Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage
The unspoken assumption is that avoiding these "triggers" helps the PTSD victim manage. I would suspect that exposing the individual to these triggers in a safe environment would serve to decondition their adverse response.
After all, isn't desensitization effective for phobias? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hypothesize that it would work for PTSD too? What does the actual data say?
it was obvious that you're looking to score points rather than feel like you know a bit more than you did earlier
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I honestly do want to feel like I know a bit more than I did earlier. The problem is, I don't learn anything from listening to arguments that are not rigorous. If I have doubts about your argument, giving you a chance to address those doubts helps me feel like I know a bit more than I did earlier.
I stand by my statement. My dismissal of your argument was neither fascile nor mistaken. In fact, it doesn't even amount to an actual argument, but simply a list of facts.
Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority
sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology
and the geek community has real problems with:
sexism
creeping on women at conferences
and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.
All of these things are true. But nothing in there implies that we shouldn't talk about sex openly. Nothing about any of those facts even suggests that talks about sex might be harmful. I asked you to fill in the blanks for me *after* I had pointed out that these facts only support arguments that sex should be talked about at conferences. You said that was the entirety of the argument. So I dismissed it, with good cause.
Please, just tell me *why* these facts imply that we should not discuss sex at conferences. If you don't, I have to assume you can't.
Vinyl is a direct analogue recreation of the analogue source.
Analog copies are lossy. To make an analog copy, you have to measure the waveform, and then you have to engrave the waveform. Both of those processes are prone to error. To make a digital copy of an analog recording, you only have to measure the waveform. That's less error.
There's also the fact that 16 bit audio has a higher dynamic range than you can press into vinyl. And 44.1khz audio has a Nyquist limit above the range of human hearing. I don't think you realize how audio works.
What am I supposed to do, lob you softballs you can easily deflect? If you have a sound argument, you should be able to refute even the most hostile of challenges to that argument. An good debater would be thankful for the chance to state his argument in the strongest possible terms.
You're seriously claiming that education has a negative effect. If you're right, this would be the first time ever in the history of humanity that education did not enrich our lives. Do you honestly expect this idea to be greeted warmly by people whose lives are centered around the free exchange of information?
You've yet to make an actual argument here. You've only asserted that geeks find it difficult to talk about sex. That's true, but it has nothing to do with whether or not tech conferences should have talks about sex. An actual argument would detail the harms that come from takling about sex, the harms that come from not talking about sex, and make a cost/benefit analysis. You did none of that. Why not?
OTOH, I made an actual argument that talking about sex has benefits and I discussed how it would provide those benefits. I didn't include benefits from not talking about sex, because I cannot conceive of any. No pun intended.
I'm guessing you're involved in Ada, since you keep using the pronoun "we". If you're involved in Ada, you obviously care about the issue. If you care about the issue, you need to step up your game. If taking your ball and going home is how you respond to a challenge, you might as well give up now.
though the argument is not that "talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances"
To clarify, I meant "is there an argument that any set of conditions exists where it is harmful to talk about sex openly". Ada is arguing that there is one such set of conditions, but their argument is easily dismissed with a moment of critical thinking. I was going further and asserting that no such argument exists and inviting someone to provide a counterexample.
The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that.
OK, what is the good argument for that? It's certainly not the following.
Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority, sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology, and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.
That's a great reason to get it out in the open, talk about what's acceptable and what's not. Making sex an uncomfortable subject will only make men more uncomfortable which will make more "creepers". You don't fix problems by not talking about it.
What's the actual argument that talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances? Are there any such arguments that are not as easily deflected as the one above?
Yes, the police and military are the bad guys and have been for decades. They are designed to protect the general population in the same way an electric fence protects cattle. Every war since at least Vietnam has had nothing to do with protecting people, only securing global hegemony. And the main purpose of the police is to keep the peasants from revolting. Notice how robust the response to OWS was, when the real criminals on Wall Street went untouched? Look at how willing the police are to ruin lives over a little Cannabis or how much respect the military has for basic principles of justice like innocent before proven guilty.
These are not honorable institutions with honorable goals, and none can be associated with them honorably. We live in an upsidedown world where the authorities who are supposed to protect us are in fact the greatest threat. Wake the fuck up already.
You NJ Libertarians should take a close look at what Christie says about legalizing online gambling, and then compare it to what he says about legalizing Cannabis.
It doesn't help that we have people like Neil Young pushing the audiophile snake oil. Vinyl is demonstrably inferior to FLACs and high bitrate MP3s in both theory and practice.
So, what am I supposed to do? Not answer questions like that even when asked?
Correct. These people are not honorable, do not treat them as such. They lied to you in order to send more people to prison, regardless of their actual guilt. They are thugs and criminals.
What actual monitoring is going to be happening? The ISP is going to sniff my packets? So what, my torrents are encrypted. The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer. But they've been able to do that for years, and have been doing that for years. What more can they actually do?
If the browser is launching the plugin, can't it pass arguments to use a specific audio device? In that case, have the browser create a dummy audio device that routes to/dev/null unless it's specifically enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
the country I love and support did [and does] horrible things
Then why do you love and support it?
Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage
The unspoken assumption is that avoiding these "triggers" helps the PTSD victim manage. I would suspect that exposing the individual to these triggers in a safe environment would serve to decondition their adverse response.
After all, isn't desensitization effective for phobias? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hypothesize that it would work for PTSD too? What does the actual data say?
it was obvious that you're looking to score points rather than feel like you know a bit more than you did earlier
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I honestly do want to feel like I know a bit more than I did earlier. The problem is, I don't learn anything from listening to arguments that are not rigorous. If I have doubts about your argument, giving you a chance to address those doubts helps me feel like I know a bit more than I did earlier.
