Real TFA doesn't even mention emojis OR "more badass female leads and genre-bending horror films". All that was injected into discourse by the "writer" of that blogpost masquerading as TFA.
Cause... clickbait.
Basically, it boils down to more expensive tickets... A summer without a real mega-blockbuster cause all the slots were taken by expensive non-starters or franchises which have overextended their welcome and overpaid for the production... And talk about earlier streaming options making distributors nervous. Very nervous. Also... Chinese investors. But mostly it's about streaming.
No agendas. Nor is it about genre-bending horrors and chicks who punch people. It's about distributors riding their favorite geldings along the road - when a strange mechanical contraption suddenly roared passed them, leaving them and their animals shaken and scared in a cloud of dust and exhaust fumes. And then a different machine FLEW over them! GASP! Is this the end of the horse industry as we know it?
While the summary (and I presume the article) is trying to make it sound like Chinese have stupidly built a mega-expensive giant telescope they have no idea what to do with OR anyone to run it...
What if... naaah... Can't be... Chinese would NEVER think of hiring a talent magnet... After all... it would only give them LOADS of publicity, access to that scientist's networks and it would poac... I mean draw in the best minds in the field, giving China a boost at the expense of the rest of the world. Naaah... they'd never think of THAT.
The rest is just empty fluff and cherry picked quotes. All basically amounting to what any scientist would say is proper description of what is currently known or unknown, based on current research.
"You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement." ... "we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer."
Which is a quote cherry picked out of context from the actual email:
As explanation for some of our edits - in many parts of the world there is no such formulation being sold called "Roundup". In addition, in the US we have some lawn and garden products with the Roundup name on them but they contain other active ingredients in addition to glyphosate and they may have different properties from glyphosate. That is why we were using the phrase Roundup herbicides or Roundup agricultural herbicides. When possible it is preferable to use the name of the product that is actually being used and the data that supports that particular formulation.
The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use "Roundup" for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.
Another case is quite literally cherry picked to make it sound like "See? They KNOW it causes cancer! AND THEY ARE HIDING IT FROM US!!!eleven1"
In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, "What I've been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies - Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage."
Actual linked email shows that one person summarizes an entire study as "glyphosate all basicially had no effect the formulated product did - does this point us to the coformulants - sufactants?" - and the other person replies with the quote above.
The rest is just the story about how a guy whose blog was hosted on Forbes's website was lazy, asked for a draft from Monsanto, copy/pasted it and presented it as his own work - and then got his op-ed kicked off of Forbes but not off of The New York Times. Oh and... Monsanto's lawyers may have a case against the company which released the emails.
Well what do you know? I still haven't run out of copy/paste NOR has the reality abruptly changed to fit delusions of pathetic creatures who can't face facts. How's them mod points working for ya, snowflake? Still downmodding facts and arguments you can't accept? Aaaaw...
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity. Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what? Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution. Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time. Electricity from renewable sources, that is. Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it? So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it? Without a microscope?
Poor snowflake can't face reality. Snowflake want rubber ball? Squeezed between its ties it might feel like a testicle? Maybe? Maybe then snowflake can face reality instead of being a pathetic loser who can't accept factuality of arguments, forced to throw mod-tantrums instead? Like a retarded baby with diarrhea. Only more retarded.
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity. Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what? Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution. Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time. Electricity from renewable sources, that is. Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it? So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it? Without a microscope?
The best part of all this is - facts still remain facts. I.e. My downmodders are proving themselves to be SUCH pathetic cognitively dissonant losers with each downmode it's so HI-LAR-I-OUS it's almost tragic. Like watching a brat writhing on the floor, kicking and screaming "IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT!". And then you say "Oh yes it is." And kick it in the face.
Naah... That's not it. If you think that LGBTQ is a new thing to Dr. Who universe, you haven't been paying attention. It's the other thing.
Money.
There's more Dr. Who than all the Star Trek combined. I'm not sure if anyone knows how much of it is actually out there - with all the books, comics, audio books, lost episodes and whatnot. Except, they've "wasted" 8 iterations of the character on a tiny UK market and modern market doesn't allow for Tom Baker-like actor tenures.
On top of it all, the canon of the show is that everything is canon. Which on the one hand allows for !!!EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!!! every episode and every season - but on the other continuity is a mess and yesterday's fan fiction may accidentally become tomorrow's season finale. And like I said, they've wasted half the IP long ago. So everything is OLD. Like black and white old.
