Already container ships use the cheapest fuel on the market. It is basically sludge left over from the refining process. it is cheap, dirty, but energy dense. Their engines are robust and designed to burn that sort of fuel without a lot of problems.
Consider if they had some external combustion engines on the boat. Just something to augment the existing engines and they could scoop up any plastic just in the water and then dump that into the external combustion engine where it would be burned.
Here someone will say "toxic chemicals!"... if the fire burns hot enough then you'll just get CO2 and water vapor. Get it up to 4000 or so degrees and it won't be toxic.
... in their incompetence. Typically the groups with the slickest advertising tend to be the worst at their jobs. I've sat through some very sharp presentations only to find out that the brains behind the organization are themselves mostly just gifted salespeople with almost no technical brain trust.
At this point, I find such slick advertisers to be a turn off because I can't trust a fucking thing they're saying. The more inept marketers tend to be more honest, which means you can account for weaknesses before they become fatal flaws.
I said no such thing. As to why I'd be happy to have stem education increased indifferent to jobs?.. because it will make children less ignorant of how the modern world works.
The reality is that increasingly EVERYONE is going to have to know a bit about all these things. It isn't acceptable to have only a small subset of the population know anything about it while the rest is largely ignorant of it all.
As to two genders, there are literally only two genders. Ask a biologist how many genders exist amongst mammals on planet earth... in REALITY?
They will tell you "two"... male and female. The male carries sperm and the female carries fertile eggs, the ability to gestate those fertilized eggs in her womb, and can even provide high quality nourishment for the BABY when it is born which she excretes from her breasts.
Now. Those are two sexes that exist... in reality.
Now you have additional sexes? You say men that identify as woman or women that identity as men?
What is a man that identifies as a unicorn? What "sex" is that? What about a man that identities as a very confused glass of orange juice?
Sex has NOTHING to do with self identification anymore then my height or weight or the number of fingers I have on my hands has anything to do with how I identify the above variables.
Lets say I identify as someone with 25 fingers but I really just have the same 10 or 8 plus 2 thumbs that everyone else has? How many fingers do I have? Identification as you call it is make believe.
As to genetic sex and gender identity... genetic sex is real. Gender identity is in your head. And that's fine. You can believe whatever you want. But your gender is in your genes. Simple fucking fact.
I'm sorry that some people are not the genders they want to be and I have no problem with people transitioning or just cutting their dicks off and doing whatever kind of make believe makes them happy. That is their business and I won't interfere with it.
However, you are not a different gender just because you feel like you're a different gender or just because you cut your dick off. You're your genetic gender. Sorry. Now if you want to get into genetic engineering where the transitioning happens at a biological level, then that is another matter. You do that and I'll consider you a man or woman or whatever. But if you just cut your dick off and put a wig on... then you're a dude that cut his dick off and put a wig on.
Sorry.
I understand perfectly what this cis crap means. I've been bombarded with halfwits telling me about for months. You're not what you identify as... you are what you are. If men want to walk around in dresses or cut their dicks off then that is fine by me. I will neither judge them nor interfere with whatever makes another person happy so long as whatever they're doing is consensual.
Forcing me or attempting to force me to acknowledge you as a gender you are not however is not consensual. It is manipulative and coercive. I do not respect such actions and take them as an affront to MY individual rights. Just as I extend to you the right to do as you please and believe what you like... I am likewise afforded the right to believe what I like.
If you presume to tell me I must accept non-females or non-males as either females or males then I'm going to take that as a hostile move. The social contract between us will be broken and I'll be under no obligation to respect your rights since you've shown no respect for mine.
It is my belief that this cis stuff is bullshit. My belief. I back that with objective reality if you'd like to go there but I don't think I need to.
You be tolerant of me and my beliefs and I'll be tolerant of yours. Being tolerant does not require me to have or even understand your values. I merely have to tolerate them. And I do. You can believe whatever makes your boat go vroom vroom. That's just super. I'm not participating, condoning, or accepting any action that doesn't conform with my personal beliefs any more then those people are forced to accept my beliefs. We tolerate each other. You leave me be and don't try to impose your nonsense on me and I'll not impose the cold hard light of reality on you.
1. Should women be barred from government? no. 2. Should women be permitted to own property? yes. 3. Should wives be property of husbands? no.... Lets just skip over these since I believe they're all rhetorical.
As to women being able to work a given job, no one is stopping them. They just have to learn how to do it and then compete. Being permitted to do a job is not the same thing as giving women a double standard where men have to do one thing to get a job and women have to do half of that.
As to natural... you've done nothing to disprove sexual dimorphism. You've just gone over a series of legal and cultural changes in western society. The consequences of those changes are still not quite known. We are dealing with a variaty of problems right now which were directly caused by those changes. And if not dealt with, those problems could easily end our civiliation. If that happens, successive civilizations will either make sure they have solutions or simply not grant women those same rights. Which would be sad.
