Yes, I think being celibate is bad for replication. By definition of replication and by definition of celibate. In fact, any activity which does NOT result in replication will not positively affect replication.
It doesn't matter. He has espoused the correct talking points, and is therefore "Insightful". We have no need to examine reality to see if it matches the fantasy.
I wouldn't say it's a reductionist understanding of evolution, or even just or survival of a given species. It just means that right now, today, it really doesn't matter.
Basing an understanding of this on the current state of the human race, October 2017, 50 percent of the population could be homosexual and it would hardly effect the survival of our species. Remove all modern scientific, technological and medical advances, say some global catastrophe hit us tomorrow and reduced the population of humans to tens of thousands, a 50% rate of homosexuality would absolutely be a negative effect on the species.
The low rate of homosexuality, however, of around roughly 2% that we generally see in humans probably wouldn't affect the chances of survival much, though. It would still have an effect however, albeit negligible, and I don't see how anyone can argue that someone who has an extremely low chance of reproducing can NOT impair rates of reproduction. It's like saying being drunk doesn't impair my ability to drive. Sure it does, by definition of what being drunk is.
Human females, unlike Queen bees, can't mate with 15-20 males over the course of a few days, taking in enough sperm to last 2-3 years and produce thousands of fertilized eggs a day until the sperm is exhausted, at which point she is killed by the worker bees because she is no longer useful (not able to reproduce generally equals not useful in nature) to the colony!
Look, I get that homosexuality isn't a socially unacceptable thing in society, nor do I think it should be. But from a biological standpoint, no one can say that it can scientifically be positively correlated to the replication of the species. Trying to do so just shows how strongly the agendas and propaganda has worked on you that you feel the need to go as far as using a false equivalence to try and disprove the "scientific certitude" in the GP's post and thereby proving your own delusions.
I am not a Netflix fan. Yet I pay $90/mo for access to the internet. Why? I get access to every node on the net. Places I regularly visit, tops, a few dozen. Why pay for peering to the others? Why am I subsidizing all my neighbors who want to stream video 24x7? Ala carte is suppressed by the ISPs, Why pay for peering overseas if I never request data from foreign servers? The single purpose services like Netflix and Hulu are also a losing proposition. And then there are nickel and dime fees, cable modem rental, static IP, costs $10 a month!
I could keep going. That was mostly in jest, but...
The reason I subscribe to cable is the same reason I subscribe to the internet. I want access to the content I want, when I want it. I'm not a "sports fan", but I watch sports, occasionally, usually just baseball during playoff season. Sure, ESPN costs me $5-10/mo. Is it really worth saving $100 a year to deal with the bullshit of ala carte? I don't want to have to deal with figuring out which package or service I need to subscribe to when I want to watch something on TV. What if family is visiting me and wants to watch MTV or Spike or whatever-the-hell channel they usually watch their shows on that I couldn't give a shit less about?
I don't doubt that the broadcast model may eventually collapse, but stories of its death are premature.
Why does everyone scream bloody murder to "pay only for what they watch" on linear TV, yet will piss and moan about Net Neutrality any time an ISP decides that they might be able to offer a package tailored to certain use cases? In this day and age, both cable TV and internet are consumer mediums. I prefer being able to access the full range of content on both mediums. I'd also like to be able to serve up my own content from my own server on my own internet connection, but we've already foregone that scenario-because the internet is Cable TV 2.0 now. So, really, what's the difference?
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound in the current year?
It sounds like the 1700's!
I imagine this... "The Crown has already told the Colonies that they will not recognize their claim of independence. But sure, keep stirrin the pot, Mr. Washington-Jefferson-Franklin." Sickening.
Then again, I also forgot that if you care about "dead white guys" that makes you a racist in 2017.
Somehow I doubt Verizon cares who a customer voted for in the last Presidential election. Every carrier, every single one, besides Verizon has enforced roaming limits up until this point. Verizon has decided to start doing what every other cellular carrier does. The customers are unprofitable, as you said, and any company will fire unprofitable customers. It's a fact of life, no politics involved.
I'm old enough to remember that while expensive and stagnant, AT&T's wireline network was rock-solid. There were positive and negative aspects of the Modification of Final Judgement, which we could argue all night, but this is a little different. There are still 3 competitors for cellular service nationwide, and these rural users also have a local carrier to choose from in most cases.
I don't think breaking up the cell carriers does anyone any favors. Do you want to return to the days of driving to the next county over and being charged $1.49/min (or I guess these days, per MB) roaming airtime? I, for one, don't.
Not quite all of them, but yes, the vast majority of these customers should never have been allowed to sign up for branded Verizon service in the first place, as they live outside the native Verizon service area. Greed or incompetence allowed them to be erroneously signed up for service when they never should have been. So, the gravy train is over for them, they have to purchase service from the local native carrier.
There are a minute handful of customers, such as those who live in the Roaming Partners service area in Maine, where there is literally no other provider. That company was set up solely to provide roaming service to Verizon customers and there are no other options in that and couple other very small areas from what I understand. So, those customers get to stay. All in all, it looks like Verizon is doing the right thing here.
