Your continued delusion to be able to psychoanalyze someone through a few internet posts when someone that was actually trained would require multiple face to face sessions is frankly idiotic. You don't know how it works and apparently think you have super powers or something.
Regardless, this has grown tedious. You think one study that hasn't been repeated or deeply examined by anyone means you can morally judge millions of people.
I can think of various psychological and emotional conditions that would lead someone to such a position but I won't presume to read your mind any more then you could not possibly read mine. Regardless, it is absurd and intellectually indefensible without corroboration and analysis.
We have nothing more to say since you are under the impression that nothing more need be offered when obviously that is at best justification for further study.
If you wish to continue spouting off silly insults in the mistaken belief that it accomplishes something... go on... I may respond or not at a whim. However, the discussion is effectively over unless you acknowledge that you do not have definitive proof.
Lots of democracies fail, my friend. In fact, they tend to.
The most common and stable governments in history are tyrannies of one description or another.
Note that the celebrated author Orwell once said: ""If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.""
As to democracies being weak in war, it depends really. They are strong so long as they can be cohesive. Undermine the pillars of the republic or even dilute them and they can collapse.
Too many years of lying politicians, too many years of corruption, mix in some bad economics, etc... things can happen. How many Moroccans that want sharia law for example will it take before France cracks?
At some point they might just be able to peacefully vote western values out of existence. What then? Will you stand by democracy as your children are indoctrinated by state law into a faith you do not hold? Will you fight against millions of people that out number you enough to overwhelm you at the ballot box? Will you flee to another country that likely is not far from suffering the same fate?
The best defense the US has against such things is that we have very heavy immigration from south of our border. And those fine people for all their faults are generally Catholic and suffer not a touch of white guilt. In the end, they may be the saviors of western civilization if only because they don't suffer from the same neurotic and self destructive tendencies built up by the more traditionally western populations over the last century.
As to the number of countries in europe with higher voter participation as a result of compulsory voting... I take your correction. I was under the impression it was wider spread then I believed however I was in error.
As to why there is higher voter participation, I do not know why however I have found such questions to always be more complicated then they at first appear.
I do not know for example how these stats are being counted. Are you including illegal immigrants in one set of rolls and not another? Just an example of something that could tweak results.
As to educated people being more likely to vote I am quite certain that your education stats are including people in the US that are not being counted in Europe. The US is far more diverse then any country in Europe and a great deal of that diversity is immigration from other countries where people either would not consider a college education in the first generation. Or they sometimes do have a college education as was often the case from the former soviet union and their college education was not considered valid in the US.
I am furthermore noting what appears to be some bigotry on your part and I only tolerate so much of that before I will break off contact on the basis that you're a troll. So please do keep your bile to a constructive level. If you just go on some stupid anti american rant, I am going to ignore you.
As to your citation of tax policy, I fail to see the relevance. It is the socialists in any case that are passionate about progressive taxes. Simply saying those are good merely makes it more likely that you are a socialist. I fail to see why that is a point in your favor.
As to keystone, and liberal billionares fought against keystone while at the same time buying up rail companies in Canada which the oil was transported by because there was no pipeline. The rail transport of oil is much dirtier then pipe transport both because of spills and carbon output from engines.
So you're against republican billionaires because they are cleaner then liberal billionaires? See, you're so politically biased that the issues don't matter to you. They're just weapons that you try to cherry pick to win arguments but your knowledge is little more then a memorization of talking points. You know nothing. You're a puppet. A tool. An empty vessel someone smarter then you poured words into and on command you parrot them out as if you actually have a little thought in your empty little head. You are pathetic.
As to Reagan only helping the wealthy, the economy improved which helped everyone. Carter was fucking it up and everyone knows that.
As to republican party platform, if you'd like to address any specific element of it, then I'd be happy to debate it with you. However, expect an actual debate... with logic. Your foaming spittle doesn't intimidate me or seem at all convincing. So if you are able to actually have a civil discussion... game on. Otherwise, I expect you to run away.
As to not straddling the fence, that is not what I hold as respectable. Rather, I expect people to think for themselves. Saying you have chosen a side means you've also allowed a side to do your thinking for you.
I am sympathetic to certain political policies but I do not let them do my thinking for me. I am a fence sitter. I vote democrat sometimes and I vote republican others.
For example, I voted for Obama the first time and against him the second time. Why? Because I choose issues and people not parties. You are a primitive tribalist presuming to lecture me on the moralities of philosophical purity. You don't even know what you're talking about.
As to citizen's United, the ban on money did not include unions, and special interest groups. Just corporations. Your faction has more funny money sources that aren't corporations. So obviously you found a system that made it harder for your opposition to raise money while not as harshly impacting your own revenue streams. It was a crass political ploy.
I don't think one study is definitive. I think you have something that might need to be looked at but simply saying case closed after one study is presumptuous.
We don't know why those people did what they did. You're saying "sexism" but you don't know that.
And even if it were sexism, you don't know why they did it.
One thing that could be in there is a realistic appreciation that women often leave their careers to go raise children. Assuming this job we're talking about is a big deal and requires a big time investment by the people training you... is it unreasonable they are worried about a hired women leaving the job after a couple years?
Here you're going to call that sexism but that actually isn't sexism. Sexism must be an irrational bias. If it is a bias based on fact then it isn't bigotry.
I'm sorry, you're pushing a very offensive narrative on very thin grounds.
Any study like this has to be examined before I'm going to take it seriously. I've been unable to find any criticism or even analysis of it. Nothing. And that leaves me at a loss. I can't validate the thing if all I have is an abstract and a conclusion with no comment from their peers.
And again, even if the study were entirely sound that doesn't mean your conclusions are on target. And even if those conclusions are on target... they can be justified under certain circumstances.
