As knives are essential to feed oneself, so equating them with different, singular-use weapons only reflects poorly on you, not those with whom you seem to disagree.
There you go again complaining about Muslims. You really are a tiny-minded, scared xenophobe. It sounds like you and your ilk would set these sensors off in a heart-beat, as you seem utterly scared of Muslims, of whom you seem to know next to nothing. You are pathetic.
Those people are ostracised because they're trying to force science one way or another instead of simply following the discoveries. That is not science, that's simply hoping to have your preconceived ideas proven correct.
Unless you can prove that all blue-eyed people have faster reaction times than all brown-eyed people, you'd still be better off just using a reaction time test. Which is what all of this boils down to - these proposed differences are merely that, and they overlap, can't be easily quantified, and require testing to ascertain on a person-to-person basis, which is the exact same outcome as we have now without this half-baked racist nonsense.
Global warming is only debatable if you choose to ignore scientific findings and declare the scientific method void of use. That's it. That's the only way it's debatable. If you want to ignore that and claim global warming is debatable, then fine - but don't expect anyone here to think of you as rational or knowledgeable about this field, as you have just demonstrated you are clearly neither.
Here's some help. It's not too hard to figure this stuff out, instead of just asking questions and expecting people to hand answers to you, while you act all indignant in the mean-time.
You're quite quick to label people. Coward? You have no idea what he was going through, or what his aims were or even are. You seem to be confusing your opinionated guesses with reality, and you seem to be doing it time and time again. It's like we're being allowed to view your personal soap opera playing out. It's terrifying.
There is a lot more on those drives than simply one big folder called "Internets". It will most likely have keys, configurations, software, information about network structure, logs, and anything else you might be able to think of. It's rather weird to assume they don't have anything on there.
The highways are already smart enough for autonomous cars - they use the same inputs as we do. The last hurdle will be handling insurance & liability stuff, and getting the sensor packages down to aesthetically-acceptable sizes & forms.
No, this is what happens when we have semi-autonomous cars. Google's cars work just fine with or without a driver, unlike the car in question. I know you like complaining about things/science/women, but at least read the summary before launching off, as it will prevent you from looking quite the idiot you are.
There was no political correctness in calling it a beverage can. Political correctness is an actual thing, not simply "someone using words I don't like", regardless of the common complaint.
I don't like greedy bankers any more than the next guy, but they paid back all their loans, netting the taxpayer over $1.3bn from just their $10bn TARP loan. If you want to draw attention to their crookery, highlighting the timely repaying of loans with interest is not the best way to do it.
Wikileaks asked for the US to redact the leaked information, but the US refused, so Wikileaks worked with the Guardian and other news agencies to redact what they deemed sensitive before releasing. You can just as well blame the US government for not simply helping out when the writing was on the wall.
You keep using words and phrases like "many", "a lot" and "minority" as if that carries any weight. All you've done is confuse your opinion with reality, and tried to prove a point with it. Weird. I can't even tell if you have a point or not, as you've entirely failed to qualify anything you're talking about.
After-school programs do sound better, but this is essential. The two are not mutually exclusive, and both would serve the community far greater than either on their own.
It's also woefully inefficient with its spending. Its treatments are comparable to many other countries, and in those other countries it's available to everyone without a bill needing to be settled afterwards. A medical system practically doesn't exist if you can't afford to use it.
In the US, maybe. In other countries, not so much. Did you never notice how the childish attitudes your politicians display are far above the levels displayed in other countries' politicians? Sure, some countries have political freak shows, but many others just get on with it - working with other parties for the good of the country.
Or it's filled with adults who realise that nationalisation is not theft. In your ridiculous tank/war example, you are asking a country to bet its future on a tank manufacturer not hiking his prices up 10,000% or suddenly saying he's for the other guy and not selling anything. That clearly is far too dangerous to risk, and so the government has to ensure that the supply is met, lest people start dying. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Also, in the west, when things are nationalised, the owners are compensated. That is part and parcel of nationalisation in the west at least. You really should read more, as you just thoroughly embarrassed yourself.
Buying more shares in a company is not stealing private property. The article states that officials are talking of increasing their stake in the company from 38% to 51%.
No, that study says that "a sample of college students in LA showed the black students had a ~15% higher level of testosterone". "Political correctness" simply means being accurate in what you say, so yes, it is "politically incorrect" to state that black people have ~15% higher testosterone after reading that paper, as that's not what it says. I know it's more work to try to be correct, but when you're more correct, you are more accurate, and everyone benefits.
Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.
It's actually a derogatory term for working-class white people from the south. I don't know why you are getting upset about this epithet when you are so quick to condemn women. Or are some forms of rampant discrimination OK but others are fine? It must be strange to live in your head.
Slashdot Mirror
As knives are essential to feed oneself, so equating them with different, singular-use weapons only reflects poorly on you, not those with whom you seem to disagree.
