I guess once every facet of living a life is declared illegal, we need to wait around for Big Daddy Government to give us permission to do anything. Thank you Big Daddy Government for bestowing your grace upon us proles and allowing us to allow your children to walk to school. Signed Sincerely, another humble subject of the "land of the free."
aw... a hero. How nice.
"Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument."
You should try taking your own advice. Typical SJW hypocrite.
Men are the builders of civilization. We build cars, houses, machines, computers and social platforms. That's our interest, our nature, our purpose. That women have, for whatever reason, less interest in these pursuits is NOT the fault of men nor should it be our responsibility to drag 50% of women kicking and screaming into these pursuits just to satisfy the SJWs, social "engineers" and other assorted social malcontents.
[br]
[br]
The women who are interested in these things are in these fields already. That's why these ratios are never 0/100. It does a great disservice to the women who have worked their way up in these fields to be surrounded by quota hires who are there solely by possession of a XX chromosome and it also does a disservice to the women pressured into pursing fields they find uninteresting solely to satisfy some other person's misguided "equality" crusade.
[br]
[br]
Equality was achieved when women were able to enter these fields (in whatever number they chose). Equality is not served by FORCING everyone to comply with some arbitrary and fascist ratio.
"Actually feminism is about equality for men and women"
baaaaaaaloney. If that was the case then while women were championing the concept of DV shelters, they would have gone ahead and created shelters for men. They did not. While they were chamioning alternatives to prison sentencing for women with extenutating circumstances, they would have done the same for men. They did not. While they were holding their walks and fundraisers for breast cancer, they would have done the same for prostate cancer. They did not.
As another poster has said, the equality that feminists seek is the retention of all rights AND privileges accrued to females to date PLUS the rights tor privileges any male might have without, of course, the prerequisite responsibilities and sacrifices that men have traditionally had to make to get those rights.
" if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women. "
And? So what? Adam Savage's simple minded statement obviously assumes that no man ever could or should have a problem with the behavior of some women. And yet the feminists keep shrieking that ALL men are pigs, that ALL men are rapists or rape apologists, ALL men are oppressors.
Perhaps Adam Savage and his ilk should try meeting an actual woman once in their lives. Otherwise, his attitude reeks of naïve white knighting based on worn out codes of chivalry themselves based on nothing but a caricature of the human female as imagined by other white knights.
Furthermore, by it's own actions, Fark implicitly admits that women are weaker (and therefore unequal), needing the special protection of da menz (thereby perpetuating patriarchy) to protect their delicate eyes from seeing or reading something that might offend their delicate nature. And yet, one of these selfsame delicate creatures went to prison for killing her baby by putting it in a microwave.
Give Microsoft a break. How are they supposed to replace all those over-priced American employees with more H1Bs and recently amnestied illegals if they don't clear out the current liabilities first?
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African American men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.
Few mourn the man responsible for the slaughter of many thousands of innocent people worldwide over the years. But the operation that led to his death may yet kill hundreds of thousands more. In its zeal to identify bin Laden or his family, he CIA used a sham hepatitis B vaccination project to collect DNA in the neighborhood where he was hiding. The effort apparently failed, but the violation of trust threatens to set back global public health efforts by decades.
I'll let the rest of you decide where you think a national registry coupled with the laws of unintended consequences and human nature are bound to lead such a project.
Look, if you're a luddite and have chosen to not be vaccinated against infectious diseases, you are a public health risk.
To who? If you take care of yourself and your own then certainly not to you since you are vaccinated.
If you are un-immunized, you really have no business going into places like hospitals where you will put the lives of others at risk.
I would imagine that at some point EVERY UNvaccinated person goes into a hospital. That is were the vaccinations usually happen, right?
You want to be a plague carrier? Fine, but you can't go into public.
They recently found a couple cases of MERS in the USA. In the hospital's bureaucratic brilliance, they sent all the workers who had contact with the patient to their HOMES! Stupid is as bureaucracy does I suppose.
Diseases which had been mostly eradicated which are suddenly making a resurgence are entirely due to idiots who think the vaccine is going to give them another disease. You're entitled to your stupid beliefs, but you are not entitled to spread disease.
Overheated rhetoric. Mutant strains of many serious diseases exit because of failed application of medical science by the medical establishment itself. Greed, over use, incomplete use, substandard application, class stratification, lack of education AND, as it turns out, governmental subversion of vaccination drives for political purposes (as recently revealed that the CIA was using vaccinations as a ruse in its hunt for Bin Laden) have all conspired to render a noble idea increasingly useless.
