Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Gotta admit, with the level of lies going on here, that is starting to sound attractive...
Republicans switched to cater to the racists. I'm honestly not sure what the point here is, you know full well you're lying through your teeth. Do you think so little of liberals that you expect us to fall for "No, see DEMOCRATS are the racist ones!"
He said it's okay that women aren't equal here because that's how they are, we shouldn't bother changing. This was a lie as the article points out. That's an attack on women.
Why is it all evil "liberals" with you people? Google is more left-leaning than, say, Wal-mart, sure, but they're a multinational corporation, not a bastion of liberal arguments.
so they assumed that he was claiming what was "broken" was women, not the business model.
Liberals are arguing the business model IS broken and that's why there's a gender imbalance. The thing he was objecting to was changing it because the imbalance was natural. Have YOU read the memo?
As opposed to all the other groups protests (discrimination, wage gap, "unwelcome advances", etc) that gave everyone at work the warm fuzzies and a general feeling of unity.
Like which ones specifically? Do you work someplace where work is interrupted by people protesting? Do people at your work get upset when someone says "Hey, lets stop sexually harassing"? Or are we just making straw man arguments?
Having read it, the only difference I can see is that my summary of it is shorter and more direct.
There is also a lot of whining about liberal bias, and an assumption that the only way to balance men and women is to discriminate against men, but chapter one is still "Women are different" and the end is "so stop trying to recruit women specifically."
Response unchanged: the science he cites is overstated, not "the truth", and his suggestion is flawed.
Why is "You didn't read the memo" the refrain here? The MRA whining all relies on an assumption he was speaking the truth. (Hence the twitter handle Fired4Truth).
He wasn't speaking "truth." Reading the memo will only make you dumber, it's not a "red pill" that will open anyone's eyes to reality. He was misinterpreting a few scientific papers (the author of one of the studies he cites specifically said Damore gets it wrong), and stating his opinion.
His opinion being that google shouldn't recruit women because they might have on average less aptitude than men for some tasks. This is unarguably stupid: google doesn't hire average people. Women working at google have more aptitude than your average dude probably in most areas.
The company is still run by white dudes like Damore at all levels.
Firing people who shout stupid ideas from the rooftop is not racism or discrimination.
Your boss hates people of your skin color? You can't do anything about it, you get fired. That's discrimination. There are laws against it because there's no way for the victims to get around it, society must protect them.
Your boss hates your ignorant views on gender? Simple solution there: KEEP IT TO YOUR OWN DUMB FUCKING SELF YOU FUCKING MORON. Laws do not need to protect you from that, you just need to either not be stupid or you need to at least take steps to not make it obvious, like blasting it to the whole company in a memo.
Also didn't state why amazon didn't do this before. They can't be making much money off the dots at $35, and if google or apple smart assistant gains more users, they'll have lost a big edge on their store.
This is not idle unproven speculation. Scientists use phrases like "suggests" rather than "proves" only because they recognize their own data can be misleading. This is published in one of the most competitive journals, speculation doesn't cut it.
Clostridium difficile disease has recently increased to become a dominant nosocomial pathogen in North America and Europe, although little is known about what has driven this emergence. Here we show that two epidemic ribotypes (RT027 and RT078) have acquired unique mechanisms to metabolize low concentrations of the disaccharide trehalose. RT027 strains contain a single point mutation in the trehalose repressor that increases the sensitivity of this ribotype to trehalose by more than 500-fold. Furthermore, dietary trehalose increases the virulence of a RT027 strain in a mouse model of infection. RT078 strains acquired a cluster of four genes involved in trehalose metabolism, including a PTS permease that is both necessary and sufficient for growth on low concentrations of trehalose. We propose that the implementation of trehalose as a food additive into the human diet, shortly before the emergence of these two epidemic lineages, helped select for their emergence and contributed to hypervirulence.
