I wouldn't be surprised if many people here did mostly things that felt relatively easy for them (because it fit their talents and/or was fun to learn) and can achieve a lot just off that.
Hi Sam I've used this site forever it's cool. But I'm not like these other guys who want a job or to make a startup I just like tech news so my question is what is the best kind of coffee, as in what's your favorite kind.
My top pick is called "Black Cadillac" it's from a local shop and also reminds me of the modest mouse song of the same name.
That's only because "men's rights" are conflated with human rights. You don't have to actively define a subset of rights to a gender in order to specifically address them. It just so happens to be the case with women's rights and suffrage.
Clearly men did and do not have the ability to vote in a large amount of political climates both historically and currently.
This isn't a gender study class. The fact that someone's opinion is "extremely telling" means they are getting their point across, and as much as you would enjoy that to be a GOTCHA, it's not, and you won't be burning anyone at the stake here.
Opinions about the "men's rights movement" and its veracity very, I understand that. I only referenced it because it was an example I encountered where there is a clear effort to make the article's central theme criticisms of the movement.
But more generally, what happens on Wikipedia is that a few passionate and experienced editors with an ideological motive (who have unbelieveable amounts of time on their hands) begin "taking ownership" over a collection of pages. (Some of them even organize "edit-a-thons" with other activists in a team effort to quickly skew a page.) Once the page has become biased, progress to fix it stalls to a standstill because they will fight every change tooth and nail, and because they can dogpile to create the appearance of a consensus in the talk page, they succeed. The other side has equally as many people disagreeing with their stances, but they are not hitting the article all at once in an organized stance so they get picked off one by one.
Without a degree in wiki-lawyering, a team of dedicated editors by your side, moderators who will do your bidding and the equivalent of a semesters worth of free time available to contradict attempts to overemphasize one POV, you don't stand a chance.
People can make an atomic microscope at home. What makes people think that limiting "hacking tools", or basically knowledge about how hackers will attack us, will help?
Is linux a hacking tool? Wireshark? Where is the line drawn and how is it defined. This is something else.
Good reasoning is not a blasé attitude. It's an approach of setting aside personal feelings and instead having a discussion to get to the root of the problem and discuss the merits of opinion.
The fact is that anyone who simply goes around arguing that something is morally good or bad better have solid reasons for doing so.
I agree with mikeash on this. It's not the academics that are committing crimes. And anyway, I'm tired of people telling me whether a certain idea is right or wrong. I just want to hear the evidence, and I think that's how most "academics" are.
SWIM also agree that lsd is a time warping substance. SWIM saw and lived through thousands of years of Earth in early human civilization. I reminded me later of that Star Trek episode where picard lives someone else's entire life when that space object zaps him.
