If it is possible to teleport a proton, and it's possible also to store information in a proton, it is possible to communicate information faster than light.
This means it's possible for us to create quantum computers which transfer information instantly, I'm not even sure we know what this means yet but discovering this is like discovering atomic technology in the 1930s.
If protons can be teleported due to non locality of the quantum, it changes everything. What we really have to consider is the fact that nuclear elements can be teleported to.
What is basically says is that everything in the universe is connected, as if we are on a 2d river, and if you mess with something over here, it messes with something over there, as if there is no here or there, and no distance at all.
If there is no distance at all, that changes the world. Right now we have only managed to make it so there is no distance with photons, and maybe atoms, but just by doing this we allow for there to be no distance for communication. When there is no distance for communication it means we could communicate with aliens accross the universe using this method and actually recieve a response.
It also means we can communicate with each other instantly.
It's proven that we have teleported atoms. As we can see, we are on the edge of a breakthrough, which will either be very good or very bad for our species.
This is actually bigger news than it seems. It could influence information technology, and have the potential to create strange new weapons. Let's hope we have enough sense to use it for communications and computing.
Face time is important because pretty faces and bodies advance faster than ugly ones. So of course, your boss wants to see your body, that way he (or she) can rate you just like they do on "hot or not", and decide who to give a raise based on that.
So dress nice guys and gals, your boss wants to see you now.
It is a problem of law, like others have said, the age of consent laws are mutated and horrible. They are so confusing that they don't make sense. When we talk about teens, it's more difficult to say the laws are right or fair than when we talk about obvious child porn. A child, like under 15, this is obviously wrong, because a 15 year old and under is not fully developed. The average person who is not a pedophile will be able to look at them and see a child. This becomes more difficult when the child is over 15 and begins to look more like an adult, after a certain point theres easy way to know the difference anymore.
The age of consent laws are different in each state in the US, and different in each country. This makes it confusing for anyone. We need a global age of consent law. We need to pick an age, based on biological and scientific information, as to what age a person can safely give consent. Once this age is chosen, it should be the law worldwide, and this will stop at least people who want to follow the law from doing something stupid.
In order to stop pedophiles, well you can assume that the pedophiles aren't interested in "teens", but actual child porn, and these people obviously don't care about the law, or the health of the child. We need the laws to be clear enough so we know when someone crosses the line.
I think the easiest way to go after child pornographers is to go after child pornographers. If it's illegal to take nude pictures of someone under the global minimum age, then it should be illegal, period, and anyone who breaks that law should be arrested. However if we don't even have a set age, then someone can be doing something completely legal in their country, and then market it to countries where it's illegal, it creates a black market like the drug industry.
I don't think you can reduce the size of the market by going after the demand, you have to reduce the supply, and go after the distributors. So far it seems we don't do a good job going after the people who are making the child porn.
WE need to pick an age, and make that age the global age limit. The reason it's so complicated now is because of the weird age of consent laws, and all the different ages all around the globe, and all around the country, to the point where no one knows whats legal and whats not.
To be safe, assume under 18 is in risky territory. I'm not in the pornography industry, but if I were, I would not even waste my time with ladies or males or whatever, who could not prove they are over 18.
So I'm saying we need a global age of consent.This way the line is drawn in the sand and anyone who crosses it, knows it was illegal.
That is debateable, but the bf should not take pictures of the 17 year old because he has a conscience, not because shes a child.
Child pornography is universally wrong. Don't confuse situations where people are 17, which is a young adult, with a child. I know our legal system sucks with the confusion of age of consent, but we all know child pornography is wrong.
If you have a gf who is underaged, don't take nude pictures of her.
Why would anyone with a conscience support the kiddie porn industry at all?
It's CHILD PORN, it's wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, what kinda person would actually pay money to support the creation of more of this garbage?!
You are right, they'd have to be damn stupid to pay with a credit card, but they'd have to be damn immoral to pay at all. It's a completely pedophile market that should be destroyed. The entire industry should be destroyed. This means you should track the money, but also why the hell are there sites like that allowed to be on the internet at all?