I haven't read the paper and don't have a background in it. Reviewers do sometimes make mistakes obviously. But you'd be an idiot to say this is "just an unproven possibility." Leave spewing "meh, scientists, what do they know, just a theory" FUD to the sleazeballs hired by the relevant industry. If you have an actual critique of their methods, by all means, post it here and on pubmed commons or wherever else. Publish a response in nature even. But don't fucking parrot cigarette company lawyers, climate change deniers, and creationists, here on slashdot.
The vast majority of people who get shot by police are black.
"There's something unique about the US that makes us more likely to be violent" is only a mystery if you're unwilling to consider institutional racism is a motivating factor.
Of course it can. Congress created the FCC, so it can make whatever law it wants to override FCC's decision
Couldn't Comcast then sue the government claiming it violates the rule of JOBSJOBSJOBS and then see the ruling get overturned by the conservative judges the GOP is filling the judiciary up with?
The GOP and corporations have been playing a long game to weaken the government, and they're aware they might not hold onto power forever, they're not stupid.
Do you know who else would have won anyway? Richard Nixon. So should we have given him a pass on Watergate?
... I mean, we did? He did win the election, and Ford did pardon him...
Cheating doesn't become "OK" just because in the end it turned out she would have won anyway.
The claim floating around isn't just that she cheated, but that the cheating tipped the primary. The first part is feasible, the second part is not. I wasn't excusing any cheating, only pointing out that the wild-eyed claims that Bernie would have won the primary and then dominated the election are utter nonsense designed to divide and conquer.
RE China, they also have little need to disrupt the rest of the world in order to continue gaining power. Economically, militarily, and geo-politically, they've been gaining ground since before the right wing of the US started fighting with the rest of the US. Russia is the world power whose only chance for gaining power is the rest of us voluntarily losing it through insanity. They have a declining population, an aging military, and an economy that is almost entirely oil.
I'm aware you're half trolling but there are enough delusional slashdotters here who have trouble distinguishing reality from fiction coming from the government ruling party.
They lost because they ran a candidate who was widely disliked.
Trump was more disliked.
They lost because they didn't have a positive and encouraging vision like the one that President Trump presented to the nation.
Hillary presented her vision in sane, reasoned tones and was utterly ignored by the media as it wasn't zany enough. Trump rallies were marked by threatening journalists and yelling at enemies.
They lost because they tried to use identity politics to divide the electorate, instead of uniting all Americans like President Trump did.
Trump pandered exclusively to whites.
They lost because of themselves and their own actions
HRC got 3 million more votes than Trump. Factually, she lost because we don't live in a democracy.
Again, it's a reflection of how complex medicine is. Look at anti-vax movements, the public is way too dumb and uninformed to be treated as rational consumers, able to determine which treatments for illnesses are the best one.
This is not elitism BTW. I include myself in the group of "incompetent to treat self" group, I'm a biologist and know a thing or two about pharmaceuticals and health, but I wouldn't fuck around with picking out my own prescription drugs independent of an MD's recommendation.
It makes perfect sense that companies shouldn't be able to say "this is for treating X illness" without FDA approval. Sure, this means that prices are going to be higher for drugs, but we also spend less on hospitalizing people for incorrectly treated diseases they too over the counter remedies for.
Anyway, people have shown time and again that they are willing to trade privacy, subjection to advertising for a free product or service. Seems pretty realistic to me.
But they're very resistant to inconvenience in transportation, which this would be. "I don't want to take the fucking bus! It'll take like 15 minutes longer!!! I'd rather belch out my carbon dioxide, spend 20 minutes finding parking, and potentially get in a fatal accident than put up with public transit!"
I would be surprised if UberFree doesn't end in literal bloodshed.
Yeah, I read that part. The ACA mandate and health insurance isn't what keeps market forces out of medicine, safety is. It was so idiotic it wasn't worth responding to.
No, not really, that was sarcasm. Ajit Pai is guilty of bribery on top of cult-like devotion to licking the boots of big corporations screwing over the country. Pai and the executive board of Sinclair and others should be jailed for this.
Slashdot Mirror
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Gotta admit, with the level of lies going on here, that is starting to sound attractive...
Republicans switched to cater to the racists. I'm honestly not sure what the point here is, you know full well you're lying through your teeth. Do you think so little of liberals that you expect us to fall for "No, see DEMOCRATS are the racist ones!"
