A nation of 1.4 billion people, with a gdp of $8 trillion, the largest nation in the world, will manage to reach the moon before a couple of handfuls of mostly-private teams with budgets perhaps 1 MILLIONTH of theirs.
I'm 100% certain that in this circumstance, environmentalists WOULD be complaining angrily about 'destruction of saline environment' and 'harm to local species'.
Culture and civilization are all great, but doesn't really change the fact that deep down we're social ANIMALS, and probably the greatest evolutionary advantage that we have had was that we could cooperate.
There's a clear Darwinistic pressure to confirm, so long as there's a little percentage of (expendable) individuals willing to experiment creatively - since for the bulk of history and prehistory, 'creativity' was a great way to get you and others killed.
Here's my idea: offer an insurance program that kicks OUT when you do something deliberately disregarding reasonable methods of protection.
1) smoke? Then no, your lung-cancer isn't covered. 2) don't believe in vaccines? Then no, your measles/mumps/rubella isn't covered. 3) Like to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? No prob, but no coverage for head-related injuries resulting from a motorcycle incident.
The sad fact is that in terms of humanity, it IS good that their offspring are afflicted, and hopefully sterilized. The fact that the parents are likely done reproducing means that they're functionally irrelevant.
Look, it's unreasonable to simply say "men do this, women do this" and try to justify it with (usually) an elementary-school understanding of biochemistry.
HOWEVER.... to suggest that the hormonal change which RADICALLY alters otogeny (either developing testes and the subsequent hormonal consequences, or continuing on to developing ovaries) which then results in relatively consistent changes in brain structure, sexual attraction, body chemistry, etc. along one of two tracks DON'T have any impact on brain capabilities just because the idea of gender differences makes us uncomfortable with our 21st century politically-correct sensitivities is also unreasonable.
Females show a statistically superior skill in verbal fluency, across cultures. Males show a similar skill advantage in spacial reasoning.
That's a simple fact. To suggest that other differences are only limited to trivial superficialities is a desperate rationalization, not a logical inference.
BTW the whole "women are paid less" thing has been debunked so many times that the only people repeating it are ardent feminists and the willfully ignorant.
...what you're saying is that the tenure (I get a great salary, can never be fired unless I practically murder a kid, and have a giant professional union handling all my negotiations) bullshit is like winning the lottery, and you're unhappy that buying a bigger, more expensive ticket isn't an "automatic" win?
"...who really thinks it's a good idea to let some preening, unaccountable bureaucrat decide whether or not you should be granted that privilege with no justification needed..."
We did, collectively. We decided that we wanted a federal government with powers in excess of those specifically granted by the Constitution, each step (usually cloaked in a well-intentioned "The government knows better how to help..." or "The government has the resources to fix...") has inexorably ratcheted up the government ability to intrude and control the lives of private citizens.
Congratulations, you "big government" Democrats and you are just as culpable you intrusivist neo-Conservative evangelical Republicans: both groups of assholes that want to shove their creed down people's throats.
Seriously, if these are petroleum products, and petro products are finite, why are they so cheap? Or are they made of petro-fractions that are otherwise nearly worthless?
I've always wondered - I don't have one of those sprout-things sticking out of my dash, and (on this car) there really isn't a handy ledge to lay it on, so when I'm using the navigation feature on my phone, I'm holding it upright in my hand, listening to it's directions. I often just drop it (then have to drive incautiously as I later retrieve it) when a police officer is nearby, as I don't want him to think I'm texting and driving.
I just wonder, while there are plenty of people who DO text and drive, I'd imagine there are a few like me that aren't ACTUALLY texting, but holding their phone like they might be....
I'd agree with everything you wrote, but my question is: Shouldn't we always consider the charger-power in the 'cost' considerations for the vehicle?
I mean if the tesla takes X power, and the charger takes 10% of that, then the system takes 1.1X of power - because most certainly energy needed to heat the batteries is not peripheral to the operation of the car, no?
Except that nearly every step since then by the populists has been to push it toward a pure democracy (witness the pressure to remove the electoral system), generally to little good.
I mean, it's not like the President lacked any management experience, right?