A female Doctor allows them to have their IP cake and eat it too. Females can get pregnant. I.e. They can literally retire EVERYTHING and EVERYONE aaaaand then reboot it for however many iterations of new Doctors they want. You want Gallifrey again? Pop some Doctor babies into a TARDIS and out comes a whole planet of their descendants. I.e. I'm my own Adam and Eve. It's a dynamic multiverse timeline with VERY loose rules and all inclusive canon. Any shit flies.
a - Dude, it's Disney. You don't outlawyer the House of the Mouse.
b - Portals and various teleportation gates are olderthandirt. It's a generic concept of a magical doorway into another world. And you can't copyright that. There's a reason Disney slapped a TM on EVERYTHING Star Wars once they bought it. Cause all the shit in Star Wars is generic. Only thing they CAN do is slap a name on "Generic Storm Trooper" and add a TM to it. You can still make your own "Generic Storm Trooper" - just not one which is called and looks like exactly like the one trademarked by Disney.
c - Trope of portals to another world is literally from pre-burial times. Pick up When They Severed Earth from Sky when you find the time. But not before you go through The Hero with a Thousand Faces if you haven't already and are planning to. Cause while there are SOME useful things in Campbell's work, his basic premises are Jungian bullshit. Thus, it sounds like ramblings of a loon after going through work which explains actual historical purpose of myths.
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity. Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what? Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution. Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time. Electricity from renewable sources, that is. Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it? So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it? Without a microscope?
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity. Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what? Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution. Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time. Electricity from renewable sources, that is. Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it? So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it? Without a microscope?
I was never a fan of Jar Jar (Binks one too) but I didn't dawn on me it until all the hype regarding Cloverfield resulted in... warmed up Slusho with a side order of shit. Which is when I've actually browsed back through things he was involved with, realizing that hype, geeking out, piling shit on top of more shit and inability to make both the story and/or plot work or even connect logically - is his modus operandi. My guess is that he is really good at convincing people that he has passion about projects he's pitching. That... and his fans tend to be of the "believer" kind... who don't catch on that the story is either not going anywhere or that it is going towards a pile of stupid cliches. Bad ones.
But it's not until he royally fucked up Star Trek that I've actively started calling him Jar Jar. Cause he's to SciFi in general what Jar Jar Binks was to Star Wars. An annoying, overexcited character out of sync with established tropes who manages to keep ruining the genre, directly or indirectly. The fact that he launched (and keeps supporting) careers of incompetents like Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof makes him worse than Jar Jar. He should be called Darth Jar Jar Abrams just to get it close to the level of idiocy he's responsible for, directly or indirectly.
Also... whether it's their common trait that brought them together or something one picked up from the other... Both Jar Jar and Lindelof are passive aggressive assholes who blame audience for being too stupid to expect something other than their lack of vision. Lindelof manages to passively bitch through entire Prometheus commentary while Jar Jar throws a "Star Wars is not a physics lesson" at anyone complaining about the Noo Death Star and the lack of any logic in how it works when it destroys planets, on his Noo Star Wars commentary.
Sure... it's not a physics lesson. But how about some half competent science fiction writing? You want explosion of planets to be visible from the planet everyone is on? Put it in the same system. What's the issue with that? It also explains why Leia and the Republican rebels show up out of nowhere.
You want to make insta-kills with Noo Death Star, disregarding the time it would take beam to travel across space WHILE making it a threat to entire galaxy? Portals. Have a portal-output ship hyperjump next to the planet you want to destroy, shoot the beam into portal-input (ship or portal somewhere on or under the Noo Death Star planet) - and you got the whole galaxy at the barrel of a gun. Which can be concealed anywhere in the galaxy.
There. It's that simple. It doesn't have to be a physics lesson. You can even still use that shot of everything getting dark as the sun is sucked up. Though it is stupid. But hey... heavy handed symbolism sure is cheap.
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity. Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what? Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution. Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time. Electricity from renewable sources, that is. Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it? So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it? Without a microscope?
Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.
Ah, well... there's your problem. Your definition clearly lacks the reference to snowflakes or use of the term "cuck", as is the parlance of times and society.
And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.
