Or waiting until he falls asleep. The same robot that blew him up could have kept checking on him as needed, but a better robot for this situation would be one that could place cameras to watch him until he falls asleep. That way the robot only needs to be strong enough to make a couple of visits, though it also depends on how much ammo he had for trying to disable robots.
Seems to me as though they didn't want to risk capturing him alive, though that also seems on the insane side. How can we know he was alone? Or perhaps even worse than the lone wolf scenario, what if he was an DAESH agent and the real objective of the attack was to start a race war in America?
Okay, now that I've clarified the problem in my own mind, I know what to search for. Sadly, I predict that today's slashdot won't offer anything--and if someone tried that comment would be modded into oblivion, so I won't find it anyway. Key phrases are "lone wolf" and "race war" and things along the lines of aborting a complete investigation. Perhaps the last bit would be to make it easier to control the spin?
Sorry, but your reply was so incoherent that it makes me wonder if you are a Trump supporter.
If you are not a Trump supporter, then I have to say: "Please clarify what you meant there." Shorter sentences would surely help, and you need to clarify some of your assumptions, especially where it seems that you are pulling numbers out of thin air and throwing the demographic realities to the wind.
If you are a Trump supporter, then you probably can't write (or read or even think) clearly, but in that case the only relevant question is much simpler: "Who do you hate most?"
Not sure how to take that. It's an extremely popular field for wannabe lawyers who don't want to work too hard. Most academic fields actually have right and wrong answers (and you have to learn which is which), but political science doesn't, and neither do lawyers. I actually believe that most of the professional training of lawyers is learning to ignore questions of right and wrong (and just leave that bit to the judge or jury). Of course it's also true that some wannabe politicians are approaching their political career that way, but I can't get inside Hillary's head to know what she REALLY wanted versus what she got dragged into because she married Bill.
My evidence that "lawyer" is a much higher personal identity for Hillary than "politician" is mostly from observing her behaviors and the results. Her most natural register certainly appears to be that she talks and acts like a lawyer, and her attempts to speak and act like a politician are almost always stilted. It's not like she doesn't have any examples around. Surely you've noticed how different Bill is, and that's because he is first and foremost a politician, and probably a natural one. (Didn't say much about results, but it's the same. She has a lot of solid results as a lawyer, both as a corporate lawyer and as a legislative lawyer, but her only political victories were the two Senate campaigns, with perhaps a bit of partial credit for supporting some of Bill's victories.)
I'm increasingly inclined to to theory that you're just a clever troll. In some ways your pitches sound like some things I would say, but then you go off the deep end into insanity against Hillary Clinton as though she was some sort of super-villain. Whatever idealism you possess (or pretend to possess), your hatred is clearly irrational and insane.
Since nothing you've said is rationally linked to Hillary, I think it must be some kind of projection against women. Maybe you've been unlucky in love or something. Not much of an explanation, but it would be sort of rational. Then again, lots of time there is no rational explanation and it's just our human nature to search for patterns that don't exist.
On the other theory, that you're just a clever troll, then you must be a Trump supporter, and in that case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?"
Well, obviously you are listening to a different Sanders than the one whose videos I keep bumping into. I'm referring to Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont. Who are you talking about?
I suppose I should also check whether or not you're supporting Trump? If you aren't talking about someone else, then you must be a liar, which would make you a natural Trumpist, and in that case there's no sense in continuing any conversation beyond the most relevant question: "Who do you hate most?"
And I'm sure you've done endless streams of interviews and never once gotten confused about who is interviewing you now? You're such a supremely perfect being that you might be a Trump supporter, in which case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?"
It sounds like you're agreeing with me, but I must be confused. What did you say that made me think you were a Trump supporter, and after you said it (perhaps in some other branch of the discussion?), why didn't the so-called conversation end after you refused to answer the only question that is really relevant for a Trumpist: "Who do you hate most?"
As you can see, there's not much reason to go there, though if you really want to, then I would recommend sticking to the better examples. There was one quite close to Ford. How soon they have forgotten Ford's predecessor, Spiro T Agnew and why Ford got the job.
