"Empathy" in this case fails dramatically. I would absolutely love it if more women were open and forthcoming about their interest in me, rather than waiting for me to make the first move. How do I empathise with people who, according to you, want the exact opposite of what I would want in their place?
I can certainly empathise with those who are subject to repeated advances despite having already said "no", but we're not even at that stage of the conversation; you're trying to tell us that just expressing interest in someone is in and of itself "harassment". That's absurd.
If you're feeling threatened because someone on an online forum is "bitcing rudely" about other people, you must have a hell of a time navigating the real world. Get PTSD every time a car backfires.
I find people who hate arbitrary codes of conduct to be the most pleasurable to work with. I know that they have a sense of humour, and can get into a heated argument without throwing around words like sexism, racism, and discrimination. I would much rather deal with abrasive, augmentative individuals than with social justice snowflakes who go whining to the boss and/or media at the slightest perceived provocation.
That's what the most vocal feminists say, sure. Strangely enough, I've never met a vocal feminist in the combat arms, and the overall figure for women is around 1%. Were the draft to actually be instituted, and applied to women, I suspect you would hear these brave justice warriors singing a much different tune.
Your advice is often correct, however it doesn't apply in this case. I switched over from an "unlimited" provider which was throttling my bandwidth every day between 6pm and 11pm. With the new provider in getting speeds slightly higher than advertised, and never throttled.
The other side of the coin is that I find "unlimited" providers often throttle at prime times, or if you exceed some unlisted daily limit. They do this because they're overselling their capacity and don't actually expect you to download at full throttle 24/7.
There are alternatives to unlimited which work just as well. The provider I'm with offers a 200gb limit, but only measures your usage during the day. Any downloads scheduled between midnight and 8 am don't count towards your usage.
They also offer unlimited for an extra $10 a month on top of your normal plan, but if you're really only worried about going over your cap because of a few extra torrent downloads, you can save $120 a year by just scheduling your downloads outside of prime usage hours.
That's a rather simplistic assessment, but, even if true, it's comparable to the amounts sent overseas by immigrants. In Canada that latter figure is about $24 billion a year. We don't have hard numbers for the US, but with a population of 10 times the size and similar demographics... you do the math.
Are you worried about that, also, or just teh ebil billionaires?
Or they just don't give a shit because the amounts being "offshored" add up to a piss in the ocean.
If you were a right wing economic ignoramus you would be whining about immigrants "offshoring" money they send back to families in their homeland; since you're a left wing economic ignoramus, you whine about billionaires "hiding their profits" in overseas accounts. Intelligent people don't really give a crap about either of those "problems".
I'm not in the habit of carrying cards, but I see much in the libertarian philosophy which is far superior to the status quo. And I have to question what kind of libertarian you could possibly have been that would have led you to the conclusion that you have to stop people from commenting on the behaviour of others. That seems to be completely contrary to libertarian ideals.
It's as if you said "I used to be a card carrying capital C communist, and communists want everyone to just keep what they earn".
You're joking, right? Go to Google right now and type in "Logan torrent" or "Logan download". See what comes up.
I mean if your entire job was to stop only those people who are too stupid to add the word " torrent" or "download" to the end of a movie name, then congrats, I guess... you must have stopped at least 2 people with those 300,000 tickets...
Libertarians might argue that we shouldn't do business with people who are treating others unfairly. But in the same breath don't think we should monitor and report on the toxic behavior of private individuals.
Nice strawman you got there. Would be a shame if someone asked you which libertarians exactly are opposed to individuals talking about the behaviour of other individuals.
My advice is to be an affluent able-bodied white male (straight or passing). That avoid quite a few problems in life, and gives you a little bit of an edge in society.
My advice would be to have a positive attitude, work hard, and stop looking for easy excuses when things don't go your way. Who knows, maybe some day you can change your name to Barack and even get elected president.
Do you actually think President "Moar Coal Jobs" Trump, advised by Steve "Who needs the EPA" Bannon, will do something about climate change?