He said it's okay that women aren't equal here because that's how they are, we shouldn't bother changing. This was a lie as the article points out. That's an attack on women.
so they assumed that he was claiming what was "broken" was women, not the business model.
Liberals are arguing the business model IS broken and that's why there's a gender imbalance. The thing he was objecting to was changing it because the imbalance was natural. Have YOU read the memo?
As opposed to all the other groups protests (discrimination, wage gap, "unwelcome advances", etc) that gave everyone at work the warm fuzzies and a general feeling of unity.
Like which ones specifically? Do you work someplace where work is interrupted by people protesting? Do people at your work get upset when someone says "Hey, lets stop sexually harassing"? Or are we just making straw man arguments?
Having read it, the only difference I can see is that my summary of it is shorter and more direct.
There is also a lot of whining about liberal bias, and an assumption that the only way to balance men and women is to discriminate against men, but chapter one is still "Women are different" and the end is "so stop trying to recruit women specifically."
Response unchanged: the science he cites is overstated, not "the truth", and his suggestion is flawed.
Why is "You didn't read the memo" the refrain here? The MRA whining all relies on an assumption he was speaking the truth. (Hence the twitter handle Fired4Truth).
He wasn't speaking "truth." Reading the memo will only make you dumber, it's not a "red pill" that will open anyone's eyes to reality. He was misinterpreting a few scientific papers (the author of one of the studies he cites specifically said Damore gets it wrong), and stating his opinion.
His opinion being that google shouldn't recruit women because they might have on average less aptitude than men for some tasks. This is unarguably stupid: google doesn't hire average people. Women working at google have more aptitude than your average dude probably in most areas.
Damore was arguing FOR discriminating against women, and wildly over-interpreting a few science papers to do it.
The company is still run by white dudes like Damore at all levels.
Firing people who shout stupid ideas from the rooftop is not racism or discrimination.
Your boss hates people of your skin color? You can't do anything about it, you get fired. That's discrimination. There are laws against it because there's no way for the victims to get around it, society must protect them.
Your boss hates your ignorant views on gender? Simple solution there: KEEP IT TO YOUR OWN DUMB FUCKING SELF YOU FUCKING MORON. Laws do not need to protect you from that, you just need to either not be stupid or you need to at least take steps to not make it obvious, like blasting it to the whole company in a memo.
Also didn't state why amazon didn't do this before. They can't be making much money off the dots at $35, and if google or apple smart assistant gains more users, they'll have lost a big edge on their store.
The article can be found paywalled here The abstract highlights that any uncertainty is in the related details, not whether or not it happened.
Clostridium difficile disease has recently increased to become a dominant nosocomial pathogen in North America and Europe, although little is known about what has driven this emergence. Here we show that two epidemic ribotypes (RT027 and RT078) have acquired unique mechanisms to metabolize low concentrations of the disaccharide trehalose. RT027 strains contain a single point mutation in the trehalose repressor that increases the sensitivity of this ribotype to trehalose by more than 500-fold. Furthermore, dietary trehalose increases the virulence of a RT027 strain in a mouse model of infection. RT078 strains acquired a cluster of four genes involved in trehalose metabolism, including a PTS permease that is both necessary and sufficient for growth on low concentrations of trehalose. We propose that the implementation of trehalose as a food additive into the human diet, shortly before the emergence of these two epidemic lineages, helped select for their emergence and contributed to hypervirulence.
I haven't read the paper and don't have a background in it. Reviewers do sometimes make mistakes obviously. But you'd be an idiot to say this is "just an unproven possibility." Leave spewing "meh, scientists, what do they know, just a theory" FUD to the sleazeballs hired by the relevant industry. If you have an actual critique of their methods, by all means, post it here and on pubmed commons or wherever else. Publish a response in nature even. But don't fucking parrot cigarette company lawyers, climate change deniers, and creationists, here on slashdot.
The vast majority of people who get shot by police are black.
"There's something unique about the US that makes us more likely to be violent" is only a mystery if you're unwilling to consider institutional racism is a motivating factor.