I can't believe we don't have a global law on child porn to prevent people from creating more of it, I mean the way people fight it now it's never going to end, it's like a waste of time to keep going after "pictures" of child porn, or "movies" or 1s and 0s, when the child pornographers, and website designers, and those who pay for and fund it, continue to create more of it.
The best thing that can be done, is to create a global law that outlaws any type of profit from child pornography. Then you can outlaw any child porn website. Once you get rid of the websites and the ability to profit, a lot less child porn will be created because it won't have the economics behind it.
As far as dealing with pedophiles, thats another issue, but child pornography is easy to stop and prevent and we just aren't focusing on it enough.
Why the hell do people pay for *any* porn, and especially why would you pay for porn that's *already illegal*?!
People make my head hurt. Because they are pedophiles, they don't have any sense.
I think this is the best idea so far to catch pedophiles, and it also destroys the kiddie porn industry.
Now, when you ask why would people pay for porn, because obviously the good porn costs money, duh. If you ask why would pedophiles pay for porn? Because they think kiddie porn is good. The fact that kiddie porn is illegal does not stop pedpophiles from making it, buying it, selling it. However if you start arresting everyone involved in the kiddie porn industry then you might get somewhere.
I've never seen a baby allergic to breast milk. I'm lactose intolerant but not to that degree.
Show me some evidence that there are babies that can't drink breastmilk because I find that difficult to believe.
It does cause diarrhea but I don't know of babies dying of it either. The people I know who were lactose intolerant as children, did not die of diarrhea. Obviuosly people managed otherwise the gene would not have spread so fast.
Simple automatically generate new rootkits to download on every windows machine, every 24/hours, using an exploit generator to generate the different rootkits, or just pay hackers to create the rootkit while selling the subscription for the anti-rootkit rootkit.
It's really simple, drinking milk or not really had no influence on human evolution. Humans that couldnt drink milk found something else to eat.
The invention of the gun had more influence on evolution (or de-evolution) than anything else. That one invention went on to cost millions of lives. Whoever invented organized war also, went on to cost us millions if not billions of lives.
Evolution, is self controlled, humans control evolution, nature is not meant to be worshipped.
But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.
Why does natural selection favor lactase? I don't think that gene had any influence at all on natural selection. It's the gene that helped humanity make the gun that had the most influence on natural selection, and the genes associated with the creation of money, religion, and government.
I really don't think it mattered if humans drank milk or not.
If you want to keep race as a concept, make sure it is scientifically stable. This means people who have sickle cell trait are a RACE. It's not like all Africans have that trait, in fact it's not like all Africans are the same race, and most African Americans, if you mean Black Americans, they are not pure, they are more genetically related to hispanic than to some of the African immigrants, this is due to the fact that if you've been in a location for hundreds of years your genes mix. The majority of Black Americans are not genetically similar to the majority of Africans in Africa, and when you look in Africa, most Africans in African are not genetically similar to each other, so the current appearance based concept of races does not work, and I think race based medicine is ridiculous unless you mean ancestor based medicine and then it makes sense, but I would never trust any doctor that is not of my tribe, and who does not take that medicine himself. If we share an ancestor, due to the sharing of genetic traits, thats one thing, but race based medicine? Would you take medicine designed only for your specific race of European? I don't know what race you are but lets assume you are German, would you take the German medicine, made by the African scientist? Of course not, so why would you expect the African to take their race based medicine?
Trait based medicine I agree with. Ancestor based medicine I agree with. Lineage based medicine I agree with, if you can trace back to a common ancestor, you are of the same tribe. Guess what though, most people in America can trace back to common ancestors, as can most hispanics. Look at South America, they all have European ancestors and native American ancestors and African ancestors. That's about as mixed as this country can get, and it's becoming the default genetic line in this country.
