I don't see how this is a valid argument against anything that I have said. I can argue that many people could have been even more highly regarded who were born in the US if we concentrated on the problems within the country using other means than pulling people from outside the country.
I also don't see a direct criticism or counter argument to anything that I said. Downvoters offer no explanation on their disagreement. I wish down voting would require a comment, or at least an identifier of who did it. I think that this would be a much better change than that stupid pending comments thing that almost saw the light of day.
Blindly downvoting without any accountability is a pretty poor reality IMO.
So if we gave them all Visas - we'd be good for less than two weeks?
Sounds like a bigger problem here.
On a related note, how many highly skilled and educated people live here already who are currently unemployed?
Two observations.
* Immigrants will go to where the work is. They will live almost anywhere the work is, they are moving already so it is easier than for someone who has roots somewhere.
* Immigrants will work harder and for less money. This is like starting a new job x10. Typically starting a new job - people work their tails off (for the first year or two at least). Think about that plus moving half way around the world just for personal achievement. Imagine the motivation that would give you. You would want to prove yourself, get permanent status, make a lot of money to bring family here ETC. And the money? think about it. Would you take less money for a huge opportunity in life?
Here is the thing though. Bringing in skilled immigrants is great for greedy capitalism, you get talent, hard work, and for cheap. The problem is - we are just working around a growing problem. What about the people who already live here. Not just the adults, but the kids who will be in high school and college in a few years. Why can't they be the ones who fill these jobs?
Bringing in immigrants is a short term moneymaker for corporations. Longer term, and in a couple of generations, these immigrants grand kids will be the ones who don't have a job. Let's put more focus on that aspect rather than always rallying behind opening the floodgates without properly considering the ramifications.
Do you use soap to wash your hands? or just rinse them off with water (especially if you happened to get a little on you)?
Do you then pick up your chicken wings or pork ribs with your butt cheeks and stick them into your mouth, proceeding to lick off the excess sauce/grease?
I have just demonstrated why your example has a complete lack of logic or value.
FWIW, I use a baby wipe. This uses less water and about the same amount of paper. it actually does a little better job, is quicker and far more economical. My toilet will last 40 years with about 10% of the purchase and maintenance costs. I also carry wipes around to use in public restrooms so while you may get clean at home, I get clean on the road as well.
I mainly do this because I have itching/chapping issues if I don't.
If a christian run organization fired an employee (lets not kid ourselves here, Eich was fired) because they paid $1,000 to support gay marriage, how dramatically would the reaction differ from this situation?
Why the huge difference? because in our culture, we are not "allowed" to voice a different opinion than the SCOTUS. Even if the majority populous agrees with our opinion.
I know what you are going to say... This is a civil rights issue. It is now a homosexual's civil right to be married because the court said so.
When I hear the term civil rights, I always think of blacks and whites in America, segregation and unequal rights because of race.
Non Caucasian people were not allowed to use the same schools, bathrooms, bus seats, or even drinking fountains that white people used. That was wrong. Everyone is human and should be treated with dignity.
These days we have this out of control "equality" thing that just kind of blindly rolls over common sense.
If there is no distinction between men and women in marriage now, then what about the rest of the gender based legal things like a law preventing a man from going into a women's locker room at the local gym and showering with 10 year old girls that happen to be showering in there. Well gay men can shower with boys in the locker next door, so why not? Why are there women's battery laws? Special rape laws only for women? There are literally thousands of laws that are preferential toward or only exist to assist women? Can't a gay man have these same laws applied to him just like marriage? It just isn't fair if they aren't. This breaks "Equality".
Men and women are different, that is why there are different rules for us. Homosexuals did not fit the description of marriage because it was defined by gender, since this fundamental attribute was thrown out, it seems only fair to throw out any and all gender biased laws, rules, and guidelines.
If a women feels that she was violated because a man came into the women's shower while she was shaving, how is this different than a women feeling that her marriage was violated because it also was re-defined as being genderless.
I just don't grasp the "logic" (or lack thereof) that people today must use to come up with such thoughts and justifications.
