Who gives a shit about tons exported? That wasn't the question. The question was, does the US manufacture anything? The answer is yes. More than any other country in the world, by dollar value, NOT tonnage. Which matters more? Of course, we don't export manufactured goods, but that is a separate issue from whether we actually manufacture anything.
You're another one that wants to plan everyone else's life, and have people living low.
No. I don't give a fuck what you do. I'm stating the simple facts. Do what you please, it's none of my business. But it won't change the fundamental reality of the situation. In 20 years it will not be affordable to drive gas-powered cars over any significant distance. This won't mean the end of travel or any of that, but it will mean fundamental changes in how we travel.
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't want to live like that, but I also don't want to waste eight hours sleeping every day or ten minutes shitting. Doesn't change the fact that it happens.
Kindly go to hell. I've worked for this, I am entitled to it, and will defend it with any and all means available to me
You and every other six year old on the play ground. Grow up, and learn to deal with reality instead of clinging to your fantasies. Life sucks. Get a helmet.
I don't need any envirowacko busybody trying to make my life less than what it is now. Ideally, life should be getting better for everyone, not worse, simply due to the technology, but other things are sabotaging that, mainly regulations promulgated by people like you, as well as tax policy that is a result of political corruption.
You seem to have quite the persecution complex. I've never advocated anything of the sort. I never suggested government regulation. I never told you how to live your life. I don't give a fuck what you do.
I made a statement of fact: oil supplies are fundamentally constrained (unless we're horribly wrong about petroleum genesis, which, while possible, is highly unlikely). Oil prices WILL continue to rise over the course of the next few decades. It will become too expense to use gasoline-powered private travel for the vast majority of people. You have a child's whiny sense of entitlement.
You might CONTEST these statements of fact, and I will concede that there is some room for debate about just how severe the crunch will actually be, and whether it will be mediated by as of yet unknown technologies (and of course, I don't really know you, maybe you're actually a well grounded human being who came off as an immature, whiny brat in a poorly rendered text communication--it happens all the time, including to me). However, you didn't contest the statements of fact. You started attacking imaginary phantoms that you think are trying to control you, and tell you how to live (which I never did). There's a term for that: schizophrenia.
I'm driving to Las Vegas from Virginia in March, and there are no electric cars that will do that in the timeframe my WRX will.
Waaaa. Waaaa. I'm entitled to luxuries that no one in the entire history of humanity had outside of the last 70 years. Waaaa.
The reality is our lifestyles are going to radically change over the next few decades. You might not like it, but, the physical realities of oil production and vehicle design being what they are, you'll just have to suck it up.
More trains over land, more ship travel over sea, less personal automotive and passenger flight. That's the reality we're heading towards. Get over yourself.
anything to the 0 power is 1. Why? Because that is the way it is; it is just one of those things we need to memorize.
Bad example.
x^0=1 for all x in R
is taken as an axiom. There is no reason behind it for the teacher to explain other than if we don't assume it to be true the consequences are mathematically horrifying. You can have an algebraic system were x^0 != 1, but it will be internally inconsistent. Since we like our math to be internally consistent (albeit incomplete, see Godel's incompleteness theorem), we go with x^0=1.
And this children, is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy. See also "...and the Democrats/Republicans/Invading Alien Armada are better... how?" It is a logical fallacy employed by those who have nothing meaningful to say in making their point, so they just point fingers in the other direction as if it were a relevant response to the previous speaker. Many of them actually believe this passes for logical argument.
No, we write perl scripts that convert our LaTeX files to nicely formatted ODT files. From there it's save as.doc and upload. DUH. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
As soon as you start implying that it's less evil for someone to commit any particular crime on someone who shares identifying characteristics (sex, skin color, sexual orientation, religion, whatever) than it is to commit an identical crime on someone who does not share those identifying characteristics based upon the presumption that it is those characteristics that was the reason for the crime, then you are bordering on legitimizing the idea of thought-crime.
While I dislike hate crime laws, you're beating down a straw man.
Hate crime laws rest on the premise that it is more evil to TARGET a victim based on race, gender, ethnicity, blah, blah, than it is to TARGET a victim on any other criteria.
Hate crime laws DO NOT imply that it is more evil to commit a crime on someone IN a given class. If I shoot a black man while robbing his house (for the purpose of robbing his house), that is NOT a hate crime. If I break into his house with the purpose of murdering him BECAUSE he's black, and only rob the place incidentally, that IS a hate crime.
The problem you should have with hate crime laws is the provability issue--the only way to prove that a crime was a hate crime (short of a confession from the perp that, yes, he murdered that n***** for being a n*****) is to effectively criminalize hate speech made by those who also commit violent crimes. Granted, this only criminalizes a subset of hate speech (that hate speech made by those who commited a violent crime), but that's still a criminalization of speech.
