They are doing something productive about it, but people like you refuse to understand (or are incapable of understanding) it. Yes, life is sometimes unfair, but when it's systematically unfair because of one's genetic lottery ticket, and to such a large proportion of the world, it's worth addressing. The fact you seem to be claiming that guys don't complain about sexism against men (in a sentence which is doing just that) hints that your argument is not born from evidence, but some knee-jerk reaction you've concocted all on your own because of some fear you have about women. Weird, huh?
Why should they assimilate? It's not as if the US has a great deal going for it culturally. It also doesn't help they've moved to a part of the world that used to belong to their country not too long ago. Your arguments sound like those of a scared child lashing out at things that upset it.
Lots of people in Europe simply don't have cars because they can use the train. From my 7+ year experience of German trains, they are not unpredictable, and the connections are well thought out, including your train ticket being valid for the destination city's public transport for a few euros more. The train tickets do not cost several times that of a flight, and frequently the routes travelled are not served by flights anyway.
I don't know where you got your information, but it seems highly suspect, and at least has been countered by my own experiences, rendering your post entirely moot.
No, they have trains between cities, which happen to go through some sparsely-populated areas. We all know the US is a large place, but it has some areas of high population density where sane public transport would work fine. There really is no excuse beyond "[some] Americans don't want it".
There might be relatively small numbers of those, but then they interact with others who benefit, and then others interact with those who also benefit, etc. etc. Pretending there's some arbitrary number of separations before it ceases to matter, it's not really helping the discussion. That's not how benefits such as these work.
You can keep your sooth-saying, too, as that's also entirely not helpful to the discussion. Living in continental Europe, your comments about "general reduction in flexibility" and "much higher ticket prices" are laughably nonsensical to me. When prices are higher (which is not always the case when compared to the UK), the service is far better. Flexibility is also insanely present - the system of running inter-town/city trams on surface streets, coupled with high-speed long-distance trains means travel is a breeze, and about as flexible as you can get. No car needed for any part of the journey.
You acknowledge indirect benefits exist, then ignore them entirely when attempting to gauge the situation (no pun intended)... That's not particularly helpful.
Environmentally it is usually a great big win as that's about as efficient as mass transportation gets - if you would actually explain your logic instead of trailing off about Cambridge or some problem with a specific implementation of HSR not shared by other examples, you'd make a much more interesting argument.
She's only been accused of being a domestic abuser and all that other stuff. "Innocent until proven guilty" and all that, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're attacking a woman. If you're not a misogynist, you have some sort of weird fetish relating to this one woman, which is causing you to act completely irrationally when working out what she has and hasn't done. Either way you're not being rational, and as such your opinion (which is all you've proffered) means absolutely squat.
One side wants to address the sexism in the gaming industry
The other side harasses women for simply being women, and makes up all kinds of excuses as to why they're harassing these women, even though their evidence is strangely missing.
The calls of sexism are valid, and if you can't see that, you really are part of the problem.
Are you seriously advocating having people shooting guns into the airspace around an airport? Regulating and banning is a great way to deal with this, as it allows sensible use, and any breaches will be dealt with severely. It removes the doubt over whether someone is doing something "bad" or not, and carries the weight of the law. I doubt people are going to go joy-flying their drones anywhere near as much if they know there'll be a rather large fine should they fly them irresponsibly. Flying a drone in an unsafe manner is not a crime of passion.
That's a strange definition of "walled garden" - network crapware? True you can't uninstall some of it, but you're still free to install whatever you want, and from non-Google stores with absolutely no effort what-so-ever... Hell, some of those devices don't even come with Google Play installed by default, so if it is a walled garden, those devices aren't even in it.
And complaining that people have a choice in what level phone they want? Jesus.
Users don't necessarily want the same clicks, as you yourself pondered. It's far easier for them to figure out which clicks work best for them, and then what variations of those work best in different situations. Just like glasses are different for everyone (who needs them), the clicks would be different too. From what I've seen, yes, different clicks are more useful in different circumstances, more so than just "indoor clicks" and "outdoor clicks".
You are the poster child for pseudoscepticism. If you actually read the relevant reports and papers, you'd not sound so utterly ridiculous. You're like Glenn Beck - pretending to be concerned when really you've already made your mind up and you're simply trying to excuse that by asking questions that have already been answered, and ignoring the answers. I understand that you don't want to change anything, and that you feel guilty for wasting far more energy than most of the civilized world's population, and that attacking climate science is an easy way to feel better, but it doesn't excuse your intellectual laziness or childish attempts to sound interested in evidence when you clearly don't give a damn. Either you are right, or the vast, vast majority of climate scientists are right. I know which one is far more likely, and you do too, yet here you are.
