Well better lock up the potheads and dealers and send them to the rape factories right? Surely that's better for society than decriminalization.
a substance that distorts reality, that can make you a veggie and slowly destroys your ability to have fun without it is just a way to make a whole generation less intelligent than the one before
Honey, I'm done responding to you. I linked you right to the article (not 'a few tweets') that outlines, very clearly that Uber. Partnered. With. An escort service. The press release came right out of Uber's Lyons offices. And you've twice now missed the part where I said that I don't believe that in and of itself constitutes misogyny, but that it's the writer's right to publish that opinion.
And you can't possibly see how a reporter could lead a conversation that way? You think that it's impossible to manipulate dialogue? How much money do you have, I'll be willing to bet that during a conversation over a few drinks I can get you say all kinds of incriminating things and use them to portray you as a bad person. Shockingly I don't even have to know much about you to do so, and the "reporter" knows more about the executive than is needed just based on the company he works for. Yeah, I know.. hard to imagine that attacking someone's livelihood would be enough to incite a response, but it happens pretty often. *hopefully the sarcasm is obvious*
Saying something is possible is not the same as saying its unlikely. The situation you posited is so extremely unlikely that rational people would not even give it thought. Hence, my diagnosis that you have Feminist Derangement Syndrome.
Oh, how the picture becomes very clear now. When the questions hurt attack the person asking questions.
You've now twice demonstrated to me personally (and three times in this thread) that you have no reading comprehension. With that as evidence, I conclude that your lack of reading comprehension is no longer just my opinion, it's a fact. See how that works?
I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.
Where did anyone say any of that? The original claim was that Uber was partnering with an escort service. That fact is not in dispute, and was in fact advertised by Uber as you can see right there in the fine article. The opinion I'm referring to here is the claim that that behavior is sexist, one which I've said before I do not 100% agree with, but its certainly not exactly a "public accusation" that anyone should have to "back up" in order to be considered legitimate.
I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."
Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.
Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.
this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.
The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.
So you were against Uber's garbage tactics until it turned out the critic was a feminist? Seriously some people just lose it as soon as the 'F' word gets mentioned. For proof see the other replies to your comment.
The female journalist discussed made a public accusation
Please, please learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. It's the writer's opinion that working with an escort service is misogynistic. I personally don't agree with that, but guess what that's well within her rights to publish. There's no burden of proof on her to back that up. And the fact that Uber worked with an escort service is not under dispute - it was widely advertised by - get this - Uber. I'm noticing a very disturbing trend these days where anti-feminists start frothing at the mouth about "journalistic bias" wrt opinion pieces whenever a feminist viewpoint is put forward, using the language of libel or fraud in order to silence people who have every right to publish their (non-libelous) thoughts.
Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.
I'm sure you think Anita Sarkeesian faked her death threats as well. Or rather, whether or not she did is a "valid question"
I had the same experience when shopping for usb sound cards - the market is flooded with cheap crap! However, I can't say enough good things about this product, the Griffin imic: http://www.amazon.com/Griffin-...
I needed a solution for recording stereo line in, and most built-in cards no longer offer stereo line in (tin foil hat time: it's because of the riaa!). The imic is cheap compared to a pro audio interface, but has great features like a hardware switch for the mic pre, great linux/alsa support, it's reliable and easy to use, and sounds fine. I'm not an audiophile, and I'd like to echo many other sentiments on this thread that built-in sound cards usually sound 'good enough', however I use it primarily in the 'semi-pro' scenario of recording dj sets, which are primarily unbalanced stereo, and it performs well. I even use it to record live shows off the mixing board. So if you do a little research, there are still high-quality usb sound cards available.
This is not anything even remotely close to a hoverboard. Even more shameless than those cars with fold-out wings that people try to pass off as 'flying cars'.
Being purposefully obtuse about the science and motivations behind environmentalism is what's actually anti-reason. And the 'let climate change happen, then sue the oil companies if its bad' plan is a recipe for global disaster, not to mention a joke coming from the biggest proponents of tort reform. Why is it that the one consistent beneficiary of libertarian policies is the bottom line of the biggest corporations? Or do you really believe they're only only big and bad because of the evil government, without which we'd live in a free-market fairy land?
And yet, when disgusting glass and steel monstrosities start blighting gentrified neighborhoods, the 'property rights' brigade thinks that's all well and good. I'd call that ruining a cityscape infinitely more than a little paint from someone trying to develop a positive creative outlet. (yes I am aware that some graffitti is gang-related - that type tends to have (much much) lower artistic value) I guess the rights of real estate developers to make money mean more than the rights of people who actually live there to determine what their neighborhood looks like.