Sure, we can put everyone in a database (yet again for yet another silly reason). And what will that serve? Nothing more than to make you a guinea pig to be injected with maybe a useful vaccine or maybe something else {see military vaccinations of soldiers, the Tuskegee experiment]. But of course, today the government would never do something so unscrupulous with its newly acquired power, right?
So, in other words, worry about yourself. If vaccinations are important to you, get them for yourself and your family but don't force your choices on others in some misguided attempt to buy yourself a little more false security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...http://www.scientificamerican....
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."
As in the physical space? So then if "cyber privacy" = physical privacy and "cyber security" = national security then what Kerry is saying is that the US government fully intends to build a police state where every citizen is continuously monitored JUST LIKE in the government does in the cyber world. Because national security cannot come at the expense of personal physical privacy. Good to know.
"But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad."
Well, now they are since Snowden left them no choice. Funny how they weren't quite so committed *before* they got caught with their hands in the Orwellian cookie jar. BTW - inclusive does not apparently mean "We the people." Kerry seems to be referring more to lobbyists and apparatchiks.
And if you think 911 calls are anonymous, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Clarence alluded to the fact that 911 calls aren't really anonymous but he didn't want to just come out and give up the lie.
"Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority opinion, reasoned that 'a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers' as well as for recording their calls,"
We are quickly leaving the era when technology actually solved real world problems and are now entering the time when new era robber barons use technology to solve the technological problems they created. There must be a phrase that describes the epoch a field reaches when it is only solving problems that it created itself.
Google has picked a side. Fine. I'll use my freedom of choice to choose another product. Google and its partner corporations have chosen to actively deny males from participation. I see no reason then, as a male, to actively support those corporations that promote bigotry against 50% of the population while simultaneously expecting that same 50% of the population to support their profits. I'm out and Google can go fuck itself.
In a similar vein as the "free" as in beer versus "free" as in speech colloquialism, citizens should be wary of the government's usage of "canceled" as in not going to do it versus, "canceled" as in the Total Information Awareness project where it was simply renamed and hidden.
I would bet we will see this project continue under some other name with a new and improved excuse for existing.
The human tendency for hyperbole happened. It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics. We just love the drama of a crisis. Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction. Talk about a drama queen. [br]
[br]
So, as it turned out, despite seemingly needing more than billions of IP addresses and IPv4 only supplying a few billion in totality, what the world really needed was just a few million IPv4 addresses that could provide "outside" initiated connectivity into the host. ie, servers. For all the rest, outbound connectivity could be supplied by some smaller proportion of addresses using NAT and clever work around services and many systems required even less than that needing only local area connectivity and allowing IPv4 to be reused over and over.
[br]
[br]
So, the need for IPv6 RIGHT NOW OR THE END WILL CONSUME US! was driven largely by hyperbole and the reality that IPv4 can and will continue to serve our purpose is tempered by the other human traits of conservation and ingenuity.
[br]
Yes, the transition to IPv6 is inevitable and necessary however, the consumption of IPv4 will not be no more a sudden catastrophic event event any more than John Kerry's belief that climate change is a weapon of mass destruction. It just never happens that way.
"'The device holds more than enough data to make me nervous about the possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy, and the fear of the thought that the media connected to my Glass would possibly end up online, somewhere, cached forever in a Google search,' she concluded. "
So she has a device that can essentially record, upload, index and publicize the activity of others without their consent and she's worried abouther privacy. Oh, sweet irony, how have thee forsaken the narcissist hipster Glassholes?
"Women can do just as much mental heavy lifting as men."
Bullshit because if they could, they would. I think it's pretty naïve to think that while nature made fairly substantially different hardware for substantially different purposes that it loaded exactly the same control software because it got lazy all of a sudden. Now maybe women can perform mental heavy lifting of a different sort but honestly, when they talk about patriarchy, when they talk about barriers to entry that they (for lack of understanding) call "bias," what they really mean is "our brain processes don't fit into these fields created and run by male thought processes." The proof to the fallacy of your statement is your statement needing to be made in the first place. Women can't do as much (male type) mental heavy lifting as men because if they could they would and if they were, they wouldn't be complaining about the difficulty of competing in male intellectual endeavors. The "bias" they perceive is the bias of the square peg not fitting in the round hole.
