Same here. Whether it's news or just an article, as soon as I know what is being talked about, I see bullshit in the article anough so it can be called misinformation instead of information. Every single time. Always.
Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman showed no bruises on his arrival at the police station. Shooting down someone unarmed before he hit you is no grounds for self defense in my book.
You basically just said that males must stop pursuing females.
No no, I didn't say that. There is "pursuing females "and "chasing females". These are two different things and what I advocate is that we should change the way we pursue females. Of course we will never stop pursuing females.
Also, and I'm not sure you disagree with me on 100% of this argument, I don't think the way things work right now are 100% biological. Society's construct is very much at play here and we can most certainly influence this. And I think we should. What is the part of society's construct on our behavior remains to be determined and if I read you correctly you think it is negligible while I think it is important.
To sum it up, I don't have time to read all the stuff you've thrown at me right now so I'll leave it there for the moment until I've had some time to do so. Any pointers for a first read?
Well, it is your claim, you should have to put some effort into it.
Ok, ok. But our societies haven't been living according to the laws of nature for quite a while now. Nature hasn't been driving anything in the last millenia or two. Societies have been pushing social behavior but most certainly not nature. By definition, all modern societies aren't driven by nature anymore.
Don't insult, it reduces the strength of your argument, especially when you've been very vocal about something that's extremely well-studied, well-known and well-documented.
You do it too! (See below) so why can you do it while I would not be allowed to do it?
I said that evolutionary pressure resulted in the current strategies (note the plural) due to the unsuccessful strategies resulting in no offspring.
Now I agree with this, but this is not nature anymore, it's evolution. There is a whole lot of difference in there. Because evolution isn't always right. Whole species have disappeared over the course of time and the fact that evolution drove us where we are doesn't imply at all that where we are is the best place to be.
Actually, no. You make a good point (I suspect it's only by accident - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day).
There you go insulting! And I thought it reduces the strength of your argument...
However, something else that is well-documented (and no, I'm not doing your scholar search this time - do your own homework!) is that the measured happiness for women tends to be lower than it used to be 35 years ago, when controlled.
I'm sure I could find a study that would say that grownups are not happier than kids. Should we leave everyone in high school?
Also, one of the things that separate humans from animals is our compassion. Compassion calls for an equal footing of everyone.
No, it doesn't - see the existence of SPCA in every civilised country, yet they don't consider animals equal to humans.
Ok, I went a bit too far here.
As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
No, I don't think it's a good one, in fact I think it's an incredibly bad one (I've sisters too, you know!) that has served largely in the interest of men to the disadvantage of women. The current status quo has lead to women being severely under-valued in society. However, regardless of what I feel, what is known fact is the mating and courting rituals of almost every species discovered by man, and that includes humans as well. In fact, we have more data and research on human mating rituals than we do on other animals, and almost all of the data we have shows evidence that *nature* has resulted in the current mating strategies, and that choosing your original "option B)" from your original post will be stupid idea.
So my point B was "This is a bad thing and needs to be stopped" and you agree that it is a bad thing but your argument against the "needs to be stopped" is that evolution drove us there so it must be the best compromise? Evolution is well and good, but don't you think it's time we take our fate in our own hands? Seriously, pal, evolution didn't give us democracy. So we should ditch it? Evolution didn't give us the internet so we should ditch it?
People (men and women) don't do what they do because it's currently politically correct to do, they do what they do because there's an evolutionary-honed instinct in them that drives them in certain practices (such as mating practices).
I call bullshit here. Evolution drove us to behave a certain way and we passe
A) You're sure, it's pretty well-documented B) You won't share a single link to the documentation based on a doubtful logic that put the onus on me. If it's so well-documented, it should have been easy to find a link.
Ok, I'm fine with this, but you won't convince anyone with this kind of retarded arguments. You just prove you don't give a rat's ass about backing your claims.
