Okay everyone. Let's get some perspective here. These Amazon Affiliates we are talking about are California based businesses. When they sell directly to Californians they are required to pay a sales tax. Regardless of what you think about sales taxes they are established law. These local businesses are simply using the Amazon website as their online store. This new law will make it so that they still have to pay the same damn sales tax when they sell to Californians. This absolutely was a loophole that was giving some California businesses a big price advantage over other California businesses when selling to Californians. The only part about this that isn't in California is the Amazon servers that provide the online selling service for these California businesses (though there is a good chance that the servers are here too!). There is no injustice here. There is no radical new tax here. There is only a bunch of local California businesses using Amazon to avoid paying sales taxes when they sell products to Californians.
I'm am shocked I have seen no posts in this discussion criticizing Amazon for being such dicks. Surely they have a presence in some state in the US, and surely they pay sales taxes there, so it's not like they lack the ability to charge taxes. I see this as a big online retailer deciding to boycott my state because... well for no good reason.
How can a corporation possibly kill someone? The actions of the PEOPLE in a corporation may result in someone's being killed, and if their actions rise to the level of a crime they can and will be arrested. The thing that people value most is liberty, so if they commit a crime we remove their liberty. The thing that corporations value most is money, so if the corporation as a whole commits a crime we remove it's money.
For decades W.R. Grace Inc. mined vermiculite from a mine in Libby, Montana. There is ample documentary evidence that they knew that the vermiculite was contaminated with tremolite asbestos. For decades they concealed this fact from their workforce and the inhabitants of the town. Many people died of asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. That is how a corporation kills people.
No criminal charges were filed since there was not enough evidence to convict any one particular living person. Grace did get sued, but hid behind bankruptcy and ended up loosing very little actual money. Our history is overflowing with examples that and uglier. In fact W.R. Grace's history is full of similar stories. They've literally killed thousands of people in their attempts to profit. A person who committed those crimes would be considered a mass murderer. Grace is merely a risky investment.
Yes corporation frequently do things that none of the individuals would dream of doing. It is a well established psychological phenomena that a committee of people is frequently willing to to abominable things that none of the people on the committee would consider.
To bring it back to the original topic, I honestly don't care if it's Bayer Corp. or some mom and pop operation, my medical data is mine and mine exclusively and only I should get to determine if it is shared with a person or a corporation regardless of the benign/malignant nature of the person or business.
Oh, 'massive corporations' - scary. Gee, I wonder what makes them so 'massive'. It surely is not the thousands or millions of people that make them up, is it?
The people who are employed by a corporation do not "make up" that corporation anymore than the corporate headquarters building "makes up" that corporation. The employees are entirely incidental and replaceable, so is the building. The corporation is a person in and of itself under our current law. The size or power of a corporation has much more to do with it's ability to exert power in the public realm, to bend our society to its interests at the expense of mine. The corporation has all the rights that you do and many more. It has virtually none of the responsibilities that you do. It cannot be arrested and thrown in jail, even if it kills someone. But it does have one very important responsibility that you don't. It must increase shareholder value. Not the interests of the society in which they exist, not the people you think "make up" the corporation, only the shareholders. So in addition to being massive regardless of the incidental employees, yes they are scary, because they are almost completely unaccountable to me and to you.
So in simple answer to your question, no. The number of people employed by a corporation not what determine the corporation's size or power. There may be a correlation but it is not the cause.
Odd that I got modded down for "flamebait." This was an early post in the discussion, and it utterly failed at actually attracting any flames. In fact of the two replies one was a clever joke and the other was a furtherance of my argument. Perhaps the modder made a slip of his mouse and accidentally selected "flamebait" when he was trying to select "I disagree."
Unfortunately I find this to be typical of Christians engaged in debate. When rhetorically cornered they resort quickly to one of three canned responses: "it's a matter of faith," "you must have so much pain inside to be so resistant to seeing the light," and yelling to drown you out. I think this falls into the yelling category.
Yes, Slashdotters are largely using double-standards in regards to Wikileaks.
