One you run yourself. Not like setting up and maintaining bind is all that hard to do.
At some point you will have to query an outside server. You don't plan on having billions of domains in your own DNS, do you? The problem is that some DNS return an IP for an ad site instead of correctly telling you that it's an unknown host. Or, returning an IP for an ad site instead of saying that a particular host is blacklisted.
It's not a special character that needs escaping. It's a character that needs multiple bytes to specify the code point. The parser just isn't handling the fact that you can't just crop a character mid code point - it's operating at the byte level when it should be operating at the code point level during a crop operation.
Too bad I don't have mod points because you are absolutely correct! As more and more code points are defined, the number of bytes needed to represent characters increases. Their abbreviation mechanism should at least recognize surrogate pairs and combining characters.
Windows can be broken and used for emergency exists in the case of accidents. Hopefully have the cars automated will cut down on accidents (is it still an accident if a hacker reprograms a car to purposefully hit other objects?).
Two types of websites would be good after you die:
The first is obvious-Your website makes a profit, and you want your family members to continue to profit in your absence. This is kinda like how life insurance works.
Put ownership in your will and credentials in a safe deposit box! If you make a substantial profit, you should probably register as a business and put a succession plan in place.
The second type is for spiritual types like me- I believe in an after life, and I want people to have faith in Jesus. I might not meet you personally in this life, but if I helped your faith, it'd be cool to know you later. I'm not one who gets in arguments about what is the minimum for salvation, or what the minimum you need to do to get to Heaven. But I know it stokes God when we follow him, do good, be loving, and help people in their faith. So helping people to find Jesus even when I'm not around will be beneficial.
I, too, believe in the afterlife, but I'm not sure I'd want an eternal website trying to convert people to my chosen faith. Most sects and denominations already have websites; maybe you could share your testimony on one of them (providing them permission to host your comments even after you die).
I run a website which I think should be perpetuated long after I leave this mortal existence, but it doesn't match either of your two categories. I host the largest genealogical sites for my surname. Indeed, I am contacted daily to verify information on other sites. I want those photos from the 1800s to be available a hundred years from now. I want my descendants to know why I believe a certain family story is false. I want to preserve family stories I have verified as true (including teaching a French princess English).
In Latin aCn (ante Christum natum) is written for BC; anno Domini is one Latin way of expressing what we mean by AD, but often I've seen it written as anno Salutis (in the year of Salvation), and there are countless variations. Sometimes, especially in texts referring to Greek and Hebrew affairs, you find a different system, aM or anno Mundi, but in general the aD system is so prevalent that variation is desirable (Latin loves variety), hence anno Salutis and its friends.
anno Mundi (year of the world) is used in the Jewish calendar. anno Domini translates to "year of the Lord". Much of the ancient world used a system of "the Xth year of the reign of Y"
With most religions they are more than willing to give me copies of their holy books some are quite persistent (look at you Mormons) so I don't think they would care about the copyright thing as they just want more people to have their stuff. Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.
The Book of Mormon was originally published in 1830, so the text is in the public domain. The current copyright covers things like the page layout, chapter headings, footnotes, and the study guides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints protects its copyright holdings religiously. The Church wants to "flood the earth" with copies of the Book of Mormon, but wants to make sure that any Book of Mormon in circulation is accurate. We give a copy of the Book of Mormon to anyone who accepts a visit from our missionaries and promises to read from it. Missionaries assume most people they come in contact with are already Christian so don't give out copies of the Bible (in fact, missionaries need to obtain special permission to teach non-Christians).
I have no issue with religion, as long as it stays in its place (outside of government) and we don't favor one over the other. I don't understand why any religion gets a tax exempt status, and I know people who operate "churches" of very dubious merit for the tax benefits. The notion seems dumb, let's can it. But perhaps there are good reasons that I don't understand.
My issue is that I don't really like playing favorites, If we can't universalize this to all religions, we shouldn't do it at all.
Tax exempt status is almost universal among religious organizations. Religions are generally not-for-profit and provide charitable services. My own sect pays taxes on its business holdings, but doesn't pay property tax on our places of worship. Some donations to the sect (such as tithing and donations to our humanitarian fund) are tax exempt, while others are not. I'm happy as long as everyone is treated equally (including the choice to not practice any religion).
I am a heterosexual White male from the middle class. I am married and have an infant son.
Translation: "I won the lottery and ended up with a highly privileged status, yet somehow have managed to remain completely unaware of exactly how privileged I am."
Being in the middle class is considered winning a lottery or being in a highly privileged status? What planet do you live on? I earn too much to qualify for government assistance but so little that I'm living paycheck to paycheck. I can't even afford a single family residence, having to satisfy myself with a town home.
