That's easy...considering it doesnt exist. Or were you simply unaware that throughout human history high birth rates have nearly always been assocaited with the segments of society made of up of poor and uneduated? Perhaps you also never heard of the phenomenon where as people make more money and achieve higher education levels, birth rates naturally fall?
It has nothing to do with welfare, and everything to do with societal stratification and peoples' economic health and well-being.
After all, if welfare were the cause, then why are birthrates in actual welfares states like Norway, Sweden, France, or just basically most of Europe, so low that they are below replacement levels? In fact, those countries are now actively encouraging people to have more babies.
Humorous, but that's not what theyre talking about. They are talking about space rocks large enough to air burst, to actually heat up enough to explode in the atmosphere, such as the Chelyabinsk object.
Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.
Oddly enough, gun control solves that too: --Number of police in the UK shot and killed in the line of duty since 1995: 7 --Number of police in the US shot and killed in the line of duty in 2012* alone: 120-130**
*most recent year for which there is any sort of numbers I could find **we don't keep good track of exact figures of any set of gun deaths in the US
The statistics for gun homicide rates, including citizens shot by police, are similarly lopsided, even after accounting for population size. And for the US, nebulous, because again, we dont keep track.
When police in the UK fatally shoot two people in a YEAR, out of 5 shootings total, in the entire country, it's a big deal. In the US we're lucky if less than two per state on any given night of the week, much less the whole country.
But gun control "doesn't work"... somehow...
not when a nervous person holding a gun is telling you what to do.
I don't think it's too much to ask that police officers be expected to be in charge of their faculties, and disciplined in the use of their weapons, rather than fearful and nervous and firing at the first possible moment.
Why should we care about the owners of the network? The internet is fundamentally a natural monopoly. As such it should absolutely be treated as such which means utilty type regulations. The owners aren't the ones you should be concerned, rather it's the users and consumers.
It's really simple: If you are against Net Neutrality, you are against the internet that you currently enjoy in its present state. Net Neutrality is about preserving and protecting the current ideal status quo that companies at least pay lip service to.
Blocking Net Neutrality is about fundamentally changing the internet as you know it, to turn it into nothing more than walled garden ala AOL and Compuserve of old, where your "internet" is little more than a slightly fancier cable channel with predetermined content. Such a thing fundamentally kills and and restricts the marketplace and exchange of ideas, of thoughts, of communication, of trade and economic possiblity that current exists, and ensures that all potential profits will go to the established ISPs, and no unapproved upstarts shall be allowed to exist.
The internet is possibly one of the greatest achievements in human history in terms of communication. It fosters communication and free speech on a scale never before known by humanity. Across borders, across cultures, across the globe, and (hopeuflly, potentially) across the stars. That openness, that freedom, must be protected.
And protecting means Net Neutrality. If you oppose NN you advocating for the destruction of one of humanity's greatest triumphs, and one of the biggest liberators of the little guy.
Without giving in to complete cynicism...I believe yes there are, though they are few. I also believe that a great many politicians even start out that way, bright eyed and hopeful and naive, much like the epynimous Mr Smith.
But what's the old saying? Opportunity knocks but once, temptation leans on the door bell.
Well....the lobbyists don't just lean on the door bell. They buy your mortgage out from under you to threaten you with eviction, while letting themselves into the house whenever they please, constantly reminding you that if you should displease them they will throw their economic might behind the first challenger to come along.
But it doesnt have to be that way. Campaign finance reform, publicly funded elections, open primaries and Single Transferable Votes (or similar better system that results in a political sphere actually representative of all citizens, not just the bare majority that win any given contest)
I'm sorry, but who is opposing big infrastructure projects such and putting peopel to work through new incarnations of the WPA and CCC in the wake of the recession? It was the GOP that shot down those proposals.
Yes...we're so antihuman that we want to decrease pollution because its not good for human health, not good for the planets health. I cant believe you are seriously making the statement that preferring solar/wind over fossil fuels is somehow anti-human. You and your ilk repeatedly make these same sorts of claims, as if there is no alternative to burning coil and oil.
