Ha, looks like a slightly more sophisticated versioin of Elite. Interesting to think that it's a glimpse into what future asteroid miners will witness as they approach ore bearing bodies.
Giving students the ability to pick and choose on a much finer basis allows them to potentially learn the mechanics of how to conduct experiments without covering the ethical considerations of conduction experiments. That isn't going to end well...
What astonishing arrogance. So anyone who hasn't taken an ethics course doesn't know right from wrong?
Most of this discussion is just humanities types hyperventilating that their redundant modules are going to be excised from useful disciplines. People get into computer science because they want to learn about computer science, not be force fed sociology as viewed through a Gramscian dialectic.
It's right there in the terms of service that they will systematically scan your email, it's not as though they've ever made any secret of it. Don't like it? Don't use their service for anything important.
Honestly I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about here. Nobody is forcing you to use gmail, in fact there are many, many high quality alternatives at least some of which won't scan your emails. Or even register your own domain and/or use encryption.
So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.
And you've just completely gone and discounted the Duluth model and its horrendous widespread effects while simultaneously repeating the fallacy that rich men care anything for men, and the fact the patriarchy theory is both fatally flawed and destructive.
That took some doing. Not as much as the way you directly contradict yourself next, but still pretty good.
My original post made the exact opposite argument. The 'boys club' is not interested in helping men as a category, its a handful of selfish men (with a handful of women) pissing on everyone else. If you actually thought this is what feminists believed, no wonder you are so confused.
Go read the dictionary definition of feminism. Then take a look at the Duluth model, the Swedish model, Baroness Corsten's report or even good old professor Elizabeth Sheehy who believes that women should have the right to murder men in their sleep as long as they "felt" threatened. Compare and contrast, and there's plenty more where that came from.
It also makes sense in light of the many single mothers out there, and kids being pretty expensive.
Hardly. What it means is men are earning the money then giving it to the women to spend. Patriarchy!
I frankly don't know alot about these things
Really? Maybe you should educate yourself on the actual effects of feminism in the real world before waving fungible postmodern definitions around as if they meant anything otuside a gender studies exam paper.
Men are also raped about as often as women are. Again, the problem is that the windmill you are tilting at is not feminism.
So your problem is that it isn't a scientific theory?
My problem is that it's truthy sounding nonsense claiming the imprimatur of verifiability using sciency-sounding words, and is being used to persecute large sections of the population.
Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests? This statement is false if no group dominates society, or if a group of elite women do. Given how subjective many of these concepts are, its not as neatly falsifiable than Newton's laws, for example. Life is complicated. I find it interesting that this theory is basically what people are espousing when talking about inequality and the 1%, its just that the connection to gender isn't as obvious if you are a male. Few would deny that most of the money is in male hands.
And you see this is where feminism falls down, extrapolating from the "personal is the political" mantra of the 70s feminists point to a few rich people as evidence that all men have oppressed all women forever, despite these few wealthy people never having acted to improve the situation or welfare of men as a class. Your mythical boys club doesn't exist. As for most of the money being in the hands of men, most of the spending power is in the hands of those poor oppressed women. But hey what's a few nuances to the blunt instrument that is feminism.
I note you haven't disputed the veracity of the description of patriarchy theory given above, nor the effects it has had when applied to real life. The Swedish model is a good one, feminists decided that criminalising the clients of sex workers was the way to go because patriarchy, right, except the end result was fewer and more violent clients. Which a five year old could have told you would be the outcome - criminalise clients and the clients will mostly be criminals. Well done feminists, leaving yet another trail of bodies and broken lives behind you, except this time it's women.
Now we can continue this two step as long as you like but the bottom line is that feminism is by its own outcomes based on a particularly hateful central premise. You're waving at the wealthy one percent while I'm talking about police departments being trained to arrest the man in all circumstances, even when he's the victim of domestic violence, which is about half the time.
I mean is this thing turned on or what.
As for what feminism actually does, I'll trust my own judgement on that thanks.
Of course, facts aren't much use to a feminist.
The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth. I referenced it as an example in one of my posts but I don't literally think it is something that happened.
Jon Katz seems to feel otherwise but it's hardly a pivotal issue.
The fact is that the same 'boys club' attitude that is bad for women is also bad for the vast majority of men.
This is something feminists call "Patriarchy Theory", and it is the foundational "theory" of feminism. I use scare quotes here because it's not a theory in any scientific sense of the word, being untestable, unfalsifiable, and largely pulled out of someone's ass. Now, you can't call yourself a feminist without embracing this theory, it's as fundamental as a belief in Christ is to Christianity.
The "theory" itself simply states that men are the perennial oppressors and women are the eternally oppressed. Man bad, woman good. That's it. No right wing conspiracy theory needed to make feminism look like an idioteology.
It's embodied in such efforts as the Duluth and Swedish models of law enforcement, the former in particular still in widespread use today despite the fact of gender symmetry in domestic violence, ruining many innocent lives. So tragically flawed is it that even one of its two creators (neither of whom had any experience or qualification in social services) belatedly admitted:
"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."
