I mean, maybe. I dunno. Low connectivity with only a few points actually having a connection and everyone else running adhoc wireless sharing one common resource DOES sound pretty communistic. But I really just wanted to say the line about batman.
When this thing was coming out, I spoke in defense of it. I mean, America has it's own credit score system. I didn't really see a big difference between outsourcing it to 3 semi-branches of government or having it directly controlled by government. I thought it was going to be used for loans and stuff.
Nope. Travel rights, blanket punishment for Muslims, college admittance. Fuck that noise.
Anyone a fan of cyberpunk? Neuromancer, Snowcrash, Shadowrun? I'm a firm believer that we've simply caught up to those "20 minutes into the future forecasts". It's not as extreame, but... squint a little and they were pretty accurate. And China is the scary authoritarian government jackboot thug future that so many predicted. "The man" that the punks were supposed to fight back against. Turns out they were run over with tanks and saying their names is grounds for black-bagging.
Damn shame, things were looking good before Pooh-bear came to power.
That cherry picking populouses and pointing at their IQ scores (and race) doesn't really mean anything.
They found a correlation between brain size and intelligence, and you equate that to phrenology?
Yes, because that's LITERALLY phrenology. But suuuuuuuure, let me know how well ELEPHANTS perform as surgeons and programmers. You know, because of their massive brains. That... IS the path you're walking down.
Also, blindseer ( 891256 ), why do you feel the need to post anonymously half the time? Don't feel like standing by some of these comments?
You forgot to also mention that I'm antisemitic and homophobic.
Whoa, ease up with that shovel. My mouth is only so big.
I'm not trying to persuade you. This is a debate, I'm pointing out how you're a dumbfuck so the observing masses don't start believing any of your drivel.
Oh jesus, you are way WAY dull to figure this one out so I'll just help you out.
You didn't define "close". What's close? 101? 99? is 120 close? It's a subjective trait you just tossed out there. I could have said ANYONE is close and been technically true. If this isn't super obvious then science just isn't for you and you need to step away from sociology because it's full of pitfalls even for the smart cookies.
and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
Wanna bet on the IQ scores of white poor people in west virginia? See, I can cherry pick as well.
"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."
Wow, just think, ALL that effort developing IQ tests and all we had to do was fill some skulls with beans. And, since I'm pretty sure this joke is WAY over your head, that's PHRENOLOGY.
That was like 2 minutes of google cutting and pasting. You didn't really think this one through did you? "Gender studies" as part of humanities is one of those things that bored people go on and on about. And all I have to show is that there are SOME factors. Unless you can show that NOTHING in any of these papers and articles has any impact, you've got to yield to this one.
But seriously, nature vs nurture is an old debate that obviously isn't one-sided. You ARE a dumbfuck if you think it's all one or the other.
. Personality is also genetic. I don't know enough about the relationship between genetics and personality just yet to comment on if this has some correlation to race so I tend to leave that one alone.
Too late.
Nature isn't outdated. At least I don't think so. Our nature is fine tuned to survival
It's tuned to survive in a hunter-gatherer society that fucks at 15, most babies die before 5, and most people never see more than 200 people in their lifetime. Times have changed.
Supporting girls in STEM to the exclusion of boys is sexist.
I don't. As stated. Try reading shit instead of shoveling it into my mouth.
How about instead of worrying about what race and gender the people in these occupations are we simply allow people to choose freely which jobs they want?
We do. This is a highschool class. Kids are not adults and should be guided towards good paths. FURTHERMORE, taking AP comSci is also a choice for these girls.
Of what?
I wrote before what you convinced me of believing.
Yeah, yeah, grammar and geography. Whelp, you've convinced me you're a dumb fuck and an ass. Listen, Peterson is a smart guy and I believe a lot of what he says. He's careful not to step over the line from fact to opinion. You're not. Regurgitating his statements and adding your own interpretation isn't going so well for you. It makes you look not only like an idiot, but a racist sexist idiot.
ok, I'm going to blow your mind here, but 62%, plus 5%, is, with some rounding, about 66%. And white guys aren't asians. Why are you lumping them together?
Males make up 48% of the general population, and 79% in computer science. That's a predominance that is disproportionate.
YES, that part IS disproportionate. And the causes appear to be, at least in part, sociological in nature. If only someone were to perform some sort of.... imitative or something to get girls interested in STEM.... if only. And part of it, as I'm sure you'd like to harp on, seems to be biological in nature. It's also our biological nature to screw each other's brains out during puberty and make babies, but we overcome that. Mostly. Sometimes nature is horribly outdated.
