This is why I mentioned "dogma" in my original post. For you kind, races being genetically identical is even more of an axiom, than Earth rotating around the Sun. You discount our obviously visible differences — eye-shape, skin-color — as superficial. The less obvious ones — like resistance to certain diseases and ability to digest milk — are less known and you quietly ignore them.
But to suggest, that, maybe, some other such differences may play part in differences between academic and other achievement — as you are baiting me to do — is a more reliable way to lose an argument, than even tripping the Godwin's Law would be.
So, I will not make any such statement. The woeful underperformance of Blacks in today's America is much better explained by the scandalous rate of single-parenthood in Black families, for example. And let me preempt your saying "persecution" by pointing out the sad story of Jews — persecuted for centuries throughout Europe, they have a lot to complain about. But not about being underrepresented in Science (nor Chess)...
That said, we are veering off topic here, from differences between sexes to those between races. I shall not continue.
inherit [sic] bias among men to selecting men means opportunity is not equal, and will remain unequal until the voting block is significantly gender mixed.
That's why I used the term "dogma". A more polite word would've been axiom. That is, if your initial assumption (dogma or axiom) is that women are equally capable of and interested, on average, as men, then, indeed, the disparity in result can only mean one thing: sexism. Whose sexism — that of parents, or teachers, or colleagues, or even internalized, may be subject of some debate, but it can only be sexism.
If, on the other hand, you start with acknowledging the inherent differences between sexes — men can't give birth, can we? — then you may come up with a far less sinister explanation for the different results.
the top ones are in the unrestricted GM category (source: Your link)
The links also says:
As of February 2016, the FIDE rating list records 287 women holding the WGM title alone and an additional 33 who are GM.
The gender-disparity is mind-boggling — approaching that of the physical sports — and can not possibly be blamed on colleagues...
Probably, because the efforts required to rise — and remain — above 2300 is seriously detrimental to giving birth and rearing children.
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago
Did we achieve that? Got any evidence?
You are demanding, I prove a negative... Simply put, there is no law, that bars women from any pursuit whatsoever. What few sex-based restrictions there are, are anti-men, not anti-women.
The plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned.
Rrrriight...
Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are women, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K.
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago, the inequality of results is telling us something... Instead of admitting, that maybe, just maybe, there is something inherently different about the genders, these people double and triple on their dogmas.
We already have Women Grandmasters in chess — because appallingly few ladies could rise to the real GM. The Dutch will now have Women Academics. Though they wouldn't be as good as the real Academics, their titles and privileges will, no doubt, be made equally acceptable (and, perhaps, financially-rewarding) as the real thing. Not at men's expense? Indeed. At the expense of all the Dutch...
When you go to a restaurant, if they screw up your order you'll probably still live.
That may be a reason to regulate doctors stricter. But it is not a reason to nationalize them...
And there is very little shopping around to be done especially because when it comes to life saving medicine or surgery time is a factor.
Of course, there is plenty of "shopping around" — or, rather, there can be. People even travel abroad for such procedures — they aren't all about "boob jobs" as someone claimed. Some times time is, indeed, of essence, but that's far from the norm. Except in an aftermath of an accident, it is, thankfully, very rare, that a person discovers, he must undergo a surgery within hours. Usually, surgeries and other procedures are scheduled in advance — indeed, long waits for such procedures is the number one complaint of Canadians. Having already paid for them with their taxes, they have little choice but to wait, but, if they were allowed to choose, some would've chosen different.
And that, really, is the bottom line — you can not (or rather, should not be allowed to) compel me into joining whatever health-care scheme you wish. No way, no how. It is my life, my body, and my money.
there are areas where profit motive is a detriment, where it actively impedes other more important motives such Quality.
Really? Why, then, is my healthcare so much better here, than it was in the worker's paradise called USSR?
Health care is one. Aircraft maintenance (both civil and military, and ive worked both) is another.
So, your argument is, any service, where bad quality may result in the consumer's death, should be nationalized?
Is government really a better guardian of quality of service provided by its monopoly, than competition among service-providers would be?
Why... because the NHS is service oriented and does not need to make ever increasing profits.
An interesting contrast you are trying to make. So, being service-, rather than profit-oriented is the key? Does that mean, non-profits are always better — should restaurants and health-clubs become non-profit too, even if that means nationalizing them?
If not, why? What's so uniquely special about the service of health-care, that it — and it alone — is better run by the government?
