Here I actually agree with you. I think that overwhelming force is going to be the only possible solution here - to utterly remove the enemy's ability to wage war of any sort.
Haven't Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam demonstrated that this doesn't work either?
'An eye for an eye' will leave the whole world blind.
Ironically, in support of a non-violent response you use the quote of one of the best known peace-brokers in history, but this man you quote, Ghandi himself, was not able to broker a peace with islamists. He eventually caved, broke of a bit of India, called it Pakistan and gave it to islam in the hope that their violence would then be contained.
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people.
What frightens me is that you actually believe this is the message that wearing a colander on your head in a photo ID sends to others.
You appear to be alone in your interpretation of the message. Just about everyone with enough brain cells to rub together gets that this is parody. Regardless if they are offended or entertained by it, they agree that FSM is parody.
The point of parody is to act exactly like the object of the parody, minus the context, thereby displaying the stupidity of the object of the parody. In this case, the object of the parody is religion. FSM appears to have worked beautifully as a parody of a belief in an invisible all-powerful sky-friend who has no power.
Anyone working with ISIS is not a "civilian" in the classic sense.
You realize that Raqqah is one of the largest cities in Syria, right?
You think Dresden was a village?
People there don't have a choice about "working with Daesh".
You think that Dresden residents had a choice with the Nazis?
You realise that GP made the remark about Dresden precisely because It was carpet-bombed, residents and all.
Seriously, look up some of the WWII literature. You are hopelessly clueless about what will actually happen once countries go to war. They have, can and will bomb civilians in order to win.
You might be onto something - the KKK was basically stripped of its power by a mere spy who revealed all their inner workings. Having spies in ISIS is probably more useful than bombing their positions. If you can find out where they are you stand a good chance at infiltration.
That was either an entry level vehicle, or a long time ago. I will likely simply keep my car once it is paid off, it seems the best answer. By comparison, my brother in the states pays nearly half what I do for a similar vehicle.
Long time ago. Plus, the car was a demo model, not new. The car now has +300000km under its belt and still serves me well. I might have to fork out money for a new car soon, but I sure as hell wouldn't be financing it. Buying cheap, 2nd hand with cash.
Wrong question. How much better would the kernel be with their contributions? Maybe Linux would have replaced Windows by now (unlikely, I know). Maybe it would have gained some really useful feature. Maybe a less hostile environment surrounding kernel development would have prevented systemd being what it is (divisive and rage inducing).
You are presenting the hypothetical situations as a given. Linux, the kernel, is a runaway success. It is by far the most used kernel in the world. The most flexible. The most important. You want to believe that it would be even better had some of these hypothetical contributors materialised.
Your presentation of systemd as an example is a good one, but not for you. All the userland stuff - gnome3, systemd, wayland, etc - all those things are the product of organisations that have had a womens outreach program or similar. Compared to the kernel, they're absolute garbage. They've lost users in an age where more people than ever need a userland, while the kernel itself has gained users.
As your own two examples so spectacularly show, the projects that are huge successes in their chosen field have Linus torvalds type leaders. The divisive ones - the failures that have driven users away - they're the "inclusive" projects. What we mostly learned from projects like Gnome is that the contributors who have a political axe to grind are the worst kind to have.
As the kernel forges ahead gaining ever more users due to pure technical merits, your "inclusive" projects have turned into full-on retard-fests.
The reason is that, perhaps, the best contributors do not want to work with people who have a political axe to grind. The kernel, for example, was able to shed some deadweight simply by not caving in to the Sarah Sharps of the world. If they had stayed, would the other contributors have stayed too?
Logic failure. We don't know how many people avoided contributing to the Linux kernel, or went to work somewhere other than Apple to avoid Jobs. I certainly wouldn't bother with either of those things, when there are plenty of other much better opportunities available.
I really can't understand why someone would want to work for someone like Jobs. If you have that much talent then your skills are in demand elsewhere, and it's not like Apple pays 2x market rate (in fact weren't they part of the scam to underpay tech workers that ended up in court recently?), so why put up with it? What makes that amount of stress and conflict worth putting up with?