Seriously, though, I think people who have never done it believe that running an organization is easy. Being a GOOD manager, or a GOOD CEO can be hellishly hard work where everything is done through innumerable proxies yet are ultimately your responsibility.
It is not a partisan statement to say that the world's only superpower shouldn't be run/led by some dumbass community organizer with no management experience. The result is a partisan comment, unavoidably, but the simple fact shorn of context is undeniable.
That's idiotic. If companies could really get away with paying women less than men, WHY ARE ANY MEN EVER EMPLOYED?
Seriously, you can't assert that companies are both 1) soulless money machines interested in NOTHING more than profit no matter what the consequence, AND 2) chummy old-boy clubs where they'll cheerfully pay 20-50% more because a worker happens to have testes.
The concept's completely nonsensical...but then you're probably a woman, logic isn't your strong suit. . . . . . . . . . . (That was a joke by the way, you humorless bitch.) . . . . . . . (So was that.)
...is the fact that there is clearly nobody - Democrat or Republican - who is competent enough to play a serious game of brinksmanship WITHIN our government without fucking it up. I can't imagine that they're going to be any more competent with the Chinese, and the consequences here are far more serious than the US budget for the year or Obamacare.
The politically-correct bullshit has to stop - do people REALLY believe there's a concerted effort to keep women out of coding? It must be so, because that's the only situation in which this sort of thing would matter.
What you've just told CS instructors is to MAKE SURE every last woman in their course passes, and there's a financial reward for it.
Why does it matter what chromosomes your coder bears?
Here's a tip: you come off as far more reasonable and less of a tinfoil-hat whacko if you even moderately edit your post to correct gross an obvious misspellings, unfinished sentences/thoughts, etc.
As it is, this post seems so frenzied it's hard to take seriously.
OK I'll bite: 1) the first example: I'd cheerfully point to the current president and his punch-board mother as a great negative example. He both got his student-aid based on a lie, and was handed political opportunities based on his delightfully appealing-to-liberals coffee-colored skin (black enough to assuage white guilt, but not "scary black") and ability to deliver a speech. Do you think he'd be president if he was white? He was handed everything else in life, the fact that escalator took him all the way to the presidency is more a comment on political correctness and the dysfunction of society, than the confirmation it's "working as intended".
2) John Carmack, Steve Jobs, even Ashton Kutcher: remember, we're talking about the GOVERNMENT enforcing a 'fairness regime' to help these poor devils who've made bad choices. Your examples are perfect: how many of them needed the government running interference for them so that they could succeed? Perhaps my earlier post wasn't clear: People MAKE mistakes, that's human. By god I'm a clear example of that. But nobody learns from a cost-free error, and the examples you gave are perfect choices to show that one can fight free of ones' choices and succeed.
Obviously, it's not the first-step remedy, but yes, completely. Oh I wouldn't put them in COMBAT (our military has too ably proved that draftees are nearly worthless compared to motivated volunteers) but they can do lots of other shitty tasks that need lots of strong backs.
I want to be clear where I come from on this, and it's a little convoluted, but it comes from my position on abortion: I *don't* believe it's just a "woman's right to choose" - that's bullshit feminist propaganda. There are TWO people involved in the creation of a baby, and thus two people need to have a say.
BUT as long as men are irresponsible scum* and shirk their absolute moral and ethical responsibility (because they CAN walk away, she cannot), then the choice DOES fall practically on women's shoulders. So the consequences of impregnating-and-walking-away need to consistently be worse than sticking around.
*and please don't give me the 'condom breaks' or 'she said she was on the pill' nonsense: if you can't/don't trust her, maybe you shouldn't be using her as a masturbatory tool? Because at that point, that's all she is, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for COMPLETELY validating everything I've always thought about environmentalists. Much appreciate the laugh on a Monday morning.
A nation of 1.4 billion people, with a gdp of $8 trillion, the largest nation in the world, will manage to reach the moon before a couple of handfuls of mostly-private teams with budgets perhaps 1 MILLIONTH of theirs.
Go China!
I'm 100% certain that in this circumstance, environmentalists WOULD be complaining angrily about 'destruction of saline environment' and 'harm to local species'.
