Nothing they did was especially innovative. Their response was textbook. You quarantine anyone infected, you question anyone infected about everyone they've come in contact with, you investigate all of those people, and you do not take the virus lightly.
None of this is new. It is basic.
The people saying we can't have screening or quarantine procedures for political reasons don't seem to grasp that viruses don't care about your politics. It is like when Achilles says to Hector "there are no pacts between lions and men"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The virus will show no pity, no hesitation, and no remorse. It exists to eat and spread.
Just as we have procedures for dealing with forest fires or other natural phenomenon. You don't let politics dictate how you deal with them. There is a correct way and an incorrect way. If you choose the incorrect path because it is politically more correct, then that natural phenomenon will exploit your arrogance and do what it does.
Again, I'm not worried about an outbreak in the US. I am however concerned about the glaring and obvious incompetence of the government. I am routinely shocked by how stupid they are on so many issues.
I don't need the computer to tell me when a big disk nearly full. That would be something I was aware of for some time.
In an enterprise setting where there could be many disks... one would assume the sysadmin has set reasonable alert levels rather then leaving everything on default.
So... I guess this is relevant to non-power users in residential contexts? But then how is a non power user filling a terrabyte harddrive? I mean... seriously.
They were following CDC guidelines which apparently were contradictory and incomplete.
Basically what everyone is realizing is that the CDC is fucking clueless and everyone has to just use their own best judgement on the matter.
Beyond which... basic quarantine procedures would deal with this problem.
Nigeria is doing that and they're basically free from infection despite being right next to effected countries.
The US used to have such policies in the old days. Ellis Island had extensive quarantine facilities for example.
In this case we have a full blown Ebola outbreak and the fucking retarded administration wants to keep open transport because they're afraid it would look like discrimination. Let me be clear, if the damn outbreak were in the middle of Sweden, I'd still want quarantine procedures. This has nothing at all to do with race but rather everything to do with a very scary virus that isn't playing around.
Now am I actually worried about a mass outbreak in the US? No. I find that unlikely. However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.
This is not something you take lightly. You pay this sort of virus the respect it deserves and enact BASIC quarantine procedures. Rudimentary.
Nothing fancy. You come back from one of these countries, your passport gets checked, they see the stamp, they have a blood sample taken or whatever is needed. Then depending on the relevance, you might need to wait for that to come back clean.
Sound inconvenient? It is a fucking plague. Tough shit.
People were talking about organized crime in japan. So... do you think organized crime in japan has any trouble getting all the guns they "WANT"... the answer is obviously. They smuggle more then that all the time.
Regardless... on the issue printed weapons... we can already pump out plastic weapons from printers that print plastic.
What happens when the public has printers that can print metal?
The metal printers can already print production grade weapons. One of the printing companies printed a 1911 pistol.
Now you can control that to some extent by controlling the sale of ammunition. But it really depends on what you're printing.
I would print a shotgun. Mostly because the ammo is really easy to make yourself.
Here is the thing. You can't stop a psychopath by controlling weapons. You can change the way that organized crime deals with people. But a mass killer is going to find a way. Keep in mind you can make a powerful bomb with fertilizer. Keep in mind you can make poison gas with cleaning supplies.
At a certain point, there is substitute for simply trusting people. And that means that if you really want to control this issue you need to know who is crazy and who is not.
Any nice thing happens and some asshat comes along to say "but we won't all have it at the same time instantly!"... Seriously?
Can you just be happy someone has something nice? And eventually it will get around to everyone. It is better that someone has something then that no one has it. This envy based value system is really getting old.
As to facing your accuser... lets say I own a shop and it has a camera in it... and someone breaks into my shop and use the video from the camera to convict them.
The video is evidence... your accuser is the government.
As to discretion, i have a problem with this as well because it means the police officer can decide what is illegal or not on a case by case basis. That is not his right. The legislature has the right to decide what is and is not legal. The courts have the duty to decide who is actually guilty. And the executive's job is merely to write the tickets.
Discretion on balance creates problems because it papers over problems with bad laws. Congress or city councils would be pressured to fix bad laws if those laws were actually applied as written.
Making matters worse, police sometimes apply the letter of the law and sometimes not. They are held to no standard as to when they do or do not do this. They can choose on a whim what to do. And that is a kind of tyranny.
Do I prefer police officers? yes. Because they're expensive and can't be everywhere. So they are inefficient for many kinds of enforcement. I like that as a check against tyranny.
If the cameras were only used properly, I wouldn't have a problem with them.
