Aren't critics of these stats saying that discrimination in the workforce is causing women to not go into IT as much? And that obviously happened in the space of a decade as well.
And no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "political correctness". This is simply being fair. You didn't have to mention appearance, or age.
That's where you're most wrong. It's exactly "political correctness" that takes an innocuous statement with mention of some physical characteristics and responds with airs of offense.
Never mind that there is a pervasive cultural tendency to disregard a woman's accomplishments and focus solely on her looks.
Here you're also wrong, but less odiously wrong because there is some truth to it. Nevertheless, you are wrong on two counts: 1. You imply that focusing on looks is disregarding one's accomplishments, but in reality good looks are often a result of effort and thus are an accomplishment in and of themselves (you're not going to win a beauty contest by sitting on your fat ass all day, unless it's a fetish beauty contest) 2. What may have been a "pervasive cultural tendency" back when you were young is not necessarily so anymore. I have no professional experience with women's accomplishments being disregarded, regardless of their looks. This could also be a problem of oversensitivity on your part where you are so angered by perceived injustices that you can't recognize or acknowledge things that run counter to your views of our cultural dystopia.
IQ is basically a measurement of your social/economic advantages in education and a nurturing environment
Now where do you get that idea?
(http://www.unc.edu/~rooney/iq.htm)
I don't see that position claimed in your link. You do realize that the link provides an overview of thoughts on intelligence and does not argue for one view over another?
What does that mean to you? I guess you're implying that IQ is different from intelligence, and that's a fine position (if rather subjective), but considering GP specifically said "IQ is mostly genetic" and not "intelligence is mostly genetic" what's the point of this distinction?
Why can't white guys have an "understanding" of women + male minorities? That's a completely unfounded assumption.
Do you also think that minorities have very little understanding of whites, and thus would be unsuitable for roles in developing products meant to appeal to the majority?
It is pretty bad indeed. And I've watched "Silicon Valley" already so I can't help but think of its take-downs of the self-important, pompous, "change the world" mentality every time the sales guy talks on HCF.
The theory is that if it's good enough to trick judges, it is actually intelligent even if we don't understand HOW a database full of common phrases plus some code to choose the appropriate one embodies intelligence.
To an intelligence that is superior to humans, we may look like windup toys. Who knows.
My problem with the Turing Test is that computer intelligence probably won't sound like a human, so we're optimizing for the wrong thing. Computers don't experience the world like humans. Why would they laugh at our jokes? Would they react to things like poor grammar the same way people do?
Your reasoning seems correct but I don't think it means what you think it means. Let's say that increased gun ownership deters violent crimes. Just take that for granted.
Now check this out..
2010, 100 crimes, 50 used guns 2011, 90 crimes, 49 used guns 2012, 80 crimes, 48 used guns
What's happening? Crimes are going down because criminals are less willing to engage in crime. But you can divide the criminals into two classes, those willing to use a gun and those unwilling. The unwilling ones are dropping much faster, which makes sense because if you're not willing to use a gun, and your victim has a gun, you are pretty much not going to do anything. The ones willing to use a gun are still dropping, but at a much slower rate, which also makes sense intuitively.
Thus the likelihood that a violent crime uses a gun goes up, but that's an incomplete and misleading description of the full picture.
Well since they're violating the Constitution anyway, why don't the police do something actually worthwhile with their power and just go do invasive home searches of everybody who looks like a criminal?
That would probably get a lot of unregistered guns off the street.
And since we're not worried about the Constitution, no criticism of this plan based on laws or rights is valid.
Not living in Detroit myself, I would actually support this idea.
Well, let me check the Constitution of the United States real quick. Hold on. I'm doing a text search for "driver", "engineer", "doctor", and "electrician."
Motherfucker, what do you know, none of those words appear!
Hate to break it to you bud, but the onous is on you to prove the opposite.
Now where do you get that idea?
See, when you argue against diversity, you are arguing for apartheid,
No, when you are arguing for diversity, you are arguing for apartheid. You really are. You're saying "Google, forget the general population. Forget it. It doesn't exist. There's no generation population. There's blacks, there's whites, there's Hispanics, there's men, there's women. Now you hire from each one separately! You need to maintain those fucking divisions so they are reflected in your workplace... for diversity!!"
Yeah that's apartheid, just with a different flavor.. instead of keeping blacks out, you keep someone else out.
I guess you never thought of it that way, or you are under the false impression that diversity = MLK's "they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Nope... not at all... because that does not always lead to diversity.
The right to control your own body's count of infectious diseases ends when you associate with other people who may or may not be vaccinated, and thus spread the diseases to some of them.
Says you. That's not actually a right.
Similar to the fact that your right to punch into random directions ends when my nose is in one of those directions.
