Part of the problem as I see it, is that people expect, for example, a Big Mac to cost the same whether you are at a McDonalds in the middle of San Francisco, or a McDonalds in Nowhere, OK
People have been unable to expect this within a single city, much less across the country. There are nearby McDonalds that are expensive and some that are cheap.
My typical "Oh shit I'm late for work" breakfast is about $2.75 at the one near my house, and about $4.75 at the one near work.
None of the items listed by him in the presentation document (video is not available) are of "geocentrism" types.
They actually are if you study the effects of society and gender roles within that society.
For example, Curie literally had to have her parents be teachers, and those teachers want to teach her for her to be taught the fundamentals that she was later able to use. That's not exactly a situation available to any girl.
But Slashdot's gone full Gamergate fanboy over the last year, so there's really no point discussing the subject.
If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
(I'm gonna say that another 2,000 times until you get the point)
The argument that your'e too intellectually lazy to refute weak claims is something that discredits you. You do not, because you cannot, refute the points.
Actually, I can. But you'll just respond with NUH UH again, so what's the point? You will never be convinced, so attempting to convince you is an utter waste of time.
For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics.
If only that was something we could fact check!
If only you could have bothered reading just the next sentence. Soooooo close to finding the point but that would have been dangerously close to needing to reconsider your opinion. And we can't have that!!
You haven't "gone over" anything at all.
Wait....you mean in a post describing how it's pointless to go over something again you were surprised that it wasn't gone over again?
Does light escape your surface, or is the event horizon within your skull?
Because Google doesn't exist so that people who actually care can find it, while those who are just playing politics can just get on to their rant a little bit faster.
It might even be slightly beneficial - it's teaching the students that their personal information has value. They might be less inclined to just hand it over for free or near-free to anyone who asks.
Disclaimer: I'm not on any sort of social program. I make far too much money.
On behalf of every sane person on the planet: Fuck you you selfish piece of shit.
We pay for plenty of stuff that helps you. In fact, you scream incessantly about how terrible it is if we cut spending on something that helps you personally. The second it would help someone else slightly more, you scream "NO!!! MY MONEY!!!".
Your greed-above-all-else attitude can not die out fast enough.
Maybe you should point out where we've had quality public education before
Every year from, oh, let's say 1920 to 1980.
deVos is just another in a long line of those out to destroy public education. The existence of previous piles of shit doesn't mean we have to accept the latest.
If it really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it
If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
Sometimes, the results of the "research" is pretty overwhelming, and quoting it at length over and over again for each layperson who stumbles by is not an effective use of time.
For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics. Both literally and culturally. And there's a host of other barriers. But going over this again and again for people who will respond with "NUH UH!!!" is just a waste of time.
As an aside, this is the reason biometrics is not really a good way to secure anything
It depends on what you are trying to secure. My phone doesn't have evidence of a crime on it, so all I really want to do is keep out people who may find my phone after I lose it somewhere.
Whether it is police or the mob, you can 'force' someone to unlock their devices with a fingerprint, retina scan, or facial recognition
You do realize that the mob has....alternative means to compel you to give up your password, right?
Um.....I'd actually prefer such people use their face or fingerprint....or not lock their phones at all. And tell the local police about their "activities".
A warrant says they have the right to search your house, or in this case device. it doesn't compel you to unlock it for them
A warrant can compel you to provide "things you are". Such as fingerprints, DNA or opening your eyes for FaceID to work.
A warrant can not compel you to provide "things you know", such as an unlock code.....as long as you didn't write it down anywhere, 'cause they can get that paper.
He didn't say birth rates, he said total population.
Birth rates are how you get population.
More people, means more resources must be consumed
Nope. People in the US consumes more resources than people in China.
A large population must use more resources for food, shelter, healthcare; leaving less for education, manufacturing and an energy-dependent lifestyle.
Only when standards of living are equal. And standards of living in the areas under discussion are very far from equal.
When resources are difficult to access there, obviously, will not be adequate growth of education, manufacturing and lifestyle to increase the cost of child-rearing and discourage pregnancy.
And again, the opposite is what is actually happening. Birth rates in Europe are below replacement. Birth rates in the most impoverished parts of Africa are many times higher. Resources are extremely easy to access in Europe. Resources are difficult to access in those poor parts of Africa.
