zippert

I am currently studying electrical engineering in the 7th semester at a german university, but the course is very similar to the standart american course.(we use american textbooks in many subcourses). The content is very abstract. You are not trained to fulfil a specific task, but you aquire a toolbox and understanding. It is mainly math. Linear algebra(for electric circut analysing), vectoranalysis, differential equation ( both for electrodynamics)and beyond. The job opperunities are painted good and they are generally(in germany), but if you have bad luck with your chosen specialication and/or bad grades you still could not benefit from your degree when you apply for a job. The best thing is, that you can use your knowledge for entrepreneurship. The content of the course provides you not just an understanding of electrics, but also a rudimentary understanding of engineering in general (mechanics for example has the exact same mathematical methods). I feel confident, that I could realise every physical possible idea that came up for me and I havent even graduated. The downside is that it is very hard in the first semester. In the first 3 months I understood not a single word, not even what the lecture was about (the lecture was called "digital circuts" and was about how calculations can be made with transsistors). And I graduated High School (in german "gymnasium" with a B in math and physics. Before I studied I spent 2 months working temporary, mostly manual labor(construction site, fabric and storage hall), my colleages and bosses there all said that they dont like their job. That and the fact, that I didn't like it too made it clear for me to persue that kind of career. But I would certainly first try out, maybe you do like it.

It is not necesary to violate the NAP for obtaining this. There is a sperm manipulation technique called "Mertsort" with which you can define the gender of your future baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zEs_1o8ZI The terma "alpha male" is misuesed just like "capitalism" capitalism was first defined by Karl Marx as a economic system with private property over the means of production. Modern day leftists dont use this term properly, for example Michael Moore just asociates bad things with capitalism. Same thing with alpha male, people never research the first definition and this definition comes from biology and is not limited to wolf packs. So even if is not true in wolf packs it still could be true for other animals, like for example apes or humans. Alpha male is a term part of a concept. The concept of the "pecking order". The aplha animal is the animal in a group, which agresses the most, while gets agressed on the least. If you look at a school class with 50% female and 50% male pupils, you will see that the sexual choice of the females corelates with the rank in the male Pecking_order.

I listen to music not for the lyrics. I listen to "salt" and it was ok, not exceptional good or bad. I hardly understood any lyrics at all, but english is not my first language. I liked how the video coresponded with the audio. I hope this is no copyright violation, because it seems like a big studio cartoon. Who created it?

We should be clear what alpha is, this video clarifies it (It is not social status in general): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zEs_1o8ZI

It is the "Stanford Prison Experiment". To the topic: I don't think you can translate the alpha/beta scheme to the females, because it is constructed by violence. Who is beta or alpha is determined in puberty, mostly in schools. The hirachy is formed. The person who perpetrates the most violence and receiving the least is on top of the hirachy while the biggest victim is on the bottom. But "good looking" is determined by genes not by violence, so the female "order" is natural while the male is "Cultural"(while still the first impulse to form such a hirachy comes from the genes too).

People, when they attack feminsm as a whole are provoked by some statements of self proclaimed feminists and then generalizising this statement as feminist. But feminism has a wide definition: Every Movement who proclaimes gender equality. Many fights occur between feminist like pro prostitution/ anti prostitution feminists. So the is no single exact political view that you could describe as feminist. In regards to the NAP: All branches but Individualist feminism advocate the violation of NAP. Many branches hold ideas as true, which are not founded in empirisism. A common belief is that all statistical psychological differences between the sexes are created by socialisation, which you can't prove because you don't know what effects physiological differences have on the psychology. One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. Simone de Beauvoir

I am no expert in that field, so I don't know the academic research. David Buss wrote on this topic and cited academic research. So if you look at the footnotes of Mr. Buss, you'll get the reasoning. I am wondering, why you even need like field studies or academic texts. The fact, that men generally approach the women to initiate a romantic relationship is obvious. So maybe there isnt even a study on this, like there is no study about that it gets dark at night in the US. So the question remains, if this is natural or somehow artificial induced, e.g. by some tribe leader. I would argue it is natural. Because eggs are rarer than sperm. Because of that the Bateman's Principle kicks in. This results in Briffault's Law. To explain it simply: A group of women want to reproduce(getting 2 kids). They only need one man to inseminate them. A group of men want to reproduce, they need a woman each, who is willing to get 2 kids or a woman for 2 men who is willing to get 4 kids. A male can be the father of 1000s of kids, like dschingis khan. A female only of at maximum 69, but in normal cases 10. Marxist Analogy: Given that you can freeze sperm and women can easily aquire alot of frozen sperm, it follows that women own 100% of the means of reproduction. A male therefore in order to reproduce has to offer his workforce, for example by doing the approaching, giving money, etc. This leads to a 2 class system of oppression. the bourgois(master) and the working class(slave). Look, in Berlin there are poor guys from the balkan, who wash your car at a red light and then ask for money. Most times they get rejected, but they move on working the whole day for just a few euros, only enough to eat. They have the lowest social status assigned in the german society, whereas the car drivers have middle to high status. Same with the PUAs. I worked in a toy store. This store never did advertising, but was full of buyers all the time. The toys were needed. It was a special store with toys you don't get at normal shopping stores. These toys were rare and needed just like eggs. The buyers approached them. last time I visited that store and moved out a guy gave me a flyer, advertising for a party. guess why? Because there are many parties in town and his was not visited enough just like sperm. They were approaching potential customers. Guess who is bourgois and who is working. But this is not a marxist forum here and if it would be I would get kicked out now, because of misoginy see also: List of people with the most children

