Can we all agree that it is totally ridic that Europe went from being Europe to becoming a giant peaceful singular entity with shared currency to which the concept of interstate war is just patently absurd over the course of a half-century?
Two massively destructive (of human lives and of capital) World Wars will probably do that.
It's funny to picture Europe going through World War II and then just being like
NOPE NOPE NOPE
But I don't know if it's valid from a historical perspective. WWII was the worst war ever in the terms of absolute carnage, but in a relative sense we've done way worse things to each other and just kept on killing afterwards.
Any war in Europe post WWII would also inevitably been cast in Cold War terms with US allied Western countries vs Soviet dominated countries. And that would have involved nukes so....
It's true that there was a nuclear deterrent, but the truth is that wars against major powers with nukes happen all the time (even if they never happen between them). Countries without nukes can fight against countries that have them without really any fear of reprisal, because no one ever wanted to use a nuke ever after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
0
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
overpopulation is a matter of density, not overall population
we're having fewer kids, but we're also moving away from shitholes
Overpopulation is very real, and one if the reasons I have my libertarians leanings. I prefer to let Darwinism sort it out than government.
this seems like the absolute worst way to solve the problem
people don't passively starve to death
They do passively OD on heroin; making sure they have means to eat is a different conversation, and the reason overpopulation is such a concern.
Especially when you add the people who are pro-life, anti-genetically modified/organic only crops. I'm not talking labeling, but people who feel allowing indignant farmers access to more stout/less work intensive crops is improper because of nature.
Darwinism only works at "sorting things out" if these people die before they have children, or if their children die
This usually never happens, ergo social darwinism is stupid
Or they just make weaker and weaker lineages until the bloodline ends naturally. Darwinism works, social Darwinism isn't my thing as I'm no fan if Nazi interpretations of Nietzsche, but in an information based capitalistic democracy, I believe there is some merit in using census and aptitude test data for sociological predictions, and so does your government.
what does "bloodline ends naturally" mean though?
are you asserting that there's any correlation between fecundity or the willingness to reproduce and any of these social metrics that you like?
to the contrary, in developed nations, family size tends to be inversely proportional to income/ wealth/ education.
I don't have a clue what he's talking about. The government isn't using phrenology to make predictions about where society is heading.
We use socio-economic data to make projections, but that's in no way darwinism.
Weaker and Weaker Bloodlines is a nonsense term. Idiocracy is kind of bullshit.
Why wouldn't you be able to litigate that? It certainly sounds like malpractice on it's face.
yeah if the facts are correctly stated its straight up malpractice
There was no reason beyond "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A GENDER ASSIGNED FROM BIRTH!" to do the surgery, it was completely unnecessary medically and the child could have decided at an older age whether he wanted to be a male or female
they just said "Fuck it, female" and chopped the twig and berries off, it sounds open and shut to me
actually that story is a little sickening, imagine the resentment he's going to grow up with knowing that he was born with a penis and some asshole doc decided nope and got out the snippers
seriously chopping a baby's penis off without any medical justification is kind of indefensible
No really, you wanna talk about gender identity? Let's talk. (My brain.)
Also, not directed at you kaleedity, just in general. :P
It's really interesting to me. I know very well how competent my compatriots are at dealing with gender issues outside the norm (read: most people here probably don't think this birth was possible) and I'm interested in what people locally think of this situation. That is, if I wasn't worried about absurd negative reactions.
(I was gonna make a joke post to the effect of, "Quick, everyone list your ethnic background so I can record it for future use!")
Anglo-Franco-Prusso-Scando-Scoto-Tahitian.
Hah! It was all a clever ruse! Now I'll make jokes whose punchlines center on pernicious racial stereotypes!
So I'll talk about your... baked goods of low quality, and your... imperialism, and...
Gimme a while on this one.
I generally go with the dact that each people I am descended from has been conquered by at least one of the others. One of these days I'm going to sue my ass for reparations.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Pfft, you can't hold a battle in China without killing a few million people. Like six of the top ten bloodiest wars take place in China. And that's excluding WWII.
0
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
and I had made that opinion thinking that the first line from the prosecution was the entire case
after reading the rest of the article, yeah, there's more specific details that make the malpractice obvious
Speaking of litigation, we get the Simpson and Marwick bulletin on Personal Injury litigation at work, and this month's included this gem:
AYRES v ODERA [2013] EWHC 40 (QB)
The issue
Courts expect drivers to be aware
that their vehicles can hurt people,
and to act accordingly. When a
pedestrian is hit while behaving in an
unusual way, however, it becomes
more difficult to establish primary
liability and contributory negligence.
The facts
Mr Ayres and his friends had been
drinking in Leicester city centre,
and were walking to a nightclub.
