Everywhere I wanted to be and everyone I wanted to be with I couldn't reach without begging someone and potentially making them upset. So yes, I would say it crushed my soul a bit.
A good running car can be had for $500, so maybe you should solve your own problems instead of blaming the suburbs.
You have to sit on your ass in in a massive air conditioned box just to get anywhere.
I think your "need" for air conditioning is a problem.
Then when you get there, you have to circle around the massive parking lot to find a spot, possible battling it out with some asshole who decided to cut in line in front of you. Then you haul your groceries out to the car, sit down for another 20-30 minutes, get cut off by *another* asshole on the freeway. Maybe you pull over to a Starbucks, where park again, wait in line for some sugar-drenched coffee.
Maybe you should stop living in shitholes, surrounded by assholes.
If you are trying to use "race" to categorize people in the same way that you would categorize birds by plumage or ants by mandible size, then yeah, it's pretty useful for that.
I see what you did there; you failed to point out that race is also great for explaining why the Germans are the economic powerhouse of Europe, while Greece is full of sybarites who enjoy living the high life with minimal output. It also explains why Swiss are so good with money, why Africans are more social and less adventurous on average, why Japanese are so warlike, why Russians are cold and untrustworthy, and why Jews are so damned good with money and business. All of these observations can explained by race and genetics. Aristotle knew all this thousands of years ago, but it seems humans are too busy being offended (and starting eugenics movements) to gain any benefit from it.
Species is defined on populations, not on individuals. If Kekaimalu bred with another wholphin, they might have a chance to establish a breeding population. If, however Kekaimalu didn't breed, then it wouldn't count at all. If it bred with either a dolphin or another false killer whale, then it would most probably just act as a means in interspecific gene transport. It's quite unlikely that it would establish a viable breeding population. But if they did, then it could result in a new species. (I don't claim that the edges of a species are sharply defined. In fact I have already mentioned "ring species", which rather disproves that model.)
Good job wasting our time by completely missing the point. The original argument was that race does exist; your counter example of "species" is clearly not a valid argument against that idea, since species themselves are far from fixed. It's all invented by humans. Just because the idea of "race" makes you squeamish doesn't change its validity as a means of classification.
Two animal varieties are of the same species if, given a chance, they interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Except there have been many, many, many documented cases of accidental and intentional cross pollenization between species, in some cases producing fertile offspring which are nothing like the parents. How does that fit into your simple little definition?
The notion of race is analogous to these sociolinguistic definitions, not to language; it is not defined by external factors, but by social ideas.
Wrong. It's determined by genetics.
There may be superficial features that are assumed to be associated with particular "races"
Wrong. If your weak and pasty ass had to go toe to toe with a Mali warrior, or a Viking, or you found yourself in a logical argument with a German, I'm sure you'd quickly find those "features" aren't quite so superficial after all.
In other words, "race" is a social construct.
So Ghanans, Japanese, Norwegians, and Cherokee are all of the same race, in your view? Take a child from each country and raise them in the exact same environment, and they would grow up to behave exactly the same, or even significantly the same?
No he isn't agreeing with your premise. He's saying that 'race' doesn't exist. Geneticists agree with him.
Sure, if they're idiots. People who have open eyes and ears can see there are clear differences between races. The GP asked for a "meaningful definition of race." There is no such thing, just as there is no meaningful definition of species; it's difficult to classify something that varies so much from one region of the globe to another. Doesn't change the fact that differences certainly do exist, however. Scientists have noted this for thousands of years; only since Nazism has this type of discussion become taboo among idiots. The thinking people of the world know that race does matter, even if it should not be used to discriminate and hate.
A) Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. They have promised not to pursue the construction of a nuclear weapon, and to allow the IAEA to oversee any civilian programs they have to ensure that they aren't also being used for military purposes. If they're not honoring treaty obligations there, then why are they to be trusted with anything?
....All of which is irrelevant, because we're not their fucking dads. Iran is a sovereign nation and can do as it likes, our "permission" or not.
B) In the short run it might be a net positive for Iran to have nukes. Israel and/or the US will be harder pressed to push them around: Yay! Unfortunately, over the longer term, it will likely kick off a local arms race, with all the other sovereign nations in the region wanting to have equivalent weapons: D'Oh! Odds are, the first polity to get nukes will be Saudi Arabia. Remind me again how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?
I dunno. How many of the CIA agents who overthrow Mossadegh were American?
