Seriously, I have never met a Reason.,com user who actually knows what "Privilege" is, and yet they automatically assume they can all parse a sentence about "white male privilege" because they're all the same wrong. When you point out to them that they are, in fact, mostly wrong instead of trying to figure out what the sentence would mean given the new definition, they will claim that the fact they're all the same wrong means that they are actually right, and the person who knows what actual Social Scientists mean when they use the term is an idiot.
I'm inclined to that viewpoint as well after having read your words. It sounds like a really frivolous concern.
This entire article is actually an extended tour of "I don't know what that word means, but people I don't like use it, therefore I am going to rip it shreds without bothering to understand it." Seriously, just read the damn thing. If I denounced a Physics paper on the basis that "Quantum" was inherently ridiculous I'd be an idiot, and the Reason.com guy is similarly an idiot for denouncing a paper based entirely on his inability to understand simple social science terms.
And if I didn't know that social studies (not Social Science!) was inclined to obfuscation tactics, I might agree with you here.
In this case the point of the paper is that historically guys have dominated glacier research, which is fine if you're just talking about how glaciers behave. But if you're talking about what the people around them should do in response to climate change it is potentially problematic because half the people around the glacier are not guys, and much of what those not-guy people do does not get much shrift in a guy-dominated research environment.
You have yet to show that this concern is even relevant. A lot more than 50% have zero clue about what glaciers are or do. I'd put the percentage somewhere around 95-99%. Should we then hand off research so that 95-99% of the people doing the research on glaciers have no clue what they're doing?
For example, there's no utility company in the mountains of Nepal, what're they doing for heat? Probably burning shit. Possibly literally shit (the Sioux used Buffalo droppings), possibly plant life. Either could be affected by climate change, but how? I can imagine a zoologist getting a paper on how the changed environment would hurt the local livestock breeding practices, but who would even do the shit-burning paper?
So shit-burning papers are women's work? Good to know. Sounds like you know who should go in the kitchen here.
There will always be idiots, badly reported incidents and outright lies to make you angry. It's all part of the push-back against feminism.
I'd take you more seriously, if you weren't part of your problem. I googled your nym and feminism. In return, I got a number of "anti-feminist" rants similar to the above.
Most people simply don't care about toxic masculinity, men-only schools, lazy adult game programmers, etc. But we do care to some extent when we're lumped under a derogatory label, here, "anti-feminists" just because we don't care enough about your pet issues.
I too think there is push back against feminism. But I don't think the push back is unwarranted.
Where's the device that's streaming the information to the hearing aid? O right, either outside the room & thus too far for BT to be of use OR off & at the front of the class in the 'cell phone bin'...
The obvious rebuttal? Better antennas, Bluetooth repeaters, more power, etc. A foot wide parabolic antenna might be a bit obvious in the classroom attached to your hearing aid, but not so obvious from a hidden position well outside a classroom or nested above a dropped ceiling.
nd of course, unless you're taking an oral/auditory exam there's no point in the kid needing the hearing aid.
You are the one who made the ridiculous assertion that one cannot identify a legitimate medical device.
I have to agree with mark-t. There's nothing ridiculous about it at all. Professors aren't automatically experts in what legitimate medical devices look like.
Except I didn't say wealth isn't helpful at all. My first post said wealth helps MOSTLY in the first two layers.
And then you proceed to say absolutely nothing about how wealth would help in the higher levels of the hierarchy and plenty about how it doesn't help, several times in absolute terms such as your very first sentence "No, not all the way to the top." Or later on, "Wealth also doesn't help with esteem." Or "Then finally there's self actualization, which includes things like morality and creativity. Wealth again doesn't help here." What am I misreading here?
Then there's my original quote:
It's worth noting that wealth can help with many of those needs (all the way to the top), not just safety.
I already allow for things that can't be acquired with wealth ("can help" is not a particularly absolute claim, right?). What's the point of telling me that money can't buy love (and the other stuff)? Who hasn't heard those cliches by now?