Now look at the majority of Blacks in this country, I mean the native ones who have been here for over 500 years, they are now mixed, most have at least one white ancestor, as if you look carefully, black people in America have lighter skin than black people in Africa, and some have native American ancestors, which means genetically there is little to no difference now between a black in the USA, and a hispanic in south America. Sickle cell, sure, it exists, but it's not like the majority of people have that trait, so thats not a good trait for race based medicine unless you want to make skin cancer treatment a race based medicine too, which I think would be just as backwards.
My opinion, people should have their genes scanned, their traits scanned, all of us should then be matched up by the computer with other people who have the same genetic traits, and based on how many shared traits, and based on the location of the genes, and based on common ancestors, this is how you'll know exactly who is from what tribe and when. The idea of race in my opinion, no longer applies to the world of genetic accuracy. If you are not a racist, move on from the idea of race and focus on genetic discrimination, because thats what is set to come next. I'm smart enough to see that it's coming next and I've moved on from the idea of race as it is commonly expressed.
If you believe in the concept of race, you are a racist, it's that simple.
If you can admit to being a racist, then you can discuss the social concept that is race. If you arent a racist and you are say, a geneticist, a transhumanist, or whatever, then you'll understand that appearance does not make up the majority of the genetic differences between two humans. This means the classic religious definitions of race have already been proven through science to be fake.
You want an example? Let's say homosexuality is genetic and is biological, are homosexuals a race? Sure they could be considered a genetic race, if you based it on gene science, but you cannot look at a person and automatically see their race as homosexual.
Want another example? Tall muscular people, giant sized people, these people could be considered a completely seperate race, they have many genes that the common population does not have, this is why they are so tall and big, these are basically new breeds of human, they play sports and stuff like that, but they are genetically different. Are they a race?
The problem with classical racists is that they classify race as only CERTAIN genes, they only judge race based on how people LOOK, which means there is no science at all, it's classic eugenics, it's as silly as studying the shape of the human skull to figure out the size and speed of the brain, it's as stupid as studying the box of a computer to try and figure out whats inside and how fast the CPU is. It's one thing you don't know what a computer is yet or wha ta CPU is yet, and you study the box, but once you KNOW what the CPU is, how it works, and everything, and you still study the outside cast of the computer, just out of laziness so you can put these computers into boxes based on the color of the case, well there is going to be errors.
Lets do it like this, you have the intel black box, and the intel white box.
You are going to end up putting pentium 4s in the same box you put pentium 2s, all because you are too lazy to actually open the box and see the difference between the CPU's. You might even end up putting AMDs into the intel boxs. Basically, what I'm saying is, if we applied the race idea to computers, the case your computer is in would define it's race. A computer that comes in a black case, no matter what the CPU inside is, it's going to be put into a box that SAYS it's a pentium x386, it could be a pentium 4 extreme CPU inside that box, but if it's in the black case, the lazy boxman is going to put all black cased computers into the pentium x386 box, simply because the case is black, it goes into that box.
Now, the white intel, this will be another box, it will be a x586-686, now lets assume the boxman is just as lazy, the cases are white, and all white cases automatically go into the x686 box, and in the x686 there is all this advertising about how state of the art it is.
But what if under the white case it's actually a x386 CPU, and because no one bothered to check, it goes into the x686 box? So all white intels will essentially be labeled 686, and all black intels will be labeled 386, no matter what the CPU or hardware inside the case actually is.
Now, when the consumer goes to buy the new computer, they buy the white intel thinking the white intel is superior, because it's white, and has good marketing, and good hype, and has a nice beautiful white box, so they go ahead and buy the nice hyped white box, they plug it in, and it runs slow as shit, it crashes all the time, and finally they open it up and they discover it's a fucking x386 CPU in an x686 box, inside of a white case,
This is why racism is wrong, Just analyze the metaphor, if we used racism to justify which computers we buy, we'd all be buying SHIT computers, we wouldnt even open the box to see what CPU is inside because the case would look so nice, so shiny, and so white, that we would not even bother to check the speed of whats inside.
The black intels wouldnt even sell because hey even if they are
Race is based on appearance, if you are talking about location based genetics, all Americans are the same race. But if you are talking about the stereotypical definition of race, you as in appearance, appearance is only 15% of a persons genetics, which means there are more differences between two peoples brains, than the amount of difference between a white, a black, and an asian. In fact there is more genetic difference between two asians, than between a white and a black, or between two blacks than between a black and an asian.
