Having lived all of my life in Chicago (and a year Michigan), the Lake Effect _is_ weather as I know it. And let me be the first to say, it really blows in the winter...
He has a number of good points, including that, in the long run, the current file system and similar data structures are untenable and irritating. The vast clutter of mish-mashed files from OS's of different eras, types, and files structures attests to that. However, he is also obviously not an engineer/practical computer scientist as he does not seem to realize the sheer improbability of what he is talking about in terms of anything that will happen before the 22nd century. Some of things that he appears to be talking about will require a much more sophisticated understanding of information and data storage and retrieval than we currently understand in practice, not to mention he seems to be stretching the body of modern physics, or is using extrememly poor analogies, I can't tell which. Also, has he got some 1984-esque double speak going or what? His insipid use of Cyber-[fill in the blank] at every turn w/ no deliniation of what these cyberobjects are/mean is amateurish and down right idiotic coming from a Yale computer scientist.
Why was this moderated to a (-1)? It's not the most well-thoughout argument, nor does it keep w/ Rand's philosophy in the slightest (neither Rand nor Peikoff or any of her little disciples would have agreed w/ this), but then, we have people posting stuff like, and I quote, "Suck my dick you raghead.." Given that, it seems a bit excessive to say this of all things desrves a negative rating.
I wouldn't go that far...It is true (at least as far as modern science seems to indicate) that biological differences have implications upon some psychological realms, it is not necessarily deterministic; i.e. it is not universally applicable to all individuals.
Not quite. Sex=biology Gender=psychology Though, assuming that all the women they interviewed were in women's bodies...then sex would be MORE accurate. Of course, if they were talking to women in men's bodies...well...I think that's another whole article...
I don't know that that's entirely correct. What you say was true, particularly at the HS I went to, where you were expected be both athletic AND academic. But, I think that in greater society, girls are under a greater pressure not to be intelligent. For example, if you're a guy its generally accepted that you're into gadgets, mechanical devices, be it cars or computers. If you also happen to play a sport, then you're really golden. However, it is not "socially acceptable" for girls to be inclined toward anything to do with math or technology. Just for the record, that kind of thinking really pisses me off. "Idiocy...never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"
Slashdot Mirror
Having lived all of my life in Chicago (and a year Michigan), the Lake Effect _is_ weather as I know it. And let me be the first to say, it really blows in the winter...
Why haven't you been moderated down to somewhere around -500? You idiot.
He has a number of good points, including that, in the long run, the current file system and similar data structures are untenable and irritating. The vast clutter of mish-mashed files from OS's of different eras, types, and files structures attests to that. However, he is also obviously not an engineer/practical computer scientist as he does not seem to realize the sheer improbability of what he is talking about in terms of anything that will happen before the 22nd century. Some of things that he appears to be talking about will require a much more sophisticated understanding of information and data storage and retrieval than we currently understand in practice, not to mention he seems to be stretching the body of modern physics, or is using extrememly poor analogies, I can't tell which. Also, has he got some 1984-esque double speak going or what? His insipid use of Cyber-[fill in the blank] at every turn w/ no deliniation of what these cyberobjects are/mean is amateurish and down right idiotic coming from a Yale computer scientist.
Just my thoughts on that.
Why was this moderated to a (-1)? It's not the most well-thoughout argument, nor does it keep w/ Rand's philosophy in the slightest (neither Rand nor Peikoff or any of her little disciples would have agreed w/ this), but then, we have people posting stuff like, and I quote, "Suck my dick you raghead.." Given that, it seems a bit excessive to say this of all things desrves a negative rating.
Quite Correct. and jsut for the record: The DOI was drafted in 1776, the Constitution in 1789 at the close of the convention.
I wouldn't go that far...It is true (at least as far as modern science seems to indicate) that biological differences have implications upon some psychological realms, it is not necessarily deterministic; i.e. it is not universally applicable to all individuals.
Not quite. Sex=biology Gender=psychology Though, assuming that all the women they interviewed were in women's bodies...then sex would be MORE accurate. Of course, if they were talking to women in men's bodies...well...I think that's another whole article...
I don't know that that's entirely correct. What you say was true, particularly at the HS I went to, where you were expected be both athletic AND academic. But, I think that in greater society, girls are under a greater pressure not to be intelligent. For example, if you're a guy its generally accepted that you're into gadgets, mechanical devices, be it cars or computers. If you also happen to play a sport, then you're really golden. However, it is not "socially acceptable" for girls to be inclined toward anything to do with math or technology. Just for the record, that kind of thinking really pisses me off. "Idiocy...never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"