You mean to tell me the younger generations don't like watching 300 pound men dress in up bullet-proof equipment to be able to run into each head first @ high speeds!?!?
Not a fan of football (either variety) so I'm not defending it in any way... but football seems to be doing better among young people than baseball or basketball. One exception is China, where for some weird reason everyone is going bonkers over NBA basketball.
Or that MMA stuff with people getting kicked in the head and knocked out?
This comment reveals your basement-dwelling, videogame-playing, hentai-fapping mindset. If you actually lived among other humans and interacted with them, you might get a better grasp of their behavior. A fight always draws a crowd. People are drawn to violence, it's a primal instinct. Pay attention and you might notice that every commercial motion picture ever made has copious amounts of violence. Well okay there are a few movies that don't have violence, but these don't make any money and young people certainly don't watch them. The top box office movies every year are comic book violence-fests (teenage boy magnets). Or sci-fi violence-fests (Avatar).
As for MMA itself, I was under the impression that it was more popular among young people than traditional boxing. I can see the appeal as it offers a more variety of tactics and (usually) offers more action per minute, with less possibility of a snoozefest like Mayweather-Pacquiao.
Yeah that's what I'm thinking, Not Invented Here. There's already a tiny S. Korean group and a Chinese firm and god knows how many American companies/hobbyists who have successfully built manned quadcopters that have no problem taking off and hovering.
Toyota must have used fresh-out-of-college engineers with zero hands-on experience and zero hobby background who did nothing but study books. Or a bunch of old about-to-retire automotive engineers who stopped being productive for the company due to senility.
please read my post more carefully. Yes I KNOW leftists were big on population reduction 40 years ago. That's what I freakin said. I also said leftists TODAY do not dare mention population reduction. Then I stated my belief that the reason for this is the growing power of gov't/business cabal who have more control of the press, and the ability to buy off environmental groups (who used to be big on population reduction but now are not, even though the world population has doubled since the 70's)
The lack of discussion nor taking serious steps in reducing population growth, shows how strong the human primal instinct is to reproduce regardless of the consequences.
Incorrect. The human primal instinct is to fuck, not necessarily have babies. In most of Europe, N. America, and the prosperous Far Eastern countries (Japan, S. Korea, Singapore) the birthrate is at or below replacement levels. If you ignore immigration, their population is already falling or close to it. And this all happened organically, with no forced gov't action and nobody getting killed by population control nazis; it was simply people deciding that they prefer having less (or no) children.
The lack of discussion for population reduction has puzzled me, especially from the Left. Let's assume that conservatives will always oppose population reduction due to religious doctrine. Why aren't leftists talking about it? They sure used to, especially back in the 70's, but not anymore. It has become a taboo subject.
After some deliberation I've come to the conclusion that it's because it's in the best interests of Powers that Be to have a constantly growing population. No gov't official wants to rule over a small country with a tiny population. Bigger population = more heads to tax, more money to slush around with, more soldiers in your army to command. Basically MORE POWER. And business leaders also want a bigger population so there's more customers to buy your stuff. Note how every business journal talks about nothing else but GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH. It's hard to have earnings growth in a society with a falling population.
That's fine, the gov't/business cabal wants population growth, but why have leftists and environmentalists abandoned population reduction? After all the #1 best thing you can do for the environment is reducing the population. And I think the reason is that the gov't/business cabal have a lot more control of society now than they did in the 70's, and they have successfully infiltrated and co-opted the environmentalist movement.
To illustrate my point I give you two examples. First, coffins getting unloaded from airplanes. In the 60's journalists would report on the dead soldiers arriving from Vietnam and even show footage of coffins being wheeled out of airplanes. This had a dramatic effect on the public opinion of the war and the military in general. The Powers that Be have decided this was intolerable, and since then they've put a lot of effort into "Molding the Public Opinion" by controlling the press. This was accomplished by having their mega corporate conglomerations buy up news outlets, and also by planting journalists directly (CIA is known to have plants in the media). Notice how these days you never, ever see anything anti-military coming out of even supposedly liberal outlets like MSNBC. Every commentator religiously shouts "Thank you for your service" with every other breath.
