Some good points there. I think in a stable environmental niche, intelligence would never develop, most of the oldest species have been in such niches as long as they've been around. However that an entire biosphere which remains permanently environmentally stable exists out there is something I find difficult to credit. I mean sure it's possible but the universe is a tumultuous place.
In such changing environments adaptability is king, and intelligence is the best enabler of adaptability.
Intelligence is the ultimate evolutionary adaption, I believe that life inevitably tends towards higher and higher levels of it. Consider, we're ill suited for anything but temperate climates in our bare skin, and even then we'd make easy prey for predators, being neither fast nor especially strong.
Add a sprinkle of intelligence and suddenly we're wearing animal skins in the cold, building fires at night, and protecting ourselves with spears.
Intelligence is absolutely a survival trait, perhaps the most powerful one.
Fact is, those people don't get a choice. They are barely surviving, and they are facing men who hoarded resources to procure weapons and other tools that help them to stay in power.
Men? Shitheadery knows no gender. Ever heard of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Imelda Marcos, Yingluck Shinawatra, the Womens Sultanate, Margaret Thatcher? Anyway one would have thought that such conditions were fertile ground for a revolution of the people.
Something missing from your narrative perhaps?
You are utterly convinced that poverty is a choice
Oh I never said anyone chose to be poor. They can choose not to be victims however, and they can choose not to listen to people who want them to be victims, objects, acted upon.
They can choose to stand up against corruption and fight for a better future. Many of them are, and their collective fortunes are improving accordingly, even if they individually remain poor, and for those I have nothing but the highest regard. I don't blame the ones that just go with the flow mind you, but they don't get much sympathy either.
argument is quite impossible without proper third party moderator.
Yes, the free environment of slashdot with its darned new concepts and open exchange of ideas must burn a cunt such as yourself.
Maybe if they sorted out their own shitty political systems and made their politicians and beaurocracy, public sector, what have you accountable they would be able to enjoy the fruits of modern civilisation along with the rest of us.
Have you ever lived in a developing country? As soon as anyone pokes their head above the crowd there's a queue of plebs with pieces of paper in their hands stretching around the corner looking for bribes, their cut, their piece of the pie, and before too long there's no pie left at all. This is the reality.
Which has already been explained to you three times.
Yes capitalism is harnessed greed and that's a good thing. I rejoice to see corporations battling it out, I weep to see a single clear winner.
I'm none too happy with the banks myself, property bubbles completely loot middle class wealth and that needs to never happen again, but look at all the posters in this story gibbering about equality of income - do they have any understanding of how insane that is? Clearly not.
So they indulge in masturbatory fantasies about the indefinable paradise that awaits humanity after all the bourgeoise are killed off. Or was that the jews. No, wait, the intellectuals. White men?
Better they use their minds instead of parroting the delusions of a nineteenth century habitual drunk.
Right. You are here, suggesting that corruption exists in a vacuum rather than as a result of our resource distribution system creating overwhelming motivator for those in leadership position to become corrupt in order to grab more resources?
"Our" resource distribution system, capitalism, has regulations to prevent corruption from doing too much damage. It's a bit hit and miss but overall things have been steadily improving for the average person.
The distribution systems in poor countries may or may not have similar regulations, but they aren't enforced if they are in place. Having lived in many such countries I know whereof I speak.
I'm not even sure what "marxist" means here. Pretty much every single economist in the world subscribes to the same notion. The only thing they disagree with one another is what is the better alternative that would serve both needs and desires of imperfect human beings while keeping their vices in check. Are they all marxist in your opinion?
I wasn't aware you'd been elected king of the economists. Apologies your royal spokesperson for Mises and Keynes, perhaps someday someone will do communism right and not end up killing 100 million people to achieve nothing. The congratulatory coronation fruitbasket shall be along in the post presently.
Attempts to rebuild it resulted in massive suppression from systems using the old distribution system who understood that all it takes is one such new system becoming functional to destroy them.
