Meanwhile the rich waste more time traveling abroad, attending charity balls, spending time on their boat, eating out, at the spa, and shopping.
It's like the poor are drawn to forms of entertainment that are relatively cheap.
Color me shocked!
Thanks, she's expecting in November. We're both engineers and she makes more than me. Part of that is because I limited my job hunt to a location around college to give her time to get her masters. The larger part is that SHE HAS A MASTERS. My career is more versatile than hers, so it means we followed her work after graduation. That was 7 years ago. We're both aware that, while it would be fun to stay home and play with kittens, I mean kids all day, that's not a optimal solution, and we both should get to work.
Sure, OP has a valid argument. The same way that you could say that black people are commonly poor and the statistics are there to back you up (depending on your area). Guess who is most likely to mug you in an alley? Such statements, while a valid argument for profiling, don't detract from the fact that it's racist as all fuck and is the sort of fascist bullshit that turns whole societies into twisted evil organizations that justify the creation of hate-crimes. Read the OP again. He's not suggesting to make sure the fiance wants a career, he's suggesting that any woman getting married shouldn't bother with an education.
I also suggest you reread my post, and notice the word "like" that indicates the use of a simile. It's surrounded by words, "you sound like", that help this literary construct along. Also note that you don't have to wait until the knife is protruding from your chest to suggest that maybe we should be running from the crazy man flailing the knife around. Sometimes you can see it coming. But sure, it's perfectly possible that the OP is in a loving relationship and they both mutually agree that they should have re-though the need for her education before spending the money on it. Or he's a douchebag that blames women for getting "hormonal". Both are possible situations.
Well, I could understand if some language gets more use by one party or another, but that's linguistics, not bias. If you assume everyone with a texan drawl is a dyed-in-the-wool republican and you see a lot of articles with that Texan drawl, you can't assume that those articles are biased towards republicans. Because the Texan republicans can still write with a NPOV. They can be professional and, you know, fair. Even when they speak funny.
Hey, it's possible. (plus, there's this place called Houston).
First off I have to thank you for the calm and level headed statement of your belief. It's downright refreshing after some of the abuses to logic that your peers pull out on a regular basis.
But I have to question why you believe that the old testament is such a solid base to put your faith in. It was my understanding that the dead sea scrolls showed that the hebrew bible was a collected from oral tradition and changed each generation as such traditions usually do. From some oxford scholars:
It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100
Also, the theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Evolution explains how that life changed into what it is today. So, it very much explains the origins of man, but not all life in general. But that's a common misconception and mostly me nitpicking.
Let me finish in saying that you can believe whatever you wish, as long as you don't try to push that down my throat (or teach it to my kids). Taking the "wait and see" stance is perfectly fine. I think you're going to be waiting till the day you die, but hey, as long as you're harmless in the meantime, it's no skin off my teeth.
The term is "abiogenesis", but it's not a part of the theory of evolution.
However I would say that most people that accept evolution also accept that the scientific idea of abiogenesis, ie chemicals bumping around into something that reproduces, is probably true.
No reason to assume it can't work the other direction as well.
Not the best argument. A tree can oxidize, but dumping energy into a pile of ashes won't reconstitute a tree. There's actually a number of hurdles to overcome for non-living materials to begin reproducing (which is a good a definition of life as any). Organic compounds, amino acids and such, can easily form on their own. And that's been shown, but there's the tricky issue with forming a membrane. If you can get amino acids inside of a fatty membrane, then you've got the basics of a cell and the conditions that are right for abiogenesis. But if that's not possible in a natural environment, then we're going to have to go back to the drawing board.
Nonsense, the arm-length of elves has a vast amount of literature detailing their ratio to body height.
Otherwise Elrond could have simply picked up the ring with his noodely appendage and reached over the mount Doom to slam dunk it.
Obviously there is a series of elves holding each other by the ankles.
First off, I think you're assuming the fiancé is female.
Secondly, do you advise men not to get an education when they're in similar situations?
And finally, what do you suggest the fiancé do instead?
Because honestly, you sound like my friend that's going through an ugly divorce and regularly vents his frustration at all women-kind. If you're having personal problems with the shared workload in your family, you should have a discussion with your wife. Or maybe a marriage consoler.
Advising others to be sexist pigs isn't all that helpful.
the real test will - unfortunately - come the first time someone gets killed. I'm not sure the private sector could afford a Challenger inquiry.
Would there be one?
