I was actually asking about a situation where a company releases a video game where none of the characters are homosexual.
Would there be as much of an outcry that the homosexual community is not being adequately represented? If not, why not? And if it's just not a big enough deal to be upset about, why are people making such a fuss over it at all?
I wasn't talking about job history, I was talking about who a person *IS*. There are some careers that just become a part of who you are, almost defining you as a person. Teaching is one of those professions, IMO... especially if one has been doing it for a long time. I'd dare say that astronaut is another.
So if that group would complain about such elements not being ever having been considered, and people who oppose gay rights complain about their inclusion, then the only conclusion is that the company can't possibly satisfy everybody.
Their options are, therefore, to either appeal to the larger group, alienating the other, or to simply not publish anything.
Although admittedly this is speculation on my part, I would suggest that there may be substantially more people who are stubbornly opposed to gay rights than there are people who would feel that gay rights were being infringed upon simply because there was no homosexual representation in a video game.
Would gay people and supporters of gay people's rights object if there simply HADN'T been any gay material in the work? I mean, it's understandable if there would be an objection if they had heard it had been specifically excluded from consideration, but what if it had simply never been an issue? How many people would have objected to the notion that homosexuals weren't explicitly included? Why?
I mean, if I do job X, oh... say, teaching, as a career and then resign to take up other interests, that doesn't mean I suddenly can't say that I'm a teacher when people ask me what I do for a living. My past careers are almost as much a part of who I am today as the one I'm in now.
Okay... maybe technically, it really should say "former austronaut", but like I said... I think that's just nitpicking at a detail that's entirely irrelevant.
If I genuinely desire my view to be unobstructed by offensive constructions that other people make, for as far as I can see, then the onus is upon myself to buy up all the land between my house and the horizon as seen from my house.
Are you under the impression that it takes more energy to create a wind turbine than the energy that you'd get out of it? I'd like to see the math for that calculation, please.
If they were moving to where they actually wanted to live, and not with intent of reselling, then what difference should the diminishing value of their property make? Actually, if property values go down, then property tax goes down with it, so they'd save money anyways.
While the principle of conservation of energy does indeed suggest that we might be altering the wind patterns with the usage of such turbines, in actuality, the sheer volume of air that is moving around in the wind is just so freaking big compared to the tiny amount that we try to harness only within a few dozen feet off the ground, that the net effect of climate and weather patterns is completely imperceptible.
... or a young and playful pet cat thinking that one's dangley bits look like cool toys and lunge for them while one is standing at the kitchen counter making one's own breakfast.
For reference, speaking from experience here, it's approximately as uncomfortable as it sounds.... and also something that one's significant other is liable to keep laughing at you over for about a week.
Sort of like how everyone panics when the electricity goes out
Exactly. It's startling and disorienting... not a cause for a complete mental shutdown in all but the cases where there are some other serious psychological issues.
If it's effective range were roughly an order of magnitude more than it is, while the recharging times not being substantially altered, they probably *COULD* put all gas models out to pasture.
While yes, humans domesticated the cat. That domestication did not consist of teaching it to hunt and kill things. That attribute is entirely natural, and was the point of my sarcastic retort. I would not, therefore, be inclined to think that cats killing birds is, in any way, human induced.
Flying involves utilizing some mechanism that imparts sufficient lift to negate acceleration due to gravity.
Negating the acceleration only to sufficient degree that the forces involved on contact with a surface are readily manageable (from a height where simply falling would result in non-manageable forces on impact) isn't flying either... it's gliding, which is what flying squirrels manage do.
Seriously, that's what I think these people need to be told.
Show me even a single technologically feasible alternative that produces absolutely *NO* waste as a mere byproduct of its normal operation, and has even the slightest chance of being able to provide just as much energy and we'll talk. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and just be happy that we're trying to give your great grandchildren a planet they can actually breathe on.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly what I was asking.
I was actually asking about a situation where a company releases a video game where none of the characters are homosexual.
Would there be as much of an outcry that the homosexual community is not being adequately represented? If not, why not? And if it's just not a big enough deal to be upset about, why are people making such a fuss over it at all?
I wasn't talking about job history, I was talking about who a person *IS*. There are some careers that just become a part of who you are, almost defining you as a person. Teaching is one of those professions, IMO... especially if one has been doing it for a long time. I'd dare say that astronaut is another.
