You are mistaken. It is you who show a lack of education. Specifically in the use of language. We are in the 21st century in the same way that I am in my 40th year. That being said, I am 39 years old. See how that works? When you are 39, you have started your 40th year? That means that I am about to enter my 4th decade, and at that time I will be entering my 5th decade.
It isn't a problem with the general public being uneducated about our calendar system, it is a problem with pseudo-intellectual halfway thinking through a subject, making a mistake, thinking they have found an "ah-ha" idea, and then refusing to re-evaluate when it is pointed out that they are wrong.
Beyond your lack of education on how the language you are using works, you seem to think that there is something concrete about what dates are what. As stated earlier, our dates are simply an arbitrary way for a bunch of people to agree on time. So, even if your example was right, it would still be as irrelevant as Old English spelling rules in modern day America.
This is no year zero, nor is there a year 1, 2, 3, or any of the first few hundred. Year numbers are an arbitrary system for counting time that we have all just agreed to use. That being the case, we as a culture have also decided that decades start a year x0, centuries start at x00, and millenniums start at x000. A bunch of pseudo-intellectuals think they are being smart by trying to use logic gymnastics to 'prove' that the millennium starts at year x001. The problem is that they only think the problem half through and then jump to conclusions. Heck, not only is the date an arbitrary value, but there have been several times through history, where chunks of the counting were just thrown out.
So, since dates are just a pragmatic system, and not a logical one, the smart thing to do is to bunch years together as a group when they start with the same numbers.
I'm trying to figure out the mental disorder necessary to actually buy this for your dog. Not only do you have to have the dreadfully increasing psychosis that makes people get confused between dogs and humans, but you also have to think this anthropamorphised animal would want to drink beer and not get drunk. Regular non-alcholic beer is for humans with a mental disorder. Even if you accept peoples disorder that makes them think dogs are children, you would have to deal with the secondary disorder that they think their dog is an alcholic that needs something that looks and tastes like beer, but want's to 'protect' them by giving them some that is non-alcholic.
Obviously, I was being sarcastic in saying the guy should be charged, but that is what the law is saying is the case.
You are wrong that the architect example is the same thing.
Purgery example: The man committed a felony (purgery) and someone was murdered in relation to it.
Architect example: The architect committed no felony and someone was murdered in relation to it.
Zatar was pointing out that Florida law says you can be charged with homicide if someone dies IN RELATION TO YOU COMMITTING A FELONY. You see the part there where the person that gets unjustly charged has to have committed a felony? That means they have to have committed a felony.
I'm not sure how to get across that the person that gets unjustly charged must have committed some felony, other than to keep putting the word felony in this post, but your belief that the architect having NOT committed a felony is the same as an example with guy who committed a felony implies that you are not hearing the word felony. So, felony, I will felony, make it, felony, clear that a felony, must have been committed for the, felony, law that says a felony makes you chargeable with, felony, homicide if someone, felony, dies. Felony.
The parent poster suggested that the architect of the house be charged with homicide because of the law that says you can be charged with homicide if the homicide happens while you are committing a felony. Would you like to explain how the architect was committing a felony? Not the homeowner. Not anyone in the house. The architect of the building. What felony are they committing that would make their actions accountable as homicide in the original posters example?
Microsoft didn't "miss" the mobile market. They fully made an attempt at it. There have been MS products in the mobile market for almost as long as there has been a mobile market. What has happened is that Microsoft completely failed in the mobile market. They focused to heavily on gaining as big a piece of the mobile pie as they could, and completely missed out on the idea of making the mobile market bigger, and in fact even shrank the market. So, their numbers stayed largely stagnant. Now that the mobile market is 10,000 times larger, their near 100% market share becomes 1%. They only now realize that they failed, and are floundering to try and reinvent themselves.
Besides the list that the other poster made, how about the the Wintel ecosystem. The PC was a corporate computer. Commodore and Apple dominated the consumer market when personal computers hit the scene. It was the fact that people were running IBM PCs with MS OS at work, that people rationalized bringing them into the home.