Second example: Sierra Club. They were vehemently anti-population growth and anti-immigration in the 70's through the 90's. Makes sense, larger population hurts the environment and immigration increases the population. Not only that but *illegal* immigrants damage the environment more. This isn't me saying it, it's THEM (Sierra Club, back in the day):
"Reprehensible damage being done to towering cactus, Joshua trees, flowering cactus varieties, colorful wildflowers and rock formations" [by illegal immigrants, on their northward trek through the desert]
Then in the early 2000s the Sierra Club was given $100 million by hedge fund billionaires in exchange for never opposing immigration again. After that, not one peep about immigration.
It could happen in my lifetime (I'm assuming i'll live another 40 years). But not with the roads that we currently have.
The Nissan CEO saying it will happen by 2019 was just fantasy. AI is nowhere near good enough to handle rainy roads, icy roads, construction debris, pedestrians, basketballs rolling from the playground, etc. etc. etc. Hell, it can't even handle a gigantic 18 wheeler blocking the road because it was painted WHITE and some dude got his head decapitated in a Tesla.
In fact I don't think AI will *ever* be good enough to handle current roads. However autonomous cars taking over can still happen if the laws change and roads are retrofitted with sensors and rebuilt to exact dimensions and uniform markings, everywhere.
Life expectancy went down during the depression because people didn't have enough food to eat, not because medical techniques got worse. It's not relevant to this discussion.
lifespans would be reduced to the levels currently seen in sub-Saharan Africa.
Nah. What was the life expectancy in the USA in the 1920's? I'll bet it was well over 60. Life wasn't all that terrible back in the day when people were driving around in Ford Model T's.
We still know about germ theory, so we would still be sterilizing scalpels and tongs with heat or alcohol or whatever. And we have xray machines and anesthesia and all that other good stuff, so it's still gonna be way better than medicine in the dark ages.
Making new stronger antibiotics is only a temporary solution, bacteria will probably develop resistance to that too.
What's probably gonna happen is that surgery will become risky and very expensive. Everything in the surgery room will need to be sterilized extremely thoroughly, and you would need super air filtration systems like a CPU manufacturing clean room. Even then risk of infection will always be there. So you would only want surgery in life-threatening situations. No more nose job or tummy tuck or a hip replacement. If you have a bum hip, you're gonna be walking around on a cane or in a wheelchair like our ancestors did.
cops and firefighters. When they are forced to use all-electric police cars and fire trucks, I will believe it.
Typically these two institutions get a pass on everything, like whenever California passes a new gun law banning this or that, cops get a free pass and they can still carry whatever they want.
Lincoln was a Republican but not exactly a free trade idealog. He would do things contrary to subscribed political ideologies if he felt it would better serve the interest of the people.
"If I give my wife twenty Dollars, to buy a cloak and she brings one made in free-trade England, we have the cloak but England has the twenty dollars; while if she buys a cloak made in the protected United Slates, we have the cloak and the twenty dollars."
That may be true, but what other choice was there?
On one hand, you had a politician who openly and proudly proclaimed she will import as much cheap labor as possible. And was well known for having gone from being dead broke to a net worth of $100 million, pretty much exclusively from political cronyism (no one really believes Wall street bankers gave her $500,000 per speech because she had a pleasant voice)
On the other hand, you had a guy who so far has not taken any political bribes, and who said he will put a stop to this. So it was a choice between someone who you know with a 100% certainty will do something bad, versus someone who might do it but at least he's saying he won't.
Government benefits from importing cheap labor. Rich landowners (now corporations) benefit from cheap labor. History is replete with rich people trying to get richer by importing slaves and/or indentured servants.
It never works out well for society in the long run, but in the long run you're dead anyways, so might as well make some more money and bribe some more gov't officials while you're here, right?
Doesn't matter which political party is in power, doesn't matter whether a politician is a leftist or a rightist, they ALWAYS import more cheap labor... because they want to benefit the rich (and by extension, themselves). Trump ran a campaign saying he will put a stop to this, and now that he's in power he's already he's backpedaling. He's just turning into Clinton Lite. I'll bet you large sums that if Bernie was elected, right about now he will be finding excuses to import more cheap labor too.
