Same goes for private institutions. It is a classic problem to distinguish the successful people from the successful climbers. My experience of management is -- it is a crap shoot if they actually know something about your job. It really helps to work with someone who understands your job, esp. in IT.
and how many torture and damage their bodies to fit into that archetype?
I too will be relieved if this part of the fashion industry dies. However, the female obsession with thinness is only indirectly related to the fashion industry. Beauty is part of female social hierarchies. Women will/always/ create beauty standards to discriminate high-status and low-status women. It is the human condition. (This is something that feminists refused to acknowledge exists.)
And status-anxiety is just a form of suffering.
So -- removing pictures of women from magazines simply treats the symptom, but not the cause.
I am *so* disappointed with the comments in this thread. Have you confused pornography with fashion?
While I believe that feminists are externalising the female obsession with beauty (society made me miserable!), comments like yours are even more baffling.
Fact: Women like to be beautiful -- it is interwoven into female social hierarchies.
Fact: Fashion is made for female consumption -- by an order of magnitude.
Fact: Women almost always dislike being sexualised.
If a woman drops her stuff in front of a camera, then I believe it is fine to sexualise her at that moment. But the minute she steps out of that context -- well your brain should step out of that context too. And fashion has *NOTHING* to do with pornography.
The strain already killed as many people as possible. What was changed allowed it to be contagious. The virus could easily develop this mutation a person is infected with both H5N1 and human flu at the same time.
Reading forbes for information on the climate science debate is like reading the christian monitor for information on evolution. They really are the same thing. Think-tank driven reporting, which cares only about staying on message.
The linked scientific article puts the climate sensitivity within the error bars of the most recent estimates, but then reduces the error bars to collapse around the new figure more closely.
There really isn't anything to see here. This is only one study, and, according to the study, AGW is still happening. It will just take a decade or two more to see the effects -- be it predicts that we/will/ see effects.
that which puts me and my children in danger- not getting vaccinated, is not a natural freedom.
You are not free to choose murdering your neighbour. Presumably you think that is perfectly reasonable. So... what freedoms do you want? You/could/ kill your neighbour if you do not get vaccinated, and they rely on herd immunity. Do you want the freedom to do that?
lol!!!!!!! you are too funny =0 =0 =0. Perhaps you should move to Somalia, where the government doesn't tell anybody what the fuck to do. If you have enough money, you can buy some guns, and shit on any street you want! Completely legit opportunity for you there.
Since the development of civilization some 5000 years ago there hasn't been an evolutionary process for homo sapiens.
Interestingly, this is not true according to the introduction to the second edition of "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker. I don't have to book handy to reference the relevant scientific papers, but I am sure you can find it if you wanted to.
That's not what 'rational' means: you can be rational without being altruistic or wanting to maximise the common good.
Only if said rational agent is too stupid to notice that they are part of a society. Altruistic behaviour/is/ rational behaviour, and the sooner you work that out, the sooner people will stop screwing you over or avoiding you.
No, he used the word fascist spot on. The far-right are the type of suspicious nationalist bigots that would have thrived in Nazi Germany. Scream outrage all you want. Don't care.
Australia as a semi public/private system that is light-years ahead of the USA on multiple measures. The total cost is way less than half what the US pays per capita, and the health outcomes are better. Furthermore, if you're rich, you can get your weekly anal flush, or whatever you want.
1000s of scientists (true individualists), 20 years, and 1 resignation.
The issues Landsea raised were public, and relatively minor in the total body of the work. The issues were not ignored, and the wording on hurricane activity was changed after the Landsea incident.
Using this as proof that the IPCC is "wrong" is pathetic.
The "oil companies" have also been engaged in a denialists disinformation campaign. The conspiracy is actually larger than just Exxon; however, and includes a powerful block of neoliberal elites. There is a history book called "Merchants of Doubt" that shows the paper trail quite clearly.
Are your really that naive? The oil industry has acted so brazenly in its disinformation campaign, and funding of astroturf and denialist "research". The paper trail is there for everyone to see. "Merchants of Doubt" is a recent history book the chronicles just how perfectly the wool has been pulled over your eyes -- in plain sight!
There's something interesting about the human condition there -- and you are being played by people who understand you better then you know yourself. Of course, this just makes you mad, and you want to say that *I* am the one who doesn't understand. This is called projection.
There is something interesting about the human condition there.
