I think that's exactly what's happening. I think that over the last 1000 years Western Society has moved away from the model of "women as property of the most violent male" and "rape to procreate", and that these extremes are best left behind.
What the fuck, man?
You're reading too many "women's studies" books or something. Western society was never based on these principles. You are seriously fucking twisted.
Curse words are ####'d out because of a farangle with a potential employer who thought his views were too radical to employ him; you think women and minorities have problems with descrimination, oh boy. Try being a prominent firearm owner who doesn't buy the establishment's "political correctness" as something good.
I was a door mat for quite a while, then somehow managed to edge into "nice guy" territory. Tired of not getting laid, I started acting like a prick, and started getting some action. Pig? You betcha. Then I realized I was being a pig, and started manning up, and I've not had any problems since. Granted, I've not been such a whore either.
As cute as your ideas are, the population of the world - and yes, even the United States and most of Europe - disagrees with you. How is that, you ask?
The Western world is eliminating itself and its culture by lack of population replacement. Male dominated cultures such as the Mexicans/Latinos, inner-city blacks, and Muslims are all out-reproducing whites and those who claim to hold to your ideas. Why?
In short you - the Western woman - have caused this to be the case through your liberation and lack of child bearing. You might have experienced the freedom brought on by massive population growth during the baby boom, but your granddaughters (if you have any) will not.
Don't you think those cultural artifacts might just be the result of decreasing testosterone, not the cause? Being as its likely that an increase in environmental estrogen - induced by plastics - are likely the cause of this decrease in testosterone (at least in part), it seems likely to me tha this is the case.
No, you are confused. OP overstated it a bit, but you're confused.
Plastics by nature contain estrogen as polycarbonate is chemically similar to an artificial estrogen. As most baby products are made from plastics, including the liners and various other parts of baby diapers, they put a great deal of estrogen into the environment.
Yep. Same goes for shampoos, soaps, gasoline itself, and probably 90% of the materials within your reach (carpet? wall paint? furniture coating? clothing? glasses?).
No, not the natural estrogens that women produce, but the man-made estrogens present in pretty much every product you can purchase today: soda bottles, laundry detergent, hand soap, gasoline - pretty much anything that is derived from petrolium in some way. These estrogens (IIRC) block the production of testosterone as well as the natural production of estrogen. In women, it contirbutes to fuglyness (hairy lips, etc.) and things like ovarian cancer; in men it contributes to femininity and general lack of testosterone.
And let me be the first to say: this is why there are so many liberals.
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
That alone would've been reason enough to upgrade despite the other things, in my opinion.
IMO, the Firefox team lacks vision. They're focusing on dressing when there are a lot of other things which could be drastically improved - even revolutionized - in addition to fixing the glaring bugs in the existing stable (that is, 1.5.whatever).
For instance, how about expanding the capability of the 'bookmarks' and 'history' functions of the browser? Both are old concepts which haven't been updated in years. Both are largely useless due ot the sheer number of entries in both (for me and I imagine many others). The mechanisms for accessing them is awkward and feature/function-sparse.
I'm not a republican, but I'm most certainly not a Democrat, either. But I did vote against Al Gore.;) And I'll tell you this: I think the Patriot Act is bad news, for that very reason, as well as for giving provision to this administration the same potential power. Or any future administration. The encroach of liberty doesn't need ot be immediate; it can rot away slowly and the public will notice due to the graduality of it.
As for "letting the terrorists win", that is, unfortunately, a flawed conclusion. If the US military were politically allowed to "take the gloves off" as it were, we'd have the mess cleaned up in 6 months. See "insurgents" going into a town or suburb? Smart bomb the town. None of this "door to door" stuff. Roadside IED go off and kill US troops? The neighborhood will suffer as a result. Teach the populace that all harboring and capitulation with the terrorists won't save them any trouble, and that they need to take care of their own problems if they want the US to leave.
The 1% of the south who instigated the "War Between the States" would disagree quite whole heartedly with you.
And Lincoln was quite like Bush - a Republican with social (ie non military, non-political) ideals which were quite inline with the Democrats of the time - if you'll believe many of the liberals who want to take credit for Lincoln.
Probably roughly the same (1/3rd). There are over 80 million known gun owners in America.
