"It's the decision of a couple of software engineers, not the board members."
He said it was their decision, as in they took the initiative to make it happen. He doesn't say they were the only ones in the know nor that they approved it. For all we know these "couple of software engineers" could be mid to high level managers who go approval from the board before working with hardware to make the change.
According to documents filed in the case, the company learned months after the hack that someone had used an Uber digital security key to access the driver database. A copy of the key was inadvertently posted by Uber on one of its public pages on the code development platform GitHub in March of 2014, prior to the breach, the court filings show, and remained there for months.
After Uber discovered the unauthorized download, it examined the Internet Protocol addresses of every visitor to the page during the time between when the key was posted and when the breach occurred, according to court documents. The Uber review concluded that "the Comcast IP address is the only IP address that accessed the GitHub post that Uber has not eliminated" from suspicion, court papers say.
So for months this key was sitting on a public website and they've managed to eliminate every other address from suspicion?
Unless the actual URL was somehow hidden that sounds very unlikely, I'd wager there are hacking groups who write robots to crawl around the web looking for private keys.
We don't even know in what form the key was posted, if it were sitting in some chunk of code that Uber had posted to GitHub I wouldn't be in the least surprised that the Lyft CTO decided to checkout the project to see what the rival company was doing.
It's obviously fiction, just like Tom Hanks in Apollo 13 (everyone knows you can't put a square peg in a round hole), Neal Armstrong in Apollo XI Landing (dead giveaway, where did they "go"? There are no bathrooms no the moon!), and Steve Coogan in Around the World in 80 Days (the lizard people grab anyone who gets too close to the edge).
1. Harvard doesn't necessarily mean genuinely smart, believe me I have first-hand experience. Additionally, a bunch of cocky elitists from an Ivy League school probably didn't prepare in for this little shindig to the same extent as their opponents. In fact, you might say their opponents were captivated with their training....
So how do you rationalize the prisoners beating West Point as well?
1. Harvard doesn't necessarily mean genuinely smart, believe me I have first-hand experience. Additionally, a bunch of cocky elitists from an Ivy League school probably didn't prepare in for this little shindig to the same extent as their opponents. In fact, you might say their opponents were captivated with their training....
Or it could be that the prisoners had a lot more time to dedicate to preparation, the advantage of experience since the Harvard team has probably just assembled, and even did a legitimately good job.
2. Look at the position that the good left-wing indoctrinated Harvardites were asked to take: That forcing public schools to educate any and all children of illegal aliens is not necessarily a good thing.
They can use all of their technical debate skills all day long, but you know that they secretly wanted to lose. After all, they heartily approve of forcing taxpayers to pay for free schooling that teaches illegal alien kids that America is evil & racist while failing to teach them English, because English literacy == racism. After all, they go to private prep schools and don't have to see any of those kids, so it's all well and good if the the lower classes have to put up with them.
Yeah, I'm certain the "bunch of cocky elitists" secretly wanted to lose to a bunch of prisoners.
Either the companies will fix this, or the market will. If guys from Fanduel are winning big by playing at Draftkings and vice versa, no one who is not in the know will play.
Only if they're found out. Who knows how many DraftKing and FanDuel employees have been using this strategy? This kind of scam can be very hard for the users to detect so you end up with a lot of people getting scammed and legitimate businesses with no easy way to distinguish themselves from the crooked businesses.
Plus there's an externalization problem, it's the FanDuel users that were harmed by the actions of the DraftKing employee. Those two are big enough to cooperate in keeping their employees playing fairly but there's nothing to stop an employee from a smaller site pulling a similar scam on FanDuel or DraftKing.
> I'm an old fogie and used to laugh tracks. Most "light" comedies seem awkward without them. It guess it's hard to make every generation happy.
I grew up with them too. I think what really destroyed them for me was that, after I realized they existed, I noticed....they just keep using the same one over and over. Its like that Wilhelm Scream. Once your recognize it....its not part of the scene anymore...its jarring.
