Next up on the hit series "'Murica: Hell yeah!", the orange prez makes a scandalous law - all students are to get daily cavity searches.
While glove manufacturer stock prices are soaring, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly tells worried students "If you don't want your rectum searched for contraband, just stay at home.
How to get started? Well, I start by getting up in the morning and turning the coffee machine on. After that, I check/. a quickie, maybe troll some dude about global warming or moon conspiracies or whatever is up, and then I take a quick bite followed by two cups of coffee. Then, I can slowly start the day's programming, unless it's Perl-Friday, in which case I need two more cups of coffee and a small flask of tequila first.
The things you bring up, while valid points, do not in any way impact other people (outside of emotional stuff). Cigarette smoke does not stay with the smoker, it moves around and gets caught in the lungs of those around the smoker too (which is why these laws talk about 10m from playgrounds and 4m from building entrances).
Banning cigarettes can be done without breaking any libertarian philosophies or irritating the ghost of Jefferson.
These days, smoking is often taken up by people who are on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, Simone Dennis, an associate professor at Australian National University, points out, "and that adds a burden of shame to people who might already be marginalised."
Is the woman seriously suggesting that we should be more open-minded and accepting regarding poor people destroying their own health and the health of those around them? Is this some kind of hierarchical SJW logic?
If you were to "borrow" my stuff, I would no longer have it. If you were to use my bed, I would no longer have access to it (unless I wanted to spoon, but I imagine you have a potent odour). On the other hand, if you were to listen in on me playing the cello, it wouldn't harm me at all while (hopefully) educating you.
The most perplexing thing is this -
Mmmm.... hey.... give me that research report you wrote up, I want to use it too. Heck, I'm not hurting anyone when I use your work.
Do you not know how the current academic system works? You are more than welcome to my research - it directly benefits me when you use it. Your ignorance regarding this matter is quite illuminating.
Treating copyright infringement the same as organized crime sounds like an MPAA/RIAA-controlled alternate reality. I guess a lot of money went into "convincing" the right people for this legislative "review".
Hunter-gatherers ate quite a bit of sugar, that's where the 'gatherer' part comes in. Berries, fruits, vegetables - all of these contain sugars, and sometimes in great quantities. Did you perhaps mean to say 'processed' sugars like glucose?
"I believe one of our core priorities going forward should be to close that divide -- to do what's necessary to help the private sector build networks, send signals, and distribute information to American consumers, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else. We must work to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans."
And here I thought virtue signalling was a trademark of the regressive left. Pai certainly is slathering it rather heavy on both sides.
I do wonder how exactly he intends to follow through on this. Will telcos now require that customers write their sexual preferences and religion on the registration form? How else can Pai be sure that no one is getting discriminated in throwing money at the local monopoly?
"Though the new study wasn't designed to address racial disparities, experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare."
This is very strange, because we are spending lots and lots of money trying to get every woman to attend the damn screening (which together with vaccination is the only way to prevent cervical cancer). Do you know how hard that is?
It's not because of unequal access, it's not because of "muh oppression", it's because we cannot do more than send out invitations, offer self-sampling that can be mailed in, send out a gyno-bus, or offer online/phone consultations. We cannot forcibly make them. Do you have any other suggestions? Or is it more fun to claim "muh equality" on this one too?
In short, if they do not *want* to take a smear, they won't. I've heard women say "what's the point? Even if I have high-grades lesion I won't come in to the clinic". How the fuck are you supposed to improve care for women that effectively try to hamper their own survival chances? Do you know how many projects, how much money, and how many scientists are working on ways to up the screening coverage? it's practically impossible to get the non-attenders to regularly take smears. Even when their own mothers die from cervical cancer they *still* won't go.
I hear this argument every election. "I don't mind political opponents, but this time it's just too far." Yet it always turns out that the speaker is simply trying to rationalize his/her dislike of political opponents, and does not want to admit it to himself/herself.
But, if you are to dislike some group, Trump supporters are an easy choice. I don't care so much about all the stuff you said (alot of it was overblown by media), but rather that it took about 14 seconds to realize that Trump was full of shit and about as trustworthy as Putin or Baghdad Bob. Anyone that believes that guy after having listened to him for more than 1 minute has more than earned the ridicule.
