If you could manage to choke down your hurt pride, you'd realise he was talking about the normal detritus of modern development rather than actual trash. But I think you knew that, but needed something to make yourself feel better;)
The United Kingdom, perhaps, but you should see how old the countries of the British Isles are:) European history is deep. Really really deep. For example, the town I grew up in was inhabited for the last ~9,000 years. But whatever lets you sleep at night, I guess.
Your read really was quick if you didn't get to figure this out! Appeals cost money, the increased security of death row costs money. And lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money. The nonsense about re-offending is just that - nonsense. A whole-life sentence can more easily be created than a morally-justifiable death penalty, so to argue in favor of the latter by dismissing the former isn't particularly honest.
No it doesn't. In your head it might, but out here it doesn't. Not even close. I guess you'd have to claim it does, though, lest you have to admit you are arguing a morally-untenable position. You are the one avoiding hard truths by calling for the killing of people in custody (some of whom are innocent) for some fucked up reason.
Wait a minute - you are calling for those who cause enough pain and suffering in others to die, but you know that some of those who die will be innocent, which implies you have no problem condemning yourself to death. Either that or you are a hypocrite...
Well, until a criminal is found guilty he is presumed innocent, just as every law-abiding person. That means your last sentence is a contradiction in itself. You might want to work on your outrage, as it's clouding your logic.
You are saying it's fine to kill someone in your custody, who is already incapable of ever committing another crime against the general public. It's not first world childishness, it's being a logical, compassionate human being. Your argument boils down to one of hatred and fear, and it is not becoming.
It shows it's possible. No-one was expecting the early versions would magically appear fully-formed and ready for market... I mean, apart from you, it seems;)
Wow! With your half-thought-out idea you have overturned their entire field of research! Amazing! It's simply staggering that no-one thought of this before! Quick! To the rooftops!
Or, just maybe, they know more than you. I know, it's a concept you have difficulty accepting.
Just as many are gobsmacked by those who assume they know all there is to know about the issues surrounding global warming, and then use their stilted, malformed knowledge of the subject to condemn those who take a more rational, rigorous approach as being hoaxers or charlatans or whatever other pejorative springs limply to mind...
Ozone was a different problem, which has been largely alleviated by international action.
You really should brush up on your knowledge before proudly telling everyone just how little you know.
And practically impossible to re-start, as the majority of coal was created because tree-eating bacteria hadn't yet evolved. Clearly they have now, and so the cycle is not just unbalanced, but completely broken. It might be possible to create coal from peat bogs and the like, but that's nowhere near as easy or widespread as forests, clearly.
And when the tree dies? Or stops eating up as much CO2 as it did when it started growing? That's the problem with pithy one-line answers to complicated questions - they're usually wrong, and make the giver look rather foolish:)
We need something far better than trees to store CO2 simply because we produce so much of it.
But you've just dodged the question of why they are not interested, and accepted it as a fixed quality of being female, which is not only nonsensical, it's lazy and destined to ensure this discrepancy continues. It is harming them if they are put off a career in a STEM field by some easily-corrected nonsense. It also hurts the STEM fields as they don't have access to huge swathes of the potential workforce.
Movements are afoot in most of the fields where men are under-represented, and they do not get nearly as much criticism as schemes attempting to increase women in fields where they are under-represented, which should tell us something.
Because - as stated in the summary you just read - that's clearly not working. There is no biological reason for females to not perform as well in these subjects, and as they do not, the workforce is missing out on workers. Those missed workers are clearly a resource that the industry would love to have access to.
Sometimes to fight fire we use fire, just as sometimes to fight sexism, gender-specific measures are required to restore the balance. Sexism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive sexism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone. Taking a ridiculously black and white position is only going to further sexism.
I have no problem with it. It's fast, accurate, and does what I want. It works great on my desktops and my phone. I'm happy they've made it better, and I feel sorry for all the old gits on here screaming about garden trespassing.
You are assuming that the voices on Slashdot represents the entire Google Maps audience, which without further study is not a particularly rational thing to assume.
Slashdot Mirror
You are conveniently forgetting how much it costs to do it legally. How long it takes is not the most pressing matter.
So it's ahead of the rest of the world if you ignore those which are better? Brilliant logic!
If you could manage to choke down your hurt pride, you'd realise he was talking about the normal detritus of modern development rather than actual trash. But I think you knew that, but needed something to make yourself feel better ;)
You conveniently missed the part of his posting where he said archaeologically historical. He kind of has a point.