Just how ignorant on this issue are you? Are you just completely unaware that there are other sources of energy? Are you totally unaware that the amount of solar energy that lands on the Earth in a single hour is more than all of humanity consumes in an entire year?
Our energy consumption is only 0.01% of what's available from the sun, and its based on burning the converted solar in the form of fossil fuels. But why should we continue to dig it out of the ground to line someone else's pocket and impair our health, and imperil our planet, when such vast sums of energy beyond imagining are free for the taking?
There is no reason, none, not one, to continue to be reliant on fossil fuels. We could entirely end that dependence in our lifetimes, even with the next decade. We have the technology, we have the manpower, we have the resources, we have the capabilty. It's simply a matter of will (political and economic).
And how in the world did someone mod you insightful? When you have somehting coherent and logical to state, get back to me.
oh no, you dont get to restrict your statements to just the ISS after making plain your wholesale opposition to anything manned. there are limits to manned missions and there are limits to unmanned. but the two are not mutually exclusive; rather they are complimentary. we need both.
You really have no clue how scientific research is funded in this country do you?
And no, there is no reason skepticism. We aren't talking about a salesmen pushing a sale. It's not a product being sold. We are talking about research where there is a question and an effect to find an answer.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nope...nope, I don't see anything in there about private corporations being free from the wrath of citizens over discriminatory actions or products.
You can say anything you want (which they did, with that book). And others can say anything they want in response (which people did, with their outrage). And in response to that outrage, they pulled the product.
Nothing about that chain of events in any way raises any First Amendment issues.
And how many times must your ignorance be called out in a single day?
Oh, so that makes it ok then? No, it doesn't. And that's the GP's point: It's wrong, regardless of whether its reflective or not of the present reality. It's wrong because it helps perpeatuate that mentality, that cycle. Being "just life real life" is not an excuse and is irrelevent.
And the point of that article you linked is precisely about the systemic biases that create a self-perpetuating perception (once again, from your own link, that you apparently, once again, didnt read before using it to "support" your position):
There are many gender challenges that we face on this planet, centuries of tradition and religious beliefs prove to make biases, and repression, difficult to change. But, getting more women to like numbers, science and engineering, really is an imaginable shift, and one that can be accomplished in short order. Girls can code, they can add without apple illustrations and they can change the world, one invention at a time. Let's remember to tell them that.
You have the mendacity to claim that achieving equality is somehow recieving special treatment or special rights?
Allow me to clarify this for you and everyone else who thinks so erroneously:
Actually acheiving equality is not recieving special treatment. Special treatment is what they have recieved in the past, and continue to recieve to this today. Specifically special treatment that is derogatory in nature, that denigrates them as human beings and makes a mockery of the very concept of equality.
It's already most of the posts here, and it's only been an hour.
Godwin Feminist Corollary: As an online discussion about sexism continues, the probability of a woman who speaks out being called a feminazi approaches one.
Moff's Law: As comments continue in a discussion of pop culture in relation to feminism, the probability of someone saying 'why do you have to analyze it? it's just a movie/cartoon/book!' approaches one.
And perhaps the best one, Lewis's Law: Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.
Not really, no. The words are segregated such that Congressman referred specifically to a member of the House of Representitives. Congressman Joe Smoe is a member of the House. You wouldnt say Congressman Bob Smith to refer to a Senator as Senator is his proper title. The phrase properly used to apply to generically to ether side is Member of Congress.
The closest you can get to use the word to apply to both sides, is to use it in the informal sense, ie lower case "congressman" as opposed to the formal sense "Congressman", which I used which clearly indicates usage of the word in the formal, title sense. This is still not really common usage though as there few cases where refering to a Senator or group of Senators informally still wouldnt be better served by using "senator(s)".
This is why you're nto worthy of citations. You link without reading. You link without comprehension. You twist words to suit your agenda, which apparently now also includes turning schools into a for profit industry.
