Ummm, I have not heard ANYONE call Mr. Damore a "champion of the victimized male". OK, that is not entirely true, I have heard people who defended his firing, and who apparently did not actually read what he wrote, refer to him that way.
What I have repeatedly heard said by people defending him is that he approved of Google's goal of having a workforce which is more diverse and has a better balance of men to women. From there he went on to cite research which showed that men and women have different interests as a result of biological differences (he noted that the evidence for the different interests is solid, while the evidence that it was a result of biology was less well supported). He then suggested that if Google wanted to increase the percentage of women in its workforce it should make changes to the work environment which would increase its appeal to those different interests which women had while stating that its current approach would continue to fail.
Ultimately, he was fired for saying that Google was an inhospitable environment for anyone who expressed opinions which did not agree with the groupthink of the company...which Google promptly proved to be correct.
They mean. "Trust us, it is a big number. We never bothered to do any research to figure out how many people would be affected, but trust us, it is a lot."
If they are far enough away that you need to transmit your position data to satellites to get it to them, they are far enough away that the issue is not about navigation.
Well, obviously he had to be silenced. If men and women are actually different on a biological level, then a transgender man is actually a woman who thinks she is a man, not a man with different sexual organs (which may or may not have been surgically altered).
Considering that European Union railroads transport approximately 1/8th the amount of freight that U.S. railroads do, I don't think you understand how modern railroad networks are constructed.
Actually, trains solve EITHER the problem of moving freight or the problem of moving people. There is a reason why we do not have much in the way of passenger trains in the U.S.. That reason is that we have optimized our railroad system for freight. In Europe, they have very little (relative to the U.S.) freight which moves by rail. That is because the European rail system was optimized for passengers. Part of the reason for this difference is that most of Europe is less than a day's truck travel from a port, whereas the amount of the U.S. which is that close to a port is much less.
Well, then I will continue to conclude that their "science" is designed to advance their political agenda, not to increase knowledge. And since their "science" is designed to advance their political agenda, I see no reason to believe their conclusions logically follow the facts.
Well sure, but if they are only going to call out people they disagree with politically and not those they agree with (especially when the latter get the science more wrong than the former, as in the article I linked previously) people are going to realize that they are hypocrites and their "science" is being conducted to advance their politics.
Ah, I see. The point is to confuse people to get them to do what you want rather than educate and convince them. Well, that just confirms my opinion about AGW.
Or, perhaps those who wish others to take a particular course of action should work harder to make sure that they communicate clearly. If it is not worth the extra effort to write "dioxide", the program you are campaigning for is probably not worth the effort it would take to implement.
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
This article points out the problem clearly. When Rick Perry answered an ambiguous question with an answer which did not support AGW alarmism (it also did not support AGW denialism either) the American Meteorological Society called him out on it. Yet, the AMS remained silent when various members of the previous administration told outright untruths that advanced AGW alarmism. If they want to be taken seriously, scientists need to call out those who misrepresent the science in order to advance political agendas with which the scientists agree, not just those who are advancing political agendas with which they disagree.
The reason it is confusing is because articles like this one are designed to scare people into making the decisions preferred by the authors rather than to allow people to make informed decisions. The author does not want people to make an informed decision because if they do they will probably not make the decision he or she would prefer.
This has been the problem with the AGW alarmists from the beginning. From the beginning, the point of the theory has been to scare people into certain political decisions, not to predict how the climate will behave in the future. As long as it does the first it is irrelevant to the people involved how accurately it does the second...which is why it has done such a poor job at the first.
Another person asked, if we do that, what do we call CO and NO2? But a more relevant question is, if we call CO2 "carbon", and NO3 "nitrogen", what do we call Carbon and Nitrogen?
Which is why many people became skeptical of AGW theorists. Logic says that as the entire earth gets warmer, there will be MORE rain not less. Yet, the AGW theorists were telling us that we needed to worry about drought all over the planet.
You apparently have not heard of the Dodd-Frank law and the CFPB which it created. As with most other laws which create regulations, it was sold as being designed to prevent banks and other financial institutions from getting "too big", but resulted in small banks being forced to sell themselves to bigger banks. It turns out that it is designed to get rid of all but the biggest financial institutions. The government has not weakened the parts that regulate business...big business would not like that.
