By resources, you mean share their poles and conduits? Yes.
As to rates I feel are reasonable... I would consider a rate of 1 billion zillion dollars per foot to be unreasonable.
Would you agree?
And really, a better way of dealing with that conflict of interest is to have them sell the poles or conduits to a neutral third party with no conflict of interest. They will set whatever rate they want to charge for pole/conduit lease space. And ANYONE that runs cable will have to pay the same rate based on how much cable they're running.
that would keep the rates reasonable because charging the little companies lots of money would mean the big companies have to pay lots of money as well which is not in their interest.
You're not thinking about this constructively.
Consider roads. What if only one company were allowed to put cars on the road and they would rent you a car to drive on their roads. But you could only drive on their roads if you bought one of their cars. That is basically what is going on with cable these days.
That isn't capitalism.
We have cable monopolies because of a dysfunction in the market. Saying that that is a healthy market is at best ignorant.
No it can't in most cases. Century Link and Google have both been complaining about cities that won't let them run cable.
your argument is either that century link and google are lying or that they're not competent enough to file this paperwork.
neither argument is credible. Sorry. You're wrong.
There are entrenched interests in many municipalities that will not permit right of way of cable. They just won't. Often they've signed exclusive contracts with some other company and they're contractually obligated to not let your run cable.
This has been discussed on this site repeatedly. It is basically common knowledge at this point.
why don't you know common knowledge? Why are you forcing me to explain it to you? Why will you now feel entitled to be snippy with me when you've been putting me through that?
Questions for the ages.
In any case, since your information is horribly off I'm not that interested in going any further with you.
As to your points on the corporate labs, you're still agreeing that the issue is not the corporate labs. So we can comfortably focus on where the issue lies.
I'm not interested in the excuses for it. I want constructive solutions. Finger pointing, shrugging, and other political horseshit is not in the common interest.
As to personality screening, no... I did not specify how I would screen people. I said what my intention with the screening would be but I did not offer a method.
The distinction would be saying you want to kill someone versus saying you want to snipe them in the face with a high powered sniper rifle using a trained marksman in a ghili suit.
or saying you want to eat some food versus saying you want to eat at that new french place and eat the muscles you like so much.
See the difference? What you did was take my statement that I wanted to screen out people with poor integrity and inferred a method by which I would do that.
I stated no method.
Ideally, we should try a few different methods and see which of them has empirically results. That is always a nice way to do things but it is especially fitting for this context. So the method should be something that is empirically proven to actually work under repeatable circumstances.
if you'd like me to suggest something I'd like to try first... okay.
1. The barium meal test. This is done in intelligence circles. The idea is to leak little bits of information to various people but to leak totally different bits of information. And when the bad information is leaked to the enemy you know who leaked it because you only gave it to that one person. In science we could do a reverse barium meal system where we could make it seem like it would be very easy to get away with some kind of academic fraud that wouldn't be found but the whole thing would be a set up or a sting. You could have certain bits of research that should be followed up on to be cited properly provided. And when they use them and don't realize the citation is entirely fictitious... that could be a nice way of figuring out if people are actually making any kind of effort. You could put bogus references in the literature that are known to be bad. And then when you see them cited you know that the person did not actually read what they're citing but rather copied a citation from somewhere else and applied it.
2. The IRS subjects a largely random set of returns to intensive audits. There can be red flags that will trigger audits regardless but a certain number of seemingly innocent returns are subjected to audits. It is not practical to go through every study and every paper with a fine toothed comb. However, you can do it with a small number of them. If you randomly select a small number to this kind of audit it increases the perceived risk of fraud because whether or not you'll be audited will not be predictable.
I have a lot of other ideas with prove track records in criminal investigations, fraud prevention, and covert counter intelligence.
I am not a stupid person and I am not ignorant.
I should stress again that I have no firm solutions here because I would need to actually do some experimentation with various ideas before I had real confidence in any specific approach. Anything I hung my hat on would have empirical confirmation of effectiveness.
And assuming I had that... how could you possibly argue against an approach that was proven to work?
The only thing I am asking for is the ability to TRY to fix it.
Saying nothing can be done is something you neither can know and is also not productive because it is just defeatist pessimism.
Also, note that because you're all ACs... I have no idea if you're just the last guy sockpuppeting. So I don't take your commentary seriously unless you've logged in.
ACs really can't presume to comment on anyone else's conduct on the site because they're so anonymous that they could be making racist rants one moment and then complaining about someone not being nice the next.
Its not credible.
Either get on topic or don't comment as AC. The issue is not about you or your precious feelings. I don't care. Truly. Not even a little.
As to whomever owns the poles or conduit, I'm not saying they shouldn't be compensated for permitting someone to run cable. Be reasonable about it. But do not obstruct it either.
Here people say "but it would be messy with all those wires"... it won't be messy if it is just a couple companies doing it. If it is a lot more than that, then you'll be collecting enough money in fees to convert from poles to conduits at which point the way it looks will be irrelevant.
As to private developments allowing people to lay cable... depends. They often are in exclusive agreements to only let company X run cable.
Here is the thing, what would it cost in materials to run fiber from your house to the trunk? If you're in a major city, then you're usually less than a couple miles from place you could click right into the backbone. what does a couple miles of fiber cable cost? Peanuts.
The reason we have so much dark fiber is because they determined that the labor was more expensive than the cable so they just installed way more than they needed so they could just exploit unused cable for years instead of having to go out and lay more every few years.
The cable is cheap.
The labor is also pretty cheap.
The thing holding it back is that you're literally on pain of getting shot in the face not allowed to do it.
Stop stopping people from running cable and we'll all have gigabit internet by christmas.
As to jesters, that's nonsense. The various lords in the oligarchy which is actually what any feudal kingdom is... will of course tell the king when they think he's wrong.
That does not mean they'll do it disrespectfully. And the various protocols etc for that will shift from one king to the next.
As to this notion that the king will tolerate a jester contradicting him on political matters... No. In that setting, the jester's job is to DISTRACT the king from stressful matters. Which means if he brings up things bothering him that the king does not want to talk about... it will not be appreciated.
What is more, this reference has no baring on our current society.
We have freedom of speech. Nothing stops you from saying someone else is wrong. So you hardly need some fool to do it for you.