Congrats Apple for all your achievements. It is amazing what can be accomplished when you employ Chinese Engineers and manufacturers who's tech espionage (they steal trade secrets) is one of their best known traits/assets.
What he did is support the disagreement that what is now considered a "right" by an increasingly liberal society was indeed a "right". What is wrong with this? Liberals and gays need to realize that they are often bigots against religion. Those believing the Bible's teachings have a different set of moral standards. I find it ironic that this man is called immoral by liberals and that gays are dubbed the immoral ones by believers in God.
Can't Liberals see that Believers hold themselves to a different set of standards? It is not often personal (though unfortunately for some religious extremists it is). The only hate that is being displayed here is by the anti-religious groups and individuals.
Think of it like this. A girl is invited to a friend's birthday party. She does not attend because her father forbids her to go and won't driver her there either. She tries to explain it to her friend, but here friend hates her now because can not come. Is this fair to the girl?
Some of you will say that this case is more like the girl paying someone to disrupt the party. Again, if the girl's father was responsible as God is for believer's convictions, then should the girl be hated anyway? I suppose if you think that the girl's father only existed in her own mind (was a phantasy) then you would think this.
Still does not seem fair? Well what if it came out later that the girl planning the party was going to do something harmful to the guests. By disrupting the party, the girl who looked cruel now in hindsight looks like a hero. This knowledge of the devious girl's plan is akin to the belief and knowledge that religious people have in God.
God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how do atheists know they are really correct? how do religious people? At least the religious people have a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.
So who are the real bigots here? From each side's perspective, it is the other. My hope is that each side will respect (not agree with) the others reasons and not show hatred toward the other. If a gay person donates to a fund pushing gay marriage, don't show hate toward them, if a religious person donates to the opposition, the same applies. This is almost sportsmanship in a way. Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness, help them up and continue the competition.
This seems pretty unpopular PG , and it seems to have a lot of pitfalls and things that you have overlooked. How about making it so that people can opt into seeing the pending comments (so to them everything is as it was before). Let people decide for themselves.
This really would be the right thing to do. If it seems that most people not opt into the (old way) or opt out and stay out after a while, then maybe switch over.
The people of the internet are what make HN. Let them decide. Don't take the freedoms on hundreds of thousands of people away overnight.
There are only 5,500 people with 1000 karma or more. Most of them live in California. Now letting them agree with and approve the opinions and viewpoints of the other hundreds of thousands of members is going to shut down most opinions before they are even heard, some of which are more generally popular than theirs. The minority will silence the majority.
Silence those with opinions that are not popular. Even if their points are valid, censor them. how many innocuous comments (ones that may not be quite worth an up-vote, yet add a sprinkle of thought) will be lost forever? In this scenario, all those comments who were left at 1 point now are never heard. Casual users (which must make up quite a large percentage of HN) will not be readily heard.
Those comments with even an air of controversy will not be approved because if it ends up with down-votes, that will go toward the approving member's record and may end up getting them banned eventually.
Controversial points and less popular opinions and facts will never be seen to counter. PG, you are building a Censorship wall so that controversial or unpopular comments now don't even exist to refute/debate. There is a reason that anytime you take away people's free speech or expression, they eventually revolt.
Why do comments that are not mainstream have to go away (as in never be seen). Why not engage in debate about them. I never understood this. Sure I can see censoring comments containing personal threats or vulgar content, but this is ridiculous. Keeping information from someone's eyes just because one group does not agree with it is censorship.
Honestly, the way that disagreeable comments are handled now are quite refreshing and are one of the reasons that HN is so popular. Anyone can post their opinion. If people don't agree with it, they can engage in civil opposition. If it is inappropriate, they can down-vote.
Perhaps the biggest reason for not pending comments is that you are going to dramatically change what shows up here. You have members of one group (or classification if you will) who are very active and will all have 1000 points, this group now is the voice of HN. Those who post more occasionally, post late, or don't pad their numbers by replying to the hot thread (rather they create their own which drops 3/4 down the page) now have a limited voice. Other groups likely have many differing opinions than the over 1000 class, they now have no voice. You see, your over 1000 (certainly the minority of your members) mostly all have common opinions, ideologies and viewpoints about things. This group now has the power to silence those others (though perhaps even larger in numbers) groups.
