It's not that easy even if you have one. Those controllers were hard-wired. It might not be a big deal to you or me, but it's not a project the average person is going to want to take on.
It would be better if something like this came with its own reproduction controller.
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy" -- Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV)
The reason you use the word "discrimination" is because of the negative connotations. It's nothing but empty rhetoric. It does not help your case. It does not refute the claims made by myself and others here.
Discrimination, in the ordinary/positive sense, is a normal and necessary part of our daily lives. An example I gave earlier: That you can't join the local cub scout pack is not 'age discrimination' even though the cub scouts discriminate based on age.
Conflating the two ideas with a ridiculous rhetorical trick (the words are identical, not the meanings) is dishonest.
You'll trick a few people, surely. The majority, however, can easily see through that kind of nonsense.
LLVM is not participating in the program at this time, though I doubt it's due to any imagined 'backlash'. This is pretty much not news anywhere. There's the post here and a short story on The Register. The phoronix.com article linked in the summary doesn't even come up in a simple search. Even the "I am leaving" on the llvm subreddit only managed 4 comments. The only people complaining are on Slashdot, home of the perpetually unhappy.
Outreachy is still operating as usual. They've just selected interns for May-August Again, still perfectly legal. If you believe their activities are unlawful, you should notify the proper authorities. I doubt that they'll do anything, however, as they're not doing anything illegal.
That's a twisted view. It's perfectly okay for there to be separate boy scouts and girl scouts. No one claims otherwise, except trolls who want to parody the position of those seeking a more egalitarian society.
The BSA is changing because scouting is dying. Ask your local troop, if they still exist, how long they expect to last. They need to be more inclusive as they badly need more members. It has nothing to do with social justice or a "boys only" club somehow being immoral.
Not that this is a massive change or anything. My wife was a Venture Scout and Order of the Arrow member. The didn't exactly have a sign out front that read 'no girls aloud' anyway.
The Freemasons are still men-only. That's not likely to change in my lifetime. It's also not a problem.
The Moose have separate Lodge (men) and Chapter (women) with their own separate governance and finances. It's also not a problem. A few years ago, it was proposed that lodge and chapter merge on the national level. The women were the ones that opposed it. We're all Moose in the social quarters.
The local IHC used to only allow "full" Italians (whatever that means) to join. It wasn't a problem. They only stopped that practice because they needed more members.
The K of C only allow Catholics to join. This is perfectly acceptable. It is, after all, a club for Catholics.
See, it's okay to form a group around something the members have in common, such as their needs or values. That's why we form groups, after all.
It's not "age discrimination" that keeps you from joining the local cub scout pack. That's a group for boys aged 8 to 10.5 who are interested in scouting. There are so many groups (Beavers, Cubs, Scouts, Explorers, Network) because the various age ranges have different needs. No one, not even the parody image you have of us egalitarians, thinks that this is a problem.
The problem we see comes when your groups specifically excludes some group. For the IHC, it's fine if they only accept Italians but not fine if they accept everyone but blacks. There's a big difference between "Just for us" and "Not for you". It's a difficult distinction for some people, but one that apparently needs to be pointed out.
First, those sorts of clauses are very common for jobs where you're a "public face". They're often called "morality clauses" and they're to protect the company should they need to remove someone who is damaging to their image.
In this case, it's to justify the removal of someone who, through their actions outside the group, cause harm to the group.
There are tons of exceptions from parking and housing to grants and loans! For good reason, as you probably already know.
There's a huge difference between "discrimination" that is inclusive vs discrimination that is exclusive. The poorly named "reverse discrimination" is necessary if we're to achieve equal opportunity. By not "discriminating" you can unfairly harm whole classes of people.
To achieve equal opportunity, sometimes you need to make special accommodation. This is no more "morally bankrupt" than wheelchair ramps.
Offering more opportunity to those who already have less opportunity just helps level playing field. That's not discrimination by any sensible definition. It's inclusive, not exclusive.
It's like watching people complain about someone else getting a 10-second head-start in a foot race when they're already starting a mile down the path!
Let's try a simple example. Let's say that the girls in the class were given one cookie while the boys were given two. That's not fair, as anyone can see. The solution is to simply give the girls an additional cookie.
No one thinks that's discrimination. You won't hear someone cry "why didn't everyone get an additional cookie?".
Something just as simple: Starting with a fact like "girls don't have as many opportunities as boys to get in to tech" the obvious solution is "create more opportunities for girls".
Why is this suddenly "discrimination"? It's not. It just levels the playing field.
You can call it discrimination, and defend that indefensible position against those who aren't as skilled linguistically, but it's still just empty rhetoric. Most people understand that.
The problem is that you don't want to treat anyone with respect -- earned or not.
See, the 'respect is earned' line in this context can be nothing other than a justification to treat those you consider outsiders poorly. It's just carte blanche for you to use abusive language and hateful rhetoric.
