Unless we trust in the kind intentions of our politicians and business owners, I see a dystopian nightmare in the works. We already have the capability to feed, house, and clothe everyone on the planet and look at how many people do without their basic needs being met.
Unless we trust in the kind intentions of our politicians and business owners, I see a dystopian nightmare in the works. We already have the capability to feed, house, and clothe everyone on the planet and look at how many people do without their basic needs being met.
That situation is created by everyone collectively, it's not like the rich are actively preventing people from helping out poor people. The rich aren't always persecuting poor people, sometimes it's simply apathy that causes severe poverty. Not the apathy of the poor person, but the apathy of people who have the time to do things like pay for and screw around on the internet.
Unless we're prepared to have some big (and forced) reductions in populations, we had better get comfortable with larger welfare states.
How does reducing the population help? Then you'll simply have fewer people to buy and sell goods.
I always get bothered when I hear politicians and pundits talk about "labor participation rates". Until the 1960s, we had much lower labor participation rates in the US. Families were able to get by and make progress only having one person in the family working full time. Today, if you're a stay-at-home parent you are counted as "out of the labor force" and politicians will use you as a statistic for why the economy is bad. But that's an ass-backward way of looking at it. If we had a good economy, we'd be able to thrive on a much lower labor participation rate. I mean, what are we talking about here. If someone in 1980 had told me that in the 21st century we'd all have to work harder, for longer hours, and longer into our lives in order to survive, I would have thought they were crazy. But that's where they're at.
Why can't we do that now, instead of reducing the population like you said a few sentences back? People work more because they want more, they see that shiny new Iphone as a necessity rather than a privilege.
Productivity is at record levels, but everyone has to work harder and longer. Does that really make sense to anyone but a "free market conservative"?
I generally consider myself a conservative, but I agree. Forcing people to succeed to the point their stressed out is wrong. We shouldn't hate others for having a different work ethic than us, it's only when it affects us that we should have a problem.
Agreed. The flaw in jury by peers is that the law is written to be incomprehensible, so the jury is forced to defer to the lawyers about what actions could possibly be considered a crime
This is a fallacious argument that simply helps dishonest lawyers make money. Reading the law isn't fun, it's rather tedious, but it's not simply a mishmash of laws. Absent of case law, which has no legal basis in the American judicial system, laws are written to be understood the way a computer would understand a computer problem. You simply read them and apply them. If there are any contradictions or vagueness, then that part of the law is simply void and doesn't apply to that particular case.
Depending on the situation, the "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth" are two different things. One could argue the "whole truth" would include opinions while also arguing that "nothing but the truth" would only include verifiable facts. Which means telling the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" could be a logical impossibility in some situations.
...Transmission likely happened through blood while eating the meat. Much more plausible.
Is eating freshly killed monkey without even cooking it a thing? I thought the AIDS virus died pretty quickly when exposed to air. Sounds like you'd have to be a pretty nasty individual to catch AIDS or HIV that way.
And most of the religious right claims it only affects homosexuals.
Isn't the internet awesome with the way we can spout random shit and not even have to worry a little bit about proving it?
The truth is if you don't let a dirty needle or an AIDS-infected male penetrate you, you're pretty safe from AIDS. Sure, we've got infants being born infected because of their mothers having the disease, but if you don't already have it, preventing it is pretty straightforward. Sure, someone could lie about having it in order to have sex with you. But if they do that, there are probably warning signs that would make them a bad partner, like the fact that they'll lie for sex.
I have schizophrenia. While I love my life and don't want to die, I'd rather not have to raise a child that also has this disorder. Depending on how soon I can figure out if a fetus will contract schizophrenia, I'd rather start over if it's discovered. I think this is more of the attitude they had. It's better not to have certain disorders to start with.
You just defined what a nerd is in an extremely inefficient way. What's your next trick going to be? Telling us why water is wet and why the sky is blue?
Little known fact, but Terminator 2 didn't actually use any special effects. The T1000 and the T100 are on the same side in real life, but they wanted to make a bit of money so they came up with that futuristic apocalypse story.
Slightly off-topic, but haven't you ever wondered why Al Gore went from being a wooden politician to a gregarious guy that loved to preach about global warming? They upgraded his ass. Moore's law gave him his extra personality points.
You lack imagination man. Just wait until the show's been off the air for a few hours, then drive around the neighborhood running your newly updated bittorrent client that's able to ask for files from the local connections it spots. You only need one instance of the file, and if the show's been on recently, you're probably in luck.
Why can't we just have a guaranteed total bandwidth rather than a per second guarantee? Have a minimum amount paid to get access, with a bit of bandwidth associated with it, and if you go over that allotted amount you pay by the gigabyte. Simple and easy.