Anyway, I'm generally not a fan of racist or sexist policies, but supporting girls in tech is good because it gets more people into tech and we need more people in tech. That's where the jobs are. There's plenty of work to do. I also support programs that get boys interested in tech.
In nations where there's low amount of sexual barriers when it comes to choice of careers paths, there is still unbalance in different fields. People have their own preferences and there's a trend with men and women going different ways. That's fine. Let people choose which way they want to go. But none of that should stop people from getting kids interested in productive valuable fields. This is highschool, it's equality of opportunity stuff here.
There might still be some people in Central America that are pure blood natives but those are very rare after settlers from predominately Spain and Portugal interbreeding with the native populations for about 500 years.
haha, "purebred". We call anyone in the US that's 1/32nd parts "Indian" and they qualify for scholarships. Are there ANY Mexicans that don't have some Aztec blood in them? They're native Americans yo. Spaniards are (mostly) white Europeans.
You've convinced me.
. . . Of what? I just commented that (some of) your statements are obviously true and to be expected. Of course classes are predominantly white. Why wouldn't they be? We're mostly white.
Any intelligent state will know that using war / military confrontation, they can take a lot of money and/or land from another state.
Not really true anymore. Unless you can depend upon the conquered people being cool with their new overlords, it's way more expensive to have troops play policeman and suppress an area. Things might change in the future, but wars are hideously expensive these days and you don't get much out of them. At best you "show the world you're a tough guy" and that, in theory, helps with political negotiations.
Certain businessmen get a hell of a lot of money though, no matter how the war goes, so you'll always have war-hawks. Ignore those greedy murderous war-profiteers.
. . . I'm not really even sure what the point is anymore. Theoretically, they're weapons of war. A saber to rattle to keep our enemies at bay. If shit hits the fan these things will be used to make strikes against Russia and China and their assets. But.... not really because if shits hitting the fan, nukes are flying, and no one gives a shit about planes. But they're fun to rattle and wave around. Whole generations of stealth planes are never utilized against the targets they're made to thwart.
So if not developed nations, we can use them to kick the shit out of developing nations. So far EVERY god damned time we've done that it's been a clusterfuck that I wish we hadn't. The europeans had success bombing the Balklans back into peace. Are there ANY others?
Cruise missles are expensive, but cheaper unless you've got a bunch of stuff you want blown up.
Surveillance? Spy planes evolved to be so fast and fly so high that they're in orbit now and we call them satellites.
I think we were so caught up in the arms race during the cold war that "making a better fighter jet" is just an expected thing we do now. There are simply too many people afraid of the concept of "not having the best plane". We no longer have ships with the biggest cannon, we gave up on battleships. So what's the point of these planes? At this point too many people have jobs tied to this whole thing to simply shut it down. I like Ike, and he said it best: "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex". On the other hand... hey, a lot of scientific and technical advancement comes from that limitless funding that is national defense budget. Quantum radar, for instance.
Of course they're going to be predominantly white. We're 62% of the nation. The next biggest group is "latinos" at 17% (why don't we call them native (central) americans? Probably the same reason we don't call Indians Asians even though they're in Asia). IQ averages aside, there's no way you're getting around that mass of people.
Asians not so much. At 5%, if you have a college tech class that's predominantly asian, there's further sociological factors at play. Namely, WE HAVE A WORLD-CLASS UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND WE'RE GETTING ALL OF CHINA AND INDIA COMING HERE. Duh. It's a product we sell as Americans. The current trend of "asian tiger parents" I personally ascribe to the flight of all the intellectuals from Mao's china. A lot came here and the children of doctors and engineers are expected to aim high. And IQ is heritable. Asians aren't inherently smarter, that's racist. We've just got batch of smarties that selectively moved here.
Claiming to be able to double the number of Hispanic and Black students into computer science means, as best I can tell, one was able to increase their intelligence.
Don't be a dumb fuck. You could train a specific group to test well within a specific task and you'd see increased enrollment in that field. Who takes AP comSci is not solely derived from people's intelligence or their IQ score.
They increased their interest in ComSci, and encouraged them to take a class in it. Reading deeper into it and taking offence where there's none to take makes you a SJW. No, for real. Read that again. You are perceiving racial and sexual unfairness and raising a huff about it. Playing the victim card. Who else does this?
I mean.... you're not wrong about affirmative action at the college level. But you're presuming that applies at this highschool AP class. Your only argument is about "displacement". Who is blocked from taking AP comSci in highschool because there isn't enough room?
We've effectively ended racism in the USA. That's not saying there are not any racist people in the USA, only that it's been made socially unacceptable and punishable under the law if used to keep people from jobs and services.
