Yeah, misogynist probably would have been the better word, remembered it right after I hit submit. Gynophobic strikes me as less judgmental than misogynist, and I suppose I do believe a lot of mis-X flows from X-phobia, but that's a different story. At least I'm not alone, Websters had this note in their definition of gynophobia:
It should not be confused with misogyny, which is dislike of or prejudice against women, although the term may be seen used in this meaning as well.
No, not trolling, just kind of depressed at the reaction.
Note that the first quote you provide is in the reporter's voice, not any of the models. To some extent, this reads like the kind of story where the reporter started with an angle and wrote it regardless of what the actual subjects say.
The direct quotes are all pretty down to earth: "But the work is pretty relaxed and you don't have to do a lot in order to get paid," "It's not a great feeling to see that, but there's nothing that can really be done. We work to promote products," "I'm used to it" and so on. Of the four women quoted, three don't say much more than that a job's a job, and standing and smiling all day is harder than it looks. Ellen Lee, the only woman who's quoted complaining about the job, is pointed out as looking for other work.
These all seem within the usual spectrum of responses when people are asked about their jobs. I guess the formula "You knew that [X] existed when you took the job, so you have no right to complain about it." just doesn't ring true for me. If X = {'carpal tunnel syndrome', 'stupid management', 'TPS reports'}, I suspect there'd be a supportive reaction from slashdoters. So why when X = 'sexisim' is there such a huge angry response?
OK people, let's not be quite the gynophobic nerds we're made out to be.
First, RTFA. There was essentially no complaining at all in the article, besides a little "it's tiring to stand in heels for eight hours" Really really sad the number of slashdotters who without reading the article just assumed that it was a bunch of women whining. Not to mention the number of posts here responding to accusations of sexism that were never made. Defensive much?
Second, to the parent post, you know what the one who didn't like it did? She quit and got a different job.
Given that like every third slashdot post is someone complaining about their job, you'd think people here would maybe cut these women a little slack. Or is it really that offensive to hear a women who's job is to be professionally pretty talk about it just like it's any other job?
Ah yes, that must be why NYC housing is getting so affordable.
Kind of ironic that the nation's most desirable places to live (as measured by how much people are willing to pay to live there) and the engines of the economy (as measured by average income) are the places that seem to be furthest from Libertarian wonderland.
Seems like as good a place as any to ask a (probably ignorant) question I've had about neutrino detection.
Part of the problem detecting neutrinos is that they only interact with nuclei, so since atoms are mostly empty space, the neutrino rarely even gets a chance to interact. But, if you took a very pure crystal, with the nuclei arranged in a precise lattice pattern, and then rotated it at a very slight angle to the incoming neutrino beam, could you engineer it so that you maximized the number of nuclei each neutrino would pass through? Picture here Would this have any effect on detector efficiency or even allow you to construct a directional detector?
To me, the real story is that the people behind this botnet are getting extradited and, (knock wood), will do jail time in the US. This news made my day. I know this is slashdot, but malware is not going to be fought through any technical solution. Until this kind of activity carries personal risk, the bad guys are going to win.
Nice to actually feel good about my government, at least for a few minutes.
I don't really have an opinion on if we'd be safer with open carry laws or under current laws. Regardless, laws on the books should be enforced--as long as concealed firearms are illegal, it strikes me as fair to use technology to enforce that. My neighborhood (which is not at all an inner city shithole) has had a minor spate of gun crimes recently, including one fairly horrific home invasion followed by kidnapping and forced ATM withdrawals, so this is about more than thugs killing each other.
Maybe it's because I live in Baltimore and my chance of getting murdered is not too much lower my chance of getting cancer, I'd say forget about scanning for tumors. If they invent something that lets cop cars scan for concealed firearms while they drive down the street, that's at least as much a public health benefit as improved cancer screening. Or does the 2nd amendment mean we have to pretend that getting shot isn't bad for your health?
And, just to anticipate to the inevitable psuedo-constitutional argument, what part of "well regulated militia" applies to people with criminal records walking around with unregistered concealed firearms?
I'll go against the grain and say this might be a good thing. Isn't being a teenager about making stupid mistakes and suffering painful lessons while still in a somewhat protected environment? Public humiliation at the hands of a bitter ex will teach you more about online security (and relationships in general) than a hundred lectures.
Our, you know, OP could RTFM:
The retrieval of this data has been authorized by the vehicle's owner, or other legal authority such as a subpoena or search warrant...
RTFA (A=abstract, since the article is behind a paywall)...the abstract doesn't say that gas giants formed, then were stripped. It suggests the protoplanatary disk breaks up into clumps of gas and dust, and that the clumps that come too close to the star are stripped of their gas. I think all this happens long before the dust clouds condense into planets. At least from the abstract, all they seem to be saying is that the same original dust clouds could become rocky planets or gas giants, depending on if they're disrupted or not.
it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.