While I actually agree with you that if my personal threshold is exceeded I'm willing to tell my employer to go fuck themselves, you're seem to be dismissing the fact that the most successful companies are those who you wouldn't work for.
Hell, you're saying that you don't know how many useful people avoided contributing to the Linux kernel because they won't take a public rant from Linus, but as a matter of fact we *do* know that they weren't needed to become successful. If they were needed, the kernel wouldn't be successful, ergo, they were not needed.
When I had an interview at Accolade, which got bought up by Infogrames and became the new Atari, I got asked the following question: "If two of your coworkers were having a fist fight out in the hallway, what would you do?"
I blurted out, "Does that happen a lot around here?"
You have been modded mostly Funny, but you deserve +5 Insightful.
The way to respond to a provocative question like that is to ask another question that bounces it back. That makes the question go away. I heard a similar piece of advice years ago about responding to the question "How are you with handling difficult co-workers?" The suggested answer was "Are you thinking of someone in particular?"
But for the most part, SJW is an epithet applied by others to a situation. Then, they see eg. that Barbie is trying to be less of a vapid dunce.
There's been pilot barbie, astronaut barbie and doctor barbie. Barbie was often portrayed as smart, confident and accomplished. I'm not too sure where the idea came from that barbie only ever provided a role model that reinforced gender roles, but one thing is clear - the extremists pushing this ideology have no clue about history.
Men and women are different, but we know (because we asked) that women do want to go into CS. It's a myth that women are just not suited to it. There is also no evidence that women lack the intelligence or ability to think logically.
I agree that we know that women don't want to go into CS, BUT it's a big leap of faith t assume that the reason is due to your particular belief system. Also, I, and all of the other egalitarian, never made the claim about female intelligence. IOW we never claim that women lack the ability only that they find solo activities less desirable.
demands a selfless focus on the subject (the code, the game, the proof), which is pretty hard to achieve when you think bearing children is the ultimate meaning of life.
Try this on for size:
demands a selfless focus on the subject (the code, the game, the proof), which is pretty hard to achieve when you think having sex is the ultimate meaning of life.
Claiming women can't bring sufficient concentration to a problem because of their interest in child-bearing is as lame as claiming men can't because of sex.
While I broadly agree with you I have to (slightly) disagree on a particular point: women are more risk averse than men when it comes to sex. Being risk-averse in a particular field (say... sex) means spending more time contemplating it. Being less risk averse means spending less time contemplating it.
Sex is more important to women than to men; they take more care in evaluating partners because, from an evolutionary perspective, those that didn't get the "who'll be the daddy" part right didn't procreate. Men didn't need to exercise the same care because the number of children they can have is limited only by the number of females they can impregnate. Women had a limited number of opportunities for offspring, hence women took more care in ensuring the best offspring possible, with the best possible father-figure possible (not always the same man).
It's sad that Slashdot has been taken over by mod-bombing asshats. My post was at +5 for a while, then it got mod-bombed down to 0. It's clearly not without merit, others replied to it... It's just the MRA block voting again.
There is no MRA voting block - hell, there are very few MRA posts in general. Look at this story for example - how many MRA posts do you find? I see a lot of egalitarian arguments, but no MRA arguments. Can you point them out?
It's just showing that one group of people who used to be more interested in coding but for some reason declined that coding could be for them.
It's been a long time since you dragged out the "CS used to have more women in the past than it has now, hence it must be cultural indoctrination/sexism/etc reason that it is different now". I've repeatedly, and politely, pointed out to you that lack of options for women correlate very highly with numbers of women in CS.
It seems you are missing or (even worse) deliberately ignoring this datum in order to push proaganda. Let me try to be clear and unambiguous:
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
I certainly hope you aren't going to eventually circle back to this argument, but nothing in life is certain, except hope:-)
This statement is at odds with your usual thoughts on the matter. Your posting history has a lot of "there is no reason for any task to be more desirable to one gender over the other" type of posts.