Wrong, if I'm already punching in random directions, i.e. not even attempting to punch you, and then you get in my way, there's no way I would be in trouble. You inserted yourself into an existing situation that you could observe beforehand. You're the one who caused the problem.
Kind of like how if I'm driving on a road at the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws, and you take your car and run a red light and get in front of my car, and I keep going and hit you... I don't get in trouble. You do.
There's a reason you had to modify the common phrase and add "random directions" -- because you're acknowledging that the ultimate spread of the pathogens is not a conscious act, and in fact the person may be completely unaware they are carrying a sickness -- but the problem is adding that destroys the argument.
Ah you're confused because you think that one example of someone exposing others to AIDS without consciously taking action to do so means it's the only possible way.
Well you got me. Car accidents are the only possible way for someone to bleed without taking purposeful action to do so.
It's frustrating talking to an idiot who thinks he's clever. Because you think you're clever, you think you can pack meaning into brief, cryptic phrases and they'll sound even more clever. But because you're not as clever as you think, it ends up confusing things and the conversation goes nowhere, as it's been doing. I mean really in the future when you find yourself writing "you said what you said" you should reconsider.
Here's what you quoted in your first reply: "What you posted is not an elaboration on why "they are not" though. Those additional words could be said about any business and any product... it's pretty much describing "advertising.""
Note that I didn't use the word commodity.
Now you could be referring to Hachette's response, quoted earlier in the thread, which said "Amazon indicates that it considers books to be like any other consumer good. They are not."
If that's the case, then you have made an error linking "any other consumer good" with "commodity." Not all consumer goods are commodities.
That said, most books are commodities, meaning they items of value that can be bought and sold, and that two physical manifestations of the same title are pretty much indistinguishable from each other.
So you appear to be wrong on two levels... first in that you misattributed something to me, and second in the core of your argument itself.
people don't think "oh, I should research what's happening in the Muslim world"
The public knows exactly what OP is referring to, no need to go do research. This isn't 1989.
they think "this guy needs some professional help
You're giving too much weight to the comment. When most people read something like that, they think "Heh, +1 sad but true" and move on. Even if someone dedicated their lives to posting anti-Muslim comments, most people would only see one of them, ever, and would not conclude "This guy needs professional help!"
If you're about to have sex with someone, you deserve to know if they have a deadly disease. But not before. Before that, it's none of your business.
So are you saying you support HIV/AIDS registration with public access so that when you're about to have sex with someone you can verify that they're not infected? As long as you attest that you're going to have sex with them soon?
Yes, but it requires actual action on their part to spread it and there's no vaccine to get rid of the disease or prevent its transmission.
It doesn't necessarily require action on their part. They could get in a car accident for instance and bleed everywhere.
The fact that there's no vaccine makes it more important to be forewarned, doesn't it?
The president certainly could have a single person killed for some arbitrary reason, he's already doing it.
Sure, Obama could send a secret hit team to kill some random guy for no good reason, but he wouldn't be able to get on TV and admit it. Contrast that to a press release saying "Yeah, we sent a drone to kill that guy because he's a Muslim terrorist."
If they feel justified in murder without trial on US citizens overseas, I just don't see a line between that and me sitting in my living room other than "The president's discretion"
The line is public support, not the president's discretion.
Sure they benefit, but they don't have a right to expect that benefit. It's a bonus.
Kind of like if your neighbors all make expensive upgrades to their houses, your own home value can go up even though you did nothing yourself. But that happy coincidence doesn't give you a RIGHT to require your neighbors to make expensive upgrades while you sit on your ass.
I question your right to experience the benefits of herd immunity. Who gave you that right? How did you determine that it's a greater right than privacy, freedom of association, and the right to control your own damn body?
On the contrary, the government has every right to assure you are vaccinated. Your ignorant and paranoid refusal to be vaccinated threatens the health of others.
Boo-hoo. You're threatening the health of others. Guess what, most people threaten the health of others. You may be infected with a communicable disease and not even know it! That disease can be deadly to some people!
If you do not want to get vaccinated, then go live in complete isolation, far, far away from those who want their children to be healthy.
Better idea, if you want to be 100% guaranteed not to be around any impure people, you go far far away and live in isolation, or with the nut-jobs who agree with you and will let you personally verify their medical history.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't critics of these stats saying that discrimination in the workforce is causing women to not go into IT as much? And that obviously happened in the space of a decade as well.
Why is one harder to believer than the other?
One look at the stats and you'd have to be an idiot to think people with white skin have some kind of advantage.
What if having a penis correlates with being better at working with computers for some reason? Did you think of that?
Not only that, but the board of directors isn't typically a "single position within the company." That would be a board of director.
And no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "political correctness". This is simply being fair. You didn't have to mention appearance, or age.
That's where you're most wrong. It's exactly "political correctness" that takes an innocuous statement with mention of some physical characteristics and responds with airs of offense.
