I'm a trained CNC machinist with a 3D printer and I think your attitude is stereo-typically ignorant.
Funny all the trained CNC machinists with 3D printers are all anonymous. The non-anonymous ones readily admit that if a thing you want is all of cheap, fragile and made of cheap plastic then a home 3D printer would suit you just fine, otherwise get a cheapie mill or lathe, or pay 10-20 times that amount for a decent 3D printer.
Yes it does matter. If a piece of software does what it is programmed to do, in the direct sense, then it is not AI. If it can learn to respond or act in a manner that is not directly programed to do, then you are seeing whiffs of AI.
Using these goalposts even real intelligence, nevermind AI, would never meet the standard - if it has been directly programmed to learn new responses, ilke humans for example, then you would still fail it as intelligence using this criteria.
How about if what you directly programmed it to do was to write code to handle unexpected situations/inputs/etc? Perhaps in an iterative fashion, using previously gathered data? Using code fragments that are reassembled in new combinations, testing each mutation for success against the inputs? Because AIUI this is what the majority of chatbots *currently* do - use previously acquired data to refine their outputs.
We can have a reasonable discussion about the severity of the response, if it was too severe or not sever enough. We cannot disagree that his comments were inappropriate.
The consequences, in this particular case, is that the someone will forever be shunned by institutions. The only good thing to come out of this is that they will never work again. Their name is forever tainted due to the large amount of non-science that they did. The other party of this little drama will continue being a well-respected nobel prize-winner working on cancer research, with offers of employment and requests for assistance pouring in.
The witch-hunter in this round fully got what she deserved. When your publicly available CV does not match up to publicly available information *AND* that particular fact is the first hit on google you may as well kill yourself - no one else is ever going to believe a word you say about your competence again.
Depends who "we" are. His employer was immediately opened up to bring sued or having exam results for his classes questioned by female students who could argue he has demonstrated bias. It would have been nice to see them fight if they thought he was really joking (and it seems like he wasn't, as he publicly stood by his words later) but they were under no obligation to do anything other than limit their liability.
Are you really so dim that you would really take the thus far unsubstantiated word of a couple of activists over tens of the worlds most eminent female scientists? That you believe that sexist jokes are a bigger issue than plagiarism? In the science world (yeah, I used to work as one) plagiarism is the biggest sin one can commit. Religion ideals like you tend to espouse? Not so much.
The catch is whether to trust Daily Mail's supposed digging. It doesn't exactly have the most stellar reputation for accuracy.
How the hell is this insightful? She claims to have published stuff that she hadn't. She claims to have worked in positions that she hasn't. There is a large body of evidence that she has fabricated her CV. She now claims a nobel prize-winner said sexist things. Many of the eminent female scientists, as well as people who were actually at the toast her gave disputes this, yet you jump to her defence? What the hell is wrong with you?
Seriously, hire a developer for six figures and give him a few hundred bucks in desk space that doesn't even have four cube walls? That makes all the sense in the world, right. Argh.
That's because the goal isn't to be productive, it's to remind the plebs of their places. Offices are reserved for those who are higher in the organisation, not those who require offices. It's a class system and its' designed to remind you that you are the cattle.
The occasional loyal worker will, of course, argue that open-plan is better ("collaboration", "exchange of ideas", etc), but that's because they consider themselves important enough to the organisation that they will one day get their own office - IOW they aren't poor, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
10%? Are you suggesting that Slashdot has a population of homosexuals that exceeds the general population ratio of 1.6-3%?
No, I'm suggesting that the general population ratio is 10% and in some reports say it's closer to 20%.
There are no credible reports that estimate anything above 8%. There are very very few that find above 4%. I generally round up to 10% when talking about the homosexual population. In general, any "report" that finds above 4% (including bisexuals) is suspect.
Personally, I've been in a relationship with my g/f for almost 10 years and lived together for 7.
You're probably already married, and in the worse way possible (community of property). The reason I keep getting married is because I don't want to live with a woman for longer than the length dictated by my jurisdiction for cohabitation. The easiest thing is a prenup marriage. If I *don't* keep getting married then I don't get the protection that a prenup gives in the event of a breakup.
TLDR; if you cohabitate with your partner for a long enough length of time the laws decide that you *are* married in community of property.
imho, it's not a bit half-baked, it's all the way...*this idea is awful*
my first thought was, in order to detect on females you have to have intercourse first, which kind of defeats the purpose...
It only serves no purpose if you never intend sleeping with this person again. If you want to play around a little more next time with this person, this condom absolutely serves a purpose.