I want women to have these rights. However, there is a quid pro quo with all this stuff. With rights come responsibilities. If women do not accept the responsibilities that come with these rights then sadly they are not worthy of them. This is what I mean when I say female culture needs to change.
One thing that is happening is that women are not taking responsibility for themselves. Men take responsibility for themselves. Another issue is that women are often not very realistic about a lot of things. It harkens back to a time when women had no political agency. The men could be realistic and grim and the ladies could be fanciful and frivolous. But given that women have political agency today that isn't an appropriate attitude.
I am not asking for women to be like men. I am asking for them to be adults. And part of being an adult is sucking it up and doing your job. Men have been doing that for thousands of years. Women wanted equality? Welcome to the labor force. Pick up a shovel and get digging.
no, that is your definition of what that means. You can't strawman someone's argument, show that your strawman supports your position, and then claim that your opposition must support you because of the strawman.
You don't get to define your opposition's argument. Everyone gets to define their OWN argument.
How reasonable would it be if libertarians got to define YOUR argument? If we just sat here and said what you "really" mean when you say or ask for things? Think any of that is going to be especially flattering to your cause?
So by the same extention, you can't define our argument. You can argue against what we are saying but you can't make our argument for us. That is always the right of the person who represents that side and never their opposition.
Every position sounds bad if it is defined by its opposition. Consider that capitalism sounds bad when defined by communists. Consider that communism sounds bad when defined by capitalists. Consider that democracy sounds bad when defined by tyrants. Consider that tyranny sounds bad when defined by republicans. Consider that name your religion sounds bad when defined by atheists. Consider that atheism sounds bad when defined by theists.
And you presume to define libertarianism while retaining any credibility for your position?
Libertarians mean level playing field before the law not level playing field before the universe.
That is to say, if I want to start a company, the government shouldn't go out of its way to make that difficult for me while making it super easy for their buddy that gave fat campaign contributions. Consider the Obamacare exemptions that lots of donors to liberal politicians got but lots of other businesses could never get. Just an example of NOT a level playing field. A level playing field doesn't mean that the little company has an equal chance to compete against the big company. It means that the little company has RIGHTS but beyond that it is left alone and allowed to live or die by its own merits. The big company can mess with them to a certain extent so long as that doesn't extend to coercion, extortion, harassment, or violence.
So when you say extensive government is required for a level playing field, you misunderstand what libertarians mean by a level playing field.
Except how is the government able to decide what is and is not better?
Do I let the government decide what is a better pair of shoes or a better plate of food or a better house or a better hotel room? I'm sure they regulate all these things and sometimes even for good reason. But no one has a problem with a reasonable amount of regulation. The issue is that they are effectively inflating the cost of taxi service to either protect campaign donors or to protect extortionate fees they charge cab services.
Either way, they're fucking over their consumer for their own selfish greed. Which means they're liars and assholes.
If the "superior" service they were offering were really worth the extra money then there would be no reason to lock Uber out of the market. While I'm sure they're going to have a luxury service, they'll still over charge for it. That is the whole point. They're trying to protect an outmoded system using heavy handed government fiat powers.
No, libertarians don't have a problem with vaccinations.
The two groups that are least likely to be vaccinated are people at the very top and people at the very bottom.
I think the people at the top think they're not going to mix with the dirty infected people so they don't need to inject dead virus into their children. And the people at the very bottom are often literally just walking across the border from mexico so god knows what is going on with them.
The people most likely to be vaccinated are the people in the middle. They both know they're going to mix with people that are going to cough in their faces... and they know what a vaccine is in the first place. So... they get them.
if their service would be better then Uber then why forbid Uber to compete?
You either let them compete or you're afraid of them. And if you're afraid then you think they're going to out compete you. Which means you think they're better at providing the service then your native industry. And given that every driver would be a korean... and the pay for drivers is pretty good... who are you protecting?
Not the consumer. The consumer is the one that would choose uber.
Not the driver. Uber drivers are well paid and don't have to go into debt to buy a taxi medallion.
The cab companies? I suppose you could be helping them but you're really just subsidizing their own unwillingness to adapt.
Possibly the governments that like to charge fat medallion fees? That seems the most likely.
So there you go. You're either screwing over the consumer to protect campaign donors or to protect local taxi registration extortion fees. Either way, you're assholes.
I'm sure there are some good data scientists but most of the papers I've seen lately that are based on statistics or various data sets are extremely lazy. You have someone that just combs through data and then tries to make a novel association. Nearly always they just show correlation and never causation.
I think that is one of the bigger problems. Because you're not collecting the data or structuring the experiments that collect the data, you can't isolate anything from the data. All you can do is say "well, this might be happening"... which is often completely useless. A more useful thing they could do is find that correlation and then see if they actually have causation by doing a follow up experiment or study that isolates for a specific variable under controlled conditions.
