Everyone seems to be focused on the dynamic between employers and employees. But there is another group of people in this equation: The customers.
First scenario: Affirmative action does not exist. You walk in the door, and a minority representative asks if they can help you. When you look at them, you know they must know their business to have earned that position. You know they must be a determined individual to have moved beyond their cultural norms to get there. You think "This person is going to do a great job.". You answer "Yes", and they proceed to do a good job, and you have it confirmed to you that this minority is entirely capable of the task in question.
Second scenario: Affirmative action does exist. When you walk in the door, a minority representative asks if they can help you. When you look at them, you know that there is a high probably that they were under qualified, and were put there despite being under qualified, to meet a quota. You don't know for sure, of course, but the odds are not good. So, you act on this knowledge, and try to find someone else to help you. If there isn't anyone else, and you're stuck with them, chances are they actually will be one of the under qualified people, and you'll walk away from the experience unhappy.
My point is, affirmative action creates an environment where negative stereotypes are not only reinforced, but made real. Not because the minority in question is inherently incapable, but because the system is designed to put incapable representatives in front of you everywhere you go.
So, really, affirmative action reinforces racism in the population by making it the truly sensible position to take, and hurts those it's supposed to be helping.
I did not suggest that gay people were going to be wiped out as a whole. I simply stated that a gay person is not going to successfully propagate themselves. I'm not trolling at all. I'm simply trying to cut through the politics and mumbo jumbo and lay out the facts so we can move past the endless politically motivated conflict. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate women who have had hysterectomies. I feel a sense of compassion for their circumstances.
Besides, do you know how much fun it is when you're talking to a genuinely homophobic, hardcore evolution denying bible thumper on a rant about gay people and you calmly agree that "Yes, God hates fags, that's why he invented evolution."? Their head spins like that little girl in the Exorcist. It's delicious to watch.
Does your "36.7 trillion acres" figure include all that wonderful arable land in Antarctica? Is that where you're building your food forest?
No, I'm not intending to build a food forest in Antarctica, smartass.
I asserted that we could support trillions of humans.
If we had 3 trillion people, that would mean 12.2 acres of land to feed each person. You should easily be able to thrive on one acre.
I helped build an urban farm using these principles in an abandoned lot next to a hospital, and last year that farm fed everyone who volunteered, and produced 2 metric tons of food for the food bank, and produced fresh fruit and vegetables for the various restaurants that helped sponsor the project, which they serve to their customers.
I no longer live in the area, and am no longer involved, but if you like, you can show your financial support for the project here:
Again, that's off one parking lot, in the middle of a city.
Because 9.3% of the world's land area is considered arable. You may want to shift that decimal place over to the left, as you're an order of magnitude off.
So, do the people who gave you that number consider the desert of the Dead Sea Valley arable?
Because the same people who published the DVD set I pointed you at have been successfully building a food forest right smack dab in the middle of it, in an effort to give you the evidence you need to be swayed.
Also, many people enjoy eating plants year round. They're not likely to find your food forest idea very appealing.
Setting aside the fact that we could all fit just fine inside the zones that never see sub-zero temperatures, there are many other options available to overcome this obstacle. It's a complex enough problem that I can't give you a one paragraph answer that will be a resilient enough argument for you not to pick it apart, therefore, I will not invite you to make me look stupid by attempting to do so.
Nevertheless, I have done this. Other people have done this. This is sustainable. What we are doing is not sustainable. It's fine to be skeptical, but there is ample evidence that this is a functional solution to a problem that threatens us all if you make even the slightest effort to look.
And man, I'll tell you... it's NICE. The food tastes better. It looks better. It crunches when it's supposed to crunch. It's a pleasant environment to be in. It makes you want to skip carrying the food to the kitchen table and just have a picnic with your family. You know where it came from. You know that even if you're broke, even if there's civil unrest and the grocery stores are empty, it's always there when you need it. You feel a sense of ease. An absence of fear. A sense of being in control of your own life.
