Verisimilidude posted:

Engineers really are the worst when it comes to this because they're all just using calculators anyway. Sure they technically use math, but with computer models you don't actually need to remember anything.

Now physicists and mathematicians? That's the real deal. And as a physicist I really like what common core is trying to do because it's stuff I do on a day-to-day basis to work out simple math in my head. It's stuff I wish I knew as a kid, and ultimately had to figure it out on my own while being pressure tested during exams.

ZenVulgarity posted:

Physics rules. I'm mainly talking about being a lawyer. Holy gently caress people don't know basic poo poo.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

One cool thing is that because so many engineers are right wing tools, you can use advanced mathematics against them.

There are no easy step by step algorithms for calculus, you just have a bunch of tools and you have to move stuff around until one works.

As for the "make 10" problem, a great example for adults might be:

How can you make 100 from 45+19.1+56
(Solve the problem by making 100 first)


You can do it algorithmically by lining up all the numbers on the decimal point, adding in columns (0+1+0=1), (5+9+6=19 carry the one), (1+4+1+5=11): 119.1 or did I mess up? If only I knew a second way to calculate this.

A common core approach might be: set the .1 aside for now. Take 6 away from 56, give 5 to 45, give 1 to 19. Now you have 50 + 20 + 50 +.1

Make 100
100 + 20 + .1

120.1

Hey... It looks like I messed up the first one, I got 119.1 instead of 120.1
Looks like I messed up the ones addition Oh 5 + 9 + 6 = 20, ok.

Staryberry posted:

The only reason people become lawyers is because they aren't good at math and they hate the sight of blood (myself included).

Ashcans posted:

I have worked in law offices for almost 8 years and the one thing I have learned from this is that most lawyers (probably most people) can't alphabetize poo poo if their lives depended on it.

Deltasquid posted:

So if you're told to multiply 9 by 8, are you supposed to memorize by heart on your table that it's 72? Like, is that what the schools expected you to do? I always thought everyone did (8x10)-8 because it's as simple as adding a zero and subtracting 8 from the final amount, for example.

Deltasquid posted:

So if you're told to multiply 9 by 8, are you supposed to memorize by heart on your table that it's 72? Like, is that what the schools expected you to do?

Angry Fish posted:

I never understood where they developed the "dip your bullets in PORK FAT," bit.

Zesty Mordant posted:

Yes, and that goes for everyone I know. We had a multiplication table and were expected to memorize it.

Dr. Faustus posted:

And I *hated* it.
Timed multiplication table drills. You have a paper with a grid of multiplication problems, and like 60 seconds to solve them all. If you didn't finish in time, you felt incredibly stupid.
I spent far too many nights lying in bed the night before school just doing multiplication tables in my head out of pure fear and anxiety. That was either 3rd or 4th grade I think (that's hazy, but the memory of those drills is not).

In the end, it worked. On the other hand, if there was a better way I wish I had been taught it instead.

Deltasquid posted:

I suddenly understood what common core means. To think I've been doing it all my life because I'm one of those guys who absolutely loathe rote memorization and prefer to find shortcuts instead. I thought everyone split stuff like 12x12 to (12x10) + (2x12) instead of memorizing by heart. Maybe Belgian education has been teaching me common core all along but I certainly don't remember them asking me to make 10 from 8+5. What a horribly obtuse way of explaining it.

So if you're told to multiply 9 by 8, are you supposed to memorize by heart on your table that it's 72? Like, is that what the schools expected you to do? I always thought everyone did (8x10)-8 because it's as simple as adding a zero and subtracting 8 from the final amount, for example.

Deltasquid posted:

I suddenly understood what common core means. To think I've been doing it all my life because I'm one of those guys who absolutely loathe rote memorization and prefer to find shortcuts instead. I thought everyone split stuff like 12x12 to (12x10) + (2x12) instead of memorizing by heart. Maybe Belgian education has been teaching me common core all along but I certainly don't remember them asking me to make 10 from 8+5. What a horribly obtuse way of explaining it.

So if you're told to multiply 9 by 8, are you supposed to memorize by heart on your table that it's 72? Like, is that what the schools expected you to do? I always thought everyone did (8x10)-8 because it's as simple as adding a zero and subtracting 8 from the final amount, for example.

