Bumblebees are the most peaceful kind of Apidae. And also one of the most important polllinators because they fly out when other insects are still hibernating due cold temperatures.
They are indeed passive, but they aren't above using their greater size to bulldoze smaller insects out of the way when they decide they want to visit a particular bloom. It can be entertaining sometimes to watch them work.
So, vegans, riddle-me-this. How come the cow deserves your protection but the carrot does not? I'm sure the carrot species would prefer to not be slaughtered also.
That you're inviting someone to explain the difference between a vertebrate animal and a vegetable, after professing a desire to see other vertebrate animals cruelly trapped and beaten to death for the sake of harvesting their skins, is quite the puzzle. My answer is you're trolling.
Three cheers for the extinction of the cow, pig, chickens, in all their various breeds....
Please watch a few documentaries on industrialized food production, and you might have a different attitude towards a reduction in the total number of these animals.
Even though we no longer rely on horses as a primary mode of transportation, they are in no danger of going extinct. The same applies to farm animals, as not all livestock is produced by factory farms.
As long as humans exist there will always be cows, pigs, chickens. If not for food, then for pets.
Didn't the employee that they doxxed, threatened, said they wanted to *PUNCH* and *BEAT UP*, fired, and absolutely destroyed the life of try to have that discussion? The result was all of the above that happened to him.
Google doesn't want to have a discussion. They want to have an indoctrination.
Hilarious, isn't it? It is like these people are completely immune to cognitive dissonance. I could only take it as being that Google management wants to find out who else is secretly harboring wrongthink.
The Holy Temple of Google is no place for infidels.
The only thing you can do is roll your eyes and leave quietly.
That's true for most cases. Better part of valor, and all that.
On the other hand, when you have this culture that is becoming pervasive, and it seeks to stamp out free thought and expression that runs counter to it by any means necessary, at what point do you refuse to be cowed?
It's true Damore could have taken the course of least resistance, but history has shown us that sometimes when people take a stand for just reasons that it can have wide reaching repercussions. The fact that so many people are now debating and questioning the policies of affirmative action and reverse discrimination, and the hypocrisy of those that support it is being laid bare, I would say is a net positive.
I don't think Damore intended to be a lightning rod for a national debate, but I'm glad he did.
Saying that women are, on average, interested in different things is the simple truth. The truth isn't sexist.
Those who abide by the philosophy of "we're all equals, but some are more equal than others, and by the way check your privilege" will now perform the most fantastic mental gymnastics to rationalize that away. Or just accuse you of being a sexist bigot. I wonder which is more likely.
This, to me, looks like the opposite of "no discrimination based on sex" or "equal opportunities".
You've touched on what this whole issue boils down to, which is affirmative action. A tenet and sacred cow of the ideology that dominates Google.
Since the position of Damore's detractors can't be supported by logical reasoning, misdirection and strawmen arguments such as 'hostile work environment' and 'inappropriate forum' must be applied. Even when the lies and distortions are so easily disprovable, the sheer zeal in which Damore is being smeared suggests to me that he may have hit a little too close to home in pointing out the hypocrisy.
When you're basically going to call out a portion of your coworkers as undeserving of their job (and let's be blunt, that is his argument, no matter how he tried to qualify it), well, you can hardly be surprised when people react pretty fucking poorly.
They are only reacting pretty fucking poorly, because people like you are deliberately misleading them.
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of
those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that
don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender
roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another
member of their group (tribalism) -- James Damore
Emphasis mine. What Damore actually did is challenge one of your sacred cows, affirmative action. Your reaction is to smear and distort and distract from the message that contradicts your religious dogma, which is indefensible otherwise.
It takes time for enough true believers to form a critical mass of protest in order to banish the heretic. You even see it on the comments here, how the messenger is attacked and the message itself twisted with hyperbolic rhetoric. Screed. Manifesto, etc.
How long it took for Google leadership to ultimately throw him under the bus, then publicly misrepresent him, doesn't seem all that relevant. 'tolerant of different viewpoints under most circumstances' but only as long as they adhere to the dogma of SJW fanatics is hardly tolerance, and the firing reeks of appeasement.
You may have a point. When confronted with a reasoned argument, backed by evidence and outside sources that exposes dogmatic thinking and utter hypocrisy, accuse someone of 'beating their wife'. Attacking the messenger is a time-honored way of avoiding any responsibility and shifting the criticism away from yourself.
It seems you are a conscientious person, who likely abides by a set of strict sense of morals. You would restrict yourself even for something as trivial as making duplicates of data files, even as the captains of industry have shown time and time again that they put maximized profits before all other considerations, even their own countrymen, and would do everything they can to abuse their customers as long as they can get away with it. That is commendable, as I was like you once.