Then again, comparing human society to animals has its limitations, and nothing proves that the current strategy is the best one. As a matter of fact, the most "civilized" countries (in other words, the most successful ones) are the ones that have given women the most rights. There, your worthless counter argument, just on par with yours.
Also, one of the things that separate humans from animals is our compassion. Compassion calls for an equal footing of everyone. As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
Are you sure that's how nature works? To me, it looks as if this is a construct of the judeo-christian society where you're forbidden to see a breast until 16, you're told those things are "a sin" and other craptastic notions like this. Way to screw things up. These notions might have served a purpose back in the day (the same as not eating pork, circumcision, etc served a purpose for society a long time ago) but in the 21st century, we should really know better, I'm sorry. There are also all the bullshit we're feeding our kids, on the form of Hollywood movies advocating for women to wait for the prince charming and men to do all sort of stupid things. I'm sure the impact of this pile of shit we feed our children from very young has more to do with the way we see sex than any kind of natural tendency.
This screwed up education has an effect on men AND women leading to an often confrontational relation when it comes to sex. There is absolutely no shred of evidence that there is anything "natural" or "biological" about this. I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have references of course.
You still stand a far lower chance of getting raped in a street if you're wandering alone in the dark. And then killed if the rapist is afraid of you reporting him.
Legal reaction has been mostly stupid on those grounds. Specially considering the fact that with all they did, it is still very tedious to get a rape reported. Not mentioning that everybody either laugh at you or doubt you - at the worst possible time.
We only have a conflict because of stupid cretins like yourself. Women are not 'vulnerable, weak and defenseless' as you put it. And they don't need protection. You tried to put these words in my mouth but I didn't wrote them - you did.
Women are the target of many. Males need to stop being predatory toward females. And we need to recognize that A) Yes, many men tend to be predatory toward women and B) This is a bad thing and needs to be stopped.
If the attention is just looking and perhaps verbal comments. Yes, if a women dresses in a way to attract male attention, she shouldn't be complaining about the attention she's attracting. She's got to know she's going to get the attention of all the unwanted men as well as whoever she was looking to impress.
The same for men of course. If a man is out walking on the street in his Conan the Barbarian leather harness, he has to expect to attract attention. Likewise if he's wearing a $10,000 suit and a Patek Phillipe watch.
The thing is it is wholly different for men than it is for women. Because, you know, we're men. We don't share and we don't experience what women do all day: harassment, cretinous dumbasses looking at you with envy, gross propositions out of nowhere, wandering hands, etc.
We just don't. So let's stop pretending the problem is the same on both sides, because it's not.
'GreenSQL is advertising on Slashdot,' says the GreenSQL.net website, which also says, 'GreenSQL does some stuff and has built-in support for other software. The logic is based on evaluation of input using a buzzword as well as blocking known bad things (death, procreation, etc).' The company also maintains a commercial version as a separate entity. GreenSQL CTO/CoFounder David Maman gives more details about both the company and open source GreenSQL in this video advert.
+1 No More Mod Points
The oly thing I don't know is if I should advocate for you to get a +1 Funny or +1 Insightful
The thing is I need remote backup and backup from servers - linux servers - where a GUI is non existent. All in all, it could fill some gap in my regular backup.
Sounds like you like playing the role of sysadmin.
Who else is going to play that role at home? Crashplan?
More to the point, I like to know where my data is and how it flows. I found that it's the best way to recover from a crash. Not saying Crashplan is bad or anything, but $6/month for something that will "maybe" have my data whenever I need it is too much for me.
First, my computer setup: 1. I have a home server that doubles as a NAS on the basement. It has a RAID-5 array for redundancy. 2. I have various other computers, including my own, my SO's and one server at a hosting company. 3. Documents usually sit on my NAS. 4. Documents for which I need an offline access (of sharing with my SO) sit in a Dropbox. 5. Dropbox is also installed on my home server.
