Slashdot Mirror

I want to add to this that your writing style is convoluted and unclear. It's obvious that you go out of your way to use big words, despite this you're still using an 8th grade vocabulary

You're probably pretty stupid and autistic. When people tell you that you're smart, they mean smart (for a sped) "you silly child"

Are you Matthew Moulton? I know he likes to hang out on tech sites talking at people like a Saturday morning cartoon caricature of an evil genius.

And yet you'll cite Vice, HuffPo, and the BBC without blinking...

You are a caricature of a bubble-dwelling partisan fool suffering from confirmation bias.

I would argue with you and normally also try to explain why globalism is good, but today I won't. Considering that the Republican Senators just voted for a tax bill which will saddle the US with an extra trillion dollars in debt and due tremendous damage to our basic research and other aspects, it seems like they really are acting like the caricature of "globalist" that some have, being willing to damage the US for their corporate overlords. Meanwhile, the people like me who are in favor of globalism for sanity and economic reasons don't have anything to do with this sort of crap.

I'll be happy to answer that after you spell out the chain of logic (cough) leading from anything I actually said to your above conclusion. I'll not hold my breath.

You should scroll up and read what I wrote. If you're too lazy to do that, why should I bother?

You really need to try to focus on my original point rather than whatever sort of caricature you're trying to twist my point into. Right now, all ISPs are basically providing the same service in the same general price band.

That's the first flaw in your logic. Not all ISPs provide the same service. In the exact example of 90210 that I provided:

• Time Warner Spectrum cable: 100Mbs at $45/mo
• AT&T DSL: 50Mbs at $40/mo (1st year only)
• Sonic: 100Mbs at $50/mo (requires 2 lines)
• Frontier: 3 - 15 Mbs at $54/month for 24 month with voice purchase

How are they "the same" service? Then there's the inconvenient fact that not all 4 can provide service to the entire area. At best only 3% of the consumers can get all 4.

. If (and this is where you really need to try to focus) at some point in the future conditions change (like rabid NetNeut proponents are convinced will happen) and other providers are able to sufficiently differentiate on either price or content to make them think they'll be able to pull over a large enough chunk of that customer base, they'll expand their own infrastructure and do just that.

So what you're saying is that I cannot use the reality which exists TODAY and instead focus on your wild hypothetical which may or may not exist tomorrow. Or ever.

Two bottom-line points I'll leave you with: (1) market forces still exist even if you personally don't believe in them; and (2) excessive governmental regulation is what gave the incumbents so much of a head start and have prevented market forces from working as smoothly and quickly in this space as they otherwise might. Yet more regulation would take us in precisely the wrong direction.

You need to demonstrate any of that is actually true. This is an argument by assertion logical fallacy. Otherwise your points are moot.

So to be clear you'll take another job that pays you 3% of your job?

I'll be happy to answer that after you spell out the chain of logic (cough) leading from anything I actually said to your above conclusion. I'll not hold my breath.

Well now you're assuming that people are not dissatisfied now and don't have an incentive now? That's are rather major hole in your logic.

You really need to try to focus on my original point rather than whatever sort of caricature you're trying to twist my point into. Right now, all ISPs are basically providing the same service in the same general price band. As a simple economic matter, that tends to favor the incumbent that has already built out infrastructure. If (and this is where you really need to try to focus) at some point in the future conditions change (like rabid NetNeut proponents are convinced will happen) and other providers are able to sufficiently differentiate on either price or content to make them think they'll be able to pull over a large enough chunk of that customer base, they'll expand their own infrastructure and do just that.

Two bottom-line points I'll leave you with: (1) market forces still exist even if you personally don't believe in them; and (2) excessive governmental regulation is what gave the incumbents so much of a head start and have prevented market forces from working as smoothly and quickly in this space as they otherwise might. Yet more regulation would take us in precisely the wrong direction.

>The entire idea behind today's Left-wing thought is that there is no objective truth, only differing points of view, all equally valid. It seems to be the some among the right are the most vigorous at rejecting objective truth, from Fox News âoethere are no facts only narrativeâ to the Trump administrationâ(TM)s (and the Republican Party in general) rejection of science and objective analysis. Is âoethe leftâ guilty of the same thing? Iâ(TM)m pretty left in my politics, and what mostly horrifies today is the wholesale rejection of facts in policy making. In the end Iâ(TM)m coming to the conclusion that âoethe leftâ and âoethe rightâ are just convenient caricatures to make it easier for us to do a wholesale rejection of the opinions of people we disagree with.

