The world isn't fair. I'm sorry if attempts to make it more fair are sometimes applied inconsistently.
Efforts to make the world fair, are by necessity also unfair. Thus, creating a greater imbalance than leaving it alone, as is.
Discrimination against non-whites has been, and continues to be a massive problem in society.
Discrimination says more about the person discriminating, than the person being discriminated against. Additionally, trying to make things "fair", creates its own sets of problems, which are equally unfair. Like when a 4.0 Asian student can't get into University, because we have to make room for a 3.5 student from the inner city, because white people are racist. But we don't ever talk about it in those terms.
As such I have no hesitation about banning services that are for whites only.
But you're okay discriminating against men? Asians admissions in university? Women who don't want men, pretending to be women into the women's bathroom?
BTW, the best way to defeat discrimination is for you not to discriminate, period. You cannot control others, and attempts to do so will necessary discriminate against someone else.
Take for instance, the Rooney Rule in Football. It was a very well intentioned effort to get more black people into coaching positions in the NFL. However, those efforts may in fact, be making things much worse for black coaches. Because it leads to cases were coaches are interviewed, repeatedly, and passed up and get stigmatized as "not head coaching material". The leads to coaches being hired and not being a good fit, and then having to leave after a very short tenure, reenforcing the idea that "blacks can't coach". Which is absurd. In the end, it doesn't help, and may actually be more harmful than natural course.
Discrimination by women has never been a problem except in the imagination of men's rights activists,
Except in Family Court, where the woman almost always wins, regardless of who the better parent is, who the kids want to be with etc. And there are other examples, we just chalk them up to "Patriarchal society" and "male privilege"
I have no issue with a woman only service giving woman a ridesharing service where they feel safe from harassment.
I have no issue with a whites only service giving whites a ridesharing service where they feel safe from blacks (jews, mexicans, muslims, Christians...) .
Of course you don't. You're just as bigoted as the KKK, you just don't realize it.
Gini is an interesting concept. But I wouldn't call it anything other than what it is, socialist (Fascist) crap.
Redistribution of wealth is a noble idea, but sucks in practice, as it is entirely elitist driven. Elites decide who is "too wealthy" and then tax the poor and middle class in an effort to get the wealthy's money. Meanwhile the wealthy buy access to those in power, and move their wealth to places that aren't taxed and none of it actually helps anyone.
The strange thing about socialism is that it works in theory, but never works in practice. Because eventually you run out of other people's money.
Let me tell you a true story, about taxes ONLY the very wealthy would have paid, and the damage it did to those that weren't even targeted.
In the late 90s, Bill Clinton and the tax and spend congress (both R and D) decided to "Tax" Luxury items, such as yachts, airplanes and expensive cars. It was supposed to raise all sorts of additional revenue (based on current purchasing trends). What happened was the rich stopped ordering those things and eventually the industries that built them started to collapse. The RICH didn't pay their taxes, because they stopped buying their toys, The people actually hurt by these taxes were the workers and small businesses that supported those industries.
It was so disastrous, that it was quickly repealed (quietly). But the damage was already done. In addition, it was a net loss of tax revenue.
Taxes are regressive. The rich will avoid them, and the middle class and poor cannot. You can say it is "BS" all you want, but I have evidence, and you have your "BS";)
Exactly this. Instead of paying 50% in taxes, you spend 10% being a "charity", and keep the difference for personal use. But they get a pass because they aren't (R) (who are just as bad).
Talk the BS, but don't have to walk it, same for both (D) and (R), just different BS being spewed
The wealthy will always avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for us little people, always have been. Useful idiots like Bernie always talk about the 1% to distract the tax increases being passed along to everyone else. Taxes are regressive. All of them.
This reminds me of when I sold computers and stuff in the early 90s, and people would drive 90 Miles (literally) to save $5 on a printer ($500 one). Which was more than the profit on those. But they would invariably forget the Cable (Parallel ) and come in to the store go get one. We sold those for $14.95 each, and got them in bulk for around $.75 each.
People know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I would disagree, on the grounds that the 13th Amendment forbids slavery. You cannot force others to secure an economic benefit for yourself.
Now, if you want to call it a privilege of our society, then by all means, go ahead. You can say you have a right to access education (which I would agree). But it is not a right, intrinsic to your own self.
Is a Degree valuable "only" for work? No. If you want a masters in "Gender Studies" because it is your passion, by all means go for it.