I think one of the bigger issues with traffic citations is that they are a revenue stream for cities. They shouldn't be. An alternative should be offered instead of giving the city money. Community service or something. Most people will just pay the money. But if the city gets silly with the fees, then you can just do some community service for 10 hours or something and be done with it.
That would lower the incentive for the government to effectively raise taxes by increasing enforcement for petty traffic violations.
However, in a democracy where everyone can vote... you run into problems when taxation does not equal representation.
By having different tax rates for people that are wealthier... while at the same time not increasing their influence over government relatively... you create a situation where one faction can vote themselves something at someone else's expense and the system is unable to balance the interests.
That is the problem with progressive taxes. They do not come with corresponding influence for those that pay more.
If you are prepared to reduce the influence of those that pay less or increase the influence of those that pay more... then go for it. Otherwise, progressive taxes should be avoided.
Further note that I am referring to tax RATES. If I make a million dollars and I pay a rate of 10 percent then I'm going to pay a lot more money then someone that makes 1000 dollars and also pays 10 percent. However, note that the rates are the same. That is fine. The problem comes about when the guy making a million pays a rate of 70 percent and the guy making a 1000 pays a rate of negative 900 percent. And yet they both have the same influence over the political process when they go to the ballot box.
Now you might say the rich man might get more influence buy donating to politicians. This is true. However that comes as an expense ON TOP of his taxes. He doesn't just get that. He has to pay even more money just to get the influence he should have gotten simply by paying those progressive taxes.
Now look, I don't want rich people to have that much influence. I like the idea of one person one vote.
But the price of that is that we all have to pay the same rate. Another option might be limiting what people on subsidies can vote on. I know... it sounds terrible but it might be fair. If society is basically feeding you, housing you, etc... then do you have a right to tell the rest of society how it must do it? I don't see that you do. At that point you are a dependent of the state not unlike being a child taken care of by a parent. And children don't get to vote.
The idea is that a certain amount of the economy is flowing through the internet and the government feels it has a right a fraction of that just as they claim from everything.
I can get that far.
Then I get what they did by charging by bandwidth. This is an attempt to make the tax progressive so that small users pay very little and big users pay a lot. I get that too.
The problem with this idea is that the amount of traffic is accelerating and the tax isn't reasonable if everyone's internet speed goes up by a factor of ten or something.
A more reasonable tax would be a per user tax on the ISPs. I'm quite sure they already have those... so... increase them I guess if they want more. That gets us to a tax that should bring in decent revenue without limiting people to lower bandwidth.
How to make that progressive?... I guess you could say anyone with low income could file for relief from that tax... or you could just have bandwidth tiers. Every company has tiers... this is the 3mb tier, this is the 7 mb tier... all the way up to 200 mb or something. Have the tax associated with given tiers be reset yearly or something so it can keep pace.
That or just dont' have a progressive tax... progressive taxes are stupid.
Oh I am aware that bigots and ideologues find logic to be inconvenient. Nothing new there. I just find it useful to find the central fallacy in their running stream of bullshit so that when they pop up again with the same old crap... I can bop them on the head with logic and then go back to doing whatever.
In the case of this branch of feminism...
The killer point is that women are either inferior and in need of our aid as the big strong men. Or they are our equals and as adults able to manage their own lives can handle it on their own.
I love how they're always saying women are equals to men... and then saying they're complete half wits or incompetent about something.
Its really sort of weird.
Look, if women are the equal of men, and for the record I believe they are, then they don't need to be coddled or shown special treatment beyond what men get.
So that is the logical trap that is pretty fucking inescapable here.
Either women are inferior or they don't need your help.
Pick one.
I pick option 2. Its called being an adult and taking responsibility for yourself.
Why didn't women get into coding? Because they didn't want to.
Coding is a solitary job with long hours that gives no shits anything besides if the code is good. Yes you can code in groups... but that's only with division of labor and once labor is divided you are working on your code yourself.
What is more, the coding all stars are always mad geniuses in the field that put insane hours into honing their craft. Would be sexist to point out that women don't seem to find that kind of work appealing?
And another thing, consider how many one man shops there are out there. How many one woman independent coders are there out there? Many of these companies get started in a dorm room or a garage with their moms doing laundry behind them or something. Discrimination? The bar is so low that anyone can get into this so long as they're willing and able to do the work.
If you lack the will or the ability... then that is why you're not a successful coder. Period.