Showing that you have no imagination, no knowledge of history, and no knowledge of what's actually happening in the world. For most people, their pay depends more on how expensive it would be to replace them than what they deliver.
Then please, show me one functional economy where the employees do not get paid as little as possible. Show me where the worth of the employee does not determine the salary + benefits of that employee. Or could it be that your entire argument depends on you being petty?
Seriously, we need children in society. Right now, fertility rates in most developed countries are below replacement level, which suggests to me that having and raising children is useful to society. Bearing and raising children is hard work.
This just might be the most obvious and unnecessary thing I have ever read.
You probably want to have a functioning economy when you retire. To keep the economy functioning over that time, people are going to have to continue to have children. If you intend to rely on other people making certain expensive choices, you've got a big entitlement complex there. You are being a defector in a large Prisoner's Dilemma game.
I don't rely on them having children any more than they rely on me working and paying taxes they can benefit from. How you can mangle things in your head to consider it entitled is amazing though, well done.
Because every other country has active measures in society to combat that pressure from companies. And in the others they are at least partially successful. Not entirely - much of Europe is having the exact same problem as Japan though at an earlier stage and not as severe yet. That's one reason it's ridiculous of Europe not to welcome the refugees with open arms - they desperately need an influx of able-bodied young people to keep their economies working.
Every other country... That sounds like a sweeping generalization without any knowledge or data to support it. Let's have a look at working hours to see how far along Japan is. Here, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.a...
Turns out Japan is more lenient on working hours than USA, on par with Italy, and far nicer than Greece or Mexico. So, your hypothesis would mean birthrates in the US should be below that of Japan, birthrates in Italy should be on par, and birthrates in Greece/Mexico should be much lower than Japan.
How does that play out? Let's check http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.... or more directly https://www.cia.gov/library/pu... . The US is above Japan, so that didn't align, Italy is even, so that's correct, Greece is even, so that's wrong, and Mexico is way higher, which is again, wrong. Your hypothesis was highly inconsistent with the data.
Japan is the furthest along that road, and thus gets to serve as the great big warning sign of where that road leads, but you're an idiot if you think those other places aren't on the exact same road and measurably moving forward on it. They are moving slower because of policies designed to combat this corporate pressure. Those policies, however, are being steadily eroded - which will accelerate the trip.
Or, perhaps the idiot is the one that makes absurd claims that contradict the known data?
They need to be significantly strengthened if you want to change course. That means things like paid family leave, maternity leave with job protection, paternity leave with job protection, good (and affordable) childcare options - so that people don't have to choose between life and work. A healthy society needs people who work to live. When everybody lives to work - that society is doomed.
Sweden and Norway both have all of those and more, along with some of the lowest working hours in the world. And where are they on the fertility graph? Below Mexico, which is not known as a champion of employee protections.
At this point we should entertain the notion that you are incorrect, and that the numbers we see fit much much much better to the graph of economic development and wellbeing, i.e. rich people have fewer babies while poor people have more.
Except the US is doing this, Europe is doing this, Australia, Africa, the whole damn thing. And only Japan is having this problem. How would you argue that Japan is what happens when every other country is free of those issues?
If you are born in a neighborhood where half the houses are abandoned and you don't get consistent access to food, you won't have the luxury of making good life choices.
Not responsible for their own life choices...
It is a perpetuating cycle that started with slavery and continued with segregation.
Not responsible for their own situation. Victims of what happened before they were even born. Wow, talk about oppressed.
Tough to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you can't afford shoes.
And carte blanche because sometimes life is hard.
This sounds exactly like the oppression Olympics where everyone gets a free pass if they can claim enough victimhood.
Also, we weren't talking at all about "giving someone a hand", that was added by you just now so you could claim some moral high-ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Christ man, my exorbitant bullshit meter melted when I pointed it towards your post! Thanks for nothing, you insensitive clod!
Am I the only one that read that as genetically modified salmon destroys cancer? That would have been so much more awesome.
Have you checked the more contentious wikipedia pages?
Ahh, I see. So the plan is to make the US such a terrible place that no-one will want to go there? Now it finally makes sense.
Just a heads up, you might want to look into Somalia, they appear to have attempted a similar approach.
Next up on the hit series "'Murica: Hell yeah!", the orange prez makes a scandalous law - all students are to get daily cavity searches.
