I'd start looking for someone to blame by looking in the mirror.
A Boomer supporter refusing to accept any blame? Color me unsurprised.
As opposed to a Boomer blamer?
Where did GP say Boomers created 7 billion people or globalism? Where did GP even say 7 billion people and globalism were problems? Strawman bro. Strawman.
Not at all. A lot of the alleged Boomer faults are actually due to this significant dynamic.
Not fully, but mostly. It wasn't the young adults who passed legislation for government to back those loans, or heavily regulate the markets and enforce minimum wage so companies can't just hire unskilled students without degrees for cheap, or gamed the political system to put charlatans on the ballot and giving them and only them media coverage, for example.
Well, it wasn't the Boomers either. Passing legislation is the purview of a legislature. And as for Boomers supporting politicians with bad policies - I see nothing to distinguish their bad judgment from the people who came before or after.
Economically, children started to make less than their parents at the same age after the Boomers made theirs.
As I noted, it isn't the fault of the Boomers that there are seven billion people on the planet. The declining premium commanded by developed world labor is not their fault, but just a reality of expanding the global economy to include everyone on Earth.
Politically speaking, Boomers overall are more liberal, and are the ones who voted for Big Government. They're the ones who sided with unions, pushed environmentalism, affirmative action, etc. They tell themselves they were "helping" the world, but in reality they made it worse.
All of those things came before Boomers were even born.
Yet they almost always point their fingers at other usually younger people. It's the lazy kids for not working hard enough or figuring out how to compete with third world labor. It's the damn workers pushing up the cost of business. It's the other people who voted wrong ("I hate Congress, but my guy's doing great"). etc.
Again how does this differ from anyone else?
About the only thing that I think is accurate here is your assertion that Baby Boomers had a big role in building the current society. There's much wrong with it. I find it more useful to fix what's wrong rather than blame some abstract generation for it.
If you really want to work against the problem, don't attack it piecemeal (NSA spying, TSA overreach, federal spit collectors, chilling effects, etc.).
I disagree. The piecemeal attacks can be effective in their own right. After all, one of the reasons for opposing the REAL cause are all those little consequences.
I doubt the veracity of your story. It very much sounds to me like you likely were not in the top 10% of your class, regardless of what you may believe. The talks you got were likely because of this, not because of your gender.
My mother went through the same stuff. She attended University College of Bangor in the late 60s acquiring a BS in Chemical Engineering. From what I gather, while there were some overtly sexist people among both students and teachers, there was also occasionally the attitude that she couldn't possibly be a good student because she was female. Fortunately, she didn't listen to the people who thought they were being helpful.
The Baby Boomer attitude is that everybody should be in the top 10%, whether they deserve it or not, and whether they actually are or not.
No, that isn't the "Baby Boomer attitude". I find it rather interesting how people find moral failings in others based merely basesd on when those other people were born. There isn't some sky god who snuck a bunch of factory rejects for the Baby Boomer generation. It's the same people as any other generation.
If you were born during that era, then you probably would have exhibited the same attitude, failings, and successes.
So if my child's kindergarten teacher says something horrible to her, and I have no proof and there's no metric to calculate emotional damages, what do I get?
You should get nothing, unless you can show that your child was harmed by the speech in question. For example, let's suppose that a teacher told a young student in front of the whole class that they were only good for being lynched from a tree.
At that point, there's no evidence of harm to the student though we have a good case for extremely unprofessional behavior of the teacher.
Now, let's look at that student's future behavior. Suddenly, their grades plummeted. And the student now wakes up crying at 4am and suffers from a degree of sleep deprivation according to the physician and psychological problems according to a child therapist.
Finally, testimony from fellow students shows that ever since the teacher's outburst, the student has been mercilessly teased by fellow students using those very same words.
Besides the whole thing was revealed when fellow students tried to hang the victim in question at a neighbor's house before police were called and stated that they got the idea from that teacher's outburst a couple months back and were acting out the scene.