Yeah, but Predator is a scifi movie, this cloaking device actually exists.
If someone invents a device that can transmit information a fraction of a second into the past, are you going to say,"Nuuuuuuuuu, it's not even close to being like the Back to the Future movies, therefore it sucks!"?
I think with carbon nanotubes you can guide the electrons one at a time, so that would mean significantly less leakage, which would mean significantly less heat, which would mean you could increase the voltage and frequency.
Not sure if the above is a runon sentence, it certainly seems to look okay.
Maybe an ignorant comment here, but since diamond has major cooling properties, maybe graphene does too? I've heard about carbon-based cooling for cellphones, you can guide the heat really well using nanotubes. They don't need to be perfect nanotubes, so the tech is already available. Not sure about cost, though.
I don't pretend to be an expert on women's rights, but the only way to be truly equal to someone is if they're literally the same. While I believe everyone's personal welfare is as important as my own(I'm a Christian who tries to follow the golden rule) we need to recognize that absolute equality is impossible as long as we are individuals with our own abilities and desires.
Sometimes inequality is either necessary or simply happens because we're diffferent. I can't get into the military because I have schizophrenia, should I sue? If a suntan lotion company only wants to hire light-skinned people, should that be considered racism? I have my personal meme when it comes to stuff like this.
"There's [some concept] and then there's wtf."
Basically, there are good ideas, and then there are bad ideas that try to improve on the good ideas.
I'm not commenting on the fairness of this, but the fact that some potential employees have the ability to randomly decide to create a human being inside themselves and then use the law to force said company to at least partially support their decision probably explains a good portion of the discrepancy. Companies don't tend to intentionally screw themselves if they can help it.
Maybe if there were terrorists in these African nations they'd get some aid, is that what you're going for, or is it even more racist than that?
Not terrorists man, oil. If they suddenly discovered oil, the foreign aid from Europe and the US would pour in like water. And, yes, I'm being extremely cynical.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless we trust in the kind intentions of our politicians and business owners, I see a dystopian nightmare in the works. We already have the capability to feed, house, and clothe everyone on the planet and look at how many people do without their basic needs being met.
Unless we trust in the kind intentions of our politicians and business owners, I see a dystopian nightmare in the works. We already have the capability to feed, house, and clothe everyone on the planet and look at how many people do without their basic needs being met.
That situation is created by everyone collectively, it's not like the rich are actively preventing people from helping out poor people. The rich aren't always persecuting poor people, sometimes it's simply apathy that causes severe poverty. Not the apathy of the poor person, but the apathy of people who have the time to do things like pay for and screw around on the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty too.
Unless we're prepared to have some big (and forced) reductions in populations, we had better get comfortable with larger welfare states.
How does reducing the population help? Then you'll simply have fewer people to buy and sell goods.
I always get bothered when I hear politicians and pundits talk about "labor participation rates". Until the 1960s, we had much lower labor participation rates in the US. Families were able to get by and make progress only having one person in the family working full time. Today, if you're a stay-at-home parent you are counted as "out of the labor force" and politicians will use you as a statistic for why the economy is bad. But that's an ass-backward way of looking at it. If we had a good economy, we'd be able to thrive on a much lower labor participation rate. I mean, what are we talking about here. If someone in 1980 had told me that in the 21st century we'd all have to work harder, for longer hours, and longer into our lives in order to survive, I would have thought they were crazy. But that's where they're at.
Why can't we do that now, instead of reducing the population like you said a few sentences back? People work more because they want more, they see that shiny new Iphone as a necessity rather than a privilege.
Productivity is at record levels, but everyone has to work harder and longer. Does that really make sense to anyone but a "free market conservative"?
I generally consider myself a conservative, but I agree. Forcing people to succeed to the point their stressed out is wrong. We shouldn't hate others for having a different work ethic than us, it's only when it affects us that we should have a problem.
Agreed. The flaw in jury by peers is that the law is written to be incomprehensible, so the jury is forced to defer to the lawyers about what actions could possibly be considered a crime
This is a fallacious argument that simply helps dishonest lawyers make money. Reading the law isn't fun, it's rather tedious, but it's not simply a mishmash of laws. Absent of case law, which has no legal basis in the American judicial system, laws are written to be understood the way a computer would understand a computer problem. You simply read them and apply them. If there are any contradictions or vagueness, then that part of the law is simply void and doesn't apply to that particular case.
Depending on the situation, the "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth" are two different things. One could argue the "whole truth" would include opinions while also arguing that "nothing but the truth" would only include verifiable facts. Which means telling the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" could be a logical impossibility in some situations.
Sorry, I should've added the word unhypocritically.