I don't hear "people laughing" I hear "that laugh track", the same one I have heard since I was a kid. The "magic" is entirely gone. I almost feel like, if they had a small assortment of 10 laugh tracks and rotate them within the same show....I might have never even noticed....but its the same laugh for every joke!
What you're hearing is the sound of a roomful of very enthusiastic people laughing. It's just like if you averaged the sum of 20 numbers between 0 and 10, you're going to end up getting a lot of numbers very close to 5.
I think that's the main reason I can't watch that show, and to this date haven't watched a full episode yet. Every time I hear the laugh track I want to gag. What is this, 1965? If they're going to do it that way, at least have a live studio audience like Married with Children had that actually responds appropriately to what's happening when it's genuinely funny.
In Big Bang Theory just feels like somebody is methodically trying to tell you "ok, you laugh here, even if it's not funny" throughout the whole show.
So what? It works.
We're social creatures, if a bunch of other people laughing tells us that a bad joke is funny we're probably going to laugh and we're going to enjoy it. Who cares if the audience is over-eager, if you let yourself enjoy it you'll have a better time.
The only reason to drop the laugh track is it ties you to doing punch line comedies where everything is punctuated with a lot of small jokes and thoughts tend to end after the punchline. You couldn't do something like Arrested Development with a laugh track because there's a lot of jokes without specific punchlines, or jokes that overlap.
Of course Arrested Development also got cancelled because they had poor ratings, a laugh track comedy that wasn't so challenging for the viewer might have done better.
OK, so if they have a live studio audience, how is it they managed to make it sound exactly like the laugh track from the Brady Bunch? The outcome is terrible regardless of whether the source is recorded or live.
You're dealing with dozens of people laughing at the same time, there's no individual variation at that point, any unusual laugh will get drowned out and you'll just get the averaged sound of laughter.
Canned laughter can be more unusual because you can combine just a few different laughs and have some distinction and variety.
This isn't empowering women. This is arguing that they are weaker than men far more profoundly than any MRA red piller gamer gater misogynist could ever hope to accomplish.
Then why is the woman the only one strong enough to stand up publicly?
Group A: Fraud protection sucks because of a single anecdote I have where the facts I present make the credit card company sound really uncaring and incompetent!
Group B: The plural of anecdotes is not data! Fraud protection is a really hard problem and generally works really well. Oh no, I don't actually have data.
The way to deter mass shootings is to move away from the gun culture in general.
While we are busy disagreeing on this fantasy concept, why don't we stop advertising where all the unarmed and helpless people are to slaughter?
Imagining that eliminating gun free zones would help is a fantasy. I'm a guy, if I was in one of those classrooms I imagine myself self tackling him and beating him into submission, that wouldn't work but it's nice to imagine. If was a gun fan I'd imagine I'd go rambo and shoot him. It's a bit more plausible but I don't think it works that well in reality either, I'm sure lots of mass shootings have happened in zones that allow guns but it just doesn't work the same way as in the movies.
As for changing the culture. There are lots of other nations that don't glorify guns the way the US does, that don't have movies with constant shooting and heroes having awesome giant gun collections. And to be frank that's something a lot of these shooters tend to have in common, they have access to a lot of guns and come from families who are involved with guns. It makes sense why that happens, the more comfortable you are with guns, the more that comfort is accepted as part of the culture, the more likely you are to obsess about them and feel really comfortable using them to solve problems.
This guy in particular had a lot of guns and regularly went to the shooting range with his mother. If his mother didn't own guns and if his friends and neighbours didn't indulge his gun interest he probably doesn't go on this rampage.
I suggested attempting to help all economically/apathetic-parent disadvantaged children. Is there some reason you want to help only those of certain races?
I didn't catch that part of your comment the first time I read it but I largely agree.