But, for it to work, people need to stop thinking of food as something that comes from the store, and start thinking of it as something that comes from the forest. People need to go pick their food themselves...It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now.
Uh, right now I can buy a found of steak in shrink-wrap. How exactly is walking through a forest supposed to be easier than that? I can buy enough food for a week in 30min of shopping.
And where is this forest going to be? Are we going to just plant it in the middle of our suburban housing developments? Will my neighbor mind me spearing some antelope in his back yard? If it is going to be in some designated area, then how is accessing that going to be easier than going to the local supermarket? If the food is unpreserved, then you'd need to basically go there daily.
I don't think the solution to the current ecological problems is to return to a hunter-gatherer state.
I pointed you right at the answers to your questions. It's a new concept to you and you clearly haven't investigated the resources that would answer these questions for you. Which makes me curious; why do you think you're qualified to have any opinion on the feasibility of the concept?
If God didn't hate Fags, he wouldn't have Created Evolution to weed them out of the gene pool.
So you're suggesting he's incompetent and homophobic and that this somehow was the motivation for him 'designing' evolution? Yeah, that sounds persuasive...
No, I'm saying, God is a metaphor used to propagate knowledge, Evolution exists, homosexuality prevents an organism from propagating their DNA forward, causing them to be selected against by evolutionary pressure, and that is the entire point.
If you don't believe in God as a man with a white beard in the sky who interferes capriciously in human affairs, well, neither do I, and neither do most intelligent religious people. Why do you think Islamic people are barred from drawing pictures of him and his prophets? To hammer home the fact that he's not REALLY a "man in the sky".
But, regardless, homosexuality DOES prevent an organism from propagating their DNA forward, and they ARE selected against by evolutionary pressure, and they ARE wiped out of the gene pool if they confine themselves to sexual activity only with members of their own sex. These are simple, immutable facts of life.
So, if YOU were going to try to express these facts using the God metaphor, how would YOU phrase it?
Stop right there ! There's no such thing as evolution. Pests didn't evolve defense, God created new resistant pests. All those farmers who used GMO crops are obviously gay and are punished for it. *That's the only explanation.*
Did you know, intelligent people are capable of designing systems that evolve?
The correct response to the whole "God hates Fags" controversy is to simply point out "If God didn't hate Fags, he wouldn't have Created Evolution to weed them out of the gene pool. He dealt with it already, so shut up about it."
The problem with this model is, it's not friendly to automation. You can't harvest from a complex ecosystem with a petrol driven combine.
But you can build custom forests that are filled with massive diversity of food crops, and it's not really any more work to gather your food from one than it is to go to the grocery store.
These forests deliver way, way more food per acre than any conventional farming method, by a huge margin.
Because they're built using perennial plants that will propagate themselves, once they're up, you never have to dig, and you never have to plant the earth.
Because you fill all the available ecological niches with food bearing plants, you never have to weed, and you never have to use pesticides.
Because they are stable ecosystems, once you put them together, barring fire or catastrophic weather events, they'll continue to abide for many generations of man.
All these ridiculous claims about how the Earth is overpopulated are based on the assumption that we will continue to use existing farming techniques.
The truth is, if we transitioned to this method of food production, we could completely abandon oil, increase our population into the trillions and the worlds ecosystems would not only be healthier than they are now, but they would be healthier than if mankind weren't around in the first place.
But, for it to work, people need to stop thinking of food as something that comes from the store, and start thinking of it as something that comes from the forest. People need to go pick their food themselves.
It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now. It's just a change of lifestyle, and the quality of the food you eat goes up, and your health improves as a consequence.
Regardless of what the rest of you do, it's my intention to build such a forest, build a home within it for myself, and another for my daughter and each of my future children. But it would be a much better world for all of us if you were inspired to do the same.
I'm not saying you should download "The Complete Geoff Lawton Permaculture DVD Collection" off the pirate bay or anything, you should definitely buy a legitimate copy... but everything you need to know to get the ball rolling is in there;)
If you're into that kind of sci fi, check out Mindkiller by Spider Robinson. The book opens with a burglar finding a woman committing suicide by wireheading when he breaks into her apartment and runs from there. Great book.
