Seems deliciously ironic too that homophobic bigots would lose their jobs for their support of rescinding the civil equality of homosexuals when no doubt they would have defended the right of employers to terminate the jobs of gay employees as remains legal in many states. What's good for the goose... ha ha!
Though to be unequivocative about it, I do agree and affirm that employers should have the final say in who they employ and who they don't, regardless of any PC nonsense about diversity. The reality of diversity is, while there are some people who might deny employment to various 'protected classes', there are others who would preferentially hire the same. It's just like the stupid smoking bans. The nature of a diverse market naturally creates some businesses that are exclusively non-smoking because some people want that, and conversely creates some businesses that are tolerant to the point of encouraging smoking, but it's insanely conceited for people to demand conformity to their comfort at the expense of others when they could just go somewhere else.
I agree wholeheartedly. FOIA requests shouldn't even be necessary. There are so many government data sets--statistics, budgets, reports-- that could be and should be released to the public automatically online, but it's important to the civil servants and the elected officials both to do as much business in dark alleys as possible. Who knows what the public might demand if the information were available to hold governments at all levels accountable?
What an unsurprising response, an anonymous coward who doesn't have the depth of conviction to stand for his principles. The founders faced the specter of the hangman's noose for treason against the crown of England, but somebody might scratch up your car in your driveway, so you sure as hell can't take a stand... too risky.
I'm glad this country wasn't full of cowards like you in the 18th century.
I know you're being sarcastic, but it's disgusting how these people are afraid of how others might perceive them, when in fact going 'on record' with dangerous opinions is the very foundation of civic society in the United States. The founders signed their own death warrants with the words "[...] we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." How these cowards could learn from their example.
The problem is that most people are not 'Einsteinian' or 'Spinozan' deists, content that 'god' is some amorphous force out there. Most 'religious' people believe in divine revelation, which is the source of all the 'paltry' conceptions of divine environments, behaviors, and figures. And of course these divine revelations are not limited to descriptions, but include many imperatives at odds with each other and with secular society.
If we can't know 'god', fine, the problem is most religious people think that they know god, know what 'he' wants, and feel that they are justified above any structure of society whether that is law, culture, or common morality (genocide is bad, except when GOD does it or people are commanded by him to do it!) to act on 'his' imperatives as they conceive them to be.
Yes, clearly these are angels lighting their farts. If we refuse to teach the angels-lighting-their-farts theory of celestial gaseous illumination, then we will be depriving people of the diversity of opinions in this field. Why would astronomers want to cover it up anyway? Are they afraid it might be true?
At what cost? How many generations must suffer before the weak efforts of economic and political pressure may finally achieve a goal that might take an army a few years?
Genocides are usually completed or mostly completed by the time anything less than armed conflict has a positive effect.
Really, are you so intellectually dishonest that you're comparing a guy who makes sensitive information available to genocidal dictators and multi-million dollar frauds? The reason that those you use as examples were so easy to get through the justice system is that they had already been convicted in the court of public opinion. Assange is becoming something of a folk hero, and that makes him poisonous politically to actually put through a wringer. Now I'm not going to say that Assange is the Dalai llama, but if not in magnitude it's ethically the same sort of thing, who would arrest him and extradite him to China?
But don't take a random strangers opinion on this issue seriously, just look at the statistics.
The statistics are that while US national handgun ownership since the early 70s has more than doubled, the national averages for murder per capita are down something like a third in that period. So yeah, I won't take your random opinion seriously. In the US, the places that are the most dangerous and violent are always those places which have the strictest gun control. Once again, statistically, I'm safer in a 'shall issue' concealed carry state than I am in a 'may issue' or 'no issue' state.
There is an inverse correlation between legal gun ownership and crime precisely because legal gun owners are not criminals. This is why every state in the last 30 years that has passed 'shall issue' concealed carry legislation has either seen no change in their levels of violent crime or a decrease. In NO INSTANCE WHATSOEVER has such action increased violent crime.