What leads you to believe that? All you've done is display a link between "countries with fewer rights for women" and "women in STEM/CS". This would lead a rational person to believe that when women have more options they exercise them (like in the west). When they have fewer options they are stuck with STEM/CS.
First, not all listed countries induce restrictions on women.
One doesn't. The others do. You've simply displayed a link between lack of womens rights and their propensity for CS. Well Done!
Second, the restrictions do not apply in education.
There's no restrictions in the west either.
Albeit in Iran Theology is off limits in Iran, they can study almost everything if they want to.
Just like the west.
And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.
Yes they do, however, in another different than ours.
Their young girls have fewer choices than western young girls. Western girls have many more choices, and are *encouraged* from birth to believe that they can do anything they want to, so they go ahead and do whatever they want to. "Follow your heart" is a western expression for kids, not a middle eastern one.
anyway, to change the reputation of STEM topics (without Biology and Pharmacy which are already a women dominated fields) in the public and show our daughters that STEM can be fun for them.
My point still stands: When young girls (like in the west) are told they can do whatever they want to they avoid CS like the plague. When they are not given a choice they can be found in CS. Did your Iranian friends forget to tell you that they didn't get to choose their major; that their parents did? Or is that a fact you conveniently "forgot"?
FWIW, I'm from a culture closely related to the eastern and middle-eastern ones, and the way it normally goes is that the parents choose on their childs behalf, for everything from spouse to college major. Next time you meet with your friends ask them about it - I very much doubt a culture with arranged marriages does not have parents arranging the majors too.
I do not see a good reason for having a girls only class.
There it is. If you don't understand the issues involved, why do you hold such a strong opinion on the subject?
Holy Reading Comprehension Batman!
(What makes you think he doesn't understand the issues involved?)
Because if he did understand the issues involved, he would have to acknowledge that there are many good reasons for having a girls only class. He might not agree with them, but his original comment appeared to dismiss their very existence.
He said "I see no good reasons for $FOO". Almost by definition, it means that the ones you feel satisfy your minimum level for being "good" do not satisfy his. You're basically saying that if someone disagrees with your opinion of "good", then they haven't understood the issue.
By the same logic, if you disagree with someone else's opinion of "good", then does it mean that you don't understand the issue?
I've noticed systematic efforts by some of the MRAs to mod down people saying things they don't like, which isn't what the moderation system is for.
Nope. You are getting modded down for using creationist arguments. You, personally, keep getting asked for evidence. You haven't provided any.
Sad to say, but you will probably get more than -1 Troll mod for your perfectly reasonable, well constructed post just because it contradicts the MRA victim mentality.
This is only true for Western countries. In many other cultures women are dominant in engineering and computer science. For example, Iran (70 percent), Philippines (52 percent), Thailand (51 percent) and Kazakhstan (50 percent).
What leads you to believe that? All you've done is display a link between "countries with fewer rights for women" and "women in STEM/CS". This would lead a rational person to believe that when women have more options they exercise them (like in the west). When they have fewer options they are stuck with STEM/CS.
and I doubt that it will improve any time soon. First, most programs address people at the end or after school. Then it is too late. If you want to "fix" it, you should start changing education in nursery and primary school. And yes, you should stop offering them dolls and fostering stupid girlie behavior, like "oh cool shopping".
And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.
" boys tend to be more willing to go against peer pressure and do what interests them."
LMOL - yeah that explains all those nerd with dates at the prom and giving football players swirlies....
You proved his point - even when attacked for their choices, boys still do whatever they are interested in.
There was no outrage and no claims of sexism when efforts were made to recruit more men into nursing and education, by the way. Presumably now you are aware of this you condemn it, right?
If the best you can do is an online chat service open to all (not just men), then you've already lost. You keep getting asked for evidence. Repeatedly. And this is what you eventually come up with?
I can recognize the privilege I enjoy by being a good-looking, tall, straight, white, male or a healthy normal weight.
So you now assume that any unattractive, short, homosexual, coloured male has the same privilege as good-looking, tall, straight, white males?
The only differentiator from the "men-are-privileged" mob is the sex.
I started live on easy mode.
I agree, and it's because you played life on the easy mode that you have the opinions you do.
Women now have more freedoms in employment than they did back then.
Than they did in the early 80's? No, not significantly, not enough to account for the massive drop (especially given the orders-of-magnitude increase in the size of the field).
That "massive drop" is almost exactly countered by the rise of women veterinarians, doctors and lawyers. So, you see a 25% drop of women in CS, then you see a cumulative 25% rise in those three fields listed above, and you still come up with "OMG SEXISM"?
You're exactly the kind of sexist of moron I referred to. When all else fails, you'll stoop to making shit up to justify your nonsense.
