Hacking is a security issue, not a free speech issue,
We were talking about both propaganda and espionage, and you rejected both as intrinsically illegitimate.
As for "hacking" it comes in many forms. When the DNC, a supposedly professionally run organization, voluntarily sends its passwords to a bunch of Russian teenagers, that is indeed a "security issue", but not one I blame Russia for: that level of incompetence disqualifies these people and anybody who hired them for any position in the executive branch, and that's not even taking into account the contents of the E-mails that came out.
and your position is traitorous.
So you are saying that merely holding a particular political view and talking about it (which is all I did) is "traitorous"? Ah, yes, I remember that view well from communist rules. You're a jackbooted totalitarian, and that's not even taking into account your reprehensible political views themselves.
Pulling numbers like 60 and 80 out of your ass is just the kind of superficial and tendentious analysis we have come to expect from the American left.
In fact the very assumption of a strict left right direction is b.s. For example, although communists/socialists and fascists are conventionally located at the far left and far right, they are ideologically quite close. Progressives are a little more moderate, but also close to either.
Then why is it that most college graduates in this country are in debt up to their earballs in student loans?
When government subsidizes college, colleges just increase costs and raise prices. That is, what college costs is always the sum total of what the market will bear plus what the government gives in subsidies.
We'll pay to put people in prison, yet we won't pay to educate people. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps, just perhaps this nation has its priorities backwards.
No, it's not just you: plenty of people hold such stupid beliefs and make such trite statements.
Fact is that the US spends massively on education. Our per pupil spending is among the highest in the world. Yet, there is little relationship between spending and student performance/outcomes.
Spending insane amounts of money on incarceration in California doesn't mean that education spending should be raised, it means that prisoners should be incarcerated more cheaply.
In almost all democracies, the election is decided by getting the most votes, and they seem to be free societies
Actually, in most democracies, the equivalent of the US president isn't determined by popular vote at all, but by coalitions in parliament.
The jobs of the Electoral College were to allow slave states extra power in electing Presidents, keeping popular unqualified people out of the office, and keeping creatures of foreign powers out. I didn't see any of those purposes being fulfilled.
Kept Hillary out of office, didn't it? That seems to indicate it's working.
Because of this quality of life deteriorated markedly (inmates suffer tremendous boredom and programming is one of the ways they fight it; less programming = more boredom = more bad shit like gambling, fights, and yard politics).... Finally, BOP Minimums (called 'camps') are NOTHING like nordic prisons. Inmates sleep in open bays, the food sucks, there is little recreation opportunity.
I don't see how that environment is all that different from typical monastic life: manual labor, communal living, meditation, and a library. That seems like a proven environment for people to reflect, understand themselves, quiet the mind, and grow. What reason is there to believe that making prison more entertaining than that is better?
Obviously I'm taking a moral position here,... nor have I suggested that anything specific be done.
No, you haven't. Saying "I don't like X, X is really really bad, somebody should do something about it" isn't a moral position, it's infantile.
Absolutely, I would like American political and economic interests to [treat Americans like a political football], as opposed to foreign powers.
Well, glad you at least clearly articulated that reprehensible position.
Having the opposite preference could be described as treasonous.
Fortunately, that's a false dichotomy and there are other options, like, for example, actually standing up for free speech. Free speech means that Americans are free to listen to whatever speech they like, from whatever sources they like, without interference by their government. That includes listening to all assholes on the planet, whether Putin, Hillary, Trump, or Sanders.
Saying that I am a hypocrite is addressing the argument,
No, it is addressing the person. It's an "insultatio ad hominem", not an "argumentum ad hominem". I know, it's easy to confuse the two.
Isn't it great that regulators like the FDA give the makers of EpiPen the power to fleece, screw and insult their customers while protecting them from any competition? Thank you, FDA, for watching out so much for the interests of the American public! We obviously need to give the FDA even more regulatory authority so that the FDA can nurture even more billionaires like Coury.
And nations occasionally go to war for such reasons. Do you actually have any standards of morality or just whatever's convenient at the time?
That's the question you should be asking yourself. I tolerate espionage and propaganda as normal parts of international relations, so obviously I wouldn't go to war over it. It is you who is insisting that this is a violation of sovereignty, which means that you provide a justification for going to war over it.
You actually don't have any indication that I support US interference in foreign politics.
No, but I have plenty of indications that you want particular political and economic interests to "treat the American electorate as a football."
You've had better ad homs
And "argumentum ad hominem" would be "your argument is wrong because you are naive and hypocritical" (not a very effective ad hominem). I'm saying the opposite: "you are naive and hypocritical because of your argument". That is, I express my disapproval and disrespect for you as a consequence of the logically and morally questionable argument you made.
Sorry for moving goalposts, but have you asked in scientific way. Just asking, because in my workplace men show very little interest in contributing to OSS, even though our shop is mostly OSS.
You're asking the wrong question. The primary reason women are underrepresented in OSS is that they are underrepresented in software development. And that's not a workplace issue because it starts long before women enter the workplace.