Oh it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Much the same way that NO ONE drank any whiskey in the USA in 1930's and no one smokes pot, right? Because it's federally illegal? Isn't that your argument?
There is no easy answer for the disparity of women and minorities in STEM, because there is no easy answer to correct for the varied genetics in these populations
You made the leap that the difference in IQ distributions (narrow vs wide) between the sexes is genetic in origin. It might not be. You're operating on assumptions here and you're going to be rightfully crucified for it.
Remember that the network neutrality is a fundamental principle of how the Internet works. But ISPs have tried breaking it in a few ways years past prior to Wheeler classifying ISPs under title ii and making that illegal. Now we're back to it being legal and network neutrality depends upon the users getting pissed and switching carriers..... which is more or less impossible now for most people because they have so many monopolies and the all collude with each other.
I know this is nitpicking terminology, but after it got political WAY too many people have come out "against network neutrality" rather that "against regulation enforcing network neutrality". Because someone out there is successfully steering the discussion and winning the propaganda war.
That's fine. And the cops are full well within their rights to record what goes on in or around their police station. But if you start selling that data and access to that camera then you start running into privacy concerns.
You sound like a old fart nationalist jerking his knee and you're still fighting the hippies. Or some sort of Russian shill trying to tear down my society... but your grammar is too good for that.
I suggest that we also offer permanent residency to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.
This. With mandatory jail time. If it's simply cheaper to pay the fine, fire Pedrotres, and hire Pedroquatro then it's just another tax. When ICE has sting operations, they should be hauling away management. With culpability going up the chain of command if you really want to play hardball.
Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation.
I'm pretty sure it's a little of column A and a little of column B. Yes, they're here for work.... but there's an awful lot of corpses left by the drug cartels in Mexico right now. "Bloodiest election". "the most violent campaign Mexico has experienced in recent history, with 130 political figures killed since September 2017".
Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil, to their wives, where they are buying up land for retirement.
...props to them? I mean really, imagine if more Americans had that sort of fiscal responsibility.
Now, I do not report them because sending them home will solve NOTHING.
Then.... why are you advocating they go home?
e-verify on all jobs
Where's the complaint from the republicans about how regulation is killing business? But yeah, it's hard to argue against this one.
cut off all funding to any state that is giving money to illegals (other than emergency medical, nothing should be given to them).
How about teaching their children? Because you're advocating that we kick them out of schools. That's a free* service provided to anyone in the district. You'd really rather have uneducated teenagers with loads of time on their hands and nothing to do? Have you really thought this one through?
They drive on roads built with tax money. Want them to walk everywhere? The cops and army protect them. Want some sort of "open season" on beaners?
*TANSTAAFL! It's typically paid for by property taxes. Renters get by scott free.
So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.
Some of them, yeah. But any job that fills out an Over 3 million have an ITEN, a tax number in liu of a social security number. And they pay taxes into the collective pot that they'll never get back. That's the pot you and I pull out from. Collectively, they put in $10 billion dollars. That's straight-up taxation without representation. Theft plain and simple. Donation, if you're trying to spin it. But they choose to do this because that's STILL a better deal than their options back home.
And that doesn't count people with a fake SSN or forged papers.
I'm a big believer that, without a warrant, cops should be limited to what civilians can do. When the government does it, it's called tracking. When a civilian does it, it's called stalking. Both are illegal. Or at least should be illegal. We should have to deal with harassment from the cops any more than from ex-lovers.
That sounds better but ignores the reality that god damned near ALL of the USA is under the thumb of a small number of telecoms who refuse to compete with each other and have openly stated they will not encroach on the others territory. If the regulation is applicable to 99% of the cases... then that sort of verbiage is expected. If you DO add some loopholes and exceptions, get read to have 56kps modems count as technically competition against the cable giants. If your kneejerk reaction is "That's not what I meant by competition" then get ready to have the dumbass bumblefuck congressmen start defining technical terms and legislating technical solutions. Which of course never happens. They ask their good friends down in the lobby to hand them some "reasonable rules". Now you've got classic regulatory capture.
Title ii classification was nice and broad and established and neither the congresscritters nor the telcom execs could get their weedly little fingers into it....But the president could appoint someone to the FCC that could revert it. Fuck.
The real problem is that there are only one or two internet providers in many places, and network neutrality is only one symptom of that problem.
Huh? it's a symptom?...Did you mean "and the threat to network neutrality is only one symptom"? Because that would make more sense.
