You can't reason with craziness like that, so mental health professionals can't help.
What these people need to do is go to the Midwest and find a completely abandoned town, and move there. Then no one will care, and everyone else will be glad to be rid of them. There's lots of abandoned towns in the midwest.
True, but there's a bit of a difference. Someone with PTSD could very well have that disease (which is a mental illness) due to traumatic experiences, such as being in combat. You can't just wish that away, at least until they develop memory-erasing technology like in the movie "Paycheck". Similarly, someone with severe anxiety disorder may have that problem because of (or have it greatly exacerbated by) various life experiences, too much stress, etc. Not everyone is rich enough to just go take a nice, long vacation and relax.
Someone who gets sick because of WiFi (even when the WiFi device is turned off and they don't realize this) is doing it to themselves; it hasn't been done to them. It's another version of hypochondria, and a lot like religion. With people with PTSD or anxiety disorder, there's things you can do to help them: give them counseling to help deal with their traumatic memories, do things to make their lives easier so they can de-stress, etc. There's nothing you can do for one of these wifi-hypochondriacs, because it's all based on their irrational belief about EM fields, which you can't change using logic and reason; similarly there's nothing you can do for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old, or they're infested with Body Thetans or demons, because these beliefs can't be changed with logic and reason, they're completely irrational.
As long as he's getting paid well, why should he change? (Unless something better comes along of course.) This isn't his personal computer, it's his work computer. If you have shitty software on your work PC and it causes problems, who cares; just call IT, and when your manager complains about slipped schedules you can blame the crapware and IT.
For personal stuff though, you can't blame others when flash fucks up your PC. So he should find another bank.
Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
Now compare that to going into the woods to cut down some trees that you can mold into uniform planks and then construct the shed from those.
Apples and oranges. We're not talking about reusing wood, or reusing anything in fact, we're talking about recycling. Reuse and recycling are two different things; reuse is when you take something already made and just use it again, either as-is or with some modifications. Recycling is where you create new materials from old materials, such as melting down old steel and creating new steel from it. You're talking basically about reuse. You can't really recycle wood, for the reasons you point out. You can try to reuse it, but with limited success usually. Some people have had good success reusing old wood (like from barns), re-milling it, and using it for other woodworking projects, usually at a much smaller scale. An example is taking apart an old barn and using the wood to make some tables. For a barn, you'd prefer big, long boards so there's fewer joints. For a table, you don't need anything that large, and you use glue and joinery to put it together anyway.
With plastics, the idea is you grind it up (after separating it into different plastic types, like HDPE, LDPE, or polypropylene) into pellets, and use these for making new things just like you'd use virgin plastic pellets. You probably don't want to use it for food containers, but you can use it for other stuff like park benches where a bit of contamination isn't a big problem.
Don't be ridiculous. Ferengi are too left-wing to be compared with American conservatives.
Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
He could just as easily live in an area full of white trash. I grew up in the South, and white southerners think nothing of throwing trash wherever they want. You can see it with all the yards full of old junked cars and other trash.
Your Android 2.2 likely does everything it did back when you thought it was all cool and new.
No, it doesn't. I have an older HTC phone and the thing is ridiculously slow. It wasn't like this when I bought it. I've complained a lot about it, and the standard response is to do a "factory reset". I've tried that and it makes zero difference; you can't actually wipe and reload the software on these phones the way you can with a PC.
Not only that, but older Android versions are filled with security holes (perhaps that's why it's so slow? Infected with malware?). These holes can't be fixed because no one feels like it: Google just tells you to upgrade to a newer version of Android, which of course means buying a new device because the phone maker refuses to support their devices with newer software.