Under your theory, Europe's easy-to-get resources should mean a high birth rate, and Africa's hard-to-get resources should mean a low birth rate. And we very much have the opposite.
Per-capita indicates how much the country needs to change to reduce their emissions.
China has lots of very large emitters. That's relatively easy to change because there's not that many places that need to reduce their emissions. Replacing a coal plant with something that doesn't emit CO2 is relatively easy.
To reduce emissions in the US requires a much larger change. For example, large SUVs driving us as individuals to sprawling suburbs/exurbs is harder to change, because it requires fundamental changes to our culture. We have to start wanting smaller cars and wanting to live in denser communities or spend a fortune actually building a workable public transit infrastructure.
It's actually the opposite: population in total is constricted by resource availability
[Citation Required]
Because what you're claiming flies in the face of what's happening. For example, first-world countries have very high resource availability, and have lower birth rates. Places with poor resource availability, (and high unemployment) have high birth rates.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem as I see it, is that people expect, for example, a Big Mac to cost the same whether you are at a McDonalds in the middle of San Francisco, or a McDonalds in Nowhere, OK
People have been unable to expect this within a single city, much less across the country. There are nearby McDonalds that are expensive and some that are cheap.
My typical "Oh shit I'm late for work" breakfast is about $2.75 at the one near my house, and about $4.75 at the one near work.
The grain mill has staff to turn the wheat into flour.
And the mill spends much more on buying wheat than on paying that staff.
The truck driver has to be paid to transport the flour
And his pay is a very small fraction of the cost of the load.
The farmer has to be paid to grow the wheat.
The farmer isn't getting paid a wage, so he's irrelevant to this discussion.
The truck driver has to be paid to transport the wheat.
And his pay is still a very small fraction of the cost of the load.
It takes labor to find and extract any natural resource.
That doesn't mean labor is the most expensive part of that process.
As wages go up, you will see inflation pick up as well (natural consequence) and as a result the stock market will plummet.
Ok, so what's the downside?
the process is accepted under current supreme court precedent
Cite it. Specifically, when you can be compelled to provide the pin/password in order to obtain incriminating evidence against you.
There are cases where people didn't want to provide a password but because they were not in legal jeopardy the 5th amendment didn't apply.
None of the items listed by him in the presentation document (video is not available) are of "geocentrism" types.
They actually are if you study the effects of society and gender roles within that society.
For example, Curie literally had to have her parents be teachers, and those teachers want to teach her for her to be taught the fundamentals that she was later able to use. That's not exactly a situation available to any girl.
But Slashdot's gone full Gamergate fanboy over the last year, so there's really no point discussing the subject.
Easy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
(I'm gonna say that another 2,000 times until you get the point)
The argument that your'e too intellectually lazy to refute weak claims is something that discredits you. You do not, because you cannot, refute the points.
Actually, I can. But you'll just respond with NUH UH again, so what's the point? You will never be convinced, so attempting to convince you is an utter waste of time.
For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics.
If only that was something we could fact check!
If only you could have bothered reading just the next sentence. Soooooo close to finding the point but that would have been dangerously close to needing to reconsider your opinion. And we can't have that!!
You haven't "gone over" anything at all.
Wait....you mean in a post describing how it's pointless to go over something again you were surprised that it wasn't gone over again?
Does light escape your surface, or is the event horizon within your skull?
Because Google doesn't exist so that people who actually care can find it, while those who are just playing politics can just get on to their rant a little bit faster.
It might even be slightly beneficial - it's teaching the students that their personal information has value. They might be less inclined to just hand it over for free or near-free to anyone who asks.
Two smartphones. Now you're on a smartphone 200% of the time!!
Disclaimer: I'm not on any sort of social program. I make far too much money.
On behalf of every sane person on the planet: Fuck you you selfish piece of shit.
We pay for plenty of stuff that helps you. In fact, you scream incessantly about how terrible it is if we cut spending on something that helps you personally. The second it would help someone else slightly more, you scream "NO!!! MY MONEY!!!".
Your greed-above-all-else attitude can not die out fast enough.
Maybe you should point out where we've had quality public education before
Every year from, oh, let's say 1920 to 1980.
deVos is just another in a long line of those out to destroy public education. The existence of previous piles of shit doesn't mean we have to accept the latest.
If it really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it
If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
Sometimes, the results of the "research" is pretty overwhelming, and quoting it at length over and over again for each layperson who stumbles by is not an effective use of time.
