Whenever someone says that they're complaining about someone trying to change the status quo.
Regardless of what you imagine their ulterior motives may be, the fact remains that equality and affirmative action are mutually exclusive.
So, even if your characterisation of every single egalitarian is correct, if your own position lies on the affirmative action side you're anti-equality.
You can justify an anti-equality position to yourself and others, but doesn't mean your justification is anything more than cognitive dissonance leaking out your mouth.
Because they aren't picking equality. They are preserving their own entrenchment.
It's easier to castigate the other side when you dehumanise them, right? When someone says "I'm sorry, I can't be associated with that movement because I am an egalitarian", your interpretation of that into "I need to maintain the power imbalance" is irrational.
Here's a thought - you can equalise the imbalances by removing yourself from the industry. Why haven't you?
Well, the law supports my performing affirmative action in my company's employment, so I'm going to go on hiring folks who need a lift up, and feeling good about it.
Yeah, the law supported Nazi Germany too. Look how that turned out.
Your appeal to legislation is pointless anyway - I did not claim that it's not legal, I claimed that you can't have both equality and affirmative action.
You picked affirmative action. Good for you. Now why are you castigating those who pick equality?
It's really easy to say you're against discrimination in any form when that discrimination has put you on top
It's even easier to say you're against discrimination because you're against discrimination.
Objecting to someone attempting to solve the problem now certainly doesn't put him in the right.
"Attempting to solve the problem" by offering more discrimination sounds like something everyone should object to. Like I told you in another response:
Affirmative action and equality are mutually exclusive. You can't have both.
You are now engaged in attempting to shame someone purely because they expressed the thought that discrimination on the basis of sex is a bad thing. The shaming doesn't work. Stop it.
If you are looking to create, and can only create alone because respecting other folks is inimical to you, that's your problem.
You are mischaracterising his position. Is your argument so weak that you need to outright lie to make your point? He didn't say he doesn't want to respect other people, he said he doesn't want to be associated with discrimination.
Affirmative action and equality are orthogonal - you can only implement affirmative action by introducing a handicap. You can only have equality by removing all handicaps. You can't have both, you moron.
Yes, I agree. A code of conduct that says you should be nice to people?!
He isn't objecting to a code of conduct that only says be nice to people; it says other things too. That you have to imply that he is only against that part of the CoC says a lot about your argument.
If the only way you can think of in this argument is to shame egalitarians, then perhaps you are not on the correct moral and/or ethical side of the argument.
BTW: the shaming language was ocerused and now it has no effect. Mindlessly equivocating and straw-manning doesn't work so good no more, does it? What are you going to do? Double down the stupid?
Remember, it is possible for people to be against affirmative action while being for equality. Because affirmative action and equality a orthogonal. You can have one or the other, you can't have both.
It keeps the people who don't like them out, because they want to violate just that sort of rule, and they realize this project won't be their playground.
Sorry, that's trivally provable to be false, by observing that it is keeping out at least one person who *didn't* violate nor ever indicate any intention to violate that sort of rule.
What selectively enforced rules do is keep out everyone who is against discrimination in any form.
That is pretty much how any burn-in of any piece of electronic equipment is performed, you fucking moron.
Regardless of whether the GP is a sexually active moron or not, there is a valid concern if a GPU was used for mining: while the piece of silicon is probably okay, the surrounding circuitry *will* *be* affected by continuous high heat.
You have no idea if the ex-mining card was used in a rig that was not properly cooled, that had multiple hot/cold cycles out of the temperature range, that ran above the recommended temperature range for more than the number of hours it was specified for, etc.
Basically, you don't know if it was abused outside the operating range or not.
So given a budget of some size, you could go down to the local electronics store, buy a bunch of resisters, ICs, OCB board, transformers, and the rest and assemble a 220v TIG welder?
That's not what you claimed which I called factually incorrect.This is what you claimed, which is factually incorrect.:
Some of the best Welders in the world [...] have no idea how the devices they use work internally.
They have a good idea of how the welder works internally, or else they wouldn't be any good at welding. It is, in my experience, almost impossible to become good at welding unless you have a very good idea of how the welder works internally.