The corporation named "Citizens United" IS a case of people banding together, so are many other corporations. For example, I am part of a corporation called Society of Creative Anachronism. It is a group of people who have banded together to do historical re-enactment. They formed a corporation (I use third person because the corporation was formed before I joined) because government regulations made that the most efficient way to organize their activities.
It is NOT the employees who are the people who have banded together. You appear to think that "corporation" means "profit making company". The Society for Creative Anachronism and Citizens United are both non-profit organizations.
Further weaken and shrink the government and the megacorps will shove it aside and become the government.
What do you mean "Further weaken and shrink the government"? In my lifetime the government has gathered ever more power to itself and grown ever larger. The government has not shrunk or gotten weaker in the last 100 years and probably much longer than that. Good grief it has gotten so bad that people think that the government growing at a slower rate than was projected is cutting.
Except of course what those regulations do is keep the incumbent businesses from facing competition from newcomers to a much greater effect than they actually limit their running roughshod.
As you reduce the size and scope of the government you reduce the scope that incumbent businesses have to keep newcomers from competing. AND you reduce the degree to which employees are bound to their employer. One of the biggest impacts of government regulation is to make it harder for an individual to test a business idea while still holding down a job.
Why is it that those who want to expand the power of government think that anyone who wants to LIMIT the power of government is in favor of there being NO government?
I am arguing for reducing the power of government NOT for eliminating the government. Yet, every time I make arguments for reducing the power of government, the counter is to claim that no government is worse than a tyrannical government.
You argue that if we have no government it would lead to a tyrannical government in an effort to defend expanding the powers of a government which is already tyrannical.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, I have not heard ANYONE call Mr. Damore a "champion of the victimized male". OK, that is not entirely true, I have heard people who defended his firing, and who apparently did not actually read what he wrote, refer to him that way.
What I have repeatedly heard said by people defending him is that he approved of Google's goal of having a workforce which is more diverse and has a better balance of men to women. From there he went on to cite research which showed that men and women have different interests as a result of biological differences (he noted that the evidence for the different interests is solid, while the evidence that it was a result of biology was less well supported). He then suggested that if Google wanted to increase the percentage of women in its workforce it should make changes to the work environment which would increase its appeal to those different interests which women had while stating that its current approach would continue to fail.
Ultimately, he was fired for saying that Google was an inhospitable environment for anyone who expressed opinions which did not agree with the groupthink of the company...which Google promptly proved to be correct.
They mean. "Trust us, it is a big number. We never bothered to do any research to figure out how many people would be affected, but trust us, it is a lot."
If they are far enough away that you need to transmit your position data to satellites to get it to them, they are far enough away that the issue is not about navigation.
Well, obviously he had to be silenced. If men and women are actually different on a biological level, then a transgender man is actually a woman who thinks she is a man, not a man with different sexual organs (which may or may not have been surgically altered).
Considering that European Union railroads transport approximately 1/8th the amount of freight that U.S. railroads do, I don't think you understand how modern railroad networks are constructed.
Actually, trains solve EITHER the problem of moving freight or the problem of moving people. There is a reason why we do not have much in the way of passenger trains in the U.S.. That reason is that we have optimized our railroad system for freight. In Europe, they have very little (relative to the U.S.) freight which moves by rail. That is because the European rail system was optimized for passengers. Part of the reason for this difference is that most of Europe is less than a day's truck travel from a port, whereas the amount of the U.S. which is that close to a port is much less.
I was told that only climatologists were qualified to read the "science".
You are correct. they do not need to do so, but since they do not I do not need to consider them honest arbiters of facts.
I have been told, since I am not a professional in that field, that I am not qualified to do so.
No, my thesis is that if scientists use their "science" purely to advance their political agenda, their "science" cannot be trusted.
Well, then I will continue to conclude that their "science" is designed to advance their political agenda, not to increase knowledge. And since their "science" is designed to advance their political agenda, I see no reason to believe their conclusions logically follow the facts.
