When they can't use deadly force and tasers, this is how it's usually done. It's a lot more work but in the end no one was hurt. And to think his friends even shouted directions for him all the time helping him and the cops didn't react to that... They didn't lose temper at any point, gave him countless opportunities to start acting like a grownup. I would give them 8+, drunkards have the same amount of power as solber people, they just are so uncoordinated, in my days as a bouncer i was amazed how much larger and stronger guys i could throw out but it takes buttload of patience and in the heat of the moment it's very hard to keep calm. Mostly it's prioritizing and controlling the situation, relocating the problem to more sparse populated area and try to talk some reason or subdue. What i see is happening here too, they did let him walk surprisingly far but there was room to manouver.

Mann was the original author of the hockey stick graph. Go use google scholar and follow the actual published scientific journals related to his work. His most recent re-publication of his own even includes a new method that he states within his paper as being the method that HE holds as the most confident. It shows past global temperatures exceeding current levels twice over the last 2k years.

More over, statisticians, with zero agenda in anything, have absolutely murdered his earlier work, most punishingly observing a complete absence of any manner of measure for margins of error. The recommend numerous improvements and provide examples.

Expect more work on this to change the picture and anyone smugly calling it all over to be utterly ignorant of what science in fact is. Meanwhile, even the original authors like Mann are actively working on improved methods that ARE painting a less terrifying picture than the original hockey stick.

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Trust me, you folks across the pond are light-years ahead of Americans when it comes to reasonable expectations from the health-care system. A mistake many people make when dieting is losing weight too quickly. It's very easy to relapse because the change in eating habits has not been established. I find the apps for calorie counting very helpful. You can scan bar codes and import all the nutritional info. It's definitely more work entering home cooked meals though. Don't pay attention to all the fad diets, low carb, etc. Calorie counting is the most effective and sustainable way to lose weight and keep it off. Good luck. Never underestimate the power of your own mind.


I've been looking for a valid reason to justify getting a smartphone, thanks

Trust me, you folks across the pond are light-years ahead of Americans when it comes to reasonable expectations from the health-care system. A mistake many people make when dieting is losing weight too quickly. It's very easy to relapse because the change in eating habits has not been established. I find the apps for calorie counting very helpful. You can scan bar codes and import all the nutritional info. It's definitely more work entering home cooked meals though. Don't pay attention to all the fad diets, low carb, etc. Calorie counting is the most effective and sustainable way to lose weight and keep it off. Good luck. Never underestimate the power of your own mind.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Better graphics than RAGE, but the physics are kinda meh. Needs more work.


Agreed, and what's up with the fake-as-shit lens flares? That's SO 2003.

Better graphics than RAGE, but the physics are kinda meh. Needs more work.

bmacs, I am sure the farther away from the target, the less likely you notice the aspect change. That said, Benze did like, the LEAST AMOUNT of work they possibly could on this.

#1 The LED screen is pretty low resolution, there are tighter nit LED screens out there. IMO they should have hooked up with one of the many R&D departments out there and used a cloth/paper flexable LED tarp.

#2 They only did one side, why not the other? Heck, have a third one for the top screen, it wouldn't be under the car but instead on the pumper to sample the ambient lighted area around it and create a floor pattern to use. The up/down shot would require a bit more work but would be even more impressive.

Jesus christ, claustrophobia overwhelmed me. I started punching my screen and yelling at 4:40 to help knock his goddamn legs free. I already thought that it was a miracle for this species to have survived on this forsaken little island for so long with one little bush to cling to, but if this is what they have to go through to enter the world they deserve to take it over from humans. They do more work on the day they're born than most of us do in our lives.

Also, proof against creationism. Inefficiency on this level is a clear indication of no forethought or intent.

excerpt:

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment [to universal human rights], that reality, and progress for all people. Today,I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity,who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Not true. Venture capital is not necessary for businesses to exist. How do I know? Many businesses began without investments of the size that require venture capitalists. Parents give their children money to start businesses, or people find work to do that others want done and save and re-invest. Before capitalism, just about every business started without capital investment.

And yes I do believe that. I'm not at all in favour of redistribution of wealth. I'm in favour of fair distribution of wealth. To me, that means people earning whatever they can within the law, and not using their wealth to create legal conditions that favour their making money at the expense of those without as much money. Such a system keeps the rich rich, and makes it nearly impossible for the lower and middle classes to become rich. In fact, it erodes the middle class because doing more work than before only keeps you level, not going higher. It used to be that a household only needed one breadwinner. You'd think with all our new time-saving technology we'd need even less labour, but no, it now takes two breadwinners.>> ^quantumushroom:

Without investors (and capital) laborers have nothing to build or create. Without biz leaders, laborers build products no one wants and go out of business.
And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.
You don't really believe this.