Emotional damage can't be directly measured, but we can see both how the victim changed their behavior and was treated by others who heard the alleged racist speech.
Do you understand that just because you can't prove something in a court of law, doesn't make it untrue?
It would shut you up. But note that nowhere in this thread have I required anyone to provide the level of evidence required for a court trial.
The idea crudely is that for things that don't rise to the level of a crime, then one needs to demonstrate that one has been adversely affected by the behavior or activity.
I'll just note that through this whole discussion, no one has demonstrated that anyone has been harmed by the speech that triggered this whole discussion. It was just an opportunity for some bigoted hypocrites to be sanctimonious.
The translation error isn't the 'scam', it is incontrovertible evidence of the scam.
Not at all. Evidence distinguishes between one hypothesis and other. Since "translation error" doesn't distinguish between scamming and any of the other outcomes mentioned so far (honest mistake, sexing up a story to sound more impressive or more applicable to contemporary situations), it's not evidence of scamming.
Anarchist bullshit you're spewing sounds nice if you have a strong anarchist bend, but otherwise, it sounds quite insane.
Complaining about taxes is "anarchist bullshit"? If that's true, then everyone aside perhaps from a few idiots and/or elites have a strong, anarchist bend.
Reality is that taxation is about preventing the suffering, rather than creating it. It creates safety nets, pays for medicine, police, fire protection and so on.
Intent != outcome. Taxation has, despite your wishful thinking, a substantial opportunity cost. It takes money from people who would have spent it on hiring people, on investment, and generally on improving the welfare of the members of their society and gives it to people who might do that, or might just be really good at taking money from other people.
Another opportunity cost is that one can't fund all desires to the fullest extent. The more things that you decide to tax for, the less money that will actually go to any given item on the list. That's not so bad if the desire that is getting cut back on is park maintenance, but it's different, if you're cutting back on police and fire protection instead.
Whether that opportunity cost is actually "suffering", I guess depends on your religious outlook. But you're ignoring the costs side of taxation.
Similarly, the benefits aren't that hot. The big stinker in your list is the "safety net". It's not even an honest term since many of the problems it's supposed to fix aren't even real problems (such as the alleged need for corporate welfare).
Also, I consider the "safety net" stuff to be bribes to the voting population to look the other way while the politicians and their cronies loot the wealth of the country in question.
My view is we should through out the world pare back on what you call "countless things" to stuff that we actually need like police and fire protection (notice I didn't include medicine!).
But then the Baby Boomers came onto the scene in the mid-1960s. It's safe to say that, as a generation, they have managed to destroy America.
I'd start looking for someone to blame by looking in the mirror. Boomers didn't create the majority of the entitlements, for example. A bunch of that stuff started broken. Nor did they raise the Boomer generation.
Nor did they create seven billion people currently on Earth or the economics and technologies that drive globalism. Those people compete with US workers for jobs and for a lot of industries are simply a better choice - no matter the generation of the US worker. I think how they tried to escape that problem is deeply in fault, but it's something that anyone born in the past century would have tried.
Nor did Boomers create the massive US problems of the 60s and 70s, such as pollution, the Vietnam War, dependency on oil, the Mafia, creation of the Rust Belt, etc.
Even today's problems can't be fully blamed on the Boomers. They didn't force young adults to suck up lots of student loan debt or vote for charlatans, for example.
Claiming something came to you from god when you pulled it from your ass (god doesn't make translation errors) is scamming.
We don't have to stay wrong on the internet about the meaning of words. There are online dictionaries and such which define words. Scam means to defraud or swindle.
Those are intentional activities. Merely being wrong because of error, even if it is error that shouldn't be happening by your claimed belief system, is not scamming.
Similarly, as I noted, even if they are deliberately changing those stories, it doesn't imply scamming. Exaggerating or changing a story isn't automatically fraud or swindling either.
Countries might not want to depend on their culture being popular in outside markets.
Then they probably should depend on something other than their culture.