And here some one is going to say "you can't just say period"... well yes I can... I just did... after a long argument that had a lot of supporting points and I summed it all up with a closing argument and then said period. Think I'm wrong? Tell me how women can be both our equals and in need of special treatment. Your brain will literally explode in raspberry jam all over the walls if you try to divide by zero by saying both of those things can happen. They can't. The logic is inescapable. Either they're just girls and inferior and thus deserving of protection... or they're adults, our equals, and don't need it anymore then anyone else.
So you're saying organized crime and smuggle tons of heroine into a country but not a handgun?
If they don't do it, it is because they choose not to do it. Not because your police stop it. Were that otherwise smuggling wouldn't be so prevalent. And of course it is. Can I get cocaine in Japan? Then I can get M16 if the price is right.
That however was the old status quo. That was the pre 3d printed world.
What we're coming into is a situation where anyone with the machine can have the thing. Right now, cheap machines can only pop out plastic crap. The higher end machines can print fully functional metal guns indistinguishable from production grade weapons.
Moore's law works on more then CPUs. The technology is improving geometrically. That is what you're arguing against here.
You want to say I'm wrong? Okay. You're denying the Sun. You're saying the tides are not real. You are saying gravity is a figment of my imagination.
And what I can say to that? I say... "okay"... and then go about my life knowing that reality isn't going to permit you to contradict it when push comes to shove.
Imagine if he hadn't... you'd never know. The police didn't catch him or do some investigation. He said he had them on the internet. Did he even have bullets? In any case, what this makes clear is that if you print a gun... don't post that you've done it on the internet. They're watching.
And all of you that think you can control this thing... you can't. Your entire legal enforcement concept is obsolete. The most you'll be able to do is bust morons. Anyone with any sense won't broadcast that they've done it. They'll just have it.
And the crazies will of course use the guns for mass shootings or whatever. You can't stop this by going after the guns. You never could. You want to stop this? Go after crazy people. They are the lowest common denominator in mass shootings.
There is always a crazy person behind the trigger. But how many people that own guns go on mass shootings? Very very very few. As a result, if you want to stop mass shootings what does it make more sense to regulate? Something that often does not predict violent behavior? Or something that pretty much leads to one kind of inappropriate behavior or another.
Do I want to make their lives harder with government oversight? No. Ideally we should sort the violent from the non-violent. The violent crazies... sorry but we need to keep tabs on them.
dozens of examples. Judges across the country are ordering them illegal, the citations non-valid, and there are corruption investigations.
Some of the investigations have shown that city council members were getting their condo's paid for by the red light company.
These things are a scam. They're never put in places where there are safety concerns. They're always placed at busy yet statistically safe intersections. And they are typically configured to maximize tickets rather then flag unsafe or even just illegal behavior.
The fact of the matter has been well known for a couple years now.
And it has resulted in many cities taking down the cameras.
The sad thing is that it wasn't public outcry that caused the cameras to come down. They were never popular.
It wasn't the statistical fact that safety was actually reduced by putting up the cameras. People would slam on breaks to avoid the camera amongst other behavior which lead to an increase in accidents.
It wasn't even the corruption being caught red handed.
No, what is causing the cameras to get pulled is that despite everything they're not making enough money. And that is the only thing our city councils seem to care about. Revenue.
Just because the Russians sent a women into space does not mean that any other specific woman was superior to the male choices that were offered at the time.
As to passing all tests and qualifying, many men did as well and many of them never went into space. By your logic, the only reason they didn't was because of gender bias.
You have correlation, sir... not causation. You can show that a women that qualified did not go into space. You cannot show that she was not chosen specifically because of her gender.
That's just logic. Deal with it.
As to your question about advocacy... you're apparently a terrible reader.
Let me repeat... I said this above but I'm going to say it again because you're clearly a bit slow.
I complete support female EQUALITY. That would include female voting so long as men vote as well. Anything men are allowed to do, women should be allowed to do and they should both be judged on the same standards for anything requiring competency.
That does not require advocacy for women. Merely an insistence on general equality for EVERYONE.
As to my examples being dishonest, you've provided no evidence for this position. You seem to just be sputtering some sort of emotional outburst on the mistaken impression that it means something to me. Be rational or be judged to be irrational. Your choice.
As to being fair, you're going to have to clarify.
The system if anything gives women advantages over men. This has been documented repeatedly. Often men will have to pass one test and women must pass a much easier test. Which often as not they still fail in the very physically demanding positions.