For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics. Both literally and culturally. And there's a host of other barriers. But going over this again and again for people who will respond with "NUH UH!!!" is just a waste of time.
Not here. Disgusting.
And here you are, adding to the problem.
You want info? Google's right over there. Look it up and supply a comment that actually helps fix the problem you are so upset about.
As an aside, this is the reason biometrics is not really a good way to secure anything
It depends on what you are trying to secure. My phone doesn't have evidence of a crime on it, so all I really want to do is keep out people who may find my phone after I lose it somewhere.
Whether it is police or the mob, you can 'force' someone to unlock their devices with a fingerprint, retina scan, or facial recognition
You do realize that the mob has....alternative means to compel you to give up your password, right?
Um.....I'd actually prefer such people use their face or fingerprint....or not lock their phones at all. And tell the local police about their "activities".
TIL that far to many people confuse a job interview with a trial.
And also those same people are very, very, very, very horrified by people lying under oath.....but only when it's the other "team" lying.
And what if you refuse?
Then the judge who issued the warrant will be very angry with you, and he has the authority to imprison you until you do.
A warrant says they have the right to search your house, or in this case device. it doesn't compel you to unlock it for them
A warrant can compel you to provide "things you are". Such as fingerprints, DNA or opening your eyes for FaceID to work.
A warrant can not compel you to provide "things you know", such as an unlock code.....as long as you didn't write it down anywhere, 'cause they can get that paper.
Flood zones so they....
So....you didn't do any due diligence when buying the house? Or are you now whining about something you accepted when you purchased?
Property maps, so they can apportion taxation to me based on their arbitrary rules
Yes....so arbitrary that they come down to $/sq foot + a factor for number of bedrooms + a factor for features such as an attached garage vs carport.
So incredibly arbitrary that they wrote them down and I can read them if I care to actually understand them!!
Zoning maps, so they can tell me if what I want to have on my property
So...you didn't do any due diligence when buying the house? Or are you now whining about something you accepted when you purchased?
Also, I really want to open a hog rendering plant next to your house and then see what you think about zoning.
And they share these maps as they choose, with little concern for my interests
IF they choose.
They're required to share them if you ask and pay the cost of copying it.
Also, you are upset that they share the maps....except when you are upset they don't share the maps. Makes perfect sense.
He didn't say birth rates, he said total population.
Birth rates are how you get population.
More people, means more resources must be consumed
Nope. People in the US consumes more resources than people in China.
A large population must use more resources for food, shelter, healthcare; leaving less for education, manufacturing and an energy-dependent lifestyle.
Only when standards of living are equal. And standards of living in the areas under discussion are very far from equal.
When resources are difficult to access there, obviously, will not be adequate growth of education, manufacturing and lifestyle to increase the cost of child-rearing and discourage pregnancy.
And again, the opposite is what is actually happening. Birth rates in Europe are below replacement. Birth rates in the most impoverished parts of Africa are many times higher. Resources are extremely easy to access in Europe. Resources are difficult to access in those poor parts of Africa.
Under your theory, Europe's easy-to-get resources should mean a high birth rate, and Africa's hard-to-get resources should mean a low birth rate. And we very much have the opposite.
Resource availability, goes down with children.
Only if you're stupid enough to think more people can't produce more resources.
Hint: They can. We have not exhausted the raw materials of the planet, and more people is literally more resources when it comes to labor.
What if those "upward going" particles are a sign that something is happening in the mantle deep under the North Pole
What if you knew where Antarctica was located?
You'd think we'd store modern physics on a durable media. There's so many storage materials that are not prone to shattering.
Per-capita indicates how much the country needs to change to reduce their emissions.
China has lots of very large emitters. That's relatively easy to change because there's not that many places that need to reduce their emissions. Replacing a coal plant with something that doesn't emit CO2 is relatively easy.
To reduce emissions in the US requires a much larger change. For example, large SUVs driving us as individuals to sprawling suburbs/exurbs is harder to change, because it requires fundamental changes to our culture. We have to start wanting smaller cars and wanting to live in denser communities or spend a fortune actually building a workable public transit infrastructure.
It's actually the opposite: population in total is constricted by resource availability
[Citation Required]
Because what you're claiming flies in the face of what's happening. For example, first-world countries have very high resource availability, and have lower birth rates. Places with poor resource availability, (and high unemployment) have high birth rates.