By my mid-40's I gave up on the idea of becoming a daddy. Even if my swimmers could produce a viable baby, I'd be 70 when that child would be going off to college. It just wouldn't be fair to that child.
Are you kidding? It would be better for the child because when you die he gets your stuff. Also you may have more time to spend with him than when you were younger and might not be as bothered by the mind-numbing boredom of interacting with kids.
Only for dumb people. If you are intelligent and you breed with another intelligent person they probably won't be an idiot. So it depends. If you have an IQ of at least 140 then you should probably be breeding for the good of humanity. If you are smart your genetic code includes instructions for building a proper brain and that is what makes us human.
Well you need an enormous cock to have sex with an older woman because of their ginormous whale vaginas. So yeah if you are average sized or less it's best to stick with girls in their teens and early to mid 20s which is what we all want anyway. Let the guys with the enormous tent-poles have the soccer moms. The rest of us can stick with the fresh-from-the-factory ones that still have that new car smell and a vag that hasn't been pounded a hundred thousand times and still has some elasticity and muscle tone.
We are fully grown by our late teens/early 20's. We are at our physical peak around that time. We have the energy for child rearing. It would make sense to bear and raise children in that neighborhood. The extended childhood experiment that we tried out some time ago worked pretty well, it allowed for teenages to gather a little bit of wisdom before getting out on their own. But there are limits to extended childhood, and the extreme narrowing of fertility.
Yes biologically speaking this makes sense, but our species also wants to be happy and breeding tends to make us unhappy and want to die soon. Children suck all the life out of you like little vampires and makes the mother less attractive (breasts like half deflated water balloons and mega-vagina) and sometimes less interested in sex. In some species the mother dies soon after giving birth. I think it is true in our species as well except that the death is a psychological one: the death of all enjoyment of life, of all happiness and it applies to both parents and not just the mother. So if you want to live a happy life it makes sense to have children only after most of the enjoyment of life has already passed. So I think waiting for the last few eggs to have children is a great idea. Yes it's more selfish, but we only get one life. Why not surf that wave right to the beach?
For men I think the ideal time to have kids is in your 50s or even 60s. For women early 40s is optimal if you are going for the one child ideal. 38 or 39 if you want 2 or 3 of those life-stealing, mole-rat looking creatures. I'm not yet 50 and have never had any desire to have children but it is too early now anyway. Child rearing is something you do when you are getting ready to die.
Men are more desperate because men actually enjoy relationships more than women do. Women often don't care if they have a boyfriend or not. Men always care. Men always want a girlfriend and always want to be having sex. Women often don't care that much if they are having sex or not. So basically one sex cares more because they enjoy the experience more.
Let's be honest, women put a tremendous amount of effort into getting a date, too.
Only if they are old or ugly. The young pretty ones that are the ones we all care about don't give it much thought at all. They just choose among the most handsome suitors and that is that. They put a lot of effort into looking as beautiful as possible but that is more of a power thing. Being a beautiful girl gives you superpowers and they want to be as powerful as possible just as anyone would. They don't worry about getting dates.
If the system requires you do anything else like say fuck the CEOs daughter just to get a job interview then it is painfully obvious that the system is badly broken. And that is my point. It is clearly badly broken, but people already in the system like it because it limits competition and keeps wages higher.
If I were hiring I'd be looking for a balance of IQ and testable knowledge and if they seem like they would work hard or enjoy the job. A degree and work experience are nice but there is no substitute for intelligence. For a coding job submitting some completed programs should really be enough. I'd rather hire the better or smarter programmer even if he doesn't have a degree.
Any business is going to want to hire you if you can demonstrate to them that you have the skills and experience to help them make money.
Did you see this in a dream? Some kind of drug fueled visionquest? In reality CEOs don't come by your house to see how awesome your skills are despite having no degree or experience.
Instead they hire HR drones who couldn't give a fuck about your skills, but do care about not getting fired. They don't schedule interviews with clearly unqualified candidates because as I said they don't want to get fired. They don't care if you have an IQ of 180 and can write more optimized compilers than Intel in your sleep. I suppose you might get an interview though if you put a gun to their head but you'd probably end up in jail or dead and still unemployed.
