Oh I see, so its all really about the joking, huh? Not about bullying corporations and the government to institute hiring quotas.
And if we don't put in hiring quotas guess what happens?
We get more men tehn women in some professions.
SHOCK GASP
And then nitwits like you come around to talk about how unfair that is... endlessly... suggesting its all sexism or racism or whatever. And YOU WILL NOT SHUT UP until the stats become more equal.
Well we know of no way to make your numbers match besides putting in quotas.
You say you want public service announcements about how some women like computer science? Why? Why are we spending public tax dollars on your statistics fetish?
Let it go.
I am beyond tired of this idiotic tendency of people to base very complex social issues arguments on very thin statistical evidence entirely unmoored from any kind of scientific rigor.
Is the lack of female coal miners an issue? Is it really?
maybe we should go through all the female jobs women tend to have and demand a 50 percent share for men.
Sound reasonable? And while we're at it, we should set the standards so that men always get at least 50 percent. In fact, we should increase the wages for men if they really don't want to do those jobs. Because after all being good at your job isn't what is important. Wanting to do the job isn't important.
No... what is important is bullshit labor statistics obsessed upon by asshats.
Many studies have been done with trying to give girls the childhood of boys.
The problem is that girls reject it even if isolated.
Some of the behaviors are genetic.
Again... there will be outliers... biology is messy. But the thing is women tend to CHOOSE certain paths indifferent to how they're raised. Again, this has been found by anthropologists repeatedly.
They did one where they gave girls boy toys and they ended up having tea parties with fire trucks and then tucking them in for naps.
I'm not making that up.
Where as the boys crash them into stuff and race them around.
What do you think happens if you gave a boy nothing but girl toys? They have wars with ken dolls and barbies. Again, not making it up. This has been found repeatedly.
Look... I get what you want. But don't punish men for having different interests or impose unrealistic expectations on people.
Just let people be themselves and try to accept them for who they are... That includes both men and women.
All you have to appreciate is that the line between nature and nurture is a little skewed to the side of nature. You can bend nature but you can't ignore it.
So now you're saying that women don't have as many start ups because their rich parents don't respect them?
The idiotic arguments from you clowns just flow like a river.
Do you even realize the context of the argument here? We were talking about tech start ups and why there aren't as many female tech start ups. Are you honestly staying it comes down to people not giving women a chance?
Really? You think there were as many female tech start ups that tried but were rejected simply because the applicants had vaginas?
You forget that power draws the corrupt. If the system is setup in such a way that the corrupt can't position themselves for power then what you'll be dealing with is AVERAGE corruption. Where as government corruption is well above average because the corrupt literally seek it out creating a concentration of corruption.
The tracker is the least important part of demonoid. The interesting bit was their website that had such a great catalog of stuff AND such a great system for search it.
SUB CATEGORIES! Oh man. There were so many sub categories. Which meant if you wanted something you could search just that sub category. Honestly, Amazon.com often has an inferior search system to what old Demoniod had.
If the resurrected the site but kept the tracker offline it would be nearly as good as the old days... assuming anyone ever used the new demoniod again.
As to breadwinners, what does that have to do with Steve Jobs setting up a computer company with a group of enthusiasts in a garage?
Where were the women you think he overlooked?
Where were they?
Exactly.
You're not going to cloud the issue with rhetorical smoke bombs.
I'm sorry if my observation in this forum offended you. And the "womyn" spelling is cute, but you're not arguing with a bigoted man that is trying to keep you down. You're arguing with a mind that has observed a pattern and is noting it.
There is a fact here. And you're not going to obscure it.
Do you really want to argue there are no statistical differences between men and women either in ability or interests?
Tell me, sunshine... what do the Ratings look like for the golden globes broken down by sex?
What the readership of the average fashion magazine?
What's that? Mostly women? Doesn't that mean that both the golden globes and fashion mags discriminate against men?
According to morons like yourself.
This isn't bigotry. This is just being "aware" of reality. You think you're clever here. But really you've just allowed political correctness to rot your brain.
This is a sticky issue but there are differences between men and women.
Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.
Now I am not saying women are not capable of doing the work. Rather, they don't want to do it or don't find it interesting. And yes, there are exceptions but statistically most women simply don't want to do technical work. Its not what makes them happy.
