Do you lack common empathy or decency? Then why spew hate like this? Because someone was convicted of a crime, that does not make them less than human. Once someone pays their debt to society, they should be given a chance to demonstrate they can live in society without repeating that behavior. Treating criminals, and your other fellow humans, decently benefits YOU as much, if not more, than it does them. This kind of hateful remark discourages decency on the internet.
Why, in 2019, on this particular site, would someone be posting who doesn't get that popularity does not equal technical--or any other kind--of quality?
When it comes to psychologically stable and educated individuals, this is correct.
And who gets to decide who is psychologically stable and sufficiently educated? You? A Donald Trump appointee? Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's second cousin's therapist?
In the old Soviet Union, the psychiatrists and psychologists worked for the government, which was, in turn, controlled by the Communist Party. It was, of course, insane to undermine the workers' revolution.
The studies find what they find and the facts suggest what they suggest. All of the "advice" part comes from journalists and nutritionists (NOT dietitians, who are registered or licensed medical professionals--anyone can call themselves a "nutritionist" in the U.S.) who interpret the studies. No responsible dietitian will advocate anything other than "variety and moderation".
"They suggest that this 'paradox of meritocracy' occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides."
They can suggest this all they want, but according to research and ancient philosophy, this isn't how human thinking works. Humans convince themselves of things, according to cognitive behavior therapists and stoic philosophers, by telling themselves things like "I graduated at the top of my class, therefore I am a better person than anyone else."
This belief could be prevalent in American society, which is not known for its rational behavior, but because people think and act irrationally does not mean we should throw out the principle of merit. Instead, I suggest we keep the principle of merit, and straighten out this sloppy, illogical thinking.
The entire summary, not just the headline, is poorly written. Is it "the Fruit Belt" or "Fruit Belt"? You can't infer from reading this, because it uses both. The whole thing is so wordy and long-winded that it is a pain to read. Jeez.
When freedom of the press was limited to those who could afford a press, the conversation was limited to professional journalists and those who would go to the trouble of writing a letter to the editor. I used to have to read those letters, clean up the grammar, spelling, and punctuation, call the letter writer (phone number was required for publication) to verify they had indeed written the letter and make sure I understood what they were trying to say.
In addition to the fact that most people who could hold a job could read and write decent English (in the U.S.), there was a certain amount of effort required to write a letter to the editor--by the letter writer and those who handled the letter if it was approved for publication.
I met a fellow once, he lived in an old school bus and one of his primary pastimes was to write letters to the editors of several newspapers in our state. I would consider him something of a crank, but he also had a lot of time to read and research and think about the issues he wrote about. My opinion is that he made a much more valuable contribution to the discussions he participated in than a lot of the slapdash crap I see flung here and there around the Web. Hell, my own efforts fall pretty short at times.
Um. No. Just left a job where the main product (a server-side enterprise application) is written in Java. Also use a Java-based authoring tool that is an industry standard. Evidently your shop isn't a plausible proxy for the entire world.
There is intelligence, there is knowledge, and there is wisdom. Wisdom is required for leadership. And probably a lot of other characteristics, but fundamentals of wisdom and good leadership are unchanging--that's what makes them fundamentals.
Wisdom is now, as always, in short supply. Just look at some of the comments below--from intelligent, capable people, but people whose expertise is not in leadership, and who are, frankly, too young in most cases to have acquired much in the way of wisdom, which necessarily takes time to acquire.
"Politicians are bad": This is another chestnut that I saw in the comments below. Well, politicians may not be perfect, but neither is democracy. If you want a better government, what are you doing about it? In a democracy, just like in an open source project, you have the option of taking some action. It is easier to complain, so that is what most people do.
You raise a good point (probably by accident, but still...): For people to live in a group, they have to agree on limitations to certain rights. Your right to extend your arm ends at my nose. The right of anti-vaxxers to raise their children as they see fit ends when their children begin infecting other children with the diseases they didn't get vaccinated against. Has it escaped you that we have multiple measles outbreaks around the country now?
Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media said it best, to paraphrase: I can't wait for the megaplexes to die. I agree totally.
For decades, the moviegoing experience has gotten worse and worse, with the exception of Alamo Drafthouse. There are no other brick and mortar movie theaters I can stand to go to. In most of them, you have to listen to mouth-breathing, nose-picking yahoos who have to explain the movie to their even dumber friends in real time. Given that the entirety of the the modern marketplace is based on selling me an experience in which I never have to experience discomfort, why in holy hell should I have to put up with that crap?
Even the dine-in theaters that try and imitate Alamo are lame. Big seats and fancy food and drinks that are poorly made, not quite fresh, and indifferently served detract from the experience, not enhance it.