But if you get your degree, in a subject that has no economic value (like Gender Studies) and you're taking government backed loans out to get it, you better be able to pay the damn loan back without complaining by working your $15 / hr Min wage jobs. Get your degree, pay back the loan. If you can't then the degree is worthless economically, and shouldn't be supported by government subsidies.
The idea that the purpose of a degree is to qualify you for a job is a fairly recent invention.
Not really. Even "classical" educations was about creating a person able to think clearly, in a variety of subjects so that he could rule more effectively. Employment is a relatively recent invention. 400 years ago, you did what your daddy did, and that all you had to look forward to. The wealthy sent their kids off to get classical education, which would ultimately help them manage their wealth.
latter means to make an excessive or unfair amount of profit.
Define "excessive" and "unfair" please. I want very hard values not squishy feelings based jealousy.
And please let me know, how you came up with those numbers, who decided them and why. Anything less is just subjective rants of liberals and socialists.
As for CSU, it is not about profit there, it is about only getting a 1.4% raise and a 1.6% raise out of the last 9 years.
I said "more" not how much more. The teacher wants more money. everyone wants more money. 1.4% here, 6% there, 10% over there. See my first point in this post.
As for gender studies, while probably not a good degree, it is still vastly better than Trump U, it is an ok degree to go into social services work.
Your biases are showing they are equally worthless. And you made my point "no actual real world opportunities outside of government, schools and grants." Supporting the ideals of the SJW class is fine, but don't let it cloud your judgment. Just be aware that the ridiculousness of the SJW wars is being made manifest at places like Emory and their trauma over chalk. The poor precious snowflakes can't handle being adults.
You do realize that the very first slave owner in America was... black, right?
There is nobody here that owned slaves, knows anyone that was or owned slaves, probably several more generations more. We are 150 years from slavery in the US, but people like you keep acting like it was last week.
At some point, you're going to have to realize that the problem isn't slavery, it is attitude. But I guess it is always easier to blame others for your own shortcomings.
Profit isn't a dirty word. People want more money, or else the CSU Professors wouldn't be going on strike next week. Nobody is immune from wanting more money (profit), quit acting like they are.
Trump university is out of business, because it didn't offer anything of value. Sucks if you bought that line of shit, same as if you went to a regular university and got your "Gender Studies*" masters and can't find a job. Except one is applauded, and the other isn't (and still offers such a degree)
I would MUCH prefer a system that had "Employment data" for each program they offer, and a "return on investment" timetabled based on actual salaries earned by people.
You see, how you view "Profiteering" is all based on your own biases. "Gender Studies" at a regular university is just as much "profiteering" as Trump University was, you just don't recognize it as such.
* "Gender Studies" is a fake degree, but represents real ones of little or no actual real world opportunities outside of government schools and grants. It represents degrees that nobody is really hiring outside of very specialized and limited areas.
If schools were about education, then half the people going to college wouldn't be eligible. BUT we have to be "inclusive" to the point of ridiculousness because somewhere along the line, we became elitist snobs who view people with a degree as being "better" than people without one.
It is a form of classism of the worst kind. On the otherhand, it is much easier to take someone with a piece of paper than it is to find someone who knows what he is doing, but without one.
nd why can't the included web browser load more than about three pages in tabs and switch among them without the page reloading (and losing form data) when I return to a tab?
How about Netscape Navigator on today's Websites? I compared my phone to a computer from 10-15 years ago. My phone does more than "Desktop" computers from that era. This is about "Linux on the desktop", not comparing Chrome on Android vs Chrome on Windows (or Chromebooks or Mac).
My point, has little to do with App management, it has to do with tasks done during the age of "the year of Linux on the desktop" discussions were taking place. We're there, and people like yourself like to compare today with today, and not yesterday's desktops (when we were asking about Linux on the desktop) and today's Android platform.
Would you rather have a Pentium IV running Windows XP or an Nexus 6P. I know which one I'd rather use.
The only person who REMOTELY understands is Rand Paul, who says Snowden needs Jail (alongside Clapper).
I am a libertarian, and while Snowden may have violated the law (and I don't care why), he exposed to the world that nothing has really changed. And still, nothing has really changed.
All you need to know is that there are secret courts issuing secret documents that nobody can talk about. Obama has done NOTHING to stop them
I think comparing Linux Desktop to Windows (an MAC) is a mistake. The fact is, we have Linux desktops today, and many of us are already using it. It is called Android. Just because it isn't "Traditional" doesn't mean it isn't so. Change the definition, and you change the answer. I know plenty of people who use Linux desktops, for most of their computing needs. Windows(and even MAC) is becoming less relevant every day.