They are not even going to start fixing the emissions issues until next year in the UK. Since there are so many vehicles to fix it is likely to take some time to do them all. As they fix them people who have been waiting to sell will put them on the market, flooding it and pushing prices down.
Let's see in a year how much of an impact this will have on people. The UK government is already talking about compensation from VW for owners.
I do not understand - why can the car not be sold? Obviously the fix, when it comes, will be free to all the cars irrespective of owner?
I bet Porsche and BMW owners do care now. If they bought then their cars are now worth a lot less, and if they leased then their next car will probably cost them more unless they switch to another brand.
Porsche, maybe... if the owner bought one of the sportscars and not the SUV/sedan. BMW? Doubt it. Cars depreciate so much from new; luxury car buyers know well in advance that their car is worth comparatively nothing when they trade up. When you are prepared to lose $100k in depreciation just to be able to drive a luxury car, I seriously doubt that you will even care about another few hundred dollars.
We'll soon find out if this has affected VW sales or not.
I wonder. The scandal is only getting worse, and I wonder if this old brand will be able to recover? Its reputation is no doubt tarnished for years to come, and I am sure that's already taking a big toll on sales.
Please! I'd be surprised if it made more than a 0.01% dent in sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Here I actually agree with you. I think that overwhelming force is going to be the only possible solution here - to utterly remove the enemy's ability to wage war of any sort.
Haven't Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam demonstrated that this doesn't work either?
Didn't world war II prove that it *does* work?
'An eye for an eye' will leave the whole world blind.
Ironically, in support of a non-violent response you use the quote of one of the best known peace-brokers in history, but this man you quote, Ghandi himself, was not able to broker a peace with islamists. He eventually caved, broke of a bit of India, called it Pakistan and gave it to islam in the hope that their violence would then be contained.
Do you wear the same clothes every day that were in your license photo?
My clothes aren't religious symbols - an outward expression of my beliefs. Your argument fails.
A priest's collar is an outward expression of his beliefs, but he is not required to wear them at all times. Your argument fails.
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people.
What frightens me is that you actually believe this is the message that wearing a colander on your head in a photo ID sends to others.
You appear to be alone in your interpretation of the message. Just about everyone with enough brain cells to rub together gets that this is parody. Regardless if they are offended or entertained by it, they agree that FSM is parody.
The point of parody is to act exactly like the object of the parody, minus the context, thereby displaying the stupidity of the object of the parody. In this case, the object of the parody is religion. FSM appears to have worked beautifully as a parody of a belief in an invisible all-powerful sky-friend who has no power.
But perhaps what you really want is for the government to adopt and enforce your religion?
No, just protection from the toxic hate speech inciting verbal violence directed at religious followers. We deserve our safe spaces too.
Why don't you try praying for it?
http://www.americasfreedomfigh...
Quit your whining, we already have religious freedom for real religions. This is about religious freedom for satirical fake religions.
What's the difference? They both look the same from over here.
You realize that Raqqah is one of the largest cities in Syria, right?
You think Dresden was a village?
People there don't have a choice about "working with Daesh".
You think that Dresden residents had a choice with the Nazis?
You realise that GP made the remark about Dresden precisely because It was carpet-bombed, residents and all.
Seriously, look up some of the WWII literature. You are hopelessly clueless about what will actually happen once countries go to war. They have, can and will bomb civilians in order to win.
You might be onto something - the KKK was basically stripped of its power by a mere spy who revealed all their inner workings. Having spies in ISIS is probably more useful than bombing their positions. If you can find out where they are you stand a good chance at infiltration.
That was either an entry level vehicle, or a long time ago. I will likely simply keep my car once it is paid off, it seems the best answer. By comparison, my brother in the states pays nearly half what I do for a similar vehicle.
Long time ago. Plus, the car was a demo model, not new. The car now has +300000km under its belt and still serves me well. I might have to fork out money for a new car soon, but I sure as hell wouldn't be financing it. Buying cheap, 2nd hand with cash.
