Grr. Now it looks like i dropped a not and my correction is incorrect.
Okay...
IF they don't breed and the others outbreed them and then the others kill them, their decision to not breed will have been stupid (even tho everyone ultimately dies when the out-breeders ultimately starve due to overbreeding).
...you're bettering the species...your increased survival...modern society doesn't really have a filter which says that the "fittest" will survive or get to breed...
These statements all reflect what I believe is an embedded and pervasive bias that permeates your logic.
I do not agree that you can assign good or bad, up or down, better or worse to any particular behavior.
The fact is that in our current environment of social values- a few subgroups of society are breeding much faster and eventually they and their offspring will dominate society. In at least some cases (and more likely- most cases), they will then change societal values even further to favor their group once they are the dominant population. As we have seen, this will go to the extent of slaughtering other groups of minority populations (who will then regret they did not breed faster). In that light, deciding not to breed or to be tolerant will turn out to have been a bad decision.
Those doing the most procreation are by definition the most fit.
An individual that does not reproduce and does not increase the reproduction of those who shares their genes are the least fit.
They can be brilliant, have the body of a greek god, and never get sick but if the less copies of their genes they pass on, the less fit they are (in this sense of the word).
Currently, being religious and poorly educated appears to provide a big advantage in reproductive fitness.
Yea.. that's why the raise rates only for some risky behaviors. The ones that society doesn't like. Equally risky behaviors that society approves of are not risk adjusted.
Really you are right tho and it is a case of "when they came for the smokers, I did nothing". The insurers want to insure only perfectly healthy people and drop them from coverage the instant they get sick. They make any adjustments towards that goal which society will allow them to make.
Society is often irrational about what is "good" and "bad" for people for up to a couple decades at a time.
The most common setup in the US is from the back, clearly showing the license plate.
The underlying reason is probably powerful people having affairs that got exposed this way. They used to take pictures from the front but it caused problems.
So you are saying all I have to do is *prove* that I am innocent.
Until then, I am presumed guilty.
Are you that lady from the jury I was on who kept saying, "The defense hasn't PROVED he was innocent!" to the rest of us when we were looking at her like she was insane.
If you are in France, your attitude is correct. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless they have a face photo of the driver, it is not proof. They can combine it with other evidence that the driver was in the car leaving a place just before the car ran the red light but a picture of a car alone proves nothing.
So it was just a matter of putting the numbers into a spreadsheet and doing relatively simple calculations to determine annual government spending per capita, and to see whether it grew more slowly during the Reagan years than before or since.
The data verified my earlier claim: spending grew a little faster during the Reagan years than during the Carter and Ford years that preceded his terms in office, and at a much faster rate than during the Bush I and Clinton years that followed.
It goes on to say that pre 1970, republicans were fiscal conservatives and "The fact that Republican presidents have been bigger spenders than Democratic presidents during the past 34 years startles many people."
There are other sources that make similar points.
The republicans (conservatives) also oversaw the grown of an enormous and pervasively intrusive surveillance system. It's always for a good cause (fight communism, fight drugs, fight terrorism). But the result are huge, secret government agencies that spy on our own people with multi-billion dollar budgets.
And there is some counter evidence that lowering your cholesterol is bad for some people.
Cholesterol is a pre-cursor to some things that your body needs (Like steroids-- made from the "sterol" part there).
I read it this way: You have a burning house surrounded by fire fighters. You take a pill that gets rid of the fire fighters.
Since.. well basically forever.. we make half-assed, short-sited, in some cases absolutely wrong policies based on partial information. Every day we find out something we thought was good is actually bad.
This had an interesting effect in Texas. The democrats squashed the republicans (by setting up 90%+ republican districts) for about 8 years and then when the republicans finally got control they flipped a lot of seats by changing the districts to 60/40 districts.
I liked Reagan. I think he really did end the cold war and naysayers who say it was ending anyway are wrong.
However, he presided over a huge growth of government.
In a way, he was the start of Republicans who said they would act on certain principles and then threw them aside once in office.
You can argue that he had to give butter to the democrats in exchange for his guns- but he did not run on a platform of guns AND butter (and anything else you want as long as you vote for funding against the soviets).
As such- Reagan was NOT a "conservative" in the sense of small government. He was not even close.