That is, I think data scientists would be more useful if they used the study as a jumping off point to doing an actual study. And I'm not especially interested in reading or even hearing about anything they've done until they've concluded that secondary study.
Absent that... it is lazy, boring, not interesting, and who cares.
Well, you can always prop the board up or put it into some sort of stand. If you have room for a big screen tv then you have room for a flat particle board projection screen.
As to pull down screens. You can get white ones really cheaply but the black ones are currently really expensive. Again... the difference is about 100 to 1. A pull down black projection screen can easily run 5000 dollars and a pull down white screen can run as little as 50 dollars. The paint option is popular because you can get a serviceable black screen for as little as about 60 dollars or if you want a quality one, you can throw about 500 at it. But that is still ten times cheaper then 5000.
Anyway, best of luck with that. Just keep in mind that the white screens only look good in the dark, the gray screens look best in low light, and projection sucks in full light unless you have a black screen.
First off, no one is going to use the "cis gender" term. There are two genders in our species. Any genders beyond those two are in your head. You might as well list "dragon" or "unicorn" as a gender. That shit is literally make believe.
Second off, please badger the fashion industry to put quotas so that more hetro men feel comfortable. Also completely change the culture because the whole thing is uncomfortable for hetro men. When you've gotten any traction there, we'll talk. Also... hetro men want to be in fashion about as much as hetro women want to be in computer science. Aka... not much.
Third, women are not actively discouraged from being in STEM. How is giving boys action figures and girls dollies causing men to go into science and women to go into women's studies? How is GI Joe more a scientist then barbie? Ironically, your women's studies programs are probably doing more to derail women from getting meaningful degrees then anything. What is the value of a women's studies degree in business? Zero. Simply removing women's studies entirely as a valid major would probably significantly increase the number of meaningful degrees women get in college. Think about that.
As to the subtly of these things... you know you're in trouble when your theories become indistinguishable from one of those ghost hunter shows.
Men are not trying to keep women out of tech. We want them in tech. But tech is a meritocracy. Your vagina is a vagina. That is its value. And here's a news flash... computers don't care if you sit down or stand up to pee. When you get to coding... all anyone is going to care about is your coding. And you're going to compete against men working 50+ hour work weeks and if that is hard for you... tough shit. That is the job. Furthermore, if you do bad work or your work needs correction then that is going to nit picked and corrected by your peers. Your feelings don't matter because the fucking computer doesn't care if your feelings are hurt. Improve your fucking code.
And that is why lots of women that get so far as that point decide on a career change to do something else. It isn't because the people there hate women. It is because it is hard, obsessive, and impersonal. Whether women can hack it or not, most don't like it. And as I said... that's fucking tough. That's the job. You fuck with the US development houses and they'll either create smoke and mirrors to do the same thing while tricking you into thinking they're not doing it or they'll outsource the entire division to India where you're not going to interfere with the process. Hurray.... now no one has a job.
Leave it alone. It works. The life is not for everyone. Those that can handle it and like it stay... those that don't... leave. It isn't about your gender. Lots of men can't handle it either. No one sheds a tear for them. I'm not shedding a tear for someone in the 21st century just because they have a vagina. Get the fuck over yourselves and act like adults. That means toughen up, take personal responsibility for your own shitty choices, and stop blaming your parents or society for your serial fuck ups.
How anyone takes this shit even moderately seriously is a mystery to me. It sounds like nothing but naive childish whiny crap from end to soggy sobby end.
That isn't the only reason they do that.There are lots of reasons. People like that often like consistency. It isn't even the practice. They know that sandwich. They know what it tastes like. That isn't just people. That's everything.
If you left someone like that in an abandoned city with shopping malls full of clothing, they'd probably stock up on the same clothing rather then wearing any old random thing. Keep in mind... the city would be abandoned. No one would see them. They wouldn't care.
Anything different can be stressful. Suggesting that autism begins and ends at social interactions is wrong. And beyond that, it is important to keep in mind that autism spectrum is such a broad category that there is really nearly infinite variation within it.
For one thing, neurologically there is no autism brain pattern. To the contrary, people with such disorders have an almost random brain pattern where as people without have a much more consistent and predictable pattern. And that randomness means how things line up and actually work is basically unpredictable. People with autism spectrum have practically random wiring. And sometimes that means good things happen and more often it means either bad things or nothing at all.
My wiring... ME... My wiring is pretty random. I function just fine, thanks. But then maybe I got lucky with having wiring that wasn't terrible. I can tell you that I do have trouble with interactions but personally it is not in the way you think I'd have trouble.