>> ^messenger:
You mean that all profits should go to the labourers (literally, the productive), and that those who have lived off the riches created by labour merely by being investors should die?
That's a startling new stance for you QM, and I'm starting to warm to your philosophy, but I don't think lazy rich should die. And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.>> ^quantumushroom:
Death to parasites, wealth to the productive who created it.

It can be very easy to judge this as horrific and brutal and wasteful and so alien.

However I am a Westerner who eats meat... who knows that the beef and lamb and pork and salmon etc. etc. that I eat also comes from animals. I know that the meat I eat comes from animals who may not have had the best life and were killed so I could eat them.

BUT.

We strive in the west to be humane to animals, to let them have a reasonable quality of life, to kill them quickly and as painlessly as possible.

And we try not to be wasteful.

Those last two things are the horrific parts of this, in particular the last. Animals being killed and their carcasses thrown away (still living, that's just horrible) just to cut off fins that taste like nothing.

It's not getting highly nutritious food, it's not getting something with amazing flavour, it's purely eating something because it's rare.

And that's pretty fucking sick.

I'm sure there's a lot more work to be done with fishing for western tables too, I'm sure plenty of the fish that are caught are not quickly killed. I know that fish are being over fished to the point of extinction.

But the thing that stands out for this, and something that makes it an achievable thing to stop is that it is ONE DISH. ONE SINGLE DISH that is causing this much carnage, and this much wastage and killing. So stop ONE dish and you can save entire species of animal.

Yay I won another shirt! Also, congrats @mintbbb! You put more work into this giveaway than anyone else, so you winning is VERY well deserved.

come on winston!
anecdotal evidence does not an argument make and you should know better and whats with the name calling?
this is not a political ideology problem but a greed and corruption problem which is more a personal flavor than a political one.
leftie,rightie,neolib,spendocrat,rethuglican...
who cares? they are all paid whores for their corporate and wall street masters and by the looks of your previous comments you have bought their line of tripe hook,line and sinker.

the fact of the matter is that after WWII america became a manufacturing juggernaut (mainly due to other manufacturing countries being leveled from bombings).our government dealt with the public in a pretty straight forward manner (relatively speaking of course).the unionized american work force set the standard and helped usher in the middle class,a hard fought standard i might add.this was the first appearance of the "middle class" and it was not just handed over but fought for tooth and nail by our grandparents and their parents.

the 60's were a time of great changes,not only politically but socially and marked a definitive change how our government dealt with the people and thus began the slow march we find ourselves in today.
consider this:
1.in 1972 the dollar was worth .78 cents on the dollar (22 cents interest per dollar)
in 2011 the dollar is worth .03 cents on the dollar.that loaf of bread didnt increase in price but rather the purchasing power of your dollar decreased.
2.in 1968 the phrase "for the public good" was removed from the corporate charter.hows that been working out for us?
3.in the 60's the middle class was roughly 48% of the american population and controlled 72% of americas total wealth.this was unheard of on a global scale,this sharing of wealth and was one of the main reasons why so many wished to come to america and take a swing at opportunity.fast forward to the present the "middle class" is roughly 11% of population and controls less than 10%.
4.while america still outproduces the rest of the world,has the largest and richest economy (yes,we still are the biggest).now lets consider the fact that the american worker produces more,works longer hours (on avg),yet receives less benefits in the forms of health care and retirement and the wages have stagnated since the 80's and when you factor in inflation,american workers are actually making LESS than their counterparts from 40 years ago.

let us all be clear on one thing.
capitalism,socialism or communism are NOT political ideologies but rather ECONOMIC systems and right now the system is rigged.
lowest tax rates in 40 years right along with interest rates.
this is NOT a coincidence.
you are being robbed.
at least the blacks KNEW they were slaves.
you on the other hand...remain clueless.
the fox is in the henhouse and people waste their time waxing poetic about political perfunctory.

@marbles
right on man.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.
For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).
So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.
This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?


Not really.

If all state-influences (regulations and subsidies et cetera) to all businesses are gone, how can a small competitor then compete with a larger competitor? (I'm working under the presumption that there had not been a null-setting of all capital.) Would the large competitor not be able to be more efficient and therefore cheaper? Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulatet environment)