Network Neutrality a fundemental principle upon which the Internet was created and currently operates. When it became commercial, the userbase expected it to operate on NN principles and generally threw a fit whenever an ISP did something that violates it. Like blocking VoIP, throttling protocols, and bundling website fees. Most of which the ISPs recanted under pressure. They only tried to do these things once the market consolidated and monopolies grew. ie, one or two providers refusing to compete with each other leads is a threat to network neurality.
The FCC's title ii classification and California's legislation are efforts to regulate and enforce a neutral network since the customers are unable to enforce it due to the monopolies in place.
The solution is to allow competition, and there are places in America where internet is perfectly fine, but not in Silicon Valley.
Nor.... god-damned near anywhere. Certainly not Colordao, Iowa, or Nebraska, that's for sure.
Competition would absolutely let the customers enforce network neutrality, as they've done for the majority of the past. But market consolidation (and exclusivity deals with local municipalities) removed all competition. Well, Google tried laying down fiber. But the Telecoms selectively dropped prices in those towns and left and right in an effort to block and undercut potential new competition. YAY Competition lowering prices! But it means Google can't make money at it and they've stopped all expansion. If Mr. Moneybags Google can't overcome the artificial barrier to entry then there is no free market. It's time to either regulate the ISPs into a pseudo government agencies or to whip out Uncle Sherman's hammer and bust up the telecoms again into small regional businesses barred from colluding with their old co-workers.
1) He's arguing that we SHOULD have "killed civilians indiscriminately".
2) He thinks the sectarian violence in Iraq was all US troops. Dude, it was open warfare between the Shiites and the Sunnis. We let it happy by knocking off the only guy keeping them from going at it, but that wasn't our troops shooting civilians. That wasn't the plan. We didn't want 300,000 dead civvies.
we managed to make torture^XEnhanced Interrogation OK again.
Only for half the populace in the USA. It was, and still is, reviled by the other half along with the rest of the world.
"In November 2015, Kavanaugh was part of a unanimous decision when the DC Circuit denied a petition to rehear a challenge to the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata. Kavanaugh was the only judge to issue a written statement, which said that '[t]he Government's collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.' Even if this form of surveillance constituted a search, it wouldn't be an 'unreasonable' search and therefore it would be legal, Kavanaugh also wrote."
Someone get his metadata and expose his daily routine, who all his contacts are, and who he calls the most, where he frequents, and where he travels to.
Let's see how well he likes "NOT being searched". He can enjoy the full benefit of privacy, but I guess none of this is private. So let's have at it. Money says there's plenty enough rope in there to hang himself.
A study by analysts Vanson Bourne for self service automation specialist SnapLogic looks at the data priorities and investment plans of IT decision makers, along with what's holding them back from giving money to SnapLogic.
"Data driven" is a buzzword. It's synonymous with "not bullshit". People have been making "data driven" decisions forever.
Among the findings are that 80 percent of those surveyed report that outdated technology holds their organization back from taking advantage of new data-driven opportunities.
ie, buy SnapLogic. SHOCKING!
Also that trust and quality issues slow progress, with only 29 percent of respondents having complete trust in the quality of their organization's data.
Those 29% are idiots then. Complete trust? WTF are they smoking? But this is just a bullshit poll where some people picked a number 1-5.
Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) say they face unprecedented volumes of data but struggle to generate useful insights from it,
ie, the data-driven crazy is mostly bullshit.
Woooo! We have a ton of data!....now what fucking good is it?
estimating that they use only about half (51 percent) of the data they collect or generate.
That's... actually just fine. No real shocker that the people harvesting data errored on the side of being overzealous. I mean really, what are you supposed to do with the weight of the sysadmins purchasing your routers? Are you trying to find a link between heart-attacks and your customer base? No, you're trying to sell more routers.
What's more, respondents estimate that less than half (48 percent) of all business decisions are based on data.
With 25% being based on common sense, 25% being based on what they've always done in the past, and 2% being decided by darts.
Slashdot Mirror
No comrade, with time you will learn that under that mustache, Big Brother is smiling.
This sounds like a job... for BATMAN!
I mean, maybe. I dunno. Low connectivity with only a few points actually having a connection and everyone else running adhoc wireless sharing one common resource DOES sound pretty communistic. But I really just wanted to say the line about batman.
Anything that fits in a cyberpunk novel or an episode of Black Mirror qualifies for Slashdot by default.
When this thing was coming out, I spoke in defense of it. I mean, America has it's own credit score system. I didn't really see a big difference between outsourcing it to 3 semi-branches of government or having it directly controlled by government. I thought it was going to be used for loans and stuff.
Nope. Travel rights, blanket punishment for Muslims, college admittance. Fuck that noise.
