I had the misfortune of my first ever experience eating a paper straw along with my iced tea at dinner last night. Talk about disgusting... all I could taste was the paper.
And you preferred eating plastic straws because they didn't taste like anything? Maybe you should just try not eating straws. They're not a garnish.
No that's not how it works, pick anyone who is for the preservation of the environment and you have answered your question.
Those people are not conservatives, they are conservationists.
You are just tossing the word conservative around like a derogatory term when all it means a person that wants to conserve something and it doesn't matter what they are conserving.
It doesn't. It means that people want to preserve their values, hell or high water.
This bastardization of the use of the word has happened so much that environmentalist have distanced themselves from the word and tend to stay away from the words conservation and conserve also.
The conservatives in the USA are still waiting for the ROW to do something about the problem before they will consent to consider doing anything themselves.
They never will, in fact, unless forced. Think CFCs and ozone hole. They waited for someone smarter to figure out how to solve the problem, and then they had to be forced to comply with the solution.
I think that the Switch is the only flagship console (such as it is) with console updates on game media.
The Nintendo Wii and the Nintendo Wii U also had firmware updates for consoles on game discs.
Those are former flagships. What we are talking about now is current consoles. Those other consoles are irrelevant now, especially when talking about the future.
Conservatives are some of the most supportive of real, sustainable conservation of the worlds ecosystems.
No, those are conservationists. Conservatives are the ones that love Jesus more than their fellow humans.
Conservatives are hunters, fishers, and wildlife enthusiasts and actively donate to, and advocate for preservation of ecosystems.
It's not about preservation of ecosystems, it's about maintenance of use. All your average hunter cares about is whether he'll have something to hunt.
What conservatives don't do is "1 step thinking" like Liberals. Liberals: People are starving: Feed them. Conservatives: People are starving: teach them how to feed themselves.
Illegal immigrants are coming over the border, build a wall.
I expect they will rename Windows 10 in a few more years to just Windows or Windows Edge or something stupid like that.
Only if they ever make it all-subscription. Otherwise they need version numbers to make people feel bad about their old Windows, because more is better.
Three-mile island had a meltdown, as a result of the operators doing the wrong thing at every opportunity and creating a worst-case failure for its design. But it was a US plant built to a reasonable (for the day) safety standards. Per Wikipedia "A variety of epidemiology studies have concluded that the accident had no observable long term health effects."
TMI seems to be pretty well cleaned up today, but it did necessitate an evacuation. A lot has improved since then, though, so I'm not sure how much value discussing it has.
Nuclear in space for power generation for Earth is very silly. There's already a whopping great fusion reactor there, no need to build another.
It depends on how close you are to the Sun. If you're no further out than, say, Mars, maybe you're right. Otherwhere, nuclear will still make sense.
Sounds like you think you understand very well, but individual rights are all you have set against sweeping bullshit to promote specific agendas.
Government is a structure in which we give up some rights in order to secure other rights. In reality, there are only those rights which are protected, and they are much like particles in quantum physics: A matter of probability, and not evenly distributed.
In order to have the ostensible basic human right to not be killed by other humans, a whole lot of other people have to curtail all kinds of rights. They have to agree to be cautious with dangerous things, for example. Collective rights always involve the surrender (voluntary or not) of individual rights.
We can argue all day about where to draw the line, and sometimes that's even a productive activity. But it won't change the fact that giving up some rights to get other rights is a cornerstone of society.
At the moment governments are indeed "100% in" removing your privacy rather than regulating for the same.
That's not strictly true, since everyone wants to limit information in some way, while wanting as much as possible for themselves. You might reasonably say it's always over 50%, though. Governments act as if they want lots of information in order to make decisions, as people inside of government want the same. They also prevent others from gaining information so as to have a competitive advantage. As such, it's advantageous for your government to prevent others from gaining information about you, if they will use it against you in ways that would affect your government.
Unfortunately, the government in the USA appears to be well and truly broken at the moment. The influence of religion on governmental activity had been our major problem for some time, but as usual the underlying ill is the influence of money. The repeal of laws which reduced money's power to alter the results of elections have had predictable results.
When you reach a certain age, you start to realize that mountains aren't climbed by leaping off a cliff and hoping you can fly; they're climbed by taking tens of thousands of little steps, each of which don't seem like they're accomplishing anything.