What is more, why are we so hyper obessessed about the gender gap in these fields? What about the lack of female lumber jacks or female coal miners or female crab fishers?
I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? And really, is tech even high status at this point? Oh sure, there are some extremely well paid positions in that industry but there are also a lot that pay nothing. Its a range.
And while we're at it, lets point out that the start ups were by and large set up by collections of interested young men that started out with NOTHING.
Nothing is stopping women from doing the same thing but generally speaking they don't do it. They're not the sort to drop out of college, start some crazy company with some friends, and risk everything to make a go of it in one thing or another. They just aren't wired that way. And to be honest, most men aren't wired that way either.
Statistically some men are... and while some women are... its a tiny percentage.
In any case, this gender gap argument is bullshit and needs to get filed as legacy women's lib bullcrap.
Really things were set up rather well initially. But it broke down almost immediately.
The big problem was that we let the government reinterpret their own rights.
So the executive gets executive privilege which lets them basically lie/keep secrets from the legislature/judiciary and through interpretation the judiciary gets legislative powers by getting the power to change the meaning of laws.
There are other examples but they're all perversions.
The Executive has no right to keep secrets of any kind from the legislature or the judiciary... these are interpreted powers.
The Judiciary assumed the right to interpret laws because how could they rule on the constitutionality of a law if they couldn't strike one down. The issue becomes especially thorny when they start reinterpreting the constitution itself which is the highest law in the land.
In regards to how these two compromises should have broken down:
1. Give the Judiciary and legislative branch a joint investigative power over the Executive that reports to either the full house or the select committees as desired by the Legislative. The Judiciary likewise can receive the reports however they like. But a major flaw in the system is that the executive is the only branch allowed to directly investigate anything. Which means when it needs to be investigated there is a conflict of interest. Hold executive funds in bank accounts controlled by the legislative so that their checks literally bounce the instant the legislative branch desires it. And the Judiciary can pull legal authority from the executive if it fails to comply... so a government order to X by the executive would suddenly lack all legal authority if the executive stopped complying with the Judiciary.
2. In regards to Courts assuming legislative powers the courts have a point that they need the power to modify laws however those powers have been pushed far too much. All they really need is to say "rewrite this bill because it conflicts with X". Or in the case that there is a Constitutional law that needs clarification, simply cite precedence on the law and if required request a law from the legislature that addresses the case specifically. In that way, the courts wouldn't be legislating but rather pointing out a problem to the legislature and requesting their clarification on the issue.
In any case, your idea reminds me of Frank Herbert book. I think it was "the Whipping Star"... In this future society there is an American type governmental system with the three conventional branches but there is also a fourth branch called "bureau of sabotage" which has the sole function of screwing up government. Mostly slowing it down, frustrating it, cocking it up, leaking information... generally making things not work very well. The theory being that government becomes a problem when it becomes efficient and a confused and hamstrung government is less ambitious and more solicitous of its citizens. The government is always kept on the brink of collapse so if the government ever loses the consent of the governed it will fold instantly.
Its an insane idea but its also an amusing one in these times of rampant government arrogance.
You're making two errors which I have pointed out repeatedly.
1. You're assuming that population (1) and population (2) are the same with the exception of gun statistics. This is the demographic point I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring because it points out that the data sources cannot be directly compared.
2. You're assuming that the data hasn't already been distorted. You think this data as it is doesn't have any problems. You assume its pure, literal, and unadulterated. You have no basis to make that assumption.
Until those two points are addressed it is not possible to compare the data sources.
First, your statistics were not collected with the intention of comparing crime rates between nations. So the validity of the source information isn't really even the issue.
Second, so you understand, the problem is the methodology of how you process the data so it can be compared. If I compare the fuel economy of a buses with motorcycles, do you want me to just compare the fuel economy of ONE bus versus ONE motorcycle? Or would you find it more reasonable to compare per passenger fuel economy given some sort of average capacity on the bus?
Do you see? The analysis of the data is very important.
So when comparing crime statistics between nations you have to compensate for demographic differences. Lets say a given country has lots of young people in it and another has lots of old people in it. Would it be surprising that the area with more young people has more violent crime?
