Yes, it does imply that. Statistically, the people would willingly associate are likely to have views closer to yours. It's even more likely if you live in a state that leans heavily in one direction.
" Can providing them neutral tools to find information, if they are already able to vote? No." people base decision on facts*. Giving people accurate facts can sway a vote. I think that's fine, people should make decision based on actual facts, and change their mind when they find out that certain facts were wrong or more complex.
You don't live there, why would they give a shit about you? why would you give a shit about them? Yes, let stop consumer protection, what could go wrong?
Yes, becasue no one want to tap a market that huge.
"because over burdening regulations" Yes, telling them they have to post there privacy policy where the consumer can reasonably get to is so overburdening~
"avoid states or places where your work is not appreciated." there is no rule people need to appreciate your work, so get over it.
"Android has fragmentation and security issues which makes it a pain to develop for without dealing with platform garbage." diversity, not fragmentation, they are different things. And the Android isn't that much of an issue. No more then windows; which as many version running at any one time
A) Please get into the habit of using metric. Pretty please? we look like the scientific laughing stock. B) It's not the energy passing through a sqr meter of the sun, it's how much of that energy is there in a sqr meter on earth. Unless you are planning on flying a meter above the surface of the sun~
1KW per sqr Meter on the earth. Altitude will change that, but not nearly enough.
You want to use solar power, on a 100+ton aircraft? OK, lets look at the numbers. Surface area of the wings of a 747: 510 sq meters.
At 100% efficiency we would get 1KWh per sqr meter. So, assuming we have these magic perfect solar panels you would need to lift 100+tons with 510KWh.
Simply not enough energy. For comparison: A 747 uses over 190,000 liters of fuel to go from take off to cruising altitude. A liter of aviation fuel is 33MJ. That's 6.2 million MJ used over the time from take off to cruise.
A joule is 1 watt per second.
And no, there is no conspiracy keeping solar out of aircraft.
from sone else to redirct peopel to yuor site. I ca'n theklp but notice the argument has gine from: "Google shows the article" to "Google shows a snippet and that prevent people from going to the site." Both of which is poppy cock.
random grabbed snippet: "By Serena Gordon HealthDay Reporter. TUESDAY, Oct. 30 (HealthDay News) -- Racial disparities in breast cancer survival persist, even after factors such as education, neighborhood and socioeconomic status are accounted for, new research finds."
Why wouldn't I click through if I was interested in breast cancer research? And how would I have known about it if I didn't go to google news?
"Can someone disagree with Dawkins without being ignorant?" Depends. In the example given, no they can't. Why? because they don't understand evolution. No one is saying he is infallible, that is a strawman. stop it.
"If I claim that anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, that's a pretty big claim that I had better be able to back up." correct, and Dawkins does. Of course you are being that on your strawman, and again stop it. We are talking about evolution, his expertise. Not about everything, nor are we talking about the nuances of evolution.
"If you can show the ignorance first, it's not insulting" Which he does. I don't think calling someone who clearly doesn't know something ignorant of the topic insulting.
"give others the benefit of doubt." when the claim evolution isn't real, you have move well past that.
No it isn't. Saying some is wrong becasue they are ugly is an ad hom. Saying someone is ignorant is pointing out a fact on why their argument in invalid.
It can be, but that would be inappropriate use of the word.
Example: If Dawkins said to me "The switch hitter rule should allow for free throws" I can say he is ignorant of baseball as a matter of fact.
Now, if I was calling a 20 year veteran coach of a profession baseball team ignorant of baseball, than that is an ad hom.
It should be, but the word is so tied up into ownership of people that no, it's not ok. For now.
remember, it was used to indicate someone 'thing' until less then 80 years ago.
There are black people alive today that remember phrases like: "Is that your nigger?" "Your nigger sure works hard" After ownership fell way, it was still used in the context of an 'lessor race' So there is a lot of emotion still wrapped up in the word. In some cases it's taken too far. Frankly, the example doesn't belong in the conversation. Really its the exception. That said, ideally, yes you should be able to use that word and not be insulting. Assuming there context isn't insulting.
Yes he posted it; however it's not as bad as people are making it out to be. He is sarcastically pointing out that being asked to coffee isn't the same thing as sexual harassment. Watson point is that when being hit on in an elevator, women get a creepy vibe, and that men should be aware of it. BOTH of them are correct. Everything is is just internet shit storm nonsense. A shit storm that hit so fast, the I went to ask Rebecca's for a clarification, but in the few minute that went by, people responding had already turned it into a festering pile of violent crap.