Ahahaha! I swear you marxists live in as much of a fairy tale world as any conspiracy nut.
The reason poor countries are poor is because of their shitty corrupt politicians. See for reference what happened to Zimbabwe, or the President of South Africa looting all of the UK foreign aid to build his palace, or the way that the government in the Philippines can't account for over 90% of the aid it received for Haiyan.
"Derived directly from our resource-limited past" my ass, the only thing that matches the zeal of the marxist is their ignorance.
Ahahaha you people. Seriously, which do you think is more important to the 99% or whatever, the fact that their standard of living is continually improving, or that someone is shopping for her third sports car, somewhere out there.
Moral panic mongers are finding this whole information age thing quite the botherance, aren't they.
A bunch of rich people with no real military protecting them will be like ripe fruit for the picking (as they have been over and over and over for centuries).
Not really no, for example during the French revolution which supposedly directly targeted the wealthy, the majority of those that went to visit Madame were not nobles.
I'm not entirely sure what the fixation is with income equality anyway, shouldn't people be thinking more about a continually improving standard of living? I mean surely that's what matters most to almost everyone. I know I don't wake up every morning bitterly jealous that someone else is richer them myself, or upset that I can't buy a Lear jet, seems like a pretty sorry way to go through life.
I don't have a problem with people being richer than me as long as they aren't using their wealth to fuck with people, like the banks did with their artificially inflated property bubble. Yes, when one party is providing 90+ % of the price for a good or service, that party controls the price. So, fuck the banks basically. But not due for ideological reasons.
You could say the same about almost any skilled labour though, good enough is often good enough. I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't make what I'm saying less true.
Nope, let's not even justify it to that extent. Coding is a job description, and an increasingly blue collar one like plumber or electrician at that. This whole push by giant corporations to get into schools (!) is simply a means for them to reduce future worker salaries and ensure a steady supply of bright young idiots all fresh'n'ready to be abused and burned out.
Why stop there, the vast majority of rapes take place within a 30 year window, according to your calculations 100% of women have been violently raped. Hell, let's push it up to 40, women who don't even exist have been raped.
The point you're missing is that the numbers used were exaggerated to illustrate the lunacy of feminist statistics, they don't resemble anything anyone sane might imagine as real.
And feel free to ignore the rest of the comment while you're at it, including the linked paper. Call that axe grinding if you like.
I've heard claims that one in four women will be raped at some point in their lives, and have yet to hear any sort of data-based rebuttal.
Look at the actual crime reporting figures, locally rape convictions stand at around 8 per 100,000. Now let's get crazy and say only one in twenty rapes and or sexual assault charges result in a conviction. Let's get even crazier and say one in twenty people who are raped even report the matter. That leaves us with 3200 per 100,000, or about one in thirty. Still almost an order of magnitude smaller than feminist figures and almost certainly still a gigantic exaggeration.
So where do they come up with these moral panic inducing mountains of statistical tripe?
To understand this we have to look at the methods they use to take these surveys. Look at the technical reports. You'll find lots of stuff like:
Drafting the questionnaire, it was important to avoid terms such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’ or ‘stalking’, because different women might have different preconceived ideas on the types of violence usually associated with these terms, and the types of perpetrators involved.
Terms such as rape are left out of questionnaires and it's left to the researchers (all of whom happen to be feminist trained) to decide whether or not rape took place. So if someone answered that they were verbally abused using a sexual slur or had sex while drunk, it's the researcher who decides if the women was sexually attacked.
And take a look at California's shiny new feminist inspired affirmative consent laws if you want to know whether having sex after a drink is rape or not.
This gets further distorted by the public mouthpieces, who translate these numbers into 25% of all women were raped. No, they weren't. That one in four women in modern western democracies, one in forty was raped is not a prospect that the rational mind can entertain.