Multiple individual pre-humans did evolve into humans, just not independently. Actually, saying that any particular individual evolved is a misnomer--more accurate to say that each of us has multiple pre-humans in our ancestry. The change most likely happened in a small-ish, somewhat isolated population over many generations. (Sort of related--much teaching about evolution overemphasizes the importance of random mutations. Selective concentration of already existing genetic variation is usually the more important mechanism. Once you realize that, it becomes easier to see how evolution happens to populations, not individuals.)
Also, take a look at this, especially the common fallacies section.
Amen, brother, would mod you up if I had the points. Seems like three scientists, one affiliated with NASA, should at least nod in the general direction of physics when writing something like this. Does Acta Astronautica claim to be peer reviewed? If not, I guess this is just a sort of speculative quasi-SF opinion piece, and we can cut them some slack.
Looks like the trans-pacific cables are newer than the trans-atlantic, might just be an artifact of whatever the technology was at the time the cables were installed.
Does look like they lost a few...if they started stacked 6 high, the bottom one on the left got lost. And look at the ones at the bottom right, they just got smushed like empty beer cans. Love the idea of using this as a demotivation poster.
The data doesn't really support your claim. Between 1920 and 2000, the rate of fatal automobile accidents per vehicle-mile decreased by a factor of about 17. No idea if that's better technology, drunk driving laws, better educated drivers, better roads or whatever, but the idea that transportation safety can't be influenced just doesn't hold up.
Despite libertarians wishes, policy actually does matter.
Hmmm...just brainstorming, but shouldn't it be pretty cheap to put a GPS and water-activated beacon in each container? I bet the GPS is already there in a lot of cases, I can see that paying for itself in logistics management once the thing's on a train or truck. Then the insurance or salvage companies could operate smaller oceangoing cranes to scoop them up.
Anyone have a guess what the average value of the contents of a container is? Since insurance companies and/or shippers are paying for all these losses, doesn't seem like it would have to be much to maybe worth somethign like this. Then again, maybe the cargo's worthless after a dip in the ocean.
http://www.ttclub.com/TTCLUB/PubArc.nsf/D5E4C4B3A805731980256792004C617E/02CE747115C182F780256A6500596BF5?OpenDocument
Here's a pic of a container ship after going through rough seas: http://i.imgur.com/4ynah.jpg. I'm stunned that those containers are still on board. Looks like they're chained down, but even metal breaks eventually
The amusement park in Ohio? They've got a roller coaster that uses the same technology to launch, and it's pretty incredable. There are also a fewrides in other parks that use liner induction motros to basically fling you straight up...I havent had a chance to ride those, but I imagine that's about as close most of us will get to a carrier fighter launch.
Riding Maverick is what made me realize that being a figher pilot must be kind of like trying to use a computer while riding a roller coaster.
They appear to be at the beginning states of an economic war with us, and we just don't realize it.
I tend to agree, only I think we're very much aware of it, we just don't seem to be willing to take the steps necessary to avert it (or win it.) In fact, we're doing everything possible to help China win it.
Many Chinese people I kow cite this sort of thing as an example as to why their system is better then democracy. The claim is that democracies are incapable of making hard decisions and demanding sacrifice from their people. Take, say, balancing the federal budget/closing the trade deficit--any politician with a plan for that is either (1) using some sort of supply-side magical thinking with no basis in reality or (2) unelectable. Can you imagine any elected official who took measures to limit consumer credit so Americans had to live within their means staying in office?
To Obama's credit, I think his initial economic policies were pointed in the right direction. But, put good policy up against an opposition that was more than willing to harm the nation to prevent him from succeeding and astroturf groups that are exquisitly skilled at derailing any real discussion on any topic, and good policy looses every time.
What's going on there, I don't know. But I'm not entirely convinced that all of our government is exactly on our side. Not anymore.
We get the government we elect. As long as Americans are willing to vote for candidates who tell us what we want to hear and don't vote for candidates who are willing to state hard truths and suggest real solutions, we're not going to have a government capable of leadership. This is how empires fall.
Well, there have been no all-out major power wars in 65 years (57 if you count the Korean War, but note that China was not a nuclear power then). There have only been two ground conflicts between nuclear powers, both of which were fairly limited border conflicts. There seems to be historical support for the idea that nuclear weapons lead belligerants to de-escalate.
As far as deterrent against who, that's a long-view question. Could you have predicted the current geo-political situation 10 years ago? It's foolish to think we have any real idea what the world will look like in 10, 20 or 50 years.
There's also the 'umbrella effect.' It's not hard to think of a dozen countries that would have had valid strategic reasons for developing their own nukes if it wasn't for the U.S. arsneal.
Slashdot Mirror
It should not be confused with misogyny, which is dislike of or prejudice against women, although the term may be seen used in this meaning as well.