And in any case, what you're showing here is a bias in academic research. I'll grant that but it isn't bias to keep people out of courses for CS. CS after all doesn't have positions like that in academia in the first place.
I was never suggesting anyone would go into a full scale war against europe.
I was rather saying that Europe wasn't going to attack anyone else.
Someone else said that europe might get agitated and lash out at the islamic world. I pointed out that won't happen.
So we're not talking about the same things. what is more, i said if the west goes down a good deal of it will go with a whimper rather then a bang. What happens is enough people that don't value french culture basically vote it out of existence? what then?
As to America's role as world police, we're quite tired of that and when we stop filling this roll other nations will fill the void. The old border wars will start. The British Empire suppressed this behavior and the US took up the torch from them.
When the US backs off and we will in the next generation... you are going to see unrest in the world unlike anything that has been seen in centuries. And the US hopefully will just watch.
You might not care about east asia... I suspect the Russians and Turks are more relevant to you. Between the Russians trying to get eastern europe back under their control and the middle east struggling to rebuild the Caliphate... By all means... pretend that Europe is capable of not getting involved.
My nation however is in the Americas. Our little island is quite safe from such nonsense.
As to Europe surviving things... you've never survived massive immigration. That's new. Your old kings and rulers never would have permitted it.
As to the soviets not being dead, it did die. The people running Russia are not the same people that were running it before. Putin would have been nothing under the old soviet system. He never would have held a position of national leadership. And most of the "oligarchs" were likewise nothing before the fall. Quite a few of them were just the first people to figure out how capitalism worked.
I watched a documentary about a fellow that was selling junk off a table in the middle of the snow before the fall. He's a billionaire now.
Keep in mind, I am not rooting for the destruction of your civilization. I am a friend as far as Europe has any friends. I want good things for your society. But your politicians are thinking very short term. Just until the next election. That is dangerous. In fairness our politicians in the US are doing the same thing. The difference is that we're less vulnerable.
They're in the open which is probably why they're fighting so hard. They were pretty subtle before this but... everyone has their number now. The trick will be just keeping your eyes out for it and not letting these people slip through with nonsense.
Exactly. Men work in all female environments on occasion and we don't cry to HR, the media, or some group of misguided social justice nitwits. We deal with it.
Because we're adults.
And the women that are also adults deal with it the same way. Because they're adults.
The people that have a hard time with stuff like this are behaving like children and deserve to be treated like children.
Unconscious bias is almost impossible to prove. So, good luck hunting down those unicorns.
As to what I want to admit, you are talking to a rational mind. I don't think you really appreciate what that means. If you want me to concede a point then you're going to have to make a rational argument to back your position up.
I am unmoved by emotion. I am unmoved by appeals to some group opinion. I don't really care if the things I say hurt your feelings. I am not threatened by you. And your attempts to wound my ego as utterly futile.
I think the best way I can explain myself to someone like you... is this... think of me as an AI. A machine intelligence. I am quite human. But my harsh logical nature is likely something alien to your mentality.
I know neither shame nor pity. You will either make your case successfully or your argument fails.
As to temp records not being calced the same way every year, they are frequently averaged differently and from year to year they'll exclude or include different stations. I can get information to this effect if you really doubt it. But it is common practice and why I don't trust anything unless they start with raw PUBLISHED data and then explain their methodology for averaging and then show the results. Such that someone could take their input data, do the calculations as stated, and arrive at the same results. If that can't be done with published information then the derived result is suspect.
As to BE, you skipped over the part of my last post that included a quote from them that said the temperature of the earth wasn't changing much and that the increases fall within the margin of error.
Read again.
As to what the raw data is from the sats, I have no problem with taking whatever the raw information it is and processing it into useable data myself. I am not stupid. There is very little I do not understand when I put my mind to it. I am not at all daunted by being forced to go through a unit conversion or some series of calculations. A rather suspect that the calculations to turn the raw sat data into temperature numbers is not that complicated. The only thing that might be though is that it will be capturing a wide field of data and that might have to be averaged together first which sounds more tedious then difficult.
As to your article... you're citing a Psychology professor... do you know that? I cited a climatologist which you ignored and you are citing a psychologist. Which of our sources sounds more credible to you? Do you seriously want to stand on that citation? Because... I am tenacious.;-)
Some additional information for you... from wikipedia:
United States Merchant Marine Seal of the US Merchant Marine Main article: United States Merchant Marine
The United States Merchant Marine is made up of the nation's civilian-owner merchant ships and the men and [b]women[/b] that crew them. The merchant marine transports cargo and passengers during peacetime. In time of war, the merchant marine[7] is an auxiliary to the Navy and can be called upon to deliver troops and supplies for the military.
The people of the merchant marine are called merchant mariners, and are civilians except in times of war, when, in accordance with the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 they are considered military personnel. As of 2009, the United States merchant fleet numbered 422 ships[8] and approximately 69,000 people. Seven hundred ships owned by American interests but registered, or flagged, in other countries are not included in this number.
I never said that there was never an organization or individual that was sexist or racist. I said that the institutions at large are not systemically sexist. You would have to show a broad pattern throughout academia just to show bias amongst universities. Your study shows a single example.
I frankly suspect there is some monkey business there as well because this whole thing smells of the corrupting influence of politics. However, even if I concede your example of ONE department in ONE university, that does not give you a pattern of ALL academia in general which is the claim you're making.
As to your presumption to psychoanalyze someone that you have never met nor had extensive contact with... that is about as reliable as reading tea leaves. Any person educated in psychology knows that which means you either have no background in psychology what so ever or you're aware your nonsense if without worth and you're attempting to just get away with a very stupid and obvious lie.
