You're not too familiar with what a "Blame taking job" really is, are you?
This is basically a rehash of the old "intelligence Czar" fiasco. The position was supposed to bring all the various intelligence agencies in America together to prevent another intelligence failure like 9/11, but since the Czar didn't have any statutotry or budgetary authority, his decisions and recommendations could simply be ignored by anyone beneath him.
Since the various intelligence agencies would have already taken any advice the Czar could give them if they were going to do it willingly, they [i]surprise[/i], didn't follow his advice!
In the end, it creates a position that is completely impotent, but since they were [i]supposed[/i] to be correcting all the problems in the system, if any more big catastrophes happen, there's a person to easily blame. They can even pick and choose, "Look, we followed this and this and this piece of advice you gave us, and it didn't help at ALL" - Ignoring the mountains of advice or commands that weren't followed.
The reason everyone already realizes this is, frankly, because this is a repeat of what already happened five years ago.
It's plenty well possible to [i]make a living[/i] without being a corrupt businessperson who feasts upon the lives and souls of the working class, it's just extremely difficult to become immensely financially successful.
The trick, then, is to be happy with a comfortable lifestyle. Make enough money to ensure you and your family have a good life, make some smart choices with your savings, and be lucky enough to not work for a company that steals everything from you when it fails.
Having been in the military - The number of people willing and able to kill other people, even when you're in mortal danger, is still fairly low, and those who ARE willing and able usually go home with significant issues to deal with.
Some ships will have crew members willing and able to use lethal force against pirates, but the GP still has a good point.
"It doesn't sound like natural selection to you if the poor kid who hangs himself in a closet is yours."
Yes, if it's my kid, or someone close to me, then I'll get very emotional about it.
When it's some kid I don't know, I don't much care. None of your stories have really pulled at my heartstrings any more than stories about starving children in the third world, babies born with AIDS, innocent bystanders caught in a shooting, etc. It's human nature to not care all that much about someone you don't know, and you're as guilty of it as the rest of us, so step off your high horse.
-----
Now, you've got a kinda've fucked up view of social interaction. I, like most people on Slashdot, wasn't anywhere near being one of the "cool kids" back in High School. Even college wasn't all that successful a time for my social life, but I learned the lessons of social interaction, I worked to get enough money to be a social person, and I was genuinely loyal to the few "real" friends I picked up. There are plenty of superficial "friends" you'll find along the way that only care about the things you've mentioned, and they're great to head out and party with once in a while, but you shouldn't expect them to pull through for you when it matters, or stick around for the rest of your life.
Granted, there are people with birth defects or fucked up home lives that deserve a bit of sympathy above and beyond the norm, but for the most part if you're ugly - it's because you haven't put the work in to be beautiful. If you're poor, it's because you haven't put the work in to be rich. If you're bullied, it's because you don't have the backbone to stand up for yourself. If you've got problems in life, chances are it's because you're personally responsible for those problems.
Back on the original topic, coddling college-age kids by censoring out the "bullies" isn't doing them any favors in the long term. They're going to have to figure out how to deal with this shit someday.
I was given pretty much the same explanation (they're praying to saints to pray on their behalf) - It's just that it comes off as pretty nonsensical to me. It doesn't jive with the rest of the doctrine (why would an omniscient and all-knowing god need middle-management?) - and can only really be explained as a way to throw the polytheistic beliefs into a supposedly monotheistic religion.
I also spent four years in the military, being at times too hot, too cold, too hungry, too tired, etc. There are plenty of people who are all talk but not action, and there are plenty of people who've taken action too.
Christianity, especially Catholocism, is only monotheistic in the sense that they claim there's only one god.
There are a host of other divine spirits (Angels, the trinity if you're hearing about it for the first time and weren't raised with this nonsense, Catholics do pray to the saints for reasons that have been explained to me but STILL don't make any sense) - that certainly make Christianity qualify as "Many gods, with one dude on top who's the best." Rather than "Just one god."
1. A treaty still has to be signed and ratified in order to be effective in any particular country. This means we still have no one to blame but ourselves and our own politicians for offering up our sovereignty in any issue.
2. We already have numerous treaties on a variety of issues with other countries. We are already paying taxes which support the United Nations, and we are already supporting various countries oppressed by dictators or corrupt governments. None of the rhetoric you've given here is specifically against treaties on global warming, it could be used to condemn pretty much any international agreement.