Fulchrum posted:

It starts with the belief that deep down, Muslims are not human, they are monsters. And they are weak in the same way monsters are - pork to them is like garlic to a vampire. Seriously, go through every one of those "hahaha, we got PORK!" things, substitute muslims with vampires and pork with garlic, and it makes things so much clearer.

Zesty Mordant posted:

Yes, and that goes for everyone I know. We had a multiplication table and were expected to memorize it.

RagnarokAngel posted:

It's really more of a psy ops program but the problem is people who propose it are idiots and can't really figure out how they'd make it known they were using pork fat, and of course a deep lack of understanding how the Muslim ban on pork works.

tetrapyloctomy posted:

My wife does research on Common Core implementation, and I think an issue is the wording, which can be bizarre if you hadn't seen it before. "Make 10 from 8 + 5" makes no goddamned sense if you don't know that you're supposed to shuffle a two across to build to doing more complicated mental addition. In some cases schools have pre-tests and post-tests so they can evaluate Common Core teaching methods, so you can imagine how terrible a lot of the answers are on the pre-tests when a fourth-grader who has never seen this type of question is faced with the ZOMG concept that math isn't just rote memorization. It really doesn't help that a lot of the adults looking at these questions just aren't really good at math. They think they are because they did well in primary school by learning how to brute-force through the methods taught, but they really lack some fundamental knowledge and insight. They often fail to recognize that their mental math often parallels the concepts taught in Common Core curriculum and then rail against the very way they do math: "Why do they have to do this stupid number line thing to subtract when it's so much easier to do it the old-fashioned way?"

It would also help if teachers didn't feel threatened by Common Core. It's partly because teachers always get screwed when implementation of any concept doesn't work out ("Your inner-city kids, who can't concentrate because they don't always get food at home and are too busy worrying that they're going to get stabbed because we've cut busing to kids who live within two miles of this war zone, are failing! It must be YOU!") and partly because a lot of the math teachers aren't actually good at math beyond rote mechanics.

Alien Arcana posted:

Wasn't there a Monty Python skit that was exactly that scenario?

quote:

L: The only arguments against same-sex marriage are religious.
C: First of all, there are plenty of arguments against it that have nothing at all to do with religion. Second, what you are calling “religious arguments” are to demonstrate that individuals have sincere, religious objections to same-sex marriage and therefore making laws that force them to accept it would be unconstitutional. Third, that legalizing same-sex marriage would force the religious views of a minority on the majority that opposes those views is unconstitutional. Fourth, legalizing same-sex marriage would require granting additional power to an already power-mad government. Fifth, legalizing same-sex marriage would be the first step in broadening the definition of marriage to the point that it would ultimately mean nothing, and we already have examples of people wanting this done, and people who freely admit that they oppose the institution of marriage.

L: Gays should have equal rights to marry
C: First of all, they do, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals. Second, since a homosexual relationship is not the same as a heterosexual relationship, on may levels, claiming their right to marry someone of the same gender is not asking for equality. You are, in essence, asking for apples to be called oranges.

L: By denying gays the right to marry you are forcing your religious view on them.
C: First of all homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. Second, there are numerous arguments against same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion. Third, the only way same-sex marriage can be made legal is if the Federal government is empowered to force compliance upon every state, county, city, business, church and individual, so legalizing same-sex marriage would be forcing the religious views of Liberals and some homosexuals (not all favor SSM) on the rest of the nation.

L: Marriage predates Christianity, so Christians have no right claiming the word.
C: First, notice how “religion” has now become “Christianity” in spite of the fact that most world religions view marriage as between a man and a woman. Second, there is no evidence that the concept of marriage predates the concept of religion. Third, most Americans, not just Christians, oppose redefining marriage.

L: Canada has been recognizing same sex marriages for a while now, and so far society has not collapsed.
C: Many people have cancer yet are still alive, thus, according to your logic, proves cancer is harmless.

L: Civil Unions do not grant the same legal rights as marriage.
C: Civil Unions are a legal vehicle that grant as much or as little as the law creating it allows. If they are inadequate, then the solution is to reword the law defining Civil Unions, not to redefine marriage.

L: History has shown all kinds of warped definitions of marriage, from slavery to polygamy to people getting divorced days after getting married.
C: Yet throughout that Traditional Marriage remained a concrete, solid concept. The examples you have given were and still are viewed as aberrations of what marriage was and is meant to be. They are not co-equal definitions but perversions of the core concept, just as rape, pedophilia or masturbation are not normal versions of sex.