The difference between 'experience' and 'training' is a syllabus. It may surprise you to learn that everything that can be considered a skill that people do now at one time had to be done by people who had nobody to learn from and 'didn't know what they were doing' simply because they were the first to do it. A human being with initiative can self-educate. As a species we should never denigrate that, as it has been the key to civilization itself.
Make sure you go after everybody who has ever logged into an FTP server with the username 'ftp' and the password 'ftp'. After all, there's no way we can know if the person who set up that server intended it to be publicly accessible...
I think you'll find that if people do something all the time over a period of years, they'll end up 'KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING' as a matter of course. It's called 'experience' and is not always related to how many books one reads.
I have nothing but respect for PhDs, but I doubt that much they learn in grad school prepares them any better for storm chasing than what an amateur can learn from doing it themselves. (And, get this, amateurs can read books too! I know, right? Who knew that you could read books outside of degree programs and still learn things!)
I don't think you know what a scientist is. Scientists are not 'just those people who have degrees and write papers'. A scientist is ANY PERSON who follows the scientific method taking observations to test hypotheses. So get off your high horse about 'real' scientists, 'real' data, etc. Without self-motivated, self-educated people like Benjamin Franklin, we would be deprived of many inventions and scientific advancements.
Science is not, and should not be, the sole province of pedagogues.
If my employer blocked/. I'd be on Dice.com right now.
I have a friend whose employer actually encourages him to read/. because it increases his awareness of emerging things in the IT field. I'm inclined to agree.
Unfortunately? TGPs kick ass. How else could I quickly become acquainted enough with pornstars/producers that I like so that I can find torrents of them? Forums I suppose... but IDK... porn forums are kind of creepy. Oh LOL... I just noticed your sig.
I highly, HIGHLY doubt that almost half of the nudity online is non-erotic. I think your estimates are whack. Nudity as art or lifestyle or what-have-you probably accounts for 5% or or less of that figure, not ~17%.
I didn't ignore your point, I invalidated your point. Self-reliance was a key value in the whole of colonial society from top to bottom. You can see the elite founding fathers, who were landed gentry to a man, talking about that sort of thing all the time because it was prerequisite to getting a population onboard with the concept of independence. The 'cowboys' did not originate these things, they perpetuated these things, only because they were among the last group of people to display these values in a romanticized 'pure' form is there this association linked to them. Once the Greatest Generation is all dead, it will be free for society to romanticize into a 'pure' concept free of the reality of human deficiencies.
'Survival' of a thing as an abstraction is entirely not the same thing. Cowboys did not themselves create High Noon. High Noon was created by a bunch of wealthy, educated aesthetes as their conception of what the cowboy culture was, but they had no first hand experience or perspective, nor could they have. I don't think you grasp how important that is. The cultural survival of the American West as art is the product primarily of the conception of wealthy, educated people who have had no perception of the thing itself. That's why it is a romanticization. Cowboys themselves did not and do not create the actual cultural understanding that contemporary society believes it has of that period and phenomenon. It's as I said, painting something does not make the thing painted art in of itself. Just because Victor Hugo wrote about the experiences of the poor does not magically make the experiences of the poor a higher thing or Victor Hugo some lesser figure. The subject does not change the artist, the artist does not change the subject.
Your protest is vague and not specific. I know people too. My wife is part Native American from Choctaw and Chickasaw stock. However I didn't and don't use that as any kind of support or justification for my opinions about cultural exchange. Knowing people does not by itself accomplish anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems deliciously ironic too that homophobic bigots would lose their jobs for their support of rescinding the civil equality of homosexuals when no doubt they would have defended the right of employers to terminate the jobs of gay employees as remains legal in many states. What's good for the goose... ha ha!