If you were talking about a PC, you'd be correct for the most part, except that WinXP no longer gets security updates either, so it's unsafe to use on a network. But you can always load a brand-new version of Linux on an old PC and have a working computer, though it won't be quite as fast or power-efficient as the latest machines. And Win7 is supported for now and probably many years to come, and works on any hardware that's not too ancient, and if it gets infected with malware you can always wipe it and re-install it (or re-image it, which is much faster). You can't do any of this stuff easily with a phone; if you're lucky, you might be able to jump through a bunch of hoops to "unlock" it and "root" it so that you can do these things.
Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
It's really disturbing if that's the case too, because it shouldn't be that way. Raw materials, when mined, are not refined; you have to not only expend energy to move them to where you need them (frequently across or between continents), but you also have to expend more effort and energy to refine them and turn them into something useful (e.g., from crude oil into high-density polyethylene, a common plastic for food containers). With recycling, you bypass a lot of that, so it should be cheaper and more efficient: instead of going through all these refining steps, you just take some used HDPE, grind it up and/or melt it down, and make more HDPE containers out of it. Same goes for aluminum (where the energy needed for refining is very high), steel, glass, etc. And paper too: instead of chopping down lots of trees, just grind up old paper.
So if the economics are favoring using virgin raw materials instead of recycling existing refined materials, we're doing something really wrong.
Women simply don't have all the same interests as men, and don't have the muscle mass to do certain other jobs
Thanks to the invention of power tools, I can't think of many jobs any more which require a lot of muscle mass. The only thing offhand I can think of is being a bouncer (since they aren't allowed to use weapons).
Some of that; as several other people have said here now, the number of women hasn't actually changed much (as a percentage of the population), it's the number of men which has greatly risen. And yeah, I'll bet a bunch of them are sexist jerks, unlike in the old days.
Of course I think they should have the same opportunities, but as for interests, I was pointing out that the numbers had changed over time.
However, some other responders have pointed out that the data isn't so cut-and-dried: the number of women in CS as a percentage of the population is the same as before, but the number of men has risen a lot. So according to some, a lot of low-quality men have flooded the field (presumably for the paycheck, not out of interest), without the same rise in low-quality women.
It's not meaningless. While talking about it at work is probably a no-no in most workplaces, stuff like this can come up in casual conversation among friends and acquaintances. It's not like talking about sexual stuff.
But sure, people will on average react worse if you told them about lace. I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that it shows a huge amount of sexism in society, that it's OK for women to wear "male" clothes and no OK for men to wear "female" clothes. Basically, that indicates that women and femininity are seen as inferior to men and masculinity. In older societies, which were very sex-segregated, it was seen as equally bad for either sex to wear clothes normally associated with the opposite sex. Just like men weren't allowed to wear women's clothes, it was scandalous for women to wear men's clothes. It was like that in western society up to about a century ago or less. It wasn't that long ago that women who wore pants too much were looked down upon. Now it's all changed: women can wear anything from the male side of the aisle, but the opposite isn't true at all. Something's wrong there.
Yep, my wife complains about this from her childhood. Her stupid parents wouldn't let her have LEGOs or anything like that, and instead got her dolls and a crappy dollhouse which she hated. Now she refuses to (when house-hunting) look at houses that remind her of that dollhouse. She wanted erector-set-type toys, and she also loved airplanes. They wouldn't let her have anything like that. They wanted a daughter who they could show off to their social group, they didn't want a daughter who had a mind of her own. Now, many decades later, she completely despises them.
Good luck getting hired as a male ballerina. (They do have males in ballet, in fact they're generally desperate for them because so few men are interested, and a lot of ballets require both male and female performers, but they're not "ballerinas".)
They do have male fashion models too; those aren't rare at all. They don't get all the coverage and fame that females get, but designers do make clothes for men and there are runway models who show them, and there's a much larger industry of male models who appear in various advertising for men's clothes.
A better example might be preschool teachers. Men are actively dissuaded from that profession due to social stigma: men who are interested in being around young children are seen as pedophiles and probable child molesters.