Hardly. In one case you have governments that are supposed to serve their people and don't; that reflexively classify everything mostly to hide the foul deeds of people in government from the people. In this case some sunshine is a good thing. It is beneficial to people and to societies to know what their governments are up to.
In the second case you have massive corporations that have access to the most intimate details of all our personal lives. They wish to use this data for profit. This almost always happens to the detriment of people and societies. That data is not the property of society at large (like the data of a government is). It is private. It should be under the control of individuals.
The only way you can twist these two situations into a "double standard" is by making the erroneous case that these two cases are similar. They are not.
Also, the Old Testament should be understood as a product of its time - for Bronze Age barbarians, it's actually damn good. Of course we have moved beyond that since then, as we should have.
But isn't your god timeless, and all knowing? Are you claiming that your god was a bronze age barbarian? Recall that it was your god who reportedly ordered Joshua to exterminate the peoples, including women and children, who were living the the "promised land." It was your god who reportedly made all those laws in Deuteronomy (or was it Leviticus?). Most of those laws were enforced by public stoning or other abhorrent things. If your god actually existed and your scripture told truth I would oppose him because of who and what he is/was.
Of course the kicker is this (and the reason I kept writing "reportedly") It is fiction. It is mythology. Your god didn't flood the earth a few thousand years ago, that's pretty well proven. Your god didn't order Joshua to commit multiple genocides because there was no Hebrew exodus from Egypt (okay to be fair I should say there is no current archeological or non-scripture historical evidence of this event).
We know that most of you religious sorts were indoctrinated from a very young age and the brainwashing techniques that religions use are very effective. So the rest of us, we forgive you, and we recognize that the overwhelming majority of you are perfectly decent people. We also know that you are decent people in spite of your religion, because MOST people are decent people (Muslims, Hindus, athiests, etc.) Y'all are decent because humans evolved empathy and altruism as survival traits and our ability to reason has led us to extend our empathy and altruism beyond the clan group to all people.
I personally draw the line when religious types start trying to force their mythology/dogma on the rest of us. There are many examples of this: prayer in schools; the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance; dogma taught as if it were science (intelligent design); preventing certain types of people from getting married; and government endorsed public displays of dogma (the protestant 10 commandments in a courthouse). Oh I also draw the line when religious types start preaching hatred (Falwell and Robertson come to mind), but then you claim to do the same. Kudos to you for that. If all people who claim to be Christians really did follow the example of Jesus the world would be much nicer.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi
It may sound selfish but as much as the world needs to stop polluting, all this is going to achieve is to grossly disadvantage the country in a time where energy resources (its greatest export) is one of the most critical agendas in international politics. There has got to be a better way.
And this is the fault of climate scientists... how?
I had two immediate reactions to this post:
1) It's amazing the backflips, complexity, bizarre assumptions, pseudo-science, anti-biblical heresy, and sci-fi/fantasy weirdness is needed to reconcile young earth creationism with science.
2) Can I have some of what you've been smoking?
Then a question occurred to me. If a god created the universe, who created the god?
-=-=-
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. - Lewis Carroll
Have creationists ever denied the existence of mutations?
Actually the most common pop rebuttal of observed evolution does deny mutations. It goes like this: When a population of bacteria are exposed to an antibiotic and most die off and the remaining population reproduces which leads to a population of antibiotic bacteria it is not because of a mutation but because of already existing genetic variation.
[sigh]Yes yes I know that argument is so flawed it isn't funny, I'm not making that argument. I'm just saying that yes some creationists do deny the existence of mutations.[/sigh]
From wikipedia, "...the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint"
those standards include,
"Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect."
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration also issued guidelines for sobriety checkpoints in response to a US Supreme Court decision that allowed such checkpoints. These guidelines also required advanced publicity of checkpoints to maximize the deterrent effect and to minimize traffic disruption.
So it seems to me that in this time when few read the newspaper where this advanced publicity is usually buried on the page B29 that an app like this is nearly required instead of being illegal, at least in California.
The difference between his lese majeste and Computer Crime act violations, and getting swept up in PATRIOT act trouble, is that in Thailand he'll get a trial.