Just look at the quote way back when that kicked off my original reply:
When you are finally dying of something money cannot fix, will you ask for your collected gold and silver to be sent to your bedside?
It's not ancient Egypt any more. Not only do we realize that we can't take it with us, but we for the most part no longer measure wealth in terms of gold and silver (for example, all the gold ever mined is roughly 140k metric tons which at $40.80 per gram, is roughly $6 trillion, perhaps 1-2% of durable assets and capital in the world today). Why ask a tone-deaf rhetorical question that is so far out of whack with our modern era?
You have some peculiar fallacies in play here. First, just because wealth isn't useful in accomplishing a sliver of the higher level needs, doesn't mean that it isn't helpful at all. For example, a fulfilling job can help with the need to belong and esteem. Some wealth is often required in order to have the tools or infrastructure to support that job. Or an education, which again requires wealth to some degree, can contribute to esteem and self-actualizing.
Second, just because wealth can be misused to fail to fulfill a higher level need, doesn't mean that it can't be well used to fulfill that higher level need. It's like claiming we can't use a hammer for its proper use on nails because someone hits people with one.
If that's the case, tell her that she raised an idiot who can't see how 14 people being killed matter.
This is what we call a non sequitur. Question: what does the death of 14 people have to do with whether there is "cyber pathogens" on the phone? Answer: not a thing.
Are you aware that the guy is a known terrorist who killed 14 people? Can't you see how this is different from other clueless IT-related law enforcement incidents?
No, I can't see how this is different from other clueless IT-related law enforcement incidents. Why don't you enlighten us on the difference?
They are already demonstrably responsible for 500,000
Because the CIA is responsible for everyone including a variety of enemies and independents who don't consult with the CIA before they kill someone. And that particular death estimate overstates actual deaths by a factor of four or five.
Drain the dam permanently. There could be something they could do to greatly reduce the risk of the dam (and maybe this new contractor will do just that), but in its current state, I just can't see any long term future for it. The problem of course, is that the dam apparently is a fundamental part of the Iraqi electrical grid and perhaps flood control as well.
It's like a badly run nuclear plant which is a minor accident away from meltdown. Except that it could kill a lot more people than a major meltdown could.
If you had read the story, you would know that ISIS doesn't control the dam. They controlled it long enough to disrupt the maintenance on the dam, but it sounds like that wasn't going well prior to ISIS and is significantly worse now.
We have a 2006 study by the US Army Corps of Engineers which says the same thing. And the problems apparently go back to its very construction in 1984.
In September 2006, the US Army Corps of Engineers determined that the dam, 45 miles upstream of Mosul on the River Tigris, presented an unacceptable risk.
"In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," the corps warned, according to the SIGIR report. "If a small problem [at] Mosul Dam occurs, failure is likely."
Expensive oil helps 5% of the population at the expense of the other 95%.
Then explain how "Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives" had anything to do with making oil more expensive.
If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid by the oil companies instead, gasoline and oil products would be much higher.
If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid for by somebody's own money, then it would be much less (assuming they even wanted to invade Iraq instead of some lesser goal). And low "gasoline and oil products" would not be "expensive oil". You just claimed that these alleged subsidies made oil both more expensive and less expensive. Or even worse, that oil companies with expensive oil and inexpensive oil products are somehow making more money than if they had cheap oil and expensive oil products. In the US, a lot of the value in oil comes from the refining not the raw product!
By having them paid for with taxes it provides the illusion that oil isn't as expensive as oil really is.
Oil isn't being paid for with taxes nor is there some 2 to 3 trillion dollar oil security service paid for here. Think of this analogy.
For me, a gas station in a really nice part of town would cost me a million dollars, including cost of land and whatever. If my cronies on the town council acquire the land and build the station for me at a million dollars, then that's a million dollar subsidy to me. But suppose instead, they build an enormous, multi-block sports complex for 10 billion dollars and my free gas station was along for the ride. It's still just a million dollar subsidy to me despite the huge sums spent. It would be inappropriate to claim I had received a 10 billion dollar subsidy when I didn't.