Instead, big screens (or projectors) and sound systems are better than ever and getting less expensive all the time. Invite some friends over (or not!), and pause for bathroom breaks or to freshen drinks, rewind to watch that scene or hear that line again, and not have to listen to idiots (except for the ones you are friends with and make exceptions for).
So much more wrong with Spielberg's thinking, but that is just the brick-and-mortar cinema part.
I hope art houses stay around forever, and I will visit them every chance I get, in NYC, Philly, Austin, San Francisco, or wherever I find them. Seeing small independent auteur films with like-minded non-nose-pickers (who don't mind reading subtitles) is an experience that I count as one that makes life worthwhile.
Internet forums essentially aggregate expertise into one easy to access source of wisdom. Like that time my PC was running reeeeeeeeeeeeealy slow and I went on 4chan for help. I deleted that stupid System32 folder and my computer has never run faster. And girls talk to me now!
The old saying is, "If you call its tail a leg, how many legs does a cat have?"
The answer is, "Four. Just because you call it a leg doesn't make it one."
You can make a lot of stupid jokes and try not to understand that little joke, but the point is that things 'are" what they are, depending on what they do, not what you call them. Or, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Like the white male who gunned down 26 people as they attended church yesterday? Like the white male who gunned down 50+ at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas a while back. Looks like the caucasians are racking up a pretty good score themselves.
"[Hampton] Fancher found a cinema treatment by William S. Burroughs for Alan E. Nourse's novel The Bladerunner (1974), titled Blade Runner (a movie).[nb 2] Scott liked the name, so Deeley obtained the rights to the titles." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In other words, no logical reason. They just liked the way it sounded.
Is deliberately misleading people on the internet free speech? Just because something happens on the internet does not make it a new phenomenon. It's still advertising, just like that in everything from billboards to bus benches, glossy magazines to the newspaper classified ads.
Learn not to be a sucker. How do you learn not to be a sucker? Either by being one or watching someone else be one. Hopefully you won't stay one.
I recall seeing the notice on my first SS card. Looked at https://www.ssa.gov/history/hf... and found the following:
"Q21: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?
A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972."
Slashdot Mirror
Do you lack common empathy or decency? Then why spew hate like this? Because someone was convicted of a crime, that does not make them less than human. Once someone pays their debt to society, they should be given a chance to demonstrate they can live in society without repeating that behavior. Treating criminals, and your other fellow humans, decently benefits YOU as much, if not more, than it does them. This kind of hateful remark discourages decency on the internet.
I have none that I know of--yet, but when I do I hope I don't find them by stepping on them like Lego.
And that other person would look and act pretty much like RMS. If RMS did not exist, we would have to invent him!
If Linux is so superior, why is it a niche OS?
Why, in 2019, on this particular site, would someone be posting who doesn't get that popularity does not equal technical--or any other kind--of quality?
When it comes to psychologically stable and educated individuals, this is correct.
And who gets to decide who is psychologically stable and sufficiently educated? You? A Donald Trump appointee? Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's second cousin's therapist?
In the old Soviet Union, the psychiatrists and psychologists worked for the government, which was, in turn, controlled by the Communist Party. It was, of course, insane to undermine the workers' revolution.
The studies find what they find and the facts suggest what they suggest. All of the "advice" part comes from journalists and nutritionists (NOT dietitians, who are registered or licensed medical professionals--anyone can call themselves a "nutritionist" in the U.S.) who interpret the studies. No responsible dietitian will advocate anything other than "variety and moderation".
"They suggest that this 'paradox of meritocracy' occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides." They can suggest this all they want, but according to research and ancient philosophy, this isn't how human thinking works. Humans convince themselves of things, according to cognitive behavior therapists and stoic philosophers, by telling themselves things like "I graduated at the top of my class, therefore I am a better person than anyone else." This belief could be prevalent in American society, which is not known for its rational behavior, but because people think and act irrationally does not mean we should throw out the principle of merit. Instead, I suggest we keep the principle of merit, and straighten out this sloppy, illogical thinking.
The entire summary, not just the headline, is poorly written. Is it "the Fruit Belt" or "Fruit Belt"? You can't infer from reading this, because it uses both. The whole thing is so wordy and long-winded that it is a pain to read. Jeez.
When freedom of the press was limited to those who could afford a press, the conversation was limited to professional journalists and those who would go to the trouble of writing a letter to the editor. I used to have to read those letters, clean up the grammar, spelling, and punctuation, call the letter writer (phone number was required for publication) to verify they had indeed written the letter and make sure I understood what they were trying to say.
In addition to the fact that most people who could hold a job could read and write decent English (in the U.S.), there was a certain amount of effort required to write a letter to the editor--by the letter writer and those who handled the letter if it was approved for publication.