See. I do understand people. I understand because I have studied them. And at will I can pass for normal. No trouble at all. It gets a little tiring if I have to keep it up for hours and hours. But you'd never know. Why is my issue? I don't feel what you feel. I have feelings. They're just not human normal. I don't respond instinctively the way that other people respond. And that means if I want to interact with the monkeys that I have to listen to their hoots and chest thumps to understand what they're trying to say. And then with great skill and practice I return the chest thumps and hoots to the monkeys and all is well.
That is how I am different. Just me. I can't speak for any of my neurological cousins. But that is what it is like to be me. Now would a class that teaches human interaction be helpful for me? Nope. Because the people teaching the class are just going to be another set of fucking monkeys and they don't know how to tell someone how to be a monkey anymore then a fish can tell you how to be a fish. People just are what they are. They don't know why they do what they do are very rarely aware of why they're doing the things they're doing. The thousand unconscious signals they send each other go entirely unnoticed by their conscious minds.
I notice however. I notice and interpret them all in real time and then give the counter signals fluently.
Do you know what it is like? Imagine being stranded on a planet with people that aren't quite human. I don't mean sub human... I just mean a different breed of ape if you will. Different smell... different body language... different sexual habits... Just different. Imagine being a chimpanzee in a world full of baboons. If you've lived with them all your life then you know how they are and what they mean when they do that thing. But you'll never feel the way they do about things. All that excitement about the bright blue asses... you'll never quite get it and more importantly you'll never care.
I don't believe the classes help. I think people with these conditions need to help themselves because they are by definition too different to be fit into some cookie cutter class that just assumes they're all on some sliding linear scale. People on the "spectrum" are not on a spectrum at all. It is only a spectrum from the perspective of normals that evaluate such people from the selfish perspective of how well such people interact with normals. Yes, it helps if you can interact with normal people. But it is vastly more complicated then that... basically infinitely more complicated.
Claiming humans aren't sexually dimorphic is empirically false. You can question whether the distinction is culturally relevant or ethically relevant or philosophically relevant or legally relevant.
But that is to confuse empirical fact with ideology.
Dimorphism is a fact and it isn't something to be afraid of.
One thing I've noticed lately since the feminists are apparently in an endless froth at this point is that there are different kinds of feminists.
Sex positive feminists and sex negative feminists is one distinction between the various camps.
Sex positive feminists embrace their sexuality and rather then try to attain some sexless androgynous gray middle they accentuate their sexuality and try to be as much a woman as possible.
Sex negative feminists reject their sexuality and try to undermine anyone else's sexuality as well. Any display of maleness or femaleness is an ideological threat to them because their ideal is a sexless society where basically the only way you could tell the difference between a man or a woman would be to look in their underwear.
There are lots of types but that is one ideological divide between the feminists. And the feminists that have the hardest time with sexual dimorphism are sex negative feminists. And that's fucking tough because they're joining the creationists if they think their ideology trumps reality.
I am not telling women they need to do or be anything. I am merely saying, don't blame your own differences on other people. If you have different wiring, that isn't everyone else's fault male or otherwise. That's on you or God or the universe or whatever. But you can't point at some random group of people and blame them for your own nature.
Own it or you'll never be able to change yourself.
Just because culture is influenced by biology, economics, politics, geography, weather, and fucking random happenstance doesn't mean something is or is not culture.
To change things, you have to understand why they are the way they are so you understand how they got to be the way they are now. And if you don't understand that then your changes won't take into consideration the countering forces that will incline the status quo to be what it is rather then what you would wish it to be.
The point I made was that the problem with women in tech is not men or the way men treat women but rather the way that women regard their place in society and the relative values of various career paths.
That is culture.
But that culture is not entirely arbitrary and is shaped and influenced by lots of different things. And if you want to change that perception and effectively the tastes and desires of women then you need to appreciate influences those tastes. That requires an appreciation for all the various things that can influence culture or mass human perception and customs. And you have to weight each of those various things by their relative influence on whatever it is that you're trying to change.
And keep in mind when you're doing that the whole thing is dynamic and reactive such that if you change one thing it is likely connected to some other things and there are going to be secondary and tertiary effects of changing anything which can neither be ignored nor completely mitigated.
So no. There was no contradiction. I was just making an intelligent point and you don't know what those look like.
... The fashion industry needs more straight men. I'm all for increasing stem programs for high school. But don't be bigoted about it. Let everyone participate. And if women don't want to go into tech by choice... Get the fuck over it.
And what would I be whining about, retard? I love the stupid insults that don't even give enough information for anyone to actually understand what the halfwit is talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Already container ships use the cheapest fuel on the market. It is basically sludge left over from the refining process. it is cheap, dirty, but energy dense. Their engines are robust and designed to burn that sort of fuel without a lot of problems.
Consider if they had some external combustion engines on the boat. Just something to augment the existing engines and they could scoop up any plastic just in the water and then dump that into the external combustion engine where it would be burned.