We can get specific if you have any interest in actually having a rational discussion. If rather you'd just like to presume moral superiority in an issue that isn't ultimately about morality... then that is your prerogative... be irrational... your choice.
As to your sad attempt to threaten me with legal action for a rhetorical flourish... *yawn*... you're clearly deranged... Change your meds, sport. They're a bit off.
The politics on gender equality have created a lot of zealots that are pushing propaganda of various kinds. We see it every day... And while I do believe in the equality between the sexes, I do not believe in advocacy for either of the sexes.
There is a lot of advocacy going on in this general topic and I have no patience for it because it is ultimately dishonest.
Do women deserve to compete against men? Sure. Join the male Olympics and tell me how well you do there. Sound unfair? That is competition. It isn't about fair. And when you're talking about enduring space travel under physically demanding circumstances... physicality matters.
Que the hordes of political advocacy trolls. I acknowledge again that women should be given an EQUAL shot at these things. Equal. Not subsidized. You put your finger on the scale to bias the results and I will cut that fucker off and feed it to you.
I disagree. Both men and women probably get their feelings hurt in equal measure. Men are simply TAUGHT to deal with it. Where as women are taught to complain.
So when a man gets abuse, he eats it or responds in kind.
When a women gets abuse, she screams.
This is a vestige of the old sexual status quo where men protected the vulnerable women. We provided for them. We guarded them. We spoke for them.
They were not quite adults. And not being quite adults when challenged by an adult, their responsible guardian was to step in and deal with it.
Women have rejected this relationship. That however has a price. If women are adults then they should act like adults.
Not like men... like adults. Deal with your own problems if you can. If you can't and a male peer could/did then that begs the question of why he is able to do something you are not?
If women are not inferior, then they can protect themselves as easily as men on the internet. The only advantage men have over women is their physical strength which is irrelevant on the internet.
There is no reason for men to be required to come to the defense of a women on the internet. It is all just words.
I don't find such statements credible unless they put the money where their mouth is on the issue. If they blew what they've blown on the war on drugs on the space program we'd have a colony on mars. Think about that.
Right... because when Galieo insulted people that said the sun was the center of the solar system, it meant he was wrong.
Logical fallacies for the win, fucktard?
I'm insulting you because you deserve to be treated with contempt and after trolling me for all these posts with your idiocy there isn't any courtesy left.
As to my requirements for meaning, I know yours didn't include implicit qualities that are required for their proper function. That was me... because I'm not a moron.
You fail at reading comprehension. No where in that definition does it imply the data was analyzed in any manner.
You were always wrong and I think you know it. The sad thing is that you think I don't know it... or that confusing the issue will make you less wrong. At best you might confuse me... but you'd still be wrong.
You didn't even accomplish that though.
Kindly put your thumb at a 90 degree angle, lift off your seat about eight inches, pull down your pants, place your hand thumb up on the seat perpendicular to the chair, and gently sit down.
We can play words games if you like... I'm quite good at them. But I frankly find the prospect to be boring. So I'll just win.
Data (/ÃdeÃtÃ(TM)/ DAY-tÃ(TM),/ÃdÃf¦tÃ(TM)/ DA-tÃ(TM), or/ÃdÃ'ÃtÃ(TM)/ DAH-tÃ(TM))[1] is a set of values of qualitative or quantitative variables; restated, pieces of data are individual pieces of information. Data in computing (or data processing) is represented in a structure that is often tabular (represented by rows and columns), a tree (a set of nodes with parent-children relationship), or a graph (a set of connected nodes). Data is typically the result of measurements and can be visualized using graphs or images.
Data is simply information. Data does not imply analysis or even meaning. If I collected all the numbers from a random number generator... that file would be "data" just as much as anything else.
You have a different definition for data? Great... then we're having a semantic debate which is possibly the most boring dispute possible. By your definition of data I will probably agree with you. If you accepted my definition then you'd probably agree with me. Who cares.
Next issue. ""
I won there. The argument literally ended there. Everything since has been my vain attempt to explain something very simple to someone very stubborn and very wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You can find more about what Nigeria has done here:
http://www.latimes.com/world/a...
Nothing they did was especially innovative. Their response was textbook. You quarantine anyone infected, you question anyone infected about everyone they've come in contact with, you investigate all of those people, and you do not take the virus lightly.
None of this is new. It is basic.
The people saying we can't have screening or quarantine procedures for political reasons don't seem to grasp that viruses don't care about your politics. It is like when Achilles says to Hector "there are no pacts between lions and men"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The virus will show no pity, no hesitation, and no remorse. It exists to eat and spread.