Really, your entire line of reasoning is just depressing. You're apparently some person that got comfortable getting their news from the daily show or something which is basically the news for idiots.
It is ENTERTAINMENT. If you HONESTLY think that is news, I pity you.
I'm not interesting in indulging your political biases as they are not relevant in this case... which is typical since they're rarely relevant. Though you do seem determined to inflict them on everyone.
I am not saying the corporate labs are great. I'm just saying that the science rot we're seeing is not coming out of the corporate labs.
I gave a theory as to why that was... you won't like that because you think all things corporate are evil. So lets not get into that. But the problem of bad science is concentrated quite strongly in universities and government funded labs. That is simply a fact. We could go over the last 10 or so science scandals and they'd all be from those labs.
Now am I saying that government labs are inherently bad?
Not at all. And since it is your misapprehension in this matter to kneejerk in that direction, I am correcting that and telling you very plainly that I have no problem with government labs.
However, there are some problems coming out of them and some reform would be in the interest of everyone. Especially the government labs because if they do not reform their credibility is going to start to take hits.
I can go through a big list of issues where various scientific departments have been coopted by politicians etc and which dramatically damages the credibility of the department.
It is as a great man once said "cargo cult science"... it presents the seeming of science... the seeming of logic... but is it? And the thing is that only people that are genuine can really tell one from the other.
While this will sound terribly retrograde and classist... the issue is that we have a lot of sleazy people in positions of trust. Sleazy people are not going to behave themselves under any system.
A community is not just defined by those in it but those not permitted to join it. Some sort of integrity check should be put on the system and those that are clearly only interested in money or power or attention should be kicked out. Those interested in actually doing a real science... humble though it often is... should be the only ones on the pay roll.
I speak of public universities only. Private universities and corporations can do whatever they want. But if you're taking the public coin then the public has a right to insist on integrity. What private individuals want to do with their own money is their own business.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem. That is where this fungus has grown. The corporations are too goal oriented to get side tracked by this sort of thing. And the private universities are likely just as vulnerable as the public ones but their credibility is their problem and not one anyone else needs to worry about.
Even if you strip away the fluff there is too much. You have to pick and choose what you're going to investigate and what you're not.
Furthermore, the fluff is interesting to a lot of people so you have to report that as well. You do NOT have to investigate it though.
As to comedians being better at the news... no. Comedians are as good at science as they are at reporting the news.
They talk about what they think is funny and what will get the crowd on their side.
Let us say that something is happening that the crowd doesn't want to hear about or which the crowd is going to be irrational about?
Lets say the local government is spending too much money and they'll either need to cut services or increase taxes. Pretty common... notice how the comedians don't talk about that?
You've sadly fallen into the trap of thinking the daily show is an actual news program.
I didn't make a strawman up. I just showed how dumb your position was... and we are done. You can either correct your position and maybe I'd be able to look at it without rolling my eyes. But short of that... we're done.
... because that won't go anywhere and we can drop the whole subject.
People enter the careers they want to enter and they don't enter the careers they don't.
Why do you even want women in tech? I see no outcry for women to enter industrial mining or the lumber industry...
Here someone will say "but those require physical strength"... not really. Mining is increasingly being done with robots or very large machines. No one in the first world is going into a mine shaft with a pickaxe to chip rock.
And even if they were, if feminists are pushing women to be marines and special forces people then clearly the physical aspect is not something that daunts them in all cases.
And as to lumber... again, there are plenty of jobs using big machines that don't take any strength to use really.
So why this insistence on coding for women when they clearly aren't interested in it?
Listen, a lot of coding involves sitting alone and explaining things to a computer in extreme technical detail. There is very little socialization in it. And the computer isn't going to appreciate your social skills any more than your semi autistic coworkers. You're going to sit there... alone... arguing with a computer. And whether you're good or bad is going to be determined on little more than how logical and rational you are. I'm not saying women aren't logical or rational... but they tend to get burned out if that is how they have to think and operate 100 percent of the time. Some women can handle that without a problem. And some women are better at it then most men.
But most women are not. And since we're talking about statistics, it is unlikely you're ever going to get real parity here.
Here is what we need... "equal opportunity"... be willing to hire women or men with the same qualifications. But do not favor either. And don't worry about whether your office is 100 percent one gender or the other. It doesn't matter. What matters is IF you would be just as happy to hire either gender if they have the right skills.
Take the special forces issue above... if I were a general, I'd be just as happy to allow a given woman into the special forces IF she passed the same tests the men passed. If she does... she's in. And she'll there after have to keep passing the same tests the men pass.
Basically, you need to be gender blind. You judge things on an individual by individual basis and put the mission first.
If I'm running a coding outfit, then my issue is not your vagina or penis. My issue is the code. If you can code and you don't cause problems for my organization, then welcome to the team.
If you either suck at coding or you're a problem maker... then fuck off. I don't need you screwing up my operation.
People can't change that radically. However the tech is going to be designed differently. That argument that happened before snowden where someone would tell the security expert he was being paranoid... that will go differently.
Corporate America is also taking the security more seriously. After Target and Sony they're starting to understand that they have to take this seriously... or else.
Hmmm... they help for sure, but feminists are not enough. Bill does more for her than the feminists do. The feminists for example would be happier with some feminist professor getting crowned queen of the universe. But they're settling for the wife of an ex president.
Furthermore feminists of any politically active kind make up a very small portion of the total voting block. They couldn't get anyone elected without allying with a larger political coalition that would ultimately dwarf their interests.
I consider any power able to blow up the world with nuclear bombs on the whim of one man to be a powerful interest.
I'm not debating that with you. If you think the US federal government is not powerful then we have nothing more to say on the matter. That position is too stupid to be taken seriously.
Break people up by ability, inclination, learning style, etc.
Fracture the classroom so that the teachers are dealing with as uniform a student as possible each class. Make sure the teacher knows what they've been given, and then make sure the teacher is trained in how best to educate those students in whatever subject is being taught.
That works. It has been shown to work repeatedly.
Throwing a random collection of people of varying abilities, backgrounds, ambitions, etc into a class room, and then having the teacher lecture them by route giving them some multiple choice scantron tests every quarter has been shown to not work.