L: We live in a secular society and religious people have to accept that and abide by secular authority.
C: Secular is a word used to define those people who have no recognized “religious” beliefs other than a materialistic world view, therefore it in itself is a religious viewpoint. We do not live in a secular society and our government is not a secular government. For it to be so it would need to establish the religious viewpoint of secularism as the official religious viewpoint of the government, and the Constitution expressly forbids the government from establishing a state religion.

L: How would legalizing same-sex marriage hurt you?
C: Liberals have already, amply demonstrated their desire to use any and every means available to them to force others to submit to their idea of what should be allowed or forbidden. They have used the courts to attempt to force religious people to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Below are just some examples of this. legalizing same-sex marriage would then be like handing a gun to an angry man…

Christian business fined $7,000 for refusing to photograph Lesbian wedding
Baker faces jail for refusign to cater same-sex wedding
Lesbians sue Christian school for not allowing them to attend
Lesbians sue to force Catholic hospital to provide same-sex benefits
Lesbians sue Methodist church for not allowing them to have SSM ceremony on church property
Homosexual couple sues Catholic church for refusing to sell them a house
Homosexual group sues pastor, alleging “hate speech” for preaching exactly what the Bible says
Homosexual sues Bible publisher for printing offensive literature (the Bible)
Homosexual couple sue Catholic church for refusing to recognize SSM
Lesbian couple sue church to force them to allow property for homosexual wedding
Homosexual couple sue Christian Bed & Breakfast owner for refusing to allow them to have homosexual sex on their property
State Sues Florist Who Refused to Decorate Gay Wedding
L: This is the same as when inter-racial marriages were outlawed.
C: No, when inter-racial marriages were outlawed, the inter-racial couples who got married were put in jail, and sometimes lynched. All that would happen, currently, to homosexuals that claimed to be married, without bothering to set up the readily available legal devices for establishing the same same access that marriage does, is that they simply wouldn’t be considered married. That you can’t be considered the parent of your partner’s child because you failed to go through the legal process of adoption, is not the same thing as being sent to prison, and risking getting lynched on the way.

L: Since homosexuality is not a choice, it is discrimination to not allow them to marry.
C: There is no valid evidence that homosexuality is anything but a choice. Spurious and fraudulent “scientific” studies sponsored by activist groups only demonstrate that there exists no real science behind the assertion, or they wouldn’t need to create fake studies.

L: Homosexual behavior is evident in hundreds, if not thousands, of species, proving that it’s natural.
C: Then it would be no problem at all for you to list one, single example of an animal, in normal health, that has demonstrated long-term sexual actions towards the same sex, that are not typical dominance behavior. Keywords there are “NORMAL HEALTH”, “SEXUAL ACTIONS”, “LONG-TERM”, “NOT DOMINANCE BEHAVIOR”. See the “studies” you’ve been told that show rampant homosexuality among animals include non-sexual bonding (not homosexual), dominance behavior (not homosexual), sporadic behavior (not homosexuality) and /or animals suffering from either a physical problem or some form of stress (not homosexual). When you weed out all those, you have no examples at all.

L: Civil Unions amounts to “separate but equal” which is unconstitutional.
C: How is it separate? The idea of “Separate but equal” referred to segregation, in the word “separate” literally meant separate. So how in the word are homosexuals joined by civil unions separated from anyone else, because they aren’t allowed to call it “marriage”?

L: Nobody chooses to be gay.
C: Can someone choose the food they prefer? If so at what point did most Chinese people decide to prefer Chinese food? At what age did Mexican people make the conscious choice to prefer Mexican food? Unless you are a racist, then you’ll have to acknowledge that those food choices are a result of the environment they were brought up in, not genetics. Neither is sexual preference genetic, but the product of environment. And as with food preference, it is entirely possible for someone to decide to change their preference.

L: Homosexuals are persecuted so much that it’s inconceivable that they would choose such a lifestyle.
C: First, the vast majority of homosexuals that are murdered are murdered by OTHER homosexuals, not heterosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals that are assaulted are assaulted by OTHER homosexuals, not by heterosexuals. Second, if being picked on were really such a problem, why do so many homosexuals then go out of their way to flaunt their lifestyle in public, going so far as to hold parades where they prance down the street in as flamboyant and outrageous a costumes as they can find?

