While Seattle women earned 86 cents per dollar earned by men in 2012, today, they make only 78 cents per dollar.
Well then fucking step up, ladies! Why the fuck do you get away with doing 22% less work than men do? Why do men constantly have to carry you? Men do almost a third more work than women do and frankly, as a feminist, I find that disgusting. Men deserve equality. Men shouldn't have to do more work than women do.
Meanwhile, during this time when women are only doing 78% of the work men do, women earn the same wages for the same work. That problem is solved, so the remaining problem is that women do unequally little work compared to men.
"By the same logic, computers should not be allowed in any life-critical situation."
I don't think you understood the subtlety of the article. It's not that we shouldn't use machines to kill people, it's that we shouldn't let machines decide to kill people.
Likewise, we should let medical machines decide whether to attempt a life-threatening procedure. That decision should be made by humans.
I went to the article just to make sure the quote was accurate and sure enough the first sentence is
A government-funded innovation agency in Sweden is considering creating specials label for video games based on whether or not the games’ portrayals of women are sexist.
This is an anti-male suggestion and therefore, as a feminist, I oppose it. The sexes are equal and to have a special label discussing attitudes toward only one sex is... well... sexist.
If you label as sexist every video game where a man is portrayed as a strapping, burly attractive male, then I will assent to labeling as sexist every video game where a woman is portrayed as a curvy, skin-showing attractive female. Otherwise, not.
To me it is unsurprising and unremarkable that people in media are portrayed as attractive. For some other people that is offensive, but I'm not really offended.
Oh, in GTA you can rape and murder a female prostitute? Well, I've never played the game, but don't you also rob and murder male competitors? If so, then no you don't get to say one is sexist and the other isn't. Maybe you could pick out the sexual nature of the violence and say that applying that to only one sex makes a difference. If so, then the GTA people will probably just add male prostitutes for you to rape and murder -- would that satisfy the haters?
I am just assuming what point you are trying to make, so I might be off base here, but if you are comparing Monsanto suing rich Canadian farmers to DuPont suing poor African farmers, the difference is that poor African farmers are poor. Generally nobody bothers to sue poor people because the payoff never comes. That's what I meant: not that they would never sue, but that they would never bother to sure impoverished African farmers.
The legal aspects of GMOs are, as I said, interesting. I have opinions on that matter which I haven't expressed.
You are right, I was wrong. I looked it up. Monsanto has a patent on the concept but has promised not to use it. That strikes me as odd because I really thought they were doing that.
I'd based that assumption on the article: "hybrid seeds get weaker by the generation". I wonder why they get weaker? How much weaker? Is that a pure side effect and not intentional? I guess so.
Anyone who says that GMO are deadly is wrong. GMO are eaten every day and nobody dies, therefore they are not deadly.
Anyone who says that GMO are fine is stating an opinion that is well supported by the facts and reason. There is no plausible way that GMO could be -- as a class dangerous at all. Some modifications are beneficial and some could be detrimental, but why would be bother making detrimental modifications? It's not like we're adding cyanide to almonds.
We do have enough evidence to say one way. We have an enormous pile of evidence. If that's not enough for you, then okay, but you don't get to pretend that it doesn't exist. Science has a pretty good idea of how reality works and GMOs are pretty well understood.
JROTC is one thing but the Boy Scouts have pretty much become the Hitler Youth. Anyone who strongly rejects those who agree to be part of that organization has my support.
'bred for intensive agriculture' is a meaningless statement
Is it meaningless to you? To me it means "plants that grow where there isn't much rain", or other things like salty soil or lack of phosphates. You didn't get that meaning?
What's preventing farmers from saving their own seeds is threats of litigation from the GM corporations not that the seeds get any weaker.
The legal aspects are interesting but the seeds definitely have terminator genes. That is an even stronger enforcement of DuPont's policy than any lawsuit threat could be. Besides, did you just say DuPont is going to sue a bunch of poor African farmers? Yeah, I don't think they'd bother.
The benefit of this is to restrict GMO products from leaking into the environment. The downside, according to the hippies, is this thing about "but then you are beholden to the company!" If we didn't put in the terminator genes, allowing the seeds to be reused in subsequent generations, you can be sure the same hippies would be shouting about how the GMOs are breeding with wildlife. That's because the hippies are ideologically opposed to this kind of engineering, not for rational reasons, but for religious reasons. However the process is implemented, whatever crops are made and whatever the outcome, good or bad, the hippies will be opposed to it.
Any company can sell products and label them as GMO-free, right? If so then the analogy to Kosher is apt and no government action is required. If you want organic (which is meaningless) then buy organic. If you want no HFCS then buy no HFCS. If you want GMO-free then buy GMO-free.
