rustynails

A "bummer" is a slang term for a gay man. I haven't heard that for about 30 years. I wouldn't have linked the two meanings until the controversy was mentioned.

>I agree that in 2015, there should be a solution in making a farmland productive without even to burn it

We may be discussing slightly different points here. In Australia, we control bush land (including farm land) by controlled burning.

It releases nutrients back to the soil. It stops build up of plant matter which can become dangerous and cause extreme bushfires.

I am not aware of a better solution than controlled burning that is cost effective. I was told that it's like several smaller natural bush fires than 1 big uncontrollable fire, so the environmental impact (eg. Smoke) is not increased. However seed pods of wildlife are preserved in smaller fires but destroyed in bigger fires.

It's not all doom and gloom, there's still confirmation that environment and drug addiction are linked. Here's a link to the rat park experiment that touches on this topic, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Smoking has been around for about 5000 years, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smoking

It may be the impact to others that gave smoking it's stigma compared to alcohol. Smoke drifts through the air and leaves a pungent smell in clothing. For non-smokers, this can be far more impacting than alcohol when both substances are consumed in moderation.

The revenue was lost. Look at legal web sites. There is a specific vocabulary. The language you are using is from what I call "Mcadonalds Journalism" sites who have a vested interest in vilifying anyone who infringes. By politicising the language, these sites use emotive language to sway your views. I'm sure these are articles on this. It's similar to yellow journalism.

A different angle is to look at what is accepted in a court of law. Laws do not consider copying/infringement to be stealing. I know some people who say gunna (I was gunna do it). However, that doesn't make it correct. So, usage is not a measure of validity either. Most online dictionaries exclude steal/theft being linked to infringement/copyright.

The winners write the history books. In effect, popular knowledge of WWII often differs from the truth. The German losses on the Eastern front (while known but rarely spoken of) are one example. However, to counter that view slightly, America's late arrival may have tipped the scales against Germany anyway.

My Grandfather fought with the Australian army. While not often spoken about, he referred to the the blind eye of the mass rapes in Germany -after- the war that most of the allies turned a blind eye to, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_o...

Also, this is a link that provides a summary of many murder campaigns by numerous countries, http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_east.html

Or, for those wanting a well documented and extreme view of how bad humanity can be, research Nanking during WWII. I won't provide a link but you have been warned.

We tend to have a very blinkered view of WWII. While most of the truth is known, it is rarely spoken about, misrepresented or ignored. On that basis, the original headline contains truth.

This is quite a poor article. I'm surprised it made it here. "Just like that, most of Reddit went quiet." I'm not a big reddit user, but I never noticed that. Most discussions I am interested in are still going.

Also, the word "misogynist" is one of my litmus tests - it usually indicates prejudice by the author. Most people here have translated that term to sexist but it is usually used to imply "the comments are negative and directed at women". I usually find such articles stereotype men in a negative way (ie. The people who use this term are often hypocritical).

I believe there is much more to it than meets the eye. For example, a culture that biased hiring based on gender/skin colour encourages hiring and protecting of incompetent staff. My wife dislikes one (one) of her female colleagues because she's incompetent and protected (ala political correctness). This red forces the notion of incompetence.

When I go to Asia, I may be given preferential treatment, I may not be. I have also been treated badly - other locals apologised and excused those people as racist, and I would agree.

There are many shades of distinction in these discussions. The link to Julie Ann's Article strict me as superficial, anecdotal and selective in its assessments. Like the "black doll vs white doll" tests, these are a very flimsy basis to make an assessment. How did the children go with black vs white covered books? What about black vs white rocks?

Q: why is everyone saying white man when it should be white person? I think that statement says a lot about how people think.

Or, watch the Google Science Fair awards for 2015. The Bolivian teacher that won an award said she supported "girls", I assumed it was a girls school until i saw a glimpse of a boy momentarily. No one blinked an eye, but my first thought was "how do those poor boys feel being ostracised like that, especially when it's done on purpose". That's political correctness says it's fine to discriminate against boys. Thankfully, other than one slip up by a Google employee (who corrected herself quickly), it was well balanced across genders and nationalities.