You are thinking of the 80s. I know people who got programming jobs without degrees in the late 80s but that was the end of that. By the 90s hiring practices became more unified and there were basically no jobs for people without degrees. By the early 90s you needed both a degree and at least 1 year of experience or no job. Period. Full stop. I was there. I speak from firsthand experience. Also the idea that someone without a degree or relevant work experience would even be granted an interview is laughable. You'd be more likely to get struck by lightning. Total fantasy.
Google 'natural rights' and John Locke. Those are the principles this crazy country was based on. The idea that human beings have a thing called 'rights' that no one can give or take away but can only ignore or violate or respect. Read and ponder and realize that the US was a country founded by Libertarian nutjobs. Or at least that is how most Americans would see them. Maybe they'd even be considered terrierists. The country was founded by extremists but they don't run things anymore. If they were here they would almost certainly want to nuke washington dc and revolt all over again.
Wouldn't a 'security probe' or 'multiple failed logins' or something of that nature be more accurate? I've had enough of all these bad and misleading analogies. Is computer security really so hard? Just enforce secure passwords and multifactor authentication and take it seriously. Account lockout after 10 unsuccessful attempts etc. And don't use Microsoft software of any kind.
I checked it out. He thinks it's impossible because...expansion joints and because the atmosfear is too heavy. Right. Sorry but his analysis is bullshit and he nitpicks at lots of things that are irrelevant to the main idea. Like whether powering it with solar panels is viable or what the price of a ticket will be. Who gives a shit? A regular high speed train doesn't need to be solar powered and neither does a hyperloop and if the tickets are expensive so what? It will be a train system for the rich then. It will still be cool and maybe someone will eventually figure out how to build a cheaper vacuum tunnel transportation system that the common people can ride in. This is just the start. Guessing the future is always a bad idea but if I had to guess I would say vacuum tunnels are a good guess at what our ground transportation will look like in a few hundred years. It is also easier to power without fossil fuels than aircraft and we may run out of fossil fuels in less than a hundred years.
I get that people don't like new ideas or that maybe people just don't like Elon Musk, but at least be honest in an analysis of the engineering challenges. It is most certainly not an impossible or ridiculous dream. It's doable from an engineering POV. It's just very very expensive and there may be problems maintaining the vacuum in practice.
Lots of managers seem to favor hot girls. Actually I suspect that all heterosexual male humans who hire people choose the beautiful girls first. It's just human nature to favor what is beautiful. Of course I think robots can be beautiful too.
People don't price shop online before buying food. At least not yet. Maybe Amazon would like to change that. It's not about idolizing. It's about logic.
Tattoos are ugly. Yes all of them. But I guess it's no worse than hiring ugly cashiers. It's not like every cashier at whole foods is a hot girl. Although if I were in charge they would be. Obviously robot babe cashiers would be better than human ones though.
I guess the NSA doesn't need their own webmail because they pretty much have open access to all the big American webmail companies. For some reason I have the idea that Gmail in particular is like home base for the NSA.
If you have a gmail account you basically have to assume that everything you write there will be permanently stored and searchable in an the NSA text database. I guess some people are cool with that though. A lot of people don't care. It doesn't really bother me that much either, but it's not like there isn't a choice. So I go with offshore webmail instead.
Not sure I understand. I thought the whole point of Libertarianism was that everyone acting in their own best interest achieves the best result overall?
No. The point of Libertarianism is non-coercion or voluntarism. Which system happens to produce the most widgets at the best price is precisely NOT the point of it.
now you're saying that in order to achieve what you consider to be the best result overall, you have to act against your own interests?
If you are very poor then yes. That's a possibility. It might be in my best interest at least financially to rob a bank, but that is clearly not in the best interest of the bank or of society overall. If you don't have a job and have no prospects of getting one or if you are just very very poor then obviously a more socialist system might be helpful. In my case I am just very very poor. So in terms of money I might be better off in a more Robin Hood-ish system, but I don't believe such systems are just or as efficient as something more laissez faire.