A better example would be a case where a guy committed purgery when, on the stand, when he testified that he was with his wife on the night that his wife's sister was accused of drunk driving. Having told his wife that he was at work, he pisses off his wife so much that she pulls out a gun and shoots the Judge, all members of the Jury, and the husband's lawyer.
Ahhh... The stupidity strawman. Sorry to burst your stupidity bubble, but playing with toys and being smart are not mutually exclusive. It isn't the playing with toys that makes a kid retarded. It is the parents actively discouraging the child from playing with any toys that might allow the child to become smart that makes them retarded.
I realize that stupid people think that playing chess is not "playing" because it's "hard" for them.
I realize that stupid people don't think that reading books is "playing" because it's "hard" for them.
I realize that stupid people don't think that building your own electronic toys is considered "playing" because it's "hard" for them.
I realize that stupid people don't think that using the computer and finding fun interesting things online is "playing" because it's "hard" for them.
I realize that stupid people would take the statement of "Pull out the simple toys when they come over. The toy kitchen, the balls, the hot wheels. It's still fun, and it doesn't make their parents feel uncomfortable." to mean that no toys are played with, and that they are not fun.
The fact that stupid people think these things doesn't make it true. It just points out that stupid people are, well, stupid.
You are exactly the kind of person that makes us normally developed people and our normally developed children go underground with intelligence. We hide who we are from your kind because as soon as you see the glimmer of intelligence, you break out the torches and pitchforks.
Here are some ideas that might scare you. Learning is fun. Having more toys is funner than having less toys. Being able to use more toys is funner than not being able to understand the toys. Being dumb means that you don't get you use the complex toys. Being smart means you can still use the simple toys.
Just as an example, right now, your school age child that "will always play" (if you have one) is sitting in a classroom. They have been in that classroom for 3 or 4 hours (PST), and will be sitting in that classroom for another 3 or 4 hours today. My 6 year old child that you describe as "performing like little Mozart monkeys for their pushy fucking parents" spent ~45 minutes this morning reading a book, and will spend another ~1 hour building project on his electronics kit. MAYBE we will spend 15 or 20 minutes on reviewing multiplication of fractions and factoring of fractions. But right now, he is online playing "Really Hard Mario", a flash game he found online, while The Fairly Odd Parents plays on the TV in the background.
Apparently stupid people think that spending most of your day sitting in a classroom doing busywork is "playing". Your child has bells ring to indicate it is time to stand. Bells ring to indicate that it is time to sit. Bells ring to indicate that it is time to get in a line. Has to raise their hand and wait to be instructed on whether you can go to the bathroom or not. To stupid people, this is NOT "performing like little Mozart monkeys for their pushy fucking parents".
On the other hand, stupid people think that getting your learning done by doing fun stuff for a couple of hours, then watching TV and playing for the rest of the day is "performing like little Mozart monkeys for their pushy fucking parents".
I find it hard to even type that without being amazed at your incredible stupidity, and your hatred for intelligence. Given that you are in the majority, and we have already had to go underground with being smart, I shouldn't be amazed anymore. But, the sheer absurdity and magnitude of the the stupidity is dizzying.
I won't take it wrong, and that is an interesting link. I do think that it has one thing wrong though. It is focused on phonics being abandoned as the cause of all this trouble. That would not explain why science, finance, history, geography, mathematics, and everything else non-sports related is failing in our educational system as well as reading.
The problem is that our education system is no longer being used to educate. It is claimed to be for education but in fact, being smart in America is considered a bad thing. Reading is just one visible casualty of our national anti-intellectual culture.
Don't worry that he will be performing instead of having fun. Just look at my previous post. Our intelligence is like a secret identity. It is super cool, but when others are around, it is time to do the non-intellectual fun things.
The grand thing is that it only takes an hour or two a day to far outpace anything that the public schools have to offer. At 6, he already reads well enough that he could pass high school reading exams. He is only a year or two off from being able to pass high school mathematics. And, his understanding of science is already beyond most adults I know.
Writing is his weak point, and he is easily years ahead of his peers.
