You're conflating "engineer" with "Professional Engineer", and I don't know why. After I got my engineering degree and worked as an engineer for a few years before going to grad school, I was an engineer. I was not a PE, because I didn't need to be. If the state thinks that not being a PE means I'm not an engineer at all, it can fuck off.
Decommissioning and cleanup costs should be pretty low for a fusion reactor, no? As I understand it, the reactor itself might be hot but the waste products won't be.
What are the cleanup costs for solar? How much of those panels can you recycle? Genuinely curious here.
Living on small-to-medium-sized temperate mountains seems to be the best bet. Very low risk of floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, or hurricanes. At this point we can generally know where volcanoes are (even if we mess up about how active they are). Temperate makes the snow less risky, and we can generally know what regions earthquakes are likely to occur in. If you don't mind the snow (or are prepared for it), you can go to a lot more mountains too.
Of course, that's not viable for most of the population, but it seems like if you wanted to minimize your personal risk, that'd be where to start.
I think perhaps we're arguing about slightly different things. My point was that when both parties are unable to consent, that men almost always still get blamed, not that male rape isn't taken seriously (although that is also true, and also - as we agree - a problem). If, legally, we said that in situations where both parties are unable to consent - but are still conscious and consenting as much as possible in their inebriated state (to address loopholes that assholes would abuse) - that no crime was committed, then most of the problem I'm talking about would go away.
I'm not advocating for changing the legal definition of rape so that drunk people can always consent, but I'm saying that in situations where two (or more) drunk people willingly hook up, neither/none of them should be charged.
I don't think it's entirely unrelated; if we said drunk sex wasn't rape, then the problem wouldn't exist. It's a different problem, with additional causes, but entirely unrelated? No.
if you aren't legally able to drive, you aren't legally able to consent to sex
I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this if it was actually applied equally. But in almost every case I've seen (yes, admittedly just anecdotal), when both a man and a woman are drunk and have sex, it's the man who gets blamed. If they're both drunk enough to not be able to consent, then either they raped each other or there was no rape.
Obviously, if someone is sober or just tipsy and takes advantage of someone much drunker than they, that's a different ballpark.
In America, there certainly is conviction bias (would need to find those studies again), but IIRC the estimates are fairly low - about 20% (although admittedly this is probably somewhat of an underestimate because it only looks at cases that went to trial, and there's some selection bias there). Obviously, conviction bias should be 0%, but it seems insufficient to account for the pretty wide discrepancy in FBI statistics on murder and assault (which persist even when removing unknown murderers). Black men are both more likely to kill and more likely to be killed (since every racial group is most likely to kill other people in their racial group).
Now, obviously these are just population averages, and you should not generalize this to individuals. How we can prevent the AI from doing this is unclear, and I have no real solutions.
Which means that, as whites are 77% of the US population (according to the US Census), they are underrepresented per capita in both rapes and pedophiles.
As has been pointed out, America was never at war with Korea. Please tell me when Congress declared war on North Korea; when you can't (because it didn't happen), please admit that you were wrong.
They have to be paid the normal minimum wage if they don't make up the difference with tips. Now, some restaurant managers will complain, and you could lose shifts, but they can't be paid less than normal minimum after tips.
This is a silly post. Some companies want lots of menial work out of their employees; some (especially those that need complex things done, like the duties nurses do) recognize that good performance can't be squeezed out all the time.
And calling companies "criminal cartel organizations" is hysterical.
I think it's very different depending on the nature of the Airbnb. If it's someone renting their apartment out but only when they're on vacation, or renting a guest room out while they live there, then that's definitely a different situation than a normal hotel. If the apartment or house is pretty much exclusively used as short-term rentals, then I can see having more strenuous regulations in place. Frequency of renting seems, to me, to be an important factor in what set of rules one should have to follow.
Lie of omission: the Democrats changed the rules because Republicans were routinely blocking nominees and legislation from coming to a vote, for purely partisan reasons.
So? It's still an assault on our democratic institutions.
That word, gerrymandered. It doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
Those are two different things. The Democrats engage in gerrymandering, and the Democrats are trying to subvert the EC. I know what it means just fine; it's your reading comprehension that needs work.
No, that's what I was accusing the AC of doing. Especially when they specifically mentioned "our democratic institutions", which I would argue includes the EC and filibuster rules.