Something like one of those experimental Minimum Basic Income systems would be particularly great. Although I'm not sure it can be made to work especially since I think there is a tendency to choose a pretty high Minimum Basic possibly because the people designing the system are obscenely rich and can't imagine that it is possible to live on less money. Instead of erring on the high side as I am sure they are doing they should be erring on the low side and raising it only if it seems effective at that initial level.
Just because you search for something doesn't indicate what you feel about it, good or bad. It doesn't doesn't mean you're "in" to it, maybe just doing research for the sake of knowledge.
Exactly. What has happened to the level of critical thinking on Slashdot. I had to scroll almost all the way down the comments to find a single comment questioning the validity of assuming google searches are anything more than requests for information. Google searches really only tell you what people are curious about. Not what they believe. They are questions. Not answers.
It isn't about takiing care of anyone, AC. It's about treating everyone as if they are the same species, which they are. It's just logic. And fairness.
You are forcing people to adhere to your definition of freedom. You assert that more government = less freedom in all cases, but not everyone agrees with that premise. You say you would "offer" freedom to those who want it, but what you are really offering is anarchy./quote
I never said less government is equivalent to more freedom. That is in oversimplification. Less coercion is equivalent to more freedom. If you had a large government that allowed people to do what they wanted then it would still be a free society.
Yes I would force people to not coerce others. That is the only coercion I and many other Libertarians believe in. If you or anyone else wants to hurt or injure or enslave another human being we believe we have the right to use force against you. Even to injure or kill you. The idea that a person has the right to kill or hurt others but others do not have the right to do the same to them is absurd. If you object to the word 'freedom' then lets use another: non-coercion or voluntarism: the egalitarian idea that no human has more rights than any other, that no one has the right to force another person to do anything against their will. The core of Libertarianism is voluntarism. We don't believe in the Devine Right of Kings or of anyone else to physically interfere with another human being. That no one of our species is 'higher' than anyone else and so in no position to order anyone else around.
I wouldn't force people to do anything except be tolerant of how other people may want to live. What I would be offering if I could would be the opportunity for some people to live in a society where neither the government nor anyone else can give them orders that they must follow like a slave. Yes I know most people don't mind following orders and being slaves as long as they get paid, but not everyone feels that way.
If you want a socialist or green environmental utopia where everyone works for the government and everyone gets paid the same either in money or goods and burning fossil fuels is illegal I would be totally fine with that. I believe that every human should have a society that they are comfortable living in. What I don't want is to be forced to participate in that society.
What I would like is the choice of living in a place like the US used to be in the 18th century. That kind of small minimalist government with almost no taxes or regulations. Yes not everyone wants that. That is why our species should have different kinds of societies. It's a big enough planet. There is enough room for societies founded on different principles.
The only thing I would not allow if I were King of the Planet would be the sort of society that North Korea represents where people are literally imprisoned and not allowed to leave or societies where slavery or murder or rape were permissible. No human has any right to deprive others of their life or physically coerce them in any way. So those sort so societies are inherently unjust and immoral and invalid.
There should always be mobility between human societies. Maybe I want to live a few years in a Libertarian limited government utopia and then relax for a few years by moving to a Socialist utopia where I can just go on the dole or receive a Minimum Basic salary or where I am guaranteed to always be able to find work. Then live in a Pragmatic Republic with a mixture of both principles as most countries are today. For me the point is for humans to be happy and content with the society in which they are living. Right now there are lots of Pragmatic Republics not based on any ideals or principles at all and there are a handful of Marxist Utopias of varying degrees of success depending on how you define success, but there is not a single government that resembles the US of the 18th century or France just after their revolution. That is the situation that Libertarians like me would like to remedy. Although realistically the only way that's going to happen is in a new territory. Antarctica maybe in defiance of the idi
Slashdot Mirror
By my mid-40's I gave up on the idea of becoming a daddy. Even if my swimmers could produce a viable baby, I'd be 70 when that child would be going off to college. It just wouldn't be fair to that child.
