Of course, he's in a way right as evolution is a game of numbers. If he's busy producing as many offspring as possible while I life my life childless and without a care in the world, he'll win evolution but I'll settle for winning life. He's thinks everyone else is working for his offspring, but that's not how it works. He's working for the future of mankind (his idea of it anyway) but I'm working for nobody but myself. He talks of young to take care of the old, but I'll be paying his young to take care of my old. He's working for me, not the other way around and he doesn't even realize it.
Your frank honesty is refreshing. I've always realized this though, and that is why I call you thieves and want you to be marginalized. For the sake of my species.
Homosexuals reject procreation? I'm pretty sure they're not all VHE supporters, none of those I know are. Many not only support the concept of procreation, but want to adopt children.
There's far from a shortage of children in the world, never mind the means to have more.
Do you have any problems with infertile heterosexual people, just out of curiosity? I assume you wouldn't like those who could procreate and choose not to. My cousin and his wife decided they never want to have kids - not their own or adopted.
How is disagreeing with someone a sign of fear (phobia)?
Disagreement is taking an opposing intellectual position. Homophobia, like other forms of bigotry, is not an intellectual position.
It is not necessarily a fear -- it is often misleading to attempt to figure out the meaning of a word by looking at its to etymology.
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate. A culture based around sustaining enough population to maintain itself through immigration is a) parasitic, b) evil and c) fundamentally self destructive.
The social contract where you get to relax and let the young people take care of things when you're old and tired relies on everyone paying into the system. Not with money. With babies. Nothing else will do, there's nothing else you can create that will fill the gap left behind if you don't make those babies.
If you don't pay in, but you take out, you're a thief. It really doesn't matter if you like babies or not, or if you like members of the opposite sex or not. People don't like going to work, but they do it because it's necessary for it to be done.
People like to act as though this was an issue of prejudice, but it isn't.
Believing that gay people are weak and unfit to do hard work is prejudicial, and thus, irrational. Some gay people are very strong, and you won't know until you investigate.
Believing that gay people don't hold up their part of the social contract that makes it possible for us to survive when we grow old, however, is NOT prejudicial. When they tell you they're gay, you don't need to investigate further. You know they're not doing it.
Opposing the normalization of homosexuality is a rational act.
Promoting it to young people in an effort to sway them to embrace it has the same effect as attempting to persuade them to take drugs that will sterilize them. It's an attempt to do them harm.
I was in Beavers for 3 years. I was in Cubs for 3 years, and I was a leader of Beavers in addition to being a Cub, and I was a Scout for 2 years and a leader of Cubs during that time.
I'm the eldest son from a navy family, and my father was gone more often than not. It's hard to learn to be a man when you don't have a role model, and the scouting movement gave me one. Not because I fell into it by accident, but because he took steps to mitigate the loss his absence brought. I'm very glad that he did. My experience has a great similarity to that of young men I see from broken homes being raised by single mothers, and when I look on them, I can see the negative consequences that he protected me from, and I'm grateful.
Boys and young men need masculine culture. It's important. The Scouting movement do the best they can to meet the need in a positive way, and they do a pretty good job. If you're not offering something better, you have no right to piss on them.
Wouldn't having a fun to drive car that you don't drive be a little bit pointless?
If I could drive it downtown manually and park it, go drinking and dancing till 4 in the morning, then crawl into the back seat with my new lady friend and have it take us back to my place, that would be the best car ever.
There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).
I think it's a stupid law, but that's just not true. There have been lots of times I got a text message while driving, replied "sry drvn" at a red light, and then got several more messages in the next 60 seconds from the same person. I don't think I've EVER had someone text me while I was behind the wheel and NOT replied with that string, honestly... perhaps a few times when I was having a dialog trying to figure out where someone was, but in that case, the fact that I'm driving is obvious to the other party.
The responsibility is mine, of course, because there's nothing compelling me to actually look at the phone every time it beeps. But finding proof that the person on the other end knew I was driving would be trivially easy.
I know you're just being a douchebag, but in all seriousness, right now I'm trying to design an effective way for mesh networks to scale. My system presupposes their existence, and the tech isn't quite there yet. I believe that by making all the nodes aware of their location on the earth, and by making the nodes intelligent enough to discriminate between peers based on the broadcast power of the peer, I can solve the problem. But it takes time. The rest of the necessary technology has already been invented, this is the remaining key to the puzzle. Depolying it will be a whole different matter... ideally, something can be put together that can run on existing devices, so people can, if they wish, install the software and begin the process of administering their affairs using the new system.
If billions of people can be presented with the choice "From now on, we will ignore existing systems of authority and govern our affairs using this system. Anyone who attempts to use force to compel you to honour the rules of the old system is a violent criminal, and we will all co-operate to stop them. Do you agree?", and they say "Yes", and they KNOW that 9 out of 10 people they see on the street ALSO said yes, then the existing systems will fall. What will they do with their newfound power? I don't know. Evolve as a society? Kill themselves? Beats me. As long as vicious self-serving bastards are no longer able to wield them, I'll be content.