Here someone will say "toxic chemicals!"... if the fire burns hot enough then you'll just get CO2 and water vapor. Get it up to 4000 or so degrees and it won't be toxic.
... in their incompetence. Typically the groups with the slickest advertising tend to be the worst at their jobs. I've sat through some very sharp presentations only to find out that the brains behind the organization are themselves mostly just gifted salespeople with almost no technical brain trust.
At this point, I find such slick advertisers to be a turn off because I can't trust a fucking thing they're saying. The more inept marketers tend to be more honest, which means you can account for weaknesses before they become fatal flaws.
I said no such thing. As to why I'd be happy to have stem education increased indifferent to jobs?.. because it will make children less ignorant of how the modern world works.
The reality is that increasingly EVERYONE is going to have to know a bit about all these things. It isn't acceptable to have only a small subset of the population know anything about it while the rest is largely ignorant of it all.
Again, he's a one man company and he's not a web developer. I would cut him some slack with the web design critique.
As to two genders, there are literally only two genders. Ask a biologist how many genders exist amongst mammals on planet earth... in REALITY?
They will tell you "two"... male and female. The male carries sperm and the female carries fertile eggs, the ability to gestate those fertilized eggs in her womb, and can even provide high quality nourishment for the BABY when it is born which she excretes from her breasts.
Now. Those are two sexes that exist... in reality.
Now you have additional sexes? You say men that identify as woman or women that identity as men?
What is a man that identifies as a unicorn? What "sex" is that? What about a man that identities as a very confused glass of orange juice?
Sex has NOTHING to do with self identification anymore then my height or weight or the number of fingers I have on my hands has anything to do with how I identify the above variables.
Lets say I identify as someone with 25 fingers but I really just have the same 10 or 8 plus 2 thumbs that everyone else has? How many fingers do I have? Identification as you call it is make believe.
As to genetic sex and gender identity... genetic sex is real. Gender identity is in your head. And that's fine. You can believe whatever you want. But your gender is in your genes. Simple fucking fact.
I'm sorry that some people are not the genders they want to be and I have no problem with people transitioning or just cutting their dicks off and doing whatever kind of make believe makes them happy. That is their business and I won't interfere with it.
However, you are not a different gender just because you feel like you're a different gender or just because you cut your dick off. You're your genetic gender. Sorry. Now if you want to get into genetic engineering where the transitioning happens at a biological level, then that is another matter. You do that and I'll consider you a man or woman or whatever. But if you just cut your dick off and put a wig on... then you're a dude that cut his dick off and put a wig on.
Sorry.
I understand perfectly what this cis crap means. I've been bombarded with halfwits telling me about for months. You're not what you identify as... you are what you are. If men want to walk around in dresses or cut their dicks off then that is fine by me. I will neither judge them nor interfere with whatever makes another person happy so long as whatever they're doing is consensual.
Forcing me or attempting to force me to acknowledge you as a gender you are not however is not consensual. It is manipulative and coercive. I do not respect such actions and take them as an affront to MY individual rights. Just as I extend to you the right to do as you please and believe what you like... I am likewise afforded the right to believe what I like.
If you presume to tell me I must accept non-females or non-males as either females or males then I'm going to take that as a hostile move. The social contract between us will be broken and I'll be under no obligation to respect your rights since you've shown no respect for mine.
It is my belief that this cis stuff is bullshit. My belief. I back that with objective reality if you'd like to go there but I don't think I need to.
You be tolerant of me and my beliefs and I'll be tolerant of yours. Being tolerant does not require me to have or even understand your values. I merely have to tolerate them. And I do. You can believe whatever makes your boat go vroom vroom. That's just super. I'm not participating, condoning, or accepting any action that doesn't conform with my personal beliefs any more then those people are forced to accept my beliefs. We tolerate each other. You leave me be and don't try to impose your nonsense on me and I'll not impose the cold hard light of reality on you.
Staying on top means what? They're dominating search and smart phones and their android and chome OSs are making surprising headway.
What is their great failure? Self driving cars and google glass? Who cares. Google didn't expect that to be a big money maker anyway.
Google is fine.
Yes... actually useful.
1. Should women be barred from government? no. ... Lets just skip over these since I believe they're all rhetorical.
2. Should women be permitted to own property? yes.
3. Should wives be property of husbands? no.
As to women being able to work a given job, no one is stopping them. They just have to learn how to do it and then compete. Being permitted to do a job is not the same thing as giving women a double standard where men have to do one thing to get a job and women have to do half of that.
As to natural... you've done nothing to disprove sexual dimorphism. You've just gone over a series of legal and cultural changes in western society. The consequences of those changes are still not quite known. We are dealing with a variaty of problems right now which were directly caused by those changes. And if not dealt with, those problems could easily end our civiliation. If that happens, successive civilizations will either make sure they have solutions or simply not grant women those same rights. Which would be sad.
