"Just as likely" huh. Seems legit.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Bull. The "average American" uses way less carbon than you do.
Reducing our carbon emissions can be done without everybody installing their own personal solar power plus battery system. Centralized nuclear power for instance. Then it doesn't matter how big your AC unit is in terms of carbon emissions.
No, we aren't going to get a carbon tax because there are too many people with your kind of wasteful attitude in office.
I live in a 1300 sq ft house and my electric bill is like $80/month, which is below the median for my area. I don't consider myself wasteful with energy. When the roof on this house needs replacing in (guessing) 10-15 years, I'm willing to pay quite a bit extra to get solar shingles or whatever equivalent is available then. I don't really care about ROI.
But when people start talking about new laws and taxes to "encourage" others to see it their way, I think you can just fuck right off. I don't support that at all. Some tiny reduction in carbon emissions among my countrymen (while developing countries continue to get exemptions that more than offset our reductions) isn't worth the introduction of new levers on the free market that the government can tweak whenever it wants.
Eh, the Central Park Jogger case is a great example of people being appropriately punished, just the reasoning is a bit off. They all admitted they were out committing various crimes that night, just not THAT crime. The people who were going out attacking random people in gangs should all be put to death.
I support the death penalty, but the act of killing itself is just a small part of the punishment. I think the real punishment is the anticipation. Dostoevsky gave a pretty good account in "The Idiot."
Nah. Killing is justice for some crimes.
First of all, let me say I agree it's a pretty ridiculous situation.
But my point was asking whether $6/test was the actual cost or not, and this shows that it clearly is not. He manufactured 500 tests from 1962 to 1963, for a total cost of $6000. He obviously was not counting the cost of the rental house or his own salary.
I'm not saying $262 was a fair price, but at the same time, we don't know what the ultimate low price would be for the privately manufactured test. As the story says, "There was no pricing provision, an omission that Guthrie later deeply regretted."
I find it pretty amazing that a smart guy would say "Hey can you guys please manufacture this for me, and I don't care what it costs. Here's an exclusive deal!"
In light of these details, I don't think this anecdote provides a very good case for your claim that private industry isn't as great as it thinks it is at cost containment.
You think that it is normal because you only hang with your white tribe
Wrong, things like skin lighteners and hair conditioners are huge in non-white cultures as well. Maybe you need to hang out with some other "tribes" -- like try visiting your local Indian grocery store. You'll see far more skin lightening products than at any store commonly frequented by whites.
That would be an interesting addition. I'd also like to see how varying the color of the player's character affects the results. In computer games, teams are often identified by color (red vs blue) so you'll be more cautious when someone of a different color appears -- they could be about to attack you. Also a racially neutral test where the characters are a completely artificial color like bright green would be good to include.
It also shows that the non-profit / academic market isn't as great as they think they are. At the end of the day they chose to contract out that work instead of having that doctor continue making kits for $5. That's on them. Perhaps it was greed, perhaps they rationalized it and said "Your time is better spent back in the lab, and anyway if we get $100/kit we can use that money to fund more development."
I would also question the $5 price. Was that a nominal fee or did it actually cover materials and labor? It sounds like a case of "Hey guys I'll just make these kits until the manufacturer fixes their problems. I keep getting paid right? Okay cool." Obviously not sustainable.
Sounds like a straw man argument. Nobody is saying geniuses are self-sufficient islands. And it seems silly to conflate the ideas of "self-made man" and "genius" anyhow.
The special thing about geniuses is that they are rare. The guy who crafted the first violin that Mozart ever heard was probably a fine craftsman. But there are hundreds or thousands of other fine craftsmen who could have made just as good of a violin.
The farmers who grew the food that Mozart ate were good, hard working people. But there were thousands or millions or other good, hard working people who could have grown that food.
But there weren't many (if any) other people who could have taken Mozart's place. There is other good music, but it even looking at other musical geniuses it wouldn't be the *same* music, whereas the potato I have with my dinner could be any of a million other potatoes and I wouldn't even care.
Wrong. For example, on https://www.madewithcode.com/c... you can see a list of grantees that Google gave money to. One of them is Girls Who Code. Go to http://girlswhocode.com/progra... and look at the signup link. It takes you to this form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Jp00FbcDXSig4eoGMDSy979gal7rpo4YYMZ_eCeS_pM/viewform) which asks:
Your Current Grade or the Grade of Students You Work With (if applicable)
Note: Only current 10th and 11th grade female students are eligible to apply for the Girls Who Code Summer Immersion Programs in 2015.
It's amazing that you genuinely thought that programs targeted at getting girls into coding would necessarily include boys. How did you come to that conclusion anyway?
No, I'm saying it won't.
That's the same thing as saying they can't when you're generalizing about large groups.
Observe: I'm not saying black people can't make good doctors, but black people won't make good doctors. What??
No, I think they need to be served by people who understand and care about the issues which affect them in particular.
White people can understand and care about issues affecting black people. Black people can understand and care about issues affecting white people. To deny that is to say there's something inherent in white/black people that prevents them from understanding certain things that other people can understand, and that's racist.
Observing racism is not itself racism.
That's not always true, of course, because the classification of something as racist can be subjective. If I attribute some behavior that one black person exhibits (say, an interracial crime) to "Oh, yeah of course, he's doing that because blacks are all racist against whites" then that is definitely racist.
But that's just nitpicking. I see your point and my serious response is that observation is different from calling for action. Saying black people are treated differently is one thing. It's quite another to say that white people can't (sorry, won't) treat black people better and that only black people can treat black people correctly.
When businesses more accurately reflect the makeup of the nation, they better serve the nation.
It's racist to even make that claim. Racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
You're saying that an all white company can't serve as well as one with more black people. That's racist against whites because you think they can't serve black people on their own, and it's racist against blacks because you think they need special accommodations to be adequately served.
I've started to do this as a minor hobby as well. Now I want to take it a step further and get contact I do to report them. They really don't like giving out a working phone number though.
Next time I get "card services" on the line I want to try reeeally playing the part of genuinely being interested and then suddenly something comes up and I have to go. Perhaps they'll risk it.
I just had another conversation with someone about this topic and I wanted to add this because it came up.
You seem to be confused about whether "Allah" is a proper noun or a generic. Like the word "God" in English it is both.
I think it is a confusing concept, but one way to think of it is one word with two meanings. God can mean "the one monotheistic god" or it can mean "a deity." But when translating a word to another language, it's not true that every meaning gets translated the same way. As a concrete example, the word "set" has tons of English definitions. One translation of "set" to German is "Satz." That encompasses several of the same definitions as "set" including "a collection of things" and "a series of tennis games."
But another definition of "set" in English is equipment, like a TV set. In German that gets translated as "Gerat."
So even if it's true that one form of Allah (the generic form) should be translated as God, that doesn't hold that all meanings of Allah should be translated as God.