Man I love that movie (though the critics, typically, savaged it). My favorite bit is when Beldar goes after his daughter's boyfriend:
"I find you unacceptable! If I did not fear incarceration from human authority figures, I would terminate your life functions by applying sufficient pressure to your blunt skull so as to force its collapse!"
I rewatched the film a few years ago, and the scene where Maximilian and Reinhardt are merged together in Hell was incredibly dark. Coupled with TRON, there was a period when Disney Studios actually recaptured some of the daring of the early years.
The worst part of Black Hole were the Disney-esque touches, like the Slim Pickens' voiced robot. If you sort of ignore the silly asides, the film is an astonishingly haunting film. Maximilian Schell's Reinhardt is one dark, nasty guy. Think about it, he basically turns the entire crew of his ship into enslaved brain-dead androids. That's Darth Vader-level evil.
The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.
I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.
And how was a minority population viewed as subhuman, terrorized by both legal and extralegal organizations supposed to participate in the market? Jim Crow was only one aspect of a century of segregation and persecution of southern African Americans. Your perpetuating this fantasy that it was all the legislatures' faults, when every historical indication was that the majority of Americans in the Jim Crow states had absolute no problem with the laws, or with the idea that blacks and whites should not mingle, even in the market square.
Again, I will repeat, business is not some separate entity, some creature that exists in a vacuum. It exhibits the same prejudices that the wider society does, because it is simply a facet of that society. The Jim Crow laws weren't forced upon all southerners, they were forced on blacks by a majority of southerners who wanted to make sure they stayed at the bottom of the pole.
I don't know what is surprising about this. We've known for decades that poor nutrition during the developmental years can lead to poor brain development and permanent cognitive problems.
"Business" is not some entity that exists in a vacuum. The Jim Crow laws were passed with the consent of the majority of white southerners, and were maintained for decades. There's little or no evidence of any dissatisfaction on the part of the majority of Southerners to such laws, and indeed every indication that Segregation was viewed as right and proper.
I'm sorry you have a hard time accepting this, but Antebellum society until recently was fundamentally racist, and the businesses and legislatures of those states merely reflected the public mood. You will note that there was virtually no Southern civil rights movement, and that the pressure, and ultimately the solution, to Segregation and Jim Crow came from outside.
Those laws were passed with little or no opposition from Southern society. They weren't forced on the South, they were an expression of the fear and general disdain for Southern blacks by the white majority.
You're trying desperately to let Southern whites from the end of Reconstruction until the 1960s off the hook for a general and pervasive racism by claiming the State legislatures were at fault. It's absurd and bizarre, but it's the kind of idiocy I've come to expect from Libertarians.
The segregated South falsifies your claim. The free market in those states would quite happily have excluded blacks from the mainstream economic system in perpetuity if left to itself.
The "invisible hand" is a pile of steaming bullshit, as unevidenced a god as Yahweh.
- People who run a business (like a bakery) should be absolutely free to refuse service to anyone, at any time, with or without giving a reason. It's not the government's business. If a bakery wants to make cakes for government functions, they follow the government's rules. If the public doesn't like it, the business changes their policy or closes. Period. (Ignoring all the ways the government can visit "unrelated" reprisals on uncooperative subjects.)
Except that isn't true. The Civil Rights Act 1964 pretty much killed segregation, which based on that very claim. Generations of African Americans grew up banished from many white-run businesses based on the claim "businesses have an absolute right."
The fact is that businesses do not have absolute rights to refuse service, and have not had an absolute right in half a century.
Oh bullshit. There was general social consensus in the Jim Crow states that blacks needed to be segregated, that contact between the races should be minimized as much as possible. The governments of these states were doing precisely what the majority in these states wanted.
One brave and short-lived business. That's the problem with these laws; essentially they allow the majority to persecute the minority, under the cover of "religious freedoms". It strikes me as being no different than the same disingenuous arguments used to justify Segregation.
Safe except for the byproducts, which are most definitely not safe. I'm not an opponent of nuclear, but it's ludicrous to claim that it is safer than, say, geothermal or solar.
You may not say I'm guilty of a fallacy, I'm saying you are. It's almost as if you think simply stringing long lines of words together in some semblance of a sentence somehow represents a critique. I hesitate to call what you're line of argument has devolved to a game of semantics. More like a game of alphabet soup.