I remember at least 4 major cities being mentioned. It may be a feature of large cities.
It was mostly the 21 to 30 group of females in all of the cities. I have female relatives in this group and anecdotally it is true for them. The guys they date make less, have worse job prospects than they do.
Actually, It is a large group of women as a class are making more than the same class of men. That does point to some kind of discriminatory mechanism. Perhaps automatic raises for women while men still have to ask. I know schools are somehow discouraging males or at least providing a lot more encouragement and support for females.
It is a tragedy in the making. And it hurts women too (well straight ones) since women still seem to require that the guy they marry is taller and makes more money than they do so a lot of them are staying single longer and competing over a smaller pool of qualifying males.
Just imagine if we had spent 500 billion dollars on solar power instead of on the iraqi war.
Just imagine if we had committed to spend 100 billion dollars a year on solar power for the next five years.
Even now, they are looking at 42% efficient cells and cells that can be created by printing them with nano-silicon. Put the two together and you have power for a house during the day for $5,000.
That would change everything.
Batteries and inverters are a challenge tho.
We are ruining ourselves spending so much to defend and support this antiquated oil economy.
I understand if you are 40DD - there is no way you can dress that it is going to be easy for men to ignore them. However, if you are a typical lady up to a 38C then avoid wearing shirts that show off half your chest with a deep scoop or V-Neck. Or stop complaining when you dress that way and guys look at your cleavage.
I do not find women in conservative shirts or polo shirts distracting unless they are of exceptional size. But, I still glance if they have an open shirt-- because in part i'm usually a foot taller and can potentially see their belly button in some cases and my genetic imperative just makes it impossible for me to avoid doing. Sure- I pull my eyes back up afterwards but the deed is done.
Men and Women never have affairs in the workplace.
They follow the examples of our fine congressmen and senators.
And it helps that women never wear V-neck shirts that show off cleavage and then complain when we look at it. And they never wear shirts that expose their midriff either. And they never wear skirts slit up the side to mid-thigh. Guys of course wear revealing pants and those racy polo shirts (if not sheer dress shirts and jacket with tie).
And they never ogle that cute bodybuilder guy or talk about him at the coffee bar like he was an object- or at least they stop once a guy comes around the corner.
Because women are perfect and focused on work.
Women never get married and then suddenly quit a job as a low-level manager and guys do all the time because they want to be house husbands and raise the kids.
---
Yes it's a wonderful, wonderful world of unreality out there.
Sorry but the cushy warehouse jobs where they move pallets up to 2000 pounds provide equipment to move those loads. The mines likewise can scale things for people who can move 50 pounds with proper equipment.
And then the women still wouldn't work there because mining stinks as a job. My heart goes out to those guys. They give up years of their lives on average to mining conditions and sometimes all of their lives specifically in an accident.
So the males do the scut work and hurt their backs?
The correct gender neutral way to address this is by getting the appropriate equipment to move the patients around so that anyone can do it.
I dealt with this attitude back at my first IT job.
The girl got equal pay- but I got to stay nights and weekends to do upgrades because "it was too dangerous for a female" and she happily took advantage of that while harassing me and the manager for reading trade magazines when we finished our projects early. She felt we should help her with her projects (she was a newb and partially always would be because she didn't read the trade magazines and so she didn't know any cool short cuts).
She ended up being manager of the place for the 5 months before it was closed down while I went on to a consulting job.
---
I think males are equally uncomfortable with males poking them. We are socialized so that "touching == sex" in the states. Most of my male friends are uncomfortable with hugs until they put me in the box of "the guy that hugs". I'm cross trained as a massage therapist which is a very touchy field (and dominated by women).
Slashdot Mirror
Grr. Now it looks like i dropped a not and my correction is incorrect.
Okay...
IF they don't breed and the others outbreed them and then the others kill them, their decision to not breed will have been stupid (even tho everyone ultimately dies when the out-breeders ultimately starve due to overbreeding).
Are you confused? Because I read the dipshit's post as being correct while yours seems wrong.
will turn out to have been a *good* decision. (sigh).
And SOMEDAY slashdot will allow at least five minutes of editing your posts.
...you're bettering the species...your increased survival...modern society doesn't really have a filter which says that the "fittest" will survive or get to breed...
These statements all reflect what I believe is an embedded and pervasive bias that permeates your logic.
