Isn't there? When I had young children I heard about that constantly; men can make a very valuable contribution to the traditional women's jobs. We simply have a different approach doing things
Nursing is one thing, find me a Kindergarten teacher that isn't female. Males have been largely chased out of early education, and it's moving up the chain . Men who are interested in being around children are now considered pedophiles. A male who wants to teach young children is immediately suspect.
"It's very hard to change the suspicion of men who are going to elementary education when there are so few of them," Thompson said. "Schools ask me to talk to men on their faculty and when I sit with them behind closed doors, they say the moms look at them like potential pedophiles.
"If they are too nurturing or a mother comes in and sees a teacher reading in a chair and the child is leaning against the teacher or cuddling him, they freak out," he said. "Men tell me they only have to look in the mom's face to know what they are thinking."
So you would think that since males have been chased out of th eclassroom on account of us all wanting to boink the kiddies, it's now a safe haven, where women can teach th ekids without mommy worrying about them.
Well mommy might not be worrying, but teh lady teachers appear to like a little bit of underage dickin'. You can do the research. Still a fair bit of statutary rape goin on in the classeroms by teachers - even if the teachers are female.
Misogyny. What an interesting concept. If men need to avoid swearing because women are around, is that misogyny because it implies women can't handle the rough and tumble of foul language?
You ever been around a group of women talking among themselves? You'd blush.
Women already make up nearly 60% of all college graduates. They already receive favoritism for things like financial aid, grants, and scholarships (except for sports). There are TV ads, commercials, and companies doing everything they can to get more women into STEM and it is all failing. So what, coercion and extortion are not working so we panic?
I'm inclined to make a joke about modern women want it all.
I said we should do some research to find out what is causing it. What are you actually arguing over?
I wonder - would you accept the research if it came out not what you believe at present?
Based on the experiences of my wife and many of the female engineers and scientists I associate with, their experiences deo not mesh with the standard villain in gender issues - the white male.
These ladies report that discouragement came not from males, but from other women. Actual real harassment tended to come from males, but that wasn't a career determinant. My wife had a real nasty case that was either harassment or outright assault, but rather than take the weak woman approach, she proceeded to destroy the guy. That's a different story. But she and these other women caught much crap from women about their career choices, and a helluva lot of prejudice based on that.
A lot of women do not like successful women. My wife caught a lot of "did you sleep with him to get your job?" type comments, the women engineers were subject to a different sort of character assassination, usually along the lines of assumed sexual preferences. But oh, they were hated regardless.
I seriously doubt that a lot of people will ever accept that much of the fault lies with women discouraging other women.
I know for a fact that if we try to fix a problem with the wrong solution to the problem - it won't work. I also know that there are a lot of people who will never accept any solution that doesn't cite men as the base cause of the problem. Are you among them?
That's a fair point. I don't know if there is much research into women in refuse collection, but it is worth identifying why so few want reasonably well paid jobs. It's not like they are averse to getting dirty - cleaning and various forms of nursing/care are dominated by women, literally cleaning up other people's shit.
Could be an image thing (like with men in nursing), could be a cultural thing.
The thing is though, it's a tough nut to crack. The starting percentage is low, historically there was little interest (women used to make up 38% of the CS workforce as recently as the 1980s) and it's typically not a field that attracts intellectuals who see the benefit of correcting the situation. Not that we should give up, I'm just suggesting why there is more effort being put into tech and science.
I've said it before. We need a discussion on whether exact parity is needed in various fields, and if the decision is yes, then we need to force people into those fields. If there is a disparity in Tech, then men must be excluded, and women only trained and hired until the proper gender balance is reached.
As I've noted before, the early 1970's was a time where many women were "trying out" different fields. Some they liked, and some they didn't. I worked with several of these women engineers, and they were competent enough. And heaven help you as a male if you were sexist. Toe to toe you did not want to cross them - note - most were wonderful ladies, just proud to be a first wave. But they definitely didn't encourage any new female participation. And over time, they retired out or left. I think many just found that they were more interested in other fields over time.