One anecdote may not be data, but you made a universal statement, so one counter-example is sufficient to prove your statement wrong.
Sure, you disproved that strawman quite nicely.
All your parent said was that WHEN the military police arrest someone on charges, that person is about to get royally fucked. He said nothing about how consistently they do so. WHEN soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen are prosecuted, their lives are destroyed.
Your post is an exercise in meaningless non-sequitur. You cite a case where a sailor may, or may not, have been prosecuted by the Navy for a rape (you admit you don't actually know), and may, or may not, have been extradited back to Canada for prosecution (you admit you don't actually know). To reduce your post to more sensible language:
A sailor was suspected of rape. You have no idea whether he was ever prosecuted. He may, or may not, have been. This proves your parent's claim that when someone is prosecuted by the JAG office it means their life is effectively over to be false.
To reduce my post to more sensible language: What are you on, and can I have some?
You're the only one here who doesn't understand the Pax Romana. The Pax Romana was NOT a period of peace FOR the Roman Empire. It was a period of peace WITHIN the Roman Empire. There were constant border wars in the far-flung territories all the way through the period. There was peace IN THE CITY OF ROME (and really all of Italy, Greece, Spain, Gaul, and the African Provinces--in the Middle East, Britain, Dacia, and Germania there wars aplenty). That is what the Pax Romana was.
Slashdot Mirror
And we have an Economy-directed, regulated government that is dedicated to the corporations. Your point?
Again, horseshit. The US manufactures more by dollar value than any other country. The absence of manufacturing jobs does not equate to the absence of manufacturing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing
Who gives a shit about tons exported? That wasn't the question. The question was, does the US manufacture anything? The answer is yes. More than any other country in the world, by dollar value, NOT tonnage. Which matters more? Of course, we don't export manufactured goods, but that is a separate issue from whether we actually manufacture anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing
The US doesn't make ANYTHING
Bullshit. The US manufactures more by dollar value than any other nation. We just don't export any of it.
Manufacturing JOBS may be down, but manufacturing production is still the highest in the world (again, by dollar value): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing
You're another one that wants to plan everyone else's life, and have people living low.
No. I don't give a fuck what you do. I'm stating the simple facts. Do what you please, it's none of my business. But it won't change the fundamental reality of the situation. In 20 years it will not be affordable to drive gas-powered cars over any significant distance. This won't mean the end of travel or any of that, but it will mean fundamental changes in how we travel.
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't want to live like that, but I also don't want to waste eight hours sleeping every day or ten minutes shitting. Doesn't change the fact that it happens.
Kindly go to hell. I've worked for this, I am entitled to it, and will defend it with any and all means available to me
You and every other six year old on the play ground. Grow up, and learn to deal with reality instead of clinging to your fantasies. Life sucks. Get a helmet.
I don't need any envirowacko busybody trying to make my life less than what it is now. Ideally, life should be getting better for everyone, not worse, simply due to the technology, but other things are sabotaging that, mainly regulations promulgated by people like you, as well as tax policy that is a result of political corruption.
You seem to have quite the persecution complex. I've never advocated anything of the sort. I never suggested government regulation. I never told you how to live your life. I don't give a fuck what you do.
I made a statement of fact: oil supplies are fundamentally constrained (unless we're horribly wrong about petroleum genesis, which, while possible, is highly unlikely). Oil prices WILL continue to rise over the course of the next few decades. It will become too expense to use gasoline-powered private travel for the vast majority of people. You have a child's whiny sense of entitlement.
You might CONTEST these statements of fact, and I will concede that there is some room for debate about just how severe the crunch will actually be, and whether it will be mediated by as of yet unknown technologies (and of course, I don't really know you, maybe you're actually a well grounded human being who came off as an immature, whiny brat in a poorly rendered text communication--it happens all the time, including to me). However, you didn't contest the statements of fact. You started attacking imaginary phantoms that you think are trying to control you, and tell you how to live (which I never did). There's a term for that: schizophrenia.
I'm driving to Las Vegas from Virginia in March, and there are no electric cars that will do that in the timeframe my WRX will.
Waaaa. Waaaa. I'm entitled to luxuries that no one in the entire history of humanity had outside of the last 70 years. Waaaa.
The reality is our lifestyles are going to radically change over the next few decades. You might not like it, but, the physical realities of oil production and vehicle design being what they are, you'll just have to suck it up.
More trains over land, more ship travel over sea, less personal automotive and passenger flight. That's the reality we're heading towards. Get over yourself.
That would be sweet.
Bittersweet is the term you're looking for, I think.
NAZIS!