Are you kidding? It would be better for the child because when you die he gets your stuff. Also you may have more time to spend with him than when you were younger and might not be as bothered by the mind-numbing boredom of interacting with kids.
Only for dumb people. If you are intelligent and you breed with another intelligent person they probably won't be an idiot. So it depends. If you have an IQ of at least 140 then you should probably be breeding for the good of humanity. If you are smart your genetic code includes instructions for building a proper brain and that is what makes us human.
Sounds like you must have a small cock.
Well you need an enormous cock to have sex with an older woman because of their ginormous whale vaginas. So yeah if you are average sized or less it's best to stick with girls in their teens and early to mid 20s which is what we all want anyway. Let the guys with the enormous tent-poles have the soccer moms. The rest of us can stick with the fresh-from-the-factory ones that still have that new car smell and a vag that hasn't been pounded a hundred thousand times and still has some elasticity and muscle tone.
We are fully grown by our late teens/early 20's. We are at our physical peak around that time. We have the energy for child rearing. It would make sense to bear and raise children in that neighborhood. The extended childhood experiment that we tried out some time ago worked pretty well, it allowed for teenages to gather a little bit of wisdom before getting out on their own. But there are limits to extended childhood, and the extreme narrowing of fertility.
Yes biologically speaking this makes sense, but our species also wants to be happy and breeding tends to make us unhappy and want to die soon. Children suck all the life out of you like little vampires and makes the mother less attractive (breasts like half deflated water balloons and mega-vagina) and sometimes less interested in sex. In some species the mother dies soon after giving birth. I think it is true in our species as well except that the death is a psychological one: the death of all enjoyment of life, of all happiness and it applies to both parents and not just the mother. So if you want to live a happy life it makes sense to have children only after most of the enjoyment of life has already passed. So I think waiting for the last few eggs to have children is a great idea. Yes it's more selfish, but we only get one life. Why not surf that wave right to the beach?
For men I think the ideal time to have kids is in your 50s or even 60s. For women early 40s is optimal if you are going for the one child ideal. 38 or 39 if you want 2 or 3 of those life-stealing, mole-rat looking creatures. I'm not yet 50 and have never had any desire to have children but it is too early now anyway. Child rearing is something you do when you are getting ready to die.
So what you're saying is that men are desperate
Men are more desperate because men actually enjoy relationships more than women do. Women often don't care if they have a boyfriend or not. Men always care. Men always want a girlfriend and always want to be having sex. Women often don't care that much if they are having sex or not. So basically one sex cares more because they enjoy the experience more.
Let's be honest, women put a tremendous amount of effort into getting a date, too.
Only if they are old or ugly. The young pretty ones that are the ones we all care about don't give it much thought at all. They just choose among the most handsome suitors and that is that. They put a lot of effort into looking as beautiful as possible but that is more of a power thing. Being a beautiful girl gives you superpowers and they want to be as powerful as possible just as anyone would. They don't worry about getting dates.
Can it run Windows 7 or just Linux, OSX, and Microsoft malware?
If the system requires you do anything else like say fuck the CEOs daughter just to get a job interview then it is painfully obvious that the system is badly broken. And that is my point. It is clearly badly broken, but people already in the system like it because it limits competition and keeps wages higher.
If I were hiring I'd be looking for a balance of IQ and testable knowledge and if they seem like they would work hard or enjoy the job. A degree and work experience are nice but there is no substitute for intelligence. For a coding job submitting some completed programs should really be enough. I'd rather hire the better or smarter programmer even if he doesn't have a degree.
Any business is going to want to hire you if you can demonstrate to them that you have the skills and experience to help them make money.
Did you see this in a dream? Some kind of drug fueled visionquest? In reality CEOs don't come by your house to see how awesome your skills are despite having no degree or experience.
Instead they hire HR drones who couldn't give a fuck about your skills, but do care about not getting fired. They don't schedule interviews with clearly unqualified candidates because as I said they don't want to get fired. They don't care if you have an IQ of 180 and can write more optimized compilers than Intel in your sleep. I suppose you might get an interview though if you put a gun to their head but you'd probably end up in jail or dead and still unemployed.
