Why is a group of people who incorporate suddenly non-human, but a normal group apparently gets free speech rights? More importantly, where does the first amendment make such an exception to free speech rights?
What kind of person can't be asked to put a more thought into things? Young children can't. Mentally or emotionally unstable people can't.
Nonsense. All of those people can be asked to put more thought into things. There is a common misconception that children are unable to make rational choices; this is false. The fact that their brains are developing does not make them unable to make rational choices. Most of the soft science studies saying otherwise just reach subjective conclusions based on data interpreted in utterly arbitrary ways.
Plus, when you look around, most adults are nothing more than overgrown children. Both children and adults can make mistakes, and a sizable portion of both groups do not make rational choices often.
You can argue philosophically with that all day; but legally, at least in the US, it would be.
And this is the problem. People infringe upon others' free speech rights because they're offended by the images on people's shirts. Government thugs should stay out of this.
but the time needed to soak up what happened in those hours is far more.
You assume that all people are exactly the same. The reality is that some people are far faster learners than others.
Then again, I doubt people who are truly intelligent would bother with a coding bootcamp to begin with. If they don't want to go to college, they're probably too busy self-educating and actually learning to understand the theory.
You get two things out of a CS program in college: 1. You learn how to learn new things including languages quickly. 2. You learn theory so that you understand how to write efficient, reliable and maintainable code.
Whether you get either depends 100% on the college. Also, you can get both of those through self-education. Theory doesn't only exist in colleges.
In fact, the first one isn't even difficult. Even a self-taught programmer with little knowledge of the theories can pick up new languages quickly if they have programming experience. The whole thing about programmers who didn't go to college being stuck with one language is largely a myth.
I started as a self taught programmer and then went to college later. There was a LOT of value in doing that.
There's a lot of value in real education. Which, I might add, you can get in other ways, if you're not a slacker.
I suspect your numbers are rather exaggerated and/or highly dependent on specific workplaces.
But really, I find it funny how all these people complain about "only" making $60,000 a year. If only they had a degree, they could make even more money and waste it on useless shit! Ignore all the people making $20,000 or less and supporting families.
And another problem with this mentality is that it treats college and university merely as ways to get high-paying jobs. If that is your mentality, you don't even deserve to be there to begin with.
Like it or not, Facebook is the primary exposure to mass media and advertisements for many people.
That's incredibly idiotic, but I'd expect nothing more of the general populace.
You can see the same thing if you browse a magazine rack or watch TV though.
Good thing I do neither.
Everybody is vulnerable to poor body image
"Everybody" would include everyone on the entire planet, and therefore only needs a single counterexample to prove wrong. There are people who do not care about body image.
I was responding to a specific part of his post. Are you so stupid that you can't imagine how such a thing is possible? And you seem to assume I don't agree with the rest of his post, based on nothing.
don't intentionally push against those sorts of boundaries unless they're trying to call attention to themselves, because it can do nothing but distract from what they're actually trying to convey. And that's exactly what happened here.
In other words, you can't conceive of a True Professional Adult doing such a thing except for that reason.
I don't care about being outnumbered, as popularity is not relevant to correctness. The morality of mass surveillance is heavily implied in the article itself and in many comments.
That reply is also irrelevant. If they had said that 1 + 1 = 3, and they received +4 informative, that wouldn't change anything. Pointing out that their mission is to do evil is irrelevant at best in a conversation where people are talking about the morality of mass surveillance.
You're still claiming words are the motivation for acting.
Someone's actions are their own. What they were motivated by is irrelevant.
Anyway, my point is that these people like to try to say it's not a violation of free speech because they're not punishing someone for the speech. That's absurd for multiple reasons, which I've stated.
You asked if I consider it harmful to society. I don't. In fact, I find it beneficial; hopefully more and more people see how nonsensical lie detectors are.
Things are moving exactly the way we, the majority, want.
To infringe upon the fundamental rights of the minority by banning speech that you don't like? I'm just saying, it sounds like North Korea already has what you want; you wouldn't have to wait!
You're a minority. Conform or go away.
Civil rights movements would never have succeeded that way. Sometimes it takes a persistent minority to get the majority to respect their rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is a group of people who incorporate suddenly non-human, but a normal group apparently gets free speech rights? More importantly, where does the first amendment make such an exception to free speech rights?
What kind of person can't be asked to put a more thought into things? Young children can't. Mentally or emotionally unstable people can't.
Nonsense. All of those people can be asked to put more thought into things. There is a common misconception that children are unable to make rational choices; this is false. The fact that their brains are developing does not make them unable to make rational choices. Most of the soft science studies saying otherwise just reach subjective conclusions based on data interpreted in utterly arbitrary ways.
Plus, when you look around, most adults are nothing more than overgrown children. Both children and adults can make mistakes, and a sizable portion of both groups do not make rational choices often.
You can argue philosophically with that all day; but legally, at least in the US, it would be.
And this is the problem. People infringe upon others' free speech rights because they're offended by the images on people's shirts. Government thugs should stay out of this.