I actually think that Ford was quite possibly the best Republican president of my lifetime, but his egregious pardon of Nixon offset everything positive. If Nixon had been held to account, then the office of the presidency would have been greatly weakened, and I still think that would have been a much better thing for the country. That's why I'm so sure Trump will pick a VP who has publicly approved Ford's pardon, and probably one with authoritarian tendencies who would not want to risk weakening the presidency by not pardoning Trump on the Nixon precedent.
I think you have to admit that it's a pretty sweet scam. Almost all the "brand advantages" of being an ex-president, but only about two years of actual effort required. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Trump flips the burger and starts threatening to resign for various reasons as soon as he (gawd forbid) wins the election.
Actually, I'm convinced that Dan Rather was set up. I strongly suspect the fake letter was actually based on the real one, but the real objective was to get rid of Rather. Most of the records at Camp Mabry had been purged years before Dubya ran for president, and I suspect that Turd Blossom (AKA Rove) had or had at least seen the original letter.
"People like you" is actually code for "I'm a racist who thinks it's clever to project my racism on other people." Unless you're a bigot projecting bigotry.
The distinction is that racists hate other people for how they were born, while bigots hate them for acquired characteristics. I just feel sorry for both groups. Over the years, I have met quite a few of them, and they are always so miserable that it's painful even to watch them as they continuously mangle their miserable lives.
I think one of the most despicable characteristics of Trump is that he exploits and manipulates such weak people. One cannot actually believe anything that Trump actually says, since he has been on every side of every issue, but I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he is just a sociopath with authoritarian tendencies. He might be a racist and bigot, too, but I doubt it.
You're either opening a can of worms or you're a more clever troll than most. I'll go on the first theory, because the second would be a waste of keystrokes.
I think that secrecy is fundamentally hard to justify except in cases of prior secrecy. Not a full blown analysis, but let's backtrack a little on the Snowden case because he's a whistle-blower and that's a case where anonymity is often demanded. Well, if the crimes he revealed were already known, then he wouldn't have had to reveal them and his anonymity wouldn't have mattered.
Okay, but we need to act in secret to protect ourselves from the terrorists, right? Well, if we had sufficiently good information about the potential terrorists and their activities were visible in real time, then they wouldn't be very dangerous would they?
I could go deeper in a couple of directions (or even dimensions), but I suspect that most of this is a transient problem. As cameras and microphones and various other surveillance equipment becomes completely ubiquitous, there are only two long-term futures. (1) None of us will have ANY privacy in any recognizable sense, or (2) ALMOST NONE of us will have any privacy and a few overlords will be pulling the strings of everyone else.
Sorry to report that it looks like we (mostly in the form of giant inhuman corporations, with the actual human beings being dragged along for the ride) are trying to open Door #2. Doesn't matter much to me if it's Hillary or the Donald on the other side. Still bad.
I'm mostly trying to imagine what life would be like if we open Door #1 instead. I really think it's one or the other, and the people who are born on the other side (assuming we're still reproducing at all) are going to feel quite differently about these topics.
Just kidding nothing special about you [aardvarkjoe today, and 37 other names next week].
However, the negative mods are actually quite helpful in figuring out which points that the trolls hate most. Then those points can be published more aggressively in forums that the trolls can't censor by gaming the system.
Now you might say that I shouldn't have given it away, but the problem is the trolls are also too stupid to learn from any of their MANY mistakes. That's why Trump is their perfect candidate.
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the best candidate of the entire crowd, even including the entire clown car that started on the so-called Republican side. I even donated my poll tax to him, but in retrospect I am saddened to conclude that no matter how broken the system is, it is still incapable of electing a candidate who has any prominent philosophic streak. (No, Reagan had senility, NOT a philosophy.)
However, as regards Hillary's popularity, how much of it do you think that she actually earned? Seems quite obvious to me that she has been aggressively targeted for decades for primarily partisan political reasons, and even that much of the hateful rhetoric is displaced from other targets. Mostly stuff that would have been targeted at her husband if Bill hadn't whupped all their arses in the unfair fight. (However, I still haven't made up my mind if he was a good or bad president. Actually much easier to see the obviously bad ones such as Dubya.)
All of this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. The problem is that there is only one "most casual observer", and it usually isn't me.
You do know what a lawyer is, don't you? Hillary is a good lawyer and several other oxymorons. Okay, so "skilled lawyer" is probably a "better" way to say it.