This ISN'T a stable society. It's a society that has been below replacement levels of reproduction for several generations. We're in the middle of a crisis of too many elderly and not enough young. You're living in a bubble untarnished by reality. If you search for key words such as "Demographic Winter" or "Ageing Population" there are plenty of numbers to substantiate the simple truth that we are REALLY FUCKED.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals and preconceptions...
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".
If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.
That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)
If you don't have kids of your own, then who the fuck are you to judge? If they let their kids run wild, their kids won't let you tame them, and they'll reproduce, and they'll carry on their family line, despite social pressure to abstain from reproducing and work. It's an effective defense mechanism against efforts to "civilize" them and use them.
I've been putting together a system that I think would be effective in pulling us out of this nosedive. I started in on an essay to explain it at one point, though I haven't worked on it recently... been designing the software needed to support it.
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".
If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.
Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"
I went back to basics and made choices.
I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.
Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.
So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."
If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.
After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity after the fundamental goal of survival is met.
For example, it is better if birth control makes it possible for people to have families that are more likely to survive and thrive, and afford women more dignity.
But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.
That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.
If you are going to twist it that way it turns out I don't...
Exactly. You're irrational, and you're not alone in it, and that's the reason our cultures are in decline. Because everyone wants to talk about creating a sustainable population for whatever cute animal they have an affection for, but no one wants to take responsibility for sustaining our human population. They want to live like the proverbial grasshopper, and leave it to the ants.
We don't need women sitting behind computers. Who gives a flying fuck if they're there or not, really? What we need is for women to push out babies so there's someone there to care for us when we're old, and they're not doing it. Men are still working hard doing the death trades like they always have... whereas women have let our entire civilization down.
But really, men shouldn't blame women. We should blame ourselves. Men are the the fist that makes Law work, and Law belongs to us. Women cannot take it from us, we have to be manipulated into giving it to them.
But carry on saying what is politically acceptable, you gutless cowards.
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization. If it leads to the decline of human cultures, it is not moral.
The reason that the researchers found scientific thought leads to moral behavior is because the researchers have a flawed definition of what is moral and what is not. Which is to be expected, because they're scientific researchers.
This is untrue, except in the basest biological sense.
Her ideas live on and will likely continue to live for much longer than the typical genetic line.
See also: Alan Turing. (Ah yes, now I see that you are trolling)
I'm not trolling at all. Do you not believe in Evolution? Both her and Turing were losers in the game of life.
Their words and everything they did will fade from significance, just like the words of every human being who was around 10,000 years ago have done.
Their short term significance is that they were exploited effectively by those who won this round of the game of life, and their offspring.
But, you know... don't let me dissuade you from sacrificing yourself to the education system. If you want to serve my children instead of serving your own, go for it. If you're going to be stupid, short sighted and materialistic, you may as well be taught to wear a saddle like the other useful animals.
"Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesnâ(TM)t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators."
Nothing more needed to be said. The rest of the article is manipulation.
And Microsoft claims the API doesn't let them do that, which is possible. Perhaps Google doesn't expose the necessary APIs. Or perhaps to get the ad, you call "GetAd" with the video ID, and expect Google to Do The Right Thing(tm) and return an appropriate ad (which makes sense - do you expect the client to retrieve the ad, do some analysis and if it doesn't work, get another ad? Geez, look at the bandwidth waste!). Of course, perhaps Microsoft isn't dumb and they looked at how Google wrote their YouTube apps on iOS and Android, and saw they were calling some unknown API to fix it.
Of course, "Google Can Do No Evil" attitude is quite prevalent, and I suppose like Apple fanboys, they refuse to see any bad things their company does. It's easy to hate Microsoft. It's easy to hate Apple. But hate Google and the fanboys can be just as vicious as Apple ones.
No. Microsoft doesn't claim the API doesn't let them do that. They are very careful in their wording. "Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us." and " We’ve asked Google to provide whatever information iPhone and Android get so that we can mirror the way ads are served on these platforms more precisely. So far at least, Google has refused to give this information to us." do not add up to "The API doesn't let us do that"
Google are the new Doubleclick, and claiming they do no evil is ridiculous, but so is your post.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the ones who had a choice.
Of course, he's in a way right as evolution is a game of numbers. If he's busy producing as many offspring as possible while I life my life childless and without a care in the world, he'll win evolution but I'll settle for winning life. He's thinks everyone else is working for his offspring, but that's not how it works. He's working for the future of mankind (his idea of it anyway) but I'm working for nobody but myself. He talks of young to take care of the old, but I'll be paying his young to take care of my old. He's working for me, not the other way around and he doesn't even realize it.