My mid sized sedan repayments are around R4 800/month. Cars are significantly more expensive here then in the US.
The last car I bought was at R1.8k/m. Once it was paid off I simply kept it.
Wrong question. How much better would the kernel be with their contributions? Maybe Linux would have replaced Windows by now (unlikely, I know). Maybe it would have gained some really useful feature. Maybe a less hostile environment surrounding kernel development would have prevented systemd being what it is (divisive and rage inducing).
You are presenting the hypothetical situations as a given. Linux, the kernel, is a runaway success. It is by far the most used kernel in the world. The most flexible. The most important. You want to believe that it would be even better had some of these hypothetical contributors materialised.
Your presentation of systemd as an example is a good one, but not for you. All the userland stuff - gnome3, systemd, wayland, etc - all those things are the product of organisations that have had a womens outreach program or similar. Compared to the kernel, they're absolute garbage. They've lost users in an age where more people than ever need a userland, while the kernel itself has gained users.
As your own two examples so spectacularly show, the projects that are huge successes in their chosen field have Linus torvalds type leaders. The divisive ones - the failures that have driven users away - they're the "inclusive" projects. What we mostly learned from projects like Gnome is that the contributors who have a political axe to grind are the worst kind to have.
As the kernel forges ahead gaining ever more users due to pure technical merits, your "inclusive" projects have turned into full-on retard-fests.
The reason is that, perhaps, the best contributors do not want to work with people who have a political axe to grind. The kernel, for example, was able to shed some deadweight simply by not caving in to the Sarah Sharps of the world. If they had stayed, would the other contributors have stayed too?
Politics doesn't belong in some places.
Logic failure. We don't know how many people avoided contributing to the Linux kernel, or went to work somewhere other than Apple to avoid Jobs. I certainly wouldn't bother with either of those things, when there are plenty of other much better opportunities available.
I really can't understand why someone would want to work for someone like Jobs. If you have that much talent then your skills are in demand elsewhere, and it's not like Apple pays 2x market rate (in fact weren't they part of the scam to underpay tech workers that ended up in court recently?), so why put up with it? What makes that amount of stress and conflict worth putting up with?
While I actually agree with you that if my personal threshold is exceeded I'm willing to tell my employer to go fuck themselves, you're seem to be dismissing the fact that the most successful companies are those who you wouldn't work for.
Hell, you're saying that you don't know how many useful people avoided contributing to the Linux kernel because they won't take a public rant from Linus, but as a matter of fact we *do* know that they weren't needed to become successful. If they were needed, the kernel wouldn't be successful, ergo, they were not needed.
When I had an interview at Accolade, which got bought up by Infogrames and became the new Atari, I got asked the following question: "If two of your coworkers were having a fist fight out in the hallway, what would you do?"
I blurted out, "Does that happen a lot around here?"
You have been modded mostly Funny, but you deserve +5 Insightful.
The way to respond to a provocative question like that is to ask another question that bounces it back. That makes the question go away. I heard a similar piece of advice years ago about responding to the question "How are you with handling difficult co-workers?" The suggested answer was "Are you thinking of someone in particular?"
What do you do if they answer with "yeah, me"?
But for the most part, SJW is an epithet applied by others to a situation. Then, they see eg. that Barbie is trying to be less of a vapid dunce.
There's been pilot barbie, astronaut barbie and doctor barbie. Barbie was often portrayed as smart, confident and accomplished. I'm not too sure where the idea came from that barbie only ever provided a role model that reinforced gender roles, but one thing is clear - the extremists pushing this ideology have no clue about history.
DRINK MOTHERFUCKERS!
That's an odd choice. Can't I just stick to drinking scotch? ;-)
So that's what they're calling the campaign Twitter feeds these days...
Got another one:
;-)
Q: Do you know what they call IF that is at least slightly fun or entertaining?
A: A Game
Men and women are different, but we know (because we asked) that women do want to go into CS. It's a myth that women are just not suited to it. There is also no evidence that women lack the intelligence or ability to think logically.