Again, this is all accomplished with just an hour or two a day. My son spends less time in the task of education, yet learns dramatically more. The thing that horrifies the faux-intellectuals is my only half tongue-in-cheek joke that if you want to raise a smart kid, they need lots of TV, Video Games, and lots of unsupervised time on the internet.
Well, when I was 7 and in the second grade, as long as the parent signed off, children could leave the school campus for lunch. Almost always to go home for lunch if they lived close. By the time I graduated from High School, 12th graders were not considered grown up enough to leave the school campus for lunch. So, in the 10 year between the 2nd and 12th grade, the age that children become mature enough to travel from school to home during lunch regressed by more than 10 years. Kids are growing up WAY slower than they did in the past.
If at the end of the day, none of the secrets cause any harm, then Wikileaks did the world a favor. Wouldn't it be great to find out that your government WASN'T just a front for an evil warmongering, murdering cabal? It would be a little like coming clean with your wife about your mistress, and her telling you that she pretty much figured what was going on. Then suggesting that since it is all out in the open now, why don't you just start inviting the mistress over to the house, since you have better things to spend your money on than hotel rooms.
Better would be to link every Apple search to articles like this one about Apple's anti-competitive behavior. The irony would make it better, and any complaining Apple did would require them to keep talking about their own anti-competitive behavior.
Apple has pretty much always been more evil than MS. They just were not as smart about it. That is why they couldn't beat out MS. Apple would make a good product, and treat their customers nice, but they would turn ugly before they had complete control. This would destroy their market share, and they would have to start again. The question is now, do they currently have enough control of the market to display their evil? I'm guessing not, but I could be wrong.
Because they are incompatible platforms. Apple is banning 'Content'. It isn't the app that is banned. If the same code were used to distribute Highlights magazine, there wouldn't be a problem. The only problem is the content. So, do you think Microsoft would ban a game on the 360 that had a PS3 in it? I doubt it, but if they did, I would think just as badly of them.
Crashing birth rates do not indicate that the remaining birth rates are not still too high. We can hope that improved quality of life will solve our overpopulation problem, but do you think that if the whole world lived like the US, that the world could sustain the population?
I'm not convinced. Of course, I do recognize that whether I am convinced or not, we will find out the answer, so I am hoping that you are correct.
Yeah, that sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, anti-intellectual people out number intellectual people by such a huge number that it is exceedingly difficult to find them. Even those that CLAIM to endorse being intellectual tend to draw a line. They think it is fine for another kid to be a little ahead, but if they get too far ahead, then they must be stunted.
Telling teachers and adults that they are imbeciles for telling them that you were learning too fast is pointless, and frequently counter productive. With random adults, it is pointless, as whether random adults think your child is learning too fast, as their opinion doesn't matter.
Telling teachers that they are imbeciles on the other hand is counter productive. If you think you are going to change a teachers mind by calling them names, you are definitely NOT one of the smart ones. In fact, not only are you NOT going to get the teacher to teach the child at their full potential, you are now leaving your child with someone who both has a beef with you, and a will be proven 'right' if your child fails and has problems.
Homeschooling is the only option for kids that are really smart. There isn't a school in the country that is going to teach to the students to their ability, and insulting the teachers isn't going to change that.
I certainly stand up for my son and give him a healthy image about being smart, but just as I give him a healthy image of having a penis, I also teach him that exposing it in public can make many people REALLY uncomfortable. It can also lead to people actively attacking you.
Just as you show your penis to some people in life, and you hide if from many others, the same applies to high intelligence.
An example of work that no school will cover is my 6 year old son's educational work for today. He is working on finding lowest common denominators in fractions, and multiplying fractions. Can you point me to a single school in the country that will teach 6 year olds how to multiply fractions? And no, I don't mean memorizing that 2 halves equal a whole. I mean randomly selected fractions.
Sure, but that method, while effective is like curing a cold with a bullet. The question is, which is worse, dying of cancer at 150 or dying of old age at 75? I'm not convinced that the answer would be the same for everyone.