Thought it'd be good to preemptively Godwin this one before it metastasized.
anything to the 0 power is 1. Why? Because that is the way it is; it is just one of those things we need to memorize.
Bad example.
x^0=1 for all x in R
is taken as an axiom. There is no reason behind it for the teacher to explain other than if we don't assume it to be true the consequences are mathematically horrifying. You can have an algebraic system were x^0 != 1, but it will be internally inconsistent. Since we like our math to be internally consistent (albeit incomplete, see Godel's incompleteness theorem), we go with x^0=1.
No. Founder's effect is a FAR more likely explanation, and is going going to be responsible for most of these variations.
Costco won't take them
Then how in the fuck did I get all these groceries?
And, presumably, at least some of it's extinct ancestors, and their extinct relatives. Who knows how far back mammalian venom goes?
Though with that title they'd be transexual boobies.
Irrational behavior isn't something you want to nurture.
If you hold rationality in such high regard, I assume you have a proof for this claim.
And this children, is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy. See also "...and the Democrats/Republicans/Invading Alien Armada are better ... how?" It is a logical fallacy employed by those who have nothing meaningful to say in making their point, so they just point fingers in the other direction as if it were a relevant response to the previous speaker. Many of them actually believe this passes for logical argument.
Good thing this is taking place in a sane country where shocking people is not, never has been a crime.
simply so they retain their rights over the product
Jesus-fuck corporate shills have even ruined our fucking language.
You couldn't have said, "So they keep control of the find"? You had to use corporate-fuck-head speak?
If you're not a mathematician, an eight year-old boy, a 12 year-old girl, or a paleontologist you might want to rethink that plan.
ESPECIALLY if you're a lawyer or game warden.
*whistles*
bass acwards
You misspelled bass ackwards. /dyslexic spelling nazi
No, we write perl scripts that convert our LaTeX files to nicely formatted ODT files. From there it's save as .doc and upload. DUH. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
I'm writing a book [lacunaverse.com] for Kindle (naturalistic sci-fi, 61,000 words in)
Mistake #1
I'm typing it up in Google Docs
Mistake #What the fuck is wrong with you why couldn't you have tried using something sensible you fucking lunatic? /hyperbole
Seriously though, I pity you.
As soon as you start implying that it's less evil for someone to commit any particular crime on someone who shares identifying characteristics (sex, skin color, sexual orientation, religion, whatever) than it is to commit an identical crime on someone who does not share those identifying characteristics based upon the presumption that it is those characteristics that was the reason for the crime, then you are bordering on legitimizing the idea of thought-crime.
While I dislike hate crime laws, you're beating down a straw man.
Hate crime laws rest on the premise that it is more evil to TARGET a victim based on race, gender, ethnicity, blah, blah, than it is to TARGET a victim on any other criteria.
Hate crime laws DO NOT imply that it is more evil to commit a crime on someone IN a given class. If I shoot a black man while robbing his house (for the purpose of robbing his house), that is NOT a hate crime. If I break into his house with the purpose of murdering him BECAUSE he's black, and only rob the place incidentally, that IS a hate crime.
The problem you should have with hate crime laws is the provability issue--the only way to prove that a crime was a hate crime (short of a confession from the perp that, yes, he murdered that n***** for being a n*****) is to effectively criminalize hate speech made by those who also commit violent crimes. Granted, this only criminalizes a subset of hate speech (that hate speech made by those who commited a violent crime), but that's still a criminalization of speech.
One anecdote may not be data, but you made a universal statement, so one counter-example is sufficient to prove your statement wrong.
Sure, you disproved that strawman quite nicely.
All your parent said was that WHEN the military police arrest someone on charges, that person is about to get royally fucked. He said nothing about how consistently they do so. WHEN soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen are prosecuted, their lives are destroyed.
Your post is an exercise in meaningless non-sequitur. You cite a case where a sailor may, or may not, have been prosecuted by the Navy for a rape (you admit you don't actually know), and may, or may not, have been extradited back to Canada for prosecution (you admit you don't actually know). To reduce your post to more sensible language:
A sailor was suspected of rape. You have no idea whether he was ever prosecuted. He may, or may not, have been. This proves your parent's claim that when someone is prosecuted by the JAG office it means their life is effectively over to be false.
To reduce my post to more sensible language: What are you on, and can I have some?
You're the only one here who doesn't understand the Pax Romana. The Pax Romana was NOT a period of peace FOR the Roman Empire. It was a period of peace WITHIN the Roman Empire. There were constant border wars in the far-flung territories all the way through the period. There was peace IN THE CITY OF ROME (and really all of Italy, Greece, Spain, Gaul, and the African Provinces--in the Middle East, Britain, Dacia, and Germania there wars aplenty). That is what the Pax Romana was.