Well, I was talking about jobs there, not so much academia. What you describe seems sound in theory, but in practice in the job market, AA sometimes leads to just filling a quota rather than hiring the very best candidate(s), which is generally not good for the company or the economy on a grander scale. Honestly, if a company is offering a good salary and position, that should be enough to entice anyone of any race. And these days, I've not seen any employer that is not already relatively diverse, at least in my region.
I don't care what race a person is, as long as they just hire the best qualified person for the job. That is the only important criteria. Where I work, we are plagued by nepotism, which is also a problem.
Actually you'll find the most objection goes to the feminist "corrective" "remedies" like coining new words such as "womyn," "snowperson," "herstory," etc. intended to stamp out language bias you're referring to. A writer named Eric Arthur Blair wrote a book about correct language in action. Check it out, maybe we can police thoughts after we police language.
On the whole, I don't see how any of this is really any different from Affirmative Action, and the baggage that it too creates.
As my user byline says, "Political Correctness: the misguided practice of enforcing the tenet that two wrongs make a right." as it so often leads to a form of discrimination to fight discrimination.
Most people tend to drive no faster than they are comfortable with. There's always a few stupid thrill seekers, but very few I think, comparatively, most people drive not for "fun" but to get from point A to point B, as quickly as is possible without feeling unsafe or having only borderline control. Even with no speed limit at all, on the best day, I doubt I would ever drive faster than, say, 90mph, and only on a clear, daytime, straight, limited solid stretch of road.. and certainly not the entire thing. And of course, it depends on the driver, the car, and the road.
It still boggles my mind how often I see accidents on I-295 or I-95 in my area, when the roadway is relatively straight, everyone is moving in the same direction, and there are no intersections of any kind. Yet lately it's been one or two a week, then the whole thing gets backed up for miles.
I would prefer to see more people ticketed for failure to use the turn signal than for speeding. Communication is key. Unfortunately, it's a bit harder to catch the former than the latter.
Imagine a fleet of quad copters or drones equipped with explosives and controlled by terrorists.
Why does everything have to be about terrorists? Terrorists are not going to hack into peoples insulin pumps to kill them because they would have to do so individually. Too much work for too little effort, terrorists are about blowing up buildings and airliners, murder on a large scale.
What I do see are government agents, mobsters, jilted lovers, and other criminals using this to eliminate witnesses against them or other people standing in their way. Obama has already claimed the right to murder anybody on Earth he feels like with a drone strike, how long before the next president grants himself the power to kill anyone he feels like by doing things to their insulin pump?
To be fair, he didn't explicitly say that terrorists would attack via insulin pumps, the poster indicated terrorists might use a fleet of drones with explosives: they were separate examples. A scheming spouse however might use the insulin pump attack, or a political adversary for assassination, etc..
Anyone with malevolent intent could make use of them; but then, that's always been true of any tool or technology since intelligent life began. The only real or new danger are people who believe technology is the answer to everything and can't/won't be abused. Only very naive people not well versed with tech might believe that though, so.. yeah, article is kind of preaching to the choir.
LTO is not dead. There are backups, and there is DR, and they are two different things. Plus, you have structured data (databases) and unstructured.
For a database, or DR, I do agree backup to disc is fine. You typically only need the latest version with the most (and most up to date) data.
For backing up disparate documents, however; xls, docs, pdfs, etc.. you wind up with a ton of different versions of the same file, often changed daily, which can be corrupted at any time. (Interestingly, where I work, our users often don't seem to notice this however for weeks..!) I see this from time to time. Even with dedupe, if you have enough versions of all these files and have terabytes - petabytes of data to backup, a totally disc solution would be very pricey as the capacity requirements skyrocket. Tape also has the benefit of being extremely portable, as well as long life. (Granted, speed is a disadvantage).
We're strictly tape at the moment, but we are moving towards a hybrid solution shortly, incorporating into our environment either Data Domain or Quantum's DXi.
No, you're embarrassing yourself. Those are the primary goals of the UNITED STATES as a whole, not the limited role of the federal government in DC itself.
We'll be happy that the accountability has stopped them from beating and killing people without cause.
Grammatically, you didn't say, "some" people, "sometimes", or make any other suggestion that there are exceptions.
Worded as such, it implies that cops do this as a common matter of course, particularly in the current context.
Sorry you can't write more clearly.
Presumably you agree that the police should not be shooting unarmed teenagers (of any race).
You presume wrong, IF the teenager is attacking the police officer and trying to grab his gun so they can shoot said officer, then the officer has every right and responsibility to respond with lethal force.
This is beyond idiotic. You DON'T try to grab an officer's gun! Period. That right there is grounds for lethal force, regardless. That's an overt lethal threat.