You are thinking of the 80s. I know people who got programming jobs without degrees in the late 80s but that was the end of that. By the 90s hiring practices became more unified and there were basically no jobs for people without degrees. By the early 90s you needed both a degree and at least 1 year of experience or no job. Period. Full stop. I was there. I speak from firsthand experience. Also the idea that someone without a degree or relevant work experience would even be granted an interview is laughable. You'd be more likely to get struck by lightning. Total fantasy.
Google 'natural rights' and John Locke. Those are the principles this crazy country was based on. The idea that human beings have a thing called 'rights' that no one can give or take away but can only ignore or violate or respect. Read and ponder and realize that the US was a country founded by Libertarian nutjobs. Or at least that is how most Americans would see them. Maybe they'd even be considered terrierists. The country was founded by extremists but they don't run things anymore. If they were here they would almost certainly want to nuke washington dc and revolt all over again.
Came for the Star Trek reference. Was not disappointed. Thanks.
Wouldn't a 'security probe' or 'multiple failed logins' or something of that nature be more accurate? I've had enough of all these bad and misleading analogies. Is computer security really so hard? Just enforce secure passwords and multifactor authentication and take it seriously. Account lockout after 10 unsuccessful attempts etc. And don't use Microsoft software of any kind.
I checked it out. He thinks it's impossible because...expansion joints and because the atmosfear is too heavy. Right. Sorry but his analysis is bullshit and he nitpicks at lots of things that are irrelevant to the main idea. Like whether powering it with solar panels is viable or what the price of a ticket will be. Who gives a shit? A regular high speed train doesn't need to be solar powered and neither does a hyperloop and if the tickets are expensive so what? It will be a train system for the rich then. It will still be cool and maybe someone will eventually figure out how to build a cheaper vacuum tunnel transportation system that the common people can ride in. This is just the start. Guessing the future is always a bad idea but if I had to guess I would say vacuum tunnels are a good guess at what our ground transportation will look like in a few hundred years. It is also easier to power without fossil fuels than aircraft and we may run out of fossil fuels in less than a hundred years.
I get that people don't like new ideas or that maybe people just don't like Elon Musk, but at least be honest in an analysis of the engineering challenges. It is most certainly not an impossible or ridiculous dream. It's doable from an engineering POV. It's just very very expensive and there may be problems maintaining the vacuum in practice.
Lots of managers seem to favor hot girls. Actually I suspect that all heterosexual male humans who hire people choose the beautiful girls first. It's just human nature to favor what is beautiful. Of course I think robots can be beautiful too.
People don't price shop online before buying food. At least not yet. Maybe Amazon would like to change that. It's not about idolizing. It's about logic.
Tattoos are ugly. Yes all of them. But I guess it's no worse than hiring ugly cashiers. It's not like every cashier at whole foods is a hot girl. Although if I were in charge they would be. Obviously robot babe cashiers would be better than human ones though.
I guess the NSA doesn't need their own webmail because they pretty much have open access to all the big American webmail companies. For some reason I have the idea that Gmail in particular is like home base for the NSA.
If you have a gmail account you basically have to assume that everything you write there will be permanently stored and searchable in an the NSA text database. I guess some people are cool with that though. A lot of people don't care. It doesn't really bother me that much either, but it's not like there isn't a choice. So I go with offshore webmail instead.
But you admit that global cooling is a risk?
Not sure I understand. I thought the whole point of Libertarianism was that everyone acting in their own best interest achieves the best result overall?
No. The point of Libertarianism is non-coercion or voluntarism. Which system happens to produce the most widgets at the best price is precisely NOT the point of it.
now you're saying that in order to achieve what you consider to be the best result overall, you have to act against your own interests?
If you are very poor then yes. That's a possibility. It might be in my best interest at least financially to rob a bank, but that is clearly not in the best interest of the bank or of society overall. If you don't have a job and have no prospects of getting one or if you are just very very poor then obviously a more socialist system might be helpful. In my case I am just very very poor. So in terms of money I might be better off in a more Robin Hood-ish system, but I don't believe such systems are just or as efficient as something more laissez faire.
