I've met very few iphone users that have a macintosh, so it wouldn't make any sense to me if they use both as one ecosystem as GP says.
What I do know about continuum is that it claims to be a PC replacement, only it's really not, and I'm not even talking about hardware performance: It can only run UWP (aka Microsoft Store) apps and otherwise behaves the same as Windows RT devices did, including not being able to change the default browser, default search, run normal PE binaries, etc. Unless you're just a die-hard Microsoft fan (which is a small minority of people,) then this isn't for you, hence HP's (and Microsoft's) target audience is way too small for this to actually matter.
Windows RT crashed and burned for this exact reason, and they should have learned from this mistake the first time.
The attitude that we're currently exhibiting on the south (I'm not of the south, btw) did not ultimately win the capitulation. When General Lee surrendered to General Grant, the confederates were allowed to keep their sidearms and horses and return home, without any charges of treason. When the Union soldiers began to cheer, Grant quickly hushed them up and said that the confederates were now their countrymen.
In other words, they were given respect and dignity. That is ultimately what mends fences, not destroying their landmarks (i.e. confederate soldier statue, Jefferson Davis statue) and banning their flag. If you do these things, then you're only going to provoke them needlessly. Will they lose another war? Yep, but we're just going to keep running into the same problem over and over again.
Confederate landmarks don't necessarily imply racism, rather for most of them it's a symbol of their heritage. But, if we continue to harass them over this, all you really do is give the racists more ammunition to draw more people to their side (vis-a-vis, my enemy of my enemy.)
Not only that, antifa likes to march around cities with assault rifles as a show of intimidation while the black bloc likes to block traffic and assault people on foot who are just trying to get to work. It's usually the ones that these groups label as racists and nazis who either cross those lines or help other people/vehicles cross those lines.
Yep, I misread TFS. It's rotenone and azadirachtin (neem) that do, and somehow I thought I saw the later in TFS rather than just neonics. Nonetheless, these are highly toxic to bees and organics can't go without them. Because they're "natural" they're legal everywhere.
What's on its way out is getting meat by having animals grow it on their bodies, killing and butchering them and then trying to find things to do with the parts people don't want to eat.
What? Even vegans participate in this activity, they just think they don't. When growing just about any kind of crop, you invariably have to kill many pests, among them being wild boars, deer, raccoons, rats, mice, possums, insects by the millions, and many more. All are sentient by the way, including plants.
Besides, there's also practically no such thing as food that doesn't use some kind of animal byproduct, especially if you eat organic food where there aren't any practical alternatives. Whether its use cow poo, worm poo, guano, bone meal, blood meal, or any number of other animal products used in agriculture, an animal is involved somewhere.
Animal husbandry doesn't need to be either cruel or bad for the environment though. For the most part, it's just cows that are environmentally unsound, but even then, this can partially be avoided by having them graze for food instead of being given animal feed. This guy goes into great detail:
If vegans had enough creatine in their diet, maybe they would be smart enough to realize all of this, but alas, they're in a vicious cycle. (Yes, creatine does make you smarter and improve your memory, in addition to the already well known benefit of allowing you to gain lean (healthy) body mass.)
As for me personally, hunting and fishing are very fun things to do. I really doubt you'd be able to convince me and everybody who participates in these things that they need to stop just to satisfy some moral code that amounts to a religion that they do not and will not ever believe in (I certainly don't.)
AFAIK these kinds of pesticides are used the most by organic farmers because they are pretty much the only "natural" ones that work, with the others being synthetic pesticides. May not be a coincidence that the organic industry's rise has coincided with the decline in bee populations.
The lie where you said he didn't even mention the word "conservative" [slashdot.org], when it appears 4 times in the memo - anthen you had to admit you were full of shit, because it was obvious you hadn't even read the memo. [slashdot.org]
No, it was like I said, I forgot about that particular part. I mostly paid attention to the empirical bits, not so much about the commentary, which is what I typically do when I read anything at all.
Also, you're full of shit on your "10 lies"
Very much not. You lied blatantly about Canadian law, and then you lied about how you sued people based on those laws when in fact you'd be 100% guaranteed to lose such a lawsuit. Everything I called you out on there is accurate.
as well as your comments about my appearance, as anyone who's seen me on TV or in person can tell.