The issue isn't whether he was implying that the respondents lied or not. The issue is that you keep conflating a self-selected, self-reported group of respondents on a GitHub survey with "women developers" or "women" in general.
I can't tell whether you are simply too stupid to understand the difference or whether you are deliberately lying, and I don't care: either way, you are a jerk.
The part that bothers me is that now other countries have seen that you can monkey with the American electoral process with impunity.
Doesn't bother me at all. Espionage and propaganda are universally used by countries, including the US. And Soviet influence on US elections and government was much stronger in the 1950's and 1960's and is still strongly influencing today's political debates. But that's the price you pay for having a free society.
All political parties everywhere have dirty secrets or (equivalently) things that can be made to look like dirty secrets.
Well, and Trump's "dirty secrets" also came out, like the "grab them by the pussy" comment. In the end, American voters evaluate the sources, credibility, and relevance of information about their candidates. That's what we have elections for.
but I'm not sure that democracy is best when foreign powers treat the American electorate as a football.
You're both enormously naive and enormously hypocritical.
Yeah. You are right, "an IP from Russia hacked the democratic party to crash the election" is obviously a total non-issue. Everybody move on, nothing to see here.
It is a huge issue: it calls into question the competence of Democrats in areas of computer security and national security.
That is, even if the hacks hadn't revealed nefarious activities by Democrats, the fact that they got hacked in the first place disqualified them from office.
But the fact that the FIRST assumption is that women are lying is the problem.
He didn't make that assumption, he simply pointed out correctly that self-reported claims are not the same as facts. You then accused him of accusing women of lying. You are the dishonest prick, not him.
Your implicit and sexist assumption there is that the only way women can participate in open source is through joining projects created by men. If there is a large population of capable female developers whose only problem is that evil misogynist male project leaders are keeping them down, they are free to create their own open source projects. Heck, they are even free to exclude all males from their projects. Obviously, that's not happening.
The WSJ is in bed with Wall Street (hence the name) and big business. If that's "conservative" or "Republican", then Hillary Clinton must be an arch-conservative bedrock Republican.
The open source survey acknowledges academic advisers and support for its design and questions... 80% of which are women. How's that for gender balance and lack of bias?
GitHub should cut this crap and focus on hosting repositories. If they keep harping on social justice issues, they face going down the same drain that Twitter is currently going down. And GitHub's business model strikes me as similarly shaky.
There is no gender barrier to starting open source projects on GitHub. There is no barrier to recruiting talented women into your feminist collective femputer software project. If women are just as interested and productive in open source as men, they wouldn't need the munificence of men in order to have them work on male-dominated open source projects, there would be lots of open source projects run by women where women could go to feel welcome.
The lack of women-run open source projects, female developers, etc. is a simple consequence of straight women being statistically much less interested in starting or participating in such projects. (Note that, despite facing discrimination and prejudice, gays actually are overrepresented among GitHub open source developers.)
Slashdot Mirror
We were talking about both propaganda and espionage, and you rejected both as intrinsically illegitimate.
As for "hacking" it comes in many forms. When the DNC, a supposedly professionally run organization, voluntarily sends its passwords to a bunch of Russian teenagers, that is indeed a "security issue", but not one I blame Russia for: that level of incompetence disqualifies these people and anybody who hired them for any position in the executive branch, and that's not even taking into account the contents of the E-mails that came out.
So you are saying that merely holding a particular political view and talking about it (which is all I did) is "traitorous"? Ah, yes, I remember that view well from communist rules. You're a jackbooted totalitarian, and that's not even taking into account your reprehensible political views themselves.
They lie about everything else, so you probably wouldn't get a true answer.
Pulling numbers like 60 and 80 out of your ass is just the kind of superficial and tendentious analysis we have come to expect from the American left.
In fact the very assumption of a strict left right direction is b.s. For example, although communists/socialists and fascists are conventionally located at the far left and far right, they are ideologically quite close. Progressives are a little more moderate, but also close to either.
When government subsidizes college, colleges just increase costs and raise prices. That is, what college costs is always the sum total of what the market will bear plus what the government gives in subsidies.
No, it's not just you: plenty of people hold such stupid beliefs and make such trite statements.
Fact is that the US spends massively on education. Our per pupil spending is among the highest in the world. Yet, there is little relationship between spending and student performance/outcomes.
Spending insane amounts of money on incarceration in California doesn't mean that education spending should be raised, it means that prisoners should be incarcerated more cheaply.
Unlike so many previous ripoffs, this one has the "hype" right in the name!
Actually, in most democracies, the equivalent of the US president isn't determined by popular vote at all, but by coalitions in parliament.
Kept Hillary out of office, didn't it? That seems to indicate it's working.
I don't see how that environment is all that different from typical monastic life: manual labor, communal living, meditation, and a library. That seems like a proven environment for people to reflect, understand themselves, quiet the mind, and grow. What reason is there to believe that making prison more entertaining than that is better?