You can't leap off a cliff until you climb.
The difference between Icarus' wings and a hang-glider is that they both take tens of thousands of little steps, but one of them will fly, and the other one won't. They both, however, require a leap of faith.
Taking tens of thousands of little steps doesn't accomplish anything if you go around in a circle. Centrists are champions of the status quo, and the status quo is rotten.
We did it already. Then Reagan undid it. Instead of fixing the problems with these facilities, he closed them with the stroke of a pen. Yeah, it's a problem that someone's family can have them committed, but that problem still exists even though we closed the facilities. Now people just get held in ever-smaller rooms. I've got an acquaintance who got committed for being gay in the midwest, true story. Since Reagan punted instead of running the ball in, people are still being abused, but the people who really need help can't get it and just wind up on the street.
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life.
That doesn't require surgery.
You refuse you to use new pronouns like ze and hir, but ask why we don't have a genderless way to refer to people.
Because they are stupid. Hir should only refer to people who are both genders, not people of indeterminate gender, because the word itself implies both male and female. Ze sounds like someone is doing a bad French accent. Sie has the same problem as Hir.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting article about this, where he suggests "person", "per" and "pers".
That at least makes some kind of sense. Maybe I'll try those out.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter,
You are not paying everybody else's bills either: California imports many of it's necessities.
California produces almost half of the food consumed in the USA, and virtually all of the technology. (Even the automakers in the midwest now have design houses and R&D facilities in California.) We also produce most of the media. The USA needs us more than we need it. We only need so much water, for example, to feed the rest of you.
Just to be clear, this is just cleaning up [part of] the mess that was lying around before the disaster. This is making absolutely zero progress on the actual cleanup, it's just cleaning up things that should have been cleaned up long ago.
Spent fuel rods lying around in pools is proof positive that nuclear is bullshit.
the standard for nuclear is perfection from the public's viewpoint. It shouldn't be, that's a dangerous and spurious standard
Nuclear's drawbacks are severe enough that the standard should be perfection. There should be failsafes for the failsafes for the failsafes, and no problem should ever actually result in a meltdown condition. If you can't guarantee zero meltdowns, then you simply shouldn't do nuclear, period.
Nuclear is fine in space. There are radioactives in some asteroids, so we don't even have to launch them if we actually get space-based industry going — which we could have done by now if we had kept spending money on space instead of on a cold war that we could have won for much less money than we actually spent, given that the Russians were building cardboard tanks to make it look like they had a viable force. Here on Earth, it's fucking stupid, just like civilian support of the cold war that sapped the money from space development and handed it to defense contractors.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
Let me say up front that I just go ahead and use people's chosen pronouns so long as they are male, female, or neither, because it costs me nothing. (I don't use the made-up ones, like sie or hir, though, because I'd actually have to think about that, and then it makes me think about the whole ridiculous situation. I use its.) But it's perfectly logical not to see someone who has had gender conversion surgery as actually being that other gender. They aren't, necessarily. They've just had their bits swapped. The only [hypothetical] time in which I'm inclined on a scientific basis to call someone by the pronouns of the gender they've swapped to is when their sex was indeterminate at birth, they were assigned a gender, and they actually turned out to have more of the characteristics of the other gender.
The whole argument is just sad anyway. Not stupid, but sad. It's sad because who gives a flying fuck? If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is? Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups. The language assumes that we will always know the gender of the addressed object, which is plainly false, and also gender-biased.
The only times it matters what someone's gender is: when police are trying to ID someone, when you're trying to fuck someone, or when someone is trying to qualify for gender-specific sports. In the first case, there are only four legitimate genders: male, female, both, and none. In the second case, it doesn't matter what they have as long as you like it, and if you're having sex for procreative purposes, if your parts + their parts = baby. In the latter sense, it's up to the regulators. Gender-specific sports leagues should write a gender definition. And they should have the right to apply their definition so long as they're not getting any public funding. What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender.
Yes, that's why we need non-plural, non-gendered forms of address. So we can stop referring to people by their apparent gender. It would solve a number of conversational problems which existed before gender reassignment surgery.
Seriously, does anyone even want this? Microsoft already faced huge backlash over trying to make XBox One online only.
