You really think they don't have a "we can stop selling your product for any reason we want whenever we want without notice" clause in whatever their contract with market place sellers is?
Knowing the limitations of your computations is a sign have some idea what you are doing (though it's not a certainty of course). It's the people who don't understand the limits that tend to now know what they are doing.
Wow, who knew I was addicted to turning the light off before I go to bed each night? And to using a spoon when I eat soup. And to going to work each work day morning. And to parking my car in my driveway. And to washing the dishes. And to paying my groceries instead of just walking out with them.
And they can turn off javascript and get the behavior they want, without affecting those who prefer less latency. So I'm not sure how that is an argument against benefiting the other users.
you are not "double validating" anything - you're just running a single check, either one or two times.
Was it really that hard to read 10 more words?
You validate once on the browser do that you don't need to do a return trip to the server and can present the user with a validation error message at a conveniant time.
You validate again on the server because you assume the user is malicious.
You aren't trying to do anything more than use a single validation algorithm, you just do it twice (you know what the word double means) because it is more efficient to do it on the client side but it would be brain dead stupid to trust the client.
I have a business -- a small diner. I have freedom of association, right? I don't serve African Americans as part of the exercise of my freedom of association. You're ok with that, right?
Yes, I would be OK with that. Of course in the US that would be illegal but disagreeing with laws is hardly uncommon. I also think it is OK for you to snort as much cocaine as you like in the privacy of your own home so long as you don't drive/etc, US law similarly disagrees with me.
It depends how important it is. There are many things I would be perfectly satisfied with increasing the "I lose this" chances from "I lose my local copy" to "I lose my local copy and dropbox loses it at the same time". None of those things are my livelihood of course.
That's true, and the leaving the scene charge should be easy enough to beat because of that. The problem for the defense is that he easily drove away back the way he came, speeding towards the crowd of people is hard to explain as fleeing the crowd of the people. But as you say a US court case is very much not a truth finding exercise.
It's a desk job with a pay check, dealing with stress is irrelevant. If the memo was about being a soldier then dealing with stress would matter. If it was a memo about being a business owner and so having the potential to lose money instead of getting pay check then stress would matter.
Nothing about software engineering is inherently stressful, if google has a workplace that makes it stressful and he's claim about women and dealing with stress is true (two claims I haven't checked) then google is actively discriminating against women and they should fix that rather than compensating with discrimination against men to try and balance it out.
If only they'd managed to not have one of their "side" commit murder on video they might have been able to have managed to spin the event to their side. But they couldn't so as you would expect the spin goes with the message of the side who were on the receiving end of the murder. I admit I would expect the media to spin it against them anyway, but you can't really complain given what actually happened.
I agree they have the right to their speech and if that involves waving Nazi flags that is their choice. I would imagine it would be highly offensive to those who remember the American who paid the ultimate price to free Europe from that flag and were in fact killed by those serving under that flag - but being offensive is part of that freedom of speech thing and the very thing those Americans died defending.
So a masters in a field doesn't count as "sufficient background" but a phd does? Can I assume you have a phd in allt he relevant fields for your statements then?
By definition the existence of diversity hiring quotas means that the people employed to meet those quotes were less deserving of the job than other people who happened to not meet the quota criteria. If that wasn't the case there would be any diversity hiring in the first place after all.
You can of course argue that diversity brings other benefits and thus is worth it. You can argue that diversity hiring is necessary to fix harm done by prior discriminatory practices. You can argue that it will result in better future candidates for hiring. You can make a bunch of arguments to justify that hiring method.
However, you can't argue that the person hired to meet diversity quotas was the best candidate for the job purely due to skills and ability. Hiring people other than the best applicant is after all the only way to satisfy such quota hiring systems. After all it is adding something that isn't "is this the best candidate in the available choices" to the selection criteria.
I did in fact read the document. It was literate, well written, misogynistic tripe, in my opinion. It certainly did not demonstrate consideration (did he think about them) of points of view other than the one he was putting forward.
Why would he?
Was he writing a scientific paper and trying to advance the state of knowledge in a field? If so then yes you would try and put forward alternative explanations.
Or was he writing an argument in a debate about something? In which case you would put forward your best arguments with your best evidence (and if you are honest you would not advance arguments you know are invalid). You don't try and argue for the other side as well - you leave that to the other side. Sometimes, you might put forward an argument for the other side so you can dismantle it, but usually that is straw manning and bad form.