So if this is legit then selling a photo taken virtually anywhere in pubilc in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would be a trademark violation. It is impossible to open your eyes without being assaulted by a dozen corporate trademarks.
The real reason that this is absurd is this: Trademark law is intended to prevent one company from dishonestly associating themselves with the reputation of another company. For instance making a shiny white PC and branding it an ApplePC would obviously be an attempt to deceive the market. When a reporter takes a photo at the NYSE, that reporter is not attempting to fool people that his stock exchange is associated with the NYSE, he is reporting on the news. NYSE also has no need do defend the trademark here since there is no infringement to defend. Reporting is not infringement.
Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.
If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.
Okay if you RTFA you'll see that what he did wrong wasn't exposing a security flaw. He TOOK ADVANTAGE of the security flaw to access a photo that was supposed to be inaccessible to him. The owner of that photo complained that he had illegally obtained that photo, which he admitted to doing in his published article.
Since we like analogies on/. here is one. He learned that ABC Bank had a weak three tumbler lock on their side door. So one night he picked the lock, walked in, and took a photo of himself by the vault and published it saying "hey ABC Bank has such poor security I was able to break in on the weekend and take this photo of myself as proof."
Why would anyone be surprised that the police showed up to arrest him. He printed an admission that he hacked in and acquired private information from someone's Facebook account. The only problem here is that the cops failed to charge him with the correct crime.
while you were all 'growing up with aim', rest of the world was growing up with ICQ. and i mean, the world. not a mere country.
Nobody ever did ANY growing up on AIM, ICQ, IRC, Myspace, or Facebook. Any growing up that took place concurrently with the use of AIM, ICQ, IRC, Myspace, or Facebook happened in-spite of not due to AIM, ICQ, IRC, Myspace, or Facebook.
It's easy enough to blame fracturing, but the process of fracturing itself is occurring deep within some producing formation.
It's also easy enough to blame the massive increase of CO2 in our atmosphere on the nearly perfectly correlated massive increase of human industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere but that would be inconvenient for my energy stock prices so I choose not to believe it.
Did even you RTFA? (In this case I mean did you read the fracking Abstract of the scientific paper in question?;-) That's a huge degree of correlation, and the chemistry of the hydrocarbons in the water match the chemistry of the gas in the nearby wells.
Yeah sure the fracturing does take place much deeper than the water table, they have to pump the fracturing fluids down to the shale which involves pumping them THROUGH the water table. Yes I know that the procedure involves sealing the well hole before pumping the nasty stuff down there, but when they drill hundreds of wells in a region only a few have to leak to ruin the local water table. Of course the oil/gas extraction business has such a great safety record and they have never made a mess of things before, so why should we believe science when we can believe BP? I think you should consider not drinking the water from your local well, obviously the fracking fluids are messing with your thinking process.
Oh and by the way, those fracturing fluids, as revealed in the very interesting movie Gasland, are comprised of over 500 chemicals including several known human carcinogens and many suspected human carcinogens. So it is not like this is some academic question. Water tables all over the nation are turning foul with this stuff. BR
Here is another thing to ponder. Until very recently this technique for extracting gas was very rare. Towards the end of the Bush administration, this particular industry was exempted from compliance withe clean water act. Right after that fracking becomes the most important new development in energy extraction. Correlation or causation? It seems pretty clear to me that someone was afraid that they would be unable to comply with clean water regulations so they didn't bother until they made sure that their ass was covered.
It's been a long time since humanity has evolved. We've been in a pretty long phase of uninterrupted reproduction and expansion. Just about everybody lives long enough to reproduce, and just about everybody does reproduce. There is precious little selection going on. It won't be long now before we've overshot the carrying capacity of our planet, and massive die-offs will begin. Some traits will be selected for some will be selected against. That is evolution. Won't be fun. I expect it will get underway before I die. It's gonna suck.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a nice round number.