Just delete your account, it's free, and we'd all appreciate it. Go away, Chris. No one wants you here, no one takes you seriously, no one every says "I wonder what creimer would do".
You're a joke. You're a living caricature.

What's wrong with you? I'm not addressing liberal vs conservative points of view, I'm talking about political left vs right. In fact I went to lengths to point out the distinction to you, something you seem happy to keep ignoring.

But, in the spirit of Slashdot snarkiness, I suppose I'd best turn your own words on you:

I don't know if you're left wing, what I do know is you have no idea who or what "conservatives" are or what they believe, and instead you believe in an absurd caricature that is identical to what American left-wing media tells people.

Maybe you're just really ignorant of what other people believe, and all your friends are uneducated liberals with false beliefs about what conservatives believe?

I notice in your response a complete lack of interest in discovering what conservatives actually believe, so surely you really are an ignorant liberal and are just lying.

Funny, that seems to fit quite well, doesn't it?

I don't know if you're right wing, what I do know is you have no idea who or what "liberals" are or what they believe, and instead you believe in an absurd caricature that is identical to what American right-wing media tells people.

Maybe you're just really ignorant of what other people believe, and all your friends are uneducated conservatives with false beliefs about what liberals believe?

I notice in your response a complete lack of interest in discovering what liberals actually believe, so surely you really are an ignorant conservative and are just lying.

People are losing their shit because of this, but not Twitter's announcement that they are planning to monitor users' off site behavior and weigh it against whether to let them stay.

This is why I can no longer get worked up about Net Neutrality. Comcast is not going to throttle small web sites unless they enter into private deals. Twitter, a vocal proponent of Net Neutrality, however, has no problem actively discriminating about who can use their platform.

So again, the people who like to use this XKCD cartoon can take their argument and shove it up their asses. Net Neutrality is looking more and more like a case of projection (in the psychological sense) by highly censorious people who are attempting a bait and switch that just so happens to line their pockets more.

You complain about “people” a lot, while not actually offering any insight to which way you stand on common carrier status.

Is CC something that should ALSO be applied to outfits such as Twitter, or is it something that should be done away with? Somewhere in the middle? Do you actually have a reasoned opinion in the matter or do you just attack “people” straw men like a “deplorable” caricature?

Right. But people didn't say "Oh you ignored this study, here's a link". They just tried to silence him by getting him fired. Gizmodo accused him of writing an 'anti diversity screed', and reproduced it without any of the charts and hyperlinks

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-...

Vox called it a 'sexist screed' and said it reflected a 'divided tech culture' and said it ignored 'well documented gender biases'

https://www.vox.com/identities...

Vox didn't try to address his arguments, they all said he was

The memo's stereotype-based arguments and cries for less empathy sparked immediate controversy

In Damore's memo, he states that women are more "neurotic" and have a lower "stress tolerance" than men, and that these characteristics - not systemic harassment, routinely being passed over for promotions, or other well-documented instances of sexism in tech culture - are the reason why women do not succeed as often as men do in the high-pressure industry.

He also argues that men have a "higher drive for status" than women, and suggests that this factor, rather than well-documented gender biases in the workplace, may be responsible for the lack of women in leadership positions both at Google and in the tech industry as a whole.

Finally, Damore calls for Google to "De-empathize empathy," arguing that "being emotionally unengaged [with the issue of diversity] helps us better reason about the facts." He decries political correctness, discounting the very concept of unconscious bias and arguing against unconscious bias training for Google employees.

Google's VP of diversity said it 'it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. and also refused to link to it because "itâ(TM)s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages". I.e. no one addressed his arguments - they caricatured them and effectively labelled him a heretic to the diverse faith.

And you haven't addressed his arguments. You put rational is scare quotes, implying he's actually motivated by sexism.

And I think we can all agree that as traumatic as being downvoted on slashdot is, it's not as bad as being fired. Also look at the the difference in institutional power between the two sides of the argument. The CEO and VP on one side and some hapless engineer on the other. As soon as the engineer disagreed with them, they fired him. Which was a sign to other engineers not to argue with their ideas.

Not to mention most of the media immediately sided with Google and denounced him.

In the old days the left would say that racism/sexism was 'prejudice plus power'. I.e. that white men could be sexist and racist because they held institutional power, but non whites and non men could not be because they did not. The problem with that is that the left holds institutional power these days, at least in the media and at Google. So in that case Damore could at worse be prejudiced, not actually sexist.

Why are you discussing a caricature of a "conservative snowflake" in a discussion about a liberal's heartfelt desire to make the workplace more inclusive of women?