It's a search engine though, so I think this case they are much more similar to an ISP than a media company. They're not creating the content, so I don't understand why they deserve 'free speech'. They should just display the search results, similar to how under the principles of net neutrality the ISPs should just deliver the bits. If there's no compelling business interest for them to be filtering out results other than ideology, then there should be legislation to prevent that filtering. And for the record, I give absolutely not one damn about the "rights" of corporations - they're just as corrupt and slimy as the government, and have vastly more power in practical terms.
I'm seeing you get a lot of flack for this, but for the record I totally agree. For a site that generally supports net neutrality and would like to see ISPs regulated as common carriers, I'm surprised by the assumptions other posters are making about the competitiveness of the search engine marketplace. "Use a different search provider" is getting to be as useful a suggestion as "use a different ISP" when your only options are Verizon and Comcast. I would support legislation that regulated search engines in a similar way. Search engines generally aren't there to create content anyways, only display it, so I actually think they are much more similar to an ISP or telecom in that sense instead of a media company or other entity worthy of 'free speech'. Only a lolbertarian thinks that there's a practical difference whether it's the government taking away your rights or a giant corporation anyways. If this was Google censoring results, would these people feel differently?
The "right to own slaves" necessarily infringes on others' right to be free. The right for two consenting adults to marry infringes on noone else's rights. What you're saying can be boiled down to "why won't you be tolerant of my intolerance?"
You have anarchy wrong. Anarchists are not against government regulation. They are against power. If a small amount of government regulation results in a large reduction in corporate power, some anarchists (such as this one) would support that.
/usr is a directory for storing user-level programs and files (bin, lib etc), as opposed to root or kernel level programs and files. The reason it's its own top-level directory is for historical (or contemporary in embedded environments??) purposes. You could boot up linux using only the small number of core programs in the/bin,/sbin etc directories, then mount/usr to get your user-level stuff. You could also store/usr on its own drive or partition that way for space/performance. Nowadays it's kind of redundant to have BOTH e.g./usr/bin and/bin. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)/user is the old name for the directory of users' home directories. If your username is myUserName, then ~ would point to/user/myUserName. Nowadays it's called/home (again I could be wrong about/user not being used anymore. Been a linux user for 10 years, but haven't strayed far from debian)
It might surprise you that I'm not a fan of the term 'misogyny' or the coopting of the word 'hate' to mean 'bigotry and stuff' (although I support 'hate crime' laws, just wish they were called something else). As for 'patriarchy', sorry bro but men still hold the cards politically, socially, and economically. It's not really relevant who's 'fault' that is - the word just describes the power imbalance, and in this case we're talking specifically about when that power balance is NOT men's fault. But yeah, in general i agree that 'buzzwords from the feminist dictionary' are lame.
As for 'all heterosexual sex is rape/ all men are rapists', that's a very outdated viewpoint in feminism that was fringe even when it was the most popular in the 80s. The 3rd wave feminism/intersectionality that's mainstream in feminism now really addresses how ridiculous the black/white feminism from that bygone era was, and looks at things like male-on-male rape, the role racism plays in sexual assault cases, and having respect for women who choose to take on traditionally female roles (or don't).
No, you're wrong. He said that a certain ('the oldest') professor was especially harsh on girls because she wanted to 'drive out' the supposed women "cruising through on their backs". He didn't say that these women actually exist. Then he said 'careful about letting female engineers interview other potential candidates unless they are known to be genuinely fair-minded', implying that this was not a fair-minded assessment, followed by describing what the professor was doing as 'discriminating'. And i mean honestly - have you ever seen someone 'cruising through on their back' in this industry? like ever? I've seen high-performing women get illegally fired by male bosses for getting pregnant, but never someone actually sleeping their way into any kind of professional position in tech.
As a male feminist ("kumbaya!"), I agree with you about women often being the roadblock to other women's success (example: http://science.slashdot.org/st...), but I think it only reinforces my viewpoint about the pervasiveness of the patriarchy. Our society makes women feel that they have to compete with each other as opposed to competing with men. I think this is due to the real or perceived notion that there are only so many 'slots' available to women especially in technical fields, and the real or perceived idea that non-technical qualities (attractiveness, submissiveness) are unfairly considered when judging women moreso than men. That's something that must fundamentally change before we start seeing economic equality, and its something men and women must work equally hard to fix.