"Here's the release statement, signed in blood. Sorry for your loss ma'am."
"Sorry about your billion dollar satellite we chucked into the ocean. Want a coupon for 10% off your next 5 space launches?"
"Yo, congressional investigators, we don't technically work for you, so kindly GTFO, we've got rockets to launch."
That's part of the package deal that comes with the private industry. Corporations screwing you over is just part of the game. Sure, NASA will be investigated for pissing away money, and they'll ask a lot of questions to these guys, but it won't be a "challenger inquiry". Their insurance company will be the ones they have to fret about, not congress.
Ultimately, that's where the money comes from, but it's farther away. That extra hop makes it less of a big deal.
we're not giving you a god damned thing without a proper warrant
Uhhhh..... they already do that. Don't they?
Don't requests for information need a warrant?
Oh... shit. No they don't. At least their FAQ doesn't say it does.
Damnit Google! If it's part of a criminal investigation they should be able to get a warrant. They should HAVE to get a warrant.
Yeah, sad but true.
Come on guys, if we don't cut out the bad apples we'll be as bad as the republicans. If we support a culture where we look after our own it'll just fester those rotten apples.
This is the sort of fear-mongering that kills curiosity and makes for a generation of sheeple. Don't we live in a first world nation without fear of the gestapo kicking in our door?
So how long before we get a driver that can turn this data into biological functions? Say, over-riding the optical and aural sensors on demand.
I want to be able to rickroll my grandchildren. DAILY.
It's nice to see an older voice of reason that hasn't been poisoned with cynicism. My old man, well, I'm not sure I'd ever call him wise per se, but he had his head on his shoulders. Now a days not senile by far, but he's argues for stupid things and . Retirement hasn't been kind to him, but maybe it's just the fact that he's slowly dying.
I think the angry young men wanting to tear it all down (and build anew) is a sign that we need to change it. Some things are certainly in a bad enough position that tearing them down is a good idea (I mean, I REALLY hate software IP), but for most situations it just needs some refinement. More regulation, less, a political force that will bang their shoe and demand things, whatever. Some sort of change. But you need some way to initiate that change. Society has inertia, they don't change unless something moves them. And angry young men causing a ruckus is one of the ways to tell people we need that change. Everyone rallying around the guy promising change is a more positive path... but getting him to keep promises is another... Shrug, he's had some dick moves, but all in all I'm happy.
Anyway, I think you post is a rational view of the world and I appreciate it.
(also, if you haven't read any Spinoza, you should check it out. For the joojoo.)
One thing I never really understood about the stock market indexes is how they account for incomming and outgoing companies. A lot of these things have been around forever, but there are mergers, splits, and sometimes companies really do go bankrupt. So if they drop old and busted people from the index, and add new companies that are rising stars, doesn't that skew the data for historical purposes?
If you invested a buck into everyone in the S&P 10 years ago, and awesome hot company was listed 9 years ago, even though it causes the S&P to go up, you don't see a dime.
And if one of those companies gets removed from the list, well it probably tanked and will continue to spiral down. You lose money even if the S&P doesn't go down.
But hey, these are highly paid professionals, maybe they have some crazy algorithm to make it seem totally legit.
Nethack was all about the joy of learning what the dev team could throw at you. If "discovering new things" like which corpses to eat gave you trouble, then maybe a deep game like nethack just isn't for you. It's not everyone's cup of tea.
Also, Nethack can teach important life lessons. Like, you're taking way too damn long on level one. The hunger requirement is a motivational force to keep you going. This isn't WoW where you can kill the same pack of wolves until you hit level cap.
That would be true in a free market.
But welcome to the real world. Market forces that are anything but rational informed agents kept the price from dropping below the initial price of $38. Three banks own 2/3rds of facebook (or was that 2/3rds of the IPO stock...).
So it says that their underwriters could swing enough money at it so that it looks like they priced the IPO perfectly.
Ehhhhh, Nethack, while a fantastic experience in it's own right, has 1 or 2 standard builds in the endgame. There are a lot of paths to get there. But once you get your ascension kit together, you're pretty golden.
There is a shmorgas board of rougelikes out there, but if you're all about crafting a finely honed killing machine, might I suggest Dungeon Crawl. It's got diversity.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile the rich waste more time traveling abroad, attending charity balls, spending time on their boat, eating out, at the spa, and shopping.
It's like the poor are drawn to forms of entertainment that are relatively cheap.
Color me shocked!