Never mind that there is a pervasive cultural tendency to disregard a woman's accomplishments and focus solely on her looks.
Here you're also wrong, but less odiously wrong because there is some truth to it. Nevertheless, you are wrong on two counts:
1. You imply that focusing on looks is disregarding one's accomplishments, but in reality good looks are often a result of effort and thus are an accomplishment in and of themselves (you're not going to win a beauty contest by sitting on your fat ass all day, unless it's a fetish beauty contest)
2. What may have been a "pervasive cultural tendency" back when you were young is not necessarily so anymore. I have no professional experience with women's accomplishments being disregarded, regardless of their looks. This could also be a problem of oversensitivity on your part where you are so angered by perceived injustices that you can't recognize or acknowledge things that run counter to your views of our cultural dystopia.
IQ is basically a measurement of your social/economic advantages in education and a nurturing environment
Now where do you get that idea?
(http://www.unc.edu/~rooney/iq.htm)
I don't see that position claimed in your link. You do realize that the link provides an overview of thoughts on intelligence and does not argue for one view over another?
A better place to look is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
IQ is what IQ tests measure
What does that mean to you? I guess you're implying that IQ is different from intelligence, and that's a fine position (if rather subjective), but considering GP specifically said "IQ is mostly genetic" and not "intelligence is mostly genetic" what's the point of this distinction?
Why can't white guys have an "understanding" of women + male minorities? That's a completely unfounded assumption.
Do you also think that minorities have very little understanding of whites, and thus would be unsuitable for roles in developing products meant to appeal to the majority?
How about because of equal protection before the law? The government should be negotiating on behalf of all the people it represents.
It is pretty bad indeed. And I've watched "Silicon Valley" already so I can't help but think of its take-downs of the self-important, pompous, "change the world" mentality every time the sales guy talks on HCF.
The theory is that if it's good enough to trick judges, it is actually intelligent even if we don't understand HOW a database full of common phrases plus some code to choose the appropriate one embodies intelligence.
To an intelligence that is superior to humans, we may look like windup toys. Who knows.
My problem with the Turing Test is that computer intelligence probably won't sound like a human, so we're optimizing for the wrong thing. Computers don't experience the world like humans. Why would they laugh at our jokes? Would they react to things like poor grammar the same way people do?
Your reasoning seems correct but I don't think it means what you think it means. Let's say that increased gun ownership deters violent crimes. Just take that for granted.
Now check this out..
2010, 100 crimes, 50 used guns
2011, 90 crimes, 49 used guns
2012, 80 crimes, 48 used guns
What's happening? Crimes are going down because criminals are less willing to engage in crime. But you can divide the criminals into two classes, those willing to use a gun and those unwilling. The unwilling ones are dropping much faster, which makes sense because if you're not willing to use a gun, and your victim has a gun, you are pretty much not going to do anything. The ones willing to use a gun are still dropping, but at a much slower rate, which also makes sense intuitively.
Thus the likelihood that a violent crime uses a gun goes up, but that's an incomplete and misleading description of the full picture.
Well since they're violating the Constitution anyway, why don't the police do something actually worthwhile with their power and just go do invasive home searches of everybody who looks like a criminal?
That would probably get a lot of unregistered guns off the street.
And since we're not worried about the Constitution, no criticism of this plan based on laws or rights is valid.
Not living in Detroit myself, I would actually support this idea.
Well, let me check the Constitution of the United States real quick. Hold on. I'm doing a text search for "driver", "engineer", "doctor", and "electrician."
Motherfucker, what do you know, none of those words appear!
So wow I guess guns are special.
Hate to break it to you bud, but the onous is on you to prove the opposite.
Now where do you get that idea?
See, when you argue against diversity, you are arguing for apartheid,
No, when you are arguing for diversity, you are arguing for apartheid. You really are. You're saying "Google, forget the general population. Forget it. It doesn't exist. There's no generation population. There's blacks, there's whites, there's Hispanics, there's men, there's women. Now you hire from each one separately! You need to maintain those fucking divisions so they are reflected in your workplace... for diversity!!"
Yeah that's apartheid, just with a different flavor.. instead of keeping blacks out, you keep someone else out.
I guess you never thought of it that way, or you are under the false impression that diversity = MLK's "they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Nope... not at all... because that does not always lead to diversity.
The right to control your own body's count of infectious diseases ends when you associate with other people who may or may not be vaccinated, and thus spread the diseases to some of them.
Says you. That's not actually a right.
Similar to the fact that your right to punch into random directions ends when my nose is in one of those directions.
Wrong, if I'm already punching in random directions, i.e. not even attempting to punch you, and then you get in my way, there's no way I would be in trouble. You inserted yourself into an existing situation that you could observe beforehand. You're the one who caused the problem.