Was he really trying to advance the state scientific knowledge, or was he just advancing an argument?
> Using science to try to justify racism is an ethical problem first and foremost, any incidental scientific problems are a footnote.
Justifying racism isn't the same as explaining outcomes. "Studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y, hence we prefer employing from group X" would be using science to justify [X's domain]ism and yes is ethically terrible. "We employ based on merit, studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y and that is why we have more X employees than their general population ratio would indicate" is using science to explain an outcome - it is not ethically bad, it is just a fact (assuming we believe the claim of course).
That wet nurses are always* women is not sexist, for example. There is no ethical problem with pointing out the scientific reason why that is the case.
* I guess there could be a genetic abnomality that might make it possible that isn't 100% true, it will round up to 100% anyway though.
Where is the evidence for your claim that testosterone does not give men an advantage in engineering (and leadership) skills? You made an explicit claim of fact, and unlike the sentence you quoted didn't use words like "may" that serves the dual purpose of not requiring evidence and being dismissable without evidence.
Given there are studies that seem to indicate the opposite (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/sherman_lerner_et_al._in_press_testosterone_cortisol_and_attained_status_jpsp.pdf ) your emphatic statement of fact that testosterone has no effect on leadership needs at least a tiny shred of evidence.
Also, I'm pretty sure testosterone is not the only biological difference between men and women.
They need to install real speed bumps designed to look exactly the same randomly. They save some money since they don't have to build as many and it becomes a fun guessing game for drivers. If only there was a way to randomly move them around too - but that would completely undo the entire "save money" part:)
The anarchists rioted at trumps inaguratio just as they rioted at obama's inaguration. The local police finally had enough, and most likely went too far (as police tend to do).
Slashdot Mirror
You really think they don't have a "we can stop selling your product for any reason we want whenever we want without notice" clause in whatever their contract with market place sellers is?
Knowing the limitations of your computations is a sign have some idea what you are doing (though it's not a certainty of course). It's the people who don't understand the limits that tend to now know what they are doing.
Wow, who knew I was addicted to turning the light off before I go to bed each night? And to using a spoon when I eat soup. And to going to work each work day morning. And to parking my car in my driveway. And to washing the dishes. And to paying my groceries instead of just walking out with them.
And they can turn off javascript and get the behavior they want, without affecting those who prefer less latency. So I'm not sure how that is an argument against benefiting the other users.
Was it really that hard to read 10 more words?
You validate once on the browser do that you don't need to do a return trip to the server and can present the user with a validation error message at a conveniant time.
You validate again on the server because you assume the user is malicious.
You aren't trying to do anything more than use a single validation algorithm, you just do it twice (you know what the word double means) because it is more efficient to do it on the client side but it would be brain dead stupid to trust the client.
I have a business -- a small diner. I have freedom of association, right? I don't serve African Americans as part of the exercise of my freedom of association. You're ok with that, right?
Yes, I would be OK with that. Of course in the US that would be illegal but disagreeing with laws is hardly uncommon. I also think it is OK for you to snort as much cocaine as you like in the privacy of your own home so long as you don't drive/etc, US law similarly disagrees with me.
If it auto updates it is not a backup. It is just a really slow RAID...
It depends how important it is. There are many things I would be perfectly satisfied with increasing the "I lose this" chances from "I lose my local copy" to "I lose my local copy and dropbox loses it at the same time". None of those things are my livelihood of course.
Even on slashdot I refuse to believe a human being can be as stupid as you are pretending to be.
That's true, and the leaving the scene charge should be easy enough to beat because of that. The problem for the defense is that he easily drove away back the way he came, speeding towards the crowd of people is hard to explain as fleeing the crowd of the people. But as you say a US court case is very much not a truth finding exercise.
It's a desk job with a pay check, dealing with stress is irrelevant. If the memo was about being a soldier then dealing with stress would matter. If it was a memo about being a business owner and so having the potential to lose money instead of getting pay check then stress would matter.
Nothing about software engineering is inherently stressful, if google has a workplace that makes it stressful and he's claim about women and dealing with stress is true (two claims I haven't checked) then google is actively discriminating against women and they should fix that rather than compensating with discrimination against men to try and balance it out.