I believe something similar went on with the two invasions above. They spent enormous sums and had tremendous opportunities for all sorts of subsidy and shenanigans. But there just wasn't that much value to the oil industry. It might have weakened OPEC a little or increased supply a little. It certainly wasn't needed to maintain most oil transportation infrastructure or security except perhaps for some of the Gulf states.
Frankly, I think there's a far better case that policies for fighting global warming have done considerably more to generate oil profits than the two US-led invasions.
Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives isn't even considered a subsidy for oil... and it is.
There's a good reason it isn't. Because that money and lives spent would be vastly inefficient as a subsidy for oil. While the subsidies for renewable energy are pure. We're not making a fair comparison.
Sooner we reduce dependency on oil, the sooner ISIS and the like get starved out for cash.
It also starves nice people of cash. Global trade, including that of oil, is the number one tool for making everyone's lives better.
Don't forget the hours to weeks (depending on how long the nuclear engine lasts) of running over the rubble at low altitude, supersonic speeds, and said cloud of fallout. It might be directly killing people somewhere in the world well after the war ends.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, I have never met a Reason.,com user who actually knows what "Privilege" is, and yet they automatically assume they can all parse a sentence about "white male privilege" because they're all the same wrong. When you point out to them that they are, in fact, mostly wrong instead of trying to figure out what the sentence would mean given the new definition, they will claim that the fact they're all the same wrong means that they are actually right, and the person who knows what actual Social Scientists mean when they use the term is an idiot.
I'm inclined to that viewpoint as well after having read your words. It sounds like a really frivolous concern.
This entire article is actually an extended tour of "I don't know what that word means, but people I don't like use it, therefore I am going to rip it shreds without bothering to understand it." Seriously, just read the damn thing. If I denounced a Physics paper on the basis that "Quantum" was inherently ridiculous I'd be an idiot, and the Reason.com guy is similarly an idiot for denouncing a paper based entirely on his inability to understand simple social science terms.
And if I didn't know that social studies (not Social Science!) was inclined to obfuscation tactics, I might agree with you here.
In this case the point of the paper is that historically guys have dominated glacier research, which is fine if you're just talking about how glaciers behave. But if you're talking about what the people around them should do in response to climate change it is potentially problematic because half the people around the glacier are not guys, and much of what those not-guy people do does not get much shrift in a guy-dominated research environment.
You have yet to show that this concern is even relevant. A lot more than 50% have zero clue about what glaciers are or do. I'd put the percentage somewhere around 95-99%. Should we then hand off research so that 95-99% of the people doing the research on glaciers have no clue what they're doing?
For example, there's no utility company in the mountains of Nepal, what're they doing for heat? Probably burning shit. Possibly literally shit (the Sioux used Buffalo droppings), possibly plant life. Either could be affected by climate change, but how? I can imagine a zoologist getting a paper on how the changed environment would hurt the local livestock breeding practices, but who would even do the shit-burning paper?
So shit-burning papers are women's work? Good to know. Sounds like you know who should go in the kitchen here.
The paper probably was a small part of the total research output. Well, I hope it was anyway.
The only significant (and cruel) state sponsored gender discrimination remaining in the western world
US prisons too, particularly for young, black males.
There will always be idiots, badly reported incidents and outright lies to make you angry. It's all part of the push-back against feminism.
I'd take you more seriously, if you weren't part of your problem. I googled your nym and feminism. In return, I got a number of "anti-feminist" rants similar to the above.
Most people simply don't care about toxic masculinity, men-only schools, lazy adult game programmers, etc. But we do care to some extent when we're lumped under a derogatory label, here, "anti-feminists" just because we don't care enough about your pet issues.
I too think there is push back against feminism. But I don't think the push back is unwarranted.