L: You can’t compare homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality.
C: It is only by severing marriage from any societal, historical and religious context can you even begin to make an argument that same-sex unions should have the same standing as traditional marriage, and once you’ve done that, then you have tossed out any argument that would keep polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality as separate subjects. (If we can kill and eat animals, why can’t someone marry one?)

L: Homosexuals are a persecuted minority.
C: As an alleged “persecuted” minority, homosexuals earn more per capita, have more political clout per capita and on the average hold higher positions in companies than heterosexuals. If that’s discrimination, then where do I go to be discriminated against?

L: When did you choose to be straight/heterosexual?
C: Preferences by their very nature are not conscious choices. When did you choose to like pizza? Not when did you discover you liked pizza, but when did you make a conscious choice that you would like pizza? You didn’t but liking pizza is not a genetic imperative, therefore the lack of making a conscious choice is not proof of a genetic predisposition or a genetic imperative.

quote:

Here’s an idea! Let’s make a law that’s really strict, draconian and with some severe penalties for violating it. But, we’ll let law enforcement only selectively enforce it. And we’ll give a little wink and nod when judges ignore the sentencing requirement and give only a fraction of the penalty written into the law for those few the law is actually enforced on. Isn’t that a great idea? Doing this would allow us to “scare” criminals by the mere threat of such a law, while then allowing us to constantly show compassion in only selectively enforcing it and partially implementing it.

But there’d be a problem. Some people actually believe laws should be obeyed, and in order to make such a law strict enough it would have to criminalize what would normally be acceptable behavior. A lot of people wouldn’t have a problem with such a law, because they believe law, and morality for that matter, is something that should be an individual choice based of the convenience of the moment. But others, stubbornly hold on to the concept of a moral absolute, and the principle that a civilized society should have reasonable laws accompanied by reasonable enforcement. Under our proposed law, these people would find life very burdensome, because they would try to obey a law never actually intended to be obeyed.

Yes, eventually criminals would figure the law out, and adjust their response according to the actual consequence rather than the actual law, but we’d simply then make the law even more draconian to scare them even more. Maybe we could target a few people at random who’ve somehow violated the law (intentionally or unintentionally) punish them with lengthy, expensive trials, followed by lengthy prison sentences and outrageous fines, make a big deal about it in the press, throw parties for the law enforcement officers that brought down the scapegoats, er wanton criminals, toss out promotions to the “good guys” and scare the real bad guys into maybe not doing the thing we actually wanted them to not do in the first place. Sort of. Maybe. It should work. Right?

Welcome to American Legal Philosophy 101.

What I’ve described is actually how much of our laws are written. We’ve got all the immigration laws, yet they’re rarely enforced. We let repeat criminals stay in the country, while deporting people who grew up here, never being told they weren’t US citizens. Making scapegoats out of the innocent in hopes it might frighten they guilty, which we don’t prosecute. We don’t guard our borders, then the media accuses those that try on their own of being racists. We make laws requiring stricter sentencing on those who use guns when committing a crime, then selectively apply the new sentencing guidelines to railroad the few law enforcement officers who actually assumed they were supposed to do their jobs.

The pervasive attitude that laws are suggestions has created a climate of quasi-anarchy. We have speed limits, but they aren’t very seriously enforced. Most speed limits, therefore are placed at least 10mph slower than what they reasonably should be placed at, in hopes that it would slow drivers down in the absence of any realistic enforcement.

What’s ironic is that the real victims in all this are those who actually try to abide by the law, but these are laws that become increasingly ridiculous as the words of the law– rather than the enforcement– is used to deter criminals.

quote:

5 Questions Same-Sex marriage Advocates Refuse to Answer. And by refuse to answer we mean they will either change the subject, change the question or offer an answer so irrelevant and stupid, you wonder who they’re talking to.

Question #1. If we redefine marriage to include two men or two women, can we also redefine it to mean one man and 4 women? What about one man and a 12-year-old child?

They will either accuse you of the “Slippery Slope” fallacy (which is only a fallacy if the slope is an unreasonable conclusion, which in this case, it’s already happening) or they will claim children are unable to offer informed consent, and then call you a racist when you point out that they claim that same child can consent to an abortion. Truth is, many homosexual activists have made it clear that they want age-of-consent laws abolished. This is obviously bad PR, so the marketing people for the Gay Mafia has quieted down such demands, for now. So the real answer is, “Because we don’t want to let people know that this is part of our long term goal.”