This is a technique that was pioneered by Mary Koss, a feminist researcher who decided that the official unbiased government reports weren't giving her the answers she wanted, so she set up her own surveys in order to amend the statistics accordingly.
Post survey examination of the outcomes however revealed that around three quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred, and continued dating them.
So, having internalised that, now you'll have to start asking questions like "how did these flim flam artists manage to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for 40 years" and "why are people in power listening to them" and so on. These are good questions to ponder. While you're pondering them some light reading for you:
One random guy being sent photos does not a gender issue make. If you want to talk about gender issues maybe we can talk about the actual epidemic of female teachers raping male and female students in high schools, how about that for a conversation we need to have. Because that's what happens when you create a narrative that puts people into jobs based on their genitalia instead of their merit. You sanctimonious little pricks speak only, and I do mean only, for your revolting little cult.
Nobody's ever said harassment didn't exist. It does, as does rape, murder, fraud, and pickpocketing. Usually perpetrated by psychos and disturbed individuals.
Psychos and seriously disturbed people also exist, of course - unfortunately some of them seem to think that there's an enormous epidemic of rape and harassment.
They provide tested and complete functionality where, without them, you'd likely make mistakes and omissions.
They don't provide complete functionality. Instead they put you in a position where making even minor changes that the framework developers didn't foresee usually involves far more time than you had planned on spending, and likely far more skill than you possess if you're still using frameworks.
Personally I prefer to give my clients what they ask for instead of trying to convince them they don't want something that will cause me a lot of trouble to put together. I can do that because I understand the underlying code.
And for bonus points, you don't have to relearn the underlying code over and over, as you do with ever shifting frameworks, and your knowledge doesn't become obsolete when a framework falls out of fashion.
The ascendant middle class is relentlessly plundered by the government in these countries, anytime anyone tries to get a leg up there's a queue five miles long waiting to gnaw it off. I wish I could have more faith in the benefits of capitalism in this regard but I've lived in these places, paid my dues and kept my damn mouth shut far too long to imagine it's going to end well.
Maybe you're right, but the question to ask is were there forces in the US at the time that are not present in these benighted geographical armpits today?
That's not how it works. These countries aren't poor because bad ol' whiteys keeping them down or Imperialism a century and a half ago, they're poor because they have shitty corrupt governments. The president in South Africa taking aid money to build his private palace, the looting of aid to the Philippines after Haiyan, whatever. Nothing will change until the people in these countries put an end to governmental corruption, whether that's the bent cop taking bribes to let you off a traffic ticket or the leader of the nation looting its coffers.
I guess you missed the part that I bolded where the parent poster had written "Just like a woman, my god..." right after he complained too many stories "about gender this-or-that in tech. "
Mm. Bottom line is that when a woman cries everyone rushes to help, when a man cries he's treated with disdain. That's both the reality and not neccessarily a bad thing for men, indicative as it is of an expectancy to solve problems and deal with personal responsibility, but the OP's dodgy phrasing merely reflects the general social and personal expectations placed on women these days, which are few and far between.
And feminism is not helping in that regard. What, you want to talk about manspreading and the Corsten report? These things do not make women stronger, they will not create Ellen Ripleys. They create generation after generation of adult children.
We have many issues in tech - including stagnant or declining wages, lousy working conditions, "up-or-out" mentality, ageism, racism, and yes, sexism.
Sexism my ass. If anything techies love capable women and respect them, as do most men.
That doesn't mean it's okay to give sexist attitudes a pass because there's so many other problems. You can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Your call.:-)
I prefer to not be part of the pollution myself. Toxic feminism and social justice acolytes can burn.
Slashdot Mirror
Some good points there. I think in a stable environmental niche, intelligence would never develop, most of the oldest species have been in such niches as long as they've been around. However that an entire biosphere which remains permanently environmentally stable exists out there is something I find difficult to credit. I mean sure it's possible but the universe is a tumultuous place.