I met a fellow once, he lived in an old school bus and one of his primary pastimes was to write letters to the editors of several newspapers in our state. I would consider him something of a crank, but he also had a lot of time to read and research and think about the issues he wrote about. My opinion is that he made a much more valuable contribution to the discussions he participated in than a lot of the slapdash crap I see flung here and there around the Web. Hell, my own efforts fall pretty short at times.
My point is, you get what you pay for.
Um. No. Just left a job where the main product (a server-side enterprise application) is written in Java. Also use a Java-based authoring tool that is an industry standard. Evidently your shop isn't a plausible proxy for the entire world.
There is intelligence, there is knowledge, and there is wisdom. Wisdom is required for leadership. And probably a lot of other characteristics, but fundamentals of wisdom and good leadership are unchanging--that's what makes them fundamentals.
Wisdom is now, as always, in short supply. Just look at some of the comments below--from intelligent, capable people, but people whose expertise is not in leadership, and who are, frankly, too young in most cases to have acquired much in the way of wisdom, which necessarily takes time to acquire.
"Politicians are bad": This is another chestnut that I saw in the comments below. Well, politicians may not be perfect, but neither is democracy. If you want a better government, what are you doing about it? In a democracy, just like in an open source project, you have the option of taking some action. It is easier to complain, so that is what most people do.
You raise a good point (probably by accident, but still...): For people to live in a group, they have to agree on limitations to certain rights. Your right to extend your arm ends at my nose. The right of anti-vaxxers to raise their children as they see fit ends when their children begin infecting other children with the diseases they didn't get vaccinated against. Has it escaped you that we have multiple measles outbreaks around the country now?
Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media said it best, to paraphrase: I can't wait for the megaplexes to die. I agree totally.
For decades, the moviegoing experience has gotten worse and worse, with the exception of Alamo Drafthouse. There are no other brick and mortar movie theaters I can stand to go to. In most of them, you have to listen to mouth-breathing, nose-picking yahoos who have to explain the movie to their even dumber friends in real time. Given that the entirety of the the modern marketplace is based on selling me an experience in which I never have to experience discomfort, why in holy hell should I have to put up with that crap?
Even the dine-in theaters that try and imitate Alamo are lame. Big seats and fancy food and drinks that are poorly made, not quite fresh, and indifferently served detract from the experience, not enhance it.
Instead, big screens (or projectors) and sound systems are better than ever and getting less expensive all the time. Invite some friends over (or not!), and pause for bathroom breaks or to freshen drinks, rewind to watch that scene or hear that line again, and not have to listen to idiots (except for the ones you are friends with and make exceptions for).
So much more wrong with Spielberg's thinking, but that is just the brick-and-mortar cinema part.
I hope art houses stay around forever, and I will visit them every chance I get, in NYC, Philly, Austin, San Francisco, or wherever I find them. Seeing small independent auteur films with like-minded non-nose-pickers (who don't mind reading subtitles) is an experience that I count as one that makes life worthwhile.
Not so the megaplex.
Internet forums essentially aggregate expertise into one easy to access source of wisdom. Like that time my PC was running reeeeeeeeeeeeealy slow and I went on 4chan for help. I deleted that stupid System32 folder and my computer has never run faster. And girls talk to me now!
The fact we are still having to guess underscores how inadequate and confusing the headline and description are.
And sometimes people push back. So?
The old saying is, "If you call its tail a leg, how many legs does a cat have?" The answer is, "Four. Just because you call it a leg doesn't make it one." You can make a lot of stupid jokes and try not to understand that little joke, but the point is that things 'are" what they are, depending on what they do, not what you call them. Or, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Rights != laws.
Why? Everyone has a right to go to hell in his own way.
No, bro, they aren't stupid. They just don't agree with you.
Like the white male who gunned down 26 people as they attended church yesterday? Like the white male who gunned down 50+ at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas a while back. Looks like the caucasians are racking up a pretty good score themselves.
"[Hampton] Fancher found a cinema treatment by William S. Burroughs for Alan E. Nourse's novel The Bladerunner (1974), titled Blade Runner (a movie).[nb 2] Scott liked the name, so Deeley obtained the rights to the titles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In other words, no logical reason. They just liked the way it sounded.
Is deliberately misleading people on the internet free speech? Just because something happens on the internet does not make it a new phenomenon. It's still advertising, just like that in everything from billboards to bus benches, glossy magazines to the newspaper classified ads. Learn not to be a sucker. How do you learn not to be a sucker? Either by being one or watching someone else be one. Hopefully you won't stay one.
This gets voted Interesting?
I recall seeing the notice on my first SS card. Looked at https://www.ssa.gov/history/hf... and found the following: "Q21: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"? A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972."