Every carrier has roaming limits, and will kick you off (or cut off your service) if you roam too much. This is nothing new, and is nothing specific to Verizon. It's easy to hate on them for a plethora of reasons, it just so happens that this isn't one of those reasons!
When is it ever not leftists trying to control what people put into their bodies under the guise that "it's for their own good".
At least when religious nutjob types rail against drugs and drink, they have a belief in their heart that they're trying to save you from some kind of hell. The leftists just like to control behavior, and you'd better do what they say or they'll kill you, not the smokes.
Cool! And when I hear someone brand someone else's opinions and/or beliefs as "delusional rantings", I know that their brainwashing has been completed and I can safely keep on walking down the street knowing that person has nothing of value to add other than the "party line", which I can easily obtain from Fox or CNN without having to play Chinese telephone on the Internet.
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth, it isn't mental gymnastics to figure out that the first step to that is reducing us to mere subjects. Why do you think they teach children in kindergarten to take cold showers and scold their parents for running air conditioning or brushing their teeth with the sink running? It's to dehumanize us and remove modern society's comforts from us.
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation" - Prince Philip, 1988
Is to go back to living in a cave like a hunter-gatherer while the Al Gore and the rest of the elites can reign over us on high like the Greek Gods from their Mount Olympus.
So instead of giving my information to the hackers that have breached Equifax's network, I get to hand it over the the hackers that have breached CloudFlare's network. Better or worse?
Looks like you're building a pipe bomb. Would you also like some acid to throw in white women's faces in case it doesn't go off? How about a fidget spinner in case both of your attacks fail?
I've never once, in 8 years of using iPhones across 6 carriers in multiple countries, ever seen this behavior. You may want to try to reset your network settings or try a factory reset of your iPhone if this is happening to you personally.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, Hillary, time for bed.
The Sinclair Broadcast Group doesn't own newspapers, you fuckwit.
FYI: Citing Salon is just as bad as citing Infowars or Breitbart, and doesn't help your credibility.
Yes, I think being celibate is bad for replication. By definition of replication and by definition of celibate. In fact, any activity which does NOT result in replication will not positively affect replication.
It doesn't matter. He has espoused the correct talking points, and is therefore "Insightful". We have no need to examine reality to see if it matches the fantasy.
I wouldn't say it's a reductionist understanding of evolution, or even just or survival of a given species. It just means that right now, today, it really doesn't matter.
Basing an understanding of this on the current state of the human race, October 2017, 50 percent of the population could be homosexual and it would hardly effect the survival of our species. Remove all modern scientific, technological and medical advances, say some global catastrophe hit us tomorrow and reduced the population of humans to tens of thousands, a 50% rate of homosexuality would absolutely be a negative effect on the species.
The low rate of homosexuality, however, of around roughly 2% that we generally see in humans probably wouldn't affect the chances of survival much, though. It would still have an effect however, albeit negligible, and I don't see how anyone can argue that someone who has an extremely low chance of reproducing can NOT impair rates of reproduction. It's like saying being drunk doesn't impair my ability to drive. Sure it does, by definition of what being drunk is.
Bees are a terrible fucking example.
Human females, unlike Queen bees, can't mate with 15-20 males over the course of a few days, taking in enough sperm to last 2-3 years and produce thousands of fertilized eggs a day until the sperm is exhausted, at which point she is killed by the worker bees because she is no longer useful (not able to reproduce generally equals not useful in nature) to the colony!
Look, I get that homosexuality isn't a socially unacceptable thing in society, nor do I think it should be. But from a biological standpoint, no one can say that it can scientifically be positively correlated to the replication of the species. Trying to do so just shows how strongly the agendas and propaganda has worked on you that you feel the need to go as far as using a false equivalence to try and disprove the "scientific certitude" in the GP's post and thereby proving your own delusions.
I am not a Netflix fan. Yet I pay $90/mo for access to the internet. Why? I get access to every node on the net. Places I regularly visit, tops, a few dozen. Why pay for peering to the others? Why am I subsidizing all my neighbors who want to stream video 24x7? Ala carte is suppressed by the ISPs, Why pay for peering overseas if I never request data from foreign servers? The single purpose services like Netflix and Hulu are also a losing proposition. And then there are nickel and dime fees, cable modem rental, static IP, costs $10 a month!
I could keep going. That was mostly in jest, but...
The reason I subscribe to cable is the same reason I subscribe to the internet. I want access to the content I want, when I want it. I'm not a "sports fan", but I watch sports, occasionally, usually just baseball during playoff season. Sure, ESPN costs me $5-10/mo. Is it really worth saving $100 a year to deal with the bullshit of ala carte? I don't want to have to deal with figuring out which package or service I need to subscribe to when I want to watch something on TV. What if family is visiting me and wants to watch MTV or Spike or whatever-the-hell channel they usually watch their shows on that I couldn't give a shit less about?
I don't doubt that the broadcast model may eventually collapse, but stories of its death are premature.