The fact that there are more CS women (%) in female-oppressed countries than CS women (%) in liberal countries is not made up. You are free to use that fact when forming an opinion, but note that the existence of a contrary opinion is not enough to change that fact.
Oh I see: They did it for money. That justifies everything!
What makes you think that? A less-biased/more-rational person may have though "well, the ones that made gender-neutral toys made less money/went out of business". The problem I can see is that you want to enforce your present concept of fairness, and those who find it lacking in actual evidence get the name-calling/facetiousness/general abuse. The girls who want to play with girly stuff? Oh, they're just indoctrinated! Those who don't? They have good parents.
What we need is for advertisers to go back to showing girls playing with non-pink stuff, like Lego did before about 1985. Maybe you should show her this, and the many similar images from that era.
The irony (that you will get but probably ignore) is that the advertising in question lead to no girls wanting to play with the stuff (no, girls weren't into LEGO in the early 80's), providing further evidence that it is not nurture but nature that makes girls not want bare LEGO. This advertisement is proof that they tried it your way and your way did not result in more girls playing with LEGO.
The 80s and 90s were high points for women in software engineering, at both university and in the workplace. Around 2000 the numbers really started to nose-dive, which is why the issue has come back up again. Once the current issues are dealt with you will hear less about it.
It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that women with fewer choices, such as in the 80's or in current day Iraq and India, go into CS. Are you really that intellectually dishonest that you would continue insisting that the current dearth of women in CS can not be due to choice regardless of how many times it's pointed out that women with fewer choices go into CS?
Seriously though - you do this for every clickbait anti-men article that comes up, and you get told the same thing every time you make this assertion. You even went so far once as to say that perhaps the west ought to copy the Iraq model. Although you *do* tend to go quiet every time it's pointed out though, so there's at least an upside; you won't throw this "issue" out until the next discussion, at which point someone will again point out that places with fewer female rights have more CS females. Then you'll go quiet again.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a trained CNC machinist with a 3D printer and I think your attitude is stereo-typically ignorant.
Funny all the trained CNC machinists with 3D printers are all anonymous. The non-anonymous ones readily admit that if a thing you want is all of cheap, fragile and made of cheap plastic then a home 3D printer would suit you just fine, otherwise get a cheapie mill or lathe, or pay 10-20 times that amount for a decent 3D printer.
Yes it does matter. If a piece of software does what it is programmed to do, in the direct sense, then it is not AI. If it can learn to respond or act in a manner that is not directly programed to do, then you are seeing whiffs of AI.
Using these goalposts even real intelligence, nevermind AI, would never meet the standard - if it has been directly programmed to learn new responses, ilke humans for example, then you would still fail it as intelligence using this criteria.
How about if what you directly programmed it to do was to write code to handle unexpected situations/inputs/etc? Perhaps in an iterative fashion, using previously gathered data? Using code fragments that are reassembled in new combinations, testing each mutation for success against the inputs? Because AIUI this is what the majority of chatbots *currently* do - use previously acquired data to refine their outputs.
Yeah, but that still aint as kooky as your previous stuff :-) C'mon man - "crying manbabies" - you know you wnat to say it :-)
We can have a reasonable discussion about the severity of the response, if it was too severe or not sever enough. We cannot disagree that his comments were inappropriate.
The consequences, in this particular case, is that the someone will forever be shunned by institutions. The only good thing to come out of this is that they will never work again. Their name is forever tainted due to the large amount of non-science that they did. The other party of this little drama will continue being a well-respected nobel prize-winner working on cancer research, with offers of employment and requests for assistance pouring in.
The witch-hunter in this round fully got what she deserved. When your publicly available CV does not match up to publicly available information *AND* that particular fact is the first hit on google you may as well kill yourself - no one else is ever going to believe a word you say about your competence again.
Depends who "we" are. His employer was immediately opened up to bring sued or having exam results for his classes questioned by female students who could argue he has demonstrated bias. It would have been nice to see them fight if they thought he was really joking (and it seems like he wasn't, as he publicly stood by his words later) but they were under no obligation to do anything other than limit their liability.
Are you really so dim that you would really take the thus far unsubstantiated word of a couple of activists over tens of the worlds most eminent female scientists? That you believe that sexist jokes are a bigger issue than plagiarism? In the science world (yeah, I used to work as one) plagiarism is the biggest sin one can commit. Religion ideals like you tend to espouse? Not so much.
Personally, I am outraged over all the social media outrage about outrage.
Wait, should I be counting the number of "outrages" the way you count minus signs in an equation? I DON'T FUCKING CARE, I AM OUTRAGED.
