My response to that is: meh. People are going to interpret all of that in any way they see fit. If they really have the time and interest to go digging through my past, I suppose they will.
Of course, this would really only be worthwhile for someone less boring than me.
I'm fine with the idea that people misinterpret me; they've been doing it my whole life so why would that stop if I put myself under the public's microscope? I counter that with unflinching honesty, though. I don't really half-ass my opinions. If I want you to know something, I pretty much explain it in detail and triplicate.
I'm surprised someone hasn't already said "yeah, but your social security number", or "yeah, but your nude photos".
Or, simply, yeah, well, you support that, and I don't agree with you, therefore I can classify you as an idiot and ignore anything else you have to say.
*shrug*. The former can be dug up ("dig it up if you really need it for something"), and there's nothing I can do to stop it, the latter would have to be photoshopped ("those don't exist, but I wouldn't be ashamed of them if they did"), and the last...well, I guess if someone were looking to find a reason to think I was an idiot, they would have come to the conclusion long before reading the list, if they bothered to read it at all.
On the other hand, I suspect it would cause a great deal of support for me if I actually decided to go with the campaign slogan I intend to use:
"The c*nt who gets sh*t done."
Lack of decorum aside, at least nobody can paint me as thin-skinned or afraid of the "sexism" boogeyman.
Do you even understand the definition of "harassment"?
Harassment, per Google is aggressive pressure or intimidation. An insult is not harassment.
If you call me an idiot, I'm not going to call that harassment. I might tell you to calm down. I might even ask you what I did (if I wasn't already aware of it) that made you call me that. Hell, maybe you're trying to get my attention because I'm a bit block-headed and can't see the forest for the trees sometimes. A lot of people need to inject something into the conversation to make it halt for a moment. Sometimes, it needs an emotional element (like an insult) to give people time to breathe.
However, if you call me an idiot repeatedly and without prompting, follow me around and start trying to goad others into doing the same, THAT is harassment.
Any organization that is filled with functional adults really doesn't need codes of conduct, or have strong enough members to police bad behavior where it's found.
Having an official code of conduct that's enshrined within the officialness of the officiating body makes the assumption from the outset that without these rules, people don't know how to behave.
You know, like those darned atheists who don't have a god to tell them how to be nice to each other*.
If you need a code of conduct, you're telling the participants that they're neither functional enough nor self-aware enough to handle the responsibility of interacting with other adults like adults do.
I'm not saying all atheists are nice, or all theists are bad, just that it's a common argument for anti-atheism that suggests people need god or else they might degenerate into lawless troglodytes.
I always said to myself that if I were to ever run for office, that I would create a website that listed all my dirty laundry. Anything that might be considered something that someone, somewhere might use to say "she's got something to hide" goes on there. Nothing off-limits. Because I've made mistakes like any dumb kid might have.
Point I would be making in such a site would the line I'd put at the end:
"Okay, now that we're done with bullshit that has nothing to do with the job I'm applying for, let's get to talking about things that are relevant."
Pearson, who creates courses that are "usable" right out of the box, that way professors don't have to think too hard or do any work putting the course together, or shaping the material based on experience and the general atmosphere of the student body (trust me, I've taught at a middle-class school, and another that was inner city...if you think those require the same type of commitment, you are sadly mistaken).
Just work from the pre-packaged slides, and make sure the students purchase the key to the online course, too, which if the off-chance the work contained there has any substance (ha), that they can only keep for the semester anyhow.
Pearson is absolute scum. I don't know if any other publishers are following their lead, but if they are, they are scum also.
Well, maybe it's a movie myth, but suppose those research orgs aren't the best and brightest and some rogue actor can accomplish the same task in a fraction of the time?
Well, look at it like this: Groupon was at the forefront of a new business model, started because the internet enabled it. It wouldn't have worked as well by any other method of communication.
The part that nerds might be interested in is how the wind shifts as to the ways people connect and do business. Are people looking to get deals in real-time? What's the turnaround time on a web-only deal to get the best possible value? Can you get a group of random strangers (rather than a group of friends) to all hop on a deal at once? Can you look at the data to see where this strategy works best, and where it works worst? Can you develop an alternate business model for sparsely-populated areas to get good deals the way people can in cities?
There are always data to look at where money is involved. Always.
I remember at some point in the last two years or so someone put up a poll whose question was "Do you want me not to de-friend you?" or something to that effect. And then I started seeing it pop up everywhere on my feed. So, I looked into it. An angry post from me followed to the effect of: "okay, people, cool it. You know that this is a poll, and it really isn't directed at you, and was probably started by someone you didn't know? Okay, so stop responding to it!"