Correction, it's on sites where there are declining revenue streams and the sites have to survive on clickbait
Again, no, it's not. Big tech companies and Bill Gates have been making a stink about this lately with various initiatives to get more girls into STEM, and the mainstream news has been picking it up.
The number of women in CS hasn't reduced as a percentage of the population but they have reduced as a relative ratio to men entering the domain
Now this is a very interesting data point here, which really should be publicized more.
Assuming this is true (I haven't checked your sources, but I'll assume you're correct), this means that more men are jumping into the field because of its earning potential than women, but they're largely low-quality graduates because they're not really in it out of interest. This is basically what we saw in the late 1990s with the web development craze.
So basically, the field has expanded greatly and lots of not-so-nerdy people have gone into it (because of the earning potential and because it beats working as a barista) because of the income potential and because it beats being a cashier, so the entire dynamics of the field have changed?
Well yes, some things have changed so it is important to compare apples to oranges. However the article specifically said CS programs, so that doesn't include data-entry type jobs or other IT jobs. But it does make me wonder if they're not accounting for other changes: for instance, back in the 80s there was no such thing as "Computer Engineering", but now that's a popular degree which combines parts of CS and EE; it only started being offered in the 1990s. A lot of people who would have gone into CS in 1985 probably instead went into CpE in 2005, so that should probably be looked at too. (Though I'm guessing the female:male ratio is even worse there than in CS.)
If you want information spoon-fed to you and chosen for you, then Reddit probably isn't the website for you. In fact, the Internet is not for you, because it allows you to choose which sites you want to visit or ignore. Maybe you should just watch Fox News on TV.
Reddit isn't some small, highly-focused website; it's an enormous discussion forum with over 250,000 different subforums. There's no way to have that much diversity without making people pick and choose what they want to see.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: these "electrosensitives" aren't willing to work that hard.
You can't reason with craziness like that, so mental health professionals can't help.
What these people need to do is go to the Midwest and find a completely abandoned town, and move there. Then no one will care, and everyone else will be glad to be rid of them. There's lots of abandoned towns in the midwest.
Most likely, she's related to someone important there, and/or she's very attractive and this is useful to the company for when visitors arrive.
True, but there's a bit of a difference. Someone with PTSD could very well have that disease (which is a mental illness) due to traumatic experiences, such as being in combat. You can't just wish that away, at least until they develop memory-erasing technology like in the movie "Paycheck". Similarly, someone with severe anxiety disorder may have that problem because of (or have it greatly exacerbated by) various life experiences, too much stress, etc. Not everyone is rich enough to just go take a nice, long vacation and relax.
Someone who gets sick because of WiFi (even when the WiFi device is turned off and they don't realize this) is doing it to themselves; it hasn't been done to them. It's another version of hypochondria, and a lot like religion. With people with PTSD or anxiety disorder, there's things you can do to help them: give them counseling to help deal with their traumatic memories, do things to make their lives easier so they can de-stress, etc. There's nothing you can do for one of these wifi-hypochondriacs, because it's all based on their irrational belief about EM fields, which you can't change using logic and reason; similarly there's nothing you can do for someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old, or they're infested with Body Thetans or demons, because these beliefs can't be changed with logic and reason, they're completely irrational.
As long as he's getting paid well, why should he change? (Unless something better comes along of course.) This isn't his personal computer, it's his work computer. If you have shitty software on your work PC and it causes problems, who cares; just call IT, and when your manager complains about slipped schedules you can blame the crapware and IT.
For personal stuff though, you can't blame others when flash fucks up your PC. So he should find another bank.
Now compare that to going into the woods to cut down some trees that you can mold into uniform planks and then construct the shed from those.