It's already underway. China is trading energy for Yuan, and Russia made a deal to give them unfettered access to their oil and natural gas reserves. There were several articles about it last year, here on Slashdot.
And the false flag operations in Libya weren't about oil as much as they were about fresh water. Under Qaddafi's leadership, they built infrastructure to tap into underground aquafers and provide fresh water for everyone. Now that water can be shipped to Israel. There will be feel good news articles about the dynamic young entrepreneurs and all the success they are achieving with their bottled water enterprises, while most of the nation watches helpless as the resources they worked so hard to make available are pillaged by foreign thieves.
I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to, apparently, bring back the Soviet Union, and perhaps wanting to bomb the U.S. back into the stone age, however....yes, the U.S. could still, so far as I know, nuke Russia just as much as Russia could nuke the U.S.. However it would still be the End Of Life On Earth As We Know It, and anyone who doesn't get that is deeply and dangerously in denial. Furthermore don't forget that China (and maybe India, too) would be sitting there munching on popcorn the entire time, waiting for the show to be over so they could pick up the pieces, and I don't think anyone has forgotten that.
Personally, I believe that if the US tried to destroy Russia with their nukes, they would just blow themselves up. Their weapons are poorly maintained and they haven't had the human talent to address the issue for a long time.
google contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period
I like my Nexus 5. I'm new around here, and I find it very helpful finding my way around the city. I hitchhiked all the way across the continent a few months ago, and Google Maps helped me find my way.
Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..
The world doesn't continue operating on the concept of free stuff, you idiot.
If you ever created anything you would want to continue receiving benefits from jt too.
Of course you have never created anything, you just sit in your mom's basement and jerk off.
I'm a creator of intellectual works. Some of my intellectual works help bring medicine to billions of people. I've never wanted to continue to receive payment for work I've done in the past.
If I want the creation to exist, I create it without being paid because I want it to exist, without compromise, exactly the way I envisioned it.
For example, I don't like seeing people in my community go hungry, so I helped build an urban farm where the volunteers feed themselves first and the excess goes to the food bank.
If I'm indifferent to the existence of the creation, I ask to be paid as I work, and when the problem is solved and the work is done, I move on, looking for other people who need my help.
But, you know... I'm just doing practical work that changes peoples lives in practical ways. It's nothing as grand as a fictional work aggrandizing a biker gang or anything like that.
It's really very straightforward. Sell what is scarce and you will get paid. Try to sell something that is naturally abundant and not only will you not get paid like you expect, but you will earn the justifiable scorn of your peers. And it will be your own stupid fault.
As far as Kurt Sutter is concerned... I'm not interested in contributing to support a police force that goes around shaking people down for money on his behalf. Based on the numbers, it doesn't appear that very many other people are interested either, and the law is slowly changing to reflect our views. So, it appears that he is pretty much fucked.
Sailing is practically free transportation. The adjustment of the sails can be automated so a single human operator can run the whole ship.
Failing to exploit this is simply stupid.
States someone who obviously has never set foot on a sailboat.
Sailing is akin to standing in a cold shower and ripping up hundred dollar bills.
I was born and raised next to the ocean. I grew up jigging for cod with my grandfather. My father taught sailing to the sea cadets. I've been on sailboats, worked on freighter ships. Numerous members of my family have owned boats of their own. I personally never had enough interest to actually buy one of my own, but I expect that will change over the coming decades.
But thanks for implying I don't know anything about what I'm talking about, asshole.
The basic premise, that it is an anomaly for us to come together into a common social space, is so ridiculous that I have to wonder what her agenda is for making such a blatantly false claim.
People came together from their community to the marketplace to socialize. People came together at church every single Sunday.
Beyond the reaches of the individual community, people of almost every faith used to come together for pilgrimage, allowing them to socialize with other members of their faith from far away places and become more worldly and less ignorant. This was considered a moral duty.
The point isn't to go where people who are your friends are, or to go to places where people who are into the same hobbies. The point is to grow as a human being by leaving your comfort zone.
