I can only go with you as far as "safe from harm or unjust prosecution". Anything else (and the discussion was genetic passports for websites) seems unrealistic, to put it mildly.
> First, the birth of our country is built on a rejection of this social pecking order.
Not our. Yours perhaps. Mine was built on religious intolerance and xenophobia.
> Further, we as a nation have reaffirmed this basic principle of equality through...
And reverted that also. The history of the USA is not one of a continuous progression to equality. When the constitution was written, slavery was common. The constitution and declaration of independence were not enough to reject that; an extra amendment was needed. So it's not as if equality as perceived today was present in spirit since 1787.
You mentioned overcoming natural order. You don't do that by claiming safe space. You do that by changing the nature of people, i.e. educating them. Claiming rights that are not grounded in common belief doesn't work: it's ordinary politics, and it can even backfire. SJW has let itself in with the post-modern sociology crowd, mixed up all terminology, and got itself in a state of permanent rage. That part of it antagonizes and makes it ridiculous. Be careful with that.
You can't defend unlimited free speech. That would include someone shouting atrocities through a megaphone outside your bedroom window. I don't think you'd like that. Then you automatically get into reciprocity, responsibility, limits to freedom, what is worth of being protected, etc.
> Are you going to tell them that they can't have freedom of speech?
First, I am not an advocate of 100% free speech. It's difficult to define, but hate speech can be forbidden, as far as I'm concerned, as well as other calls to harm others.
Second: they don't need a safe haven to have free speech, do they? They can stand in the middle of the town square and shout whatever they want under free speech. On the contrary, they only need some kind of barrier if they don't want their "speech" to be public or don't want to hear what others have to say.
Anyway, it would be a bad example, because only a minority of people with "white" DNA (what they are supposedly screening) is racist; the rest could enter and argue with them anyway.
> Youhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/15/07/22/0146236/genetic-access-control-code-uses-23andme-dna-data-for-internet-racism# need to be purged from our society of tolerance and peace.
> 3: Take your sexist, racist agenda and go the fuck away.
Well, indeed. What's the difference between "a safe space for women" and "a safe space for white supremacists"? And who in their right mind can think it's a good idea to have a DNA profile online? Even if set to private, it's begging to get hacked.
> The point is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the brains of females are any less capable of developing mathematical proficiency and talent
If you want to be literal: no, for that precise point there might be no hard evidence, but there is enough evidence that females don't actually develop it, and that's what counts. I might have all the talent to become the world's #1 short distance runner, but I am not.
> Comments like these are usually from people with zero real life experience.
Well, I've had my experience with Perl, and it did not please me. I'm not even referring to the antics of parameter passing or obscure syntax use. No, Perl couldn't even get a simple while ( && ) right. Being able to combine conditions is not an idiotic requirement, it is Compositionality 101. It is the basis of logic, and it permeates natural language. That's what Wall's background as a linguist amounts to. He just wants to create some vaguely interesting language, not a solid one from an engineering point of view.
> Perl has CPAN, the likes of which don't exist in Python.
Some people would argue otherwise. But if the size of the library matters, you should program in Java.
Reddit is hypocritical, sure. They shouldn't allow any of it, or all of it and face the music. I'm in favor of the first. Away with all those haters. Let them set up their own site where they can spew their venom.
About censorship: saying "we're no longer going to facilitate you trolling and harassing" isn't censorship, when there are other ways of expressing a dislike of obese people that are not banned. Unless you're really strict about it, but then you could even argue that not allowing user names longer than 255 characters is censorship.
It's pathetic. And he's already resigned/been made to resign. As a friend of mine remarked: sadly it's better to shag all your female PhDs than to make a joke about it.
It isn't censorship. If they want to spout their fathate somewhere, they can build their own site. As far as I'm concerned, the current measures don't go far enough. There are still subreddits like coontown, skinnypeoplehate, cuteabortions, etc. Repulsive.
I think the physicists were jealous of the social sciences. In parts of it, you can really just write anything, and in other parts, just a minor experiment that has an outcome that could possibly be seen as an affirmation is enough. And then you can publish all the clickbait you want, and without all that studying and math. It's a brave, new world!
The implicit bias test used is controversial, to say the least. According to mainstream cognitive psychology, it measures temporary perceptual associations via priming. These do not have a causal relation with higher level opinions. The effect can be caused by something as uninteresting as the local way of referring to science and scientists.
Methods? They had a large number of factors to correlate with their data: 25 (possibly a few more, depending on what you read), and ran a multiple regression over it, and are reporting an effect for every p.05. That's bad science at multiple levels.
It's just another fishing expedition.
Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I see. Printf is a bit of a weird function: perhaps they need a better macro syntax. Expanding at compile time is safe, so a good language for that might overcome (part of) these problems.
> it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.
Quite likely. But if that can be kept to a minimum, possibly shielded behind macros and the likes, and the rest of the code can achieve good performance, then we might have won something.
Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
> A simple printf function has to be a macro
I don't see anything wrong with that. Actually, it sounds quite sensible: it gets rid of some ugly variable arguments handling code, but still keeps the source readable. For the rest: Rust is an interesting idea, but doesn't look ideal. Apparently, it does not interface well with C++, only C, but mixing with C++ could be a good start. Rewrite some buggy code in Rust where it makes sense while keeping the rest in C++.
Slashdot Mirror
> You can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, AND you may face various charges for doing so. But no law prohibits you from doing so.
That's rather contradictory.
I can only go with you as far as "safe from harm or unjust prosecution". Anything else (and the discussion was genetic passports for websites) seems unrealistic, to put it mildly.
> First, the birth of our country is built on a rejection of this social pecking order.
Not our. Yours perhaps. Mine was built on religious intolerance and xenophobia.
