That is a massive amount of guesswork that any rational person would feel ashamed to vomit on the internet. If you can back it up with sources, that would be something different. The sheer number of generalisations you've made, seemingly based solely on the idea of sexism, is incredibly telling.
By "white knight" you seem to be meaning "non-sexist". It's weird you'd think that would be something to be ashamed of, but in light of your eagerness to throw around allegations of sexism and self-proclaimed omniscience of the business world, one could not really expect you to behave like a rational person.
Or we could just stick with the science, which has roundly demonstrated climate change, and pinned the cause on AGW. If people want to dissent and be taken seriously, they should publish papers in respected journals, as we as a society demand our scientists do. Giving equal time to people who are just spouting off nonsensical gut-feeling arguments or who are woefully ignorant of the data and the implications drawn therefrom, is only going to hurt us all.
You are the one apparently peddling nonsense. If you don't like the scientific method, stop using your computer now. You using it is hypocritical, if you are going to turn around and say the very method itself is intrinsically flawed. Either your computer works and there is indeed anthropogenic global warming, or your computer doesn't work and there isn't. You can't really have both.
epyT-R, I also seem to remember you making many utterly misogynistic posts in the past, such as "women shouldn't/can't be scientists" and so on, so it's not really surprising that you'd be complaining about people calling other people out for being narrow-minded and intellectually lazy. When you're being socially unjust, I guess people looking for social justice are your enemy, hence your tirades against them.
Calling something "social justice" does not immediately relegate it to obscurity. "Social justice" is just a term to mean "admit less-than-stellar behavior towards minorities or the underrepresented, and earnestly try to improve it". Unless you'd call Rosa Parks a SJW you really should stop trying to use terms like that pejoratively - it makes you look like a tiny-minded, scared child, who is worried their favorite toys aren't as awesome as they always thought, and lashes out at anyone who might point that out to them.
The initial corruption turned out to not exist, so it's no wonder it wasn't reported on. After that the hate-train was already at top speed and it was too late to stop it.
So instead of fixing the actual problems, such as poverty, the answer is to just fill the area with guns. You could try turning where you live into civilization, instead of just keeping the status quo. Where do you live, late-90s Mogadishu?
In the city where I live (not in the US, in a country with relatively few guns), there was a robbery involving guns. A policewoman was shot in the leg (and the robbers killed or caught). People still talk about it. That happened ~three years ago. It was so unusual, so unthinkable, that it sticks in peoples' minds. I can't imagine living in a place where that would be considered normal, expected behavior.
So yeah, I think filling society with guns then saying you need more guns to fix the problem of so many guns is pretty irrational, but then we don't have much crime, and certainly very little gun crime.
He was unarmed, in another country. Summary execution for crimes committed is something tyrants and despots do, not supposedly civilised governments.
You can reduce it to a pithy generalisation if you want, but that simply shows you can nor argue the actual facts of this one particular instance, where an unarmed man who easily could have been removed and taken for trial was simply shot on sight for no other reason other than vengeance.
Al Qaeda can be, or at least could have been (before the death of OBL), stopped by simply addressing their manifesto, and highlighting any actual cases of wrong-doing on the behalf of the countries/parties named, and dealing with them honestly and earnestly. If the manifesto is full of outright nonsense, the world can see that attempts were made and that the manifesto is indeed nonsense, gaining widespread support. If the manifesto has real points, then by addressing former wrong-doings (and making up for them by deed, promise, compensation, whatever), you cause them to want to disarm themselves, so they can go back to simply living.
Happy people don't wake up and decide to be a terrorist. It takes years of systematic abuses and the ignoring of issues. Once that's more than a generation, your work is really cut out for you.
Oh, and early Americans would just kill nearly everyone who remotely looked like the people who were causing them problems - it worked with the Indians, didn't it? Your appeal to nostalgia isn't doing you any favours.
Precisely - the UK figured out that it's much better to talk about the issues at hand, rather than to ignore them and simply try to brute-force the symptoms away. Earnest dialogue with the terrorists (or, preferably, their political factions) is the key to disarming them - if they have real grievances, address them (even if it means taking a big bite from a shit sandwich). If they are simply insane, you've just proven to the rest of the world that they are insane and you are righteous, which can only gain support. It also bears repeating that it's better for governments to engage in dialogues with concerned citizens than ignoring them and waiting for the citizens in question to take up arms. The UK knows this better than pretty much any other country out there, considering the length of the issue, the speed of progress, and just how recent it was. Countries which don't mercilessly screw over people don't get attacked by terrorists - weird, huh?
If the amount of guns was increased, the amount of lunatics with guns would also increase. That means you've just raised the chances of a bad situation occurring in the hope that when these now-more-common scenarios occur, they can be dealt with more easily by having untrained people firing guns off in public, doing what their complete-lack-of-training tells them is the right idea. Australia is of the mindset that the only people who should be firing guns off in public are those with sufficient training, frequent mental health screenings, and with medical, intelligence & logistical support.