Just as we have procedures for dealing with forest fires or other natural phenomenon. You don't let politics dictate how you deal with them. There is a correct way and an incorrect way. If you choose the incorrect path because it is politically more correct, then that natural phenomenon will exploit your arrogance and do what it does.
Again, I'm not worried about an outbreak in the US. I am however concerned about the glaring and obvious incompetence of the government. I am routinely shocked by how stupid they are on so many issues.
Yes that is what I meant. When I say numbers you can just randomly substitute your own and assume that is what I meant instead.
Totally reasonable.
*flicks mash potatoes at twit*
I don't need the computer to tell me when a big disk nearly full. That would be something I was aware of for some time.
In an enterprise setting where there could be many disks... one would assume the sysadmin has set reasonable alert levels rather then leaving everything on default.
So... I guess this is relevant to non-power users in residential contexts? But then how is a non power user filling a terrabyte harddrive? I mean... seriously.
They were following CDC guidelines which apparently were contradictory and incomplete.
Basically what everyone is realizing is that the CDC is fucking clueless and everyone has to just use their own best judgement on the matter.
Beyond which... basic quarantine procedures would deal with this problem.
Nigeria is doing that and they're basically free from infection despite being right next to effected countries.
The US used to have such policies in the old days. Ellis Island had extensive quarantine facilities for example.
In this case we have a full blown Ebola outbreak and the fucking retarded administration wants to keep open transport because they're afraid it would look like discrimination. Let me be clear, if the damn outbreak were in the middle of Sweden, I'd still want quarantine procedures. This has nothing at all to do with race but rather everything to do with a very scary virus that isn't playing around.
Now am I actually worried about a mass outbreak in the US? No. I find that unlikely. However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.
This is not something you take lightly. You pay this sort of virus the respect it deserves and enact BASIC quarantine procedures. Rudimentary.
Nothing fancy. You come back from one of these countries, your passport gets checked, they see the stamp, they have a blood sample taken or whatever is needed. Then depending on the relevance, you might need to wait for that to come back clean.
Sound inconvenient? It is a fucking plague. Tough shit.
People were talking about organized crime in japan. So... do you think organized crime in japan has any trouble getting all the guns they "WANT"... the answer is obviously. They smuggle more then that all the time.
Regardless... on the issue printed weapons... we can already pump out plastic weapons from printers that print plastic.
What happens when the public has printers that can print metal?
The metal printers can already print production grade weapons. One of the printing companies printed a 1911 pistol.
Now you can control that to some extent by controlling the sale of ammunition. But it really depends on what you're printing.
I would print a shotgun. Mostly because the ammo is really easy to make yourself.
Here is the thing. You can't stop a psychopath by controlling weapons. You can change the way that organized crime deals with people. But a mass killer is going to find a way. Keep in mind you can make a powerful bomb with fertilizer. Keep in mind you can make poison gas with cleaning supplies.
At a certain point, there is substitute for simply trusting people. And that means that if you really want to control this issue you need to know who is crazy and who is not.
Any nice thing happens and some asshat comes along to say "but we won't all have it at the same time instantly!"... Seriously?
Can you just be happy someone has something nice? And eventually it will get around to everyone. It is better that someone has something then that no one has it. This envy based value system is really getting old.
As to facing your accuser... lets say I own a shop and it has a camera in it... and someone breaks into my shop and use the video from the camera to convict them.
The video is evidence... your accuser is the government.
As to discretion, i have a problem with this as well because it means the police officer can decide what is illegal or not on a case by case basis. That is not his right. The legislature has the right to decide what is and is not legal. The courts have the duty to decide who is actually guilty. And the executive's job is merely to write the tickets.
Discretion on balance creates problems because it papers over problems with bad laws. Congress or city councils would be pressured to fix bad laws if those laws were actually applied as written.
Making matters worse, police sometimes apply the letter of the law and sometimes not. They are held to no standard as to when they do or do not do this. They can choose on a whim what to do. And that is a kind of tyranny.
Do I prefer police officers? yes. Because they're expensive and can't be everywhere. So they are inefficient for many kinds of enforcement. I like that as a check against tyranny.
If the cameras were only used properly, I wouldn't have a problem with them.
I think one of the bigger issues with traffic citations is that they are a revenue stream for cities. They shouldn't be. An alternative should be offered instead of giving the city money. Community service or something. Most people will just pay the money. But if the city gets silly with the fees, then you can just do some community service for 10 hours or something and be done with it.