Anyone a fan of cyberpunk? Neuromancer, Snowcrash, Shadowrun? I'm a firm believer that we've simply caught up to those "20 minutes into the future forecasts". It's not as extreame, but... squint a little and they were pretty accurate. And China is the scary authoritarian government jackboot thug future that so many predicted. "The man" that the punks were supposed to fight back against. Turns out they were run over with tanks and saying their names is grounds for black-bagging.
Damn shame, things were looking good before Pooh-bear came to power.
What point do you think you are making?
That cherry picking populouses and pointing at their IQ scores (and race) doesn't really mean anything.
They found a correlation between brain size and intelligence, and you equate that to phrenology?
Yes, because that's LITERALLY phrenology. But suuuuuuuure, let me know how well ELEPHANTS perform as surgeons and programmers. You know, because of their massive brains. That... IS the path you're walking down.
Also, blindseer ( 891256 ), why do you feel the need to post anonymously half the time? Don't feel like standing by some of these comments?
You forgot to also mention that I'm antisemitic and homophobic.
Whoa, ease up with that shovel. My mouth is only so big.
I'm not trying to persuade you. This is a debate, I'm pointing out how you're a dumbfuck so the observing masses don't start believing any of your drivel.
Oh jesus, you are way WAY dull to figure this one out so I'll just help you out.
You didn't define "close". What's close? 101? 99? is 120 close? It's a subjective trait you just tossed out there. I could have said ANYONE is close and been technically true. If this isn't super obvious then science just isn't for you and you need to step away from sociology because it's full of pitfalls even for the smart cookies.
and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
Wanna bet on the IQ scores of white poor people in west virginia? See, I can cherry pick as well.
Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx
"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."
Wow, just think, ALL that effort developing IQ tests and all we had to do was fill some skulls with beans. And, since I'm pretty sure this joke is WAY over your head, that's PHRENOLOGY.
This also works out because Whites and Asians have an average IQ that's close to, and perhaps slightly above, 100.
Whites, asians, blacks, and latinos all have IQ scores that are close to 100.
YES, that part IS disproportionate. And the causes appear to be, at least in part, sociological in nature.
Prove it.
CAN DO!
Factors Impacting Women's Participation in STEM Fields.
Women in STEM: Challenges and determinants of success and well-being.
Why Female Students Leave STEM.
That was like 2 minutes of google cutting and pasting. You didn't really think this one through did you? "Gender studies" as part of humanities is one of those things that bored people go on and on about. And all I have to show is that there are SOME factors. Unless you can show that NOTHING in any of these papers and articles has any impact, you've got to yield to this one.
But seriously, nature vs nurture is an old debate that obviously isn't one-sided. You ARE a dumbfuck if you think it's all one or the other.
. Personality is also genetic. I don't know enough about the relationship between genetics and personality just yet to comment on if this has some correlation to race so I tend to leave that one alone.
Too late.
Nature isn't outdated. At least I don't think so. Our nature is fine tuned to survival
It's tuned to survive in a hunter-gatherer society that fucks at 15, most babies die before 5, and most people never see more than 200 people in their lifetime. Times have changed.
Supporting girls in STEM to the exclusion of boys is sexist.
I don't. As stated. Try reading shit instead of shoveling it into my mouth.
How about instead of worrying about what race and gender the people in these occupations are we simply allow people to choose freely which jobs they want?
We do. This is a highschool class. Kids are not adults and should be guided towards good paths. FURTHERMORE, taking AP comSci is also a choice for these girls.
Of what?
I wrote before what you convinced me of believing.
Yeah, yeah, grammar and geography. Whelp, you've convinced me you're a dumb fuck and an ass. Listen, Peterson is a smart guy and I believe a lot of what he says. He's careful not to step over the line from fact to opinion. You're not. Regurgitating his statements and adding your own interpretation isn't going so well for you. It makes you look not only like an idiot, but a racist sexist idiot.
aww fuck! Initiative, not imitative! I do need to work on grammar.
ok, I'm going to blow your mind here, but 62%, plus 5%, is, with some rounding, about 66%. And white guys aren't asians. Why are you lumping them together?
Males make up 48% of the general population, and 79% in computer science. That's a predominance that is disproportionate.
YES, that part IS disproportionate. And the causes appear to be, at least in part, sociological in nature. If only someone were to perform some sort of.... imitative or something to get girls interested in STEM.... if only. And part of it, as I'm sure you'd like to harp on, seems to be biological in nature. It's also our biological nature to screw each other's brains out during puberty and make babies, but we overcome that. Mostly. Sometimes nature is horribly outdated.