If a morbidly obese pale white person with long hair and makeup with a Barry White voice was on TV, I think it would be noticeable, not that one time when the news was doing a report on a major event and you jumped in front of the camera at the annoyance of the news staff just to feed your narcissistic ego.
The memo wasn't that long. You lied, and you got called out on it.
Your comment about being a lie is a deliberate lie, jackoff.
just as too much video gaming (and we all know how much you love video games).
I do love video games, and would play them more often if I had more time. Unfortunately for me, I haven't had the time to play a single video game since around November 2016.
1. No one is suggesting that men and women are the same or that all differences are social.
Yes, they very much are, especially feminists.
2. No one is suggesting that 50% if employees should be black.
This itself is a strawman because I never came close to suggesting this, in fact the example I gave was around 14%, which is probably off, but isn't even close to 50%.
Yet an other one sided Apple Rant. However if you don't like safari then don't use it.
I personally wasn't even sure that there were any remaining safari users, but then I saw this article and realized that there are somewhere around 5 or 6 of them.
with their advanced spam filtering and PageRank system that tends to push less popular sites down the search results.
These are bad examples because they are both done for practical reasons (namely, helping users sort signal from noise.) You can find much better examples here:
America isn't really a "police" state as it is a "corporatist" state. In China (as in Russia) there is overlap between the people with the money and the people with the guns, but when push comes to shove the people with the guns always win.
No, this isn't true. The golden rule applies universally, and you know which golden rule I'm referring to.
Meanwhile, in America,... trials are anything but "speedy"
This is usually (not always) caused by people waiving their right to a speedy trial, which is typically a good idea because it allows your legal team more time to gather evidence and build your defense. The flipside of this is that you either spend more time waiting in jail, or you offer collateral which will be returned to you if you show up to your trial. Or if the judge thinks you're not at all a flight risk, then you won't have to do either, which happens more often than you probably think it does.
(In the old old days of European common law justice, jail was only to make sure you stuck around for the trial, and nobody was ever held there long-term. But the sentence was always one of corporal punishment or capital punishment, the later of which could be handed down even for simple crimes like petty theft.)
I've not seen convincing and reproducible scientific proof for either argument
Ironically, Blizzard themselves have many times demonstrated to a segment of their fan base rather well why it's very difficult, and even impossible, to get representation to match a general population. I went into detail on this in another post (which I made before even seeing this particular article on slashdot):
It's a long post, but the Blizzard bits are towards the bottom if you want to skip over the top part. Simply hitting ctrl+f and typing Blizzard will land you in the right spot.
Getting sued by various anti-discrimination organizations or receive fines from the government is a real cost that shareholders care about. If you want to boil this down to making money, then doing the bare minimum to comply is the right business choice, and the skill of your programmers is irrelevant to that equation.
Think of it as being like negotiating an out of court legal settlement; you want to weigh the cost of the settlement against the risk of losing more money to lawyers, and you tend to go with the path of least resistance. And on the same token, if productivity suffers too much as a result of being forced into new hiring practices that make it impossible to find the right talent, then it may be better to risk the lawsuits anyways.
But there is one alternative that is even cheaper than all of the above, and is otherwise a perfect solution: Pay a tribute to Jesse Jackson.
You can get Jesse Jackson to say anything for the right price, and your PR department will love you for it. And I do mean ANYTHING. For example, the cable lobby was able to offer Jesse Jackson enough money for him to publicly declare that removing cable boxes in favor of over the top streaming devices was racist, even though cable boxes and racism have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Your shareholders need only read the news to understand just how cost effective paying off Jesse Jackson really is, and they'll be all in favor of it!
But he's not making an argument based on individuals,
Actually, he seems to be doing exactly that, and he is arguing that Google is trying to move away from this, which he says is wrong. Diversity quotas and affirmative action do not look at individuals, they look only at groups, and under their theory those groups should have representation in similar ratios to that of the general population.