I hope this proves the point. Genetically, if there is a such thing as race, it's likely not the same thing as how we currently define it, it's likely based on the locations your genes came from, which has nothing to do with race or appearance, it just says that gene X came from location Y and is popular among people whos ancestors came from location Y, even though all 3 races may have ancestors who came from location Y. This basically proves the 3 appearance types are NOT the true races. The true races are based on genetic similarity. Genetic typing, would mean two people who share a family disease are more closely related than two people who share a skin color, because often many diseases require more genes to manifest than any of the common human appearance traits, and these diseases are recent mutations.
If there is this much variation between two individuals, does this finally disprove the whole "race" myth once and for all? Appearance only accounts for at most 15% of a persons genes. Since there are no "race specific" genes, and the science is basically saying that there is massive difference between two individuals, when will the religious ideology catch up to the science?
When are we going to classify people according to their genetic quality/type and not their appearance?
There are bound to be people with Jeff Dahmer syndrome, who will just get weird once they get you in their house. So it depends on how it's organized. If the room has a lock on it, or if you are in a group, perhaps you can feel somewhat safer but it still does not seem very safe.
I'm not saying a hostel is completely safe but at least it's well organized. This is free, but it needs to be organized better, a least of names, a list of alias's, just something so people can know who they are dealing with.
Yes there are good people in the world, but there are just as many predators.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is possible to teleport a proton, and it's possible also to store information in a proton, it is possible to communicate information faster than light.
This means it's possible for us to create quantum computers which transfer information instantly, I'm not even sure we know what this means yet but discovering this is like discovering atomic technology in the 1930s.
If protons can be teleported due to non locality of the quantum, it changes everything. What we really have to consider is the fact that nuclear elements can be teleported to.
First Quantum Teleportation Experiments
What is basically says is that everything in the universe is connected, as if we are on a 2d river, and if you mess with something over here, it messes with something over there, as if there is no here or there, and no distance at all.
If there is no distance at all, that changes the world. Right now we have only managed to make it so there is no distance with photons, and maybe atoms, but just by doing this we allow for there to be no distance for communication. When there is no distance for communication it means we could communicate with aliens accross the universe using this method and actually recieve a response.
It also means we can communicate with each other instantly.
WE have quantumly teleported atoms
It's proven that we have teleported atoms. As we can see, we are on the edge of a breakthrough, which will either be very good or very bad for our species.
This means, we can in theory now communicate faster than light.
Quantum Communications PDF
Quantum Nuclear Teleportation
This is actually bigger news than it seems. It could influence information technology, and have the potential to create strange new weapons. Let's hope we have enough sense to use it for communications and computing.
Face time is important because pretty faces and bodies advance faster than ugly ones.
So of course, your boss wants to see your body, that way he (or she) can rate you just like they do on "hot or not", and decide who to give a raise based on that.
So dress nice guys and gals, your boss wants to see you now.
I don't have a problem with people creating 'virtual' teen porn, or whatever fake porn, as long as its legal and no children are harmed.
It could be that in Japan they just don't like buying American products, this could be due to nationalism or racism, take a pick.
It is a problem of law, like others have said, the age of consent laws are mutated and horrible. They are so confusing that they don't make sense. When we talk about teens, it's more difficult to say the laws are right or fair than when we talk about obvious child porn. A child, like under 15, this is obviously wrong, because a 15 year old and under is not fully developed. The average person who is not a pedophile will be able to look at them and see a child. This becomes more difficult when the child is over 15 and begins to look more like an adult, after a certain point theres easy way to know the difference anymore.
The age of consent laws are different in each state in the US, and different in each country. This makes it confusing for anyone. We need a global age of consent law. We need to pick an age, based on biological and scientific information, as to what age a person can safely give consent. Once this age is chosen, it should be the law worldwide, and this will stop at least people who want to follow the law from doing something stupid.