Anyway, I'm generally not a fan of racist or sexist policies, but supporting girls in tech is good because it gets more people into tech and we need more people in tech. That's where the jobs are. There's plenty of work to do. I also support programs that get boys interested in tech.
In nations where there's low amount of sexual barriers when it comes to choice of careers paths, there is still unbalance in different fields. People have their own preferences and there's a trend with men and women going different ways. That's fine. Let people choose which way they want to go. But none of that should stop people from getting kids interested in productive valuable fields. This is highschool, it's equality of opportunity stuff here.
There might still be some people in Central America that are pure blood natives but those are very rare after settlers from predominately Spain and Portugal interbreeding with the native populations for about 500 years.
haha, "purebred". We call anyone in the US that's 1/32nd parts "Indian" and they qualify for scholarships. Are there ANY Mexicans that don't have some Aztec blood in them? They're native Americans yo. Spaniards are (mostly) white Europeans.
You've convinced me.
. . . Of what? I just commented that (some of) your statements are obviously true and to be expected. Of course classes are predominantly white. Why wouldn't they be? We're mostly white.
Any intelligent state will know that using war / military confrontation, they can take a lot of money and/or land from another state.
Not really true anymore. Unless you can depend upon the conquered people being cool with their new overlords, it's way more expensive to have troops play policeman and suppress an area. Things might change in the future, but wars are hideously expensive these days and you don't get much out of them. At best you "show the world you're a tough guy" and that, in theory, helps with political negotiations.
Certain businessmen get a hell of a lot of money though, no matter how the war goes, so you'll always have war-hawks. Ignore those greedy murderous war-profiteers.
The point?
. . . I'm not really even sure what the point is anymore. Theoretically, they're weapons of war. A saber to rattle to keep our enemies at bay. If shit hits the fan these things will be used to make strikes against Russia and China and their assets. But.... not really because if shits hitting the fan, nukes are flying, and no one gives a shit about planes. But they're fun to rattle and wave around. Whole generations of stealth planes are never utilized against the targets they're made to thwart.
So if not developed nations, we can use them to kick the shit out of developing nations. So far EVERY god damned time we've done that it's been a clusterfuck that I wish we hadn't. The europeans had success bombing the Balklans back into peace. Are there ANY others?
Cruise missles are expensive, but cheaper unless you've got a bunch of stuff you want blown up.
Ship destroyers are hyper-sonic missles.
Close air support and local surveillance are about 20 seconds from being taken over by drones that are cheap enough you might as well call them decoys. I expect to hear more stories about people launching million dollar missiles at targets that cost ~$1000. oh hey, would you look at that. Hot off the press.
Surveillance? Spy planes evolved to be so fast and fly so high that they're in orbit now and we call them satellites.
I think we were so caught up in the arms race during the cold war that "making a better fighter jet" is just an expected thing we do now. There are simply too many people afraid of the concept of "not having the best plane". We no longer have ships with the biggest cannon, we gave up on battleships. So what's the point of these planes? At this point too many people have jobs tied to this whole thing to simply shut it down. I like Ike, and he said it best: "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex". On the other hand... hey, a lot of scientific and technical advancement comes from that limitless funding that is national defense budget. Quantum radar, for instance.
Of course they're going to be predominantly white. We're 62% of the nation. The next biggest group is "latinos" at 17% (why don't we call them native (central) americans? Probably the same reason we don't call Indians Asians even though they're in Asia). IQ averages aside, there's no way you're getting around that mass of people.
Asians not so much. At 5%, if you have a college tech class that's predominantly asian, there's further sociological factors at play. Namely, WE HAVE A WORLD-CLASS UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND WE'RE GETTING ALL OF CHINA AND INDIA COMING HERE. Duh. It's a product we sell as Americans. The current trend of "asian tiger parents" I personally ascribe to the flight of all the intellectuals from Mao's china. A lot came here and the children of doctors and engineers are expected to aim high. And IQ is heritable. Asians aren't inherently smarter, that's racist. We've just got batch of smarties that selectively moved here.
Claiming to be able to double the number of Hispanic and Black students into computer science means, as best I can tell, one was able to increase their intelligence.
Don't be a dumb fuck. You could train a specific group to test well within a specific task and you'd see increased enrollment in that field. Who takes AP comSci is not solely derived from people's intelligence or their IQ score.
They increased their interest in ComSci, and encouraged them to take a class in it. Reading deeper into it and taking offence where there's none to take makes you a SJW. No, for real. Read that again. You are perceiving racial and sexual unfairness and raising a huff about it. Playing the victim card. Who else does this?