Hi Coward,
Thanks, she's expecting in November. We're both engineers and she makes more than me. Part of that is because I limited my job hunt to a location around college to give her time to get her masters. The larger part is that SHE HAS A MASTERS. My career is more versatile than hers, so it means we followed her work after graduation. That was 7 years ago. We're both aware that, while it would be fun to stay home and play with kittens, I mean kids all day, that's not a optimal solution, and we both should get to work.
Sure, OP has a valid argument. The same way that you could say that black people are commonly poor and the statistics are there to back you up (depending on your area). Guess who is most likely to mug you in an alley? Such statements, while a valid argument for profiling, don't detract from the fact that it's racist as all fuck and is the sort of fascist bullshit that turns whole societies into twisted evil organizations that justify the creation of hate-crimes. Read the OP again. He's not suggesting to make sure the fiance wants a career, he's suggesting that any woman getting married shouldn't bother with an education.
I also suggest you reread my post, and notice the word "like" that indicates the use of a simile. It's surrounded by words, "you sound like", that help this literary construct along. Also note that you don't have to wait until the knife is protruding from your chest to suggest that maybe we should be running from the crazy man flailing the knife around. Sometimes you can see it coming. But sure, it's perfectly possible that the OP is in a loving relationship and they both mutually agree that they should have re-though the need for her education before spending the money on it. Or he's a douchebag that blames women for getting "hormonal". Both are possible situations.
Burn the non-believer! The Axiom of Choice is paramount and unquestionable! Listen not to his LIES!
Well, I could understand if some language gets more use by one party or another, but that's linguistics, not bias. If you assume everyone with a texan drawl is a dyed-in-the-wool republican and you see a lot of articles with that Texan drawl, you can't assume that those articles are biased towards republicans. Because the Texan republicans can still write with a NPOV. They can be professional and, you know, fair. Even when they speak funny.
Hey, it's possible. (plus, there's this place called Houston).
But I have to question why you believe that the old testament is such a solid base to put your faith in. It was my understanding that the dead sea scrolls showed that the hebrew bible was a collected from oral tradition and changed each generation as such traditions usually do. From some oxford scholars:
It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100
Also, the theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Evolution explains how that life changed into what it is today. So, it very much explains the origins of man, but not all life in general. But that's a common misconception and mostly me nitpicking.
Let me finish in saying that you can believe whatever you wish, as long as you don't try to push that down my throat (or teach it to my kids). Taking the "wait and see" stance is perfectly fine. I think you're going to be waiting till the day you die, but hey, as long as you're harmless in the meantime, it's no skin off my teeth.
However I would say that most people that accept evolution also accept that the scientific idea of abiogenesis, ie chemicals bumping around into something that reproduces, is probably true.
No reason to assume it can't work the other direction as well.
Not the best argument. A tree can oxidize, but dumping energy into a pile of ashes won't reconstitute a tree. There's actually a number of hurdles to overcome for non-living materials to begin reproducing (which is a good a definition of life as any). Organic compounds, amino acids and such, can easily form on their own. And that's been shown, but there's the tricky issue with forming a membrane. If you can get amino acids inside of a fatty membrane, then you've got the basics of a cell and the conditions that are right for abiogenesis. But if that's not possible in a natural environment, then we're going to have to go back to the drawing board.
Nonsense, the arm-length of elves has a vast amount of literature detailing their ratio to body height.
Otherwise Elrond could have simply picked up the ring with his noodely appendage and reached over the mount Doom to slam dunk it.
Obviously there is a series of elves holding each other by the ankles.
First off, I think you're assuming the fiancé is female.
Secondly, do you advise men not to get an education when they're in similar situations?
And finally, what do you suggest the fiancé do instead?
Because honestly, you sound like my friend that's going through an ugly divorce and regularly vents his frustration at all women-kind. If you're having personal problems with the shared workload in your family, you should have a discussion with your wife. Or maybe a marriage consoler.
Advising others to be sexist pigs isn't all that helpful.
Alternatively, that he's at the top of a field of idiots.
the real test will - unfortunately - come the first time someone gets killed. I'm not sure the private sector could afford a Challenger inquiry.
Would there be one?
"Here's the release statement, signed in blood. Sorry for your loss ma'am."
"Sorry about your billion dollar satellite we chucked into the ocean. Want a coupon for 10% off your next 5 space launches?"
"Yo, congressional investigators, we don't technically work for you, so kindly GTFO, we've got rockets to launch."