My backup plan: 1. My wife and myself have a "button" on our laptops to run the backup to the NAS. I need to make that fully automatic but for now it's manual. 2. I have an old eee-pc in the attic with a 2TB USB drive attached to it. Every day at 1AM is starts scanning all the stuff I want to backup (that includes documents, music, pics, install directory of my servers - web and mail, svn, etc.) from all online computers (that is my home server / NAS and my server hosted). It backs it up incrementally on my 2TB drive. I keep a version for every day for 30 days, then a version every month for 20 month. 3. at 4AM a script runs that copy incrementally the content of the latest backup to a friend of mine which provides me with an SSH access to a 1TB partition. He lives nearby. 4. My friend has an SSH access to my home server and has a 1TB dedicated partition on my RAID-5 array.
The Bible is actually an exciting read in places though...murder, suicide, incest, rape, pillage, giants, midgets, wizards and witches, vengeful deities....
I dunno. I tried to read it once but stumbled on the very beginning: The Egypt plagues. There, for many many pages, you see God plaguing Egypt to convince its Pharaoh to free the israelites. After each plague, the Pharaoh is ready to let them go, but God works his magic to convince the Pharaoh NOT to free the Israelites.
Since God can convince at will, wouldn't it have been easier to just convince the Pharaoh in the first place, hence avoiding the thousand of death resulting from the plague, which killed innocent Egyptians that weren't even aware of the issue?
So apart from plaguing Egypt for fun, there isn't much sense in all that. It just looks like a cruel and mean god. I really don't know why people would trust Him, much less follow his words.
Oh, I see what you're doing here. Of course, Solar *could* become much. But for now it can just help reduce the bill a bit, not much else. But cut our nuclear and oil supply, and the crisis that will ensue will be of a scale we haven't seen for a long while.
And for Germany, they agreed to decommissioning their nuclear plants but the cost if reopening all the old oil and coal plants. Yeah, nobody's talking about that one. That was not a green thing, just an anti-nuclear thing. Nobody knows what is really going to happen there.
Nobody has the first clue as to who wrote them and for what purpose. The only thing we know is that some fanatics think all that is written in it is literally God's word.
You can say someone cherry picks sections and take them out of context, and this is true! But all sides do so, because the whole thing is a mess mixed with hate / love messages and just pure nonsense.
You cannot interpret it literally as any cleric with a good knowledge of the book will point out. So all the people that make sense out of it - whatever sense that is - are just cherry picking stuff and ignoring the rest. Basically, they see whatever they want to see.
solar and wind are great, but you can't rely on them for much of your production. What are you going to do on windless nights? They just cannot be your principal source of energy production. You got to have something serious for the core of your production. For such serious sources, 1st world countries depend on other countries for their raw material.
You do whatever you want, even deny the truth of the state of the art. Today, 1st world countries aren't independent when it comes to Nuclear, oil and gaz. And as of today, none of the alternatives can sustain our whole economy. Solar and wind, tidal, etc aren't continuous sources of energy. You can't run a country only on them. Geothermal only applies to a fraction of the geographical locations involved. Hydro just isn't enough.
I'm open to new technologies. Please cite a technology (or a mix of) where 1st world countries could be independent with and that could sustain the whole countries.
Aren't the 1st world countries dependent on energy though? I mean, without oil nor gasI think there will be some serious issues pretty quickly. And please, no solar or wind power in your response. Nuclear either since 90% of the 1st world countries don't product any uranium.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't you a bit old to have an imaginary friend?
How do you know he's more than 5 ?
Does StatCounter take in account Chrome's page views inflation caused by its Instant Pages prerendering feature?
Even if the page is being prerendered, it still means Chrome is being used.
Not much of a web guy huh? Not much of a statistician either eh?
Same here. Whether it's news or just an article, as soon as I know what is being talked about, I see bullshit in the article anough so it can be called misinformation instead of information. Every single time. Always.
Scares me too.
Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman showed no bruises on his arrival at the police station. Shooting down someone unarmed before he hit you is no grounds for self defense in my book.