Thanks, this makes a lot of sense wrt to congressional pork. It may take $1m to bribe an politician, but $1b if you have to bribe their constituency as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Or like that time that Starbucks put the competition out of business by dumping and then raised their prices, destroying jobs in the process?
they are totally willing to open a starbucks across the street from a starbucks
It seems like you know what 'dumping' means, and yes this is exactly what they did.
a substance that distorts reality, that can make you a veggie and slowly destroys your ability to have fun without it is just a way to make a whole generation less intelligent than the one before
You just described alcohol.
instead of paying 40$/hour to park the car download
Surely you wouldn't download a car, that would be stealing
Isn't that a double-edged sword though security-wise? No updates = no patches for vulnerabilities. Not sure what the solution is.
And you can't possibly see how a reporter could lead a conversation that way? You think that it's impossible to manipulate dialogue? How much money do you have, I'll be willing to bet that during a conversation over a few drinks I can get you say all kinds of incriminating things and use them to portray you as a bad person. Shockingly I don't even have to know much about you to do so, and the "reporter" knows more about the executive than is needed just based on the company he works for. Yeah, I know.. hard to imagine that attacking someone's livelihood would be enough to incite a response, but it happens pretty often. *hopefully the sarcasm is obvious*
Saying something is possible is not the same as saying its unlikely. The situation you posited is so extremely unlikely that rational people would not even give it thought. Hence, my diagnosis that you have Feminist Derangement Syndrome.
Oh, how the picture becomes very clear now. When the questions hurt attack the person asking questions.
You've now twice demonstrated to me personally (and three times in this thread) that you have no reading comprehension. With that as evidence, I conclude that your lack of reading comprehension is no longer just my opinion, it's a fact. See how that works?
I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.
Where did anyone say any of that? The original claim was that Uber was partnering with an escort service. That fact is not in dispute, and was in fact advertised by Uber as you can see right there in the fine article. The opinion I'm referring to here is the claim that that behavior is sexist, one which I've said before I do not 100% agree with, but its certainly not exactly a "public accusation" that anyone should have to "back up" in order to be considered legitimate.
I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."
Here's a quote from the Buzzfeed article on the current controversy:
Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.
Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.
this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.
The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.
The female journalist discussed made a public accusation
Please, please learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. It's the writer's opinion that working with an escort service is misogynistic. I personally don't agree with that, but guess what that's well within her rights to publish. There's no burden of proof on her to back that up. And the fact that Uber worked with an escort service is not under dispute - it was widely advertised by - get this - Uber. I'm noticing a very disturbing trend these days where anti-feminists start frothing at the mouth about "journalistic bias" wrt opinion pieces whenever a feminist viewpoint is put forward, using the language of libel or fraud in order to silence people who have every right to publish their (non-libelous) thoughts.
Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.
I'm sure you think Anita Sarkeesian faked her death threats as well. Or rather, whether or not she did is a "valid question"
I had the same experience when shopping for usb sound cards - the market is flooded with cheap crap! However, I can't say enough good things about this product, the Griffin imic: http://www.amazon.com/Griffin-... I needed a solution for recording stereo line in, and most built-in cards no longer offer stereo line in (tin foil hat time: it's because of the riaa!). The imic is cheap compared to a pro audio interface, but has great features like a hardware switch for the mic pre, great linux/alsa support, it's reliable and easy to use, and sounds fine. I'm not an audiophile, and I'd like to echo many other sentiments on this thread that built-in sound cards usually sound 'good enough', however I use it primarily in the 'semi-pro' scenario of recording dj sets, which are primarily unbalanced stereo, and it performs well. I even use it to record live shows off the mixing board. So if you do a little research, there are still high-quality usb sound cards available.
It's unbelievable to me that the most ardent supporters of big business are the most ignorant about basic principles of capitalism like externalities.
This is not anything even remotely close to a hoverboard. Even more shameless than those cars with fold-out wings that people try to pass off as 'flying cars'.
Being purposefully obtuse about the science and motivations behind environmentalism is what's actually anti-reason. And the 'let climate change happen, then sue the oil companies if its bad' plan is a recipe for global disaster, not to mention a joke coming from the biggest proponents of tort reform. Why is it that the one consistent beneficiary of libertarian policies is the bottom line of the biggest corporations? Or do you really believe they're only only big and bad because of the evil government, without which we'd live in a free-market fairy land?
http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/... Here you go. environmentalism is 'anti-reason' according to libertarians. Looks like you're the one misinformed.
And yet, when disgusting glass and steel monstrosities start blighting gentrified neighborhoods, the 'property rights' brigade thinks that's all well and good. I'd call that ruining a cityscape infinitely more than a little paint from someone trying to develop a positive creative outlet. (yes I am aware that some graffitti is gang-related - that type tends to have (much much) lower artistic value) I guess the rights of real estate developers to make money mean more than the rights of people who actually live there to determine what their neighborhood looks like.
We know a dog whistle when we hear one.