Sepcifically in this case you are abusing the disconenct between the meaning of the word "proficient" as used in the school assessment, and the defninion conjured when someone reads a headline saying "66% are below proficient".
By abusing this disconnect, and the point the article you linked is making and you completely missed, you present a false impression that the majority cannot even read, and that is simply not the case.
From the mediamatters link:
"only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a "proficient" rating while another 2 percent earned an "advanced" rating. The other 66 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned ratings below "proficient," including 44 percent who earned a rating of "basic" and 22 percent who earned a rating of "below basic."
44% are reading at a basic level, equivalent to an average person. 34% (32+2) are reading higher than that. 22% are reading lower than average.
So lets sum up: 78% are reading at an average level or higher, and only 22% are reading below average. That is a very different picture than the one you tried to paint.
Once again, you prove yourself to be ignornat. Or in this case, possibly even deliberately misleading and untruthful.
theres a story, an old one, about a lass who incurred a debt from a disreputable firm. law firm maybe. it changes she couldnt afford to pay. so tries to escape it through various means. after months of wrangling, she finally had no choice but to pay. she finally saved up enough to pay it off. being as ticked as she was, she put it all in pennies. bags and bag and bags of pennies. and when she tried to drop it off, they refused to acept it. shes says "are you refusing to accept payment?" they says "yes." she says ok, walks out, and takes the pennies with her, keeping the money. (im not a good story teller) its a fun story.
sadly, while you cant get in trouble for paying with all pennies, nor is the debt wiped away and ignored if they refuse payment.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
That's easy...considering it doesnt exist.
Or were you simply unaware that throughout human history high birth rates have nearly always been assocaited with the segments of society made of up of poor and uneduated? Perhaps you also never heard of the phenomenon where as people make more money and achieve higher education levels, birth rates naturally fall?
It has nothing to do with welfare, and everything to do with societal stratification and peoples' economic health and well-being.
After all, if welfare were the cause, then why are birthrates in actual welfares states like Norway, Sweden, France, or just basically most of Europe, so low that they are below replacement levels? In fact, those countries are now actively encouraging people to have more babies.
So much for that theory, huh?
Humorous, but that's not what theyre talking about.
They are talking about space rocks large enough to air burst, to actually heat up enough to explode in the atmosphere, such as the Chelyabinsk object.
Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.
Oddly enough, gun control solves that too:
--Number of police in the UK shot and killed in the line of duty since 1995: 7
--Number of police in the US shot and killed in the line of duty in 2012* alone: 120-130**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
*most recent year for which there is any sort of numbers I could find
**we don't keep good track of exact figures of any set of gun deaths in the US
The statistics for gun homicide rates, including citizens shot by police, are similarly lopsided, even after accounting for population size.
And for the US, nebulous, because again, we dont keep track.
When police in the UK fatally shoot two people in a YEAR, out of 5 shootings total, in the entire country, it's a big deal.
In the US we're lucky if less than two per state on any given night of the week, much less the whole country.
But gun control "doesn't work" ... somehow ...
not when a nervous person holding a gun is telling you what to do.
I don't think it's too much to ask that police officers be expected to be in charge of their faculties, and disciplined in the use of their weapons, rather than fearful and nervous and firing at the first possible moment.
and that fear is how rights are eroded as expectations change
There's also the DBAD principle. ....
Don't Be A
too bad more people don't live by it
Why should we care about the owners of the network?
The internet is fundamentally a natural monopoly.
As such it should absolutely be treated as such which means utilty type regulations.
The owners aren't the ones you should be concerned, rather it's the users and consumers.
It's really simple: If you are against Net Neutrality, you are against the internet that you currently enjoy in its present state.
Net Neutrality is about preserving and protecting the current ideal status quo that companies at least pay lip service to.
Blocking Net Neutrality is about fundamentally changing the internet as you know it, to turn it into nothing more than walled garden ala AOL and Compuserve of old, where your "internet" is little more than a slightly fancier cable channel with predetermined content. Such a thing fundamentally kills and and restricts the marketplace and exchange of ideas, of thoughts, of communication, of trade and economic possiblity that current exists, and ensures that all potential profits will go to the established ISPs, and no unapproved upstarts shall be allowed to exist.
