What exactly are you raging about? I was responding to the post and title's implication that everything will soon be 'back to normal' as if nothing had happened.
I find your idea that 1%ers should "foot the bill" rather absurd.
Quote, please, the exact portion of my comments where I made that statement? You can't. I never said it. What I clearly implied was that One Percenters don't foot their fair share of the bill.
Where did you get your ideas? Whose agenda bought and paid for your beliefs? Whose gospel did you accept for no good reason? You could have a Slashdot ID of 1 and still be a brainwashed tool for someone else.
Save your ad hominem for someone who's willing to play that game. Put up or shut up.
The floods caused, what, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure damage? Who's ultimately going to write the final checks that pay for all the repairs (and likely upgrades)? Don't we know who? It will be every person and company that buys those products and the population of Thailand. Ultimately the entire global economy pays the bulk of the cost. The One Percenters who control those factories damned sure aren't gonna foot much of the bill. So... don't be a fool and expect prices to return to where they would have been otherwise. That will take a decade.
(It's exactly how recessions work: One Percenters feel a pinch in their ability to concentrate wealth, and in a perverse reversal of the Trickle Down theory they make all those they employ suffer instead so that they regain the full extent of that ability. The only difference in this case is that the proximal cause is an obvious natural disaster. Economists have been feeding us lies about such things for decades.)
It's not necessary for them to prove, only to implicate. There must exist objective evidence sufficient to imply the existence of something. That implicating evidence is presented to a judge. If the judge agrees - and it's his job description to be skeptical - then that something will then become the subject of a targeted search authorized by a warrant created by the judge. At least that's how it's intended to work.
I was also thinking, for instance, of potentially related sorts of mutations, like for instance the oxytocin mutation that caused a speciation among some prairie voles. Such a simple little chemical change, but enough apparently to result in a distinct species! They may be capable of interbreeding but apparently usually don't, simply because behaviorally they are now different enough to be "unattractive" to each other. Now extrapolate that to humans....
There's a reason it's called a Spectrum. Not everyone on it gets to be on the right or even middle parts of it (and I don't know if I'm on it at all). Not all mutations have a positive or even survivable outcome. That's the nature of the beast. I myself am likely to wind up as an evolutionary dead end. I wasn't trivializing it, even if it feeds the common perception.
I don't see only the high functioning people. I've seen some of the histrionic poop-slinging worst (literally), too, and my own demons aren't to be trifled with. In spite of that, I still stand by my wild unsubstantiated theory. Careful what you presume about people you only know from occasional text on a screen. I did make a careful qualification in my statement, but you overlooked or ignored it.
I can't speak for you, but I don't mind being checked out. I don't even mind being overdue for return. It's those damned library culling programs that scare me!
That divergence might occur upstairs between the ears. Some groupings of autistic traits seem to be early precursors of that divergence. Call it a disability if you must, but there's gold in them genes for some folks who get the right combination.
The others that were lost simply weren't necessary to the male role; it was a streamlining process to make us lean and mean procreative machines. It's not like all the males conceived at those earlier times suddenly and simultaneously lost one... it was a gradual overlapping process. It was... EVOLUTION. Go figure!
The guy was made belatedly (in)famous when the video first got posted to YouTube (2010?); the guy was still living, and somebody tracked him down in Russia and interviewed him about it. It made SlashDot at the time, too, IIRC.
If somebody does a peer-reviewed statistical analysis and proves that behavior is really the norm for hunters and not just cherry-picking the rotten apples from the crate, then I'll agree to the stereotype. Anecdotes, even compelling ones from a fellow cyclist, don't really justify it.
Stereotyping is sometimes warranted. Ad hominem is NOT. Ever. It's disingenuous and psychologically dishonest. It's selfish and neither informative nor constructive.
I'm no stranger to stereotyping, and I recognize that applied accurately it's a useful survival skill. That wasn't merely what he was doing, though. The distinction between stereotyping and ad hominem was distinct enough in this instance. I no fan of hunters, either, having a particular distaste for killing anything that doesn't "need killin'", but that doesn't drive me to uniformly marginalize all of them as drunken idiots. Some of them are... Dick Cheney.
Slashdot Mirror
What exactly are you raging about? I was responding to the post and title's implication that everything will soon be 'back to normal' as if nothing had happened.
I find your idea that 1%ers should "foot the bill" rather absurd.
Quote, please, the exact portion of my comments where I made that statement? You can't. I never said it. What I clearly implied was that One Percenters don't foot their fair share of the bill.