And FSM knows we tried. rapid promotions, preferred promotions, serious retention efforts. When a female left, there was a lengthy interview process to see "what we did wrong". The really awkward thing was, we really didn't do anything wrong. Often it was just interest. I also spent many years involved with the "Take our sons and daughters to work" days. Which of course was actually a female centric event - the "sons" part of it was included after it was pointed out just how sexist a daughters only event was. The polls taken to gauge interest of the young ladies always ended up along the lines of - ranked by popularity) MBAs, Lawyers, Veterinarians, and a rapid drop off. STEM was often beat by young women who's career goals were as pop entertainers.
The freaky thing was that these were daughters of Engineers, Scientists, and other typical tech people. These are young ladies who were exposed to science and encouraged to be in science and technology that never were exposed to playboy model's faces or dongle jokes - known male transgressions that have supposedly caused women to leave the field. This was girls raised in the self esteem movement as well as the empowered woman movement who knew they could do anything they wanted.
How in the unholy stink of the devil's taint are you going to fight that? Which is why over time, and with actually spending years in the trenches trying to get women interested in STEM, I'm completely convinced that forcing women into STEM is the only practical way to achieve gender parity.
My thoughts ended up being that a young lady should be exposed to science to see if she is interested. If parity is to be, then it will happen.
Otherwise, find an aptitude, and then that's your career, along with selective hiring by gender.
Show that Assange is a very important member of the Republican Party.
Because of your partisan mindset, you assume that because the Democrats are crooks, the Republicans must be as well, and if the evidence for that isn't leaked, it must be because of some vast right wing conspiracy that keeps such information from the public. Add paranoia to the sin of ignorance and partisanship on your part.
O my yes. The Democrats are responsible for every crime ever committed, and the Republicans are pure angels, sent to us from God himself, to set the world aright.
Here ya go, here is how the party of purity operates:
Tom Delay - Praise the Lord!
Mark Foley
Bob Ney This poor angel of purity spent 30 months in prison.
Chris Lee, (R-NY)
DEnnis Hastert, the ultimate family values guy likes teenage wrestlers, Aaron Schock, THaddeus McCotter Mitch Mconnel's Campaign manager Jesse Benton when a bribery scandal erupted from Pon Paul's 1014 Campaign - Oh -oh! David Rivera - and get this one - Here is a true angel at work. He had a campaign finance scheme to prop up a democrat in teh primaries to trash Rivera's republican opponent. It's the sure sign of purity when you eat your own.
Rick Renzi - 17 counts of wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and others. Mike Crapo drunk driving, Tery Reidell Cocaine - running around his brain! JOhn Ensign A family values politician who enjoyed fencing outside of the bonds of holy matrimony. Michael Grimm - Tax Fraud Ron paul campaign manager Demitri Kesari bribing a senator for endorsement.
Scott DesJarlais a staunch pro lifer made his wife have two abortions, and was unsuccessful prusuading one of his outside fucks to get one. As a married physician he enjoyed fucking with 6 wmoen outside of teh bounds of holy matrimony, 3 co workers, two patient, and a drug rep.
there are some democrats who have been corrupt, certainly not as many. but you don't really care about the truth, do ya? As long as those fucking currupt Democrats are eliminated, they will stop telling all these verifiable actions by the saintly Republicans.
But you see my point, and I have no expetation that you would ever accept it, is that you don't like Democrats, and you love the Republicans, so you are willing to accept one sided "expose" against Democrats, and nothing against Republicans.
Anyhow, and just sayin' the leaks and the hacks are being done by people who hate the United States, and who would be happy to see us toppled. Support them if you wish, but that allows me to make a decision about your allegiances, comrade.
Poor reliability depends on the impact. Tesla has an incredible record of standing by its products. Every other car company out there treat customers like garbage.