That's part of the package deal that comes with the private industry. Corporations screwing you over is just part of the game. Sure, NASA will be investigated for pissing away money, and they'll ask a lot of questions to these guys, but it won't be a "challenger inquiry". Their insurance company will be the ones they have to fret about, not congress.
Ultimately, that's where the money comes from, but it's farther away. That extra hop makes it less of a big deal.
Well not anymore.
THIS!
we're not giving you a god damned thing without a proper warrant
Uhhhh..... they already do that. Don't they?
Don't requests for information need a warrant?
Oh... shit. No they don't. At least their FAQ doesn't say it does.
Damnit Google! If it's part of a criminal investigation they should be able to get a warrant. They should HAVE to get a warrant.
Yeah, sad but true.
Come on guys, if we don't cut out the bad apples we'll be as bad as the republicans. If we support a culture where we look after our own it'll just fester those rotten apples.
Dibs on the first Roque-like where you have to dive into the dungeon of google to find the amulet of LOIC and evade the fuzz on your way out.
This is the sort of fear-mongering that kills curiosity and makes for a generation of sheeple. Don't we live in a first world nation without fear of the gestapo kicking in our door?
If only the CEO of google, Eric Schmidt, had reminded us that they're bound by the law to hand over information to the authorities.
Remind me again why he was lambasted for that?
So how long before we get a driver that can turn this data into biological functions? Say, over-riding the optical and aural sensors on demand.
I want to be able to rickroll my grandchildren. DAILY.
It's nice to see an older voice of reason that hasn't been poisoned with cynicism. My old man, well, I'm not sure I'd ever call him wise per se, but he had his head on his shoulders. Now a days not senile by far, but he's argues for stupid things and . Retirement hasn't been kind to him, but maybe it's just the fact that he's slowly dying.
I think the angry young men wanting to tear it all down (and build anew) is a sign that we need to change it. Some things are certainly in a bad enough position that tearing them down is a good idea (I mean, I REALLY hate software IP), but for most situations it just needs some refinement. More regulation, less, a political force that will bang their shoe and demand things, whatever. Some sort of change. But you need some way to initiate that change. Society has inertia, they don't change unless something moves them. And angry young men causing a ruckus is one of the ways to tell people we need that change. Everyone rallying around the guy promising change is a more positive path... but getting him to keep promises is another... Shrug, he's had some dick moves, but all in all I'm happy.
Anyway, I think you post is a rational view of the world and I appreciate it.
(also, if you haven't read any Spinoza, you should check it out. For the joojoo.)
One thing I never really understood about the stock market indexes is how they account for incomming and outgoing companies. A lot of these things have been around forever, but there are mergers, splits, and sometimes companies really do go bankrupt. So if they drop old and busted people from the index, and add new companies that are rising stars, doesn't that skew the data for historical purposes?
If you invested a buck into everyone in the S&P 10 years ago, and awesome hot company was listed 9 years ago, even though it causes the S&P to go up, you don't see a dime.
And if one of those companies gets removed from the list, well it probably tanked and will continue to spiral down. You lose money even if the S&P doesn't go down.
But hey, these are highly paid professionals, maybe they have some crazy algorithm to make it seem totally legit.
Nethack was all about the joy of learning what the dev team could throw at you. If "discovering new things" like which corpses to eat gave you trouble, then maybe a deep game like nethack just isn't for you. It's not everyone's cup of tea.
Also, Nethack can teach important life lessons. Like, you're taking way too damn long on level one. The hunger requirement is a motivational force to keep you going. This isn't WoW where you can kill the same pack of wolves until you hit level cap.
That would be true in a free market.
But welcome to the real world. Market forces that are anything but rational informed agents kept the price from dropping below the initial price of $38. Three banks own 2/3rds of facebook (or was that 2/3rds of the IPO stock...).
So it says that their underwriters could swing enough money at it so that it looks like they priced the IPO perfectly.
Why do you think that stocks are likely to beat inflation?
Why do you think that we'll be facing inflation rather than deflation?
Ehhhhh, Nethack, while a fantastic experience in it's own right, has 1 or 2 standard builds in the endgame. There are a lot of paths to get there. But once you get your ascension kit together, you're pretty golden.
There is a shmorgas board of rougelikes out there, but if you're all about crafting a finely honed killing machine, might I suggest Dungeon Crawl. It's got diversity.
. . . it's a sweet feature to remove everyone from a Massivly Mutli-player Online game?