There are literally thousands of variables you have to compensate for before you can even presume the ability to do an apples to apples comparison.
And that doesn't even address that the data itself is often corrupted by political interests. For example, you are a police chief or a mayor of a given city that has a history of crime problems. Another round of elections are coming up and you will lose those elections if you don't show an improvement.
What is easier... actually solving the crime problem or manipulating the statistics so that it looks like you improved it?
How do you know which regions and statistics have been tampered with and which have not? Obviously you will need the statistics collected by multiple disinterested third parties.
Doubtless you find this overly burdensome. TOUGH SHIT. That's science.
If you wish to have a PRAYER of obtaining a shadow of the credibility that comes with a scientific study then you can either hold to some scientific standards or get much better at faking it.
Either way... the data quality provided by these organizations is trash. Utterly unreliable. Hopelessly corrupted.
There is no way to turn garbage data into clean scientific data. Garbage in and garbage out.
If you actually want to compare nation state statistics then you'd have to adopt scientific methodologies. End of argument.
If medical studies were conducted this way you'd be proscribed red wine to cure your heart disease.
If you really can't grasp little things like correlation and causation or that various stats are not calculated the same way then you really have no right to even talk about statistics at all.
You either have to have respect for the integrity of the data or you are unable to use the data as evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure lets do some tiny thing that is non-binding and costs no money.
Everyone happy now? Great. Now we don't ever have to talk about this stupidity again.
No offense to you. This topic annoys me.
Which is fine.
We thrive in the wilderness. Everything built was built out of nothing. It is our passion and drive that keeps it alive not the vacuous idiocy.
Oh I see, so its all really about the joking, huh? Not about bullying corporations and the government to institute hiring quotas.
And if we don't put in hiring quotas guess what happens?
We get more men tehn women in some professions.
SHOCK GASP
And then nitwits like you come around to talk about how unfair that is... endlessly... suggesting its all sexism or racism or whatever. And YOU WILL NOT SHUT UP until the stats become more equal.
Well we know of no way to make your numbers match besides putting in quotas.
You say you want public service announcements about how some women like computer science? Why? Why are we spending public tax dollars on your statistics fetish?
Let it go.
I am beyond tired of this idiotic tendency of people to base very complex social issues arguments on very thin statistical evidence entirely unmoored from any kind of scientific rigor.
Is the lack of female coal miners an issue? Is it really?
maybe we should go through all the female jobs women tend to have and demand a 50 percent share for men.
Sound reasonable? And while we're at it, we should set the standards so that men always get at least 50 percent. In fact, we should increase the wages for men if they really don't want to do those jobs. Because after all being good at your job isn't what is important. Wanting to do the job isn't important.
No... what is important is bullshit labor statistics obsessed upon by asshats.
Many studies have been done with trying to give girls the childhood of boys.
The problem is that girls reject it even if isolated.
Some of the behaviors are genetic.
Again... there will be outliers... biology is messy. But the thing is women tend to CHOOSE certain paths indifferent to how they're raised. Again, this has been found by anthropologists repeatedly.
They did one where they gave girls boy toys and they ended up having tea parties with fire trucks and then tucking them in for naps.
I'm not making that up.
Where as the boys crash them into stuff and race them around.
What do you think happens if you gave a boy nothing but girl toys? They have wars with ken dolls and barbies. Again, not making it up. This has been found repeatedly.
Look... I get what you want. But don't punish men for having different interests or impose unrealistic expectations on people.
Just let people be themselves and try to accept them for who they are... That includes both men and women.
All you have to appreciate is that the line between nature and nurture is a little skewed to the side of nature. You can bend nature but you can't ignore it.
Baseless insults are baseless.
If that's all you've got then you've got nothing.
So now you're saying that women don't have as many start ups because their rich parents don't respect them?
The idiotic arguments from you clowns just flow like a river.
Do you even realize the context of the argument here? We were talking about tech start ups and why there aren't as many female tech start ups. Are you honestly staying it comes down to people not giving women a chance?
Really? You think there were as many female tech start ups that tried but were rejected simply because the applicants had vaginas?
