Look at what has happened in the past, when two cultures of the same species met on our planet. Group A sails over the ocean, and discovers a strange culture B on another continent. Despite the fact that this was a meeting between members of the same species, group A doesn't recognize that group B is even human. Group A proceeds to enslave, kidnap, kill, and steal the land and resources of group B.
This pattern has been repeated a bunch of times in our own history. So, when humans meet aliens, the inferior group will be lunch.
I agree. You can kill people, therefore, you can kill a corporation.
As far as I know, Union Carbide wasn't committing murder. It was actually the Indian subsidiary that did it, but the law in many places is that accomplices are guilty too.
Dow bought them. It's time to revoke the charter of Dow Chemical. Auction their buildings and their equipment and put the proceeds into the public treasury.
Let's set a motherfucking example of what we can do to corporate people when they break the law.
In my experience, if you write something just once, you'll get a slew of responses which are basically strawmen. Readers will read only what they want to read, and unless you beat their heads with the main point, they'll miss it.
In case there's any confusion, I'll repeat myself. If you say it once, readers will miss it. Maybe not you, but enough to be annoying. So, you say it multiple times, so the slow people can catch up.
Exactly. Deer running at speed can stop on a dime. But funny, they never do that when a wolf is around. If it were a good idea, deer who did that would have been selected for.
RE: spanking - meta-studies show the harm is a continuum, with sparing spanking barely harmful, but getting worse with increasing frequency. More spanking would move the kid down the scale towards worse outcomes.
RE: quantifying consequences - I don't have an answer either. Designing studies is a tricky business, and honestly I'm better at poking holes in bad ones than coming up with good ones.
RE: brainiacs - wasn't referring to you. I said "some of the brainiacs" in the third person because some of the others are frankly blowhards who don't let the findings of people who actually study things get in the way of their opinions.
I'll countermand reason #1. Large companies are perfect places to hide.
(large consulting company) has 3 ratings. 3,2,1. 3 means you suck, 2 means you're good, and 1 means you're awesome.
If you get 2's, you're solid. Good for another year. So basically you just need to do the minimum required to get a 2, which isn't much.
Every project in global consulting has a different PM. Mostly they don't know you, and you don't know them. They work halfway around the world. Everyone's working at home in their underwear anyway.
It's an ideal situation. Just today I watched two old episodes of Dr. Who while I worked on another machine on my appointed task. I know I'm good because HR communicated to me yesterday that I have a 2. Safe for another year.
For the record, the previous story most likely is fiction, and since speech is protected, even for (large consulting company) employees, my fictional account of my work performance, is only a joke. It won't hold up in court, or at least I hope it won't.
That the problem is a lack of spanking seems like a false attribution. The data backs me up on that one.
That the problem is proper treatment for brain disorders/mental illnesses/behavioral problems/etc. seems like a false attribution. The data backs me up on that one too.
The theory that kids are not facing quite enough of the consequences of their actions might not be a false attribution.
Unlike some of the brainiacs in this thread, I know that blurting out some wild-eyed half-political theory about "kids these days", declaring it to be the true answer, is actually pretty stupid, so I will be happy to wait for the data to come in.
It was an illustration, through the use of absurdity, of the fallacious logic of the post I was responding to.
Just because children can have good outcomes from a specific situation doesn't mean that situation is a desirable one. There may be other situations which may be better, or worse, than the situation argued for.
The detrimental effects may indeed have been overstated, but the beneficial effects may also be overstated. How do you compare them?
You compare them through multiple studies which in the past have indicated fairly conclusively that a nonviolent upbringing is better than a violent upbringing, and that less violent upbringing is better than a more violent upbringing. That last part is why lightly abused children generally fare much better than heavily abused children. It's not a black-and-white situation.
Children have lived through wars and turned out fine. Therefore, children should be raised in war zones?
Where does this stop? Should we disregard the research which demonstrates actual harm in harmful practices? Should a parent with a well-adjusted and well-behaved child ignore their lyin' eyes and start beating the child?
Don't ask permission. When you're in front of the judge, they're going to pull out a file folder with your call transcript in it. They're going to argue that you KNEW you were infringing, when you asked permission you were TOLD NO, and you INFRINGED on their rights anyway. The judge will be impressed, and you will be ass-raped if you're lucky.
Don't ask any permission. Just do it and have a good lawyer ready. And don't talk to anybody who calls about infringement. Tell them to talk to your lawyer.
That's what I said when the doctor said my boy had cancer! Stop coddling him, or he's going to grow up soft and spoiled. What if he were grown up and had cancer? He's going to have a family to feed, and trust me, they need to eat. They won't take an excuse like "I've got cancer and that's why I can't work" when they need their dinner on the table and a roof over their head.