Ayres began ‘larking about’. He left
his friends and walked out into the
middle of a single lane road in front
of a moving car, driven by Mr Odera,
and dropped his trousers. Odera
stopped. Ayres then continued to
walk across the road in front of the
car. Odera drove off and, as he did
so, his car hit Ayres, who fell and hit
his head on the kerb. Odera’s car also
ran over Ayres’s leg.
The decision
Odera argued that even though his
vehicle had struck Ayres, primary
liability should not attach to him.
He had been faced with driving
conditions which were far from
ordinary, and was entitled to try to
extricate himself from the situation.
He relied upon the decision of the
Court of Appeal in North v TNT
Express (UK) Ltd.
The claimant in North had also been
drinking. When a lorry driver refused
to give him a lift, he climbed onto
the front bumper of the lorry, holding
onto a windscreen wiper rather than
an adjacent handle, and refused
to get off. The driver moved off
slowly, with the intention of driving
a short distance and trying again
to persuade him to get down. The
windscreen wiper became detached,
and although the driver braked
immediately, the claimant was struck
by the lorry.
In North, the defendant was placed
in a dilemma because the claimant
behaved in an “offensive and
thoroughly irresponsible fashion,”
and had been pulling at the
windscreen wiper when it became
detached. The Court of Appeal held
that, in all of the circumstances, there
had not been a breach of the duty to
take reasonable care.
In this case, however, the court
felt that Ayres did not create any
immediate danger when he moved
across the front of the car, because
it was stationary. It should have been
apparent that he might take longer
than usual to walk past as he was
inebriated and could not move freely
with his trousers around his ankles.
Odera could have avoided any risk by
remaining stationary until the claimant
had moved clear of the vehicle. He
was therefore liable.
However, the court found that Ayres
was also at fault. He deliberately
placed himself in the road in front of
the vehicle. He should have known
that traffic lights ahead were likely
to change and Odera would want
to move forward. It was Ayres’s
inability to move at a normal speed
that led Odera to misjudge his
position and mistakenly to believe
that he could pass by without striking
him. Contributory negligence was
assessed at 20%.
No really, you wanna talk about gender identity? Let's talk. (My brain.)
Also, not directed at you kaleedity, just in general. :P
It's really interesting to me. I know very well how competent my compatriots are at dealing with gender issues outside the norm (read: most people here probably don't think this birth was possible) and I'm interested in what people locally think of this situation. That is, if I wasn't worried about absurd negative reactions.
It's one of those situations where there is a legitimately interesting discussion to be had but realistically it would devolve very quickly the second some mouth-breathing hateful bastard speaks.
Speaking of litigation, we get the Simpson and Marwick bulletin on Personal Injury litigation at work, and this month's included this gem:
AYRES v ODERA [2013] EWHC 40 (QB)
The issue
Courts expect drivers to be aware
that their vehicles can hurt people,
and to act accordingly. When a
pedestrian is hit while behaving in an
unusual way, however, it becomes
more difficult to establish primary
liability and contributory negligence.
The facts
Mr Ayres and his friends had been
drinking in Leicester city centre,
and were walking to a nightclub.
Ayres began ‘larking about’. He left
his friends and walked out into the
middle of a single lane road in front
of a moving car, driven by Mr Odera,
and dropped his trousers. Odera
stopped. Ayres then continued to
walk across the road in front of the
car. Odera drove off and, as he did
so, his car hit Ayres, who fell and hit
his head on the kerb. Odera’s car also
ran over Ayres’s leg.
The decision
Odera argued that even though his
vehicle had struck Ayres, primary
liability should not attach to him.
He had been faced with driving
conditions which were far from
ordinary, and was entitled to try to
extricate himself from the situation.
He relied upon the decision of the
Court of Appeal in North v TNT
Express (UK) Ltd.
The claimant in North had also been
drinking. When a lorry driver refused
to give him a lift, he climbed onto
the front bumper of the lorry, holding
onto a windscreen wiper rather than
an adjacent handle, and refused
to get off. The driver moved off
slowly, with the intention of driving
a short distance and trying again
to persuade him to get down. The
windscreen wiper became detached,
and although the driver braked
immediately, the claimant was struck
by the lorry.
In North, the defendant was placed
in a dilemma because the claimant
behaved in an “offensive and
thoroughly irresponsible fashion,”
and had been pulling at the
windscreen wiper when it became
detached. The Court of Appeal held
that, in all of the circumstances, there
had not been a breach of the duty to
take reasonable care.
In this case, however, the court
felt that Ayres did not create any
immediate danger when he moved
across the front of the car, because
it was stationary. It should have been
apparent that he might take longer
than usual to walk past as he was
inebriated and could not move freely
with his trousers around his ankles.
Odera could have avoided any risk by
remaining stationary until the claimant
had moved clear of the vehicle. He
was therefore liable.