Why does everyone scream bloody murder to "pay only for what they watch" on linear TV, yet will piss and moan about Net Neutrality any time an ISP decides that they might be able to offer a package tailored to certain use cases? In this day and age, both cable TV and internet are consumer mediums. I prefer being able to access the full range of content on both mediums. I'd also like to be able to serve up my own content from my own server on my own internet connection, but we've already foregone that scenario-because the internet is Cable TV 2.0 now. So, really, what's the difference?
Just like no one was "forced" to use AT&T pre-Modification of Final Judgement.
Break them up. Google, Facebook, all of them. They all need to be busted into a million pieces.
Somebody allegedly buys a defective iPhone from a shady "online marketplace" and it's suddenly Stuff that Matters? Give me a break.
Let me know when a legitimate news source finds one exploding that was sourced directly from Apple.
Seriously?
All I hear every day is that it was the Russians on the internet brainwashing people into voting for Trump.
Now it was because they DON'T have internet and are being brainwashed by the evil "right-wing" talk radio.
You people will literally use ANY excuse to marginalize people who don't agree with you.
General Motors Co, Alphabet Inc, Ford Motor Co and others have lobbied for the landmark legislation.
Enough said to know where I should stand on this.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound in the current year?
It sounds like the 1700's!
I imagine this... "The Crown has already told the Colonies that they will not recognize their claim of independence. But sure, keep stirrin the pot, Mr. Washington-Jefferson-Franklin." Sickening.
Then again, I also forgot that if you care about "dead white guys" that makes you a racist in 2017.
I have all the (user configurable) privacy invading shit turned off, and my battery life on iOS 11 has been better so far than on 10.
Somehow I doubt Verizon cares who a customer voted for in the last Presidential election. Every carrier, every single one, besides Verizon has enforced roaming limits up until this point. Verizon has decided to start doing what every other cellular carrier does. The customers are unprofitable, as you said, and any company will fire unprofitable customers. It's a fact of life, no politics involved.
I'm old enough to remember that while expensive and stagnant, AT&T's wireline network was rock-solid. There were positive and negative aspects of the Modification of Final Judgement, which we could argue all night, but this is a little different. There are still 3 competitors for cellular service nationwide, and these rural users also have a local carrier to choose from in most cases.
I don't think breaking up the cell carriers does anyone any favors. Do you want to return to the days of driving to the next county over and being charged $1.49/min (or I guess these days, per MB) roaming airtime? I, for one, don't.
Not quite all of them, but yes, the vast majority of these customers should never have been allowed to sign up for branded Verizon service in the first place, as they live outside the native Verizon service area. Greed or incompetence allowed them to be erroneously signed up for service when they never should have been. So, the gravy train is over for them, they have to purchase service from the local native carrier.
There are a minute handful of customers, such as those who live in the Roaming Partners service area in Maine, where there is literally no other provider. That company was set up solely to provide roaming service to Verizon customers and there are no other options in that and couple other very small areas from what I understand. So, those customers get to stay. All in all, it looks like Verizon is doing the right thing here.
Every carrier has roaming limits, and will kick you off (or cut off your service) if you roam too much. This is nothing new, and is nothing specific to Verizon. It's easy to hate on them for a plethora of reasons, it just so happens that this isn't one of those reasons!
Should T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint also have their spectrum taken away because they kick people off for roaming too much?
Deutsche Telekom will remain the majority shareholder of the combined entity. T-Mobile is essentially buying Sprint.
Think before you speak.
When is it ever not leftists trying to control what people put into their bodies under the guise that "it's for their own good".
At least when religious nutjob types rail against drugs and drink, they have a belief in their heart that they're trying to save you from some kind of hell. The leftists just like to control behavior, and you'd better do what they say or they'll kill you, not the smokes.
Cool! And when I hear someone brand someone else's opinions and/or beliefs as "delusional rantings", I know that their brainwashing has been completed and I can safely keep on walking down the street knowing that person has nothing of value to add other than the "party line", which I can easily obtain from Fox or CNN without having to play Chinese telephone on the Internet.
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth, it isn't mental gymnastics to figure out that the first step to that is reducing us to mere subjects. Why do you think they teach children in kindergarten to take cold showers and scold their parents for running air conditioning or brushing their teeth with the sink running? It's to dehumanize us and remove modern society's comforts from us.
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation" - Prince Philip, 1988
That's what they think of you.
Is to go back to living in a cave like a hunter-gatherer while the Al Gore and the rest of the elites can reign over us on high like the Greek Gods from their Mount Olympus.
So instead of giving my information to the hackers that have breached Equifax's network, I get to hand it over the the hackers that have breached CloudFlare's network. Better or worse?
No network is secure.
Looks like you're building a pipe bomb. Would you also like some acid to throw in white women's faces in case it doesn't go off? How about a fidget spinner in case both of your attacks fail?
I've never once, in 8 years of using iPhones across 6 carriers in multiple countries, ever seen this behavior. You may want to try to reset your network settings or try a factory reset of your iPhone if this is happening to you personally.