I was pretty appalled by the lack of scientific literacy on slashdot too. It is amazing the people read Andy Watts' blog, link to it, and think that that has even remotely the credibility of then 1000s of scientists. That the scientific opposition consists of a few cranks, mostly not trained in climate science, and a sincere guy who is starting to reaffirm the consensus conclusions.
If 30% of slashdotters are really that stupid, then we really should prayer for intelligent life out in space, because there's bugger all down here on slashdot
You can even go the Australia route and simply give back the money to the people affected by higher energy prices.
I agree with you, but there is something sadly funny about what happened in Australia. The conservatives screamed about big government taxes, even though the carbon-tax was revenue neutral,/AND/, a perfect example of a neoliberal solution to a problem.
It seems to me that we are dealing with pure bloody minded political hatred. In my opinion, it is time that we cut these people out of the political conversation. Let them scream. We don't have to listen.
Talk about shifting the goal posts. A single guy isn't going to be able to replicate 100 years of research by 1000s of people. Even if he did, I am sure you'd just think he was stupid or something.
Nothing will ever convince someone in denial. They will find the most bizarre interpretations of events to comfort their prejudices. The best thing to do is: A) laugh, B) shout, C) point and laugh and shout.
a distinct defensiveness in any case where the data was being questioned, and a tendency to reach for the tinfoil hat about some sort of conspiracy of people working to discredit them
But there is a conspiracy to muddy the waters. The oil lobby has acted so brazenly that it is amazing that more people do not talk about it. Read "Merchants of Doubt" if you want the sordid history. You may feel sick afterwards. If you live in bizzaro-Fox-world, then you will not even be able to read it -- such is the effects of cognitive dissonance.
CO2 emitted by every creature does the same. There is no living being on this planet that does not affect the climate around it.
It is a matter of degree. For example, you being alive is currently speeding up the end of the universe, because you are wasting entropy.
Problem is we have so little understanding of how the earth reacts to these changes over time.
Not a problem at all. We understand VERY WELL what is happening an the IPCC predictions are very CONSERVATIVE with well established and agreed upon error bars. Just because YOU don't have a clue doesn't mean that professional scientists don't.
The earth has sustained itself through *much* more drastic changes than anything man has introduced.
I heard that a guy fell out of an airplane at 30,000ft, and lived. Therefore, it should be fine to throw people out of airplans at 30,000ft, since it is possible to sustain oneself through this drastic event.
Let me guess -- if there was a mass extinction event, it would be because socialists ruined the environment. I am afraid that that is how cognitive dissonance works.
This is such crap. The IPCC reports are more accurate than the encyclopedia britannica, and they make very conservative estimates.
The confirmation bias can get so out of hand that is ends in denial and ultimately psychosis. There are guys in psychiatric institutes that think they are James Bond, and there is not way to penetrate the delusion.
If you found a spelling mistake in a dictionary, and all the other 100,000 words were validated to be correct, would you then say the dictionary was a movie drama?
With the correct political motivations, you have already shown your colours.
The US collects 50% less tax as a percentage of GDP then any of the other OECD countries. They spend as much as the other OECD countries. Most of the spending is on Republican sacred cows: defence, and entitlement programs for the old, veterans and farmers.
Cue cognitive dissonance from disaffected republican who wants to externalise the blame. OUTRAGE!!!!!
The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot. The Republicans were willing to cut spending a lot (but not on their programs) and raise taxes only on the middle class.
It is/amazing/ that you might think this. The Ds were willing to cut $3 of government for every $1 of tax increase. And that is what they went to the table with -- they probably would have settled for much larger cuts.
The most expensive entitlement programs are paid directly to traditional republican constituents, and were set up by republicans for republicans: the old, veterans, farmers. There will be no meaningful reduction in the size of government until republicans take care of their own largess. They have a history of big government expansions -- Reagan, Bush & Bush all increased the size of government dramatically.
The cognitive dissonance of the right has reached such bizarre proportions that party is heading into crisis.
Slashdot Mirror
the upper management of governmental institutions
Same goes for private institutions. It is a classic problem to distinguish the successful people from the successful climbers. My experience of management is -- it is a crap shoot if they actually know something about your job. It really helps to work with someone who understands your job, esp. in IT.
"Female social hierarchies" are based on mating opportunities...with men.
This is only partly true. Social status extends beyond mating opportunities with mean.
and how many torture and damage their bodies to fit into that archetype?
