... the team says the ultimate aim is to reduce the energy consumption of buildings, by cooling and heating the individual — not the building.
Bullshit. This device does nothing of the sort; instead it tricks the body into thinking the ambient temperature is just right when in fact it's not. Those nerves and body temperature regulation systems exist for a reason, and tricking and preempting them to save corporations money is sickening.
That did lead to a dropoff in talent, but that was because that wasn't their aim. Most of what we as modern viewers see as distortions or poor quality are very deliberate attempts to communicate a higher concept tha[n] literal recreation.
So you're saying that Catholics invented impressionism? 8-/
What you describe is sociopathy, not "extreme atheism". It is not the case that Russia or China were disproportionately populated by atheists. Sociopaths don't all share the same existentialist beliefs any more than neurotypicals do, but what they do share is a lack of ethics. Atheists do not share lesser ethics than theists.
What is described in TFS is quite a bit different ethically than killing a creature in protection of onesself or one's den. I'm curious why you see no ethical difference.
So once again a behavioral study whose subjects all came only from developed First World nations, and likely only those whose first language was English? What could go wrong?
You didn't interpret even TFS correctly: the "earnings" were from the game to which the participants were subjected. It nothing at all to do with their employment prospects.
... many years ago and did something about it. The result was called Firefly and Serenity. Harvey described Firefly! There might be something wrong with the theory, though, because look how that turned out: one series that didn't even make it to Season Two and a single movie, no "franchise" in sight.
I'm not at all convinced that Prescott Harvey is a cinematic genius. If Joss Whedon can't make it work, the formula ain't ready to leave the drawing board.
I was willing to listen to your particular bloviation right up until the end when you criticized his hair style. Which political office is your ambition?
Many of the homeless and "underutilized" are thus not because they made a litany of bad choices but because they were simply dealt a raw deal by circumstances beyond their practical control. After enough years of raw deal, many people are mentally ill at least by circumstance. They may not be as technically helpless as a cute five year old, but their need for help is no less real. It really IS ageism behind these decisions where to focus remedial resources, just as it's an ageism choice to focus primarily on hiring young people in certain fields.
Right, and to hell with the homeless and other chronically underutilized who have already endured so many years of frustration and unhappiness? Too late for those fuckers so screw 'em, right?
... collusion and profiteering, maybe racketeering. I think the only reason Samsung produced TLC was to use it as a buffer to justify continuing to keep the prices of MLC artificially high. Hopefully other manufacturers, since they don't (yet) also produce TLC to compete directly with Samsung, will instead finally reduce their MLC prices to compete with TLC. There might be some sort of gentlemens' agreement preventing that, though, since Samsung's TLC can buffer the MLC prices for the entire industry, not just its own MLC.
We already regulate, restrict, or prohibit all sorts of unethical transactional behavior in this "capitalist" economy, so I find it curious that you would still advocate allowing deceitful behavior; your argument ignored the deceit of one party and chose to focus on the "stupidity" of the other. Way to blame the victim. I can guess how you judge women who are raped.
OF COURSE transactions result in some mutual benefit, and I didn't say otherwise; it's the proportion that matters. Neither did I state that both parties value both what they offer and receive equally; why would they? If one party values what he can offer as much or more than what he would receive, then no transaction would even take place if motives are purely selfish. Also, simply exchanging goods for money or a service does not de facto "create wealth". I was describing transactions where there is a knowing disproportion in value, where one party KNOWS the other is being disadvantaged and proceeds anyway. It happens all the time, especially at the corporate level. Corporations spend immense effort to misdirect, mislead, and miseducate for the singular purpose of creating disproportionate transactions that favor them.
There's an ethical difference between "making money" in exchange for true equal value and concentrating wealth in your direction by giving people only perceived value. Which one are you doing?
Slashdot Mirror
... the team says the ultimate aim is to reduce the energy consumption of buildings, by cooling and heating the individual — not the building.
Bullshit. This device does nothing of the sort; instead it tricks the body into thinking the ambient temperature is just right when in fact it's not. Those nerves and body temperature regulation systems exist for a reason, and tricking and preempting them to save corporations money is sickening.
You confirmed your bias arguing against statements I didn't make. You have a talent I don't envy.