I was in a racial minority in elementary and high school (20% of my high school was White).
Translation: "I've been around a LOT of those brown people in my life, so I think that qualifies me as an expert on social policy with respect to managing the negro problem."
Another incorrect translation. I don't think there is even a Negro problem. The problem has to do with economic classes and cultural mentality, not race. My point was that I know what it's like being in a minority and being singled out because of my race. My point is that depending on where in the country you are, it might be Whites who are discriminated against instead of Blacks or Latinos.
My university was 51% White and had several public debates on how to get more minorities in student government
Translation: "I hope you'll ignore the fact that I haven't told you what proportion of the student government was white, and instead that you'll focus on the fact that I've claimed that fully 49% of the student body was brown at my college! Furthermore, I'll hope you don't ask me for any of the results of those public debates which probably found that there were systemic and social issues at my university that actively discouraged minorities from trying to participate in student government, and just let the domination of student government by white people continue by default. After all, it's not racist if the brown people chose not to participate in student government because they didn't have the time or resources to navigate the vast gauntlet of obstacles and hindrances the white people put in their way!"
Incorrect one more time. Asian does not equate to brown; Black doesn't equate to brown; not all Latinos are brown. You just set up straw man after straw man. You assume that Whites are to blame that so few Polynesians, Asians, and Latinos ran. You assume that it takes vast resources to run for a position in the student body government at a university. You assume there were obstacles which were designed to prevent non-Whites from running.
I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken.
Translation: "When I get drunk, I secretly worry about how the brown people are getting really uppity. And I tell all my white friends repeatedly that I'm not racist at all, so there's no need for Affirmative Action anymore."
How many straw men can you construct in a single post? Firstly, I abstain from alcohol. Secondly, most of my friends are Polynesian and not White. Thirdly, race hasn't ever been an issue between my friends and I. I only talk race when one group or another cries out that they deserve special privileges based solely on race.
I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination.
Translation: "I use Affirmative Action as a cornerstone of my justification for my racist behavior. And I make myself feel better about my racist behavior by reminding myself of all the really nice brown people I've known over the years, especially the ones who've given me great service in their dead-end minimum wage jobs."
Yet more wrong assumptions and straw men. I don't have racist behaviors n
I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.
There is no such thing as "reverse racism":
The term reverse racism may not be in common usage, but it does exist. In this case, in order to undo racism from 50+ years ago against Blacks, Affirmative Action institutionalizes racism against Whites. It does not abolish racism, just changes which race is discriminated against.
Correlation does not equal causation. More men are CEOs because more men have more time in the workforce and generally have higher education. Women traditionally take time off from their studies and careers to help raise the kids. My own mother earned her Associate's when she was 40, after raising seven kids.
You must run before you can get elected. The student body at my university was also overwhelmingly male (though extremely racially diverse). After studying the situation, it was determined that a female who was running was three times as likely to get elected as a male also in the running. Alas, the general population votes, so there is not single thing that everyone agrees on for what is "best qualified". I was called a sexist for not supporting Hillary Clinton and a racist for not supporting Barak Obama. When I vote, I vote for who's best (IMO) for the country, and not out of fear being called a bigot. I voted for a Black female for a different position, but it's because I agreed with her message. It was only years after the election that I learned of her religious background.
This is more about economic classes than races. Most lower and middle class individuals are not in a financial position to take the kind of gambles which can pay out the biggest dividends. It takes a million dollars to start a business. Those of us in the middle and lower classes look like too big a risk for banks to lend that money. Also note that 31% of those 400 come from old money.
I have traced my family history back hundreds of years. Not a single ancestor within the past three hundred years owned a slave.
Also are you sure that NOBODY In your family owned slaves? Let's see, 300 years is 10 generations, going back to the mid-Seventeenth century. That is 2046 possible ancestors going back "to around the time of the English Civil War and to the early days of British settlement in North America":
I actually do have detailed records for all my direct ancestors going back into the 1600s. Half of my lines arrived on the Mayflower (yes, there are intermarriages). A few others arrived in the 1770s to help free the colonies from English rule. Some arrived in the 1840s 1850s from countries which did not have slavery. All my ancestors lived in the northern colonies which did not practice slavery. For what it's worth, if I limit my family history to just 300 years, I have ancestors from the following countries: Native Americans, England, Scotland, and Sweden. If you add another 100 years you get the general European blend.
I refuse to be punished for the acts committed by individuals over 100 years ago, especially as those acts were not committed by my ancestors.
Meanwhile you take advantage of the system of White privilege that the slave-holding families built, so you are indirectly benefiting from slavery in spite of your dubious claim your family NEVER owned slaves. Must be nice to be White in the US.
