So basically we agree, except that I call them MRAs and you call them SJWs.
I doubt it - you've frequently opined that microagressions are a thing, which to many is the defining characteristic of the SJW. The only true common thing between both MRAs and SJWs is that they both look insane to the middle majority of the bell curve.
After all, I remember a post of yours that basically called for segregation... it's hard to believe you're not living in the fifties.
Please ignore all those users calling for bans, either banning users or banning ACS. Slashdot has long promoted totally free speech and banning users for what they say is exactly the reason that other sites have fallen.
It was promoted.
It wasn't always practiced.
Agreed, but "Only sometimes practiced" is not a good enough reason to remove it altogether.
Heck, there's even one cab driver driving a tesla because the extra initial cost is offset by the lower running costs.
How does he make a profit on the limited range? Cabbies (over here anyway) might work for eight hours straight, sometimes twelve. Very little of that time is spent stationary.
You want them to completely ditch the existing lineup? Why would they do that?
No mention of ditching, just that 'going electric' in this case is like Honda offering the Prius and Nissan the Leaf. They're still offering the 'traditional' lineup.
There's only two options here:
1. You can add electric cars to your existing lineup.
2. You can do electric-only cars and stop your existing lineup.
Once again I must ask - why on earth would they stop producing their existing cars just because they are producing electric cars?
Please ignore all those users calling for bans, either banning users or banning ACS. Slashdot has long promoted totally free speech and banning users for what they say is exactly the reason that other sites have fallen.
She admitted riding a bike with a motor in it. Your objections can't change reality.
From your own damn link: "After my chain broke I got off and was told that there was something wrong with my bike. I didn’t know what was wrong. Then I saw that bike standing there. I don’t know how it go there I am more preoccupied with myself on days like that”.
"That bike belongs to a friend of mine. He bought it from me at the end of last season. It is exactly the same bike as what I ride. The friend had ridden round the course with my brother before the race. He had left the bike against the lorry. One of the mechanics must have thought it was my bike and cleaned it up and brought it to me.”
Where exactly did she admit to riding the motorised bike? You have severe reading and comprehension problems.
You posted a link to slashdot stories, all in *favour* of women. The comments on those stories are not reflective of your claim "assertion that CS is mens work".
In short, you claim "many people say this on slashdot", but then can't find any to link to.
So next you'll want a Ferrarri and complain if it's not red?
You are summing up all I hatr about these stupid "SJW" vs "MRA" discussions.
Moving the goalposts - so a comment isn't a comment if made by an AC and then modded up?
Listen, if you want to complain that men on slashdot are in favour oppressing women, you should be able to provide at least one post, right? AC's have always posted shit - trolls posting goatse doesn't provide evidence that slashdot is pro-goatse. Similarly trolls posting anti-women shit is not evidence that slashdot is anti-women.
BTW: asking for evidence happens all the time. Some of the smarter oppression-olympics regulars (AmiMoJo, for example) now simply stop making the claim you continue making, because there's always someone who's going to say "where's this anti-women post you are referring to?", and then fail to be impressed when you link to some downmodded AC post that sits with the GNAA posts.
Here is the link leading to a steaming pile of such shit.
www.google.com/search?q=slashdot+women+not+fit+for+it
Are you really so useless at using computers that you could not do it yourself?
You said "assertions are made that CS is mens work", but you did not provide a link to any assertions.
Let me be unambiguous: Link to at least one comment that supports your claim above.
(Oh, wait - they're all AC's? The same people who post goatse links and ads for nike shoes on slashdot?)
I keep asking for a link to those assertions. You have yet to provide one.
I could link to any single one of those stories as you well know - so what exactly are you trying to do here?
You keep saying that: "You *could* link to it". But you don't. Because those comments you say exist, those sexist comments about where a women's place is... those comments either don't exist or are all made by AC's and have been downmodded into oblivion. Yeah, sure, you *could* link to "stories", but you don't have any evidence for your assertion - 'assertions are made that sitting typing in an office is "mens work"'.