Where's the device that's streaming the information to the hearing aid? O right, either outside the room & thus too far for BT to be of use OR off & at the front of the class in the 'cell phone bin'...
The obvious rebuttal? Better antennas, Bluetooth repeaters, more power, etc. A foot wide parabolic antenna might be a bit obvious in the classroom attached to your hearing aid, but not so obvious from a hidden position well outside a classroom or nested above a dropped ceiling.
nd of course, unless you're taking an oral/auditory exam there's no point in the kid needing the hearing aid.
"I need to hear the professor's instructions."
You are the one who made the ridiculous assertion that one cannot identify a legitimate medical device.
I have to agree with mark-t. There's nothing ridiculous about it at all. Professors aren't automatically experts in what legitimate medical devices look like.
What makes you think it's not news? And why does it matter that the story comes from Reason?
Except I didn't say wealth isn't helpful at all. My first post said wealth helps MOSTLY in the first two layers.
And then you proceed to say absolutely nothing about how wealth would help in the higher levels of the hierarchy and plenty about how it doesn't help, several times in absolute terms such as your very first sentence "No, not all the way to the top." Or later on, "Wealth also doesn't help with esteem." Or "Then finally there's self actualization, which includes things like morality and creativity. Wealth again doesn't help here." What am I misreading here?
Then there's my original quote:
It's worth noting that wealth can help with many of those needs (all the way to the top), not just safety.
I already allow for things that can't be acquired with wealth ("can help" is not a particularly absolute claim, right?). What's the point of telling me that money can't buy love (and the other stuff)? Who hasn't heard those cliches by now?
Just look at the quote way back when that kicked off my original reply:
When you are finally dying of something money cannot fix, will you ask for your collected gold and silver to be sent to your bedside?
It's not ancient Egypt any more. Not only do we realize that we can't take it with us, but we for the most part no longer measure wealth in terms of gold and silver (for example, all the gold ever mined is roughly 140k metric tons which at $40.80 per gram, is roughly $6 trillion, perhaps 1-2% of durable assets and capital in the world today). Why ask a tone-deaf rhetorical question that is so far out of whack with our modern era?
You have some peculiar fallacies in play here. First, just because wealth isn't useful in accomplishing a sliver of the higher level needs, doesn't mean that it isn't helpful at all. For example, a fulfilling job can help with the need to belong and esteem. Some wealth is often required in order to have the tools or infrastructure to support that job. Or an education, which again requires wealth to some degree, can contribute to esteem and self-actualizing.
Second, just because wealth can be misused to fail to fulfill a higher level need, doesn't mean that it can't be well used to fulfill that higher level need. It's like claiming we can't use a hammer for its proper use on nails because someone hits people with one.
They were asked to break the security on all phones, not just the terrorist's phone.
Repeating this lie won't make it true.
For something to be a lie, it has to be untrue first. Read up on this and you'll see what really is at stake.
such as Apple who refuse to unlock a dead terrorist phone
That's not the problem. They were asked to break the security on all phones, not just the terrorist's phone.
who besides fanbois will ever believe that suddenly they believe in protecting their customers?
Apple does. Because caving in to this demand loses Apple a lot of business.
If that's the case, tell her that she raised an idiot who can't see how 14 people being killed matter.
This is what we call a non sequitur. Question: what does the death of 14 people have to do with whether there is "cyber pathogens" on the phone? Answer: not a thing.
Are you aware that the guy is a known terrorist who killed 14 people? Can't you see how this is different from other clueless IT-related law enforcement incidents?
No, I can't see how this is different from other clueless IT-related law enforcement incidents. Why don't you enlighten us on the difference?
It's worth noting that wealth can help with many of those needs (all the way to the top), not just safety.
They are already demonstrably responsible for 500,000
Because the CIA is responsible for everyone including a variety of enemies and independents who don't consult with the CIA before they kill someone. And that particular death estimate overstates actual deaths by a factor of four or five.