The real anomaly is in the walls that keep us from knowing each other. It keeps us weak, powerless and under control.
Sailing is practically free transportation. The adjustment of the sails can be automated so a single human operator can run the whole ship.
And poor people, after the global economic collapse, are going to buy that automated sailing ship how again?
Most people don't see the flaw in thinking that they're going to weather the coming social breakdown because they have a high limit on their Visa card.
If nothing else, I'll eventually get around to designing it myself and I'll teach them how.
I see her as a mass murderer. People have died as a direct result of her bullshit. She ought to be put through the justice system in the same way that someone impersonating a doctor would be tried for a death resulting from his or her false medical advice. Except in her case, it's not just one death, it's a whole lot of deaths. Sure, it's not solely her fault, but it doesn't have to be (nor should it need to be) in our justice system.
You chose to live in the city, packed tight like rats on a sinking ship. If you lived in the country, you wouldn't be at risk. If your lifestyle relies on forcing other people to accept being injected with a witches brew of disease and heavy metals, and you're ok with that, perhaps we would be better off if you DID die of disease.
Re:WHAT A RETARDED WASTE OF BREATH
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1, Funny
How about you nerds stop trying to co-opt Steak and a Blowjob Day?
And just do this for 20 different passwords, because you should never reuse one.
Good luck memorizing.
Firstly: Which do you think is harder to memorize... a strong password, or a sentence?
Secondly: You can safely write it down. So, you don't need to memorize.
Finally: You shouldn't reuse your banking password, or the password for your laptop or office computer, obviously. When you're talking about things like web forums, it's not really that important.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone seems to be focused on the dynamic between employers and employees. But there is another group of people in this equation: The customers.
First scenario: Affirmative action does not exist. You walk in the door, and a minority representative asks if they can help you. When you look at them, you know they must know their business to have earned that position. You know they must be a determined individual to have moved beyond their cultural norms to get there. You think "This person is going to do a great job.". You answer "Yes", and they proceed to do a good job, and you have it confirmed to you that this minority is entirely capable of the task in question.
Second scenario: Affirmative action does exist. When you walk in the door, a minority representative asks if they can help you. When you look at them, you know that there is a high probably that they were under qualified, and were put there despite being under qualified, to meet a quota. You don't know for sure, of course, but the odds are not good. So, you act on this knowledge, and try to find someone else to help you. If there isn't anyone else, and you're stuck with them, chances are they actually will be one of the under qualified people, and you'll walk away from the experience unhappy.
My point is, affirmative action creates an environment where negative stereotypes are not only reinforced, but made real. Not because the minority in question is inherently incapable, but because the system is designed to put incapable representatives in front of you everywhere you go.
So, really, affirmative action reinforces racism in the population by making it the truly sensible position to take, and hurts those it's supposed to be helping.
So, where shall we compromise? Does half a trillion people work for you?
I did not suggest that gay people were going to be wiped out as a whole. I simply stated that a gay person is not going to successfully propagate themselves. I'm not trolling at all. I'm simply trying to cut through the politics and mumbo jumbo and lay out the facts so we can move past the endless politically motivated conflict. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate women who have had hysterectomies. I feel a sense of compassion for their circumstances.
Besides, do you know how much fun it is when you're talking to a genuinely homophobic, hardcore evolution denying bible thumper on a rant about gay people and you calmly agree that "Yes, God hates fags, that's why he invented evolution."? Their head spins like that little girl in the Exorcist. It's delicious to watch.
Even if the hypothesis were true, it is irrelevant to the point. A gay mans sister successfully reproducing does not propagate that gay mans DNA.
Does your "36.7 trillion acres" figure include all that wonderful arable land in Antarctica? Is that where you're building your food forest?
No, I'm not intending to build a food forest in Antarctica, smartass.
I asserted that we could support trillions of humans.
If we had 3 trillion people, that would mean 12.2 acres of land to feed each person. You should easily be able to thrive on one acre.