First, I doubt those countries, particularly Pakistan, would agree. First, at least two of those countries are likely to be downwind from any nuclear retribution against Iran. Canada and Mexico have similar concerns about the US's nuclear program.
Kinda like the War on Drugs. Drugs are bad because they get people put in jail! Therefore, they should be illegal.
And the two aren't far apart by missile. There won't be a relatively comfortable hour or so warning as with US/USSR ICBMs. So any sort of warning system has to be able to retaliate with a few minutes or the country just might not have a nuclear response capability by the definition of MAD. Subs would provide such capability, but they can be destroyed more easily, if located.
By Iran???
You think Iran is going to risk destroying itself just to take out Israel?
And then there's the problem of accidents, crazy leaders, and such. Pakistan is the current poster child for why nuclear weapons are a problem for the neighbors. They have an unstable government, they've already distributed nuclear technology (and probably have permanently harmed nonproliferation efforts), and they're occasionally at war with India. There's no false sense of long term nuclear security unless Pakistan gets rid of its nuclear weapons. Iran will have the same problems.
FTFY
Then there's the other neighbors. Saudi Arabia and Egypt both would desire a nuclear counter to an Iranian nuclear weapons. It's unknown how hard they would try.But it's worth noting that Egypt's GDP is roughly similar in size to the US's at the end of the Second World War while Saudi Arabia's is roughly double (Iran has about 50% more GDP than Egypt). if they obtain nuclear weapons, then that encourages everyone else in the region to do so.
...........and?
I think it would be very foolish to ignore the risk of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, much less the rest of the world (for example, Venezuela's current relationship with Iran includes some exchange of ballistic missile technology).
I think you're the fool. Whether you "ignore the risk" or embrace it wholeheartedly, nothing changes: nukes will be developed and yes, they will eventually be used.
It's not like the people at question are energy independent with nuclear power now, this is about finding a way to expand that market so that lots more people can get access to supply without (further) threatening the security of the world with more nuclear bombs. Obviously it's sort of an absurd proposition, if north korea can build nuclear weapons anyone can, but it's an honest effort.
Sure. It's an "honest" effort to enslave the world. Your line about "threatening the security of the world" is right out of the propagandist's storybook. Whose "security" is really threatened by Iran having the nuclear trump card? When was the last time Iran ever invaded or bullied around a nation, like the United States does regularly?
The nuclear cat's out of the bag and it's never going back in. The more nations who have nukes, the better. The idiots will destroy themselves in short order, as a further reminder to the smart ones to play extra nice. The "bad guys" will eventually get nukes no matter how deeply we bury our kids' bodies in the sands of faraway God forsaken lands, when we send them off to die in the next Crusade.
This program is basically designed for Iran. What they are trying to say that if Iran gives up their Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty rights for enrichment, then the US and Israel probably won't bomb them for that reason. And if the US or Israel needs to bomb Iran in the future, it can be done knowing that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons or highly enriched uranium that they can give to their allies. Even better, if Iran starts misbehaving, this fuel can be sanctioned. Finally, if Iran doesn't accept this program, then they must be building nuclear bombs, which gives the US and Israel justification to start bombing.
You forgot to add, that's what the propaganda would like us to believe. Why would a sane nation give over its right to energy independence?
Guaranteed by whom? What are they offering up as collateral; their firstborn sons? Yeah right. Why would any sane nation accept (i.e. Iran) such a proposal?
One thing which had me convinced Armstrong was doping back as early as 2004 were his rages - he was aggressive and prone to anger far outside the normal range of human behaviour.
That's due to your ignorance. "Roid rage" is largely a myth.
I may be - in fact hope to be, completely wrong in my pessimism.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're entirely correct.
Our system, as it exists now, cannot stand....and there is not enough political willpower to change. It's like the Titanic trying to steer away from the iceberg with too much momentum and too small of a rudder.
Do you really believe that the US is falling apart? It seems to me that around 99% of the problems we see today are mostly manufactured by various news agencies/websites to drum up viewers
Try visiting Michigan some time. It's looking more and more like Serbia.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel like I shouldn't drive 30 minutes for a short meal, and so options are limited.
Well you could always......YOU KNOW......cook your own meal.
Everywhere I wanted to be and everyone I wanted to be with I couldn't reach without begging someone and potentially making them upset. So yes, I would say it crushed my soul a bit.
A good running car can be had for $500, so maybe you should solve your own problems instead of blaming the suburbs.
You have to sit on your ass in in a massive air conditioned box just to get anywhere.