I'm not kidding at all.
Culture and civilization are all great, but doesn't really change the fact that deep down we're social ANIMALS, and probably the greatest evolutionary advantage that we have had was that we could cooperate.
There's a clear Darwinistic pressure to confirm, so long as there's a little percentage of (expendable) individuals willing to experiment creatively - since for the bulk of history and prehistory, 'creativity' was a great way to get you and others killed.
Here's my idea: offer an insurance program that kicks OUT when you do something deliberately disregarding reasonable methods of protection.
1) smoke? Then no, your lung-cancer isn't covered.
2) don't believe in vaccines? Then no, your measles/mumps/rubella isn't covered.
3) Like to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? No prob, but no coverage for head-related injuries resulting from a motorcycle incident.
Anyone interested?
The sad fact is that in terms of humanity, it IS good that their offspring are afflicted, and hopefully sterilized. The fact that the parents are likely done reproducing means that they're functionally irrelevant.
-Darwin.
Look, it's unreasonable to simply say "men do this, women do this" and try to justify it with (usually) an elementary-school understanding of biochemistry.
HOWEVER....
to suggest that the hormonal change which RADICALLY alters otogeny (either developing testes and the subsequent hormonal consequences, or continuing on to developing ovaries) which then results in relatively consistent changes in brain structure, sexual attraction, body chemistry, etc. along one of two tracks DON'T have any impact on brain capabilities just because the idea of gender differences makes us uncomfortable with our 21st century politically-correct sensitivities is also unreasonable.
Females show a statistically superior skill in verbal fluency, across cultures.
Males show a similar skill advantage in spacial reasoning.
That's a simple fact. To suggest that other differences are only limited to trivial superficialities is a desperate rationalization, not a logical inference.
BTW the whole "women are paid less" thing has been debunked so many times that the only people repeating it are ardent feminists and the willfully ignorant.
...so someone doesn't accidentally buy a $335,000 600hp sports car without realizing IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS.
In other news: the government has banned running with scissors.
...what you're saying is that the tenure (I get a great salary, can never be fired unless I practically murder a kid, and have a giant professional union handling all my negotiations) bullshit is like winning the lottery, and you're unhappy that buying a bigger, more expensive ticket isn't an "automatic" win?
Wow, I think I'm tearing up here.
"...who really thinks it's a good idea to let some preening, unaccountable bureaucrat decide whether or not you should be granted that privilege with no justification needed..."
We did, collectively.
We decided that we wanted a federal government with powers in excess of those specifically granted by the Constitution, each step (usually cloaked in a well-intentioned "The government knows better how to help..." or "The government has the resources to fix...") has inexorably ratcheted up the government ability to intrude and control the lives of private citizens.
Congratulations, you "big government" Democrats and you are just as culpable you intrusivist neo-Conservative evangelical Republicans: both groups of assholes that want to shove their creed down people's throats.
...why are they so cheap?
Seriously, if these are petroleum products, and petro products are finite, why are they so cheap? Or are they made of petro-fractions that are otherwise nearly worthless?
I've always wondered - I don't have one of those sprout-things sticking out of my dash, and (on this car) there really isn't a handy ledge to lay it on, so when I'm using the navigation feature on my phone, I'm holding it upright in my hand, listening to it's directions.
I often just drop it (then have to drive incautiously as I later retrieve it) when a police officer is nearby, as I don't want him to think I'm texting and driving.
I just wonder, while there are plenty of people who DO text and drive, I'd imagine there are a few like me that aren't ACTUALLY texting, but holding their phone like they might be....
That is why I've said from the beginning that, if only for PR purposes, the US is most likely working the hardest to KEEP HIM ALIVE.
Because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad HIMSELF could walk up and knife Snowden, and it would be blamed entirely on the US.
but isn't this why we have living wills?
Oh, and if you don't have a living will (and a will, for that matter) legally established, you're grossly irresponsible.
I'd agree with everything you wrote, but my question is: Shouldn't we always consider the charger-power in the 'cost' considerations for the vehicle?
I mean if the tesla takes X power, and the charger takes 10% of that, then the system takes 1.1X of power - because most certainly energy needed to heat the batteries is not peripheral to the operation of the car, no?