You may joke, but homosexuality IS a sane form of environmentalism. Virtually all of our environmental problems are caused by overpopulation. Over population could be controlled via massive disease. It could be controlled by mass sterilization. It could be controlled by moving people off the planet. OR, it could be controlled by much of the population having sex with people who they cannot have children with. Out of those choices, homosexuality seems the only option that is viable.
Actually bisexuality is the answer. That way you still have births, you just reduce them dramatically. Heck, we already have the female half of our society on board.
Both of your examples were of people who's quality of life was so bad that dieing was better, and they knew they were going to die anyway. If you father was healthy and fit with the body of a 20 year old, do you really think that you would as accepting of his death?
Yes, there are worse things than death, but if you can avoid those worse things, then death looks a lot less attractive.
Where does a naked homeless guy get his internet access? I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that pretty much everyone here had used life lengthening artificial shelter and clothing. That they in fact fought against nature to increase their lifespan.
We are already at the time when over population is a problem. While I'm not convinced on AGW, if we take it as existing, it is a problem that is directly caused by human over population. The world is still increasing in population, and it already is having problems with the amount that we have. Your nightmare longevity problem is here now.
Of course, suicide booths are not a bad idea, or a bad thing. What a wonderful world it would be if everybody got to live as long as they want, and just as long as they want. Your idea that the old would be a bigger problem if they pushed off their old age for a dozen more decades is silly. The same people would at worst need the same care. So, no change there. At best, life is so long that it isn't considered evil to commit suicide, and your hypothetical suicide machines means that you would live a happy healthy life for as long as you want, and then you would NEVER be a burden on others.
Just as I am happier to live in a time and place where there is plenty of food for everyone, I would love to live in a time and place where there is plenty of youth for everyone. I like being able to eat until I am done, then get up from the table satisfied, even if there is still food that could be eaten. It would be awesome if life were the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
You are mistaken. It is you who show a lack of education. Specifically in the use of language. We are in the 21st century in the same way that I am in my 40th year. That being said, I am 39 years old. See how that works? When you are 39, you have started your 40th year? That means that I am about to enter my 4th decade, and at that time I will be entering my 5th decade.
It isn't a problem with the general public being uneducated about our calendar system, it is a problem with pseudo-intellectual halfway thinking through a subject, making a mistake, thinking they have found an "ah-ha" idea, and then refusing to re-evaluate when it is pointed out that they are wrong.
Beyond your lack of education on how the language you are using works, you seem to think that there is something concrete about what dates are what. As stated earlier, our dates are simply an arbitrary way for a bunch of people to agree on time. So, even if your example was right, it would still be as irrelevant as Old English spelling rules in modern day America.
This is no year zero, nor is there a year 1, 2, 3, or any of the first few hundred. Year numbers are an arbitrary system for counting time that we have all just agreed to use. That being the case, we as a culture have also decided that decades start a year x0, centuries start at x00, and millenniums start at x000. A bunch of pseudo-intellectuals think they are being smart by trying to use logic gymnastics to 'prove' that the millennium starts at year x001. The problem is that they only think the problem half through and then jump to conclusions. Heck, not only is the date an arbitrary value, but there have been several times through history, where chunks of the counting were just thrown out.
So, since dates are just a pragmatic system, and not a logical one, the smart thing to do is to bunch years together as a group when they start with the same numbers.
I'm trying to figure out the mental disorder necessary to actually buy this for your dog. Not only do you have to have the dreadfully increasing psychosis that makes people get confused between dogs and humans, but you also have to think this anthropamorphised animal would want to drink beer and not get drunk. Regular non-alcholic beer is for humans with a mental disorder. Even if you accept peoples disorder that makes them think dogs are children, you would have to deal with the secondary disorder that they think their dog is an alcholic that needs something that looks and tastes like beer, but want's to 'protect' them by giving them some that is non-alcholic.
The very case for this stuff is like listening to the logic of the Vizzini from the Princes Bride.
Obviously, I was being sarcastic in saying the guy should be charged, but that is what the law is saying is the case.
You are wrong that the architect example is the same thing.