As does Apple. (I just bring this up since some cowards have been making a comparison between the two) In the very few cases I've needed hardware support, they've had me back operating overnight. Auto dealers? Not so much.
The only reason I don't own a Tesla is that they don't make an offroad capable vehicle.
And I get the impression that the Slashdot Cowards Army all drive Toyota Corollas.
Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability, it's at the top of the list in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".
So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.
Ah, Consumer Reports. There are some vehicles that they simply hate, like most Jeeps. I find that despite their not taking ads, they are incredibly biased, especially about vehicles.
No. If you are having this problem, either autism is a lot more subtle than I thought, or you are just bad at summarizing. I have noticed that most people are very bad at this. I am not very good at it myself; I have a tendency to give a whole lot more detail than is absolutely necessary, which turns people off.
Detail is such a situational thing. Some folks want to tell you what channel they were watching when the cars collided on the road in front of their place, and what they think of the topless coffee kiosk 2 blocks down the road.
And then there is the detail I sometimes give when replying to bullshit. Lots of citations. Both methods are annoying - one purposely so.
Then there is the deep detail I can get into with some friends (possibly somewhere on that spectrum) where we just put our minds on cruise control and hit the subject hard. That's a sort of fun that 99.9 percent of people will never have.
Then there are the people who just want the reader's digest version. And the ones who just want a yes/no response.
A person who is detail oriented must learn to read people to find out what they are looking for.
And ironically, the intense detail method is used both to destroy and to have that fun I mentioned above.
Since it's not the complete truth; it's a lie
That is not how it works.
What is the complete truth anyhow? Friend ledow has boxed himself in with the idea that its either all there, or its lying. Omission of detail isn't a lie unless the purpose of that omission is made purposely to alter what is the truth. An example might be a prosecutor in a criminal case who purposefully omits evidence that shows a defendant was not the guilty party.
An example of ommission that isn't a lie at all is the abstract of a science paper. That's just there to summarize and inform people without them having to read the entire paper.
Lying isn't black and white
Yes, yes it is. What you say is either true or not. That's black or white, period the fucking end. There are many, many ways for a statement to not be true, and only one way for it to be an unbiased description of what happened — don't say things which aren't true.
If a person knowingly alters what they tell another, in an attempt to influence them to believe something other than actuality, that's a lie, or dissembling, or any other word that means lie.
You have to interpret how much and what information a person is looking for.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with telling lies. If a story changes because you're summarizing it, you're shit at summarizing.
Bobby was killed when a meteor fell on him. He was decapitated, and the meteor went in through his head and came out his ass. Then he blew up just like R. Lee Ermey shooting watermelons.
If we tell Bobby's wife he was killed, but omitted the decapitation and assorted gruestuff, we have not lied, we've been merciful.
If we tell Bobby's wife that Hillary Clinton did it and give all of the other details quite accurately, we lied.
Damn, I just know I started another internet rumor.......
The current attempt to outlaw encryption (which would endanger online transactions) is a good example of how little the politicians understand technology.
Now let me get this straight. Some assholes want to outlaw encrytion is the exact same thing as having a driver's license, or not allowing lead in your water? Yinzers Libertarians need to educate people that if some quack kills their wife that it's kay, eventually after enough people are killed, no one will go to that Doctor any more, and the invisible hand of the free and unfettered market will have worked it's magic.
No, no, and no. Assholes often want to do things. That doesn't mean every single thing that someone wants done is bad.
As a former skeptic turned believer, it's a shame to see so many people dumping on these devices without having the chance to really see what they offer.
The reason for this is that India provides FREE ELECTRICITY to farmers, giving them no incentive whatsoever to conserve.
Just between us Chachalacas, one might think, just possibly, mayb kinda sorta.....
They have too many fucking people!
But don't worry, there is no problem at all, because Godwin is always wrong.