Let's do a thought experiment:
Suppose that on Europa, the general population has 50% orange people, and 50% violet people. According to the diversity theories mentioned above, the given job/position/college acceptance must be at 50% orange people and 50% violet people, and if it strays too far from this then there is obvious discrimination going on.
Suppose only two jobs exist on Europa: Underwater basket weaving and Zamboni driving. The "all people are equal" argument says that underwater basket weavers should be 50% orange people and 50% violet people, and zamboni drivers should be the same. Diversity! Awesome!....If only things were so easy.
On Europa, violet people tend to like to swim in the water more and can hold their breath longer due to a biological trait, so 70% of the violet population prefers to be underwater basket weavers, while 30% decide they don't like being in water all the time and would prefer to be zamboni drivers, hence only 30% of the violet people even try to become a zamboni driver at all.
Orange people tend to be laser focused on the task ahead of them than violet people because, dammit, that's just how orange people roll! And so, they're very resistant to ice rink fatigue. Therefore, 80% of orange people want to become zamboni drivers and most are quite good at it, while another 20% have found that they're very good swimmers and they like doing that instead, and furthermore, some of them are much better at it than many of the violet people.
The hiring manager for Underwater Basket Weaving, Inc. has already met his 50% quota for violet people, and European (as in Europa) law says that he now must fill the remaining 50% of the job positions with orange people. Problem is, only 20% even apply to begin with, and furthermore, only 5% of them do the job better than the typical violet person, and only another 15% can even hold their breath long enough to be able to do the job at all.
So what does this hiring manager have to do? Well, the 5% of the orange people who were better qualified for the job than all other remaining violet candidates will get the job for sure, but the hiring manager will have to give 15% of the underqualified orange people the job in favor of some more qualified violet people, which means that productivity suffers. Then the real stickler becomes: How do we fill the other 30% with orange people who weren't even interested in applying for the job to begin with?
Thus we have a conundrum. So what do we do about it?
Affirmative action says we must create grading metrics that lower the scores of violet poeple on the entrance exam for the Underwater Basket Weaving Academy so that fewer violet applicants can get the education for the job they're passionate about, while at the same time creating grading metrics that inflate the scores of all orange applicants so that they can get an education for a job that they're passively interested in, but they're not all that passionate about.
Diversity in the workplace says that Underwater Basket Weaving, Inc, is obviously racially biased, because why else would they have 70% of their workforce being violet and 30% being orange when the general population is 50% violet and 50% orange? So we obviously need to start a government investigation and everybody must publicly shame this company on Twitter.
And then there's the hiring manager who said to HR "guys, not enough orange people are applying for the job at all, and to be honest, very few of the ones that do are even qualified for the job to begin with!" HR secretly knows this because they themselves see
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Yes and no. Neuroscientists no longer even debate the issue of whether men and women are hardwired differently prenatally, as the evidence supporting this has been very strong for a very long time now. This means that the social liberal position of men and women (and indeed other races) being a blank slate that would otherwise develop identical behaviors, preferences, and mannerisms if raised identically can not be true. Or put another way, the tabula rasa theory is false.
Because they are different, therefore, they can not be equal. However, this does not conclude or even suggest that one is inherently superior to the other. What it does conclude is that, inevitably, different people will excel in different things more than others, with phenotypes and genotypes absolutely playing a role somewhere.
So on one side yes, women can overall be one or both of: 1. Less likely to be interested in tech work to begin with than males 2. Less likely to be as adept at tech as males But on another side no, in that it does NOT mean that women can not be as interested and adept or more interested and adept than a typical male.
This is also why you'll never be able to meet diversity/affirmative-action quotas that are pegged to match the general population (i.e. 49% male, 51% female, 14% black, etc) without sacrificing something else. Furthermore, equality and diversity are in fact mutually exclusive of one another (there is no tabula rasa.) In order for any two people to be equal, you'd have to create a perfect clone of somebody, and even then they would diverge over time as their experiences change. So you have to pick either equality or diversity, but you can't have both.
That would likely depend on how his career prospects are impacted in the long term. Though to be honest, I think there is probably way more than one media outlet that he could sue for libel, and I would hope he does, because this has been a HUGE eye opener about just how bad the media has really become.