That did lead to a dropoff in talent, but that was because that wasn't their aim. Most of what we as modern viewers see as distortions or poor quality are very deliberate attempts to communicate a higher concept tha[n] literal recreation.
So you're saying that Catholics invented impressionism? 8-/
What you describe is sociopathy, not "extreme atheism". It is not the case that Russia or China were disproportionately populated by atheists. Sociopaths don't all share the same existentialist beliefs any more than neurotypicals do, but what they do share is a lack of ethics. Atheists do not share lesser ethics than theists.
Thank goodness that helium is the byproduct of this fusion process, because a world without balloons was just unthinkable!
Seriously, we're supposed to be drawn in by the coy tease?
Those Martian alpacas are mean buggers, aren't they? They'd just as soon spit on you as give your rover the time of day.
What is described in TFS is quite a bit different ethically than killing a creature in protection of onesself or one's den. I'm curious why you see no ethical difference.
These aren't yer momma's Momentus drives. These are NEW and ADAPTIVE!
So once again a behavioral study whose subjects all came only from developed First World nations, and likely only those whose first language was English? What could go wrong?
You didn't interpret even TFS correctly: the "earnings" were from the game to which the participants were subjected. It nothing at all to do with their employment prospects.
... many years ago and did something about it. The result was called Firefly and Serenity. Harvey described Firefly! There might be something wrong with the theory, though, because look how that turned out: one series that didn't even make it to Season Two and a single movie, no "franchise" in sight.
I'm not at all convinced that Prescott Harvey is a cinematic genius. If Joss Whedon can't make it work, the formula ain't ready to leave the drawing board.
I was willing to listen to your particular bloviation right up until the end when you criticized his hair style. Which political office is your ambition?
Many of the homeless and "underutilized" are thus not because they made a litany of bad choices but because they were simply dealt a raw deal by circumstances beyond their practical control. After enough years of raw deal, many people are mentally ill at least by circumstance. They may not be as technically helpless as a cute five year old, but their need for help is no less real. It really IS ageism behind these decisions where to focus remedial resources, just as it's an ageism choice to focus primarily on hiring young people in certain fields.
No Child Left Untableted
Right, and to hell with the homeless and other chronically underutilized who have already endured so many years of frustration and unhappiness? Too late for those fuckers so screw 'em, right?
It's ageism again.
... collusion and profiteering, maybe racketeering. I think the only reason Samsung produced TLC was to use it as a buffer to justify continuing to keep the prices of MLC artificially high. Hopefully other manufacturers, since they don't (yet) also produce TLC to compete directly with Samsung, will instead finally reduce their MLC prices to compete with TLC. There might be some sort of gentlemens' agreement preventing that, though, since Samsung's TLC can buffer the MLC prices for the entire industry, not just its own MLC.
Wait, the balloons are slung UNDER the gondola? Is this story from another multiverse where the rules ain't the same.
In any case, with 370 dangling sacks that's a really well slung dude.
Nope, you're not in the least bit arrogant, dogmatic, and hypocritical.
Grow up.
Tie its output to a skyscraper-sized 3D printer and let it go to town... or rather make the town.
We already regulate, restrict, or prohibit all sorts of unethical transactional behavior in this "capitalist" economy, so I find it curious that you would still advocate allowing deceitful behavior; your argument ignored the deceit of one party and chose to focus on the "stupidity" of the other. Way to blame the victim. I can guess how you judge women who are raped.
OF COURSE transactions result in some mutual benefit, and I didn't say otherwise; it's the proportion that matters. Neither did I state that both parties value both what they offer and receive equally; why would they? If one party values what he can offer as much or more than what he would receive, then no transaction would even take place if motives are purely selfish. Also, simply exchanging goods for money or a service does not de facto "create wealth". I was describing transactions where there is a knowing disproportion in value, where one party KNOWS the other is being disadvantaged and proceeds anyway. It happens all the time, especially at the corporate level. Corporations spend immense effort to misdirect, mislead, and miseducate for the singular purpose of creating disproportionate transactions that favor them.
Are you actually twelve or twenty-five and retarded? Grow up.
There's an ethical difference between "making money" in exchange for true equal value and concentrating wealth in your direction by giving people only perceived value. Which one are you doing?
It's a Northgate Omni, huh?
Even at 900, spell better than you Yoda could!