Which is it? Are you a poorly educated pretender or are you an incompetent liar?
It is one of the two. Pick one... I care not which. You're a joke. And your stupid attempt to browbeat your obvious intellectual superior has been nothing short of pathetic. Kindly speak when spoken to henceforth, twit.
As to the paper, I addressed that previously. That was on ONE university. That is not a large enough sample to base a systemic conclusion on.
As to your anecdotal examples, I can answer yours with mine. That accomplishes nothing.
As to purging the evil males, there is no just way to do that so you're likely to do it arbitrarily which by definition will punish innocent people while also failing to get bad people. So it is pointless.
As to your kindergarten point, all you're doing is admitting to systemic anti male legal practices. So if anything you're arguing men are discriminated against instead of women. Is that your intention?
As to happiness, it is a question of choice. Men are happier in fields where they're alone then women in the same jobs. How many women sign up to do solo isolated jobs where they don't interact with anyone? You're going to claim discrimination in a fiend where no one talks to you? Kindly get real.
As to assuming liking... it is quite obvious they like it. Women go into the care of children and maternity wards because they like it. They like the children and the babies. Men find such things cute as well of course but they don't get the same sort of satisfaction out of it.
What you seem to want is a society where people don't have choices. Where everyone is forced to take given careers based on arbitrary statistical targets based on arbitrary divisions of the population into groups that should not be treated as groups. In regards to the labor force, the number of women, men, people of given races, or religious groups is not relevant. What is relevant is competence, diligence, and initiative. Your fascination with sexual ratios is odd and serves no utility.
Merchant marines are not the military. They're the people that run cargo ships. So my citation is valid.
There does seem to be a rash of political idiots lately. They're failing quite a lot it should be noted.
The more they do this the less credibility they have. I'm not worried in the long run. The people that tend to be backing this sort of thing are either people profiting from it or people that are caught up in a fad.
Then I cede that point. Those should be capable of providing a credible deterrent of nuclear attack or invasion.
However, that does give them no ability to project power or even use them in self defense in any situation where they're not willing to go to nuclear war.
For example, lets say Argentina attacked the Falklands again and this time did better... The UK is not going to nuke Argentina over the Falklands.
The ability of nuclear weapons to replace conventional forces is over estimated by European leaders. There is a reason Russia, The United States, China, India, and Pakistan all retain large conventional forces.
Consider Russia's position. They are surrounded by countries that would like to nibble little bits off them. Is Russia going to nuclear war to stop some little country from eating some bit of Russian wilderness? Nope.
Consider China... they have many countries on all sides that are potentially hostile. The North Koreans ironically are capable of raids into China and have recently taken to abducting Chinese nationals. Then they have Japan, their territorial expansion ambitions, Vietnam, etc. They Nuclear weapons don't cut it.
Then consider both India and Pakistan. Is either country going to go nuclear over Kashmir? No. Large conventional forces are used to hold the borders secure as well as prevent large incursions from terrorists in the case of India's borders.
I hope you see my point. Now remove the US from NATO. Presume the US is completely neutral in European geopolitics and will not come to the aid of Europe under any circumstances.
I note again, the combined European military forces were stalemated by the Serbs alone. Process that. Not an insult. Just contemplate the significance.
Whether the UK could defend the Falklands again is doubtful.
Rationalizations are not required.The study applied to a single organization and a university apparently at that. With such a tiny sample size it is impossible to conclude anything.
What is more, I'll note just for giggles your study showed that female managers were as likely to rate female applicants as being less competent given equal information.
I will conclude with the observation that increasing affirmative action policies will further damage the impression that women are not credible because you will create an impression that women are given preferential treatment and allowed to advance given less capability. This will lead to women being trusted less indifferent to their qualifications because no one will trust the system that vets people.
I am baffled both why you think that was hard to deal with and why you think I am squirming when all you're doing is throwing me this soft ball shit.
Never ever talk to the police if you could potentially be charged with a crime.
Not a word.
First, they tell you up front with the Miranda warning. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law." They very clearly do NOT say that anything you say can be used in your defense. And in fact, it cannot. For example, if you tell police something incriminating then that is evidence against you. However, if you say something exhortating then it is "hearsay" and inadmissible. That is what you say can ONLY be used AGAINST you and not for you. So there is literally no incentive to say anything given that nothing you say can help you. It can literally only hurt you.
Second, the "memory" of what you said to police is evidence in a court case. Which means if you had a long conversation with the police in which you said nothing incriminating but they "remember" you saying something incriminating then basically it is your word about what you said versus theirs. Have fun with that. Where as if you said nothing and never said anything then it is a great deal harder for anyone to misremember something you said. Make sure all your statements go through your lawyer and are on record... and say as little as possible.
Third, in any court case against you, you start out with the presumption of innocence. The less the police have to work with the harder it will be for them to build a case against you whether you did it or not. Give them NOTHING. Simply pleading the 5th and refusing to talk is a powerful defense against any police investigation and there really isn't anything they can do about it.
Look at what the rich and powerful do whenever they are taken to court or sit before congress giving testomony. They basically say as little as possible if they say anything at all. Before a judge they'll just plead the 5th, challenge the prosecution to make a case, and then try to tear that apart while giving literally nothing up as to what they were doing unless they can shatter a bit of the prosecution's case. And before congress they'll just say "I don't recall" over and over and over again. Because that is basically the version of "I plead the 5th" that works in a congressional investigation.
Do not. Talk. To. The. Police.
I say this as a law abiding citizen that believe in law and order. But the court system is set up in such a way that the police are inherently adversarial rather then impartial. And statements to them are basically just statements to the prosecution. You are not talking to an impartial judge that will weigh both sides of anything you say. You are talking to an agent that is trained to find anything he can bust you with and do it the instant he's got something.