Personally, only overbearing episode I can think of was the one when space ISIS take over the Enterprise and start deleting files and blowing themselves up. On the other hand... I'm under the impression that the lack of examination you mention makes SJWs more... Star Wars fans.
Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.
Alex Kurtzman, one of Jar Jar's butmonkeys, is the "creator" of this upcoming shitfest. You can also tell from the promotion material that it follows Jar Jar Trek design in everything from the style of the font used for the logo to in-show visuals like lights and special effects.
So it's no wonder they're having problems splicing it in between Enterprise and TOS. It's neither visually nor thematically similar to either of those - but it fits just fine next to Jar Jar Trek.
Whatever either Alex Kurtzman or Akiva Goldsman touch - it turns to shit.
Though, granted, they did find a worse combination than joining Kurtzman with Orci, Jar Jar and Lindelof, as usual. I'm guessing that adding that "From the writer of "I Am Legend", "The Da Vinci Code", "Angels and Demons", "I, Robot", "Lost in Space", "Batman & Robin" and "Transformers: The Last Knight"" credit clinched it.
But hey! At least they've gotten rid of the guy who worked on DS9 and Voyager! That'll make the Noo Trek so much better!
It wasn't an order refund. It was a reimbursement of shipping costs, for the items I sent back. I asked them to cancel it if they have to and issue another one. To which they issued me another amount without first canceling the original reimbursement.
The issue was basically of a PEBKAC somewhere in their customer support.
Live in a place from which return shipping would be prohibitively expensive. Do note that no place is prohibitively expensive to be flagged in a database, though.
I had a bunch of cases where I'd end up with "doubles" of banged up books or DVDs cause someone forgot to put an extra air-pack in the box. Basically, if you're ordering a birthday present, pay to have it gift-wrapped.
Hell... one time I got free cash cause I rushed to return the things I ordered. Some hours after I've already sent the banged-up items back, and informed Amazon of the cost of return shipping (which they are obliged to repay you if it's an issue due to packaging), I get the "Due to the prohibitively expensive costs of return shipping - just keep it" email. So... I re-email them telling them, again, that I've already sent the items back. They refund me - but for the wrong order. And more than they should. Then, after days of trying to explain that they've refunded me too much, them refunding me AGAIN, me trying to explain that I don't need another refund but that they've refunded me a wrong amount at their own expense... I get the "Aaah... just keep both refunds and thank you" email.
Thank science and engineering these windmills FLOAT.
Meaning that should global wind currents suddenly abandon their long established and noted courses which were the reason those windmills were placed there instead of somewhere else - they could be moved.
The actual study doesn't make the claim in those terms.
Except it does. Right there in the conclusion.
However, there is still a significant gender gap, in that all-men teams are four times more likely to receive funding from venture capital investors than companies with even one woman on the team.
It's pushing the idea of "women are bad luck for VC investments". By describing it as a probability. WHICH IT IS NOT!
Probability for the companies in the study to receive VC funding is 100%. They've ALL received VC funding. Regardless of their being women, Chinese or little green men on the team. You can't do conditional probability for A happening when the condition is that A has already happened. That's a loop. It's not "You're not poor BECAUSE you have money". It's "You're not poor BECAUSE you're not poor". They are trying to find probability for a tautology.
What they did is the equivalent of taking a sample of Olympic gold medalists, counted all the women and compared them to the number of men who've won a gold medal. Then, they explained that as the chance for a woman to win gold at the Olympics. They don't know how to set up a hypothesis properly.
They THINK they are setting up conditions for proving that presence of women influences the likelihood of getting VC funding. But due to their bias, and clear lack of understanding of elementary school math, they've missed the fact that they've set up conditions where no percentage of women OR men can't change the likelihood of getting VC funding. Cause they've aggressively selected ONLY for companies who DID get VC funding. No amount of fine tuning of "female" variable after the fact will change that. Cause they've set up the conditions in such a way that the probability they are seeking is already 100%.
What they SHOULD have done is run a comparison of companies with and without women who DID get VC funding - to companies (with and without women) who pursued VC funding but didn't get any. Aaah... but for that they need to gather their own data. Not just mine already available databases.
Any it couldn't really be any other way, because I doubt anyone keeps stats on the number of companies that pitch and get nothing.
See above. Also, under "Doing one's own FUCKING research". Also, under "What happens when database I'm querying doesn't have the data I'm looking for?"