Actually, she, like everyone else, has a bunch of personal identities. One of the things I like least about Hillary is that "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer" might be her top personal identity. Obviously it isn't "politician", though "politician" is probably in her top ten (and I definitely think it's Bill's #1). I doubt that "philosopher" is on her top 10 list, but "feminist" is probably in there somewhere (and I don't regard it as a terrible thing, though it isn't so high in my own priorities). She's an unusually complicated person, and it's hard to figure her out. For example, I think that "grandmother" might be a higher ranked personal identity for her than "mother" (whereas I think that "father" is definitely one of President Obama's top 10).
Just for reference I do think that "philosopher" is in Bernie's top 10, but I can't figure out if it's above or below "politician". Maybe "wise man" is his #1, but there's zero chance America would elect one of those to the presidency, even in the backlash from a fiasco like Dubya or the even worse mess that Trump might leave behind.
The Donald? His #1 has to be "con man" or "salesman". Or maybe he switches back and forth depending on the weather. Actually, I think it possible that "authoritarian" might be his secret #1.
Can't even decide if I wish I had a mod point to give this one, and if so, what sort of mod point it should be. (But I NEVER get any mod points, at least not in some years.)
On the one hand, I don't like unneeded profanity, but on the other hand the language isn't that strong. On the third hand, I agree with the sentiments, but on the fourth hand it scarcely seems like a constructive comment that will generate interesting discussion, and on the fifth hand it's probably feeding a troll whose comment is not visible to me and on the sixth hand FAUX "news" really is a cancer... On the seventh hand, it is pretty funny, but I guess I've run out of hands.
If Trump is elected, his plan is just to be himself, phuck up the entire country, and then resign before he can be impeached and convicted. Mark my words, but Trump's #1 criterion for his VP will be someone who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon.
After he's pardoned, Trump gets to prance around for the rest of his life. Talk about building your brand. Trump just thinks that Nixon was a fool for not making more money on the free publicity.
Actually it really goes back to the value of free publicity in a world where news to serve the public good has become disaster porn news in search of ratings and eyeballs to sell more ads. Slashdot could be part of the solution, but don't hold your breath.
Wow! I feel great! I've already attracted a sock puppet with his little mod point for Trump!
Actually, I think I've realized another problem with the moderation system. If you make thoughtful and provocative comments, then people might be motivated to reply and my understanding is that prevents them from moderating the comment. In contrast, people who are too stupid, offended, or stupidly offended to offer any rational or intelligent reply are always free to dump their mod points. Like shite.
Just stopped by to see if any of the Hillary haters had anything intelligent or interesting to say. Just joking. Make better sense to buy a lottery ticket.
Only curious if any of them have enough sock puppets with mod points to strongly upvote their tripe.
Point of clarification. I don't love Hillary, but I don't hate her either. I wish she were less of a lawyer, but America is NOT going to get any philosophers in high political offices, whereas it looks quite possible the next president could be a con man. (I think America has managed to survive several such, but Trump might be special...)
Hillary hatred is an interesting form of insanity, but it's a crucial leg of the Donald's wobbly little high chair. The other three legs are for government haters, bigots, and racists. Notwithstanding their delusions it is NOT a throne that Trump is perched upon. I suppose the positive side is that Hillary haters tend to be too stupid to hide their hatred. They have already recruited all the suitable misogynists and at this point they are not gaining recruits, but just alienating decent people so as to support her. I'm sort of being driven to develop an actual fondness for Hillary because of her excellent taste in enemies.
(P.S. Still wondering why I never get mod points. Too fond of provocative comments? My tendency to reply to rudeness in kind? In my defense I usually seek to tone it down, not up, and I also plead sincerity while striving for consistency...)
Your definition of sarcasm needs work. Is this some version of the Top Gear "It's just a joke" defense?
I think we're dealing with real numbers here, not discrete rational values. Medians and modes are diversionary, even allowing for my sloppy use of some messy terms here. In particular I'm certain that any attempt to measure intelligence in a concrete way is doomed by Godel's ghost.