1) Secretaries are doing many of the things I was "programing" for 25 years ago. The things we did as programmers are now being done by off the shelf programs, that also do other things.
2) What you are actually writing programs to do, has changed over the years, slowly so you don't notice those changes.
3) The "Year of the Linux Desktop" has already occurred, and it is Android. 90% of what people use Computers for, can be done on Android (running Linux kernel). No, it doesn't look or act like Windows, and it doesn't have to. That is a false barrier. My current Android phone has more power and Ram than the computers I used 15 years ago, does most if not all of the things those computers and does other things not even thought of.
However, you are correct in that Programmers are still needed. However, the emphasis has change.
In fact, it's pretty easy to determine what is innate, and what is learned. All you have to do is look at the variation across cultures. The behavior that varies is socialized, while the behavior that remains constant across cultures is innate. Boys prefer things, and girls prefer people, across all cultures. There are several other such differences we can observe.
Actually, the SJW types love to blame "Patriarchal societies" for this, since there are almost NO cultures that have a different basis. They can't handle the fact that biology is the cause of the resultant behavior, and they have to (want to strongly) believe it is cultural bias of patriarchal societies. So, the blame does go to culture, even when it is clear it isn't, because of some unique feature that spans all cultures around the globe.
Started under Bush, enhanced under Obama, and they still think there are two parties?
Which is why politicians debate irrelevancies instead of the important matters. Trump n Cruz fighting over wives, Hillary and Bernie fighting over how much free stiff they'll bribe the voters with.
Slashdot Mirror
The world isn't fair. I'm sorry if attempts to make it more fair are sometimes applied inconsistently.
Efforts to make the world fair, are by necessity also unfair. Thus, creating a greater imbalance than leaving it alone, as is.
Discrimination against non-whites has been, and continues to be a massive problem in society.
Discrimination says more about the person discriminating, than the person being discriminated against. Additionally, trying to make things "fair", creates its own sets of problems, which are equally unfair. Like when a 4.0 Asian student can't get into University, because we have to make room for a 3.5 student from the inner city, because white people are racist. But we don't ever talk about it in those terms.
As such I have no hesitation about banning services that are for whites only.
But you're okay discriminating against men? Asians admissions in university? Women who don't want men, pretending to be women into the women's bathroom?
BTW, the best way to defeat discrimination is for you not to discriminate, period. You cannot control others, and attempts to do so will necessary discriminate against someone else.
Take for instance, the Rooney Rule in Football. It was a very well intentioned effort to get more black people into coaching positions in the NFL. However, those efforts may in fact, be making things much worse for black coaches. Because it leads to cases were coaches are interviewed, repeatedly, and passed up and get stigmatized as "not head coaching material". The leads to coaches being hired and not being a good fit, and then having to leave after a very short tenure, reenforcing the idea that "blacks can't coach". Which is absurd. In the end, it doesn't help, and may actually be more harmful than natural course.
Discrimination by women has never been a problem except in the imagination of men's rights activists,
Except in Family Court, where the woman almost always wins, regardless of who the better parent is, who the kids want to be with etc. And there are other examples, we just chalk them up to "Patriarchal society" and "male privilege"
I have no issue with a woman only service giving woman a ridesharing service where they feel safe from harassment.
I have no issue with a whites only service giving whites a ridesharing service where they feel safe from blacks (jews, mexicans, muslims, Christians ...) .
Of course you don't. You're just as bigoted as the KKK, you just don't realize it.
Most people don't realize that WWJD would include making a scourge and chasing people, and overturning merchandise tables.
He was also Kosher, kept the sabbath, and feasts ... all things that Christians refuse to do. So, even WWJD isn't really accurate.
Gini is an interesting concept. But I wouldn't call it anything other than what it is, socialist (Fascist) crap.
Redistribution of wealth is a noble idea, but sucks in practice, as it is entirely elitist driven. Elites decide who is "too wealthy" and then tax the poor and middle class in an effort to get the wealthy's money. Meanwhile the wealthy buy access to those in power, and move their wealth to places that aren't taxed and none of it actually helps anyone.
The strange thing about socialism is that it works in theory, but never works in practice. Because eventually you run out of other people's money.
Yeah, Jimmy Carter was such a great president!
Yeah, you told me!
Let me tell you a true story, about taxes ONLY the very wealthy would have paid, and the damage it did to those that weren't even targeted.