I'm sorry but the system of White privilege in the US is a myth.
If everything else was equal, you'd be right.
However, you're completely discounting the advantages that you (or I) were given simply by the circumstances of our birth. Two centuries of official and unofficial repression mean that black families distinctly worse off in financial terms, and unable to provide the same advantages their children that we received. While some can overcome this, it's certainly not a level playing field if we just "left everything alone."
I'm sorry, but I wasn't born into special circumstances or advantages. My father was unemployed for several years. We lived in poverty most of my childhood. Everything I owned was previously used by my older siblings. The one advantage I had was that my family placed a lot of value on education (my father taught at the university, 3 grandparents taught at high school, 6 great grandparents taught at high school, etc). I had to work to pay for my education. We received reduced lunch during elementary and high school. I didn't own a car until I was 25.
Before you say that being born White is an advantage, I'd like to remind you what I've posted elsewhere. My elementary school was 25% White. 20% of my high school was White. Whites got beat up just for being White. I had friends who had to be snuck off island to escape race based death threats. I quickly learned to play hooky on "Kill Haole Day".
I have traced my family history back hundreds of years. Not a single ancestor within the past three hundred years owned a slave. A few were household servants in Europe, while others were nobles. I don't know anyone who was born into slavery in the US, or whose parents were born into slavery in the US, or whose grandparents were born into slavery in the US. How many generations should be entitled to remuneration for the atrocity of slavery? A Black woman is no more entitled to a free ride than I am. I refuse to be punished for the acts committed by individuals over 100 years ago, especially as those acts were not committed by my ancestors.
The real problem is economic slavery which is not limited by race nor ethnicity. People of all races need access to education or training so they can get better paying jobs and break the cycle. The answer is not to punish White males who excel at a job. Quotas don't solve the real issue either. Obviously enforce anti-discrimination laws.
Not necessarily. They're only worthless if non whites or non males win apparently.
First a disclaimer. I am a heterosexual White male from the middle class. I am married and have an infant son. I was in a racial minority in elementary and high school (20% of my high school was White). My university was 51% White and had several public debates on how to get more minorities in student government (conclusion: people who don't run for office don't get elected!).
I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.
Doctors bad-mouth cow's milk because a bunch of vegan pussies with their hippie propaganda have convinced a gullible bunch of half-a-fag pediatricians that dairy is THE EVIL. All it's going to get you is a bunch of lactose-intolerant pussy kids to match their pussy parents. And the sad thing is that they're not even going to have lunch money to buy their gay soy milk because my kid is going to be beating them up and taking it from them.
Actually, your argument may be valid for human consumption of bovine milk, but there are valid reasons for infants to avoid it. Cow milk has larger protein structures which are harder for human infants to digest than human milk. Cow milk has the wrong kind of fats for human infants. Not to mention that human infants need MORE fat than what cow milk provides. When infants are introduced to cow milk (about 12 months old), it should be whole milk. Children shouldn't drink 1% or skim milk until they are 2 years old.
As for soy milk, too much soy messes with male hormones.
Doctors are telling us to keep our children away from peanuts, eggs, and various other foods until two years of age. Then we're supposed to introduce them one at a time, with a few weeks between to monitor results & possible outbreaks. Even if no one in the family has any such allergies.
I'm sure it's not just me, almost every friend across the US with kids in our approximate age range have talked about the same things. I wonder if the people who write this stuff are paying attention...
I have a five month old son, so I've been paying attention to this kind of thing. I've noticed that doctors' recommendations change every few years. My mom's generation was told to introduce rice cereal at six weeks, but now the recommendation is to start at about 6 months. We were also told to introduce at most one new food every three days so that if an allergy is discovered it would be easier to identify the cause.
Here is an exert from a 2008 statement from the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics):
Although solid foods should not be introduced before 4 to 6 months of age, there is no current convincing evidence that delaying their introduction beyond this period has a significant protective effect on the development of atopic disease regardless of whether infants are fed cow milk protein formula or human milk. This includes delaying the introduction of foods that are considered to be highly allergic, such as fish, eggs, and foods containing peanut protein.(View Report)
Most sources say to hold off until 8 months before introducing eggs and 12 months before introducing peanut butter. Of course this guideline will vary if family member is known to have allergies for a given food.
Honey is different as it can cause botulism poisoning in infants. It's not an allergen, but rather often harbors an actual amount of bacteria. In adults and children, the bacteria load is not harmful as the body can easily deal with it. In infants, the body reacts differently to botulism and it can occasionally kill them.
That's why you were given the butt chewing. It's a very different situation to peanuts. Peanuts would be unsafe if they were covered in the same bacteria that honey harbors.