So, again, can you actually link to a comment where the poster implies that CS is mens work? Because all you do is get angry that people ask for evidence.
Logan Abbott from BIZX here. Happy to answer any questions.
How do you intend to make slashdot self-sufficient WRT to income/expenses? You must have *some* idea or else you would not have purchased it, so let us hear it.
Maybe we'll see the end of the Friday night "SJW" vs "MRA" clickbait fight where assertions are made that sitting typing in an office is "mens work", as if we are all 1920s lumberjacks or something.
You keep saying this... "assertions are made that CS is men's work". I keep asking for a link to those assertions. You have yet to provide one.
You keep using the outliers as representative of the population. They're not.
If we were to grab a random sample of people with BMI indicating obesity we'd get far far more obese people than muscular people. If you and I were to bet money on whether the BMI for each person in the sample is accurate or not, you'd lose a great deal of money betting that the BMI is inaccurate.
BMI is a useful average indicator. If you're muscular and/or tall you already know it's inaccurate - the majority of fatties have a fairly accurate BMI indicator.
Women I think probably cheat at least as much as men. They just don't need websites to do it, because it's much easier for them to find partners to cheat with.
There have been genetic studies which have found that something like 15% of the population in western countries (I think Britain was where one study was done) does not have the father they thought they did, meaning that their mother cheated, while ovulating. Other studies have found that women are much more likely to stray when they are ovulating.
A study I read in the past was a US-based study which found that a third (33%) of paternity suits reveals that the husband is not the father. Obviously, that sets the lower bound on the number of (female[1]) cheaters. In reality, I'm guessing that maybe half the population has cheated on an SO at some point in their life.
[1] I also feel it must be obvious that the number of female cheaters and male cheaters have to be similar.
Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.
Sounds like every US president ever. What exactly was your point?
Also, some software is not well suited for a comprehensive unit test suite. I work on stuff that has a GUI, which I can't unit-test with the tools we have, and it spits out gcode for CNC mills, which I also can't unit-test. When a serious test of some functionality requires that the operator load something into a CNC mill and run it, it really can't be unit-tested.
That's not really a unit-test though, is it? I call those things integration tests.
You might choose to not get the vaccine, which makes you a risk to those who can not get the vaccine or for whom the vaccine did not work. Do those people not get the "my body, my choice" right? After all, according to what you just said, it's "their body, your choice".
I said no such thing. I did not even imply it, and it would demonstrate cognitive dissonance on your part to continue misrepresenting my position.
my position is clear: on the one hand you have irresponsible behaviour by individuals while on the other you have forced injections by the state. They are both evils, but the poster I responded painted one of those evils as evil and the other as good. You are attempting to do the same.
Regardless of your opinion on this, it is fundamentally wrong to force injections on people. You are willing, apparently, to remove a person's autonomy over their own body. It is repugnant. Maybe not as repugnant as endangering others, but repugnant nonetheless.
We need to get most of society on board with the idea of vaccinations. When people like yourself go around telling others that there should be forced injections they won't hear the actual arguments that people like myself give them. Your argument for forced injections will get even the fence sitters to refuse.
All extremists look the same to the middle majority of the bell curve. Next time you look at an anti-vaxxer, remember that you look just like them.
A couple of years ago, on a trans-Pacific hop, I watched a documentary of a few years of his creative life.
I was amazed. I'd known he was good, but I did not ever, until then, realize how brilliant he really was.
He was really, really good. In Under Pressure you get a good sense of this as he is paired up with *another* very talented individual and still sounds bloody awesome.
Funny observation from Under Pressure:
Bowie: "It's the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming, "Let me out!""
Mercury: "Deh deh dit deh deh dit deh dehdit deh deh"
I remember in the 80s, rottweilers were the "dangerous dog" to avoid.