Same as you all so often divert discussions off-topic to focus on my transsexuality. You have a problem.
Hey, sir, you're the one who brought it up; twice in fact. Whenever I bring it up it's always used as a slight in response to your constant personal attacks, and it seems to do what I intend it to do quite well, which is why I keep doing it.
Also, you earlier said he "self-identified as a classical liberal." Since when do you accept people self-identifying as anything, or is it just transsexuals who don't have the right to validly self-identify? You really are a bundle of contradictions.
There's a difference between what you physically are, and what you say you physically are, and no amount of removed genitals can change that. Besides, you have all of the physical and behavioral traits of a man, including the Barry White voice.
But even if he was a conservative (which it doesn't seem likely,) why is it even important? Using that to invalidate the message, as you are currently doing, instead of debating the actual message is an ad-hominem. Oh look, yet another logical fallacy. If your logical fallacies were the size of a dime, you'd fill up the Grand Canyon...assuming of course that your ass hasn't already filled it up all the way first.
You're like a former co-worker who I told 10 years ago to get psychiatric help for his personality defects because they were seriously interfering with his quality of life. I warned him that if he didn't, we'd be having the same conversation 10 years later, and he'd be a 40-year-old virgin instead of a 30-year-old virgin. Well, he didn't get help, and he's literally a 40-year-old virgin. Same trajectory as you.
At least try being a little more original with your attempts at insults. Though I notice you're doing it a lot more lately. I must have really pissed you off last Sunday -- you did end up speechless, after all. And I have been diagnosed with avoidant personality disorder, which is directly related to my PTSD, and I've improved it a lot over the years, so it's only sometimes noticeable...but good grief...your narcissistic personality disorder is so much worse, and the bad thing about it is that narcissistic personality disorder is very hard to treat because people who have it typically refuse to even acknowledge that they even have a problem...you being a perfect example. Go look it up, it's true. I realize I'm not helping your disorder any, probably making it worse in fact which is ethically and morally wrong...but I just can't seem to make myself care. I am helping myself in doing this though; it makes me realize there are much worse people that I could be like.
Anyways the point is that at least I'm improving.
That you lack any insight into your own motivations for your actions is just another form of denial. Get help. You can't do it on your own, nobody else will do it for you and trying to fulfill the void by continually trolling a transsexual is just lame.
Dude you're the one always saying that you troll people. You created Tom's troll tuesday, remember? It even has your name on it. My targeting you has nothing to do with you being a trannie, it's all about deconstructing your narcissistic ego, and I bruised that thing quite bad last Sunday without even bringing up the trannie topic save for a very short mention of how your
and your claim that he "self-identifies" as a liberal and that you think that's sufficient is directly contradicted by all the times you've rejected the validity of my self-identification as a woman.
I didn't say he self-identifies as a liberal, I said he self-identifies as a classical liberal, and there is a pretty big difference between the two. Oh look, this is what Blobara Hudson calls a lie. Besides, an actual woman doesn't have a full beard, man hands, a protruding brow, and a Barry White voice all at the same time.
By the way, how come you've done nothing to answer the 10+ very blatant lies (which you repeat very often as an attempt at intimidating people on slashdot) that I called you out on last Sunday?
When this Johny Srouji guy told Apple to fuck off, he was probably told "We're Apple. We're incapable of making incorrect design decisions. When somebody doesn't like our design, it is them who is incorrect. You may bend over now."
Fair enough, but your whole argument about him being a conservative is the mere fact that he talks about them. Are his statements about them correct? I have no idea to be honest as I don't put a lot of stock into political labels. However he clearly identifies as a classical liberal in the second page:
Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
Your argument is built on "if he mentions x, then he is obviously x" which is such a giant logical fallacy it's not even funny.
Slashdot Mirror
I've met very few iphone users that have a macintosh, so it wouldn't make any sense to me if they use both as one ecosystem as GP says.
What I do know about continuum is that it claims to be a PC replacement, only it's really not, and I'm not even talking about hardware performance: It can only run UWP (aka Microsoft Store) apps and otherwise behaves the same as Windows RT devices did, including not being able to change the default browser, default search, run normal PE binaries, etc. Unless you're just a die-hard Microsoft fan (which is a small minority of people,) then this isn't for you, hence HP's (and Microsoft's) target audience is way too small for this to actually matter.