Depends on the degree to which intelligence is a discrete trait, but there is generally a lot of confusion about how genetics works. It is NOT a little blueprint for a unique human being, but more like a book of recipes that might lead to one instance of a fairly wide range of possible human beings. I think "intelligence" is an especially muddled concept at both ends, in terms of assessment and in terms of the linkage to genetic factors.
However, you can say that there are some genes that have some connection to intelligence, and you can sometimes assess them on a pairwise basis. If the fetus has the "better" gene from both parents, then it is "luckier" than the other 75% of the fetuses for THAT particular gene. Considering how many genes there are and the various interaction effects, I doubt that we'll ever be able to come up with solid numbers, but I do think that we'll be able to make rough probabilistic estimates of the form such as "This fetus has a significantly better than average set of the genes available in these two parents." (There are some people who want to go much farther than that... I'm basically taking a passive position on the topic.)
Maybe you should think of it as the only-child problem? If you do the math (and if intelligence is largely determined or even significantly affected by the genetic recipe), then half the time the child will be around the average of the parents, and the other half of the time the child will be above or below. If the stupid ones are just as likely to survive, then things are not improving and Ma Nature doesn't like that...
However, this is getting quite far away from the original topic of why we humans (especially male humans) like porn so much. (The male preference is actually related to the differential investment. Woman have to invest more in each child to have descendants, while men can afford to gamble much more.)
These days they watch the porn on their smartphones, but at least many of them are "polite" enough to use those screen covers that make the display highly directional. In one case I encountered where the fellow did not use the screen cover he wasn't reading a manga, but watching a porn video on the train.
Progress!
(P.S. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one was extreme enough to be memorable.)
Slashdot Mirror
Or waiting until he falls asleep. The same robot that blew him up could have kept checking on him as needed, but a better robot for this situation would be one that could place cameras to watch him until he falls asleep. That way the robot only needs to be strong enough to make a couple of visits, though it also depends on how much ammo he had for trying to disable robots.
Seems to me as though they didn't want to risk capturing him alive, though that also seems on the insane side. How can we know he was alone? Or perhaps even worse than the lone wolf scenario, what if he was an DAESH agent and the real objective of the attack was to start a race war in America?
Okay, now that I've clarified the problem in my own mind, I know what to search for. Sadly, I predict that today's slashdot won't offer anything--and if someone tried that comment would be modded into oblivion, so I won't find it anyway. Key phrases are "lone wolf" and "race war" and things along the lines of aborting a complete investigation. Perhaps the last bit would be to make it easier to control the spin?
Sorry, but your reply was so incoherent that it makes me wonder if you are a Trump supporter.
If you are not a Trump supporter, then I have to say: "Please clarify what you meant there." Shorter sentences would surely help, and you need to clarify some of your assumptions, especially where it seems that you are pulling numbers out of thin air and throwing the demographic realities to the wind.
If you are a Trump supporter, then you probably can't write (or read or even think) clearly, but in that case the only relevant question is much simpler: "Who do you hate most?"
Not sure how to take that. It's an extremely popular field for wannabe lawyers who don't want to work too hard. Most academic fields actually have right and wrong answers (and you have to learn which is which), but political science doesn't, and neither do lawyers. I actually believe that most of the professional training of lawyers is learning to ignore questions of right and wrong (and just leave that bit to the judge or jury). Of course it's also true that some wannabe politicians are approaching their political career that way, but I can't get inside Hillary's head to know what she REALLY wanted versus what she got dragged into because she married Bill.
My evidence that "lawyer" is a much higher personal identity for Hillary than "politician" is mostly from observing her behaviors and the results. Her most natural register certainly appears to be that she talks and acts like a lawyer, and her attempts to speak and act like a politician are almost always stilted. It's not like she doesn't have any examples around. Surely you've noticed how different Bill is, and that's because he is first and foremost a politician, and probably a natural one. (Didn't say much about results, but it's the same. She has a lot of solid results as a lawyer, both as a corporate lawyer and as a legislative lawyer, but her only political victories were the two Senate campaigns, with perhaps a bit of partial credit for supporting some of Bill's victories.)
I'm increasingly inclined to to theory that you're just a clever troll. In some ways your pitches sound like some things I would say, but then you go off the deep end into insanity against Hillary Clinton as though she was some sort of super-villain. Whatever idealism you possess (or pretend to possess), your hatred is clearly irrational and insane.
