Soldiers don't necessarily need physical strength, in an environment where that is supplied by machines. Even currently, while strength is useful, it isn't as important as it used to be.
Science fiction settings are often open to appreciation without knowledge of science. Most people don't understand the science behind what we've got, and it's usually a good idea to describe a future society without going into the science involved, rather than have characters or asides pointing out the mechanics. This applies especially when the science would be bogus. If an author wants FTL starships, that's cool, but any attempt to justify them scientifically is going to be lame at best.
An educated mindset will contribute to the understanding of all literature.
Campbell wrote a trilogy (The Black Star Passes, something I don't remember, and Invaders from the Infinite) that mentioned a woman early in the first book and then there was a reference to a bachelor's pad later in the first book. Aside from that, there was not a hint that humans have two sexes. Some of the characters' fathers were minor characters, but there was no hint that any of them might have had mothers. You're very unlikely to find more male-centric books.
Yeah, but on occasion the tricks didn't work back in the old days and will now. My wife wanted something like an iPad back in the 1980s, to give a hardware example.
Actually, I'd like to extend it to everyone. I haven't received special treatment, only good treatment, and although I'm not the one to ask (I have no experience not being a white male) it appears that lots of people who aren't white or male get treated worse.
The AC is either fictionalizing or doing something strange to his and his wife's phones. This is way beyond the point of statistical believability. Warranties generally exclude abuse.
There are other explanations. The 6 came out about two years ago, and they may still be on warranty or Applecare or something. Also, Apple is known for great and often generous customer service. Of course, the question I want to ask is exactly what that guy and his wife do with their phones, since they're statistical outliers big-time.
There are reasons for prostitution to be illegal. I happen to disagree with them, and I really don't like having victimless crimes, and it isn't clear to me that in practice outlawing prostitution delivers a better outcome, and I see ways in which outlawing prostitution creates more problems, but the reasons exist.
Women are likely to be pushed into prostitution and exploited by pimps (editorial comment: this is easier to deal with if prostitution is legal). It can spread sexually transmitted diseases (same editorial comment). It forces the practitioners to be promiscuous (editorial comment: I don't care). It can disrupt marriages (editorial comment: not healthy ones). It can give men bad sexual habits and assumptions (editorial comment: maybe, but outlawing prostitution doesn't seem to cut into it that much). There are circumstances where, to receive certain assistance, someone might be required to take any available job, and it's undesirable to require people to be prostitutes (editorial comment: I agree, but there have to be better ways to deal with this). It leads people into illegal activities (editorial comment: duh).
I wouldn't call grabbing women by the genitals rape, but it's definitely sexual assault. This isn't simply being a sexist scumbag, it's claiming behavior that would get him put away for months in my state. There's plenty of sexual scumbags in politics (although I have no reason to suspect Hillary Clinton), but they generally don't violate criminal law while doing it.
No, a successful third party candidate can generate plenty of media coverage. You could argue that the media have supported a two-party system for, say, the last 60 years, but we've had a two-party system for pretty much the entire history of the US.
Republicans in Congress had over a dozen Benghazi hearings where they were out for blood, and spent millions of dollars to find nothing Clinton did wrong. Are you calling the Congressional Republicans total incompetents? Why do you think there's any evidence for Clinton's wrongdoing when long and exacting investigations couldn't find anything?
What could have made a decisive difference at Benghazi was if Congress had funded the security forces that Clinton urgently asked for, saying that bad things could happen.
Interpretation: Wikileaks has turned to highly unreliable sources. If the Russians are behind that, and there's at least some evidence, you can't trust any of it.
I'm not saying Trump is cheating on his taxes, or that he should pay more than he owes.
I'm saying that it's really difficult to not pay income taxes if you have income, and that Trump's lack of taxpaying suggests that he's not earning money and is crap at business (although truly great at self-promotion).
Fun fact: Trump pays less than I do in income taxes. This is because he's carrying losses forward, which is perfectly legal but shows that he's made less money than I have this century. I don't know what he understands, but it doesn't appear to be making money.
Saying that there should be a greater effort to enforce immigration laws is reasonable political discourse (and something Obama has done, IIRC). Blasting a US citizen of Mexican descent because of his ancestry is racism, and characteristic of white supremacist hate.
