Will they have to buy a new one every year?
No, but the first one will turn out to be a cheap knockoff with out of date hardware that only gets a tenth of the advertised resolution and fails to work when it's cloudy outside.
Also the user manual will be so bad, they won't figure out how to use it until 2045.
Seriously if you have a giant beard, a chest like a bear and chop down trees on the weekend with your massive axe, haul them back home on your shoulders then break them over your head before lighting them on fire with a welding torch, I would say that's about the most manly thing one could do and no one is going to keep that in check.
Pretty much, yeah. Though I don't actually get to grow a beard unless I'm either on leave or deployed overseas, so I guess you got me there.
Of course, if you had a functional sense of humour you would have realized that my "manliness" comment was tongue-in-cheek. The fact that I do cut down trees with an axe and light them up with a blowtorch is just an amusing coincidence.
Firstly, no chick ever grabbed your ass at comic con
Sure, just go ahead and deny my experiences. Next you'll try to tell me that I deserved it because I was wearing a kilt. Victim blaming is always popular, especially when the victim is male.
So the evidence is now so overwhelming that you cannot continue to deny the evidence, so you now move on to claiming it's somehow "insignificant".
I've never denied the evidence. You may have me confused with a strawman you constructed. If you're going to argue with him, why address your response to me?
That said, I'd imagine that penetrative rape - the type commonly suffered by females - is a lot more traumatic.
Assuming a completely unwilling and unaroused victim, yes, I very much suspect it would be. However, feminists and victim-advocacy groups have spent the last couple decades telling us that "rape is rape" and that they're all equally bad, so it would be a bit hypocritical for them to now start screaming "BUT WE HAVE IT WORSE!".
No matter who you are, what your personality is, etc there will always be some people out there that don't like you, won't hire you, or otherwise throw negativity your way even if you've done absolutely nothing to earn their hate.
Very true. So when that happens to me, is that because of the matriarchy trying to keep my manliness in check?
Your reaction is what I've noticed most women get if they even gently bring something up. It's 100% complete denial and blame the messenger.
What I can't figure out is why?
Because that's what we do when people are wrong?
I've noticed when people bring up the idea that the holocaust never happened, they get 100% complete denial and blame the messenger. Hrm
True, this behavior may be a small group of bad apples, but by denying the problem exists at all you're enabling those bad apples to continue doing what they do.
Nobody is denying that the problem exists. That's the kind of absurd strawman that always ends up derailing these discussions. What people are telling you is that:
1. Everyone gets harassed at some point. You don't see me going around talking about what an unsafe environment comicon is just because some chick grabbed my ass.
2. Problems caused by a small subset of individuals should be dealt with INDIVIDUALLY, rather than by writing long-winded articles about how the whole system is horrible. Only an idiot attacks an entire community over the actions of a few individuals. We usually call that "bigotry".
Seriously, why can't we just admit women catch a lot of shit just for being women in tech?
Because it's insignificant. I've caught more flack for having a slow connection than most women catch for being women. I've seen far more men bending over backwards to help "women in tech" than I've seen trying to tear them down. Men tend to be far more cruel and destructive towards each other than they do with women. If harassment in the tech community is a problem then it's a problem for everyone, and it's absolutely ridiculous to single out women as being some special class of victim.
I tend to agree with you, in general. However, I do think it is disingenuous to name a company "Girlfight" in a clear attempt to cash in on their sexuality, then contribute to an article complaining about it.
That's feminism for you in a nutshell. The "skepchick" website rose to fame in no small part thanks to putting out a (artistic-ish) nude calendar of their members, and encouraging male adoration. Then once they had enough of a following, they decided it was now misogynistic for men to comment on their appearance or think of them in a sexual way. Lots of women have gained prominence by using their sexuality to their advantage, only to later go on long-winded rants about how nobody should be "objectifying" them.
You realize that there's more difference between your average man and your average woman than between your average NFL linebacker and your average man, right?
Oh, geeze, don't let a feminist hear you say that! Every time someone suggests women maybe aren't suitable to being firefighters or combat soldiers, the wymins go apeshit.
You do realize how commonly women are raped and abused by men, and how they might happen to be more sensitive to the implicit or explicit threats of violence from someone that they're highly unlikely to be able to fight off?
According to the newest stats, not really that much more often than men are abused or raped by women. Domestic violence cases split almost 50/50. Sexual violence victims are still mostly women, but men come in very close behind now that we've stopped defining "rape" in a way that makes it impossible for women to be rapists.