So if that group would complain about such elements not being ever having been considered, and people who oppose gay rights complain about their inclusion, then the only conclusion is that the company can't possibly satisfy everybody.
Their options are, therefore, to either appeal to the larger group, alienating the other, or to simply not publish anything.
Although admittedly this is speculation on my part, I would suggest that there may be substantially more people who are stubbornly opposed to gay rights than there are people who would feel that gay rights were being infringed upon simply because there was no homosexual representation in a video game.
Just contemplating how I was modded, above.
They say laugh, and the world laughs with you.
But describe an incident where your cat decides to playfully maul at your private parts, and then you'll really getting 'em going.
Would gay people and supporters of gay people's rights object if there simply HADN'T been any gay material in the work? I mean, it's understandable if there would be an objection if they had heard it had been specifically excluded from consideration, but what if it had simply never been an issue? How many people would have objected to the notion that homosexuals weren't explicitly included? Why?
I mean, if I do job X, oh... say, teaching, as a career and then resign to take up other interests, that doesn't mean I suddenly can't say that I'm a teacher when people ask me what I do for a living. My past careers are almost as much a part of who I am today as the one I'm in now.
Okay... maybe technically, it really should say "former austronaut", but like I said... I think that's just nitpicking at a detail that's entirely irrelevant.
If I genuinely desire my view to be unobstructed by offensive constructions that other people make, for as far as I can see, then the onus is upon myself to buy up all the land between my house and the horizon as seen from my house.
Are you under the impression that it takes more energy to create a wind turbine than the energy that you'd get out of it? I'd like to see the math for that calculation, please.
If they were moving to where they actually wanted to live, and not with intent of reselling, then what difference should the diminishing value of their property make? Actually, if property values go down, then property tax goes down with it, so they'd save money anyways.
While the principle of conservation of energy does indeed suggest that we might be altering the wind patterns with the usage of such turbines, in actuality, the sheer volume of air that is moving around in the wind is just so freaking big compared to the tiny amount that we try to harness only within a few dozen feet off the ground, that the net effect of climate and weather patterns is completely imperceptible.
Well... free hosting for life isn't anything to sneeze at. It's subjective of course...
But half a month? Come on!
It's like leaving your waiter a tip of exactly five cents on a $50 meal. It's just insulting.
For reference, speaking from experience here, it's approximately as uncomfortable as it sounds.... and also something that one's significant other is liable to keep laughing at you over for about a week.
How about because one has a significant other who actually dislikes always having the blinds closed?
Exactly. It's startling and disorienting... not a cause for a complete mental shutdown in all but the cases where there are some other serious psychological issues.
I suppose if you think of North America as the entire civilized world, you might have a point.
If it's effective range were roughly an order of magnitude more than it is, while the recharging times not being substantially altered, they probably *COULD* put all gas models out to pasture.
While yes, humans domesticated the cat. That domestication did not consist of teaching it to hunt and kill things. That attribute is entirely natural, and was the point of my sarcastic retort. I would not, therefore, be inclined to think that cats killing birds is, in any way, human induced.
Seriously?
Take your business elsewhere, if they value your privacy and security that little.
Perhaps I should have been more specific.
Flying involves utilizing some mechanism that imparts sufficient lift to negate acceleration due to gravity.
Negating the acceleration only to sufficient degree that the forces involved on contact with a surface are readily manageable (from a height where simply falling would result in non-manageable forces on impact) isn't flying either... it's gliding, which is what flying squirrels manage do.
Cats are human introduced?
I had absolutely no idea that humanity was responsible for genetically engineering the cat and its predator instinct!
I never would have imagined that human civilization was so advanced that many thousands of years ago when they were first domesticated!
You learn something every day!
You probably shouldn't be living near any trees then either.
Seriously, that's what I think these people need to be told.
Show me even a single technologically feasible alternative that produces absolutely *NO* waste as a mere byproduct of its normal operation, and has even the slightest chance of being able to provide just as much energy and we'll talk. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and just be happy that we're trying to give your great grandchildren a planet they can actually breathe on.
No.
Not measurably, at least.
That's not flying, that's falling.
Generally speaking, flying involves invoking some mechanism which actually imparts lift.
Falling while moving laterally fast enough that one avoids hitting the ground is also not flying. It is orbiting.
So do buildings. Orders of magnitude more often, in fact.