I helped build an urban farm using these principles in an abandoned lot next to a hospital, and last year that farm fed everyone who volunteered, and produced 2 metric tons of food for the food bank, and produced fresh fruit and vegetables for the various restaurants that helped sponsor the project, which they serve to their customers.
I no longer live in the area, and am no longer involved, but if you like, you can show your financial support for the project here:
http://partnersforcare.ca/urba...
Again, that's off one parking lot, in the middle of a city.
Because 9.3% of the world's land area is considered arable. You may want to shift that decimal place over to the left, as you're an order of magnitude off.
So, do the people who gave you that number consider the desert of the Dead Sea Valley arable?
Because the same people who published the DVD set I pointed you at have been successfully building a food forest right smack dab in the middle of it, in an effort to give you the evidence you need to be swayed.
http://permaculturenews.org/20...
Also, many people enjoy eating plants year round. They're not likely to find your food forest idea very appealing.
Setting aside the fact that we could all fit just fine inside the zones that never see sub-zero temperatures, there are many other options available to overcome this obstacle. It's a complex enough problem that I can't give you a one paragraph answer that will be a resilient enough argument for you not to pick it apart, therefore, I will not invite you to make me look stupid by attempting to do so.
Nevertheless, I have done this. Other people have done this. This is sustainable. What we are doing is not sustainable. It's fine to be skeptical, but there is ample evidence that this is a functional solution to a problem that threatens us all if you make even the slightest effort to look.
And man, I'll tell you... it's NICE. The food tastes better. It looks better. It crunches when it's supposed to crunch. It's a pleasant environment to be in. It makes you want to skip carrying the food to the kitchen table and just have a picnic with your family. You know where it came from. You know that even if you're broke, even if there's civil unrest and the grocery stores are empty, it's always there when you need it. You feel a sense of ease. An absence of fear. A sense of being in control of your own life.
You shouldn't knock it till you've tried it.
But, for it to work, people need to stop thinking of food as something that comes from the store, and start thinking of it as something that comes from the forest. People need to go pick their food themselves...It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now.
Uh, right now I can buy a found of steak in shrink-wrap. How exactly is walking through a forest supposed to be easier than that? I can buy enough food for a week in 30min of shopping.
And where is this forest going to be? Are we going to just plant it in the middle of our suburban housing developments? Will my neighbor mind me spearing some antelope in his back yard? If it is going to be in some designated area, then how is accessing that going to be easier than going to the local supermarket? If the food is unpreserved, then you'd need to basically go there daily.
I don't think the solution to the current ecological problems is to return to a hunter-gatherer state.
I pointed you right at the answers to your questions. It's a new concept to you and you clearly haven't investigated the resources that would answer these questions for you. Which makes me curious; why do you think you're qualified to have any opinion on the feasibility of the concept?
So you're suggesting he's incompetent and homophobic and that this somehow was the motivation for him 'designing' evolution? Yeah, that sounds persuasive...
No, I'm saying, God is a metaphor used to propagate knowledge, Evolution exists, homosexuality prevents an organism from propagating their DNA forward, causing them to be selected against by evolutionary pressure, and that is the entire point.
If you don't believe in God as a man with a white beard in the sky who interferes capriciously in human affairs, well, neither do I, and neither do most intelligent religious people. Why do you think Islamic people are barred from drawing pictures of him and his prophets? To hammer home the fact that he's not REALLY a "man in the sky".
But, regardless, homosexuality DOES prevent an organism from propagating their DNA forward, and they ARE selected against by evolutionary pressure, and they ARE wiped out of the gene pool if they confine themselves to sexual activity only with members of their own sex. These are simple, immutable facts of life.
So, if YOU were going to try to express these facts using the God metaphor, how would YOU phrase it?
Yep, I'm on there.
I don't think I'm exaggerating. There are 36.7 trillion acres of land on earth.
"Plant evolves defense."
Stop right there ! There's no such thing as evolution. Pests didn't evolve defense, God created new resistant pests. All those farmers who used GMO crops are obviously gay and are punished for it. *That's the only explanation.*
Did you know, intelligent people are capable of designing systems that evolve?