Okay everyone. Let's get some perspective here. These Amazon Affiliates we are talking about are California based businesses. When they sell directly to Californians they are required to pay a sales tax. Regardless of what you think about sales taxes they are established law. These local businesses are simply using the Amazon website as their online store. This new law will make it so that they still have to pay the same damn sales tax when they sell to Californians. This absolutely was a loophole that was giving some California businesses a big price advantage over other California businesses when selling to Californians. The only part about this that isn't in California is the Amazon servers that provide the online selling service for these California businesses (though there is a good chance that the servers are here too!). There is no injustice here. There is no radical new tax here. There is only a bunch of local California businesses using Amazon to avoid paying sales taxes when they sell products to Californians.
I'm am shocked I have seen no posts in this discussion criticizing Amazon for being such dicks. Surely they have a presence in some state in the US, and surely they pay sales taxes there, so it's not like they lack the ability to charge taxes. I see this as a big online retailer deciding to boycott my state because... well for no good reason.
How can a corporation possibly kill someone? The actions of the PEOPLE in a corporation may result in someone's being killed, and if their actions rise to the level of a crime they can and will be arrested. The thing that people value most is liberty, so if they commit a crime we remove their liberty. The thing that corporations value most is money, so if the corporation as a whole commits a crime we remove it's money.
For decades W.R. Grace Inc. mined vermiculite from a mine in Libby, Montana. There is ample documentary evidence that they knew that the vermiculite was contaminated with tremolite asbestos. For decades they concealed this fact from their workforce and the inhabitants of the town. Many people died of asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. That is how a corporation kills people.
No criminal charges were filed since there was not enough evidence to convict any one particular living person. Grace did get sued, but hid behind bankruptcy and ended up loosing very little actual money. Our history is overflowing with examples that and uglier. In fact W.R. Grace's history is full of similar stories. They've literally killed thousands of people in their attempts to profit. A person who committed those crimes would be considered a mass murderer. Grace is merely a risky investment.
Yes corporation frequently do things that none of the individuals would dream of doing. It is a well established psychological phenomena that a committee of people is frequently willing to to abominable things that none of the people on the committee would consider.
To bring it back to the original topic, I honestly don't care if it's Bayer Corp. or some mom and pop operation, my medical data is mine and mine exclusively and only I should get to determine if it is shared with a person or a corporation regardless of the benign/malignant nature of the person or business.
Oh, 'massive corporations' - scary. Gee, I wonder what makes them so 'massive'. It surely is not the thousands or millions of people that make them up, is it?
The people who are employed by a corporation do not "make up" that corporation anymore than the corporate headquarters building "makes up" that corporation. The employees are entirely incidental and replaceable, so is the building. The corporation is a person in and of itself under our current law. The size or power of a corporation has much more to do with it's ability to exert power in the public realm, to bend our society to its interests at the expense of mine. The corporation has all the rights that you do and many more. It has virtually none of the responsibilities that you do. It cannot be arrested and thrown in jail, even if it kills someone. But it does have one very important responsibility that you don't. It must increase shareholder value. Not the interests of the society in which they exist, not the people you think "make up" the corporation, only the shareholders. So in addition to being massive regardless of the incidental employees, yes they are scary, because they are almost completely unaccountable to me and to you.
So in simple answer to your question, no. The number of people employed by a corporation not what determine the corporation's size or power. There may be a correlation but it is not the cause.
Great. Until mud gets on the emitter.
Odd that I got modded down for "flamebait." This was an early post in the discussion, and it utterly failed at actually attracting any flames. In fact of the two replies one was a clever joke and the other was a furtherance of my argument. Perhaps the modder made a slip of his mouse and accidentally selected "flamebait" when he was trying to select "I disagree."
Unfortunately I find this to be typical of Christians engaged in debate. When rhetorically cornered they resort quickly to one of three canned responses: "it's a matter of faith," "you must have so much pain inside to be so resistant to seeing the light," and yelling to drown you out. I think this falls into the yelling category.
Yes, Slashdotters are largely using double-standards in regards to Wikileaks.
Hardly. In one case you have governments that are supposed to serve their people and don't; that reflexively classify everything mostly to hide the foul deeds of people in government from the people. In this case some sunshine is a good thing. It is beneficial to people and to societies to know what their governments are up to.
