They are doing a fine job catering to their target audience, but this is seriously unfortunate.

source on this?

I guess I was thinking more of the people who purposefully infect without explicit consent. Even still, I can't imagine an increased number of HIV 'victims' could ever be good for society.

Related: Bugchasing

Absolutely horrible.

Ideally, yes, he should just write a how-to instead of this meta complaining. But I have a feeling that the people he refers to wouldn't have any interest in learning for themselves while they have a tech guy who can just do it for them. I think what he is really getting at is not so much blaming them for not knowing things as it is blaming them for not even wanting or caring to.

That website is great. I especially like the seasonal tire air.

The majority of the examples provided by the author just seemed to show a general lack of critical thinking from the user. I definitely have a biased view on the matter, though. I wonder if auto-maintenance workers often feel the same way about their customers.

This was frustrating to read.

If we assume that the purpose of schooling and education is to prepare the students for real life, eliminating team sports is an awful idea. Working on a team with people who are better than you at what you're trying to accomplish is very relevant to real life. And the author is blaming her loneliness as an adult on not being good at team sports in primary school? Come on. The article she cites to support that does say that slightly more than half of the girls asked disliked their experiences in gym class. BUT, there is no mention of problems in working in teams. One interesting thing the article does mention that I think plays a major part is the girls being afraid to be viewed as less feminine if they are good at sports or if they sweat. This is a much deeper societal problem that is showing up in the gym class environment, but exists everywhere. So no, I would argue that team sports are actually vital to the curriculum and doing away with them would lead to much more harm than good with respect to the futures of the students.

Weeell yeah. I was thinking of the cheese as a commodity or something tangible rather than conceptual but your interpretation is probably closer to the author's intent.

Yes, everyone is out to get you. There is a hierarchy of evil controlling the entire world and they want to oppress you because you are, in fact, that important. Sheeple, man. Sheeple.

This is silly. I don't like how it ends. Also, you can't just make more cheese appear out of nowhere because you have a lot of it. That cheese machine is unrealistic. Really ruined my immersion in the story.

I think that the concept of patriarchy is almost purely sociological and is not necessarily relevant on biological grounds. We have the technology now to change nearly any 'superficial physical attribute', so it's not fair to classify something as simply biology when we actually have that degree of control over it. Take, for example, weight. Throughout history larger people were viewed as better because they clearly can afford to take care of themselves. Now, in many parts of the world, being thin is far more attractive.

What I'm trying to say is at this point in time, things that are attractive and unattractive are much more based in social norms than in instinct.

Yeah, that's fair. In this case I'm inclined to agree with you. But in most cases, regardless of whether or not you think the debt is just, you still agreed to pay it back in the first place. Since you made that initial commitment, I still think you have a moral obligation to repay.

Well, shorter people may have another intelligence factor that would effectively cancel out your thinner air theory. Less height means less length means less distance from heart to brain, so the shorter the person, the better the oxygen supply to the brain.

But now that I think about it, if the heart is closer to the ground, it will have to work harder to push blood against gravity since the force of gravity gets stronger as distance to the center of the earth decreases. So I guess you're right. Sorry I misjudged you!

I'm the smartest person in my family; I'm actually probably the smartest person in my group of friends.

Every member of your family and each of your friends thinks the same of him/herself.

If you were going to that, you'd have to be absolutely sure that you would never return to civilization because your credit will be completely shot. Also from a moral standpoint this type of thinking makes me sad. If you have debts, you should repay them.

Right, it's the goal of the feminist movement.

Isn't extrapolating trends outside your interval of observation one of the big no-no's in statistics? In other words, just because the complexity of life has followed Moore's Law during the interval we observe, doesn't mean the same is true outside that interval. These results are interesting, though, if you are willing to make that leap.

The positivite thinking thing reminds me a lot of prayer. If you want something hard enough and it happens then hey! it worked! But if it doesn't happen that just means you didn't want it hard enough, and you need to be more positive. In this way it's inherently impossible to prove that positivity doesn't work.

As a side note, that illustrator is super talented. I was mesmerized.

As a young teen I worked for a chiropractor who also practiced what he called homeopathy/energy medicine. I had no understanding of science then, but thinking back on it, it's astonishing to see the number of white, middle-aged women who play into this type of thing. It sounds scientific, so it must be true.