That being said some of these issues are very race specific, if an Irishman walks into a store no one knows he's an Irishman and the clerk probably won't stare the whole time because he thinks Irishmen are shoplifters. But black people are regularly subjected to a level of scrutiny and suspicion white people never experience, the guy at the till will always watch them extra close, the cop is that much more likely to stop them for a chat. A lot of the problems do have an origin in explicit racism that isn't that distant. I don't think it's that indefensible to look at race as the characteristic we can target to try and start fixing things.
It's meant to avoid spontaneous unplanned shootings.
And look at how effective it was! No one was able to spontaneously defend themselves, obviously a clear win for the "Gun Free" zone idea.
And no prospective vigilante shot an innocent bystander by accident, nor did the police go chasing after the wrong guy with a gun or the bystanders run from the wrong guy with the gun.
Sure those sound slightly contrived, but I don't think bystanders stopping mass shootings with their guns is particularly common either.
There's also the fact that mass shootings are a small subset of total gun deaths, even if adding a lot of lawful guns to these gun free zones does deter/stop them you still have to deal with additional deaths from spontaneous gun violence.
This has become a regular event in America. We can lay a lot of responsibility for this at the feet of the terrorist NRA and the corrupt legislators they pay off, with both these latter groups little more a bunch of bootlickers to the gun manufacturers.
There are more than 300 MILLION guns in this crazy nation - so many that *anyone* who wants to get a gun can get one, one way or another.
You say that Americans having lots of guns like it's bad thing.
300 million guns in civilian hands and gun deaths have steadily dropping for the past 20 years or so. The obvious correlation is that more guns means FEWER gun deaths.
Go check your meds, you may have forgotten a couple.
Which overlooks the obvious fact that murders have been dropping virtually everywhere.
Btw, did you look at just murders or accidents/suicides too? Because guns cause more death from suicide than murder.
Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol is enough for a kid to be kicked out.
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
That is exactly what it means. I wish I had mod points, they'd be yours.
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? When will they grasp the concept that labeling something a "gun-free zone" doesn't magically do ANYTHING?
Criminals will still have guns and they'll still bring them into a "gun-free zone" no matter how many signs are posted.
It's not meant to deter specific planned mass shootings.
It's meant to avoid spontaneous unplanned shootings. And sometimes, if you're lucky, snag a criminal whose gun got noticed.
The way to deter mass shootings is to move away from the gun culture in general.
Almost the entirety of the "lot of the story" was not racism (as in acts of morally objectionable judgement based on race stereotypes) in any form. Call it "culture" or "socioeconomic problems", not "racism". Don't borrow the moral outrage carefully nurtured around the latter term for different problems.
A lot of those problems exist because of explicit racism in the past. Some are aggravated because of milder racism now (ie for the same crimes blacks get arrested more and serve longer sentences), others perpetuate because black people are stereotyped by the problems in their community or people in power aren't as concerned about fixing problems when the victims look different and aren't as relatable.
One of the big features of "institutional racism" it that there's a system or pattern in place that maintains a significant racial inequality without requiring racism by any individual in the system.
For a while, until those differences are eroded by attrition over generations. Lots of Irish were brought over as indentured servants. Huge disadvantage. But that was >200 years ago, no one cares now, and no one should care because it worked itself out.
Here's another idea. How about we work on trying to help and help motivate gifted students whose parents, for whatever reason, are not involved in their lives? I don't care if it's a black child or a white child or a Hispanic child or an Asian child: try to help any child who is underperforming due to lack of parental involvement.
There's no reason we need to specifically target black children or Hispanic children with absentee parents. That's just a proxy for "kids who aren't doing as well as they should because their parents are poor / don't care / whatever". And using race as a proxy for some other characteristic is racist.
It's a little different with the Irish since they look the same, I think visual differences based on race are a lot stickier and take a lot longer to go away. The other part of that is the timeline. Perhaps in 200, 100, or even 50 years institutional racism really will be gone. But that's not going to help the people getting screwed over now.
