I'm a biologist, and I agree on many of the things. Granted, I don't think I'm every biologist ever (I reason I would have noticed that by now), but at least I count as +1.
Because if they did that they couldn't keep pushing the propaganda. The reason it all goes in circles is because the data is already out there, but the progressive crowd doesn't want to accept that it's all make-believe. Like anti-vaxxers choosing to believe that one study out of 900 that links vaccination to autism while the rest of them thoroughly concludes that no such connection exists.
Have you tried showing a christian all the data on evolution and the history of the Earth? It's like that.
This is the most fanatical, anti-intellectual post I've ever seen. Well done.
His entire argument is that ability to do certain things is based on genetics with the implication that females can't do certain things. He's wrong and sexist for saying this.
Have you seen the Olympic games? Do you know why women and men compete in separate branches? Boxing? Weightlifting? Firefighters? Special Forces? Singers? It takes all of 3 seconds for a person to figure out that men and women are different, and that there are things only one sex can accomplish because of biology.
Btw, I love your "shaming". If only facts could be cowed as easily as people, eh? Unfortunately, reality will remain reality even if you accuse it of being "sexist":)
If it really was that easy to win an argument more people would be doing it. Please provide some *reason* for why you consider his data "culture-based".
Also, genetic isn't the appropriate word here since that implies something different. I think 'biological' aligns better with what you intended.
He didn't denigrate anyone. At no point does he say "womenz should stay in the kitchenz and make sammich". He points out that the *interests* of males and females are different because biology and hence it is not strange that fewer women want to become computer engineers. He also says that the women that *do* want to go into that business should be treated as individuals according to their personal talents and merits and not according to any gender or other grouping.
Has there ever been a new generation where the promised increase wasn't "up to 30%" ? Because I've never heard any other number used.
Also, am I the only one that finds Intel a wee bit histrionic this last month or so? They've been throwing everything they can (including the chairs) at the wall, but nothing seems to stick so far.
Thank God for your brilliant insights, Anonymous Coward. What did you say your PhD was in? I would love to hear about your expertise in Systems Biology.
No matter how much you might want it to be, that is not common parlance. Only in radical feminist circles would anyone talk about "privilege" in such a way.
You are more than welcome to reformulate your point to "girls play more *smartphone* games than boys, hence we should put all kinds of SJW checkpoints into smartphone game development". If you do that, it will actually be correct and we can both be happy. Well, I'll be happy. I'm not sure if you are the kind of person that does happy.
Also, I didn't put any kind of objective superiority into it, merely pointing out that they are vastly different and for vastly different crowds. I think you are projecting that last part.
Seriously, you think Candy Crush on the smartphone is 'playing games'? It's cute that SJWs try to justify enforcing the "diversity" stupidity in gaming by trotting out these numbers again and again, but when we look at real games that require even the smallest level of investment (PC/consoles) we find that the audiences are largely male. But hey, you are absolutely correct as long as you constrain your propaganda calls to The Sims. But I guess you don't need to as that game, which correctly identified its audience as mostly female years ago, already is catering to that audience. Just like all other games would *if their audiences were actually female to any relevant proportion*.
So, Intel has had an uninterrupted cash flow comparable to the kings of Saudi Arabia for more than 5 years, and this is all they could put out? They have been bested by the R&D of a company that *doesn't have profits*! How in the nine hells did they lose the crown with unlimited money and years upon years of R&D time?
Did they spend all those hundreds of billions on sensitivity training? Did they invest it in diversity, integrity, and governance hires? How is it even possible for them to not outclass AMD when they've had such a mindboggling advantage in every way?
"I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations" he said, while the holy cross on the wall burst into flames.
Assuming that his children are human, they need to interact socially in human ways to generate human responses and stimulations. To pretend that we are no longer biologically defined as social creatures with biologically defined social needs is peculiar.
Perhaps the issue could be lessened with different strength versions being available? You know, match the strength to your actual uptake capacity. It would be sort of tricky since you'd need to take pill and then measure the concentrations in the urine, and I doubt many people would do it.
Or perhaps we could stop selling pills and start marketing patches more aggressively? They work just like nicotine patches but stay on for a week. They work a lot better when it comes to a slow, controlled, release which should (theoretically) reduce the amount of non-binding estrogen diffused in urine. It is also much easier to dispose of safely, as it does not dissolve in water. Finally, changing patches once a week is much easier to remember than swallowing a pill every day.
Or some other "operation" method, which are the ones the local gynos keep recommending as they are the most effective. But they are more invasive, and not everyone is comfortable with them (and it doesn't work for everyone).