If I had mod points, I'd vote you up. My son is five months old, cutting his first teeth, and getting his first taste of real food. The pediatricians stressed the dangers of bacteria which may be present in some batches of uncooked honey. They also say to hold off on cow's milk until a year old for different reasons.
I do not like having Java installed because
A) It's slow.
Java was slow in the 1990s, but is now comparable with C++
B) It is a security risk just like Flash.
Applets are a security risk, but Java applications are no more (nor less) a security risk than other desktop applications
C) I have had malware attempts do pop-ups asking and recommending Java be installed, no kidding.
Does that mean you dislike oxygen because Hitler (a known bad guy) liked to breathe it, too?
I prefer a web browser with no non-HTML options even being available.
You know that Java isn't limited to your web browser, right? You can even *gasp* disable the Java plugin from within your browser and still run Java applications just fine.
A Brazilian like me will have to do a good effort to make sense from what you wrote if you do not know brazilian portuguese and try to use Google translate.
I spent two years in Brazil, and my wife is brasileira. I find that by speaking both English and Brazilian Portuguese I can understand most translation mix-ups between these languages. As an example, the confusion over do and make.
Actually very few areas in the US have HOAs. It's just that they are the more rich, white areas, which are more desirable. I've never lived in a place with an HOA, and only a handful of people I know live in such areas. They are often more expensive, as you are paying for the "privileged" of having someone boss you around. There must be lots of people into that. Though my current house is in an HOA area, but the HOA wasn't strong enough, so I bought the house from people who didn't sign the HOA paperwork (no idea how many owners before them didn't), so I own a non HOA house in an HOA neighborhood. Or maybe only the homes that have a plot at the local airstrip have to join the HOA.
I live in an HOA area in Utah. Our units are currently worth $200k. Our HOA fees (about $100/month) cover use of the clubhouse / swimming pool / community park, snow removal, upkeep of our front yards, and home insurance. Non-HOA homes in the area go for $300-400k.
I agree with your sentiments, but disapprove of your use of such filthy language. I'm a White heterosexual male. I married a Brazilian of a darker complexion. I have Chinese, Filipino, Latino, and Polynesian in-laws. I have cousins who are 50% Black. Race is not an issue; culture is. I don't care about the color of your skin. I am tired of people playing the race card. People should be hired and paid based on qualifications, and in 95% cases race is not a qualification (exception for performers at cultural centers; people don't fly 2000 miles to Hawaii to see a blonde dancing the hula).
Here's a question for you: why is Obama "black?" Was that his choice, his family's choice, his culture's choice, your choice, all of the above or just some proclaimed fact from an all-knowing-deity?
Barak Obama is 25% Black African, 25% Arab, and 50% White. He is called Black because the 25% of his genes are the most dominant. He got 25% Black African and 25% Arab from his Kenyan father. Barak didn't choose his race nor ethnicity (but he saw that 25% Black was more advantageous than 50% White when applying for student aid).; these were chosen for him by his parents.
Your logic is slightly flawed. An egg laid by a not-quite-chicken is still NOT a chicken egg. The embryo inside that egg was a chicken, so the chicken came first.
No, you're not reading it right. Given the constant small steps of evolution, you end up tripping over the very definition of chicken. Becuase that alomst but not quite checken is a mythical creature. What we have today, we consider chickens. What we have today is slightly different from the jungle chicken. But that would have been a chicken then.
That's why he uses the N+1 argument, evolution doesn't stop. We can observe complete speciation, but not the tiny steps of detail.
Which is why the argument ends up becoming is the chicken that laid this egg the chicken, or does the egg laid become the chicken?
It may be even more tangled than that - if it's a chicken egg by virtue of the animal hatching from it is a chicken, then it only becomes a chicken egg once it's fertilized (unless it was laid by a chicken).
And even if you specify chicken eggs, it's *still* the egg. By the process of evolution, the first chicken would have been a mutation from parents that were almost, but not quite, chickens. The almost-but-not-quite-chicken mother would have laid an egg, out of which hatched the first chicken. So the egg came first.
Your logic is slightly flawed. An egg laid by a not-quite-chicken is still NOT a chicken egg. The embryo inside that egg was a chicken, so the chicken came first.
The "spirit" is bullshit. There is no brain, so there's no place for consciousness to emerge from. It's no more alive than a scab.
Religious people believe in the spirit (hence my qualification). As for no brain means no more alive than a scab, you are aware that not all independent life forms on earth have brains, right? Sponges and Trichoplax are examples of animals without a brain.
Slashdot Mirror
One you run yourself. Not like setting up and maintaining bind is all that hard to do.