The United Kingdom, perhaps, but you should see how old the countries of the British Isles are :) European history is deep. Really really deep. For example, the town I grew up in was inhabited for the last ~9,000 years. But whatever lets you sleep at night, I guess.
You just showed everyone how proud you are of your ignorance. Ouch. How embarrassing.
Norway is not in the EU.
It's rather easy to argue that killing someone you have complete control over is murder, as there is simply no reason to do it apart from blood lust.
Your read really was quick if you didn't get to figure this out! Appeals cost money, the increased security of death row costs money. And lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money. The nonsense about re-offending is just that - nonsense. A whole-life sentence can more easily be created than a morally-justifiable death penalty, so to argue in favor of the latter by dismissing the former isn't particularly honest.
No it doesn't. In your head it might, but out here it doesn't. Not even close. I guess you'd have to claim it does, though, lest you have to admit you are arguing a morally-untenable position. You are the one avoiding hard truths by calling for the killing of people in custody (some of whom are innocent) for some fucked up reason.
Wait a minute - you are calling for those who cause enough pain and suffering in others to die, but you know that some of those who die will be innocent, which implies you have no problem condemning yourself to death. Either that or you are a hypocrite...
Well, until a criminal is found guilty he is presumed innocent, just as every law-abiding person. That means your last sentence is a contradiction in itself. You might want to work on your outrage, as it's clouding your logic.
You are saying it's fine to kill someone in your custody, who is already incapable of ever committing another crime against the general public. It's not first world childishness, it's being a logical, compassionate human being. Your argument boils down to one of hatred and fear, and it is not becoming.
It shows it's possible. No-one was expecting the early versions would magically appear fully-formed and ready for market... I mean, apart from you, it seems ;)
Wow! With your half-thought-out idea you have overturned their entire field of research! Amazing! It's simply staggering that no-one thought of this before! Quick! To the rooftops!
Or, just maybe, they know more than you. I know, it's a concept you have difficulty accepting.
Just as many are gobsmacked by those who assume they know all there is to know about the issues surrounding global warming, and then use their stilted, malformed knowledge of the subject to condemn those who take a more rational, rigorous approach as being hoaxers or charlatans or whatever other pejorative springs limply to mind...
Ozone was a different problem, which has been largely alleviated by international action.
You really should brush up on your knowledge before proudly telling everyone just how little you know.
And practically impossible to re-start, as the majority of coal was created because tree-eating bacteria hadn't yet evolved. Clearly they have now, and so the cycle is not just unbalanced, but completely broken. It might be possible to create coal from peat bogs and the like, but that's nowhere near as easy or widespread as forests, clearly.
And when the tree dies? Or stops eating up as much CO2 as it did when it started growing? That's the problem with pithy one-line answers to complicated questions - they're usually wrong, and make the giver look rather foolish :)
We need something far better than trees to store CO2 simply because we produce so much of it.
But you've just dodged the question of why they are not interested, and accepted it as a fixed quality of being female, which is not only nonsensical, it's lazy and destined to ensure this discrepancy continues. It is harming them if they are put off a career in a STEM field by some easily-corrected nonsense. It also hurts the STEM fields as they don't have access to huge swathes of the potential workforce.
Movements are afoot in most of the fields where men are under-represented, and they do not get nearly as much criticism as schemes attempting to increase women in fields where they are under-represented, which should tell us something.
Because - as stated in the summary you just read - that's clearly not working. There is no biological reason for females to not perform as well in these subjects, and as they do not, the workforce is missing out on workers. Those missed workers are clearly a resource that the industry would love to have access to.
Sometimes to fight fire we use fire, just as sometimes to fight sexism, gender-specific measures are required to restore the balance. Sexism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive sexism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone. Taking a ridiculously black and white position is only going to further sexism.
There is nothing remotely ironic about that... Is that you, Alanis?
I have no problem with it. It's fast, accurate, and does what I want. It works great on my desktops and my phone. I'm happy they've made it better, and I feel sorry for all the old gits on here screaming about garden trespassing.
You are assuming that the voices on Slashdot represents the entire Google Maps audience, which without further study is not a particularly rational thing to assume.
Well, you have now. I think it's great. It's fast, does just what I want, and has all the relevant information I'm looking for.