However, the court found that Ayres
was also at fault. He deliberately
placed himself in the road in front of
the vehicle. He should have known
that traffic lights ahead were likely
to change and Odera would want
to move forward. It was Ayres’s
inability to move at a normal speed
that led Odera to misjudge his
position and mistakenly to believe
that he could pass by without striking
him. Contributory negligence was
assessed at 20%.
More salty tractor goodness. The sheer scale of those salt pikes is mind boggling...even more so than the giant piles of wood chips I saw at the paper mills.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
Customer calls up complaining that files recently stopped saving for them in a custom application built for them a few years ago. My boss tosses this to me because I am stuck on my current project.
Ok, I've never seen this app before, giving it a shot. Apparently they press save and no file appears on disk. Simple enough. I grab the source from our server and take a look.
overpopulation is a matter of density, not overall population
we're having fewer kids, but we're also moving away from shitholes
Overpopulation is very real, and one if the reasons I have my libertarians leanings. I prefer to let Darwinism sort it out than government.
this seems like the absolute worst way to solve the problem
people don't passively starve to death
They do passively OD on heroin; making sure they have means to eat is a different conversation, and the reason overpopulation is such a concern.
Especially when you add the people who are pro-life, anti-genetically modified/organic only crops. I'm not talking labeling, but people who feel allowing indignant farmers access to more stout/less work intensive crops is improper because of nature.
Darwinism only works at "sorting things out" if these people die before they have children, or if their children die
This usually never happens, ergo social darwinism is stupid
Or they just make weaker and weaker lineages until the bloodline ends naturally. Darwinism works, social Darwinism isn't my thing as I'm no fan if Nazi interpretations of Nietzsche, but in an information based capitalistic democracy, I believe there is some merit in using census and aptitude test data for sociological predictions, and so does your government.
what does "bloodline ends naturally" mean though?
are you asserting that there's any correlation between fecundity or the willingness to reproduce and any of these social metrics that you like?
to the contrary, in developed nations, family size tends to be inversely proportional to income/ wealth/ education.
I don't have a clue what he's talking about. The government isn't using phrenology to make predictions about where society is heading.
We use socio-economic data to make projections, but that's in no way darwinism.
Weaker and Weaker Bloodlines is a nonsense term. Idiocracy is kind of bullshit.
It's actually from pedigree following in horse racing and me slipping a bit because I'm starting some real work. You haven't been right about one of your clarifications, why bother trying AMFE?
I'll talk with you about it in detail later, Will, but the main position of mine I wanted to make clear was thinking that technology would put an end to evolution doesn't really have a firm grasp on how selective breeding works, and understand how and that natural selection has been occurring for millennia.
Of course, I've learned from history and wouldn't look for genetically superior individuals in a Mendelian sense, I just feel individuals should be given the ability to achieve to the best of their abilities, and that man was not born to serve, but chooses to obey.
Again, thisis pretty tough for me to write on my phone, and I'm gonna handicap a few races do some calls. Feel free to make a thread with whatever papers you feel debunk Darwinism/greater Meme theory and I'll be very interested in participating.
Posts
It's true that there was a nuclear deterrent, but the truth is that wars against major powers with nukes happen all the time (even if they never happen between them). Countries without nukes can fight against countries that have them without really any fear of reprisal, because no one ever wanted to use a nuke ever after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I'm not sure that's something you can litigate.
How dare you almost trick us into that
*that one nutty general, w/e same thing
@quid
Dis fuckin guy
No really, you wanna talk about gender identity? Let's talk. (My brain.)
Also, not directed at you kaleedity, just in general. :P
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
I don't have a clue what he's talking about. The government isn't using phrenology to make predictions about where society is heading.
We use socio-economic data to make projections, but that's in no way darwinism.
Weaker and Weaker Bloodlines is a nonsense term. Idiocracy is kind of bullshit.
Anglo-Franco-Prusso-Scando-Scoto-Tahitian.
- John Stuart Mill
Why wouldn't you be able to litigate that? It certainly sounds like malpractice on it's face.
Iowa?
@jacobkosh
And course, Into Darkness
(i don't know why i used hapsburgs instead of habsburgs)
yeah if the facts are correctly stated its straight up malpractice
There was no reason beyond "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A GENDER ASSIGNED FROM BIRTH!" to do the surgery, it was completely unnecessary medically and the child could have decided at an older age whether he wanted to be a male or female
they just said "Fuck it, female" and chopped the twig and berries off, it sounds open and shut to me
Hah! It was all a clever ruse! Now I'll make jokes whose punchlines center on pernicious racial stereotypes!
So I'll talk about your... baked goods of low quality, and your... imperialism, and...
Gimme a while on this one.
DAMN THEM
seriously chopping a baby's penis off without any medical justification is kind of indefensible
Well, it wasn't me. As far as I know, that is.
