What the fuck are you smoking? Possible? It's HAPPENING NOW. And arguably has happened since the 70's.

Why not work towards brain-in-a-jar technology?

Or how about, you know, robots?

No, this is the point I'm trying to make:
1) Find idea criteria.
2) Select people that best fit criteria.
3) OH LOOK, they're all female.

The part where you go out of your way to target women is where you forcefully insert sexism into a hole it doesn't belong in.

Yeah, that's great and all, but the right way to post this is that the ideal astronaut has a low calorie requirements and leave unsaid that the people who can fill that role is women. No need to drag sexism into the fight when there are perfectly logical rationals for crew selection.

He's probably modded up, in part, because people disagree with your charicature of all young people as "entitled masses". Another part of his modding could be the obvious internal conflict in your post.

While the "entitled masses" on the E/W coast might find $100K to be poverty level, somehow that's comparable to $100K in Houston makes a comfortable living. Despite the fact that $100K is a comfortable living in all locations and those with a sense of entitlement will think it not enough in all locations.

In short, you can take your agism and tribe-ism and go fuck yourself.

Sure sure, verifiable is important. But even with something to verify the information on the page, you still get those deletionists that will claim notability, and fast-track the page for deletion.

I don't give a rats fucking ass if you don't think that rat-asses are notable or not. If there are citable facts on the page, LEAVE IT BE. And let me make this clear. In your VERY NEXT BREATH you went from "it'll be a scribble-board without verifiability" to "no matter how trivial".

Who the fuck cares who trivial it is? You do. Because you have a stick up your ass about how important Wikipedia is.

And here's how search works: you type a search term into Google and the first hit you'll get is always wikipedia because it's the best and highest quality source for the topic at hand. The term "the sum of all humanities knowledge" comes to mind. But no, you're high and mighty and you just don't give a fuck about how many pokemon there are.

Hey man, you want to trim down Wikipedia of random meaningless shit nobody cares about? Try taking on football. Seriously, go hit that random wiki button a few dozen times and tell me how many miniscule sports trivia tidbits you get.

Anyone looking for a $150K range senior developer/CTO with a specialization in TCP/IP routing and filtering technologies?
. . . In Davenport Iowa?

If you have ties to the area, and have the skill and experience for a high paying job, there aren't a whole lot of options available to you.

On the flip side, getting highly skilled professionals to move out to the middle of cornsville is also a little tough.

We're going to the beach! And that caravan of SWAT vans in the way can just go fuck themselves.

Yeah, I saw it too. Came here to reference it. Is it this one? Roujin Z?

Jail is where they throw you while you're under arrest.
Prison is where they send you after you're convicted.

Some sentences are served out in jails if they're small/short enough. Drunks get thrown in jail.

I never understood the deletionist mentality on Wikipedia. But there's a whole group of people that want to remove information from the public view.

I semi-understand the idea that this "very important" encyclopedia is "too important" for such things as a page for each character from a game I never played. And somehow by culling these frivolous thing they somehow make wikipedia higher quality on the whole? Maybe? Kinda? I don't think these people understand how search works.

There are the obvious shills and PR people that want to sweep things under the rug. These are nefarious and to be found and fought.

There are fools who think it's expensive to store this information. As if an edit-war to remove it was cheaper.

I understand people don't want articles that are just free advertising. But I doubt anyone is going to delete the page for Monanto.

But fundamentally, I just don't get their worldview.

That's one of the more reasonable proposals for how the federal government could help bootstrap a space-faring civilization.

So, it'd pay out on launch failures, deaths, and shield them from lawsuits in case everything goes tits up?

Just where the fuck do I do that?
Did you even read my post?
Did you catch any of the four examples where I showcase what can and cannot be automated?

You want your kids to be stupid. Wow dude. I know that's not exactly what you said, or meant to imply. But face it: Intelligence carries a burden and ignorance is bliss. And you're saying you wish your kids had more of the latter.

From a professor..... Wow.

