Ideally, it would track when they leave home, minute-by-minute, and when they're at home, just have one record saying "at home from X to Y." That'd save a fair bit of room, I'd think
You obviously don't know the meaning of physical castration, the effects of chemical castration, and the varieties of violent sex offences.
Physical castration is simple removal of the testicles. You can still gain and maintain an erection after such a procedure on a normal male. Rape is still possible, especially since it's less about sex, and more about power, thus a sex drive reduction is immaterial to the process.
Chemical castration prevents erections, as long as you're still taking the drugs. Miss a dose, and you're operational again fairly quickly. However, it doesn't stop sex drive at all, nor does it curb aggressive behaviour, so foreign object rape is still possible, which is usually much more damaging to the victim. Also, the chemicals required are *really* fucking expensive.
And your plan doesn't cover female sex offenders in any way, shape, or form. Please, before you spout off idiocy, make sure it's actually idiocy that stands some hope in hell of actually working, instead of just inflicting it on those of use who use our brains as more than a way to keep our ears separated.
spoken like someone who's never had to explain to someone why someone was removed from a friends list. People get pretty damned pissy at things like that, especially family, or if they think they were just kidding around, and you're taking it too seriously. So yes, removing a friend from a social network can have a detrimental effect on having them as friends in real life.
You're correct. I phrased that poorly. What I should have actually said was "religion was used as the justification for as many etc." Religion does not change the fundamental nature of a person. It merely provides another group to reinforce certain modes of behaviour, and backs itself with an unprovable system of reward and punishment. Any group could achieve similar effects, if participation is pushed early enough in life.
However, I've found religious people nearly unique in believing that religion is a requirement for moral and ethical behaviour. (Not all religions, but the ones I've had the most contact with. Christianity of many types, Judaism, and Islam, for the large part.)
I'm not familiar with the particulars of Paul, but I do know he's responsible for about 90% of the shit putting down women in Christianity. And it's not because there's not much to be found elsewhere. If the guy was alive today, he'd basically be considered that asshole who thinks all women belong in the kitchen, and if they don't listen, just smack 'em around.
I'm willing to bet it's something to do with a few large shooting matches that have occurred there over the years, and the large chunks of land that were involved in that. Something about Germany, Austria-Hungary, and such.
But even then, that's really naive of you to think that travelling with a firearm is *common.* Even in the US, less than 50% of people claim to have firearms in the house (by the latest numbers I could find), so it's even fewer that travel, and fewer of the travellers that will bring a firearm. Let's be generous, and say 12.5% of Americans travelling carry a firearm. That's 37,500,000 people travelling with a firearm. Considering there's between 2 (min) and 6 (max) million people travelling airlines all over the world every DAY (730,000,000 to 2,190,000,000 a YEAR), that's a pretty small drop in the bucket, and I'm being generous with the numbers of people carrying guns. Considering firearm ownership is drastically lower in most other countries, people carrying firearms look to make up less than 10% of travellers.
And again, this is using some really generous numbers and broad strokes. Business travellers are going to skew the numbers further away, and people transporting firearms just within their own country are going to skew it even more.
While I don't disagree with your "you shouldn't meddle" stance, you're full of shit on the "people chose their own government." Military coups happen regularly, where it's just the guy with the most guns who rules. Or the one willing to kill the most people. Elections are rigged. China had a 100% voter turn-out, and there were never any surprise victories. No one who wasn't favoured by the party ever got enough votes to even count for a margin of error.
So, no, we don't need to assume that this is what they want. What is needed is a certain standard before interference is considered. "He's not a nice person" is not sufficient. Since I'm not a socio-political major, I'm not qualified to state what the standard should be, but I'd imagine things like ethnic cleansing, wide-spread human rights abuses, or aggressive expansionist tactics involving war crimes would be good ways to start.
This is the problem with religious types. It is possible to be ethical without being religious. Recognizing certain fundamentals about treating people fairly and intelligently does not require a mandate from a higher power, nor the promise of damnation for failing to live up to that ideal. Further, religion has perpetrated as many evils, if not MORE evils in the world than anything else. Multiple Crusades, for instance, or protecting pedophiles in the name of sparing the Church a tarnished name.