Even amongst the households I know, there are more guns than bikes by a factor of 5, at least. And I'm not talking about a collection of uber-conservative people or anything like that, either.
I don't think you'd consider firearm ownership for protection from criminal elements such a silly idea if:
- You weren't middle class and lived in a "disadvantaged" area - You were female - You had been robbed or otherwise assaulted in the past - You had family to protect
At the end of the day, nobody is responsible for your safety other than yourself, and those who take on additional responsibility willingly to protect the lives of others (such as parents, and to limited degree, cops). Cops can not be there 24/7 to prevent every little crime; their presence is, at best, a marginal deterent.
And realistically speaking, you're more likely to need a gun for personal protection than you are to overthrow/protect yourself from a government. At least in the US (void where prohibited, such as Africa).
You and I likely disagree on damn near every political ideal - except this one. Go out, purchase a rifle as comparable to that of what the military uses as your local laws allow*, and learn to use it. (Handguns are impractical and ineffective for all but defense purposes - a role which they excel in.) I may dislike you and your politics (which I can't say for sure), but I believe that every law abiding citizen with even an ounce of civil responsibility should feel obligated to arm themselves in accordance with the 2nd Amendment (taking note of the "well regulated" part of it, and maintaining their arms, safety, and proficiency as intended).
* That is, not necessarily an AR-15, but something that is semi-automatic, has removeable magazines, and has high capacity magazines available for it (the modern equivilant for what the Militia Act specifies, as well as is legal). Or, realistically, as part of a citizen militia, something like an SKS (semi-auto, 10-round integral/non-removeable magazine) would be sufficient, but make sure you are proficient!
I'd say it's "for worse", most definately. And I think it's necessary for web browsers to have built-in conventions for "broken" pages. Otherwise the amount of material online would be much smaller, and be much less diverse.
In this case, standards are there to help guide people towards the right direction. If everyone wrote to spec, we wouldn't be human. Thus, we need a browser stopgap to help us use the majority of the web, which is written by mere mortals and people who primarily want to display cogent information in an apealing manner without too much fuss. If web devel were as difficult or as complex as application devel, with all the hangups, people wouldn't waste the effort.
I agree in part. Some of the things in XHTML and CSS are really damn useful, but they're not touched upon much because they're not what most people see when they see CSS or XHTML.
That said, I'd agree with you on the point of things needing to be easy. But, this isn't 1993 anymore, and making the 'cutting edge' web development tools useable by Sally who wants to make a web page about her cats is a bad idea. People like that have myspace available to them, and there's a reason why they're called 'development' tools.
Mot surprising to me in the least bit, as if I recall correctly, XHTML was brought about by a big push from Microsoft, and there were a lot of intial problems with adoption.
But, I can't recall what. I just remember it's partially MS's fault.
I would say that sites like YouTube only have value in that they provide somewhat unhindered access to media sources which would not normally be accessible after the 'live' material was gone. For inst
For instance, when Bill Clinton went batshit recently, or John Stewart had his "hurting America" speech, everyone wanted to know precisely what the honest and forward criticism was, partially because it was so atypical, but also because it was topically pertinent. It was on the news, and the'd missed it.
The Daily Show isn't news, it's satirical commentary which makes note of a news item and assumes at least a cursory knowledge of the topic at hand (ie, the actual news). It's more like Leno's opener jokes than it is news. People go to YouTUbe to watch it because it entertains them.
However, stuff like the Daily Show isn't news (by its own producers' admission); it's entertainment. Which doesn't mean it does or doesn't have value. It's just that - intended for entertainment purposes. I think that's the main reason why I've got no objection to such material being removed.
If we start seeing an absense in the news items put on YouTube, I can see there being problems, legit complaints, or financial woes at YouTube - similar to how all the pro-troops videos have disappeared from YouTube.
This will backfire in a classical way, I assure you. For instance, take the example provided: most reasonable people (including many an ethnic and racial minority) support racial profiling. I know of quite a few black, Indian, Arabic and yes, even Muslim people who support racial (or probably more accurately, "threat vector") profiling.