They *are* dangerous dogs. I've got two. You *should* avoid them if you're a stranger! They are big, they are powerful and they are fearless (seriously, even the sound of a gunshot doesn't stop my dogs when they charge). They can do a ton of damage in a *very* short time.
my neighbor had one and it was a big ol teddy bear.
its all about the owner
My kid, niece and nephew all play with my dogs without incident. They are one of the best breeds I've ever owned; my cats regularly share the dogs baskets *while the dog is in it*. Think about that for a minute - these dogs are so passive with familiar faces that you can share their beds. However they will charge strangers, and they are very protective over their family.
That being said - see my earlier warning - steer clear of these dogs if you are not part of their family.
No-one ever got killed by a Chihuahua or Pug, so maybe the breed of dog also plays a part...
Maybe it's the size of the dog that plays a part, regardless of breed? Small dogs bite regularly (I've been bitten many times), but because the damage is so small no one cares enough to put the dog down. Large dogs, OTOH, will get put down if they even once have a bad day.
Risk analysis is never used. Vaccines are "Safe" even if the risk is greater than the actual disease. Let say, that Whopping Cough kills 1:1,000,000, but the Vaccine kills 2:1,000,000, it is considered "safe" but twice as risky as not having a vaccine. The 2 don't count as "unsafe" even though it is less safe than nature. After all, vaccines are proven effective!
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
Conclusion: You're an idiot. The risk 1:1000000 changes with each increase of unvaccinated individuals in the herd. Let's assume a best case scenario here: a herd of 1000000, with two people (intentionally) unvaccinated. That's your 1:1000000 number. If three people are unvaccinated that number goes up to 3:1000000. If 500000 people are unvaccinated then your odds of infection are roughly 1:2.
I left out a lot of details - this is the best case scenario for your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
"I didn't do anything wrong" ---often the first words of somebody who has done something wrong.
Coincidentally, those are also the first words of somebody who has done nothing wrong.
So basically we agree, except that I call them MRAs and you call them SJWs.
I doubt it - you've frequently opined that microagressions are a thing, which to many is the defining characteristic of the SJW. The only true common thing between both MRAs and SJWs is that they both look insane to the middle majority of the bell curve.
After all, I remember a post of yours that basically called for segregation... it's hard to believe you're not living in the fifties.
> i had a manager that would respond with being accused of being a *itch with "And this is a Problem WHY??"
Well, she turned me into a newt!
I got better.
Please ignore all those users calling for bans, either banning users or banning ACS. Slashdot has long promoted totally free speech and banning users for what they say is exactly the reason that other sites have fallen.
It was promoted.
It wasn't always practiced.
Agreed, but "Only sometimes practiced" is not a good enough reason to remove it altogether.
Heck, there's even one cab driver driving a tesla because the extra initial cost is offset by the lower running costs.
How does he make a profit on the limited range? Cabbies (over here anyway) might work for eight hours straight, sometimes twelve. Very little of that time is spent stationary.
You want them to completely ditch the existing lineup? Why would they do that?
No mention of ditching, just that 'going electric' in this case is like Honda offering the Prius and Nissan the Leaf. They're still offering the 'traditional' lineup.
There's only two options here:
1. You can add electric cars to your existing lineup.
2. You can do electric-only cars and stop your existing lineup.
Once again I must ask - why on earth would they stop producing their existing cars just because they are producing electric cars?
It appears this will be just another line of cars, not completely ditching the 4-cycle for electric. Why not explore that line?
You want them to completely ditch the existing lineup? Why would they do that?
Please ignore all those users calling for bans, either banning users or banning ACS. Slashdot has long promoted totally free speech and banning users for what they say is exactly the reason that other sites have fallen.
She admitted riding a bike with a motor in it. Your objections can't change reality.
From your own damn link:
"After my chain broke I got off and was told that there was something wrong with my bike. I didn’t know what was wrong. Then I saw that bike standing there. I don’t know how it go there I am more preoccupied with myself on days like that”.
"That bike belongs to a friend of mine. He bought it from me at the end of last season. It is exactly the same bike as what I ride. The friend had ridden round the course with my brother before the race. He had left the bike against the lorry. One of the mechanics must have thought it was my bike and cleaned it up and brought it to me.” Where exactly did she admit to riding the motorised bike? You have severe reading and comprehension problems.