In order to stop pedophiles, well you can assume that the pedophiles aren't interested in "teens", but actual child porn, and these people obviously don't care about the law, or the health of the child. We need the laws to be clear enough so we know when someone crosses the line.
I think the easiest way to go after child pornographers is to go after child pornographers. If it's illegal to take nude pictures of someone under the global minimum age, then it should be illegal, period, and anyone who breaks that law should be arrested. However if we don't even have a set age, then someone can be doing something completely legal in their country, and then market it to countries where it's illegal, it creates a black market like the drug industry.
I don't think you can reduce the size of the market by going after the demand, you have to reduce the supply, and go after the distributors. So far it seems we don't do a good job going after the people who are making the child porn.
WE need to pick an age, and make that age the global age limit. The reason it's so complicated now is because of the weird age of consent laws, and all the different ages all around the globe, and all around the country, to the point where no one knows whats legal and whats not.
To be safe, assume under 18 is in risky territory. I'm not in the pornography industry, but if I were, I would not even waste my time with ladies or males or whatever, who could not prove they are over 18.
So I'm saying we need a global age of consent.This way the line is drawn in the sand and anyone who crosses it, knows it was illegal.
That is debateable, but the bf should not take pictures of the 17 year old because he has a conscience, not because shes a child.
Child pornography is universally wrong. Don't confuse situations where people are 17, which is a young adult, with a child. I know our legal system sucks with the confusion of age of consent, but we all know child pornography is wrong.
If you have a gf who is underaged, don't take nude pictures of her.
Why would anyone with a conscience support the kiddie porn industry at all?
It's CHILD PORN, it's wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, what kinda person would actually pay money to support the creation of more of this garbage?!
You are right, they'd have to be damn stupid to pay with a credit card, but they'd have to be damn immoral to pay at all. It's a completely pedophile market that should be destroyed. The entire industry should be destroyed. This means you should track the money, but also why the hell are there sites like that allowed to be on the internet at all?
I can't believe we don't have a global law on child porn to prevent people from creating more of it, I mean the way people fight it now it's never going to end, it's like a waste of time to keep going after "pictures" of child porn, or "movies" or 1s and 0s, when the child pornographers, and website designers, and those who pay for and fund it, continue to create more of it.
The best thing that can be done, is to create a global law that outlaws any type of profit from child pornography. Then you can outlaw any child porn website. Once you get rid of the websites and the ability to profit, a lot less child porn will be created because it won't have the economics behind it.
As far as dealing with pedophiles, thats another issue, but child pornography is easy to stop and prevent and we just aren't focusing on it enough.
when you get free porn, well, lets just assume if you wanted to hack millions of computers, putting a virus in a porn video is the easiest way.
People make my head hurt. Because they are pedophiles, they don't have any sense.
I think this is the best idea so far to catch pedophiles, and it also destroys the kiddie porn industry.
Now, when you ask why would people pay for porn, because obviously the good porn costs money, duh. If you ask why would pedophiles pay for porn? Because they think kiddie porn is good. The fact that kiddie porn is illegal does not stop pedpophiles from making it, buying it, selling it. However if you start arresting everyone involved in the kiddie porn industry then you might get somewhere.
I've never seen a baby allergic to breast milk. I'm lactose intolerant but not to that degree.
Show me some evidence that there are babies that can't drink breastmilk because I find that difficult to believe.
It does cause diarrhea but I don't know of babies dying of it either. The people I know who were lactose intolerant as children, did not die of diarrhea. Obviuosly people managed otherwise the gene would not have spread so fast.
Simple automatically generate new rootkits to download on every windows machine, every 24/hours, using an exploit generator to generate the different rootkits, or just pay hackers to create the rootkit while selling the subscription for the anti-rootkit rootkit.
I can see where this is going.
It's really simple, drinking milk or not really had no influence on human evolution. Humans that couldnt drink milk found something else to eat.
The invention of the gun had more influence on evolution (or de-evolution) than anything else. That one invention went on to cost millions of lives. Whoever invented organized war also, went on to cost us millions if not billions of lives.