I most certainly don't want the women in my presence to stop using contraceptives, but I also want my children my grow up on a planet that has fishes, insects, and small mammals.
You really cannot trust a word from Wikipedia on any topic that is more controversial than 5+2 = 7. And this entry reads like some sort of Healthy at Every Size trash. Not surprising since interest groups have taken to group-editing Wikipedia to further their own propaganda (http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-feminist-edit-a-thon-seeks-to-reshape-wikipedia, https://www.moma.org/calendar/..., https://hclib.bibliocommons.co...) etc
The whole of dieting can be summarized in "Energy in, Energy out". Eat less, burn more, and you will lose weight. That's it. How you go about that (upping metabolism or reducing calorie intake) is uninteresting, any way works. The body is built to adapt and evolve, and that also includes weight and consumption. Very, VERY, few people have disorders that cause the weight, it's almost entirely a lack of discipline and willpower that is the cause of the obesity epidemic.
Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely quirks of the body, such as fat cells hanging around a while after being emptied which makes it easier to gain weight after losing it (meaning you have to keep the weight burning routine for longer than you think). We also have different metabolisms (rumour has it Ian Thorpe had a metabolism of 10k calories per day), but unless you are part of that 0.00000001% with super special genetics you can and will lose weight if you work at it the normal way, same as everyone around you.
The rest is just excuses. Nothing worth worth having ever comes easy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a biologist, and I agree on many of the things. Granted, I don't think I'm every biologist ever (I reason I would have noticed that by now), but at least I count as +1.
Nothing like that was said... If you have insecurities of this level, take it up with your shrink, not /.
But thank you for taking offense on behalf of other people that aren't here. You must be a very busy man.
Because if they did that they couldn't keep pushing the propaganda. The reason it all goes in circles is because the data is already out there, but the progressive crowd doesn't want to accept that it's all make-believe. Like anti-vaxxers choosing to believe that one study out of 900 that links vaccination to autism while the rest of them thoroughly concludes that no such connection exists.
Have you tried showing a christian all the data on evolution and the history of the Earth? It's like that.
Probably the Director of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance.
He's not saying it's a good thing or that he likes it, he's saying that's the way things are.
I'll get the pitchforks, you bring the lube. Let's get a good old rabblerousing going.
You didn't read it, did you? Was it too long? Were the words too big?
It's okay. We understand.
Hahahahahahahahaha
This is the most fanatical, anti-intellectual post I've ever seen. Well done.
His entire argument is that ability to do certain things is based on genetics with the implication that females can't do certain things. He's wrong and sexist for saying this.
Have you seen the Olympic games? Do you know why women and men compete in separate branches? Boxing? Weightlifting? Firefighters? Special Forces? Singers? It takes all of 3 seconds for a person to figure out that men and women are different, and that there are things only one sex can accomplish because of biology.
Btw, I love your "shaming". If only facts could be cowed as easily as people, eh? :)
Unfortunately, reality will remain reality even if you accuse it of being "sexist"
If it really was that easy to win an argument more people would be doing it. Please provide some *reason* for why you consider his data "culture-based".
Also, genetic isn't the appropriate word here since that implies something different. I think 'biological' aligns better with what you intended.
He didn't denigrate anyone. At no point does he say "womenz should stay in the kitchenz and make sammich". He points out that the *interests* of males and females are different because biology and hence it is not strange that fewer women want to become computer engineers. He also says that the women that *do* want to go into that business should be treated as individuals according to their personal talents and merits and not according to any gender or other grouping.
Has there ever been a new generation where the promised increase wasn't "up to 30%" ? Because I've never heard any other number used.
Also, am I the only one that finds Intel a wee bit histrionic this last month or so? They've been throwing everything they can (including the chairs) at the wall, but nothing seems to stick so far.
Thank God for your brilliant insights, Anonymous Coward. What did you say your PhD was in? I would love to hear about your expertise in Systems Biology.
No matter how much you might want it to be, that is not common parlance. Only in radical feminist circles would anyone talk about "privilege" in such a way.
You are more than welcome to reformulate your point to "girls play more *smartphone* games than boys, hence we should put all kinds of SJW checkpoints into smartphone game development". If you do that, it will actually be correct and we can both be happy. Well, I'll be happy. I'm not sure if you are the kind of person that does happy.
Also, I didn't put any kind of objective superiority into it, merely pointing out that they are vastly different and for vastly different crowds. I think you are projecting that last part.