Here's a tutorial for you:
http://www.gp-field-guide.org....
The correct response to the whole "God hates Fags" controversy is to simply point out "If God didn't hate Fags, he wouldn't have Created Evolution to weed them out of the gene pool. He dealt with it already, so shut up about it."
The problem with this model is, it's not friendly to automation. You can't harvest from a complex ecosystem with a petrol driven combine.
But you can build custom forests that are filled with massive diversity of food crops, and it's not really any more work to gather your food from one than it is to go to the grocery store.
These forests deliver way, way more food per acre than any conventional farming method, by a huge margin.
Because they're built using perennial plants that will propagate themselves, once they're up, you never have to dig, and you never have to plant the earth.
Because you fill all the available ecological niches with food bearing plants, you never have to weed, and you never have to use pesticides.
Because they are stable ecosystems, once you put them together, barring fire or catastrophic weather events, they'll continue to abide for many generations of man.
All these ridiculous claims about how the Earth is overpopulated are based on the assumption that we will continue to use existing farming techniques.
The truth is, if we transitioned to this method of food production, we could completely abandon oil, increase our population into the trillions and the worlds ecosystems would not only be healthier than they are now, but they would be healthier than if mankind weren't around in the first place.
But, for it to work, people need to stop thinking of food as something that comes from the store, and start thinking of it as something that comes from the forest. People need to go pick their food themselves.
It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now. It's just a change of lifestyle, and the quality of the food you eat goes up, and your health improves as a consequence.
Regardless of what the rest of you do, it's my intention to build such a forest, build a home within it for myself, and another for my daughter and each of my future children. But it would be a much better world for all of us if you were inspired to do the same.
I'm not saying you should download "The Complete Geoff Lawton Permaculture DVD Collection" off the pirate bay or anything, you should definitely buy a legitimate copy... but everything you need to know to get the ball rolling is in there ;)
+5 Hysterical
If you're into that kind of sci fi, check out Mindkiller by Spider Robinson. The book opens with a burglar finding a woman committing suicide by wireheading when he breaks into her apartment and runs from there. Great book.
It's already underway. China is trading energy for Yuan, and Russia made a deal to give them unfettered access to their oil and natural gas reserves. There were several articles about it last year, here on Slashdot.
And the false flag operations in Libya weren't about oil as much as they were about fresh water. Under Qaddafi's leadership, they built infrastructure to tap into underground aquafers and provide fresh water for everyone. Now that water can be shipped to Israel. There will be feel good news articles about the dynamic young entrepreneurs and all the success they are achieving with their bottled water enterprises, while most of the nation watches helpless as the resources they worked so hard to make available are pillaged by foreign thieves.
This is your brain on electrodes with a side order of bacon!
I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to, apparently, bring back the Soviet Union, and perhaps wanting to bomb the U.S. back into the stone age, however.. ..yes, the U.S. could still, so far as I know, nuke Russia just as much as Russia could nuke the U.S.. However it would still be the End Of Life On Earth As We Know It, and anyone who doesn't get that is deeply and dangerously in denial. Furthermore don't forget that China (and maybe India, too) would be sitting there munching on popcorn the entire time, waiting for the show to be over so they could pick up the pieces, and I don't think anyone has forgotten that.
Personally, I believe that if the US tried to destroy Russia with their nukes, they would just blow themselves up. Their weapons are poorly maintained and they haven't had the human talent to address the issue for a long time.
google contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period
I like my Nexus 5. I'm new around here, and I find it very helpful finding my way around the city. I hitchhiked all the way across the continent a few months ago, and Google Maps helped me find my way.
What did YOU contribute?
Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..
The world doesn't continue operating on the concept of free stuff, you idiot.
If you ever created anything you would want to continue receiving benefits from jt too.
Of course you have never created anything, you just sit in your mom's basement and jerk off.
I'm a creator of intellectual works. Some of my intellectual works help bring medicine to billions of people. I've never wanted to continue to receive payment for work I've done in the past.