Do you have a better example than a teacher's assistant at a small Canadian university who was apologized to already?
They knew about this over a year ago: Intel shipped CPUs that had the problem without telling customers.
That's a bit different IMHO. But TBH IANAL.
Another is the road system. It is stupid to let a bunch of companies build toll roads.
Oh, it won't be a bunch of companies, it'll be one that happens to have ties to Trump.
Yes, the right wing does want to do that too.
Of course it can. Congress created the FCC, so it can make whatever law it wants to override FCC's decision
Couldn't Comcast then sue the government claiming it violates the rule of JOBSJOBSJOBS and then see the ruling get overturned by the conservative judges the GOP is filling the judiciary up with?
The GOP and corporations have been playing a long game to weaken the government, and they're aware they might not hold onto power forever, they're not stupid.
Do you know who else would have won anyway? Richard Nixon. So should we have given him a pass on Watergate?
... I mean, we did? He did win the election, and Ford did pardon him...
Cheating doesn't become "OK" just because in the end it turned out she would have won anyway.
The claim floating around isn't just that she cheated, but that the cheating tipped the primary. The first part is feasible, the second part is not. I wasn't excusing any cheating, only pointing out that the wild-eyed claims that Bernie would have won the primary and then dominated the election are utter nonsense designed to divide and conquer.
Is a straw man argument still a straw man argument if it's a gigantic run on, nonsense sentence?
RE China, they also have little need to disrupt the rest of the world in order to continue gaining power. Economically, militarily, and geo-politically, they've been gaining ground since before the right wing of the US started fighting with the rest of the US. Russia is the world power whose only chance for gaining power is the rest of us voluntarily losing it through insanity. They have a declining population, an aging military, and an economy that is almost entirely oil.
They lost because they ran a candidate who was widely disliked.
Trump was more disliked.
They lost because they didn't have a positive and encouraging vision like the one that President Trump presented to the nation.
Hillary presented her vision in sane, reasoned tones and was utterly ignored by the media as it wasn't zany enough. Trump rallies were marked by threatening journalists and yelling at enemies.
They lost because they tried to use identity politics to divide the electorate, instead of uniting all Americans like President Trump did.
Trump pandered exclusively to whites.
They lost because of themselves and their own actions
HRC got 3 million more votes than Trump. Factually, she lost because we don't live in a democracy.
She also colluded with the majority of the democratic primary voters.
OR we could have everyone keep time on their phones and have the phones automatically change the time by a few seconds every day!
This is probably my greatest idea ever.
There is no sanity in the FDA laws.
Again, it's a reflection of how complex medicine is. Look at anti-vax movements, the public is way too dumb and uninformed to be treated as rational consumers, able to determine which treatments for illnesses are the best one.
This is not elitism BTW. I include myself in the group of "incompetent to treat self" group, I'm a biologist and know a thing or two about pharmaceuticals and health, but I wouldn't fuck around with picking out my own prescription drugs independent of an MD's recommendation.
It makes perfect sense that companies shouldn't be able to say "this is for treating X illness" without FDA approval. Sure, this means that prices are going to be higher for drugs, but we also spend less on hospitalizing people for incorrectly treated diseases they too over the counter remedies for.
Anyway, people have shown time and again that they are willing to trade privacy, subjection to advertising for a free product or service. Seems pretty realistic to me.
But they're very resistant to inconvenience in transportation, which this would be. "I don't want to take the fucking bus! It'll take like 15 minutes longer!!! I'd rather belch out my carbon dioxide, spend 20 minutes finding parking, and potentially get in a fatal accident than put up with public transit!"
I would be surprised if UberFree doesn't end in literal bloodshed.
Yeah, I read that part. The ACA mandate and health insurance isn't what keeps market forces out of medicine, safety is. It was so idiotic it wasn't worth responding to.
No, not really, that was sarcasm. Ajit Pai is guilty of bribery on top of cult-like devotion to licking the boots of big corporations screwing over the country. Pai and the executive board of Sinclair and others should be jailed for this.