Not to mention this guy was practically twice the mass of the officer. But even without a gun ("unarmed") you do know you can still kill or seriously injure someone, right? (well, if you're a gun grabber, probably not). You can punch someone in the throat and collapse their windpipe, for example, or just plain strangle them, or even snap their neck - this dude was big enough to do that. But apparently, he was trying to change that "unarmed" situation by acquiring the cop's gun by force.
I get that some people are armchair cops and just can't empathize enough in their situations to see how quickly you could become dead, leaving your family fatherless and spouseless, thanks to a useless criminal thug, but get it through your heads you're not that damn brave or smart on your feet. Armchair cops think they'd be all Hollywood cool as a cucumber, and give the assailant time for full assessment.. but by then, and history bears this out, even if you could, you could be dead. Real cops get shot all the time, even so.
That hardly means it happens in every case. That's your logic? This particular case is pretty straightforward if you keep an open mind and look at the hard evidence.
Why, the unchallengeable phantasmic aura of his bias.
Christ, there are enough real examples of police brutality against minorities without having to resort to one that appears so dubious.
There are more than enough real examples of criminals fighting with the cops (take a look at some DIVR videos sometime) without having to resort to an excuse that appears so dubious. Besides that, the scientific evidence backs up Wilson's account.
You mean the "witness" reports that turned out be fabricated out of bias? Several of the so-called eye-witnesses who initially filed a report ( and I believe there was a ridiculous number who claimed to be eyewitnesses, like nearly 60 people) admitted to lying when it came time to testify under oath.
The forensic evidence and autopsy indicate differently from surrender as well. The dude was a huge, arrogant juggernaut (as shown on the store video tape) who just minutes prior robbed a convenience store.. and yet he's made out to be some kind of lamb. The scientific evidence debunks any of those "surrendering" witness accounts.
I'm bemused by his answer to be honest. I was making a light hearted comment about someone's attempt to justify a party position ("Against big gubmint") by launching into a dubious official-justification "Trying to protect the constitution" rant.
If you are in fact referring to me, I was only replying to the anti-GOP trolling above my post. But I love how a member of the supposed party of anti-racism and equality makes stereotypical comments like the one above, and then claims to be above it all. When's the last time you mocked someone as speaking ebonics?
FWIW, yes, the founding fathers WERE against big government, that's why we were set up as individual states, and the constitution is written as it is. To argue against that obvious reality is to to deny reason. I'm not quite as anti-regulation as the GOP typically seems to be, but the country was supposed to be a collection of federated states that exercised a fair level of autonomy, not subservience to DC. That was my point.
Well, we'll see how time plays out on this post, currently modded "troll".. but I think that just proves his point. I think this post was eloquent, intelligently worded, and fairly spot on, except for the somewhat harsh characterization of Scandinavia which was a bit over the top. World-wide, there's a whole lot of self righteousness going around, and blaming America for everything, without looking inward or seeing the bigger picture. Other countries citizens/subjects are often just as jingoistic, and often reveal ignorance of the true nature of the US. It's trendy nowadays to just blame the US for everything; and apparently we're the only nation in the world now that is not allowed to exercise border control either, because somehow the fact that colonists came over hundreds of years ago when the country was a wilderness populated by no officially recognized nation but by native Indian tribes, means the US has no right to exercise a naturalization policy.
tölted ? That's the Icelandic horse. Are you suggesting a connection between the vikings and the city of Atlantis? Oh my, there's a special for the History Channel!
(When I read this back to proofread, I sounded like George Takei in my head)
Thanks for trying to destroy the country, because with your logic, businesses would fail all over. ("amoral-by-definition"???)
I get so sick of this "Walmart is big corporate evil" mantra. The very fact that Walmart has been taken in by this scam several times only illustrates that they make a good faith effort to honor their deals.
I'm not thrilled with the whole stockholders model anymore either, (customers and employees should be more important) but Walmart is no worse than anyone else.. why isn't Target a target, for example? or Macy's? or Lord and Taylors? They they treat their people any better, or have fairer prices? The only reason Walmart is attacked so much is because the family are known conservatives.
If you think you'll come out ahead by suing for $100, you're sadly mistaken.
Well actually, they'd be suing to get the game console for $100, so the assumed net gain would be the difference between the bogus advertised price and the real price: closer to $300 or so; but yeah, that's still not even close to worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I was talking about jobs there, not so much academia. What you describe seems sound in theory, but in practice in the job market, AA sometimes leads to just filling a quota rather than hiring the very best candidate(s), which is generally not good for the company or the economy on a grander scale. Honestly, if a company is offering a good salary and position, that should be enough to entice anyone of any race. And these days, I've not seen any employer that is not already relatively diverse, at least in my region.