That would lower the incentive for the government to effectively raise taxes by increasing enforcement for petty traffic violations.
I understand the purpose.
However, in a democracy where everyone can vote... you run into problems when taxation does not equal representation.
By having different tax rates for people that are wealthier... while at the same time not increasing their influence over government relatively... you create a situation where one faction can vote themselves something at someone else's expense and the system is unable to balance the interests.
That is the problem with progressive taxes. They do not come with corresponding influence for those that pay more.
If you are prepared to reduce the influence of those that pay less or increase the influence of those that pay more... then go for it. Otherwise, progressive taxes should be avoided.
Further note that I am referring to tax RATES. If I make a million dollars and I pay a rate of 10 percent then I'm going to pay a lot more money then someone that makes 1000 dollars and also pays 10 percent. However, note that the rates are the same. That is fine. The problem comes about when the guy making a million pays a rate of 70 percent and the guy making a 1000 pays a rate of negative 900 percent. And yet they both have the same influence over the political process when they go to the ballot box.
Now you might say the rich man might get more influence buy donating to politicians. This is true. However that comes as an expense ON TOP of his taxes. He doesn't just get that. He has to pay even more money just to get the influence he should have gotten simply by paying those progressive taxes.
Now look, I don't want rich people to have that much influence. I like the idea of one person one vote.
But the price of that is that we all have to pay the same rate. Another option might be limiting what people on subsidies can vote on. I know... it sounds terrible but it might be fair. If society is basically feeding you, housing you, etc... then do you have a right to tell the rest of society how it must do it? I don't see that you do. At that point you are a dependent of the state not unlike being a child taken care of by a parent. And children don't get to vote.
... then you should be able to get someone to step up and do it.
They did it wrong clearly.
The idea is that a certain amount of the economy is flowing through the internet and the government feels it has a right a fraction of that just as they claim from everything.
I can get that far.
Then I get what they did by charging by bandwidth. This is an attempt to make the tax progressive so that small users pay very little and big users pay a lot. I get that too.
The problem with this idea is that the amount of traffic is accelerating and the tax isn't reasonable if everyone's internet speed goes up by a factor of ten or something.
A more reasonable tax would be a per user tax on the ISPs. I'm quite sure they already have those... so... increase them I guess if they want more. That gets us to a tax that should bring in decent revenue without limiting people to lower bandwidth.
How to make that progressive?... I guess you could say anyone with low income could file for relief from that tax... or you could just have bandwidth tiers. Every company has tiers... this is the 3mb tier, this is the 7 mb tier... all the way up to 200 mb or something. Have the tax associated with given tiers be reset yearly or something so it can keep pace.
That or just dont' have a progressive tax... progressive taxes are stupid.
Oh I am aware that bigots and ideologues find logic to be inconvenient. Nothing new there. I just find it useful to find the central fallacy in their running stream of bullshit so that when they pop up again with the same old crap... I can bop them on the head with logic and then go back to doing whatever.
In the case of this branch of feminism...
The killer point is that women are either inferior and in need of our aid as the big strong men. Or they are our equals and as adults able to manage their own lives can handle it on their own.
Next issue. :-)
I love how they're always saying women are equals to men... and then saying they're complete half wits or incompetent about something.
Its really sort of weird.
Look, if women are the equal of men, and for the record I believe they are, then they don't need to be coddled or shown special treatment beyond what men get.
So that is the logical trap that is pretty fucking inescapable here.
Either women are inferior or they don't need your help.
Pick one.
I pick option 2. Its called being an adult and taking responsibility for yourself.
Why didn't women get into coding? Because they didn't want to.
Coding is a solitary job with long hours that gives no shits anything besides if the code is good. Yes you can code in groups... but that's only with division of labor and once labor is divided you are working on your code yourself.
What is more, the coding all stars are always mad geniuses in the field that put insane hours into honing their craft. Would be sexist to point out that women don't seem to find that kind of work appealing?
And another thing, consider how many one man shops there are out there. How many one woman independent coders are there out there? Many of these companies get started in a dorm room or a garage with their moms doing laundry behind them or something. Discrimination? The bar is so low that anyone can get into this so long as they're willing and able to do the work.
If you lack the will or the ability... then that is why you're not a successful coder. Period.