With such an arrangement, why bother with any product at all? Solarcity is yet to show profit. What makes it "attractive" to Tesla is that it is run by cousins of Elon Musk. I don't blame him for wanting to get in on the racket.
I recently discovered, that my VoIP-provider had the history of my calls from ever since I opened the account 7 years ago. It is conveniently searchable and downloadable in several spreadsheet-formats.
I suppose, when I get to writing down my memoirs, it will come very handy, but it is a little irksome in the mean time. I doubt, I can turn it off or somehow request the records to be removed — I would be the first to object to any legislation forcing people to forget anything.
Could someone help this poor immigrant out? Are racial quotas a bad thing now? Just a few months ago, I was told, it is a very good and useful thing, but TFA seems to frown on it...
As long as you don't let your local right wing party under fund it then it'll be fantastic.
Yeah, those nasty right wing AmeriKKKan$ underfunding Britain's biggest ISP?..
made sure the funding was enough and it's pretty fantastic
With sufficient funding, government can make anything "fantastic". The point is, competing private companies inevitably offer even better service for the same money.
I've yet to meet a Canadian or Brit who makes under $300k/yr and would trade their Health care system for mine.
And while you complain about sabotage of government-provided services, American healthcare system is an example of government's sabotage of private industry. What, for example, is the reason, I can not purchase a health-insurance policy from a different state? Capitalism works, when there is competition — after eliminating/reducing it to the point of mono- or duopolies in each state, the Illiberal Statists will claim: "market failure"! And transform American health-care into a bigger and uglier version of the VA hospital system.
Maybe, you are a Socialist, who'd like the government to be in charge of everything. But if you aren't, then I'm at a loss as to why you'd want them to take over the Internet-service provision and health-care, but not, for example, food-distribution or automobile-production.
But I included several other examples of non-White racism, which remains alive and well on Twitter. AmiMojo suggested above, that that is simply because no one has filed a formal complaint against these other racists — the notion I ridicule in this subthread.
Milo was thrown off twitter forMilo was thrown off twitter for
Whatever it was is irrelevant. Whether or not there was a formal complaint against him — that's my question. And I suspect rather strongly, the answer is "no".
And yet, AmiMojo demands just such a complaint before action can be taken — in his opinion — against non-White racists and other far-Left harassers.
If they won't let racist hate groups use their service, that's their business.
They obviously do let racist hate groups use their service — only the White racists are targeted.
Is it entirely their business? I would've said so too, but now, after Facebook got into trouble for selectively advertising to different races, I'm not so sure...
Has anyone been threatened or harassed directly by those accounts, and did they complain?
Raising the bar, aren't you? Do you sincerely doubt, Twitter would've waited for someone to file a formal complaint before permanently banning anyone calling for murder of the President-elect Clinton?
Do you know, who filed such a complaint against Milo, when the "dangerous faggot" was banned by Twitter?
Being "private company" is, obviously, not enough of a defense, as Facebook just found out the hard way, for example. Evidently, some violent hate-groups — such as BLM and the rest of the "anti-Trump" crowd — are more equal than others.
But, hey, it is a private company... Maybe. A good illustration on why "hate speech" must remain legal — because any enforcer will be just as biased as Twitter is proving themselves to be.
It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century.
Huh? The 16th year of this century (and millennium) is still ongoing, what are they talking about? Even it does end "the hottest", it would still be one (the last so far) out of the 16 years.
Unless you include year 2000, which was, of course, the last year of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium, not the first of 21st and 3rd respectively...
Are we supposed to take scientific advice from people, who can't count beyond ten without taking their shoes off?
Would you mind if they give your data away with free technical aid and without court order to secret German and Italian data collection authorities? Where do you draw the line?
German and Italian governments today are alright. Though I'm appalled by their position on the so called "hate speech", it is still Ok in my opinion to cooperate with their police.
Maybe the position of Twitter and similar companies is that a company should not provide bulk data collection to intelligence agencies unless compelled to do so by law.
No "maybes" here — it obviously is their position. And I argue, that it is a foolish one.
The fact that some data is publicly available does not necessarily justify that it should be used for mass data collection and heuristic evaluation.
Whether it should may be for the FBI, CIA, et all to decide. But it is certainly not unethical for the companies to cooperate in easing police access to the already public data.
The test is very simple: could millions of police officers watching millions of Twitter feeds in their browsers and taking notes legally collect the data? Yes. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in automating the same job. The same test applies to license-plate readers and other creative use of video-cameras, BTW — sad, but true.
