Humans are considered harmful to the world as a whole. There's only one human species that would need to be eliminated to solve that problem. You up for that as well?
I want to eliminate harmful mosquitoes to benefit humanity.
I place more value on the well being of humanity than I do on that of the rest of the world. In general, I value the well being of the world as a whole, but mostly because it's beneficial to humanity. If we eliminate ourselves, there can be no benefit to humanity--so no, I am not up for that as well.
In this specific case, I don't place any intrinsic value in the life of a mosquito. To me, the only factor in whether it lives or dies should be how much harm or benefit it brings to humanity.
And that's the difference between me and Hitler--I value all human Life.
Other than that reply, I'm going to ignore your Hitler comment.
How much intrinsic value do you place on the life of a mosquito? Would you die to save all mosquitoes? To save half of all mosquitoes? A million mosquitoes? What would you sacrifice to save the life of 1 mosquito?
>I just don't think it's ok to eliminate a species. Intentional extinction of any species is not ok with me, even if it is a mosquito.
Do you value humans more than mosquitoes?
Would you eliminate mosquitoes if it meant saving the human race? What if it meant saving half the human race? Saving a billion people? A few million a year?
How about viruses? Do you think we should reintroduce smallpox to the wild?
Maybe you don't consider viruses to be truly alive, so how about bacteria? Are you opposed to eliminating the bacteria that causes anthrax?
How about a more complex lifeform? What are your thoughts on eliminating malaria parasites?
Without us, what is the point of the planet existing? Seriously, who is left to enjoy it. You do realize that all life in planet Earth will die in around a billion years and the only chance of anything surviving beyond that will be left to intelligent life smart enough to leave the planet and take as many species as it can with it.
Possibly men are more likely to hire men, which could cause problems with growth in women's share of the market.
Of course there are also problems like having fewer role models when there are fewer in the industry, not having government and schools enabling women via scholarships, funding, etc. as much as they could, or possibly it's genuine lack of interest, but I don't think that's the case.
Why do you consider a role model in a field of endeavour unrelated to one's sex should be the same sex as oneself? Isn't that just the sort of sexism that you're attempting to avoid??
It seems either women are so different that they need female-centric approaches to programming and aspects, including their role models, must be tailored specifically for them. In which case, that's surely the reason there aren't so many women in tech - that it just doesn't follow the female-centric mores. Or, women and men are alike (ie fit within the same spectrum of abilities, insight and such) when it comes to programming and we should just get on with it and stop pretending people need specific help because of their sex?
You should go ahead and create a company for this, look into insurance, get some basic level of marketing up, etc.
Right now it just looks like a website, with no company (nothing in the footer with even an LLC or anything, and "Joshua Schachter is trying to start a low-end autonomous racing series." needs work as an about section), no news section, no press info section, etc.
The domain name is great, but you'll need much more to really get it going.
You could probably pose as an interested historian and get information from each of these organizations about how they are setup and some hoops you might have to go through.
I'm familiar with all of this. It's not necessary to run just a track day. Insurance is dealt with already, etc.
There are, however, almost no vehicles actually set up for this, so the first thing that is needed is a place to test the cars and for people doing this to talk to each other.
Court is fine, but in the meantime, I'd just find a loophole.
E.g. it might be ok to take a picture of each piece of art with a person standing in front of it, so retake the pictures or just superimpose a picture of a person with a transparent background onto each picture.
Then once you've found that loophole, exploit the heck of it and sell prints on the street with that person superimposed on the art. Just give a big middle finger to the law.