Does it make any sense to pull over Grandma Smith - or even Grandma Hadjij - when 100% of the known terrorists have been Muslim males, and predominantly black or arabic? No, it does not. I'm not saying don't look at the 6'2" caucasian guy with a skowl, I'm saying don't intentionally avoid the 6'2" Indian with a skowl (and I've seen this happen more than once - to a friend) in preference of the 65-year-old grandpa with a WWII battleship ballcap on. Britian puts us to shame in this regard.
This is just one of the many ways in which those on the Democrat side of things are detatched from most people. Not that the Republicans are terribly in touch with what people want, either, mind you.
If you want someone who can - and has dmeonstrated - an ability to put their nose to the grindstone and do research, you hire someone who's demonstrated an exemplarary ability in doing so, consistently.
If you want someone who can take directions, work in adverse conditions, do with little pay, and improvise with what's available, hire someone from the military.
You get what you pay ofr, more often than not. An expensive school is basically a training pedigree; I'm not going to hire someone for a job paying (say) $80k a year from a "better than average" school or even no school at all, without the CV speaking volumes, over someone with a CV speaking volumes or the big-school diploma for $150. That $80k is a much bigger gamble.
Uh, yeah, that's it, chief. Their Dear Leader isn't a megamaniacal egotist of a tyranical, genocidal dictator who enslaves his populace to the single goal of military production and his own oppulence, it's that they're eco-centric leftists with a soft heart for spotted owls and and koalas.
Where the fuck would you get an idea like the one you state?! Is it from the misconception that communism is good, and that all communists must be some sort of noble, refined type who only uses twice-recycled styrofoam cups for their espressos, villanized by the evil capitalist West?
But, arguably, there will [b]always[/b] be a need, at some level, for "sentry" programs. You'll have better and stronger castle walls, with fewer and more secure entrances through which an enemy can enter, but you will always need someone to patrol and monitor those entrances, as malicious people (programs) can still enter through them.
Slashdot Mirror
Who do you post as over there?
He banned me last spring for saying he was making appeasement arguments about Muslims...
I think that's exactly what's happening. I think that over the last 1000 years Western Society has moved away from the model of "women as property of the most violent male" and "rape to procreate", and that these extremes are best left behind.
What the fuck, man?
You're reading too many "women's studies" books or something. Western society was never based on these principles. You are seriously fucking twisted.
He's an athiest. Surprise!
Curse words are ####'d out because of a farangle with a potential employer who thought his views were too radical to employ him; you think women and minorities have problems with descrimination, oh boy. Try being a prominent firearm owner who doesn't buy the establishment's "political correctness" as something good.
Ding ding ding!
I was a door mat for quite a while, then somehow managed to edge into "nice guy" territory. Tired of not getting laid, I started acting like a prick, and started getting some action. Pig? You betcha. Then I realized I was being a pig, and started manning up, and I've not had any problems since. Granted, I've not been such a whore either.
As cute as your ideas are, the population of the world - and yes, even the United States and most of Europe - disagrees with you. How is that, you ask?
The Western world is eliminating itself and its culture by lack of population replacement. Male dominated cultures such as the Mexicans/Latinos, inner-city blacks, and Muslims are all out-reproducing whites and those who claim to hold to your ideas. Why?
In short you - the Western woman - have caused this to be the case through your liberation and lack of child bearing. You might have experienced the freedom brought on by massive population growth during the baby boom, but your granddaughters (if you have any) will not.
Don't you think those cultural artifacts might just be the result of decreasing testosterone, not the cause? Being as its likely that an increase in environmental estrogen - induced by plastics - are likely the cause of this decrease in testosterone (at least in part), it seems likely to me tha this is the case.
No, you are confused. OP overstated it a bit, but you're confused.
Plastics by nature contain estrogen as polycarbonate is chemically similar to an artificial estrogen. As most baby products are made from plastics, including the liners and various other parts of baby diapers, they put a great deal of estrogen into the environment.
Yep. Same goes for shampoos, soaps, gasoline itself, and probably 90% of the materials within your reach (carpet? wall paint? furniture coating? clothing? glasses?).
No, I don't think that's the case here. I've been hearing about this for years myself; it's been under the radar for quite a while.
Estrogens are to blame for this behavior.