Not sure how that supports the idea that France should do stuff like this if Japan thinks it is still necessary regardless of the popularity of Japanese culture.
France and Japan do stuff like this. One is apparently more successful at it.
The load provides load. If the load is not well distributed then the truck would need to be redesigned to distribute the load better. It'd also mean that the operator of the truck would probably need to take more of a hand in insuring that the load is safely distributed.
it appears you are referring to actually generating more energy than it took to produce
What's the distinction?
If I have just made a solar panel, then its lifetime hasn't happened yet. So even if it can produce vastly more energy over its lifetime than it took to make, it starts operation with a net deficit. And not all solar panels are operated for their rated lifespan.
Not at all. In the real world, even emotional damages can be shown to exist. And even when there are emotional damages, it doesn't mean the party whose actions are the trigger for the damages are at fault.
There is such a thing as "come to the nuisance". Just because someone is saying something naughty doesn't mean that you have to seek out their communications and become emotionally damaged by them.
When multiple sources of proxy data show the same thing
So what are they showing? Global warming serious enough to require heavy economic intervention? Or the interests of the scientists controlling interpretation of that proxy data? Until you can distinguish between those two hypotheses, the data doesn't show what you think it shows.
Quality of light also matters for doing work in a crawl space. For example, a light bulb which lights the whole space is going to provide better awareness of what's going on in the space than a light source that only lights what is directly in front of you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd start looking for someone to blame by looking in the mirror.
A Boomer supporter refusing to accept any blame? Color me unsurprised.
As opposed to a Boomer blamer?
Where did GP say Boomers created 7 billion people or globalism? Where did GP even say 7 billion people and globalism were problems? Strawman bro. Strawman.
Not at all. A lot of the alleged Boomer faults are actually due to this significant dynamic.
Not fully, but mostly. It wasn't the young adults who passed legislation for government to back those loans, or heavily regulate the markets and enforce minimum wage so companies can't just hire unskilled students without degrees for cheap, or gamed the political system to put charlatans on the ballot and giving them and only them media coverage, for example.
Well, it wasn't the Boomers either. Passing legislation is the purview of a legislature. And as for Boomers supporting politicians with bad policies - I see nothing to distinguish their bad judgment from the people who came before or after.
Economically, children started to make less than their parents at the same age after the Boomers made theirs.
As I noted, it isn't the fault of the Boomers that there are seven billion people on the planet. The declining premium commanded by developed world labor is not their fault, but just a reality of expanding the global economy to include everyone on Earth.
Politically speaking, Boomers overall are more liberal, and are the ones who voted for Big Government. They're the ones who sided with unions, pushed environmentalism, affirmative action, etc. They tell themselves they were "helping" the world, but in reality they made it worse.
All of those things came before Boomers were even born.
Yet they almost always point their fingers at other usually younger people. It's the lazy kids for not working hard enough or figuring out how to compete with third world labor. It's the damn workers pushing up the cost of business. It's the other people who voted wrong ("I hate Congress, but my guy's doing great"). etc.
Again how does this differ from anyone else?
About the only thing that I think is accurate here is your assertion that Baby Boomers had a big role in building the current society. There's much wrong with it. I find it more useful to fix what's wrong rather than blame some abstract generation for it.
If you really want to work against the problem, don't attack it piecemeal (NSA spying, TSA overreach, federal spit collectors, chilling effects, etc.).
I disagree. The piecemeal attacks can be effective in their own right. After all, one of the reasons for opposing the REAL cause are all those little consequences.
All the NSA has to do is add a few more procedures and that particular problem goes away.
Sure, it will. Those procedures were already in place. My bet is that as a culture, they got complacent and stopped following the procedures.
I doubt the veracity of your story. It very much sounds to me like you likely were not in the top 10% of your class, regardless of what you may believe. The talks you got were likely because of this, not because of your gender.
My mother went through the same stuff. She attended University College of Bangor in the late 60s acquiring a BS in Chemical Engineering. From what I gather, while there were some overtly sexist people among both students and teachers, there was also occasionally the attitude that she couldn't possibly be a good student because she was female. Fortunately, she didn't listen to the people who thought they were being helpful.