I love that people posting as AC presume to question the posting history of anyone.
If you're too much of a coward to attack me under your assumed community handle then exactly what credibility do you have to question the character of anyone else?
You could be a rabid racist I slapped down for being a disgrace to humanity for all we know.
Likely as not, you're a political zealot who has so corrupted his name that he can't even use it credibility to attack anyone... even little old me.
Your example is not sexism. There being a lot more men and tending to thus hire men does not mean anyone is against women.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what sexism means. One would need to be intentionally biased towards women to be sexist. Without direct intent you've got nothing.
As to example 2, that is no more sexism against women then it was sexism against men when I joined a design course and I was the only male in the course. All women but me. It was also taught by a woman. Were they discriminating against men? Obviously not. More women showed interest in the course then men. So I was alone. Boo hoo. As an adult, I don't whine about this stuff. I expect the same thing from women or don't expect to be treated as an adult. Equality comes with a price... and the price is being expected to be an adult and not a child. Presume to claim the flexibility of children and you're not going to be afforded the respect given to adults. Choose. Adult or child?
As to example three, that isn't sexism. If men are willing to work more hours then women then they're worth more. Objectively that is a fact. Claiming that that is discrimination makes about as much sense as claiming that it is discrimination that when a man races a woman in a marathon that his legs and hips are designed differently so he can run faster and longer. That isn't discrimination. He was actually better.
You want equality? Equality means competing with people head to head. What you are asking for is a handicap. You want men to be forbidden from using their advantages over women while of course women are not forbidden from using their advantages over men.
This implies that you think women are inferior to men because you think they need a handicap.
Are men and women equal? Or do women need a handicap to compete?
Equality or special treatment? Choose.
You can't have both.
If you want special treatment, that can of course be offered. Any deal so long as it is reciprocal and equitable will be accepted. But come asking for free handouts while claiming we're all equals... that is irrational. Try again.
I have a hard time trusting historical temperature records because they are not calculated every year in the same way. Furthermore, every single weather station is not audited to make sure that it is has the same conditions over time. For example, some stations have been moved without attribution.
This pollutes the ground data. The scientists try to compensate by disqualifying a set of stations which can change on a year to year basis and given that we are talking about a very small year to year temperature difference it is possible that the actual changes are due to which selection of stations are being averaged together.
You appreciate that I could just pick a different set of stations every year and show an averaged graph that could look like anything. I could show global cooling or a sin wave or... really any line that can be represented in a graph what so ever.
What I like about the sat data is that there are radically fewer sensors which means there is less opportunity for monkey business.
The only thing that is worrying about the sats is the way they're calibrated which also sometimes changes on a year to year basis which is again questionable. I'd rather look at a raw output of the system over time without modification and then see their suggested calibration. Absent that... I'm a little too paranoid about the whole thing to just take it on faith that everything was done properly.
Berkeley Earth sums it up well with this statement:
"That is, of course, an indication that the Earthâ(TM)s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little."
The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger.""
Don't deny the pause.;-)
It makes it hard to talk about the data. The pause is ongoing and if it continues... rejoice... the models were wrong. Really, at this point, you'd better hope your models are wrong or you'd better makes sure you buy inland real estate.
First, there is no evidence you can point to in my post of sexual discrimination. Simply claiming you FEEL that there is can at best be put down to you not liking my conclusion but lacking any rational objection. I can neither respect nor credit your position as valid on this issue absent evidence.
Second, as to your personal feelings about working long hours you must realize we're talking about statistics that average literally millions of people together. Your personal opinions are not even a drop in the bucket. The reality is that on average, men are either more comfortable, more accepting, or outright approving of work conditions that women generally find intolerable. That is not sexual discrimination. That is a statistical observation that some arbitrary group is willing to cope with a certain environment and another arbitrary group is not.
Third, I don't see why we are dividing the population on the basis of gender, age, race, or religion. I don't see the utility of the concept. I would like to be gender, age, race, and religion blind. I'd like to divide people by more meaningful and useful attributes such as education, IQ, criminal record, and "ambition" however you might measure that. Those are attributes that are useful to a business. Why as a business do I give a flying fuck whether you have to sit down to pee or not? That is so completely fucking stupid I don't even know where to start with it. What mattes to me as a business is if you can do the work, how well you'll do the work, what you'll want to be paid to do the work, and how hard you'll try to do the work once assigned to do it. Beyond that why the fuck would I care about anything else? And of all the moronic things to fixate on... Gender? For the love all that is rational in this unvierse why would anyone care in a job where the gender of the person isn't relevant to the work itself what gender you are? Look, if I am selling women's clothing then I'm going to need a female model and if I'm selling male clothing then I'm going to need a male model. But outside of any situation where a specific gender is actually relevant... why do I care if you have a penis or a vagina? For all I care the entire company could be all men or all women or all christian or all muslim or all really young or old or tall or fat or whatever the fuck. It doesn't matter so long as the work gets done with an acceptable degree of quality and efficiency. Your gender is meaningless to me. The only thing that bothers me is when someone presume to get special treatment because of their gender. Try that and you're blacklisted. I want nothing to do with you if you try to get special treatment for your gender, your race, your religion, your age, your fatness, your thinness, your tallness, your shortness. I don't give a fuck. Do your job. Get paid. This is the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Your continued delusion to be able to psychoanalyze someone through a few internet posts when someone that was actually trained would require multiple face to face sessions is frankly idiotic. You don't know how it works and apparently think you have super powers or something.
Regardless, this has grown tedious. You think one study that hasn't been repeated or deeply examined by anyone means you can morally judge millions of people.