If I want the creation to exist, I create it without being paid because I want it to exist, without compromise, exactly the way I envisioned it.
For example, I don't like seeing people in my community go hungry, so I helped build an urban farm where the volunteers feed themselves first and the excess goes to the food bank.
If I'm indifferent to the existence of the creation, I ask to be paid as I work, and when the problem is solved and the work is done, I move on, looking for other people who need my help.
But, you know... I'm just doing practical work that changes peoples lives in practical ways. It's nothing as grand as a fictional work aggrandizing a biker gang or anything like that.
It's really very straightforward. Sell what is scarce and you will get paid. Try to sell something that is naturally abundant and not only will you not get paid like you expect, but you will earn the justifiable scorn of your peers. And it will be your own stupid fault.
As far as Kurt Sutter is concerned... I'm not interested in contributing to support a police force that goes around shaking people down for money on his behalf. Based on the numbers, it doesn't appear that very many other people are interested either, and the law is slowly changing to reflect our views. So, it appears that he is pretty much fucked.
That's easy.
Facebook tricked people into thinking of it as a highly private platform, somewhere safe to use your real name and share pictures with your mom.
People don't remember that, for the most part, but that really was the reason for their success... the only novel thing they did.
Sailing is practically free transportation. The adjustment of the sails can be automated so a single human operator can run the whole ship.
Failing to exploit this is simply stupid.
States someone who obviously has never set foot on a sailboat.
Sailing is akin to standing in a cold shower and ripping up hundred dollar bills.
I was born and raised next to the ocean. I grew up jigging for cod with my grandfather. My father taught sailing to the sea cadets. I've been on sailboats, worked on freighter ships. Numerous members of my family have owned boats of their own. I personally never had enough interest to actually buy one of my own, but I expect that will change over the coming decades.
But thanks for implying I don't know anything about what I'm talking about, asshole.
The basic premise, that it is an anomaly for us to come together into a common social space, is so ridiculous that I have to wonder what her agenda is for making such a blatantly false claim.
People came together from their community to the marketplace to socialize. People came together at church every single Sunday.
Beyond the reaches of the individual community, people of almost every faith used to come together for pilgrimage, allowing them to socialize with other members of their faith from far away places and become more worldly and less ignorant. This was considered a moral duty.
The point isn't to go where people who are your friends are, or to go to places where people who are into the same hobbies. The point is to grow as a human being by leaving your comfort zone.
The real anomaly is in the walls that keep us from knowing each other. It keeps us weak, powerless and under control.
And poor people, after the global economic collapse, are going to buy that automated sailing ship how again?
Most people don't see the flaw in thinking that they're going to weather the coming social breakdown because they have a high limit on their Visa card.
If nothing else, I'll eventually get around to designing it myself and I'll teach them how.
Not right now though, I'm otherwise occupied.
Sailing is practically free transportation. The adjustment of the sails can be automated so a single human operator can run the whole ship.
Failing to exploit this is simply stupid.
I see her as a mass murderer. People have died as a direct result of her bullshit. She ought to be put through the justice system in the same way that someone impersonating a doctor would be tried for a death resulting from his or her false medical advice. Except in her case, it's not just one death, it's a whole lot of deaths. Sure, it's not solely her fault, but it doesn't have to be (nor should it need to be) in our justice system.
You chose to live in the city, packed tight like rats on a sinking ship. If you lived in the country, you wouldn't be at risk. If your lifestyle relies on forcing other people to accept being injected with a witches brew of disease and heavy metals, and you're ok with that, perhaps we would be better off if you DID die of disease.
How about you nerds stop trying to co-opt Steak and a Blowjob Day?
And just do this for 20 different passwords, because you should never reuse one.
Good luck memorizing.
Firstly: Which do you think is harder to memorize... a strong password, or a sentence?
Secondly: You can safely write it down. So, you don't need to memorize.
Finally: You shouldn't reuse your banking password, or the password for your laptop or office computer, obviously. When you're talking about things like web forums, it's not really that important.