The delusions from you clowns...
Okay, so why aren't the feminists crying for more crab fisher jobs?
What they want are sexual hiring quotas in the tech sector. That is where this going.
It is what they always want.
Hire a given percentage of us or you're a sexist.
Never mind people are not all equal in ability or interests and that is going to lead to imbalances in hiring patterns.
You forget that power draws the corrupt. If the system is setup in such a way that the corrupt can't position themselves for power then what you'll be dealing with is AVERAGE corruption. Where as government corruption is well above average because the corrupt literally seek it out creating a concentration of corruption.
The tracker is the least important part of demonoid. The interesting bit was their website that had such a great catalog of stuff AND such a great system for search it.
SUB CATEGORIES! Oh man. There were so many sub categories. Which meant if you wanted something you could search just that sub category. Honestly, Amazon.com often has an inferior search system to what old Demoniod had.
If the resurrected the site but kept the tracker offline it would be nearly as good as the old days... assuming anyone ever used the new demoniod again.
As to breadwinners, what does that have to do with Steve Jobs setting up a computer company with a group of enthusiasts in a garage?
Where were the women you think he overlooked?
Where were they?
Exactly.
You're not going to cloud the issue with rhetorical smoke bombs.
I'm sorry if my observation in this forum offended you. And the "womyn" spelling is cute, but you're not arguing with a bigoted man that is trying to keep you down. You're arguing with a mind that has observed a pattern and is noting it.
There is a fact here. And you're not going to obscure it.
No I didn't.
The bigotry you perceive is in your own mind.
Do you really want to argue there are no statistical differences between men and women either in ability or interests?
Tell me, sunshine... what do the Ratings look like for the golden globes broken down by sex?
What the readership of the average fashion magazine?
What's that? Mostly women? Doesn't that mean that both the golden globes and fashion mags discriminate against men?
According to morons like yourself.
This isn't bigotry. This is just being "aware" of reality. You think you're clever here. But really you've just allowed political correctness to rot your brain.
So you deny that there are differences between men and women?
You think you have me here... but science doesn't care much for political correctness and you'll find you have nothing.
I didn't say that. Your strawman is not a counter argument.
You don't have a right to define my argument. That is my right. Just as I cannot define yours.
so your argument is that women don't have rich parents?
Kindly have a point.
The person be they male or female makes the primary choice.
And that choice is in part a factor of their gender.
This is a sticky issue but there are differences between men and women.
Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.
Now I am not saying women are not capable of doing the work. Rather, they don't want to do it or don't find it interesting. And yes, there are exceptions but statistically most women simply don't want to do technical work. Its not what makes them happy.
What is more, why are we so hyper obessessed about the gender gap in these fields? What about the lack of female lumber jacks or female coal miners or female crab fishers?
I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? And really, is tech even high status at this point? Oh sure, there are some extremely well paid positions in that industry but there are also a lot that pay nothing. Its a range.
And while we're at it, lets point out that the start ups were by and large set up by collections of interested young men that started out with NOTHING.
Nothing is stopping women from doing the same thing but generally speaking they don't do it. They're not the sort to drop out of college, start some crazy company with some friends, and risk everything to make a go of it in one thing or another. They just aren't wired that way. And to be honest, most men aren't wired that way either.
Statistically some men are... and while some women are... its a tiny percentage.
In any case, this gender gap argument is bullshit and needs to get filed as legacy women's lib bullcrap.
... that a game company has to protect the PC from Microsoft.
I really hope the new CEO at MS is less of an asshat.
Really things were set up rather well initially. But it broke down almost immediately.
The big problem was that we let the government reinterpret their own rights.
So the executive gets executive privilege which lets them basically lie/keep secrets from the legislature/judiciary and through interpretation the judiciary gets legislative powers by getting the power to change the meaning of laws.
There are other examples but they're all perversions.
The Executive has no right to keep secrets of any kind from the legislature or the judiciary... these are interpreted powers.
The Judiciary assumed the right to interpret laws because how could they rule on the constitutionality of a law if they couldn't strike one down. The issue becomes especially thorny when they start reinterpreting the constitution itself which is the highest law in the land.