I can think of various psychological and emotional conditions that would lead someone to such a position but I won't presume to read your mind any more then you could not possibly read mine. Regardless, it is absurd and intellectually indefensible without corroboration and analysis.
We have nothing more to say since you are under the impression that nothing more need be offered when obviously that is at best justification for further study.
If you wish to continue spouting off silly insults in the mistaken belief that it accomplishes something... go on... I may respond or not at a whim. However, the discussion is effectively over unless you acknowledge that you do not have definitive proof.
Lots of democracies fail, my friend. In fact, they tend to.
The most common and stable governments in history are tyrannies of one description or another.
Note that the celebrated author Orwell once said:
""If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.""
As to democracies being weak in war, it depends really. They are strong so long as they can be cohesive. Undermine the pillars of the republic or even dilute them and they can collapse.
Too many years of lying politicians, too many years of corruption, mix in some bad economics, etc... things can happen. How many Moroccans that want sharia law for example will it take before France cracks?
At some point they might just be able to peacefully vote western values out of existence. What then? Will you stand by democracy as your children are indoctrinated by state law into a faith you do not hold? Will you fight against millions of people that out number you enough to overwhelm you at the ballot box? Will you flee to another country that likely is not far from suffering the same fate?
The best defense the US has against such things is that we have very heavy immigration from south of our border. And those fine people for all their faults are generally Catholic and suffer not a touch of white guilt. In the end, they may be the saviors of western civilization if only because they don't suffer from the same neurotic and self destructive tendencies built up by the more traditionally western populations over the last century.
As to the number of countries in europe with higher voter participation as a result of compulsory voting... I take your correction. I was under the impression it was wider spread then I believed however I was in error.
As to why there is higher voter participation, I do not know why however I have found such questions to always be more complicated then they at first appear.
I do not know for example how these stats are being counted. Are you including illegal immigrants in one set of rolls and not another? Just an example of something that could tweak results.
As to educated people being more likely to vote I am quite certain that your education stats are including people in the US that are not being counted in Europe. The US is far more diverse then any country in Europe and a great deal of that diversity is immigration from other countries where people either would not consider a college education in the first generation. Or they sometimes do have a college education as was often the case from the former soviet union and their college education was not considered valid in the US.
I am furthermore noting what appears to be some bigotry on your part and I only tolerate so much of that before I will break off contact on the basis that you're a troll. So please do keep your bile to a constructive level. If you just go on some stupid anti american rant, I am going to ignore you.
As to your citation of tax policy, I fail to see the relevance. It is the socialists in any case that are passionate about progressive taxes. Simply saying those are good merely makes it more likely that you are a socialist. I fail to see why that is a point in your favor.
As to keystone, and liberal billionares fought against keystone while at the same time buying up rail companies in Canada which the oil was transported by because there was no pipeline. The rail transport of oil is much dirtier then pipe transport both because of spills and carbon output from engines.
So you're against republican billionaires because they are cleaner then liberal billionaires? See, you're so politically biased that the issues don't matter to you. They're just weapons that you try to cherry pick to win arguments but your knowledge is little more then a memorization of talking points. You know nothing. You're a puppet. A tool. An empty vessel someone smarter then you poured words into and on command you parrot them out as if you actually have a little thought in your empty little head. You are pathetic.
As to Reagan only helping the wealthy, the economy improved which helped everyone. Carter was fucking it up and everyone knows that.
As to republican party platform, if you'd like to address any specific element of it, then I'd be happy to debate it with you. However, expect an actual debate... with logic. Your foaming spittle doesn't intimidate me or seem at all convincing. So if you are able to actually have a civil discussion... game on. Otherwise, I expect you to run away.
As to not straddling the fence, that is not what I hold as respectable. Rather, I expect people to think for themselves. Saying you have chosen a side means you've also allowed a side to do your thinking for you.
I am sympathetic to certain political policies but I do not let them do my thinking for me. I am a fence sitter. I vote democrat sometimes and I vote republican others.
For example, I voted for Obama the first time and against him the second time. Why? Because I choose issues and people not parties. You are a primitive tribalist presuming to lecture me on the moralities of philosophical purity. You don't even know what you're talking about.
As to citizen's United, the ban on money did not include unions, and special interest groups. Just corporations. Your faction has more funny money sources that aren't corporations. So obviously you found a system that made it harder for your opposition to raise money while not as harshly impacting your own revenue streams. It was a crass political ploy.
If you wa
I don't think one study is definitive. I think you have something that might need to be looked at but simply saying case closed after one study is presumptuous.
We don't know why those people did what they did. You're saying "sexism" but you don't know that.
And even if it were sexism, you don't know why they did it.
One thing that could be in there is a realistic appreciation that women often leave their careers to go raise children. Assuming this job we're talking about is a big deal and requires a big time investment by the people training you... is it unreasonable they are worried about a hired women leaving the job after a couple years?
Here you're going to call that sexism but that actually isn't sexism. Sexism must be an irrational bias. If it is a bias based on fact then it isn't bigotry.
I'm sorry, you're pushing a very offensive narrative on very thin grounds.
Any study like this has to be examined before I'm going to take it seriously. I've been unable to find any criticism or even analysis of it. Nothing. And that leaves me at a loss. I can't validate the thing if all I have is an abstract and a conclusion with no comment from their peers.
And again, even if the study were entirely sound that doesn't mean your conclusions are on target. And even if those conclusions are on target... they can be justified under certain circumstances.
And in any case, what you're showing here is a bias in academic research. I'll grant that but it isn't bias to keep people out of courses for CS. CS after all doesn't have positions like that in academia in the first place.
You presume to psychoanalyze me, get called on your bullshit, and you claim that I'm just being emotional?
Your position is a laughable.