If "it's an unfortunate scientific reality that's suggested by the evidence", call it "science" or "reality".
The qualifier is important because it specifies motivation.
There's a lot of people who think it's a scientific reality that black people are less intelligent because they are looking to validate discrimination against black people, I'm talking about the group who thinks it's a fact but sincerely wish it wasn't.
If you don't know why exactly black children are disadvantaged getting into a gifted program, don't label your ignorance "institutional racism" either.
(I don't know if either "if" is true.)
But we do know why, we don't know entirely why, but we know a lot of the story.
Knowledge the program exists, having contacts that assist you in getting your kids into the program, coaching by parents who know how those tests work, coaching by tutors who cost money, a home environment that gives the kind of teaching that really helps with the tests, research demonstrating that people tend to have worse assumptions about black kids and accordingly pre-judge black children, etc.
All of these things correlate strongly with race and are a big part of the story why blacks and latinos have a tougher time getting into a gifted program. It doesn't mean that it applies to every black person, or that there's specific laws that explicitly target black people. But it doesn't mean that if you assume X and Y are identical except for skin colour, then under a system like that the groups will continue to have different outcomes.
"That's how institutional racism works, it's not that it's impossible for group X to do Y, it's that you need to be exceptional to do Y if you're also a member of group X."
You may wish to revise your definition of "institutional racism", consider X=white-man Y=giving-birth; or X=pygmy Y=play-professional-basketball.
Well I'll rely on the reader to make the obvious leap that the defining characteristic of X is race. Moreover I'll say that the X/Y relationship suggests discrimination when the defining characteristic of X shouldn't be a disadvantage for Y.
That being said I'm not sure how you mean to use those metaphors. Do you mean to imply that a black child is disadvantaged in getting into a gifted program the same way a pygmy is in getting into the NBA? Presumably due to some genetic characteristics (ie Watson's views).
If so I think that's arguably the actual definition of racism. The only reason I'm hesitant to use the label is I think people can hold that view with absolutely no animosity or ill-will, they just happen to think it's an unfortunate scientific reality that's suggested by the evidence.
They are not at all legitimate. While they may be the result of past "sins", they are nothing that can't be overcome with the desire to do so. For blacks in particular, they have to worry less about "racism" and more about a culture that treats success as selling out.
I did respond directly to what you said. The WORST thing you can do to a person is treat them as if they are a victim. It doesn't matter if they're actually a victim or not.
It's far worse than burning a flag in their yard.
This is pointless, there were two parts of my argument and you only replied to the first part of my argument.
You know what my response to your reply is? The second part of my argument! To quote myself:
That's how institutional racism works, it's not that it's impossible for group X to do Y, it's that you need to be exceptional to do Y if you're also a member of group X.
It's not treating them as a victim, it's removing the obstacles that don't exist for other people.
> For a gifted kid from poor minority parents it usually takes exceptionally dedicated parents. > >For a gifted kid from rich white parents it usually takes mildly dedicated parents. > > That's how institutional racism works,
THAT is not "racism". That's bleeding hearts making excuses for people and ultimately robbing them of any pride or free will.
Pretending that these people are somehow "incapable" for whatever lame ass reason. THAT's racism.
The reasons weren't "lame ass" they were very legitimate and I went over some of them.
If you're going to contradict me you might as well bother to actually respond to what I said.
Please explain to me, how 50 years after the Great Society, and all the special programs for all the minorities, how they are still disadvantaged by our society?
It took me a moment to realize you weren't being sarcastic.
Entire cultures and ethnicities dropped right at the bottom of the totem pole and you think 50 years is supposed to be enough time for everything to even out?
There's people in the prime of their careers who weren't even born 50 years ago!
It's like saying "why are you still whining about getting shot? It's been almost 5 minutes since I pulled the bullet out!"
Slashdot Mirror
"It's the decision of a couple of software engineers, not the board members."