In the second case you have massive corporations that have access to the most intimate details of all our personal lives. They wish to use this data for profit. This almost always happens to the detriment of people and societies. That data is not the property of society at large (like the data of a government is). It is private. It should be under the control of individuals.
The only way you can twist these two situations into a "double standard" is by making the erroneous case that these two cases are similar. They are not.
Also, the Old Testament should be understood as a product of its time - for Bronze Age barbarians, it's actually damn good. Of course we have moved beyond that since then, as we should have.
But isn't your god timeless, and all knowing? Are you claiming that your god was a bronze age barbarian? Recall that it was your god who reportedly ordered Joshua to exterminate the peoples, including women and children, who were living the the "promised land." It was your god who reportedly made all those laws in Deuteronomy (or was it Leviticus?). Most of those laws were enforced by public stoning or other abhorrent things. If your god actually existed and your scripture told truth I would oppose him because of who and what he is/was.
Of course the kicker is this (and the reason I kept writing "reportedly") It is fiction. It is mythology. Your god didn't flood the earth a few thousand years ago, that's pretty well proven. Your god didn't order Joshua to commit multiple genocides because there was no Hebrew exodus from Egypt (okay to be fair I should say there is no current archeological or non-scripture historical evidence of this event).
We know that most of you religious sorts were indoctrinated from a very young age and the brainwashing techniques that religions use are very effective. So the rest of us, we forgive you, and we recognize that the overwhelming majority of you are perfectly decent people. We also know that you are decent people in spite of your religion, because MOST people are decent people (Muslims, Hindus, athiests, etc.) Y'all are decent because humans evolved empathy and altruism as survival traits and our ability to reason has led us to extend our empathy and altruism beyond the clan group to all people.
I personally draw the line when religious types start trying to force their mythology/dogma on the rest of us. There are many examples of this: prayer in schools; the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance; dogma taught as if it were science (intelligent design); preventing certain types of people from getting married; and government endorsed public displays of dogma (the protestant 10 commandments in a courthouse). Oh I also draw the line when religious types start preaching hatred (Falwell and Robertson come to mind), but then you claim to do the same. Kudos to you for that. If all people who claim to be Christians really did follow the example of Jesus the world would be much nicer.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi
It may sound selfish but as much as the world needs to stop polluting, all this is going to achieve is to grossly disadvantage the country in a time where energy resources (its greatest export) is one of the most critical agendas in international politics. There has got to be a better way.
And this is the fault of climate scientists... how?
I had two immediate reactions to this post:
1) It's amazing the backflips, complexity, bizarre assumptions, pseudo-science, anti-biblical heresy, and sci-fi/fantasy weirdness is needed to reconcile young earth creationism with science.
2) Can I have some of what you've been smoking?
Then a question occurred to me. If a god created the universe, who created the god?
-=-=-
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. - Lewis Carroll
Have creationists ever denied the existence of mutations?
Actually the most common pop rebuttal of observed evolution does deny mutations. It goes like this: When a population of bacteria are exposed to an antibiotic and most die off and the remaining population reproduces which leads to a population of antibiotic bacteria it is not because of a mutation but because of already existing genetic variation.
[sigh]Yes yes I know that argument is so flawed it isn't funny, I'm not making that argument. I'm just saying that yes some creationists do deny the existence of mutations.[/sigh]
From wikipedia, "...the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint"
those standards include,
"Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect."
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration also issued guidelines for sobriety checkpoints in response to a US Supreme Court decision that allowed such checkpoints. These guidelines also required advanced publicity of checkpoints to maximize the deterrent effect and to minimize traffic disruption.
So it seems to me that in this time when few read the newspaper where this advanced publicity is usually buried on the page B29 that an app like this is nearly required instead of being illegal, at least in California.
i-Caramba!
The difference between his lese majeste and Computer Crime act violations, and getting swept up in PATRIOT act trouble, is that in Thailand he'll get a trial.
He left out a key category of people who should be peer censored. "Stupid Defense Think Tank Assholes."
Been there. Done that. Have a picture of my son next to the 6' Lego Buzz Lightyear
So if this is legit then selling a photo taken virtually anywhere in pubilc in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would be a trademark violation. It is impossible to open your eyes without being assaulted by a dozen corporate trademarks.