In regards to how these two compromises should have broken down:
1. Give the Judiciary and legislative branch a joint investigative power over the Executive that reports to either the full house or the select committees as desired by the Legislative. The Judiciary likewise can receive the reports however they like. But a major flaw in the system is that the executive is the only branch allowed to directly investigate anything. Which means when it needs to be investigated there is a conflict of interest. Hold executive funds in bank accounts controlled by the legislative so that their checks literally bounce the instant the legislative branch desires it. And the Judiciary can pull legal authority from the executive if it fails to comply... so a government order to X by the executive would suddenly lack all legal authority if the executive stopped complying with the Judiciary.
2. In regards to Courts assuming legislative powers the courts have a point that they need the power to modify laws however those powers have been pushed far too much. All they really need is to say "rewrite this bill because it conflicts with X". Or in the case that there is a Constitutional law that needs clarification, simply cite precedence on the law and if required request a law from the legislature that addresses the case specifically. In that way, the courts wouldn't be legislating but rather pointing out a problem to the legislature and requesting their clarification on the issue.
In any case, your idea reminds me of Frank Herbert book. I think it was "the Whipping Star"... In this future society there is an American type governmental system with the three conventional branches but there is also a fourth branch called "bureau of sabotage" which has the sole function of screwing up government. Mostly slowing it down, frustrating it, cocking it up, leaking information... generally making things not work very well. The theory being that government becomes a problem when it becomes efficient and a confused and hamstrung government is less ambitious and more solicitous of its citizens. The government is always kept on the brink of collapse so if the government ever loses the consent of the governed it will fold instantly.
Its an insane idea but its also an amusing one in these times of rampant government arrogance.
You're making two errors which I have pointed out repeatedly.
1. You're assuming that population (1) and population (2) are the same with the exception of gun statistics. This is the demographic point I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring because it points out that the data sources cannot be directly compared.
2. You're assuming that the data hasn't already been distorted. You think this data as it is doesn't have any problems. You assume its pure, literal, and unadulterated. You have no basis to make that assumption.
Until those two points are addressed it is not possible to compare the data sources.
End of line.
Obama is not a figurehead.
Honestly... some random guy off the internet couldn't do much worse of a job then most of the morons we put in office.
First, your statistics were not collected with the intention of comparing crime rates between nations. So the validity of the source information isn't really even the issue.
Second, so you understand, the problem is the methodology of how you process the data so it can be compared. If I compare the fuel economy of a buses with motorcycles, do you want me to just compare the fuel economy of ONE bus versus ONE motorcycle? Or would you find it more reasonable to compare per passenger fuel economy given some sort of average capacity on the bus?
Do you see? The analysis of the data is very important.
So when comparing crime statistics between nations you have to compensate for demographic differences. Lets say a given country has lots of young people in it and another has lots of old people in it. Would it be surprising that the area with more young people has more violent crime?
There are literally thousands of variables you have to compensate for before you can even presume the ability to do an apples to apples comparison.
And that doesn't even address that the data itself is often corrupted by political interests. For example, you are a police chief or a mayor of a given city that has a history of crime problems. Another round of elections are coming up and you will lose those elections if you don't show an improvement.
What is easier... actually solving the crime problem or manipulating the statistics so that it looks like you improved it?
How do you know which regions and statistics have been tampered with and which have not? Obviously you will need the statistics collected by multiple disinterested third parties.
Doubtless you find this overly burdensome. TOUGH SHIT. That's science.
If you wish to have a PRAYER of obtaining a shadow of the credibility that comes with a scientific study then you can either hold to some scientific standards or get much better at faking it.
Either way... the data quality provided by these organizations is trash. Utterly unreliable. Hopelessly corrupted.
There is no way to turn garbage data into clean scientific data. Garbage in and garbage out.
If you actually want to compare nation state statistics then you'd have to adopt scientific methodologies. End of argument.
If medical studies were conducted this way you'd be proscribed red wine to cure your heart disease.
If you really can't grasp little things like correlation and causation or that various stats are not calculated the same way then you really have no right to even talk about statistics at all.
You either have to have respect for the integrity of the data or you are unable to use the data as evidence.
Period.
if that's the case then... just don't add your phone... easy.