In the late 90s, Bill Clinton and the tax and spend congress (both R and D) decided to "Tax" Luxury items, such as yachts, airplanes and expensive cars. It was supposed to raise all sorts of additional revenue (based on current purchasing trends). What happened was the rich stopped ordering those things and eventually the industries that built them started to collapse. The RICH didn't pay their taxes, because they stopped buying their toys, The people actually hurt by these taxes were the workers and small businesses that supported those industries.
It was so disastrous, that it was quickly repealed (quietly). But the damage was already done. In addition, it was a net loss of tax revenue.
Taxes are regressive. The rich will avoid them, and the middle class and poor cannot. You can say it is "BS" all you want, but I have evidence, and you have your "BS" ;)
Exactly this. Instead of paying 50% in taxes, you spend 10% being a "charity", and keep the difference for personal use. But they get a pass because they aren't (R) (who are just as bad).
Talk the BS, but don't have to walk it, same for both (D) and (R), just different BS being spewed
The wealthy will always avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for us little people, always have been. Useful idiots like Bernie always talk about the 1% to distract the tax increases being passed along to everyone else. Taxes are regressive. All of them.
Or, less than a Latte at your coffee shop.
This reminds me of when I sold computers and stuff in the early 90s, and people would drive 90 Miles (literally) to save $5 on a printer ($500 one). Which was more than the profit on those. But they would invariably forget the Cable (Parallel ) and come in to the store go get one. We sold those for $14.95 each, and got them in bulk for around $.75 each.
People know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Higher education should be considered a right,
I would disagree, on the grounds that the 13th Amendment forbids slavery. You cannot force others to secure an economic benefit for yourself.
Now, if you want to call it a privilege of our society, then by all means, go ahead. You can say you have a right to access education (which I would agree). But it is not a right, intrinsic to your own self.
Is a Degree valuable "only" for work? No. If you want a masters in "Gender Studies" because it is your passion, by all means go for it.
But if you get your degree, in a subject that has no economic value (like Gender Studies) and you're taking government backed loans out to get it, you better be able to pay the damn loan back without complaining by working your $15 / hr Min wage jobs. Get your degree, pay back the loan. If you can't then the degree is worthless economically, and shouldn't be supported by government subsidies.
The idea that the purpose of a degree is to qualify you for a job is a fairly recent invention.
Not really. Even "classical" educations was about creating a person able to think clearly, in a variety of subjects so that he could rule more effectively. Employment is a relatively recent invention. 400 years ago, you did what your daddy did, and that all you had to look forward to. The wealthy sent their kids off to get classical education, which would ultimately help them manage their wealth.
latter means to make an excessive or unfair amount of profit.
Define "excessive" and "unfair" please. I want very hard values not squishy feelings based jealousy.
And please let me know, how you came up with those numbers, who decided them and why. Anything less is just subjective rants of liberals and socialists.
As for CSU, it is not about profit there, it is about only getting a 1.4% raise and a 1.6% raise out of the last 9 years.
I said "more" not how much more. The teacher wants more money. everyone wants more money. 1.4% here, 6% there, 10% over there. See my first point in this post.
As for gender studies, while probably not a good degree, it is still vastly better than Trump U, it is an ok degree to go into social services work.
Your biases are showing they are equally worthless. And you made my point "no actual real world opportunities outside of government, schools and grants." Supporting the ideals of the SJW class is fine, but don't let it cloud your judgment. Just be aware that the ridiculousness of the SJW wars is being made manifest at places like Emory and their trauma over chalk. The poor precious snowflakes can't handle being adults.
You do realize that the very first slave owner in America was ... black, right?
There is nobody here that owned slaves, knows anyone that was or owned slaves, probably several more generations more. We are 150 years from slavery in the US, but people like you keep acting like it was last week.
At some point, you're going to have to realize that the problem isn't slavery, it is attitude. But I guess it is always easier to blame others for your own shortcomings.
Profit isn't a dirty word. People want more money, or else the CSU Professors wouldn't be going on strike next week. Nobody is immune from wanting more money (profit), quit acting like they are.
Trump university is out of business, because it didn't offer anything of value. Sucks if you bought that line of shit, same as if you went to a regular university and got your "Gender Studies*" masters and can't find a job. Except one is applauded, and the other isn't (and still offers such a degree)
I would MUCH prefer a system that had "Employment data" for each program they offer, and a "return on investment" timetabled based on actual salaries earned by people.
You see, how you view "Profiteering" is all based on your own biases. "Gender Studies" at a regular university is just as much "profiteering" as Trump University was, you just don't recognize it as such.