Apples and oranges. We're not talking about reusing wood, or reusing anything in fact, we're talking about recycling. Reuse and recycling are two different things; reuse is when you take something already made and just use it again, either as-is or with some modifications. Recycling is where you create new materials from old materials, such as melting down old steel and creating new steel from it. You're talking basically about reuse. You can't really recycle wood, for the reasons you point out. You can try to reuse it, but with limited success usually. Some people have had good success reusing old wood (like from barns), re-milling it, and using it for other woodworking projects, usually at a much smaller scale. An example is taking apart an old barn and using the wood to make some tables. For a barn, you'd prefer big, long boards so there's fewer joints. For a table, you don't need anything that large, and you use glue and joinery to put it together anyway.
With plastics, the idea is you grind it up (after separating it into different plastic types, like HDPE, LDPE, or polypropylene) into pellets, and use these for making new things just like you'd use virgin plastic pellets. You probably don't want to use it for food containers, but you can use it for other stuff like park benches where a bit of contamination isn't a big problem.
Don't be ridiculous. Ferengi are too left-wing to be compared with American conservatives.
He could just as easily live in an area full of white trash. I grew up in the South, and white southerners think nothing of throwing trash wherever they want. You can see it with all the yards full of old junked cars and other trash.
Your Android 2.2 likely does everything it did back when you thought it was all cool and new.
No, it doesn't. I have an older HTC phone and the thing is ridiculously slow. It wasn't like this when I bought it. I've complained a lot about it, and the standard response is to do a "factory reset". I've tried that and it makes zero difference; you can't actually wipe and reload the software on these phones the way you can with a PC.
Not only that, but older Android versions are filled with security holes (perhaps that's why it's so slow? Infected with malware?). These holes can't be fixed because no one feels like it: Google just tells you to upgrade to a newer version of Android, which of course means buying a new device because the phone maker refuses to support their devices with newer software.
If you were talking about a PC, you'd be correct for the most part, except that WinXP no longer gets security updates either, so it's unsafe to use on a network. But you can always load a brand-new version of Linux on an old PC and have a working computer, though it won't be quite as fast or power-efficient as the latest machines. And Win7 is supported for now and probably many years to come, and works on any hardware that's not too ancient, and if it gets infected with malware you can always wipe it and re-install it (or re-image it, which is much faster). You can't do any of this stuff easily with a phone; if you're lucky, you might be able to jump through a bunch of hoops to "unlock" it and "root" it so that you can do these things.
It's really disturbing if that's the case too, because it shouldn't be that way. Raw materials, when mined, are not refined; you have to not only expend energy to move them to where you need them (frequently across or between continents), but you also have to expend more effort and energy to refine them and turn them into something useful (e.g., from crude oil into high-density polyethylene, a common plastic for food containers). With recycling, you bypass a lot of that, so it should be cheaper and more efficient: instead of going through all these refining steps, you just take some used HDPE, grind it up and/or melt it down, and make more HDPE containers out of it. Same goes for aluminum (where the energy needed for refining is very high), steel, glass, etc. And paper too: instead of chopping down lots of trees, just grind up old paper.
So if the economics are favoring using virgin raw materials instead of recycling existing refined materials, we're doing something really wrong.
I don't get this at all. Is this because military men used to be the group that mainly had tattoos?
Yes, especially Navy enlistees I imagine.
Women simply don't have all the same interests as men, and don't have the muscle mass to do certain other jobs
Thanks to the invention of power tools, I can't think of many jobs any more which require a lot of muscle mass. The only thing offhand I can think of is being a bouncer (since they aren't allowed to use weapons).
Some of that; as several other people have said here now, the number of women hasn't actually changed much (as a percentage of the population), it's the number of men which has greatly risen. And yeah, I'll bet a bunch of them are sexist jerks, unlike in the old days.
Of course I think they should have the same opportunities, but as for interests, I was pointing out that the numbers had changed over time.
However, some other responders have pointed out that the data isn't so cut-and-dried: the number of women in CS as a percentage of the population is the same as before, but the number of men has risen a lot. So according to some, a lot of low-quality men have flooded the field (presumably for the paycheck, not out of interest), without the same rise in low-quality women.