That's the thing, Earth can accomodate an infinity of people. Removing enough Oxygen to make water to hand to a few billion people forever is just about the smartest idea ever.
But here is the thing. does India or any other country have the right to remove huge amounts of Oxygen from the atmosphere?
The women's safety prize is a good idea, but India's male attitude toward women is the real problem. In a country where rape is caused by unclothed or scantily clad mannequins inciting lust in males, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new..., firearms might be a better thing for women to carry.
I'll answer that question, how would regulations make it worse.
A new law is passed designating how security must be handled on IoT stuff. Everything is fine for a short time. Then the evil hackers figure out a new exploit and the bad shit happens again. The good guy coders come up with a patch, but it doesn't conform with the law, so they can't roll out the patch until the law is changed. That could take months, if not years.
Can you give me an example of that happening? It's fascinating that regulations are so precise that they allow for one, and only one solution that may never ever be changed.
I spent too much time listening to a Libertarian engineer on the radio over the weekend, explaining how everything will be corrected by the market and every time someone asked him a question about how some situation that would never be corrected, he did a weird tap dance trying to deny that, just saying "Thant's a difficult problem , but regulations would only make it worse.
In short, having no regulations caused the problem, but regulations that would cure the problem would somehow make the problem worse, so no regulations would actualy cure the problem brought about by no regulations.
I have been running Ubuntu Mate on both my Desktops and My Pi3 for a good while now. It's nice to have the same desktop and look and feel.
The Pi is used in a digital modem/radio communications system, and replaces a desktop or laptop computer, making the entire radio/computer fit in one small box.
But I see no reason to switch to the Fedora distro at the moment. The only disadvantage of the Pi is it's a little slow during the make process.
When I buy an electrical device, I assume it's passed all the relevant consumer safety checks and complies with the regulations, as otherwise the shop would be breaking the law selling it to me (in the UK at least).
That would be a massively incorrect assumption.
Regulations are bad, and interfere with the market. If burdensome regulations are in place, how are honest businessmen supposed to make money bringing Internet of Things devices to market.
There are not that many regulations on these devices - and the on es that are there are interfereing with the process anyhow. The free market will correct this silly IoT DOS attack any day now.
Truthiness, and the crazy they have been force-fed for so many years has melted their minds.
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
Now ther ya go - You immediately assume that I think Hellery is some sort of angle and go on the attack. Hey fellow, the answer to my points is not to divert. You go a long way toward proving my point.
The problem is you can't trust digital evidence at all unless you can verify the full custody chain back to source files.
So reader beware on "leaked emails" they may not be what they seem.
The problem such as it is, is that based on what they want to see, a fair percentage of US citizens don't care if the emails are altered. Truthiness, and the crazy they have been force-fed for so many years has melted their minds. If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery ran the underground Railroad and violated the Fugitive Slave treaty, then by Gad Hellery violated the Fugitive Slave Act in 1845
Fact Check tells us that there was no e-mail in 1845, Mrs Clinton wasn't born yet, and the Fugitive Slave Act wasn't in place until 1850.
Senator Joe McCarthy looked for Soviet Communists in the US State Department only..
It doesn't matter if it was called McCarthyism, or Pop-Tarts. It was political paranoia and a witch hunt. It was the "Red Scare", along with another little bit of fun called the "Lavender Scare" whenr they managed to make out homosexuals to be as bad as commies. Funny, just like one gay Brit who had a hellava lot to to with us beating old Adolph and his minions. It took regular Americans and turned them into criminals not for their actions, but for not holding the correct political beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the fuck are you so ignorant?
Why are you so tightly wound?
They kicked Dog-Cow off of the Youtube comments for just that.
Isn't there? When I had young children I heard about that constantly; men can make a very valuable contribution to the traditional women's jobs. We simply have a different approach doing things
Nursing is one thing, find me a Kindergarten teacher that isn't female. Males have been largely chased out of early education, and it's moving up the chain . Men who are interested in being around children are now considered pedophiles. A male who wants to teach young children is immediately suspect.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/m...