This woman's argument is poorly made at best and (I think) intentionally disingenuous at worst. She makes allusions to gender bias without ever really making the statement directly (which is, I believe, because she can't). She makes claims about difficulties that essentially are not faced by a particular gender but rather EVERYONE - man, woman, child, parakeet etc. And then finishes with a lot of talk that vaguely centers around equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is a pernicious piece of feminist logic because it tacitly supports and endorses INEQUALITY as a means to an end as long as women control it and are the main beneficiaries which is EXACTLY the behavior they decry as being so unjust in the first place. It is hypocrisy and as usual, women are just fine with it as long as they benefit.
Did Rovio use a system already identified as being fraught with privacy concerns? Yes. And as long as it made them money, they didn't pay more than lip service to the issues (just like all the other companies built on Google's system - so don't I'm raging on just Rovio).
It has long been established legal reasoning that people benefiting from an illegality are complicit in that illegality. I consider it hypocritical for Rovio or any other developer to simply say, "Hey, it wasn't us, we just used and profited from the system." Rovio made a choice, at the least they can stand up and show some integrity and tell us they knew this system was bad but they were more interested in the money. At least then I can respect them for being forthright. As it is though, they're as dirty as the rest and liars to boot.
"United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria."
Simple solution: Stop being a U.S. based business. The über paranoia, hubris and bullying attitude of the U.S. government has gotten out of hand. They are single-handedly destroying American technology businesses by eroding potential and existing customers trust (through the abuses of the NSA) and increasingly want to us U.S. corporations as a pawn in their geopolitical manipulations. In the era of globalism (promoted by that selfsame government on behalf of corporations over the welfare of its own citizens), now that same government demands adherence to nationalistic agendas. Pure hypocrisy and one that represents increasing risk to our fragile GLOBAL economy.
Well, those things and a self-loathing liberal dogma bent on supporting *anyone* but fellow Americans. It's kind of hard to be upwardly mobile when you have a certain hyper vocal segment of the society constantly shrieking about "privilege."
Look no further than a recent idea floated in Michigan to give Detroit its own visas to import 50,000 foreign workers. American government doesn't want Americans. It wants nice passive, desperate foreign workers grateful for a pittance and always ready to kiss the king's ring. I say, fine. Let them have it. We'll see who laughs last.
Keep re-reading it'll make sense to you sooner or later. If I have time I'll develop a pop-up book that you might find easier to digest but in the meantime, I'll give it a retry.
In a field where the majority (notice that qualifier AC#1) of contributions were made by white males, the new breed of white males who have made their way to the top of the field now want to close the door of opportunity to successive white males behind them.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess once every facet of living a life is declared illegal, we need to wait around for Big Daddy Government to give us permission to do anything. Thank you Big Daddy Government for bestowing your grace upon us proles and allowing us to allow your children to walk to school. Signed Sincerely, another humble subject of the "land of the free."
aw... a hero. How nice.
"Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument."
You should try taking your own advice. Typical SJW hypocrite.
Men are the builders of civilization. We build cars, houses, machines, computers and social platforms. That's our interest, our nature, our purpose. That women have, for whatever reason, less interest in these pursuits is NOT the fault of men nor should it be our responsibility to drag 50% of women kicking and screaming into these pursuits just to satisfy the SJWs, social "engineers" and other assorted social malcontents. [br] [br] The women who are interested in these things are in these fields already. That's why these ratios are never 0/100. It does a great disservice to the women who have worked their way up in these fields to be surrounded by quota hires who are there solely by possession of a XX chromosome and it also does a disservice to the women pressured into pursing fields they find uninteresting solely to satisfy some other person's misguided "equality" crusade. [br] [br] Equality was achieved when women were able to enter these fields (in whatever number they chose). Equality is not served by FORCING everyone to comply with some arbitrary and fascist ratio.
"Actually feminism is about equality for men and women"
baaaaaaaloney. If that was the case then while women were championing the concept of DV shelters, they would have gone ahead and created shelters for men. They did not. While they were chamioning alternatives to prison sentencing for women with extenutating circumstances, they would have done the same for men. They did not. While they were holding their walks and fundraisers for breast cancer, they would have done the same for prostate cancer. They did not.
As another poster has said, the equality that feminists seek is the retention of all rights AND privileges accrued to females to date PLUS the rights tor privileges any male might have without, of course, the prerequisite responsibilities and sacrifices that men have traditionally had to make to get those rights.