Kind of like how if I'm driving on a road at the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws, and you take your car and run a red light and get in front of my car, and I keep going and hit you... I don't get in trouble. You do.
There's a reason you had to modify the common phrase and add "random directions" -- because you're acknowledging that the ultimate spread of the pathogens is not a conscious act, and in fact the person may be completely unaware they are carrying a sickness -- but the problem is adding that destroys the argument.
Ah you're confused because you think that one example of someone exposing others to AIDS without consciously taking action to do so means it's the only possible way.
Well you got me. Car accidents are the only possible way for someone to bleed without taking purposeful action to do so.
Yup. Well done.
Yes I know how feel. How feel probably talk to self a lot lot. How know how feel?
It's frustrating talking to an idiot who thinks he's clever. Because you think you're clever, you think you can pack meaning into brief, cryptic phrases and they'll sound even more clever. But because you're not as clever as you think, it ends up confusing things and the conversation goes nowhere, as it's been doing. I mean really in the future when you find yourself writing "you said what you said" you should reconsider.
Here's what you quoted in your first reply: "What you posted is not an elaboration on why "they are not" though. Those additional words could be said about any business and any product... it's pretty much describing "advertising.""
Note that I didn't use the word commodity.
Now you could be referring to Hachette's response, quoted earlier in the thread, which said "Amazon indicates that it considers books to be like any other consumer good. They are not."
If that's the case, then you have made an error linking "any other consumer good" with "commodity." Not all consumer goods are commodities.
That said, most books are commodities, meaning they items of value that can be bought and sold, and that two physical manifestations of the same title are pretty much indistinguishable from each other.
So you appear to be wrong on two levels... first in that you misattributed something to me, and second in the core of your argument itself.
people don't think "oh, I should research what's happening in the Muslim world"
The public knows exactly what OP is referring to, no need to go do research. This isn't 1989.
they think "this guy needs some professional help
You're giving too much weight to the comment. When most people read something like that, they think "Heh, +1 sad but true" and move on. Even if someone dedicated their lives to posting anti-Muslim comments, most people would only see one of them, ever, and would not conclude "This guy needs professional help!"
If you're about to have sex with someone, you deserve to know if they have a deadly disease. But not before. Before that, it's none of your business.
So are you saying you support HIV/AIDS registration with public access so that when you're about to have sex with someone you can verify that they're not infected? As long as you attest that you're going to have sex with them soon?
Yes, but it requires actual action on their part to spread it and there's no vaccine to get rid of the disease or prevent its transmission.
It doesn't necessarily require action on their part. They could get in a car accident for instance and bleed everywhere.
The fact that there's no vaccine makes it more important to be forewarned, doesn't it?
Really, does it? I don't think my reply addresses that at all. Did you reply to the wrong comment?
The president certainly could have a single person killed for some arbitrary reason, he's already doing it.
Sure, Obama could send a secret hit team to kill some random guy for no good reason, but he wouldn't be able to get on TV and admit it. Contrast that to a press release saying "Yeah, we sent a drone to kill that guy because he's a Muslim terrorist."
If they feel justified in murder without trial on US citizens overseas, I just don't see a line between that and me sitting in my living room other than "The president's discretion"
The line is public support, not the president's discretion.
Sure they benefit, but they don't have a right to expect that benefit. It's a bonus.
Kind of like if your neighbors all make expensive upgrades to their houses, your own home value can go up even though you did nothing yourself. But that happy coincidence doesn't give you a RIGHT to require your neighbors to make expensive upgrades while you sit on your ass.
I question your right to experience the benefits of herd immunity. Who gave you that right? How did you determine that it's a greater right than privacy, freedom of association, and the right to control your own damn body?
On the contrary, the government has every right to assure you are vaccinated. Your ignorant and paranoid refusal to be vaccinated threatens the health of others.
Boo-hoo. You're threatening the health of others. Guess what, most people threaten the health of others. You may be infected with a communicable disease and not even know it! That disease can be deadly to some people!
If you do not want to get vaccinated, then go live in complete isolation, far, far away from those who want their children to be healthy.
Better idea, if you want to be 100% guaranteed not to be around any impure people, you go far far away and live in isolation, or with the nut-jobs who agree with you and will let you personally verify their medical history.
Oh that's not fair? Too big of a burden? Yup!
Yes. My neighbor's HIV/AIDS status is none of my business because I don't have sex with my neighbor.
1. Why do you think people who have sex deserve less protection?
2. You can catch HIV/AIDS from someone without having sex
In fact I believe it is illegal to hide the fact that you have AIDS and have sex with someone. For instance: http://www.nbc-2.com/story/231...
But my neighbor's vaccination record for measles and polio IS my business because those are contagious diseases that can spread through a community.
So don't associate with him or people he associates with. Problem solved from your end!