They needed to offer discs, and they still do. And they needed to prove that they could do digital delivery competently, which they have. By the next generation they might get away with not doing discs, but I wouldn't bet on that even.
I used the Switch as an example because pretty much everything works just fine on that console. But in *most* cases, this is also true of Xbone and PS4 as well.
I think that the Switch is the only flagship console (such as it is) with console updates on game media. All the other consoles' updates are too large and incremental for that. Lots of games work fine if you don't update them, but lots of them don't — those updates exist for actual reasons.
I see people driving well below the speed limit all the time in small cars, on snowy days, on windy days, I can only assume they are afraid of the weather because the car doesn't really handle it correctly.
I see stupid people. I see them all the time. They just drive around like everyone else. Most of them don't even know they're stupid. Seriously though, I don't know why so many people are allergic to just pulling over and letting someone else go by. I am guilty of waiting until someone gets up on me pretty close, but I know how to drive a line and often lose people in the twisty parts even when (as recently) I'm driving a Sprinter and they're in a car. Most people don't know how to drive, and are afraid to drive, and arguably shouldn't be driving. I fit that description myself, at one time. I take driving a lot more seriously now. Have hope for the stupid.
While worker co-ops exist on a small scale, they can't compete
True. They exist, and generally don't do well compared to companies where the techs are profesional techs and the CEOs are professional CEOs.
Co-op doesn't mean "sans CEO". I'd believe that co-ops where everyone is involved in all the decisions don't do well, though; at least, they certainly won't scale easily.
Ferengi system, unlike what we have in US, is highly upwardly mobile.
Ferengi are in space, where expansion is possible. Humans are on a ball of mud and rock, most of which isn't inhabitable, where population density is becoming a problem. Our renewed interest in space development may have come too late, but fingers crossed...
Slashdot Mirror
With the sight of plastic.
I had the misfortune of my first ever experience eating a paper straw along with my iced tea at dinner last night. Talk about disgusting... all I could taste was the paper.
And you preferred eating plastic straws because they didn't taste like anything? Maybe you should just try not eating straws. They're not a garnish.
No that's not how it works, pick anyone who is for the preservation of the environment and you have answered your question.
Those people are not conservatives, they are conservationists.
You are just tossing the word conservative around like a derogatory term when all it means a person that wants to conserve something and it doesn't matter what they are conserving.
It doesn't. It means that people want to preserve their values, hell or high water.
This bastardization of the use of the word has happened so much that environmentalist have distanced themselves from the word and tend to stay away from the words conservation and conserve also.
Not that I've seen. Citation needed.
The conservatives in the USA are still waiting for the ROW to do something about the problem before they will consent to consider doing anything themselves.
They never will, in fact, unless forced. Think CFCs and ozone hole. They waited for someone smarter to figure out how to solve the problem, and then they had to be forced to comply with the solution.
Go to the location of a conservative rally. Then go to the location of a liberal rally. You may want a respirator for the latter....
I think it's the other way around, I react poorly to citronella.
I think that the Switch is the only flagship console (such as it is) with console updates on game media.
The Nintendo Wii and the Nintendo Wii U also had firmware updates for consoles on game discs.
Those are former flagships. What we are talking about now is current consoles. Those other consoles are irrelevant now, especially when talking about the future.
Conservatives are some of the most supportive of real, sustainable conservation of the worlds ecosystems.
No, those are conservationists. Conservatives are the ones that love Jesus more than their fellow humans.
Conservatives are hunters, fishers, and wildlife enthusiasts and actively donate to, and advocate for preservation of ecosystems.
It's not about preservation of ecosystems, it's about maintenance of use. All your average hunter cares about is whether he'll have something to hunt.
What conservatives don't do is "1 step thinking" like Liberals. Liberals: People are starving: Feed them. Conservatives: People are starving: teach them how to feed themselves.
Illegal immigrants are coming over the border, build a wall.
Non-EVs have just as much plastic. Lightweighting is a thing you do no matter what your car is made out of, because it improves mileage.
" In the early 80s, when I was in junior high, they didnâ(TM)t call it middle school back then"
Those are different things. Junior high is 7th and 8th, middle School also includes 6th.
I expect they will rename Windows 10 in a few more years to just Windows or Windows Edge or something stupid like that.