If only they'd managed to not have one of their "side" commit murder on video they might have been able to have managed to spin the event to their side. But they couldn't so as you would expect the spin goes with the message of the side who were on the receiving end of the murder. I admit I would expect the media to spin it against them anyway, but you can't really complain given what actually happened.
I agree they have the right to their speech and if that involves waving Nazi flags that is their choice. I would imagine it would be highly offensive to those who remember the American who paid the ultimate price to free Europe from that flag and were in fact killed by those serving under that flag - but being offensive is part of that freedom of speech thing and the very thing those Americans died defending.
When the only two options being allowed are "expert" and "slashdot poster".
So a masters in a field doesn't count as "sufficient background" but a phd does? Can I assume you have a phd in allt he relevant fields for your statements then?
By definition the existence of diversity hiring quotas means that the people employed to meet those quotes were less deserving of the job than other people who happened to not meet the quota criteria. If that wasn't the case there would be any diversity hiring in the first place after all.
You can of course argue that diversity brings other benefits and thus is worth it. You can argue that diversity hiring is necessary to fix harm done by prior discriminatory practices. You can argue that it will result in better future candidates for hiring. You can make a bunch of arguments to justify that hiring method.
However, you can't argue that the person hired to meet diversity quotas was the best candidate for the job purely due to skills and ability. Hiring people other than the best applicant is after all the only way to satisfy such quota hiring systems. After all it is adding something that isn't "is this the best candidate in the available choices" to the selection criteria.
Feel free to move the not two words to the left if you really must have format logic rather than typical English usage.
Because listening in on telephone calls is exactly the same as damaging people's hearing, right?
Everyone spies on everyone. Everyone does not cause physical harm to other diplomats.
Why would he?
Was he writing a scientific paper and trying to advance the state of knowledge in a field? If so then yes you would try and put forward alternative explanations.
Or was he writing an argument in a debate about something? In which case you would put forward your best arguments with your best evidence (and if you are honest you would not advance arguments you know are invalid). You don't try and argue for the other side as well - you leave that to the other side. Sometimes, you might put forward an argument for the other side so you can dismantle it, but usually that is straw manning and bad form.
Was he really trying to advance the state scientific knowledge, or was he just advancing an argument?
> Using science to try to justify racism is an ethical problem first and foremost, any incidental scientific problems are a footnote.
Justifying racism isn't the same as explaining outcomes. "Studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y, hence we prefer employing from group X" would be using science to justify [X's domain]ism and yes is ethically terrible. "We employ based on merit, studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y and that is why we have more X employees than their general population ratio would indicate" is using science to explain an outcome - it is not ethically bad, it is just a fact (assuming we believe the claim of course).
That wet nurses are always* women is not sexist, for example. There is no ethical problem with pointing out the scientific reason why that is the case.
* I guess there could be a genetic abnomality that might make it possible that isn't 100% true, it will round up to 100% anyway though.
Where is the evidence for your claim that testosterone does not give men an advantage in engineering (and leadership) skills? You made an explicit claim of fact, and unlike the sentence you quoted didn't use words like "may" that serves the dual purpose of not requiring evidence and being dismissable without evidence.
Given there are studies that seem to indicate the opposite (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/sherman_lerner_et_al._in_press_testosterone_cortisol_and_attained_status_jpsp.pdf ) your emphatic statement of fact that testosterone has no effect on leadership needs at least a tiny shred of evidence.
Also, I'm pretty sure testosterone is not the only biological difference between men and women.
They need to install real speed bumps designed to look exactly the same randomly. They save some money since they don't have to build as many and it becomes a fun guessing game for drivers. If only there was a way to randomly move them around too - but that would completely undo the entire "save money" part :)
It wasn't the FBI is was the city police. I'm not sure what you class as a reputable source but here's a spectrum of biased ones:
https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoeti...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
https://www.acludc.org/sites/d...
The anarchists rioted at trumps inaguratio just as they rioted at obama's inaguration. The local police finally had enough, and most likely went too far (as police tend to do).
It's almost as if when the supply of something goes down the price goes up. If only economists had realized this earlier...
You should do some remedial logic, since that doesn't make any sense.
It was called "Star Wars", though the idea was to set off a satellite based nuke which would pump a set of X-ray laser emitters.