I mean.... you're not wrong about affirmative action at the college level. But you're presuming that applies at this highschool AP class. Your only argument is about "displacement". Who is blocked from taking AP comSci in highschool because there isn't enough room?
We've effectively ended racism in the USA. That's not saying there are not any racist people in the USA, only that it's been made socially unacceptable and punishable under the law if used to keep people from jobs and services.
Oh it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Much the same way that NO ONE drank any whiskey in the USA in 1930's and no one smokes pot, right? Because it's federally illegal? Isn't that your argument?
There is no easy answer for the disparity of women and minorities in STEM, because there is no easy answer to correct for the varied genetics in these populations
You made the leap that the difference in IQ distributions (narrow vs wide) between the sexes is genetic in origin. It might not be. You're operating on assumptions here and you're going to be rightfully crucified for it.
I mean.... it really doesn't take much. A phone and some lenses. Aligning them so things are in focus is a bit of a bitch.
Remember that the network neutrality is a fundamental principle of how the Internet works. But ISPs have tried breaking it in a few ways years past prior to Wheeler classifying ISPs under title ii and making that illegal. Now we're back to it being legal and network neutrality depends upon the users getting pissed and switching carriers..... which is more or less impossible now for most people because they have so many monopolies and the all collude with each other.
I know this is nitpicking terminology, but after it got political WAY too many people have come out "against network neutrality" rather that "against regulation enforcing network neutrality". Because someone out there is successfully steering the discussion and winning the propaganda war.
That's fine. And the cops are full well within their rights to record what goes on in or around their police station. But if you start selling that data and access to that camera then you start running into privacy concerns.
You sound like a old fart nationalist jerking his knee and you're still fighting the hippies. Or some sort of Russian shill trying to tear down my society... but your grammar is too good for that.
I suggest that we also offer permanent residency to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.
This. With mandatory jail time. If it's simply cheaper to pay the fine, fire Pedrotres, and hire Pedroquatro then it's just another tax. When ICE has sting operations, they should be hauling away management. With culpability going up the chain of command if you really want to play hardball.
Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation.
I'm pretty sure it's a little of column A and a little of column B. Yes, they're here for work.... but there's an awful lot of corpses left by the drug cartels in Mexico right now. "Bloodiest election". "the most violent campaign Mexico has experienced in recent history, with 130 political figures killed since September 2017".
Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil, to their wives, where they are buying up land for retirement.
...props to them? I mean really, imagine if more Americans had that sort of fiscal responsibility.
Now, I do not report them because sending them home will solve NOTHING.
Then.... why are you advocating they go home?
e-verify on all jobs
Where's the complaint from the republicans about how regulation is killing business? But yeah, it's hard to argue against this one.
cut off all funding to any state that is giving money to illegals (other than emergency medical, nothing should be given to them).
How about teaching their children? Because you're advocating that we kick them out of schools. That's a free* service provided to anyone in the district. You'd really rather have uneducated teenagers with loads of time on their hands and nothing to do? Have you really thought this one through?
They drive on roads built with tax money. Want them to walk everywhere? The cops and army protect them. Want some sort of "open season" on beaners?
*TANSTAAFL! It's typically paid for by property taxes. Renters get by scott free.
So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.
Some of them, yeah. But any job that fills out an
Over 3 million have an ITEN, a tax number in liu of a social security number. And they pay taxes into the collective pot that they'll never get back. That's the pot you and I pull out from. Collectively, they put in $10 billion dollars. That's straight-up taxation without representation. Theft plain and simple. Donation, if you're trying to spin it. But they choose to do this because that's STILL a better deal than their options back home.
And that doesn't count people with a fake SSN or forged papers.
I'm a big believer that, without a warrant, cops should be limited to what civilians can do. When the government does it, it's called tracking. When a civilian does it, it's called stalking. Both are illegal. Or at least should be illegal. We should have to deal with harassment from the cops any more than from ex-lovers.
That sounds better but ignores the reality that god damned near ALL of the USA is under the thumb of a small number of telecoms who refuse to compete with each other and have openly stated they will not encroach on the others territory. If the regulation is applicable to 99% of the cases... then that sort of verbiage is expected. If you DO add some loopholes and exceptions, get read to have 56kps modems count as technically competition against the cable giants. If your kneejerk reaction is "That's not what I meant by competition" then get ready to have the dumbass bumblefuck congressmen start defining technical terms and legislating technical solutions. Which of course never happens. They ask their good friends down in the lobby to hand them some "reasonable rules". Now you've got classic regulatory capture.
