You are working on the assumption of honest government, which would NEVER, EVER LIE to its people.
When you find one like that, let me know.
What I'm wondering is if it has occurred to them to, say, multiply the actual average by 0.92 before displaying it for the peons who are, supposedly, using too much water.
If you'd feel bad about using 10% more water than "average", wouldn't you feel even worse about using 20% more (which is about what you'd see if "average" was displayed as 92% of actual average)?
Do I really believe that they'll do that? Nah, I really believe they're too dumb to think of it. But I believe that, if they thought of it, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
but insurance companies have the most to gain by denying coverage to the "accident prone, chronically ill, and those who might inherit propensities for certain health problems.
... that is, should he have chosen to sign the laws, the laws passed without his signature while Congress was in recess, or the congress overrode his veto.
Like he did with the ACA, arbitrarily delaying the employer mandate by a year, then arbitrarily extending that mandate for another year for some businesses (specifically, the businesses the mandate was put into the law for)?
BLOCKQUOTE>How about everyone? It doesn't need to be handed down from on-high, we could go a more grass-roots GATTACA route and simply encourage people to be more conscientious about choosing their genetic pairings, and give them access to the information to do so (hopefully with protections against genetic discrimination by governments and corporations).
Of course, letting people choose who to reproduce with is hardly eugenics - they might make the "wrong" choice, after all.
And once you have to add laws to provide "protections against genetic discrimination by governments and corporations", you're letting the government define what is acceptable in the way of eugenics. Again, not you.
Seriously, consider the amount of whinging about the evil government on the one hand, and the evil corporations on the other, and you want to hand over to them the power to define what is an "acceptable" set of genes??
Or did you decide that IN THIS ONE CASE, the government and corporations will take a hands-off attitude and let everyone do it their own way?
The key question in any eugenics debate is "who gets to decide?". Most people who favour the idea assume that THEY will get to make those decisions, and that everyone else will just be delighted at their inspired decision-making.
Most people who favour the idea are, in fact, wrong about who will be making the decisions.
but it's not like we don't already apply the principles to every other species we domesticate.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a domesticated animal that is better at survival than its wild cousins. Not even sure I can think of one that's close to as good, though cats might come close.
So, do you want your descendants to be 100% dependent on an advanced technological society to survive? Because sure as shooting, sooner or later something in our environment will change in a way that's adverse to survival of a domesticated species. And when that time comes, we don't want to find out that the domesticated species in question is US.
And if NK were to collapse and get absorbed into South Korea, there could be US troops right on the Chinese border (there are a number of US troops in South Korea right now).
The US forces in South Korea are there to provide support along the DMZ against North Korea. Odds are good that we'd be gone as quickly as we could move the men home if NK vanished.
Do remember that we only put troops in SK in response to the NK attack - we didn't want to be there, and the locals didn't want us there before that.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that Kim Jong-un only took over for his father in 2011. It might be possible to put pressure on him to clean things up, though I'm not sure what internal power struggles might exist which make Kim Jong-un just a figurehead.
Are you talking about the same Kim Jong-un that had his uncle declared an un-person, then executed him, then imprisoned his entire family?
There really isn't all that much evidence that the homicidal little s**t isn't really in charge over there.
this nightmarish regime has at least some nuclear capacity, enough to turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon.
For certain values of "armageddon".
The NK's theoretically have about half a dozen devices comparable to the Hiroshima bomb. Which would certainly be enough to devastate South Korea if they were all used successfully.
But it would hardly be "armageddon". Japan suffered through FAR worse in WW2, as did Germany (remember, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs combined did less damage than the fire-bombing of Tokyo or the Dresden firestorm).
Note that this is not meant to imply that I think dealing with NK would be anything less than nightmarish. I merely object to the suggestion that NK has the ability to "turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon" - it wishes it did, but it knows better (or it would have tried again to take over SK before now).
This means that there will be an awareness among the general population of these accusations. True, there will be propaganda countering this, but the seed will be planted.
So, you don't think they already know that baby Kim's uncle was killed and his family arrested?