I was never suggesting anyone would go into a full scale war against europe.
I was rather saying that Europe wasn't going to attack anyone else.
Someone else said that europe might get agitated and lash out at the islamic world. I pointed out that won't happen.
So we're not talking about the same things. what is more, i said if the west goes down a good deal of it will go with a whimper rather then a bang. What happens is enough people that don't value french culture basically vote it out of existence? what then?
As to America's role as world police, we're quite tired of that and when we stop filling this roll other nations will fill the void. The old border wars will start. The British Empire suppressed this behavior and the US took up the torch from them.
When the US backs off and we will in the next generation... you are going to see unrest in the world unlike anything that has been seen in centuries. And the US hopefully will just watch.
You might not care about east asia... I suspect the Russians and Turks are more relevant to you. Between the Russians trying to get eastern europe back under their control and the middle east struggling to rebuild the Caliphate... By all means... pretend that Europe is capable of not getting involved.
My nation however is in the Americas. Our little island is quite safe from such nonsense.
As to Europe surviving things... you've never survived massive immigration. That's new. Your old kings and rulers never would have permitted it.
As to the soviets not being dead, it did die. The people running Russia are not the same people that were running it before. Putin would have been nothing under the old soviet system. He never would have held a position of national leadership. And most of the "oligarchs" were likewise nothing before the fall. Quite a few of them were just the first people to figure out how capitalism worked.
I watched a documentary about a fellow that was selling junk off a table in the middle of the snow before the fall. He's a billionaire now.
Keep in mind, I am not rooting for the destruction of your civilization. I am a friend as far as Europe has any friends. I want good things for your society. But your politicians are thinking very short term. Just until the next election. That is dangerous. In fairness our politicians in the US are doing the same thing. The difference is that we're less vulnerable.
They're in the open which is probably why they're fighting so hard. They were pretty subtle before this but... everyone has their number now. The trick will be just keeping your eyes out for it and not letting these people slip through with nonsense.
I'd like to see a follow up where they were asked why they offered one thing or another.
Statistical studies are severally subject to correlation/causation issues.
You're right one suspect study damns an entire society.
GUILTY!!!
I sentence our society years of being lectured by morons like you about everything we're apparently doing wrong.
Court dismissed. /s
Fucktard.
Exactly. Men work in all female environments on occasion and we don't cry to HR, the media, or some group of misguided social justice nitwits. We deal with it.
Because we're adults.
And the women that are also adults deal with it the same way. Because they're adults.
The people that have a hard time with stuff like this are behaving like children and deserve to be treated like children.
Unconscious bias is almost impossible to prove. So, good luck hunting down those unicorns.
As to what I want to admit, you are talking to a rational mind. I don't think you really appreciate what that means. If you want me to concede a point then you're going to have to make a rational argument to back your position up.
I am unmoved by emotion. I am unmoved by appeals to some group opinion. I don't really care if the things I say hurt your feelings. I am not threatened by you. And your attempts to wound my ego as utterly futile.
I think the best way I can explain myself to someone like you... is this... think of me as an AI. A machine intelligence. I am quite human. But my harsh logical nature is likely something alien to your mentality.
I know neither shame nor pity. You will either make your case successfully or your argument fails.
Your move.
As to temp records not being calced the same way every year, they are frequently averaged differently and from year to year they'll exclude or include different stations. I can get information to this effect if you really doubt it. But it is common practice and why I don't trust anything unless they start with raw PUBLISHED data and then explain their methodology for averaging and then show the results. Such that someone could take their input data, do the calculations as stated, and arrive at the same results. If that can't be done with published information then the derived result is suspect.
As to BE, you skipped over the part of my last post that included a quote from them that said the temperature of the earth wasn't changing much and that the increases fall within the margin of error.
Read again.
As to what the raw data is from the sats, I have no problem with taking whatever the raw information it is and processing it into useable data myself. I am not stupid. There is very little I do not understand when I put my mind to it. I am not at all daunted by being forced to go through a unit conversion or some series of calculations. A rather suspect that the calculations to turn the raw sat data into temperature numbers is not that complicated. The only thing that might be though is that it will be capturing a wide field of data and that might have to be averaged together first which sounds more tedious then difficult.
As to your article... you're citing a Psychology professor... do you know that? I cited a climatologist which you ignored and you are citing a psychologist. Which of our sources sounds more credible to you? Do you seriously want to stand on that citation? Because... I am tenacious. ;-)
Some additional information for you... from wikipedia:
United States Merchant Marine
Seal of the US Merchant Marine
Main article: United States Merchant Marine
The United States Merchant Marine is made up of the nation's civilian-owner merchant ships and the men and [b]women[/b] that crew them. The merchant marine transports cargo and passengers during peacetime. In time of war, the merchant marine[7] is an auxiliary to the Navy and can be called upon to deliver troops and supplies for the military.
The people of the merchant marine are called merchant mariners, and are civilians except in times of war, when, in accordance with the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 they are considered military personnel. As of 2009, the United States merchant fleet numbered 422 ships[8] and approximately 69,000 people. Seven hundred ships owned by American interests but registered, or flagged, in other countries are not included in this number.
I never said that there was never an organization or individual that was sexist or racist. I said that the institutions at large are not systemically sexist. You would have to show a broad pattern throughout academia just to show bias amongst universities. Your study shows a single example.
I frankly suspect there is some monkey business there as well because this whole thing smells of the corrupting influence of politics. However, even if I concede your example of ONE department in ONE university, that does not give you a pattern of ALL academia in general which is the claim you're making.
As to your presumption to psychoanalyze someone that you have never met nor had extensive contact with... that is about as reliable as reading tea leaves. Any person educated in psychology knows that which means you either have no background in psychology what so ever or you're aware your nonsense if without worth and you're attempting to just get away with a very stupid and obvious lie.