So witness the reality of what feminism actually DOES, rather than what it claims it is.
One thing feminism does excel at however is taking credit for other peoples' achievements. The advances of technology which led to the mass production of white goods for example had far more to do with womens' roles changing in society than any gang of bra burners.
Or perhaps because only something as demented as feminism could come up with such a lunatic idea in the first place.
The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.
I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.
Completely unneccessary. Assuming a world where feminists (not women mind you, women tend to like men quite a lot) reign supreme, why not just keep a minimum breeding stock of boys and off them after they hit age 20? After all that's what leading feminists Mary Daly and Sally Miller Gearhart wanted, reduce the population of men to 10% or so, frothing nazis that they were.
Happily however the general population is starting to go very sour indeed on feminism, and I would hope to see the final end of the religion within my lifetime.
I'm directly saying that people, men and women, who are mature adults vote in their own best interests rather than pandering to some sort of juvenile playground instinct as feminists would prefer them to. They vote for the person they believe will best represent those interests. Now if you want to talk about why more women don't stand for election, go for it, but that's a different conversation. There is, after all, nothing stopping them.
The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."
Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.
You are aware the majority of the electorate in the US is female, right? So maybe there's a slim possibility that they're voting for something other than the genitals of political candidates, due to not being eight years old anymore?
The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."
Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.
The above comment is precisely why these "social sciences" need to be delegitimised and rubber-roomed until they can figure out the meaning of the phrase "scientific method". Grant them no authority in deciding government policy, massively defund them in academia, get them out of the courtrooms, and generally pillory them for the witchdoctors they are.
If you have to ask why, you're part of the problem.
Completely different situation. In programming discussions are how to optimise the processes involved, the problem with psychology its that they aren't sure if they're working on computers or breakfast cereal boxes with a few rectangles drawn on them. The main value that psychologist bring to the table today is to fulfill the role of that good friend who isn't afraid to lay out a few home truths. Of course if you already have such a friend, the need to attend a psychologist is naturally obviated...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah there are entire empty cities built in China by land speculators. So much for their "model".
Ha, looks like a slightly more sophisticated versioin of Elite. Interesting to think that it's a glimpse into what future asteroid miners will witness as they approach ore bearing bodies.
Giving students the ability to pick and choose on a much finer basis allows them to potentially learn the mechanics of how to conduct experiments without covering the ethical considerations of conduction experiments. That isn't going to end well...
What astonishing arrogance. So anyone who hasn't taken an ethics course doesn't know right from wrong?
Most of this discussion is just humanities types hyperventilating that their redundant modules are going to be excised from useful disciplines. People get into computer science because they want to learn about computer science, not be force fed sociology as viewed through a Gramscian dialectic.
Like fish.
Oddly enough I know a doctor in Botswana who's doing pretty damn well for herself.
Knitting is awesome. Take some sheeps hair and a couple of needles and bam! Trade goods.
It's right there in the terms of service that they will systematically scan your email, it's not as though they've ever made any secret of it. Don't like it? Don't use their service for anything important.
Honestly I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about here. Nobody is forcing you to use gmail, in fact there are many, many high quality alternatives at least some of which won't scan your emails. Or even register your own domain and/or use encryption.
So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.
And you've just completely gone and discounted the Duluth model and its horrendous widespread effects while simultaneously repeating the fallacy that rich men care anything for men, and the fact the patriarchy theory is both fatally flawed and destructive.
That took some doing. Not as much as the way you directly contradict yourself next, but still pretty good.
My original post made the exact opposite argument. The 'boys club' is not interested in helping men as a category, its a handful of selfish men (with a handful of women) pissing on everyone else. If you actually thought this is what feminists believed, no wonder you are so confused.
Go read the dictionary definition of feminism. Then take a look at the Duluth model, the Swedish model, Baroness Corsten's report or even good old professor Elizabeth Sheehy who believes that women should have the right to murder men in their sleep as long as they "felt" threatened. Compare and contrast, and there's plenty more where that came from.
It also makes sense in light of the many single mothers out there, and kids being pretty expensive.
Hardly. What it means is men are earning the money then giving it to the women to spend. Patriarchy!
I frankly don't know alot about these things
Really? Maybe you should educate yourself on the actual effects of feminism in the real world before waving fungible postmodern definitions around as if they meant anything otuside a gender studies exam paper.
Men are also raped about as often as women are. Again, the problem is that the windmill you are tilting at is not feminism.
Oops.
Eh, a half billion used to sound like a lot of money at one time.
So your problem is that it isn't a scientific theory?
My problem is that it's truthy sounding nonsense claiming the imprimatur of verifiability using sciency-sounding words, and is being used to persecute large sections of the population.
Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests? This statement is false if no group dominates society, or if a group of elite women do. Given how subjective many of these concepts are, its not as neatly falsifiable than Newton's laws, for example. Life is complicated. I find it interesting that this theory is basically what people are espousing when talking about inequality and the 1%, its just that the connection to gender isn't as obvious if you are a male. Few would deny that most of the money is in male hands.