3. If your real goal is to just lash out at treaties that surrender some sovereignty of an individual country in exchange for increased global cooperation... You're just an idiot. Really.
Whether it will run out in 20 years, or in 100 years, Oil WILL run out eventually. Whether we make the investment to retool our entire civilization now or in 100 years, we WILL have to do so.
I'd rather we rush ahead right now and find out we had decades of leeway than sit on our asses right now and wake up tomorrow to find out we didn't have as much time as we thought we had.
Assume the IEA whisleblower is correct, and that peak oil is approaching far faster than we've been led to believe. Hell, we might even be on the downturn already!
When the rest of the oil in the world is drilled out and used up, what the hell is going to happen to economic progress? What the hell is going to happen to the whole of the industrialized world?
We might get lucky, there might be alternative energy sources made available by then, the whole crisis might be averted. I hope it is. But if it isn't, and the world is still dependent on oil when Saudi Arabia and Russia and South America and everywhere in the world that's currently selling oil run out, we're going to look pretty damn smart for not tapping our domestic reserves until after everyone else has gone belly up.
It's a long-term plan, an insurance policy if you will.
Yes and no. It's silly to think that the color of a person's skin has anything at all to do with the development of their brain or their intelligence. I.E. There's no causation. Probably no correlation either.
At the same time, genetic factors will make people physically different in plenty of different ways. You could be taller or shorter, fatter or skinnier, etc. All this is based at least somewhat on genetic factors.
It's entirely possible that genetic factors will make someone inherently "smarter" or "dumber"
Slashdot Mirror
An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used? Madness!
You're not too familiar with what a "Blame taking job" really is, are you?
This is basically a rehash of the old "intelligence Czar" fiasco. The position was supposed to bring all the various intelligence agencies in America together to prevent another intelligence failure like 9/11, but since the Czar didn't have any statutotry or budgetary authority, his decisions and recommendations could simply be ignored by anyone beneath him.
Since the various intelligence agencies would have already taken any advice the Czar could give them if they were going to do it willingly, they [i]surprise[/i], didn't follow his advice!
In the end, it creates a position that is completely impotent, but since they were [i]supposed[/i] to be correcting all the problems in the system, if any more big catastrophes happen, there's a person to easily blame. They can even pick and choose, "Look, we followed this and this and this piece of advice you gave us, and it didn't help at ALL" - Ignoring the mountains of advice or commands that weren't followed.
The reason everyone already realizes this is, frankly, because this is a repeat of what already happened five years ago.
It's plenty well possible to [i]make a living[/i] without being a corrupt businessperson who feasts upon the lives and souls of the working class, it's just extremely difficult to become immensely financially successful.
The trick, then, is to be happy with a comfortable lifestyle. Make enough money to ensure you and your family have a good life, make some smart choices with your savings, and be lucky enough to not work for a company that steals everything from you when it fails.
Yo dawg, I heard you like comebacks, so I put some mother in your mother so you can try harder while you try harder.
Yo dawg, I heard you like security, so I put some lines in your lines so you can wait while you wait.
definitely still living in a fantasy world.
Having been in the military - The number of people willing and able to kill other people, even when you're in mortal danger, is still fairly low, and those who ARE willing and able usually go home with significant issues to deal with.
Some ships will have crew members willing and able to use lethal force against pirates, but the GP still has a good point.
"It doesn't sound like natural selection to you if the poor kid who hangs himself in a closet is yours."
Yes, if it's my kid, or someone close to me, then I'll get very emotional about it.
When it's some kid I don't know, I don't much care. None of your stories have really pulled at my heartstrings any more than stories about starving children in the third world, babies born with AIDS, innocent bystanders caught in a shooting, etc. It's human nature to not care all that much about someone you don't know, and you're as guilty of it as the rest of us, so step off your high horse.
-----
Now, you've got a kinda've fucked up view of social interaction. I, like most people on Slashdot, wasn't anywhere near being one of the "cool kids" back in High School. Even college wasn't all that successful a time for my social life, but I learned the lessons of social interaction, I worked to get enough money to be a social person, and I was genuinely loyal to the few "real" friends I picked up. There are plenty of superficial "friends" you'll find along the way that only care about the things you've mentioned, and they're great to head out and party with once in a while, but you shouldn't expect them to pull through for you when it matters, or stick around for the rest of your life.