Windows RT crashed and burned for this exact reason, and they should have learned from this mistake the first time.
The attitude that we're currently exhibiting on the south (I'm not of the south, btw) did not ultimately win the capitulation. When General Lee surrendered to General Grant, the confederates were allowed to keep their sidearms and horses and return home, without any charges of treason. When the Union soldiers began to cheer, Grant quickly hushed them up and said that the confederates were now their countrymen.
In other words, they were given respect and dignity. That is ultimately what mends fences, not destroying their landmarks (i.e. confederate soldier statue, Jefferson Davis statue) and banning their flag. If you do these things, then you're only going to provoke them needlessly. Will they lose another war? Yep, but we're just going to keep running into the same problem over and over again.
Confederate landmarks don't necessarily imply racism, rather for most of them it's a symbol of their heritage. But, if we continue to harass them over this, all you really do is give the racists more ammunition to draw more people to their side (vis-a-vis, my enemy of my enemy.)
Not only that, antifa likes to march around cities with assault rifles as a show of intimidation while the black bloc likes to block traffic and assault people on foot who are just trying to get to work. It's usually the ones that these groups label as racists and nazis who either cross those lines or help other people/vehicles cross those lines.
Yep, I misread TFS. It's rotenone and azadirachtin (neem) that do, and somehow I thought I saw the later in TFS rather than just neonics. Nonetheless, these are highly toxic to bees and organics can't go without them. Because they're "natural" they're legal everywhere.
Vegans are at the front line in the fight against Big-Ag and their CAFOs.
Except they're fighting the wrong battle. Their message is "no more meat period" instead of "better livestock welfare", so nobody listens to them.
What's on its way out is getting meat by having animals grow it on their bodies, killing and butchering them and then trying to find things to do with the parts people don't want to eat.
What? Even vegans participate in this activity, they just think they don't. When growing just about any kind of crop, you invariably have to kill many pests, among them being wild boars, deer, raccoons, rats, mice, possums, insects by the millions, and many more. All are sentient by the way, including plants.
Besides, there's also practically no such thing as food that doesn't use some kind of animal byproduct, especially if you eat organic food where there aren't any practical alternatives. Whether its use cow poo, worm poo, guano, bone meal, blood meal, or any number of other animal products used in agriculture, an animal is involved somewhere.
Animal husbandry doesn't need to be either cruel or bad for the environment though. For the most part, it's just cows that are environmentally unsound, but even then, this can partially be avoided by having them graze for food instead of being given animal feed. This guy goes into great detail:
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
If vegans had enough creatine in their diet, maybe they would be smart enough to realize all of this, but alas, they're in a vicious cycle. (Yes, creatine does make you smarter and improve your memory, in addition to the already well known benefit of allowing you to gain lean (healthy) body mass.)
As for me personally, hunting and fishing are very fun things to do. I really doubt you'd be able to convince me and everybody who participates in these things that they need to stop just to satisfy some moral code that amounts to a religion that they do not and will not ever believe in (I certainly don't.)
AFAIK these kinds of pesticides are used the most by organic farmers because they are pretty much the only "natural" ones that work, with the others being synthetic pesticides. May not be a coincidence that the organic industry's rise has coincided with the decline in bee populations.
The lie where you said he didn't even mention the word "conservative" [slashdot.org], when it appears 4 times in the memo - anthen you had to admit you were full of shit, because it was obvious you hadn't even read the memo. [slashdot.org]
No, it was like I said, I forgot about that particular part. I mostly paid attention to the empirical bits, not so much about the commentary, which is what I typically do when I read anything at all.
Also, you're full of shit on your "10 lies"
Very much not. You lied blatantly about Canadian law, and then you lied about how you sued people based on those laws when in fact you'd be 100% guaranteed to lose such a lawsuit. Everything I called you out on there is accurate.
as well as your comments about my appearance, as anyone who's seen me on TV or in person can tell.