It isn't so much as a RIGHT to make copies of media content, as much as there still remains the freedom to do so, a freedom which said monied interests are working hard to undermine. Are you old enough to recall when the media industry was upset about recordable cassette tapes? VHS? How they shed big crocodile tears over dvd burners, even as they were shipping content with commercials that were unskippable? Some of us do, and some just don't give a fuck anymore about padding their bottom line.
Do I make copies of all the entertainment that I enjoy, never paying a thing? No, because that would be unreasonable. However, as the law is arbitrarily enforced, and my convenience and time is something of value to me, I choose to do what suits me because I can. Life is too short for a fanatical adherence to a code of ethics that society has proven will only work to your disadvantage. Go ahead and judge me immoral, if it suits you. I honestly couldn't care less.
When making an appeal to emotion, especially to a female audience, children make for good props. It serves as an effective way to oversimplify the issue and being condescending to the audience without them realizing it.
Note the 'what if' red herring about race and sexuality. I'd think it was a calculated move if it wasn't just such a typical reaction by those invested in identity politics.
It's literally a leftist groupthink zombie region. If you dare speak outside of the dogma you will be shamed and ruined.
The problem with this isn't that I'm forced to live in that area, but that Google's reach is global. The irrationality on display at Google has made me ten times more wary of their ubiquitous presence throughout the internet. Religious zealots are never content with just keeping to themselves.
Because the topic is climate change. Not surprisingly most of the deniers are AC, and it seems like the disinformation and trolling tactics are just as predictable as always. It leads me to think that people are spending their time responding to bots, which lack the creativity to come up with any kind of new argument.
The weirdest thing about all this are the critics who label Damore's firing as Orwellian while overlooking the greatest data aggregation exercise in human history.
I'd say that Damore seems like the canary in the coal mine, but Google has been showing their true colors for a while now. This comes after relegating policing of Youtube for wrongthink by SJW groups like the anti-defamation league, which makes your comment especially poignant to me.
I suppose we can look forward to Google trying to correct 'harmful opinions' for everyone using their services. For the greater good, of course.
Polls? No thank you. Vote by mail in my state means I can complete my ballot at my leisure days before the election. If I don't feel like I can trust the post service to deliver it, I can deliver it directly to the courthouse myself. No lines, no waiting, maximum convenience, and best of all: a paper trail for a proper recount.
You're post is worthless and we are all dumber for having read it.
Not entirely worthless, in my opinion. It made me consider the modus operandi of the crowd that demonizes everyone they disagree with, typically by using hyperbolic pejoratives. Any kind of nuance is lost because any offense is taken at its most extreme, and nothing is worth considering because the issue is conflated into absurdity.
I wonder if this is the result of being within an ideological echo chamber for too long, where there is no debate but rather just a competition to see who can be the most outlandish and creative with their insults against opposing viewpoints. Where selective outrage is a form of virtue signaling, and seeing as the post was upmodded it appears to work.
Of course terrorists will be used as an excuse to suppress political speech that they don't like. It wasn't enough to pull the carpet out from under political commentators in the form of ad revenue, to delete popular comments on poignant issues, to manipulate the trending list, and unsubscribing people's choices; they needed to go further to provide some helpful reeducation.
Youtube has been an incredible platform for free speech, an amazing marketplace of ideas and information, where anyone with a determination to cut through the bullshit can be heard by millions and gain a following. But that's just too good to last, and it is definitely too dangerous to leave ignored.
l agree with your points there, with one noteable exception: the excellent camera on the iphone 7.
What is having a great quality camera at just the right moment worth? I'm not talking about the lenses that are barely passable as cameras on phones like my android, that seems to go out of its way to blur an image. The new iphone 7 has two lenses, which allows for an image with depth of field and quality that rivals a DSLR camera.
Is it possible that one great feature is worth the cost? It seems very few phones can stand up to the image quality the iphone7 can make. It would be my main deciding factor in getting one.
It must be comforting that you have consumer privacy protection laws, but they mean nothing if there isn't enforcement and auditing. Whenever there is money involved, greed can be a powerful motivation to find loopholes and other means to circumvent restrictions lawfully or otherwise, so I wouldn't have so much faith that you aren't being tracked anyway.
Even if the data from one source doesn't include identifying information, in a modern society so much data is generated from our daily lives that it isn't too difficult to deanonymize it. So I'm willing to bet that at least one marketing firm has a profile on you, regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
Bumblebees are the most peaceful kind of Apidae. And also one of the most important polllinators because they fly out when other insects are still hibernating due cold temperatures.
They are indeed passive, but they aren't above using their greater size to bulldoze smaller insects out of the way when they decide they want to visit a particular bloom. It can be entertaining sometimes to watch them work.