So yeah, get religion the fuck out of government. If you can't be ethical without religion, you are NOT an ethical person.
You don't GROW laptops. Geez. No, obviously he mined all the metals and drilled for all the petroleum, smelted the metals, refined the oil to plastic, and hand built his system. He's very proud of it. It's the equivalent of a 386, and it only took him 24 years to make.
It's not that the journalist is making it clear that so-and-so is making the assertion, it's the complete lack of personal engagement in a piece, to the point where the article is taking a neutral stance to the detriment of the experts and researchers making the assertions. I don't know about you, but I, and most non-reporting uses I've seen, use "according to" as a means of saying "well, this really might not be true, but this one guy is saying it, totally." A reporter who is more engaged in the story, if he personally interviewed the subject, could say "So-and-so told me", and if it was second-hand, "So-and-so has found," which is much more engaging, active, and doesn't carry the self-distancing aspect of "according to."
I firmly believe that such a scathing indictment of the current state of scientific journalism deserves, no, nay, DEMANDS front-page presence!
You know, I'm not even sure if I'm joking. It's always nice to point out mainstream journalism's failings, but it's really only useful if it has a message attached. Some suggestion on how to fix the system, other wise it's simply mockery. The closest this comes to being satire is pointing out that journalists fail to take any sort of real stand in or credit for their pieces any more, and framing it as a bad thing. It'd be nice if it had some sort of analysis of where the problem lies. Is it that journalists just can't be bothered to put in some actual research on stories any more, so they just take what they're told and throw it in a standard framing device? Is it an editorial failing due to demanding stories that assist in SEO and are constrained by word count? Is it an audience failing in that people simply aren't interested in a deeper analysis, or lack the baseline knowledge required to fully grasp a story that was more indepth? Blame multiple sources? How can this be fixed? Piece doesn't say, so it's pretty much just mocking the status quo.
Sure, if you're buying your firewood, you'd have a point, in some way or another, but since the discussion was about trees on private property, being cut down by the property owner, you don't have a point.
He could plant trees on his own, but he'd have to 1. cut down the tree 2. cut up the tree 3. remove stump of tree (which can be incredibly difficult, as evidenced by traditional use of TNT to accomplish it) 4. plant new tree 5. ensure new tree survives
Considering on private property he'd probably not be cutting down more than one or two a year, especially if the trees were older, so it's a much less efficient process than a company planting hundreds of trees, would take up a lot more of his personal time, and the trees would leave less shade around his property until the trees are about 5-10 years planted.
Try and make on-topic points, rather than just randomly spouting things you heard on TV, mmkay?
What about temporary access? How much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to get someone temporarily added to your account, and then removed, later? After all, previously, all you'd really have to do is pick up a spare card, then cut it up after and inform the bank it was destroyed. Now, you need to go down to the bank along with the other person, get them scanned, and then after, get them taken off the account, and make sure they STAYED off the account.
Except after about 30 seconds of looking at it, and realizing that it doesn't play music, or anything like that, but is actually a projector means that anyone thinking it's actually an iPod variant should be manditorily euthanised.
What makes you think that any of them give a fuck? They got paid for a job, they did the job, and they've moved on. Any of them leak it, they won't get any jobs in their field, since there's a heavy element of trust in the field. Especially that someone won't do something to hurt sales, and leaking a PDF of the complete book would hurt sales. None of them are going to be "THIS INFORMATION MUST BE FREE! THE INTERNET MUST KNOW!"
Those 500 copies will be in the hands of the Author, any editors, some publishing staff, and anyone else who helped get the book to print. Getting a copy will basically be a matter of paying an absolutely stupid amount of cash to one of those people.
I fail to see your point. It's not like it's Bill Nye the Science Guy. It's guys who blow shit up. If you learn anything by accident, it's your own damn fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideally, it would track when they leave home, minute-by-minute, and when they're at home, just have one record saying "at home from X to Y." That'd save a fair bit of room, I'd think
You obviously don't know the meaning of physical castration, the effects of chemical castration, and the varieties of violent sex offences.