Speaking of political correctness, who do people tolerate women's rights? It's just another excuse for sexism. I support the rights of all people (which encapsulates men and women). If you want a level playing field, you have to think beyond gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, etc. when we stop terms like women's rights, I know we've progressed beyond political correctness. I can't wait for that day.

There's one problem with that philosophy. You can pay for a product and still be the product. If a product wants your information, there's a pretty good chance it will be sold to 3rd parties. Windows 10 is a good example. It's trying to catch up with Facebook and Google with its new data sharing policies, even though you pay for the product. At least the setting were in 1 place.

Another aspect is parents. My wife and I had strong arguments about our child. She refused to accept our child had a problem because she has similar traits. If a parent can't look past their own faults, therapy will not make a difference. It wasn't until a few brave souls approached me that I had a basis to engage my wife that it wasn't me making it up. She misdiagnosed many things on the journey.

I feel the need to clarify something. In most ways, my wife is amazing. Very strong willed, clever, independent. She is the only partner I could work with as an equal. As we've worked things through for our child, she's benefitted in many ways too. Not surprisingly, my child's behaviour is like my father in law.

These were certainly important points of the article. However, it was a shotgun blast that covered much more, incompetent medical profession, inconsistent terminology causing confusion, stonewalls for patients diagnosed with autism, etc. it tried to capture too much in too little space.

This article is a very mixed bag, as you pointed out. The author clearly went down his brother's rabbit hole - very narrowly focussed and coming to a set of conclusions. I did a similar thing with my child and probably still do.

I consider my child to be an Aspergers. Very bright (98th and 99th percentile in almost all areas measured under WISC, or the Weschler Scale). Along with it came violence and a lack of empathy and poor social skills. I was at (or called by) the school almost 5 days a week for behaviour issues before diagnosis.

Like the author of the article, most people I spoke to left me feeling they knew nothing, until I found an Occupational Therapist (someone who considers environmental factors that impact an individual).

We've ended up with a reasonable success story after 3 years of intense focus. It could be time, management or both that made the difference.

There are too many things to rebut in this article. Yes, it's an industry where the overwhelming majority seem clueless beyond diagnosis. Spectrum is used elsewhere to describe one attribute varying: get over it - here, it describes a variation of behaviours and symptoms, a simple model to aid discussions. I am sure many types of autism can not be cured. It's not a disease because in many cases, it requires management/therapy to lead a normal life (as per my child). I would not call that political correctness, just common sense.

I'm not going to reread the article to critique on more detail as it was too fragmented and too negative. However, if you are starting out as a family member of someone with autism, I do not recommend this article in the early days. Find someone who can do more than diagnose symptoms: you need someone with suggestions. Most experts will bamboozle with double speak of promises and uncertainty. The ones that I found who knew their stuff pinpointed solutions in 1 session. I found 2 experts that I had confidence in.

According to Wikipedia, the issue is with (low frequency, active) LFA sonar.

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

I read somewhere it's about 240db. For reference, a jackhammer at about 1m (3.3ft away) is 130db and is classified as Painful for humans,

http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/

I am not knowledgeable on acoustics, let alone acoustic dissipation or acoustics in water - but I can see logic behind the argument that LFA sonar causes a problem for whales.

There are a number of fundamental points you fail to comprehend or address in your posting. The article does a much better job in this regard.

The article talks about Peru, so for the moment, let's scope to that. According to the article, Peru's crimes tend not to be violent, yet the vigilantes can be. Some of the cases described appear to show a lack of restraint - consistent with mob mentality. Also, if the mob is wrong? Nobody cares.

Now let's extend this to places that are actually violent. Organised crime run the show. They could easily pay/manipulate these groups to do their dirty work. Anyone who threatens the organisation will have themself and their relatives killed, so the hardened criminals remain protected. Lawlessness still reigns supreme. Now, you may argue that it's difficult to track the orchestrator (which isn't hard). But, if it were, they make a statement by killing people randomly who may have contributed. Organised crime will not tolerate these vigilantes. Violence begets more violence.