Judging by their homicide rate compared to that of the US, it looks like Australia is on to something.
Or maybe, just maybe, because it's an easy language to use, and can be made to do some very useful things. But I guess you're right - all those retards working at massive companies using PHP to rake in millions must be truly idiotic.
To any truly impartial person it was a miscarriage - when someone is summarily executed without a trial, it's not a good thing. We value due process for a reason - when it is applied selectively, it might as well not exist.
Try living in a country which has actually been subjected to repeated terrorist attacks for decades, and see what the people there do. Hint: they carry on with their lives regardless of threats. You really do sound scared.
Are you joking, or are you really this obtuse? Bill Gates, for example, is one of many people concerned about this, and has talked at great length about uncontrolled population growth being bad for everything, not just the environment. It has nothing to do with racism - it has everything to do with you not paying attention to this particular field, and the discussions, studies, and findings which have come from it. That your mind instantly leaps to "racism" and guessing the motives of environmentalists is rather telling of how you see the world, and your place in it. Ouch.
Quick hint: The more developed a country, the lower the birthrate. To stop the population from exploding, the world should help less-developed countries develop. Access to education, healthcare, and security means population growth slows down massively.
Millions do prefer to drive, but (should automated driving become the only application of the road network) that does not stop the building of private roads/courses/race tracks for people who really like sitting in machines making "brrrm! brrrm!" noises while burning money through a tailpipe. Trying to call for an inherently dangerous and wasteful means of transportation because it happens to coincide with some people's notion of fun is ridiculously confused at best, and outright sociopathic at worst.
Wow - so you want to subject everyone to the risks of people driving because... wait for it... a straw-man ad hominem?? Brilliant work! You're so enlightened! Why aren't you running the world, what with your incredible insights and wonderful logical abilities?! WE NEED YOU!
People are not exactly "wackos" if they don't want pristine land to be ruined in some half-baked, short-sighted, last-gasp attempt to make the rest of the environment worse at the immediate expense of the land in question. The wildlife is just one part of the argument, which you should know if you feel knowledgeable enough to offer your two cents on this matter...
That's very true, but when a company starts making trash cans with superfluous 3 foot poles sticking out the sides which only fit in their cabinets, something's afoot.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a massive amount of guesswork that any rational person would feel ashamed to vomit on the internet. If you can back it up with sources, that would be something different. The sheer number of generalisations you've made, seemingly based solely on the idea of sexism, is incredibly telling.
By "white knight" you seem to be meaning "non-sexist". It's weird you'd think that would be something to be ashamed of, but in light of your eagerness to throw around allegations of sexism and self-proclaimed omniscience of the business world, one could not really expect you to behave like a rational person.
Or we could just stick with the science, which has roundly demonstrated climate change, and pinned the cause on AGW. If people want to dissent and be taken seriously, they should publish papers in respected journals, as we as a society demand our scientists do. Giving equal time to people who are just spouting off nonsensical gut-feeling arguments or who are woefully ignorant of the data and the implications drawn therefrom, is only going to hurt us all.
You are the one apparently peddling nonsense. If you don't like the scientific method, stop using your computer now. You using it is hypocritical, if you are going to turn around and say the very method itself is intrinsically flawed. Either your computer works and there is indeed anthropogenic global warming, or your computer doesn't work and there isn't. You can't really have both.
epyT-R, I also seem to remember you making many utterly misogynistic posts in the past, such as "women shouldn't/can't be scientists" and so on, so it's not really surprising that you'd be complaining about people calling other people out for being narrow-minded and intellectually lazy. When you're being socially unjust, I guess people looking for social justice are your enemy, hence your tirades against them.
Calling something "social justice" does not immediately relegate it to obscurity. "Social justice" is just a term to mean "admit less-than-stellar behavior towards minorities or the underrepresented, and earnestly try to improve it". Unless you'd call Rosa Parks a SJW you really should stop trying to use terms like that pejoratively - it makes you look like a tiny-minded, scared child, who is worried their favorite toys aren't as awesome as they always thought, and lashes out at anyone who might point that out to them.
The initial corruption turned out to not exist, so it's no wonder it wasn't reported on. After that the hate-train was already at top speed and it was too late to stop it.
So instead of fixing the actual problems, such as poverty, the answer is to just fill the area with guns. You could try turning where you live into civilization, instead of just keeping the status quo. Where do you live, late-90s Mogadishu?
In the city where I live (not in the US, in a country with relatively few guns), there was a robbery involving guns. A policewoman was shot in the leg (and the robbers killed or caught). People still talk about it. That happened ~three years ago. It was so unusual, so unthinkable, that it sticks in peoples' minds. I can't imagine living in a place where that would be considered normal, expected behavior.
So yeah, I think filling society with guns then saying you need more guns to fix the problem of so many guns is pretty irrational, but then we don't have much crime, and certainly very little gun crime.
They most certainly are - it's very hard to shoot someone without a gun, and very difficult to shoot someone if you only have a knife.