Another was more recent: over a recent holiday weekend, there was a post that someone put up saying that a certain pickup truck (pictured) with a certain license plate was driving around our town (which was named in the post) and picking up dogs to be used as bait for dog fights (in this town, it's almost strange if you don't have a dog). This developed some traction among my group of friends, except for the most skeptical of us: the truck was pictured but no surrounding area; the license plate was not identified from any particular state, and the township police's Facebook page (which fairly regularly reports on local crime) didn't post anything.
Point I'm making here is that people seem to get stirred up about things without actually investigating. If you can find something that a great number of people are invested in (like Facebook or pets), you can quickly find a way to get people all kinds of worked up and bypass critical thinking skills in the process.
Fair enough. However, I also went to single-sex Catholic high school, but having been more comfortable around boys, the whole business made me four years' worth of miserable.
Some women (like Sandberg, who I'm fairly certain wasn't raised in girls-only environments) push for this sort of thing, neglecting a vital truth of the matter: the workplace requires just as much in the way of soft skills as it does hard ones.
If it's true that boys are a "distraction", or at least "different enough" to be a problem* then girls-only camps serve only to kick the can down the road: girls don't know how to deal with boys. So what's to happen when they go into environments with boys? They get disappointed and leave.
*which, if the environments are so hostile to women, why are we setting girls up for failure by asking them not to worry about it instead of training them from a young age to deal with it and make it more natural? Or for that matter, teach boys that it's natural for girls to be in this environment either?
(Yes, I know as well as any of you that these "progressive" measures are not about equal rights for anyone but about flooding the marketplace of job applicants and driving down wages. But Slashdot seems to not be getting that feel-good crusades like this one aren't rooted in practical concerns.)
You'll find that people often abandon details for the larger picture.
Especially in the case where a 34-year-old guy who died when he was too young to.
Which...that's pretty sad. RIP to that guy, and condolences to the family.
Not that I'm calling you wrong, because you're right: it absolutely sucks to see someone die or get seriously hurt doing the thing that you love doing, and use it to justify their preconceived notions of it so they can try to warn you away.
I found myself interested in palmistry as a child.
I didn't think there was anything particularly magical about it, nor did I think it could tell the future.
I was more interested in how it may have deviated from the idea that looking at someone's hands could provide valuable insights into that person. How creases happened, why fingers bent into other fingers, that sort of thing. I wanted to be able to make reasonable deductions about a person based upon what I could get out of their hands. To this day, I often make assessments about a person based on what their hands look like (for instance, how well they take care of themselves).
I couldn't find much about it back then. The internet wasn't particularly in-depth for that sort of thing back in those days. But it did teach me more about psychology and who among me was willing to trust in the mystical idea of palmistry, and who was a little more skeptical about those things.
Eh, I've traveled with some microcontrollers I got from Adafruit in my carry-on. I've never been called out on it before.
However, my husband and I went on a long trip once maybe ten years ago, and he was carrying a bunch of spare batteries in his bag (instead of carrying the charger...don't ask, I don't know why either). He was pulled aside for that.
Another time, he was pulled aside for having a bunch of Maxim magazines in his bag. For whatever reason, the (female) TSO felt it necessary to flip through them quickly, as if he couldn't have bought them in the terminal.
I'd like to point out that if one of the two of us hits the "racial profiling" button in racist dirtbags, it's me. He's white as can be: blonde, blue eyes, damn near translucent. No freaky piercings or tattoos or anything. Totally normal looking. I, however, am what they call "ethnically ambiguous". You'd think if there was a reason to pick on one of us, it would be me. And that's never happened, even when traveling alone.
It's why I tend to lean heavily into the category of "idiot administrators looking to punch down" and use race as an excuse to do it. Racism is a factor, yes, but ultimately, with idiots like these, they would have found someone to pick on and a reason to do it.
Yeah, well, look, with Donald Trump running (and having momentum), running for president is now officially a free-for-all.
If I was rich and nobody's told me "no" in a decade or two, I'm sure I could be convinced that I could run for president while balancing random fruits on my head and calling my party the "Hell no to GMOs" party.
Slashdot Mirror
That noise you don't hear is the sound of a starship in space flying over your head.
Last time I try to make a Star Trek joke when a new series is being announced on the same day. Sheesh.
Because I thought it would be funny?
My response to that is: meh. People are going to interpret all of that in any way they see fit. If they really have the time and interest to go digging through my past, I suppose they will.
Of course, this would really only be worthwhile for someone less boring than me.
I'm fine with the idea that people misinterpret me; they've been doing it my whole life so why would that stop if I put myself under the public's microscope? I counter that with unflinching honesty, though. I don't really half-ass my opinions. If I want you to know something, I pretty much explain it in detail and triplicate.