And here some one is going to say "you can't just say period"... well yes I can... I just did... after a long argument that had a lot of supporting points and I summed it all up with a closing argument and then said period. Think I'm wrong? Tell me how women can be both our equals and in need of special treatment. Your brain will literally explode in raspberry jam all over the walls if you try to divide by zero by saying both of those things can happen. They can't. The logic is inescapable. Either they're just girls and inferior and thus deserving of protection... or they're adults, our equals, and don't need it anymore then anyone else.
So you're saying organized crime and smuggle tons of heroine into a country but not a handgun?
If they don't do it, it is because they choose not to do it. Not because your police stop it. Were that otherwise smuggling wouldn't be so prevalent. And of course it is. Can I get cocaine in Japan? Then I can get M16 if the price is right.
That however was the old status quo. That was the pre 3d printed world.
What we're coming into is a situation where anyone with the machine can have the thing. Right now, cheap machines can only pop out plastic crap. The higher end machines can print fully functional metal guns indistinguishable from production grade weapons.
Moore's law works on more then CPUs. The technology is improving geometrically. That is what you're arguing against here.
You want to say I'm wrong? Okay. You're denying the Sun. You're saying the tides are not real. You are saying gravity is a figment of my imagination.
And what I can say to that? I say... "okay"... and then go about my life knowing that reality isn't going to permit you to contradict it when push comes to shove.
... on the internet.
Imagine if he hadn't... you'd never know. The police didn't catch him or do some investigation. He said he had them on the internet. Did he even have bullets? In any case, what this makes clear is that if you print a gun... don't post that you've done it on the internet. They're watching.
And all of you that think you can control this thing... you can't. Your entire legal enforcement concept is obsolete. The most you'll be able to do is bust morons. Anyone with any sense won't broadcast that they've done it. They'll just have it.
And the crazies will of course use the guns for mass shootings or whatever. You can't stop this by going after the guns. You never could. You want to stop this? Go after crazy people. They are the lowest common denominator in mass shootings.
There is always a crazy person behind the trigger. But how many people that own guns go on mass shootings? Very very very few. As a result, if you want to stop mass shootings what does it make more sense to regulate? Something that often does not predict violent behavior? Or something that pretty much leads to one kind of inappropriate behavior or another.
Do I want to make their lives harder with government oversight? No. Ideally we should sort the violent from the non-violent. The violent crazies... sorry but we need to keep tabs on them.
dozens of examples. Judges across the country are ordering them illegal, the citations non-valid, and there are corruption investigations.
Some of the investigations have shown that city council members were getting their condo's paid for by the red light company.
These things are a scam. They're never put in places where there are safety concerns. They're always placed at busy yet statistically safe intersections. And they are typically configured to maximize tickets rather then flag unsafe or even just illegal behavior.
The fact of the matter has been well known for a couple years now.
And it has resulted in many cities taking down the cameras.
The sad thing is that it wasn't public outcry that caused the cameras to come down. They were never popular.
It wasn't the statistical fact that safety was actually reduced by putting up the cameras. People would slam on breaks to avoid the camera amongst other behavior which lead to an increase in accidents.
It wasn't even the corruption being caught red handed.
No, what is causing the cameras to get pulled is that despite everything they're not making enough money. And that is the only thing our city councils seem to care about. Revenue.
And that is deeply disturbing.
Just because the Russians sent a women into space does not mean that any other specific woman was superior to the male choices that were offered at the time.
As to passing all tests and qualifying, many men did as well and many of them never went into space. By your logic, the only reason they didn't was because of gender bias.
You have correlation, sir... not causation. You can show that a women that qualified did not go into space. You cannot show that she was not chosen specifically because of her gender.
That's just logic. Deal with it.
As to your question about advocacy... you're apparently a terrible reader.
Let me repeat... I said this above but I'm going to say it again because you're clearly a bit slow.
I complete support female EQUALITY. That would include female voting so long as men vote as well. Anything men are allowed to do, women should be allowed to do and they should both be judged on the same standards for anything requiring competency.
That does not require advocacy for women. Merely an insistence on general equality for EVERYONE.
As to my examples being dishonest, you've provided no evidence for this position. You seem to just be sputtering some sort of emotional outburst on the mistaken impression that it means something to me. Be rational or be judged to be irrational. Your choice.
As to being fair, you're going to have to clarify.
The system if anything gives women advantages over men. This has been documented repeatedly. Often men will have to pass one test and women must pass a much easier test. Which often as not they still fail in the very physically demanding positions.
We can get specific if you have any interest in actually having a rational discussion. If rather you'd just like to presume moral superiority in an issue that isn't ultimately about morality... then that is your prerogative... be irrational... your choice.