I'm not sure it matters. Sure, it would be nice if the US had a president who would blow away all the obstacles to replacing all fossil fuel power generation with modern nuclear instead, but we knew that would never happen no matter who got elected. Barring that, nothing the government does is going to make a significant difference. The private sector is already on-track to make solar/wind efficient enough to be cheaper than fossil fuels within a decade, and they're on track to replace the majority of ICE vehicles with electric inside of 2 -3 decades tops. So even if Trump does absolutely nothing to help the process, we're going to significantly shift the balance.
No, that's implicit. We can either do nothing and warm 5.5 degrees, or sign the agreement + spend a shitload of mkney and warm 3.9 degrees. That's the comparison that leads to the conclusion that there's very little benefit.
Of course your response ignores a third option; don't sign this turd of an agreement and do something else instead.
It's not a question of conspiracies; just read the damn thing.
Here's the part he was referencing:
Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a âoecountry-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions.â
That paragraph alone should be enough to make any sane human being laugh in disgust and refuse to sign. And the rest of the agreement is full of similar nonsense.
I don't think Trump "misunderstood" the science; he didn't have any understanding of the science in the first place.
That's what the word misunderstood means. To fail to understand. Like if you misunderstood the meaning of the word "misunderstood", you would not have any understanding of it in the first place.
Because every society on the face of the planet has decided that fraud is a bad thing, and should be illegal. Doesn't matter if the person you're defrauding "voluntarily" gives you his money; you're still a scumbag, and we think you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Standard method in science is to stay narrow, not alter protocol midway through investigation or research.
But that's exactly what this conclusion does. The question the study was looking into was "do people work less when given a universal basic income". They looked at the data, and saw that the answer was "yes". Instead of saying "yes, UBI does decrease how much people work" they said "no it doesn't, but, like, it does in this one group over here, but, um, we're going to assume that's because they're going to school".
It begs a study into THAT question
Yes, absolutely, that should be looked into. But whether or not a followup study occurs doesn't change the fact that this study showed that UBI does in fact lead to people working less on average. Isolating one specific group in order to turn a "yes" into a "no" is inherently dishonest.
150000 [wikipedia.org] people die daily. There's 6683 [endcoal.org] operating coal plants above 30MW worldwide. It is strongly debatable how many deaths can be attributed to pollution -- in China big cities there are claims it's 1/3 total deaths!
What an incredibly silly argument. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but all people eventually die. The total number dying per day tells us absolutely nothing. It's not as if, had we eliminated coal power 100 years ago, we would have fewer deaths today. What would have happened is a temporary dip in the death rate for maybe a decade, followed by a resumption. The number today would be the same; the same number of people would be dying every year, they would just be dying at a later age.
Obviously living to an older age is a good thing, but your numbers don't even look at that, and have nothing to do with what kind of energy sources we're using. You're using completely irrelevant metrics. If you actually wanted to make a relevant argument, you would be looking at average life expectancy. You could run the numbers, figure out what percentage of the deaths are attributable to coal, figure out by how many years those lives were cut short, and then apply that decrease to the national life expectancy rate. That would give you a meaningful figure which actually shows how much harm is being caused by coal.
I suspect the reason people don't do that is because the numbers probably wouldn't look nearly as alarming. It's much scarier to shout "10,000 people are being killed by coal!" then it is to shout "If we didn't use coal the average life expectancy in the US would be 78.98 years instead of 78.94 years!".
and that they were likely enrolling in school with the added income
That single line torpedoes their entire "study". To rephrase the article summary in more honest words: "we found that people did work less, but we're just going to assume that they're going to school instead".
You can prove anything you want when you're willing to hand-wave away any data you don't like.
But whiles she's alive, I don't have my right to communicate privately with her? As her guardians, her parents could legally have forced her to give then the password.
Communications privacy is in an illusion, and doubly so when communicating with a minor.
Slashdot Mirror
"Empathy" in this case fails dramatically. I would absolutely love it if more women were open and forthcoming about their interest in me, rather than waiting for me to make the first move. How do I empathise with people who, according to you, want the exact opposite of what I would want in their place?