I think most Americans do want their country to get better, but as you said, that means something different to everybody.
That's not what Citizens United said. It said that corporations are groups of people, who retain their individual rights while still assembled.
The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals therefore, have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
You're misusing the term "free market". It is not a market without regulations; it is a market where buyers and sellers are free to set prices without government interference. Nothing in the definition of "free market" precludes anti-trust regulations.
I'm not sure they see Russia as a friendly country, but rather as a country we don't need to antagonize. Russia also isn't really very capitalist; with the corruption, regulatory capture, and close interface between business and government, it's more fascist-lite than capitalist. Granted, that appeals to some of the American right, but not that much.
The right is swinging to be less interventionist - I think the traditional right would oppose Russian expansion and would certainly support war if they, say, invaded Poland - but the alt-right would be a lot less in favor of it. At the same time, the left is swinging to be more interventionist, funnily enough, but even there, there's division.
I disagree with that assessment. It was the Democrats who changed Senate rules to get around filibusters (which, to be fair, the GOP is now abusing as well). The Democrats have gerrymandered and are trying to subvert the Electoral College at the state level by getting states to pledge their votes to the winner of the popular vote instead of the vote in their state, because that is to their advantage.
Regardless of your feelings on our institutions, it's clear that both parties will abuse or subvert them when it suits them to do so. You think the Democrats are loyal to institutions overall because you like the particular institutions they defend.
That's an interesting poll, but it does overlook the change in the situation over the past four years. I don't think you can really correct for that, but the fact is, the situation today is very different from it was in 2013, which limits the conclusions you can reasonably draw.
Yeah... that was the point of the comment. It was pretty clearly satirizing the arguments that many far-left people (sometimes called the "Ctrl-Left", in a play on "Alt-Right") use when Twitter (and other private platforms) ban people for being homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, etc. (whether they're really being these things or just accused of them varies by case and personal opinion).
Is it really accurate to call it a "Nazi moment"? Were the Nazis in the habit of dragging people off of planes? I mean, I get that it's trendy these days to accuse people of being a Nazi just for disagreeing with you, but...
Slashdot Mirror
You're conflating "engineer" with "Professional Engineer", and I don't know why. After I got my engineering degree and worked as an engineer for a few years before going to grad school, I was an engineer. I was not a PE, because I didn't need to be. If the state thinks that not being a PE means I'm not an engineer at all, it can fuck off.
Decommissioning and cleanup costs should be pretty low for a fusion reactor, no? As I understand it, the reactor itself might be hot but the waste products won't be.
What are the cleanup costs for solar? How much of those panels can you recycle? Genuinely curious here.
Duh?
Living on small-to-medium-sized temperate mountains seems to be the best bet. Very low risk of floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, or hurricanes. At this point we can generally know where volcanoes are (even if we mess up about how active they are). Temperate makes the snow less risky, and we can generally know what regions earthquakes are likely to occur in. If you don't mind the snow (or are prepared for it), you can go to a lot more mountains too.
Of course, that's not viable for most of the population, but it seems like if you wanted to minimize your personal risk, that'd be where to start.
I suppose that's a fair argument.
I think perhaps we're arguing about slightly different things. My point was that when both parties are unable to consent, that men almost always still get blamed, not that male rape isn't taken seriously (although that is also true, and also - as we agree - a problem). If, legally, we said that in situations where both parties are unable to consent - but are still conscious and consenting as much as possible in their inebriated state (to address loopholes that assholes would abuse) - that no crime was committed, then most of the problem I'm talking about would go away.
I'm not advocating for changing the legal definition of rape so that drunk people can always consent, but I'm saying that in situations where two (or more) drunk people willingly hook up, neither/none of them should be charged.
I don't think it's entirely unrelated; if we said drunk sex wasn't rape, then the problem wouldn't exist. It's a different problem, with additional causes, but entirely unrelated? No.
if you aren't legally able to drive, you aren't legally able to consent to sex
I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this if it was actually applied equally. But in almost every case I've seen (yes, admittedly just anecdotal), when both a man and a woman are drunk and have sex, it's the man who gets blamed. If they're both drunk enough to not be able to consent, then either they raped each other or there was no rape.
Obviously, if someone is sober or just tipsy and takes advantage of someone much drunker than they, that's a different ballpark.