I want women to have these rights. However, there is a quid pro quo with all this stuff. With rights come responsibilities. If women do not accept the responsibilities that come with these rights then sadly they are not worthy of them. This is what I mean when I say female culture needs to change.
One thing that is happening is that women are not taking responsibility for themselves. Men take responsibility for themselves. Another issue is that women are often not very realistic about a lot of things. It harkens back to a time when women had no political agency. The men could be realistic and grim and the ladies could be fanciful and frivolous. But given that women have political agency today that isn't an appropriate attitude.
I am not asking for women to be like men. I am asking for them to be adults. And part of being an adult is sucking it up and doing your job. Men have been doing that for thousands of years. Women wanted equality? Welcome to the labor force. Pick up a shovel and get digging.
FYI, it is one guy running that company. And he's not a web designer. So cut him some slack.
no, that is your definition of what that means. You can't strawman someone's argument, show that your strawman supports your position, and then claim that your opposition must support you because of the strawman.
You don't get to define your opposition's argument. Everyone gets to define their OWN argument.
How reasonable would it be if libertarians got to define YOUR argument? If we just sat here and said what you "really" mean when you say or ask for things? Think any of that is going to be especially flattering to your cause?
So by the same extention, you can't define our argument. You can argue against what we are saying but you can't make our argument for us. That is always the right of the person who represents that side and never their opposition.
Every position sounds bad if it is defined by its opposition. Consider that capitalism sounds bad when defined by communists. Consider that communism sounds bad when defined by capitalists. Consider that democracy sounds bad when defined by tyrants. Consider that tyranny sounds bad when defined by republicans. Consider that name your religion sounds bad when defined by atheists. Consider that atheism sounds bad when defined by theists.
And you presume to define libertarianism while retaining any credibility for your position?
Are you stupid or a liar? It is one of the two.
And which barriers would those be? I've heard them referred to but every time they've been examined in any detail they don't go anywhere.
Depends on what you mean by level playing field.
Libertarians mean level playing field before the law not level playing field before the universe.
That is to say, if I want to start a company, the government shouldn't go out of its way to make that difficult for me while making it super easy for their buddy that gave fat campaign contributions. Consider the Obamacare exemptions that lots of donors to liberal politicians got but lots of other businesses could never get. Just an example of NOT a level playing field. A level playing field doesn't mean that the little company has an equal chance to compete against the big company. It means that the little company has RIGHTS but beyond that it is left alone and allowed to live or die by its own merits. The big company can mess with them to a certain extent so long as that doesn't extend to coercion, extortion, harassment, or violence.
So when you say extensive government is required for a level playing field, you misunderstand what libertarians mean by a level playing field.
Except how is the government able to decide what is and is not better?
Do I let the government decide what is a better pair of shoes or a better plate of food or a better house or a better hotel room? I'm sure they regulate all these things and sometimes even for good reason. But no one has a problem with a reasonable amount of regulation. The issue is that they are effectively inflating the cost of taxi service to either protect campaign donors or to protect extortionate fees they charge cab services.
Either way, they're fucking over their consumer for their own selfish greed. Which means they're liars and assholes.
If the "superior" service they were offering were really worth the extra money then there would be no reason to lock Uber out of the market. While I'm sure they're going to have a luxury service, they'll still over charge for it. That is the whole point. They're trying to protect an outmoded system using heavy handed government fiat powers.
No, libertarians don't have a problem with vaccinations.
The two groups that are least likely to be vaccinated are people at the very top and people at the very bottom.
I think the people at the top think they're not going to mix with the dirty infected people so they don't need to inject dead virus into their children. And the people at the very bottom are often literally just walking across the border from mexico so god knows what is going on with them.
The people most likely to be vaccinated are the people in the middle. They both know they're going to mix with people that are going to cough in their faces... and they know what a vaccine is in the first place. So... they get them.
if their service would be better then Uber then why forbid Uber to compete?
You either let them compete or you're afraid of them. And if you're afraid then you think they're going to out compete you. Which means you think they're better at providing the service then your native industry. And given that every driver would be a korean... and the pay for drivers is pretty good... who are you protecting?
Not the consumer. The consumer is the one that would choose uber.
Not the driver. Uber drivers are well paid and don't have to go into debt to buy a taxi medallion.
The cab companies? I suppose you could be helping them but you're really just subsidizing their own unwillingness to adapt.
Possibly the governments that like to charge fat medallion fees? That seems the most likely.
So there you go. You're either screwing over the consumer to protect campaign donors or to protect local taxi registration extortion fees. Either way, you're assholes.
I'm sure there are some good data scientists but most of the papers I've seen lately that are based on statistics or various data sets are extremely lazy. You have someone that just combs through data and then tries to make a novel association. Nearly always they just show correlation and never causation.