From the article:
"It's very hard to change the suspicion of men who are going to elementary education when there are so few of them," Thompson said. "Schools ask me to talk to men on their faculty and when I sit with them behind closed doors, they say the moms look at them like potential pedophiles. "If they are too nurturing or a mother comes in and sees a teacher reading in a chair and the child is leaning against the teacher or cuddling him, they freak out," he said. "Men tell me they only have to look in the mom's face to know what they are thinking." So you would think that since males have been chased out of th eclassroom on account of us all wanting to boink the kiddies, it's now a safe haven, where women can teach th ekids without mommy worrying about them.
Well mommy might not be worrying, but teh lady teachers appear to like a little bit of underage dickin'. You can do the research. Still a fair bit of statutary rape goin on in the classeroms by teachers - even if the teachers are female.
Misogyny. What an interesting concept. If men need to avoid swearing because women are around, is that misogyny because it implies women can't handle the rough and tumble of foul language?
You ever been around a group of women talking among themselves? You'd blush.
Women already make up nearly 60% of all college graduates. They already receive favoritism for things like financial aid, grants, and scholarships (except for sports). There are TV ads, commercials, and companies doing everything they can to get more women into STEM and it is all failing. So what, coercion and extortion are not working so we panic?
I'm inclined to make a joke about modern women want it all.
I said we should do some research to find out what is causing it. What are you actually arguing over?
I wonder - would you accept the research if it came out not what you believe at present?
Based on the experiences of my wife and many of the female engineers and scientists I associate with, their experiences deo not mesh with the standard villain in gender issues - the white male.
These ladies report that discouragement came not from males, but from other women. Actual real harassment tended to come from males, but that wasn't a career determinant. My wife had a real nasty case that was either harassment or outright assault, but rather than take the weak woman approach, she proceeded to destroy the guy. That's a different story. But she and these other women caught much crap from women about their career choices, and a helluva lot of prejudice based on that.
A lot of women do not like successful women. My wife caught a lot of "did you sleep with him to get your job?" type comments, the women engineers were subject to a different sort of character assassination, usually along the lines of assumed sexual preferences. But oh, they were hated regardless.
I seriously doubt that a lot of people will ever accept that much of the fault lies with women discouraging other women.
I know for a fact that if we try to fix a problem with the wrong solution to the problem - it won't work. I also know that there are a lot of people who will never accept any solution that doesn't cite men as the base cause of the problem. Are you among them?
That's a fair point. I don't know if there is much research into women in refuse collection, but it is worth identifying why so few want reasonably well paid jobs. It's not like they are averse to getting dirty - cleaning and various forms of nursing/care are dominated by women, literally cleaning up other people's shit.
Could be an image thing (like with men in nursing), could be a cultural thing.
The thing is though, it's a tough nut to crack. The starting percentage is low, historically there was little interest (women used to make up 38% of the CS workforce as recently as the 1980s) and it's typically not a field that attracts intellectuals who see the benefit of correcting the situation. Not that we should give up, I'm just suggesting why there is more effort being put into tech and science.
I've said it before. We need a discussion on whether exact parity is needed in various fields, and if the decision is yes, then we need to force people into those fields. If there is a disparity in Tech, then men must be excluded, and women only trained and hired until the proper gender balance is reached.
As I've noted before, the early 1970's was a time where many women were "trying out" different fields. Some they liked, and some they didn't. I worked with several of these women engineers, and they were competent enough. And heaven help you as a male if you were sexist. Toe to toe you did not want to cross them - note - most were wonderful ladies, just proud to be a first wave. But they definitely didn't encourage any new female participation. And over time, they retired out or left. I think many just found that they were more interested in other fields over time.