So, vegans, riddle-me-this. How come the cow deserves your protection but the carrot does not? I'm sure the carrot species would prefer to not be slaughtered also.
That you're inviting someone to explain the difference between a vertebrate animal and a vegetable, after professing a desire to see other vertebrate animals cruelly trapped and beaten to death for the sake of harvesting their skins, is quite the puzzle. My answer is you're trolling.
Three cheers for the extinction of the cow, pig, chickens, in all their various breeds....
Please watch a few documentaries on industrialized food production, and you might have a different attitude towards a reduction in the total number of these animals.
Even though we no longer rely on horses as a primary mode of transportation, they are in no danger of going extinct. The same applies to farm animals, as not all livestock is produced by factory farms.
As long as humans exist there will always be cows, pigs, chickens. If not for food, then for pets.
Didn't the employee that they doxxed, threatened, said they wanted to *PUNCH* and *BEAT UP*, fired, and absolutely destroyed the life of try to have that discussion? The result was all of the above that happened to him.
Google doesn't want to have a discussion. They want to have an indoctrination.
Hilarious, isn't it? It is like these people are completely immune to cognitive dissonance. I could only take it as being that Google management wants to find out who else is secretly harboring wrongthink.
The Holy Temple of Google is no place for infidels.
The only thing you can do is roll your eyes and leave quietly.
That's true for most cases. Better part of valor, and all that.
On the other hand, when you have this culture that is becoming pervasive, and it seeks to stamp out free thought and expression that runs counter to it by any means necessary, at what point do you refuse to be cowed?
It's true Damore could have taken the course of least resistance, but history has shown us that sometimes when people take a stand for just reasons that it can have wide reaching repercussions. The fact that so many people are now debating and questioning the policies of affirmative action and reverse discrimination, and the hypocrisy of those that support it is being laid bare, I would say is a net positive.
I don't think Damore intended to be a lightning rod for a national debate, but I'm glad he did.
Saying that women are, on average, interested in different things is the simple truth. The truth isn't sexist.
Those who abide by the philosophy of "we're all equals, but some are more equal than others, and by the way check your privilege" will now perform the most fantastic mental gymnastics to rationalize that away. Or just accuse you of being a sexist bigot. I wonder which is more likely.
This, to me, looks like the opposite of "no discrimination based on sex" or "equal opportunities".
You've touched on what this whole issue boils down to, which is affirmative action. A tenet and sacred cow of the ideology that dominates Google.
Since the position of Damore's detractors can't be supported by logical reasoning, misdirection and strawmen arguments such as 'hostile work environment' and 'inappropriate forum' must be applied. Even when the lies and distortions are so easily disprovable, the sheer zeal in which Damore is being smeared suggests to me that he may have hit a little too close to home in pointing out the hypocrisy.
When you're basically going to call out a portion of your coworkers as undeserving of their job (and let's be blunt, that is his argument, no matter how he tried to qualify it), well, you can hardly be surprised when people react pretty fucking poorly.
They are only reacting pretty fucking poorly, because people like you are deliberately misleading them.
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism) -- James Damore
Emphasis mine. What Damore actually did is challenge one of your sacred cows, affirmative action. Your reaction is to smear and distort and distract from the message that contradicts your religious dogma, which is indefensible otherwise.
Has all the appeal and sincerity of a North Korean democratic election.
It takes time for enough true believers to form a critical mass of protest in order to banish the heretic. You even see it on the comments here, how the messenger is attacked and the message itself twisted with hyperbolic rhetoric. Screed. Manifesto, etc.
How long it took for Google leadership to ultimately throw him under the bus, then publicly misrepresent him, doesn't seem all that relevant. 'tolerant of different viewpoints under most circumstances' but only as long as they adhere to the dogma of SJW fanatics is hardly tolerance, and the firing reeks of appeasement.
You may have a point. When confronted with a reasoned argument, backed by evidence and outside sources that exposes dogmatic thinking and utter hypocrisy, accuse someone of 'beating their wife'. Attacking the messenger is a time-honored way of avoiding any responsibility and shifting the criticism away from yourself.
It seems you are a conscientious person, who likely abides by a set of strict sense of morals. You would restrict yourself even for something as trivial as making duplicates of data files, even as the captains of industry have shown time and time again that they put maximized profits before all other considerations, even their own countrymen, and would do everything they can to abuse their customers as long as they can get away with it. That is commendable, as I was like you once.
It isn't so much as a RIGHT to make copies of media content, as much as there still remains the freedom to do so, a freedom which said monied interests are working hard to undermine. Are you old enough to recall when the media industry was upset about recordable cassette tapes? VHS? How they shed big crocodile tears over dvd burners, even as they were shipping content with commercials that were unskippable? Some of us do, and some just don't give a fuck anymore about padding their bottom line.