Question #2. How will “allowing” same-sex marriage work without empowering the government to force states, counties, cities, businesses, churches and even individuals to accept it, against their will?

This is a question they ignore and generally offer a regurgitated chant that goes something like, “It’s about equal rights. It’s about equal protection. It’s about poached eggs. It’s about blehblehbleh bleh.” Anything to avoid actually answering the actual question actually asked. The truth is it’s impossible to implement same-sex marriage without handing much more power to the government to do so. Pretending it’s about “getting the government out of marriage” is complete nonsense, and we have more than enough evidence that those behind same-sex marriage want more government control over marriage, not less.

Question #3. Since every single legal aspect of marriage can be duplicated between any two people using already existing legal measures, the battle for same-sex marriage boils down to nothing more than redefining the term “marriage” and the argument becomes, why would we refuse homosexuals the right to be “happy”. Are you really saying that homosexuals are only happy when they are allowed to force society to redefine words (like “gay” and now “marriage”)?

Again, this will cause them to spew the same regurgitated responses they do for Question #2. I mean, it’s like watching a frog jump when poked with a needle. Oh, they’ll maybe throw in some pathetic mention of “separate but equal” but when you point out that using that argument means Black people can never achieve equality until they are allowed to call themselves white, they’ll respond with—of course—an accusation of racism.

Question #4. If homosexuals cannot achieve happiness unless they are allowed to redefine terms, isn’t that a rather stark condemnation of the psychological well-being of homosexuals?

Be careful because this may actually cause their heads to explode. You’ll definitely be called a lot of names as they search for some response in order to evade the raw, naked truth of this question. Homosexuality was only removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders after the APA board was packed with pro-homosexual activists, making it a political decision, not a medical one. The pretense that homosexuality is not a mental disorder continues to this day, and has been “augmented” with the horrible myth that it’s a lifelong condition that they can never, ever escape.

5. If a group of people declared that they can only be happy is they are allowed to redefine racial titles, allowing them to legally be recognized as any race they choose to declare themselves to be, would you favor allowing that? If not, why?

They’ll of course, claim it’s not the same thing, but they’ll flounder trying to explain why it’s not the same thing. But it is the exact same thing. I want to be considered Jewish so I’ll have the government force all food manufacturers and restaurants to use the new definition of kosher, that includes all the foods I like, but aren’t actually kosher. It’ll be about my freedom, after all. Aren’t they doing this very same with gender? They are trying to force society to accept that a person’s gender is whatever they say it is, at the moment, so get out of the way while we go watch your little girl in the bathroom, bigot.

quote:

A while back one of my sons commented that it was Hispanic Heritage Month. He noticed that there seems to be only a select few “heritages” that get a month, and asked me if there was an “Asian Heritage Month”. I explained that since Asian-Americans as a group tend to have higher than average income and manage to get into the better colleges in greater proportion than their percentage of the population, they tend to be ignored as a cultural group. Jews seem to have the same problem. Their success is deemed a disqualifier for recognition of their contributions to the history of the nation. It makes no sense why their culture, heritage and contributions would be any less than other groups simply because they have a better comprehension of how to utilize the opportunities available to all Americans, but that is how some feel they should be treated. What is observed during Jewish-American Heritage Month (May) is holocaust awareness, important, but hardly the sum total of Jewish heritage or contributions to American society. So why observe only some or part of some heritages? The cruelty of condescension masquerading as charity

Dick Gregory commented in his biography about one of his more painful memories as a child.

There was shame in going to the Worthy Boys Annual Christmas Dinner for you and your kind, because everybody knew what a worthy boy was. Why couldn’t they just call it the Boys Annual Dinner, why’d they have to give it a name? There was shame in wearing the brown and orange and white plaid mackinaw the welfare gave to 3,000 boys. Why’d it have to be the same for everybody so when you walked down the street the people could see you were on relief?

It seems obvious that if Heritage Months are handed out to only those cultural groups Liberals feel are “oppressed” then it isn’t really an honor as much as a condescending trinket that serves the ultimate purpose of making some people feel more smug about themselves for giving the “unfortunate” and few pennies, rather than stopping to see what they actually need. What they don’t need is for their heritage to be treated as some pitiful thing to be gushed over as someone would ooh and ah at a 3-year-old’s crayon drawing.