And FSM knows we tried. rapid promotions, preferred promotions, serious retention efforts. When a female left, there was a lengthy interview process to see "what we did wrong". The really awkward thing was, we really didn't do anything wrong. Often it was just interest. I also spent many years involved with the "Take our sons and daughters to work" days. Which of course was actually a female centric event - the "sons" part of it was included after it was pointed out just how sexist a daughters only event was. The polls taken to gauge interest of the young ladies always ended up along the lines of - ranked by popularity) MBAs, Lawyers, Veterinarians, and a rapid drop off. STEM was often beat by young women who's career goals were as pop entertainers.
The freaky thing was that these were daughters of Engineers, Scientists, and other typical tech people. These are young ladies who were exposed to science and encouraged to be in science and technology that never were exposed to playboy model's faces or dongle jokes - known male transgressions that have supposedly caused women to leave the field. This was girls raised in the self esteem movement as well as the empowered woman movement who knew they could do anything they wanted.
How in the unholy stink of the devil's taint are you going to fight that? Which is why over time, and with actually spending years in the trenches trying to get women interested in STEM, I'm completely convinced that forcing women into STEM is the only practical way to achieve gender parity. My thoughts ended up being that a young lady should be exposed to science to see if she is interested. If parity is to be, then it will happen.
Otherwise, find an aptitude, and then that's your career, along with selective hiring by gender.
Because of your partisan mindset, you assume that because the Democrats are crooks, the Republicans must be as well, and if the evidence for that isn't leaked, it must be because of some vast right wing conspiracy that keeps such information from the public. Add paranoia to the sin of ignorance and partisanship on your part.
O my yes. The Democrats are responsible for every crime ever committed, and the Republicans are pure angels, sent to us from God himself, to set the world aright.
Here ya go, here is how the party of purity operates:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2...
Praise the lord!
{ Duke Cunningham! Praise the lord
Tom Delay - Praise the Lord! Mark Foley Bob Ney This poor angel of purity spent 30 months in prison.
Chris Lee, (R-NY) DEnnis Hastert, the ultimate family values guy likes teenage wrestlers, Aaron Schock, THaddeus McCotter Mitch Mconnel's Campaign manager Jesse Benton when a bribery scandal erupted from Pon Paul's 1014 Campaign - Oh -oh! David Rivera - and get this one - Here is a true angel at work. He had a campaign finance scheme to prop up a democrat in teh primaries to trash Rivera's republican opponent. It's the sure sign of purity when you eat your own.
Rick Renzi - 17 counts of wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and others. Mike Crapo drunk driving, Tery Reidell Cocaine - running around his brain! JOhn Ensign A family values politician who enjoyed fencing outside of the bonds of holy matrimony. Michael Grimm - Tax Fraud Ron paul campaign manager Demitri Kesari bribing a senator for endorsement.
Scott DesJarlais a staunch pro lifer made his wife have two abortions, and was unsuccessful prusuading one of his outside fucks to get one. As a married physician he enjoyed fucking with 6 wmoen outside of teh bounds of holy matrimony, 3 co workers, two patient, and a drug rep.
there are some democrats who have been corrupt, certainly not as many. but you don't really care about the truth, do ya? As long as those fucking currupt Democrats are eliminated, they will stop telling all these verifiable actions by the saintly Republicans. But you see my point, and I have no expetation that you would ever accept it, is that you don't like Democrats, and you love the Republicans, so you are willing to accept one sided "expose" against Democrats, and nothing against Republicans.
Anyhow, and just sayin' the leaks and the hacks are being done by people who hate the United States, and who would be happy to see us toppled. Support them if you wish, but that allows me to make a decision about your allegiances, comrade.
Poor reliability depends on the impact. Tesla has an incredible record of standing by its products. Every other car company out there treat customers like garbage.
As does Apple. (I just bring this up since some cowards have been making a comparison between the two) In the very few cases I've needed hardware support, they've had me back operating overnight. Auto dealers? Not so much.