No, not trolling, just kind of depressed at the reaction.
Note that the first quote you provide is in the reporter's voice, not any of the models. To some extent, this reads like the kind of story where the reporter started with an angle and wrote it regardless of what the actual subjects say. The direct quotes are all pretty down to earth: "But the work is pretty relaxed and you don't have to do a lot in order to get paid," "It's not a great feeling to see that, but there's nothing that can really be done. We work to promote products," "I'm used to it" and so on. Of the four women quoted, three don't say much more than that a job's a job, and standing and smiling all day is harder than it looks. Ellen Lee, the only woman who's quoted complaining about the job, is pointed out as looking for other work.
These all seem within the usual spectrum of responses when people are asked about their jobs. I guess the formula "You knew that [X] existed when you took the job, so you have no right to complain about it." just doesn't ring true for me. If X = {'carpal tunnel syndrome', 'stupid management', 'TPS reports'}, I suspect there'd be a supportive reaction from slashdoters. So why when X = 'sexisim' is there such a huge angry response?
OK people, let's not be quite the gynophobic nerds we're made out to be.
First, RTFA. There was essentially no complaining at all in the article, besides a little "it's tiring to stand in heels for eight hours" Really really sad the number of slashdotters who without reading the article just assumed that it was a bunch of women whining. Not to mention the number of posts here responding to accusations of sexism that were never made. Defensive much?
Second, to the parent post, you know what the one who didn't like it did? She quit and got a different job.
Given that like every third slashdot post is someone complaining about their job, you'd think people here would maybe cut these women a little slack. Or is it really that offensive to hear a women who's job is to be professionally pretty talk about it just like it's any other job?
...for people to leave NY.
Ah yes, that must be why NYC housing is getting so affordable.
Kind of ironic that the nation's most desirable places to live (as measured by how much people are willing to pay to live there) and the engines of the economy (as measured by average income) are the places that seem to be furthest from Libertarian wonderland.
Seems like as good a place as any to ask a (probably ignorant) question I've had about neutrino detection.
Part of the problem detecting neutrinos is that they only interact with nuclei, so since atoms are mostly empty space, the neutrino rarely even gets a chance to interact. But, if you took a very pure crystal, with the nuclei arranged in a precise lattice pattern, and then rotated it at a very slight angle to the incoming neutrino beam, could you engineer it so that you maximized the number of nuclei each neutrino would pass through? Picture here Would this have any effect on detector efficiency or even allow you to construct a directional detector?
To me, the real story is that the people behind this botnet are getting extradited and, (knock wood), will do jail time in the US. This news made my day. I know this is slashdot, but malware is not going to be fought through any technical solution. Until this kind of activity carries personal risk, the bad guys are going to win.
Nice to actually feel good about my government, at least for a few minutes.
I don't really have an opinion on if we'd be safer with open carry laws or under current laws. Regardless, laws on the books should be enforced--as long as concealed firearms are illegal, it strikes me as fair to use technology to enforce that. My neighborhood (which is not at all an inner city shithole) has had a minor spate of gun crimes recently, including one fairly horrific home invasion followed by kidnapping and forced ATM withdrawals, so this is about more than thugs killing each other.
Maybe it's because I live in Baltimore and my chance of getting murdered is not too much lower my chance of getting cancer, I'd say forget about scanning for tumors. If they invent something that lets cop cars scan for concealed firearms while they drive down the street, that's at least as much a public health benefit as improved cancer screening. Or does the 2nd amendment mean we have to pretend that getting shot isn't bad for your health? And, just to anticipate to the inevitable psuedo-constitutional argument, what part of "well regulated militia" applies to people with criminal records walking around with unregistered concealed firearms?
I'll go against the grain and say this might be a good thing. Isn't being a teenager about making stupid mistakes and suffering painful lessons while still in a somewhat protected environment? Public humiliation at the hands of a bitter ex will teach you more about online security (and relationships in general) than a hundred lectures.
Our, you know, OP could RTFM: The retrieval of this data has been authorized by the vehicle's owner, or other legal authority such as a subpoena or search warrant...
RTFA (A=abstract, since the article is behind a paywall)...the abstract doesn't say that gas giants formed, then were stripped. It suggests the protoplanatary disk breaks up into clumps of gas and dust, and that the clumps that come too close to the star are stripped of their gas. I think all this happens long before the dust clouds condense into planets. At least from the abstract, all they seem to be saying is that the same original dust clouds could become rocky planets or gas giants, depending on if they're disrupted or not.
it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.