What it boils down to are the two views of American culture and society.

For a long time most Americans saw our nation as a melting pot. Immigrants would come, expecting to blend into the culture at large, but also adding to the overall distinctiveness of our culture. Gennaro Lombardi came to America from Italy. He learned our language and adopted our way of living, but, he contributed to our culture. In the early part of the 20th century he started selling one of his favorite foods he’d enjoyed in Italy. It was so well liked, he expanded and others began making it too. Lombardi introduced pizza to America, and it’s now become almost a national icon. But pizza remains pizza, so the melting pot imagery is not all that accurate.

A mulligan stew is a dish made from whatever is handy. The ingredients vary depending on what’s available. A good cook can make a mulligan stew taste pretty good. I’ve tried my hand at it myself a few times. It’s a fun exercise for anyone who feels they have the culinary talent.

The Mulligan Stew approach sees people as ingredients, flavoring the over all culture. Each contributing culture adds their own flavor to produce a result that brings out the best of all those contributing. If part of the culture an immigrant brings with them is good enough, it saturates the whole, just as Lombardi’s pizza is now an inextricable part of American culture. Our letters are Roman, our numbers are Arabic, our weekdays are Norse. Our breakfasts are African (cous-cous, Americanized as Cream-of-Wheat), Scottish (oatmeal, which used to be called porridge). Our other meals have origins that span the globe. Even our language is a collection of the most useful words we could find from every culture imaginable. (That’s why English tends to be one of the hardest languages to learn, the patterns are so inconsistent). Our music combines the best of Europe as well as Africa. The marriage of classical music and jazz brought about the songs we still listen to from the 60s, 70s and 80s. But it all—food, music, language, everything—flows together to make a versatile, thriving culture of its own.

But some time back some people decided they didn’t like that idea. They didn’t want to be open to accepting change from other cultures. They wanted walls, boundaries, fences to keep other cultures from “polluting” what they felt was their own. They believed America should be more like a smorgasbord, where each dish was kept separate, served separate and eaten separate. They envisioned an America full of cultural bubbles, each clearly separated from others. To make that concept more palatable they called it “multiculturalism” to pretend it was open to all cultures and hide the reality that its purpose was to maintain the separation of cultures. The problem is, the result is actually not a true smorgasbord, but only the illusion of one. As cultural bubbles are created and boundaries enforced, the choice that is the key element of a smorgasbord vanishes.

Now we see the result of the division caused by the “multiculturalism” mindset. As they created cultural bubbles, they then began to punish those that wouldn’t go along. The reason Asians and Jews thrive? They blend, while maintaining enough of a cultural distinctiveness to be able to offer the benefits of it to the population at large. But that’s not good “multiculturalism”. Bubbles can’t blend. And so we have no Asian Heritage month or Jewish Heritage Month that actually acknowledge all of Jewish heritage.

Our battle with insane immigration policies and enforcement is a result of the conflict of cultural views. Since illegal immigrants rarely join the culture at large, the “multiculturalists” see them as no threat. But the rest of us see a segregated group that is robbed of the best of what America has to offer, because it’s become too easy for them to sneak in than enter legally. The legal route encourages blending, the illegal route discourages it. So is there any wonder Liberals are so opposed to enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?

We only thought we won the fight to end segregation, but the segregationists simply changed its name—to multiculturalism.

quote:

Corporations keep getting bigger. Some have their own fleets of aircraft, ships, and sometimes even submarines.

At the same time, the more problematic countries - in terms of spawning terrorism - are the ones that are shrinking, both in population and GDP. Syria is smaller now. Afghanistan and Iraq are smaller.

At some point I believe it is inevitable that a corporation will go to war with a small, terror-spawning country.

It isn’t legal, you say? Bah. A big corporation can do almost anything it wants by creating shell companies in other countries, using proxies, doing things in secret, bribing governments, and that sort of thing. The law won’t stop any of this. Nor will any government necessarily want to stop it, assuming the corporation is fighting a terrorist state or group.

You might think a corporation would not put the rest of its employees and their families in jeopardy across the globe by declaring war against some group of terrorists, pirates, or corrupt small government. But corporations are sneaky. You wouldn’t necessarily know who the parent company is or the name of even one employee.