He said it was their decision, as in they took the initiative to make it happen. He doesn't say they were the only ones in the know nor that they approved it. For all we know these "couple of software engineers" could be mid to high level managers who go approval from the board before working with hardware to make the change.
According to documents filed in the case, the company learned months after the hack that someone had used an Uber digital security key to access the driver database. A copy of the key was inadvertently posted by Uber on one of its public pages on the code development platform GitHub in March of 2014, prior to the breach, the court filings show, and remained there for months.
After Uber discovered the unauthorized download, it examined the Internet Protocol addresses of every visitor to the page during the time between when the key was posted and when the breach occurred, according to court documents. The Uber review concluded that "the Comcast IP address is the only IP address that accessed the GitHub post that Uber has not eliminated" from suspicion, court papers say.
So for months this key was sitting on a public website and they've managed to eliminate every other address from suspicion?
Unless the actual URL was somehow hidden that sounds very unlikely, I'd wager there are hacking groups who write robots to crawl around the web looking for private keys.
We don't even know in what form the key was posted, if it were sitting in some chunk of code that Uber had posted to GitHub I wouldn't be in the least surprised that the Lyft CTO decided to checkout the project to see what the rival company was doing.
It's obviously fiction, just like Tom Hanks in Apollo 13 (everyone knows you can't put a square peg in a round hole), Neal Armstrong in Apollo XI Landing (dead giveaway, where did they "go"? There are no bathrooms no the moon!), and Steve Coogan in Around the World in 80 Days (the lizard people grab anyone who gets too close to the edge).
1. Harvard doesn't necessarily mean genuinely smart, believe me I have first-hand experience. Additionally, a bunch of cocky elitists from an Ivy League school probably didn't prepare in for this little shindig to the same extent as their opponents. In fact, you might say their opponents were captivated with their training....
So how do you rationalize the prisoners beating West Point as well?
1. Harvard doesn't necessarily mean genuinely smart, believe me I have first-hand experience. Additionally, a bunch of cocky elitists from an Ivy League school probably didn't prepare in for this little shindig to the same extent as their opponents. In fact, you might say their opponents were captivated with their training....
Or it could be that the prisoners had a lot more time to dedicate to preparation, the advantage of experience since the Harvard team has probably just assembled, and even did a legitimately good job.
2. Look at the position that the good left-wing indoctrinated Harvardites were asked to take: That forcing public schools to educate any and all children of illegal aliens is not necessarily a good thing.
They can use all of their technical debate skills all day long, but you know that they secretly wanted to lose. After all, they heartily approve of forcing taxpayers to pay for free schooling that teaches illegal alien kids that America is evil & racist while failing to teach them English, because English literacy == racism. After all, they go to private prep schools and don't have to see any of those kids, so it's all well and good if the the lower classes have to put up with them.
Yeah, I'm certain the "bunch of cocky elitists" secretly wanted to lose to a bunch of prisoners.
Marijuana makes you feel as though you had just completed a marathon.
Marijuana causes you to hurt everywhere and be unable to walk?
Either the companies will fix this, or the market will. If guys from Fanduel are winning big by playing at Draftkings and vice versa, no one who is not in the know will play.
Only if they're found out. Who knows how many DraftKing and FanDuel employees have been using this strategy? This kind of scam can be very hard for the users to detect so you end up with a lot of people getting scammed and legitimate businesses with no easy way to distinguish themselves from the crooked businesses.
Plus there's an externalization problem, it's the FanDuel users that were harmed by the actions of the DraftKing employee. Those two are big enough to cooperate in keeping their employees playing fairly but there's nothing to stop an employee from a smaller site pulling a similar scam on FanDuel or DraftKing.
> I'm an old fogie and used to laugh tracks. Most "light" comedies seem awkward without them. It guess it's hard to make every generation happy.
I grew up with them too. I think what really destroyed them for me was that, after I realized they existed, I noticed....they just keep using the same one over and over. Its like that Wilhelm Scream. Once your recognize it....its not part of the scene anymore...its jarring.
