WhoSaidWhat

Registered bored user

whosaidwhat wrote:
First, hopefully, the stall doors here actually hide the stall. Most bathroom stall doors leave gaps between the edges of the door and the door frame. I've seen some that have almost an inch of space on either side of the door.

Second, isn't it actually illegal in the US to have a CCTV camera in a bathroom? I know this one isn't actually IN the bathroom, but it certainly has a very clear view of the interior of it.

Third, these stall doors almost certainly have a means of unlatching the door from the outside. Want to talk about bullying? How about when some girl gets pissed off at another, sees her go into a stall, waits until she is exposed, then unlatches and opens the door? Yes, the offender will probably get caught and punished, due to the camera, but the damage will have already been done. There will be pictures of the victim on the internet, possibly with exposed genitalia, before the end of the school day.
whosaidwhat wrote:
This proves what? That computers are better at predicting spatial paths and speeds that humans are? Wow, what a news flash! Still, the message that Omron was actually trying to convey (what computers and robotics are capable of) does come through loud and clear. Pretty neat, and I wouldn't mind a try against it myself.
whosaidwhat wrote:
monkwarrior So what labs are you referring to? Name them.
whosaidwhat wrote:
5cats Your own posts in this thread seem to say that a Republican started it....
whosaidwhat wrote:
mischeif954 You totally misunderstand my point here. Its not that I believe that "the N word" should be thrown about freely; its that I have a problem with the double standard. If I were to tell you that you, as a black man (don't know your actual race, just an example), are not allowed to use the word "superlative", simply due to the color of your skin, but that its ok for me, a white man, to use it, would that not be racism? How is this any different? That is my one and only point: stop the double standard. If black people don't want "the N word" to be used, then they should stop using it, too! In fact, Merriam-Webster defines racism, in part, as "DISCRIMINATION or hatred based on race". Telling me that I am not allowed to use a word because of the color of my skin is discrimination, is it not? No, I don't use "the N word" myself, and I personally hate hearing it. I'm not advocating for its "free use"; just for an end to the double standard.
whosaidwhat wrote:
skeeter01 No, the problem here is that you are on board with a clear double standard. My "very simple definition of racism" is actually correct. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of racism is, in part, "DISCRIMINATION or hatred based on race". If you tell me that I am not allowed to use a certain word, or be in a certain place, or perform a certain action, based entirely upon my skin color, is that not discrimination? 
whosaidwhat wrote:
daegog No, no it certainly doesn't. Once again, if I am forbidden to say or do something due to my race, that is classic racism. Period. I don't care how you try to spin it, its still racism. Merriam-Webster, in part, defines racism as "DISCRIMINATION or hatred based on race". If you tell me that I am not allowed to use a certain word, or perform a certain action, or be in a certain place, due to the color of my skin, is that not discrimination? Or do you honestly believe that only people of color can be discriminated against?
whosaidwhat wrote:
Very nice!
whosaidwhat wrote:
kalron27 Dusseldorf, Germany. Yeah, thats some pretty extreme wind shear. Guy was lucky as FUCK, considering that his touchdown wasn't exactly correct for the conditions.
whosaidwhat wrote:
boredhuman And thats my point. Some of both scenarios are happening, but we are all ignoring the ones that show a cooling trend, just like you just did.
whosaidwhat wrote:
boredhuman "Don't rely on alarmists - rely on scientists for information."

But in most cases, the scientists ARE the alarmists!
whosaidwhat wrote:
mischeif954 I'll tell you the same thing I just told Daegog. If I am not allowed to say something because of the color of my skin, and ONLY because of the color of my skin, that is racism. Prove me wrong.
whosaidwhat wrote:
daegog I was talking about the original subject the whole time. You are the one who got off on a tangent. Let me give you a very simple definition of racism. If I am not allowed to say something because of the color of my skin, and ONLY because of the color of my skin, that is racism. Your turn. Prove me wrong.
whosaidwhat wrote:
monkwarrior Desperation? Yes, you do seem to be getting pretty desperate now. My question at this point is, are you trying to convince me, or yourself? Now, lets start using your circular logic again. What labs are you referring to?
whosaidwhat wrote:
daegog Please do explain how it is bad for one group to do something, but ok for another to do it. Hell, why don't we let some people legally commit murder? What would be the difference?
whosaidwhat wrote:
I agree that some gender barriers NEED to be broken down, such as "only males make good mechanics", or "only females make good nurses". If you are good at, and like, a particular job, then do it, no matter what "gender norms" have to say about it. Everyt  time I see a woman performing a traditionally male-dominated job, I always think, "good for her!" However, trying to teach a child that they have no gender is just plain ignorant. Why not try to teach them that they don't actually have hands, or that the sky is red, or some other stupid, easily disprovable nonsense?
whosaidwhat wrote:
toetagmodel2 Depends. What are their school's rules of conduct? If it specifically mention not using racist remarks and the like, then, yes, they will have consequences to face for this. "Free speech" or not, there still may be consequences. Have you recently tried screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded public place when there was no fire? Try it, and let me know how your "free speech" defense works for you.
whosaidwhat wrote:
daegog Knee twitching much?
whosaidwhat wrote:
dm2754 It depends, based upon one's race. Its ok for blacks to say the "N" word, but not for whites to say it. Does anyone else realize just how racist that really is? If its racist for one group to say it, then its racist for EVERYONE to say it.
whosaidwhat wrote:
boredhuman But thats the problem! One room heated up by 20F, while the other cooled by more like 25F, but we call it "warming". See the confusion now?
whosaidwhat wrote:
barry9a Then why are we still calling it Anthropogenic Global WARMING? Why is every single blurb about it in the new referring directly to WARMING? Sorry for the apparent disbelief, but when the alarmists can't even get their own story straight, or agree with one another, is it a small wonder that people don't believe them?
whosaidwhat wrote:
monkwarrior Right, because of cardboard planes being flown into snow towers, in VERY high-tech laboratories. SCIENCE!!!
whosaidwhat wrote:
5cats Ok, so I slightly misquoted you there. Replace "Trump" with "the GOP", if it makes you feel better. That still doesn't change the fact that you are trying to claim that if I start beating you up, but someone else finishes the job, I get off scott-free. For that matter, by your reasoning, if several of us get in a line, and all take turns beating on you, only the last person is liable for what everyone else did. You yourself said that the GOP is not to blame for what happened, because the DNC paid for it in the end.
whosaidwhat wrote:
thezigrat Never heard of it, but I'll keep an eye out for it.
whosaidwhat wrote:
Roland I tend to agree, I was just using Skynet as an example. My original statement still stands: the most important question isn't always "can we", but rather "should we".