You basically just said that males must stop pursuing females.
No no, I didn't say that. There is "pursuing females "and "chasing females". These are two different things and what I advocate is that we should change the way we pursue females. Of course we will never stop pursuing females.
Also, and I'm not sure you disagree with me on 100% of this argument, I don't think the way things work right now are 100% biological. Society's construct is very much at play here and we can most certainly influence this. And I think we should. What is the part of society's construct on our behavior remains to be determined and if I read you correctly you think it is negligible while I think it is important.
To sum it up, I don't have time to read all the stuff you've thrown at me right now so I'll leave it there for the moment until I've had some time to do so. Any pointers for a first read?
Thanks for the insightful conversation.
Well, it is your claim, you should have to put some effort into it.
Ok, ok. But our societies haven't been living according to the laws of nature for quite a while now. Nature hasn't been driving anything in the last millenia or two. Societies have been pushing social behavior but most certainly not nature. By definition, all modern societies aren't driven by nature anymore.
Don't insult, it reduces the strength of your argument, especially when you've been very vocal about something that's extremely well-studied, well-known and well-documented.
You do it too! (See below) so why can you do it while I would not be allowed to do it?
I said that evolutionary pressure resulted in the current strategies (note the plural) due to the unsuccessful strategies resulting in no offspring.
Now I agree with this, but this is not nature anymore, it's evolution. There is a whole lot of difference in there. Because evolution isn't always right. Whole species have disappeared over the course of time and the fact that evolution drove us where we are doesn't imply at all that where we are is the best place to be.
Actually, no. You make a good point (I suspect it's only by accident - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day).
There you go insulting! And I thought it reduces the strength of your argument...
However, something else that is well-documented (and no, I'm not doing your scholar search this time - do your own homework!) is that the measured happiness for women tends to be lower than it used to be 35 years ago, when controlled.
I'm sure I could find a study that would say that grownups are not happier than kids. Should we leave everyone in high school?
Also, one of the things that separate humans from animals is our compassion. Compassion calls for an equal footing of everyone.
No, it doesn't - see the existence of SPCA in every civilised country, yet they don't consider animals equal to humans.
Ok, I went a bit too far here.
As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
No, I don't think it's a good one, in fact I think it's an incredibly bad one (I've sisters too, you know!) that has served largely in the interest of men to the disadvantage of women. The current status quo has lead to women being severely under-valued in society. However, regardless of what I feel, what is known fact is the mating and courting rituals of almost every species discovered by man, and that includes humans as well. In fact, we have more data and research on human mating rituals than we do on other animals, and almost all of the data we have shows evidence that *nature* has resulted in the current mating strategies, and that choosing your original "option B)" from your original post will be stupid idea.
So my point B was "This is a bad thing and needs to be stopped" and you agree that it is a bad thing but your argument against the "needs to be stopped" is that evolution drove us there so it must be the best compromise? Evolution is well and good, but don't you think it's time we take our fate in our own hands? Seriously, pal, evolution didn't give us democracy. So we should ditch it? Evolution didn't give us the internet so we should ditch it?
People (men and women) don't do what they do because it's currently politically correct to do, they do what they do because there's an evolutionary-honed instinct in them that drives them in certain practices (such as mating practices).
I call bullshit here. Evolution drove us to behave a certain way and we passe
So to sum it up:
A) You're sure, it's pretty well-documented
B) You won't share a single link to the documentation based on a doubtful logic that put the onus on me. If it's so well-documented, it should have been easy to find a link.
Ok, I'm fine with this, but you won't convince anyone with this kind of retarded arguments. You just prove you don't give a rat's ass about backing your claims.
Then again, comparing human society to animals has its limitations, and nothing proves that the current strategy is the best one. As a matter of fact, the most "civilized" countries (in other words, the most successful ones) are the ones that have given women the most rights. There, your worthless counter argument, just on par with yours.