Evolution, is self controlled, humans control evolution, nature is not meant to be worshipped.
But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.
Why does natural selection favor lactase? I don't think that gene had any influence at all on natural selection. It's the gene that helped humanity make the gun that had the most influence on natural selection, and the genes associated with the creation of money, religion, and government.
I really don't think it mattered if humans drank milk or not.
I'm lactose intolerant, so what?
Hey now wait a second, that is an over-statement.
You are suggesting that this situation is going to blow up into another cold war?
Nano Knives would make one DANGEROUS DANGEROUS Weapon. The whole concept of a Nano Knife just sounds creepy, what is next? The Nano gun?
If you want to keep race as a concept, make sure it is scientifically stable. This means people who have sickle cell trait are a RACE. It's not like all Africans have that trait, in fact it's not like all Africans are the same race, and most African Americans, if you mean Black Americans, they are not pure, they are more genetically related to hispanic than to some of the African immigrants, this is due to the fact that if you've been in a location for hundreds of years your genes mix. The majority of Black Americans are not genetically similar to the majority of Africans in Africa, and when you look in Africa, most Africans in African are not genetically similar to each other, so the current appearance based concept of races does not work, and I think race based medicine is ridiculous unless you mean ancestor based medicine and then it makes sense, but I would never trust any doctor that is not of my tribe, and who does not take that medicine himself. If we share an ancestor, due to the sharing of genetic traits, thats one thing, but race based medicine? Would you take medicine designed only for your specific race of European? I don't know what race you are but lets assume you are German, would you take the German medicine, made by the African scientist? Of course not, so why would you expect the African to take their race based medicine?
Trait based medicine I agree with. Ancestor based medicine I agree with. Lineage based medicine I agree with, if you can trace back to a common ancestor, you are of the same tribe. Guess what though, most people in America can trace back to common ancestors, as can most hispanics. Look at South America, they all have European ancestors and native American ancestors and African ancestors. That's about as mixed as this country can get, and it's becoming the default genetic line in this country.
Now look at the majority of Blacks in this country, I mean the native ones who have been here for over 500 years, they are now mixed, most have at least one white ancestor, as if you look carefully, black people in America have lighter skin than black people in Africa, and some have native American ancestors, which means genetically there is little to no difference now between a black in the USA, and a hispanic in south America. Sickle cell, sure, it exists, but it's not like the majority of people have that trait, so thats not a good trait for race based medicine unless you want to make skin cancer treatment a race based medicine too, which I think would be just as backwards.
My opinion, people should have their genes scanned, their traits scanned, all of us should then be matched up by the computer with other people who have the same genetic traits, and based on how many shared traits, and based on the location of the genes, and based on common ancestors, this is how you'll know exactly who is from what tribe and when. The idea of race in my opinion, no longer applies to the world of genetic accuracy. If you are not a racist, move on from the idea of race and focus on genetic discrimination, because thats what is set to come next. I'm smart enough to see that it's coming next and I've moved on from the idea of race as it is commonly expressed.
If you believe in the concept of race, you are a racist, it's that simple.
If you can admit to being a racist, then you can discuss the social concept that is race. If you arent a racist and you are say, a geneticist, a transhumanist, or whatever, then you'll understand that appearance does not make up the majority of the genetic differences between two humans. This means the classic religious definitions of race have already been proven through science to be fake.
You want an example? Let's say homosexuality is genetic and is biological, are homosexuals a race? Sure they could be considered a genetic race, if you based it on gene science, but you cannot look at a person and automatically see their race as homosexual.
Want another example? Tall muscular people, giant sized people, these people could be considered a completely seperate race, they have many genes that the common population does not have, this is why they are so tall and big, these are basically new breeds of human, they play sports and stuff like that, but they are genetically different. Are they a race?