There is no place in our modern world for that sort of antisocial behavior. Like it or not, the culture is changing. There are real social (and professional) consequences for abusive or hateful language and behaviors.
You'll need to learn how to offer someone criticism without insulting or alluding to properties of their gender, race, creed, physical appearance, etc.
It's not difficult. Just be polite. Don't act like an asshole. That's what this, and just about every other CoC, is saying in the broad strokes. Regardless of whatever legalistic twist you want to put on one specifically, you're going to be in the clear if you're just polite and don't act like an asshole.
There are many ways to get ahead in business and politics. Merit is one of those ways, but it's strikingly rare. The circumstances of your birth seem to have a much greater impact than things like effort and competence.
You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as a meritocracy. This alleged "merit-based approach" is nothing more than a lie you, and others here, tell yourselves to justify antisocial behavior.
Ask yourself: If this was truly a meritocracy, why do underrepresented groups need to hide some aspect of their identity or risk being treated unfairly? The answer is obvious, of course. There is no meritocracy. They will be treated unfairly regardless of the quality of their work should anyone discover that they're not a 20-30 white male.
What I'm most interested in hearing, if you don't mind a bit of self-reflection, is why you so strongly want to deny that simple truth. Is it fear? Maybe you get a sense of satisfaction using abusive language? Do you think yourself superior because of your race, gender, or other property and want to maintain that belief? Something else entirely?
The irony is that anonymous activity prevents the very kind of irrelevant judgments SJW types claim they want to avoid. The only thing to be judged is the code given as answers to questions.
That people should need to hide their identity in your meritocracy should make it clear that it's not a meritocracy at all. Perhaps it's time that you stop pretending that such a ridiculous fiction exists?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that easy even if you have one. Those controllers were hard-wired. It might not be a big deal to you or me, but it's not a project the average person is going to want to take on.
It would be better if something like this came with its own reproduction controller.
^^ This is the best argument I've seen in favor of a formal education.
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy" -- Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV)
President trump's are approved for a single purpose and he is following all the required rules.
The story is about Trump specifically *not* following all the rules.
I get not reading the article or the summary -- but skipping the title?
You've spent too much time in China. We do not want logograms. They are not good.
The reason you use the word "discrimination" is because of the negative connotations. It's nothing but empty rhetoric. It does not help your case. It does not refute the claims made by myself and others here.
Discrimination, in the ordinary/positive sense, is a normal and necessary part of our daily lives. An example I gave earlier: That you can't join the local cub scout pack is not 'age discrimination' even though the cub scouts discriminate based on age.
Conflating the two ideas with a ridiculous rhetorical trick (the words are identical, not the meanings) is dishonest.
You'll trick a few people, surely. The majority, however, can easily see through that kind of nonsense.
LLVM is not participating in the program at this time, though I doubt it's due to any imagined 'backlash'. This is pretty much not news anywhere. There's the post here and a short story on The Register. The phoronix.com article linked in the summary doesn't even come up in a simple search. Even the "I am leaving" on the llvm subreddit only managed 4 comments. The only people complaining are on Slashdot, home of the perpetually unhappy.
Outreachy is still operating as usual. They've just selected interns for May-August Again, still perfectly legal. If you believe their activities are unlawful, you should notify the proper authorities. I doubt that they'll do anything, however, as they're not doing anything illegal.
They're not hiring, so ... there you go.
There's absolutely nothing illegal about this.
That's perfectly insane.
That's a twisted view. It's perfectly okay for there to be separate boy scouts and girl scouts. No one claims otherwise, except trolls who want to parody the position of those seeking a more egalitarian society.
The BSA is changing because scouting is dying. Ask your local troop, if they still exist, how long they expect to last. They need to be more inclusive as they badly need more members. It has nothing to do with social justice or a "boys only" club somehow being immoral.
Not that this is a massive change or anything. My wife was a Venture Scout and Order of the Arrow member. The didn't exactly have a sign out front that read 'no girls aloud' anyway.
The Freemasons are still men-only. That's not likely to change in my lifetime. It's also not a problem.
The Moose have separate Lodge (men) and Chapter (women) with their own separate governance and finances. It's also not a problem. A few years ago, it was proposed that lodge and chapter merge on the national level. The women were the ones that opposed it. We're all Moose in the social quarters.
The local IHC used to only allow "full" Italians (whatever that means) to join. It wasn't a problem. They only stopped that practice because they needed more members.
The K of C only allow Catholics to join. This is perfectly acceptable. It is, after all, a club for Catholics.
See, it's okay to form a group around something the members have in common, such as their needs or values. That's why we form groups, after all.
It's not "age discrimination" that keeps you from joining the local cub scout pack. That's a group for boys aged 8 to 10.5 who are interested in scouting. There are so many groups (Beavers, Cubs, Scouts, Explorers, Network) because the various age ranges have different needs. No one, not even the parody image you have of us egalitarians, thinks that this is a problem.