In such changing environments adaptability is king, and intelligence is the best enabler of adaptability.
Intelligence is the ultimate evolutionary adaption, I believe that life inevitably tends towards higher and higher levels of it. Consider, we're ill suited for anything but temperate climates in our bare skin, and even then we'd make easy prey for predators, being neither fast nor especially strong.
Add a sprinkle of intelligence and suddenly we're wearing animal skins in the cold, building fires at night, and protecting ourselves with spears.
Intelligence is absolutely a survival trait, perhaps the most powerful one.
Fact is, those people don't get a choice. They are barely surviving, and they are facing men who hoarded resources to procure weapons and other tools that help them to stay in power.
Men? Shitheadery knows no gender. Ever heard of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Imelda Marcos, Yingluck Shinawatra, the Womens Sultanate, Margaret Thatcher? Anyway one would have thought that such conditions were fertile ground for a revolution of the people.
Something missing from your narrative perhaps?
You are utterly convinced that poverty is a choice
Oh I never said anyone chose to be poor. They can choose not to be victims however, and they can choose not to listen to people who want them to be victims, objects, acted upon.
They can choose to stand up against corruption and fight for a better future. Many of them are, and their collective fortunes are improving accordingly, even if they individually remain poor, and for those I have nothing but the highest regard. I don't blame the ones that just go with the flow mind you, but they don't get much sympathy either.
argument is quite impossible without proper third party moderator.
Yes, the free environment of slashdot with its darned new concepts and open exchange of ideas must burn a cunt such as yourself.
Burn harder. Your time is coming to an end.
while billions live in abject misery
Maybe if they sorted out their own shitty political systems and made their politicians and beaurocracy, public sector, what have you accountable they would be able to enjoy the fruits of modern civilisation along with the rest of us.
Have you ever lived in a developing country? As soon as anyone pokes their head above the crowd there's a queue of plebs with pieces of paper in their hands stretching around the corner looking for bribes, their cut, their piece of the pie, and before too long there's no pie left at all. This is the reality.
Which has already been explained to you three times.
Yes capitalism is harnessed greed and that's a good thing. I rejoice to see corporations battling it out, I weep to see a single clear winner.
I'm none too happy with the banks myself, property bubbles completely loot middle class wealth and that needs to never happen again, but look at all the posters in this story gibbering about equality of income - do they have any understanding of how insane that is? Clearly not.
So they indulge in masturbatory fantasies about the indefinable paradise that awaits humanity after all the bourgeoise are killed off. Or was that the jews. No, wait, the intellectuals. White men?
Better they use their minds instead of parroting the delusions of a nineteenth century habitual drunk.
Right. You are here, suggesting that corruption exists in a vacuum rather than as a result of our resource distribution system creating overwhelming motivator for those in leadership position to become corrupt in order to grab more resources?
"Our" resource distribution system, capitalism, has regulations to prevent corruption from doing too much damage. It's a bit hit and miss but overall things have been steadily improving for the average person.
The distribution systems in poor countries may or may not have similar regulations, but they aren't enforced if they are in place. Having lived in many such countries I know whereof I speak.
I'm not even sure what "marxist" means here. Pretty much every single economist in the world subscribes to the same notion. The only thing they disagree with one another is what is the better alternative that would serve both needs and desires of imperfect human beings while keeping their vices in check. Are they all marxist in your opinion?
I wasn't aware you'd been elected king of the economists. Apologies your royal spokesperson for Mises and Keynes, perhaps someday someone will do communism right and not end up killing 100 million people to achieve nothing. The congratulatory coronation fruitbasket shall be along in the post presently.
Attempts to rebuild it resulted in massive suppression from systems using the old distribution system who understood that all it takes is one such new system becoming functional to destroy them.
Ahahaha! I swear you marxists live in as much of a fairy tale world as any conspiracy nut.