Because I trust our Lawmen even less than I do the terrorists.
So, you would have the police abolished, right? Fine, at least, you are self-consistent so far. But Twitter's management, it is safe to assume, does not — and yet, they don't want to cooperate with them either.
At least I know what to expect from a terrorist.:|
Do you also think that companies outside the US should provide data about their customers
There are places in the world, where the government is evil and remains in power not thanks to the sincere will of the governed, but by force of arms and other coercion. In such countries law enforcement organizations (such as the already-mentioned KGB) are used for oppression and should, indeed, be abolished. No cooperation with them is ethical. Even there, however, cooperation with institutions charged only with investigations of real crimes (murders, theft, rape) would be Ok — if it were possible to discern these institutions from each other, which is a separate topic...
The US is not (yet?) such a country in my humble opinion. But, if Twitter's management disagrees, then they should, indeed, call for abolition of the FBI and/or CIA to be self-consistent.
"Orwellian" data links from private companies to intelligence agencies
Orwell's Big Brother watched people in private. We are talking here about public data — stuff people willingly and enthusiastically post on Twitter.
I'm worried that by giving intelligence agencies too much leeway, the US could gamble away more of its moral authority
How is our "moral authority" threatened in this case? I'm not saying, FBI should be able to compel firms into cooperation. My point is, it is foolish for the companies to deliberately cripple authorities whose work they do not oppose in general.
You are deluded you or anyone can control how the CIA and FBI spend their time?
So, you do advocate for abolition of the two agencies?
Try writing your congressman and telling them what the FBI and CIA should be doing.
Funny, whenever I point out this remoteness and unruliness of the government in conversations about things like public transport or public schools, your kind always claim, government is easily approachable and responsive to taxpayers — and therefore is better positioned to provide these services, than competing private corporations would be.
But, when it comes to law enforcement — which is something, that private corporations can not be trusted with due to an obvious conflict of interest — you turn around and turn into the exact opposite. Suddenly, government agencies become both evil and uncontrollable.
Try writing your congressman and telling them what the FBI and CIA should be doing
Only after you write to yours about Department of Education, deal?
If the data is already public, as you claim, then what's your concern?
My concern is, it is unduly difficult for the CIA (though not yet for the FBI) to get that data in real time. They can scrape Twitter's web-site, because it is public, but that is not as easy and introduces obvious latency.
Unless you sincerely advocate for abolition of the CIA and FBI, you should help them do their jobs. They are paid with our taxes — Twitter's included — the easier it is for them to access messages, the less money they require.
The tweets captured by the firehose are public anyway. The API simply eases access to it, so why cripple the lawmen of your own country?
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea. Fortunately, the burden of proof is not on me...
As far as women go, to stay on topic of TFA, my only speculation is that the burdens of reproduction is what prevents females from a better showing in science and other pursuits. But we can't say with any higher degree of certainty, because to even pose the question is enough to be thrown out of today's "scientific" circles.
This is why I mentioned "dogma" in my original post. For you kind, races being genetically identical is even more of an axiom, than Earth rotating around the Sun. You discount our obviously visible differences — eye-shape, skin-color — as superficial. The less obvious ones — like resistance to certain diseases and ability to digest milk — are less known and you quietly ignore them.
But to suggest, that, maybe, some other such differences may play part in differences between academic and other achievement — as you are baiting me to do — is a more reliable way to lose an argument, than even tripping the Godwin's Law would be.
So, I will not make any such statement. The woeful underperformance of Blacks in today's America is much better explained by the scandalous rate of single-parenthood in Black families, for example. And let me preempt your saying "persecution" by pointing out the sad story of Jews — persecuted for centuries throughout Europe, they have a lot to complain about. But not about being underrepresented in Science (nor Chess)...
That said, we are veering off topic here, from differences between sexes to those between races. I shall not continue.
That's why I used the term "dogma". A more polite word would've been axiom. That is, if your initial assumption (dogma or axiom) is that women are equally capable of and interested, on average, as men, then, indeed, the disparity in result can only mean one thing: sexism. Whose sexism — that of parents, or teachers, or colleagues, or even internalized, may be subject of some debate, but it can only be sexism.
If, on the other hand, you start with acknowledging the inherent differences between sexes — men can't give birth, can we? — then you may come up with a far less sinister explanation for the different results.
The links also says:
The gender-disparity is mind-boggling — approaching that of the physical sports — and can not possibly be blamed on colleagues...
Probably, because the efforts required to rise — and remain — above 2300 is seriously detrimental to giving birth and rearing children.