Do you not have the intelligence to understand what Damore was writing?

It takes time and money to do good journalism. It doesn't take that much time or money to publish revenue generating opinion passing as news to make money. It used to be that many news orgs actually cared about good journalism, very few are anymore.
It's foolish to think that news should be profitable, they never were. What makes money and supports good journalism is good entertainment and the big networks chose to skimp on the latter for profit and the whole thing went to shit.
The people on this thread that are obviously against unions forget that most of the benefits you get while employed are the direct result of unions. The unions got to a point of overreaching and misusing their power but for the life of me, I will never understand why so many people choose to believe that a handful of fat cats deserve ALL of the money over majority of people that help them make their riches are not paid a living wage. The more money the "little"people make, the more money the people at the top will have. What we have now is a grotesque caricature of capitalism based on unrestrained greed. It's not sustainable. The greed that has put us where we are today is just stupid.

...evils of ...Cinco De Mayo...

But Cinco de Mayo makes brown people happy, so doesn't that make it a good thing by default?

Brown people really enjoy having ignorant whites pander to a caricature of their culture, in order to sell more salsa and Dos Equis and Corona, only to forget all about it the next day?

Oh I dunno.

You can make a case for Trek being very racist. All Vulcans are logical and inscrutable and a bit uptight. All Klingons are aggressive and warlike.

Ferengi look and act like a Nazi caricature of Jews.

I.e. in each case races have a well defined trait and all examples of that race seem to share. So I could see why someone who thinks that racial traits dominate over individual ones would like Trek even if Roddenberry would have been appalled by this.

And you'd be wrong:
Spock is Kirks best friend and one of the most "human"soles he's ever encountered, Warf learns to accept his son Alexander who doesn't want to be a warrior, Nog joins Starfleet because he dislikes how Ferangi culture undervalued his father's mechanical skills.

The message if you actually pay attention, is: "the stereotypes seem true until you get to know individuals. Then you realize that they're more like you than different".

Who is this "Warf"? Is he related to Barf the Mog?

Oh I dunno.

You can make a case for Trek being very racist. All Vulcans are logical and inscrutable and a bit uptight. All Klingons are aggressive and warlike.

Ferengi look and act like a Nazi caricature of Jews.

I.e. in each case races have a well defined trait and all examples of that race seem to share. So I could see why someone who thinks that racial traits dominate over individual ones would like Trek even if Roddenberry would have been appalled by this.

And you'd be wrong:
Spock is Kirks best friend and one of the most "human"soles he's ever encountered, Warf learns to accept his son Alexander who doesn't want to be a warrior, Nog joins Starfleet because he dislikes how Ferangi culture undervalued his father's mechanical skills.

The message if you actually pay attention, is: "the stereotypes seem true until you get to know individuals. Then you realize that they're more like you than different".

Oh I dunno.

You can make a case for Trek being very racist. All Vulcans are logical and inscrutable and a bit uptight. All Klingons are aggressive and warlike.

Ferengi look and act like a Nazi caricature of Jews.

I.e. in each case races have a well defined trait and all examples of that race seem to share. So I could see why someone who thinks that racial traits dominate over individual ones would like Trek even if Roddenberry would have been appalled by this.

You're confusing races with species.
Do people think I'm racist if I start saying "all gorillas are herbivores?"
And before anyone shouts "what about Miral Paris?", I redirect you to Beefalo.

Oh I dunno.

You can make a case for Trek being very racist. All Vulcans are logical and inscrutable and a bit uptight. All Klingons are aggressive and warlike.

Ferengi look and act like a Nazi caricature of Jews.

I.e. in each case races have a well defined trait and all examples of that race seem to share. So I could see why someone who thinks that racial traits dominate over individual ones would like Trek even if Roddenberry would have been appalled by this.

3D graphics on computers didn't pass the giggle test? When? In the adding machine days?

Color TV? If you say so.

Television? Um...your command of history seems to be limited to the caricature version. Electricity has been known about scientifically for nearly three hundred years and the phenomenon of static electricity since practically forever.

You're arguing against a straw man.

Yet you present no real argument. You just engage in a lot of unsupported claims and insults. Linux desktops and applications use a lot of the same GUI basic elements. ALL of the desktop platforms use "easy to discover" interfaces.

The biggest problem many people may have is that they are simply used to something in particular.

Ribbon pissed a lot of people off. So did Windows 8. Some of the peculiarities in MacOS alienate Windows users.

This isn't about some strange caricature that exists mainly in your head.