(Yes, even when men are the victims, the odds are still 40 to 1, according to federal crime statistics, that the rapist was a man... which eliminates the "men underreport out of embarrassment/shame" argument, as if men wouldn't be embarrassed/ashamed to report that they were raped by a man? As if it's somehow shameful for a straight man to be a recipient of unwanted sex with a woman but not shameful for him to be a recipient of unwanted anal/oral sex with another man, in homophobic US society?)
You're using logic that I would be very surprised if there was any consensus on. Presuming to be able to logically deduce why people do or do not report rape sounds grossly ineffectual and arrogant to boot. Cf. domestic abuse cases and trying to understand why the abused stays with the abuser.
That, and you appear to be using stats to argue that the stats themselves are accurate. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy for that. Begging the question? Circular reasoning?
In many ways IT people are just as bad as your typical right-wing asshole. They do not want to see anything done to help marginalized people.
The code doesn't care about your social agendas. If you hire less qualified people and train them up, you are quantifiably damaging the product vs. hiring people who are already competent.
Although I suppose you can argue stuck in your ways vs. still malleable somewhat in that context.
I've wondered for awhile if I'm the only one that noticed that segregation in itself isn't wrong. The reason the Supreme Court banned it was that people are assholes and refuse to make the separate equal.
Am I the only one that is annoyed whenever someone uses "movie" as a synonym for "video?" A video has to at least approach an hour long and *have a plot* before it's a movie in my book.
P.S: What the heck is up with websites with huge font sizes these days? It's like getting punched in the face. And after ctrl-scrolling out like 4 notches, the white bars on each side of the text is over twice the size of the text itself.
Slightly clunky wording but a far cry from gibberish. What's wrong with "the author answers?" Are you saying it's missing a direct object? The earlier clause establishes whom he's answering. I'd say that "on a request from X" is weirder; I'd prefer "in response to X's request."
Operation Plowshare Not sure whether they customized the bombs at all that they used. I thought I remembered talk way back when about using nukes to excavate a dam, but a cursory googling doesn't turn it up.
As I replied to the other guy, just because we don't know about it doesn't mean they can't exist. But this whole pedantic jag is going from bad to worse.
And who says nobody ever sat down and properly designed one? Just because there's no confirmed testings of them doesn't mean they haven't been developed and maybe even prototypes built without the general public knowing about it. It's not like nuclear weapons programs are classified or anything...
Slashdot Mirror
What it actually did was nothing. The B-52 carrying the prototype managed to get to the end of the runway before running out of fuel.
Either it took them a really long time to adapt that bomb, or you probably meant the B-29.
English is not a language, it is a dialect.
Ummm...of what?
You are not inside, you are in a room.
You don't type on a keyboard, you type on keys.
So on and so forth.
Really not sure what you're trying to get at here. All those sound logical to me.
Or was he talking about the Vought V-173? The Wikipedia article is somewhat lacking though...e.g. any reason why they decided not to manufacture it.
Near the end:
In 131.8 hours of flying over 190 flights, Zimmerman's theory of a near-vertical takeoff- and landing-capable fighter had been proven.
And you two can't be both right why? I wasn't aware misogyny and misandry were mutually exclusive in society.
(just confirmed the Firefox spellchecker doesn't pick up misandry either, as Oli said)
(Yes, even when men are the victims, the odds are still 40 to 1, according to federal crime statistics, that the rapist was a man... which eliminates the "men underreport out of embarrassment/shame" argument, as if men wouldn't be embarrassed/ashamed to report that they were raped by a man? As if it's somehow shameful for a straight man to be a recipient of unwanted sex with a woman but not shameful for him to be a recipient of unwanted anal/oral sex with another man, in homophobic US society?)
You're using logic that I would be very surprised if there was any consensus on. Presuming to be able to logically deduce why people do or do not report rape sounds grossly ineffectual and arrogant to boot. Cf. domestic abuse cases and trying to understand why the abused stays with the abuser.
That, and you appear to be using stats to argue that the stats themselves are accurate. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy for that. Begging the question? Circular reasoning?
Yes it is
They aren't paying the female students, they're paying the school administrators, who may or may not be women.
Since it involves gender, one or the other side *has* to be sexist. Duh.
Succinct. I like it :)
9 must be a record for most links in one summary.
In many ways IT people are just as bad as your typical right-wing asshole. They do not want to see anything done to help marginalized people.
The code doesn't care about your social agendas. If you hire less qualified people and train them up, you are quantifiably damaging the product vs. hiring people who are already competent.
Although I suppose you can argue stuck in your ways vs. still malleable somewhat in that context.
"why is ~50% of the country not pursuing IT?"
and half of the population just isn't interested in taking part in it,
Answered your own question there, buddy.
What does that prove? And "pander" is an emotionally loaded word...but you're using "queers and pansy [sic]" so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
You're assuming a base morality that a lot of Slashdotters don't share.
I've wondered for awhile if I'm the only one that noticed that segregation in itself isn't wrong. The reason the Supreme Court banned it was that people are assholes and refuse to make the separate equal.
Right?
offered lower funding or no funding at all to teachers if participation by female students was deemed unacceptable
So basically the headline is completely debunked by the third sentence of the summary. It is NOT "all."
Yes. #drasticunderstatement
Am I the only one that is annoyed whenever someone uses "movie" as a synonym for "video?" A video has to at least approach an hour long and *have a plot* before it's a movie in my book.
P.S: What the heck is up with websites with huge font sizes these days? It's like getting punched in the face. And after ctrl-scrolling out like 4 notches, the white bars on each side of the text is over twice the size of the text itself.
</curmudgeon>
Slightly clunky wording but a far cry from gibberish. What's wrong with "the author answers?" Are you saying it's missing a direct object? The earlier clause establishes whom he's answering. I'd say that "on a request from X" is weirder; I'd prefer "in response to X's request."
(Muphry's Law @ your criticizing "./ editors")
Operation Plowshare Not sure whether they customized the bombs at all that they used. I thought I remembered talk way back when about using nukes to excavate a dam, but a cursory googling doesn't turn it up.
As I replied to the other guy, just because we don't know about it doesn't mean they can't exist. But this whole pedantic jag is going from bad to worse.
If forking is against the license, it is impossible to fork...without violating the license.
But yes, computers are just bits and we can do whatever we have the power to do.
A paranoid man is difficult to surprise.
What do you think is wrong with the summary? It makes sense to me.
And who says nobody ever sat down and properly designed one? Just because there's no confirmed testings of them doesn't mean they haven't been developed and maybe even prototypes built without the general public knowing about it. It's not like nuclear weapons programs are classified or anything...
Grisnakh didn't say they'd never been built, he said they weren't designed.
Little Boy didn't use plutonium at all. It was U-235 and U-238 for the rest.