At some point you will have to query an outside server. You don't plan on having billions of domains in your own DNS, do you? The problem is that some DNS return an IP for an ad site instead of correctly telling you that it's an unknown host. Or, returning an IP for an ad site instead of saying that a particular host is blacklisted.
It's not a special character that needs escaping. It's a character that needs multiple bytes to specify the code point. The parser just isn't handling the fact that you can't just crop a character mid code point - it's operating at the byte level when it should be operating at the code point level during a crop operation.
Too bad I don't have mod points because you are absolutely correct! As more and more code points are defined, the number of bytes needed to represent characters increases. Their abbreviation mechanism should at least recognize surrogate pairs and combining characters.
Windows can be broken and used for emergency exists in the case of accidents. Hopefully have the cars automated will cut down on accidents (is it still an accident if a hacker reprograms a car to purposefully hit other objects?).
Two types of websites would be good after you die: The first is obvious-Your website makes a profit, and you want your family members to continue to profit in your absence. This is kinda like how life insurance works.
Put ownership in your will and credentials in a safe deposit box! If you make a substantial profit, you should probably register as a business and put a succession plan in place.
The second type is for spiritual types like me- I believe in an after life, and I want people to have faith in Jesus. I might not meet you personally in this life, but if I helped your faith, it'd be cool to know you later. I'm not one who gets in arguments about what is the minimum for salvation, or what the minimum you need to do to get to Heaven. But I know it stokes God when we follow him, do good, be loving, and help people in their faith. So helping people to find Jesus even when I'm not around will be beneficial.
I, too, believe in the afterlife, but I'm not sure I'd want an eternal website trying to convert people to my chosen faith. Most sects and denominations already have websites; maybe you could share your testimony on one of them (providing them permission to host your comments even after you die).
I run a website which I think should be perpetuated long after I leave this mortal existence, but it doesn't match either of your two categories. I host the largest genealogical sites for my surname. Indeed, I am contacted daily to verify information on other sites. I want those photos from the 1800s to be available a hundred years from now. I want my descendants to know why I believe a certain family story is false. I want to preserve family stories I have verified as true (including teaching a French princess English).
In Latin aCn (ante Christum natum) is written for BC; anno Domini is one Latin way of expressing what we mean by AD, but often I've seen it written as anno Salutis (in the year of Salvation), and there are countless variations. Sometimes, especially in texts referring to Greek and Hebrew affairs, you find a different system, aM or anno Mundi, but in general the aD system is so prevalent that variation is desirable (Latin loves variety), hence anno Salutis and its friends.
anno Mundi (year of the world) is used in the Jewish calendar. anno Domini translates to "year of the Lord". Much of the ancient world used a system of "the Xth year of the reign of Y"
With most religions they are more than willing to give me copies of their holy books some are quite persistent (look at you Mormons) so I don't think they would care about the copyright thing as they just want more people to have their stuff. Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.
The Book of Mormon was originally published in 1830, so the text is in the public domain. The current copyright covers things like the page layout, chapter headings, footnotes, and the study guides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints protects its copyright holdings religiously. The Church wants to "flood the earth" with copies of the Book of Mormon, but wants to make sure that any Book of Mormon in circulation is accurate. We give a copy of the Book of Mormon to anyone who accepts a visit from our missionaries and promises to read from it. Missionaries assume most people they come in contact with are already Christian so don't give out copies of the Bible (in fact, missionaries need to obtain special permission to teach non-Christians).
I have no issue with religion, as long as it stays in its place (outside of government) and we don't favor one over the other. I don't understand why any religion gets a tax exempt status, and I know people who operate "churches" of very dubious merit for the tax benefits. The notion seems dumb, let's can it. But perhaps there are good reasons that I don't understand.
My issue is that I don't really like playing favorites, If we can't universalize this to all religions, we shouldn't do it at all.
Tax exempt status is almost universal among religious organizations. Religions are generally not-for-profit and provide charitable services. My own sect pays taxes on its business holdings, but doesn't pay property tax on our places of worship. Some donations to the sect (such as tithing and donations to our humanitarian fund) are tax exempt, while others are not. I'm happy as long as everyone is treated equally (including the choice to not practice any religion).
Translation: "I won the lottery and ended up with a highly privileged status, yet somehow have managed to remain completely unaware of exactly how privileged I am."
Being in the middle class is considered winning a lottery or being in a highly privileged status? What planet do you live on? I earn too much to qualify for government assistance but so little that I'm living paycheck to paycheck. I can't even afford a single family residence, having to satisfy myself with a town home.
I was in a racial minority in elementary and high school (20% of my high school was White).
Translation: "I've been around a LOT of those brown people in my life, so I think that qualifies me as an expert on social policy with respect to managing the negro problem."
