How many careers actually use higher-end math at work?
All of them. Every single damn one. Especially since you've lowered your "higher-end math" scope to include algebra. It's just the people in those careers don't know enough math to see where it's useful.
In opposition to the implied, "People die, so death sooner is okay," argument, yes. The mode of death is unimportant, there. And since that's obviously not something a sane person would say, I wanted clarification.
If you tune out network news, blogs, slashdot, both political parties, and worst of all The Discovery Channel (God, I hate the Discovery Channel), and you ignore anyone who issues a press release, the consensus is pretty clear. Slow increase in average temperature, year-average temperature up a couple of degrees Celcius, not likely to keep you from going outside and gardening in the summer, but causing enough Antarctic melt to sink coastal areas over 50 to 100 years. Storms will get more severe. The ice age trigger is a possibility, but only a possibility. But I'm not sure if that takes into account diminishing fossil fuel resources.
At least that was the consensus among my college teachers last year, most of whom spent 6 to 8 years learning about the stuff, and it didn't change much in the 5 years I went there. (Yeah, it took me 5 years. I failed a lot of classes, so I'm not a trustworthy source. Still, though. I'm not a smart man, Jenny, but I know what love is.)
What I think you're saying is that death was imminent in those people, and whether it was a bus running a red light or the heat that got them, they were gone this month anyway. Is that about right?
If so, then yes, those people are going to shove off. One of the many goals of science, though, is to buy them a few extra days. If it wasn't the heat, it would have been the cold. So you fix the heat, then you fix the cold. And then you replace their liver, and you try to keep them from catching the flu. Eventually, the days add up to a significant amount of time. It's how we live to be 80 now instead of having mid-life crises in our teens.
I don't know about climate change. I'm not qualified, so I'll listen to whatever the scientific concensus is at the time, so I'm only speaking to that one section of what you said when I say this: the way of thinking you've proposed seems unproductive.
... those 27,000 people are still going to die at some point.
Yes. And? I don't get the point of that whole section of your post. People die, so it's okay if they die sooner? Obviously it wasn't your intention, but all I see there is, "Sorry, liberals, but it's okay to murder people as long as they're not immortal," and I don't know what conclusion that's supposed to lead people to.
Nobody wants RFID banned. They don't want to be tracked by it. They don't want it used in insecure ways. RFID is fricking brilliant, it's just a travesty waiting to happen. Slashdot's concensus is "it's going to be bad, so be careful" not "burn them if they weigh the same as a duck."
That was not at all my point. Advertisers would pay more if they thought more people would see the ad. My point was fuck them. It's ridiculous to expect people to let you inflict anything you want on them just because it gets them paid.
You're one of those people that I'm glad is on the other side. I would be very happy if you, you selfish, ignorant bastard, would be against everything I stand for.
"Nobody is harmed by not allowing gay marriages." Idiot.
Your redundant point about rape has already been addressed to the guy who replied before you.
When you dislike something that in no way affects you enough to try to get it stopped, that generally implies that it is a strong dislike. And maybe you're the one guy who doesn't care for homosexuality who doesn't use the words "fucking fags," but I doubt it.
It's no concern of yours if other people get married. Fuck off.
You've invoked the "then we have to let them marry dogs" argument, and normally I'd just roll my eyes, but you seem to be on the cusp of reasonable, so we'll just nudge you over.
Underage sex has victims, and there is no way a child can be expected to give consent. Gay marriage is not something innocent plumbers and accountants are going to be tricked into.
"Liberal" also means in favor of land-use reform and the building of railroads if you ask 19th century South Americans. But I think I probably was talking to right-wingers in their own speak.
Perhaps you think people should be judged by the amount of wealth they have and a huge percentage of our population should be anally raped. Are you perhaps a rich, submissive homosexual?
I think I speak for all liberals when I say that 99Bottles, here, is the guy none of us talk to at parties. Please don't take him to be a representative sample of us.
How many of those things you just listed have victims?
If you go out of your way to stop two gay people from getting married, you help no one and hurt two people. It's mean for no reason.
You can feel that God won't recognize it all you want, and you can say you only consider marriages between men and women to be technical marriages all you want, but when you act to make it impossible for people you don't know to do something that will make them happy just because you feel like it, you've crossed a line.
Well, we can hope. Clearly there's much about ass-rape and leg-breaking I need to learn. I always thought it sounded fun, but now that I know it's a serious issue, I'll have to do some soul-searching.
Disliking homosexuality as a practice is not a phobia.
