Well, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, the science isn't sufficiently understood yet.
Worse, people are misusing bad science - see the massive push for female superiority based on very flawed studies that perpetuate myths around pay, sexual assault and equality.
The other factor of course is that humans are irrational beings. The science already exists that demonstrates this, and so any rational basis for society must factor in that irrationality.
This is why advertising works - there's a humungous amount of science that goes into helping people make what would otherwise be irrational choices.
Killing because of religion is because of religion.
Atheists killing people is because of some other fucked up reason, not because they're atheists.
But you're also skipping the centuries of religious persecution, the damage caused by religious policies on birth control, the pain and deaths caused by genital mutilation, the theft of scarce resources from the poorest of peoples.
And no, Hitler was not an atheist.
You cannot have it both ways: Either the atheist massacres are representative of atheism and the religious ones representative of religion, or neither is the case. In either case, the atheist massacres res sill the worst by incomprehensible margins of blood.
There have not been any 'atheist massacres', so no, your examples are not representative of atheism. Whereas religious massacres perpetrated and supported by recognised officials of a religion are religious in nature.
I don't need to have it both ways, there's only one way.
All blacks are the problem though, because even if they aren't gang bangers and killers themselves they're aiding and abetting the ones who are.
Perhaps if the police didn't act as though they think this is the case, they wouldn't have so much need to cover each other for being racist violent corrupt cunts?
..with the result that they shoot dead members of an ethnic minority with impunity, leading to a member of that minority feeling the need to produce justice himself.
How about the police are held to account, and fewer people of all colours die?
Was he acting alone? Bad enough, but a much worse case might be if he was working for DAESH as part of a possibly larger plan to incite a race war in America.
Seriously wtf? You should seek medical assistance, that paranoia is going to damage you.
I had a CIO grab me the day after I tendered my resignation and tell me he wasn't going to make a counter offer because they don't help at all.
I told him that was fine, as I would have had to decline one anyway as nothing he could offer would address the reasons I was leaving.
He did however want to know those reasons. People left the company rather less voluntarily as a result. Other changes were made. I'm happier at my new employer, and my former colleagues also have a better working environment.
Sometimes a well regarded employee leaving is a trigger for senior management recognition that there is a problem; until then it's perceived as bitching, or they think they're dealing with it, or they lack the ammunition to tell their superiors that this is not sustainable. Twice now my departure from an organisation has led to sizeable change to improve working conditions and environment.
Two weeks? Shit, can't fire someone without several months of making them aware they're at risk for a specific reason and giving them a metric fuckton of support to improve and address that area of their performance.
Even after that they'll have a month's notice in their contract. They'll get that, and often more. They just wont be able to spend it in the office, it'll be cash in hand and/or gardening leave.
Redundancies I've never seen happen in under three months, usually nearer six.
Then again, when I leave a job it's never been less than a month's notice. Usually I negotiate, preference is to avoid the three month contractual notice I normally have (current job is only one, although employer has to give me three) but on one occasion I gave them five months notice.
If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.
Yeah, there's been a constant stream of criticism on this site towards Bush and then Obama. It's very reasonable to assume that the next President will also get a lot of criticism.
Only one of those candidates will claim that it's because of their gender.
For that reason alone she'd be a fucking awful choice.
Trying to bust Hillary could force the FBI to implicate dozens of high ranking officials on both sides of the political spectrum in the same crime.
You say this like it'd be a bad thing. My employer sacks people for sending personally identifiable information outside the company via email, and PII (as much as I agree it should be protected) isn't really 'top secret'.
So why the fuck should Government officials get a free pass? A few people sacked, a couple of careers curtailed and the odd prosecution here and there would do wonders for US information security.
Right now the message is very clear: Nobody gives a shit, just crack on. It's ok, the Chinese probably already knew.
Or the owner had changed circumstances - divorce, children, employment, location.
Or the owner only ever wants to drive cars less than 2-3 years old. I know people like that.
Or the really big one: Lease companies. In the UK certain makes and models of car have horrendous 1-2 year depreciation and it's entirely because they're bought as fleet cars, driven for 1-2 years then sold off at auction.
So no, second hand cars aren't an issue and usually aren't abused.
New discs + pads for my front brakes cost me $520 yesterday.
The car's worth rather more than that, and I'd wear out the brakes on any car, so it's not a terribly relevant factor in whether to replace the car or not - but if the car was worth $300 (as some I've owned have been) then yeah, it's cheaper to replace the car.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd need to know a lot more about Tyson before I could answer that.
Being a great scientist has very little to do with the ability to make good difficult decisions or be a leader.
Well, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, the science isn't sufficiently understood yet.
Worse, people are misusing bad science - see the massive push for female superiority based on very flawed studies that perpetuate myths around pay, sexual assault and equality.
The other factor of course is that humans are irrational beings. The science already exists that demonstrates this, and so any rational basis for society must factor in that irrationality.
This is why advertising works - there's a humungous amount of science that goes into helping people make what would otherwise be irrational choices.
Killing because of religion is because of religion.
Atheists killing people is because of some other fucked up reason, not because they're atheists.
But you're also skipping the centuries of religious persecution, the damage caused by religious policies on birth control, the pain and deaths caused by genital mutilation, the theft of scarce resources from the poorest of peoples.
And no, Hitler was not an atheist.
You cannot have it both ways: Either the atheist massacres are representative of atheism and the religious ones representative of religion, or neither is the case. In either case, the atheist massacres res sill the worst by incomprehensible margins of blood.