I too will be relieved if this part of the fashion industry dies. However, the female obsession with thinness is only indirectly related to the fashion industry. Beauty is part of female social hierarchies. Women will /always/ create beauty standards to discriminate high-status and low-status women. It is the human condition. (This is something that feminists refused to acknowledge exists.)
And status-anxiety is just a form of suffering.
So -- removing pictures of women from magazines simply treats the symptom, but not the cause.
I am *so* disappointed with the comments in this thread. Have you confused pornography with fashion?
While I believe that feminists are externalising the female obsession with beauty (society made me miserable!), comments like yours are even more baffling.
Fact: Women like to be beautiful -- it is interwoven into female social hierarchies.
Fact: Fashion is made for female consumption -- by an order of magnitude.
Fact: Women almost always dislike being sexualised.
If a woman drops her stuff in front of a camera, then I believe it is fine to sexualise her at that moment. But the minute she steps out of that context -- well your brain should step out of that context too. And fashion has *NOTHING* to do with pornography.
The strain already killed as many people as possible. What was changed allowed it to be contagious. The virus could easily develop this mutation a person is infected with both H5N1 and human flu at the same time.
Reading forbes for information on the climate science debate is like reading the christian monitor for information on evolution. They really are the same thing. Think-tank driven reporting, which cares only about staying on message.
/will/ see effects.
The linked scientific article puts the climate sensitivity within the error bars of the most recent estimates, but then reduces the error bars to collapse around the new figure more closely.
There really isn't anything to see here. This is only one study, and, according to the study, AGW is still happening. It will just take a decade or two more to see the effects -- be it predicts that we
that which puts me and my children in danger- not getting vaccinated, is not a natural freedom.
You are not free to choose murdering your neighbour. Presumably you think that is perfectly reasonable. So... what freedoms do you want? You /could/ kill your neighbour if you do not get vaccinated, and they rely on herd immunity. Do you want the freedom to do that?
Eugenics? Selective breeding of humans? wtf?
You must be part of the "alternative knowledge system", where facts are whatever confirms your paranoia.
Like not shit in the streets!
lol!!!!!!! you are too funny =0 =0 =0. Perhaps you should move to Somalia, where the government doesn't tell anybody what the fuck to do. If you have enough money, you can buy some guns, and shit on any street you want! Completely legit opportunity for you there.
Since the development of civilization some 5000 years ago there hasn't been an evolutionary process for homo sapiens.
Interestingly, this is not true according to the introduction to the second edition of "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker. I don't have to book handy to reference the relevant scientific papers, but I am sure you can find it if you wanted to.
That's not what 'rational' means: you can be rational without being altruistic or wanting to maximise the common good.
Only if said rational agent is too stupid to notice that they are part of a society. Altruistic behaviour /is/ rational behaviour, and the sooner you work that out, the sooner people will stop screwing you over or avoiding you.
No, he used the word fascist spot on. The far-right are the type of suspicious nationalist bigots that would have thrived in Nazi Germany. Scream outrage all you want. Don't care.
Australia as a semi public/private system that is light-years ahead of the USA on multiple measures. The total cost is way less than half what the US pays per capita, and the health outcomes are better. Furthermore, if you're rich, you can get your weekly anal flush, or whatever you want.
Almost everything is renewable. It's the cost of renewing it.
It is a fundamental question of thermodynamics. Energy-in-energy-out. Nothing comes close to oil, and maybe nothing will. That remains to be seen.
I read the letter years ago.
1000s of scientists (true individualists), 20 years, and 1 resignation.
The issues Landsea raised were public, and relatively minor in the total body of the work. The issues were not ignored, and the wording on hurricane activity was changed after the Landsea incident.
Using this as proof that the IPCC is "wrong" is pathetic.
The "oil companies" have also been engaged in a denialists disinformation campaign. The conspiracy is actually larger than just Exxon; however, and includes a powerful block of neoliberal elites. There is a history book called "Merchants of Doubt" that shows the paper trail quite clearly.
Where?
Are your really that naive? The oil industry has acted so brazenly in its disinformation campaign, and funding of astroturf and denialist "research". The paper trail is there for everyone to see. "Merchants of Doubt" is a recent history book the chronicles just how perfectly the wool has been pulled over your eyes -- in plain sight!