The problem with classical racists is that they classify race as only CERTAIN genes, they only judge race based on how people LOOK, which means there is no science at all, it's classic eugenics, it's as silly as studying the shape of the human skull to figure out the size and speed of the brain, it's as stupid as studying the box of a computer to try and figure out whats inside and how fast the CPU is. It's one thing you don't know what a computer is yet or wha ta CPU is yet, and you study the box, but once you KNOW what the CPU is, how it works, and everything, and you still study the outside cast of the computer, just out of laziness so you can put these computers into boxes based on the color of the case, well there is going to be errors.
Lets do it like this, you have the intel black box, and the intel white box.
You are going to end up putting pentium 4s in the same box you put pentium 2s, all because you are too lazy to actually open the box and see the difference between the CPU's. You might even end up putting AMDs into the intel boxs. Basically, what I'm saying is, if we applied the race idea to computers, the case your computer is in would define it's race. A computer that comes in a black case, no matter what the CPU inside is, it's going to be put into a box that SAYS it's a pentium x386, it could be a pentium 4 extreme CPU inside that box, but if it's in the black case, the lazy boxman is going to put all black cased computers into the pentium x386 box, simply because the case is black, it goes into that box.
Now, the white intel, this will be another box, it will be a x586-686, now lets assume the boxman is just as lazy, the cases are white, and all white cases automatically go into the x686 box, and in the x686 there is all this advertising about how state of the art it is.
But what if under the white case it's actually a x386 CPU, and because no one bothered to check, it goes into the x686 box? So all white intels will essentially be labeled 686, and all black intels will be labeled 386, no matter what the CPU or hardware inside the case actually is.
Now, when the consumer goes to buy the new computer, they buy the white intel thinking the white intel is superior, because it's white, and has good marketing, and good hype, and has a nice beautiful white box, so they go ahead and buy the nice hyped white box, they plug it in, and it runs slow as shit, it crashes all the time, and finally they open it up and they discover it's a fucking x386 CPU in an x686 box, inside of a white case,
This is why racism is wrong, Just analyze the metaphor, if we used racism to justify which computers we buy, we'd all be buying SHIT computers, we wouldnt even open the box to see what CPU is inside because the case would look so nice, so shiny, and so white, that we would not even bother to check the speed of whats inside.
The black intels wouldnt even sell because hey even if they are
Race is based on appearance, if you are talking about location based genetics, all Americans are the same race. But if you are talking about the stereotypical definition of race, you as in appearance, appearance is only 15% of a persons genetics, which means there are more differences between two peoples brains, than the amount of difference between a white, a black, and an asian. In fact there is more genetic difference between two asians, than between a white and a black, or between two blacks than between a black and an asian.
I hope this proves the point. Genetically, if there is a such thing as race, it's likely not the same thing as how we currently define it, it's likely based on the locations your genes came from, which has nothing to do with race or appearance, it just says that gene X came from location Y and is popular among people whos ancestors came from location Y, even though all 3 races may have ancestors who came from location Y. This basically proves the 3 appearance types are NOT the true races. The true races are based on genetic similarity. Genetic typing, would mean two people who share a family disease are more closely related than two people who share a skin color, because often many diseases require more genes to manifest than any of the common human appearance traits, and these diseases are recent mutations.
If there is this much variation between two individuals, does this finally disprove the whole "race" myth once and for all? Appearance only accounts for at most 15% of a persons genes. Since there are no "race specific" genes, and the science is basically saying that there is massive difference between two individuals, when will the religious ideology catch up to the science?
When are we going to classify people according to their genetic quality/type and not their appearance?
Workers in America are already too productive. We do not need to work any more hours, and we do need our sleep.
How many people would really be willing to give up their sleep for their job? What makes you any different from a robot once you do this?
I could be comfortable with the idea, but it's seriously not going to be the first option. It's better than the streets though.
There are bound to be people with Jeff Dahmer syndrome, who will just get weird once they get you in their house. So it depends on how it's organized. If the room has a lock on it, or if you are in a group, perhaps you can feel somewhat safer but it still does not seem very safe.
I'm not saying a hostel is completely safe but at least it's well organized. This is free, but it needs to be organized better, a least of names, a list of alias's, just something so people can know who they are dealing with.
Yes there are good people in the world, but there are just as many predators.