I stand by my statement. My dismissal of your argument was neither fascile nor mistaken. In fact, it doesn't even amount to an actual argument, but simply a list of facts.
and the geek community has real problems with:
All of these things are true. But nothing in there implies that we shouldn't talk about sex openly. Nothing about any of those facts even suggests that talks about sex might be harmful. I asked you to fill in the blanks for me *after* I had pointed out that these facts only support arguments that sex should be talked about at conferences. You said that was the entirety of the argument. So I dismissed it, with good cause.
Please, just tell me *why* these facts imply that we should not discuss sex at conferences. If you don't, I have to assume you can't.
Vinyl is a direct analogue recreation of the analogue source.
Analog copies are lossy. To make an analog copy, you have to measure the waveform, and then you have to engrave the waveform. Both of those processes are prone to error. To make a digital copy of an analog recording, you only have to measure the waveform. That's less error.
There's also the fact that 16 bit audio has a higher dynamic range than you can press into vinyl. And 44.1khz audio has a Nyquist limit above the range of human hearing. I don't think you realize how audio works.
They are arguing for not discussing sex in very specific contexts for specific reasons.
What are those specific reasons?
What am I supposed to do, lob you softballs you can easily deflect? If you have a sound argument, you should be able to refute even the most hostile of challenges to that argument. An good debater would be thankful for the chance to state his argument in the strongest possible terms.
You're seriously claiming that education has a negative effect. If you're right, this would be the first time ever in the history of humanity that education did not enrich our lives. Do you honestly expect this idea to be greeted warmly by people whose lives are centered around the free exchange of information?
You've yet to make an actual argument here. You've only asserted that geeks find it difficult to talk about sex. That's true, but it has nothing to do with whether or not tech conferences should have talks about sex. An actual argument would detail the harms that come from takling about sex, the harms that come from not talking about sex, and make a cost/benefit analysis. You did none of that. Why not?
OTOH, I made an actual argument that talking about sex has benefits and I discussed how it would provide those benefits. I didn't include benefits from not talking about sex, because I cannot conceive of any. No pun intended.
I'm guessing you're involved in Ada, since you keep using the pronoun "we". If you're involved in Ada, you obviously care about the issue. If you care about the issue, you need to step up your game. If taking your ball and going home is how you respond to a challenge, you might as well give up now.
Great, now we're getting somewhere. What exactly did I miss about the argument? If I'm wrong, explain to me where. It's the only way I'll learn.
You didn't answer the question. Is there a third explanation besides stupidity or maliciousness that can explain their behavior?
though the argument is not that "talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances"
To clarify, I meant "is there an argument that any set of conditions exists where it is harmful to talk about sex openly". Ada is arguing that there is one such set of conditions, but their argument is easily dismissed with a moment of critical thinking. I was going further and asserting that no such argument exists and inviting someone to provide a counterexample.
The actual argument is the one I mentioned
But you said it was a good argument. Obviously it's not. Why do people act like it is? Are they stupid or malicious?
The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that.
OK, what is the good argument for that? It's certainly not the following.
Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority, sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology, and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.
That's a great reason to get it out in the open, talk about what's acceptable and what's not. Making sex an uncomfortable subject will only make men more uncomfortable which will make more "creepers". You don't fix problems by not talking about it.
What's the actual argument that talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances? Are there any such arguments that are not as easily deflected as the one above?
Yes, the police and military are the bad guys and have been for decades. They are designed to protect the general population in the same way an electric fence protects cattle. Every war since at least Vietnam has had nothing to do with protecting people, only securing global hegemony. And the main purpose of the police is to keep the peasants from revolting. Notice how robust the response to OWS was, when the real criminals on Wall Street went untouched? Look at how willing the police are to ruin lives over a little Cannabis or how much respect the military has for basic principles of justice like innocent before proven guilty.
These are not honorable institutions with honorable goals, and none can be associated with them honorably. We live in an upsidedown world where the authorities who are supposed to protect us are in fact the greatest threat. Wake the fuck up already.
WTF is a rape trigger?
You NJ Libertarians should take a close look at what Christie says about legalizing online gambling, and then compare it to what he says about legalizing Cannabis.
It doesn't help that we have people like Neil Young pushing the audiophile snake oil. Vinyl is demonstrably inferior to FLACs and high bitrate MP3s in both theory and practice.
Show any one of your "plugged in" friends who have been listening to distorted MP3's
Who listens to distorted MP3s anymore? LAME -V0 or nothing.
Code cannot be owned. Problem solved.
Is it possible to do code signing without enabling others to use it for evil? It's a tool like anything else.
So, what am I supposed to do? Not answer questions like that even when asked?
Correct. These people are not honorable, do not treat them as such. They lied to you in order to send more people to prison, regardless of their actual guilt. They are thugs and criminals.
Jurors are "obliged" to reach a verdict based upon the law as it stands.
Correct, and the Constitution is the law of the land. Jurors are obliged to acquit when the charges are unconstitutional.
What actual monitoring is going to be happening? The ISP is going to sniff my packets? So what, my torrents are encrypted. The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer. But they've been able to do that for years, and have been doing that for years. What more can they actually do?
Ask a friend for an invite to a private TV tracker with an RSS feed.
Its in nobody's interest to destroy a thriving business
Are you deliberately ignorant, or just naive?
If the browser is launching the plugin, can't it pass arguments to use a specific audio device? In that case, have the browser create a dummy audio device that routes to /dev/null unless it's specifically enabled.
its about why the error in thinking that they are all "the same underneath" has a rational explanation in cultural difference
But isn't culture one of those things underneath which we're supposedly all the same?