In America, there certainly is conviction bias (would need to find those studies again), but IIRC the estimates are fairly low - about 20% (although admittedly this is probably somewhat of an underestimate because it only looks at cases that went to trial, and there's some selection bias there). Obviously, conviction bias should be 0%, but it seems insufficient to account for the pretty wide discrepancy in FBI statistics on murder and assault (which persist even when removing unknown murderers). Black men are both more likely to kill and more likely to be killed (since every racial group is most likely to kill other people in their racial group).
Now, obviously these are just population averages, and you should not generalize this to individuals. How we can prevent the AI from doing this is unclear, and I have no real solutions.
Which means that, as whites are 77% of the US population (according to the US Census), they are underrepresented per capita in both rapes and pedophiles.
You know, you could have stopped at "They look awful".
As has been pointed out, America was never at war with Korea. Please tell me when Congress declared war on North Korea; when you can't (because it didn't happen), please admit that you were wrong.
They have to be paid the normal minimum wage if they don't make up the difference with tips. Now, some restaurant managers will complain, and you could lose shifts, but they can't be paid less than normal minimum after tips.
This is a silly post. Some companies want lots of menial work out of their employees; some (especially those that need complex things done, like the duties nurses do) recognize that good performance can't be squeezed out all the time.
And calling companies "criminal cartel organizations" is hysterical.
I think it's very different depending on the nature of the Airbnb. If it's someone renting their apartment out but only when they're on vacation, or renting a guest room out while they live there, then that's definitely a different situation than a normal hotel. If the apartment or house is pretty much exclusively used as short-term rentals, then I can see having more strenuous regulations in place. Frequency of renting seems, to me, to be an important factor in what set of rules one should have to follow.
Lie of omission: the Democrats changed the rules because Republicans were routinely blocking nominees and legislation from coming to a vote, for purely partisan reasons.
So? It's still an assault on our democratic institutions.
That word, gerrymandered. It doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
Those are two different things. The Democrats engage in gerrymandering, and the Democrats are trying to subvert the EC. I know what it means just fine; it's your reading comprehension that needs work.
No, that's what I was accusing the AC of doing. Especially when they specifically mentioned "our democratic institutions", which I would argue includes the EC and filibuster rules.
I think most Americans do want their country to get better, but as you said, that means something different to everybody.
The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals therefore, have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
You're misusing the term "free market". It is not a market without regulations; it is a market where buyers and sellers are free to set prices without government interference. Nothing in the definition of "free market" precludes anti-trust regulations.
I'm not sure they see Russia as a friendly country, but rather as a country we don't need to antagonize. Russia also isn't really very capitalist; with the corruption, regulatory capture, and close interface between business and government, it's more fascist-lite than capitalist. Granted, that appeals to some of the American right, but not that much.
The right is swinging to be less interventionist - I think the traditional right would oppose Russian expansion and would certainly support war if they, say, invaded Poland - but the alt-right would be a lot less in favor of it. At the same time, the left is swinging to be more interventionist, funnily enough, but even there, there's division.
I disagree with that assessment. It was the Democrats who changed Senate rules to get around filibusters (which, to be fair, the GOP is now abusing as well). The Democrats have gerrymandered and are trying to subvert the Electoral College at the state level by getting states to pledge their votes to the winner of the popular vote instead of the vote in their state, because that is to their advantage.
Regardless of your feelings on our institutions, it's clear that both parties will abuse or subvert them when it suits them to do so. You think the Democrats are loyal to institutions overall because you like the particular institutions they defend.
That's an interesting poll, but it does overlook the change in the situation over the past four years. I don't think you can really correct for that, but the fact is, the situation today is very different from it was in 2013, which limits the conclusions you can reasonably draw.
You typed "USsians" but it's spelled "Americans". Easy mistake to make.
Yeah... that was the point of the comment. It was pretty clearly satirizing the arguments that many far-left people (sometimes called the "Ctrl-Left", in a play on "Alt-Right") use when Twitter (and other private platforms) ban people for being homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, etc. (whether they're really being these things or just accused of them varies by case and personal opinion).
Is it really accurate to call it a "Nazi moment"? Were the Nazis in the habit of dragging people off of planes? I mean, I get that it's trendy these days to accuse people of being a Nazi just for disagreeing with you, but...