No, not the natural estrogens that women produce, but the man-made estrogens present in pretty much every product you can purchase today: soda bottles, laundry detergent, hand soap, gasoline - pretty much anything that is derived from petrolium in some way. These estrogens (IIRC) block the production of testosterone as well as the natural production of estrogen. In women, it contirbutes to fuglyness (hairy lips, etc.) and things like ovarian cancer; in men it contributes to femininity and general lack of testosterone.
And let me be the first to say: this is why there are so many liberals.
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
That alone would've been reason enough to upgrade despite the other things, in my opinion.
IMO, the Firefox team lacks vision. They're focusing on dressing when there are a lot of other things which could be drastically improved - even revolutionized - in addition to fixing the glaring bugs in the existing stable (that is, 1.5.whatever).
For instance, how about expanding the capability of the 'bookmarks' and 'history' functions of the browser? Both are old concepts which haven't been updated in years. Both are largely useless due ot the sheer number of entries in both (for me and I imagine many others). The mechanisms for accessing them is awkward and feature/function-sparse.
I'm not a republican, but I'm most certainly not a Democrat, either. But I did vote against Al Gore. ;) And I'll tell you this: I think the Patriot Act is bad news, for that very reason, as well as for giving provision to this administration the same potential power. Or any future administration. The encroach of liberty doesn't need ot be immediate; it can rot away slowly and the public will notice due to the graduality of it.
As for "letting the terrorists win", that is, unfortunately, a flawed conclusion. If the US military were politically allowed to "take the gloves off" as it were, we'd have the mess cleaned up in 6 months. See "insurgents" going into a town or suburb? Smart bomb the town. None of this "door to door" stuff. Roadside IED go off and kill US troops? The neighborhood will suffer as a result. Teach the populace that all harboring and capitulation with the terrorists won't save them any trouble, and that they need to take care of their own problems if they want the US to leave.
The 1% of the south who instigated the "War Between the States" would disagree quite whole heartedly with you.
And Lincoln was quite like Bush - a Republican with social (ie non military, non-political) ideals which were quite inline with the Democrats of the time - if you'll believe many of the liberals who want to take credit for Lincoln.
Probably roughly the same (1/3rd). There are over 80 million known gun owners in America.
Even amongst the households I know, there are more guns than bikes by a factor of 5, at least. And I'm not talking about a collection of uber-conservative people or anything like that, either.
I don't think you'd consider firearm ownership for protection from criminal elements such a silly idea if:
- You weren't middle class and lived in a "disadvantaged" area
- You were female
- You had been robbed or otherwise assaulted in the past
- You had family to protect
At the end of the day, nobody is responsible for your safety other than yourself, and those who take on additional responsibility willingly to protect the lives of others (such as parents, and to limited degree, cops). Cops can not be there 24/7 to prevent every little crime; their presence is, at best, a marginal deterent.
And realistically speaking, you're more likely to need a gun for personal protection than you are to overthrow/protect yourself from a government. At least in the US (void where prohibited, such as Africa).
You and I likely disagree on damn near every political ideal - except this one. Go out, purchase a rifle as comparable to that of what the military uses as your local laws allow*, and learn to use it. (Handguns are impractical and ineffective for all but defense purposes - a role which they excel in.) I may dislike you and your politics (which I can't say for sure), but I believe that every law abiding citizen with even an ounce of civil responsibility should feel obligated to arm themselves in accordance with the 2nd Amendment (taking note of the "well regulated" part of it, and maintaining their arms, safety, and proficiency as intended).
* That is, not necessarily an AR-15, but something that is semi-automatic, has removeable magazines, and has high capacity magazines available for it (the modern equivilant for what the Militia Act specifies, as well as is legal). Or, realistically, as part of a citizen militia, something like an SKS (semi-auto, 10-round integral/non-removeable magazine) would be sufficient, but make sure you are proficient!
I'd say it's "for worse", most definately. And I think it's necessary for web browsers to have built-in conventions for "broken" pages. Otherwise the amount of material online would be much smaller, and be much less diverse.
In this case, standards are there to help guide people towards the right direction. If everyone wrote to spec, we wouldn't be human. Thus, we need a browser stopgap to help us use the majority of the web, which is written by mere mortals and people who primarily want to display cogent information in an apealing manner without too much fuss. If web devel were as difficult or as complex as application devel, with all the hangups, people wouldn't waste the effort.