" if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women. "
And? So what? Adam Savage's simple minded statement obviously assumes that no man ever could or should have a problem with the behavior of some women. And yet the feminists keep shrieking that ALL men are pigs, that ALL men are rapists or rape apologists, ALL men are oppressors.
Perhaps Adam Savage and his ilk should try meeting an actual woman once in their lives. Otherwise, his attitude reeks of naïve white knighting based on worn out codes of chivalry themselves based on nothing but a caricature of the human female as imagined by other white knights.
Furthermore, by it's own actions, Fark implicitly admits that women are weaker (and therefore unequal), needing the special protection of da menz (thereby perpetuating patriarchy) to protect their delicate eyes from seeing or reading something that might offend their delicate nature. And yet, one of these selfsame delicate creatures went to prison for killing her baby by putting it in a microwave.
Give Microsoft a break. How are they supposed to replace all those over-priced American employees with more H1Bs and recently amnestied illegals if they don't clear out the current liabilities first?
It is the government itself, slashing and burning trust and faith that is doing most of the damage to vaccination programs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://www.scientificamerican....
I'll let the rest of you decide where you think a national registry coupled with the laws of unintended consequences and human nature are bound to lead such a project.
To who? If you take care of yourself and your own then certainly not to you since you are vaccinated.
I would imagine that at some point EVERY UNvaccinated person goes into a hospital. That is were the vaccinations usually happen, right?
They recently found a couple cases of MERS in the USA. In the hospital's bureaucratic brilliance, they sent all the workers who had contact with the patient to their HOMES! Stupid is as bureaucracy does I suppose.
Overheated rhetoric. Mutant strains of many serious diseases exit because of failed application of medical science by the medical establishment itself. Greed, over use, incomplete use, substandard application, class stratification, lack of education AND, as it turns out, governmental subversion of vaccination drives for political purposes (as recently revealed that the CIA was using vaccinations as a ruse in its hunt for Bin Laden) have all conspired to render a noble idea increasingly useless.
Sure, we can put everyone in a database (yet again for yet another silly reason). And what will that serve? Nothing more than to make you a guinea pig to be injected with maybe a useful vaccine or maybe something else {see military vaccinations of soldiers, the Tuskegee experiment]. But of course, today the government would never do something so unscrupulous with its newly acquired power, right?
So, in other words, worry about yourself. If vaccinations are important to you, get them for yourself and your family but don't force your choices on others in some misguided attempt to buy yourself a little more false security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04... http://www.scientificamerican....
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."
As in the physical space? So then if "cyber privacy" = physical privacy and "cyber security" = national security then what Kerry is saying is that the US government fully intends to build a police state where every citizen is continuously monitored JUST LIKE in the government does in the cyber world. Because national security cannot come at the expense of personal physical privacy. Good to know.
"But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad."
Well, now they are since Snowden left them no choice. Funny how they weren't quite so committed *before* they got caught with their hands in the Orwellian cookie jar. BTW - inclusive does not apparently mean "We the people." Kerry seems to be referring more to lobbyists and apparatchiks.
Of course it is. The SCOTUS has been pro police state for years now.
And if you think 911 calls are anonymous, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Clarence alluded to the fact that 911 calls aren't really anonymous but he didn't want to just come out and give up the lie. "Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority opinion, reasoned that 'a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers' as well as for recording their calls,"
We are quickly leaving the era when technology actually solved real world problems and are now entering the time when new era robber barons use technology to solve the technological problems they created. There must be a phrase that describes the epoch a field reaches when it is only solving problems that it created itself.
Google has picked a side. Fine. I'll use my freedom of choice to choose another product. Google and its partner corporations have chosen to actively deny males from participation. I see no reason then, as a male, to actively support those corporations that promote bigotry against 50% of the population while simultaneously expecting that same 50% of the population to support their profits. I'm out and Google can go fuck itself.
And yet, the bureaucrats and SJWs will scratch their heads in wonder at why average Americans have such a cavalier attitude towards bullying.
I would bet we will see this project continue under some other name with a new and improved excuse for existing.