Multiple individual pre-humans did evolve into humans, just not independently. Actually, saying that any particular individual evolved is a misnomer--more accurate to say that each of us has multiple pre-humans in our ancestry. The change most likely happened in a small-ish, somewhat isolated population over many generations. (Sort of related--much teaching about evolution overemphasizes the importance of random mutations. Selective concentration of already existing genetic variation is usually the more important mechanism. Once you realize that, it becomes easier to see how evolution happens to populations, not individuals.) Also, take a look at this, especially the common fallacies section.
Amen, brother, would mod you up if I had the points. Seems like three scientists, one affiliated with NASA, should at least nod in the general direction of physics when writing something like this. Does Acta Astronautica claim to be peer reviewed? If not, I guess this is just a sort of speculative quasi-SF opinion piece, and we can cut them some slack.
Looks like the trans-pacific cables are newer than the trans-atlantic, might just be an artifact of whatever the technology was at the time the cables were installed.
Does look like they lost a few...if they started stacked 6 high, the bottom one on the left got lost. And look at the ones at the bottom right, they just got smushed like empty beer cans. Love the idea of using this as a demotivation poster.
The data doesn't really support your claim. Between 1920 and 2000, the rate of fatal automobile accidents per vehicle-mile decreased by a factor of about 17. No idea if that's better technology, drunk driving laws, better educated drivers, better roads or whatever, but the idea that transportation safety can't be influenced just doesn't hold up.
Despite libertarians wishes, policy actually does matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States
Hmmm...just brainstorming, but shouldn't it be pretty cheap to put a GPS and water-activated beacon in each container? I bet the GPS is already there in a lot of cases, I can see that paying for itself in logistics management once the thing's on a train or truck. Then the insurance or salvage companies could operate smaller oceangoing cranes to scoop them up. Anyone have a guess what the average value of the contents of a container is? Since insurance companies and/or shippers are paying for all these losses, doesn't seem like it would have to be much to maybe worth somethign like this. Then again, maybe the cargo's worthless after a dip in the ocean. http://www.ttclub.com/TTCLUB/PubArc.nsf/D5E4C4B3A805731980256792004C617E/02CE747115C182F780256A6500596BF5?OpenDocument
Here's a pic of a container ship after going through rough seas: http://i.imgur.com/4ynah.jpg. I'm stunned that those containers are still on board. Looks like they're chained down, but even metal breaks eventually
I think the $0.10 bullet made the $5 wrench unworkable.
I think you're off by a factor of 2: dt = dx / (average V). Since it goes from 0 to 352 ft/s, v-bar is 176 ft/s, and dt is 75/44 sec.
The amusement park in Ohio? They've got a roller coaster that uses the same technology to launch, and it's pretty incredable. There are also a few rides in other parks that use liner induction motros to basically fling you straight up...I havent had a chance to ride those, but I imagine that's about as close most of us will get to a carrier fighter launch. Riding Maverick is what made me realize that being a figher pilot must be kind of like trying to use a computer while riding a roller coaster.
Oh, I dunno, rats, cockroaches, mosquitos, mycobacterium tuberculosis?
They appear to be at the beginning states of an economic war with us, and we just don't realize it.
I tend to agree, only I think we're very much aware of it, we just don't seem to be willing to take the steps necessary to avert it (or win it.) In fact, we're doing everything possible to help China win it.
Many Chinese people I kow cite this sort of thing as an example as to why their system is better then democracy. The claim is that democracies are incapable of making hard decisions and demanding sacrifice from their people. Take, say, balancing the federal budget/closing the trade deficit--any politician with a plan for that is either (1) using some sort of supply-side magical thinking with no basis in reality or (2) unelectable. Can you imagine any elected official who took measures to limit consumer credit so Americans had to live within their means staying in office?
To Obama's credit, I think his initial economic policies were pointed in the right direction. But, put good policy up against an opposition that was more than willing to harm the nation to prevent him from succeeding and astroturf groups that are exquisitly skilled at derailing any real discussion on any topic, and good policy looses every time.
What's going on there, I don't know. But I'm not entirely convinced that all of our government is exactly on our side. Not anymore.
We get the government we elect. As long as Americans are willing to vote for candidates who tell us what we want to hear and don't vote for candidates who are willing to state hard truths and suggest real solutions, we're not going to have a government capable of leadership. This is how empires fall.
Well, there have been no all-out major power wars in 65 years (57 if you count the Korean War, but note that China was not a nuclear power then). There have only been two ground conflicts between nuclear powers, both of which were fairly limited border conflicts. There seems to be historical support for the idea that nuclear weapons lead belligerants to de-escalate.
As far as deterrent against who, that's a long-view question. Could you have predicted the current geo-political situation 10 years ago? It's foolish to think we have any real idea what the world will look like in 10, 20 or 50 years.
There's also the 'umbrella effect.' It's not hard to think of a dozen countries that would have had valid strategic reasons for developing their own nukes if it wasn't for the U.S. arsneal.
And once we have a monoculture of any other operating system, do you really think it will be any better?