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago
Did we achieve that? Got any evidence?
You are demanding, I prove a negative... Simply put, there is no law, that bars women from any pursuit whatsoever. What few sex-based restrictions there are, are anti-men, not anti-women.
Why not select a country's President this way? Oh, wait...
Rrrriight...
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago, the inequality of results is telling us something... Instead of admitting, that maybe, just maybe, there is something inherently different about the genders, these people double and triple on their dogmas.
We already have Women Grandmasters in chess — because appallingly few ladies could rise to the real GM. The Dutch will now have Women Academics. Though they wouldn't be as good as the real Academics, their titles and privileges will, no doubt, be made equally acceptable (and, perhaps, financially-rewarding) as the real thing. Not at men's expense? Indeed. At the expense of all the Dutch...
So, after 10 days of coloring books and crying over Trump's win, you are back to Slashdot — and have already followed-up on 8 of my earlier posts? I think, they let you out of your Safe Space too early...
That may be a reason to regulate doctors stricter. But it is not a reason to nationalize them...
Of course, there is plenty of "shopping around" — or, rather, there can be. People even travel abroad for such procedures — they aren't all about "boob jobs" as someone claimed. Some times time is, indeed, of essence, but that's far from the norm. Except in an aftermath of an accident, it is, thankfully, very rare, that a person discovers, he must undergo a surgery within hours. Usually, surgeries and other procedures are scheduled in advance — indeed, long waits for such procedures is the number one complaint of Canadians. Having already paid for them with their taxes, they have little choice but to wait, but, if they were allowed to choose, some would've chosen different.
And that, really, is the bottom line — you can not (or rather, should not be allowed to) compel me into joining whatever health-care scheme you wish. No way, no how. It is my life, my body, and my money.
Really? Why, then, is my healthcare so much better here, than it was in the worker's paradise called USSR?
So, your argument is, any service, where bad quality may result in the consumer's death, should be nationalized?
Is government really a better guardian of quality of service provided by its monopoly, than competition among service-providers would be?
An interesting contrast you are trying to make. So, being service-, rather than profit-oriented is the key? Does that mean, non-profits are always better — should restaurants and health-clubs become non-profit too, even if that means nationalizing them?
If not, why? What's so uniquely special about the service of health-care, that it — and it alone — is better run by the government?
And yet, it is all vaporware.
The company receives billions of taxpayers' money and donates millions to the "pro-solar" politicians — to keep the subsidies coming in.
With such an arrangement, why bother with any product at all? Solarcity is yet to show profit. What makes it "attractive" to Tesla is that it is run by cousins of Elon Musk. I don't blame him for wanting to get in on the racket.
I recently discovered, that my VoIP-provider had the history of my calls from ever since I opened the account 7 years ago. It is conveniently searchable and downloadable in several spreadsheet-formats.
I suppose, when I get to writing down my memoirs, it will come very handy, but it is a little irksome in the mean time. I doubt, I can turn it off or somehow request the records to be removed — I would be the first to object to any legislation forcing people to forget anything.
Could someone help this poor immigrant out? Are racial quotas a bad thing now? Just a few months ago, I was told, it is a very good and useful thing, but TFA seems to frown on it...
Yeah, those nasty right wing AmeriKKKan$ underfunding Britain's biggest ISP?..
With sufficient funding, government can make anything "fantastic". The point is, competing private companies inevitably offer even better service for the same money.
Maybe, you are hanging out with a healthier crowd. Canadians certainly do cross the Southern border for healthcare.
And while you complain about sabotage of government-provided services, American healthcare system is an example of government's sabotage of private industry. What, for example, is the reason, I can not purchase a health-insurance policy from a different state? Capitalism works, when there is competition — after eliminating/reducing it to the point of mono- or duopolies in each state, the Illiberal Statists will claim: "market failure"! And transform American health-care into a bigger and uglier version of the VA hospital system.
Maybe, you are a Socialist, who'd like the government to be in charge of everything. But if you aren't, then I'm at a loss as to why you'd want them to take over the Internet-service provision and health-care, but not, for example, food-distribution or automobile-production.
If "White Lives Matter" is racist, then so is "Black Lives Matter". This is an inescapable conclusion, however you may try to rationalize it.
But I included several other examples of non-White racism, which remains alive and well on Twitter. AmiMojo suggested above, that that is simply because no one has filed a formal complaint against these other racists — the notion I ridicule in this subthread.