Grit is besides the point. The students that are high functioning are being held back by the low functioning students. And the low functioning students can't get the remedial help they need because that wouldn't be appropriate for the class with the high functioning students. And the kids in the middle are subjected to something they don't need either.
And that is just ONE spectrum that shows how students can be in the wrong classrooms.
Now in a small town, you can't afford to have a million different class rooms for every kind of kid. But in big cities you can.
First, break schools up based on the sorts of kids that are going to them. It really might not even make sense to put the high functioning kids even in the same school as the low functioning kids. Some school districts already have schools like this... "magnet schools"... the idea being that you put the kids that are actually trying and are not horribly behind in one school and you keep the kids that are self destructing somewhere else.
Second, instead of just warehousing the kids that are falling behind, you need to get them back up to speed. And it has to be understood that because they're behind they're going to have to go FASTER to make up for lost time. That means MORE time in school. We keep hearing about how these kids have unstructured home lives and get into trouble after school. Easy solution. Keep them at school longer. Apparently there are some discipline issues. You can't beat the kids which was the traditional response to some brat challenging an adult in authority. But we can absolutely expel kids that are trouble makers. Not out of all the schools... but violent kids that are behind shouldn't frustrate the efforts of NORMAL kids that just happen to be behind from catching up. So put the violent kids somewhere that they're not going to interfere with anyone else.
Third, saving the really bad cases is going to be very hard. But if they're all concentrated as much as possible then maybe you can create a school program that actually gives them a chance because it is specifically designed to help them and no one else.
Fourth, the high functioning kids should be given every opportunity to go as far and as fast as they can. If they want to get their GED at ten then let them do that. People might cite social problems but that's unavoidable. If you're that much smarter than your peers and that driven then you're going to be very different period.
Beyond all of that, something should be done to permit various schools to try things, experiment, and have a certain amount of flexibility as to how they handle things. When everything is micromanaged from the school district's head quarters the principles become little more than minor managers or a larger franchise... instead of being the CEOs/presidents of the school... able to make big decisions or even little ones without getting permission from the school board every time.
I had a teacher that that raised money to build a new marque for the school. A big digital sign. The school board was taking FOREVER to approve it. So she just told the construction crew she had approval and they built it over one weekend.
Everyone came in the next day and she said "if you don't want a FREE marque, then I'll have it torn out of the ground. Otherwise, hook up the power because I'm over it."
Wrong. You're conflating reality with his argument.
If I say "something is not credible because I said so"... that is not a falsifiable argument. Non-falsifiable arguments are fallacious.
If I instead said "something is not credible because they said X = 2 when it was later found out that X = 3" then THAT would be something we could examine and would be an argument that was at least based on some kind of logic. And that logic could be validated or disproven.
But simply saying something is not credible because... because... is bullshit.
On top of that... we're talking about a raw data dump.
A raw fucking data dump.
Either explain how you bias a raw data dump in any kind of sustainable way... I mean, if they removed or changed emails or added one... it is going to be found out pretty much instantly and they're going to take a beating for that.
I think you know damn well they did nothing of the kind. First, they don't need to. Second, while they have political leanings they haven't lied about anything so far as I know... the WSJ has one of the better journalistic records of any paper anywhere. The NYTs has been caught in some very nasty journalistic ethics issues over the years as have many other papers. CIte one the WSJ got into of any significance?
But beyond that, it is a raw data dump. And simply saying a raw data dump is fallacious because the aren't sucking your favorite politician's cock... is itself worthy of intellectual contempt.
As to what I believe, that doesn't actually matter in this context. The point is to the issue. And on the issue, my point was to undermine what is the dogma of our time.
As to your belief that you can psychoanalyze me over such grammatical nitckery... No. I just reject that point and really you can't sustain a counter argument on this basis.
So drop it or make even less sense than you do already.
As to defending my theory... I don't need to.
And if I were so inclined, I would need to do a serious study on the issue which would take months to years.
I'm not doing that.
Here you'll make the stupid argument that if I don't do that my position falls apart and thus the reigning dogma must be assuemd to be correct. No. If I can show that the reigning dogma doesn't address certain variables than it is instantly less credible.
This is why scientists in REAL fields of science go to extreme length to account for all sorts of little things because they know that those little things can turn out to be hugely significant.
What was the difference between Newton's theories of gravitation and relativity? As I remember it was a tiny discrepency in some orbital mechanics and something about the speed of light. I mean, the actual scientific evidence that backed up that complete change to our understanding of physics. All of it in what was in Newton's time a minor discrepency in the data.
And before that, the difference between the Helocentric model and the geocentric model was again a discrepency in the orbits of planets. The difference wasn't especially obvious to previous generations because they lacked the precision tools to carry out accurate enough observations for the discrepency to be made clear.
Now, I expect you're the sort of person that cares more about winning an argument than actually being right. Your sort likes to play rhetorical games and devolve in various kinds of sophistry. And that's fine if you're playing with someone that doesn't know any better. But your fixation on the grammar outs you as someone that is arguing in BAD faith. And that being the case, that changes the way any intelligent person is going to deal with you.
Here are the facts.
You know what my position is... if you didn't before than you do now.
I do NOT have to validate my theory to carry forward my central thesis which is that this whole gender sex discrimination whine we've been bombarded with over the last year or so is HORSESHIT.
I have counter theories for most of the issues that are easily as credible as anything they're pushing. Have I faked up studies like they have? No I haven't. If I did it, I'd do actual science and that would take actual effort. I could of course just misrepresent some existing statistics like they do all the time. That would be easy. I could fake up something in an afternoon. Fraud is easy. And its even easier when no one audits your bullshit. Which is sadly what people like YOU permit to happen by being gullible credulous dupes.
Now since I'm quite certain that we have nothing further to say to each other of any productive nature...
So your entire complaint is about an ultimately meaningless difference in grammar?
*laughs histerically*
*weeps giddy tears while continuing to chuckle*... Alright... So *chuckles a bit more*... Let us just say I retroactively change that phrase to the one you prefer... you do realize that my argument doesn't change noticably but you lose the ability to argue against my position on those grounds... right?
You're basically attacking me with a house of cards.
So lets just say I do that... I just change it to that other phrase because god knows we have to do what the grammar nazis say... and now apparenlty you're fine with my position?