I do not agree that you can assign good or bad, up or down, better or worse to any particular behavior.
The fact is that in our current environment of social values- a few subgroups of society are breeding much faster and eventually they and their offspring will dominate society. In at least some cases (and more likely- most cases), they will then change societal values even further to favor their group once they are the dominant population. As we have seen, this will go to the extent of slaughtering other groups of minority populations (who will then regret they did not breed faster). In that light, deciding not to breed or to be tolerant will turn out to have been a bad decision.
Those doing the most procreation are by definition the most fit.
An individual that does not reproduce and does not increase the reproduction of those who shares their genes are the least fit.
They can be brilliant, have the body of a greek god, and never get sick but if the less copies of their genes they pass on, the less fit they are (in this sense of the word).
Currently, being religious and poorly educated appears to provide a big advantage in reproductive fitness.
Yea.. that's why the raise rates only for some risky behaviors. The ones that society doesn't like.
Equally risky behaviors that society approves of are not risk adjusted.
Really you are right tho and it is a case of "when they came for the smokers, I did nothing". The insurers want to insure only perfectly healthy people and drop them from coverage the instant they get sick. They make any adjustments towards that goal which society will allow them to make.
Society is often irrational about what is "good" and "bad" for people for up to a couple decades at a time.
The most common setup in the US is from the back, clearly showing the license plate.
The underlying reason is probably powerful people having affairs that got exposed this way. They used to take pictures from the front but it caused problems.
So you are saying all I have to do is *prove* that I am innocent.
Until then, I am presumed guilty.
Are you that lady from the jury I was on who kept saying, "The defense hasn't PROVED he was innocent!" to the rest of us when we were looking at her like she was insane.
If you are in France, your attitude is correct. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless they have a face photo of the driver, it is not proof. They can combine it with other evidence that the driver was in the car leaving a place just before the car ran the red light but a picture of a car alone proves nothing.
Oh I wasn't in it.
I think my daughter was driving it.
But I'm not sure. It may have been my son.
Or one of their friends.
They were moving that night and lots of different people used the car.
Car Person.
Lots of different people drive the same car in some circles.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/brad ford-spending.html
which says in part...
So it was just a matter of putting the numbers into a spreadsheet and doing relatively simple calculations to determine annual government spending per capita, and to see whether it grew more slowly during the Reagan years than before or since.
The data verified my earlier claim: spending grew a little faster during the Reagan years than during the Carter and Ford years that preceded his terms in office, and at a much faster rate than during the Bush I and Clinton years that followed.
It goes on to say that pre 1970, republicans were fiscal conservatives and "The fact that Republican presidents have been bigger spenders than Democratic presidents during the past 34 years startles many people."
There are other sources that make similar points.
The republicans (conservatives) also oversaw the grown of an enormous and pervasively intrusive surveillance system. It's always for a good cause (fight communism, fight drugs, fight terrorism). But the result are huge, secret government agencies that spy on our own people with multi-billion dollar budgets.
And there is some counter evidence that lowering your cholesterol is bad for some people.
Cholesterol is a pre-cursor to some things that your body needs (Like steroids-- made from the "sterol" part there).
I read it this way:
You have a burning house surrounded by fire fighters.
You take a pill that gets rid of the fire fighters.
Since.. well basically forever.. we make half-assed, short-sited, in some cases absolutely wrong policies based on partial information. Every day we find out something we thought was good is actually bad.
I agree.
And I think anyone that gets a sun burn or sun tan should pay extra as well.
And anyone that doesn't eat range fed chicken.
And anyone that eats meat.
And anyone that doesn't do exactly what I want.
Because my real purpose is to control them.
This had an interesting effect in Texas.
The democrats squashed the republicans (by setting up 90%+ republican districts) for about 8 years and then when the republicans finally got control they flipped a lot of seats by changing the districts to 60/40 districts.
I liked Reagan. I think he really did end the cold war and naysayers who say it was ending anyway are wrong.
However, he presided over a huge growth of government.
In a way, he was the start of Republicans who said they would act on certain principles and then threw them aside once in office.
You can argue that he had to give butter to the democrats in exchange for his guns- but he did not run on a platform of guns AND butter (and anything else you want as long as you vote for funding against the soviets).