I don't care what race a person is, as long as they just hire the best qualified person for the job. That is the only important criteria. Where I work, we are plagued by nepotism, which is also a problem.
Actually you'll find the most objection goes to the feminist "corrective" "remedies" like coining new words such as "womyn," "snowperson," "herstory," etc. intended to stamp out language bias you're referring to. A writer named Eric Arthur Blair wrote a book about correct language in action. Check it out, maybe we can police thoughts after we police language.
We're already halfway there.
On the whole, I don't see how any of this is really any different from Affirmative Action, and the baggage that it too creates.
As my user byline says, "Political Correctness: the misguided practice of enforcing the tenet that two wrongs make a right." as it so often leads to a form of discrimination to fight discrimination.
Most people tend to drive no faster than they are comfortable with. There's always a few stupid thrill seekers, but very few I think, comparatively, most people drive not for "fun" but to get from point A to point B, as quickly as is possible without feeling unsafe or having only borderline control. Even with no speed limit at all, on the best day, I doubt I would ever drive faster than, say, 90mph, and only on a clear, daytime, straight, limited solid stretch of road.. and certainly not the entire thing. And of course, it depends on the driver, the car, and the road.
It still boggles my mind how often I see accidents on I-295 or I-95 in my area, when the roadway is relatively straight, everyone is moving in the same direction, and there are no intersections of any kind. Yet lately it's been one or two a week, then the whole thing gets backed up for miles.
I would prefer to see more people ticketed for failure to use the turn signal than for speeding. Communication is key. Unfortunately, it's a bit harder to catch the former than the latter.
Imagine a fleet of quad copters or drones equipped with explosives and controlled by terrorists.
Why does everything have to be about terrorists? Terrorists are not going to hack into peoples insulin pumps to kill them because they would have to do so individually. Too much work for too little effort, terrorists are about blowing up buildings and airliners, murder on a large scale.
What I do see are government agents, mobsters, jilted lovers, and other criminals using this to eliminate witnesses against them or other people standing in their way. Obama has already claimed the right to murder anybody on Earth he feels like with a drone strike, how long before the next president grants himself the power to kill anyone he feels like by doing things to their insulin pump?
To be fair, he didn't explicitly say that terrorists would attack via insulin pumps, the poster indicated terrorists might use a fleet of drones with explosives: they were separate examples. A scheming spouse however might use the insulin pump attack, or a political adversary for assassination, etc..
Anyone with malevolent intent could make use of them; but then, that's always been true of any tool or technology since intelligent life began. The only real or new danger are people who believe technology is the answer to everything and can't/won't be abused. Only very naive people not well versed with tech might believe that though, so.. yeah, article is kind of preaching to the choir.
LTO is not dead. There are backups, and there is DR, and they are two different things. Plus, you have structured data (databases) and unstructured.
For a database, or DR, I do agree backup to disc is fine. You typically only need the latest version with the most (and most up to date) data.
For backing up disparate documents, however; xls, docs, pdfs, etc.. you wind up with a ton of different versions of the same file, often changed daily, which can be corrupted at any time. (Interestingly, where I work, our users often don't seem to notice this however for weeks..!) I see this from time to time. Even with dedupe, if you have enough versions of all these files and have terabytes - petabytes of data to backup, a totally disc solution would be very pricey as the capacity requirements skyrocket. Tape also has the benefit of being extremely portable, as well as long life. (Granted, speed is a disadvantage).
We're strictly tape at the moment, but we are moving towards a hybrid solution shortly, incorporating into our environment either Data Domain or Quantum's DXi.
No, you're embarrassing yourself. Those are the primary goals of the UNITED STATES as a whole, not the limited role of the federal government in DC itself.
We'll be happy that the accountability has stopped them from beating and killing people without cause.
Grammatically, you didn't say, "some" people, "sometimes", or make any other suggestion that there are exceptions. Worded as such, it implies that cops do this as a common matter of course, particularly in the current context.
Sorry you can't write more clearly.
Presumably you agree that the police should not be shooting unarmed teenagers (of any race).
You presume wrong, IF the teenager is attacking the police officer and trying to grab his gun so they can shoot said officer, then the officer has every right and responsibility to respond with lethal force.
This is beyond idiotic. You DON'T try to grab an officer's gun! Period. That right there is grounds for lethal force, regardless. That's an overt lethal threat.
Not to mention this guy was practically twice the mass of the officer. But even without a gun ("unarmed") you do know you can still kill or seriously injure someone, right? (well, if you're a gun grabber, probably not). You can punch someone in the throat and collapse their windpipe, for example, or just plain strangle them, or even snap their neck - this dude was big enough to do that. But apparently, he was trying to change that "unarmed" situation by acquiring the cop's gun by force.