If a morbidly obese pale white person with long hair and makeup with a Barry White voice was on TV, I think it would be noticeable, not that one time when the news was doing a report on a major event and you jumped in front of the camera at the annoyance of the news staff just to feed your narcissistic ego.
The memo wasn't that long. You lied, and you got called out on it.
Your comment about being a lie is a deliberate lie, jackoff.
just as too much video gaming (and we all know how much you love video games).
I do love video games, and would play them more often if I had more time. Unfortunately for me, I haven't had the time to play a single video game since around November 2016.
1. No one is suggesting that men and women are the same or that all differences are social.
Yes, they very much are, especially feminists.
2. No one is suggesting that 50% if employees should be black.
This itself is a strawman because I never came close to suggesting this, in fact the example I gave was around 14%, which is probably off, but isn't even close to 50%.
Yet an other one sided Apple Rant. However if you don't like safari then don't use it.
I personally wasn't even sure that there were any remaining safari users, but then I saw this article and realized that there are somewhere around 5 or 6 of them.
with their advanced spam filtering and PageRank system that tends to push less popular sites down the search results.
These are bad examples because they are both done for practical reasons (namely, helping users sort signal from noise.) You can find much better examples here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
America isn't really a "police" state as it is a "corporatist" state. In China (as in Russia) there is overlap between the people with the money and the people with the guns, but when push comes to shove the people with the guns always win.
No, this isn't true. The golden rule applies universally, and you know which golden rule I'm referring to.
Meanwhile, in America, ... trials are anything but "speedy"
This is usually (not always) caused by people waiving their right to a speedy trial, which is typically a good idea because it allows your legal team more time to gather evidence and build your defense. The flipside of this is that you either spend more time waiting in jail, or you offer collateral which will be returned to you if you show up to your trial. Or if the judge thinks you're not at all a flight risk, then you won't have to do either, which happens more often than you probably think it does.
(In the old old days of European common law justice, jail was only to make sure you stuck around for the trial, and nobody was ever held there long-term. But the sentence was always one of corporal punishment or capital punishment, the later of which could be handed down even for simple crimes like petty theft.)
I've not seen convincing and reproducible scientific proof for either argument
Ironically, Blizzard themselves have many times demonstrated to a segment of their fan base rather well why it's very difficult, and even impossible, to get representation to match a general population. I went into detail on this in another post (which I made before even seeing this particular article on slashdot):
https://slashdot.org/comments....
It's a long post, but the Blizzard bits are towards the bottom if you want to skip over the top part. Simply hitting ctrl+f and typing Blizzard will land you in the right spot.
Getting sued by various anti-discrimination organizations or receive fines from the government is a real cost that shareholders care about. If you want to boil this down to making money, then doing the bare minimum to comply is the right business choice, and the skill of your programmers is irrelevant to that equation.
Think of it as being like negotiating an out of court legal settlement; you want to weigh the cost of the settlement against the risk of losing more money to lawyers, and you tend to go with the path of least resistance. And on the same token, if productivity suffers too much as a result of being forced into new hiring practices that make it impossible to find the right talent, then it may be better to risk the lawsuits anyways.
But there is one alternative that is even cheaper than all of the above, and is otherwise a perfect solution: Pay a tribute to Jesse Jackson.
You can get Jesse Jackson to say anything for the right price, and your PR department will love you for it. And I do mean ANYTHING. For example, the cable lobby was able to offer Jesse Jackson enough money for him to publicly declare that removing cable boxes in favor of over the top streaming devices was racist, even though cable boxes and racism have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Your shareholders need only read the news to understand just how cost effective paying off Jesse Jackson really is, and they'll be all in favor of it!
But he's not making an argument based on individuals,
Actually, he seems to be doing exactly that, and he is arguing that Google is trying to move away from this, which he says is wrong. Diversity quotas and affirmative action do not look at individuals, they look only at groups, and under their theory those groups should have representation in similar ratios to that of the general population.
Let's do a thought experiment:
Suppose that on Europa, the general population has 50% orange people, and 50% violet people. According to the diversity theories mentioned above, the given job/position/college acceptance must be at 50% orange people and 50% violet people, and if it strays too far from this then there is obvious discrimination going on.