Which is it? Are you a poorly educated pretender or are you an incompetent liar?
It is one of the two. Pick one... I care not which. You're a joke. And your stupid attempt to browbeat your obvious intellectual superior has been nothing short of pathetic. Kindly speak when spoken to henceforth, twit.
As to the paper, I addressed that previously. That was on ONE university. That is not a large enough sample to base a systemic conclusion on.
As to your anecdotal examples, I can answer yours with mine. That accomplishes nothing.
As to purging the evil males, there is no just way to do that so you're likely to do it arbitrarily which by definition will punish innocent people while also failing to get bad people. So it is pointless.
As to your kindergarten point, all you're doing is admitting to systemic anti male legal practices. So if anything you're arguing men are discriminated against instead of women. Is that your intention?
As to happiness, it is a question of choice. Men are happier in fields where they're alone then women in the same jobs. How many women sign up to do solo isolated jobs where they don't interact with anyone? You're going to claim discrimination in a fiend where no one talks to you? Kindly get real.
As to assuming liking... it is quite obvious they like it. Women go into the care of children and maternity wards because they like it. They like the children and the babies. Men find such things cute as well of course but they don't get the same sort of satisfaction out of it.
What you seem to want is a society where people don't have choices. Where everyone is forced to take given careers based on arbitrary statistical targets based on arbitrary divisions of the population into groups that should not be treated as groups. In regards to the labor force, the number of women, men, people of given races, or religious groups is not relevant. What is relevant is competence, diligence, and initiative. Your fascination with sexual ratios is odd and serves no utility.
Merchant marines are not the military. They're the people that run cargo ships. So my citation is valid.
There does seem to be a rash of political idiots lately. They're failing quite a lot it should be noted.
The more they do this the less credibility they have. I'm not worried in the long run. The people that tend to be backing this sort of thing are either people profiting from it or people that are caught up in a fad.
Fads die.
Then I cede that point. Those should be capable of providing a credible deterrent of nuclear attack or invasion.
However, that does give them no ability to project power or even use them in self defense in any situation where they're not willing to go to nuclear war.
For example, lets say Argentina attacked the Falklands again and this time did better... The UK is not going to nuke Argentina over the Falklands.
The ability of nuclear weapons to replace conventional forces is over estimated by European leaders. There is a reason Russia, The United States, China, India, and Pakistan all retain large conventional forces.
Consider Russia's position. They are surrounded by countries that would like to nibble little bits off them. Is Russia going to nuclear war to stop some little country from eating some bit of Russian wilderness? Nope.
Consider China... they have many countries on all sides that are potentially hostile. The North Koreans ironically are capable of raids into China and have recently taken to abducting Chinese nationals. Then they have Japan, their territorial expansion ambitions, Vietnam, etc. They Nuclear weapons don't cut it.
Then consider both India and Pakistan. Is either country going to go nuclear over Kashmir? No. Large conventional forces are used to hold the borders secure as well as prevent large incursions from terrorists in the case of India's borders.
I hope you see my point. Now remove the US from NATO. Presume the US is completely neutral in European geopolitics and will not come to the aid of Europe under any circumstances.
I note again, the combined European military forces were stalemated by the Serbs alone. Process that. Not an insult. Just contemplate the significance.
Whether the UK could defend the Falklands again is doubtful.
Rationalizations are not required.The study applied to a single organization and a university apparently at that. With such a tiny sample size it is impossible to conclude anything.
What is more, I'll note just for giggles your study showed that female managers were as likely to rate female applicants as being less competent given equal information.
I will conclude with the observation that increasing affirmative action policies will further damage the impression that women are not credible because you will create an impression that women are given preferential treatment and allowed to advance given less capability. This will lead to women being trusted less indifferent to their qualifications because no one will trust the system that vets people.
I am baffled both why you think that was hard to deal with and why you think I am squirming when all you're doing is throwing me this soft ball shit.
Try harder.
Never ever talk to the police if you could potentially be charged with a crime.
Not a word.
First, they tell you up front with the Miranda warning. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law." They very clearly do NOT say that anything you say can be used in your defense. And in fact, it cannot. For example, if you tell police something incriminating then that is evidence against you. However, if you say something exhortating then it is "hearsay" and inadmissible. That is what you say can ONLY be used AGAINST you and not for you. So there is literally no incentive to say anything given that nothing you say can help you. It can literally only hurt you.
Second, the "memory" of what you said to police is evidence in a court case. Which means if you had a long conversation with the police in which you said nothing incriminating but they "remember" you saying something incriminating then basically it is your word about what you said versus theirs. Have fun with that. Where as if you said nothing and never said anything then it is a great deal harder for anyone to misremember something you said. Make sure all your statements go through your lawyer and are on record... and say as little as possible.
Third, in any court case against you, you start out with the presumption of innocence. The less the police have to work with the harder it will be for them to build a case against you whether you did it or not. Give them NOTHING. Simply pleading the 5th and refusing to talk is a powerful defense against any police investigation and there really isn't anything they can do about it.
Look at what the rich and powerful do whenever they are taken to court or sit before congress giving testomony. They basically say as little as possible if they say anything at all. Before a judge they'll just plead the 5th, challenge the prosecution to make a case, and then try to tear that apart while giving literally nothing up as to what they were doing unless they can shatter a bit of the prosecution's case. And before congress they'll just say "I don't recall" over and over and over again. Because that is basically the version of "I plead the 5th" that works in a congressional investigation.
Do not. Talk. To. The. Police.