GMO is safe. All concerts are nonsense. That's fine, people are allowed to clint to nonsense and they are allowed to make purchasing decisions based on nonsense and companies are allowed to cater to those decisions. But let's keep the nonsense out of government as much as possible.
I'm not a libertarian. This is simple cost-benefit analysis. There is some cost to labeling, and no benefit, so the analysis is easy.
Yeah but if that were working so well then DuPont would be buying seeds from the Africans, right? Clearly in this instance DuPont has done a better job making superior seeds than the locals have. Otherwise this would not be an issue.
Are you from AK? Me, too. I lived in Juneau not so long ago and if deregulation had 'winners' and 'losers', Juneau was a loser for sure because Alaska Airlines doesn't have competition.
One thing I know is that the average American airline industry profit since deregulation has been negative meaning more airlines have lost more money than they have earned money. So, really, prices don't even keep up with operating costs. I don't know, I don't have a strong opinion about the best regulations for airlines, except one: can we please have a regulated set seat size? I welcome the nanny state on that one.
They're not nitpicks per se; they are nitpicks "compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with".
If I compare "domestic peace" to "domestic surveillance", which one is more important and by how much? I'd say I prefer a high level of peace to a high level of privacy by, oh, say twenty to one or something.
In my personal opinion those two things are not at odds, so I disagree that I am trading one for the other, I think I can have a high level of both.
But say I had neither, which one would I choose first? I'd choose peace first by a long shot.
That's my starting assumption when I consider a proposed regulation. I use that starting assumption because it has turned out to be usually right, although some independent critical thought is required because every now and then there is an exception. I don't think this internet example is one of the exceptions.
Yeah we agreed about everything except for what label to put on it. There's no need to convince me to call it socialism if we already agree on what the policy should be! That's a high level of agreement, more than I normally get even from friends! I'd say we could start a political party and just avoid using the word "socialism" since that's the one thing we disagree on.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me or does Alan Kaye on that page have an enormous torso and a tiny little head?
Reasons it sucks for a city to be too white:
And apparently Slashdot no longer allows the ordered-list tag? Fuck it, I'm leaving it as it is.
While Seattle women earned 86 cents per dollar earned by men in 2012, today, they make only 78 cents per dollar.
Well then fucking step up, ladies! Why the fuck do you get away with doing 22% less work than men do? Why do men constantly have to carry you? Men do almost a third more work than women do and frankly, as a feminist, I find that disgusting. Men deserve equality. Men shouldn't have to do more work than women do.
Meanwhile, during this time when women are only doing 78% of the work men do, women earn the same wages for the same work. That problem is solved, so the remaining problem is that women do unequally little work compared to men.
Time to stop lolligagging, women.
"By the same logic, computers should not be allowed in any life-critical situation."
I don't think you understood the subtlety of the article. It's not that we shouldn't use machines to kill people, it's that we shouldn't let machines decide to kill people.
Likewise, we should let medical machines decide whether to attempt a life-threatening procedure. That decision should be made by humans.
I went to the article just to make sure the quote was accurate and sure enough the first sentence is
A government-funded innovation agency in Sweden is considering creating specials label for video games based on whether or not the games’ portrayals of women are sexist.
This is an anti-male suggestion and therefore, as a feminist, I oppose it. The sexes are equal and to have a special label discussing attitudes toward only one sex is... well... sexist.
If you label as sexist every video game where a man is portrayed as a strapping, burly attractive male, then I will assent to labeling as sexist every video game where a woman is portrayed as a curvy, skin-showing attractive female. Otherwise, not.
To me it is unsurprising and unremarkable that people in media are portrayed as attractive. For some other people that is offensive, but I'm not really offended.
Oh, in GTA you can rape and murder a female prostitute? Well, I've never played the game, but don't you also rob and murder male competitors? If so, then no you don't get to say one is sexist and the other isn't. Maybe you could pick out the sexual nature of the violence and say that applying that to only one sex makes a difference. If so, then the GTA people will probably just add male prostitutes for you to rape and murder -- would that satisfy the haters?
Can we please get a +6 mod level for comments like this?
I am just assuming what point you are trying to make, so I might be off base here, but if you are comparing Monsanto suing rich Canadian farmers to DuPont suing poor African farmers, the difference is that poor African farmers are poor. Generally nobody bothers to sue poor people because the payoff never comes. That's what I meant: not that they would never sue, but that they would never bother to sure impoverished African farmers.
The legal aspects of GMOs are, as I said, interesting. I have opinions on that matter which I haven't expressed.
I think you're trolling me but I'm not totally sure.
You are right, I was wrong. I looked it up. Monsanto has a patent on the concept but has promised not to use it. That strikes me as odd because I really thought they were doing that.