The real reason that this is absurd is this: Trademark law is intended to prevent one company from dishonestly associating themselves with the reputation of another company. For instance making a shiny white PC and branding it an ApplePC would obviously be an attempt to deceive the market. When a reporter takes a photo at the NYSE, that reporter is not attempting to fool people that his stock exchange is associated with the NYSE, he is reporting on the news. NYSE also has no need do defend the trademark here since there is no infringement to defend. Reporting is not infringement.
I want the hoodie and cop sunglasses from the famous police sketch.
Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.
If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.
I'm dizzy.
Okay if you RTFA you'll see that what he did wrong wasn't exposing a security flaw. He TOOK ADVANTAGE of the security flaw to access a photo that was supposed to be inaccessible to him. The owner of that photo complained that he had illegally obtained that photo, which he admitted to doing in his published article.
/. here is one. He learned that ABC Bank had a weak three tumbler lock on their side door. So one night he picked the lock, walked in, and took a photo of himself by the vault and published it saying "hey ABC Bank has such poor security I was able to break in on the weekend and take this photo of myself as proof."
Since we like analogies on
Why would anyone be surprised that the police showed up to arrest him. He printed an admission that he hacked in and acquired private information from someone's Facebook account. The only problem here is that the cops failed to charge him with the correct crime.
while you were all 'growing up with aim', rest of the world was growing up with ICQ. and i mean, the world. not a mere country.
Nobody ever did ANY growing up on AIM, ICQ, IRC, Myspace, or Facebook. Any growing up that took place concurrently with the use of AIM, ICQ, IRC, Myspace, or Facebook happened in-spite of not due to AIM, ICQ, IRC, Myspace, or Facebook.
...children are emitters of infrared radiation.
Translation: "children are hot."
Looks like we have a pedophile here!! Everybody overreact!! Let's lynch him!!!
Apparently the engineers from comcast that provided help didn't get the memo. So I'll summarize, "Do only evil." There now now it's fixed.
It's easy enough to blame fracturing, but the process of fracturing itself is occurring deep within some producing formation.
It's also easy enough to blame the massive increase of CO2 in our atmosphere on the nearly perfectly correlated massive increase of human industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere but that would be inconvenient for my energy stock prices so I choose not to believe it.
;-) That's a huge degree of correlation, and the chemistry of the hydrocarbons in the water match the chemistry of the gas in the nearby wells.
Did even you RTFA? (In this case I mean did you read the fracking Abstract of the scientific paper in question?
Yeah sure the fracturing does take place much deeper than the water table, they have to pump the fracturing fluids down to the shale which involves pumping them THROUGH the water table. Yes I know that the procedure involves sealing the well hole before pumping the nasty stuff down there, but when they drill hundreds of wells in a region only a few have to leak to ruin the local water table. Of course the oil/gas extraction business has such a great safety record and they have never made a mess of things before, so why should we believe science when we can believe BP? I think you should consider not drinking the water from your local well, obviously the fracking fluids are messing with your thinking process.
Oh and by the way, those fracturing fluids, as revealed in the very interesting movie Gasland, are comprised of over 500 chemicals including several known human carcinogens and many suspected human carcinogens. So it is not like this is some academic question. Water tables all over the nation are turning foul with this stuff.
BR Here is another thing to ponder. Until very recently this technique for extracting gas was very rare. Towards the end of the Bush administration, this particular industry was exempted from compliance withe clean water act. Right after that fracking becomes the most important new development in energy extraction. Correlation or causation? It seems pretty clear to me that someone was afraid that they would be unable to comply with clean water regulations so they didn't bother until they made sure that their ass was covered.
It's been a long time since humanity has evolved. We've been in a pretty long phase of uninterrupted reproduction and expansion. Just about everybody lives long enough to reproduce, and just about everybody does reproduce. There is precious little selection going on. It won't be long now before we've overshot the carrying capacity of our planet, and massive die-offs will begin. Some traits will be selected for some will be selected against. That is evolution. Won't be fun. I expect it will get underway before I die. It's gonna suck.