So then I did.
You posted a link to slashdot stories, all in *favour* of women. The comments on those stories are not reflective of your claim "assertion that CS is mens work".
In short, you claim "many people say this on slashdot", but then can't find any to link to.
So next you'll want a Ferrarri and complain if it's not red? You are summing up all I hatr about these stupid "SJW" vs "MRA" discussions. Moving the goalposts - so a comment isn't a comment if made by an AC and then modded up?
Listen, if you want to complain that men on slashdot are in favour oppressing women, you should be able to provide at least one post, right? AC's have always posted shit - trolls posting goatse doesn't provide evidence that slashdot is pro-goatse. Similarly trolls posting anti-women shit is not evidence that slashdot is anti-women.
BTW: asking for evidence happens all the time. Some of the smarter oppression-olympics regulars (AmiMoJo, for example) now simply stop making the claim you continue making, because there's always someone who's going to say "where's this anti-women post you are referring to?", and then fail to be impressed when you link to some downmodded AC post that sits with the GNAA posts.
Here is the link leading to a steaming pile of such shit. www.google.com/search?q=slashdot+women+not+fit+for+it Are you really so useless at using computers that you could not do it yourself?
You said "assertions are made that CS is mens work", but you did not provide a link to any assertions.
Let me be unambiguous: Link to at least one comment that supports your claim above.
(Oh, wait - they're all AC's? The same people who post goatse links and ads for nike shoes on slashdot?)
I could link to any single one of those stories as you well know - so what exactly are you trying to do here?
You keep saying that: "You *could* link to it". But you don't. Because those comments you say exist, those sexist comments about where a women's place is... those comments either don't exist or are all made by AC's and have been downmodded into oblivion. Yeah, sure, you *could* link to "stories", but you don't have any evidence for your assertion - 'assertions are made that sitting typing in an office is "mens work"'.
So, again, can you actually link to a comment where the poster implies that CS is mens work? Because all you do is get angry that people ask for evidence.
Logan Abbott from BIZX here. Happy to answer any questions.
How do you intend to make slashdot self-sufficient WRT to income/expenses? You must have *some* idea or else you would not have purchased it, so let us hear it.
Maybe we'll see the end of the Friday night "SJW" vs "MRA" clickbait fight where assertions are made that sitting typing in an office is "mens work", as if we are all 1920s lumberjacks or something.
You keep saying this... "assertions are made that CS is men's work". I keep asking for a link to those assertions. You have yet to provide one.
You keep using the outliers as representative of the population. They're not.
If we were to grab a random sample of people with BMI indicating obesity we'd get far far more obese people than muscular people. If you and I were to bet money on whether the BMI for each person in the sample is accurate or not, you'd lose a great deal of money betting that the BMI is inaccurate.
BMI is a useful average indicator. If you're muscular and/or tall you already know it's inaccurate - the majority of fatties have a fairly accurate BMI indicator.
You appear to believe that people are, on average, happier after a divorce than people in miserable marriages.
Women I think probably cheat at least as much as men. They just don't need websites to do it, because it's much easier for them to find partners to cheat with.
There have been genetic studies which have found that something like 15% of the population in western countries (I think Britain was where one study was done) does not have the father they thought they did, meaning that their mother cheated, while ovulating. Other studies have found that women are much more likely to stray when they are ovulating.
A study I read in the past was a US-based study which found that a third (33%) of paternity suits reveals that the husband is not the father. Obviously, that sets the lower bound on the number of (female[1]) cheaters. In reality, I'm guessing that maybe half the population has cheated on an SO at some point in their life.
[1] I also feel it must be obvious that the number of female cheaters and male cheaters have to be similar.
Trump just says stuff because he doesn't actually know how anything works. Business included. He's a complete moron who just got handed a silver spoon at birth. His apparent success should not be any indication he has a clue how anything other than bribing works in the world. He know nothing about politics, nothing about business, nothing about people, nothing about the world. He's gotten were he is simply because of money.