I'd based that assumption on the article: "hybrid seeds get weaker by the generation". I wonder why they get weaker? How much weaker? Is that a pure side effect and not intentional? I guess so.
Thanks for the fact-check.
Yep. You nailed it. Fuck those disingenuous anti-science hippies.
Anyone who says that GMO are deadly is wrong. GMO are eaten every day and nobody dies, therefore they are not deadly.
Anyone who says that GMO are fine is stating an opinion that is well supported by the facts and reason. There is no plausible way that GMO could be -- as a class dangerous at all. Some modifications are beneficial and some could be detrimental, but why would be bother making detrimental modifications? It's not like we're adding cyanide to almonds.
We do have enough evidence to say one way. We have an enormous pile of evidence. If that's not enough for you, then okay, but you don't get to pretend that it doesn't exist. Science has a pretty good idea of how reality works and GMOs are pretty well understood.
I have no idea what you just said.
You make a fair critique of my hyperbole.
JROTC is one thing but the Boy Scouts have pretty much become the Hitler Youth. Anyone who strongly rejects those who agree to be part of that organization has my support.
'bred for intensive agriculture' is a meaningless statement
Is it meaningless to you? To me it means "plants that grow where there isn't much rain", or other things like salty soil or lack of phosphates. You didn't get that meaning?
What's preventing farmers from saving their own seeds is threats of litigation from the GM corporations not that the seeds get any weaker.
The legal aspects are interesting but the seeds definitely have terminator genes. That is an even stronger enforcement of DuPont's policy than any lawsuit threat could be. Besides, did you just say DuPont is going to sue a bunch of poor African farmers? Yeah, I don't think they'd bother.
I don't know about these exact seeds but typically these special breeds are engineered to have terminator genes meaning they can't breed. Even if some cross-polination happened somehow, the resulting seeds would be sterile.
The benefit of this is to restrict GMO products from leaking into the environment. The downside, according to the hippies, is this thing about "but then you are beholden to the company!" If we didn't put in the terminator genes, allowing the seeds to be reused in subsequent generations, you can be sure the same hippies would be shouting about how the GMOs are breeding with wildlife. That's because the hippies are ideologically opposed to this kind of engineering, not for rational reasons, but for religious reasons. However the process is implemented, whatever crops are made and whatever the outcome, good or bad, the hippies will be opposed to it.
Any company can sell products and label them as GMO-free, right? If so then the analogy to Kosher is apt and no government action is required. If you want organic (which is meaningless) then buy organic. If you want no HFCS then buy no HFCS. If you want GMO-free then buy GMO-free.
GMO is safe. All concerts are nonsense. That's fine, people are allowed to clint to nonsense and they are allowed to make purchasing decisions based on nonsense and companies are allowed to cater to those decisions. But let's keep the nonsense out of government as much as possible.
I'm not a libertarian. This is simple cost-benefit analysis. There is some cost to labeling, and no benefit, so the analysis is easy.
Is there a law against labeling food as GMO-free? If so, let's get rid of that law with great haste!
If not your argument is baseless.
Yeah but if that were working so well then DuPont would be buying seeds from the Africans, right? Clearly in this instance DuPont has done a better job making superior seeds than the locals have. Otherwise this would not be an issue.
Are you saying breeding and engineering DuPont's special seeds is 'trivial'? I don't know if I'd say that.
Are you saying that if we mandate net neutrality, AT&T will close up shop and blow away in the wind? Two birds one stone! Let's make this happen!
Are you from AK? Me, too. I lived in Juneau not so long ago and if deregulation had 'winners' and 'losers', Juneau was a loser for sure because Alaska Airlines doesn't have competition.
One thing I know is that the average American airline industry profit since deregulation has been negative meaning more airlines have lost more money than they have earned money. So, really, prices don't even keep up with operating costs. I don't know, I don't have a strong opinion about the best regulations for airlines, except one: can we please have a regulated set seat size? I welcome the nanny state on that one.
They're not nitpicks per se; they are nitpicks "compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with".
If I compare "domestic peace" to "domestic surveillance", which one is more important and by how much? I'd say I prefer a high level of peace to a high level of privacy by, oh, say twenty to one or something.
In my personal opinion those two things are not at odds, so I disagree that I am trading one for the other, I think I can have a high level of both.
But say I had neither, which one would I choose first? I'd choose peace first by a long shot.
That's my starting assumption when I consider a proposed regulation. I use that starting assumption because it has turned out to be usually right, although some independent critical thought is required because every now and then there is an exception. I don't think this internet example is one of the exceptions.
Yeah we agreed about everything except for what label to put on it. There's no need to convince me to call it socialism if we already agree on what the policy should be! That's a high level of agreement, more than I normally get even from friends! I'd say we could start a political party and just avoid using the word "socialism" since that's the one thing we disagree on.