No, you haven't. Saying "I don't like X, X is really really bad, somebody should do something about it" isn't a moral position, it's infantile.
Well, glad you at least clearly articulated that reprehensible position.
Fortunately, that's a false dichotomy and there are other options, like, for example, actually standing up for free speech. Free speech means that Americans are free to listen to whatever speech they like, from whatever sources they like, without interference by their government. That includes listening to all assholes on the planet, whether Putin, Hillary, Trump, or Sanders.
No, it is addressing the person. It's an "insultatio ad hominem", not an "argumentum ad hominem". I know, it's easy to confuse the two.
Isn't it great that regulators like the FDA give the makers of EpiPen the power to fleece, screw and insult their customers while protecting them from any competition? Thank you, FDA, for watching out so much for the interests of the American public! We obviously need to give the FDA even more regulatory authority so that the FDA can nurture even more billionaires like Coury.
That's the question you should be asking yourself. I tolerate espionage and propaganda as normal parts of international relations, so obviously I wouldn't go to war over it. It is you who is insisting that this is a violation of sovereignty, which means that you provide a justification for going to war over it.
No, but I have plenty of indications that you want particular political and economic interests to "treat the American electorate as a football."
And "argumentum ad hominem" would be "your argument is wrong because you are naive and hypocritical" (not a very effective ad hominem). I'm saying the opposite: "you are naive and hypocritical because of your argument". That is, I express my disapproval and disrespect for you as a consequence of the logically and morally questionable argument you made.
You're asking the wrong question. The primary reason women are underrepresented in OSS is that they are underrepresented in software development. And that's not a workplace issue because it starts long before women enter the workplace.
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/e...
While I don't doubt your good intentions, you are causing harm. That's why you should be not just "hindered" but strongly opposed.
Oh, you fully deserved being called a "prick" for your statement.
Yes. And so have others.
Not at all. But I think that if you're passionate about something, you can make it happen.
I don't think there is a problem, so I don't think a solution is needed.
And I assure you, I'm not going to change my behavior towards others because you are unhappy about population statistics.
The issue isn't whether he was implying that the respondents lied or not. The issue is that you keep conflating a self-selected, self-reported group of respondents on a GitHub survey with "women developers" or "women" in general.
I can't tell whether you are simply too stupid to understand the difference or whether you are deliberately lying, and I don't care: either way, you are a jerk.
Doesn't bother me at all. Espionage and propaganda are universally used by countries, including the US. And Soviet influence on US elections and government was much stronger in the 1950's and 1960's and is still strongly influencing today's political debates. But that's the price you pay for having a free society.
Well, and Trump's "dirty secrets" also came out, like the "grab them by the pussy" comment. In the end, American voters evaluate the sources, credibility, and relevance of information about their candidates. That's what we have elections for.
You're both enormously naive and enormously hypocritical.
It is a huge issue: it calls into question the competence of Democrats in areas of computer security and national security.
That is, even if the hacks hadn't revealed nefarious activities by Democrats, the fact that they got hacked in the first place disqualified them from office.
He didn't make that assumption, he simply pointed out correctly that self-reported claims are not the same as facts. You then accused him of accusing women of lying. You are the dishonest prick, not him.
Your implicit and sexist assumption there is that the only way women can participate in open source is through joining projects created by men. If there is a large population of capable female developers whose only problem is that evil misogynist male project leaders are keeping them down, they are free to create their own open source projects. Heck, they are even free to exclude all males from their projects. Obviously, that's not happening.
But the subscribers they gain aren't enough to run an organization as large as a traditional newspaper.
They are aiming for 3 million subscribers. That pays enough for a handful of talented people these days, if they are lucky.
The WSJ is in bed with Wall Street (hence the name) and big business. If that's "conservative" or "Republican", then Hillary Clinton must be an arch-conservative bedrock Republican.
The solution is for a lot of newspapers to go out of business, for the simple reason that they are not needed anymore.
I would like a button to permanently kill all for-pay news sites in search results and Google News: I never want to see them.
It would also be helpful if Google made it easier to remove specific news sources with a single click.
The open source survey acknowledges academic advisers and support for its design and questions... 80% of which are women. How's that for gender balance and lack of bias?
GitHub should cut this crap and focus on hosting repositories. If they keep harping on social justice issues, they face going down the same drain that Twitter is currently going down. And GitHub's business model strikes me as similarly shaky.
There is no gender barrier to starting open source projects on GitHub. There is no barrier to recruiting talented women into your feminist collective femputer software project. If women are just as interested and productive in open source as men, they wouldn't need the munificence of men in order to have them work on male-dominated open source projects, there would be lots of open source projects run by women where women could go to feel welcome.
The lack of women-run open source projects, female developers, etc. is a simple consequence of straight women being statistically much less interested in starting or participating in such projects. (Note that, despite facing discrimination and prejudice, gays actually are overrepresented among GitHub open source developers.)