I can certainly empathise with those who are subject to repeated advances despite having already said "no", but we're not even at that stage of the conversation; you're trying to tell us that just expressing interest in someone is in and of itself "harassment". That's absurd.
If you're feeling threatened because someone on an online forum is "bitcing rudely" about other people, you must have a hell of a time navigating the real world. Get PTSD every time a car backfires.
I find people who hate arbitrary codes of conduct to be the most pleasurable to work with. I know that they have a sense of humour, and can get into a heated argument without throwing around words like sexism, racism, and discrimination. I would much rather deal with abrasive, augmentative individuals than with social justice snowflakes who go whining to the boss and/or media at the slightest perceived provocation.
That's what the most vocal feminists say, sure. Strangely enough, I've never met a vocal feminist in the combat arms, and the overall figure for women is around 1%. Were the draft to actually be instituted, and applied to women, I suspect you would hear these brave justice warriors singing a much different tune.
Your advice is often correct, however it doesn't apply in this case. I switched over from an "unlimited" provider which was throttling my bandwidth every day between 6pm and 11pm. With the new provider in getting speeds slightly higher than advertised, and never throttled.
The other side of the coin is that I find "unlimited" providers often throttle at prime times, or if you exceed some unlisted daily limit. They do this because they're overselling their capacity and don't actually expect you to download at full throttle 24/7.
There are alternatives to unlimited which work just as well. The provider I'm with offers a 200gb limit, but only measures your usage during the day. Any downloads scheduled between midnight and 8 am don't count towards your usage.
They also offer unlimited for an extra $10 a month on top of your normal plan, but if you're really only worried about going over your cap because of a few extra torrent downloads, you can save $120 a year by just scheduling your downloads outside of prime usage hours.
That's a rather simplistic assessment, but, even if true, it's comparable to the amounts sent overseas by immigrants. In Canada that latter figure is about $24 billion a year. We don't have hard numbers for the US, but with a population of 10 times the size and similar demographics ... you do the math.
Are you worried about that, also, or just teh ebil billionaires?
Or they just don't give a shit because the amounts being "offshored" add up to a piss in the ocean.
If you were a right wing economic ignoramus you would be whining about immigrants "offshoring" money they send back to families in their homeland; since you're a left wing economic ignoramus, you whine about billionaires "hiding their profits" in overseas accounts. Intelligent people don't really give a crap about either of those "problems".
You're comparing mocking sexual assault, racism and the holocaust to religious beliefs?
Uh, yeah? Have you ever read the Bible/Koran/Torah? They make 4chan look tame in comparison.
Yes, all the animals, insects, plants and bacteria which happen to be be hanging out 100 miles above ground are completely fucked.
I'm not in the habit of carrying cards, but I see much in the libertarian philosophy which is far superior to the status quo. And I have to question what kind of libertarian you could possibly have been that would have led you to the conclusion that you have to stop people from commenting on the behaviour of others. That seems to be completely contrary to libertarian ideals.
It's as if you said "I used to be a card carrying capital C communist, and communists want everyone to just keep what they earn".
I don't care about some people; I care about the dipshit I responded to.
Oh, only a 105% tax. That makes it much more affordable!
You're joking, right? Go to Google right now and type in "Logan torrent" or "Logan download". See what comes up.
I mean if your entire job was to stop only those people who are too stupid to add the word " torrent" or "download" to the end of a movie name, then congrats, I guess ... you must have stopped at least 2 people with those 300,000 tickets ...
Libertarians might argue that we shouldn't do business with people who are treating others unfairly. But in the same breath don't think we should monitor and report on the toxic behavior of private individuals.
Nice strawman you got there. Would be a shame if someone asked you which libertarians exactly are opposed to individuals talking about the behaviour of other individuals.
My advice is to be an affluent able-bodied white male (straight or passing). That avoid quite a few problems in life, and gives you a little bit of an edge in society.
My advice would be to have a positive attitude, work hard, and stop looking for easy excuses when things don't go your way. Who knows, maybe some day you can change your name to Barack and even get elected president.
Do you actually think President "Moar Coal Jobs" Trump, advised by Steve "Who needs the EPA" Bannon, will do something about climate change?