And never mind that I said things repeatedly after that point that contradicted your impression of my position. Thus rendering your fixation on that turn of phrase when it comes in contradiction to later corrections... well... utterly absurd.
Please tell me you have something more to hang your argument on than that... because if that is "it"... then my god you're a funny little munchkin.
"not without a significant investment" that needs to be defined.
As to why I'm being upvoted or downvoted... that is a fickle thing and not especially meaningful. I generally maintain an excellent rating but every so often I ruffle some faction's feathers and a whole gaggle of halfwits start dog piling.
Generally it is on some political issue. I'll say something, and they'll jump on an ideological bandwaggon and attack me.
And really, I don't care.
most of the people arguing against me are doing so as devout members of the church of political environmentalism. And as such they can be relied upon to be a raging group of zealots. I find them to be generally ignorable.
I said repeatedly for example that I was just fine with banning the micro beads. And yet nearly every comment against me said "we need to ban them" or "why are you not for banning them" or something of that nature. Which merely proved they didn't read or understand what I said.
That those same sorts of people are downvoting means the downvotes are utterly meaningless because they're votes cast by idiots. When I said that, people like you took offense to that. Because we can't have people calling idiots idiots... that would hurt the feelings of idiots after all.
Now. If the microbeads are getting through... what else is getting through? That is my actual question if you had half the wits the gods gave a ground squirrel.... you could think about that.
Are you even able to think expansively about an issue or are you good for nothing more than being led around by the nose by your political masters and then sicked on their enemies like a dog?
Because the people arguing against me in this thread all fell into that category. It is why I stopped responding. I was getting dog piled by morons. And that made me lose interest and so I walked away.
Now, if we assume that something else gets through... what might that be and maybe we need to think about that as well?
A lot of things are getting through water treatment plants that are not being filtered out. Medications for example that people are peeing out and then are winding up in the food chain or otherwise getting back into the water supply. I believe there was diabeties drug that was causing sexual problems for a fish?
There is a lot going on in that water that needs to get fixed. Your entire position is that water treatment practices are sufficient and the path forward is to just ban things from the water that we can't remove.
The problem with that little gem of an idea is that it won't happen. Take the medication... do you think you're going to ban medication that winds up in the water? Think again.
Which means you have two choices. You can either upgrade the water treatment facilities to deal with a much broader range of issues or release contaminated water.
Period.
Anyone that doesn't know this is either ignorant or stupid.
First, the older generation does not have that facility. Are you implying that the older generation could fix their own personal blender or something of nature? Because they didn't. They took it to a repairman or bought another one.
Second, the older generation absolutely thinks the computers are sealed magic boxes. Ever showed a 75 year old how to use a computer? Give me a break.
Third, yes there are a lot halfwits in the new generation but all things are relative. The fact is that they're more fluent in this tech than the previous generation. And if you think the kids are bad you have NO IDEA how bad their parents are with this stuff much less their grand parents.
If you're talking about my topic then you are talking about the context I proposed.
And that pulls you RIGHT back into my argument... thus nullifying all the shit about "you're not talking about what I said" etc.
You're either in or you're out.
You just said above you were out... and so I responded that you're off topic then. Now you're saying you're back in... which means my point to you becomes relevant again.
Which is it? Zero or One?
Since you apparently want back in... I'm going to assume you want to be in my context again.
Within my context, I am arguing AGAINST a theory on the basis that there are many other equally plausible counter theories.
As such the theory being proposed is not conclusive.
You say "where is the proof for your theory"... I don't need to offer ANY.
AT
FUCKING
ALL.
None.
All I have to do is cite it and show that it needs to be isolated for in any further studies to prove the other theory.
Absent isolating for the those other issues, you can't conclusively cite sexism.
That's all.
And absent that, the entire attack on the tech world for being sexist is specious.
Period.
The gender wage gap is bullshit. Its been bullshit since at least the 1970s when the theory was first proposed. It was shown statistically at that time to be false. And all rigorous evaluations of the issue since have confirmed the original audit of the issue.
The only time the wage gape ever appears is when people mishandle the data. And as to the discrimination suits... I'm sure that there is discrimination somewhere. But they're specific to given companies or employers. There is no systemic bias against women in any of the fields being suggested at this point.
None in science and none in tech. In fact, if anything, there is a bias against men. That has been statistically shown a couple times in academia specifically.
But really, most pay gaps are the result of conflating two different jobs.
If tom gets paid more than Jane that does not mean that Jan is getting underpaid. It is generally the case that Tom is doing more work, harder work, or doing an entirely different job.
I've seen statistics that conflate women working as secretaries at coal mines with the actual men that go into the mine to mine coal. Think about that. No. Stop and think about the level of sloppiness required to conflate those two jobs. Then appreciate that that sort of conflation is systemic in the data analysis of many gender labor statistics. Process that that automatically makes them almost worthless. Then process that that has been the case since at least the 1970s. Then process that the same tired bullshit is trotted out again and again when it is known to be bullshit. Then process that the people trotting it out tend to have major conflicts of interest such as political interests in pushing a given agenda or money interests.
This issue is bullshit.
Ask a specific question and I'll address it. Unlike the people that push this shit, I am not an intellectual coward. I will defend my position and I will engage with people to find common intellectual ground. Or if there is none.. I will drive them off the mound and push them into the mud of disgrace.
That is the best means humans have ever found to separate truth from sophistry. You can always tell the liars by looking for the people that ban comments, don't answer questions, or suggest that anyone that disagrees with them about some fact must be morally bad.
I won't do that. So if you want to keep playing... so be it. But understand, I am under NO obligation to prove a given theory when I am simply showing that another theory has not proven itself. Citing that theory in that context is merely me showing that a given theory has not been proven. I do not need to prove a counter theory to undermine theirs. I merely need to define it and show that it is plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
By resources, you mean share their poles and conduits? Yes.
As to rates I feel are reasonable... I would consider a rate of 1 billion zillion dollars per foot to be unreasonable.
Would you agree?
And really, a better way of dealing with that conflict of interest is to have them sell the poles or conduits to a neutral third party with no conflict of interest. They will set whatever rate they want to charge for pole/conduit lease space. And ANYONE that runs cable will have to pay the same rate based on how much cable they're running.
that would keep the rates reasonable because charging the little companies lots of money would mean the big companies have to pay lots of money as well which is not in their interest.