Another incorrect translation. I don't think there is even a Negro problem. The problem has to do with economic classes and cultural mentality, not race. My point was that I know what it's like being in a minority and being singled out because of my race. My point is that depending on where in the country you are, it might be Whites who are discriminated against instead of Blacks or Latinos.
Translation: "I hope you'll ignore the fact that I haven't told you what proportion of the student government was white, and instead that you'll focus on the fact that I've claimed that fully 49% of the student body was brown at my college! Furthermore, I'll hope you don't ask me for any of the results of those public debates which probably found that there were systemic and social issues at my university that actively discouraged minorities from trying to participate in student government, and just let the domination of student government by white people continue by default. After all, it's not racist if the brown people chose not to participate in student government because they didn't have the time or resources to navigate the vast gauntlet of obstacles and hindrances the white people put in their way!"
Incorrect one more time. Asian does not equate to brown; Black doesn't equate to brown; not all Latinos are brown. You just set up straw man after straw man. You assume that Whites are to blame that so few Polynesians, Asians, and Latinos ran. You assume that it takes vast resources to run for a position in the student body government at a university. You assume there were obstacles which were designed to prevent non-Whites from running.
Translation: "When I get drunk, I secretly worry about how the brown people are getting really uppity. And I tell all my white friends repeatedly that I'm not racist at all, so there's no need for Affirmative Action anymore."
How many straw men can you construct in a single post? Firstly, I abstain from alcohol. Secondly, most of my friends are Polynesian and not White. Thirdly, race hasn't ever been an issue between my friends and I. I only talk race when one group or another cries out that they deserve special privileges based solely on race.
Translation: "I use Affirmative Action as a cornerstone of my justification for my racist behavior. And I make myself feel better about my racist behavior by reminding myself of all the really nice brown people I've known over the years, especially the ones who've given me great service in their dead-end minimum wage jobs."
Yet more wrong assumptions and straw men. I don't have racist behaviors n
I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.
There is no such thing as "reverse racism":
The term reverse racism may not be in common usage, but it does exist. In this case, in order to undo racism from 50+ years ago against Blacks, Affirmative Action institutionalizes racism against Whites. It does not abolish racism, just changes which race is discriminated against.
I guess "best qualified" is why Whites dominate in the CEO suite: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/diversity_among_ceos.html
Correlation does not equal causation. More men are CEOs because more men have more time in the workforce and generally have higher education. Women traditionally take time off from their studies and careers to help raise the kids. My own mother earned her Associate's when she was 40, after raising seven kids.
It also must be the reason that the US Congress does not look like the US racially: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/
You must run before you can get elected. The student body at my university was also overwhelmingly male (though extremely racially diverse). After studying the situation, it was determined that a female who was running was three times as likely to get elected as a male also in the running. Alas, the general population votes, so there is not single thing that everyone agrees on for what is "best qualified". I was called a sexist for not supporting Hillary Clinton and a racist for not supporting Barak Obama. When I vote, I vote for who's best (IMO) for the country, and not out of fear being called a bigot. I voted for a Black female for a different position, but it's because I agreed with her message. It was only years after the election that I learned of her religious background.
It also must be why there has not been a noticeable rise in minorities in the Forbes 400 Richest Americans list: http://gawker.com/5645917/the-forbes-400-a-demographic-breakdown
This is more about economic classes than races. Most lower and middle class individuals are not in a financial position to take the kind of gambles which can pay out the biggest dividends. It takes a million dollars to start a business. Those of us in the middle and lower classes look like too big a risk for banks to lend that money. Also note that 31% of those 400 come from old money.
I have traced my family history back hundreds of years. Not a single ancestor within the past three hundred years owned a slave.
Also are you sure that NOBODY In your family owned slaves? Let's see, 300 years is 10 generations, going back to the mid-Seventeenth century. That is 2046 possible ancestors going back "to around the time of the English Civil War and to the early days of British settlement in North America":
I actually do have detailed records for all my direct ancestors going back into the 1600s. Half of my lines arrived on the Mayflower (yes, there are intermarriages). A few others arrived in the 1770s to help free the colonies from English rule. Some arrived in the 1840s 1850s from countries which did not have slavery. All my ancestors lived in the northern colonies which did not practice slavery. For what it's worth, if I limit my family history to just 300 years, I have ancestors from the following countries: Native Americans, England, Scotland, and Sweden. If you add another 100 years you get the general European blend.
I refuse to be punished for the acts committed by individuals over 100 years ago, especially as those acts were not committed by my ancestors.
Meanwhile you take advantage of the system of White privilege that the slave-holding families built, so you are indirectly benefiting from slavery in spite of your dubious claim your family NEVER owned slaves. Must be nice to be White in the US.