It's not meaningless. While talking about it at work is probably a no-no in most workplaces, stuff like this can come up in casual conversation among friends and acquaintances. It's not like talking about sexual stuff.
But sure, people will on average react worse if you told them about lace. I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that it shows a huge amount of sexism in society, that it's OK for women to wear "male" clothes and no OK for men to wear "female" clothes. Basically, that indicates that women and femininity are seen as inferior to men and masculinity. In older societies, which were very sex-segregated, it was seen as equally bad for either sex to wear clothes normally associated with the opposite sex. Just like men weren't allowed to wear women's clothes, it was scandalous for women to wear men's clothes. It was like that in western society up to about a century ago or less. It wasn't that long ago that women who wore pants too much were looked down upon. Now it's all changed: women can wear anything from the male side of the aisle, but the opposite isn't true at all. Something's wrong there.
Yep, my wife complains about this from her childhood. Her stupid parents wouldn't let her have LEGOs or anything like that, and instead got her dolls and a crappy dollhouse which she hated. Now she refuses to (when house-hunting) look at houses that remind her of that dollhouse. She wanted erector-set-type toys, and she also loved airplanes. They wouldn't let her have anything like that. They wanted a daughter who they could show off to their social group, they didn't want a daughter who had a mind of her own. Now, many decades later, she completely despises them.
Good luck getting hired as a male ballerina.
(They do have males in ballet, in fact they're generally desperate for them because so few men are interested, and a lot of ballets require both male and female performers, but they're not "ballerinas".)
They do have male fashion models too; those aren't rare at all. They don't get all the coverage and fame that females get, but designers do make clothes for men and there are runway models who show them, and there's a much larger industry of male models who appear in various advertising for men's clothes.
A better example might be preschool teachers. Men are actively dissuaded from that profession due to social stigma: men who are interested in being around young children are seen as pedophiles and probable child molesters.
Correction, it's on sites where there are declining revenue streams and the sites have to survive on clickbait
Again, no, it's not. Big tech companies and Bill Gates have been making a stink about this lately with various initiatives to get more girls into STEM, and the mainstream news has been picking it up.
The number of women in CS hasn't reduced as a percentage of the population but they have reduced as a relative ratio to men entering the domain
Now this is a very interesting data point here, which really should be publicized more.
Assuming this is true (I haven't checked your sources, but I'll assume you're correct), this means that more men are jumping into the field because of its earning potential than women, but they're largely low-quality graduates because they're not really in it out of interest. This is basically what we saw in the late 1990s with the web development craze.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that's not the case here in this hypothetical scenario.
So basically, the field has expanded greatly and lots of not-so-nerdy people have gone into it (because of the earning potential and because it beats working as a barista) because of the income potential and because it beats being a cashier, so the entire dynamics of the field have changed?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Well yes, some things have changed so it is important to compare apples to oranges. However the article specifically said CS programs, so that doesn't include data-entry type jobs or other IT jobs. But it does make me wonder if they're not accounting for other changes: for instance, back in the 80s there was no such thing as "Computer Engineering", but now that's a popular degree which combines parts of CS and EE; it only started being offered in the 1990s. A lot of people who would have gone into CS in 1985 probably instead went into CpE in 2005, so that should probably be looked at too. (Though I'm guessing the female:male ratio is even worse there than in CS.)
I'm not so sure that's the same crowd.
Or any science article that didn't have Atheists bashing Christians.
If Christians didn't constantly insist that scientists are all "wrong" and that the Earth is 6000 years old, the "atheists" wouldn't do that.
If you want information spoon-fed to you and chosen for you, then Reddit probably isn't the website for you. In fact, the Internet is not for you, because it allows you to choose which sites you want to visit or ignore. Maybe you should just watch Fox News on TV.
Reddit isn't some small, highly-focused website; it's an enormous discussion forum with over 250,000 different subforums. There's no way to have that much diversity without making people pick and choose what they want to see.