Come on mate, are you really going to bring this dead horse up again?
Spot the person who's never heard of pair programming. Or who believes, due to his own inability to work with others, is the wrong way to go.
Why isn't pair programming the one and only way to do things then? Could it be because he's right? I think so.
But hey, what is programming at all but communication. Communication with the computer. Maybe women are fundamentally better at it. On average.
Wow, quite the assertion. Unfortunately it's completely contrary to reality. But hey, you get SJW virtue points for the signalling. Well done.
Ah, yes, I remember that being a concern once upon a time. However, it's no longer true. There are more girl gamers than boy gamers now.
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Seriously, you think Candy Crush on the smartphone is 'playing games'? It's cute that SJWs try to justify enforcing the "diversity" stupidity in gaming by trotting out these numbers again and again, but when we look at real games that require even the smallest level of investment (PC/consoles) we find that the audiences are largely male. But hey, you are absolutely correct as long as you constrain your propaganda calls to The Sims. But I guess you don't need to as that game, which correctly identified its audience as mostly female years ago, already is catering to that audience. Just like all other games would *if their audiences were actually female to any relevant proportion*.
Your ideology is not supported by the facts.
So, Intel has had an uninterrupted cash flow comparable to the kings of Saudi Arabia for more than 5 years, and this is all they could put out? They have been bested by the R&D of a company that *doesn't have profits*! How in the nine hells did they lose the crown with unlimited money and years upon years of R&D time?
Did they spend all those hundreds of billions on sensitivity training? Did they invest it in diversity, integrity, and governance hires? How is it even possible for them to not outclass AMD when they've had such a mindboggling advantage in every way?
"I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations" he said, while the holy cross on the wall burst into flames.
Assuming that his children are human, they need to interact socially in human ways to generate human responses and stimulations. To pretend that we are no longer biologically defined as social creatures with biologically defined social needs is peculiar.
Has skating on the sidewalk increased or decreased in the past ten years? There's your answer.
The Trump administration said late Wednesday that it would not delay an Obama-era regulation on smog-forming pollutants from smokestacks and tailpipes
That's a typo. It should say could not. They damn well tried.
I get the distinct feeling the author was thirsty when writing this...
I don't think GP suggested banning the pill.
Perhaps the issue could be lessened with different strength versions being available? You know, match the strength to your actual uptake capacity. It would be sort of tricky since you'd need to take pill and then measure the concentrations in the urine, and I doubt many people would do it.
Or perhaps we could stop selling pills and start marketing patches more aggressively? They work just like nicotine patches but stay on for a week. They work a lot better when it comes to a slow, controlled, release which should (theoretically) reduce the amount of non-binding estrogen diffused in urine. It is also much easier to dispose of safely, as it does not dissolve in water. Finally, changing patches once a week is much easier to remember than swallowing a pill every day.
Or some other "operation" method, which are the ones the local gynos keep recommending as they are the most effective. But they are more invasive, and not everyone is comfortable with them (and it doesn't work for everyone).
I most certainly don't want the women in my presence to stop using contraceptives, but I also want my children my grow up on a planet that has fishes, insects, and small mammals.
This will bring a whole new meaning to the "Bluescreen of Death".
You really cannot trust a word from Wikipedia on any topic that is more controversial than 5+2 = 7. And this entry reads like some sort of Healthy at Every Size trash. Not surprising since interest groups have taken to group-editing Wikipedia to further their own propaganda (http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-feminist-edit-a-thon-seeks-to-reshape-wikipedia, https://www.moma.org/calendar/..., https://hclib.bibliocommons.co...) etc
The whole of dieting can be summarized in "Energy in, Energy out".
Eat less, burn more, and you will lose weight. That's it. How you go about that (upping metabolism or reducing calorie intake) is uninteresting, any way works. The body is built to adapt and evolve, and that also includes weight and consumption. Very, VERY, few people have disorders that cause the weight, it's almost entirely a lack of discipline and willpower that is the cause of the obesity epidemic.
Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely quirks of the body, such as fat cells hanging around a while after being emptied which makes it easier to gain weight after losing it (meaning you have to keep the weight burning routine for longer than you think). We also have different metabolisms (rumour has it Ian Thorpe had a metabolism of 10k calories per day), but unless you are part of that 0.00000001% with super special genetics you can and will lose weight if you work at it the normal way, same as everyone around you.
The rest is just excuses. Nothing worth worth having ever comes easy.
Looks like the average American will have to bail out yet another greedy creditor. I wonder how big the bonuses will be this time.