The problem we see comes when your groups specifically excludes some group. For the IHC, it's fine if they only accept Italians but not fine if they accept everyone but blacks. There's a big difference between "Just for us" and "Not for you". It's a difficult distinction for some people, but one that apparently needs to be pointed out.
If he does, how about you explore and understand why he can't get one. (Hint: Racism is illegal, so that's almost certainly not the answer).
Because once you've made something illegal, it stops happening.
We should make rape and murder illegal as soon as possible.
Drugs too. If we made it illegal to obtain opioids without a prescription, we'd put that crisis to a quick and decisive end.
First, those sorts of clauses are very common for jobs where you're a "public face". They're often called "morality clauses" and they're to protect the company should they need to remove someone who is damaging to their image.
In this case, it's to justify the removal of someone who, through their actions outside the group, cause harm to the group.
That's ... not what the paradox of tolerance is ...
It's not illegal. I'm going to assume that he knows it's not illegal and thus didn't consider that claim in his reply.
There are tons of exceptions from parking and housing to grants and loans! For good reason, as you probably already know.
There's a huge difference between "discrimination" that is inclusive vs discrimination that is exclusive. The poorly named "reverse discrimination" is necessary if we're to achieve equal opportunity. By not "discriminating" you can unfairly harm whole classes of people.
To achieve equal opportunity, sometimes you need to make special accommodation. This is no more "morally bankrupt" than wheelchair ramps.
Offering more opportunity to those who already have less opportunity just helps level playing field. That's not discrimination by any sensible definition. It's inclusive, not exclusive.
It's like watching people complain about someone else getting a 10-second head-start in a foot race when they're already starting a mile down the path!
It's not discrimination.
Calling it discrimination is a neat rhetorical trick, but the goal isn't exclusion, but inclusion. That's the difference.
Sometimes, to achieve equal opportunity, you must make special accommodations. Calling that "discrimination" is disingenuous.
That's just empty rhetoric.
Let's try a simple example. Let's say that the girls in the class were given one cookie while the boys were given two. That's not fair, as anyone can see. The solution is to simply give the girls an additional cookie.
No one thinks that's discrimination. You won't hear someone cry "why didn't everyone get an additional cookie?".
Something just as simple: Starting with a fact like "girls don't have as many opportunities as boys to get in to tech" the obvious solution is "create more opportunities for girls".
Why is this suddenly "discrimination"? It's not. It just levels the playing field.
You can call it discrimination, and defend that indefensible position against those who aren't as skilled linguistically, but it's still just empty rhetoric. Most people understand that.
The problem is that you don't want to treat anyone with respect -- earned or not.
See, the 'respect is earned' line in this context can be nothing other than a justification to treat those you consider outsiders poorly. It's just carte blanche for you to use abusive language and hateful rhetoric.
There is no place in our modern world for that sort of antisocial behavior. Like it or not, the culture is changing. There are real social (and professional) consequences for abusive or hateful language and behaviors.
You'll need to learn how to offer someone criticism without insulting or alluding to properties of their gender, race, creed, physical appearance, etc.
It's not difficult. Just be polite. Don't act like an asshole. That's what this, and just about every other CoC, is saying in the broad strokes. Regardless of whatever legalistic twist you want to put on one specifically, you're going to be in the clear if you're just polite and don't act like an asshole.
No one believes that but you.
Cream rises to the top, but shit also floats.
There are many ways to get ahead in business and politics. Merit is one of those ways, but it's strikingly rare. The circumstances of your birth seem to have a much greater impact than things like effort and competence.
You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as a meritocracy. This alleged "merit-based approach" is nothing more than a lie you, and others here, tell yourselves to justify antisocial behavior.
Ask yourself: If this was truly a meritocracy, why do underrepresented groups need to hide some aspect of their identity or risk being treated unfairly? The answer is obvious, of course. There is no meritocracy. They will be treated unfairly regardless of the quality of their work should anyone discover that they're not a 20-30 white male.
What I'm most interested in hearing, if you don't mind a bit of self-reflection, is why you so strongly want to deny that simple truth. Is it fear? Maybe you get a sense of satisfaction using abusive language? Do you think yourself superior because of your race, gender, or other property and want to maintain that belief? Something else entirely?
The irony is that anonymous activity prevents the very kind of irrelevant judgments SJW types claim they want to avoid. The only thing to be judged is the code given as answers to questions.
That people should need to hide their identity in your meritocracy should make it clear that it's not a meritocracy at all. Perhaps it's time that you stop pretending that such a ridiculous fiction exists?
Well, what are we doing to close the "book gap"?
A quick search will show that this is indeed a known problem that is being studied and addressed from a wide variety of perspectives.
Better to be a SJW than to be an asshole, don't you agree?
Absolutely perfect.
As a well-established asshole seeking reform, I can say with certainly that it is indeed better to be an SJW than an asshole.