Wolverine had the bony claws and regeneration first (even as a child). They were covered with adamantium much later.
Selective pressure is pressure if someone fails to breed as a result of the selective pressure.
For example, in the bacteria experiment it took them 3 different mutations in combination and tens of thousands of generations but they still eventually developed new beneficial abilities.
Bottom line, Everyone doesn't have to be constantly subjected to whiplash.
You obviously don't work with customers.
I do, actually. Well, they're more partners than customers, since we give them our code and they sell it. But, yes, I have a lot of meetings with outside parties. We convince about half of them to join our Hangouts from their laptops, the others we add to the meeting via phone. Outside of meetings, we communicate entirely via e-mail. Voicemail is still irrelevant.
At IBM, my role was entirely customer-facing. Voicemail was still fairly rare, though teleconferences were the norm. Most communication was, again, via e-mail or face to face.
Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945.
Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.
Why would you want more men when the ships have become more efficient and have so much more firepower?
There is an argument to be made that we need more ships, particularly attack submarines and surface combatants. The former will prove decisive in any conflict with the PRC and the latter are needed for missile defense, amongst other missions. Unfortunately most of the shipbuilding budget is going to the Gerald Ford CVNs while the looming Ohio replacement is going to consume billions more. Both are needed at the end of the day, so unless we're going to throw more money at the Navy I'm not sure what the solution is. I'd opt for throwing more money at them, since it takes decades to build a modern Navy, and it can't be used (as easily) for interventionist adventures in the same manner as a standing army....
Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece".
Yes? Well then...
Baldric... Bring me... The Black Russian!
Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.
Needless, pointless, and untrue. Someone else may so choose to regard you; you, however, are not that at all, and anyone who takes the attitude that you are, as you put it, an "unperson", is solely responsible for that attitude. You're still you, just as worthy as ever.
Consider the source, soldier on. Defy invalid social norms.
Some things are just not done, and are socially unacceptable this is one of them.
Socially unacceptable is one thing. And the appropriate response from you when faced with something you identify as such is also social: adjust your respect, relationship(s) and commentary according to the social cues you are given.
Relying on coercion and/or violence exerted by your government so you can assure that the general social environment is only populated by speech you approve of is something else entirely. It reeks of abject failure on your part, and on the part of your legislators. Such government-based active repression is one of the very few things that is more despicable than intentionally offensive speech presented without even a suggestion of humor.
> But as an athiest, my very existence is 'offensive' to muslims.
I'm an atheist as well. And I am aware that some Muslims proactively take offense because of my lack of belief.
However, you should be aware that of the five pillars of Islam, none say or imply one word about "hating atheists." That's just crap out of the Koran, which is a mish-mosh of uncorrelated and unordered quotes. Only fanatics take the violent sections of the Koran seriously. Not that there aren't enough fanatics to go around, of course.
> Are you suggesting that I should commit suicide to appease the Muslims?
Not in the least. I wasn't suggesting anyone should commit suicide, or in any way alter who or what they are. These are not things that give offense. You have not chosen to be atheist in order to give offense, have you? I presume you're atheist because you find that to be a comfortable state of mind, one that correlates well with what you observe of the world around you. Nothing to do with giving offense at all. I'm not wrong, am I? If I am, please let me know... that's a whole 'nuther bag of wolverines.
Simply being (existing as) atheist is not giving offense. That is the same as the case where someone is simply "being atheist" or "being Christian" or "being Muslim" or "being a rock collector."
When such provokes an "offended" response, we are merely seeing examples of the common practice by muddy thinkers of taking offense for any, or no, sane reason...
> Go Fuck Yourself
Absolutely unless the camera showed Wilson executing brown and then Wilson wasn't prosecuted.
If the camera showed that Brown aggressively grabbed for the gun and hit Wilson for only telling Brown to "get off the street" then there would have been no riots.
People would have been talking about how stupid Brown was to behave that way.
at worst some would be upset that wilson kept shooting after Brown was down but the camera would have shown that was a matter of a couple seconds.
Cameras protect the police.
Cameras protect the public.
Cameras protect businesses and cities.
all police should have a camera. all police vehicles should have multiple cameras with wifi-uploaded backup that's resistant to tampering the officers involved.
Correct, Michael Brown's initial offense was that he walking on the street instead of the sidewalk.
"But for some experts, the shooting and the events that preceded it raised broader policy questions, particularly about how officers engage with communities they patrol. In his initial encounter with Mr. Brown and his friend in the street, Officer Wilson never exited his vehicle, voicing commands through the window of his cruiser instead.
âoeThe notion of riding through neighborhoods yelling, âGet up on the curbâ(TM) or âGet out of the street,â(TM) is not where you want your officers to be,â Mr. Bealefeld said. âoeYou want them out of their cars, engaging the public and explaining to people what it is you are trying to do. Drive-by policing is not good for any community.â
Basically the officer drew his gun when Brown wouldn't get off the street.
Nancy Grace (pretty darn conservative and an ex prosecutor) found the officer's story rehearsed and not credible. Basically his testimony was a lie.
A CAMERA would have negated all the ambiguity and saved hundreds of thousands in property damage and perhaps even saved lives.
Cameras protect the public AND cameras protect the police.
They say, 'Wow that kid was stupid. What was he thinking attacking the cop like that? I can see why the cop shot him!"
Or they'll say, "What the hell? Why did the cop shoot that kid who did nothing?"
Or (unfortunately) they'll say, "Man, the cop waited too long and died. I hope the kid gets the chair."
Retired police officer say "Police are legally allowed to lie. Police do lie- frequently. Do not talk to the police without a lawyer."
As it is, just a couple months after the police shot a 7 year old black girl, they shot an 18 year old black boy and then they shot a 12 year old black boy. The video of the 12 year old black boy shows they pulled of way to close way to fast and basically shot him in under 10 seconds while another video of a drunk white guy with an AK 47 officers of a different department shows they stopped at range - negotiated for over 10 minutes and avoided shooting him.
Cameras protect police.
Cameras protect the public.
Cameras protect civilians (and the police are CIVILIANS. They are not MILITARY).
No. Offense can surely be given. But trying to magically legislate it away is a horrific, cowardly, hubris-ridden mistake. Offense arises because of difference in opinion and grasp of fact, intentional or not.
Because of this, it can and will always arise, no matter how narrow you choke down the channel of discourse, unless or until all have the same opinions and grasp of facts, which, one hopes, will never, ever come about.
The most productive course is to try not to give offense, and if received, to assess it and take value (warning, insight, stance, new information) from it if possible — otherwise, let it go.
Restricting opinion by legal means is one of the worst ideas ever. Offense is not a legitimate mitigating factor for censorship and repression. When enacted into law as justification for anything, what it tells us is that we need new legislators, because the ones we have demonstrated fundamental incompetence.
What would you think if NK released a movie about killing a US president?
They've released propaganda films about nuking us. We didn't mobilize the cyber or real armies over the matter; I guess that's the difference between a modern nation-state and one held together with a pygmy's cult of personality....
No one has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a collective, or a group, or a society, or a community; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (collective, society, community) may not offend another; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another. And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not. Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. Law that bans something based upon the idea that some group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.
Conversely, when people are truly harmed (not just offended) without their informed consent (and legitimate defense is not the cause), then the matter is one that should arguably be considered for law. Otherwise, no.
Oblig/meta: Orwell was an optimist