Where did you get your ideas? Whose agenda bought and paid for your beliefs? Whose gospel did you accept for no good reason? You could have a Slashdot ID of 1 and still be a brainwashed tool for someone else.
Save your ad hominem for someone who's willing to play that game. Put up or shut up.
Those would still be One Percenters profiting at the expense of others, right?
Yep, it's true. They ride on others' coattails.
Explain precisely how, then, in a fashion that isn't utter hogwash like your first comment here.
The floods caused, what, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure damage? Who's ultimately going to write the final checks that pay for all the repairs (and likely upgrades)? Don't we know who? It will be every person and company that buys those products and the population of Thailand. Ultimately the entire global economy pays the bulk of the cost. The One Percenters who control those factories damned sure aren't gonna foot much of the bill. So... don't be a fool and expect prices to return to where they would have been otherwise. That will take a decade.
(It's exactly how recessions work: One Percenters feel a pinch in their ability to concentrate wealth, and in a perverse reversal of the Trickle Down theory they make all those they employ suffer instead so that they regain the full extent of that ability. The only difference in this case is that the proximal cause is an obvious natural disaster. Economists have been feeding us lies about such things for decades.)
It's not necessary for them to prove, only to implicate. There must exist objective evidence sufficient to imply the existence of something. That implicating evidence is presented to a judge. If the judge agrees - and it's his job description to be skeptical - then that something will then become the subject of a targeted search authorized by a warrant created by the judge. At least that's how it's intended to work.
It's not a failure of capitalism, it's just scaled way-up. It's collectivized capitalism.
*ducks*
Looks like somebody bought stock in Molycorp and now wants to guarantee the success of his investment with a little buzz on the grapevine, eh?
I was also thinking, for instance, of potentially related sorts of mutations, like for instance the oxytocin mutation that caused a speciation among some prairie voles. Such a simple little chemical change, but enough apparently to result in a distinct species! They may be capable of interbreeding but apparently usually don't, simply because behaviorally they are now different enough to be "unattractive" to each other. Now extrapolate that to humans....
There's a reason it's called a Spectrum. Not everyone on it gets to be on the right or even middle parts of it (and I don't know if I'm on it at all). Not all mutations have a positive or even survivable outcome. That's the nature of the beast. I myself am likely to wind up as an evolutionary dead end. I wasn't trivializing it, even if it feeds the common perception.
I dunno why... my spine and bindings are as crisp as the day I was published, and the content is all g-rated!
I don't see only the high functioning people. I've seen some of the histrionic poop-slinging worst (literally), too, and my own demons aren't to be trifled with. In spite of that, I still stand by my wild unsubstantiated theory. Careful what you presume about people you only know from occasional text on a screen. I did make a careful qualification in my statement, but you overlooked or ignored it.
Of course it was!
Yep. Anything else is just icing on the beefcake.
I can't speak for you, but I don't mind being checked out. I don't even mind being overdue for return. It's those damned library culling programs that scare me!
That divergence might occur upstairs between the ears. Some groupings of autistic traits seem to be early precursors of that divergence. Call it a disability if you must, but there's gold in them genes for some folks who get the right combination.
The others that were lost simply weren't necessary to the male role; it was a streamlining process to make us lean and mean procreative machines. It's not like all the males conceived at those earlier times suddenly and simultaneously lost one... it was a gradual overlapping process. It was... EVOLUTION. Go figure!
The guy was made belatedly (in)famous when the video first got posted to YouTube (2010?); the guy was still living, and somebody tracked him down in Russia and interviewed him about it. It made SlashDot at the time, too, IIRC.
Nope, this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1EG-MKy4so
If somebody does a peer-reviewed statistical analysis and proves that behavior is really the norm for hunters and not just cherry-picking the rotten apples from the crate, then I'll agree to the stereotype. Anecdotes, even compelling ones from a fellow cyclist, don't really justify it.
You could employ Kneecaps-R-Us to dissuade the pirates from pirating.
FTFY.
Stereotyping is sometimes warranted. Ad hominem is NOT. Ever. It's disingenuous and psychologically dishonest. It's selfish and neither informative nor constructive.
I see what you did there. I like it.
I'm no stranger to stereotyping, and I recognize that applied accurately it's a useful survival skill. That wasn't merely what he was doing, though. The distinction between stereotyping and ad hominem was distinct enough in this instance. I no fan of hunters, either, having a particular distaste for killing anything that doesn't "need killin'", but that doesn't drive me to uniformly marginalize all of them as drunken idiots. Some of them are... Dick Cheney.