It's larger then that. At Skeptic, and athiest conventions there have bene some serious sexual harrasment. This actually applies to other cons as well.
I"m not talking about gray area stuff, but obvious no one would disagree with sexual harasment. Watson used a throw away example os somen asking her to coffess in an elevators. Her intention was an example of how women are always in a 'defensive' position. In my opinion that was a poor example. After she said that, she was inundated with threats of rape, murder and many other spiteful and hateful things. This cause a huge blow up and made rational discussion on the specific example impossible.
really, it's a great example of people getting caught up in internet momentum. Really, the people involved should have just said 'Stop - Lets be specific in what we mean.
Dawkins reply is a sarcastic reply saying that there are more important issue regarding sexual harassment then being asked to coffee.
There where no 'aggressors'. It was just something that spiraled out of control.
"Watson now uses those comments to continue to slam atheists as misogynists " No. she uses them to point out is' an issue in the community, and it is. Just becasue it's been a year doesn't men those issues have gone away.
" and a confrontational, hipster feminist/anti-patriarchy movement " It's not hipster feminist, nor is it anti-patriarchy.
First link is about Dawkins not thinking that a man politely asking a women to coffee is rude, or threatening. I happen to agree. Sadly, it got wrapped up in a much larger issue of actual physical harassment, which he was NOT talking about. However Watson mixed the two issue and compared Someone asking you out for coffee with physical intimidation. Something I found irritating, and I am a fan of Rebecca Watson.
Dawkins is annoyed at the fact that Watson is putting being asked to Coffee with physical abuse.
Sure, he is direct and hold nothing back. You links don't show that he is a jerk, they only show you heard the word 'sexism' and repeatedly started spreading link around without context or bothering to find out what happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does imply that. Statistically, the people would willingly associate are likely to have views closer to yours. It's even more likely if you live in a state that leans heavily in one direction.
" Can providing them neutral tools to find information, if they are already able to vote? No."
people base decision on facts*. Giving people accurate facts can sway a vote. I think that's fine, people should make decision based on actual facts, and change their mind when they find out that certain facts were wrong or more complex.
*sometime people are told lies as facts.
You don't live there, why would they give a shit about you? why would you give a shit about them?
Yes, let stop consumer protection, what could go wrong?
Yes, becasue no one want to tap a market that huge.
"because over burdening regulations"
Yes, telling them they have to post there privacy policy where the consumer can reasonably get to is so overburdening~
"avoid states or places where your work is not appreciated."
there is no rule people need to appreciate your work, so get over it.
If you want to sell your product in California, then yes.
Becasue not all apps will have the same privacy policy. The compliance letter is standard fair.
Things don't evolve if you rip the underpinnings out.
This is why when using hand sanitizer, you use alcohol based ones.
Shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know that you are comparing apples to oranges?
Yes we have. That was a horrible article which can only be summed up as 'A lie'.
Vitamins don't sdo anything for you unless you are deficient. Even then, a lot of pills don't work well.
Many of the Marvel movies where great. Great writing, great story.
Only if gross assumption are made, and the technology shown in the series is ignored.
"Felicia Day as .... ..."
Summer Glau as
can we please replaces these with people who can act?
"Android has fragmentation and security issues which makes it a pain to develop for without dealing with platform garbage."
diversity, not fragmentation, they are different things.
And the Android isn't that much of an issue. No more then windows; which as many version running at any one time
A) Please get into the habit of using metric. Pretty please? we look like the scientific laughing stock.
B) It's not the energy passing through a sqr meter of the sun, it's how much of that energy is there in a sqr meter on earth. Unless you are planning on flying a meter above the surface of the sun~
1KW per sqr Meter on the earth. Altitude will change that, but not nearly enough.
You want to use solar power, on a 100+ton aircraft? OK, lets look at the numbers.
Surface area of the wings of a 747: 510 sq meters.
At 100% efficiency we would get 1KWh per sqr meter.
So, assuming we have these magic perfect solar panels you would need to lift 100+tons with 510KWh.
Simply not enough energy.
For comparison: A 747 uses over 190,000 liters of fuel to go from take off to cruising altitude.
A liter of aviation fuel is 33MJ. That's 6.2 million MJ used over the time from take off to cruise.
A joule is 1 watt per second.
And no, there is no conspiracy keeping solar out of aircraft.
from sone else to redirct peopel to yuor site.
I ca'n theklp but notice the argument has gine from:
"Google shows the article"
to
"Google shows a snippet and that prevent people from going to the site."