And you see this is where feminism falls down, extrapolating from the "personal is the political" mantra of the 70s feminists point to a few rich people as evidence that all men have oppressed all women forever, despite these few wealthy people never having acted to improve the situation or welfare of men as a class. Your mythical boys club doesn't exist. As for most of the money being in the hands of men, most of the spending power is in the hands of those poor oppressed women. But hey what's a few nuances to the blunt instrument that is feminism.
I note you haven't disputed the veracity of the description of patriarchy theory given above, nor the effects it has had when applied to real life. The Swedish model is a good one, feminists decided that criminalising the clients of sex workers was the way to go because patriarchy, right, except the end result was fewer and more violent clients. Which a five year old could have told you would be the outcome - criminalise clients and the clients will mostly be criminals. Well done feminists, leaving yet another trail of bodies and broken lives behind you, except this time it's women.
Now we can continue this two step as long as you like but the bottom line is that feminism is by its own outcomes based on a particularly hateful central premise. You're waving at the wealthy one percent while I'm talking about police departments being trained to arrest the man in all circumstances, even when he's the victim of domestic violence, which is about half the time.
I mean is this thing turned on or what.
As for what feminism actually does, I'll trust my own judgement on that thanks.
Of course, facts aren't much use to a feminist.
The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth. I referenced it as an example in one of my posts but I don't literally think it is something that happened.
Jon Katz seems to feel otherwise but it's hardly a pivotal issue.
The fact is that the same 'boys club' attitude that is bad for women is also bad for the vast majority of men.
This is something feminists call "Patriarchy Theory", and it is the foundational "theory" of feminism. I use scare quotes here because it's not a theory in any scientific sense of the word, being untestable, unfalsifiable, and largely pulled out of someone's ass. Now, you can't call yourself a feminist without embracing this theory, it's as fundamental as a belief in Christ is to Christianity.
The "theory" itself simply states that men are the perennial oppressors and women are the eternally oppressed. Man bad, woman good. That's it. No right wing conspiracy theory needed to make feminism look like an idioteology.
It's embodied in such efforts as the Duluth and Swedish models of law enforcement, the former in particular still in widespread use today despite the fact of gender symmetry in domestic violence, ruining many innocent lives. So tragically flawed is it that even one of its two creators (neither of whom had any experience or qualification in social services) belatedly admitted:
"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."
So witness the reality of what feminism actually DOES, rather than what it claims it is.
One thing feminism does excel at however is taking credit for other peoples' achievements. The advances of technology which led to the mass production of white goods for example had far more to do with womens' roles changing in society than any gang of bra burners.
Perhaps because that is not practical.
Or perhaps because only something as demented as feminism could come up with such a lunatic idea in the first place.
The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.
I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.
Completely unneccessary. Assuming a world where feminists (not women mind you, women tend to like men quite a lot) reign supreme, why not just keep a minimum breeding stock of boys and off them after they hit age 20? After all that's what leading feminists Mary Daly and Sally Miller Gearhart wanted, reduce the population of men to 10% or so, frothing nazis that they were.
Happily however the general population is starting to go very sour indeed on feminism, and I would hope to see the final end of the religion within my lifetime.
You can start here -> http://www.arachnoid.com/psych...
I'm directly saying that people, men and women, who are mature adults vote in their own best interests rather than pandering to some sort of juvenile playground instinct as feminists would prefer them to. They vote for the person they believe will best represent those interests. Now if you want to talk about why more women don't stand for election, go for it, but that's a different conversation. There is, after all, nothing stopping them.
See the post above your own.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."
Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.
You are aware the majority of the electorate in the US is female, right? So maybe there's a slim possibility that they're voting for something other than the genitals of political candidates, due to not being eight years old anymore?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."
Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.
The above comment is precisely why these "social sciences" need to be delegitimised and rubber-roomed until they can figure out the meaning of the phrase "scientific method". Grant them no authority in deciding government policy, massively defund them in academia, get them out of the courtrooms, and generally pillory them for the witchdoctors they are.
If you have to ask why, you're part of the problem.
Completely different situation. In programming discussions are how to optimise the processes involved, the problem with psychology its that they aren't sure if they're working on computers or breakfast cereal boxes with a few rectangles drawn on them. The main value that psychologist bring to the table today is to fulfill the role of that good friend who isn't afraid to lay out a few home truths. Of course if you already have such a friend, the need to attend a psychologist is naturally obviated...
So, I'm just going to leave this here.
Two words: Phoenix Command.
Honestly if you're using the phone for significant amounts of typing anyway you're doing it wrong.
If touch keyboards were the shiny new future they would have been widely adopted after the ZX-81.
I want a variation on the Nokia E70, best design I've ever had the pleasure of using.
http://cdn2.gsmarena.com/vv/pi...
http://thechive.com/2012/12/06...