Though to be unequivocative about it, I do agree and affirm that employers should have the final say in who they employ and who they don't, regardless of any PC nonsense about diversity. The reality of diversity is, while there are some people who might deny employment to various 'protected classes', there are others who would preferentially hire the same. It's just like the stupid smoking bans. The nature of a diverse market naturally creates some businesses that are exclusively non-smoking because some people want that, and conversely creates some businesses that are tolerant to the point of encouraging smoking, but it's insanely conceited for people to demand conformity to their comfort at the expense of others when they could just go somewhere else.
Yes, but you see he's not just griping, he says he's paralyzed with the fear of it. Therein lies the problem and the cowardice.
I agree wholeheartedly. FOIA requests shouldn't even be necessary. There are so many government data sets--statistics, budgets, reports-- that could be and should be released to the public automatically online, but it's important to the civil servants and the elected officials both to do as much business in dark alleys as possible. Who knows what the public might demand if the information were available to hold governments at all levels accountable?
What an unsurprising response, an anonymous coward who doesn't have the depth of conviction to stand for his principles. The founders faced the specter of the hangman's noose for treason against the crown of England, but somebody might scratch up your car in your driveway, so you sure as hell can't take a stand... too risky.
I'm glad this country wasn't full of cowards like you in the 18th century.
I know you're being sarcastic, but it's disgusting how these people are afraid of how others might perceive them, when in fact going 'on record' with dangerous opinions is the very foundation of civic society in the United States. The founders signed their own death warrants with the words "[...] we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." How these cowards could learn from their example.
I think that we are missing a key element in properly naming this important new concept, it should be called:
The Intelligent Flatulence Combustion Theory of Celestial Gaseous Objects
That should be science-y enough to pass muster, after all, who can be against intelligence?
The problem is that most people are not 'Einsteinian' or 'Spinozan' deists, content that 'god' is some amorphous force out there. Most 'religious' people believe in divine revelation, which is the source of all the 'paltry' conceptions of divine environments, behaviors, and figures. And of course these divine revelations are not limited to descriptions, but include many imperatives at odds with each other and with secular society.
If we can't know 'god', fine, the problem is most religious people think that they know god, know what 'he' wants, and feel that they are justified above any structure of society whether that is law, culture, or common morality (genocide is bad, except when GOD does it or people are commanded by him to do it!) to act on 'his' imperatives as they conceive them to be.
Deism is harmless. Theism is a deadly evil.
Yes, clearly these are angels lighting their farts. If we refuse to teach the angels-lighting-their-farts theory of celestial gaseous illumination, then we will be depriving people of the diversity of opinions in this field. Why would astronomers want to cover it up anyway? Are they afraid it might be true?
Those who did not learn from the history of Windows 3.0 are doomed to repeat it.
At what cost? How many generations must suffer before the weak efforts of economic and political pressure may finally achieve a goal that might take an army a few years?
Genocides are usually completed or mostly completed by the time anything less than armed conflict has a positive effect.
Really, are you so intellectually dishonest that you're comparing a guy who makes sensitive information available to genocidal dictators and multi-million dollar frauds? The reason that those you use as examples were so easy to get through the justice system is that they had already been convicted in the court of public opinion. Assange is becoming something of a folk hero, and that makes him poisonous politically to actually put through a wringer. Now I'm not going to say that Assange is the Dalai llama, but if not in magnitude it's ethically the same sort of thing, who would arrest him and extradite him to China?
But don't take a random strangers opinion on this issue seriously, just look at the statistics.
The statistics are that while US national handgun ownership since the early 70s has more than doubled, the national averages for murder per capita are down something like a third in that period. So yeah, I won't take your random opinion seriously. In the US, the places that are the most dangerous and violent are always those places which have the strictest gun control. Once again, statistically, I'm safer in a 'shall issue' concealed carry state than I am in a 'may issue' or 'no issue' state.
There is an inverse correlation between legal gun ownership and crime precisely because legal gun owners are not criminals. This is why every state in the last 30 years that has passed 'shall issue' concealed carry legislation has either seen no change in their levels of violent crime or a decrease. In NO INSTANCE WHATSOEVER has such action increased violent crime.