Physical castration is simple removal of the testicles. You can still gain and maintain an erection after such a procedure on a normal male. Rape is still possible, especially since it's less about sex, and more about power, thus a sex drive reduction is immaterial to the process.
Chemical castration prevents erections, as long as you're still taking the drugs. Miss a dose, and you're operational again fairly quickly. However, it doesn't stop sex drive at all, nor does it curb aggressive behaviour, so foreign object rape is still possible, which is usually much more damaging to the victim. Also, the chemicals required are *really* fucking expensive.
And your plan doesn't cover female sex offenders in any way, shape, or form. Please, before you spout off idiocy, make sure it's actually idiocy that stands some hope in hell of actually working, instead of just inflicting it on those of use who use our brains as more than a way to keep our ears separated.
spoken like someone who's never had to explain to someone why someone was removed from a friends list. People get pretty damned pissy at things like that, especially family, or if they think they were just kidding around, and you're taking it too seriously. So yes, removing a friend from a social network can have a detrimental effect on having them as friends in real life.
You're correct. I phrased that poorly. What I should have actually said was "religion was used as the justification for as many etc." Religion does not change the fundamental nature of a person. It merely provides another group to reinforce certain modes of behaviour, and backs itself with an unprovable system of reward and punishment. Any group could achieve similar effects, if participation is pushed early enough in life.
However, I've found religious people nearly unique in believing that religion is a requirement for moral and ethical behaviour. (Not all religions, but the ones I've had the most contact with. Christianity of many types, Judaism, and Islam, for the large part.)
Isn't the whole Ireland thing about different Christian religions blowing each other the hell up? Or did I misunderstand Catholics vs. Protestants?
Can't ban broomsticks.
Run Marty!
I'm not familiar with the particulars of Paul, but I do know he's responsible for about 90% of the shit putting down women in Christianity. And it's not because there's not much to be found elsewhere. If the guy was alive today, he'd basically be considered that asshole who thinks all women belong in the kitchen, and if they don't listen, just smack 'em around.
I'm willing to bet it's something to do with a few large shooting matches that have occurred there over the years, and the large chunks of land that were involved in that. Something about Germany, Austria-Hungary, and such.
But even then, that's really naive of you to think that travelling with a firearm is *common.* Even in the US, less than 50% of people claim to have firearms in the house (by the latest numbers I could find), so it's even fewer that travel, and fewer of the travellers that will bring a firearm. Let's be generous, and say 12.5% of Americans travelling carry a firearm. That's 37,500,000 people travelling with a firearm. Considering there's between 2 (min) and 6 (max) million people travelling airlines all over the world every DAY (730,000,000 to 2,190,000,000 a YEAR), that's a pretty small drop in the bucket, and I'm being generous with the numbers of people carrying guns. Considering firearm ownership is drastically lower in most other countries, people carrying firearms look to make up less than 10% of travellers.
And again, this is using some really generous numbers and broad strokes. Business travellers are going to skew the numbers further away, and people transporting firearms just within their own country are going to skew it even more.
Would you want your neighbor to act as a "central authority" telling you when to paint your house & mow your lawn?
Spoken like someone who's never heard of a homeowner's association.
While I don't disagree with your "you shouldn't meddle" stance, you're full of shit on the "people chose their own government." Military coups happen regularly, where it's just the guy with the most guns who rules. Or the one willing to kill the most people. Elections are rigged. China had a 100% voter turn-out, and there were never any surprise victories. No one who wasn't favoured by the party ever got enough votes to even count for a margin of error.
So, no, we don't need to assume that this is what they want. What is needed is a certain standard before interference is considered. "He's not a nice person" is not sufficient. Since I'm not a socio-political major, I'm not qualified to state what the standard should be, but I'd imagine things like ethnic cleansing, wide-spread human rights abuses, or aggressive expansionist tactics involving war crimes would be good ways to start.
This is the problem with religious types. It is possible to be ethical without being religious. Recognizing certain fundamentals about treating people fairly and intelligently does not require a mandate from a higher power, nor the promise of damnation for failing to live up to that ideal. Further, religion has perpetrated as many evils, if not MORE evils in the world than anything else. Multiple Crusades, for instance, or protecting pedophiles in the name of sparing the Church a tarnished name.