Purgery example: The man committed a felony (purgery) and someone was murdered in relation to it.
Architect example: The architect committed no felony and someone was murdered in relation to it.
Zatar was pointing out that Florida law says you can be charged with homicide if someone dies IN RELATION TO YOU COMMITTING A FELONY. You see the part there where the person that gets unjustly charged has to have committed a felony? That means they have to have committed a felony.
I'm not sure how to get across that the person that gets unjustly charged must have committed some felony, other than to keep putting the word felony in this post, but your belief that the architect having NOT committed a felony is the same as an example with guy who committed a felony implies that you are not hearing the word felony. So, felony, I will felony, make it, felony, clear that a felony, must have been committed for the, felony, law that says a felony makes you chargeable with, felony, homicide if someone, felony, dies. Felony.
The parent poster suggested that the architect of the house be charged with homicide because of the law that says you can be charged with homicide if the homicide happens while you are committing a felony. Would you like to explain how the architect was committing a felony? Not the homeowner. Not anyone in the house. The architect of the building. What felony are they committing that would make their actions accountable as homicide in the original posters example?
Microsoft didn't "miss" the mobile market. They fully made an attempt at it. There have been MS products in the mobile market for almost as long as there has been a mobile market. What has happened is that Microsoft completely failed in the mobile market. They focused to heavily on gaining as big a piece of the mobile pie as they could, and completely missed out on the idea of making the mobile market bigger, and in fact even shrank the market. So, their numbers stayed largely stagnant. Now that the mobile market is 10,000 times larger, their near 100% market share becomes 1%. They only now realize that they failed, and are floundering to try and reinvent themselves.
Besides the list that the other poster made, how about the the Wintel ecosystem. The PC was a corporate computer. Commodore and Apple dominated the consumer market when personal computers hit the scene. It was the fact that people were running IBM PCs with MS OS at work, that people rationalized bringing them into the home.
Because the architect wasn't commiting a feloney.
A better example would be a case where a guy committed purgery when, on the stand, when he testified that he was with his wife on the night that his wife's sister was accused of drunk driving. Having told his wife that he was at work, he pisses off his wife so much that she pulls out a gun and shoots the Judge, all members of the Jury, and the husband's lawyer.
Obviously, he should be charged with murder.
Anton?
Ahhh... The stupidity strawman. Sorry to burst your stupidity bubble, but playing with toys and being smart are not mutually exclusive. It isn't the playing with toys that makes a kid retarded. It is the parents actively discouraging the child from playing with any toys that might allow the child to become smart that makes them retarded.
I realize that stupid people think that playing chess is not "playing" because it's "hard" for them. I realize that stupid people don't think that reading books is "playing" because it's "hard" for them. I realize that stupid people don't think that building your own electronic toys is considered "playing" because it's "hard" for them. I realize that stupid people don't think that using the computer and finding fun interesting things online is "playing" because it's "hard" for them.
I realize that stupid people would take the statement of "Pull out the simple toys when they come over. The toy kitchen, the balls, the hot wheels. It's still fun, and it doesn't make their parents feel uncomfortable." to mean that no toys are played with, and that they are not fun.
The fact that stupid people think these things doesn't make it true. It just points out that stupid people are, well, stupid.
You are exactly the kind of person that makes us normally developed people and our normally developed children go underground with intelligence. We hide who we are from your kind because as soon as you see the glimmer of intelligence, you break out the torches and pitchforks.
Here are some ideas that might scare you. Learning is fun. Having more toys is funner than having less toys. Being able to use more toys is funner than not being able to understand the toys. Being dumb means that you don't get you use the complex toys. Being smart means you can still use the simple toys.
Just as an example, right now, your school age child that "will always play" (if you have one) is sitting in a classroom. They have been in that classroom for 3 or 4 hours (PST), and will be sitting in that classroom for another 3 or 4 hours today. My 6 year old child that you describe as "performing like little Mozart monkeys for their pushy fucking parents" spent ~45 minutes this morning reading a book, and will spend another ~1 hour building project on his electronics kit. MAYBE we will spend 15 or 20 minutes on reviewing multiplication of fractions and factoring of fractions. But right now, he is online playing "Really Hard Mario", a flash game he found online, while The Fairly Odd Parents plays on the TV in the background.
