We are not challenging our bones with enough loading,
I do. That's why I still use a Compaq Portable for my "laptop". It weighs about 28 lbs. (Joking aside, I actually had one of these - or something really, really similar - at the first company I worked for in the late 1980s.)
Ignorance and/or poor education? People, corporations, politicians trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator?
So you're saying that the various people in say...san fran which is a mecha of sjw's are ignorant and/or have bad education? These aren't folks with a lack of education, many if not all are university grads. I believe the problem stems from a lack of real world experience.
You and I actually agree... There's book learning and learning. Having a degree doesn't make one educated in all, or even many, things. One can know a lot about one or several things and not really know much at all. For the enlightened, this means: The more I know, the more I realize what I don't know. Sadly, many people are not that enlightened and many take what they hear on outlets like Fox News (to name *one* egregious source - don't get bent out of shape Fox News fanbois) as gospel w/o any further serious thought or research.
Most people on the planet range from ignorant to very ignorant (in the non-derogatory sense of simply not knowing) including myself.
Really? Could you explain then why there's a sudden up swing in said "social justice warriors" trying to ban media, video games they disagree with, speech they disagree with, and censor content. I get that "feelings" are easier to make an argument with, but I don't live in a world of feels vs reality.
Ignorance and/or poor education? People, corporations, politicians trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator?
Same as the US. Obscene is illegal. Obscene is illegal because it's offensive. So "rude" is illegal in the US, same as the UK. But it's funny to see all the Americans assert they have more rights than those in the UK, when the rights are roughly equal, but exercised slightly differently.
What this guy tweeted would, in no way, be illegal in the US. It's not obscene (no swearing, nudity, or violence); it's not threatening or even, I would argue, "offensive" (in the general sense); it's just rude and insensitive. Obviously, some with thinner skins may disagree, but it certainly should not be an arrestable act anywhere.
First they came for the rude and annoying, and I did not speak out—
Then they came for the offensive and off-color, and I did not speak out—
Then they came for the opinionated and observational, and I did not speak out—
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak (or Tweet) for me.
Apologies to Martin Niemöller
And, seriously, UK, WTF? It's unlawful to simply be rude?
Thank God your Empire is over.
(He said, understanding the full irony of speaking as a citizen of the United States.)
Typical feminist shaming language. Why don't you take it back to jezebel.
Feminist/progressivist position: The reason behind this overrepresentation is a complex system of biases (consider all the studies that have shown that people whose names, listed, on resumes, sound white and male, are more likely to get called in for interviews), historical factors (such as unequal education opportunities), and cultural factors (for example, unequal participation can form a positive feedback loop because being the odd person out, especially in a very visible way, can be off-putting). Then, of course, there really is a lot of overt misogyny, as five minutes on Reddit can prove not merely beyond doubt, but also beyond hope. All of these things (or rather, the gender-related rather than race-related parts) are what feminists are referring to when they use the term "patriarchy". In my opinion that's a poorly chosen term, implying something less nebulous, more focused, intentional, and planned than is the case; but there you are -- the feminist movement isn't perfect either.
("Privilege" is another term that leads to endless misunderstanding, since it gets thrown around in a manner that can sound pretty accusatory, but that again misses the point. The observation that certain people benefit from certain injustices is not the same as blaming them for those injustices. Maybe you went to Harvard on the family fortune your great-grandfather made by exploiting slave labour, and are therefore better educated than the black guy across town whose great-grandfather was one of those slaves. You hold no moral responsibility for slavery, but your superior employment prospects are still the product not of disinterested meritocracy, but the outcome of slavery.)
Of course what exposes feminists and quite often progressives as the naked bigots dressed up in flowery language they are, is that they've nothing to say about fields where women are overrepresented, or their underrepresentation in unpleasant jobs like garbage collection.
It's always a matter of great amusement to hear these often very privileged white women and men talking about how they're part of a civil rights movement when the actual civil rights movement was sparked off by a false rape allegation.
I would say that the backlash against feminazis and SJWs started by GG is just getting started, and it's long overdue.
What are you babbling about now, there isn't some great god of success sitting there handing out career advancements based on people's personalities in silicon valley. The world as viewed through a feminist lens appears indistinguishable from a world viewed through the eyes of a primitive witchdoctor.
The point is that it shouldn't be a choice between kids or career.
Yeah the choice is kids or career without much water between the two. If you don't like that resign yourself to having your children raised by strangers and hired help, which for most isn't acceptable. Raising children takes time and effort, something that the convenience of white goods and reduced physical requirements in the workforce hasn't changed.
What we're seeing now is a lot of women who went into the workforce and discovered that they were going to be neither wealthy nor successful, just like 99% of men in the workforce. Instead they're going to have a middle class lifestyle that they'd probably have been able to enjoy anyway plus a family had they chosen to raise kids instead. Is it any wonder womens' happiness has been decreasing.
That's not to say that men shouldn't be househusbands except it seems women aren't very attracted by that. Patriarchy, right?
I think first of all that the religion of feminism needs to die loudly and publicly along with every other social engineering cult, and secondly that people need to learn to differentiate between "a career" and "financial independence". These aren't the same thing.
And do not mistake me for a conservative or a traditionalist, I am neither.
Just on a point of order, women have worked outside the home as long as men have worked. The only "liberating" that was done involved fewer requirements for physical strength in order to work and the mass production of white goods, reducing the effort involved in housework to a couple of hours a day.
Frankly, I wish they would go back to the core Star Trek TV values:
1) Duplicate an earth culture on another planet.
2) Have zero contact with Earth, letting Kirk do whatever he wants.
3) Make some kind of social commentary relevant to today that will seem weird 10 years from now.
4) If possible have someone claim to be a God, or demonstrate godlike abilities. Apollo was done already, so lets go with maybe Thor?
The SyFy channel just tried that w/Ascension...
I like what J.J Abrams and Zack Snyder (who directed "Man of Steel") have done to the franchises. They start with the established plotlines and take the stories in new directions. It's an artistic license that gives us fresh, new interpretations of the characters such as superman killing someone (General Zod) or Spock having an emotional outburst (over Kirk's death).
I anxiously await the Michael Bay version of "Hamlet" or the Justin Lin version of "Macbeth".
At this point, I'd probably more enjoy watching the Muppets do Star Trek.
Instead we have a "Star Trek" universe that JJ has TOTALLY F*&*ed up where people can use the transporter to get anywhere in the galaxy, super-magically powerful "Red Matter", lame plots and passable acting etc. etc.
You don't NEED star ships anymore because of the awesome transporter.
I think many of your (valid) complaints stem from weak and/or immature writers relying on "magical" things and/or super tech to achieve the desired story line. I dislike "magic" in most stories as it seems to be used mostly as a crutch for weak writing, or a writer unwilling to deal with unpleasant consequences in a story.
My understanding is that the transporter was originally used to workaround using a shuttle craft for all extra-vehicular excursions (for screen-time efficiencies) and later became a useful story device. But, you're right that this new trans-warp beaming-device is simply "plot magic". Kahn could have beamed to a near-by ship and flown to Klingon space. (Furthermore, why didn't an Enterprise retrieval party simply re-use the trans-warp transporter to beam themselves as did Kahn... saving themselves the trouble of the trip.
The two J.J. Abrams ST films seem full of unnecessary / stupid things - like parking the Enterprise underwater to avoid being seen by natives when parking it in *orbit* would have accomplished the same thing. Granted, watching the ship rise from the ocean was a ST boner moment, but still technologically unnecessary. (JJ's signature move seems to be having the Enterprise rise up through clouds, water, etc...)
What if you don't habitually use your computer/tablet outdoors?
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