While glove manufacturer stock prices are soaring, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly tells worried students "If you don't want your rectum searched for contraband, just stay at home.
God-damn the news are getting entertaining.
How to get started? Well, I start by getting up in the morning and turning the coffee machine on. /. a quickie, maybe troll some dude about global warming or moon conspiracies or whatever is up, and then I take a quick bite followed by two cups of coffee.
After that, I check
Then, I can slowly start the day's programming, unless it's Perl-Friday, in which case I need two more cups of coffee and a small flask of tequila first.
The things you bring up, while valid points, do not in any way impact other people (outside of emotional stuff). Cigarette smoke does not stay with the smoker, it moves around and gets caught in the lungs of those around the smoker too (which is why these laws talk about 10m from playgrounds and 4m from building entrances).
Banning cigarettes can be done without breaking any libertarian philosophies or irritating the ghost of Jefferson.
These days, smoking is often taken up by people who are on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, Simone Dennis, an associate professor at Australian National University, points out, "and that adds a burden of shame to people who might already be marginalised."
Is the woman seriously suggesting that we should be more open-minded and accepting regarding poor people destroying their own health and the health of those around them? Is this some kind of hierarchical SJW logic?
If you were to "borrow" my stuff, I would no longer have it. If you were to use my bed, I would no longer have access to it (unless I wanted to spoon, but I imagine you have a potent odour). On the other hand, if you were to listen in on me playing the cello, it wouldn't harm me at all while (hopefully) educating you.
The most perplexing thing is this -
Mmmm.... hey.... give me that research report you wrote up, I want to use it too. Heck, I'm not hurting anyone when I use your work.
Do you not know how the current academic system works? You are more than welcome to my research - it directly benefits me when you use it. Your ignorance regarding this matter is quite illuminating.
Treating copyright infringement the same as organized crime sounds like an MPAA/RIAA-controlled alternate reality. I guess a lot of money went into "convincing" the right people for this legislative "review".
Hunter-gatherers ate quite a bit of sugar, that's where the 'gatherer' part comes in. Berries, fruits, vegetables - all of these contain sugars, and sometimes in great quantities. Did you perhaps mean to say 'processed' sugars like glucose?
"I believe one of our core priorities going forward should be to close that divide -- to do what's necessary to help the private sector build networks, send signals, and distribute information to American consumers, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else. We must work to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans."
And here I thought virtue signalling was a trademark of the regressive left. Pai certainly is slathering it rather heavy on both sides.
I do wonder how exactly he intends to follow through on this.
Will telcos now require that customers write their sexual preferences and religion on the registration form? How else can Pai be sure that no one is getting discriminated in throwing money at the local monopoly?
This is truly the most retarded thing that's happened in 2017 so far. It's only January.
Well Trump has only been in power a few days.
First we should make sure it's not the Trump administration buying these. They might be mistaken for operating manuals.
I still remember the 1 in 4 statistic, which wasn't even used by the White House until *after* it had been debunked as a bold-faced lie.
"Though the new study wasn't designed to address racial disparities, experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare."
This is very strange, because we are spending lots and lots of money trying to get every woman to attend the damn screening (which together with vaccination is the only way to prevent cervical cancer). Do you know how hard that is?
It's not because of unequal access, it's not because of "muh oppression", it's because we cannot do more than send out invitations, offer self-sampling that can be mailed in, send out a gyno-bus, or offer online/phone consultations. We cannot forcibly make them. Do you have any other suggestions? Or is it more fun to claim "muh equality" on this one too?
In short, if they do not *want* to take a smear, they won't. I've heard women say "what's the point? Even if I have high-grades lesion I won't come in to the clinic". How the fuck are you supposed to improve care for women that effectively try to hamper their own survival chances? Do you know how many projects, how much money, and how many scientists are working on ways to up the screening coverage? it's practically impossible to get the non-attenders to regularly take smears. Even when their own mothers die from cervical cancer they *still* won't go.
Experts my ass.
Except Trump will close down anything federal with the words 'regulatory' or 'justice' in it.
Ahh, so that's why it's called a catapult...
Pretty accurate, but the list should also include Bush Jr, especially the second election.
Heh, I guess some things really were better in the old days.
I hear this argument every election. "I don't mind political opponents, but this time it's just too far."