Apparently stupid people think that spending most of your day sitting in a classroom doing busywork is "playing". Your child has bells ring to indicate it is time to stand. Bells ring to indicate that it is time to sit. Bells ring to indicate that it is time to get in a line. Has to raise their hand and wait to be instructed on whether you can go to the bathroom or not. To stupid people, this is NOT "performing like little Mozart monkeys for their pushy fucking parents".
On the other hand, stupid people think that getting your learning done by doing fun stuff for a couple of hours, then watching TV and playing for the rest of the day is "performing like little Mozart monkeys for their pushy fucking parents".
I find it hard to even type that without being amazed at your incredible stupidity, and your hatred for intelligence. Given that you are in the majority, and we have already had to go underground with being smart, I shouldn't be amazed anymore. But, the sheer absurdity and magnitude of the the stupidity is dizzying.
Europe has weened itself off of oil, and has moved to a completely renewable infrastructure? Wow. That is news to me!
Could you point me to some resource that shows this, as I might have to reassess some my views if it has.
I won't take it wrong, and that is an interesting link. I do think that it has one thing wrong though. It is focused on phonics being abandoned as the cause of all this trouble. That would not explain why science, finance, history, geography, mathematics, and everything else non-sports related is failing in our educational system as well as reading.
The problem is that our education system is no longer being used to educate. It is claimed to be for education but in fact, being smart in America is considered a bad thing. Reading is just one visible casualty of our national anti-intellectual culture.
Don't worry that he will be performing instead of having fun. Just look at my previous post. Our intelligence is like a secret identity. It is super cool, but when others are around, it is time to do the non-intellectual fun things.
The grand thing is that it only takes an hour or two a day to far outpace anything that the public schools have to offer. At 6, he already reads well enough that he could pass high school reading exams. He is only a year or two off from being able to pass high school mathematics. And, his understanding of science is already beyond most adults I know.
Writing is his weak point, and he is easily years ahead of his peers.
Again, this is all accomplished with just an hour or two a day. My son spends less time in the task of education, yet learns dramatically more. The thing that horrifies the faux-intellectuals is my only half tongue-in-cheek joke that if you want to raise a smart kid, they need lots of TV, Video Games, and lots of unsupervised time on the internet.
Well, when I was 7 and in the second grade, as long as the parent signed off, children could leave the school campus for lunch. Almost always to go home for lunch if they lived close. By the time I graduated from High School, 12th graders were not considered grown up enough to leave the school campus for lunch. So, in the 10 year between the 2nd and 12th grade, the age that children become mature enough to travel from school to home during lunch regressed by more than 10 years. Kids are growing up WAY slower than they did in the past.
If at the end of the day, none of the secrets cause any harm, then Wikileaks did the world a favor. Wouldn't it be great to find out that your government WASN'T just a front for an evil warmongering, murdering cabal? It would be a little like coming clean with your wife about your mistress, and her telling you that she pretty much figured what was going on. Then suggesting that since it is all out in the open now, why don't you just start inviting the mistress over to the house, since you have better things to spend your money on than hotel rooms.
Better would be to link every Apple search to articles like this one about Apple's anti-competitive behavior. The irony would make it better, and any complaining Apple did would require them to keep talking about their own anti-competitive behavior.
Apple has pretty much always been more evil than MS. They just were not as smart about it. That is why they couldn't beat out MS. Apple would make a good product, and treat their customers nice, but they would turn ugly before they had complete control. This would destroy their market share, and they would have to start again. The question is now, do they currently have enough control of the market to display their evil? I'm guessing not, but I could be wrong.
And there is your Android ad. If you use Apple products, you only get to use Apple, if you use other companies products, you use whatever you want.
Because they are incompatible platforms. Apple is banning 'Content'. It isn't the app that is banned. If the same code were used to distribute Highlights magazine, there wouldn't be a problem. The only problem is the content. So, do you think Microsoft would ban a game on the 360 that had a PS3 in it? I doubt it, but if they did, I would think just as badly of them.