Also, one of the things that separate humans from animals is our compassion. Compassion calls for an equal footing of everyone. As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
Someone gonna torrent that?
Piraaaaaaaate!
I agree with your fix on A). But B? Seriously?
Are you sure that's how nature works? To me, it looks as if this is a construct of the judeo-christian society where you're forbidden to see a breast until 16, you're told those things are "a sin" and other craptastic notions like this. Way to screw things up. These notions might have served a purpose back in the day (the same as not eating pork, circumcision, etc served a purpose for society a long time ago) but in the 21st century, we should really know better, I'm sorry. There are also all the bullshit we're feeding our kids, on the form of Hollywood movies advocating for women to wait for the prince charming and men to do all sort of stupid things. I'm sure the impact of this pile of shit we feed our children from very young has more to do with the way we see sex than any kind of natural tendency.
This screwed up education has an effect on men AND women leading to an often confrontational relation when it comes to sex. There is absolutely no shred of evidence that there is anything "natural" or "biological" about this. I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have references of course.
You still stand a far lower chance of getting raped in a street if you're wandering alone in the dark. And then killed if the rapist is afraid of you reporting him.
Legal reaction has been mostly stupid on those grounds. Specially considering the fact that with all they did, it is still very tedious to get a rape reported. Not mentioning that everybody either laugh at you or doubt you - at the worst possible time.
We only have a conflict because of stupid cretins like yourself. Women are not 'vulnerable, weak and defenseless' as you put it. And they don't need protection. You tried to put these words in my mouth but I didn't wrote them - you did.
Women are the target of many. Males need to stop being predatory toward females. And we need to recognize that A) Yes, many men tend to be predatory toward women and B) This is a bad thing and needs to be stopped.
Once we'll be there a long road will be traveled.
If the attention is just looking and perhaps verbal comments. Yes, if a women dresses in a way to attract male attention, she shouldn't be complaining about the attention she's attracting. She's got to know she's going to get the attention of all the unwanted men as well as whoever she was looking to impress.
The same for men of course. If a man is out walking on the street in his Conan the Barbarian leather harness, he has to expect to attract attention. Likewise if he's wearing a $10,000 suit and a Patek Phillipe watch.
The thing is it is wholly different for men than it is for women. Because, you know, we're men. We don't share and we don't experience what women do all day: harassment, cretinous dumbasses looking at you with envy, gross propositions out of nowhere, wandering hands, etc.
We just don't. So let's stop pretending the problem is the same on both sides, because it's not.
'GreenSQL is advertising on Slashdot,' says the GreenSQL.net website, which also says, 'GreenSQL does some stuff and has built-in support for other software. The logic is based on evaluation of input using a buzzword as well as blocking known bad things (death, procreation, etc).' The company also maintains a commercial version as a separate entity. GreenSQL CTO/CoFounder David Maman gives more details about both the company and open source GreenSQL in this video advert.
+1 No More Mod Points
The oly thing I don't know is if I should advocate for you to get a +1 Funny or +1 Insightful
The thing is I need remote backup and backup from servers - linux servers - where a GUI is non existent. All in all, it could fill some gap in my regular backup.
Thanks for the tip.
Sounds like you like playing the role of sysadmin.
Who else is going to play that role at home? Crashplan?
More to the point, I like to know where my data is and how it flows. I found that it's the best way to recover from a crash. Not saying Crashplan is bad or anything, but $6/month for something that will "maybe" have my data whenever I need it is too much for me.
No tornadoes in France ;-)
Actually, we live about 30km apart, so yes, I should find something a bit further away.
Simple. Redundancy backup.
Agreed a 100%. Here is my backup setup:
First, my computer setup:
1. I have a home server that doubles as a NAS on the basement. It has a RAID-5 array for redundancy.
2. I have various other computers, including my own, my SO's and one server at a hosting company.
3. Documents usually sit on my NAS.
4. Documents for which I need an offline access (of sharing with my SO) sit in a Dropbox.
5. Dropbox is also installed on my home server.
My backup plan:
1. My wife and myself have a "button" on our laptops to run the backup to the NAS. I need to make that fully automatic but for now it's manual.