They don't need to build one, they just need to know how the welder works internally.
> Knowing how to employ a welder is not the same as being able to create or repair a welder.
I didn't say it was, I said they know how the internals work. Besides, all of the professional welders I know have at some point in the past repaired their own welder. Every single one. Your assertion that
Some of the best Welders in the world [...] have no idea how the devices they use work internally.
Some of the best Welders in the world (and welding is a very technical and highly skilled trade) have no idea how the devices they use work internally.
You must be mad. I'm a welder, certified and everything (certs over 20 years old, so not current). I can guarantee that any *good* welder knows how his welder works, knows why the rods with different ratings produce different results, etc.
You don't understand the point of an ORM do you? I'd suggest reading why they exist
They exist because programmers value code design more than data design. ORMs are the poster-child for square-peg-round-hole solutions, which is why all ORMs choose one of three different ways of squashing hierarchical data into a relational form, all of which are crappy.
If the devs of the system (the ones choosing to use an ORM) had any competence at all they'd design their database first because in any application that uses a database the database is the most important bit, not the OO-ness or Functional-ness of the design.
Over the last few decades I've seen programs in a system come and go; a component here gets rewritten, a component there gets rewritten, but you know what? They all have to work with the same damn data.
You can more easily switch out your code for new code with new design in a new language, than you can switch change the database structure. So explain to me why it is that you think the database should be mangled to fit your OO code rather than mangling your OO code to fit the database?
There needs to be more come-back for police who fail to properly investigate DNA evidence before making arrests. If they didn't account for the possibility of false positives before arresting someone, they need to be punished. Arrest should not be an investigatory technique, hoping that the suspect will crack under the pressure of questioning.
No. There needs to be come-backs for judges who ignore the exact probability of a false positive in a particular case. If the prosecutor submits an incorrect false positive probability, then they need to face some penalties as well.
The cops only do the arresting. They don't lead the prosecution, they don't make a finding and they certainly don't hand out penalties.
Most of us do believe that women are people, just as much as men are.
That's the egalitarian view, and feminism as a movement is at odds with egalitarianism as a movement. One is for the equal treatment of everyone, the other is for affirmative action.
Yea, still not a good thing, look at how society reacts to just being a suspect, you are now mostly guilty until proven innocent. Wives will divorce husbands, working fathers will be fired from good jobs, people that know them will ostracize and avoid them, they could lose access to their own children.
/quote>
All of that only applies to male suspects, not to female suspects. Females get the benefit of doubt in all cases against males. You need relaly good evidence to convince someone that the female committed a crime, and even when you do get the evidence the female usually gets a much lighter penalty than a male.
This is the good side of DNA databases. This data can also be abused. It's an awesome power and power is very corrupting. This needs serious regulation...ironclad. But of course that wont happen.
Yeah, the bad side is that people making judgements using DNA as evidence are bad at at stats. DNA evidence only "works" due to limited number of suspects. When you're comparing DNA to the entire population you're going to get quite a thousand false positives. When you have 10 suspects and one of them as a "match" (and I use that term loosely) then you can be pretty sure he's the one.
When you compare against a database of 300m, you're going to get tens of thousands matching close enough.
There is nothing about Linux that prevents ransomware targetted for that platform from functioning correctly. Hell it wouldn't even need to provide its own crypto, it could just use the in kernel dm-crypt stuff.
Malware can do the same on Windows - why would Windows malware need to provide its own crypto? Why can't it use the Windows cryptographic services?
Listen, if you don't know what the Windows API provides, then perhaps you're too ignorant to contribute to a discussion on which OS is better. You have reasons for your arguments, but because you don't know shit your reasons are probably stupid too.
However, you can blame an entire political wing for things a small number of them do, so there's that.
I'm not blaming, I just refuse to associate with the left. Besides, it's not a "small number" of them that push feminism, is it? To me it looks like most of them.
Most people are egalitarian. Ever wonder why egalitarianists don't support feminism?
you believe food, shelter, health care, education & transportation are natural rights
Maybe that's what leftists used to believe. I now consider myself egalitarian. I refuse to be associated with HRC, feminism, antifa and all the other nutjobs.