The reason poor countries are poor is because of their shitty corrupt politicians. See for reference what happened to Zimbabwe, or the President of South Africa looting all of the UK foreign aid to build his palace, or the way that the government in the Philippines can't account for over 90% of the aid it received for Haiyan.
"Derived directly from our resource-limited past" my ass, the only thing that matches the zeal of the marxist is their ignorance.
So, in your world all the money in the banks is owned by a few super rich people, and they can just take it with them and go to New Zealand.
Maybe Huey, Dewey, and Louie will save the day?
Ahahaha you people. Seriously, which do you think is more important to the 99% or whatever, the fact that their standard of living is continually improving, or that someone is shopping for her third sports car, somewhere out there.
Moral panic mongers are finding this whole information age thing quite the botherance, aren't they.
A bunch of rich people with no real military protecting them will be like ripe fruit for the picking (as they have been over and over and over for centuries).
Not really no, for example during the French revolution which supposedly directly targeted the wealthy, the majority of those that went to visit Madame were not nobles.
I'm not entirely sure what the fixation is with income equality anyway, shouldn't people be thinking more about a continually improving standard of living? I mean surely that's what matters most to almost everyone. I know I don't wake up every morning bitterly jealous that someone else is richer them myself, or upset that I can't buy a Lear jet, seems like a pretty sorry way to go through life.
I don't have a problem with people being richer than me as long as they aren't using their wealth to fuck with people, like the banks did with their artificially inflated property bubble. Yes, when one party is providing 90+ % of the price for a good or service, that party controls the price. So, fuck the banks basically. But not due for ideological reasons.
You could say the same about almost any skilled labour though, good enough is often good enough. I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't make what I'm saying less true.
Nope, let's not even justify it to that extent. Coding is a job description, and an increasingly blue collar one like plumber or electrician at that. This whole push by giant corporations to get into schools (!) is simply a means for them to reduce future worker salaries and ensure a steady supply of bright young idiots all fresh'n'ready to be abused and burned out.
End of.
Why stop there, the vast majority of rapes take place within a 30 year window, according to your calculations 100% of women have been violently raped. Hell, let's push it up to 40, women who don't even exist have been raped.
The point you're missing is that the numbers used were exaggerated to illustrate the lunacy of feminist statistics, they don't resemble anything anyone sane might imagine as real.
And feel free to ignore the rest of the comment while you're at it, including the linked paper. Call that axe grinding if you like.
I've heard claims that one in four women will be raped at some point in their lives, and have yet to hear any sort of data-based rebuttal.
Look at the actual crime reporting figures, locally rape convictions stand at around 8 per 100,000. Now let's get crazy and say only one in twenty rapes and or sexual assault charges result in a conviction. Let's get even crazier and say one in twenty people who are raped even report the matter. That leaves us with 3200 per 100,000, or about one in thirty. Still almost an order of magnitude smaller than feminist figures and almost certainly still a gigantic exaggeration.
So where do they come up with these moral panic inducing mountains of statistical tripe?
To understand this we have to look at the methods they use to take these surveys. Look at the technical reports. You'll find lots of stuff like:
Drafting the questionnaire, it was important to avoid terms such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’ or ‘stalking’, because different women might have different preconceived ideas on the types of violence usually associated with these terms, and the types of perpetrators involved.
Terms such as rape are left out of questionnaires and it's left to the researchers (all of whom happen to be feminist trained) to decide whether or not rape took place. So if someone answered that they were verbally abused using a sexual slur or had sex while drunk, it's the researcher who decides if the women was sexually attacked.
And take a look at California's shiny new feminist inspired affirmative consent laws if you want to know whether having sex after a drink is rape or not.
This gets further distorted by the public mouthpieces, who translate these numbers into 25% of all women were raped. No, they weren't. That one in four women in modern western democracies, one in forty was raped is not a prospect that the rational mind can entertain.