That’s the secret sauce for fighting terror. If a big nation attacks terrorists, it can put the homeland at risk. And that means you have to do a measured response. Doing otherwise pisses off even your allies. Winning against terror by being the bigger evil can backfire in the long run.

Sooner or later the bad guys will get better weapons, thanks to technology and miniaturization. If all we do is keep wounding terrorists at the same time we give them our home address, we don’t have winning plan.

This is where a private company comes in. Imagine a secret corporation formed by one hundred founders, each from a different country, and each with a secret identity. Now imagine them with a hundred billion dollars, the best technology money can buy, no voters to placate, no international blow-back risk, and no home base to defend. It’s a virtual corporation, with unlabeled and disguised assets around the globe. The corporation takes its strategy from the terrorists themselves. You can’t kill who you can’t find.

Now let’s consider the future of war robots. My guess is that we could build a “robot attack swarm” with today’s technology. Imagine: A drone spots some bad guys in ISIS territory and an overwhelming mass of small but deadly robots swarm in that direction, by ground and air, and just shoot everything that registers a human heat signature. The entity controlling the robots takes no casualties, and no one is sure of the identity or nationality of the people managing the robots.

What I am describing is all criminal, of course, much the way piracy on the open seas is illegal. Keep in mind that the reason piracy is such a problem is that it isn’t anyone’s specific job to stop it. So imagine a private corporation going to war with the enemies of your country. Would you reelect a politician that used your tax money to stop the enemy of your enemy?

As long as the hypothetical secret corporation is somewhat transparent about its intent to kill bad guys, and it reported its progress in a credible way, I think the democratic governments of the world would have minimal voter support to stop it. And the dictator countries would just enjoy watching the show.

The big risk, obviously, is that no matter who starts the secret corporation it will be seen as an American invention, or it will involve American-made technology, or imagined American funding, so there will still be blow-back. But I think the hypothetical corporation could do enough corporate “marketing” to sell itself as a legitimate independent force over time. That’s what corporations do. I don’t own six Apple devices because I want to. I own them because Apple made me buy them. Corporations do marketing better than democratic governments.

If you think corporations will never go to war with terrorist countries, I would argue that perhaps it has already happened with Sony and North Korea. We don’t know the details, and probably never will, but at the very least you can see it might have happened. That’s what gave me the idea for this post.

In my opinion, there is a 100% chance you will see a private corporation go to war with a small country, and win, within twenty years.

Obviously there’s a risk to the world when a private company builds its own robot army and learns how to use it. But that sort of army wouldn’t threaten a traditional government that has air superiority and more. At least not right away. I will concede there is a big risk here. But our current plan of wounding our enemies and giving them our home address at the same time seems risky too.

On a related note, when terrorists killed French newspaper folks it changed the game. We media professionals just went from attempting to be objective to, well, gently caress it. Most of us won’t admit it, but now it’s personal. The only thing keeping ISIS-held territory from turning into a giant fireball is that American citizens haven’t demanded it of their government. If you believe the media drives public opinion, and it probably does, ISIS has a new and bigger problem now. Goodbye measured response. I can’t speak for anyone else in the media, but I’m all in now.

But I won’t be getting humorous about the founder of Islam because I would see that as an insult to Muslims who were minding their own business. I’m not a believer, but I’ve evolved to be pro-religion because I observe religion to be a functional interface to a reality our brains aren’t designed to understand.

Fulchrum posted:

This week at work I had to explain to a coworker what the helldump is. That was weird.

Anyway:

THIS WEEK IN LL 101! (Pt. 1)



Why won't those unelectable bozos like Bush get out of the way of TRUE winners like Cruz and Carson? And of course, blaming the democrats for their own party being full of morons.

Dr. Faustus posted:

I spent far too many nights lying in bed the night before school just doing multiplication tables in my head out of pure fear and anxiety. T

Goatman Sacks posted:

Did you try not being stupid? Because that seemed to work for me w/r/t this problem

Fulchrum posted:

Also, this isn't part of the helldump, but I found this this week, and its insane. Its from Scott Adams.


The only way we can defeat ISIS, is if we literally make SPECTRE. I forsee NO WAY this could backfire.

Fulchrum posted:

The big risk, obviously, is that no matter who starts the secret corporation it will be seen as an American invention, or it will involve American-made technology, or imagined American funding, so there will still be blow-back.