That doesn't mean that the conclusions they draw are invalid automatically.
Yes! YES IT DOES MEAN THAT! CAUSE THE FUCKING DATA THEY'D NEED IN ORDER FOR THEIR CONCLUSIONS TO BE BASED ON FACTS IS SIMPLY NOT THERE!!!
You just said it yourself! "I doubt anyone keeps stats on the number of companies that pitch and get nothing"
When you don't have data you need you can't just make up shit from the bits you have or would like to have. Unless you're Donald Trump. Or a lying orange lunatic cunt. But I'm repeating myself.
You misread it. They are saying that 13% of the working population is involved in starting or running a new business. That includes all employees working for such businesses in any role. 13% is the number for both genders. If you split i by gender, it's 11% of working women and 16% of working men.
Admittedly, it was phrased badly. It's actually "one out of every 10 working women in the United States."
No. I didn't misread it. THEY misunderstood (or misrepresented) the math. That "Admittedly, it was phrased badly." bit... That's not "phrased badly". That's called "INCORRECT MATH". Or "fake numbers", if you prefer the parlance of the times.
Also... YOU are the one misreading and/or willfully misunderstanding what's written. Sorry. It's NOT "one out of every 10 working women in the United States."
It's "40.74% of all NEW entrepreneurs in 2013. Which,
Cause it is. Biased, post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.
They didn't do a comparison of probability for a company to get VC funding based on the presence of women. They didn't compare companies which received VC funding vs. those that didn't. They just took all the VC funded companies and counted ones with women listed on the company profile.
It's a literal post hoc condition for determination of likelihood of receiving VC funding.
As for bias... From the study:
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports that in 2013 approximately 13% of the working population of the United States was in the process of starting or running a new business - the rate for women was 11% compared with 16% for men (Kelley, Brush, Greene, and Y. Litovsky 2013 Kelley, D., C. Brush, P. Greene, and Y. Litovsky. 2013. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Women's Report. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. [Google Scholar]). This means that one out of every 10 women in the United States was becoming an entrepreneur, which is a higher rate of female entrepreneurship than for any of the other 24 developed economies.
Disregarding the fact that they are confusing "one out of every 10 women in the United States" with 11% OF the 13% OF the working population... in the process of starting or running a NEW business. People who write biased crap can't do math. Big surprise there.
But their criteria for VC funding female teams is "a single female on the team". In other words, their sample will look a LOT like that 11% mentioned in the cited study, as it doesn't discriminate between the teams with a single woman, teams with more women or teams with one or more women starting or running a business which is not new, but only seeking VC funding for the first time. Cause they are going out of their way to find a proof of "women being bad luck on the ship".
Number of VC funded companies, according to the study, with at least one women on the company profile in that same year (2013)? 18%. 2012 - 13%. 2011 - 9%
I.e. Percentage of companies with women on the team receiving VC funding is actually higher than the percentage of women in the process of starting or running a new business. It's even higher than the percentage of ALL population starting or running a new business.
Only thing they got right is that there are MORE COMPANIES WITH WOMEN. But that's not the idea they want to get behind. See... there's this patriarchy thing...
Who said anything about being rational? The "bird people" in this case are going full on bias and cognitive dissonance.
They are FOR floating offshore turbines but they are against them. They can't tell if they kill birds - therefore they must be killing birds. They like the technology - but they believe it ads to what they believe is a problem.
From TFA:
The bird charity RSPB Scotland opposed the project - not because it dislikes the technology but because it believes too many offshore turbines in the area have already been approved.
It fears thousands of sea birds may be killed by the offshore wind farms, although it admits that estimates are hugely uncertain because it is impossible to count bird corpses at sea.
The RSPB's Aidan Smith told BBC News: "Generally we are very enthusiastic about floating wind technology because it allows turbines to be placed far offshore - away from seabird nesting sites, and it helps us tackle climate change.
"We oppose the Hywind project because it adds to a situation we already believe is a problem."
Slashdot Mirror
Real TFA doesn't even mention emojis OR "more badass female leads and genre-bending horror films".
All that was injected into discourse by the "writer" of that blogpost masquerading as TFA.
Cause... clickbait.
Basically, it boils down to more expensive tickets...