The only reason I don't own a Tesla is that they don't make an offroad capable vehicle.
And I get the impression that the Slashdot Cowards Army all drive Toyota Corollas.
Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability, it's at the top of the list in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".
So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.
Ah, Consumer Reports. There are some vehicles that they simply hate, like most Jeeps. I find that despite their not taking ads, they are incredibly biased, especially about vehicles.
No. If you are having this problem, either autism is a lot more subtle than I thought, or you are just bad at summarizing. I have noticed that most people are very bad at this. I am not very good at it myself; I have a tendency to give a whole lot more detail than is absolutely necessary, which turns people off.
Detail is such a situational thing. Some folks want to tell you what channel they were watching when the cars collided on the road in front of their place, and what they think of the topless coffee kiosk 2 blocks down the road.
And then there is the detail I sometimes give when replying to bullshit. Lots of citations. Both methods are annoying - one purposely so.
Then there is the deep detail I can get into with some friends (possibly somewhere on that spectrum) where we just put our minds on cruise control and hit the subject hard. That's a sort of fun that 99.9 percent of people will never have.
Then there are the people who just want the reader's digest version. And the ones who just want a yes/no response.
A person who is detail oriented must learn to read people to find out what they are looking for.
And ironically, the intense detail method is used both to destroy and to have that fun I mentioned above.
Since it's not the complete truth; it's a lie
That is not how it works.
What is the complete truth anyhow? Friend ledow has boxed himself in with the idea that its either all there, or its lying. Omission of detail isn't a lie unless the purpose of that omission is made purposely to alter what is the truth. An example might be a prosecutor in a criminal case who purposefully omits evidence that shows a defendant was not the guilty party.
An example of ommission that isn't a lie at all is the abstract of a science paper. That's just there to summarize and inform people without them having to read the entire paper.
Lying isn't black and white
Yes, yes it is. What you say is either true or not. That's black or white, period the fucking end. There are many, many ways for a statement to not be true, and only one way for it to be an unbiased description of what happened — don't say things which aren't true.
If a person knowingly alters what they tell another, in an attempt to influence them to believe something other than actuality, that's a lie, or dissembling, or any other word that means lie.
You have to interpret how much and what information a person is looking for.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with telling lies. If a story changes because you're summarizing it, you're shit at summarizing.
Bobby was killed when a meteor fell on him. He was decapitated, and the meteor went in through his head and came out his ass. Then he blew up just like R. Lee Ermey shooting watermelons.
If we tell Bobby's wife he was killed, but omitted the decapitation and assorted gruestuff, we have not lied, we've been merciful.
If we tell Bobby's wife that Hillary Clinton did it and give all of the other details quite accurately, we lied.
Damn, I just know I started another internet rumor.......
Show that Assange is a very important member of the Republican Party.
The current attempt to outlaw encryption (which would endanger online transactions) is a good example of how little the politicians understand technology.
Now let me get this straight. Some assholes want to outlaw encrytion is the exact same thing as having a driver's license, or not allowing lead in your water? Yinzers Libertarians need to educate people that if some quack kills their wife that it's kay, eventually after enough people are killed, no one will go to that Doctor any more, and the invisible hand of the free and unfettered market will have worked it's magic.
No, no, and no. Assholes often want to do things. That doesn't mean every single thing that someone wants done is bad.
As a former skeptic turned believer, it's a shame to see so many people dumping on these devices without having the chance to really see what they offer.
Kinda like the Zune, eh?
My God man - I shed more than a few tears reading your story, Smartwatches probably saved your life from the hell it was before they came out!
And in some places, gathering 2000 liters of water from the air is nearly impossible, in other places, it is almost trivial.
In Whales its almost unavoidable.
FTFY
> Interesting since they want cops to have a monopoly on firearms while they accuse them of racism and abuse.
Nice burn...
And lit the Strawman on fire.