Only if they ever make it all-subscription. Otherwise they need version numbers to make people feel bad about their old Windows, because more is better.
Three-mile island had a meltdown, as a result of the operators doing the wrong thing at every opportunity and creating a worst-case failure for its design. But it was a US plant built to a reasonable (for the day) safety standards. Per Wikipedia "A variety of epidemiology studies have concluded that the accident had no observable long term health effects."
TMI seems to be pretty well cleaned up today, but it did necessitate an evacuation. A lot has improved since then, though, so I'm not sure how much value discussing it has.
Nuclear in space for power generation for Earth is very silly. There's already a whopping great fusion reactor there, no need to build another.
It depends on how close you are to the Sun. If you're no further out than, say, Mars, maybe you're right. Otherwhere, nuclear will still make sense.
Sounds like you think you understand very well, but individual rights are all you have set against sweeping bullshit to promote specific agendas.
Government is a structure in which we give up some rights in order to secure other rights. In reality, there are only those rights which are protected, and they are much like particles in quantum physics: A matter of probability, and not evenly distributed.
In order to have the ostensible basic human right to not be killed by other humans, a whole lot of other people have to curtail all kinds of rights. They have to agree to be cautious with dangerous things, for example. Collective rights always involve the surrender (voluntary or not) of individual rights.
We can argue all day about where to draw the line, and sometimes that's even a productive activity. But it won't change the fact that giving up some rights to get other rights is a cornerstone of society.
At the moment governments are indeed "100% in" removing your privacy rather than regulating for the same.
That's not strictly true, since everyone wants to limit information in some way, while wanting as much as possible for themselves. You might reasonably say it's always over 50%, though. Governments act as if they want lots of information in order to make decisions, as people inside of government want the same. They also prevent others from gaining information so as to have a competitive advantage. As such, it's advantageous for your government to prevent others from gaining information about you, if they will use it against you in ways that would affect your government.
Unfortunately, the government in the USA appears to be well and truly broken at the moment. The influence of religion on governmental activity had been our major problem for some time, but as usual the underlying ill is the influence of money. The repeal of laws which reduced money's power to alter the results of elections have had predictable results.
When you reach a certain age, you start to realize that mountains aren't climbed by leaping off a cliff and hoping you can fly; they're climbed by taking tens of thousands of little steps, each of which don't seem like they're accomplishing anything.
You can't leap off a cliff until you climb.
The difference between Icarus' wings and a hang-glider is that they both take tens of thousands of little steps, but one of them will fly, and the other one won't. They both, however, require a leap of faith.
Taking tens of thousands of little steps doesn't accomplish anything if you go around in a circle. Centrists are champions of the status quo, and the status quo is rotten.
Sound crazy? Indeed. So how would you do it?
We did it already. Then Reagan undid it. Instead of fixing the problems with these facilities, he closed them with the stroke of a pen. Yeah, it's a problem that someone's family can have them committed, but that problem still exists even though we closed the facilities. Now people just get held in ever-smaller rooms. I've got an acquaintance who got committed for being gay in the midwest, true story. Since Reagan punted instead of running the ball in, people are still being abused, but the people who really need help can't get it and just wind up on the street.
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life.
That doesn't require surgery.
You refuse you to use new pronouns like ze and hir, but ask why we don't have a genderless way to refer to people.
Because they are stupid. Hir should only refer to people who are both genders, not people of indeterminate gender, because the word itself implies both male and female. Ze sounds like someone is doing a bad French accent. Sie has the same problem as Hir.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting article about this, where he suggests "person", "per" and "pers".
That at least makes some kind of sense. Maybe I'll try those out.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter,
What? Name one.
You are not paying everybody else's bills either: California imports many of it's necessities.
California produces almost half of the food consumed in the USA, and virtually all of the technology. (Even the automakers in the midwest now have design houses and R&D facilities in California.) We also produce most of the media. The USA needs us more than we need it. We only need so much water, for example, to feed the rest of you.
Just to be clear, this is just cleaning up [part of] the mess that was lying around before the disaster. This is making absolutely zero progress on the actual cleanup, it's just cleaning up things that should have been cleaned up long ago.