What's also missing in your argument is peaceful protest. You assume violence is the only option. Think of Gandhi.

I'm not sure if your comment attacking moralistic people is a dig at political correctness. I support any constructive criticism of political correctness (and there are many valid criticisms), but morality? I'm assuming you've lost something in translation. The world you talk of and are willing to tolerate sounds like the antithesis of my world.

Amazing vision is true. Narcissist is true. Compassionate and Steve Jobs don't belong in the same sentence. He rejected his own daughter for many years - but he secretly admitted it (the Lisa computer). Pirates of Silicon Valley + feedback from Woz + Gates on the movie is worthwhile to understand Steve, as is Issacson's biography on Steve Jobs. I have very mixed feelings on the man.

That's a fantastic comment and example. Know your answer. Ask the question. I also highly respect Pixar's model - encourage collaboration and feedback between peers. I'm managing a team at the moment. We are a democratic group. I mostly ask Questions to steer toward success. The team (mostly women) are empowered to own, experiment, share and collaborate. It's been a fantastic experience. Interestingly, when we started, there was a lot of sass about gender superiority - but that's gone away since I expressed several times that we are all people, no other attitude will be tolerated.

The reddit link is to a men's movement forum, so expect conspiracy theory and misinformation to be rife - it goes with the territory ... And feminism suffers from the same problem. Any prejudiced movement will suffer from victim mentality and reality distortion. That's not saying that sexism doesn't exist - but "taking a gender preference" leads to bias in one's views and ultimately creates more prejudice from those who believe in a gender superiority. The best solution is to think of everyone as people. Only accept a gender difference if it's essential. For example, avoid giving jobs based on gender as many companies do today ... Unless there is an absolute need, doing so is sexist (and quotas/targets to reach 50% are almost always sexist).

As someone with many gay friends, I find your comment totally unhelpful and antagonistic (you are trying to provoke a war but the benefit you seek is unclear. I'm aware of something I call "gay arrogance" that you might be exhibiting). Most people I know, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual want to make a statement about their sexuality. There are many hang ups in the gay community and as much prejudice as I see in the heterosexual community (breeders anyone??). To assume that homosexuality gives one some special exemption from hang ups is false. There is no more tolerance (it's just different tolerance). So, why are almost ALL people hung up about sex? Power, recognition, ego, self-definition. True story: I've upset gay friends kissing them on the cheek in public because they don't want to look gay - they tell me that I wouldn't understand. I'm very comfortable with my preferences, so it doesn't bother me.

That's a it it. Hoist, buy yank quickly. It also has a different meaning that came back to me,

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=golly&defid=6...

To hoik a golly. I last heard that in the 70s. Not so charming...

Only if unsupervised. It's very easy to underestimate how quickly things can change.

On a slightly more positive note, this is a clip from BBCs Fantastic The Human Body. It talks about and shows the natural abilities of babies to swim at a very early age. If you're politically correct/sensitive, you may want to skip it. It does show genitals. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fbSCSHzXkrI

The bonuses are awarded at the boss' discretion. If s/he didn't like her, there would be a bias against her. It's no different in social circles, discussion forums, etc. it's not necessarily performance or knowledge that gets the kudos. So, it's very likely she was being overlooked because the boss didn't like of respect her. I am making no comment or judgement on her.

I'm going to break something to you - work, recognition and pay is a popularity contest in many organisations. Someone who is seen as a trouble maker gets alienated quickly, regardless of talent, skin colour, gender or looks. I have managed a few large teams (100+ people). My observations were: - gender was not a factor in income, nor was race - but being one of the "players" was important (regardless of competency) - performance appraisals were popularity contests (ratings were often changed or negotiated with senior management) - people that caused trouble (regardless of gender, race) were ostracised. Language was also a major barrier, or cliques that established for one reason or another. They usually worked against the culture management tried to create and were seen as a threat. - good people were nearly always paid well, unless they pissed the wrong people off.