I'm sorry but the system of White privilege in the US is a myth.
If everything else was equal, you'd be right. However, you're completely discounting the advantages that you (or I) were given simply by the circumstances of our birth. Two centuries of official and unofficial repression mean that black families distinctly worse off in financial terms, and unable to provide the same advantages their children that we received. While some can overcome this, it's certainly not a level playing field if we just "left everything alone."
I'm sorry, but I wasn't born into special circumstances or advantages. My father was unemployed for several years. We lived in poverty most of my childhood. Everything I owned was previously used by my older siblings. The one advantage I had was that my family placed a lot of value on education (my father taught at the university, 3 grandparents taught at high school, 6 great grandparents taught at high school, etc). I had to work to pay for my education. We received reduced lunch during elementary and high school. I didn't own a car until I was 25.
Before you say that being born White is an advantage, I'd like to remind you what I've posted elsewhere. My elementary school was 25% White. 20% of my high school was White. Whites got beat up just for being White. I had friends who had to be snuck off island to escape race based death threats. I quickly learned to play hooky on "Kill Haole Day".
I have traced my family history back hundreds of years. Not a single ancestor within the past three hundred years owned a slave. A few were household servants in Europe, while others were nobles. I don't know anyone who was born into slavery in the US, or whose parents were born into slavery in the US, or whose grandparents were born into slavery in the US. How many generations should be entitled to remuneration for the atrocity of slavery? A Black woman is no more entitled to a free ride than I am. I refuse to be punished for the acts committed by individuals over 100 years ago, especially as those acts were not committed by my ancestors.
The real problem is economic slavery which is not limited by race nor ethnicity. People of all races need access to education or training so they can get better paying jobs and break the cycle. The answer is not to punish White males who excel at a job. Quotas don't solve the real issue either. Obviously enforce anti-discrimination laws.
Not necessarily. They're only worthless if non whites or non males win apparently.
First a disclaimer. I am a heterosexual White male from the middle class. I am married and have an infant son. I was in a racial minority in elementary and high school (20% of my high school was White). My university was 51% White and had several public debates on how to get more minorities in student government (conclusion: people who don't run for office don't get elected!).
I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.
>
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys.
However, you are required to declare any purchases you made in New Jersey so that New York can get its tax.
Doctors bad-mouth cow's milk because a bunch of vegan pussies with their hippie propaganda have convinced a gullible bunch of half-a-fag pediatricians that dairy is THE EVIL. All it's going to get you is a bunch of lactose-intolerant pussy kids to match their pussy parents. And the sad thing is that they're not even going to have lunch money to buy their gay soy milk because my kid is going to be beating them up and taking it from them.
Actually, your argument may be valid for human consumption of bovine milk, but there are valid reasons for infants to avoid it. Cow milk has larger protein structures which are harder for human infants to digest than human milk. Cow milk has the wrong kind of fats for human infants. Not to mention that human infants need MORE fat than what cow milk provides. When infants are introduced to cow milk (about 12 months old), it should be whole milk. Children shouldn't drink 1% or skim milk until they are 2 years old.
As for soy milk, too much soy messes with male hormones.
Doctors are telling us to keep our children away from peanuts, eggs, and various other foods until two years of age. Then we're supposed to introduce them one at a time, with a few weeks between to monitor results & possible outbreaks. Even if no one in the family has any such allergies.
I'm sure it's not just me, almost every friend across the US with kids in our approximate age range have talked about the same things. I wonder if the people who write this stuff are paying attention...
I have a five month old son, so I've been paying attention to this kind of thing. I've noticed that doctors' recommendations change every few years. My mom's generation was told to introduce rice cereal at six weeks, but now the recommendation is to start at about 6 months. We were also told to introduce at most one new food every three days so that if an allergy is discovered it would be easier to identify the cause.
Here is an exert from a 2008 statement from the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) :
Although solid foods should not be introduced before 4 to 6 months of age, there is no current convincing evidence that delaying their introduction beyond this period has a significant protective effect on the development of atopic disease regardless of whether infants are fed cow milk protein formula or human milk. This includes delaying the introduction of foods that are considered to be highly allergic, such as fish, eggs, and foods containing peanut protein.(View Report)
Most sources say to hold off until 8 months before introducing eggs and 12 months before introducing peanut butter. Of course this guideline will vary if family member is known to have allergies for a given food.
Honey is different as it can cause botulism poisoning in infants. It's not an allergen, but rather often harbors an actual amount of bacteria. In adults and children, the bacteria load is not harmful as the body can easily deal with it. In infants, the body reacts differently to botulism and it can occasionally kill them.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/bacterial_viral/botulism.html
That's why you were given the butt chewing. It's a very different situation to peanuts. Peanuts would be unsafe if they were covered in the same bacteria that honey harbors.