Your frank honesty is refreshing. I've always realized this though, and that is why I call you thieves and want you to be marginalized. For the sake of my species.
Homosexuals reject procreation? I'm pretty sure they're not all VHE supporters, none of those I know are. Many not only support the concept of procreation, but want to adopt children.
There's far from a shortage of children in the world, never mind the means to have more.
Do you have any problems with infertile heterosexual people, just out of curiosity? I assume you wouldn't like those who could procreate and choose not to. My cousin and his wife decided they never want to have kids - not their own or adopted.
I think they're the scum of the earth.
Disagreement is taking an opposing intellectual position. Homophobia, like other forms of bigotry, is not an intellectual position.
It is not necessarily a fear -- it is often misleading to attempt to figure out the meaning of a word by looking at its to etymology.
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate. A culture based around sustaining enough population to maintain itself through immigration is a) parasitic, b) evil and c) fundamentally self destructive.
The social contract where you get to relax and let the young people take care of things when you're old and tired relies on everyone paying into the system. Not with money. With babies. Nothing else will do, there's nothing else you can create that will fill the gap left behind if you don't make those babies.
If you don't pay in, but you take out, you're a thief. It really doesn't matter if you like babies or not, or if you like members of the opposite sex or not. People don't like going to work, but they do it because it's necessary for it to be done.
People like to act as though this was an issue of prejudice, but it isn't.
Believing that gay people are weak and unfit to do hard work is prejudicial, and thus, irrational. Some gay people are very strong, and you won't know until you investigate.
Believing that gay people don't hold up their part of the social contract that makes it possible for us to survive when we grow old, however, is NOT prejudicial. When they tell you they're gay, you don't need to investigate further. You know they're not doing it.
Opposing the normalization of homosexuality is a rational act.
Promoting it to young people in an effort to sway them to embrace it has the same effect as attempting to persuade them to take drugs that will sterilize them. It's an attempt to do them harm.
You know what else is irrational?
Idealism carried too far.
What a tool Woz is.
I was in Beavers for 3 years. I was in Cubs for 3 years, and I was a leader of Beavers in addition to being a Cub, and I was a Scout for 2 years and a leader of Cubs during that time.
I'm the eldest son from a navy family, and my father was gone more often than not. It's hard to learn to be a man when you don't have a role model, and the scouting movement gave me one. Not because I fell into it by accident, but because he took steps to mitigate the loss his absence brought. I'm very glad that he did. My experience has a great similarity to that of young men I see from broken homes being raised by single mothers, and when I look on them, I can see the negative consequences that he protected me from, and I'm grateful.
Boys and young men need masculine culture. It's important. The Scouting movement do the best they can to meet the need in a positive way, and they do a pretty good job. If you're not offering something better, you have no right to piss on them.
Wouldn't having a fun to drive car that you don't drive be a little bit pointless?
If I could drive it downtown manually and park it, go drinking and dancing till 4 in the morning, then crawl into the back seat with my new lady friend and have it take us back to my place, that would be the best car ever.
That was disturbing.
There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).
I think it's a stupid law, but that's just not true. There have been lots of times I got a text message while driving, replied "sry drvn" at a red light, and then got several more messages in the next 60 seconds from the same person. I don't think I've EVER had someone text me while I was behind the wheel and NOT replied with that string, honestly... perhaps a few times when I was having a dialog trying to figure out where someone was, but in that case, the fact that I'm driving is obvious to the other party.
The responsibility is mine, of course, because there's nothing compelling me to actually look at the phone every time it beeps. But finding proof that the person on the other end knew I was driving would be trivially easy.
These "smart watches" seem completely without utility to me. What use do you find for it?
Americans are renounced for not knowing their geography, but thinking that Indonesia is within US borders is still astonishing.
I think the word you are looking for is renowned.
And Americans are not the only ones who lack an understanding of geography.
I think the word he was looking for was denounced.
I know you're just being a douchebag, but in all seriousness, right now I'm trying to design an effective way for mesh networks to scale. My system presupposes their existence, and the tech isn't quite there yet. I believe that by making all the nodes aware of their location on the earth, and by making the nodes intelligent enough to discriminate between peers based on the broadcast power of the peer, I can solve the problem. But it takes time. The rest of the necessary technology has already been invented, this is the remaining key to the puzzle. Depolying it will be a whole different matter... ideally, something can be put together that can run on existing devices, so people can, if they wish, install the software and begin the process of administering their affairs using the new system.
If billions of people can be presented with the choice "From now on, we will ignore existing systems of authority and govern our affairs using this system. Anyone who attempts to use force to compel you to honour the rules of the old system is a violent criminal, and we will all co-operate to stop them. Do you agree?", and they say "Yes", and they KNOW that 9 out of 10 people they see on the street ALSO said yes, then the existing systems will fall. What will they do with their newfound power? I don't know. Evolve as a society? Kill themselves? Beats me. As long as vicious self-serving bastards are no longer able to wield them, I'll be content.