I think that is one of the bigger problems. Because you're not collecting the data or structuring the experiments that collect the data, you can't isolate anything from the data. All you can do is say "well, this might be happening"... which is often completely useless. A more useful thing they could do is find that correlation and then see if they actually have causation by doing a follow up experiment or study that isolates for a specific variable under controlled conditions.
That is, I think data scientists would be more useful if they used the study as a jumping off point to doing an actual study. And I'm not especially interested in reading or even hearing about anything they've done until they've concluded that secondary study.
Absent that... it is lazy, boring, not interesting, and who cares.
Well, you can always prop the board up or put it into some sort of stand. If you have room for a big screen tv then you have room for a flat particle board projection screen.
As to pull down screens. You can get white ones really cheaply but the black ones are currently really expensive. Again... the difference is about 100 to 1. A pull down black projection screen can easily run 5000 dollars and a pull down white screen can run as little as 50 dollars. The paint option is popular because you can get a serviceable black screen for as little as about 60 dollars or if you want a quality one, you can throw about 500 at it. But that is still ten times cheaper then 5000.
Anyway, best of luck with that. Just keep in mind that the white screens only look good in the dark, the gray screens look best in low light, and projection sucks in full light unless you have a black screen.
First off, no one is going to use the "cis gender" term. There are two genders in our species. Any genders beyond those two are in your head. You might as well list "dragon" or "unicorn" as a gender. That shit is literally make believe.
Second off, please badger the fashion industry to put quotas so that more hetro men feel comfortable. Also completely change the culture because the whole thing is uncomfortable for hetro men. When you've gotten any traction there, we'll talk. Also... hetro men want to be in fashion about as much as hetro women want to be in computer science. Aka... not much.
Third, women are not actively discouraged from being in STEM. How is giving boys action figures and girls dollies causing men to go into science and women to go into women's studies? How is GI Joe more a scientist then barbie? Ironically, your women's studies programs are probably doing more to derail women from getting meaningful degrees then anything. What is the value of a women's studies degree in business? Zero. Simply removing women's studies entirely as a valid major would probably significantly increase the number of meaningful degrees women get in college. Think about that.
As to the subtly of these things... you know you're in trouble when your theories become indistinguishable from one of those ghost hunter shows.
Men are not trying to keep women out of tech. We want them in tech. But tech is a meritocracy. Your vagina is a vagina. That is its value. And here's a news flash... computers don't care if you sit down or stand up to pee. When you get to coding... all anyone is going to care about is your coding. And you're going to compete against men working 50+ hour work weeks and if that is hard for you... tough shit. That is the job. Furthermore, if you do bad work or your work needs correction then that is going to nit picked and corrected by your peers. Your feelings don't matter because the fucking computer doesn't care if your feelings are hurt. Improve your fucking code.
And that is why lots of women that get so far as that point decide on a career change to do something else. It isn't because the people there hate women. It is because it is hard, obsessive, and impersonal. Whether women can hack it or not, most don't like it. And as I said... that's fucking tough. That's the job. You fuck with the US development houses and they'll either create smoke and mirrors to do the same thing while tricking you into thinking they're not doing it or they'll outsource the entire division to India where you're not going to interfere with the process. Hurray.... now no one has a job.
Leave it alone. It works. The life is not for everyone. Those that can handle it and like it stay... those that don't... leave. It isn't about your gender. Lots of men can't handle it either. No one sheds a tear for them. I'm not shedding a tear for someone in the 21st century just because they have a vagina. Get the fuck over yourselves and act like adults. That means toughen up, take personal responsibility for your own shitty choices, and stop blaming your parents or society for your serial fuck ups.
How anyone takes this shit even moderately seriously is a mystery to me. It sounds like nothing but naive childish whiny crap from end to soggy sobby end.
That isn't the only reason they do that.There are lots of reasons. People like that often like consistency. It isn't even the practice. They know that sandwich. They know what it tastes like. That isn't just people. That's everything.
If you left someone like that in an abandoned city with shopping malls full of clothing, they'd probably stock up on the same clothing rather then wearing any old random thing. Keep in mind... the city would be abandoned. No one would see them. They wouldn't care.
Anything different can be stressful. Suggesting that autism begins and ends at social interactions is wrong. And beyond that, it is important to keep in mind that autism spectrum is such a broad category that there is really nearly infinite variation within it.
For one thing, neurologically there is no autism brain pattern. To the contrary, people with such disorders have an almost random brain pattern where as people without have a much more consistent and predictable pattern. And that randomness means how things line up and actually work is basically unpredictable. People with autism spectrum have practically random wiring. And sometimes that means good things happen and more often it means either bad things or nothing at all.
My wiring... ME... My wiring is pretty random. I function just fine, thanks. But then maybe I got lucky with having wiring that wasn't terrible. I can tell you that I do have trouble with interactions but personally it is not in the way you think I'd have trouble.