Or that being sent to a concentration camp is the normal punishment for being related to someone convicted of bad things?
This isn't going to tell the North Koreans anything they didn't already know, even if it were broadcast directly into their brains.
All this is going to do is make a few people in the UN feel better about themselves, and help to justify higher salaries, so they can continue doing useful analysis of the *simply dreadful* situation in NK....
Large? This rock is rather smaller than 1/5,000,000,000th the size of Ceres.
And the news articles are calling it "gigantic".
Would it be possible to save "gigantic" for describing things big enough for extinction-level events, rather than "slightly smaller than the Superdome"?
There WAS mass destruction, by definition it makes sense.
No, there was NOT "mass destruction". A 500# bomb is not considered a weapon of mass destruction, even though one of those dropped at the Boston Marathon bombing would have done incomparably more damage.
>Likewise, a 155mm artillery shell lobbed into that spot would have done far more damage, and is not considered a weapon of mass destruction.
Wind is now cheaper than every fossil fuel save gas, and will be cheaper than gas in five or so years. Solar is a little behind, but exponential is exponential.
Just curious, is that cheaper with subsidies, or without subsidies?
Where I live solar is easily worth it after the 80% subsidies by the Federal and State governments. Not so much if you have to pay full price....
So instead of 40% of Americans having a poor concept of science, it looks like 40% of Americans have a poor concept of English. Is that any better?
With the number of supposedly educated people on/. who don't know the difference between "their", "there", and "they're", or "its" and "it's", or "your" and "you're", this doesn't surprise me at all.
Why would there be garabage men? If there was still a need to haul trash away, the truck would be fully automated.
Just so. The self-driving car technology being tested now would work wonderfully well for garbage collection. Once that's on the street, as it were, no need for garbagemen again.
And yet, the increased connectivity in each is allowing the public in each a greater hand in their own governance by allowing freedom if speech.
Which was GP's point, I think. I doubt very seriously that whichever Castro is running things now is all that interested in...how did you put it?
Oh, yeah, " the increased connectivity in each is allowing the public in each a greater hand in their own governance by allowing freedom if speech"....
Slashdot Mirror
You are working on the assumption of honest government, which would NEVER, EVER LIE to its people.
When you find one like that, let me know.
What I'm wondering is if it has occurred to them to, say, multiply the actual average by 0.92 before displaying it for the peons who are, supposedly, using too much water.
If you'd feel bad about using 10% more water than "average", wouldn't you feel even worse about using 20% more (which is about what you'd see if "average" was displayed as 92% of actual average)?
Do I really believe that they'll do that? Nah, I really believe they're too dumb to think of it. But I believe that, if they thought of it, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
So, how long before they start redefining "average" down below the actual average so as to make even more people feel bad about themselves?
After all, it's pretty much just a line of code to reduce the value displayed under "average use" to be, well, whatever the coder wants it to be.
Which is illegal under the ACA, hence irrelevant.
Yep, it's going down. This year's deficit should be the sixth largest in history, behind the last five years, which cover 1-5.
Like he did with the ACA, arbitrarily delaying the employer mandate by a year, then arbitrarily extending that mandate for another year for some businesses (specifically, the businesses the mandate was put into the law for)?
Of course, letting people choose who to reproduce with is hardly eugenics - they might make the "wrong" choice, after all.
And once you have to add laws to provide "protections against genetic discrimination by governments and corporations", you're letting the government define what is acceptable in the way of eugenics. Again, not you.
Seriously, consider the amount of whinging about the evil government on the one hand, and the evil corporations on the other, and you want to hand over to them the power to define what is an "acceptable" set of genes??
Or did you decide that IN THIS ONE CASE, the government and corporations will take a hands-off attitude and let everyone do it their own way?
The key question in any eugenics debate is "who gets to decide?". Most people who favour the idea assume that THEY will get to make those decisions, and that everyone else will just be delighted at their inspired decision-making.
Most people who favour the idea are, in fact, wrong about who will be making the decisions.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a domesticated animal that is better at survival than its wild cousins. Not even sure I can think of one that's close to as good, though cats might come close.