Anyway, what else do they think social media is for, except to express outrage? And cat pics, of course, but I find those kind of outrageous.
What? No MRA conspiracy post? No violent invective hurled at imaginary manbabies? Your standards are dropping poperatzo :-)
The catch is whether to trust Daily Mail's supposed digging. It doesn't exactly have the most stellar reputation for accuracy.
How the hell is this insightful? She claims to have published stuff that she hadn't. She claims to have worked in positions that she hasn't. There is a large body of evidence that she has fabricated her CV. She now claims a nobel prize-winner said sexist things. Many of the eminent female scientists, as well as people who were actually at the toast her gave disputes this, yet you jump to her defence? What the hell is wrong with you?
Seriously, hire a developer for six figures and give him a few hundred bucks in desk space that doesn't even have four cube walls? That makes all the sense in the world, right. Argh.
That's because the goal isn't to be productive, it's to remind the plebs of their places. Offices are reserved for those who are higher in the organisation, not those who require offices. It's a class system and its' designed to remind you that you are the cattle.
The occasional loyal worker will, of course, argue that open-plan is better ("collaboration", "exchange of ideas", etc), but that's because they consider themselves important enough to the organisation that they will one day get their own office - IOW they aren't poor, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
10%? Are you suggesting that Slashdot has a population of homosexuals that exceeds the general population ratio of 1.6-3%?
No, I'm suggesting that the general population ratio is 10% and in some reports say it's closer to 20%.
There are no credible reports that estimate anything above 8%. There are very very few that find above 4%. I generally round up to 10% when talking about the homosexual population. In general, any "report" that finds above 4% (including bisexuals) is suspect.
Personally, I've been in a relationship with my g/f for almost 10 years and lived together for 7.
You're probably already married, and in the worse way possible (community of property). The reason I keep getting married is because I don't want to live with a woman for longer than the length dictated by my jurisdiction for cohabitation. The easiest thing is a prenup marriage. If I *don't* keep getting married then I don't get the protection that a prenup gives in the event of a breakup.
TLDR; if you cohabitate with your partner for a long enough length of time the laws decide that you *are* married in community of property.
the idea might be a bit half-baked
imho, it's not a bit half-baked, it's all the way...*this idea is awful*
my first thought was, in order to detect on females you have to have intercourse first, which kind of defeats the purpose...
It only serves no purpose if you never intend sleeping with this person again. If you want to play around a little more next time with this person, this condom absolutely serves a purpose.
First, not all listed countries induce restrictions on women.
One doesn't. The others do. You've simply displayed a link between lack of womens rights and their propensity for CS. Well Done!
Second, the restrictions do not apply in education.
There's no restrictions in the west either.
Albeit in Iran Theology is off limits in Iran, they can study almost everything if they want to.
Just like the west.
And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.
Yes they do, however, in another different than ours.
Their young girls have fewer choices than western young girls. Western girls have many more choices, and are *encouraged* from birth to believe that they can do anything they want to, so they go ahead and do whatever they want to. "Follow your heart" is a western expression for kids, not a middle eastern one.
anyway, to change the reputation of STEM topics (without Biology and Pharmacy which are already a women dominated fields) in the public and show our daughters that STEM can be fun for them.
My point still stands: When young girls (like in the west) are told they can do whatever they want to they avoid CS like the plague. When they are not given a choice they can be found in CS. Did your Iranian friends forget to tell you that they didn't get to choose their major; that their parents did? Or is that a fact you conveniently "forgot"?
FWIW, I'm from a culture closely related to the eastern and middle-eastern ones, and the way it normally goes is that the parents choose on their childs behalf, for everything from spouse to college major. Next time you meet with your friends ask them about it - I very much doubt a culture with arranged marriages does not have parents arranging the majors too.
I do not see a good reason for having a girls only class.
There it is. If you don't understand the issues involved, why do you hold such a strong opinion on the subject?
Holy Reading Comprehension Batman!
(What makes you think he doesn't understand the issues involved?)
Because if he did understand the issues involved, he would have to acknowledge that there are many good reasons for having a girls only class. He might not agree with them, but his original comment appeared to dismiss their very existence.
He said "I see no good reasons for $FOO". Almost by definition, it means that the ones you feel satisfy your minimum level for being "good" do not satisfy his. You're basically saying that if someone disagrees with your opinion of "good", then they haven't understood the issue.
By the same logic, if you disagree with someone else's opinion of "good", then does it mean that you don't understand the issue?
I've noticed systematic efforts by some of the MRAs to mod down people saying things they don't like, which isn't what the moderation system is for.
Nope. You are getting modded down for using creationist arguments. You, personally, keep getting asked for evidence. You haven't provided any.