> Further, we as a nation have reaffirmed this basic principle of equality through ...
And reverted that also. The history of the USA is not one of a continuous progression to equality. When the constitution was written, slavery was common. The constitution and declaration of independence were not enough to reject that; an extra amendment was needed. So it's not as if equality as perceived today was present in spirit since 1787.
You mentioned overcoming natural order. You don't do that by claiming safe space. You do that by changing the nature of people, i.e. educating them. Claiming rights that are not grounded in common belief doesn't work: it's ordinary politics, and it can even backfire. SJW has let itself in with the post-modern sociology crowd, mixed up all terminology, and got itself in a state of permanent rage. That part of it antagonizes and makes it ridiculous. Be careful with that.
You can't defend unlimited free speech. That would include someone shouting atrocities through a megaphone outside your bedroom window. I don't think you'd like that. Then you automatically get into reciprocity, responsibility, limits to freedom, what is worth of being protected, etc.
Why do you implicitly accuse men? If you believe that, you need your head looked after.
White supremacists fortunately aren't a majority. Women, on the other hand, are. Isolation on basis of DNA does not seem proper to me.
You are one of the things that is wrong in this world: your thoughtless, fundamentalist attitude is the cause of a lot of misery.
Says the anti-semite: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
> Are you going to tell them that they can't have freedom of speech?
First, I am not an advocate of 100% free speech. It's difficult to define, but hate speech can be forbidden, as far as I'm concerned, as well as other calls to harm others.
Second: they don't need a safe haven to have free speech, do they? They can stand in the middle of the town square and shout whatever they want under free speech. On the contrary, they only need some kind of barrier if they don't want their "speech" to be public or don't want to hear what others have to say.
Anyway, it would be a bad example, because only a minority of people with "white" DNA (what they are supposedly screening) is racist; the rest could enter and argue with them anyway.
I am most definitely not racist nor sexist.
> Youhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/15/07/22/0146236/genetic-access-control-code-uses-23andme-dna-data-for-internet-racism# need to be purged from our society of tolerance and peace.
And what the fuck does that mean?
> 3: Take your sexist, racist agenda and go the fuck away.
Well, indeed. What's the difference between "a safe space for women" and "a safe space for white supremacists"? And who in their right mind can think it's a good idea to have a DNA profile online? Even if set to private, it's begging to get hacked.
> The point is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the brains of females are any less capable of developing mathematical proficiency and talent
If you want to be literal: no, for that precise point there might be no hard evidence, but there is enough evidence that females don't actually develop it, and that's what counts. I might have all the talent to become the world's #1 short distance runner, but I am not.
> Comments like these are usually from people with zero real life experience.
Well, I've had my experience with Perl, and it did not please me. I'm not even referring to the antics of parameter passing or obscure syntax use. No, Perl couldn't even get a simple while ( && ) right. Being able to combine conditions is not an idiotic requirement, it is Compositionality 101. It is the basis of logic, and it permeates natural language. That's what Wall's background as a linguist amounts to. He just wants to create some vaguely interesting language, not a solid one from an engineering point of view.
> Perl has CPAN, the likes of which don't exist in Python.
Some people would argue otherwise. But if the size of the library matters, you should program in Java.
Interesting. If you liked the OP, this is a must-read.
Turkey and Egypt would fit the bill too, I believe. The whole region doesn't work on Saturday.
Go and live in SJW land. You'll be much happier there.
Reddit is hypocritical, sure. They shouldn't allow any of it, or all of it and face the music. I'm in favor of the first. Away with all those haters. Let them set up their own site where they can spew their venom.
About censorship: saying "we're no longer going to facilitate you trolling and harassing" isn't censorship, when there are other ways of expressing a dislike of obese people that are not banned. Unless you're really strict about it, but then you could even argue that not allowing user names longer than 255 characters is censorship.
Are you serious, or trolling?
It's pathetic. And he's already resigned/been made to resign. As a friend of mine remarked: sadly it's better to shag all your female PhDs than to make a joke about it.
It isn't censorship. If they want to spout their fathate somewhere, they can build their own site. As far as I'm concerned, the current measures don't go far enough. There are still subreddits like coontown, skinnypeoplehate, cuteabortions, etc. Repulsive.
I think the physicists were jealous of the social sciences. In parts of it, you can really just write anything, and in other parts, just a minor experiment that has an outcome that could possibly be seen as an affirmation is enough. And then you can publish all the clickbait you want, and without all that studying and math. It's a brave, new world!
Come on!
$ grep -riH "back ?door" .
So a few people can spend a bit of time looking through hundreds of millions of lines of code? How is that useful?
The implicit bias test used is controversial, to say the least. According to mainstream cognitive psychology, it measures temporary perceptual associations via priming. These do not have a causal relation with higher level opinions. The effect can be caused by something as uninteresting as the local way of referring to science and scientists.
Methods? They had a large number of factors to correlate with their data: 25 (possibly a few more, depending on what you read), and ran a multiple regression over it, and are reporting an effect for every p .05. That's bad science at multiple levels.
It's just another fishing expedition.
I see. Printf is a bit of a weird function: perhaps they need a better macro syntax. Expanding at compile time is safe, so a good language for that might overcome (part of) these problems.
> it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.
Quite likely. But if that can be kept to a minimum, possibly shielded behind macros and the likes, and the rest of the code can achieve good performance, then we might have won something.
> A simple printf function has to be a macro
I don't see anything wrong with that. Actually, it sounds quite sensible: it gets rid of some ugly variable arguments handling code, but still keeps the source readable. For the rest: Rust is an interesting idea, but doesn't look ideal. Apparently, it does not interface well with C++, only C, but mixing with C++ could be a good start. Rewrite some buggy code in Rust where it makes sense while keeping the rest in C++.