I'm surprised someone hasn't already said "yeah, but your social security number", or "yeah, but your nude photos".
Or, simply, yeah, well, you support that, and I don't agree with you, therefore I can classify you as an idiot and ignore anything else you have to say.
*shrug*. The former can be dug up ("dig it up if you really need it for something"), and there's nothing I can do to stop it, the latter would have to be photoshopped ("those don't exist, but I wouldn't be ashamed of them if they did"), and the last...well, I guess if someone were looking to find a reason to think I was an idiot, they would have come to the conclusion long before reading the list, if they bothered to read it at all.
On the other hand, I suspect it would cause a great deal of support for me if I actually decided to go with the campaign slogan I intend to use:
"The c*nt who gets sh*t done."
Lack of decorum aside, at least nobody can paint me as thin-skinned or afraid of the "sexism" boogeyman.
Per the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, in war, someone always turns a profit. Also, in peace, someone always turns a profit.
A shifting wind (if you'll pardon the turn of phrase) will always result in profit for someone.
Do you even understand the definition of "harassment"?
Harassment, per Google is aggressive pressure or intimidation. An insult is not harassment.
If you call me an idiot, I'm not going to call that harassment. I might tell you to calm down. I might even ask you what I did (if I wasn't already aware of it) that made you call me that. Hell, maybe you're trying to get my attention because I'm a bit block-headed and can't see the forest for the trees sometimes. A lot of people need to inject something into the conversation to make it halt for a moment. Sometimes, it needs an emotional element (like an insult) to give people time to breathe.
However, if you call me an idiot repeatedly and without prompting, follow me around and start trying to goad others into doing the same, THAT is harassment.
Not really.
Any organization that is filled with functional adults really doesn't need codes of conduct, or have strong enough members to police bad behavior where it's found.
Having an official code of conduct that's enshrined within the officialness of the officiating body makes the assumption from the outset that without these rules, people don't know how to behave.
You know, like those darned atheists who don't have a god to tell them how to be nice to each other*.
If you need a code of conduct, you're telling the participants that they're neither functional enough nor self-aware enough to handle the responsibility of interacting with other adults like adults do.
I'm not saying all atheists are nice, or all theists are bad, just that it's a common argument for anti-atheism that suggests people need god or else they might degenerate into lawless troglodytes.
It's not easy, but that's not why I am doing it.
I don't suppose it would be worth doing if it were. :-)
I always said to myself that if I were to ever run for office, that I would create a website that listed all my dirty laundry. Anything that might be considered something that someone, somewhere might use to say "she's got something to hide" goes on there. Nothing off-limits. Because I've made mistakes like any dumb kid might have.
Point I would be making in such a site would the line I'd put at the end:
"Okay, now that we're done with bullshit that has nothing to do with the job I'm applying for, let's get to talking about things that are relevant."
Offtopic, but how easy has the violin been for you to pick up?
I'm interested in hearing how easy a musical instrument is to pick up in someone much older than the normal beginner.
...have barely advanced beyond the age of three.
Although I am willing to allow 25-year-old monkeys flinging poo as an alternative.
Ah, Pearson. How I loathe thee.
Pearson, who creates courses that are "usable" right out of the box, that way professors don't have to think too hard or do any work putting the course together, or shaping the material based on experience and the general atmosphere of the student body (trust me, I've taught at a middle-class school, and another that was inner city...if you think those require the same type of commitment, you are sadly mistaken).
Just work from the pre-packaged slides, and make sure the students purchase the key to the online course, too, which if the off-chance the work contained there has any substance (ha), that they can only keep for the semester anyhow.
Pearson is absolute scum. I don't know if any other publishers are following their lead, but if they are, they are scum also.
You said: "Bottom line, dumbass talking heads and politicians need to shut up about things they don't understand."
You do, of course, realize, this would render politicians almost continuously silent.
Please tell me more about this plan. I would be happy to support it.
Well, maybe it's a movie myth, but suppose those research orgs aren't the best and brightest and some rogue actor can accomplish the same task in a fraction of the time?
Maybe not, but on a crime scene by someone who claims to be an officer and is wearing a uniform? Far more likely.
People around here are discounting social engineering.
Well, look at it like this: Groupon was at the forefront of a new business model, started because the internet enabled it. It wouldn't have worked as well by any other method of communication.
The part that nerds might be interested in is how the wind shifts as to the ways people connect and do business. Are people looking to get deals in real-time? What's the turnaround time on a web-only deal to get the best possible value? Can you get a group of random strangers (rather than a group of friends) to all hop on a deal at once? Can you look at the data to see where this strategy works best, and where it works worst? Can you develop an alternate business model for sparsely-populated areas to get good deals the way people can in cities?
There are always data to look at where money is involved. Always.