The internet is possibly one of the greatest achievements in human history in terms of communication. It fosters communication and free speech on a scale never before known by humanity. Across borders, across cultures, across the globe, and (hopeuflly, potentially) across the stars. That openness, that freedom, must be protected.
And protecting means Net Neutrality.
If you oppose NN you advocating for the destruction of one of humanity's greatest triumphs, and one of the biggest liberators of the little guy.
Without giving in to complete cynicism...I believe yes there are, though they are few.
I also believe that a great many politicians even start out that way, bright eyed and hopeful and naive, much like the epynimous Mr Smith.
But what's the old saying? Opportunity knocks but once, temptation leans on the door bell.
Well....the lobbyists don't just lean on the door bell.
They buy your mortgage out from under you to threaten you with eviction, while letting themselves into the house whenever they please, constantly reminding you that if you should displease them they will throw their economic might behind the first challenger to come along.
But it doesnt have to be that way.
Campaign finance reform, publicly funded elections, open primaries and Single Transferable Votes (or similar better system that results in a political sphere actually representative of all citizens, not just the bare majority that win any given contest)
I'm sorry, but who is opposing big infrastructure projects such and putting peopel to work through new incarnations of the WPA and CCC in the wake of the recession?
It was the GOP that shot down those proposals.
Yes...we're so antihuman that we want to decrease pollution because its not good for human health, not good for the planets health.
I cant believe you are seriously making the statement that preferring solar/wind over fossil fuels is somehow anti-human.
You and your ilk repeatedly make these same sorts of claims, as if there is no alternative to burning coil and oil.
Just how ignorant on this issue are you? Are you just completely unaware that there are other sources of energy? Are you totally unaware that the amount of solar energy that lands on the Earth in a single hour is more than all of humanity consumes in an entire year?
Our energy consumption is only 0.01% of what's available from the sun, and its based on burning the converted solar in the form of fossil fuels. But why should we continue to dig it out of the ground to line someone else's pocket and impair our health, and imperil our planet, when such vast sums of energy beyond imagining are free for the taking?
There is no reason, none, not one, to continue to be reliant on fossil fuels. We could entirely end that dependence in our lifetimes, even with the next decade. We have the technology, we have the manpower, we have the resources, we have the capabilty. It's simply a matter of will (political and economic).
And how in the world did someone mod you insightful?
When you have somehting coherent and logical to state, get back to me.
at this point you're just a troll.
a short sighted incurious troll whos more interested in staring at his feet.
oh no, you dont get to restrict your statements to just the ISS after making plain your wholesale opposition to anything manned.
there are limits to manned missions and there are limits to unmanned.
but the two are not mutually exclusive; rather they are complimentary.
we need both.
completly different, kind of like...the difference between funding for space research and medical research?
You really have no clue how scientific research is funded in this country do you?
And no, there is no reason skepticism.
We aren't talking about a salesmen pushing a sale.
It's not a product being sold.
We are talking about research where there is a question and an effect to find an answer.
Do try to correct your ignorance by reading this: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/...
It's a pretty decent primer.
Moff's Law fulfilled.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nope...nope, I don't see anything in there about private corporations being free from the wrath of citizens over discriminatory actions or products.
You can say anything you want (which they did, with that book).
And others can say anything they want in response (which people did, with their outrage).
And in response to that outrage, they pulled the product.
Nothing about that chain of events in any way raises any First Amendment issues.
And how many times must your ignorance be called out in a single day?
Oh, so that makes it ok then?
No, it doesn't.
And that's the GP's point: It's wrong, regardless of whether its reflective or not of the present reality.
It's wrong because it helps perpeatuate that mentality, that cycle.
Being "just life real life" is not an excuse and is irrelevent.