Are you trying for the Logical Fallacy of the Year Award here? The point of AGW theory is that the changes we are seeing are not natural in origin. Instead of playing semantics, deal with what the theory states. Invoking private definitions is probably the lowest form of debate, because it's useless and accomplishes nothing.
I'm sure it's the same down in Washington State as it is up here in coastal British Columbia. Low snow pack means lower river levels, which means potential problems for irrigation in areas under cultivation, harm to fish stocks, and the potential for severe water restrictions in some areas.
I own some property out in a rural area of Central Vancouver Island, and while my house is on a civic water system, my kid and her partner live on the property in a house that gets its water from a creek that flows beside the property. They also raise pigs, using my water license. The creek swells up during rainstorms (like the one we had over the last day or so), but all in all, it's very low compared to other years this time, and I'm seriously worried that we may have to put everything on the civic system, or dig a well, and both cost $$$.
It also brings to mind the previous winter, when we had to put a new water line from the creek into the kids' house in the middle of December. First of all, it was about six or seven degrees celsius (42.8F), and I was literally clearing out the trench in jeans and a t-shirt. The soil itself, a sandy loam common in our area, was damned near bone dry a foot down. The back hoe operator was pretty amazed, and it demonstrated how the 2013-14 winter was very dry (though it did have longer cold spells).
The final anecdote to my story is that I grew up on the property, and when I was a kid back in the 1970s and 1980s, we used to skate at least two to three weeks every winter on the big pond, but now, even in the hardest cold snap, I'd be very nervous about walking far out on that ice. It just doesn't simply get as cold on Vancouver Island as it used to, and all that precipitation that should be hitting the coastal mountains and forming a good snowpack that lasts well into summer is just falling as rain.
No kidding. Here on Vancouver Island, other than perhaps a four or five day stretch back in December with sub-zero degrees celsius temperatures, and the odd day here and there of frosty mornings, we literally did not have a winter.
There seems to be this popular attack of AGW that involves "Look outside, if it isn't a desert, all those scientists are evil liars!"
Slashdot Mirror
You could just not show up on April 1. I've largely avoided /. today, but dipped my toes in a few times.
Man I love that movie (though the critics, typically, savaged it). My favorite bit is when Beldar goes after his daughter's boyfriend:
"I find you unacceptable! If I did not fear incarceration from human authority figures, I would terminate your life functions by applying sufficient pressure to your blunt skull so as to force its collapse!"
I'm a cranially deformed overlord, you insensitive clod!
I rewatched the film a few years ago, and the scene where Maximilian and Reinhardt are merged together in Hell was incredibly dark. Coupled with TRON, there was a period when Disney Studios actually recaptured some of the daring of the early years.
The worst part of Black Hole were the Disney-esque touches, like the Slim Pickens' voiced robot. If you sort of ignore the silly asides, the film is an astonishingly haunting film. Maximilian Schell's Reinhardt is one dark, nasty guy. Think about it, he basically turns the entire crew of his ship into enslaved brain-dead androids. That's Darth Vader-level evil.
Or you could just buy a notebook.
The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.
I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.
And how was a minority population viewed as subhuman, terrorized by both legal and extralegal organizations supposed to participate in the market? Jim Crow was only one aspect of a century of segregation and persecution of southern African Americans. Your perpetuating this fantasy that it was all the legislatures' faults, when every historical indication was that the majority of Americans in the Jim Crow states had absolute no problem with the laws, or with the idea that blacks and whites should not mingle, even in the market square.
Again, I will repeat, business is not some separate entity, some creature that exists in a vacuum. It exhibits the same prejudices that the wider society does, because it is simply a facet of that society. The Jim Crow laws weren't forced upon all southerners, they were forced on blacks by a majority of southerners who wanted to make sure they stayed at the bottom of the pole.
I don't know what is surprising about this. We've known for decades that poor nutrition during the developmental years can lead to poor brain development and permanent cognitive problems.
"Business" is not some entity that exists in a vacuum. The Jim Crow laws were passed with the consent of the majority of white southerners, and were maintained for decades. There's little or no evidence of any dissatisfaction on the part of the majority of Southerners to such laws, and indeed every indication that Segregation was viewed as right and proper.