Drain the dam permanently. There could be something they could do to greatly reduce the risk of the dam (and maybe this new contractor will do just that), but in its current state, I just can't see any long term future for it. The problem of course, is that the dam apparently is a fundamental part of the Iraqi electrical grid and perhaps flood control as well.
It's like a badly run nuclear plant which is a minor accident away from meltdown. Except that it could kill a lot more people than a major meltdown could.
If you had read the story, you would know that ISIS doesn't control the dam. They controlled it long enough to disrupt the maintenance on the dam, but it sounds like that wasn't going well prior to ISIS and is significantly worse now.
Why haven't they blown it already?
Who is "they" and why would "they" do that?
This story smells bad.
We have a 2006 study by the US Army Corps of Engineers which says the same thing. And the problems apparently go back to its very construction in 1984.
In September 2006, the US Army Corps of Engineers determined that the dam, 45 miles upstream of Mosul on the River Tigris, presented an unacceptable risk.
"In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," the corps warned, according to the SIGIR report. "If a small problem [at] Mosul Dam occurs, failure is likely."
Your first link, www.distancetomars.com stated it would only be 150 days. That's doable.
When you are finally dying of something money cannot fix, will you ask for your collected gold and silver to be sent to your bedside?
You seem like a smart guy. Maybe you can answer that rhetorical question yourself.
And Columbus would have starved too, if there wasn't a continent in the way.
And the number one tool for making everyone's lives worse.
If that is true, then you should have evidence of it, right?
Expensive oil helps 5% of the population at the expense of the other 95%.
Then explain how "Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives" had anything to do with making oil more expensive.
If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid by the oil companies instead, gasoline and oil products would be much higher.
If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid for by somebody's own money, then it would be much less (assuming they even wanted to invade Iraq instead of some lesser goal). And low "gasoline and oil products" would not be "expensive oil". You just claimed that these alleged subsidies made oil both more expensive and less expensive. Or even worse, that oil companies with expensive oil and inexpensive oil products are somehow making more money than if they had cheap oil and expensive oil products. In the US, a lot of the value in oil comes from the refining not the raw product!
By having them paid for with taxes it provides the illusion that oil isn't as expensive as oil really is.
Oil isn't being paid for with taxes nor is there some 2 to 3 trillion dollar oil security service paid for here. Think of this analogy.
For me, a gas station in a really nice part of town would cost me a million dollars, including cost of land and whatever. If my cronies on the town council acquire the land and build the station for me at a million dollars, then that's a million dollar subsidy to me. But suppose instead, they build an enormous, multi-block sports complex for 10 billion dollars and my free gas station was along for the ride. It's still just a million dollar subsidy to me despite the huge sums spent. It would be inappropriate to claim I had received a 10 billion dollar subsidy when I didn't.
I believe something similar went on with the two invasions above. They spent enormous sums and had tremendous opportunities for all sorts of subsidy and shenanigans. But there just wasn't that much value to the oil industry. It might have weakened OPEC a little or increased supply a little. It certainly wasn't needed to maintain most oil transportation infrastructure or security except perhaps for some of the Gulf states.
Frankly, I think there's a far better case that policies for fighting global warming have done considerably more to generate oil profits than the two US-led invasions.
Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives isn't even considered a subsidy for oil... and it is.
There's a good reason it isn't. Because that money and lives spent would be vastly inefficient as a subsidy for oil. While the subsidies for renewable energy are pure. We're not making a fair comparison.
Sooner we reduce dependency on oil, the sooner ISIS and the like get starved out for cash.
It also starves nice people of cash. Global trade, including that of oil, is the number one tool for making everyone's lives better.
and crash into something when it was done
Don't forget the hours to weeks (depending on how long the nuclear engine lasts) of running over the rubble at low altitude, supersonic speeds, and said cloud of fallout. It might be directly killing people somewhere in the world well after the war ends.