If men didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. Women DO NOT rebuild car engines.
Please direct your statement to Elizabeth of Windsor, who worked as a mechanic during the war. You can reach her via the Web site of Buckingham Palace, where she works as the current monarch of the United Kingdom. I would suggest you ask a second opinion of Dame Margaret Thatcher, former attorney and Prime Minister, but she is alas no longer available.
Perhaps you should ask Oprah or a woman scientist to study you, or ask one of these women for their opinions, because I would enjoy seeing their reaction to your comments:
Also, please ask these women if they are part of a bgamall conspiracy. Pay careful attention to their arms, which appear to be engaged in working on some sort of engine.
iwog, go back and read your own statement. The fact that taxi drivers are more likely to be male does not render women incapable of that job. You seem to be caught up in your oppositional defiant disorder, calling everybody liars when you are obviously wrong. (And, note the vocabulary: I don't call you a liar, because I believe that you believe what you wrote.) I am not going to indulge you in this, but really you've dug yourself into a hole and you should simply stop digging.
not talking about the examples. maybe you're being deliberately obtuse.
Maybe someone is, but not I. Without examples, without evidence, I don't see any support for his alleged "valid point." If he had a valid point, there would be examples. In a country of more than 300 million people, there would be many examples, not merely the purported opinion of some obscure person allegedly caught on video (that didn't even play when I clicked it). You can cite PatNet for someone's theories about Sandy Hook, but those aren't evidence or "a valid point" about alleged conspirators. A valid point requires evidentiary or at least sound theoretical proof; the rantings of a paranoid delusional person do not substitute for that proof.
The idea that women create resources necessary for life is an illusionbegins in biology and is firmly rooted in evolution.... If women went on strike tomorrow, nothing would be different in a monththe species would go extinct.
There, fixed that for you. If anybody doubted the misogyny of some comments on PatNet, they should read that one. In the modern world, women can do nearly all of the jobs that men can, plus one that men can't, so if life needed to proceed with only one or the other, the females have the advantage.
That turd does not in fact have a valid point, neither in fact nor in law. He has presented a straw man to fool people who don't take the time to read carefully. I followed his links and they trace back to a story where some alleged feminist I never heard of tweeted an attempt at humor. He posted a link to a video, which didn't even play when I clicked it, and he claims that in the video she says what he said. But he admits that nobody went to jail, and nobody got prosecuted, and he didn't even try to establish her as a spokesperson for feminism or whatever. The whole thing was his "manosphere" generic version of a paranoid Faux Noise straw man story, which he made up and planted in the fertile soil of other people's fear and loathing.
Meanwhile, here on earth, beer goggles are not rape. Look around. As Jerry Seinfeld observed, when you're sober, only a tiny % of the human race are actually attractive; the rest get together with the help of alcohol. If disinhibited consent were not consent, bars would never have "ladies' night," and there wouldn't even be singles bars.
Elsewhere on PatNet iwog has pointed out an asymmetry regarding child support. If a man and a woman get drunk and conceive a child, the woman has the sole authority to decide whether to have the child, and if she decides to do so then the man is bound to support her decision for the next 18.75 years. That's what a valid point looks like, not some hateful turd selling phony books on the "manosphere" to guys who don't read very carefully.
I only wish Forthood would study the actual history of the Roman empire and, for that matter, Ronald Reagan, instead of obsessively littering PatNet with ignorant lies. Rome prospered for centuries as a republic and then an empire, each period longer than all of American history. Then Christianity was imposed and homosexuality prohibited, and then Rome fell. Forthood feels guilty about his Jerry Sandusky marriage, and so tries to deflect attention, but it ends up drawing more attention to him instead.
update: Kidde has a device called RemoteLync with a free Android/iOS app. It listens for any UL approved CO or smoke detector, and alerts you or a contact list; it can call 911 if you want. So, it can connect add communications functionality to almost any existing alarm. Reviews are mixed. It launched this year officially only at Home Depot, but is now on Amazon for around $70.
Yes, they've been out for years, but they require a bridge (as Kidde uses Wink, First Alert uses a variety of others). First Alert's new product will connect directly, but cost more. I share your skepticism though of First Alert. I had a "free" warranty replacement where they insisted I pay $10 shipping; they insisted that it was "free" even though it cost me about the same as a new alarm.
The last thing you want is your smoke detectors to notify YOU.
Many alarms are false. You don't want the fire department smashing down your door every time a neighbor is illegally smoking a cigarette (or something else). Maybe if you live in a remote rural area it might be different, but in a city, you want a system that notifies you and a building manager or neighbor, not the fire department.
$10 Prime Savings, and a $5 No Rush discount. So that's why I recall it as closer to $80.
Thanks for acknowledging that, though it does shed further light on why we have disagreed about a certain insurance policy in the past. Let me help you with the math:
$99-$5=$94, plus tax = $100.
The $10 Prime Savings could presumably have been applied to anything, but if you imagined that you were about to die and had no other use for it, then you could subtract $10 and end up with $90, but not $80.
Math. Significant figures. Paying attention to what things cost. These are where we seem to disagree.
I bought a V2 unit...I didn't find any other units that could do this, and it was only ~$80 at Amazon.
As far as I can tell, the Nest Protect 2nd Generation has always been $99+tax on amazon. That is apparently true for both versions, wired and battery operated. For around the same price, you could get First Alert One Link or Kidde and a Wink hub.
It's still real early in this space. Cannot wait to see how things evolve.
The space has been evolving since the 1970s, when X10 launched retail home automation. It isn't "early," and at the retail level the evolution is proceeding mainly into proprietary revenue models. The hardware depends on apps, which are programmed to make money for the manufacturer; what you buy doesn't primarily work for you, it works primarily for them. As the end user, imagining yourself to be the customer because you bought the product, you don't really have control of the product. Instead, the company does; its hardware monitors your home even in ways you don't want (e.g. microphones in the smoke detectors), and its app can track you wherever you go. Maybe at the high end the buyer is the real customer, and companies design and program products to work for the high end user, but at the retail level the end user is the product and the real customers are the investors/advertisers/government/who knows.
While shoring up its hardware business is likely a key motivation for its acquisition of Nest, Google still makes nearly all its money based on an oft-repeated maxim (though not by Google): You are the product.
The value Google sells its customers — that is, advertisers — lies in its peerless understanding of our online behavior.
Google knows what we search for, so it can sell advertisers the eyeballs of someone who has already stated some interest in what they sell. Google reads our Gmail — anonymized, of course — and can target us with ads based on what we appear to be discussing in our private conversations.
One area of human behavior Google has yet to colonize as successfully is what we do when we’re not directly interacting with a screen, whether on a PC or mobile device. That in theory changes with Nest.
This may sound creepy, but much like using Google for search, it could become the price of admission for participation in the internet of things. Every choice we make using connected devices leaves a trace. And no one is better than Google at figuring out how to turn those traces into dollars.
I think the original point of the thread was to imply that if Apple made a smoke detector, it would be like the nest, but nest is not an Apple product, it's part of Google, and in fact the second generation nest has a characteristically Google issue: it's a brilliant design, but with some creepy intrusions into personal space. I'm thinking of buying it, but tempted to disassemble it and remove the microphone and occupancy sensor.