Something like one of those experimental Minimum Basic Income systems would be particularly great. Although I'm not sure it can be made to work especially since I think there is a tendency to choose a pretty high Minimum Basic possibly because the people designing the system are obscenely rich and can't imagine that it is possible to live on less money. Instead of erring on the high side as I am sure they are doing they should be erring on the low side and raising it only if it seems effective at that initial level.
Well then the solution is to stop giving subsidies to fossil fuels. Corporate welfare.
Just because you search for something doesn't indicate what you feel about it, good or bad. It doesn't doesn't mean you're "in" to it, maybe just doing research for the sake of knowledge.
Exactly. What has happened to the level of critical thinking on Slashdot. I had to scroll almost all the way down the comments to find a single comment questioning the validity of assuming google searches are anything more than requests for information. Google searches really only tell you what people are curious about. Not what they believe. They are questions. Not answers.
It isn't about takiing care of anyone, AC. It's about treating everyone as if they are the same species, which they are. It's just logic. And fairness.
You are forcing people to adhere to your definition of freedom. You assert that more government = less freedom in all cases, but not everyone agrees with that premise. You say you would "offer" freedom to those who want it, but what you are really offering is anarchy./quote
I never said less government is equivalent to more freedom. That is in oversimplification. Less coercion is equivalent to more freedom. If you had a large government that allowed people to do what they wanted then it would still be a free society.
Yes I would force people to not coerce others. That is the only coercion I and many other Libertarians believe in. If you or anyone else wants to hurt or injure or enslave another human being we believe we have the right to use force against you. Even to injure or kill you. The idea that a person has the right to kill or hurt others but others do not have the right to do the same to them is absurd. If you object to the word 'freedom' then lets use another: non-coercion or voluntarism: the egalitarian idea that no human has more rights than any other, that no one has the right to force another person to do anything against their will. The core of Libertarianism is voluntarism. We don't believe in the Devine Right of Kings or of anyone else to physically interfere with another human being. That no one of our species is 'higher' than anyone else and so in no position to order anyone else around.
I wouldn't force people to do anything except be tolerant of how other people may want to live. What I would be offering if I could would be the opportunity for some people to live in a society where neither the government nor anyone else can give them orders that they must follow like a slave. Yes I know most people don't mind following orders and being slaves as long as they get paid, but not everyone feels that way.
If you want a socialist or green environmental utopia where everyone works for the government and everyone gets paid the same either in money or goods and burning fossil fuels is illegal I would be totally fine with that. I believe that every human should have a society that they are comfortable living in. What I don't want is to be forced to participate in that society.
What I would like is the choice of living in a place like the US used to be in the 18th century. That kind of small minimalist government with almost no taxes or regulations. Yes not everyone wants that. That is why our species should have different kinds of societies. It's a big enough planet. There is enough room for societies founded on different principles.
The only thing I would not allow if I were King of the Planet would be the sort of society that North Korea represents where people are literally imprisoned and not allowed to leave or societies where slavery or murder or rape were permissible. No human has any right to deprive others of their life or physically coerce them in any way. So those sort so societies are inherently unjust and immoral and invalid.
There should always be mobility between human societies. Maybe I want to live a few years in a Libertarian limited government utopia and then relax for a few years by moving to a Socialist utopia where I can just go on the dole or receive a Minimum Basic salary or where I am guaranteed to always be able to find work. Then live in a Pragmatic Republic with a mixture of both principles as most countries are today. For me the point is for humans to be happy and content with the society in which they are living. Right now there are lots of Pragmatic Republics not based on any ideals or principles at all and there are a handful of Marxist Utopias of varying degrees of success depending on how you define success, but there is not a single government that resembles the US of the 18th century or France just after their revolution. That is the situation that Libertarians like me would like to remedy. Although realistically the only way that's going to happen is in a new territory. Antarctica maybe in defiance of the idi
Now that Trump has taken us out of the renewable energy business
If it needed subsidies to survive we were never in the business to begin with. If it isn't profitable it isn't a business per se.