Crashing birth rates do not indicate that the remaining birth rates are not still too high. We can hope that improved quality of life will solve our overpopulation problem, but do you think that if the whole world lived like the US, that the world could sustain the population?
I'm not convinced. Of course, I do recognize that whether I am convinced or not, we will find out the answer, so I am hoping that you are correct.
Yeah, that sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, anti-intellectual people out number intellectual people by such a huge number that it is exceedingly difficult to find them. Even those that CLAIM to endorse being intellectual tend to draw a line. They think it is fine for another kid to be a little ahead, but if they get too far ahead, then they must be stunted.
Telling teachers and adults that they are imbeciles for telling them that you were learning too fast is pointless, and frequently counter productive. With random adults, it is pointless, as whether random adults think your child is learning too fast, as their opinion doesn't matter.
Telling teachers that they are imbeciles on the other hand is counter productive. If you think you are going to change a teachers mind by calling them names, you are definitely NOT one of the smart ones. In fact, not only are you NOT going to get the teacher to teach the child at their full potential, you are now leaving your child with someone who both has a beef with you, and a will be proven 'right' if your child fails and has problems.
Homeschooling is the only option for kids that are really smart. There isn't a school in the country that is going to teach to the students to their ability, and insulting the teachers isn't going to change that.
I certainly stand up for my son and give him a healthy image about being smart, but just as I give him a healthy image of having a penis, I also teach him that exposing it in public can make many people REALLY uncomfortable. It can also lead to people actively attacking you.
Just as you show your penis to some people in life, and you hide if from many others, the same applies to high intelligence.
An example of work that no school will cover is my 6 year old son's educational work for today. He is working on finding lowest common denominators in fractions, and multiplying fractions. Can you point me to a single school in the country that will teach 6 year olds how to multiply fractions? And no, I don't mean memorizing that 2 halves equal a whole. I mean randomly selected fractions.
Sure, but that method, while effective is like curing a cold with a bullet. The question is, which is worse, dying of cancer at 150 or dying of old age at 75? I'm not convinced that the answer would be the same for everyone.
You may joke, but homosexuality IS a sane form of environmentalism. Virtually all of our environmental problems are caused by overpopulation. Over population could be controlled via massive disease. It could be controlled by mass sterilization. It could be controlled by moving people off the planet. OR, it could be controlled by much of the population having sex with people who they cannot have children with. Out of those choices, homosexuality seems the only option that is viable.
Actually bisexuality is the answer. That way you still have births, you just reduce them dramatically. Heck, we already have the female half of our society on board.
Both of your examples were of people who's quality of life was so bad that dieing was better, and they knew they were going to die anyway. If you father was healthy and fit with the body of a 20 year old, do you really think that you would as accepting of his death?
Yes, there are worse things than death, but if you can avoid those worse things, then death looks a lot less attractive.
Where does a naked homeless guy get his internet access? I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that pretty much everyone here had used life lengthening artificial shelter and clothing. That they in fact fought against nature to increase their lifespan.
We are already at the time when over population is a problem. While I'm not convinced on AGW, if we take it as existing, it is a problem that is directly caused by human over population. The world is still increasing in population, and it already is having problems with the amount that we have. Your nightmare longevity problem is here now.
Of course, suicide booths are not a bad idea, or a bad thing. What a wonderful world it would be if everybody got to live as long as they want, and just as long as they want. Your idea that the old would be a bigger problem if they pushed off their old age for a dozen more decades is silly. The same people would at worst need the same care. So, no change there. At best, life is so long that it isn't considered evil to commit suicide, and your hypothetical suicide machines means that you would live a happy healthy life for as long as you want, and then you would NEVER be a burden on others.
Just as I am happier to live in a time and place where there is plenty of food for everyone, I would love to live in a time and place where there is plenty of youth for everyone. I like being able to eat until I am done, then get up from the table satisfied, even if there is still food that could be eaten. It would be awesome if life were the same way.