Better than someone with so little mental fortitude that they going into a bawling rage over a slight casting change on a comic-book they don't even read.
See, I get the misogynists. They're idiots. But the people who out of their way to see zero misogyny in blatant misogyny. They're the ones who concern me.
Because that seems to be the normal reaction to justified accusations of bigotry these days: an immediate switch to defensive mode without a thought in between. And if that's normal, then every fractional scrap of progress has to have the whole argument over basic human equality be fought over and over.
I'm not sure that the blatant misogyny in the joke here is worthy of anything higher than a -1: Flaimbait, but really: if you can completely automate production of every single thing that people depend on for their day-to-day lives: food, drinking water, medicine, and shelter: what's left?
Sure. Sure. Art, science, human progress. We're never going to give those up. Taking care of your own home and family would be the one obligation that would remain as a personal duty(yes, regardless of gender).
It's not yet, but at some point we're going to have to assess our work-ethic culture with the inevitable collision with technological progress.
What gets me about cherry picking is that it's so common among the deniers that(from what I've seen and tried to understand of their behavior) they've just decided that "cherrypicking" is some kind of non-criticism that is dropped without reason as a trite dismissal, rather than a serious charge about intellectual integrity.
Yeah, as if showers were the big problem among hippies, amiright?
No but seriously. I bike to work. I have hella efficient insulation(I don't even need heat during the winter). And while I appreciate the fact that there isn't mass action on the part of people who don't care as much as they say they do, I also don't feel the need to act on whatever arbitrary threshold of evidence you think is necessary, when my ability to bring down the average by extraordinary action will be nil in the face of those taking no action.
The fact that people are hypocrites doesn't make a problem not a problem. It just makes that problem even harder to solve.
And any decent engineer would expect the first production test of so complicated a system to fail in some way, and they're doubtlessly going to be incorporating feedback about how well various elements worked into a future launch.
The problem with the point you're inarticulately trying to make(namely objecting to the privatization of spaceflight supported by government subsidy) misses a crucial fact about NASA. The things NASA actually launched weren't manufactured and designed by government employees. Sure the projects were managed by NASA's various facilities.
But the actually shuttles, rockets, and satellites were bought by the government from private contractors.
You're framing a slight shift in project centering to a sudden and complete change in how things are done.
Slashdot Mirror
I think, you'll find, that the Thor who's dead, and thus being replaced isn't in "the" marvel universe.
Fine, pedant, Asgard doesn't contain an afterlife in marvel comics.
Since you didn't clue in, there's a particular reason why I'm asserting the GP didn't read the comics. And neither do you.
Better than someone with so little mental fortitude that they going into a bawling rage over a slight casting change on a comic-book they don't even read.
They also made Thor come from space, speak English, made Asgard not an afterlife, and changed all sorts of other details.
What makes this change particularly galling to you?
See, I get the misogynists. They're idiots. But the people who out of their way to see zero misogyny in blatant misogyny. They're the ones who concern me.
Because that seems to be the normal reaction to justified accusations of bigotry these days: an immediate switch to defensive mode without a thought in between. And if that's normal, then every fractional scrap of progress has to have the whole argument over basic human equality be fought over and over.
But this summary and article both kinda sorta imply 616(i.e. main) universe.
I'm not sure that the blatant misogyny in the joke here is worthy of anything higher than a -1: Flaimbait, but really: if you can completely automate production of every single thing that people depend on for their day-to-day lives: food, drinking water, medicine, and shelter: what's left?
Sure. Sure. Art, science, human progress. We're never going to give those up. Taking care of your own home and family would be the one obligation that would remain as a personal duty(yes, regardless of gender).
It's not yet, but at some point we're going to have to assess our work-ethic culture with the inevitable collision with technological progress.
Lazy government contractors didn't even bother to install blast shielding with the ray shielding.
Oh yeah, let's just not have any democrats on local city councils when you lose all the local petty power brokers .
Only the shills view intellectual integrity as an enemy. On slashdot we mostly face the dupes.
What gets me about cherry picking is that it's so common among the deniers that(from what I've seen and tried to understand of their behavior) they've just decided that "cherrypicking" is some kind of non-criticism that is dropped without reason as a trite dismissal, rather than a serious charge about intellectual integrity.
I'm not sure whether they can't understand this, or simply refuse to accept it, but this point is never addressed. Ever.
Yeah, as if showers were the big problem among hippies, amiright?
No but seriously. I bike to work. I have hella efficient insulation(I don't even need heat during the winter). And while I appreciate the fact that there isn't mass action on the part of people who don't care as much as they say they do, I also don't feel the need to act on whatever arbitrary threshold of evidence you think is necessary, when my ability to bring down the average by extraordinary action will be nil in the face of those taking no action.
The fact that people are hypocrites doesn't make a problem not a problem. It just makes that problem even harder to solve.
Honestly, I don't use Hulu either. And I just have to hope this results in a net loss for South Park, so others don't follow suit.
All you can really do is boycott Hulu in protest.
Among dinosaurs who still use desktop computers, instead of laptops or tablets, I guess.
exploded the instant it touched the water.
How would that not make the highlight reel for the launch?
And any decent engineer would expect the first production test of so complicated a system to fail in some way, and they're doubtlessly going to be incorporating feedback about how well various elements worked into a future launch.
The problem with the point you're inarticulately trying to make(namely objecting to the privatization of spaceflight supported by government subsidy) misses a crucial fact about NASA. The things NASA actually launched weren't manufactured and designed by government employees. Sure the projects were managed by NASA's various facilities.
But the actually shuttles, rockets, and satellites were bought by the government from private contractors.
You're framing a slight shift in project centering to a sudden and complete change in how things are done.
Oh, sorry. I don't see color. I judge commercial applications by the content of their character.
Of course, we still can't make anything out of carbon nanotubes.
Make it another 10, please.
I get why you'd express that sentiment. It's certainly plausible that this information isn't fully accurate.
The difference between a conspiracy that exists, and the conspiracy that actually happens can be tested simply:
Would an uninformed idiot think it's actually a good idea to do?
If yes? It's probably happening.
If no? Find a new theory.
It's not that idiots run everything. But idiots get involved in every piece of decision making, somehow.