You're not thinking about this constructively.
Consider roads. What if only one company were allowed to put cars on the road and they would rent you a car to drive on their roads. But you could only drive on their roads if you bought one of their cars. That is basically what is going on with cable these days.
That isn't capitalism.
We have cable monopolies because of a dysfunction in the market. Saying that that is a healthy market is at best ignorant.
No it can't in most cases. Century Link and Google have both been complaining about cities that won't let them run cable.
your argument is either that century link and google are lying or that they're not competent enough to file this paperwork.
neither argument is credible. Sorry. You're wrong.
There are entrenched interests in many municipalities that will not permit right of way of cable. They just won't. Often they've signed exclusive contracts with some other company and they're contractually obligated to not let your run cable.
This has been discussed on this site repeatedly. It is basically common knowledge at this point.
why don't you know common knowledge? Why are you forcing me to explain it to you? Why will you now feel entitled to be snippy with me when you've been putting me through that?
Questions for the ages.
In any case, since your information is horribly off I'm not that interested in going any further with you.
Good day.
As to your points on the corporate labs, you're still agreeing that the issue is not the corporate labs. So we can comfortably focus on where the issue lies.
I'm not interested in the excuses for it. I want constructive solutions. Finger pointing, shrugging, and other political horseshit is not in the common interest.
As to personality screening, no... I did not specify how I would screen people. I said what my intention with the screening would be but I did not offer a method.
The distinction would be saying you want to kill someone versus saying you want to snipe them in the face with a high powered sniper rifle using a trained marksman in a ghili suit.
or saying you want to eat some food versus saying you want to eat at that new french place and eat the muscles you like so much.
See the difference? What you did was take my statement that I wanted to screen out people with poor integrity and inferred a method by which I would do that.
I stated no method.
Ideally, we should try a few different methods and see which of them has empirically results. That is always a nice way to do things but it is especially fitting for this context. So the method should be something that is empirically proven to actually work under repeatable circumstances.
if you'd like me to suggest something I'd like to try first... okay.
1. The barium meal test. This is done in intelligence circles. The idea is to leak little bits of information to various people but to leak totally different bits of information. And when the bad information is leaked to the enemy you know who leaked it because you only gave it to that one person. In science we could do a reverse barium meal system where we could make it seem like it would be very easy to get away with some kind of academic fraud that wouldn't be found but the whole thing would be a set up or a sting. You could have certain bits of research that should be followed up on to be cited properly provided. And when they use them and don't realize the citation is entirely fictitious... that could be a nice way of figuring out if people are actually making any kind of effort. You could put bogus references in the literature that are known to be bad. And then when you see them cited you know that the person did not actually read what they're citing but rather copied a citation from somewhere else and applied it.
2. The IRS subjects a largely random set of returns to intensive audits. There can be red flags that will trigger audits regardless but a certain number of seemingly innocent returns are subjected to audits. It is not practical to go through every study and every paper with a fine toothed comb. However, you can do it with a small number of them. If you randomly select a small number to this kind of audit it increases the perceived risk of fraud because whether or not you'll be audited will not be predictable.
I have a lot of other ideas with prove track records in criminal investigations, fraud prevention, and covert counter intelligence.
I am not a stupid person and I am not ignorant.
I should stress again that I have no firm solutions here because I would need to actually do some experimentation with various ideas before I had real confidence in any specific approach. Anything I hung my hat on would have empirical confirmation of effectiveness.
And assuming I had that... how could you possibly argue against an approach that was proven to work?
The only thing I am asking for is the ability to TRY to fix it.
Saying nothing can be done is something you neither can know and is also not productive because it is just defeatist pessimism.
Really? Quote where I was as rude in this thread.
Do so now.
Also, note that because you're all ACs... I have no idea if you're just the last guy sockpuppeting. So I don't take your commentary seriously unless you've logged in.
ACs really can't presume to comment on anyone else's conduct on the site because they're so anonymous that they could be making racist rants one moment and then complaining about someone not being nice the next.
Its not credible.
Either get on topic or don't comment as AC. The issue is not about you or your precious feelings. I don't care. Truly. Not even a little.
As to whomever owns the poles or conduit, I'm not saying they shouldn't be compensated for permitting someone to run cable. Be reasonable about it. But do not obstruct it either.
Here people say "but it would be messy with all those wires"... it won't be messy if it is just a couple companies doing it. If it is a lot more than that, then you'll be collecting enough money in fees to convert from poles to conduits at which point the way it looks will be irrelevant.
As to private developments allowing people to lay cable... depends. They often are in exclusive agreements to only let company X run cable.
Here is the thing, what would it cost in materials to run fiber from your house to the trunk? If you're in a major city, then you're usually less than a couple miles from place you could click right into the backbone. what does a couple miles of fiber cable cost? Peanuts.
The reason we have so much dark fiber is because they determined that the labor was more expensive than the cable so they just installed way more than they needed so they could just exploit unused cable for years instead of having to go out and lay more every few years.
The cable is cheap.
The labor is also pretty cheap.
The thing holding it back is that you're literally on pain of getting shot in the face not allowed to do it.
Stop stopping people from running cable and we'll all have gigabit internet by christmas.
If a PhD were sufficient then we wouldn't have this problem. We do so it isn't.
And since your initial point was idiotically wrong and you're being rude, I'm going to just stop there.
Have a nice day and go fuck yourself. ;)
As to jesters, that's nonsense. The various lords in the oligarchy which is actually what any feudal kingdom is... will of course tell the king when they think he's wrong.
That does not mean they'll do it disrespectfully. And the various protocols etc for that will shift from one king to the next.
As to this notion that the king will tolerate a jester contradicting him on political matters... No. In that setting, the jester's job is to DISTRACT the king from stressful matters. Which means if he brings up things bothering him that the king does not want to talk about... it will not be appreciated.
What is more, this reference has no baring on our current society.
We have freedom of speech. Nothing stops you from saying someone else is wrong. So you hardly need some fool to do it for you.
Really, your entire line of reasoning is just depressing. You're apparently some person that got comfortable getting their news from the daily show or something which is basically the news for idiots.