Granted, there are people with birth defects or fucked up home lives that deserve a bit of sympathy above and beyond the norm, but for the most part if you're ugly - it's because you haven't put the work in to be beautiful. If you're poor, it's because you haven't put the work in to be rich. If you're bullied, it's because you don't have the backbone to stand up for yourself. If you've got problems in life, chances are it's because you're personally responsible for those problems.
Back on the original topic, coddling college-age kids by censoring out the "bullies" isn't doing them any favors in the long term. They're going to have to figure out how to deal with this shit someday.
Eh, I always figured Copyright law was part of that 1/10th that "possession" doesn't fall under.
It's not good legal advice, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb for anything that doesn't involve copyright laws.
I was given pretty much the same explanation (they're praying to saints to pray on their behalf) - It's just that it comes off as pretty nonsensical to me. It doesn't jive with the rest of the doctrine (why would an omniscient and all-knowing god need middle-management?) - and can only really be explained as a way to throw the polytheistic beliefs into a supposedly monotheistic religion.
They've got a booth at the mall, it's up there semi-permanently as far as I can tell. They're fairly loud proselytizers.
I kinda've want to go in there and take one of their stress tests so I can fuck with'em, but haven't yet.
the rules were already made, he just figured out what they were.
"Will you call me goddess? Will you pray to me? Will you worship me with your body?"
I'm not the GP, but I agree with his sentiments.
I also spent four years in the military, being at times too hot, too cold, too hungry, too tired, etc. There are plenty of people who are all talk but not action, and there are plenty of people who've taken action too.
I've got an expensive one I wear for Dates and formal occasions.
It doesn't fit into my normal outfits as far as "trendy" is concerned though.
www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
You can disprove his assertions, or you can just be a dick.
Christianity, especially Catholocism, is only monotheistic in the sense that they claim there's only one god.
There are a host of other divine spirits (Angels, the trinity if you're hearing about it for the first time and weren't raised with this nonsense, Catholics do pray to the saints for reasons that have been explained to me but STILL don't make any sense) - that certainly make Christianity qualify as "Many gods, with one dude on top who's the best." Rather than "Just one god."
Basically they're all crazy.
China denies to the people that the U.N. exists. All network references and links are summarily blocked.
This is a lie.
1. A treaty still has to be signed and ratified in order to be effective in any particular country. This means we still have no one to blame but ourselves and our own politicians for offering up our sovereignty in any issue.
2. We already have numerous treaties on a variety of issues with other countries. We are already paying taxes which support the United Nations, and we are already supporting various countries oppressed by dictators or corrupt governments. None of the rhetoric you've given here is specifically against treaties on global warming, it could be used to condemn pretty much any international agreement.
3. If your real goal is to just lash out at treaties that surrender some sovereignty of an individual country in exchange for increased global cooperation... You're just an idiot. Really.
Whether it will run out in 20 years, or in 100 years, Oil WILL run out eventually. Whether we make the investment to retool our entire civilization now or in 100 years, we WILL have to do so.
I'd rather we rush ahead right now and find out we had decades of leeway than sit on our asses right now and wake up tomorrow to find out we didn't have as much time as we thought we had.
Assume the IEA whisleblower is correct, and that peak oil is approaching far faster than we've been led to believe. Hell, we might even be on the downturn already!
When the rest of the oil in the world is drilled out and used up, what the hell is going to happen to economic progress? What the hell is going to happen to the whole of the industrialized world?
We might get lucky, there might be alternative energy sources made available by then, the whole crisis might be averted. I hope it is. But if it isn't, and the world is still dependent on oil when Saudi Arabia and Russia and South America and everywhere in the world that's currently selling oil run out, we're going to look pretty damn smart for not tapping our domestic reserves until after everyone else has gone belly up.
It's a long-term plan, an insurance policy if you will.
Gordon Gekko, is that you?
Why was Hellen Keller such a bad driver?
She's a woman!
Yes and no. It's silly to think that the color of a person's skin has anything at all to do with the development of their brain or their intelligence. I.E. There's no causation. Probably no correlation either.
At the same time, genetic factors will make people physically different in plenty of different ways. You could be taller or shorter, fatter or skinnier, etc. All this is based at least somewhat on genetic factors.
It's entirely possible that genetic factors will make someone inherently "smarter" or "dumber"
George Washington?