Since nothing you've said is rationally linked to Hillary, I think it must be some kind of projection against women. Maybe you've been unlucky in love or something. Not much of an explanation, but it would be sort of rational. Then again, lots of time there is no rational explanation and it's just our human nature to search for patterns that don't exist.
On the other theory, that you're just a clever troll, then you must be a Trump supporter, and in that case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?"
Well, obviously you are listening to a different Sanders than the one whose videos I keep bumping into. I'm referring to Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont. Who are you talking about?
I suppose I should also check whether or not you're supporting Trump? If you aren't talking about someone else, then you must be a liar, which would make you a natural Trumpist, and in that case there's no sense in continuing any conversation beyond the most relevant question: "Who do you hate most?"
And I'm sure you've done endless streams of interviews and never once gotten confused about who is interviewing you now? You're such a supremely perfect being that you might be a Trump supporter, in which case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?"
It sounds like you're agreeing with me, but I must be confused. What did you say that made me think you were a Trump supporter, and after you said it (perhaps in some other branch of the discussion?), why didn't the so-called conversation end after you refused to answer the only question that is really relevant for a Trumpist: "Who do you hate most?"
As you can see, there's not much reason to go there, though if you really want to, then I would recommend sticking to the better examples. There was one quite close to Ford. How soon they have forgotten Ford's predecessor, Spiro T Agnew and why Ford got the job.
I actually think that Ford was quite possibly the best Republican president of my lifetime, but his egregious pardon of Nixon offset everything positive. If Nixon had been held to account, then the office of the presidency would have been greatly weakened, and I still think that would have been a much better thing for the country. That's why I'm so sure Trump will pick a VP who has publicly approved Ford's pardon, and probably one with authoritarian tendencies who would not want to risk weakening the presidency by not pardoning Trump on the Nixon precedent.
I think you have to admit that it's a pretty sweet scam. Almost all the "brand advantages" of being an ex-president, but only about two years of actual effort required. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Trump flips the burger and starts threatening to resign for various reasons as soon as he (gawd forbid) wins the election.
Actually, I'm convinced that Dan Rather was set up. I strongly suspect the fake letter was actually based on the real one, but the real objective was to get rid of Rather. Most of the records at Camp Mabry had been purged years before Dubya ran for president, and I suspect that Turd Blossom (AKA Rove) had or had at least seen the original letter.
I really can't understand what motivates people like you? Do you spend all your time carefully filtering just the lies you want to hear and see?
There is an entire world of reality out there. You should visit it once in a while.
It would probably help if you turn off your search customization. The google knows what you want now and is trying hard to show it to you.
You are lying again, but I know you're just a Hillary hater or misogynist, so that's the probably the sincere best that you can come up with. Pitiful.
"People like you" is actually code for "I'm a racist who thinks it's clever to project my racism on other people." Unless you're a bigot projecting bigotry.
The distinction is that racists hate other people for how they were born, while bigots hate them for acquired characteristics. I just feel sorry for both groups. Over the years, I have met quite a few of them, and they are always so miserable that it's painful even to watch them as they continuously mangle their miserable lives.
I think one of the most despicable characteristics of Trump is that he exploits and manipulates such weak people. One cannot actually believe anything that Trump actually says, since he has been on every side of every issue, but I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he is just a sociopath with authoritarian tendencies. He might be a racist and bigot, too, but I doubt it.
You're either opening a can of worms or you're a more clever troll than most. I'll go on the first theory, because the second would be a waste of keystrokes.
I think that secrecy is fundamentally hard to justify except in cases of prior secrecy. Not a full blown analysis, but let's backtrack a little on the Snowden case because he's a whistle-blower and that's a case where anonymity is often demanded. Well, if the crimes he revealed were already known, then he wouldn't have had to reveal them and his anonymity wouldn't have mattered.
Okay, but we need to act in secret to protect ourselves from the terrorists, right? Well, if we had sufficiently good information about the potential terrorists and their activities were visible in real time, then they wouldn't be very dangerous would they?
I could go deeper in a couple of directions (or even dimensions), but I suspect that most of this is a transient problem. As cameras and microphones and various other surveillance equipment becomes completely ubiquitous, there are only two long-term futures. (1) None of us will have ANY privacy in any recognizable sense, or (2) ALMOST NONE of us will have any privacy and a few overlords will be pulling the strings of everyone else.