A summer without a real mega-blockbuster cause all the slots were taken by expensive non-starters or franchises which have overextended their welcome and overpaid for the production...
And talk about earlier streaming options making distributors nervous. Very nervous.
Also... Chinese investors. But mostly it's about streaming.
No agendas.
Nor is it about genre-bending horrors and chicks who punch people.
It's about distributors riding their favorite geldings along the road - when a strange mechanical contraption suddenly roared passed them, leaving them and their animals shaken and scared in a cloud of dust and exhaust fumes.
And then a different machine FLEW over them! GASP!
Is this the end of the horse industry as we know it?
Probably rolling out continuous monitoring equipment as we speak to embassies around the world
You might have to wait on that one, for an administration which isn't actively trying to dismantle the Department of State.
While the summary (and I presume the article) is trying to make it sound like Chinese have stupidly built a mega-expensive giant telescope they have no idea what to do with OR anyone to run it...
What if... naaah... Can't be... Chinese would NEVER think of hiring a talent magnet...
After all... it would only give them LOADS of publicity, access to that scientist's networks and it would poac... I mean draw in the best minds in the field, giving China a boost at the expense of the rest of the world.
Naaah... they'd never think of THAT.
"Not tasty or edible. Repeat: NOT TASTY OR EDIBLE!"
I thought karma was a whore...
The rest is just empty fluff and cherry picked quotes.
All basically amounting to what any scientist would say is proper description of what is currently known or unknown, based on current research.
"You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement."
...
"we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer."
Which is a quote cherry picked out of context from the actual email:
As explanation for some of our edits - in many parts of the world there is no such formulation
being sold called "Roundup". In addition, in the US we have some lawn and garden products with the Roundup name on them but they contain other active ingredients in addition to glyphosate and they may have different properties from glyphosate.
That is why we were using the phrase Roundup herbicides or Roundup agricultural herbicides.
When possible it is preferable to use the name of the product that is actually being used and the data that supports that particular formulation.
The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use "Roundup" for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.
For example you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen
The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.
Another case is quite literally cherry picked to make it sound like "See? They KNOW it causes cancer! AND THEY ARE HIDING IT FROM US!!!eleven1"
In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, "What I've been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies - Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage."
Actual linked email shows that one person summarizes an entire study as "glyphosate all basicially had no effect the formulated product did - does this point us to the coformulants - sufactants?" - and the other person replies with the quote above.
The rest is just the story about how a guy whose blog was hosted on Forbes's website was lazy, asked for a draft from Monsanto, copy/pasted it and presented it as his own work - and then got his op-ed kicked off of Forbes but not off of The New York Times.
Oh and... Monsanto's lawyers may have a case against the company which released the emails.
Well what do you know?
I still haven't run out of copy/paste NOR has the reality abruptly changed to fit delusions of pathetic creatures who can't face facts.
How's them mod points working for ya, snowflake? Still downmodding facts and arguments you can't accept?
Aaaaw...
Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?
Poor snowflake can't face reality.
Snowflake want rubber ball? Squeezed between its ties it might feel like a testicle? Maybe?
Maybe then snowflake can face reality instead of being a pathetic loser who can't accept factuality of arguments, forced to throw mod-tantrums instead?
Like a retarded baby with diarrhea. Only more retarded.
Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?
The best part of all this is - facts still remain facts.
I.e. My downmodders are proving themselves to be SUCH pathetic cognitively dissonant losers with each downmode it's so HI-LAR-I-OUS it's almost tragic.
Like watching a brat writhing on the floor, kicking and screaming "IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT!".
And then you say "Oh yes it is." And kick it in the face.
Naah... That's not it. If you think that LGBTQ is a new thing to Dr. Who universe, you haven't been paying attention.
It's the other thing.
Money.
There's more Dr. Who than all the Star Trek combined.
I'm not sure if anyone knows how much of it is actually out there - with all the books, comics, audio books, lost episodes and whatnot.
Except, they've "wasted" 8 iterations of the character on a tiny UK market and modern market doesn't allow for Tom Baker-like actor tenures.
On top of it all, the canon of the show is that everything is canon.
Which on the one hand allows for !!!EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!!! every episode and every season - but on the other continuity is a mess and yesterday's fan fiction may accidentally become tomorrow's season finale.
And like I said, they've wasted half the IP long ago. So everything is OLD. Like black and white old.