It's a search engine though, so I think this case they are much more similar to an ISP than a media company. They're not creating the content, so I don't understand why they deserve 'free speech'. They should just display the search results, similar to how under the principles of net neutrality the ISPs should just deliver the bits. If there's no compelling business interest for them to be filtering out results other than ideology, then there should be legislation to prevent that filtering. And for the record, I give absolutely not one damn about the "rights" of corporations - they're just as corrupt and slimy as the government, and have vastly more power in practical terms.
I'm seeing you get a lot of flack for this, but for the record I totally agree. For a site that generally supports net neutrality and would like to see ISPs regulated as common carriers, I'm surprised by the assumptions other posters are making about the competitiveness of the search engine marketplace. "Use a different search provider" is getting to be as useful a suggestion as "use a different ISP" when your only options are Verizon and Comcast. I would support legislation that regulated search engines in a similar way. Search engines generally aren't there to create content anyways, only display it, so I actually think they are much more similar to an ISP or telecom in that sense instead of a media company or other entity worthy of 'free speech'. Only a lolbertarian thinks that there's a practical difference whether it's the government taking away your rights or a giant corporation anyways. If this was Google censoring results, would these people feel differently?
The "right to own slaves" necessarily infringes on others' right to be free. The right for two consenting adults to marry infringes on noone else's rights. What you're saying can be boiled down to "why won't you be tolerant of my intolerance?"
You have anarchy wrong. Anarchists are not against government regulation. They are against power. If a small amount of government regulation results in a large reduction in corporate power, some anarchists (such as this one) would support that.
/usr is a directory for storing user-level programs and files (bin, lib etc), as opposed to root or kernel level programs and files. The reason it's its own top-level directory is for historical (or contemporary in embedded environments??) purposes. You could boot up linux using only the small number of core programs in the /bin, /sbin etc directories, then mount /usr to get your user-level stuff. You could also store /usr on its own drive or partition that way for space/performance. Nowadays it's kind of redundant to have BOTH e.g. /usr/bin and /bin. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) /user is the old name for the directory of users' home directories. If your username is myUserName, then ~ would point to /user/myUserName. Nowadays it's called /home (again I could be wrong about /user not being used anymore. Been a linux user for 10 years, but haven't strayed far from debian)
Link to Abe Lincoln was a Democrat question? Also, the percentage of boxes that are shaded when there are no shaded boxes is 0.
It might surprise you that I'm not a fan of the term 'misogyny' or the coopting of the word 'hate' to mean 'bigotry and stuff' (although I support 'hate crime' laws, just wish they were called something else). As for 'patriarchy', sorry bro but men still hold the cards politically, socially, and economically. It's not really relevant who's 'fault' that is - the word just describes the power imbalance, and in this case we're talking specifically about when that power balance is NOT men's fault. But yeah, in general i agree that 'buzzwords from the feminist dictionary' are lame. As for 'all heterosexual sex is rape/ all men are rapists', that's a very outdated viewpoint in feminism that was fringe even when it was the most popular in the 80s. The 3rd wave feminism/intersectionality that's mainstream in feminism now really addresses how ridiculous the black/white feminism from that bygone era was, and looks at things like male-on-male rape, the role racism plays in sexual assault cases, and having respect for women who choose to take on traditionally female roles (or don't).
No, you're wrong. He said that a certain ('the oldest') professor was especially harsh on girls because she wanted to 'drive out' the supposed women "cruising through on their backs". He didn't say that these women actually exist. Then he said 'careful about letting female engineers interview other potential candidates unless they are known to be genuinely fair-minded', implying that this was not a fair-minded assessment, followed by describing what the professor was doing as 'discriminating'. And i mean honestly - have you ever seen someone 'cruising through on their back' in this industry? like ever? I've seen high-performing women get illegally fired by male bosses for getting pregnant, but never someone actually sleeping their way into any kind of professional position in tech.
Your rights are only important when they're also my rights.
As a male feminist ("kumbaya!"), I agree with you about women often being the roadblock to other women's success (example: http://science.slashdot.org/st...), but I think it only reinforces my viewpoint about the pervasiveness of the patriarchy. Our society makes women feel that they have to compete with each other as opposed to competing with men. I think this is due to the real or perceived notion that there are only so many 'slots' available to women especially in technical fields, and the real or perceived idea that non-technical qualities (attractiveness, submissiveness) are unfairly considered when judging women moreso than men. That's something that must fundamentally change before we start seeing economic equality, and its something men and women must work equally hard to fix.
Thanks, this makes a lot of sense wrt to congressional pork. It may take $1m to bribe an politician, but $1b if you have to bribe their constituency as well.