I don't hear "people laughing" I hear "that laugh track", the same one I have heard since I was a kid. The "magic" is entirely gone. I almost feel like, if they had a small assortment of 10 laugh tracks and rotate them within the same show....I might have never even noticed....but its the same laugh for every joke!
What you're hearing is the sound of a roomful of very enthusiastic people laughing. It's just like if you averaged the sum of 20 numbers between 0 and 10, you're going to end up getting a lot of numbers very close to 5.
I think that's the main reason I can't watch that show, and to this date haven't watched a full episode yet. Every time I hear the laugh track I want to gag. What is this, 1965? If they're going to do it that way, at least have a live studio audience like Married with Children had that actually responds appropriately to what's happening when it's genuinely funny.
In Big Bang Theory just feels like somebody is methodically trying to tell you "ok, you laugh here, even if it's not funny" throughout the whole show.
So what? It works.
We're social creatures, if a bunch of other people laughing tells us that a bad joke is funny we're probably going to laugh and we're going to enjoy it. Who cares if the audience is over-eager, if you let yourself enjoy it you'll have a better time.
The only reason to drop the laugh track is it ties you to doing punch line comedies where everything is punctuated with a lot of small jokes and thoughts tend to end after the punchline. You couldn't do something like Arrested Development with a laugh track because there's a lot of jokes without specific punchlines, or jokes that overlap.
Of course Arrested Development also got cancelled because they had poor ratings, a laugh track comedy that wasn't so challenging for the viewer might have done better.
OK, so if they have a live studio audience, how is it they managed to make it sound exactly like the laugh track from the Brady Bunch? The outcome is terrible regardless of whether the source is recorded or live.
You're dealing with dozens of people laughing at the same time, there's no individual variation at that point, any unusual laugh will get drowned out and you'll just get the averaged sound of laughter.
Canned laughter can be more unusual because you can combine just a few different laughs and have some distinction and variety.
This isn't empowering women. This is arguing that they are weaker than men far more profoundly than any MRA red piller gamer gater misogynist could ever hope to accomplish.
Then why is the woman the only one strong enough to stand up publicly?
Group A: Fraud protection sucks because of a single anecdote I have where the facts I present make the credit card company sound really uncaring and incompetent!
Group B: The plural of anecdotes is not data! Fraud protection is a really hard problem and generally works really well. Oh no, I don't actually have data.
Group C: First post!
The way to deter mass shootings is to move away from the gun culture in general.
While we are busy disagreeing on this fantasy concept, why don't we stop advertising where all the unarmed and helpless people are to slaughter?
Imagining that eliminating gun free zones would help is a fantasy. I'm a guy, if I was in one of those classrooms I imagine myself self tackling him and beating him into submission, that wouldn't work but it's nice to imagine. If was a gun fan I'd imagine I'd go rambo and shoot him. It's a bit more plausible but I don't think it works that well in reality either, I'm sure lots of mass shootings have happened in zones that allow guns but it just doesn't work the same way as in the movies.
As for changing the culture. There are lots of other nations that don't glorify guns the way the US does, that don't have movies with constant shooting and heroes having awesome giant gun collections. And to be frank that's something a lot of these shooters tend to have in common, they have access to a lot of guns and come from families who are involved with guns. It makes sense why that happens, the more comfortable you are with guns, the more that comfort is accepted as part of the culture, the more likely you are to obsess about them and feel really comfortable using them to solve problems.
This guy in particular had a lot of guns and regularly went to the shooting range with his mother. If his mother didn't own guns and if his friends and neighbours didn't indulge his gun interest he probably doesn't go on this rampage.
I suggested attempting to help all economically/apathetic-parent disadvantaged children. Is there some reason you want to help only those of certain races?
I didn't catch that part of your comment the first time I read it but I largely agree.