Sorry if this comes off as judgmental, or harsh, or whateverthefuck, but seriously. We're fighting the good fight against anti-intellectualism, barely keeping a grip on democracy, striving to reach a sustainable society before the oil runs dry or some idiot pushes the red button. In a time when the current trends are dependent upon further technological advances, here you are as one of the pinnacles of society and you just don't give a fuck. You'd rather your kids took it easy, didn't have to work so hard, didn't have to think so hard, and were just simply happy. Let someone else cure cancer, make fusion viable, or colonize mars.

And I get it. I do. You want a better life for your kids. That's commendable. You've got problems, who doesn't, and you want your kids to avoid them. It's just... fuck man... I guess I have big hopes for the future and thought more of professors.

Just the one. And I desperately hope that he's a smart little cookie. Because it will make life so much better for him. And if he doesn't have the natural talent like I did, I hope that I can instill a work ethic that'll get him through life.

My brother had some rough patches, and thankfully he's through the worst of it. But now he's 35 with no real career to speak of. His resume has a giant gapping hole that is hard to explain. His body isn't going to last in his current job for another decade and it's the sort that he needs to fight for every year so they hire him again. It's not all doom and gloom for him, but well, the family worries.

A happy kid is good thing. But I don't think one genetically selected to be easy-going and carefree is a good thing.

Sure, I guess. A "better person" would be one that tries to be a better person rather than simply being content and happy with whatever they're handed. Sure, if they could be happy while struggling with something that's outside their safety zone, that'd be great. And if they find the "happily tenacious" gene, I'd be down with switching that on. But currently I see a sliding scale between being content and being driven. If geneticists selected for kids to be happy, I imagine they'd have a batch of kids that didn't really see the point in studying and working hard.

Whoa whoa whoa. There are a shit-ton of blue-collar jobs that aren't menial. Mechanics have a full spectrum of skills from noob to master. And a certified areospace mechanic can make some serious bank. In short, that's a blue collar job that isn't a dead end. No, I was talking about actual dead-end jobs: retail, fry-cook, maid, fruit-picker. These are jobs which simply have no career advancement and don't develop any skills. As anyone can do them, you face a lot of competition from people that didn't have the same opportunities that your typical GENE-SELECTED BABY FROM WEALTHY PARENTS have. It's a common trope that the rich or gifted kid is expected to "succeed" (which carries it's own problems). That will be expanded if you also have tweaked genes.

Yeah, and as an engineer, I have to do so very much less then a fruit picker to get enough money to do the things in my "actual life". Trust me, life is simply easier and better with a higher income.

Well, in a modern first-world society that isn't some libertarian hell-scape, the answer is because I'm taxed and he's not. And I'm subsidizing his lifestyle. But hey, if he's got a job, he's probably still a net-gain for society. Statistically though, the poorer he is the less likely it is that he will be happy, or be able to support himself. It's a real roll of the dice, but I hope to load the dice a little by making sure my kid has good grades.

Also, what does he do when he's a 40 year old laid-off bus-boy with no marketable skills? Have kids and hope one of them will support him? Uh........

Point taken about the ambitious jerks. It's a balancing act really.

I'd like to see those menial jobs replaced with automation if possible. I mean, it removes a mind-numbingly boring job of monotony.
garbage truck worker They've already automated the process of picking up the trash-can and dumping it. Now it's just a driver. And with self-driving cars, hopefully that will be automated as well.
toll booth operator Really? Come on dude, are you even trying?
road maintenance crewmember There's actually a lot that goes into road building. And they're all legacy systems with the nightmares that come with that. But hey, filling potholes might be able to be automated.
janitor There will always be janitors and general handymen, but for something as boring as, say, sweeping or mopping? Sure, roomba to the rescue.
It's not that I want these people to be out of work. It's that I don't think we need to dedicate man-power to these tasks. I want those kids that would grow up into a ditch-digger position instead go on to do something a little more rewarding and productive.

Providing opportunities to your kids is about the best you can do. But how the hell do you distinguish "choosing" and "settling"?