Unlike some less enlightened people, I understand the advanced concept known as "bookmarks" and thus have no need for opening more than a few tabs at any given time.
What got me off Chrome is just how long it takes to load initially. It's takes about twice as long as Firefox to come up. Makes you wonder what on earth it's doing... probably phoning home to Google and checking for updates, maybe sending telemetry info, and what else?
Or if it's not doing anything special, then it must be very bloated.
For now I'm doing fine just using Firefox and uBlock Origin (ad blocker) 90% of the time.
I may try Opera again (last time was in the late 90's), but why pay for something (or put up with a stripped free version) when a FOSS that does the job is available?
No child should be left behind, ever. Every child must receive a world class college education, regardless of their IQ or high school performance. Get with the times, please.
Unemployment as defined by the gov't is low. Problem is, gov't keeps redefining what it means to be unemployed.
Technically a guy who used to make $30 an hour full time in a union factory job, then laid off, and now works part time for $12 an hour, is not unemployed. Also if you plain give up looking for a job and go on charity/welfare/whatever, you're not unemployed.
iPhone 7S (same as 7 but with processor upgrade) IPhone 7S Plus (same as 7S Plus with slight upgrades) iPhone X Anniversary (same size as 7S Plus, with fullscreen OLED, wraparound glass, different metal case, no physical Home button)
Slashdot Mirror
You mean to tell me the younger generations don't like watching 300 pound men dress in up bullet-proof equipment to be able to run into each head first @ high speeds!?!?
Not a fan of football (either variety) so I'm not defending it in any way... but football seems to be doing better among young people than baseball or basketball. One exception is China, where for some weird reason everyone is going bonkers over NBA basketball.
Or that MMA stuff with people getting kicked in the head and knocked out?
This comment reveals your basement-dwelling, videogame-playing, hentai-fapping mindset. If you actually lived among other humans and interacted with them, you might get a better grasp of their behavior. A fight always draws a crowd. People are drawn to violence, it's a primal instinct. Pay attention and you might notice that every commercial motion picture ever made has copious amounts of violence. Well okay there are a few movies that don't have violence, but these don't make any money and young people certainly don't watch them. The top box office movies every year are comic book violence-fests (teenage boy magnets). Or sci-fi violence-fests (Avatar).
As for MMA itself, I was under the impression that it was more popular among young people than traditional boxing. I can see the appeal as it offers a more variety of tactics and (usually) offers more action per minute, with less possibility of a snoozefest like Mayweather-Pacquiao.
Yeah that's what I'm thinking, Not Invented Here. There's already a tiny S. Korean group and a Chinese firm and god knows how many American companies/hobbyists who have successfully built manned quadcopters that have no problem taking off and hovering.
Toyota must have used fresh-out-of-college engineers with zero hands-on experience and zero hobby background who did nothing but study books. Or a bunch of old about-to-retire automotive engineers who stopped being productive for the company due to senility.
You don't see old people on roller coasters either. Are roller coasters a flop?
But roller coaster manufacturing isn't a billion dollar business either.
a billion dollar business
please read my post more carefully. Yes I KNOW leftists were big on population reduction 40 years ago. That's what I freakin said. I also said leftists TODAY do not dare mention population reduction. Then I stated my belief that the reason for this is the growing power of gov't/business cabal who have more control of the press, and the ability to buy off environmental groups (who used to be big on population reduction but now are not, even though the world population has doubled since the 70's)
The lack of discussion nor taking serious steps in reducing population growth, shows how strong the human primal instinct is to reproduce regardless of the consequences.
Incorrect. The human primal instinct is to fuck, not necessarily have babies. In most of Europe, N. America, and the prosperous Far Eastern countries (Japan, S. Korea, Singapore) the birthrate is at or below replacement levels. If you ignore immigration, their population is already falling or close to it. And this all happened organically, with no forced gov't action and nobody getting killed by population control nazis; it was simply people deciding that they prefer having less (or no) children.