There have not been any 'atheist massacres', so no, your examples are not representative of atheism. Whereas religious massacres perpetrated and supported by recognised officials of a religion are religious in nature.
I don't need to have it both ways, there's only one way.
Sadly not. You can for instance use your resources to encourage legal barriers that your competitor may not be able to surmount.
You could undercut them with their suppliers, starving them of the raw materials needed to compete with you.
An option would be to pay more for a necessary limited skillset, reducing their ability to deliver.
Or perhaps put all of your funds into marketing and promotion, both expanding the market place but also building a dominating position within it.
Make a better product? I guess that's possible too.
Indeed, the problem is execution.
Scientifically this can be shown to lead to poor outcomes, and thus Eugenics is itself flawed.
Evolve the Eugenics fundamental concepts to exclude negative individual and population outcomes and it may have some value, but executing people? No.
Science includes measuring and seeking to optimise societal impacts.
No. I think his actions were in response to the widely reporting killing by police.
No killings, no subsequent actions.
All blacks are the problem though, because even if they aren't gang bangers and killers themselves they're aiding and abetting the ones who are.
Perhaps if the police didn't act as though they think this is the case, they wouldn't have so much need to cover each other for being racist violent corrupt cunts?
How about the police are held to account, and fewer people of all colours die?
Ah, so you support him killing the police then? After all, they kill a fuck of a lot more people than he did.
You stupid cunt.
Was he acting alone? Bad enough, but a much worse case might be if he was working for DAESH as part of a possibly larger plan to incite a race war in America.
Seriously wtf? You should seek medical assistance, that paranoia is going to damage you.
I had a CIO grab me the day after I tendered my resignation and tell me he wasn't going to make a counter offer because they don't help at all.
I told him that was fine, as I would have had to decline one anyway as nothing he could offer would address the reasons I was leaving.
He did however want to know those reasons. People left the company rather less voluntarily as a result. Other changes were made. I'm happier at my new employer, and my former colleagues also have a better working environment.
Sometimes a well regarded employee leaving is a trigger for senior management recognition that there is a problem; until then it's perceived as bitching, or they think they're dealing with it, or they lack the ammunition to tell their superiors that this is not sustainable. Twice now my departure from an organisation has led to sizeable change to improve working conditions and environment.
Two weeks? Shit, can't fire someone without several months of making them aware they're at risk for a specific reason and giving them a metric fuckton of support to improve and address that area of their performance.
Even after that they'll have a month's notice in their contract. They'll get that, and often more. They just wont be able to spend it in the office, it'll be cash in hand and/or gardening leave.
Redundancies I've never seen happen in under three months, usually nearer six.
Then again, when I leave a job it's never been less than a month's notice. Usually I negotiate, preference is to avoid the three month contractual notice I normally have (current job is only one, although employer has to give me three) but on one occasion I gave them five months notice.
Wait, the police should put someone face down in the dirt and cuff them just to talk to them? No.
It was a tragic accident
I call it murder.
In the UK that's murder. The police escalated the level of violence; unless and until Sterling drew his firearm he was not threatening their lives.
In the US you have different laws though.
But given this is Slashdot..
http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm...
Food, flea/worm treatment, occasional medical attention, entertainment devices and disposal mechanisms for the toys they've caught themselves.
30k emails? About 10 months volume for me.
If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.
110 is nothing
Please tell me you don't work in IT.
Half as likely as what? Cars that are parked?
Big fat shrug.
Yeah, there's been a constant stream of criticism on this site towards Bush and then Obama. It's very reasonable to assume that the next President will also get a lot of criticism.
Only one of those candidates will claim that it's because of their gender.
For that reason alone she'd be a fucking awful choice.
Trying to bust Hillary could force the FBI to implicate dozens of high ranking officials on both sides of the political spectrum in the same crime.
You say this like it'd be a bad thing. My employer sacks people for sending personally identifiable information outside the company via email, and PII (as much as I agree it should be protected) isn't really 'top secret'.
So why the fuck should Government officials get a free pass? A few people sacked, a couple of careers curtailed and the odd prosecution here and there would do wonders for US information security.
Right now the message is very clear: Nobody gives a shit, just crack on. It's ok, the Chinese probably already knew.
Based on this, a quick question: Could you please advise on the list of crimes I can commit with impunity as long as I then run for President?
Murder and rape are clearly out of bounds, but what about torture, sexual assault and conspiracy to commit littering?
The parts aren't cheap but yeah I could save money fitting them myself. Not mechanically inclined, can't be arsed, lack the time.
Or the owner had changed circumstances - divorce, children, employment, location.
Or the owner only ever wants to drive cars less than 2-3 years old. I know people like that.
Or the really big one: Lease companies. In the UK certain makes and models of car have horrendous 1-2 year depreciation and it's entirely because they're bought as fleet cars, driven for 1-2 years then sold off at auction.
So no, second hand cars aren't an issue and usually aren't abused.
New discs + pads for my front brakes cost me $520 yesterday.
The car's worth rather more than that, and I'd wear out the brakes on any car, so it's not a terribly relevant factor in whether to replace the car or not - but if the car was worth $300 (as some I've owned have been) then yeah, it's cheaper to replace the car.
Yeah, repairs and maintenance are nearer $20/month for my cat, although another $200 for the annual checkup.
I'm not sure why car payments are relevant though, or why you needed finance for your cat. Is it a rare breed?