Kids seriously need to man up these days.
Alrighty, enough sarcasm. Why is it that there's always at least one guy in every crowd without any empathy, but with plenty of (wrong) answers?
That's related to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am".
From that, existence as a generalization can be deduced. If one mind thinks "I am" then it exists, therefore generally speaking, existence exists.
As far as I know, anything that is deductively true (so far to our experience) lies in mathematics, where quite a few things can be built up from axioms without any input from the senses.
Everything we can observe is inherently inductive, because we observe through our senses. And while it's highly unlikely, our senses could have been fooling us about everything.
When I said "all theories of this type" I meant physical theories, which describe things we observe in the world. Of course, Newton's laws of motion have two existences; one as a mathematical construction of laws of motion, and another as a description of what we see. The laws of motion are true mathematically, but they are (were) only probably true descriptions of what we see.
I don't think we're dickering over the meaning of the word truth. You're asking me what I meant, and I'm answering. My meaning of the word is probably the same as what you mean by the word. You're just confirming that.
Not true. All theories of this type are supported by logical induction, which cannot indicate truth, but only a very great certainty of truth.
When I used the word truth, I meant the absolute, no-holds-barred true beyond any uncertainty kind of truth. It takes deduction to make a truth like that.
Interesting that I am modded offtopic. Apparently people remember the "me too" posts, but they don't remember WHAT they were "me too-ing" all about.
For the newbies, the original posts were offers to email Alyssa Milano nude photos to anyone who posted on the thread.
Alyssa Milano was an actress in the late 20th century who was apparently very beautiful, and very young. If she did have any nude photos, they would have been highly sought after by many computer programmers.
The cascades of "me too" comments in response to these nude photo offers became legends, and after AOL connected to Usenet, became sources of sorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at what has happened in the past, when two cultures of the same species met on our planet. Group A sails over the ocean, and discovers a strange culture B on another continent. Despite the fact that this was a meeting between members of the same species, group A doesn't recognize that group B is even human. Group A proceeds to enslave, kidnap, kill, and steal the land and resources of group B.
This pattern has been repeated a bunch of times in our own history. So, when humans meet aliens, the inferior group will be lunch.
NO! It's your arm, leg, head, cock, whatever. Don't let some doctor run the whole show.
Get a sharpie out and write NOT THIS ARM on the wrong arm, and a bullseye on the correct arm. Who knows, the arm you save might be your own.
I agree. You can kill people, therefore, you can kill a corporation.
As far as I know, Union Carbide wasn't committing murder. It was actually the Indian subsidiary that did it, but the law in many places is that accomplices are guilty too.
Dow bought them. It's time to revoke the charter of Dow Chemical. Auction their buildings and their equipment and put the proceeds into the public treasury.
Let's set a motherfucking example of what we can do to corporate people when they break the law.
We need to know about his children first. Does he have living kids who won't be killed along with him in the attempt? If so, it's not a Darwin award.
Darwin awards are for when you take yourself out of the gene pool. Having surviving kids puts you INTO the gene pool. These things are not the same.
Finally, there is one thing in the world even tinier than my hot rod.
In my experience, if you write something just once, you'll get a slew of responses which are basically strawmen. Readers will read only what they want to read, and unless you beat their heads with the main point, they'll miss it.
In case there's any confusion, I'll repeat myself. If you say it once, readers will miss it. Maybe not you, but enough to be annoying. So, you say it multiple times, so the slow people can catch up.
I, for one, welcome our new psychopathic, immortal, politically empowered, corporate-person overlords!
It's like Slashdot, except not as intelligent.
Exactly. Deer running at speed can stop on a dime. But funny, they never do that when a wolf is around. If it were a good idea, deer who did that would have been selected for.
RE: spanking - meta-studies show the harm is a continuum, with sparing spanking barely harmful, but getting worse with increasing frequency. More spanking would move the kid down the scale towards worse outcomes.
RE: quantifying consequences - I don't have an answer either. Designing studies is a tricky business, and honestly I'm better at poking holes in bad ones than coming up with good ones.
RE: brainiacs - wasn't referring to you. I said "some of the brainiacs" in the third person because some of the others are frankly blowhards who don't let the findings of people who actually study things get in the way of their opinions.
Let me guess...you worked for American Express? Good times, good times.
I'll countermand reason #1. Large companies are perfect places to hide.
(large consulting company) has 3 ratings. 3,2,1. 3 means you suck, 2 means you're good, and 1 means you're awesome.
If you get 2's, you're solid. Good for another year. So basically you just need to do the minimum required to get a 2, which isn't much.