Both of which is poppy cock.
random grabbed snippet:
"By Serena Gordon HealthDay Reporter. TUESDAY, Oct. 30 (HealthDay News) -- Racial disparities in breast cancer survival persist, even after factors such as education, neighborhood and socioeconomic status are accounted for, new research finds."
Why wouldn't I click through if I was interested in breast cancer research? And how would I have known about it if I didn't go to google news?
"Can someone disagree with Dawkins without being ignorant?"
Depends. In the example given, no they can't. Why? because they don't understand evolution.
No one is saying he is infallible, that is a strawman. stop it.
"If I claim that anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, that's a pretty big claim that I had better be able to back up."
correct, and Dawkins does. Of course you are being that on your strawman, and again stop it. We are talking about evolution, his expertise. Not about everything, nor are we talking about the nuances of evolution.
"If you can show the ignorance first, it's not insulting"
Which he does. I don't think calling someone who clearly doesn't know something ignorant of the topic insulting.
"give others the benefit of doubt."
when the claim evolution isn't real, you have move well past that.
That he can make an accurate statement and you only rebuttle is to turn it into a pop psych statement?
No it isn't. Saying some is wrong becasue they are ugly is an ad hom. Saying someone is ignorant is pointing out a fact on why their argument in invalid.
It can be, but that would be inappropriate use of the word.
Example:
If Dawkins said to me "The switch hitter rule should allow for free throws" I can say he is ignorant of baseball as a matter of fact.
Now, if I was calling a 20 year veteran coach of a profession baseball team ignorant of baseball, than that is an ad hom.
It should be, but the word is so tied up into ownership of people that no, it's not ok. For now.
remember, it was used to indicate someone 'thing' until less then 80 years ago.
There are black people alive today that remember phrases like:
"Is that your nigger?"
"Your nigger sure works hard"
After ownership fell way, it was still used in the context of an 'lessor race'
So there is a lot of emotion still wrapped up in the word. In some cases it's taken too far. Frankly, the example doesn't belong in the conversation. Really its the exception. That said, ideally, yes you should be able to use that word and not be insulting. Assuming there context isn't insulting.
Not that you should be punished for using it.
You can't. There feeling of 'offensiveness' is there brain telling them that the same logic applies, and that conflicts with tradition.
Tradition being a word for 'Things we do and don't have to think about.' Tradition is the brains way of saving energy.
Yes he posted it; however it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.
He is sarcastically pointing out that being asked to coffee isn't the same thing as sexual harassment.
Watson point is that when being hit on in an elevator, women get a creepy vibe, and that men should be aware of it.
BOTH of them are correct. Everything is is just internet shit storm nonsense. A shit storm that hit so fast, the I went to ask Rebecca's for a clarification, but in the few minute that went by, people responding had already turned it into a festering pile of violent crap.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/
It's larger then that. At Skeptic, and athiest conventions there have bene some serious sexual harrasment. This actually applies to other cons as well.
I"m not talking about gray area stuff, but obvious no one would disagree with sexual harasment.
Watson used a throw away example os somen asking her to coffess in an elevators. Her intention was an example of how women are always in a 'defensive' position. In my opinion that was a poor example.
After she said that, she was inundated with threats of rape, murder and many other spiteful and hateful things.
This cause a huge blow up and made rational discussion on the specific example impossible.
really, it's a great example of people getting caught up in internet momentum. Really, the people involved should have just said 'Stop - Lets be specific in what we mean.
Dawkins reply is a sarcastic reply saying that there are more important issue regarding sexual harassment then being asked to coffee.
There where no 'aggressors'. It was just something that spiraled out of control.
"Watson now uses those comments to continue to slam atheists as misogynists "
No. she uses them to point out is' an issue in the community, and it is. Just becasue it's been a year doesn't men those issues have gone away.
" and a confrontational, hipster feminist/anti-patriarchy movement "
It's not hipster feminist, nor is it anti-patriarchy.
First link is about Dawkins not thinking that a man politely asking a women to coffee is rude, or threatening.
I happen to agree. Sadly, it got wrapped up in a much larger issue of actual physical harassment, which he was NOT talking about.
However Watson mixed the two issue and compared Someone asking you out for coffee with physical intimidation. Something I found irritating, and I am a fan of Rebecca Watson.
Dawkins is annoyed at the fact that Watson is putting being asked to Coffee with physical abuse.
Sure, he is direct and hold nothing back. You links don't show that he is a jerk, they only show you heard the word 'sexism' and repeatedly started spreading link around without context or bothering to find out what happened.
Shame on you.
"Judaism "
Depends