Sad to say, but you will probably get more than -1 Troll mod for your perfectly reasonable, well constructed post just because it contradicts the MRA victim mentality.
When the
This is only true for Western countries. In many other cultures women are dominant in engineering and computer science. For example, Iran (70 percent), Philippines (52 percent), Thailand (51 percent) and Kazakhstan (50 percent).
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.unescobkk.org/educa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Therefore, it is a cultural thing
What leads you to believe that? All you've done is display a link between "countries with fewer rights for women" and "women in STEM/CS". This would lead a rational person to believe that when women have more options they exercise them (like in the west). When they have fewer options they are stuck with STEM/CS.
and I doubt that it will improve any time soon. First, most programs address people at the end or after school. Then it is too late. If you want to "fix" it, you should start changing education in nursery and primary school. And yes, you should stop offering them dolls and fostering stupid girlie behavior, like "oh cool shopping".
And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.
" boys tend to be more willing to go against peer pressure and do what interests them." LMOL - yeah that explains all those nerd with dates at the prom and giving football players swirlies....
You proved his point - even when attacked for their choices, boys still do whatever they are interested in.
Such things exist: http://www.nursingtimes.net/nu...
There was no outrage and no claims of sexism when efforts were made to recruit more men into nursing and education, by the way. Presumably now you are aware of this you condemn it, right?
If the best you can do is an online chat service open to all (not just men), then you've already lost. You keep getting asked for evidence. Repeatedly. And this is what you eventually come up with?
You don't actually know any women in IT or programming, do you?
My boss is one.
You can't complete a degree sitting in your dorm room;
I did. More than once. Never been to a single lecture.
I can recognize the privilege I enjoy by being a good-looking, tall, straight, white, male or a healthy normal weight.
So you now assume that any unattractive, short, homosexual, coloured male has the same privilege as good-looking, tall, straight, white males? The only differentiator from the "men-are-privileged" mob is the sex.
I started live on easy mode.
I agree, and it's because you played life on the easy mode that you have the opinions you do.
I do not see a good reason for having a girls only class.
There it is. If you don't understand the issues involved, why do you hold such a strong opinion on the subject?
Holy Reading Comprehension Batman!
(What makes you think he doesn't understand the issues involved?)
Than they did in the early 80's? No, not significantly, not enough to account for the massive drop (especially given the orders-of-magnitude increase in the size of the field).
That "massive drop" is almost exactly countered by the rise of women veterinarians, doctors and lawyers. So, you see a 25% drop of women in CS, then you see a cumulative 25% rise in those three fields listed above, and you still come up with "OMG SEXISM"?
You're exactly the kind of sexist of moron I referred to. When all else fails, you'll stoop to making shit up to justify your nonsense.
The fact that there are more CS women (%) in female-oppressed countries than CS women (%) in liberal countries is not made up. You are free to use that fact when forming an opinion, but note that the existence of a contrary opinion is not enough to change that fact.
Oh I see: They did it for money. That justifies everything!
What makes you think that? A less-biased/more-rational person may have though "well, the ones that made gender-neutral toys made less money/went out of business". The problem I can see is that you want to enforce your present concept of fairness, and those who find it lacking in actual evidence get the name-calling/facetiousness/general abuse. The girls who want to play with girly stuff? Oh, they're just indoctrinated! Those who don't? They have good parents.
What we need is for advertisers to go back to showing girls playing with non-pink stuff, like Lego did before about 1985. Maybe you should show her this, and the many similar images from that era.
The irony (that you will get but probably ignore) is that the advertising in question lead to no girls wanting to play with the stuff (no, girls weren't into LEGO in the early 80's), providing further evidence that it is not nurture but nature that makes girls not want bare LEGO. This advertisement is proof that they tried it your way and your way did not result in more girls playing with LEGO.
The 80s and 90s were high points for women in software engineering, at both university and in the workplace. Around 2000 the numbers really started to nose-dive, which is why the issue has come back up again. Once the current issues are dealt with you will hear less about it.
It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that women with fewer choices, such as in the 80's or in current day Iraq and India, go into CS. Are you really that intellectually dishonest that you would continue insisting that the current dearth of women in CS can not be due to choice regardless of how many times it's pointed out that women with fewer choices go into CS?
Seriously though - you do this for every clickbait anti-men article that comes up, and you get told the same thing every time you make this assertion. You even went so far once as to say that perhaps the west ought to copy the Iraq model. Although you *do* tend to go quiet every time it's pointed out though, so there's at least an upside; you won't throw this "issue" out until the next discussion, at which point someone will again point out that places with fewer female rights have more CS females. Then you'll go quiet again.