A female Doctor allows them to have their IP cake and eat it too.
Females can get pregnant.
I.e. They can literally retire EVERYTHING and EVERYONE aaaaand then reboot it for however many iterations of new Doctors they want.
You want Gallifrey again? Pop some Doctor babies into a TARDIS and out comes a whole planet of their descendants. I.e. I'm my own Adam and Eve.
It's a dynamic multiverse timeline with VERY loose rules and all inclusive canon. Any shit flies.
a - Dude, it's Disney. You don't outlawyer the House of the Mouse.
b - Portals and various teleportation gates are older than dirt.
It's a generic concept of a magical doorway into another world. And you can't copyright that.
There's a reason Disney slapped a TM on EVERYTHING Star Wars once they bought it. Cause all the shit in Star Wars is generic.
Only thing they CAN do is slap a name on "Generic Storm Trooper" and add a TM to it.
You can still make your own "Generic Storm Trooper" - just not one which is called and looks like exactly like the one trademarked by Disney.
c - Trope of portals to another world is literally from pre-burial times.
Pick up When They Severed Earth from Sky when you find the time.
But not before you go through The Hero with a Thousand Faces if you haven't already and are planning to.
Cause while there are SOME useful things in Campbell's work, his basic premises are Jungian bullshit.
Thus, it sounds like ramblings of a loon after going through work which explains actual historical purpose of myths.
You snowflakes realize you're more likely to run out of mod points while trying to bury facts than I am to run out of copy/paste?
Aaaaw... someone don't likey facty-facty? Boo-hoo... Poor snowflake. Don't you know that global warming is bad for you?
Too bad copy/paste is my ally.
Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?
Aaaaw... someone don't likey facty-facty? Boo-hoo... Poor snowflake. Don't you know that global warming is bad for you?
Too bad copy/paste is my ally.
Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?
I was never a fan of Jar Jar (Binks one too) but I didn't dawn on me it until all the hype regarding Cloverfield resulted in... warmed up Slusho with a side order of shit.
Which is when I've actually browsed back through things he was involved with, realizing that hype, geeking out, piling shit on top of more shit and inability to make both the story and/or plot work or even connect logically - is his modus operandi.
My guess is that he is really good at convincing people that he has passion about projects he's pitching.
That... and his fans tend to be of the "believer" kind... who don't catch on that the story is either not going anywhere or that it is going towards a pile of stupid cliches. Bad ones.
But it's not until he royally fucked up Star Trek that I've actively started calling him Jar Jar.
Cause he's to SciFi in general what Jar Jar Binks was to Star Wars.
An annoying, overexcited character out of sync with established tropes who manages to keep ruining the genre, directly or indirectly.
The fact that he launched (and keeps supporting) careers of incompetents like Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof makes him worse than Jar Jar.
He should be called Darth Jar Jar Abrams just to get it close to the level of idiocy he's responsible for, directly or indirectly.
Also... whether it's their common trait that brought them together or something one picked up from the other...
Both Jar Jar and Lindelof are passive aggressive assholes who blame audience for being too stupid to expect something other than their lack of vision.
Lindelof manages to passively bitch through entire Prometheus commentary while Jar Jar throws a "Star Wars is not a physics lesson" at anyone complaining about the Noo Death Star and the lack of any logic in how it works when it destroys planets, on his Noo Star Wars commentary.
Sure... it's not a physics lesson. But how about some half competent science fiction writing?
You want explosion of planets to be visible from the planet everyone is on? Put it in the same system. What's the issue with that? It also explains why Leia and the Republican rebels show up out of nowhere.
You want to make insta-kills with Noo Death Star, disregarding the time it would take beam to travel across space WHILE making it a threat to entire galaxy? Portals.
Have a portal-output ship hyperjump next to the planet you want to destroy, shoot the beam into portal-input (ship or portal somewhere on or under the Noo Death Star planet) - and you got the whole galaxy at the barrel of a gun. Which can be concealed anywhere in the galaxy.
There. It's that simple. It doesn't have to be a physics lesson. You can even still use that shot of everything getting dark as the sun is sucked up. Though it is stupid. But hey... heavy handed symbolism sure is cheap.
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?
Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.
Ah, well... there's your problem.
Your definition clearly lacks the reference to snowflakes or use of the term "cuck", as is the parlance of times and society.
And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.