Sounds like every US president ever. What exactly was your point?
Also, some software is not well suited for a comprehensive unit test suite. I work on stuff that has a GUI, which I can't unit-test with the tools we have, and it spits out gcode for CNC mills, which I also can't unit-test. When a serious test of some functionality requires that the operator load something into a CNC mill and run it, it really can't be unit-tested.
That's not really a unit-test though, is it? I call those things integration tests.
You might choose to not get the vaccine, which makes you a risk to those who can not get the vaccine or for whom the vaccine did not work. Do those people not get the "my body, my choice" right? After all, according to what you just said, it's "their body, your choice".
I said no such thing. I did not even imply it, and it would demonstrate cognitive dissonance on your part to continue misrepresenting my position.
my position is clear: on the one hand you have irresponsible behaviour by individuals while on the other you have forced injections by the state. They are both evils, but the poster I responded painted one of those evils as evil and the other as good. You are attempting to do the same.
Regardless of your opinion on this, it is fundamentally wrong to force injections on people. You are willing, apparently, to remove a person's autonomy over their own body. It is repugnant. Maybe not as repugnant as endangering others, but repugnant nonetheless.
We need to get most of society on board with the idea of vaccinations. When people like yourself go around telling others that there should be forced injections they won't hear the actual arguments that people like myself give them. Your argument for forced injections will get even the fence sitters to refuse.
All extremists look the same to the middle majority of the bell curve. Next time you look at an anti-vaxxer, remember that you look just like them.
Ditto.
A couple of years ago, on a trans-Pacific hop, I watched a documentary of a few years of his creative life.
I was amazed. I'd known he was good, but I did not ever, until then, realize how brilliant he really was.
He was really, really good. In Under Pressure you get a good sense of this as he is paired up with *another* very talented individual and still sounds bloody awesome.
Funny observation from Under Pressure:
Bowie: "It's the terror of knowing What this world is about Watching some good friends Screaming, "Let me out!""
Mercury: "Deh deh dit deh deh dit deh dehdit deh deh"
I remember in the 80s, rottweilers were the "dangerous dog" to avoid.
They *are* dangerous dogs. I've got two. You *should* avoid them if you're a stranger! They are big, they are powerful and they are fearless (seriously, even the sound of a gunshot doesn't stop my dogs when they charge). They can do a ton of damage in a *very* short time.
my neighbor had one and it was a big ol teddy bear. its all about the owner
My kid, niece and nephew all play with my dogs without incident. They are one of the best breeds I've ever owned; my cats regularly share the dogs baskets *while the dog is in it*. Think about that for a minute - these dogs are so passive with familiar faces that you can share their beds. However they will charge strangers, and they are very protective over their family.
That being said - see my earlier warning - steer clear of these dogs if you are not part of their family.
No-one ever got killed by a Chihuahua or Pug, so maybe the breed of dog also plays a part...
Maybe it's the size of the dog that plays a part, regardless of breed? Small dogs bite regularly (I've been bitten many times), but because the damage is so small no one cares enough to put the dog down. Large dogs, OTOH, will get put down if they even once have a bad day.
"Thankfully no infants died in that case."
Risk analysis is never used. Vaccines are "Safe" even if the risk is greater than the actual disease. Let say, that Whopping Cough kills 1:1,000,000, but the Vaccine kills 2:1,000,000, it is considered "safe" but twice as risky as not having a vaccine. The 2 don't count as "unsafe" even though it is less safe than nature. After all, vaccines are proven effective!
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
Conclusion: You're an idiot. The risk 1:1000000 changes with each increase of unvaccinated individuals in the herd. Let's assume a best case scenario here: a herd of 1000000, with two people (intentionally) unvaccinated. That's your 1:1000000 number. If three people are unvaccinated that number goes up to 3:1000000. If 500000 people are unvaccinated then your odds of infection are roughly 1:2.
I left out a lot of details - this is the best case scenario for your argument.