But of course, we live in a country where a background check is considered calling a a ban on all guns according to some friends.
The reason for this is that India provides FREE ELECTRICITY to farmers, giving them no incentive whatsoever to conserve.
Just between us Chachalacas, one might think, just possibly, mayb kinda sorta.....
They have too many fucking people!
But don't worry, there is no problem at all, because Godwin is always wrong.
That's the thing, Earth can accomodate an infinity of people. Removing enough Oxygen to make water to hand to a few billion people forever is just about the smartest idea ever.
But here is the thing. does India or any other country have the right to remove huge amounts of Oxygen from the atmosphere?
The women's safety prize is a good idea, but India's male attitude toward women is the real problem. In a country where rape is caused by unclothed or scantily clad mannequins inciting lust in males, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new..., firearms might be a better thing for women to carry.
I'll answer that question, how would regulations make it worse.
A new law is passed designating how security must be handled on IoT stuff. Everything is fine for a short time. Then the evil hackers figure out a new exploit and the bad shit happens again. The good guy coders come up with a patch, but it doesn't conform with the law, so they can't roll out the patch until the law is changed. That could take months, if not years.
Can you give me an example of that happening? It's fascinating that regulations are so precise that they allow for one, and only one solution that may never ever be changed.
How will the market correct this?
Dood! I was Poe'ing!
I spent too much time listening to a Libertarian engineer on the radio over the weekend, explaining how everything will be corrected by the market and every time someone asked him a question about how some situation that would never be corrected, he did a weird tap dance trying to deny that, just saying "Thant's a difficult problem , but regulations would only make it worse.
In short, having no regulations caused the problem, but regulations that would cure the problem would somehow make the problem worse, so no regulations would actualy cure the problem brought about by no regulations.
The Pi is used in a digital modem/radio communications system, and replaces a desktop or laptop computer, making the entire radio/computer fit in one small box.
But I see no reason to switch to the Fedora distro at the moment. The only disadvantage of the Pi is it's a little slow during the make process.
When I buy an electrical device, I assume it's passed all the relevant consumer safety checks and complies with the regulations, as otherwise the shop would be breaking the law selling it to me (in the UK at least).
That would be a massively incorrect assumption.
Regulations are bad, and interfere with the market. If burdensome regulations are in place, how are honest businessmen supposed to make money bringing Internet of Things devices to market.
There are not that many regulations on these devices - and the on es that are there are interfereing with the process anyhow. The free market will correct this silly IoT DOS attack any day now.
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
Now ther ya go - You immediately assume that I think Hellery is some sort of angle and go on the attack. Hey fellow, the answer to my points is not to divert. You go a long way toward proving my point.
You don't care what the truth is.
The problem is you can't trust digital evidence at all unless you can verify the full custody chain back to source files.
So reader beware on "leaked emails" they may not be what they seem.
The problem such as it is, is that based on what they want to see, a fair percentage of US citizens don't care if the emails are altered. Truthiness, and the crazy they have been force-fed for so many years has melted their minds. If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery ran the underground Railroad and violated the Fugitive Slave treaty, then by Gad Hellery violated the Fugitive Slave Act in 1845
Fact Check tells us that there was no e-mail in 1845, Mrs Clinton wasn't born yet, and the Fugitive Slave Act wasn't in place until 1850.
Too bad - that's what she did!
The US needs to see some of Clinton's recipes.
I like armchair historians...
Senator Joe McCarthy looked for Soviet Communists in the US State Department only. .
It doesn't matter if it was called McCarthyism, or Pop-Tarts. It was political paranoia and a witch hunt. It was the "Red Scare", along with another little bit of fun called the "Lavender Scare" whenr they managed to make out homosexuals to be as bad as commies. Funny, just like one gay Brit who had a hellava lot to to with us beating old Adolph and his minions. It took regular Americans and turned them into criminals not for their actions, but for not holding the correct political beliefs.