Personally, only overbearing episode I can think of was the one when space ISIS take over the Enterprise and start deleting files and blowing themselves up.
On the other hand...
I'm under the impression that the lack of examination you mention makes SJWs more... Star Wars fans.
Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.
Alex Kurtzman, one of Jar Jar's butmonkeys, is the "creator" of this upcoming shitfest.
You can also tell from the promotion material that it follows Jar Jar Trek design in everything from the style of the font used for the logo to in-show visuals like lights and special effects.
So it's no wonder they're having problems splicing it in between Enterprise and TOS.
It's neither visually nor thematically similar to either of those - but it fits just fine next to Jar Jar Trek.
Whatever either Alex Kurtzman or Akiva Goldsman touch - it turns to shit.
Though, granted, they did find a worse combination than joining Kurtzman with Orci, Jar Jar and Lindelof, as usual.
I'm guessing that adding that "From the writer of "I Am Legend", "The Da Vinci Code", "Angels and Demons", "I, Robot", "Lost in Space", "Batman & Robin" and "Transformers: The Last Knight"" credit clinched it.
But hey! At least they've gotten rid of the guy who worked on DS9 and Voyager!
That'll make the Noo Trek so much better!
It wasn't an order refund. It was a reimbursement of shipping costs, for the items I sent back.
I asked them to cancel it if they have to and issue another one.
To which they issued me another amount without first canceling the original reimbursement.
The issue was basically of a PEBKAC somewhere in their customer support.
Live in a place from which return shipping would be prohibitively expensive.
Do note that no place is prohibitively expensive to be flagged in a database, though.
I had a bunch of cases where I'd end up with "doubles" of banged up books or DVDs cause someone forgot to put an extra air-pack in the box.
Basically, if you're ordering a birthday present, pay to have it gift-wrapped.
Hell... one time I got free cash cause I rushed to return the things I ordered.
Some hours after I've already sent the banged-up items back, and informed Amazon of the cost of return shipping (which they are obliged to repay you if it's an issue due to packaging), I get the "Due to the prohibitively expensive costs of return shipping - just keep it" email.
So... I re-email them telling them, again, that I've already sent the items back. They refund me - but for the wrong order. And more than they should.
Then, after days of trying to explain that they've refunded me too much, them refunding me AGAIN, me trying to explain that I don't need another refund but that they've refunded me a wrong amount at their own expense... I get the "Aaah... just keep both refunds and thank you" email.
Well... Thank you India, I guess.
Thank science and engineering these windmills FLOAT.
Meaning that should global wind currents suddenly abandon their long established and noted courses which were the reason those windmills were placed there instead of somewhere else - they could be moved.
The actual study doesn't make the claim in those terms.
Except it does. Right there in the conclusion.
However, there is still a significant gender gap, in that all-men teams are four times more likely to receive funding from venture capital investors than companies with even one woman on the team.
It's pushing the idea of "women are bad luck for VC investments". By describing it as a probability.
WHICH IT IS NOT!
Probability for the companies in the study to receive VC funding is 100%. They've ALL received VC funding.
Regardless of their being women, Chinese or little green men on the team.
You can't do conditional probability for A happening when the condition is that A has already happened. That's a loop.
It's not "You're not poor BECAUSE you have money". It's "You're not poor BECAUSE you're not poor".
They are trying to find probability for a tautology.
What they did is the equivalent of taking a sample of Olympic gold medalists, counted all the women and compared them to the number of men who've won a gold medal.
Then, they explained that as the chance for a woman to win gold at the Olympics.
They don't know how to set up a hypothesis properly.
They THINK they are setting up conditions for proving that presence of women influences the likelihood of getting VC funding.
But due to their bias, and clear lack of understanding of elementary school math, they've missed the fact that they've set up conditions where no percentage of women OR men can't change the likelihood of getting VC funding.
Cause they've aggressively selected ONLY for companies who DID get VC funding.
No amount of fine tuning of "female" variable after the fact will change that.
Cause they've set up the conditions in such a way that the probability they are seeking is already 100%.
What they SHOULD have done is run a comparison of companies with and without women who DID get VC funding - to companies (with and without women) who pursued VC funding but didn't get any.
Aaah... but for that they need to gather their own data.
Not just mine already available databases.