...Transmission likely happened through blood while eating the meat. Much more plausible.
Is eating freshly killed monkey without even cooking it a thing? I thought the AIDS virus died pretty quickly when exposed to air. Sounds like you'd have to be a pretty nasty individual to catch AIDS or HIV that way.
And most of the religious right claims it only affects homosexuals.
Isn't the internet awesome with the way we can spout random shit and not even have to worry a little bit about proving it?
The truth is if you don't let a dirty needle or an AIDS-infected male penetrate you, you're pretty safe from AIDS. Sure, we've got infants being born infected because of their mothers having the disease, but if you don't already have it, preventing it is pretty straightforward. Sure, someone could lie about having it in order to have sex with you. But if they do that, there are probably warning signs that would make them a bad partner, like the fact that they'll lie for sex.
I have schizophrenia. While I love my life and don't want to die, I'd rather not have to raise a child that also has this disorder. Depending on how soon I can figure out if a fetus will contract schizophrenia, I'd rather start over if it's discovered. I think this is more of the attitude they had. It's better not to have certain disorders to start with.
If you rigorously follow the one drop rule, Obama's a white dude. So he's a honky, just like George Bush and Bill Clinton.
You just defined what a nerd is in an extremely inefficient way. What's your next trick going to be? Telling us why water is wet and why the sky is blue?
It seems like the only thing that will make you oppose net neutrality is being a politician.
Wouldn't normally reply to a sig, but since it's appropriate to the conversation:
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Ever heard of goggles?
Little known fact, but Terminator 2 didn't actually use any special effects. The T1000 and the T100 are on the same side in real life, but they wanted to make a bit of money so they came up with that futuristic apocalypse story.
Slightly off-topic, but haven't you ever wondered why Al Gore went from being a wooden politician to a gregarious guy that loved to preach about global warming? They upgraded his ass. Moore's law gave him his extra personality points.
You lack imagination man. Just wait until the show's been off the air for a few hours, then drive around the neighborhood running your newly updated bittorrent client that's able to ask for files from the local connections it spots. You only need one instance of the file, and if the show's been on recently, you're probably in luck.
Why can't we just have a guaranteed total bandwidth rather than a per second guarantee? Have a minimum amount paid to get access, with a bit of bandwidth associated with it, and if you go over that allotted amount you pay by the gigabyte. Simple and easy.
How long until the US suspects Russia of terrorism? Then war, and, conveniently, oil. (if we win)
Yeah, but Predator is a scifi movie, this cloaking device actually exists.
If someone invents a device that can transmit information a fraction of a second into the past, are you going to say,"Nuuuuuuuuu, it's not even close to being like the Back to the Future movies, therefore it sucks!"?
The range that gravity waves could still exist in is 0.1Hz to 1Hz. (It's at the very end of the first link in the summary)
I think with carbon nanotubes you can guide the electrons one at a time, so that would mean significantly less leakage, which would mean significantly less heat, which would mean you could increase the voltage and frequency.
Not sure if the above is a runon sentence, it certainly seems to look okay.
Maybe an ignorant comment here, but since diamond has major cooling properties, maybe graphene does too? I've heard about carbon-based cooling for cellphones, you can guide the heat really well using nanotubes. They don't need to be perfect nanotubes, so the tech is already available. Not sure about cost, though.
I don't pretend to be an expert on women's rights, but the only way to be truly equal to someone is if they're literally the same. While I believe everyone's personal welfare is as important as my own(I'm a Christian who tries to follow the golden rule) we need to recognize that absolute equality is impossible as long as we are individuals with our own abilities and desires.
Sometimes inequality is either necessary or simply happens because we're diffferent. I can't get into the military because I have schizophrenia, should I sue? If a suntan lotion company only wants to hire light-skinned people, should that be considered racism? I have my personal meme when it comes to stuff like this.
"There's [some concept] and then there's wtf."
Basically, there are good ideas, and then there are bad ideas that try to improve on the good ideas.
And now I guess I'm rambling a bit, sorry.
Respectable mad scientists have known for years that supposed 'black holes' are really just wormholes to the goatee universe.
Wait, I have my own universe? That's so awesome.
I'm not commenting on the fairness of this, but the fact that some potential employees have the ability to randomly decide to create a human being inside themselves and then use the law to force said company to at least partially support their decision probably explains a good portion of the discrepancy. Companies don't tend to intentionally screw themselves if they can help it.
Isn't that how Spiderman came into existence?
Maybe if there were terrorists in these African nations they'd get some aid, is that what you're going for, or is it even more racist than that?
Not terrorists man, oil. If they suddenly discovered oil, the foreign aid from Europe and the US would pour in like water. And, yes, I'm being extremely cynical.