Well sure, but if they are only going to call out people they disagree with politically and not those they agree with (especially when the latter get the science more wrong than the former, as in the article I linked previously) people are going to realize that they are hypocrites and their "science" is being conducted to advance their politics.
Ah, I see. The point is to confuse people to get them to do what you want rather than educate and convince them. Well, that just confirms my opinion about AGW.
Or, perhaps those who wish others to take a particular course of action should work harder to make sure that they communicate clearly. If it is not worth the extra effort to write "dioxide", the program you are campaigning for is probably not worth the effort it would take to implement.
So, you never did answer my question. IF we are calling CO2 "carbon" and NO3 "nitrogen", what are we going to call Carbon and Nitrogen?
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
This article points out the problem clearly. When Rick Perry answered an ambiguous question with an answer which did not support AGW alarmism (it also did not support AGW denialism either) the American Meteorological Society called him out on it. Yet, the AMS remained silent when various members of the previous administration told outright untruths that advanced AGW alarmism. If they want to be taken seriously, scientists need to call out those who misrepresent the science in order to advance political agendas with which the scientists agree, not just those who are advancing political agendas with which they disagree.
No, I am not attempting to represent the science. I am representing what the scientists are communicating to the public.
The reason it is confusing is because articles like this one are designed to scare people into making the decisions preferred by the authors rather than to allow people to make informed decisions. The author does not want people to make an informed decision because if they do they will probably not make the decision he or she would prefer.
This has been the problem with the AGW alarmists from the beginning. From the beginning, the point of the theory has been to scare people into certain political decisions, not to predict how the climate will behave in the future. As long as it does the first it is irrelevant to the people involved how accurately it does the second...which is why it has done such a poor job at the first.
Another person asked, if we do that, what do we call CO and NO2? But a more relevant question is, if we call CO2 "carbon", and NO3 "nitrogen", what do we call Carbon and Nitrogen?
Which is why many people became skeptical of AGW theorists. Logic says that as the entire earth gets warmer, there will be MORE rain not less. Yet, the AGW theorists were telling us that we needed to worry about drought all over the planet.
You apparently have not heard of the Dodd-Frank law and the CFPB which it created. As with most other laws which create regulations, it was sold as being designed to prevent banks and other financial institutions from getting "too big", but resulted in small banks being forced to sell themselves to bigger banks. It turns out that it is designed to get rid of all but the biggest financial institutions. The government has not weakened the parts that regulate business...big business would not like that.
The corporation named "Citizens United" IS a case of people banding together, so are many other corporations. For example, I am part of a corporation called Society of Creative Anachronism. It is a group of people who have banded together to do historical re-enactment. They formed a corporation (I use third person because the corporation was formed before I joined) because government regulations made that the most efficient way to organize their activities.
It is NOT the employees who are the people who have banded together. You appear to think that "corporation" means "profit making company". The Society for Creative Anachronism and Citizens United are both non-profit organizations.
Further weaken and shrink the government and the megacorps will shove it aside and become the government.
What do you mean "Further weaken and shrink the government"? In my lifetime the government has gathered ever more power to itself and grown ever larger. The government has not shrunk or gotten weaker in the last 100 years and probably much longer than that. Good grief it has gotten so bad that people think that the government growing at a slower rate than was projected is cutting.
Except of course what those regulations do is keep the incumbent businesses from facing competition from newcomers to a much greater effect than they actually limit their running roughshod.
As you reduce the size and scope of the government you reduce the scope that incumbent businesses have to keep newcomers from competing. AND you reduce the degree to which employees are bound to their employer. One of the biggest impacts of government regulation is to make it harder for an individual to test a business idea while still holding down a job.
Why is it that those who want to expand the power of government think that anyone who wants to LIMIT the power of government is in favor of there being NO government?
I am arguing for reducing the power of government NOT for eliminating the government. Yet, every time I make arguments for reducing the power of government, the counter is to claim that no government is worse than a tyrannical government.
You argue that if we have no government it would lead to a tyrannical government in an effort to defend expanding the powers of a government which is already tyrannical.