I see the whole mess as some sort of fast track "look, I have some sheet of paper that makes me something" crap to fool gullible HR departments.
Good. I hope people scam and fool the hell out of the fuckers who require pieces of paper to get jobs.
but the time needed to soak up what happened in those hours is far more.
You assume that all people are exactly the same. The reality is that some people are far faster learners than others.
Then again, I doubt people who are truly intelligent would bother with a coding bootcamp to begin with. If they don't want to go to college, they're probably too busy self-educating and actually learning to understand the theory.
You get two things out of a CS program in college:
1. You learn how to learn new things including languages quickly.
2. You learn theory so that you understand how to write efficient, reliable and maintainable code.
Whether you get either depends 100% on the college. Also, you can get both of those through self-education. Theory doesn't only exist in colleges.
In fact, the first one isn't even difficult. Even a self-taught programmer with little knowledge of the theories can pick up new languages quickly if they have programming experience. The whole thing about programmers who didn't go to college being stuck with one language is largely a myth.
I started as a self taught programmer and then went to college later. There was a LOT of value in doing that.
There's a lot of value in real education. Which, I might add, you can get in other ways, if you're not a slacker.
I suspect your numbers are rather exaggerated and/or highly dependent on specific workplaces.
But really, I find it funny how all these people complain about "only" making $60,000 a year. If only they had a degree, they could make even more money and waste it on useless shit! Ignore all the people making $20,000 or less and supporting families.
And another problem with this mentality is that it treats college and university merely as ways to get high-paying jobs. If that is your mentality, you don't even deserve to be there to begin with.
I don't think I could honestly trust in the abilities of any programmer who hasn't had a serious discrete math class
So you do not believe it is possible to get an education outside of a class?
Like it or not, Facebook is the primary exposure to mass media and advertisements for many people.
That's incredibly idiotic, but I'd expect nothing more of the general populace.
You can see the same thing if you browse a magazine rack or watch TV though.
Good thing I do neither.
Everybody is vulnerable to poor body image
"Everybody" would include everyone on the entire planet, and therefore only needs a single counterexample to prove wrong. There are people who do not care about body image.
I was responding to a specific part of his post. Are you so stupid that you can't imagine how such a thing is possible? And you seem to assume I don't agree with the rest of his post, based on nothing.
Also, it's not just the boundary line that is subjective; what is "appropriate" or "professional" is completely subjective.
Professional adults
And here we go again.
don't intentionally push against those sorts of boundaries unless they're trying to call attention to themselves, because it can do nothing but distract from what they're actually trying to convey. And that's exactly what happened here.
In other words, you can't conceive of a True Professional Adult doing such a thing except for that reason.
It's just like I said before. Someone's actions are their own.
I don't care about being outnumbered, as popularity is not relevant to correctness. The morality of mass surveillance is heavily implied in the article itself and in many comments.
appropriate, professional
And completely subjective.
It's not sexual harassment, and it's not misogyny.
Why does this site allow hateful bigots such as you to post?
Because the ability to not have your comment outright deleted is one of Slashdot's positive points.
I then took a scroll through my Facebook feed
Your main problem is that you have a Facebook account at all.
That reply is also irrelevant. If they had said that 1 + 1 = 3, and they received +4 informative, that wouldn't change anything. Pointing out that their mission is to do evil is irrelevant at best in a conversation where people are talking about the morality of mass surveillance.
The original poster I was talking about was mostly the grandparent of the poster you just linked to.
Anyway, my actual point is that such a post is at best irrelevant to the actual discussion, and at worst appears to be defending mass surveillance.
You're still claiming words are the motivation for acting.
Someone's actions are their own. What they were motivated by is irrelevant.
Anyway, my point is that these people like to try to say it's not a violation of free speech because they're not punishing someone for the speech. That's absurd for multiple reasons, which I've stated.
You asked if I consider it harmful to society. I don't. In fact, I find it beneficial; hopefully more and more people see how nonsensical lie detectors are.
I said no such thing.
What I called nonsense was the prosecution of this guy. I'm not sure what argument you think I called nonsense.
It was both.
It was neither.
Fuck off and die shill.
Who am I shilling for?
Handwaving to call an argument "nonsense" doesn't mean you didn't conflate the two terms or use a straw man argument.
So you don't agree that prosecuting this guy is nonsense? So you *are* defending it? Because that's what I called "nonsense."
In any case, it was neither conflating or a straw man, as I've explained. It was simply my best guess, given the language they used.
You're a shill
A shill for who, exactly? Have you devolved into making ridiculous conspiracy theories?
Things are moving exactly the way we, the majority, want.
To infringe upon the fundamental rights of the minority by banning speech that you don't like? I'm just saying, it sounds like North Korea already has what you want; you wouldn't have to wait!
You're a minority. Conform or go away.
Civil rights movements would never have succeeded that way. Sometimes it takes a persistent minority to get the majority to respect their rights.