Except that nearly every step since then by the populists has been to push it toward a pure democracy (witness the pressure to remove the electoral system), generally to little good.
I mean, it's not like the President lacked any management experience, right?
Seriously, though, I think people who have never done it believe that running an organization is easy. Being a GOOD manager, or a GOOD CEO can be hellishly hard work where everything is done through innumerable proxies yet are ultimately your responsibility.
It is not a partisan statement to say that the world's only superpower shouldn't be run/led by some dumbass community organizer with no management experience. The result is a partisan comment, unavoidably, but the simple fact shorn of context is undeniable.
That's idiotic.
If companies could really get away with paying women less than men, WHY ARE ANY MEN EVER EMPLOYED?
Seriously, you can't assert that companies are both
1) soulless money machines interested in NOTHING more than profit no matter what the consequence, AND
2) chummy old-boy clubs where they'll cheerfully pay 20-50% more because a worker happens to have testes.
The concept's completely nonsensical...but then you're probably a woman, logic isn't your strong suit.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(That was a joke by the way, you humorless bitch.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(So was that.)
...is the fact that there is clearly nobody - Democrat or Republican - who is competent enough to play a serious game of brinksmanship WITHIN our government without fucking it up. I can't imagine that they're going to be any more competent with the Chinese, and the consequences here are far more serious than the US budget for the year or Obamacare.
Seriously: did The Onion write this?
aka:
"Studying the Kardashians to understand humility" or "Studying Congress to understand bipartisan cooperation and fiscal prudence"
Really?
The politically-correct bullshit has to stop - do people REALLY believe there's a concerted effort to keep women out of coding? It must be so, because that's the only situation in which this sort of thing would matter.
What you've just told CS instructors is to MAKE SURE every last woman in their course passes, and there's a financial reward for it.
Why does it matter what chromosomes your coder bears?
Here's a tip: you come off as far more reasonable and less of a tinfoil-hat whacko if you even moderately edit your post to correct gross an obvious misspellings, unfinished sentences/thoughts, etc.
As it is, this post seems so frenzied it's hard to take seriously.
OK I'll bite:
1) the first example: I'd cheerfully point to the current president and his punch-board mother as a great negative example. He both got his student-aid based on a lie, and was handed political opportunities based on his delightfully appealing-to-liberals coffee-colored skin (black enough to assuage white guilt, but not "scary black") and ability to deliver a speech. Do you think he'd be president if he was white? He was handed everything else in life, the fact that escalator took him all the way to the presidency is more a comment on political correctness and the dysfunction of society, than the confirmation it's "working as intended".
2) John Carmack, Steve Jobs, even Ashton Kutcher: remember, we're talking about the GOVERNMENT enforcing a 'fairness regime' to help these poor devils who've made bad choices. Your examples are perfect: how many of them needed the government running interference for them so that they could succeed? Perhaps my earlier post wasn't clear: People MAKE mistakes, that's human. By god I'm a clear example of that. But nobody learns from a cost-free error, and the examples you gave are perfect choices to show that one can fight free of ones' choices and succeed.
Obviously, it's not the first-step remedy, but yes, completely. Oh I wouldn't put them in COMBAT (our military has too ably proved that draftees are nearly worthless compared to motivated volunteers) but they can do lots of other shitty tasks that need lots of strong backs.
I want to be clear where I come from on this, and it's a little convoluted, but it comes from my position on abortion: I *don't* believe it's just a "woman's right to choose" - that's bullshit feminist propaganda. There are TWO people involved in the creation of a baby, and thus two people need to have a say.
BUT as long as men are irresponsible scum* and shirk their absolute moral and ethical responsibility (because they CAN walk away, she cannot), then the choice DOES fall practically on women's shoulders. So the consequences of impregnating-and-walking-away need to consistently be worse than sticking around.
*and please don't give me the 'condom breaks' or 'she said she was on the pill' nonsense: if you can't/don't trust her, maybe you shouldn't be using her as a masturbatory tool? Because at that point, that's all she is, right?
The funniest part of this post?
The "anonymous" bit.
ROFLMAO.
-The NSA.