Suppose only two jobs exist on Europa: Underwater basket weaving and Zamboni driving. The "all people are equal" argument says that underwater basket weavers should be 50% orange people and 50% violet people, and zamboni drivers should be the same. Diversity! Awesome!....If only things were so easy.
On Europa, violet people tend to like to swim in the water more and can hold their breath longer due to a biological trait, so 70% of the violet population prefers to be underwater basket weavers, while 30% decide they don't like being in water all the time and would prefer to be zamboni drivers, hence only 30% of the violet people even try to become a zamboni driver at all.
Orange people tend to be laser focused on the task ahead of them than violet people because, dammit, that's just how orange people roll! And so, they're very resistant to ice rink fatigue. Therefore, 80% of orange people want to become zamboni drivers and most are quite good at it, while another 20% have found that they're very good swimmers and they like doing that instead, and furthermore, some of them are much better at it than many of the violet people.
The hiring manager for Underwater Basket Weaving, Inc. has already met his 50% quota for violet people, and European (as in Europa) law says that he now must fill the remaining 50% of the job positions with orange people. Problem is, only 20% even apply to begin with, and furthermore, only 5% of them do the job better than the typical violet person, and only another 15% can even hold their breath long enough to be able to do the job at all.
So what does this hiring manager have to do? Well, the 5% of the orange people who were better qualified for the job than all other remaining violet candidates will get the job for sure, but the hiring manager will have to give 15% of the underqualified orange people the job in favor of some more qualified violet people, which means that productivity suffers. Then the real stickler becomes: How do we fill the other 30% with orange people who weren't even interested in applying for the job to begin with?
Thus we have a conundrum. So what do we do about it?
Affirmative action says we must create grading metrics that lower the scores of violet poeple on the entrance exam for the Underwater Basket Weaving Academy so that fewer violet applicants can get the education for the job they're passionate about, while at the same time creating grading metrics that inflate the scores of all orange applicants so that they can get an education for a job that they're passively interested in, but they're not all that passionate about.
Diversity in the workplace says that Underwater Basket Weaving, Inc, is obviously racially biased, because why else would they have 70% of their workforce being violet and 30% being orange when the general population is 50% violet and 50% orange? So we obviously need to start a government investigation and everybody must publicly shame this company on Twitter.
And then there's the hiring manager who said to HR "guys, not enough orange people are applying for the job at all, and to be honest, very few of the ones that do are even qualified for the job to begin with!" HR secretly knows this because they themselves see
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Yes and no. Neuroscientists no longer even debate the issue of whether men and women are hardwired differently prenatally, as the evidence supporting this has been very strong for a very long time now. This means that the social liberal position of men and women (and indeed other races) being a blank slate that would otherwise develop identical behaviors, preferences, and mannerisms if raised identically can not be true. Or put another way, the tabula rasa theory is false.
Because they are different, therefore, they can not be equal. However, this does not conclude or even suggest that one is inherently superior to the other. What it does conclude is that, inevitably, different people will excel in different things more than others, with phenotypes and genotypes absolutely playing a role somewhere.
So on one side yes, women can overall be one or both of:
1. Less likely to be interested in tech work to begin with than males
2. Less likely to be as adept at tech as males
But on another side no, in that it does NOT mean that women can not be as interested and adept or more interested and adept than a typical male.
This is also why you'll never be able to meet diversity/affirmative-action quotas that are pegged to match the general population (i.e. 49% male, 51% female, 14% black, etc) without sacrificing something else. Furthermore, equality and diversity are in fact mutually exclusive of one another (there is no tabula rasa.) In order for any two people to be equal, you'd have to create a perfect clone of somebody, and even then they would diverge over time as their experiences change. So you have to pick either equality or diversity, but you can't have both.
That would likely depend on how his career prospects are impacted in the long term. Though to be honest, I think there is probably way more than one media outlet that he could sue for libel, and I would hope he does, because this has been a HUGE eye opener about just how bad the media has really become.
You got caught in an easily debunked lie.
I didn't lie about anything, I just missed that part of the memo when I read over it. Holy crap you're full of logical fallacies.
The question I have is why you feel you have to lie. What is so wrong with you that you think you won't be called to account for it?