So, do you want your descendants to be 100% dependent on an advanced technological society to survive? Because sure as shooting, sooner or later something in our environment will change in a way that's adverse to survival of a domesticated species. And when that time comes, we don't want to find out that the domesticated species in question is US.
The US forces in South Korea are there to provide support along the DMZ against North Korea. Odds are good that we'd be gone as quickly as we could move the men home if NK vanished.
Do remember that we only put troops in SK in response to the NK attack - we didn't want to be there, and the locals didn't want us there before that.
Are you talking about the same Kim Jong-un that had his uncle declared an un-person, then executed him, then imprisoned his entire family?
There really isn't all that much evidence that the homicidal little s**t isn't really in charge over there.
For certain values of "armageddon".
The NK's theoretically have about half a dozen devices comparable to the Hiroshima bomb. Which would certainly be enough to devastate South Korea if they were all used successfully.
But it would hardly be "armageddon". Japan suffered through FAR worse in WW2, as did Germany (remember, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs combined did less damage than the fire-bombing of Tokyo or the Dresden firestorm).
Note that this is not meant to imply that I think dealing with NK would be anything less than nightmarish. I merely object to the suggestion that NK has the ability to "turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon" - it wishes it did, but it knows better (or it would have tried again to take over SK before now).
So, you don't think they already know that baby Kim's uncle was killed and his family arrested?
Or that being sent to a concentration camp is the normal punishment for being related to someone convicted of bad things?
This isn't going to tell the North Koreans anything they didn't already know, even if it were broadcast directly into their brains.
All this is going to do is make a few people in the UN feel better about themselves, and help to justify higher salaries, so they can continue doing useful analysis of the *simply dreadful* situation in NK....
Large? This rock is rather smaller than 1/5,000,000,000th the size of Ceres.
And the news articles are calling it "gigantic".
Would it be possible to save "gigantic" for describing things big enough for extinction-level events, rather than "slightly smaller than the Superdome"?
Does the old saying "Three men can keep a secret, so long as two of them are dead" have any meaning for you?
Best way to keep your secrets is to not tell ANYONE.
No, there was NOT "mass destruction". A 500# bomb is not considered a weapon of mass destruction, even though one of those dropped at the Boston Marathon bombing would have done incomparably more damage.
>Likewise, a 155mm artillery shell lobbed into that spot would have done far more damage, and is not considered a weapon of mass destruction.
Just curious, is that cheaper with subsidies, or without subsidies?
Where I live solar is easily worth it after the 80% subsidies by the Federal and State governments. Not so much if you have to pay full price....
Correct coding is difficult too. I'm assuming that people don't write code the way they write English, so I have to go with "some are just lazy".
Were taught.
And then there's the people who write "would of" instead of "would've".
And that one guy (not on /.) who used "weight" instead of "wait"....
Probably.
"We should be looking at improving American education standards."
Or "we should be looking at way to improve American education standards."
In any case, our thanks for the case in point.
Oddly enough, China's population increased by ~7 million last year. Which, while not high, is higher than "no longer growing in population"
With the number of supposedly educated people on /. who don't know the difference between "their", "there", and "they're", or "its" and "it's", or "your" and "you're", this doesn't surprise me at all.
Just so. The self-driving car technology being tested now would work wonderfully well for garbage collection. Once that's on the street, as it were, no need for garbagemen again.
Umm, Eugenics got started with Francis Galton (one of Darwin's cousins), who was English.
Admittedly, it drew from ideas from the UK, Germany, France and the USA.
See his book "Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development" for reference.
Shades of Fred Cassidy in "Doorways in the Sand"!
Oh, and my thanks for reminding me of that novel - I need to dig out a copy and reread it now....
While that's certainly possible, the fact is that robbery rates are 40% of what they were 20 years ago.
Which tends to suggest that smartphone robberies are getting a lot of publicity, but aren't really that big a deal.
Which was GP's point, I think. I doubt very seriously that whichever Castro is running things now is all that interested in...how did you put it?
Oh, yeah, " the increased connectivity in each is allowing the public in each a greater hand in their own governance by allowing freedom if speech"....