2. I have an old eee-pc in the attic with a 2TB USB drive attached to it. Every day at 1AM is starts scanning all the stuff I want to backup (that includes documents, music, pics, install directory of my servers - web and mail, svn, etc.) from all online computers (that is my home server / NAS and my server hosted). It backs it up incrementally on my 2TB drive. I keep a version for every day for 30 days, then a version every month for 20 month.
3. at 4AM a script runs that copy incrementally the content of the latest backup to a friend of mine which provides me with an SSH access to a 1TB partition. He lives nearby.
4. My friend has an SSH access to my home server and has a 1TB dedicated partition on my RAID-5 array.
I need to live in that those states
You'll probably need to learn proper English first.
But the Pharaoh did exactly as God told him! When the time to liberate the Israelites came over and over again, God told him not to free them!
So he didn't.
So God fried his ass once more.
Hopefully, it was for (int i=0 ; i<10 ; i++)... Imagine if i were to go to 1000!!! Egypt would just be a smoking crater by now.
The Bible is actually an exciting read in places though...murder, suicide, incest, rape, pillage, giants, midgets, wizards and witches, vengeful deities....
I dunno. I tried to read it once but stumbled on the very beginning: The Egypt plagues. There, for many many pages, you see God plaguing Egypt to convince its Pharaoh to free the israelites. After each plague, the Pharaoh is ready to let them go, but God works his magic to convince the Pharaoh NOT to free the Israelites.
Since God can convince at will, wouldn't it have been easier to just convince the Pharaoh in the first place, hence avoiding the thousand of death resulting from the plague, which killed innocent Egyptians that weren't even aware of the issue?
So apart from plaguing Egypt for fun, there isn't much sense in all that. It just looks like a cruel and mean god. I really don't know why people would trust Him, much less follow his words.
Oh, I see what you're doing here. Of course, Solar *could* become much. But for now it can just help reduce the bill a bit, not much else. But cut our nuclear and oil supply, and the crisis that will ensue will be of a scale we haven't seen for a long while.
And for Germany, they agreed to decommissioning their nuclear plants but the cost if reopening all the old oil and coal plants. Yeah, nobody's talking about that one. That was not a green thing, just an anti-nuclear thing. Nobody knows what is really going to happen there.
The texts you cited ...
are pure fiction.
Nobody has the first clue as to who wrote them and for what purpose. The only thing we know is that some fanatics think all that is written in it is literally God's word.
You can say someone cherry picks sections and take them out of context, and this is true! But all sides do so, because the whole thing is a mess mixed with hate / love messages and just pure nonsense.
You cannot interpret it literally as any cleric with a good knowledge of the book will point out. So all the people that make sense out of it - whatever sense that is - are just cherry picking stuff and ignoring the rest. Basically, they see whatever they want to see.
solar and wind are great, but you can't rely on them for much of your production. What are you going to do on windless nights? They just cannot be your principal source of energy production. You got to have something serious for the core of your production. For such serious sources, 1st world countries depend on other countries for their raw material.
You do whatever you want, even deny the truth of the state of the art. Today, 1st world countries aren't independent when it comes to Nuclear, oil and gaz. And as of today, none of the alternatives can sustain our whole economy. Solar and wind, tidal, etc aren't continuous sources of energy. You can't run a country only on them. Geothermal only applies to a fraction of the geographical locations involved. Hydro just isn't enough.
I'm open to new technologies. Please cite a technology (or a mix of) where 1st world countries could be independent with and that could sustain the whole countries.
Aren't the 1st world countries dependent on energy though? I mean, without oil nor gasI think there will be some serious issues pretty quickly. And please, no solar or wind power in your response. Nuclear either since 90% of the 1st world countries don't product any uranium.