Spent fuel rods lying around in pools is proof positive that nuclear is bullshit.
the standard for nuclear is perfection from the public's viewpoint. It shouldn't be, that's a dangerous and spurious standard
Nuclear's drawbacks are severe enough that the standard should be perfection. There should be failsafes for the failsafes for the failsafes, and no problem should ever actually result in a meltdown condition. If you can't guarantee zero meltdowns, then you simply shouldn't do nuclear, period.
Nuclear is fine in space. There are radioactives in some asteroids, so we don't even have to launch them if we actually get space-based industry going — which we could have done by now if we had kept spending money on space instead of on a cold war that we could have won for much less money than we actually spent, given that the Russians were building cardboard tanks to make it look like they had a viable force. Here on Earth, it's fucking stupid, just like civilian support of the cold war that sapped the money from space development and handed it to defense contractors.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
Let me say up front that I just go ahead and use people's chosen pronouns so long as they are male, female, or neither, because it costs me nothing. (I don't use the made-up ones, like sie or hir, though, because I'd actually have to think about that, and then it makes me think about the whole ridiculous situation. I use its.) But it's perfectly logical not to see someone who has had gender conversion surgery as actually being that other gender. They aren't, necessarily. They've just had their bits swapped. The only [hypothetical] time in which I'm inclined on a scientific basis to call someone by the pronouns of the gender they've swapped to is when their sex was indeterminate at birth, they were assigned a gender, and they actually turned out to have more of the characteristics of the other gender.
The whole argument is just sad anyway. Not stupid, but sad. It's sad because who gives a flying fuck? If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is? Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups. The language assumes that we will always know the gender of the addressed object, which is plainly false, and also gender-biased.
The only times it matters what someone's gender is: when police are trying to ID someone, when you're trying to fuck someone, or when someone is trying to qualify for gender-specific sports. In the first case, there are only four legitimate genders: male, female, both, and none. In the second case, it doesn't matter what they have as long as you like it, and if you're having sex for procreative purposes, if your parts + their parts = baby. In the latter sense, it's up to the regulators. Gender-specific sports leagues should write a gender definition. And they should have the right to apply their definition so long as they're not getting any public funding. What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender.
Yes, that's why we need non-plural, non-gendered forms of address. So we can stop referring to people by their apparent gender. It would solve a number of conversational problems which existed before gender reassignment surgery.
Seriously, does anyone even want this? Microsoft already faced huge backlash over trying to make XBox One online only.
They needed to offer discs, and they still do. And they needed to prove that they could do digital delivery competently, which they have. By the next generation they might get away with not doing discs, but I wouldn't bet on that even.
I used the Switch as an example because pretty much everything works just fine on that console. But in *most* cases, this is also true of Xbone and PS4 as well.
I think that the Switch is the only flagship console (such as it is) with console updates on game media. All the other consoles' updates are too large and incremental for that. Lots of games work fine if you don't update them, but lots of them don't — those updates exist for actual reasons.
So it's the Xbone. Microsoft fought this because they thought it was some slur, but really, it's just what it's called.
They should just be glad that Xbox 180 never caught on.
I see people driving well below the speed limit all the time in small cars, on snowy days, on windy days, I can only assume they are afraid of the weather because the car doesn't really handle it correctly.
I see stupid people. I see them all the time. They just drive around like everyone else. Most of them don't even know they're stupid. Seriously though, I don't know why so many people are allergic to just pulling over and letting someone else go by. I am guilty of waiting until someone gets up on me pretty close, but I know how to drive a line and often lose people in the twisty parts even when (as recently) I'm driving a Sprinter and they're in a car. Most people don't know how to drive, and are afraid to drive, and arguably shouldn't be driving. I fit that description myself, at one time. I take driving a lot more seriously now. Have hope for the stupid.
While worker co-ops exist on a small scale, they can't compete
True. They exist, and generally don't do well compared to companies where the techs are profesional techs and the CEOs are professional CEOs.
Co-op doesn't mean "sans CEO". I'd believe that co-ops where everyone is involved in all the decisions don't do well, though; at least, they certainly won't scale easily.
Ferengi system, unlike what we have in US, is highly upwardly mobile.
Ferengi are in space, where expansion is possible. Humans are on a ball of mud and rock, most of which isn't inhabitable, where population density is becoming a problem. Our renewed interest in space development may have come too late, but fingers crossed...