Apropos nothing: I cried during Shawshank Redemption again. Bubbly, manly tears.
And red.
Like a lobster.
Television.
Television fixed Europe.
Europeans saw other Europeans on the TV and found out that they weren't that different from each other.
It's really interesting to me. I know very well how competent my compatriots are at dealing with gender issues outside the norm (read: most people here probably don't think this birth was possible) and I'm interested in what people locally think of this situation. That is, if I wasn't worried about absurd negative reactions.
I generally go with the dact that each people I am descended from has been conquered by at least one of the others. One of these days I'm going to sue my ass for reparations.
- John Stuart Mill
Pfft, you can't hold a battle in China without killing a few million people. Like six of the top ten bloodiest wars take place in China. And that's excluding WWII.
after reading the rest of the article, yeah, there's more specific details that make the malpractice obvious
AYRES v ODERA [2013] EWHC 40 (QB)
Courts expect drivers to be aware
that their vehicles can hurt people,
and to act accordingly. When a
pedestrian is hit while behaving in an
unusual way, however, it becomes
more difficult to establish primary
liability and contributory negligence.
The facts
Mr Ayres and his friends had been
drinking in Leicester city centre,
and were walking to a nightclub.
Ayres began ‘larking about’. He left
his friends and walked out into the
middle of a single lane road in front
of a moving car, driven by Mr Odera,
and dropped his trousers. Odera
stopped. Ayres then continued to
walk across the road in front of the
car. Odera drove off and, as he did
so, his car hit Ayres, who fell and hit
his head on the kerb. Odera’s car also
ran over Ayres’s leg.
The decision
Odera argued that even though his
vehicle had struck Ayres, primary
liability should not attach to him.
He had been faced with driving
conditions which were far from
ordinary, and was entitled to try to
extricate himself from the situation.
He relied upon the decision of the
Court of Appeal in North v TNT
Express (UK) Ltd.
The claimant in North had also been
drinking. When a lorry driver refused
to give him a lift, he climbed onto
the front bumper of the lorry, holding
onto a windscreen wiper rather than
an adjacent handle, and refused
to get off. The driver moved off
slowly, with the intention of driving
a short distance and trying again
to persuade him to get down. The
windscreen wiper became detached,
and although the driver braked
immediately, the claimant was struck
by the lorry.
In North, the defendant was placed
in a dilemma because the claimant
behaved in an “offensive and
thoroughly irresponsible fashion,”
and had been pulling at the
windscreen wiper when it became
detached. The Court of Appeal held
that, in all of the circumstances, there
had not been a breach of the duty to
take reasonable care.
In this case, however, the court
felt that Ayres did not create any
immediate danger when he moved
across the front of the car, because
it was stationary. It should have been
apparent that he might take longer
than usual to walk past as he was
inebriated and could not move freely
with his trousers around his ankles.
Odera could have avoided any risk by
remaining stationary until the claimant
had moved clear of the vehicle. He
was therefore liable.
However, the court found that Ayres
was also at fault. He deliberately
placed himself in the road in front of
the vehicle. He should have known
that traffic lights ahead were likely
to change and Odera would want
to move forward. It was Ayres’s
inability to move at a normal speed
that led Odera to misjudge his
position and mistakenly to believe
that he could pass by without striking
him. Contributory negligence was
assessed at 20%.
It's one of those situations where there is a legitimately interesting discussion to be had but realistically it would devolve very quickly the second some mouth-breathing hateful bastard speaks.
EDIT: Also, wut?
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
boooo
- John Stuart Mill
makin dollas
Our little Cass is all grown up. **sniffle**
is this too large? i will resize it. this comic seems funny. i didn't know of it until recently.
That sucks.
Ok, I've never seen this app before, giving it a shot. Apparently they press save and no file appears on disk. Simple enough. I grab the source from our server and take a look.
Let's see if you guys can spot the coding error.
private void SaveFile(String filePath) { // TBI - [Coworker's name] 08/10/2008 }It's actually from pedigree following in horse racing and me slipping a bit because I'm starting some real work. You haven't been right about one of your clarifications, why bother trying AMFE?
I'll talk with you about it in detail later, Will, but the main position of mine I wanted to make clear was thinking that technology would put an end to evolution doesn't really have a firm grasp on how selective breeding works, and understand how and that natural selection has been occurring for millennia.
Of course, I've learned from history and wouldn't look for genetically superior individuals in a Mendelian sense, I just feel individuals should be given the ability to achieve to the best of their abilities, and that man was not born to serve, but chooses to obey.
Again, thisis pretty tough for me to write on my phone, and I'm gonna handicap a few races do some calls. Feel free to make a thread with whatever papers you feel debunk Darwinism/greater Meme theory and I'll be very interested in participating.