I cannot call myself "left" when the term is associated with irrational *AND* violent quacks. I've never advocated for shutting down opposing voices using the excuse "it's only censorhip if the government does it".
The left sets cars on fire when they don't get their way. They prevent people from speaking because in some weird way they are afraid of having their concepts challenged. I cannot identify with them.
Yes, the media leans left on social issues (gay rights and abortion mostly). But for anything that really matters (e.g. economics) they're entirely pro corporate
"Pro-corporate" is left-wing too, you know. That fact that you apparently don't know indicates that you self-identify as left because that's what you want to be seen as.
I used to be left. I now self-identify as egalitarian, because the left is an insane as the right, and I'd rather be a centrist than on either side.
It IS a good idea, I've been advocating it for ages.
Yeah, well your advocacy is deemed antisocial, so your score just went off a cliff. No school for your kids!!!
The trouble with advocating authoritarianism the way you do is that it will *always* be used against you. How fast would we have had legalised gay marriages if we were keeping an antisocial scorecard? How long would it have taken to strike-down Jim Crow laws if everyone was kept in check via a non-court scorecard?
Besides, you want these things implemented? Sure. How about I get your score into negative territory by complaining that your music was loud at 2am, or that you were smoking in a no-smoking area, or that you I saw you littering? With no due process how are you going to defend yourself when it's my word against your word?
Take it to court? Sorry. Your advocacy was for bypassing the courts when issuing penalties.
See, the thing is you think your shit don't stink, so these penalties would never apply to you, but the thing your advocating for (bypassing due process) can be used against you by anyone, not just those in power.
You go ahead and get this implemented, but don't cry foul when you get penalised for blaring music at 2am even though you did no such thing. When you bypass due process, you bypass it for everyone, including yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans are unlikely to improve at driving. Software can potentially be improved on.
And the halting problem can potentially be solved too.
Tell you what, lets wait until the potential is achieved before assuming that it will be achieved.
Whenever someone says that they're complaining about someone trying to change the status quo.
Regardless of what you imagine their ulterior motives may be, the fact remains that equality and affirmative action are mutually exclusive.
So, even if your characterisation of every single egalitarian is correct, if your own position lies on the affirmative action side you're anti-equality.
You can justify an anti-equality position to yourself and others, but doesn't mean your justification is anything more than cognitive dissonance leaking out your mouth.
Gosh. That's sophomoric.
If only it were.
Because they aren't picking equality. They are preserving their own entrenchment.
It's easier to castigate the other side when you dehumanise them, right? When someone says "I'm sorry, I can't be associated with that movement because I am an egalitarian", your interpretation of that into "I need to maintain the power imbalance" is irrational.
Here's a thought - you can equalise the imbalances by removing yourself from the industry. Why haven't you?
Well, the law supports my performing affirmative action in my company's employment, so I'm going to go on hiring folks who need a lift up, and feeling good about it.
Yeah, the law supported Nazi Germany too. Look how that turned out.
Your appeal to legislation is pointless anyway - I did not claim that it's not legal, I claimed that you can't have both equality and affirmative action.
You picked affirmative action. Good for you. Now why are you castigating those who pick equality?
It's really easy to say you're against discrimination in any form when that discrimination has put you on top
It's even easier to say you're against discrimination because you're against discrimination.
Objecting to someone attempting to solve the problem now certainly doesn't put him in the right.
"Attempting to solve the problem" by offering more discrimination sounds like something everyone should object to. Like I told you in another response:
Affirmative action and equality are mutually exclusive. You can't have both.
You are now engaged in attempting to shame someone purely because they expressed the thought that discrimination on the basis of sex is a bad thing. The shaming doesn't work. Stop it.
Also, Tesla's Model 3 production numbers have been on an exponentially accelerating curve.
I don't think you know what the word "exponential" means.
If you are looking to create, and can only create alone because respecting other folks is inimical to you, that's your problem.
You are mischaracterising his position. Is your argument so weak that you need to outright lie to make your point? He didn't say he doesn't want to respect other people, he said he doesn't want to be associated with discrimination.