Not all plants thrive with higher CO2, especially when the CO2 causes increases in temperature at the plant's location which allows pests to attack it.
You can educate yourself here so you stop making yourself look quite so foolish. Fat chance, right?
Adding guns will increase the number of shootings, too, don't forget.
People don't walk into police stations because they're not forced to go there every day for years of their lives, enduring (perceived or actual) abuse from fellow pupils and teachers, constantly being bombarded with the notion that what they're doing is the most important thing they'll ever have to do, coupled with endless disappointment and torment. That's why. Some kids really, really, really hate school, and for good reason. Ignore those kids and let them be near guns, and you get this. The rational thing to do would be to see why kids hate school so much. It's not just because they're mentally ill, but because schools are toxic. That causes less-than-stable kids to go over the edge. Throw in some guns and voilÃ...
Armed teenagers? Really? Listen to yourself. Please. It's sad.
Or maybe the person with the gun was until yesterday a "good guy", had some sort of episode, and is now the "bad guy"... You do realise that all these bad guys were once good guys, right?
Easy: If the person wishing to own a gun can demonstrate they have a good reason (work, sport, hunting, collecting, etc.) and not "I'm scared!", and can demonstrate that their guns will be stored securely, then they can have a gun. That's what more sane countries do, and they're reaping the benefits. Blaming this because the US is so big is a pathetic attempt to hand-waive away the issue. It's the same nonsensical argument people put up when discussing why internet access and health insurance are so terrible in the US as well, and as long as people make such stupid arguments, the US will continue to suffer.
If knives are just as dangerous as guns, why do people bother to use guns anyway? Why do cops have guns and not knives? Clearly knives are far less lethal than guns, hence guns existing and being used. As we've seen from knife attacks in schools (notable in China), knife attacks are far less lethal, and the attacker is far easier to subdue.
The difference being the women are attacked because they are women, and the guys are being attacked because they're assholes. If you can't see the difference, you are part of the problem.
That has nothing to do with political correctness, and the fact you think it does says more about your perverse idea of what political correctness is, than anything else. You really should read more.
Slashdot Mirror
They are doing something productive about it, but people like you refuse to understand (or are incapable of understanding) it. Yes, life is sometimes unfair, but when it's systematically unfair because of one's genetic lottery ticket, and to such a large proportion of the world, it's worth addressing. The fact you seem to be claiming that guys don't complain about sexism against men (in a sentence which is doing just that) hints that your argument is not born from evidence, but some knee-jerk reaction you've concocted all on your own because of some fear you have about women. Weird, huh?
Why should they assimilate? It's not as if the US has a great deal going for it culturally. It also doesn't help they've moved to a part of the world that used to belong to their country not too long ago. Your arguments sound like those of a scared child lashing out at things that upset it.
Lots of people in Europe simply don't have cars because they can use the train. From my 7+ year experience of German trains, they are not unpredictable, and the connections are well thought out, including your train ticket being valid for the destination city's public transport for a few euros more. The train tickets do not cost several times that of a flight, and frequently the routes travelled are not served by flights anyway.
I don't know where you got your information, but it seems highly suspect, and at least has been countered by my own experiences, rendering your post entirely moot.
No, they have trains between cities, which happen to go through some sparsely-populated areas. We all know the US is a large place, but it has some areas of high population density where sane public transport would work fine. There really is no excuse beyond "[some] Americans don't want it".
There might be relatively small numbers of those, but then they interact with others who benefit, and then others interact with those who also benefit, etc. etc. Pretending there's some arbitrary number of separations before it ceases to matter, it's not really helping the discussion. That's not how benefits such as these work.
You can keep your sooth-saying, too, as that's also entirely not helpful to the discussion. Living in continental Europe, your comments about "general reduction in flexibility" and "much higher ticket prices" are laughably nonsensical to me. When prices are higher (which is not always the case when compared to the UK), the service is far better. Flexibility is also insanely present - the system of running inter-town/city trams on surface streets, coupled with high-speed long-distance trains means travel is a breeze, and about as flexible as you can get. No car needed for any part of the journey.
You acknowledge indirect benefits exist, then ignore them entirely when attempting to gauge the situation (no pun intended)... That's not particularly helpful.
Environmentally it is usually a great big win as that's about as efficient as mass transportation gets - if you would actually explain your logic instead of trailing off about Cambridge or some problem with a specific implementation of HSR not shared by other examples, you'd make a much more interesting argument.
She's only been accused of being a domestic abuser and all that other stuff. "Innocent until proven guilty" and all that, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're attacking a woman. If you're not a misogynist, you have some sort of weird fetish relating to this one woman, which is causing you to act completely irrationally when working out what she has and hasn't done. Either way you're not being rational, and as such your opinion (which is all you've proffered) means absolutely squat.