If I had mod points, I'd vote you up. My son is five months old, cutting his first teeth, and getting his first taste of real food. The pediatricians stressed the dangers of bacteria which may be present in some batches of uncooked honey. They also say to hold off on cow's milk until a year old for different reasons.
I do not like having Java installed because A) It's slow.
Java was slow in the 1990s, but is now comparable with C++
B) It is a security risk just like Flash.
Applets are a security risk, but Java applications are no more (nor less) a security risk than other desktop applications
C) I have had malware attempts do pop-ups asking and recommending Java be installed, no kidding.
Does that mean you dislike oxygen because Hitler (a known bad guy) liked to breathe it, too?
I prefer a web browser with no non-HTML options even being available.
You know that Java isn't limited to your web browser, right? You can even *gasp* disable the Java plugin from within your browser and still run Java applications just fine.
A Brazilian like me will have to do a good effort to make sense from what you wrote if you do not know brazilian portuguese and try to use Google translate.
I spent two years in Brazil, and my wife is brasileira. I find that by speaking both English and Brazilian Portuguese I can understand most translation mix-ups between these languages. As an example, the confusion over do and make.
Actually very few areas in the US have HOAs. It's just that they are the more rich, white areas, which are more desirable. I've never lived in a place with an HOA, and only a handful of people I know live in such areas. They are often more expensive, as you are paying for the "privileged" of having someone boss you around. There must be lots of people into that. Though my current house is in an HOA area, but the HOA wasn't strong enough, so I bought the house from people who didn't sign the HOA paperwork (no idea how many owners before them didn't), so I own a non HOA house in an HOA neighborhood. Or maybe only the homes that have a plot at the local airstrip have to join the HOA.
I live in an HOA area in Utah. Our units are currently worth $200k. Our HOA fees (about $100/month) cover use of the clubhouse / swimming pool / community park, snow removal, upkeep of our front yards, and home insurance. Non-HOA homes in the area go for $300-400k.
I agree with your sentiments, but disapprove of your use of such filthy language. I'm a White heterosexual male. I married a Brazilian of a darker complexion. I have Chinese, Filipino, Latino, and Polynesian in-laws. I have cousins who are 50% Black. Race is not an issue; culture is. I don't care about the color of your skin. I am tired of people playing the race card. People should be hired and paid based on qualifications, and in 95% cases race is not a qualification (exception for performers at cultural centers; people don't fly 2000 miles to Hawaii to see a blonde dancing the hula).
Here's a question for you: why is Obama "black?" Was that his choice, his family's choice, his culture's choice, your choice, all of the above or just some proclaimed fact from an all-knowing-deity?
Barak Obama is 25% Black African, 25% Arab, and 50% White. He is called Black because the 25% of his genes are the most dominant. He got 25% Black African and 25% Arab from his Kenyan father. Barak didn't choose his race nor ethnicity (but he saw that 25% Black was more advantageous than 50% White when applying for student aid).; these were chosen for him by his parents.
Your logic is slightly flawed. An egg laid by a not-quite-chicken is still NOT a chicken egg. The embryo inside that egg was a chicken, so the chicken came first.
No, you're not reading it right. Given the constant small steps of evolution, you end up tripping over the very definition of chicken. Becuase that alomst but not quite checken is a mythical creature. What we have today, we consider chickens. What we have today is slightly different from the jungle chicken. But that would have been a chicken then. That's why he uses the N+1 argument, evolution doesn't stop. We can observe complete speciation, but not the tiny steps of detail.
Which is why the argument ends up becoming is the chicken that laid this egg the chicken, or does the egg laid become the chicken?
It may be even more tangled than that - if it's a chicken egg by virtue of the animal hatching from it is a chicken, then it only becomes a chicken egg once it's fertilized (unless it was laid by a chicken).
And even if you specify chicken eggs, it's *still* the egg. By the process of evolution, the first chicken would have been a mutation from parents that were almost, but not quite, chickens. The almost-but-not-quite-chicken mother would have laid an egg, out of which hatched the first chicken. So the egg came first.
Your logic is slightly flawed. An egg laid by a not-quite-chicken is still NOT a chicken egg. The embryo inside that egg was a chicken, so the chicken came first.
The "spirit" is bullshit. There is no brain, so there's no place for consciousness to emerge from. It's no more alive than a scab.
Religious people believe in the spirit (hence my qualification). As for no brain means no more alive than a scab, you are aware that not all independent life forms on earth have brains, right? Sponges and Trichoplax are examples of animals without a brain.