I'm not sure it matters. Sure, it would be nice if the US had a president who would blow away all the obstacles to replacing all fossil fuel power generation with modern nuclear instead, but we knew that would never happen no matter who got elected. Barring that, nothing the government does is going to make a significant difference. The private sector is already on-track to make solar/wind efficient enough to be cheaper than fossil fuels within a decade, and they're on track to replace the majority of ICE vehicles with electric inside of 2 -3 decades tops. So even if Trump does absolutely nothing to help the process, we're going to significantly shift the balance.
No, that's implicit. We can either do nothing and warm 5.5 degrees, or sign the agreement + spend a shitload of mkney and warm 3.9 degrees. That's the comparison that leads to the conclusion that there's very little benefit.
Of course your response ignores a third option; don't sign this turd of an agreement and do something else instead.
It's not a question of conspiracies; just read the damn thing.
Here's the part he was referencing:
Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a âoecountry-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions.â
That paragraph alone should be enough to make any sane human being laugh in disgust and refuse to sign. And the rest of the agreement is full of similar nonsense.
I don't think Trump "misunderstood" the science; he didn't have any understanding of the science in the first place.
That's what the word misunderstood means. To fail to understand. Like if you misunderstood the meaning of the word "misunderstood", you would not have any understanding of it in the first place.
Why should they? It's all voluntary interactions.
Because every society on the face of the planet has decided that fraud is a bad thing, and should be illegal. Doesn't matter if the person you're defrauding "voluntarily" gives you his money; you're still a scumbag, and we think you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Standard method in science is to stay narrow, not alter protocol midway through investigation or research.
But that's exactly what this conclusion does. The question the study was looking into was "do people work less when given a universal basic income". They looked at the data, and saw that the answer was "yes". Instead of saying "yes, UBI does decrease how much people work" they said "no it doesn't, but, like, it does in this one group over here, but, um, we're going to assume that's because they're going to school".
It begs a study into THAT question
Yes, absolutely, that should be looked into. But whether or not a followup study occurs doesn't change the fact that this study showed that UBI does in fact lead to people working less on average. Isolating one specific group in order to turn a "yes" into a "no" is inherently dishonest.
150000 [wikipedia.org] people die daily. There's 6683 [endcoal.org] operating coal plants above 30MW worldwide. It is strongly debatable how many deaths can be attributed to pollution -- in China big cities there are claims it's 1/3 total deaths!
What an incredibly silly argument. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but all people eventually die. The total number dying per day tells us absolutely nothing. It's not as if, had we eliminated coal power 100 years ago, we would have fewer deaths today. What would have happened is a temporary dip in the death rate for maybe a decade, followed by a resumption. The number today would be the same; the same number of people would be dying every year, they would just be dying at a later age.
Obviously living to an older age is a good thing, but your numbers don't even look at that, and have nothing to do with what kind of energy sources we're using. You're using completely irrelevant metrics. If you actually wanted to make a relevant argument, you would be looking at average life expectancy. You could run the numbers, figure out what percentage of the deaths are attributable to coal, figure out by how many years those lives were cut short, and then apply that decrease to the national life expectancy rate. That would give you a meaningful figure which actually shows how much harm is being caused by coal.
I suspect the reason people don't do that is because the numbers probably wouldn't look nearly as alarming. It's much scarier to shout "10,000 people are being killed by coal!" then it is to shout "If we didn't use coal the average life expectancy in the US would be 78.98 years instead of 78.94 years!".
and that they were likely enrolling in school with the added income
That single line torpedoes their entire "study". To rephrase the article summary in more honest words: "we found that people did work less, but we're just going to assume that they're going to school instead".
You can prove anything you want when you're willing to hand-wave away any data you don't like.
But whiles she's alive, I don't have my right to communicate privately with her? As her guardians, her parents could legally have forced her to give then the password.
Communications privacy is in an illusion, and doubly so when communicating with a minor.
Than you for letting us all know that you never talk to the police; would you be so kind as to post you home address too? I could use a new TV.