The Baby Boomer attitude is that everybody should be in the top 10%, whether they deserve it or not, and whether they actually are or not.
No, that isn't the "Baby Boomer attitude". I find it rather interesting how people find moral failings in others based merely basesd on when those other people were born. There isn't some sky god who snuck a bunch of factory rejects for the Baby Boomer generation. It's the same people as any other generation.
If you were born during that era, then you probably would have exhibited the same attitude, failings, and successes.
So if my child's kindergarten teacher says something horrible to her, and I have no proof and there's no metric to calculate emotional damages, what do I get?
You should get nothing, unless you can show that your child was harmed by the speech in question. For example, let's suppose that a teacher told a young student in front of the whole class that they were only good for being lynched from a tree.
At that point, there's no evidence of harm to the student though we have a good case for extremely unprofessional behavior of the teacher.
Now, let's look at that student's future behavior. Suddenly, their grades plummeted. And the student now wakes up crying at 4am and suffers from a degree of sleep deprivation according to the physician and psychological problems according to a child therapist.
Finally, testimony from fellow students shows that ever since the teacher's outburst, the student has been mercilessly teased by fellow students using those very same words.
Besides the whole thing was revealed when fellow students tried to hang the victim in question at a neighbor's house before police were called and stated that they got the idea from that teacher's outburst a couple months back and were acting out the scene.
Emotional damage can't be directly measured, but we can see both how the victim changed their behavior and was treated by others who heard the alleged racist speech.
Do you understand that just because you can't prove something in a court of law, doesn't make it untrue?
It would shut you up. But note that nowhere in this thread have I required anyone to provide the level of evidence required for a court trial.
The idea crudely is that for things that don't rise to the level of a crime, then one needs to demonstrate that one has been adversely affected by the behavior or activity.
I'll just note that through this whole discussion, no one has demonstrated that anyone has been harmed by the speech that triggered this whole discussion. It was just an opportunity for some bigoted hypocrites to be sanctimonious.
The translation error isn't the 'scam', it is incontrovertible evidence of the scam.
Not at all. Evidence distinguishes between one hypothesis and other. Since "translation error" doesn't distinguish between scamming and any of the other outcomes mentioned so far (honest mistake, sexing up a story to sound more impressive or more applicable to contemporary situations), it's not evidence of scamming.
Anarchist bullshit you're spewing sounds nice if you have a strong anarchist bend, but otherwise, it sounds quite insane.
Complaining about taxes is "anarchist bullshit"? If that's true, then everyone aside perhaps from a few idiots and/or elites have a strong, anarchist bend.
Reality is that taxation is about preventing the suffering, rather than creating it. It creates safety nets, pays for medicine, police, fire protection and so on.
Intent != outcome. Taxation has, despite your wishful thinking, a substantial opportunity cost. It takes money from people who would have spent it on hiring people, on investment, and generally on improving the welfare of the members of their society and gives it to people who might do that, or might just be really good at taking money from other people.
Another opportunity cost is that one can't fund all desires to the fullest extent. The more things that you decide to tax for, the less money that will actually go to any given item on the list. That's not so bad if the desire that is getting cut back on is park maintenance, but it's different, if you're cutting back on police and fire protection instead.
Whether that opportunity cost is actually "suffering", I guess depends on your religious outlook. But you're ignoring the costs side of taxation.
Similarly, the benefits aren't that hot. The big stinker in your list is the "safety net". It's not even an honest term since many of the problems it's supposed to fix aren't even real problems (such as the alleged need for corporate welfare).
Also, I consider the "safety net" stuff to be bribes to the voting population to look the other way while the politicians and their cronies loot the wealth of the country in question.
My view is we should through out the world pare back on what you call "countless things" to stuff that we actually need like police and fire protection (notice I didn't include medicine!).
But then the Baby Boomers came onto the scene in the mid-1960s. It's safe to say that, as a generation, they have managed to destroy America.