But I get it, you simply think crackas are all inherently racist, while no coloreds ever could be.
That's simply because they haven't tried a Single-Payer Provider — that's where the ultimate happiness resides.
Whatever it was is irrelevant. Whether or not there was a formal complaint against him — that's my question. And I suspect rather strongly, the answer is "no".
And yet, AmiMojo demands just such a complaint before action can be taken — in his opinion — against non-White racists and other far-Left harassers.
They obviously do let racist hate groups use their service — only the White racists are targeted.
Is it entirely their business? I would've said so too, but now, after Facebook got into trouble for selectively advertising to different races, I'm not so sure...
Raising the bar, aren't you? Do you sincerely doubt, Twitter would've waited for someone to file a formal complaint before permanently banning anyone calling for murder of the President-elect Clinton?
Do you know, who filed such a complaint against Milo, when the "dangerous faggot" was banned by Twitter?
Dual standard much?
Being "private company" is, obviously, not enough of a defense, as Facebook just found out the hard way, for example. Evidently, some violent hate-groups — such as BLM and the rest of the "anti-Trump" crowd — are more equal than others.
Has Twitter banned any of accounts calling for an assassination of the President-elect? For killing all White people? Obviously not.
But, hey, it is a private company... Maybe. A good illustration on why "hate speech" must remain legal — because any enforcer will be just as biased as Twitter is proving themselves to be.
Huh? The 16th year of this century (and millennium) is still ongoing, what are they talking about? Even it does end "the hottest", it would still be one (the last so far) out of the 16 years.
Unless you include year 2000, which was, of course, the last year of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium, not the first of 21st and 3rd respectively...
Are we supposed to take scientific advice from people, who can't count beyond ten without taking their shoes off?
German and Italian governments today are alright. Though I'm appalled by their position on the so called "hate speech", it is still Ok in my opinion to cooperate with their police.
No "maybes" here — it obviously is their position. And I argue, that it is a foolish one.
Whether it should may be for the FBI, CIA, et all to decide. But it is certainly not unethical for the companies to cooperate in easing police access to the already public data.
The test is very simple: could millions of police officers watching millions of Twitter feeds in their browsers and taking notes legally collect the data? Yes. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in automating the same job. The same test applies to license-plate readers and other creative use of video-cameras, BTW — sad, but true.
So, you would have the police abolished, right? Fine, at least, you are self-consistent so far. But Twitter's management, it is safe to assume, does not — and yet, they don't want to cooperate with them either.
Non-sequitur.
There are places in the world, where the government is evil and remains in power not thanks to the sincere will of the governed, but by force of arms and other coercion. In such countries law enforcement organizations (such as the already-mentioned KGB) are used for oppression and should, indeed, be abolished. No cooperation with them is ethical. Even there, however, cooperation with institutions charged only with investigations of real crimes (murders, theft, rape) would be Ok — if it were possible to discern these institutions from each other, which is a separate topic...
The US is not (yet?) such a country in my humble opinion. But, if Twitter's management disagrees, then they should, indeed, call for abolition of the FBI and/or CIA to be self-consistent.
Orwell's Big Brother watched people in private. We are talking here about public data — stuff people willingly and enthusiastically post on Twitter.
How is our "moral authority" threatened in this case? I'm not saying, FBI should be able to compel firms into cooperation. My point is, it is foolish for the companies to deliberately cripple authorities whose work they do not oppose in general.
Indeed, there is not — not in this case. At least, I don't see any — and if you do, you forgot to mention it.
So, you do advocate for abolition of the two agencies?
Funny, whenever I point out this remoteness and unruliness of the government in conversations about things like public transport or public schools, your kind always claim, government is easily approachable and responsive to taxpayers — and therefore is better positioned to provide these services, than competing private corporations would be.
But, when it comes to law enforcement — which is something, that private corporations can not be trusted with due to an obvious conflict of interest — you turn around and turn into the exact opposite. Suddenly, government agencies become both evil and uncontrollable.
Only after you write to yours about Department of Education, deal?
My concern is, it is unduly difficult for the CIA (though not yet for the FBI) to get that data in real time. They can scrape Twitter's web-site, because it is public, but that is not as easy and introduces obvious latency.
Unless you sincerely advocate for abolition of the CIA and FBI, you should help them do their jobs. They are paid with our taxes — Twitter's included — the easier it is for them to access messages, the less money they require.
The tweets captured by the firehose are public anyway. The API simply eases access to it, so why cripple the lawmen of your own country?