Affirmative action and equality are orthogonal - you can only implement affirmative action by introducing a handicap. You can only have equality by removing all handicaps. You can't have both, you moron.
Yes, I agree. A code of conduct that says you should be nice to people?!
He isn't objecting to a code of conduct that only says be nice to people; it says other things too. That you have to imply that he is only against that part of the CoC says a lot about your argument.
If the only way you can think of in this argument is to shame egalitarians, then perhaps you are not on the correct moral and/or ethical side of the argument.
BTW: the shaming language was ocerused and now it has no effect. Mindlessly equivocating and straw-manning doesn't work so good no more, does it? What are you going to do? Double down the stupid?
Remember, it is possible for people to be against affirmative action while being for equality. Because affirmative action and equality a orthogonal. You can have one or the other, you can't have both.
It keeps the people who don't like them out, because they want to violate just that sort of rule, and they realize this project won't be their playground.
Sorry, that's trivally provable to be false, by observing that it is keeping out at least one person who *didn't* violate nor ever indicate any intention to violate that sort of rule.
What selectively enforced rules do is keep out everyone who is against discrimination in any form.
"That is not how GPUs work you fucking moron."
That is pretty much how any burn-in of any piece of electronic equipment is performed, you fucking moron.
Regardless of whether the GP is a sexually active moron or not, there is a valid concern if a GPU was used for mining: while the piece of silicon is probably okay, the surrounding circuitry *will* *be* affected by continuous high heat.
You have no idea if the ex-mining card was used in a rig that was not properly cooled, that had multiple hot/cold cycles out of the temperature range, that ran above the recommended temperature range for more than the number of hours it was specified for, etc.
Basically, you don't know if it was abused outside the operating range or not.
So given a budget of some size, you could go down to the local electronics store, buy a bunch of resisters, ICs, OCB board, transformers, and the rest and assemble a 220v TIG welder?
That's not what you claimed which I called factually incorrect.This is what you claimed, which is factually incorrect.:
Some of the best Welders in the world [...] have no idea how the devices they use work internally.
They have a good idea of how the welder works internally, or else they wouldn't be any good at welding. It is, in my experience, almost impossible to become good at welding unless you have a very good idea of how the welder works internally.
They don't need to build one, they just need to know how the welder works internally.
Some of the best Welders in the world [...] have no idea how the devices they use work internally.
Is factually wrong.
Some of the best Welders in the world (and welding is a very technical and highly skilled trade) have no idea how the devices they use work internally.
You must be mad. I'm a welder, certified and everything (certs over 20 years old, so not current). I can guarantee that any *good* welder knows how his welder works, knows why the rods with different ratings produce different results, etc.
You don't understand the point of an ORM do you? I'd suggest reading why they exist
They exist because programmers value code design more than data design. ORMs are the poster-child for square-peg-round-hole solutions, which is why all ORMs choose one of three different ways of squashing hierarchical data into a relational form, all of which are crappy.
If the devs of the system (the ones choosing to use an ORM) had any competence at all they'd design their database first because in any application that uses a database the database is the most important bit, not the OO-ness or Functional-ness of the design.
Over the last few decades I've seen programs in a system come and go; a component here gets rewritten, a component there gets rewritten, but you know what? They all have to work with the same damn data.
You can more easily switch out your code for new code with new design in a new language, than you can switch change the database structure. So explain to me why it is that you think the database should be mangled to fit your OO code rather than mangling your OO code to fit the database?
There needs to be more come-back for police who fail to properly investigate DNA evidence before making arrests. If they didn't account for the possibility of false positives before arresting someone, they need to be punished. Arrest should not be an investigatory technique, hoping that the suspect will crack under the pressure of questioning.
No. There needs to be come-backs for judges who ignore the exact probability of a false positive in a particular case. If the prosecutor submits an incorrect false positive probability, then they need to face some penalties as well.
The cops only do the arresting. They don't lead the prosecution, they don't make a finding and they certainly don't hand out penalties.
? If you get pulled in due to this type of data, it certainly seems worth your while getting an independent lab test as part of your defense.