I agree in part. Some of the things in XHTML and CSS are really damn useful, but they're not touched upon much because they're not what most people see when they see CSS or XHTML.
That said, I'd agree with you on the point of things needing to be easy. But, this isn't 1993 anymore, and making the 'cutting edge' web development tools useable by Sally who wants to make a web page about her cats is a bad idea. People like that have myspace available to them, and there's a reason why they're called 'development' tools.
Yep.
Mot surprising to me in the least bit, as if I recall correctly, XHTML was brought about by a big push from Microsoft, and there were a lot of intial problems with adoption.
But, I can't recall what. I just remember it's partially MS's fault.
I would say that sites like YouTube only have value in that they provide somewhat unhindered access to media sources which would not normally be accessible after the 'live' material was gone. For inst
For instance, when Bill Clinton went batshit recently, or John Stewart had his "hurting America" speech, everyone wanted to know precisely what the honest and forward criticism was, partially because it was so atypical, but also because it was topically pertinent. It was on the news, and the'd missed it.
The Daily Show isn't news, it's satirical commentary which makes note of a news item and assumes at least a cursory knowledge of the topic at hand (ie, the actual news). It's more like Leno's opener jokes than it is news. People go to YouTUbe to watch it because it entertains them.
However, stuff like the Daily Show isn't news (by its own producers' admission); it's entertainment. Which doesn't mean it does or doesn't have value. It's just that - intended for entertainment purposes. I think that's the main reason why I've got no objection to such material being removed.
If we start seeing an absense in the news items put on YouTube, I can see there being problems, legit complaints, or financial woes at YouTube - similar to how all the pro-troops videos have disappeared from YouTube.
So what? Is it only PC now to be racist against evil white imperialists, who are the root of all the world's ills?
(The answer is "yes")
This will backfire in a classical way, I assure you. For instance, take the example provided: most reasonable people (including many an ethnic and racial minority) support racial profiling. I know of quite a few black, Indian, Arabic and yes, even Muslim people who support racial (or probably more accurately, "threat vector") profiling.
Does it make any sense to pull over Grandma Smith - or even Grandma Hadjij - when 100% of the known terrorists have been Muslim males, and predominantly black or arabic? No, it does not. I'm not saying don't look at the 6'2" caucasian guy with a skowl, I'm saying don't intentionally avoid the 6'2" Indian with a skowl (and I've seen this happen more than once - to a friend) in preference of the 65-year-old grandpa with a WWII battleship ballcap on. Britian puts us to shame in this regard.
This is just one of the many ways in which those on the Democrat side of things are detatched from most people. Not that the Republicans are terribly in touch with what people want, either, mind you.
If you want someone who can - and has dmeonstrated - an ability to put their nose to the grindstone and do research, you hire someone who's demonstrated an exemplarary ability in doing so, consistently.
If you want someone who can take directions, work in adverse conditions, do with little pay, and improvise with what's available, hire someone from the military.
You get what you pay ofr, more often than not. An expensive school is basically a training pedigree; I'm not going to hire someone for a job paying (say) $80k a year from a "better than average" school or even no school at all, without the CV speaking volumes, over someone with a CV speaking volumes or the big-school diploma for $150. That $80k is a much bigger gamble.
Someone give this man a +1 Funny. (That was the intent, yes?)
Uh, yeah, that's it, chief. Their Dear Leader isn't a megamaniacal egotist of a tyranical, genocidal dictator who enslaves his populace to the single goal of military production and his own oppulence, it's that they're eco-centric leftists with a soft heart for spotted owls and and koalas.
Where the fuck would you get an idea like the one you state?! Is it from the misconception that communism is good, and that all communists must be some sort of noble, refined type who only uses twice-recycled styrofoam cups for their espressos, villanized by the evil capitalist West?
Yes.
But, arguably, there will [b]always[/b] be a need, at some level, for "sentry" programs. You'll have better and stronger castle walls, with fewer and more secure entrances through which an enemy can enter, but you will always need someone to patrol and monitor those entrances, as malicious people (programs) can still enter through them.