. It isn't pass/fail. It works on small margins. Learning disabilities make it slightly less likely that a person will breed. Over time, this small margin is all that it takes to reduce the prevalence of learning disabilities in the gene pool to an appropriate level. This may be zero, but probably not, as learning disabilities may actually provide some unrecognized benefit.
As for nuclear war and the destruction of society, you are correct. We are no longer as well adapted to living in the wild as we once were. We are less independent and more social, in some sense we are like whales who can no longer live on land. Whales live in water. We live in society. That is now our natural habitat and we continue to adapt to it. That is where evolution now plays out in the human species.
Because they are investing in their own future and the future of their country, for which, one would hope, they have some patriotic feeling. Life is more than just personal profit and most people recognize this and voluntarily work for what they see as the greater good. People who don't work for the greater good should be shunned from polite society.
What we need is lack of authority, not lack of government. Anarchy, not anocracy. Small, local governance with completely voluntary association into larger polities.
I did look and it is cherry picked data that has no relevance. They picked the worst possible date for the 'before.' There was nowhere to go but up from there.
Because violent revolutions are incredibly hard to pull off right, usually they end up replicating the regime they replaced. Russia has never been kind to her people, you did NOT want to be a serf there prior to communism.
When Britain was the dominant naval power, they maintained a navy as powerful as the next two biggest navies. I'd say we could reduce our naval force down to that. So, what, maybe four aircraft carriers? No one else has more than two. They do have other uses besides combat, for instance, they are the best in a disaster what with the mobile nuclear plant, airlift and hospital capabilities, and water purification plant.
They just outlawed burqas in public. They are far more socialist than we ever were (A good thing, IMHO, but still, bad example.) Their military is, ah, not very large by any standard, for instance, they have a grand total of one carrier of some 37 kilotons. We have eleven carriers over twice that size. They may have broken ground on an international effort to build a fusion reactor, but until it produces more energy than it consumes, I would hardly call them world leaders in important technology. Sarkozy has done pretty well for a "conservative" in France (their conservatives look like our liberal fringe), but he is no world leader. Maybe if he bought some stilts...
The Democrats? They aren't whining, they are dancing in the streets now that the Teatards have primaried all the electable Republicans and replaced them with certified unelectable teabag wingnuts. Go Rand Paul! Aqua Buddha RULEZ! Republicans were set to trounce the Dems this election, now the Dems will pick up even more seats. The Republican party is tearing itself apart like a sick and crazy animal, and they are killing off all the moderates first. Awesome!
I was trying to be nice. But mostly I wanted to defuse Jawnn's right wing retarded prejudices by refocusing the thread away from "Those idiot minorities and why do they get to vote? I bet they are LIBERALS!!1!"
Of course cops are conservative. If they weren't before they joined, being a cop and seeing the worst of humanity day after day will give anyone the kind of cynical, selfish attitude that is so prevalent in the right wing.
Your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the term 'survival of the fittest' means. There is no such thing as 'fittest for all possible situations.' There is only fitness for the conditions the entity finds itself in. Conditions change, and fitness criteria change. Having flat feet is no longer the impediment it once was. Being bad at math is now more of a hindrance than it used to be. Being an anaerobic single celled organism that farts out oxygen was the height of fitness at one time, but then all this pesky oxygen started appearing, and that wasn't such a good niche anymore.
Evolution does not proceed from "less evolved" to "more evolved." Some of the most successful creatures in existence have not had to evolve in hundreds of millions of years. Having eyes seems like a more evolved trait, you wouldn't expect a creature with them to evolve into something without them, but every biological structure carries an energy cost, and if it isn't doing any good anymore, it will be lost, as with cave fish. Are cave fish 'less evolved' than sighted fish? Well, they are far better adapted at living in caves, but put them in the open ocean and their name would be 'snack.'
Evolution has no direction. It is not moving away from anything or towards anything in particular, but it is constantly moving. Survival of the fittest always applies, it just doesn't mean what you think it means.
Lefties have a tendency to believe they're being discriminated against when they're really just occasionally not taken into consideration on accident.
Wow, that sounds like most people who don't get what they want anymore...
What do you mean, anymore? Republicans have always been like that. "Oh, poor me, I'm an old white man who has slightly less privilege than I did back in the good old days." Cry me a river.
During the first two years of the revolution when workers' soviets practiced shop floor and local government participatory democracy. When people were practicing Marx's original idea rather than the bastard form of totalitarian communism that came later.
Present day examples include the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain, which is more a "third way" hybrid of socialism and capitalism. That sort of system is what I support. I believe in private ownership and reward for hard work and excellence. But only to a point, and that point is very clearly the point at which money and power begin to destroy democracy. I value a society that provides true democracy over individual gain, as that provides a better society for a larger number of people.
You mean we cold have a 2.6% growth, if only we gave up all law and order? Yowza! Hold me back.
Capitalization is a cycle that builds on industrialization. If we, the people, had invested in it instead of the rich, we would have reaped the rewards. In fact, we could have borrowed against our own future expansion.
I'll bite. Which way do cops lean? IMHO they lean towards "more jobs for cops with better pay and less work." This only looks right wing because their interests coincide with those of the right wing when it comes to "more jobs for cops with better pay and less work." Are cops for a balanced budget? Not if it means cuts for them. Are they for states rights? Not hardly! They are for cops' rights, they don't really care if they get them from the fed or the state. Socially, they may be somewhat conservative, especially when it comes to punishing criminals (of course.) And how do cops feel about unions? Great! As long as it is their union. Your union is useful as a cop employment program, you and or the boss need protection from each other, right? Overtime, baby!
A lot of what looks like partisan politics on bothy sides is actually lazy, selfish politics and people only tend to agree with party planks that directly benefit them.
You are recommending Somalia-style warlord fueled violence and chaos? For 2.6% economic growth based on livestock and money transfers? And that's your BEST argument?
Yes, the industrial revolution was good for the middle class and poor despite, not because of, the depredations of unscrupulous industrialists. Defining cultural myths is one of the primary prerogatives of the ruling class, so of course, in their view, they were indispensable. They were not, and their actions hindered the industrial revolution rather than helped it.
No, the profit motive is not necessary to grow an economy. Karl Marx's ideas were successful for several years until proto-fascists took over the revolution. The defenders of the status quo did the same thing to communism they did to the French revolution, they fought it so violently that only the most vicious and brutal leaders could resist them, and in so doing, became them. The brutality of communism was a direct consequence of the brutality the capitalists directed against it.
Who said anything about communism, genius?
Think about all the ways that economic imbalances harm people. It puts people's backs up against the wall and makes them easy prey for powerful people. Sure, they 'chose' to do what the boss said, because they wanted to eat, feed their family, survive. We limit the freedom to kill directly, but not indirectly. Force can take many forms, especially when absolute property rights are backed up by force. What choice does the landless man have?
No, I'm just suggesting we do to them what they do to us all the time, play hardball. Let's start soaking them and ratchet it up until they start to run away. If they don't like the deal society offers them, they are free to leave. So this is just business, as they are so fond of saying. They are getting a great bargain right now, I say we even things out. In any bargaining, there's the point at which one side will walk away, and there's the point where the other side will and a nice person will try to meet you in the middle. They haven't been. They have, in fact, pushed us right to the edge where if they push a little more, we will walk away. All I'm saying is, let's even it out. The rich are making out like bandits while the middle class stagnates and the poor are worse off than ever.