You seem to not understand.
One side wants to address the sexism in the gaming industry
The other side harasses women for simply being women, and makes up all kinds of excuses as to why they're harassing these women, even though their evidence is strangely missing.
The calls of sexism are valid, and if you can't see that, you really are part of the problem.
Are you seriously advocating having people shooting guns into the airspace around an airport? Regulating and banning is a great way to deal with this, as it allows sensible use, and any breaches will be dealt with severely. It removes the doubt over whether someone is doing something "bad" or not, and carries the weight of the law. I doubt people are going to go joy-flying their drones anywhere near as much if they know there'll be a rather large fine should they fly them irresponsibly. Flying a drone in an unsafe manner is not a crime of passion.
Apart from all the privacy features, you are absolutely right!
That's a strange definition of "walled garden" - network crapware? True you can't uninstall some of it, but you're still free to install whatever you want, and from non-Google stores with absolutely no effort what-so-ever... Hell, some of those devices don't even come with Google Play installed by default, so if it is a walled garden, those devices aren't even in it.
And complaining that people have a choice in what level phone they want? Jesus.
Users don't necessarily want the same clicks, as you yourself pondered. It's far easier for them to figure out which clicks work best for them, and then what variations of those work best in different situations. Just like glasses are different for everyone (who needs them), the clicks would be different too. From what I've seen, yes, different clicks are more useful in different circumstances, more so than just "indoor clicks" and "outdoor clicks".
You are the poster child for pseudoscepticism. If you actually read the relevant reports and papers, you'd not sound so utterly ridiculous. You're like Glenn Beck - pretending to be concerned when really you've already made your mind up and you're simply trying to excuse that by asking questions that have already been answered, and ignoring the answers. I understand that you don't want to change anything, and that you feel guilty for wasting far more energy than most of the civilized world's population, and that attacking climate science is an easy way to feel better, but it doesn't excuse your intellectual laziness or childish attempts to sound interested in evidence when you clearly don't give a damn. Either you are right, or the vast, vast majority of climate scientists are right. I know which one is far more likely, and you do too, yet here you are.
The Chinese government is taking it seriously, however, so your point is rather moot at best.
Plus, it's "who" not "whom". If in doubt, use "who", so you don't look like someone trying to be more literate than they are.
Not all plants thrive with higher CO2, especially when the CO2 causes increases in temperature at the plant's location which allows pests to attack it.
You can educate yourself here so you stop making yourself look quite so foolish. Fat chance, right?
Adding guns will increase the number of shootings, too, don't forget.
People don't walk into police stations because they're not forced to go there every day for years of their lives, enduring (perceived or actual) abuse from fellow pupils and teachers, constantly being bombarded with the notion that what they're doing is the most important thing they'll ever have to do, coupled with endless disappointment and torment. That's why. Some kids really, really, really hate school, and for good reason. Ignore those kids and let them be near guns, and you get this. The rational thing to do would be to see why kids hate school so much. It's not just because they're mentally ill, but because schools are toxic. That causes less-than-stable kids to go over the edge. Throw in some guns and voilÃ...
Armed teenagers? Really? Listen to yourself. Please. It's sad.
And every child shooting involves a child! We must ban children immediately for the sake of the... wait...
Correlation != causation. You sound ridiculous.
Or maybe the person with the gun was until yesterday a "good guy", had some sort of episode, and is now the "bad guy"... You do realise that all these bad guys were once good guys, right?
Easy: If the person wishing to own a gun can demonstrate they have a good reason (work, sport, hunting, collecting, etc.) and not "I'm scared!", and can demonstrate that their guns will be stored securely, then they can have a gun. That's what more sane countries do, and they're reaping the benefits. Blaming this because the US is so big is a pathetic attempt to hand-waive away the issue. It's the same nonsensical argument people put up when discussing why internet access and health insurance are so terrible in the US as well, and as long as people make such stupid arguments, the US will continue to suffer.
If knives are just as dangerous as guns, why do people bother to use guns anyway? Why do cops have guns and not knives? Clearly knives are far less lethal than guns, hence guns existing and being used. As we've seen from knife attacks in schools (notable in China), knife attacks are far less lethal, and the attacker is far easier to subdue.
Where were those weapons stolen? Unless the answer is another country, then purchases are indeed a problem.
That's an awful lot of guesswork for a rational person... Stick to the facts and people might not think of you as a kook.
If by "some" you mean "no", then yes, your point still stands to some extent.
The difference being the women are attacked because they are women, and the guys are being attacked because they're assholes. If you can't see the difference, you are part of the problem.
That has nothing to do with political correctness, and the fact you think it does says more about your perverse idea of what political correctness is, than anything else. You really should read more.