Fulchrum posted:

L: The only arguments against same-sex marriage are religious.
C: First of all, there are plenty of arguments against it that have nothing at all to do with religion. Second, what you are calling “religious arguments” are to demonstrate that individuals have sincere, religious objections to same-sex marriage and therefore making laws that force them to accept it would be unconstitutional. Third, that legalizing same-sex marriage would force the religious views of a minority on the majority that opposes those views is unconstitutional. Fourth, legalizing same-sex marriage would require granting additional power to an already power-mad government. Fifth, legalizing same-sex marriage would be the first step in broadening the definition of marriage to the point that it would ultimately mean nothing, and we already have examples of people wanting this done, and people who freely admit that they oppose the institution of marriage.

L: Gays should have equal rights to marry
C: First of all, they do, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals. Second, since a homosexual relationship is not the same as a heterosexual relationship, on may levels, claiming their right to marry someone of the same gender is not asking for equality. You are, in essence, asking for apples to be called oranges.

L: By denying gays the right to marry you are forcing your religious view on them.
C: First of all homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. Second, there are numerous arguments against same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion. Third, the only way same-sex marriage can be made legal is if the Federal government is empowered to force compliance upon every state, county, city, business, church and individual, so legalizing same-sex marriage would be forcing the religious views of Liberals and some homosexuals (not all favor SSM) on the rest of the nation.

L: Marriage predates Christianity, so Christians have no right claiming the word.
C: First, notice how “religion” has now become “Christianity” in spite of the fact that most world religions view marriage as between a man and a woman. Second, there is no evidence that the concept of marriage predates the concept of religion. Third, most Americans, not just Christians, oppose redefining marriage.

Fulchrum posted:

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

He didn't publish the drawing he made of a giant spider tank bristling with guns, each with a continuous stream of bullets firing in every direction.

Mo_Steel posted:

Hmmm....



http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

More worried about the far-right attacks than the Christian ones myself, though there may be overlap there in some instances.

Dr. Faustus posted:

And I *hated* it.
Timed multiplication table drills. You have a paper with a grid of multiplication problems, and like 60 seconds to solve them all. If you didn't finish in time, you felt incredibly stupid.
I spent far too many nights lying in bed the night before school just doing multiplication tables in my head out of pure fear and anxiety. That was either 3rd or 4th grade I think (that's hazy, but the memory of those drills is not).

In the end, it worked. On the other hand, if there was a better way I wish I had been taught it instead.

Poizen Jam posted:

C'mon Mo, you know they'd say 'Our chart is terrorist attacks throughout the world'/'Your chart doesn't account for the deadliness of attacks'.

The reality is when a far-right white Christian commits an act of terror, it's just dismissed as a lone nut.

quote:

L: Homosexual behavior is evident in hundreds, if not thousands, of species, proving that it’s natural.
C: Then it would be no problem at all for you to list one, single example of an animal, in normal health, that has demonstrated long-term sexual actions towards the same sex, that are not typical dominance behavior. Keywords there are “NORMAL HEALTH”, “SEXUAL ACTIONS”, “LONG-TERM”, “NOT DOMINANCE BEHAVIOR”. See the “studies” you’ve been told that show rampant homosexuality among animals include non-sexual bonding (not homosexual), dominance behavior (not homosexual), sporadic behavior (not homosexuality) and /or animals suffering from either a physical problem or some form of stress (not homosexual). When you weed out all those, you have no examples at all.

Twelve by Pies posted:

"After I've disqualified every example of homosexuality in animals, there's no examples left of homosexuality in animals! CHECKMATE LIBERALS. "

Idran posted:

I'm curious, who's the one far-left terrorist group in that infographic? Some ecoterrorist group? (Or would they be categorized under "single issue"?) Because I've never heard of any far-left groups that have tried to attack the US.

VideoTapir posted:

Multiplication tables aren't just a way to quickly do multiplication in your head; they are also a tool for demonstrating how multiplication is related to addition, thus allowing you to build on that skill. Whether you realized it or not, you probably were doing that.

Also, fluency in basic operations is a good predictor of future success in math (probably because you'll be less likely to get frustrated an quit), which is another reason to push tables really hard; and it's also the reason they had you do those one minute drills. They weren't really for you to practice, though that was a bonus. They were for the teacher to see if you were improving fast enough. If you weren't, you should have gotten additional help.