Of course. Maybe not where you live, but in a great many parts of the world public transport is excellent.
He was unarmed, in another country. Summary execution for crimes committed is something tyrants and despots do, not supposedly civilised governments.
You can reduce it to a pithy generalisation if you want, but that simply shows you can nor argue the actual facts of this one particular instance, where an unarmed man who easily could have been removed and taken for trial was simply shot on sight for no other reason other than vengeance.
Sehr gut, aber:
Native speakers can make those mistakes, too, so don't feel downhearted :)
Al Qaeda can be, or at least could have been (before the death of OBL), stopped by simply addressing their manifesto, and highlighting any actual cases of wrong-doing on the behalf of the countries/parties named, and dealing with them honestly and earnestly. If the manifesto is full of outright nonsense, the world can see that attempts were made and that the manifesto is indeed nonsense, gaining widespread support. If the manifesto has real points, then by addressing former wrong-doings (and making up for them by deed, promise, compensation, whatever), you cause them to want to disarm themselves, so they can go back to simply living.
Happy people don't wake up and decide to be a terrorist. It takes years of systematic abuses and the ignoring of issues. Once that's more than a generation, your work is really cut out for you.
Oh, and early Americans would just kill nearly everyone who remotely looked like the people who were causing them problems - it worked with the Indians, didn't it? Your appeal to nostalgia isn't doing you any favours.
Precisely - the UK figured out that it's much better to talk about the issues at hand, rather than to ignore them and simply try to brute-force the symptoms away. Earnest dialogue with the terrorists (or, preferably, their political factions) is the key to disarming them - if they have real grievances, address them (even if it means taking a big bite from a shit sandwich). If they are simply insane, you've just proven to the rest of the world that they are insane and you are righteous, which can only gain support. It also bears repeating that it's better for governments to engage in dialogues with concerned citizens than ignoring them and waiting for the citizens in question to take up arms. The UK knows this better than pretty much any other country out there, considering the length of the issue, the speed of progress, and just how recent it was. Countries which don't mercilessly screw over people don't get attacked by terrorists - weird, huh?
If the amount of guns was increased, the amount of lunatics with guns would also increase. That means you've just raised the chances of a bad situation occurring in the hope that when these now-more-common scenarios occur, they can be dealt with more easily by having untrained people firing guns off in public, doing what their complete-lack-of-training tells them is the right idea. Australia is of the mindset that the only people who should be firing guns off in public are those with sufficient training, frequent mental health screenings, and with medical, intelligence & logistical support.
Judging by their homicide rate compared to that of the US, it looks like Australia is on to something.
Not great, but for the hundreds of times it didn't happen because guns are so hard to get, it worked brilliantly. Logic - try some.
Or maybe, just maybe, because it's an easy language to use, and can be made to do some very useful things. But I guess you're right - all those retards working at massive companies using PHP to rake in millions must be truly idiotic.
So make your own CA, create certificates using that, and trust the CA on the devices on your network. Problem solved: No warnings.
So the US forces did create the vacuum by removing Saddam's army and then leaving.
To any truly impartial person it was a miscarriage - when someone is summarily executed without a trial, it's not a good thing. We value due process for a reason - when it is applied selectively, it might as well not exist.
Try living in a country which has actually been subjected to repeated terrorist attacks for decades, and see what the people there do. Hint: they carry on with their lives regardless of threats. You really do sound scared.
Are you joking, or are you really this obtuse? Bill Gates, for example, is one of many people concerned about this, and has talked at great length about uncontrolled population growth being bad for everything, not just the environment. It has nothing to do with racism - it has everything to do with you not paying attention to this particular field, and the discussions, studies, and findings which have come from it. That your mind instantly leaps to "racism" and guessing the motives of environmentalists is rather telling of how you see the world, and your place in it. Ouch.
Quick hint: The more developed a country, the lower the birthrate. To stop the population from exploding, the world should help less-developed countries develop. Access to education, healthcare, and security means population growth slows down massively.
Millions do prefer to drive, but (should automated driving become the only application of the road network) that does not stop the building of private roads/courses/race tracks for people who really like sitting in machines making "brrrm! brrrm!" noises while burning money through a tailpipe. Trying to call for an inherently dangerous and wasteful means of transportation because it happens to coincide with some people's notion of fun is ridiculously confused at best, and outright sociopathic at worst.
Wow - so you want to subject everyone to the risks of people driving because ... wait for it ... a straw-man ad hominem?? Brilliant work! You're so enlightened! Why aren't you running the world, what with your incredible insights and wonderful logical abilities?! WE NEED YOU!
People are not exactly "wackos" if they don't want pristine land to be ruined in some half-baked, short-sighted, last-gasp attempt to make the rest of the environment worse at the immediate expense of the land in question. The wildlife is just one part of the argument, which you should know if you feel knowledgeable enough to offer your two cents on this matter...
That's very true, but when a company starts making trash cans with superfluous 3 foot poles sticking out the sides which only fit in their cabinets, something's afoot.