Do I make copies of all the entertainment that I enjoy, never paying a thing? No, because that would be unreasonable. However, as the law is arbitrarily enforced, and my convenience and time is something of value to me, I choose to do what suits me because I can. Life is too short for a fanatical adherence to a code of ethics that society has proven will only work to your disadvantage. Go ahead and judge me immoral, if it suits you. I honestly couldn't care less.
When making an appeal to emotion, especially to a female audience, children make for good props. It serves as an effective way to oversimplify the issue and being condescending to the audience without them realizing it.
Note the 'what if' red herring about race and sexuality. I'd think it was a calculated move if it wasn't just such a typical reaction by those invested in identity politics.
It's literally a leftist groupthink zombie region. If you dare speak outside of the dogma you will be shamed and ruined.
The problem with this isn't that I'm forced to live in that area, but that Google's reach is global. The irrationality on display at Google has made me ten times more wary of their ubiquitous presence throughout the internet. Religious zealots are never content with just keeping to themselves.
Because the topic is climate change. Not surprisingly most of the deniers are AC, and it seems like the disinformation and trolling tactics are just as predictable as always. It leads me to think that people are spending their time responding to bots, which lack the creativity to come up with any kind of new argument.
The weirdest thing about all this are the critics who label Damore's firing as Orwellian while overlooking the greatest data aggregation exercise in human history.
I'd say that Damore seems like the canary in the coal mine, but Google has been showing their true colors for a while now. This comes after relegating policing of Youtube for wrongthink by SJW groups like the anti-defamation league, which makes your comment especially poignant to me.
I suppose we can look forward to Google trying to correct 'harmful opinions' for everyone using their services. For the greater good, of course.
I'm reminded of the expression, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
The death threats and other expressions of bodily harm will come as the reverse-discrimination hate mob ratchets up their virtue signaling.
"It's not racism and bigotry when we do it, because reasons." -- proponents of affirmative action and diversity quotas
Polls? No thank you. Vote by mail in my state means I can complete my ballot at my leisure days before the election. If I don't feel like I can trust the post service to deliver it, I can deliver it directly to the courthouse myself. No lines, no waiting, maximum convenience, and best of all: a paper trail for a proper recount.
You're post is worthless and we are all dumber for having read it.
Not entirely worthless, in my opinion. It made me consider the modus operandi of the crowd that demonizes everyone they disagree with, typically by using hyperbolic pejoratives. Any kind of nuance is lost because any offense is taken at its most extreme, and nothing is worth considering because the issue is conflated into absurdity.
I wonder if this is the result of being within an ideological echo chamber for too long, where there is no debate but rather just a competition to see who can be the most outlandish and creative with their insults against opposing viewpoints. Where selective outrage is a form of virtue signaling, and seeing as the post was upmodded it appears to work.
You cannot discuss with religious fanatics. They want to preach their ideology, not discuss it.
Exactly. This is why heretics and blasphemers must be purged, as demonstrated by the firing.
The first Gen IV pebble bed reactor was installed at the Huaneng Shidao Bay nuclear power plant last year. Here is a slide show of it being installed.
Of course terrorists will be used as an excuse to suppress political speech that they don't like. It wasn't enough to pull the carpet out from under political commentators in the form of ad revenue, to delete popular comments on poignant issues, to manipulate the trending list, and unsubscribing people's choices; they needed to go further to provide some helpful reeducation.
Youtube has been an incredible platform for free speech, an amazing marketplace of ideas and information, where anyone with a determination to cut through the bullshit can be heard by millions and gain a following. But that's just too good to last, and it is definitely too dangerous to leave ignored.
l agree with your points there, with one noteable exception: the excellent camera on the iphone 7.
What is having a great quality camera at just the right moment worth? I'm not talking about the lenses that are barely passable as cameras on phones like my android, that seems to go out of its way to blur an image. The new iphone 7 has two lenses, which allows for an image with depth of field and quality that rivals a DSLR camera.
Is it possible that one great feature is worth the cost? It seems very few phones can stand up to the image quality the iphone7 can make. It would be my main deciding factor in getting one.
It must be comforting that you have consumer privacy protection laws, but they mean nothing if there isn't enforcement and auditing. Whenever there is money involved, greed can be a powerful motivation to find loopholes and other means to circumvent restrictions lawfully or otherwise, so I wouldn't have so much faith that you aren't being tracked anyway.
Even if the data from one source doesn't include identifying information, in a modern society so much data is generated from our daily lives that it isn't too difficult to deanonymize it. So I'm willing to bet that at least one marketing firm has a profile on you, regardless.