I get that some people are armchair cops and just can't empathize enough in their situations to see how quickly you could become dead, leaving your family fatherless and spouseless, thanks to a useless criminal thug, but get it through your heads you're not that damn brave or smart on your feet. Armchair cops think they'd be all Hollywood cool as a cucumber, and give the assailant time for full assessment.. but by then, and history bears this out, even if you could, you could be dead. Real cops get shot all the time, even so.
That hardly means it happens in every case. That's your logic? This particular case is pretty straightforward if you keep an open mind and look at the hard evidence.
This.. Well said. I've never seen confirmation bias run so amuck on this site before.
Why, the unchallengeable phantasmic aura of his bias.
Christ, there are enough real examples of police brutality against minorities without having to resort to one that appears so dubious.
There are more than enough real examples of criminals fighting with the cops (take a look at some DIVR videos sometime) without having to resort to an excuse that appears so dubious. Besides that, the scientific evidence backs up Wilson's account.
You mean the "witness" reports that turned out be fabricated out of bias? Several of the so-called eye-witnesses who initially filed a report ( and I believe there was a ridiculous number who claimed to be eyewitnesses, like nearly 60 people) admitted to lying when it came time to testify under oath. .. and yet he's made out to be some kind of lamb. The scientific evidence debunks any of those "surrendering" witness accounts.
The forensic evidence and autopsy indicate differently from surrender as well. The dude was a huge, arrogant juggernaut (as shown on the store video tape) who just minutes prior robbed a convenience store
I'm bemused by his answer to be honest. I was making a light hearted comment about someone's attempt to justify a party position ("Against big gubmint") by launching into a dubious official-justification "Trying to protect the constitution" rant.
If you are in fact referring to me, I was only replying to the anti-GOP trolling above my post. But I love how a member of the supposed party of anti-racism and equality makes stereotypical comments like the one above, and then claims to be above it all. When's the last time you mocked someone as speaking ebonics?
FWIW, yes, the founding fathers WERE against big government, that's why we were set up as individual states, and the constitution is written as it is. To argue against that obvious reality is to to deny reason. I'm not quite as anti-regulation as the GOP typically seems to be, but the country was supposed to be a collection of federated states that exercised a fair level of autonomy, not subservience to DC. That was my point.
Yep, showing that they aren't thinking, just mechanically reacting and regurgitating the stuff that's force/spoon fed to them.
Jonathan Gruber, is that you? :-D
Well, we'll see how time plays out on this post, currently modded "troll".. but I think that just proves his point. I think this post was eloquent, intelligently worded, and fairly spot on, except for the somewhat harsh characterization of Scandinavia which was a bit over the top. World-wide, there's a whole lot of self righteousness going around, and blaming America for everything, without looking inward or seeing the bigger picture. Other countries citizens/subjects are often just as jingoistic, and often reveal ignorance of the true nature of the US. It's trendy nowadays to just blame the US for everything; and apparently we're the only nation in the world now that is not allowed to exercise border control either, because somehow the fact that colonists came over hundreds of years ago when the country was a wilderness populated by no officially recognized nation but by native Indian tribes, means the US has no right to exercise a naturalization policy.
tölted ? That's the Icelandic horse. Are you suggesting a connection between the vikings and the city of Atlantis? Oh my, there's a special for the History Channel!
(When I read this back to proofread, I sounded like George Takei in my head)
There's "gaming the system" and there's fraud.
That's a very, very, fine line. Gaming the system is in many ways fraudulent.
This isn't clipping Home Depot coupons and taking advantage of Lowe's willingness to accept competitor coupons.
Not sure if this is your example of gaming the system.. because it's not, it is the system, as intended. Lowes does that to attract more business.
So does every other major retailer. But the fact that Walmart was actually honoring these prices matches kind of takes the wind out of your sails.
Thanks for trying to destroy the country, because with your logic, businesses would fail all over. ("amoral-by-definition"???)
I get so sick of this "Walmart is big corporate evil" mantra. The very fact that Walmart has been taken in by this scam several times only illustrates that they make a good faith effort to honor their deals.
I'm not thrilled with the whole stockholders model anymore either, (customers and employees should be more important) but Walmart is no worse than anyone else.. why isn't Target a target, for example? or Macy's? or Lord and Taylors? They they treat their people any better, or have fairer prices? The only reason Walmart is attacked so much is because the family are known conservatives.
Troll is obvious troll. Why are people feeding it?
If you think you'll come out ahead by suing for $100, you're sadly mistaken.
Well actually, they'd be suing to get the game console for $100, so the assumed net gain would be the difference between the bogus advertised price and the real price: closer to $300 or so; but yeah, that's still not even close to worth it.
Funny, that's how communism works too.