And the point of that article you linked is precisely about the systemic biases that create a self-perpetuating perception (once again, from your own link, that you apparently, once again, didnt read before using it to "support" your position):
There are many gender challenges that we face on this planet, centuries of tradition and religious beliefs prove to make biases, and repression, difficult to change. But, getting more women to like numbers, science and engineering, really is an imaginable shift, and one that can be accomplished in short order. Girls can code, they can add without apple illustrations and they can change the world, one invention at a time. Let's remember to tell them that.
You have the mendacity to claim that achieving equality is somehow recieving special treatment or special rights?
Allow me to clarify this for you and everyone else who thinks so erroneously:
Actually acheiving equality is not recieving special treatment.
Special treatment is what they have recieved in the past, and continue to recieve to this today.
Specifically special treatment that is derogatory in nature, that denigrates them as human beings and makes a mockery of the very concept of equality.
It's already most of the posts here, and it's only been an hour.
Godwin Feminist Corollary: As an online discussion about sexism continues, the probability of a woman who speaks out being called a feminazi approaches one.
Moff's Law: As comments continue in a discussion of pop culture in relation to feminism, the probability of someone saying 'why do you have to analyze it? it's just a movie/cartoon/book!' approaches one.
And perhaps the best one, Lewis's Law: Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.
No, if he were consistent he would throw them back over the fence in higher numbers than any of his predecessors.
So we should provide the security through fear of summary execution without trial or due process?
Stupid troll is stupid.
Not really, no. The words are segregated such that Congressman referred specifically to a member of the House of Representitives. Congressman Joe Smoe is a member of the House. You wouldnt say Congressman Bob Smith to refer to a Senator as Senator is his proper title. The phrase properly used to apply to generically to ether side is Member of Congress.
The closest you can get to use the word to apply to both sides, is to use it in the informal sense, ie lower case "congressman" as opposed to the formal sense "Congressman", which I used which clearly indicates usage of the word in the formal, title sense. This is still not really common usage though as there few cases where refering to a Senator or group of Senators informally still wouldnt be better served by using "senator(s)".
Just FYI.
When a Congressman becomes a Senator, the IQ of both houses improves increases.
This is why you're nto worthy of citations. You link without reading. You link without comprehension. You twist words to suit your agenda, which apparently now also includes turning schools into a for profit industry.
Sepcifically in this case you are abusing the disconenct between the meaning of the word "proficient" as used in the school assessment, and the defninion conjured when someone reads a headline saying "66% are below proficient".
By abusing this disconnect, and the point the article you linked is making and you completely missed, you present a false impression that the majority cannot even read, and that is simply not the case.
From the mediamatters link:
"only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a "proficient" rating while another 2 percent earned an "advanced" rating. The other 66 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned ratings below "proficient," including 44 percent who earned a rating of "basic" and 22 percent who earned a rating of "below basic."
44% are reading at a basic level, equivalent to an average person.
34% (32+2) are reading higher than that.
22% are reading lower than average.
So lets sum up: 78% are reading at an average level or higher, and only 22% are reading below average.
That is a very different picture than the one you tried to paint.
Once again, you prove yourself to be ignornat.
Or in this case, possibly even deliberately misleading and untruthful.
1) we've previously established that you dont actually know anything about the DoEd or what it does
2) No, that rate isn't down. It's actually at all time highs. What you stated is a myth. A popular one, but a myth. http://educationnext.org/gradu...
theres a story, an old one, about a lass who incurred a debt from a disreputable firm. law firm maybe. it changes
she couldnt afford to pay. so tries to escape it through various means.
after months of wrangling, she finally had no choice but to pay.
she finally saved up enough to pay it off.
being as ticked as she was, she put it all in pennies.
bags and bag and bags of pennies.
and when she tried to drop it off, they refused to acept it.
shes says "are you refusing to accept payment?"
they says "yes."
she says ok, walks out, and takes the pennies with her, keeping the money.
(im not a good story teller)
its a fun story.
sadly, while you cant get in trouble for paying with all pennies, nor is the debt wiped away and ignored if they refuse payment.
http://www.treasury.gov/resour...
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
contracts are only binding for people who cant afford enough lawyers.