I agree that we know that women don't want to go into CS, BUT it's a big leap of faith t assume that the reason is due to your particular belief system. Also, I, and all of the other egalitarian, never made the claim about female intelligence. IOW we never claim that women lack the ability only that they find solo activities less desirable.
demands a selfless focus on the subject (the code, the game, the proof), which is pretty hard to achieve when you think bearing children is the ultimate meaning of life.
Try this on for size:
demands a selfless focus on the subject (the code, the game, the proof), which is pretty hard to achieve when you think having sex is the ultimate meaning of life.
men are willing to have sex with just about anything that crosses their path, which I guess explains the two guys that had sex with a porcupine
Claiming women can't bring sufficient concentration to a problem because of their interest in child-bearing is as lame as claiming men can't because of sex.
While I broadly agree with you I have to (slightly) disagree on a particular point: women are more risk averse than men when it comes to sex. Being risk-averse in a particular field (say... sex) means spending more time contemplating it. Being less risk averse means spending less time contemplating it.
Sex is more important to women than to men; they take more care in evaluating partners because, from an evolutionary perspective, those that didn't get the "who'll be the daddy" part right didn't procreate. Men didn't need to exercise the same care because the number of children they can have is limited only by the number of females they can impregnate. Women had a limited number of opportunities for offspring, hence women took more care in ensuring the best offspring possible, with the best possible father-figure possible (not always the same man).
It's sad that Slashdot has been taken over by mod-bombing asshats. My post was at +5 for a while, then it got mod-bombed down to 0. It's clearly not without merit, others replied to it... It's just the MRA block voting again.
There is no MRA voting block - hell, there are very few MRA posts in general. Look at this story for example - how many MRA posts do you find? I see a lot of egalitarian arguments, but no MRA arguments. Can you point them out?
It's just showing that one group of people who used to be more interested in coding but for some reason declined that coding could be for them.
It's been a long time since you dragged out the "CS used to have more women in the past than it has now, hence it must be cultural indoctrination/sexism/etc reason that it is different now". I've repeatedly, and politely, pointed out to you that lack of options for women correlate very highly with numbers of women in CS.
It seems you are missing or (even worse) deliberately ignoring this datum in order to push proaganda. Let me try to be clear and unambiguous:
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
Women in the 80's had fewer options than they do now. When given more options women left CS and took the other options
I certainly hope you aren't going to eventually circle back to this argument, but nothing in life is certain, except hope :-)
Women's brains and men's brains are not the same.
This statement is at odds with your usual thoughts on the matter. Your posting history has a lot of "there is no reason for any task to be more desirable to one gender over the other" type of posts.
They are not even going to start fixing the emissions issues until next year in the UK. Since there are so many vehicles to fix it is likely to take some time to do them all. As they fix them people who have been waiting to sell will put them on the market, flooding it and pushing prices down.
Let's see in a year how much of an impact this will have on people. The UK government is already talking about compensation from VW for owners.
I do not understand - why can the car not be sold? Obviously the fix, when it comes, will be free to all the cars irrespective of owner?
I know someone who wants to buy a Tesla, but can't sell his Audi because it's waiting to be fixed.
Why is it waiting?
I bet Porsche and BMW owners do care now. If they bought then their cars are now worth a lot less, and if they leased then their next car will probably cost them more unless they switch to another brand.
Porsche, maybe... if the owner bought one of the sportscars and not the SUV/sedan. BMW? Doubt it. Cars depreciate so much from new; luxury car buyers know well in advance that their car is worth comparatively nothing when they trade up. When you are prepared to lose $100k in depreciation just to be able to drive a luxury car, I seriously doubt that you will even care about another few hundred dollars.
We'll soon find out if this has affected VW sales or not.
I wonder. The scandal is only getting worse, and I wonder if this old brand will be able to recover? Its reputation is no doubt tarnished for years to come, and I am sure that's already taking a big toll on sales.
Please! I'd be surprised if it made more than a 0.01% dent in sales.