This ISN'T a stable society. It's a society that has been below replacement levels of reproduction for several generations. We're in the middle of a crisis of too many elderly and not enough young. You're living in a bubble untarnished by reality. If you search for key words such as "Demographic Winter" or "Ageing Population" there are plenty of numbers to substantiate the simple truth that we are REALLY FUCKED.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals and preconceptions...
Dead people make good fertilizer. Come up with a better analogy.
Ever heard of Prions?
Dead people do NOT make good fertilizer.
No, breeding is for living things. As opposed to dead things. If you're not a breeder, you're a dead man walking, and you better make yourself useful.
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".
If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.
That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)
If you don't have kids of your own, then who the fuck are you to judge? If they let their kids run wild, their kids won't let you tame them, and they'll reproduce, and they'll carry on their family line, despite social pressure to abstain from reproducing and work. It's an effective defense mechanism against efforts to "civilize" them and use them.
I've been putting together a system that I think would be effective in pulling us out of this nosedive. I started in on an essay to explain it at one point, though I haven't worked on it recently... been designing the software needed to support it.
http://slashdot.org/journal/492191
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".
If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.
Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"
I went back to basics and made choices.
I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.
Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.
So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."
If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.
After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity after the fundamental goal of survival is met.
For example, it is better if birth control makes it possible for people to have families that are more likely to survive and thrive, and afford women more dignity.
But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.
That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.
If you are going to twist it that way it turns out I don't...
Exactly. You're irrational, and you're not alone in it, and that's the reason our cultures are in decline. Because everyone wants to talk about creating a sustainable population for whatever cute animal they have an affection for, but no one wants to take responsibility for sustaining our human population. They want to live like the proverbial grasshopper, and leave it to the ants.
We don't need women sitting behind computers. Who gives a flying fuck if they're there or not, really? What we need is for women to push out babies so there's someone there to care for us when we're old, and they're not doing it. Men are still working hard doing the death trades like they always have... whereas women have let our entire civilization down.
But really, men shouldn't blame women. We should blame ourselves. Men are the the fist that makes Law work, and Law belongs to us. Women cannot take it from us, we have to be manipulated into giving it to them.
But carry on saying what is politically acceptable, you gutless cowards.
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization. If it leads to the decline of human cultures, it is not moral.
The reason that the researchers found scientific thought leads to moral behavior is because the researchers have a flawed definition of what is moral and what is not. Which is to be expected, because they're scientific researchers.
This is untrue, except in the basest biological sense.
Her ideas live on and will likely continue to live for much longer than the typical genetic line.
See also: Alan Turing. (Ah yes, now I see that you are trolling)
I'm not trolling at all. Do you not believe in Evolution? Both her and Turing were losers in the game of life.
Their words and everything they did will fade from significance, just like the words of every human being who was around 10,000 years ago have done.
Their short term significance is that they were exploited effectively by those who won this round of the game of life, and their offspring.
But, you know... don't let me dissuade you from sacrificing yourself to the education system. If you want to serve my children instead of serving your own, go for it. If you're going to be stupid, short sighted and materialistic, you may as well be taught to wear a saddle like the other useful animals.
You can sing all the praises you want about Grace Hopper, but she's gone. She didn't reproduce, she was a mutation that failed, and now is extinct.
As a living organism, she was a failure.
No decent human being would push young women in the direction she went.
Only if I can jump out, engage the folding, and then remote control it into impossibly small spaces. That would be totally hilarious.
That is the entire point of the thing.
And Microsoft claims the API doesn't let them do that, which is possible. Perhaps Google doesn't expose the necessary APIs. Or perhaps to get the ad, you call "GetAd" with the video ID, and expect Google to Do The Right Thing(tm) and return an appropriate ad (which makes sense - do you expect the client to retrieve the ad, do some analysis and if it doesn't work, get another ad? Geez, look at the bandwidth waste!). Of course, perhaps Microsoft isn't dumb and they looked at how Google wrote their YouTube apps on iOS and Android, and saw they were calling some unknown API to fix it.
Of course, "Google Can Do No Evil" attitude is quite prevalent, and I suppose like Apple fanboys, they refuse to see any bad things their company does. It's easy to hate Microsoft. It's easy to hate Apple. But hate Google and the fanboys can be just as vicious as Apple ones.
No. Microsoft doesn't claim the API doesn't let them do that. They are very careful in their wording. "Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us." and " We’ve asked Google to provide whatever information iPhone and Android get so that we can mirror the way ads are served on these platforms more precisely. So far at least, Google has refused to give this information to us." do not add up to "The API doesn't let us do that"
Google are the new Doubleclick, and claiming they do no evil is ridiculous, but so is your post.