With deference to TWX above, I think you mean "giant robots punching giant aliens is its own reward".
I remember at some point in the last two years or so someone put up a poll whose question was "Do you want me not to de-friend you?" or something to that effect. And then I started seeing it pop up everywhere on my feed. So, I looked into it. An angry post from me followed to the effect of: "okay, people, cool it. You know that this is a poll, and it really isn't directed at you, and was probably started by someone you didn't know? Okay, so stop responding to it!"
Another was more recent: over a recent holiday weekend, there was a post that someone put up saying that a certain pickup truck (pictured) with a certain license plate was driving around our town (which was named in the post) and picking up dogs to be used as bait for dog fights (in this town, it's almost strange if you don't have a dog). This developed some traction among my group of friends, except for the most skeptical of us: the truck was pictured but no surrounding area; the license plate was not identified from any particular state, and the township police's Facebook page (which fairly regularly reports on local crime) didn't post anything.
Point I'm making here is that people seem to get stirred up about things without actually investigating. If you can find something that a great number of people are invested in (like Facebook or pets), you can quickly find a way to get people all kinds of worked up and bypass critical thinking skills in the process.
Fair enough. However, I also went to single-sex Catholic high school, but having been more comfortable around boys, the whole business made me four years' worth of miserable.
Agreed on the coddling, though.
Some women (like Sandberg, who I'm fairly certain wasn't raised in girls-only environments) push for this sort of thing, neglecting a vital truth of the matter: the workplace requires just as much in the way of soft skills as it does hard ones.
If it's true that boys are a "distraction", or at least "different enough" to be a problem* then girls-only camps serve only to kick the can down the road: girls don't know how to deal with boys. So what's to happen when they go into environments with boys? They get disappointed and leave.
*which, if the environments are so hostile to women, why are we setting girls up for failure by asking them not to worry about it instead of training them from a young age to deal with it and make it more natural? Or for that matter, teach boys that it's natural for girls to be in this environment either?
(Yes, I know as well as any of you that these "progressive" measures are not about equal rights for anyone but about flooding the marketplace of job applicants and driving down wages. But Slashdot seems to not be getting that feel-good crusades like this one aren't rooted in practical concerns.)
You'll find that people often abandon details for the larger picture.
Especially in the case where a 34-year-old guy who died when he was too young to.
Which...that's pretty sad. RIP to that guy, and condolences to the family.
Not that I'm calling you wrong, because you're right: it absolutely sucks to see someone die or get seriously hurt doing the thing that you love doing, and use it to justify their preconceived notions of it so they can try to warn you away.
I found myself interested in palmistry as a child.
I didn't think there was anything particularly magical about it, nor did I think it could tell the future.
I was more interested in how it may have deviated from the idea that looking at someone's hands could provide valuable insights into that person. How creases happened, why fingers bent into other fingers, that sort of thing. I wanted to be able to make reasonable deductions about a person based upon what I could get out of their hands. To this day, I often make assessments about a person based on what their hands look like (for instance, how well they take care of themselves).
I couldn't find much about it back then. The internet wasn't particularly in-depth for that sort of thing back in those days. But it did teach me more about psychology and who among me was willing to trust in the mystical idea of palmistry, and who was a little more skeptical about those things.
Eh, I've traveled with some microcontrollers I got from Adafruit in my carry-on. I've never been called out on it before.
However, my husband and I went on a long trip once maybe ten years ago, and he was carrying a bunch of spare batteries in his bag (instead of carrying the charger...don't ask, I don't know why either). He was pulled aside for that.
Another time, he was pulled aside for having a bunch of Maxim magazines in his bag. For whatever reason, the (female) TSO felt it necessary to flip through them quickly, as if he couldn't have bought them in the terminal.
I'd like to point out that if one of the two of us hits the "racial profiling" button in racist dirtbags, it's me. He's white as can be: blonde, blue eyes, damn near translucent. No freaky piercings or tattoos or anything. Totally normal looking. I, however, am what they call "ethnically ambiguous". You'd think if there was a reason to pick on one of us, it would be me. And that's never happened, even when traveling alone.
It's why I tend to lean heavily into the category of "idiot administrators looking to punch down" and use race as an excuse to do it. Racism is a factor, yes, but ultimately, with idiots like these, they would have found someone to pick on and a reason to do it.
But...they serve no useful purpose!
Whoever wrote that episode should DIE!
(However, the best quote from that movie remains: "Is there air out there? You don't know!)
Yeah, well, look, with Donald Trump running (and having momentum), running for president is now officially a free-for-all.
If I was rich and nobody's told me "no" in a decade or two, I'm sure I could be convinced that I could run for president while balancing random fruits on my head and calling my party the "Hell no to GMOs" party.