The lack of discussion for population reduction has puzzled me, especially from the Left. Let's assume that conservatives will always oppose population reduction due to religious doctrine. Why aren't leftists talking about it? They sure used to, especially back in the 70's, but not anymore. It has become a taboo subject.
After some deliberation I've come to the conclusion that it's because it's in the best interests of Powers that Be to have a constantly growing population. No gov't official wants to rule over a small country with a tiny population. Bigger population = more heads to tax, more money to slush around with, more soldiers in your army to command. Basically MORE POWER. And business leaders also want a bigger population so there's more customers to buy your stuff. Note how every business journal talks about nothing else but GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH. It's hard to have earnings growth in a society with a falling population.
That's fine, the gov't/business cabal wants population growth, but why have leftists and environmentalists abandoned population reduction? After all the #1 best thing you can do for the environment is reducing the population. And I think the reason is that the gov't/business cabal have a lot more control of society now than they did in the 70's, and they have successfully infiltrated and co-opted the environmentalist movement.
To illustrate my point I give you two examples. First, coffins getting unloaded from airplanes. In the 60's journalists would report on the dead soldiers arriving from Vietnam and even show footage of coffins being wheeled out of airplanes. This had a dramatic effect on the public opinion of the war and the military in general. The Powers that Be have decided this was intolerable, and since then they've put a lot of effort into "Molding the Public Opinion" by controlling the press. This was accomplished by having their mega corporate conglomerations buy up news outlets, and also by planting journalists directly (CIA is known to have plants in the media). Notice how these days you never, ever see anything anti-military coming out of even supposedly liberal outlets like MSNBC. Every commentator religiously shouts "Thank you for your service" with every other breath.
Second example: Sierra Club. They were vehemently anti-population growth and anti-immigration in the 70's through the 90's. Makes sense, larger population hurts the environment and immigration increases the population. Not only that but *illegal* immigrants damage the environment more. This isn't me saying it, it's THEM (Sierra Club, back in the day):
"Reprehensible damage being done to towering cactus, Joshua trees, flowering cactus varieties, colorful wildflowers and rock formations" [by illegal immigrants, on their northward trek through the desert]
Then in the early 2000s the Sierra Club was given $100 million by hedge fund billionaires in exchange for never opposing immigration again. After that, not one peep about immigration.
Does he have a nice butt or what?
Oh you mean THE sun, as in our star... if you leave out the "the" it changes the meaning.
It could happen in my lifetime (I'm assuming i'll live another 40 years). But not with the roads that we currently have.
The Nissan CEO saying it will happen by 2019 was just fantasy. AI is nowhere near good enough to handle rainy roads, icy roads, construction debris, pedestrians, basketballs rolling from the playground, etc. etc. etc. Hell, it can't even handle a gigantic 18 wheeler blocking the road because it was painted WHITE and some dude got his head decapitated in a Tesla.
In fact I don't think AI will *ever* be good enough to handle current roads. However autonomous cars taking over can still happen if the laws change and roads are retrofitted with sensors and rebuilt to exact dimensions and uniform markings, everywhere.
Maybe by the time I die of old age.
Life expectancy went down during the depression because people didn't have enough food to eat, not because medical techniques got worse. It's not relevant to this discussion.
lifespans would be reduced to the levels currently seen in sub-Saharan Africa.
Nah. What was the life expectancy in the USA in the 1920's? I'll bet it was well over 60. Life wasn't all that terrible back in the day when people were driving around in Ford Model T's.
We still know about germ theory, so we would still be sterilizing scalpels and tongs with heat or alcohol or whatever. And we have xray machines and anesthesia and all that other good stuff, so it's still gonna be way better than medicine in the dark ages.
Making new stronger antibiotics is only a temporary solution, bacteria will probably develop resistance to that too.
What's probably gonna happen is that surgery will become risky and very expensive. Everything in the surgery room will need to be sterilized extremely thoroughly, and you would need super air filtration systems like a CPU manufacturing clean room. Even then risk of infection will always be there. So you would only want surgery in life-threatening situations. No more nose job or tummy tuck or a hip replacement. If you have a bum hip, you're gonna be walking around on a cane or in a wheelchair like our ancestors did.
cops and firefighters. When they are forced to use all-electric police cars and fire trucks, I will believe it.