I think your "need" for air conditioning is a problem.
Then when you get there, you have to circle around the massive parking lot to find a spot, possible battling it out with some asshole who decided to cut in line in front of you. Then you haul your groceries out to the car, sit down for another 20-30 minutes, get cut off by *another* asshole on the freeway. Maybe you pull over to a Starbucks, where park again, wait in line for some sugar-drenched coffee.
Maybe you should stop living in shitholes, surrounded by assholes.
If your cataloging system can't actually catalog anyone, it's useless.
Your cataloguing system is the most useless, because it doesn't exist.
If you are trying to use "race" to categorize people in the same way that you would categorize birds by plumage or ants by mandible size, then yeah, it's pretty useful for that.
I see what you did there; you failed to point out that race is also great for explaining why the Germans are the economic powerhouse of Europe, while Greece is full of sybarites who enjoy living the high life with minimal output. It also explains why Swiss are so good with money, why Africans are more social and less adventurous on average, why Japanese are so warlike, why Russians are cold and untrustworthy, and why Jews are so damned good with money and business. All of these observations can explained by race and genetics. Aristotle knew all this thousands of years ago, but it seems humans are too busy being offended (and starting eugenics movements) to gain any benefit from it.
Species is defined on populations, not on individuals. If Kekaimalu bred with another wholphin, they might have a chance to establish a breeding population. If, however Kekaimalu didn't breed, then it wouldn't count at all. If it bred with either a dolphin or another false killer whale, then it would most probably just act as a means in interspecific gene transport. It's quite unlikely that it would establish a viable breeding population. But if they did, then it could result in a new species. (I don't claim that the edges of a species are sharply defined. In fact I have already mentioned "ring species", which rather disproves that model.)
Good job wasting our time by completely missing the point. The original argument was that race does exist; your counter example of "species" is clearly not a valid argument against that idea, since species themselves are far from fixed. It's all invented by humans. Just because the idea of "race" makes you squeamish doesn't change its validity as a means of classification.
Two animal varieties are of the same species if, given a chance, they interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Except there have been many, many, many documented cases of accidental and intentional cross pollenization between species, in some cases producing fertile offspring which are nothing like the parents. How does that fit into your simple little definition?
The notion of race is analogous to these sociolinguistic definitions, not to language; it is not defined by external factors, but by social ideas.
Wrong. It's determined by genetics.
There may be superficial features that are assumed to be associated with particular "races"
Wrong. If your weak and pasty ass had to go toe to toe with a Mali warrior, or a Viking, or you found yourself in a logical argument with a German, I'm sure you'd quickly find those "features" aren't quite so superficial after all.
In other words, "race" is a social construct.
So Ghanans, Japanese, Norwegians, and Cherokee are all of the same race, in your view? Take a child from each country and raise them in the exact same environment, and they would grow up to behave exactly the same, or even significantly the same?
No he isn't agreeing with your premise. He's saying that 'race' doesn't exist. Geneticists agree with him.
Sure, if they're idiots. People who have open eyes and ears can see there are clear differences between races. The GP asked for a "meaningful definition of race." There is no such thing, just as there is no meaningful definition of species; it's difficult to classify something that varies so much from one region of the globe to another. Doesn't change the fact that differences certainly do exist, however. Scientists have noted this for thousands of years; only since Nazism has this type of discussion become taboo among idiots. The thinking people of the world know that race does matter, even if it should not be used to discriminate and hate.
If you don't get lessons from movies, you're twice as stupid.
Won't you be surprised when they all drop out of school, found the next Apple, and become millionaires.
And computer engineers have ugly things that are half broken.
A) Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. They have promised not to pursue the construction of a nuclear weapon, and to allow the IAEA to oversee any civilian programs they have to ensure that they aren't also being used for military purposes. If they're not honoring treaty obligations there, then why are they to be trusted with anything?
....All of which is irrelevant, because we're not their fucking dads. Iran is a sovereign nation and can do as it likes, our "permission" or not.
B) In the short run it might be a net positive for Iran to have nukes. Israel and/or the US will be harder pressed to push them around: Yay! Unfortunately, over the longer term, it will likely kick off a local arms race, with all the other sovereign nations in the region wanting to have equivalent weapons: D'Oh! Odds are, the first polity to get nukes will be Saudi Arabia. Remind me again how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?
I dunno. How many of the CIA agents who overthrow Mossadegh were American?