Because I didn't lie? I think you're just trying to bring me down to your level as seen nya:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Same as you all so often divert discussions off-topic to focus on my transsexuality. You have a problem.
Hey, sir, you're the one who brought it up; twice in fact. Whenever I bring it up it's always used as a slight in response to your constant personal attacks, and it seems to do what I intend it to do quite well, which is why I keep doing it.
Also, you earlier said he "self-identified as a classical liberal." Since when do you accept people self-identifying as anything, or is it just transsexuals who don't have the right to validly self-identify? You really are a bundle of contradictions.
There's a difference between what you physically are, and what you say you physically are, and no amount of removed genitals can change that. Besides, you have all of the physical and behavioral traits of a man, including the Barry White voice.
But even if he was a conservative (which it doesn't seem likely,) why is it even important? Using that to invalidate the message, as you are currently doing, instead of debating the actual message is an ad-hominem. Oh look, yet another logical fallacy. If your logical fallacies were the size of a dime, you'd fill up the Grand Canyon...assuming of course that your ass hasn't already filled it up all the way first.
You're like a former co-worker who I told 10 years ago to get psychiatric help for his personality defects because they were seriously interfering with his quality of life. I warned him that if he didn't, we'd be having the same conversation 10 years later, and he'd be a 40-year-old virgin instead of a 30-year-old virgin. Well, he didn't get help, and he's literally a 40-year-old virgin. Same trajectory as you.
At least try being a little more original with your attempts at insults. Though I notice you're doing it a lot more lately. I must have really pissed you off last Sunday -- you did end up speechless, after all. And I have been diagnosed with avoidant personality disorder, which is directly related to my PTSD, and I've improved it a lot over the years, so it's only sometimes noticeable...but good grief...your narcissistic personality disorder is so much worse, and the bad thing about it is that narcissistic personality disorder is very hard to treat because people who have it typically refuse to even acknowledge that they even have a problem...you being a perfect example. Go look it up, it's true. I realize I'm not helping your disorder any, probably making it worse in fact which is ethically and morally wrong...but I just can't seem to make myself care. I am helping myself in doing this though; it makes me realize there are much worse people that I could be like.
Anyways the point is that at least I'm improving.
That you lack any insight into your own motivations for your actions is just another form of denial. Get help. You can't do it on your own, nobody else will do it for you and trying to fulfill the void by continually trolling a transsexual is just lame.
Dude you're the one always saying that you troll people. You created Tom's troll tuesday, remember? It even has your name on it. My targeting you has nothing to do with you being a trannie, it's all about deconstructing your narcissistic ego, and I bruised that thing quite bad last Sunday without even bringing up the trannie topic save for a very short mention of how your
You got caught in a lie
Caught in what lie?
and your claim that he "self-identifies" as a liberal and that you think that's sufficient is directly contradicted by all the times you've rejected the validity of my self-identification as a woman.
I didn't say he self-identifies as a liberal, I said he self-identifies as a classical liberal, and there is a pretty big difference between the two. Oh look, this is what Blobara Hudson calls a lie. Besides, an actual woman doesn't have a full beard, man hands, a protruding brow, and a Barry White voice all at the same time.
By the way, how come you've done nothing to answer the 10+ very blatant lies (which you repeat very often as an attempt at intimidating people on slashdot) that I called you out on last Sunday?
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Those lies parallel the kind of lies that Trump tells, which means that you obviously learn from the best of them.
When this Johny Srouji guy told Apple to fuck off, he was probably told "We're Apple. We're incapable of making incorrect design decisions. When somebody doesn't like our design, it is them who is incorrect. You may bend over now."
I somewhat suspect that it has to do with the recent increase in suicides.
That doesn't mean he's a conservative, you dumb shit.
The term "conservative" appears 4 times.
Fair enough, but your whole argument about him being a conservative is the mere fact that he talks about them. Are his statements about them correct? I have no idea to be honest as I don't put a lot of stock into political labels. However he clearly identifies as a classical liberal in the second page:
Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
Your argument is built on "if he mentions x, then he is obviously x" which is such a giant logical fallacy it's not even funny.