Typically these two institutions get a pass on everything, like whenever California passes a new gun law banning this or that, cops get a free pass and they can still carry whatever they want.
Good point.
Lincoln was a Republican but not exactly a free trade idealog. He would do things contrary to subscribed political ideologies if he felt it would better serve the interest of the people.
"If I give my wife twenty Dollars, to buy a cloak and she brings one made in free-trade England, we have the cloak but England has the twenty dollars; while if she buys a cloak made in the protected United Slates, we have the cloak and the twenty dollars."
That may be true, but what other choice was there?
On one hand, you had a politician who openly and proudly proclaimed she will import as much cheap labor as possible. And was well known for having gone from being dead broke to a net worth of $100 million, pretty much exclusively from political cronyism (no one really believes Wall street bankers gave her $500,000 per speech because she had a pleasant voice)
On the other hand, you had a guy who so far has not taken any political bribes, and who said he will put a stop to this. So it was a choice between someone who you know with a 100% certainty will do something bad, versus someone who might do it but at least he's saying he won't.
Government benefits from importing cheap labor. Rich landowners (now corporations) benefit from cheap labor. History is replete with rich people trying to get richer by importing slaves and/or indentured servants.
It never works out well for society in the long run, but in the long run you're dead anyways, so might as well make some more money and bribe some more gov't officials while you're here, right?
Doesn't matter which political party is in power, doesn't matter whether a politician is a leftist or a rightist, they ALWAYS import more cheap labor... because they want to benefit the rich (and by extension, themselves). Trump ran a campaign saying he will put a stop to this, and now that he's in power he's already he's backpedaling. He's just turning into Clinton Lite. I'll bet you large sums that if Bernie was elected, right about now he will be finding excuses to import more cheap labor too.
Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hundreds of hostile Indian warriors.
Lone Ranger: Well Tonto, it looks like we're finally doomed.
Tonto: Who is we, white man?
Methinks the cnet movie blogger is obsessed with trailers and maybe a good chunk of the teenage male action movie viewers, but that's about it.
Unlike some less enlightened people, I understand the advanced concept known as "bookmarks" and thus have no need for opening more than a few tabs at any given time.
What got me off Chrome is just how long it takes to load initially. It's takes about twice as long as Firefox to come up. Makes you wonder what on earth it's doing... probably phoning home to Google and checking for updates, maybe sending telemetry info, and what else?
Or if it's not doing anything special, then it must be very bloated.
For now I'm doing fine just using Firefox and uBlock Origin (ad blocker) 90% of the time.
I may try Opera again (last time was in the late 90's), but why pay for something (or put up with a stripped free version) when a FOSS that does the job is available?
what are you, an old fogey from the 1980s?
No child should be left behind, ever. Every child must receive a world class college education, regardless of their IQ or high school performance. Get with the times, please.
cuz ur paper wuz g@y, lern 2 spell n1gga!
Unemployment as defined by the gov't is low. Problem is, gov't keeps redefining what it means to be unemployed.
Technically a guy who used to make $30 an hour full time in a union factory job, then laid off, and now works part time for $12 an hour, is not unemployed. Also if you plain give up looking for a job and go on charity/welfare/whatever, you're not unemployed.
missed an opportunity with the title
By leftist I assume you mean liberalism (in the modern sense, not classical liberalism).
That's just it though, liberalism is not so much rooted in thinking or logic, it's more about emotion.
BMW and Benz are Tesla's competitors. Of course Tesla is gonna want to "service" them as little as possible. What did he expect?
If Mr. Grohmann wanted to continue providing excellent service to BMW, maybe he should've just kept his company and not sold it to Tesla.
TFA says that Alphabet is one of the investors in this miraculous juice technology.
They will be called:
iPhone 7S (same as 7 but with processor upgrade)
IPhone 7S Plus (same as 7S Plus with slight upgrades)
iPhone X Anniversary (same size as 7S Plus, with fullscreen OLED, wraparound glass, different metal case, no physical Home button)