In FDR the existence of the state is correctly traced back to child abuse. The focus of asigning responsibility of present state evils is -as far as I persieve it- the voter. For example Stefs talks about union teachers and other special interest groups raising money and votes. I want to make the case that it is the police/military officers, who really make up the core of the state. They are the people, who actually commit the violence. Without them nothing works. Even if you have a draft, there have to be non-drafted officers as a violence threat for the draft to work. These core officers commit these evils voluntary. Lets take for example the teachers unions. They dont come to your house if you dont pay your taxes or send your kid to their schools. Sure, they vote for such legislature, but what is a law, if not just a piece of paper? This law itself can never force a single police officer to enforce taxes or schooling. It is always a free decision by them to do that. They joined the police/military voluntary. In contract theory, voting is an order to do accordingly and therefore the voter is held moraly acountable. But it is also the officers decision to accept that contract. Without this consent no orders are excecuted. If an army decides to kill 1000 Iraqis if I hold my left arm in the air, am I moraly responsible, if I do so but not to kill them but to get something out of the shelf? Similar, is voter moraly responsible as much as the excecuter? So I get that this would intimidate policemens and maybe get FDR in trouble. So I am wondering, if it is the potential consequences for FDR or a disagreement with my thesis or another reason, that withholds FDR to focus on these people instead of the voters.

"England" cant bring anybody anything, because it is not a person, but a concept. Why should ordinary people taking the bus be bombed in order to "fight back"?

There is speech to text software out there, but it costs a lot of money.

zippert, economic value is absolutely maximized by forming a land/force cartel. After the cartel is formed, one does not need "relationships" with those outside the cartel (as they are 100% dependent, and subject to indiscriminate force/manipulation). This is monopoly 101. For example you are maried t o a non cartel member. So you form that cartel. Then your marriage is kind of unreal, because you got whole economic power, right? So if you want a real relationship with your partner, it is rational to not form the cartel.

I dont understand, why it is against rational self interest to not form a cartel. Ok in terms of economic profit it is, but i.e. in terms of your relationships with non cartel members it is not. Game theory is very focused in quantifiable variables like money.

Just to make it clear: Ownership is defined as "create and be responsible" Homesteding doesn't mean just to claim or mark land. It means usage, building a "home". In the end it is a question of military power. If a man claims ownership over land he doesn't own, because he has not shaped it. Ancaps wont acept his claim and homestead on that land. So the claimer needs military power to protect his claim. His army then fights the DRO of the homesteader. If he wins he has sucessfully robbed the homesteder. Like the state, e.g. the US has taken the homesteaded villages of the natives americans und can enforce a claim for the whole country. Its also a moral question: When is power over land legitimate? The ancap says, that power over unowned/owned by others land is immoral. Just like murder is immoral, people can still murder, people can still try to grab land instead of homestead it. There are protection costs for owned land, therefore owned land has to be profitable = be useless to other people If a man finds a profitable way to use land he gets copied by others. For example, if he builds a new factory and he makes it so big that he homesteads huge parts of the unowned land to build a cartel, another person at the same time builds a similar factory but much smaller. Because maintaining costs corelate to the area the second factory is more profitable and will outcompete the first in the market with lower prices. The cartel builder then needs constantly put money into that system to maintain the factory. If he cant, the factory closes and the land is unowned because he is not using it. So hopefully you see, that to hold a huge part of the land you have to be profitable. There are billions of people you compete with, so can only be the best in a single field. In all other fields you cant homestead, because you are not profitable. And your field has a limited demand, e.g. if you are in the farming buisness, there is certain demand for food. So you are the leading farmer and therefore own huge part of the land. At one point there are no more crops needed, so you cant profitably homestead new land, so the new homesteaded land is homesteaded to fulfill another need.