See. I do understand people. I understand because I have studied them. And at will I can pass for normal. No trouble at all. It gets a little tiring if I have to keep it up for hours and hours. But you'd never know. Why is my issue? I don't feel what you feel. I have feelings. They're just not human normal. I don't respond instinctively the way that other people respond. And that means if I want to interact with the monkeys that I have to listen to their hoots and chest thumps to understand what they're trying to say. And then with great skill and practice I return the chest thumps and hoots to the monkeys and all is well.
That is how I am different. Just me. I can't speak for any of my neurological cousins. But that is what it is like to be me. Now would a class that teaches human interaction be helpful for me? Nope. Because the people teaching the class are just going to be another set of fucking monkeys and they don't know how to tell someone how to be a monkey anymore then a fish can tell you how to be a fish. People just are what they are. They don't know why they do what they do are very rarely aware of why they're doing the things they're doing. The thousand unconscious signals they send each other go entirely unnoticed by their conscious minds.
I notice however. I notice and interpret them all in real time and then give the counter signals fluently.
Do you know what it is like? Imagine being stranded on a planet with people that aren't quite human. I don't mean sub human... I just mean a different breed of ape if you will. Different smell... different body language... different sexual habits... Just different. Imagine being a chimpanzee in a world full of baboons. If you've lived with them all your life then you know how they are and what they mean when they do that thing. But you'll never feel the way they do about things. All that excitement about the bright blue asses... you'll never quite get it and more importantly you'll never care.
I don't believe the classes help. I think people with these conditions need to help themselves because they are by definition too different to be fit into some cookie cutter class that just assumes they're all on some sliding linear scale. People on the "spectrum" are not on a spectrum at all. It is only a spectrum from the perspective of normals that evaluate such people from the selfish perspective of how well such people interact with normals. Yes, it helps if you can interact with normal people. But it is vastly more complicated then that... basically infinitely more complicated.
In what way do they vary widely?
Claiming humans aren't sexually dimorphic is empirically false. You can question whether the distinction is culturally relevant or ethically relevant or philosophically relevant or legally relevant.
But that is to confuse empirical fact with ideology.
Dimorphism is a fact and it isn't something to be afraid of.
One thing I've noticed lately since the feminists are apparently in an endless froth at this point is that there are different kinds of feminists.
Sex positive feminists and sex negative feminists is one distinction between the various camps.
Sex positive feminists embrace their sexuality and rather then try to attain some sexless androgynous gray middle they accentuate their sexuality and try to be as much a woman as possible.
Sex negative feminists reject their sexuality and try to undermine anyone else's sexuality as well. Any display of maleness or femaleness is an ideological threat to them because their ideal is a sexless society where basically the only way you could tell the difference between a man or a woman would be to look in their underwear.
There are lots of types but that is one ideological divide between the feminists. And the feminists that have the hardest time with sexual dimorphism are sex negative feminists. And that's fucking tough because they're joining the creationists if they think their ideology trumps reality.
I am not telling women they need to do or be anything. I am merely saying, don't blame your own differences on other people. If you have different wiring, that isn't everyone else's fault male or otherwise. That's on you or God or the universe or whatever. But you can't point at some random group of people and blame them for your own nature.
Own it or you'll never be able to change yourself.
Just because culture is influenced by biology, economics, politics, geography, weather, and fucking random happenstance doesn't mean something is or is not culture.
To change things, you have to understand why they are the way they are so you understand how they got to be the way they are now. And if you don't understand that then your changes won't take into consideration the countering forces that will incline the status quo to be what it is rather then what you would wish it to be.
The point I made was that the problem with women in tech is not men or the way men treat women but rather the way that women regard their place in society and the relative values of various career paths.
That is culture.
But that culture is not entirely arbitrary and is shaped and influenced by lots of different things. And if you want to change that perception and effectively the tastes and desires of women then you need to appreciate influences those tastes. That requires an appreciation for all the various things that can influence culture or mass human perception and customs. And you have to weight each of those various things by their relative influence on whatever it is that you're trying to change.
And keep in mind when you're doing that the whole thing is dynamic and reactive such that if you change one thing it is likely connected to some other things and there are going to be secondary and tertiary effects of changing anything which can neither be ignored nor completely mitigated.
So no. There was no contradiction. I was just making an intelligent point and you don't know what those look like.
What is this copy/paste, tin foil hat, fucktarded stupidity? Did you have something to say or are you just going to post Big Foot's manifesto?
... The fashion industry needs more straight men. I'm all for increasing stem programs for high school. But don't be bigoted about it. Let everyone participate. And if women don't want to go into tech by choice... Get the fuck over it.
And what would I be whining about, retard? I love the stupid insults that don't even give enough information for anyone to actually understand what the halfwit is talking about.
Try again.