Is anyone surprised Trump is stealing more work product from citizens?
Is anyone surprised he cluelessly chose a gay anthem about wild gay sex at the gym?
Is anyone surprised that, when asked to stop, he not only started using it more but also rewrote it to be about him?

Imagine the vitriol and accusations if Obama had stolen a gay anthem for his campaign.

Stealing from artists should be a disqualifying move, just like being convicted of stealing from veterans and students like Trump was.

we should really have 7 hr days and 4 day weeks. pretty sure i would actually get more work done that way.

I can do far more work with my legs than my back. I could run his bikeplow for an hour easy, but a shovel, 15 minutes would be pushing it.
The plow doesn't lift the snow, which saves wasted effort. Even so, it might still take more total work, but at a lower steady rate instead of short jarring maximum efforts.

yea...DJ music videos need a little more work... alot more energy... and need to be a little bit longer then a commercial.

"And if you prefer one or the other, I can adapt. Humans are good at that. ;-) "

No, they're not. Or did you miss the part where some of the smartest people on the planet crashed millions of dollars into another planet? People are TERRIBLE at these kinds of things. One conversion? Fine. Ten conversions? No problem. Hundreds, thousands or millions of conversions? The probability of error tends to 100%.

It would definitely be more efficient if everyone used one common language (especially for cross cultural endeavours such as business and engineering). In fact, that kinda happens by default and that language tends to be English.

However, there are practicalities in play. First up, there aren't just two languages, there are hundreds, and there is a broad split in the number of speakers of each language. Whereas in metric v imperal, the US is the ONLY country in the developed world that hangs onto imperial.

Second, learning a new language is an order of magnitude more work than changing to using metric.

I'm speaking from experience here; in the course of my life, I've studied Irish, French, German, Spanish and Japanese, and I am in no way close to fluent in any of them

On the other hand, when I left Ireland, it was officially metric but imperial was still common (distances were in KM, speed limits in miles, people used imperial weights for humans, metric for food). When I moved to NZ, everything is metric, and honestly, relearning happens without effort. Once you immerse yourself, you eventually just start thinking in the new system.


Finally, metric is just a better system for everything. There isn't a single scenario where imperial is a more useful measurement.

Come on America, join us. It's awesome and you don't really want to use "English" units, do you? Did you fight a war to get rid of them? What would George Washington say!? It's unamerican, I tells ya!

Maybe there's no logical reason to have different systems but the reasons to have only one system are kind of thin. I am perfectly capable of using more than one system and I find that I prefer different systems for different uses. I can use imperial measurements when I build a shed and metric when I do engineering calculations. When I cook, I might use cups and tablespoons to make chili but I use grams to measure ingredients when I bake bread. And if you prefer one or the other, I can adapt. Humans are good at that. ;-)

Extend the argument and it's not logical for the world to speak more than one language. Translating between languages is a whole lot more work than translating temperature scales. We should all speak Mandarin, because it's the most spoken language in the world. But my best friend's 2 year old speaks Mandarin AND English. I suspect he'll be just fine.

Anyway, long story short, I agree we should all know how to use the metric system. That doesn't mean we all need to use it for everything.

Truth is truth....and this is not truth, or is at least intentionally misleading.
As mentioned above, the parties totally switched positions with the Republican Southern strategy. She's either ignorant, or intentionally misleading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

What rich earn their money with "hard" work? Few if any, they more often make it by paying hard workers less than they are due, often by contract. (At least that's certainly true for many, including Trump)
Killing babies, nope. Embryos aren't babies. Babies can live outside a womb. >99.999% of abortions don't meet that requirement, and the few that do are only allowed to save the mother's life.
Oppressing business owners, nope, just stopping them from abusing their workers, customers, and environment. That only oppresses oppressors, and I'm more than fine with that considering how they act when unrestrained.
Allowing illegal immigrants in....nope, but offering far more work visas, absolutely. "Proper vetting" is meaningless, unless you agree to use the term as intended by the intelligence community, in which case democrats are totally on board...but not with a Muslim ban until Trump can figure something out, that's never....and totally unconstitutional.
Get rid of capitalism....did you see their candidate? Even Sanders didn't want that, but he was too hostile to unfettered capitalism for democrats....just duh.

Why do you see people mentioning the switch? Because you, and this woman, are trying to pretend it didn't happen....but it clearly, unequivocally, undeniably did. Take some American history and you'll learn.

Edit: what's funny is, had there been no southern strategy and swap of ideals as she and you imply, democrats would be your party, supporting all the right wing strategies you support.

@Mordhaus

Except that the United States has for many decades relied on undocumented immigrants as a source of low-wage labor to do the jobs most Americans don't want. Now all of a sudden, after using their cheap labor to keep failing American agriculture and manufacturing alive you just want to yank the carpet out from under them?

Most of the people now up in arms about the "scourge" of illegal immigrants have HIRED illegals at one time or another (in the case of Trump, I'm sure he still employs dozens of hundreds). The US Government could simply have issued more work visas and enforced the rules more closely, but why do that when your buddies can charge sub-minimum wage and stiff their employees on the paycheck whenever they feel like it without fear of repercussion? Instead they wink and nod, punishing the immigrants occasionally, but rarely (if ever) touching the businesses who KNEW they were employing illegals.

It's like ignoring the drug dealers and traffickers for decades, then suddenly deciding drug USERS are a scourge who must be punished.

Might be titled: The Reward for Good Work ....
Is More Work

Uh... that's not a crush, that's infatuation.


...but seriously, what you do with the information is up to you. Just because they're out of your league, doesn't mean you stop. It's just more work.

In first world countries....yes, or close to that much. Agreed. Not world wide.

Mechanized harvest is accepted in "natural" old school farming. Agreed, it would fall under the "industrial farming" methods, but is one of the least damaging.
>1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family. So is Walmart, but it's not a mom and pop or family store.

Again, mechanization is not the same as industrialization, but does still do damage by over plowing, etc. I'm talking about monoculture crops, over application of man made fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Grain was farmed "by hand" since farming existed with few problems, but more work involved. The work it takes to rehab a river system because industrial farming runoff contaminated and killed it is FAR more work than the extra work involved in farming using old school methods (which does not mean everything is done with hands, tools and machines have been in use for eons).

Roundup doesn't "break down" completely, and doesn't break down at all if it's washed into river systems and out of the UV light.

Once again, machines aren't all of "industrial farming", they are one of the least damaging facets, and they are not unknown in old school, smaller farming techniques. BUT....overuse of heavy equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl). If it was ONLY about machinery, and ONLY industrial farming used machines, you would have a point, but neither is true.

No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term. (See 'dust bowl')

Man power is far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. Also, the people would use no more resources because they're in the field than they would anywhere else, so there's NO net gain to the energy used or demand on the environment if they farm instead of sit at a desk, but machines don't use energy when idle, so there is a net loss to the energy required if you replace them with pre-existing people.

Yes, you quoted it directly, buy your characterization of what that meant was insane. You claim they said Monsanto worked on the project (and other things) because they're evil and want to do evil and harm. The video actually said they do these things without much care for the negative consequences to others, and that makes them evil. I hope you can comprehend the distinct difference in those statements, and that your portrayal of what they said is not honest.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Holy crap, can someone bring these guys to Christchurch? It's been 5 1/2 YEARS since the earthquake and the roads are still fucked here (admittedly there's a lot more work, but still....)

Looks like he'll be joining Walking Dead too. Glad he's getting more work.