And men being abused by men
Difference is, men don't try to justify freaking out and overreacting by pointing to statistics. And neither do most women, for that matter; the ones who do are just a very loud minority.
Really ? You don't think there's any possibilities between no minimum wage and a $50k/hr minimum wage ?
I never gave my opinion on the matter. Your ignorant political stereotypes led you to make assumptions about what things I never even commented on. This is common amongst political ideologues and other loudmouths and pundits.
Like I said, mindless tripe. Unthinking regurgitation of conservative articles of faith.
If it were mindless tripe you'd swallow it without a second thought. The fact is you've completely failed to grasp the points which were being made. Calling it "mindless tripe" because you don't understand it is
Excluded middle fallacy.
I don't think you know what that fallacy actually means. Nothing I wrote is even close to an excluded middle fallacy. The particular bit you quoted might be considered a sweeping generalization, if it weren't so blatantly evident that I was mocking your kindergarten-level understanding of economics.
The rest of your mindless tripe is no better.
Hurr, durr, ad-hominem fallacy!
Yes it is sad how people always have to die before lessons are learned
Not always, but you know how it is with bureaucracies
I always figured the Flight 007 was a similar case, after seeing documentaries about both incidents I see them in a similar light.
Naw, man. I mean, sure, there are some superficial similarities, but the things which actually caused the incidents are COMPLETELY different.
The Soviet shootdown is a simple case of browbeaten lackeys under a tyrannical regime making what they figured was the best choice to cover their asses. There was no threat to them. The aircraft was nowhere near the people who made the call, and was on it's way out of Soviet airspace. The pilot involved even told them he believed it was a civilian airliner. Yet they decided to shoot it down anyway.
The Vincennes incident was the exact opposite. It involved personnel under serious threat from Iranian forces, in hostile territory, faced with an aircraft they couldn't identify which seemed to be on an attack vector. They were scared for their lives, and under an immense amount of stress. I'm not sure how to explain that to someone who works a 9-5 job in an office. Lots of people talk about "stress" in their day-to-day jobs, and I'm sure there's some truth to their complaints, but unless you're a first responder, an air traffic controller, or a soldier in a combat zone, you really don't know what stress is, or how badly it can skew your normal behaviour. We train our people to recognize it, avoid it, or deal with it
The difference may be easier to visualize if you relate it to something you're more familiar with. The Soviet shootdown of 007 was the equivalent of a couple police supervisors sitting at headquarters, ordering a patrolman to shoot an unarmed man running away from a property he trespassed on. The American shootdown of the Iranian flight was the equivalent of a couple SWAT guys under heavy fire panicking and shooting a civilian who was running towards them. Both are horrible incidents which should never have happened. But other than that, they have absolutely nothing in common.
Actually I feel pretty confident stating that if more people have more money, economic activity will increase.
Sure. So lets pass a law that says every person should be paid $50,000 per hour. Economic activity ought to be AMAZING then!
No, minimum wage is setting a floor on living standards.
Very true. If you meet the minimum skill required for the minimum-wage job, you get a crappy job that pays your basic expenses, but won't pay off that credit card you keep racking up because now you can afford more useless crap. If you don't meet the minimum skill requirements, then fuck you - you're stuck on the government dole because we won't let you sell your services for less. Our minimum living standard says you have to be a parasite rather than contributing to society.
If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken.
Totally right. Especially when we implement our $50,000 minimum wage idea. If those fatcat small business guys can't afford it, fuck 'em; someone else will come along to start a business once the economy settles down.
The more people you add to a database, the less relevant it becomes for anything.
Totally. Just like mass-surveys become more and more useless the more people you add to them. And scientific research becomes more and more useless the more data points you gather.
The funny thing is, fulfilling his FOIA request is probably the first time anyone in government actually looked at his data.
Don't SAM crews get trained for this kind of an eventuality? You'd think they'd get suckered into shooting down an airliner during a few of their simulator sessions in military school just to make double and triple sure the identification procedure for civilian aircraft sticks in their minds like the aftermath of a good hard kick in the nuts.
And these days they do. It's one of those "lessons learned" things.
I, along with a bunch of other guys, once got sucked into lighting up an entire household of civilians in training. It really, really sucked. But the reason those scenarios existed is because some poor bastards lit up civilian households for real, and we got to learn from their mistakes.
ugh, I know I'm going to suffer for this unpopular comment
I feel your pain, bro. Comments that criticize the US government and offer justifications for terrorist attacks always get SO badly down-voted.
The bogosity meter just pegged.