In my experience, people talking about law and order are very willing to forget about law if they can get order.
You've identified why I supported Sanders in the nominating race - a desire to push the Democrats to the left, and show that a self-described Socialist got a good deal of support.
First-past-the-post makes it less effective to vote third party, but some sort of proportional representation would insure that popular third parties could get visibility in government. If the Pastafarian theocrats have 30% support in every district, they are a significant force in voting and win no elections.
The cases aren't comparable. Palin was a politician with ambitions, while the RNC is a large political organization. There's going to be more juicy emails in a large political organization.
In 1972, George McGovern got the Democratic nomination, and was utterly trashed. There were more electable candidates, but McGovern got the delegates. He's one of the big reasons for superdelegates. The Republicans didn't have anything comparable, and got Trump in 2016. Direct democracy without counterbalances can be a real bad idea. There's real value in putting a pro-establishment bias in.
The fact is that, while Sanders caused excitement, he didn't have the base of support that Clinton did. Had he been more successful, he would have gotten the nomination. There's no intention to block an outsider, just to make the outsider's job more difficult, so that if an outsider does get the nomination, it's with a good deal of support, which Sanders didn't get. Clinton got the majority of the non-super delegates. It's possible that, with a completely neutral DNC and no superdelegates, Sanders would have won. That's dangerous.
An actual election is to determine who is going to hold political office, and those have to be conducted in a neutral way (although all sorts of people will try to manipulate it). A nomination process is not an election, and the job is not to find who the rank and file want so much as to get a strong candidate. This means that people who work inside the party have more say than people who just show up to vote, and that's a reasonable way to go.
The problems I've had working with people in Japan and Australia have largely been due to time zone differences. The US isn't too bad, and there's some overlap with the workday in the UK, but if I'm chatting to someone in Japan one of us is not during normal working hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Soldiers don't necessarily need physical strength, in an environment where that is supplied by machines. Even currently, while strength is useful, it isn't as important as it used to be.
Science fiction settings are often open to appreciation without knowledge of science. Most people don't understand the science behind what we've got, and it's usually a good idea to describe a future society without going into the science involved, rather than have characters or asides pointing out the mechanics. This applies especially when the science would be bogus. If an author wants FTL starships, that's cool, but any attempt to justify them scientifically is going to be lame at best.
An educated mindset will contribute to the understanding of all literature.
Campbell wrote a trilogy (The Black Star Passes, something I don't remember, and Invaders from the Infinite) that mentioned a woman early in the first book and then there was a reference to a bachelor's pad later in the first book. Aside from that, there was not a hint that humans have two sexes. Some of the characters' fathers were minor characters, but there was no hint that any of them might have had mothers. You're very unlikely to find more male-centric books.
Yeah, but on occasion the tricks didn't work back in the old days and will now. My wife wanted something like an iPad back in the 1980s, to give a hardware example.
Actually, I'd like to extend it to everyone. I haven't received special treatment, only good treatment, and although I'm not the one to ask (I have no experience not being a white male) it appears that lots of people who aren't white or male get treated worse.
Anyone remember the overblown antenna issue with the 4S? I was going to buy a case for it, but Apple sent me one I liked for free.
The AC is either fictionalizing or doing something strange to his and his wife's phones. This is way beyond the point of statistical believability. Warranties generally exclude abuse.
That costs money. AC didn't mention having to pay for anything.
"Class action" doesn't mean most people had a problem. It means that a reasonably large number had a problem.
There are other explanations. The 6 came out about two years ago, and they may still be on warranty or Applecare or something. Also, Apple is known for great and often generous customer service. Of course, the question I want to ask is exactly what that guy and his wife do with their phones, since they're statistical outliers big-time.
There are reasons for prostitution to be illegal. I happen to disagree with them, and I really don't like having victimless crimes, and it isn't clear to me that in practice outlawing prostitution delivers a better outcome, and I see ways in which outlawing prostitution creates more problems, but the reasons exist.