As such- Reagan was NOT a "conservative" in the sense of small government. He was not even close.
I remember at least 4 major cities being mentioned.
It may be a feature of large cities.
It was mostly the 21 to 30 group of females in all of the cities.
I have female relatives in this group and anecdotally it is true for them. The guys they date make less, have worse job prospects than they do.
Actually,
It is a large group of women as a class are making more than the same class of men.
That does point to some kind of discriminatory mechanism. Perhaps automatic raises for women while men still have to ask. I know schools are somehow discouraging males or at least providing a lot more encouragement and support for females.
It is a tragedy in the making. And it hurts women too (well straight ones) since women still seem to require that the guy they marry is taller and makes more money than they do so a lot of them are staying single longer and competing over a smaller pool of qualifying males.
Perhaps Spielberg's blind luck was a willingness to accept input from the actors.
Genie us's.
Jeany usis.
Just imagine if we had spent 500 billion dollars on solar power instead of on the iraqi war.
Just imagine if we had committed to spend 100 billion dollars a year on solar power for the next five years.
Even now, they are looking at 42% efficient cells and cells that can be created by printing them with nano-silicon. Put the two together and you have power for a house during the day for $5,000.
That would change everything.
Batteries and inverters are a challenge tho.
We are ruining ourselves spending so much to defend and support this antiquated oil economy.
It is possible that ultra intelligent is impossible if you mean "smart".
A machine might be able to consider more information than humans in making a decision.
We need to understand genius's before we could make a smart machine tho.
And real genius's are random in nature and typically unique.
One comment (cause this is an area that bugs me).
I understand if you are 40DD - there is no way you can dress that it is going to be easy for men to ignore them.
However, if you are a typical lady up to a 38C then avoid wearing shirts that show off half your chest with a deep scoop or V-Neck. Or stop complaining when you dress that way and guys look at your cleavage.
I do not find women in conservative shirts or polo shirts distracting unless they are of exceptional size. But, I still glance if they have an open shirt-- because in part i'm usually a foot taller and can potentially see their belly button in some cases and my genetic imperative just makes it impossible for me to avoid doing. Sure- I pull my eyes back up afterwards but the deed is done.
Oh come on.
Men and Women never have affairs in the workplace.
They follow the examples of our fine congressmen and senators.
And it helps that women never wear V-neck shirts that show off cleavage and then complain when we look at it. And they never wear shirts that expose their midriff either. And they never wear skirts slit up the side to mid-thigh. Guys of course wear revealing pants and those racy polo shirts (if not sheer dress shirts and jacket with tie).
And they never ogle that cute bodybuilder guy or talk about him at the coffee bar like he was an object- or at least they stop once a guy comes around the corner.
Because women are perfect and focused on work.
Women never get married and then suddenly quit a job as a low-level manager and guys do all the time because they want to be house husbands and raise the kids.
---
Yes it's a wonderful, wonderful world of unreality out there.
Sorry but the cushy warehouse jobs where they move pallets up to 2000 pounds provide equipment to move those loads.
The mines likewise can scale things for people who can move 50 pounds with proper equipment.
And then the women still wouldn't work there because mining stinks as a job. My heart goes out to those guys. They give up years of their lives on average to mining conditions and sometimes all of their lives specifically in an accident.
So the males do the scut work and hurt their backs?
The correct gender neutral way to address this is by getting the appropriate equipment to move the patients around so that anyone can do it.
I dealt with this attitude back at my first IT job.
The girl got equal pay- but I got to stay nights and weekends to do upgrades because "it was too dangerous for a female" and she happily took advantage of that while harassing me and the manager for reading trade magazines when we finished our projects early. She felt we should help her with her projects (she was a newb and partially always would be because she didn't read the trade magazines and so she didn't know any cool short cuts).
She ended up being manager of the place for the 5 months before it was closed down while I went on to a consulting job.
---
I think males are equally uncomfortable with males poking them. We are socialized so that "touching == sex" in the states. Most of my male friends are uncomfortable with hugs until they put me in the box of "the guy that hugs". I'm cross trained as a massage therapist which is a very touchy field (and dominated by women).
lower and middle managers are all females on both sides.
I think they are trying to bum rush them up to management.
The ladies are competent but until we get to 50/50 in upper management, we are not going to have a lot of male promotions apparently.