Yet it always turns out that the speaker is simply trying to rationalize his/her dislike of political opponents, and does not want to admit it to himself/herself.
But, if you are to dislike some group, Trump supporters are an easy choice. I don't care so much about all the stuff you said (alot of it was overblown by media), but rather that it took about 14 seconds to realize that Trump was full of shit and about as trustworthy as Putin or Baghdad Bob. Anyone that believes that guy after having listened to him for more than 1 minute has more than earned the ridicule.
Showing that you have no imagination, no knowledge of history, and no knowledge of what's actually happening in the world. For most people, their pay depends more on how expensive it would be to replace them than what they deliver.
Then please, show me one functional economy where the employees do not get paid as little as possible. Show me where the worth of the employee does not determine the salary + benefits of that employee.
Or could it be that your entire argument depends on you being petty?
Seriously, we need children in society. Right now, fertility rates in most developed countries are below replacement level, which suggests to me that having and raising children is useful to society. Bearing and raising children is hard work.
This just might be the most obvious and unnecessary thing I have ever read.
You probably want to have a functioning economy when you retire. To keep the economy functioning over that time, people are going to have to continue to have children. If you intend to rely on other people making certain expensive choices, you've got a big entitlement complex there. You are being a defector in a large Prisoner's Dilemma game.
I don't rely on them having children any more than they rely on me working and paying taxes they can benefit from. How you can mangle things in your head to consider it entitled is amazing though, well done.
Because every other country has active measures in society to combat that pressure from companies. And in the others they are at least partially successful. Not entirely - much of Europe is having the exact same problem as Japan though at an earlier stage and not as severe yet. That's one reason it's ridiculous of Europe not to welcome the refugees with open arms - they desperately need an influx of able-bodied young people to keep their economies working.
Every other country... That sounds like a sweeping generalization without any knowledge or data to support it. Let's have a look at working hours to see how far along Japan is. Here, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.a...
Turns out Japan is more lenient on working hours than USA, on par with Italy, and far nicer than Greece or Mexico. So, your hypothesis would mean birthrates in the US should be below that of Japan, birthrates in Italy should be on par, and birthrates in Greece/Mexico should be much lower than Japan.
How does that play out? Let's check http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.... or more directly https://www.cia.gov/library/pu... . The US is above Japan, so that didn't align, Italy is even, so that's correct, Greece is even, so that's wrong, and Mexico is way higher, which is again, wrong. Your hypothesis was highly inconsistent with the data.
Japan is the furthest along that road, and thus gets to serve as the great big warning sign of where that road leads, but you're an idiot if you think those other places aren't on the exact same road and measurably moving forward on it. They are moving slower because of policies designed to combat this corporate pressure. Those policies, however, are being steadily eroded - which will accelerate the trip.
Or, perhaps the idiot is the one that makes absurd claims that contradict the known data?
They need to be significantly strengthened if you want to change course. That means things like paid family leave, maternity leave with job protection, paternity leave with job protection, good (and affordable) childcare options - so that people don't have to choose between life and work.
A healthy society needs people who work to live. When everybody lives to work - that society is doomed.
Sweden and Norway both have all of those and more, along with some of the lowest working hours in the world. And where are they on the fertility graph? Below Mexico, which is not known as a champion of employee protections.
At this point we should entertain the notion that you are incorrect, and that the numbers we see fit much much much better to the graph of economic development and wellbeing, i.e. rich people have fewer babies while poor people have more.
Wow, I seem to have struck a nerve here.
You have masterfully combined both entitled millenial and angsty teenager in one humorous package. Thank you.
Except the US is doing this, Europe is doing this, Australia, Africa, the whole damn thing. And only Japan is having this problem. How would you argue that Japan is what happens when every other country is free of those issues?
Yes, you did.
If you are born in a neighborhood where half the houses are abandoned and you don't get consistent access to food, you won't have the luxury of making good life choices.
Not responsible for their own life choices...
It is a perpetuating cycle that started with slavery and continued with segregation.
Not responsible for their own situation. Victims of what happened before they were even born. Wow, talk about oppressed.
Tough to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you can't afford shoes.
And carte blanche because sometimes life is hard.
This sounds exactly like the oppression Olympics where everyone gets a free pass if they can claim enough victimhood.
Also, we weren't talking at all about "giving someone a hand", that was added by you just now so you could claim some moral high-ground.