* "Gender Studies" is a fake degree, but represents real ones of little or no actual real world opportunities outside of government schools and grants. It represents degrees that nobody is really hiring outside of very specialized and limited areas.
If schools were about education, then half the people going to college wouldn't be eligible. BUT we have to be "inclusive" to the point of ridiculousness because somewhere along the line, we became elitist snobs who view people with a degree as being "better" than people without one.
It is a form of classism of the worst kind. On the otherhand, it is much easier to take someone with a piece of paper than it is to find someone who knows what he is doing, but without one.
are members of the government treated differently than normal citizens
Name me country where this is not so?
Or, asked a different way, do you REALLY think Hillary is going to prison? Even if convicted?
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/hammer...
Both? :-D
nd why can't the included web browser load more than about three pages in tabs and switch among them without the page reloading (and losing form data) when I return to a tab?
How about Netscape Navigator on today's Websites? I compared my phone to a computer from 10-15 years ago. My phone does more than "Desktop" computers from that era. This is about "Linux on the desktop", not comparing Chrome on Android vs Chrome on Windows (or Chromebooks or Mac).
My point, has little to do with App management, it has to do with tasks done during the age of "the year of Linux on the desktop" discussions were taking place. We're there, and people like yourself like to compare today with today, and not yesterday's desktops (when we were asking about Linux on the desktop) and today's Android platform.
Would you rather have a Pentium IV running Windows XP or an Nexus 6P. I know which one I'd rather use.
His job changed. Things he did 20 years ago no longer exist.
Time and time again we were told "secretaries will be taking your jobs"
In the seven years of Obama, things aren't any better. The changes you posit are window dressing to the real issues underneath.
If you want a really good example, take a look at what major figures in both the (D) and (R) parties say about Snowden ... "he is a traitor"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/...
The only person who REMOTELY understands is Rand Paul, who says Snowden needs Jail (alongside Clapper).
I am a libertarian, and while Snowden may have violated the law (and I don't care why), he exposed to the world that nothing has really changed. And still, nothing has really changed.
All you need to know is that there are secret courts issuing secret documents that nobody can talk about. Obama has done NOTHING to stop them
http://www.engadget.com/2016/0...
Go ahead, and make excuses why one party is "better" than the other. IMHO that is equivalent to saying one turd smells better that another.
I think comparing Linux Desktop to Windows (an MAC) is a mistake. The fact is, we have Linux desktops today, and many of us are already using it. It is called Android. Just because it isn't "Traditional" doesn't mean it isn't so. Change the definition, and you change the answer. I know plenty of people who use Linux desktops, for most of their computing needs. Windows(and even MAC) is becoming less relevant every day.
You're actually wrong too.
1) Secretaries are doing many of the things I was "programing" for 25 years ago. The things we did as programmers are now being done by off the shelf programs, that also do other things.
2) What you are actually writing programs to do, has changed over the years, slowly so you don't notice those changes.
3) The "Year of the Linux Desktop" has already occurred, and it is Android. 90% of what people use Computers for, can be done on Android (running Linux kernel). No, it doesn't look or act like Windows, and it doesn't have to. That is a false barrier. My current Android phone has more power and Ram than the computers I used 15 years ago, does most if not all of the things those computers and does other things not even thought of.
However, you are correct in that Programmers are still needed. However, the emphasis has change.
In fact, it's pretty easy to determine what is innate, and what is learned. All you have to do is look at the variation across cultures. The behavior that varies is socialized, while the behavior that remains constant across cultures is innate. Boys prefer things, and girls prefer people, across all cultures. There are several other such differences we can observe.
Actually, the SJW types love to blame "Patriarchal societies" for this, since there are almost NO cultures that have a different basis. They can't handle the fact that biology is the cause of the resultant behavior, and they have to (want to strongly) believe it is cultural bias of patriarchal societies. So, the blame does go to culture, even when it is clear it isn't, because of some unique feature that spans all cultures around the globe.
The flights are almost entirely for immigration, organized crime, and drug crimes.
The most organized crime family is housed in the Capital building in DC.
Well, when the presence of chalk is a "trigger" for emotional distress, "home of the brave" is no longer even close to being accurate.
Started under Bush, enhanced under Obama, and they still think there are two parties?
Which is why politicians debate irrelevancies instead of the important matters. Trump n Cruz fighting over wives, Hillary and Bernie fighting over how much free stiff they'll bribe the voters with.