And that's why people call atheism a religion... because Christians et al won't abandon what they know to be "truth" either.
If you think any human brain is capable of accurately and consistently discerning truth, I have news for you....
> A key difference here is that I find it hard to believe that you could ever rally thousands of atheists to riot under the pretense that the god they don't believe in has been insulted (or not sufficiently insulted).
What about "the Catholic church is poisoning the world, let's kill its leaders"? That's something many atheists might idly think, even if they'd never do it. With the right set of circumstances, atheists could commit murder, genocide, etc. just like Christians etc. have. One thing lacking is a formal structure to provide leadership which, as another commenter mentioned, isn't far out of the realm of possibility given atheist meetup groups. Not to mention the reverence some atheists seem to hold for Dawkins, and the possible substitution of nationalism and other things.
The basic idea is that people are people and beliefs are both tools for manipulating and excuses for basic instincts and behaviours. You're a biological machine driven by thousands of years of evolution and your post was as inevitable as my reply. Shit happens, simply because of the way people are. Evolution would seem to dictate that we're more likely to survive if we mitigate the negative aspects of human behavior so, yeah, I support the elimination of dogma. But dogma isn't the cause, people are the cause, and farther down the line *the fucking universe* is the cause.
That's a broad version of the definition of "atheism" that is certainly not the common definition held by most people who describe themselves as atheists. "Atheists" may mean "not-theists" but in reality most people use the term to refer to a belief in the non-existence of gods.
I was under the impression that this was already an extremely well known impact of neglect (or conversely, attention). That said, comparing only two brains is completely meaningless. The margin of error is off the charts. And how were the children selected? Probably exactly because of the contrast between them.
"A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers,"
That assumes their isn't a single cross-platform virus out there, which I highly doubt. Absolutism is stupid, even if there really isn't much risk from some browser/Java/whatever cross-platform bug.
They have a better track record for not being targeted. That comes with a smaller market share. You can't objectively evaluate security, since you don't know how or when/if things will be exploited, but the general consensus in the security community seems to be that OSX has more security holes that Windows 7. Windows is just targeted more because it's more economical.
So yeah, sure, the expected value of using Mac over "PC" is currently more personal security due to less exposure to attacks. But that doesn't mean that OSX itself is more secure.
Imagining a situation in which the analogy isn't perfect is easy; it's an analogy. If it were exactly like the actual situation then it wouldn't be an analogy, it would just be us talking about the actual situation. The point is that Macs aren't immune to viruses. There are probably browser-delivered Java viruses containing code for both Mac and Windows (although undoubtedly few of them, possibly just proof of concept, etc.) so the claim that "Macs are immune to Windows viruses" is less than truthful as well.
Got a couple 6950's recently for ~$250 each and they've been great for games and videos. One was an older rev that crashed the driver, but Diamond replaced it with no questions asked and the new one works fine. For games that support Crossfire I get basically the performance of a 6990 for 2/3rds the price, and alternative frame rendering isn't too bad for other games either (I can play SWTOR on full settings at 1080p with no issues).
So, are ATI* cards competitive** again, or is this simply reframing the debate in their favor? I don't really have any idea.
** Please don't talk to me about AMD, they suck and the graphics division is still basically independent. ** Both in terms of top performance, and cost for given performance levels.
It's obivous in hindsight, you tool. That's the whole point. I didn't see buttloads of commenters claiming that Google should centralize their services before they were centralized, so forgive me for not believing it was obvious to you all.
How is that relevant? They made a mistake -- a very obvious mistake, if not necessarily important -- and tried to hide it until it became a PR nightmare. The fact that they overcame it and the did most everything else right doesn't change what happened.
No, it's very clear what circumvent means in a legal context, which is exactly the regular definition of the word. As precendent shows clearly, bypassing = circumventing.
The summary doesn't mention why the internet might be responsible. From TFA:
The first hypothesis I propose is that Internet culture supports a belief in a meritocratic environment [9], which has been linked, ironically, to an increase in biased behavior [10] as it provides moral cover for prejudiced beliefs. Encountering overt, covert or benevolent sexism undermines both women’s performance and interest [11]. Even if such beliefs were prevalent in professional spaces before the Internet, as masculine gender performance is common, aggressive and publicly visible in online forums [12] women no longer have to be the target of such behavior themselves before college in order to associate it with the industry and choose an alternative career.
The second hypothesis is that the Internet encourages a sense of belonging [13] to the masculinized culture of software development [14], which alienates many women [15] by causing them to feel excluded from a camaraderie-focused profession [16]. Again, while this culture may have existed before the Internet, women with Internet access are likely to encounter such attitudes earlier and more frequently. To the best of my knowledge, whether the Internet has changed the culture of computing itself, either in America or internationally, is an outstanding question.
TL;DR The internet is dominated by sexist men, which discourages women from getting involved in related fields.
This is a pretty interesting idea, and one that I'm inclined to ascribe some level of truth. I'm not too sure what we can do about it, though, other than continue the push for people to stop being so damned prejudiced.
Why would the exclude foreign heathens from their laws? In the hopes that a journalist's exposé would provoke the US into bombing the crap out of them? No:P
Slashdot Mirror
And that's why people call atheism a religion ... because Christians et al won't abandon what they know to be "truth" either.
If you think any human brain is capable of accurately and consistently discerning truth, I have news for you....