There you go again complaining about Muslims. You really are a tiny-minded, scared xenophobe. It sounds like you and your ilk would set these sensors off in a heart-beat, as you seem utterly scared of Muslims, of whom you seem to know next to nothing. You are pathetic.
Apart from the more accurate guns, sure :)
Those people are ostracised because they're trying to force science one way or another instead of simply following the discoveries. That is not science, that's simply hoping to have your preconceived ideas proven correct.
Unless you can prove that all blue-eyed people have faster reaction times than all brown-eyed people, you'd still be better off just using a reaction time test. Which is what all of this boils down to - these proposed differences are merely that, and they overlap, can't be easily quantified, and require testing to ascertain on a person-to-person basis, which is the exact same outcome as we have now without this half-baked racist nonsense.
Global warming is only debatable if you choose to ignore scientific findings and declare the scientific method void of use. That's it. That's the only way it's debatable. If you want to ignore that and claim global warming is debatable, then fine - but don't expect anyone here to think of you as rational or knowledgeable about this field, as you have just demonstrated you are clearly neither.
It amazes me that people like you exist.
Here's some help. It's not too hard to figure this stuff out, instead of just asking questions and expecting people to hand answers to you, while you act all indignant in the mean-time.
You're quite quick to label people. Coward? You have no idea what he was going through, or what his aims were or even are. You seem to be confusing your opinionated guesses with reality, and you seem to be doing it time and time again. It's like we're being allowed to view your personal soap opera playing out. It's terrifying.
The fact you think the US legal system is fine and dandy means you really don't know what you're talking about. It's a cruel joke.
There is a lot more on those drives than simply one big folder called "Internets". It will most likely have keys, configurations, software, information about network structure, logs, and anything else you might be able to think of. It's rather weird to assume they don't have anything on there.
The hyphen doesn't mean what you think it does. Stop getting all knee-jerky - it's making you look like the scared bigot you actually are.
The highways are already smart enough for autonomous cars - they use the same inputs as we do. The last hurdle will be handling insurance & liability stuff, and getting the sensor packages down to aesthetically-acceptable sizes & forms.
No, this is what happens when we have semi-autonomous cars. Google's cars work just fine with or without a driver, unlike the car in question. I know you like complaining about things/science/women, but at least read the summary before launching off, as it will prevent you from looking quite the idiot you are.
There was no political correctness in calling it a beverage can. Political correctness is an actual thing, not simply "someone using words I don't like", regardless of the common complaint.
I don't like greedy bankers any more than the next guy, but they paid back all their loans, netting the taxpayer over $1.3bn from just their $10bn TARP loan. If you want to draw attention to their crookery, highlighting the timely repaying of loans with interest is not the best way to do it.
Wikileaks asked for the US to redact the leaked information, but the US refused, so Wikileaks worked with the Guardian and other news agencies to redact what they deemed sensitive before releasing. You can just as well blame the US government for not simply helping out when the writing was on the wall.
You keep using words and phrases like "many", "a lot" and "minority" as if that carries any weight. All you've done is confuse your opinion with reality, and tried to prove a point with it. Weird. I can't even tell if you have a point or not, as you've entirely failed to qualify anything you're talking about.
After-school programs do sound better, but this is essential. The two are not mutually exclusive, and both would serve the community far greater than either on their own.
It's also woefully inefficient with its spending. Its treatments are comparable to many other countries, and in those other countries it's available to everyone without a bill needing to be settled afterwards. A medical system practically doesn't exist if you can't afford to use it.
In the US, maybe. In other countries, not so much. Did you never notice how the childish attitudes your politicians display are far above the levels displayed in other countries' politicians? Sure, some countries have political freak shows, but many others just get on with it - working with other parties for the good of the country.
Or it's filled with adults who realise that nationalisation is not theft. In your ridiculous tank/war example, you are asking a country to bet its future on a tank manufacturer not hiking his prices up 10,000% or suddenly saying he's for the other guy and not selling anything. That clearly is far too dangerous to risk, and so the government has to ensure that the supply is met, lest people start dying. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Also, in the west, when things are nationalised, the owners are compensated. That is part and parcel of nationalisation in the west at least. You really should read more, as you just thoroughly embarrassed yourself.
Buying more shares in a company is not stealing private property. The article states that officials are talking of increasing their stake in the company from 38% to 51%.
No, that study says that "a sample of college students in LA showed the black students had a ~15% higher level of testosterone". "Political correctness" simply means being accurate in what you say, so yes, it is "politically incorrect" to state that black people have ~15% higher testosterone after reading that paper, as that's not what it says. I know it's more work to try to be correct, but when you're more correct, you are more accurate, and everyone benefits.
If only it was as easy as your "women shouldn't be scientists" post you made that one time. Clearly you are an expert on these matters!
Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.
It's actually a derogatory term for working-class white people from the south. I don't know why you are getting upset about this epithet when you are so quick to condemn women. Or are some forms of rampant discrimination OK but others are fine? It must be strange to live in your head.