The difference between 'experience' and 'training' is a syllabus. It may surprise you to learn that everything that can be considered a skill that people do now at one time had to be done by people who had nobody to learn from and 'didn't know what they were doing' simply because they were the first to do it. A human being with initiative can self-educate. As a species we should never denigrate that, as it has been the key to civilization itself.
But they're here to help! After all, the Vichy government was so helpful to the German occupation in rounding up undesirables for the camps...
Many as in 'not most'.
Make sure you go after everybody who has ever logged into an FTP server with the username 'ftp' and the password 'ftp'. After all, there's no way we can know if the person who set up that server intended it to be publicly accessible...
(You idiot...)
I don't know that they sound stupid so much as phallic. Heh heh... power pole... unf unf.
I think you'll find that if people do something all the time over a period of years, they'll end up 'KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING' as a matter of course. It's called 'experience' and is not always related to how many books one reads.
I have nothing but respect for PhDs, but I doubt that much they learn in grad school prepares them any better for storm chasing than what an amateur can learn from doing it themselves. (And, get this, amateurs can read books too! I know, right? Who knew that you could read books outside of degree programs and still learn things!)
I don't think you know what a scientist is. Scientists are not 'just those people who have degrees and write papers'. A scientist is ANY PERSON who follows the scientific method taking observations to test hypotheses. So get off your high horse about 'real' scientists, 'real' data, etc. Without self-motivated, self-educated people like Benjamin Franklin, we would be deprived of many inventions and scientific advancements.
Science is not, and should not be, the sole province of pedagogues.
If my employer blocked /. I'd be on Dice.com right now.
/. because it increases his awareness of emerging things in the IT field. I'm inclined to agree.
I have a friend whose employer actually encourages him to read
Jesus, accidental ACing twice with the same person... I need to stop scrolling and clicking around.
Mod parent informative...
Unfortunately? TGPs kick ass. How else could I quickly become acquainted enough with pornstars/producers that I like so that I can find torrents of them? Forums I suppose... but IDK... porn forums are kind of creepy. Oh LOL... I just noticed your sig.
I highly, HIGHLY doubt that almost half of the nudity online is non-erotic. I think your estimates are whack. Nudity as art or lifestyle or what-have-you probably accounts for 5% or or less of that figure, not ~17%.
I didn't ignore your point, I invalidated your point. Self-reliance was a key value in the whole of colonial society from top to bottom. You can see the elite founding fathers, who were landed gentry to a man, talking about that sort of thing all the time because it was prerequisite to getting a population onboard with the concept of independence. The 'cowboys' did not originate these things, they perpetuated these things, only because they were among the last group of people to display these values in a romanticized 'pure' form is there this association linked to them. Once the Greatest Generation is all dead, it will be free for society to romanticize into a 'pure' concept free of the reality of human deficiencies.
'Survival' of a thing as an abstraction is entirely not the same thing. Cowboys did not themselves create High Noon. High Noon was created by a bunch of wealthy, educated aesthetes as their conception of what the cowboy culture was, but they had no first hand experience or perspective, nor could they have. I don't think you grasp how important that is. The cultural survival of the American West as art is the product primarily of the conception of wealthy, educated people who have had no perception of the thing itself. That's why it is a romanticization. Cowboys themselves did not and do not create the actual cultural understanding that contemporary society believes it has of that period and phenomenon. It's as I said, painting something does not make the thing painted art in of itself. Just because Victor Hugo wrote about the experiences of the poor does not magically make the experiences of the poor a higher thing or Victor Hugo some lesser figure. The subject does not change the artist, the artist does not change the subject.
Your protest is vague and not specific. I know people too. My wife is part Native American from Choctaw and Chickasaw stock. However I didn't and don't use that as any kind of support or justification for my opinions about cultural exchange. Knowing people does not by itself accomplish anything.