I'd start looking for someone to blame by looking in the mirror. Boomers didn't create the majority of the entitlements, for example. A bunch of that stuff started broken. Nor did they raise the Boomer generation.
Nor did they create seven billion people currently on Earth or the economics and technologies that drive globalism. Those people compete with US workers for jobs and for a lot of industries are simply a better choice - no matter the generation of the US worker. I think how they tried to escape that problem is deeply in fault, but it's something that anyone born in the past century would have tried.
Nor did Boomers create the massive US problems of the 60s and 70s, such as pollution, the Vietnam War, dependency on oil, the Mafia, creation of the Rust Belt, etc.
Even today's problems can't be fully blamed on the Boomers. They didn't force young adults to suck up lots of student loan debt or vote for charlatans, for example.
Claiming something came to you from god when you pulled it from your ass (god doesn't make translation errors) is scamming.
We don't have to stay wrong on the internet about the meaning of words. There are online dictionaries and such which define words. Scam means to defraud or swindle.
Those are intentional activities. Merely being wrong because of error, even if it is error that shouldn't be happening by your claimed belief system, is not scamming.
Similarly, as I noted, even if they are deliberately changing those stories, it doesn't imply scamming. Exaggerating or changing a story isn't automatically fraud or swindling either.
Countries might not want to depend on their culture being popular in outside markets.
Then they probably should depend on something other than their culture.
Not sure how that supports the idea that France should do stuff like this if Japan thinks it is still necessary regardless of the popularity of Japanese culture.
France and Japan do stuff like this. One is apparently more successful at it.
Maybe they want to keep their culture going instead of relying on the whims of other cultures.
Your observation has already been accounted for. Recall the story of the culture that could (Japanese) and the culture that couldn't (French)?
And intent != outcome.
Uwe Boll's financial success
That settles it right there. If France doesn't subsidize culture, then they'll face the dreaded Uwe Boll gap. Can't let Germans win the culture war!
Scientists controlling interpretation of proxy data?
Yes, here I speak of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Well, they should try to remember that there's more than one parameter to optimize.
The load provides load. If the load is not well distributed then the truck would need to be redesigned to distribute the load better. It'd also mean that the operator of the truck would probably need to take more of a hand in insuring that the load is safely distributed.
I'm talking about a different metric than expected break even.
Translation errors != scamming. Even deliberately exaggerating or tailoring a story so it fits better the propaganda you're pushing != scamming.
The link says $4.08 each plus shipping and handling.
Uh, we know what LED headlamps are. There're reasons we don't use them. Perhaps you could read some of the posts in this thread and find out why.
I find it bizarre how some people freak out over the incandescent light bulb. I guess it's because they don't have real problems to worry about.
it appears you are referring to actually generating more energy than it took to produce
What's the distinction?
If I have just made a solar panel, then its lifetime hasn't happened yet. So even if it can produce vastly more energy over its lifetime than it took to make, it starts operation with a net deficit. And not all solar panels are operated for their rated lifespan.
Hopefully you agree that they still exist.
Not at all. In the real world, even emotional damages can be shown to exist. And even when there are emotional damages, it doesn't mean the party whose actions are the trigger for the damages are at fault.
There is such a thing as "come to the nuisance". Just because someone is saying something naughty doesn't mean that you have to seek out their communications and become emotionally damaged by them.
When multiple sources of proxy data show the same thing
So what are they showing? Global warming serious enough to require heavy economic intervention? Or the interests of the scientists controlling interpretation of that proxy data? Until you can distinguish between those two hypotheses, the data doesn't show what you think it shows.
Quality of light also matters for doing work in a crawl space. For example, a light bulb which lights the whole space is going to provide better awareness of what's going on in the space than a light source that only lights what is directly in front of you.
The key step was not the alcohol,but the boiling while brewing the alcohol.
The alcohol content will help keep undesirable microbes from recolonizing the beer after it's no longer being boiled.