So Colin spoke the truth (as far as I can tell). It is very hard to change a bad culture unless the person at the top is committed to it. I fought a number of injustices and was kicked in the balls many times (metaphorically of course). You learn what you can and can't get away with or end up on the outer - truth be damned. I was often respected for my principles but seen as foolhardy for my commitment to truth. From my experience, gender and race is no basis for judging decent & compassionate management either. I worked with some brutal men and women over the years. It doesn't take Einstein to sort the Wheat from the chaff, people normally knew - although terms like "makes stuff happen", "doesn't take prisoners", "hard ass" were some alternate names for these brutal types. I can't speak for all work environments, but I've seen hundreds of salaries and appraisals over the years. I can not guarantee my experience reflects the broader world of business.

The science behind the movie was very clever. What has disappointed me is that Disney/Pixar keep on pushing the sexism gambit in their movies. This movie wasn't as bad as some of their others, but they are Consistently failing to address gender in a balanced way. Does anyone male in this movie do/say anything good? What about Frozen? The stupid (Wessleton) and nasty (Hans) are only male. Brave? Same thread. The kings/Princes are all obnoxious and/or stupid. Wreck-it-Ralph : Kowalski strikes Ralph across the face as a show of might and it's meant to be funny (ie. The modern assertive woman who bashes men as "humour") Several of the tinkerbell movies where ratchet & clank are the typical stupid males (and in most of them, they are almost the only males). To be fair. They do portray the southern belle as a dimwitted hick too, which is the stupid southerner prejudice emanating from the U.S. civil war. However, they did a great job with Tangled and Princess and the frog - there's a much better gender balance in those movies. It's a shame. You take your kids to see a supposedly family friendly movie and you cringe at the sexism that is pushed by the writers and directors. Do you just shrug it off, wondering if this prejudice won't rub off on your kids - or do you highlight the sexism to your kids and ask how a large studio could be so consistent in their bias, despite their deep attention to the science. I can't help feel there is more sexism and more conscious sexism than there has ever been. It really makes me sad.

I apologise if this sounds bad, because it is. Maybe there's some truth to the "Germany should show compassion like the allies did".

To quote, "he Allies also confiscated large amounts of German intellectual property (patents and copyrights, but also trademarks).[27] Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years the US pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany"

Reference here, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_indu...

If you do the research, the U.S. Leveraged a similar deal over the UK to obtain all patents royalty free as an incentive to enter WWII.

There may be some leverage that can be applied. These corporate and IP raids netted the U.S. hundreds of trillions of dollars.

I was first devastated when I first found this out. It reminded me that the line between the "goodies" and "baddies" was not so clear.

Your assessment is unfair. I'm not from Perth and have no vested interest in defending it. The article is typical journalism. Perth blows no more smoke than anywhere else. The only place in Australia that could be accused of the arrogance you talk of is Victoria (nicknamed "France 2nd" for a good reason). Perth now isn't exactly a shining example of journalism. It's one of the lowest quality publications in Australia. Adelaide's advertiser is probably the worst. ABC News or The Australian probably the best.

"Marriage is about a contract between individuals" Interestingly, I view it as the exact opposite. My wife and I knew of our bond together. I got married only because it was a public recognition of that bond. It was to share that bond with friends and family. It did not change our relationship or commitment at all.

As to the legal situation many have mentioned, that could have easily been covered by a will for us. It may vary by country, but a will and defacto status offer the same protection in some parts of the world. I sought legal advice when I considered my options of marriage because marriage means little to me. I think its significance to a couple's commitment is highly over rated.

I struggle to understand people's language quite often. For example, you say that you won't work with people who discriminate against gay people. Why caveat that? Is it that you're happy to work with people who discriminate against other criteria other than sexual orientation? I usually find this language reflects how a person thinks, eg. I am gay; therefore, I only care about discrimination against gays. There is no benefit in your caveat (as far as I can see). It does, however, open up a myriad of other issues. Eg. To discriminate is to choose. Also, one of my favourite chestnuts: positive discrimination is negative discrimination against others. Eg. "I must hire someone who is ____" is the same as "I won't hire someone who isn't _____ regardless of experience, certification". This logic has always baffled me.