Sure it is. You just don't know what that word means. For your educational convenience, here's what it means. Or at least what the Hollywood liberals at dictionary.com would like you to believe it means:
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
I direct your attention to words one, two, four, five, and six of definition two.
As we live in a democratic society I and others should be able to form our own opinions regarding political issues, including the topic of gay marriage. It does not make you a bad person to be against it.
No. Unless in addition to being against it, you take action to prevent it. Then it does make you a bad person.
"... a post bringing up a very serious point gets a cowardly -1 Overrated?" says the Anonymous Coward. Which I found a little amusing.
I imagine he got modded down for the same reason I would get modded down if I replied to a joke about spermatazoan-Americans to talk seriously about the fact that delicious babies are going to waste on stem cell research. Or something. Quit being such a killjoy. And please focus your hatred for absurdity on fart jokes. God, I hate fart jokes. But don't worry, he'll be modded back up eventually. It all works out in the end.
Don't think that just because I'm not using one of the thousands and thousands of possible "in the end" puns that I just couldn't think of any. I just have too much respect for you to do that.
Why not have them give back to the community or something constructive?
That's a great idea. He can spend his prison time (the portion not reserved for butt-rape) being a manual spam filter for someone. 12 hours a day forced to read through spam after spam and sort them into categories. The data can then be sent to spam filtering companies for... I don't know, fun, I guess. The helping-society part of this is a little flimsy. But the fun part is random ones are picked and checked for accuracy by a guard, and if he miscategorized it, he gets punched in the face. And I'm okay with it if that happens when he did it right, too.
Are we afraid the guy who invents the usable flying car won't be able to sell any? Is there someone with an AI sitting around saying, "If only I could figure out how to make some cash off this?"
The prize for the space travel thing was incentive to do it cheaply, wasn't it? That doesn't work when the hard part is doing it at all.
Exactly. Re-make the song or movie in a parody-ful way and it's okay. But play someone else's song on mute... Well, I guess your analogy breaks down there.
Slashdot Mirror
How many careers actually use higher-end math at work?
All of them. Every single damn one. Especially since you've lowered your "higher-end math" scope to include algebra. It's just the people in those careers don't know enough math to see where it's useful.
No refund of substance, probably, and I'm sure they'll pass the cost of the lawsuit and the fines on to the consumer.
In opposition to the implied, "People die, so death sooner is okay," argument, yes. The mode of death is unimportant, there. And since that's obviously not something a sane person would say, I wanted clarification.
If you tune out network news, blogs, slashdot, both political parties, and worst of all The Discovery Channel (God, I hate the Discovery Channel), and you ignore anyone who issues a press release, the consensus is pretty clear. Slow increase in average temperature, year-average temperature up a couple of degrees Celcius, not likely to keep you from going outside and gardening in the summer, but causing enough Antarctic melt to sink coastal areas over 50 to 100 years. Storms will get more severe. The ice age trigger is a possibility, but only a possibility. But I'm not sure if that takes into account diminishing fossil fuel resources.
At least that was the consensus among my college teachers last year, most of whom spent 6 to 8 years learning about the stuff, and it didn't change much in the 5 years I went there. (Yeah, it took me 5 years. I failed a lot of classes, so I'm not a trustworthy source. Still, though. I'm not a smart man, Jenny, but I know what love is.)
What I think you're saying is that death was imminent in those people, and whether it was a bus running a red light or the heat that got them, they were gone this month anyway. Is that about right?
If so, then yes, those people are going to shove off. One of the many goals of science, though, is to buy them a few extra days. If it wasn't the heat, it would have been the cold. So you fix the heat, then you fix the cold. And then you replace their liver, and you try to keep them from catching the flu. Eventually, the days add up to a significant amount of time. It's how we live to be 80 now instead of having mid-life crises in our teens.
I don't know about climate change. I'm not qualified, so I'll listen to whatever the scientific concensus is at the time, so I'm only speaking to that one section of what you said when I say this: the way of thinking you've proposed seems unproductive.
... those 27,000 people are still going to die at some point.
Yes. And? I don't get the point of that whole section of your post. People die, so it's okay if they die sooner? Obviously it wasn't your intention, but all I see there is, "Sorry, liberals, but it's okay to murder people as long as they're not immortal," and I don't know what conclusion that's supposed to lead people to.
"If a person tells Snuggling Ifbot, "I'm bored today," the robot might respond, "Are you bored? What do you want to do?"
Whew. Thanks, Ifbot. You solved that problem. I don't know what I would have done without you.
Nobody wants RFID banned. They don't want to be tracked by it. They don't want it used in insecure ways. RFID is fricking brilliant, it's just a travesty waiting to happen. Slashdot's concensus is "it's going to be bad, so be careful" not "burn them if they weigh the same as a duck."