> A key difference here is that I find it hard to believe that you could ever rally thousands of atheists to riot under the pretense that the god they don't believe in has been insulted (or not sufficiently insulted). What about "the Catholic church is poisoning the world, let's kill its leaders"? That's something many atheists might idly think, even if they'd never do it. With the right set of circumstances, atheists could commit murder, genocide, etc. just like Christians etc. have. One thing lacking is a formal structure to provide leadership which, as another commenter mentioned, isn't far out of the realm of possibility given atheist meetup groups. Not to mention the reverence some atheists seem to hold for Dawkins, and the possible substitution of nationalism and other things. The basic idea is that people are people and beliefs are both tools for manipulating and excuses for basic instincts and behaviours. You're a biological machine driven by thousands of years of evolution and your post was as inevitable as my reply. Shit happens, simply because of the way people are. Evolution would seem to dictate that we're more likely to survive if we mitigate the negative aspects of human behavior so, yeah, I support the elimination of dogma. But dogma isn't the cause, people are the cause, and farther down the line *the fucking universe* is the cause.
This is brilliant.
That's a broad version of the definition of "atheism" that is certainly not the common definition held by most people who describe themselves as atheists. "Atheists" may mean "not-theists" but in reality most people use the term to refer to a belief in the non-existence of gods.
Feminism and rich people? What?
I was under the impression that this was already an extremely well known impact of neglect (or conversely, attention). That said, comparing only two brains is completely meaningless. The margin of error is off the charts. And how were the children selected? Probably exactly because of the contrast between them.
He didn't even do that, though, he said it's going through regardless of what they want.
How is that even related?
What do you mean "let"? Why on Earth can't some people go to Mars if other people pay them to go?
I have a dozen or so former classmates working at Microsoft and they had 2 on-site interviews max.
Damn it, missed a / in my closing block. I was not trying to doublequote myself :P
"A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers,"
That assumes their isn't a single cross-platform virus out there, which I highly doubt. Absolutism is stupid, even if there really isn't much risk from some browser/Java/whatever cross-platform bug.
They have a better track record for not being targeted. That comes with a smaller market share. You can't objectively evaluate security, since you don't know how or when/if things will be exploited, but the general consensus in the security community seems to be that OSX has more security holes that Windows 7. Windows is just targeted more because it's more economical.
So yeah, sure, the expected value of using Mac over "PC" is currently more personal security due to less exposure to attacks. But that doesn't mean that OSX itself is more secure.
Imagining a situation in which the analogy isn't perfect is easy; it's an analogy. If it were exactly like the actual situation then it wouldn't be an analogy, it would just be us talking about the actual situation. The point is that Macs aren't immune to viruses. There are probably browser-delivered Java viruses containing code for both Mac and Windows (although undoubtedly few of them, possibly just proof of concept, etc.) so the claim that "Macs are immune to Windows viruses" is less than truthful as well.
Got a couple 6950's recently for ~$250 each and they've been great for games and videos. One was an older rev that crashed the driver, but Diamond replaced it with no questions asked and the new one works fine. For games that support Crossfire I get basically the performance of a 6990 for 2/3rds the price, and alternative frame rendering isn't too bad for other games either (I can play SWTOR on full settings at 1080p with no issues).
So, are ATI* cards competitive** again, or is this simply reframing the debate in their favor? I don't really have any idea.
** Please don't talk to me about AMD, they suck and the graphics division is still basically independent.
** Both in terms of top performance, and cost for given performance levels.
Lol, just like Congress has eliminated spam email, amirite?
It's obivous in hindsight, you tool. That's the whole point. I didn't see buttloads of commenters claiming that Google should centralize their services before they were centralized, so forgive me for not believing it was obvious to you all.
How is that relevant? They made a mistake -- a very obvious mistake, if not necessarily important -- and tried to hide it until it became a PR nightmare. The fact that they overcame it and the did most everything else right doesn't change what happened.
No, it's very clear what circumvent means in a legal context, which is exactly the regular definition of the word. As precendent shows clearly, bypassing = circumventing.
The first hypothesis I propose is that Internet culture supports a belief in a meritocratic environment [9], which has been linked, ironically, to an increase in biased behavior [10] as it provides moral cover for prejudiced beliefs. Encountering overt, covert or benevolent sexism undermines both women’s performance and interest [11]. Even if such beliefs were prevalent in professional spaces before the Internet, as masculine gender performance is common, aggressive and publicly visible in online forums [12] women no longer have to be the target of such behavior themselves before college in order to associate it with the industry and choose an alternative career.
The second hypothesis is that the Internet encourages a sense of belonging [13] to the masculinized culture of software development [14], which alienates many women [15] by causing them to feel excluded from a camaraderie-focused profession [16]. Again, while this culture may have existed before the Internet, women with Internet access are likely to encounter such attitudes earlier and more frequently. To the best of my knowledge, whether the Internet has changed the culture of computing itself, either in America or internationally, is an outstanding question.
TL;DR The internet is dominated by sexist men, which discourages women from getting involved in related fields.
This is a pretty interesting idea, and one that I'm inclined to ascribe some level of truth. I'm not too sure what we can do about it, though, other than continue the push for people to stop being so damned prejudiced.
Why would the exclude foreign heathens from their laws? In the hopes that a journalist's exposé would provoke the US into bombing the crap out of them? No :P
Mod parent up. His useful explanation is overshadowed only by the in-depth article he linked to.
Did I reply to the vampire post?
Maybe we could just scan for the racist gene and postnatally abort all of you.