This is a technique that was pioneered by Mary Koss, a feminist researcher who decided that the official unbiased government reports weren't giving her the answers she wanted, so she set up her own surveys in order to amend the statistics accordingly.
Post survey examination of the outcomes however revealed that around three quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred, and continued dating them.
So, having internalised that, now you'll have to start asking questions like "how did these flim flam artists manage to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for 40 years" and "why are people in power listening to them" and so on. These are good questions to ponder. While you're pondering them some light reading for you:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/...
One random guy being sent photos does not a gender issue make. If you want to talk about gender issues maybe we can talk about the actual epidemic of female teachers raping male and female students in high schools, how about that for a conversation we need to have. Because that's what happens when you create a narrative that puts people into jobs based on their genitalia instead of their merit. You sanctimonious little pricks speak only, and I do mean only, for your revolting little cult.
Nobody's ever said harassment didn't exist. It does, as does rape, murder, fraud, and pickpocketing. Usually perpetrated by psychos and disturbed individuals.
Psychos and seriously disturbed people also exist, of course - unfortunately some of them seem to think that there's an enormous epidemic of rape and harassment.
It stayed slow after re-entering the normal environment though.
They provide tested and complete functionality where, without them, you'd likely make mistakes and omissions.
They don't provide complete functionality. Instead they put you in a position where making even minor changes that the framework developers didn't foresee usually involves far more time than you had planned on spending, and likely far more skill than you possess if you're still using frameworks.
Personally I prefer to give my clients what they ask for instead of trying to convince them they don't want something that will cause me a lot of trouble to put together. I can do that because I understand the underlying code.
And for bonus points, you don't have to relearn the underlying code over and over, as you do with ever shifting frameworks, and your knowledge doesn't become obsolete when a framework falls out of fashion.
It's not even a great sales pitch, I have zero interest in what my toaster has to say.
Yeah this is the dream of a sociopath who imagines himself a god, and I'm not even using hyperbole.
Does it scare you that such a person has so much power already? Because it scares me.
Well that's half of facebook fucked.
The ascendant middle class is relentlessly plundered by the government in these countries, anytime anyone tries to get a leg up there's a queue five miles long waiting to gnaw it off. I wish I could have more faith in the benefits of capitalism in this regard but I've lived in these places, paid my dues and kept my damn mouth shut far too long to imagine it's going to end well.
Maybe you're right, but the question to ask is were there forces in the US at the time that are not present in these benighted geographical armpits today?
That's not how it works. These countries aren't poor because bad ol' whiteys keeping them down or Imperialism a century and a half ago, they're poor because they have shitty corrupt governments. The president in South Africa taking aid money to build his private palace, the looting of aid to the Philippines after Haiyan, whatever. Nothing will change until the people in these countries put an end to governmental corruption, whether that's the bent cop taking bribes to let you off a traffic ticket or the leader of the nation looting its coffers.
That's why CSS was invented.
I guess you missed the part that I bolded where the parent poster had written "Just like a woman, my god ..." right after he complained too many stories "about gender this-or-that in tech. "
Mm. Bottom line is that when a woman cries everyone rushes to help, when a man cries he's treated with disdain. That's both the reality and not neccessarily a bad thing for men, indicative as it is of an expectancy to solve problems and deal with personal responsibility, but the OP's dodgy phrasing merely reflects the general social and personal expectations placed on women these days, which are few and far between.
And feminism is not helping in that regard. What, you want to talk about manspreading and the Corsten report? These things do not make women stronger, they will not create Ellen Ripleys. They create generation after generation of adult children.
We have many issues in tech - including stagnant or declining wages, lousy working conditions, "up-or-out" mentality, ageism, racism, and yes, sexism.
Sexism my ass. If anything techies love capable women and respect them, as do most men.
That doesn't mean it's okay to give sexist attitudes a pass because there's so many other problems. You can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Your call. :-)
I prefer to not be part of the pollution myself. Toxic feminism and social justice acolytes can burn.