It is ENTERTAINMENT. If you HONESTLY think that is news, I pity you.
Good day.
I'm not interesting in indulging your political biases as they are not relevant in this case... which is typical since they're rarely relevant. Though you do seem determined to inflict them on everyone.
I am not saying the corporate labs are great. I'm just saying that the science rot we're seeing is not coming out of the corporate labs.
I gave a theory as to why that was... you won't like that because you think all things corporate are evil. So lets not get into that. But the problem of bad science is concentrated quite strongly in universities and government funded labs. That is simply a fact. We could go over the last 10 or so science scandals and they'd all be from those labs.
Now am I saying that government labs are inherently bad?
Not at all. And since it is your misapprehension in this matter to kneejerk in that direction, I am correcting that and telling you very plainly that I have no problem with government labs.
However, there are some problems coming out of them and some reform would be in the interest of everyone. Especially the government labs because if they do not reform their credibility is going to start to take hits.
I can go through a big list of issues where various scientific departments have been coopted by politicians etc and which dramatically damages the credibility of the department.
I'll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
... to cable conduits and poles. So other companies could lay cable.
That's the issue.
It is as a great man once said "cargo cult science"... it presents the seeming of science... the seeming of logic... but is it? And the thing is that only people that are genuine can really tell one from the other.
While this will sound terribly retrograde and classist... the issue is that we have a lot of sleazy people in positions of trust. Sleazy people are not going to behave themselves under any system.
A community is not just defined by those in it but those not permitted to join it. Some sort of integrity check should be put on the system and those that are clearly only interested in money or power or attention should be kicked out. Those interested in actually doing a real science... humble though it often is... should be the only ones on the pay roll.
I speak of public universities only. Private universities and corporations can do whatever they want. But if you're taking the public coin then the public has a right to insist on integrity. What private individuals want to do with their own money is their own business.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem. That is where this fungus has grown. The corporations are too goal oriented to get side tracked by this sort of thing. And the private universities are likely just as vulnerable as the public ones but their credibility is their problem and not one anyone else needs to worry about.
No, its investigative journalism. Not all journalism is investigative.
Even if you strip away the fluff there is too much. You have to pick and choose what you're going to investigate and what you're not.
Furthermore, the fluff is interesting to a lot of people so you have to report that as well. You do NOT have to investigate it though.
As to comedians being better at the news... no. Comedians are as good at science as they are at reporting the news.
They talk about what they think is funny and what will get the crowd on their side.
Let us say that something is happening that the crowd doesn't want to hear about or which the crowd is going to be irrational about?
Lets say the local government is spending too much money and they'll either need to cut services or increase taxes. Pretty common... notice how the comedians don't talk about that?
You've sadly fallen into the trap of thinking the daily show is an actual news program.
It isn't... May god have mercy on your soul. :D
I didn't make a strawman up. I just showed how dumb your position was... and we are done. You can either correct your position and maybe I'd be able to look at it without rolling my eyes. But short of that... we're done.
... because that won't go anywhere and we can drop the whole subject.
People enter the careers they want to enter and they don't enter the careers they don't.
Why do you even want women in tech? I see no outcry for women to enter industrial mining or the lumber industry...
Here someone will say "but those require physical strength"... not really. Mining is increasingly being done with robots or very large machines. No one in the first world is going into a mine shaft with a pickaxe to chip rock.
And even if they were, if feminists are pushing women to be marines and special forces people then clearly the physical aspect is not something that daunts them in all cases.
And as to lumber... again, there are plenty of jobs using big machines that don't take any strength to use really.
So why this insistence on coding for women when they clearly aren't interested in it?
Listen, a lot of coding involves sitting alone and explaining things to a computer in extreme technical detail. There is very little socialization in it. And the computer isn't going to appreciate your social skills any more than your semi autistic coworkers. You're going to sit there... alone... arguing with a computer. And whether you're good or bad is going to be determined on little more than how logical and rational you are. I'm not saying women aren't logical or rational... but they tend to get burned out if that is how they have to think and operate 100 percent of the time. Some women can handle that without a problem. And some women are better at it then most men.
But most women are not. And since we're talking about statistics, it is unlikely you're ever going to get real parity here.
Here is what we need... "equal opportunity"... be willing to hire women or men with the same qualifications. But do not favor either. And don't worry about whether your office is 100 percent one gender or the other. It doesn't matter. What matters is IF you would be just as happy to hire either gender if they have the right skills.
Take the special forces issue above... if I were a general, I'd be just as happy to allow a given woman into the special forces IF she passed the same tests the men passed. If she does... she's in. And she'll there after have to keep passing the same tests the men pass.
Basically, you need to be gender blind. You judge things on an individual by individual basis and put the mission first.
If I'm running a coding outfit, then my issue is not your vagina or penis. My issue is the code. If you can code and you don't cause problems for my organization, then welcome to the team.
If you either suck at coding or you're a problem maker... then fuck off. I don't need you screwing up my operation.
End of issue.
There is too much news to cover the slow way exclusively.
You need at best a hybrid system with some aspect of the system being a firehose.
As to this all being corporate media's fault... can you give me a counter non-corporate media example that is better?
People can't change that radically. However the tech is going to be designed differently. That argument that happened before snowden where someone would tell the security expert he was being paranoid... that will go differently.
Corporate America is also taking the security more seriously. After Target and Sony they're starting to understand that they have to take this seriously... or else.
Hmmm... they help for sure, but feminists are not enough. Bill does more for her than the feminists do. The feminists for example would be happier with some feminist professor getting crowned queen of the universe. But they're settling for the wife of an ex president.
Furthermore feminists of any politically active kind make up a very small portion of the total voting block. They couldn't get anyone elected without allying with a larger political coalition that would ultimately dwarf their interests.
I consider any power able to blow up the world with nuclear bombs on the whim of one man to be a powerful interest.
I'm not debating that with you. If you think the US federal government is not powerful then we have nothing more to say on the matter. That position is too stupid to be taken seriously.
Break people up by ability, inclination, learning style, etc.
Fracture the classroom so that the teachers are dealing with as uniform a student as possible each class. Make sure the teacher knows what they've been given, and then make sure the teacher is trained in how best to educate those students in whatever subject is being taught.