Sorry to report that it looks like we (mostly in the form of giant inhuman corporations, with the actual human beings being dragged along for the ride) are trying to open Door #2. Doesn't matter much to me if it's Hillary or the Donald on the other side. Still bad.
I'm mostly trying to imagine what life would be like if we open Door #1 instead. I really think it's one or the other, and the people who are born on the other side (assuming we're still reproducing at all) are going to feel quite differently about these topics.
Not all of them. Just you [aardvarkjoe].
Just kidding nothing special about you [aardvarkjoe today, and 37 other names next week].
However, the negative mods are actually quite helpful in figuring out which points that the trolls hate most. Then those points can be published more aggressively in forums that the trolls can't censor by gaming the system.
Now you might say that I shouldn't have given it away, but the problem is the trolls are also too stupid to learn from any of their MANY mistakes. That's why Trump is their perfect candidate.
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the best candidate of the entire crowd, even including the entire clown car that started on the so-called Republican side. I even donated my poll tax to him, but in retrospect I am saddened to conclude that no matter how broken the system is, it is still incapable of electing a candidate who has any prominent philosophic streak. (No, Reagan had senility, NOT a philosophy.)
However, as regards Hillary's popularity, how much of it do you think that she actually earned? Seems quite obvious to me that she has been aggressively targeted for decades for primarily partisan political reasons, and even that much of the hateful rhetoric is displaced from other targets. Mostly stuff that would have been targeted at her husband if Bill hadn't whupped all their arses in the unfair fight. (However, I still haven't made up my mind if he was a good or bad president. Actually much easier to see the obviously bad ones such as Dubya.)
All of this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. The problem is that there is only one "most casual observer", and it usually isn't me.
You do know what a lawyer is, don't you? Hillary is a good lawyer and several other oxymorons. Okay, so "skilled lawyer" is probably a "better" way to say it.
Actually, she, like everyone else, has a bunch of personal identities. One of the things I like least about Hillary is that "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer" might be her top personal identity. Obviously it isn't "politician", though "politician" is probably in her top ten (and I definitely think it's Bill's #1). I doubt that "philosopher" is on her top 10 list, but "feminist" is probably in there somewhere (and I don't regard it as a terrible thing, though it isn't so high in my own priorities). She's an unusually complicated person, and it's hard to figure her out. For example, I think that "grandmother" might be a higher ranked personal identity for her than "mother" (whereas I think that "father" is definitely one of President Obama's top 10).
Just for reference I do think that "philosopher" is in Bernie's top 10, but I can't figure out if it's above or below "politician". Maybe "wise man" is his #1, but there's zero chance America would elect one of those to the presidency, even in the backlash from a fiasco like Dubya or the even worse mess that Trump might leave behind.
The Donald? His #1 has to be "con man" or "salesman". Or maybe he switches back and forth depending on the weather. Actually, I think it possible that "authoritarian" might be his secret #1.
Can't even decide if I wish I had a mod point to give this one, and if so, what sort of mod point it should be. (But I NEVER get any mod points, at least not in some years.)
On the one hand, I don't like unneeded profanity, but on the other hand the language isn't that strong. On the third hand, I agree with the sentiments, but on the fourth hand it scarcely seems like a constructive comment that will generate interesting discussion, and on the fifth hand it's probably feeding a troll whose comment is not visible to me and on the sixth hand FAUX "news" really is a cancer... On the seventh hand, it is pretty funny, but I guess I've run out of hands.
I'm not an octopus, you know.
If Trump is elected, his plan is just to be himself, phuck up the entire country, and then resign before he can be impeached and convicted. Mark my words, but Trump's #1 criterion for his VP will be someone who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon.
After he's pardoned, Trump gets to prance around for the rest of his life. Talk about building your brand. Trump just thinks that Nixon was a fool for not making more money on the free publicity.
Actually it really goes back to the value of free publicity in a world where news to serve the public good has become disaster porn news in search of ratings and eyeballs to sell more ads. Slashdot could be part of the solution, but don't hold your breath.