That was not at all my point. Advertisers would pay more if they thought more people would see the ad. My point was fuck them. It's ridiculous to expect people to let you inflict anything you want on them just because it gets them paid.
bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it.
And damn you if you don't read every ad in your newspaper. If people did, the paper would get paid more for them. You selfish bastards.
It's a good thing the debate was over when I said that, then, or I'd feel pretty silly about doing it.
You're one of those people that I'm glad is on the other side. I would be very happy if you, you selfish, ignorant bastard, would be against everything I stand for.
"Nobody is harmed by not allowing gay marriages." Idiot.
Your redundant point about rape has already been addressed to the guy who replied before you.
When you dislike something that in no way affects you enough to try to get it stopped, that generally implies that it is a strong dislike. And maybe you're the one guy who doesn't care for homosexuality who doesn't use the words "fucking fags," but I doubt it.
It's no concern of yours if other people get married. Fuck off.
You've invoked the "then we have to let them marry dogs" argument, and normally I'd just roll my eyes, but you seem to be on the cusp of reasonable, so we'll just nudge you over.
Underage sex has victims, and there is no way a child can be expected to give consent. Gay marriage is not something innocent plumbers and accountants are going to be tricked into.
"Liberal" also means in favor of land-use reform and the building of railroads if you ask 19th century South Americans. But I think I probably was talking to right-wingers in their own speak.
Perhaps you think people should be judged by the amount of wealth they have and a huge percentage of our population should be anally raped. Are you perhaps a rich, submissive homosexual?
Are you perhaps a flamebaiting douchebag?
I think I speak for all liberals when I say that 99Bottles, here, is the guy none of us talk to at parties. Please don't take him to be a representative sample of us.
So you're not against gay marriage, you're against marriage.
How many of those things you just listed have victims?
If you go out of your way to stop two gay people from getting married, you help no one and hurt two people. It's mean for no reason.
You can feel that God won't recognize it all you want, and you can say you only consider marriages between men and women to be technical marriages all you want, but when you act to make it impossible for people you don't know to do something that will make them happy just because you feel like it, you've crossed a line.
Well, we can hope. Clearly there's much about ass-rape and leg-breaking I need to learn. I always thought it sounded fun, but now that I know it's a serious issue, I'll have to do some soul-searching.
Disliking homosexuality as a practice is not a phobia.
Sure it is. You just don't know what that word means. For your educational convenience, here's what it means. Or at least what the Hollywood liberals at dictionary.com would like you to believe it means:
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
I direct your attention to words one, two, four, five, and six of definition two.
As we live in a democratic society I and others should be able to form our own opinions regarding political issues, including the topic of gay marriage. It does not make you a bad person to be against it.
No. Unless in addition to being against it, you take action to prevent it. Then it does make you a bad person.
Here's an easy solution: Don't commit a crime and you won't go to jail.
Unless you're not white. You're not not-white, are you?
"... a post bringing up a very serious point gets a cowardly -1 Overrated?" says the Anonymous Coward. Which I found a little amusing.
I imagine he got modded down for the same reason I would get modded down if I replied to a joke about spermatazoan-Americans to talk seriously about the fact that delicious babies are going to waste on stem cell research. Or something. Quit being such a killjoy. And please focus your hatred for absurdity on fart jokes. God, I hate fart jokes. But don't worry, he'll be modded back up eventually. It all works out in the end.
Don't think that just because I'm not using one of the thousands and thousands of possible "in the end" puns that I just couldn't think of any. I just have too much respect for you to do that.
Why not have them give back to the community or something constructive?
That's a great idea. He can spend his prison time (the portion not reserved for butt-rape) being a manual spam filter for someone. 12 hours a day forced to read through spam after spam and sort them into categories. The data can then be sent to spam filtering companies for... I don't know, fun, I guess. The helping-society part of this is a little flimsy. But the fun part is random ones are picked and checked for accuracy by a guard, and if he miscategorized it, he gets punched in the face. And I'm okay with it if that happens when he did it right, too.
Are we afraid the guy who invents the usable flying car won't be able to sell any? Is there someone with an AI sitting around saying, "If only I could figure out how to make some cash off this?"
The prize for the space travel thing was incentive to do it cheaply, wasn't it? That doesn't work when the hard part is doing it at all.
That said, it's still pretty cool.
Exactly. Re-make the song or movie in a parody-ful way and it's okay. But play someone else's song on mute... Well, I guess your analogy breaks down there.