First, I doubt those countries, particularly Pakistan, would agree. First, at least two of those countries are likely to be downwind from any nuclear retribution against Iran. Canada and Mexico have similar concerns about the US's nuclear program.
Kinda like the War on Drugs. Drugs are bad because they get people put in jail! Therefore, they should be illegal.
And the two aren't far apart by missile. There won't be a relatively comfortable hour or so warning as with US/USSR ICBMs. So any sort of warning system has to be able to retaliate with a few minutes or the country just might not have a nuclear response capability by the definition of MAD. Subs would provide such capability, but they can be destroyed more easily, if located.
By Iran???
You think Iran is going to risk destroying itself just to take out Israel?
And then there's the problem of accidents, crazy leaders, and such. Pakistan is the current poster child for why nuclear weapons are a problem for the neighbors. They have an unstable government, they've already distributed nuclear technology (and probably have permanently harmed nonproliferation efforts), and they're occasionally at war with India. There's no false sense of long term nuclear security unless Pakistan gets rid of its nuclear weapons. Iran will have the same problems.
FTFY
Then there's the other neighbors. Saudi Arabia and Egypt both would desire a nuclear counter to an Iranian nuclear weapons. It's unknown how hard they would try.But it's worth noting that Egypt's GDP is roughly similar in size to the US's at the end of the Second World War while Saudi Arabia's is roughly double (Iran has about 50% more GDP than Egypt). if they obtain nuclear weapons, then that encourages everyone else in the region to do so.
...........and?
I think it would be very foolish to ignore the risk of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, much less the rest of the world (for example, Venezuela's current relationship with Iran includes some exchange of ballistic missile technology).
I think you're the fool. Whether you "ignore the risk" or embrace it wholeheartedly, nothing changes: nukes will be developed and yes, they will eventually be used.
It's not like the people at question are energy independent with nuclear power now, this is about finding a way to expand that market so that lots more people can get access to supply without (further) threatening the security of the world with more nuclear bombs. Obviously it's sort of an absurd proposition, if north korea can build nuclear weapons anyone can, but it's an honest effort.
Sure. It's an "honest" effort to enslave the world. Your line about "threatening the security of the world" is right out of the propagandist's storybook. Whose "security" is really threatened by Iran having the nuclear trump card? When was the last time Iran ever invaded or bullied around a nation, like the United States does regularly?
The nuclear cat's out of the bag and it's never going back in. The more nations who have nukes, the better. The idiots will destroy themselves in short order, as a further reminder to the smart ones to play extra nice. The "bad guys" will eventually get nukes no matter how deeply we bury our kids' bodies in the sands of faraway God forsaken lands, when we send them off to die in the next Crusade.
This program is basically designed for Iran. What they are trying to say that if Iran gives up their Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty rights for enrichment, then the US and Israel probably won't bomb them for that reason. And if the US or Israel needs to bomb Iran in the future, it can be done knowing that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons or highly enriched uranium that they can give to their allies. Even better, if Iran starts misbehaving, this fuel can be sanctioned. Finally, if Iran doesn't accept this program, then they must be building nuclear bombs, which gives the US and Israel justification to start bombing.
You forgot to add, that's what the propaganda would like us to believe. Why would a sane nation give over its right to energy independence?
Guaranteed by whom? What are they offering up as collateral; their firstborn sons? Yeah right. Why would any sane nation accept (i.e. Iran) such a proposal?
Yes, Obama is financially conservative
LOL
Yeah, you lost me there
One thing which had me convinced Armstrong was doping back as early as 2004 were his rages - he was aggressive and prone to anger far outside the normal range of human behaviour.
That's due to your ignorance. "Roid rage" is largely a myth.
Signed,
A heavy steroid user
His results aren't invalid. I'd like to see your fat ass keep up with him on a bike, steroids or no.
Keep wasting your time attempting to minimize Apple's innovations. History is laughing at you.
I may be - in fact hope to be, completely wrong in my pessimism.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're entirely correct.
Our system, as it exists now, cannot stand....and there is not enough political willpower to change. It's like the Titanic trying to steer away from the iceberg with too much momentum and too small of a rudder.
Do you really believe that the US is falling apart? It seems to me that around 99% of the problems we see today are mostly manufactured by various news agencies/websites to drum up viewers
Try visiting Michigan some time. It's looking more and more like Serbia.
When you're old enough, perhaps the reasoning will be more clear to you. This isn't a dig, but a statement of fact.
No, they don't.