I would have liked it if you ran a poll before coding something like this. A last minute pseudo-courtesy notification shows just how much HN is really all about you and does not really belong to the people who actually own it (the public). Without us, you've got and idle server. No stories posted, no comments, nothing. Your totalitarianism attitude put a bad taste in my mouth.
Silence those with opinions that are not popular. Even if their points are valid, censor them. how many innocuous comments (ones that may not be quite worth an up-vote, yet add a sprinkle of thought) will be lost forever? In this scenario, all those comments who were left at 1 point now are never heard. Casual users (which must make up quite a large percentage of HN) will not be readily heard.
Those comments with even an air of controversy will not be approved because if it ends up with down-votes, that will go toward the approving member's record and may end up getting them banned eventually.
Controversial points and less popular opinions and facts will never be seen to counter. PG, you are building a Censorship wall so that controversial or unpopular comments now don't even exist to refute/debate. There is a reason that anytime you take away people's free speech or expression, they eventually revolt.
Why do comments that are not mainstream have to go away (as in never be seen). Why not engage in debate about them. I never understood this. Sure I can see censoring comments containing personal threats or vulgar content, but this is ridiculous. Keeping information from someone's eyes just because one group does not agree with it is censorship.
Honestly, the way that disagreeable comments are handled now are quite refreshing and are one of the reasons that HN is so popular. Anyone can post their opinion. If people don't agree with it, they can engage in civil opposition. If it is inappropriate, they can down-vote.
Perhaps the biggest reason for not pending comments is that you are going to dramatically change what shows up here. You have members of one group (or classification if you will) who are very active and will all have 1000 points, this group now is the voice of HN. Those who post more occasionally, post late, or don't pad their numbers by replying to the hot thread (rather they create their own which drops 3/4 down the page) now have a limited voice. Other groups likely have many differing opinions than the over 1000 class, they now have no voice. You see, your over 1000 (certainly the minority of your members) mostly all have common opinions, ideologies and viewpoints about things. This group now has the power to silence those others (though perhaps even larger in numbers) groups.
I would have liked it if you ran a poll before coding something like this. A last minute pseudo-courtesy notification shows just how much HN is really all about you and does not really belong to the people who actually own it (the public). Without us, you've got and idle server. No stories posted, no comments, nothing. Your totalitarianism attitude put a bad taste in my mouth.
Two reason that I can guess (before reading any comments or the article).
1. More energy is lost the wider the loop is. This is because on a truly round loop, the cars would be pushing hard against the widest part of the circle as the cars change from going from right to left (or vise-verse). By not going out as far, you don't have to come as far back to get to the top of the loop.
2. The geometry of the loop is tuned partially based on the number of cars. Most roller coasters have between 6 and 10 cars. You want the first one to be starting on the way down way before the last one all the way to the apex. This uses gravity to help with overall velocity. The easiest way to achieve this is by distributing the sharpest part of the angular transition at the top of the loop.
Perhaps I should not post a comment before reading, but I am curious to know what others think (off the cuff).
>Phillip K Dick was a anphetamine abuser (which no one advocates), but incredible writer. I would never dare suggest someone limit their potential if there are options they can reasonably try.
This is very telling and I believe that it defines pretty clearly the rift between our convictions on this.
In the near future, we will have the ability to augment our brains via drugs and implants to make us many more times smarter and more productive. We are starting down this path already. Where does our humanity end up after all of this. There will certainly be a tradeoff.
I believe the present and future of humanity is better off letting us reason with out own natural brains vs enhanced/inhibited (enhanced/inhibited always go together because there is always a tradeoff, even if eventually the only side effect is an imbalance of abilities). I am not saying that I never condone the use of ADHD drugs and Antidepressants, but when they are handed out like candy - I see that as being a problem. Clearly you do not, but that is the difference between us.