Any it couldn't really be any other way, because I doubt anyone keeps stats on the number of companies that pitch and get nothing.
See above.
Also, under "Doing one's own FUCKING research".
Also, under "What happens when database I'm querying doesn't have the data I'm looking for?"
That doesn't mean that the conclusions they draw are invalid automatically.
Yes! YES IT DOES MEAN THAT!
CAUSE THE FUCKING DATA THEY'D NEED IN ORDER FOR THEIR CONCLUSIONS TO BE BASED ON FACTS IS SIMPLY NOT THERE!!!
You just said it yourself!
"I doubt anyone keeps stats on the number of companies that pitch and get nothing"
When you don't have data you need you can't just make up shit from the bits you have or would like to have.
Unless you're Donald Trump. Or a lying orange lunatic cunt. But I'm repeating myself.
You misread it. They are saying that 13% of the working population is involved in starting or running a new business. That includes all employees working for such businesses in any role. 13% is the number for both genders. If you split i by gender, it's 11% of working women and 16% of working men.
Admittedly, it was phrased badly. It's actually "one out of every 10 working women in the United States."
No.
I didn't misread it. THEY misunderstood (or misrepresented) the math.
That "Admittedly, it was phrased badly." bit... That's not "phrased badly". That's called "INCORRECT MATH".
Or "fake numbers", if you prefer the parlance of the times.
Also... YOU are the one misreading and/or willfully misunderstanding what's written. Sorry.
It's NOT "one out of every 10 working women in the United States."
It's "40.74% of all NEW entrepreneurs in 2013. Which,
Cause it is.
Biased, post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.
They didn't do a comparison of probability for a company to get VC funding based on the presence of women.
They didn't compare companies which received VC funding vs. those that didn't.
They just took all the VC funded companies and counted ones with women listed on the company profile.
It's a literal post hoc condition for determination of likelihood of receiving VC funding.
As for bias... From the study:
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports that in 2013 approximately 13% of the working population of the United States was in the process of starting or running a new business - the rate for women was 11% compared with 16% for men (Kelley, Brush, Greene, and Y. Litovsky 2013 Kelley, D., C. Brush, P. Greene, and Y. Litovsky. 2013.
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Women's Report. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. [Google Scholar]). This means that one out of every 10 women in the United States was becoming an entrepreneur, which is a higher rate of female entrepreneurship than for any of the other 24 developed economies.
Disregarding the fact that they are confusing "one out of every 10 women in the United States" with 11% OF the 13% OF the working population... in the process of starting or running a NEW business.
People who write biased crap can't do math. Big surprise there.
But their criteria for VC funding female teams is "a single female on the team".
In other words, their sample will look a LOT like that 11% mentioned in the cited study, as it doesn't discriminate between the teams with a single woman, teams with more women or teams with one or more women starting or running a business which is not new, but only seeking VC funding for the first time.
Cause they are going out of their way to find a proof of "women being bad luck on the ship".
Number of VC funded companies, according to the study, with at least one women on the company profile in that same year (2013)? 18%.
2012 - 13%.
2011 - 9%
I.e. Percentage of companies with women on the team receiving VC funding is actually higher than the percentage of women in the process of starting or running a new business.
It's even higher than the percentage of ALL population starting or running a new business.
Only thing they got right is that there are MORE COMPANIES WITH WOMEN.
But that's not the idea they want to get behind.
See... there's this patriarchy thing...
Not if they're rational.
Who said anything about being rational? The "bird people" in this case are going full on bias and cognitive dissonance.
They are FOR floating offshore turbines but they are against them.
They can't tell if they kill birds - therefore they must be killing birds.
They like the technology - but they believe it ads to what they believe is a problem.
From TFA:
The bird charity RSPB Scotland opposed the project - not because it dislikes the technology but because it believes too many offshore turbines in the area have already been approved.
It fears thousands of sea birds may be killed by the offshore wind farms, although it admits that estimates are hugely uncertain because it is impossible to count bird corpses at sea.
The RSPB's Aidan Smith told BBC News: "Generally we are very enthusiastic about floating wind technology because it allows turbines to be placed far offshore - away from seabird nesting sites, and it helps us tackle climate change.
"We oppose the Hywind project because it adds to a situation we already believe is a problem."
And nothing of value was gained.
...imagine a Beowulf cluster of Custers at the Little Bighorn.