The human tendency for hyperbole happened. It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics. We just love the drama of a crisis. Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction. Talk about a drama queen. [br] [br] So, as it turned out, despite seemingly needing more than billions of IP addresses and IPv4 only supplying a few billion in totality, what the world really needed was just a few million IPv4 addresses that could provide "outside" initiated connectivity into the host. ie, servers. For all the rest, outbound connectivity could be supplied by some smaller proportion of addresses using NAT and clever work around services and many systems required even less than that needing only local area connectivity and allowing IPv4 to be reused over and over. [br] [br] So, the need for IPv6 RIGHT NOW OR THE END WILL CONSUME US! was driven largely by hyperbole and the reality that IPv4 can and will continue to serve our purpose is tempered by the other human traits of conservation and ingenuity. [br] Yes, the transition to IPv6 is inevitable and necessary however, the consumption of IPv4 will not be no more a sudden catastrophic event event any more than John Kerry's belief that climate change is a weapon of mass destruction. It just never happens that way.
Oh, those cheeky GCHQ spooks and their DDsS shenanigans!
"'The device holds more than enough data to make me nervous about the possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy, and the fear of the thought that the media connected to my Glass would possibly end up online, somewhere, cached forever in a Google search,' she concluded. "
So she has a device that can essentially record, upload, index and publicize the activity of others without their consent and she's worried about her privacy. Oh, sweet irony, how have thee forsaken the narcissist hipster Glassholes?
"Women can do just as much mental heavy lifting as men."
Bullshit because if they could, they would. I think it's pretty naïve to think that while nature made fairly substantially different hardware for substantially different purposes that it loaded exactly the same control software because it got lazy all of a sudden. Now maybe women can perform mental heavy lifting of a different sort but honestly, when they talk about patriarchy, when they talk about barriers to entry that they (for lack of understanding) call "bias," what they really mean is "our brain processes don't fit into these fields created and run by male thought processes." The proof to the fallacy of your statement is your statement needing to be made in the first place. Women can't do as much (male type) mental heavy lifting as men because if they could they would and if they were, they wouldn't be complaining about the difficulty of competing in male intellectual endeavors. The "bias" they perceive is the bias of the square peg not fitting in the round hole.
This woman's argument is poorly made at best and (I think) intentionally disingenuous at worst. She makes allusions to gender bias without ever really making the statement directly (which is, I believe, because she can't). She makes claims about difficulties that essentially are not faced by a particular gender but rather EVERYONE - man, woman, child, parakeet etc. And then finishes with a lot of talk that vaguely centers around equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is a pernicious piece of feminist logic because it tacitly supports and endorses INEQUALITY as a means to an end as long as women control it and are the main beneficiaries which is EXACTLY the behavior they decry as being so unjust in the first place. It is hypocrisy and as usual, women are just fine with it as long as they benefit.
Did Rovio use a system already identified as being fraught with privacy concerns? Yes. And as long as it made them money, they didn't pay more than lip service to the issues (just like all the other companies built on Google's system - so don't I'm raging on just Rovio).
It has long been established legal reasoning that people benefiting from an illegality are complicit in that illegality. I consider it hypocritical for Rovio or any other developer to simply say, "Hey, it wasn't us, we just used and profited from the system." Rovio made a choice, at the least they can stand up and show some integrity and tell us they knew this system was bad but they were more interested in the money. At least then I can respect them for being forthright. As it is though, they're as dirty as the rest and liars to boot.
"United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria."
Simple solution: Stop being a U.S. based business. The über paranoia, hubris and bullying attitude of the U.S. government has gotten out of hand. They are single-handedly destroying American technology businesses by eroding potential and existing customers trust (through the abuses of the NSA) and increasingly want to us U.S. corporations as a pawn in their geopolitical manipulations. In the era of globalism (promoted by that selfsame government on behalf of corporations over the welfare of its own citizens), now that same government demands adherence to nationalistic agendas. Pure hypocrisy and one that represents increasing risk to our fragile GLOBAL economy.
Well, those things and a self-loathing liberal dogma bent on supporting *anyone* but fellow Americans. It's kind of hard to be upwardly mobile when you have a certain hyper vocal segment of the society constantly shrieking about "privilege." Look no further than a recent idea floated in Michigan to give Detroit its own visas to import 50,000 foreign workers. American government doesn't want Americans. It wants nice passive, desperate foreign workers grateful for a pittance and always ready to kiss the king's ring. I say, fine. Let them have it. We'll see who laughs last.
The concept of "company town" gets a spit and polish for the 21st century. Good job repackaging yesterday's failed concepts, Detroit!
Keep re-reading it'll make sense to you sooner or later. If I have time I'll develop a pop-up book that you might find easier to digest but in the meantime, I'll give it a retry. In a field where the majority (notice that qualifier AC#1) of contributions were made by white males, the new breed of white males who have made their way to the top of the field now want to close the door of opportunity to successive white males behind them.