Women are likely to be pushed into prostitution and exploited by pimps (editorial comment: this is easier to deal with if prostitution is legal). It can spread sexually transmitted diseases (same editorial comment). It forces the practitioners to be promiscuous (editorial comment: I don't care). It can disrupt marriages (editorial comment: not healthy ones). It can give men bad sexual habits and assumptions (editorial comment: maybe, but outlawing prostitution doesn't seem to cut into it that much). There are circumstances where, to receive certain assistance, someone might be required to take any available job, and it's undesirable to require people to be prostitutes (editorial comment: I agree, but there have to be better ways to deal with this). It leads people into illegal activities (editorial comment: duh).
I wouldn't call grabbing women by the genitals rape, but it's definitely sexual assault. This isn't simply being a sexist scumbag, it's claiming behavior that would get him put away for months in my state. There's plenty of sexual scumbags in politics (although I have no reason to suspect Hillary Clinton), but they generally don't violate criminal law while doing it.
No, a successful third party candidate can generate plenty of media coverage. You could argue that the media have supported a two-party system for, say, the last 60 years, but we've had a two-party system for pretty much the entire history of the US.
Trump is a (bad) businessman. Why do you think he isn't already effectively beholden to Wall Street?
Republicans in Congress had over a dozen Benghazi hearings where they were out for blood, and spent millions of dollars to find nothing Clinton did wrong. Are you calling the Congressional Republicans total incompetents? Why do you think there's any evidence for Clinton's wrongdoing when long and exacting investigations couldn't find anything?
What could have made a decisive difference at Benghazi was if Congress had funded the security forces that Clinton urgently asked for, saying that bad things could happen.
Interpretation: Wikileaks has turned to highly unreliable sources. If the Russians are behind that, and there's at least some evidence, you can't trust any of it.
Which means that regulators are people who couldn't cut it in the real world, and don't really know what they're regulating.
This is a difficult problem, and there aren't any easy solutions.
I'm not saying Trump is cheating on his taxes, or that he should pay more than he owes.
I'm saying that it's really difficult to not pay income taxes if you have income, and that Trump's lack of taxpaying suggests that he's not earning money and is crap at business (although truly great at self-promotion).
Fun fact: Trump pays less than I do in income taxes. This is because he's carrying losses forward, which is perfectly legal but shows that he's made less money than I have this century. I don't know what he understands, but it doesn't appear to be making money.
Trump is a spoiler meant by who?
Saying that there should be a greater effort to enforce immigration laws is reasonable political discourse (and something Obama has done, IIRC). Blasting a US citizen of Mexican descent because of his ancestry is racism, and characteristic of white supremacist hate.
In my experience, people talking about law and order are very willing to forget about law if they can get order.
You've identified why I supported Sanders in the nominating race - a desire to push the Democrats to the left, and show that a self-described Socialist got a good deal of support.
First-past-the-post makes it less effective to vote third party, but some sort of proportional representation would insure that popular third parties could get visibility in government. If the Pastafarian theocrats have 30% support in every district, they are a significant force in voting and win no elections.
The cases aren't comparable. Palin was a politician with ambitions, while the RNC is a large political organization. There's going to be more juicy emails in a large political organization.
In 1972, George McGovern got the Democratic nomination, and was utterly trashed. There were more electable candidates, but McGovern got the delegates. He's one of the big reasons for superdelegates. The Republicans didn't have anything comparable, and got Trump in 2016. Direct democracy without counterbalances can be a real bad idea. There's real value in putting a pro-establishment bias in.
The fact is that, while Sanders caused excitement, he didn't have the base of support that Clinton did. Had he been more successful, he would have gotten the nomination. There's no intention to block an outsider, just to make the outsider's job more difficult, so that if an outsider does get the nomination, it's with a good deal of support, which Sanders didn't get. Clinton got the majority of the non-super delegates. It's possible that, with a completely neutral DNC and no superdelegates, Sanders would have won. That's dangerous.
An actual election is to determine who is going to hold political office, and those have to be conducted in a neutral way (although all sorts of people will try to manipulate it). A nomination process is not an election, and the job is not to find who the rank and file want so much as to get a strong candidate. This means that people who work inside the party have more say than people who just show up to vote, and that's a reasonable way to go.
The problems I've had working with people in Japan and Australia have largely been due to time zone differences. The US isn't too bad, and there's some overlap with the workday in the UK, but if I'm chatting to someone in Japan one of us is not during normal working hours.