I'm sorry you have a hard time accepting this, but Antebellum society until recently was fundamentally racist, and the businesses and legislatures of those states merely reflected the public mood. You will note that there was virtually no Southern civil rights movement, and that the pressure, and ultimately the solution, to Segregation and Jim Crow came from outside.
Those laws were passed with little or no opposition from Southern society. They weren't forced on the South, they were an expression of the fear and general disdain for Southern blacks by the white majority.
You're trying desperately to let Southern whites from the end of Reconstruction until the 1960s off the hook for a general and pervasive racism by claiming the State legislatures were at fault. It's absurd and bizarre, but it's the kind of idiocy I've come to expect from Libertarians.
The logic does not follow. Homosexuality is conduct between consenting adults; children and animals cannot, by their very nature, grant consent.
It's cute of you to think you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.
The segregated South falsifies your claim. The free market in those states would quite happily have excluded blacks from the mainstream economic system in perpetuity if left to itself.
The "invisible hand" is a pile of steaming bullshit, as unevidenced a god as Yahweh.
Except that isn't true. The Civil Rights Act 1964 pretty much killed segregation, which based on that very claim. Generations of African Americans grew up banished from many white-run businesses based on the claim "businesses have an absolute right."
The fact is that businesses do not have absolute rights to refuse service, and have not had an absolute right in half a century.
Oh bullshit. There was general social consensus in the Jim Crow states that blacks needed to be segregated, that contact between the races should be minimized as much as possible. The governments of these states were doing precisely what the majority in these states wanted.
And you know Jesus would feel this way how exactly?
You wouldn't be a God-fearing bigot if didn't constantly compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.
One brave and short-lived business. That's the problem with these laws; essentially they allow the majority to persecute the minority, under the cover of "religious freedoms". It strikes me as being no different than the same disingenuous arguments used to justify Segregation.
How does one explain the Civil Rights Act of 1968, then?
You do understand that in science, predictions doesn't mean "predicting the future", right?
Safe except for the byproducts, which are most definitely not safe. I'm not an opponent of nuclear, but it's ludicrous to claim that it is safer than, say, geothermal or solar.
You may not say I'm guilty of a fallacy, I'm saying you are. It's almost as if you think simply stringing long lines of words together in some semblance of a sentence somehow represents a critique. I hesitate to call what you're line of argument has devolved to a game of semantics. More like a game of alphabet soup.
Are you trying for the Logical Fallacy of the Year Award here? The point of AGW theory is that the changes we are seeing are not natural in origin. Instead of playing semantics, deal with what the theory states. Invoking private definitions is probably the lowest form of debate, because it's useless and accomplishes nothing.
I'm sure it's the same down in Washington State as it is up here in coastal British Columbia. Low snow pack means lower river levels, which means potential problems for irrigation in areas under cultivation, harm to fish stocks, and the potential for severe water restrictions in some areas.
I own some property out in a rural area of Central Vancouver Island, and while my house is on a civic water system, my kid and her partner live on the property in a house that gets its water from a creek that flows beside the property. They also raise pigs, using my water license. The creek swells up during rainstorms (like the one we had over the last day or so), but all in all, it's very low compared to other years this time, and I'm seriously worried that we may have to put everything on the civic system, or dig a well, and both cost $$$.
It also brings to mind the previous winter, when we had to put a new water line from the creek into the kids' house in the middle of December. First of all, it was about six or seven degrees celsius (42.8F), and I was literally clearing out the trench in jeans and a t-shirt. The soil itself, a sandy loam common in our area, was damned near bone dry a foot down. The back hoe operator was pretty amazed, and it demonstrated how the 2013-14 winter was very dry (though it did have longer cold spells).
The final anecdote to my story is that I grew up on the property, and when I was a kid back in the 1970s and 1980s, we used to skate at least two to three weeks every winter on the big pond, but now, even in the hardest cold snap, I'd be very nervous about walking far out on that ice. It just doesn't simply get as cold on Vancouver Island as it used to, and all that precipitation that should be hitting the coastal mountains and forming a good snowpack that lasts well into summer is just falling as rain.
No kidding. Here on Vancouver Island, other than perhaps a four or five day stretch back in December with sub-zero degrees celsius temperatures, and the odd day here and there of frosty mornings, we literally did not have a winter.
There seems to be this popular attack of AGW that involves "Look outside, if it isn't a desert, all those scientists are evil liars!"