I'm also a Midwesterner and I come across this type of behavior pretty often. It seems like this type of thinking is what leads to serious entitlement issues, the whole 'Life's not fair, I don't deserve this' attitude. It might just be my age group, though. Us college students are known for being seriously naive. I like the idea of the author engaging in the same behavior, that's pretty interesting. "You all have your stories of suffering but you only understand true suffering when you understand the deep implications of everyday conversation. Like me."

This site is regularly updated and lists a bunch of levels of power and the corresponding parts for the best price. I'm not sure what Hubski's policy is on linking to reddit but there is a pc building board there that has some other great resources in its sidebar.

“If you have ten men and ten women, and nine of those men are jerks,” Mark told me, “what antipolygamy does is it removes these women’s choice of the good man and forces them to settle for the nine jerks, and actually, the message of that to the jerks is, ‘Hey, guess what, the law forces the women to settle for you.’ But if you remove marriage control and allow women a choice to have laissez-faire free-market marriage economics… then women will choose the better man, and the message to jerks is, ‘Hey, we better grow up and become better men.’”

Isn't a woman 'settling' more if she is with a man who is married to others? He speaks as if women are commodities to be traded between men, and the reward for being a better man is a woman. Woman are not rewards, they are people. And of course he describes himself as being very happily married, he's in charge. I'd be interested to learn more about his wives' perspectives. With this Mark guy's mentality, it's almost like interviewing a tyrant on the feelings of the people he rules over. I don't know, maybe I'm looking to far into this.

Continuing to challenge the validity of your post is rude? Then why would you post it for discussion? I dont have any intention of being rude. Maybe your picture of the situation is just so idealistic that its hard for me to imagine so I can't see what your describing, and that's fine.

It's not necessarily that I'm taking it personally as much as I'm surprised that someone can think with such little regard for other people. When challenged, you give non-answers and avoid all of the questions. But you're right, I don't know you and it's hardly worth my time to try to convince you, but I'll continue to discuss.

You're completely missing the point. Daydreaming about a situation like this is inherently very selfish because you're not considering any impact it may have on others. And if it does impact others you are implying that is also a good thing because maybe they want the same things as you, and/or the current society is one that does not sit well with you. I would venture a guess to say that wanting to live in a cave puts you in a near negligible minority, and this situation would affect many, many more people in a negative way than any who would feel they benefited from it now, or any time in the future. But I can't find any data describing how many people want to break from society and live off the land, so if I'm incorrect in this assumption, definitely let me know.

Maybe some will think this is too soon, but I thought it was light-hearted enough and the perfect way for the Onion to pay respects to a great critic.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/roger-ebert-hails-human-exi.../

A situation like this would force many to others start over who don't have any desire to. So again, why drag everyone else down with you? Why do you need such an enormous catalyst to change your own lifestyle when you feel so strongly about it?

People would start caring about the important things again. Imagine not having some report due on your boss' desk by Thursday, or finishing a reading assignment for some gen ed course. These are menial things that I don't feel should hold any importance in our lives.

Imagine though, if you literally had no obligations, what would you do? Hike, climb, forage food, learn to hunt, whittle a bow and arrow?

You're clearly proposing that one set of activities is better than the other through use of words like menial. You may want to run away from all responsibility, but why drag everyone else down with you?

I'm just a little offended that you are excited by the prospect of one country attacking another in a potentially devastating way.

I wonder if people are concerned with this issue because there is actually an overprescription of drugs, or if they just perceive it as an overprescription because it's higher than it was in the past and they 'got along just fine.' I've heard this sentiment before from older generations, that they didn't need medication when they were adolescents, so why do the adolescents now? If being medicated actually helps people deal with their emotions more efficiently and reduces their overall stress, is there really a problem? If someone's life is made easier because they are put on an antidepressant, then why not? I guess the effects of the drugs on brain development would need to be taken into account as well, since many of these are being prescribed to young people. It just seems like many people are opposed to drugs simply because they are drugs.

On one hand it's good that they are introducing racially integrated prom, on the other hand... seriously? This could use a #nottheonion tag.