I say this as a law abiding citizen that believe in law and order. But the court system is set up in such a way that the police are inherently adversarial rather then impartial. And statements to them are basically just statements to the prosecution. You are not talking to an impartial judge that will weigh both sides of anything you say. You are talking to an agent that is trained to find anything he can bust you with and do it the instant he's got something.
So do NOT talk to the police.
that isn't how the US came into being... we have done better and we can be better.
I love that people posting as AC presume to question the posting history of anyone.
If you're too much of a coward to attack me under your assumed community handle then exactly what credibility do you have to question the character of anyone else?
You could be a rabid racist I slapped down for being a disgrace to humanity for all we know.
Likely as not, you're a political zealot who has so corrupted his name that he can't even use it credibility to attack anyone... even little old me.
You're garbage ;-)
Your example is not sexism. There being a lot more men and tending to thus hire men does not mean anyone is against women.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what sexism means. One would need to be intentionally biased towards women to be sexist. Without direct intent you've got nothing.
As to example 2, that is no more sexism against women then it was sexism against men when I joined a design course and I was the only male in the course. All women but me. It was also taught by a woman. Were they discriminating against men? Obviously not. More women showed interest in the course then men. So I was alone. Boo hoo. As an adult, I don't whine about this stuff. I expect the same thing from women or don't expect to be treated as an adult. Equality comes with a price... and the price is being expected to be an adult and not a child. Presume to claim the flexibility of children and you're not going to be afforded the respect given to adults. Choose. Adult or child?
As to example three, that isn't sexism. If men are willing to work more hours then women then they're worth more. Objectively that is a fact. Claiming that that is discrimination makes about as much sense as claiming that it is discrimination that when a man races a woman in a marathon that his legs and hips are designed differently so he can run faster and longer. That isn't discrimination. He was actually better.
You want equality? Equality means competing with people head to head. What you are asking for is a handicap. You want men to be forbidden from using their advantages over women while of course women are not forbidden from using their advantages over men.
This implies that you think women are inferior to men because you think they need a handicap.
Are men and women equal? Or do women need a handicap to compete?
Equality or special treatment? Choose.
You can't have both.
If you want special treatment, that can of course be offered. Any deal so long as it is reciprocal and equitable will be accepted. But come asking for free handouts while claiming we're all equals... that is irrational. Try again.
I know... I just don't proofread my internet posts... sorry grammar nazis.
I have a hard time trusting historical temperature records because they are not calculated every year in the same way. Furthermore, every single weather station is not audited to make sure that it is has the same conditions over time. For example, some stations have been moved without attribution.
This pollutes the ground data. The scientists try to compensate by disqualifying a set of stations which can change on a year to year basis and given that we are talking about a very small year to year temperature difference it is possible that the actual changes are due to which selection of stations are being averaged together.
You appreciate that I could just pick a different set of stations every year and show an averaged graph that could look like anything. I could show global cooling or a sin wave or... really any line that can be represented in a graph what so ever.
What I like about the sat data is that there are radically fewer sensors which means there is less opportunity for monkey business.
The only thing that is worrying about the sats is the way they're calibrated which also sometimes changes on a year to year basis which is again questionable. I'd rather look at a raw output of the system over time without modification and then see their suggested calibration. Absent that... I'm a little too paranoid about the whole thing to just take it on faith that everything was done properly.
You might find this interesting:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01...
Quote:
""Bottom line
Berkeley Earth sums it up well with this statement:
"That is, of course, an indication that the Earthâ(TM)s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little."
The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger.""
Don't deny the pause. ;-)
It makes it hard to talk about the data. The pause is ongoing and if it continues... rejoice... the models were wrong. Really, at this point, you'd better hope your models are wrong or you'd better makes sure you buy inland real estate.
First, there is no evidence you can point to in my post of sexual discrimination. Simply claiming you FEEL that there is can at best be put down to you not liking my conclusion but lacking any rational objection. I can neither respect nor credit your position as valid on this issue absent evidence.
Second, as to your personal feelings about working long hours you must realize we're talking about statistics that average literally millions of people together. Your personal opinions are not even a drop in the bucket. The reality is that on average, men are either more comfortable, more accepting, or outright approving of work conditions that women generally find intolerable. That is not sexual discrimination. That is a statistical observation that some arbitrary group is willing to cope with a certain environment and another arbitrary group is not.
Third, I don't see why we are dividing the population on the basis of gender, age, race, or religion. I don't see the utility of the concept. I would like to be gender, age, race, and religion blind. I'd like to divide people by more meaningful and useful attributes such as education, IQ, criminal record, and "ambition" however you might measure that. Those are attributes that are useful to a business. Why as a business do I give a flying fuck whether you have to sit down to pee or not? That is so completely fucking stupid I don't even know where to start with it. What mattes to me as a business is if you can do the work, how well you'll do the work, what you'll want to be paid to do the work, and how hard you'll try to do the work once assigned to do it. Beyond that why the fuck would I care about anything else? And of all the moronic things to fixate on... Gender? For the love all that is rational in this unvierse why would anyone care in a job where the gender of the person isn't relevant to the work itself what gender you are? Look, if I am selling women's clothing then I'm going to need a female model and if I'm selling male clothing then I'm going to need a male model. But outside of any situation where a specific gender is actually relevant... why do I care if you have a penis or a vagina? For all I care the entire company could be all men or all women or all christian or all muslim or all really young or old or tall or fat or whatever the fuck. It doesn't matter so long as the work gets done with an acceptable degree of quality and efficiency. Your gender is meaningless to me. The only thing that bothers me is when someone presume to get special treatment because of their gender. Try that and you're blacklisted. I want nothing to do with you if you try to get special treatment for your gender, your race, your religion, your age, your fatness, your thinness, your tallness, your shortness. I don't give a fuck. Do your job. Get paid. This is the contract.