So yeah, get religion the fuck out of government. If you can't be ethical without religion, you are NOT an ethical person.
Don't think anyone actually said that it does. In fact, cheap and easy often wins out over quality. Like how your mom ever got laid.
You don't GROW laptops. Geez. No, obviously he mined all the metals and drilled for all the petroleum, smelted the metals, refined the oil to plastic, and hand built his system. He's very proud of it. It's the equivalent of a 386, and it only took him 24 years to make.
It's not that the journalist is making it clear that so-and-so is making the assertion, it's the complete lack of personal engagement in a piece, to the point where the article is taking a neutral stance to the detriment of the experts and researchers making the assertions. I don't know about you, but I, and most non-reporting uses I've seen, use "according to" as a means of saying "well, this really might not be true, but this one guy is saying it, totally." A reporter who is more engaged in the story, if he personally interviewed the subject, could say "So-and-so told me", and if it was second-hand, "So-and-so has found," which is much more engaging, active, and doesn't carry the self-distancing aspect of "according to."
I firmly believe that such a scathing indictment of the current state of scientific journalism deserves, no, nay, DEMANDS front-page presence!
You know, I'm not even sure if I'm joking. It's always nice to point out mainstream journalism's failings, but it's really only useful if it has a message attached. Some suggestion on how to fix the system, other wise it's simply mockery. The closest this comes to being satire is pointing out that journalists fail to take any sort of real stand in or credit for their pieces any more, and framing it as a bad thing. It'd be nice if it had some sort of analysis of where the problem lies. Is it that journalists just can't be bothered to put in some actual research on stories any more, so they just take what they're told and throw it in a standard framing device? Is it an editorial failing due to demanding stories that assist in SEO and are constrained by word count? Is it an audience failing in that people simply aren't interested in a deeper analysis, or lack the baseline knowledge required to fully grasp a story that was more indepth? Blame multiple sources? How can this be fixed? Piece doesn't say, so it's pretty much just mocking the status quo.
Sure, if you're buying your firewood, you'd have a point, in some way or another, but since the discussion was about trees on private property, being cut down by the property owner, you don't have a point.
He could plant trees on his own, but he'd have to
1. cut down the tree
2. cut up the tree
3. remove stump of tree (which can be incredibly difficult, as evidenced by traditional use of TNT to accomplish it)
4. plant new tree
5. ensure new tree survives
Considering on private property he'd probably not be cutting down more than one or two a year, especially if the trees were older, so it's a much less efficient process than a company planting hundreds of trees, would take up a lot more of his personal time, and the trees would leave less shade around his property until the trees are about 5-10 years planted.
Try and make on-topic points, rather than just randomly spouting things you heard on TV, mmkay?
What about temporary access? How much of a pain in the ass is it going to be to get someone temporarily added to your account, and then removed, later? After all, previously, all you'd really have to do is pick up a spare card, then cut it up after and inform the bank it was destroyed. Now, you need to go down to the bank along with the other person, get them scanned, and then after, get them taken off the account, and make sure they STAYED off the account.
No more Stallone movies for you, okay?
Except after about 30 seconds of looking at it, and realizing that it doesn't play music, or anything like that, but is actually a projector means that anyone thinking it's actually an iPod variant should be manditorily euthanised.
"Hurr hurr, I didn't make a stupid comment, I trolls u! I r smrt."
What makes you think that any of them give a fuck? They got paid for a job, they did the job, and they've moved on. Any of them leak it, they won't get any jobs in their field, since there's a heavy element of trust in the field. Especially that someone won't do something to hurt sales, and leaking a PDF of the complete book would hurt sales. None of them are going to be "THIS INFORMATION MUST BE FREE! THE INTERNET MUST KNOW!"
Those 500 copies will be in the hands of the Author, any editors, some publishing staff, and anyone else who helped get the book to print. Getting a copy will basically be a matter of paying an absolutely stupid amount of cash to one of those people.
I fail to see your point. It's not like it's Bill Nye the Science Guy. It's guys who blow shit up. If you learn anything by accident, it's your own damn fault.
Come on, it's what they do in *every* episode.
You almost say it like it's a bad thing.