Every project in global consulting has a different PM. Mostly they don't know you, and you don't know them. They work halfway around the world. Everyone's working at home in their underwear anyway.
It's an ideal situation. Just today I watched two old episodes of Dr. Who while I worked on another machine on my appointed task. I know I'm good because HR communicated to me yesterday that I have a 2. Safe for another year.
For the record, the previous story most likely is fiction, and since speech is protected, even for (large consulting company) employees, my fictional account of my work performance, is only a joke. It won't hold up in court, or at least I hope it won't.
That the problem is a lack of spanking seems like a false attribution. The data backs me up on that one.
That the problem is proper treatment for brain disorders/mental illnesses/behavioral problems/etc. seems like a false attribution. The data backs me up on that one too.
The theory that kids are not facing quite enough of the consequences of their actions might not be a false attribution.
Unlike some of the brainiacs in this thread, I know that blurting out some wild-eyed half-political theory about "kids these days", declaring it to be the true answer, is actually pretty stupid, so I will be happy to wait for the data to come in.
Yes, it's more than a bit far, its absurd.
It was an illustration, through the use of absurdity, of the fallacious logic of the post I was responding to.
Just because children can have good outcomes from a specific situation doesn't mean that situation is a desirable one. There may be other situations which may be better, or worse, than the situation argued for.
The detrimental effects may indeed have been overstated, but the beneficial effects may also be overstated. How do you compare them?
You compare them through multiple studies which in the past have indicated fairly conclusively that a nonviolent upbringing is better than a violent upbringing, and that less violent upbringing is better than a more violent upbringing. That last part is why lightly abused children generally fare much better than heavily abused children. It's not a black-and-white situation.
Taking your idea to the next level:
Children have lived through wars and turned out fine. Therefore, children should be raised in war zones?
Where does this stop? Should we disregard the research which demonstrates actual harm in harmful practices? Should a parent with a well-adjusted and well-behaved child ignore their lyin' eyes and start beating the child?
I hope that means I'm free to be green!
Why do we give these people the time of day?
Another way to put it, since half the spacecraft disappeared, is to ask if the missions would be worth twice as much money.
I'd say yes.
Don't ask permission. When you're in front of the judge, they're going to pull out a file folder with your call transcript in it. They're going to argue that you KNEW you were infringing, when you asked permission you were TOLD NO, and you INFRINGED on their rights anyway. The judge will be impressed, and you will be ass-raped if you're lucky.
Don't ask any permission. Just do it and have a good lawyer ready. And don't talk to anybody who calls about infringement. Tell them to talk to your lawyer.
That's what I said when the doctor said my boy had cancer! Stop coddling him, or he's going to grow up soft and spoiled. What if he were grown up and had cancer? He's going to have a family to feed, and trust me, they need to eat. They won't take an excuse like "I've got cancer and that's why I can't work" when they need their dinner on the table and a roof over their head.
Kids seriously need to man up these days.
Alrighty, enough sarcasm. Why is it that there's always at least one guy in every crowd without any empathy, but with plenty of (wrong) answers?
That's related to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am".
From that, existence as a generalization can be deduced. If one mind thinks "I am" then it exists, therefore generally speaking, existence exists.
As far as I know, anything that is deductively true (so far to our experience) lies in mathematics, where quite a few things can be built up from axioms without any input from the senses.
Everything we can observe is inherently inductive, because we observe through our senses. And while it's highly unlikely, our senses could have been fooling us about everything.
When I said "all theories of this type" I meant physical theories, which describe things we observe in the world. Of course, Newton's laws of motion have two existences; one as a mathematical construction of laws of motion, and another as a description of what we see. The laws of motion are true mathematically, but they are (were) only probably true descriptions of what we see.
I don't think we're dickering over the meaning of the word truth. You're asking me what I meant, and I'm answering. My meaning of the word is probably the same as what you mean by the word. You're just confirming that.
Not true. All theories of this type are supported by logical induction, which cannot indicate truth, but only a very great certainty of truth.
When I used the word truth, I meant the absolute, no-holds-barred true beyond any uncertainty kind of truth. It takes deduction to make a truth like that.
Interesting that I am modded offtopic. Apparently people remember the "me too" posts, but they don't remember WHAT they were "me too-ing" all about.
For the newbies, the original posts were offers to email Alyssa Milano nude photos to anyone who posted on the thread.
Alyssa Milano was an actress in the late 20th century who was apparently very beautiful, and very young. If she did have any nude photos, they would have been highly sought after by many computer programmers.
The cascades of "me too" comments in response to these nude photo offers became legends, and after AOL connected to Usenet, became sources of sorrow.
Very nice! It works.
All Star Wars movies made in the last 20 years.