That being said some of these issues are very race specific, if an Irishman walks into a store no one knows he's an Irishman and the clerk probably won't stare the whole time because he thinks Irishmen are shoplifters. But black people are regularly subjected to a level of scrutiny and suspicion white people never experience, the guy at the till will always watch them extra close, the cop is that much more likely to stop them for a chat. A lot of the problems do have an origin in explicit racism that isn't that distant. I don't think it's that indefensible to look at race as the characteristic we can target to try and start fixing things.
It's meant to avoid spontaneous unplanned shootings.
And look at how effective it was! No one was able to spontaneously defend themselves, obviously a clear win for the "Gun Free" zone idea.
And no prospective vigilante shot an innocent bystander by accident, nor did the police go chasing after the wrong guy with a gun or the bystanders run from the wrong guy with the gun.
Sure those sound slightly contrived, but I don't think bystanders stopping mass shootings with their guns is particularly common either.
There's also the fact that mass shootings are a small subset of total gun deaths, even if adding a lot of lawful guns to these gun free zones does deter/stop them you still have to deal with additional deaths from spontaneous gun violence.
This has become a regular event in America. We can lay a lot of responsibility for this at the feet of the terrorist NRA and the corrupt legislators they pay off, with both these latter groups little more a bunch of bootlickers to the gun manufacturers.
There are more than 300 MILLION guns in this crazy nation - so many that *anyone* who wants to get a gun can get one, one way or another.
You say that Americans having lots of guns like it's bad thing.
300 million guns in civilian hands and gun deaths have steadily dropping for the past 20 years or so. The obvious correlation is that more guns means FEWER gun deaths.
Go check your meds, you may have forgotten a couple.
Which overlooks the obvious fact that murders have been dropping virtually everywhere.
Btw, did you look at just murders or accidents/suicides too? Because guns cause more death from suicide than murder.
Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol is enough for a kid to be kicked out.
That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free".
In denial much?
So what you're saying is that all (or virtually all) campuses are gun free, so the fact this specific campus is gun free is pretty much meaningless.
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
That is exactly what it means. I wish I had mod points, they'd be yours.
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? When will they grasp the concept that labeling something a "gun-free zone" doesn't magically do ANYTHING?
Criminals will still have guns and they'll still bring them into a "gun-free zone" no matter how many signs are posted.
It's not meant to deter specific planned mass shootings.
It's meant to avoid spontaneous unplanned shootings. And sometimes, if you're lucky, snag a criminal whose gun got noticed.
The way to deter mass shootings is to move away from the gun culture in general.
Almost the entirety of the "lot of the story" was not racism (as in acts of morally objectionable judgement based on race stereotypes) in any form. Call it "culture" or "socioeconomic problems", not "racism". Don't borrow the moral outrage carefully nurtured around the latter term for different problems.
A lot of those problems exist because of explicit racism in the past. Some are aggravated because of milder racism now (ie for the same crimes blacks get arrested more and serve longer sentences), others perpetuate because black people are stereotyped by the problems in their community or people in power aren't as concerned about fixing problems when the victims look different and aren't as relatable.
One of the big features of "institutional racism" it that there's a system or pattern in place that maintains a significant racial inequality without requiring racism by any individual in the system.
For a while, until those differences are eroded by attrition over generations. Lots of Irish were brought over as indentured servants. Huge disadvantage. But that was >200 years ago, no one cares now, and no one should care because it worked itself out.
Here's another idea. How about we work on trying to help and help motivate gifted students whose parents, for whatever reason, are not involved in their lives? I don't care if it's a black child or a white child or a Hispanic child or an Asian child: try to help any child who is underperforming due to lack of parental involvement.
There's no reason we need to specifically target black children or Hispanic children with absentee parents. That's just a proxy for "kids who aren't doing as well as they should because their parents are poor / don't care / whatever". And using race as a proxy for some other characteristic is racist.
It's a little different with the Irish since they look the same, I think visual differences based on race are a lot stickier and take a lot longer to go away. The other part of that is the timeline. Perhaps in 200, 100, or even 50 years institutional racism really will be gone. But that's not going to help the people getting screwed over now.