As to your sad attempt to threaten me with legal action for a rhetorical flourish... *yawn*... you're clearly deranged... Change your meds, sport. They're a bit off.
I doubt they care. These statistical studies are more to get the politically inclined laymen to dump grant money or get an article in the paper.
Almost without exception every statistical study I've read over the last few years has been bullshit. It has become a pattern.
The politics on gender equality have created a lot of zealots that are pushing propaganda of various kinds. We see it every day... And while I do believe in the equality between the sexes, I do not believe in advocacy for either of the sexes.
There is a lot of advocacy going on in this general topic and I have no patience for it because it is ultimately dishonest.
Do women deserve to compete against men? Sure. Join the male Olympics and tell me how well you do there. Sound unfair? That is competition. It isn't about fair. And when you're talking about enduring space travel under physically demanding circumstances... physicality matters.
Que the hordes of political advocacy trolls. I acknowledge again that women should be given an EQUAL shot at these things. Equal. Not subsidized. You put your finger on the scale to bias the results and I will cut that fucker off and feed it to you.
Guess China is just wasting money by not using solar power to power their whole energy grid... or you're full of crap.
You know... which ever is more credible... twit.
I disagree. Both men and women probably get their feelings hurt in equal measure. Men are simply TAUGHT to deal with it. Where as women are taught to complain.
So when a man gets abuse, he eats it or responds in kind.
When a women gets abuse, she screams.
This is a vestige of the old sexual status quo where men protected the vulnerable women. We provided for them. We guarded them. We spoke for them.
They were not quite adults. And not being quite adults when challenged by an adult, their responsible guardian was to step in and deal with it.
Women have rejected this relationship. That however has a price. If women are adults then they should act like adults.
Not like men... like adults. Deal with your own problems if you can. If you can't and a male peer could/did then that begs the question of why he is able to do something you are not?
If women are not inferior, then they can protect themselves as easily as men on the internet. The only advantage men have over women is their physical strength which is irrelevant on the internet.
There is no reason for men to be required to come to the defense of a women on the internet. It is all just words.
I don't find such statements credible unless they put the money where their mouth is on the issue. If they blew what they've blown on the war on drugs on the space program we'd have a colony on mars. Think about that.
When in US history was the FBI turned against a native political faction to the political gain of the sitting establishment?
Exactly. We've seen this movie before.
And we know how it ends. Whatever you think of the targets of these things... it won't destroy those movements... it is just pissing them off.
Right... because when Galieo insulted people that said the sun was the center of the solar system, it meant he was wrong.
Logical fallacies for the win, fucktard?
I'm insulting you because you deserve to be treated with contempt and after trolling me for all these posts with your idiocy there isn't any courtesy left.
As to my requirements for meaning, I know yours didn't include implicit qualities that are required for their proper function. That was me... because I'm not a moron.
Seriously... Fuck off.
You fail at reading comprehension. No where in that definition does it imply the data was analyzed in any manner.
You were always wrong and I think you know it. The sad thing is that you think I don't know it... or that confusing the issue will make you less wrong. At best you might confuse me... but you'd still be wrong.
You didn't even accomplish that though.
Kindly put your thumb at a 90 degree angle, lift off your seat about eight inches, pull down your pants, place your hand thumb up on the seat perpendicular to the chair, and gently sit down.
Twit.
Wrong.
Full quote:
""
We can play words games if you like... I'm quite good at them. But I frankly find the prospect to be boring. So I'll just win.
Data (/ÃdeÃtÃ(TM)/ DAY-tÃ(TM), /ÃdÃf¦tÃ(TM)/ DA-tÃ(TM), or /ÃdÃ'ÃtÃ(TM)/ DAH-tÃ(TM))[1] is a set of values of qualitative or quantitative variables; restated, pieces of data are individual pieces of information. Data in computing (or data processing) is represented in a structure that is often tabular (represented by rows and columns), a tree (a set of nodes with parent-children relationship), or a graph (a set of connected nodes). Data is typically the result of measurements and can be visualized using graphs or images.
Data is simply information. Data does not imply analysis or even meaning. If I collected all the numbers from a random number generator... that file would be "data" just as much as anything else.
You have a different definition for data? Great... then we're having a semantic debate which is possibly the most boring dispute possible. By your definition of data I will probably agree with you. If you accepted my definition then you'd probably agree with me. Who cares.
Next issue.
""
I won there. The argument literally ended there. Everything since has been my vain attempt to explain something very simple to someone very stubborn and very wrong.
Good day.