That works. It has been shown to work repeatedly.
Throwing a random collection of people of varying abilities, backgrounds, ambitions, etc into a class room, and then having the teacher lecture them by route giving them some multiple choice scantron tests every quarter has been shown to not work.
Grit is besides the point. The students that are high functioning are being held back by the low functioning students. And the low functioning students can't get the remedial help they need because that wouldn't be appropriate for the class with the high functioning students. And the kids in the middle are subjected to something they don't need either.
And that is just ONE spectrum that shows how students can be in the wrong classrooms.
Now in a small town, you can't afford to have a million different class rooms for every kind of kid. But in big cities you can.
First, break schools up based on the sorts of kids that are going to them. It really might not even make sense to put the high functioning kids even in the same school as the low functioning kids. Some school districts already have schools like this... "magnet schools"... the idea being that you put the kids that are actually trying and are not horribly behind in one school and you keep the kids that are self destructing somewhere else.
Second, instead of just warehousing the kids that are falling behind, you need to get them back up to speed. And it has to be understood that because they're behind they're going to have to go FASTER to make up for lost time. That means MORE time in school. We keep hearing about how these kids have unstructured home lives and get into trouble after school. Easy solution. Keep them at school longer. Apparently there are some discipline issues. You can't beat the kids which was the traditional response to some brat challenging an adult in authority. But we can absolutely expel kids that are trouble makers. Not out of all the schools... but violent kids that are behind shouldn't frustrate the efforts of NORMAL kids that just happen to be behind from catching up. So put the violent kids somewhere that they're not going to interfere with anyone else.
Third, saving the really bad cases is going to be very hard. But if they're all concentrated as much as possible then maybe you can create a school program that actually gives them a chance because it is specifically designed to help them and no one else.
Fourth, the high functioning kids should be given every opportunity to go as far and as fast as they can. If they want to get their GED at ten then let them do that. People might cite social problems but that's unavoidable. If you're that much smarter than your peers and that driven then you're going to be very different period.
Beyond all of that, something should be done to permit various schools to try things, experiment, and have a certain amount of flexibility as to how they handle things. When everything is micromanaged from the school district's head quarters the principles become little more than minor managers or a larger franchise... instead of being the CEOs/presidents of the school... able to make big decisions or even little ones without getting permission from the school board every time.
I had a teacher that that raised money to build a new marque for the school. A big digital sign. The school board was taking FOREVER to approve it. So she just told the construction crew she had approval and they built it over one weekend.
Everyone came in the next day and she said "if you don't want a FREE marque, then I'll have it torn out of the ground. Otherwise, hook up the power because I'm over it."
These organizations are o
Wrong. You're conflating reality with his argument.
If I say "something is not credible because I said so"... that is not a falsifiable argument. Non-falsifiable arguments are fallacious.
If I instead said "something is not credible because they said X = 2 when it was later found out that X = 3" then THAT would be something we could examine and would be an argument that was at least based on some kind of logic. And that logic could be validated or disproven.
But simply saying something is not credible because... because... is bullshit.
On top of that... we're talking about a raw data dump.
A raw fucking data dump.
Either explain how you bias a raw data dump in any kind of sustainable way... I mean, if they removed or changed emails or added one... it is going to be found out pretty much instantly and they're going to take a beating for that.
I think you know damn well they did nothing of the kind. First, they don't need to. Second, while they have political leanings they haven't lied about anything so far as I know... the WSJ has one of the better journalistic records of any paper anywhere. The NYTs has been caught in some very nasty journalistic ethics issues over the years as have many other papers. CIte one the WSJ got into of any significance?
But beyond that, it is a raw data dump. And simply saying a raw data dump is fallacious because the aren't sucking your favorite politician's cock... is itself worthy of intellectual contempt.
As to what I believe, that doesn't actually matter in this context. The point is to the issue. And on the issue, my point was to undermine what is the dogma of our time.
As to your belief that you can psychoanalyze me over such grammatical nitckery... No. I just reject that point and really you can't sustain a counter argument on this basis.
So drop it or make even less sense than you do already.
As to defending my theory... I don't need to.
And if I were so inclined, I would need to do a serious study on the issue which would take months to years.
I'm not doing that.
Here you'll make the stupid argument that if I don't do that my position falls apart and thus the reigning dogma must be assuemd to be correct. No. If I can show that the reigning dogma doesn't address certain variables than it is instantly less credible.
This is why scientists in REAL fields of science go to extreme length to account for all sorts of little things because they know that those little things can turn out to be hugely significant.
What was the difference between Newton's theories of gravitation and relativity? As I remember it was a tiny discrepency in some orbital mechanics and something about the speed of light. I mean, the actual scientific evidence that backed up that complete change to our understanding of physics. All of it in what was in Newton's time a minor discrepency in the data.
And before that, the difference between the Helocentric model and the geocentric model was again a discrepency in the orbits of planets. The difference wasn't especially obvious to previous generations because they lacked the precision tools to carry out accurate enough observations for the discrepency to be made clear.
Now, I expect you're the sort of person that cares more about winning an argument than actually being right. Your sort likes to play rhetorical games and devolve in various kinds of sophistry. And that's fine if you're playing with someone that doesn't know any better. But your fixation on the grammar outs you as someone that is arguing in BAD faith. And that being the case, that changes the way any intelligent person is going to deal with you.
Here are the facts.
You know what my position is... if you didn't before than you do now.
I do NOT have to validate my theory to carry forward my central thesis which is that this whole gender sex discrimination whine we've been bombarded with over the last year or so is HORSESHIT.
I have counter theories for most of the issues that are easily as credible as anything they're pushing. Have I faked up studies like they have? No I haven't. If I did it, I'd do actual science and that would take actual effort. I could of course just misrepresent some existing statistics like they do all the time. That would be easy. I could fake up something in an afternoon. Fraud is easy. And its even easier when no one audits your bullshit. Which is sadly what people like YOU permit to happen by being gullible credulous dupes.
Now since I'm quite certain that we have nothing further to say to each other of any productive nature...
I will say "good day, sir"
So your entire complaint is about an ultimately meaningless difference in grammar?