If "it's an unfortunate scientific reality that's suggested by the evidence", call it "science" or "reality".
The qualifier is important because it specifies motivation.
There's a lot of people who think it's a scientific reality that black people are less intelligent because they are looking to validate discrimination against black people, I'm talking about the group who thinks it's a fact but sincerely wish it wasn't.
If you don't know why exactly black children are disadvantaged getting into a gifted program, don't label your ignorance "institutional racism" either.
(I don't know if either "if" is true.)
But we do know why, we don't know entirely why, but we know a lot of the story.
Knowledge the program exists, having contacts that assist you in getting your kids into the program, coaching by parents who know how those tests work, coaching by tutors who cost money, a home environment that gives the kind of teaching that really helps with the tests, research demonstrating that people tend to have worse assumptions about black kids and accordingly pre-judge black children, etc.
All of these things correlate strongly with race and are a big part of the story why blacks and latinos have a tougher time getting into a gifted program. It doesn't mean that it applies to every black person, or that there's specific laws that explicitly target black people. But it doesn't mean that if you assume X and Y are identical except for skin colour, then under a system like that the groups will continue to have different outcomes.
"That's how institutional racism works, it's not that it's impossible for group X to do Y, it's that you need to be exceptional to do Y if you're also a member of group X."
You may wish to revise your definition of "institutional racism", consider X=white-man Y=giving-birth; or X=pygmy Y=play-professional-basketball.
Well I'll rely on the reader to make the obvious leap that the defining characteristic of X is race. Moreover I'll say that the X/Y relationship suggests discrimination when the defining characteristic of X shouldn't be a disadvantage for Y.
That being said I'm not sure how you mean to use those metaphors. Do you mean to imply that a black child is disadvantaged in getting into a gifted program the same way a pygmy is in getting into the NBA? Presumably due to some genetic characteristics (ie Watson's views).
If so I think that's arguably the actual definition of racism. The only reason I'm hesitant to use the label is I think people can hold that view with absolutely no animosity or ill-will, they just happen to think it's an unfortunate scientific reality that's suggested by the evidence.
They are not at all legitimate. While they may be the result of past "sins", they are nothing that can't be overcome with the desire to do so. For blacks in particular, they have to worry less about "racism" and more about a culture that treats success as selling out.
I did respond directly to what you said. The WORST thing you can do to a person is treat them as if they are a victim. It doesn't matter if they're actually a victim or not.
It's far worse than burning a flag in their yard.
This is pointless, there were two parts of my argument and you only replied to the first part of my argument.
You know what my response to your reply is? The second part of my argument! To quote myself:
That's how institutional racism works, it's not that it's impossible for group X to do Y, it's that you need to be exceptional to do Y if you're also a member of group X.
It's not treating them as a victim, it's removing the obstacles that don't exist for other people.
> For a gifted kid from poor minority parents it usually takes exceptionally dedicated parents.
>
>For a gifted kid from rich white parents it usually takes mildly dedicated parents.
>
> That's how institutional racism works,
THAT is not "racism". That's bleeding hearts making excuses for people and ultimately robbing them of any pride or free will.
Pretending that these people are somehow "incapable" for whatever lame ass reason. THAT's racism.
The reasons weren't "lame ass" they were very legitimate and I went over some of them.
If you're going to contradict me you might as well bother to actually respond to what I said.
Please explain to me, how 50 years after the Great Society, and all the special programs for all the minorities, how they are still disadvantaged by our society?
It took me a moment to realize you weren't being sarcastic.
Entire cultures and ethnicities dropped right at the bottom of the totem pole and you think 50 years is supposed to be enough time for everything to even out?
There's people in the prime of their careers who weren't even born 50 years ago!
It's like saying "why are you still whining about getting shot? It's been almost 5 minutes since I pulled the bullet out!"