Title ii classification was nice and broad and established and neither the congresscritters nor the telcom execs could get their weedly little fingers into it. ...But the president could appoint someone to the FCC that could revert it. Fuck.
The real problem is that there are only one or two internet providers in many places, and network neutrality is only one symptom of that problem.
Huh? it's a symptom? ...Did you mean "and the threat to network neutrality is only one symptom"? Because that would make more sense.
Network Neutrality a fundemental principle upon which the Internet was created and currently operates. When it became commercial, the userbase expected it to operate on NN principles and generally threw a fit whenever an ISP did something that violates it. Like blocking VoIP, throttling protocols, and bundling website fees. Most of which the ISPs recanted under pressure. They only tried to do these things once the market consolidated and monopolies grew. ie, one or two providers refusing to compete with each other leads is a threat to network neurality.
The FCC's title ii classification and California's legislation are efforts to regulate and enforce a neutral network since the customers are unable to enforce it due to the monopolies in place.
The solution is to allow competition, and there are places in America where internet is perfectly fine, but not in Silicon Valley.
Nor.... god-damned near anywhere. Certainly not Colordao, Iowa, or Nebraska, that's for sure.
Competition would absolutely let the customers enforce network neutrality, as they've done for the majority of the past. But market consolidation (and exclusivity deals with local municipalities) removed all competition. Well, Google tried laying down fiber. But the Telecoms selectively dropped prices in those towns and left and right in an effort to block and undercut potential new competition. YAY Competition lowering prices! But it means Google can't make money at it and they've stopped all expansion. If Mr. Moneybags Google can't overcome the artificial barrier to entry then there is no free market. It's time to either regulate the ISPs into a pseudo government agencies or to whip out Uncle Sherman's hammer and bust up the telecoms again into small regional businesses barred from colluding with their old co-workers.
Might it be time for a V2 rewrite as opposed to another patch release? Just a thought.
That's advocating open revolution. Likely leading to civil war and sectarian violence in the USA.
Do we trust whoever is in power to be MORE keen on checks and balances and LESS self-serving than the founding fathers? Nope, not a chance.
This is insightful?
1) He's arguing that we SHOULD have "killed civilians indiscriminately".
2) He thinks the sectarian violence in Iraq was all US troops. Dude, it was open warfare between the Shiites and the Sunnis. We let it happy by knocking off the only guy keeping them from going at it, but that wasn't our troops shooting civilians. That wasn't the plan. We didn't want 300,000 dead civvies.
we managed to make torture^XEnhanced Interrogation OK again.
Only for half the populace in the USA. It was, and still is, reviled by the other half along with the rest of the world.
"In November 2015, Kavanaugh was part of a unanimous decision when the DC Circuit denied a petition to rehear a challenge to the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata. Kavanaugh was the only judge to issue a written statement, which said that '[t]he Government's collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.' Even if this form of surveillance constituted a search, it wouldn't be an 'unreasonable' search and therefore it would be legal, Kavanaugh also wrote."
Someone get his metadata and expose his daily routine, who all his contacts are, and who he calls the most, where he frequents, and where he travels to.
Let's see how well he likes "NOT being searched". He can enjoy the full benefit of privacy, but I guess none of this is private. So let's have at it. Money says there's plenty enough rope in there to hang himself.
A study by analysts Vanson Bourne for self service automation specialist SnapLogic looks at the data priorities and investment plans of IT decision makers, along with what's holding them back from giving money to SnapLogic.
"Data driven" is a buzzword. It's synonymous with "not bullshit". People have been making "data driven" decisions forever.
Among the findings are that 80 percent of those surveyed report that outdated technology holds their organization back from taking advantage of new data-driven opportunities.
ie, buy SnapLogic. SHOCKING!
Also that trust and quality issues slow progress, with only 29 percent of respondents having complete trust in the quality of their organization's data.
Those 29% are idiots then. Complete trust? WTF are they smoking? But this is just a bullshit poll where some people picked a number 1-5.
Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) say they face unprecedented volumes of data but struggle to generate useful insights from it,
ie, the data-driven crazy is mostly bullshit.
Woooo! We have a ton of data! ....now what fucking good is it?
estimating that they use only about half (51 percent) of the data they collect or generate.
That's... actually just fine. No real shocker that the people harvesting data errored on the side of being overzealous. I mean really, what are you supposed to do with the weight of the sysadmins purchasing your routers? Are you trying to find a link between heart-attacks and your customer base? No, you're trying to sell more routers.
What's more, respondents estimate that less than half (48 percent) of all business decisions are based on data.
With 25% being based on common sense, 25% being based on what they've always done in the past, and 2% being decided by darts.