*laughs histerically*
*weeps giddy tears while continuing to chuckle* ... Alright... So *chuckles a bit more*... Let us just say I retroactively change that phrase to the one you prefer... you do realize that my argument doesn't change noticably but you lose the ability to argue against my position on those grounds... right?
You're basically attacking me with a house of cards.
So lets just say I do that... I just change it to that other phrase because god knows we have to do what the grammar nazis say... and now apparenlty you're fine with my position?
And never mind that I said things repeatedly after that point that contradicted your impression of my position. Thus rendering your fixation on that turn of phrase when it comes in contradiction to later corrections... well... utterly absurd.
Please tell me you have something more to hang your argument on than that... because if that is "it"... then my god you're a funny little munchkin.
"not without a significant investment" that needs to be defined.
As to why I'm being upvoted or downvoted... that is a fickle thing and not especially meaningful. I generally maintain an excellent rating but every so often I ruffle some faction's feathers and a whole gaggle of halfwits start dog piling.
Generally it is on some political issue. I'll say something, and they'll jump on an ideological bandwaggon and attack me.
And really, I don't care.
most of the people arguing against me are doing so as devout members of the church of political environmentalism. And as such they can be relied upon to be a raging group of zealots. I find them to be generally ignorable.
I said repeatedly for example that I was just fine with banning the micro beads. And yet nearly every comment against me said "we need to ban them" or "why are you not for banning them" or something of that nature. Which merely proved they didn't read or understand what I said.
That those same sorts of people are downvoting means the downvotes are utterly meaningless because they're votes cast by idiots. When I said that, people like you took offense to that. Because we can't have people calling idiots idiots... that would hurt the feelings of idiots after all.
Now. If the microbeads are getting through... what else is getting through? That is my actual question if you had half the wits the gods gave a ground squirrel.... you could think about that.
Are you even able to think expansively about an issue or are you good for nothing more than being led around by the nose by your political masters and then sicked on their enemies like a dog?
Because the people arguing against me in this thread all fell into that category. It is why I stopped responding. I was getting dog piled by morons. And that made me lose interest and so I walked away.
Now, if we assume that something else gets through... what might that be and maybe we need to think about that as well?
A lot of things are getting through water treatment plants that are not being filtered out. Medications for example that people are peeing out and then are winding up in the food chain or otherwise getting back into the water supply. I believe there was diabeties drug that was causing sexual problems for a fish?
There is a lot going on in that water that needs to get fixed. Your entire position is that water treatment practices are sufficient and the path forward is to just ban things from the water that we can't remove.
The problem with that little gem of an idea is that it won't happen. Take the medication... do you think you're going to ban medication that winds up in the water? Think again.
Which means you have two choices. You can either upgrade the water treatment facilities to deal with a much broader range of issues or release contaminated water.
Period.
Anyone that doesn't know this is either ignorant or stupid.
Which are you?
First, the older generation does not have that facility. Are you implying that the older generation could fix their own personal blender or something of nature? Because they didn't. They took it to a repairman or bought another one.
Second, the older generation absolutely thinks the computers are sealed magic boxes. Ever showed a 75 year old how to use a computer? Give me a break.
Third, yes there are a lot halfwits in the new generation but all things are relative. The fact is that they're more fluent in this tech than the previous generation. And if you think the kids are bad you have NO IDEA how bad their parents are with this stuff much less their grand parents.
If you're talking about my topic then you are talking about the context I proposed.
And that pulls you RIGHT back into my argument... thus nullifying all the shit about "you're not talking about what I said" etc.
You're either in or you're out.
You just said above you were out... and so I responded that you're off topic then. Now you're saying you're back in... which means my point to you becomes relevant again.
Which is it?
Zero or One?
Since you apparently want back in... I'm going to assume you want to be in my context again.
Within my context, I am arguing AGAINST a theory on the basis that there are many other equally plausible counter theories.
As such the theory being proposed is not conclusive.
You say "where is the proof for your theory"... I don't need to offer ANY.
AT
FUCKING
ALL.
None.
All I have to do is cite it and show that it needs to be isolated for in any further studies to prove the other theory.
Absent isolating for the those other issues, you can't conclusively cite sexism.
That's all.
And absent that, the entire attack on the tech world for being sexist is specious.
Period.
The gender wage gap is bullshit. Its been bullshit since at least the 1970s when the theory was first proposed. It was shown statistically at that time to be false. And all rigorous evaluations of the issue since have confirmed the original audit of the issue.
The only time the wage gape ever appears is when people mishandle the data. And as to the discrimination suits... I'm sure that there is discrimination somewhere. But they're specific to given companies or employers. There is no systemic bias against women in any of the fields being suggested at this point.
None in science and none in tech. In fact, if anything, there is a bias against men. That has been statistically shown a couple times in academia specifically.
But really, most pay gaps are the result of conflating two different jobs.
If tom gets paid more than Jane that does not mean that Jan is getting underpaid. It is generally the case that Tom is doing more work, harder work, or doing an entirely different job.
I've seen statistics that conflate women working as secretaries at coal mines with the actual men that go into the mine to mine coal. Think about that. No. Stop and think about the level of sloppiness required to conflate those two jobs. Then appreciate that that sort of conflation is systemic in the data analysis of many gender labor statistics. Process that that automatically makes them almost worthless. Then process that that has been the case since at least the 1970s. Then process that the same tired bullshit is trotted out again and again when it is known to be bullshit. Then process that the people trotting it out tend to have major conflicts of interest such as political interests in pushing a given agenda or money interests.
This issue is bullshit.
Ask a specific question and I'll address it. Unlike the people that push this shit, I am not an intellectual coward. I will defend my position and I will engage with people to find common intellectual ground. Or if there is none.. I will drive them off the mound and push them into the mud of disgrace.
That is the best means humans have ever found to separate truth from sophistry. You can always tell the liars by looking for the people that ban comments, don't answer questions, or suggest that anyone that disagrees with them about some fact must be morally bad.
I won't do that. So if you want to keep playing... so be it. But understand, I am under NO obligation to prove a given theory when I am simply showing that another theory has not proven itself. Citing that theory in that context is merely me showing that a given theory has not been proven. I do not need to prove a counter theory to undermine theirs. I merely need to define it and show that it is plausible.