>I think you're hinging a lot on this incredibly faulty belief:
First of all, this is not MY belief alone. It is listed among the side effects on the side of the box. Further studies have pretty much conclusively agreed that these drugs do affect reason and rational.
>I bet you have lovely opinions about antidepressants and antianxiety medication as well. I suppose those people, too, should also just find lines of work that value depressed and/or anxious people just like Xenu intended.
These are proven to be even worse of course. The sad thing is that many people who are on them do not need to be. This is like taking morphine when you have a broken leg and continuing to walk on it so it cannot heal, vs setting the bone and casting/resting it.
Also funny you should mention depressed people changing lines of work. A high percentage (over 10%) of people put on antidepressants have been found to have very low levels of vitamin D (something they never would have had if working outside). Many of them were also overweight and very out of shape. Many others were also later diagnosed with S.A.D. Something that people working outside rarely experience.
Antidepressants and ADHD drugs are often given as a quick fix. There are often alternatives that can fix the actual problem rather than mask the symptoms. That is all I am saying. You don't seem to be able to accept this fact, so out conversation must end here.
>You mean like HIV/AIDs, cancer, autism, epilepsy? Of course there aren't side effects if you aren't treating.
I can see that you cannot even reason logically and understand simple comparisons. No comparison can be made between trying to naturally cure HIV/AIDS and someone with a short attention span while sitting at a desk all day switching to a more suitable job.
>You are begging the question. First you are assuming their is some growth to the number of people being treated that don't require treatment. Secondly, you assuming that they are bad because they are "mind altering."
This is not my assumption. It is a proven fact. The criteria for diagnosed ADHD has changed so dramatically over the last 20 years, a person who is suffering from stress or sleep deprivation (with side effects of a lower attention span and concentration abilities) is commonly diagnosed with ADHD and put on meds.
This conversation is done. I refuse to try and reason with an illogical and senseless person.
>Medieval Christian scholars were faced with a dilemma: their religious beliefs required them to believe that the soul was saved through a relationship with Jesus, yet going through the newly discovered Greek and Roman writings it was obvious to them that great men of virtue and honor were alive many centuries before Jesus lived. How could these people be of such high caliber yet believe such vastly different things?
If they were faced with a dilemma than they were certainly fools. Don't Christians believe that God created the world and thus was present long before Jesus was born? Did they think that virtue and honor did not exist (or were not even possible) before the birth of Christ? What about Noah, Job, Moses, David, Joseph, Daniel, The nations of Israel and Judah, ETC. of the old testament. These were scholars and had not read of these people or did not think that great men who were believers in God could influence those outside of their religion in a positive way? Did they not read when king Darius of Babylon make the God of Daniel the Official God of the land?
>Cheating in academia is exactly the same as piracy: It is a service problem. If classes taught useful information/skills in a non-boring way, cheating would be significantly reduced.
This is true, but only for certain subjects. I largely agree with you when it comes to many Comp-Sci courses. Differential Equations, not so much.
>Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.
On two conditions only. Much of our false wealth must be shed (which will happen within the next 10-20 years) and we must stop enabling/encouraging non-nuclear family population growth. There has to be real consequences to fatherless children and women with 5 kids from 5 daddies. Now we just give unwed mothers money, free stuff and moral permission to do it again and again.
The slippery slope is obvious. More and more people today are put on drugs to deal with problems that used to be dealt with naturally and without side effect. Secondly, more and more average people who don't really need these medications still get on them because they enhance their concentration and productivity. They give them abilities (an edge) that only a few in the general populace naturally have. Why is this bad? because these are mind altering drugs that people will take every day forever.
This type of behavior modification has always had (and always will) consequences.
I also don't see a direct criticism or counter argument to anything that I said. Downvoters offer no explanation on their disagreement. I wish down voting would require a comment, or at least an identifier of who did it. I think that this would be a much better change than that stupid pending comments thing that almost saw the light of day.
Blindly downvoting without any accountability is a pretty poor reality IMO.