Why should you have to pay to dispute evidence when we already know in advance that the same evidence includes tens thousands of others?
Most of us do believe that women are people, just as much as men are.
That's the egalitarian view, and feminism as a movement is at odds with egalitarianism as a movement. One is for the equal treatment of everyone, the other is for affirmative action.
Yea, still not a good thing, look at how society reacts to just being a suspect, you are now mostly guilty until proven innocent. Wives will divorce husbands, working fathers will be fired from good jobs, people that know them will ostracize and avoid them, they could lose access to their own children.
/quote> All of that only applies to male suspects, not to female suspects. Females get the benefit of doubt in all cases against males. You need relaly good evidence to convince someone that the female committed a crime, and even when you do get the evidence the female usually gets a much lighter penalty than a male.
This is the good side of DNA databases. This data can also be abused. It's an awesome power and power is very corrupting. This needs serious regulation...ironclad. But of course that wont happen.
Yeah, the bad side is that people making judgements using DNA as evidence are bad at at stats. DNA evidence only "works" due to limited number of suspects. When you're comparing DNA to the entire population you're going to get quite a thousand false positives. When you have 10 suspects and one of them as a "match" (and I use that term loosely) then you can be pretty sure he's the one.
When you compare against a database of 300m, you're going to get tens of thousands matching close enough.
There is nothing about Linux that prevents ransomware targetted for that platform from functioning correctly. Hell it wouldn't even need to provide its own crypto, it could just use the in kernel dm-crypt stuff.
Malware can do the same on Windows - why would Windows malware need to provide its own crypto? Why can't it use the Windows cryptographic services?
Listen, if you don't know what the Windows API provides, then perhaps you're too ignorant to contribute to a discussion on which OS is better. You have reasons for your arguments, but because you don't know shit your reasons are probably stupid too.
IOW, STFU and let the adults talk.
However, you can blame an entire political wing for things a small number of them do, so there's that.
I'm not blaming, I just refuse to associate with the left. Besides, it's not a "small number" of them that push feminism, is it? To me it looks like most of them.
Most people are egalitarian. Ever wonder why egalitarianists don't support feminism?
you believe food, shelter, health care, education & transportation are natural rights
Maybe that's what leftists used to believe. I now consider myself egalitarian. I refuse to be associated with HRC, feminism, antifa and all the other nutjobs.
I cannot call myself "left" when the term is associated with irrational *AND* violent quacks. I've never advocated for shutting down opposing voices using the excuse "it's only censorhip if the government does it".
The left sets cars on fire when they don't get their way. They prevent people from speaking because in some weird way they are afraid of having their concepts challenged. I cannot identify with them.
Yes, the media leans left on social issues (gay rights and abortion mostly). But for anything that really matters (e.g. economics) they're entirely pro corporate
"Pro-corporate" is left-wing too, you know. That fact that you apparently don't know indicates that you self-identify as left because that's what you want to be seen as.
I used to be left. I now self-identify as egalitarian, because the left is an insane as the right, and I'd rather be a centrist than on either side.
It IS a good idea, I've been advocating it for ages.
Yeah, well your advocacy is deemed antisocial, so your score just went off a cliff. No school for your kids!!!
The trouble with advocating authoritarianism the way you do is that it will *always* be used against you. How fast would we have had legalised gay marriages if we were keeping an antisocial scorecard? How long would it have taken to strike-down Jim Crow laws if everyone was kept in check via a non-court scorecard?
Besides, you want these things implemented? Sure. How about I get your score into negative territory by complaining that your music was loud at 2am, or that you were smoking in a no-smoking area, or that you I saw you littering? With no due process how are you going to defend yourself when it's my word against your word?
Take it to court? Sorry. Your advocacy was for bypassing the courts when issuing penalties.
See, the thing is you think your shit don't stink, so these penalties would never apply to you, but the thing your advocating for (bypassing due process) can be used against you by anyone, not just those in power.
You go ahead and get this implemented, but don't cry foul when you get penalised for blaring music at 2am even though you did no such thing. When you bypass due process, you bypass it for everyone, including yourself.