There's something interesting about the human condition there -- and you are being played by people who understand you better then you know yourself. Of course, this just makes you mad, and you want to say that *I* am the one who doesn't understand. This is called projection.
There is something interesting about the human condition there.
I was pretty appalled by the lack of scientific literacy on slashdot too. It is amazing the people read Andy Watts' blog, link to it, and think that that has even remotely the credibility of then 1000s of scientists. That the scientific opposition consists of a few cranks, mostly not trained in climate science, and a sincere guy who is starting to reaffirm the consensus conclusions.
If 30% of slashdotters are really that stupid, then we really should prayer for intelligent life out in space, because there's bugger all down here on slashdot
You can even go the Australia route and simply give back the money to the people affected by higher energy prices.
I agree with you, but there is something sadly funny about what happened in Australia. The conservatives screamed about big government taxes, even though the carbon-tax was revenue neutral, /AND/, a perfect example of a neoliberal solution to a problem.
It seems to me that we are dealing with pure bloody minded political hatred. In my opinion, it is time that we cut these people out of the political conversation. Let them scream. We don't have to listen.
Talk about shifting the goal posts. A single guy isn't going to be able to replicate 100 years of research by 1000s of people. Even if he did, I am sure you'd just think he was stupid or something.
Nothing will ever convince someone in denial. They will find the most bizarre interpretations of events to comfort their prejudices. The best thing to do is: A) laugh, B) shout, C) point and laugh and shout.
a distinct defensiveness in any case where the data was being questioned, and a tendency to reach for the tinfoil hat about some sort of conspiracy of people working to discredit them
But there is a conspiracy to muddy the waters. The oil lobby has acted so brazenly that it is amazing that more people do not talk about it. Read "Merchants of Doubt" if you want the sordid history. You may feel sick afterwards. If you live in bizzaro-Fox-world, then you will not even be able to read it -- such is the effects of cognitive dissonance.
Some of this junk research "confirming" that climate change exists adds confusion to those not smart enough to understand this.
So... you're smarter than all the scientists in the IPCC. Let me guess... you watch Fox?
CO2 emitted by every creature does the same. There is no living being on this planet that does not affect the climate around it.
It is a matter of degree. For example, you being alive is currently speeding up the end of the universe, because you are wasting entropy.
Problem is we have so little understanding of how the earth reacts to these changes over time.
Not a problem at all. We understand VERY WELL what is happening an the IPCC predictions are very CONSERVATIVE with well established and agreed upon error bars. Just because YOU don't have a clue doesn't mean that professional scientists don't.
The earth has sustained itself through *much* more drastic changes than anything man has introduced.
I heard that a guy fell out of an airplane at 30,000ft, and lived. Therefore, it should be fine to throw people out of airplans at 30,000ft, since it is possible to sustain oneself through this drastic event.
Let me guess -- if there was a mass extinction event, it would be because socialists ruined the environment. I am afraid that that is how cognitive dissonance works.
Best thing we can do is observe common sense.
You sir, are an IDIOT.
This is such crap. The IPCC reports are more accurate than the encyclopedia britannica, and they make very conservative estimates.
The confirmation bias can get so out of hand that is ends in denial and ultimately psychosis. There are guys in psychiatric institutes that think they are James Bond, and there is not way to penetrate the delusion.
If you found a spelling mistake in a dictionary, and all the other 100,000 words were validated to be correct, would you then say the dictionary was a movie drama?
With the correct political motivations, you have already shown your colours.
The US collects 50% less tax as a percentage of GDP then any of the other OECD countries. They spend as much as the other OECD countries. Most of the spending is on Republican sacred cows: defence, and entitlement programs for the old, veterans and farmers.
Cue cognitive dissonance from disaffected republican who wants to externalise the blame. OUTRAGE!!!!!
The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot. The Republicans were willing to cut spending a lot (but not on their programs) and raise taxes only on the middle class.
It is /amazing/ that you might think this. The Ds were willing to cut $3 of government for every $1 of tax increase. And that is what they went to the table with -- they probably would have settled for much larger cuts.
The most expensive entitlement programs are paid directly to traditional republican constituents, and were set up by republicans for republicans: the old, veterans, farmers. There will be no meaningful reduction in the size of government until republicans take care of their own largess. They have a history of big government expansions -- Reagan, Bush & Bush all increased the size of government dramatically.
The cognitive dissonance of the right has reached such bizarre proportions that party is heading into crisis.