The man simply doesn't understand the need for conflict in a plot. If you have a movie about a super computer, there needs to be something to work against. The computer takes over or fails spectacularly. This in no way indicates that this is society's view of computers.
You might want to check out the stock holdings of Buffet and all the very rich enviro brigade. When the tire hits the road, they won't sacrifice their money either.
Makes no money for the propertied class? Look at the standard of living now and in the past. *That* is making money. Your politics is making you myopic.
Nope. I search for the category and then read the reviews. Ads don't enter into it. Over the (many) years, I've developed the ability to not only ignore them if I want, but if they're obnoxious, instill antipathy towards their product. This is probably why they don't work all that well. They have basically no information and they're annoying.
Studies involving a small (82), biased (coeds) number of college students who were primed (required to watch) are not science. "The conclusion was simple". As is anyone believing said conclusion.
Yet another case of a prior conclusion being reached by a fabricated "study". Groundwork for controlling people's diets.
Hate speech itself is the problem because it's defined so loosely that virtually anything that pings on someone's nerve is called hate speech whether it be directed and hostile language or simply a difference of opinion.
I have to agree with the other commenter. You're no one special that can guarantee with absolute certainty that no personal agenda would be carried out. And actually, "hate speech" is many times used as a political cover. A very common tactic of the SJW. What you define as hate speech I may not and vice versa.
This subthread is really about eating their own species. Chimps have been observed doing so and it's common knowledge that lions will kill and eat offspring that isn't theirs. Just killed (wah) your first two points.
But to continue: wolves will, polar bears have been photographed doing so and brown bears will. We've now covered four main groups of large land mammals.
It is very common in fish, most all carnivorous insects will and has been mentioned, birds will, although it's usually the squab that gets it.
To quote wikipedia "Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species." In other words, many species absolutely will kill/eat their own.
Presumption, and a bad one. First, we're not 'wasting' half of humanity's brain power. You couldn't prove that if you tried. Second, we *are* trying - hard. Workshops, conventions, awards, grants, etc, etc, etc. They're not interested. You said so yourself.
If self-selection directs the most competent and driven into a finite number of jobs, that is the best solution. If we pressure the hiring of those less so, that is an inferior solution.
As for nurses not changing the world, I present Florence.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic doesn't track. People enjoy a good murder mystery, yet murders are actually uncommon.
Hence the millions of people following fad "scientific" diets.
Then it would be a movie about the problem, not the computer. I did say "If you have a movie about a super computer".
Thank you for agreeing with me.
BIcentennial Man. Short Circuit. Iron Giant. Aliens. Star Trek. Transformers. I was addressing his myopia.
Ideology kills and oppresses; no religion needed either.
The man simply doesn't understand the need for conflict in a plot. If you have a movie about a super computer, there needs to be something to work against. The computer takes over or fails spectacularly. This in no way indicates that this is society's view of computers.
You might want to check out the stock holdings of Buffet and all the very rich enviro brigade. When the tire hits the road, they won't sacrifice their money either.
And your idea for containing a sun and capturing it's output is what? It's the "adopting" part you seem to have ignored.
Explain the Carboniferous. Our CO2 levels are only now matching the Permian. Everywhere else in the time line was higher to much higher.
"a) it is possible" No it is not. That money has to come from someone.
Makes no money for the propertied class? Look at the standard of living now and in the past. *That* is making money. Your politics is making you myopic.
No one is guaranteed an income. Not in science, tech, biology, whatever. If there's too many, there's too many.
Nope. I search for the category and then read the reviews. Ads don't enter into it. Over the (many) years, I've developed the ability to not only ignore them if I want, but if they're obnoxious, instill antipathy towards their product. This is probably why they don't work all that well. They have basically no information and they're annoying.
Then it's not grading, is it? It's fraud detection. Not at all the same thing.
True, although somewhat of a non sequitur.
And you should read the book "the complexity of the human mind".
Studies involving a small (82), biased (coeds) number of college students who were primed (required to watch) are not science. "The conclusion was simple". As is anyone believing said conclusion.
Yet another case of a prior conclusion being reached by a fabricated "study". Groundwork for controlling people's diets.
Hate speech itself is the problem because it's defined so loosely that virtually anything that pings on someone's nerve is called hate speech whether it be directed and hostile language or simply a difference of opinion.
I have to agree with the other commenter. You're no one special that can guarantee with absolute certainty that no personal agenda would be carried out. And actually, "hate speech" is many times used as a political cover. A very common tactic of the SJW. What you define as hate speech I may not and vice versa.
Done. The words of someone unwilling to stand behind their words have been marked, AC.
LOL No, he was despised for what he did.
Plenty. And both species are perfectly capable of killing you. Pigs with a vengeance.
This subthread is really about eating their own species. Chimps have been observed doing so and it's common knowledge that lions will kill and eat offspring that isn't theirs. Just killed (wah) your first two points.
But to continue: wolves will, polar bears have been photographed doing so and brown bears will. We've now covered four main groups of large land mammals.
It is very common in fish, most all carnivorous insects will and has been mentioned, birds will, although it's usually the squab that gets it.
To quote wikipedia "Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species." In other words, many species absolutely will kill/eat their own.
Presumption, and a bad one. First, we're not 'wasting' half of humanity's brain power. You couldn't prove that if you tried. Second, we *are* trying - hard. Workshops, conventions, awards, grants, etc, etc, etc. They're not interested. You said so yourself.
If self-selection directs the most competent and driven into a finite number of jobs, that is the best solution. If we pressure the hiring of those less so, that is an inferior solution.
As for nurses not changing the world, I present Florence.