Wow! I feel great! I've already attracted a sock puppet with his little mod point for Trump!
Actually, I think I've realized another problem with the moderation system. If you make thoughtful and provocative comments, then people might be motivated to reply and my understanding is that prevents them from moderating the comment. In contrast, people who are too stupid, offended, or stupidly offended to offer any rational or intelligent reply are always free to dump their mod points. Like shite.
Nice sock puppet... Put down the mod point. (Insightful? THAT is a FUNNY mod.)
Time to reveal the Donald's secret scam:
Step 1: Get the so-called GOP nomination. Easy to fool some of the people all of the time.
Step 2: Pick a VP who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon.
Step 3: Win the election. As Con Man Donald says, "You can fool most of the people on some of the election days."
Step 4: Be himself. AKA Phuck up massively. Start a war, bankrupt the country, whatever.
Step 5: Get impeached, resign, get pardoned. (Step 2 was important.)
Step 6: PROFIT
And you thought Trump was stupid, didn't you? By the way, don't blame me. I'm sure I saw it on Twitter. That's where I get all my important news.
Just stopped by to see if any of the Hillary haters had anything intelligent or interesting to say. Just joking. Make better sense to buy a lottery ticket.
Only curious if any of them have enough sock puppets with mod points to strongly upvote their tripe.
Point of clarification. I don't love Hillary, but I don't hate her either. I wish she were less of a lawyer, but America is NOT going to get any philosophers in high political offices, whereas it looks quite possible the next president could be a con man. (I think America has managed to survive several such, but Trump might be special...)
Hillary hatred is an interesting form of insanity, but it's a crucial leg of the Donald's wobbly little high chair. The other three legs are for government haters, bigots, and racists. Notwithstanding their delusions it is NOT a throne that Trump is perched upon. I suppose the positive side is that Hillary haters tend to be too stupid to hide their hatred. They have already recruited all the suitable misogynists and at this point they are not gaining recruits, but just alienating decent people so as to support her. I'm sort of being driven to develop an actual fondness for Hillary because of her excellent taste in enemies.
(P.S. Still wondering why I never get mod points. Too fond of provocative comments? My tendency to reply to rudeness in kind? In my defense I usually seek to tone it down, not up, and I also plead sincerity while striving for consistency...)
Your definition of sarcasm needs work. Is this some version of the Top Gear "It's just a joke" defense?
I think we're dealing with real numbers here, not discrete rational values. Medians and modes are diversionary, even allowing for my sloppy use of some messy terms here. In particular I'm certain that any attempt to measure intelligence in a concrete way is doomed by Godel's ghost.
Depends on the degree to which intelligence is a discrete trait, but there is generally a lot of confusion about how genetics works. It is NOT a little blueprint for a unique human being, but more like a book of recipes that might lead to one instance of a fairly wide range of possible human beings. I think "intelligence" is an especially muddled concept at both ends, in terms of assessment and in terms of the linkage to genetic factors.
However, you can say that there are some genes that have some connection to intelligence, and you can sometimes assess them on a pairwise basis. If the fetus has the "better" gene from both parents, then it is "luckier" than the other 75% of the fetuses for THAT particular gene. Considering how many genes there are and the various interaction effects, I doubt that we'll ever be able to come up with solid numbers, but I do think that we'll be able to make rough probabilistic estimates of the form such as "This fetus has a significantly better than average set of the genes available in these two parents." (There are some people who want to go much farther than that... I'm basically taking a passive position on the topic.)
Maybe you should think of it as the only-child problem? If you do the math (and if intelligence is largely determined or even significantly affected by the genetic recipe), then half the time the child will be around the average of the parents, and the other half of the time the child will be above or below. If the stupid ones are just as likely to survive, then things are not improving and Ma Nature doesn't like that...
However, this is getting quite far away from the original topic of why we humans (especially male humans) like porn so much. (The male preference is actually related to the differential investment. Woman have to invest more in each child to have descendants, while men can afford to gamble much more.)
These days they watch the porn on their smartphones, but at least many of them are "polite" enough to use those screen covers that make the display highly directional. In one case I encountered where the fellow did not use the screen cover he wasn't reading a manga, but watching a porn video on the train.
Progress!
(P.S. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one was extreme enough to be memorable.)