And there should be (assuming male dominated professions have similar corrections).
The job of a faculty member is to do research and teach, having a novel perspective is a huge benefit for both.
An easy way to get a novel perspective is different life experiences, this means different races, cultures, and gender.
So if you have two otherwise equal candidates of different genders then your organization will be best served by selecting the under-represented gender.
Smartwatches were the #1 most returned tech item of 2014. Some models were as much as 60% returned! They're absolutely despised by anyone who has used one. I'm one of newegg's product testers and I tested the 2nd generation of Samsung smartwatches. I and everyone gave it a horrible review then I sold it. But this time around, it's Apple fans buying the product. So who will win in this epic battle of Apple false superiority and arrogant smugness versus the strong urge to return their useless, annoying product.
Possibly though I'll hand it to Apple that they've had a fairly decent track record in figuring out products that people will actually use.
Outside of a fancy running watch I'm not sure what a smart watch is good for, then again I wasn't sure what a tablet was good for either.
Oh, Hugh Pickens. 'Nuf said. As if being the #1 pirated show doesn't bring it enough publicity, they have to advertise it here.
I pride myself in the fact that I have never watched even a single episode of the show. Judging by the hype and how popular it is with the general populace, it seems my decision is the correct one.
Silly me, I tend to base my viewing decisions on whether a particular show is good or not, whether the "right" people share my particular taste is irrelevant.
By taking pride in not seeing a single episode you're not celebrating refined taste, you're celebrating ignorance.
Gotcha. It wasnt Hilly noooo, she was just...gasp!...the victim of over-aggressive supporters. I bet you will say the same thing about her "3 in the morning phone call" ad too right...you know the one that undermined Barry in the eyes of 50% of the population and made his job a shit ton harder.
Did that argument sound convincing while you were writing it because it sure as hell isn't convincing reading it.
There is a massive difference between an ad created by the candidate's team, starring the candidate, and explicitly approved by the candidate, and a rumour started by self-declared supporters of the candidate.
"If people consistently think your criticism has racial overtones "
It's certainly not consistently, but has happened. Mostly I've chuckled at how ridiculous it is, or replied: In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
Laughing at misplaced righteous outrage usually works a lot better than replying in kind.
That's plausible, I don't know what criticism you've actually received or what you said to trigger it.
My only point is that there's a lot of racist criticism of Obama and there will be sexist criticism of Hillary. Even if you're not doing it consciously you can be caught if you're unaware of the origin of the criticisms you make.
You do realize that is was Hillary's camp that created the whole Barrry is not a US citizen right? it wasnt the Repubs it was the Democrats.
Incorrect.
It was Hillary Clinton supporters who created the rumour, "camp" implies that it was started by people acting under her direction, I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect.
Either way the right is where it actually took hold which is an important distinction. For a comparable issue look at Mitt Romney's Mormonism, that started as a controversy on the right, and when the general election came around it mostly went away. There was still media chatter but very few people on the left actually cared and no one on the right wanted to turn on their own candidate.
Sorry the silence is not deafening. It's been repeatedly raised and stomped flat since he announced. Just as there was no credence to the claim against Obama, but some idiots couldn't let it go. So there are idiots who cannot let go of the issue for Cruz. The right is not silent on the topic. If you haven't seen anything on it, you need to get a bit more balance in your choice of media sources. All left-wing or all right-wing for your news is a bad idea. You should read both sides of the spectrum to get a better picture of what's going on.
Frankly the number of people talking about Cruz's eligibility are a tiny subset of those who did it for Obama, and I suspect that most of those are just doing it so they don't get called hypocrites.
But there's also a lot of criticism of Obama that's either openly racist or wailing on dog whistles
Bullshit.
Every time you make these bullshit claims, another white person hates Democrats.
Remember the years of birther nonsense over Obama's birth certificate, conspiracy theories that he was ineligible because he was supposedly born outside the US or a dual citizen at some point? Notice the deafening silence over Ted Cruz's eligibility for whom both of those apparently disqualifying things are established fact?
What do you think the basis is for all those claims that he hates America, or he's a closet Muslim doing mischievous Muslim things, or the obsession with including his middle name "Hussein"? There's a really obvious "he's not one of us" subtext to the whole thing.
After almost 7 years of implications that I'm racist when I disagree with the surveillance and foreign policies of the current administration, I can look forward to now being called a sexist instead!
Free at last!
I've heard a lot of criticism of Obama across many issues where I never thought there was a racial motive for a second, same thing with Hillary and gender.
But there's also a lot of criticism of Obama that's either openly racist or wailing on dog whistles, and the people making those statements are still welcomed in the Republican party and even show up on Fox News.
If people consistently think your criticism has racial overtones then I'm tempted to suggest they may be right.
I hadn't read any of the comics when I went to see the Daredevil movie in the theater. I enjoyed it. Why do I keep seeing people online say it sucked? Probably the same tools who didn't like the Thomas Jane Punisher movie, which was also good.
It's a big budget Hollywood film, popular opinion isn't necessarily correlated to quality.
There's nothing worse than seeming to be one of the uneducated masses, if all the cool people decides that X is terrible then saying you like it just tells people you have poor taste.
For what it's worth I saw the apparently bad theatrical release and I recall enjoying it, then again I might have terrible taste in movies.
Part of my gut says budget, I suspect they have a small budget and I honestly feel a lot of screen action is ruined by a big budget. The more money you get, the more fancy stuff you throw in, and the less you can empathize with what's happening to the characters.
I truly find a lot of action films boring, when I see a guy who can defy the laws of physics get punched it's hard for me to empathize. But if I see a guy who's just a really good athlete get thrown into a wall I can actually relate to how that feels.
The other part is whatever random assortment of actors and writers they threw together is actually working really well, I even enjoyed the lame "lets show the character's personal lives so we can let the actors emote and be all actory" scenes.
Sure being a pot head is going to have a detrimental effect on your grades.
But given my experiences with university in a place where marijuana was not legal I can't believe there are enough students who would not smoke when it is illegal but would when it is legal to swing the overall grade by 5%.
So in the article the authors stated the following:
“The effects we find are large, consistent and statistically very significant,” Marie told the Observer. “For example, we estimate that students who were no longer able to buy cannabis legally were 5% more likely to pass courses. The grade improvement this represents is about the same as having a qualified teacher and, more relevantly, similar to decreases in grades observed from reaching legal drinking age in the US.”
For low performers, there was a larger effect on grades. They had a 7.6% better chance of passing their courses.
Note that they don't seem to be saying that pot smokers in specific are affected, but rather that any student who was legally barred from buying pot got a 5% better chance of passing. I can't imagine the total number of students who were buying legal pot before and stopped buying after was very large.
Note they got their study populations by looking at a city where they banned most foreign students from buying pot for several years:
Economists Olivier Marie of Maastricht University and Ulf Zölitz of IZA Bonn examined what happened in Maastricht in 2011 when the Dutch city allowed only Dutch, German and Belgian passport-holders access to the 13 coffee shops where cannabis was sold. The temporary restrictions were introduced because of fears that nationals from other countries, chiefly France and Luxembourg, were visiting the city simply to smoke drugs, which would tarnish its genteel image.
After studying data on more than 54,000 course grades achieved by students from around the world who were enrolled at Maastricht University before and after the restrictions were introduced
So I looked around and I think I found the paper here. I haven't digested it but there's a table on page 33 that shows the average grade change over the study period. There's two things that strike me about this table.
First there's not a lot of data to convince me that big divergences in grades by nationality are abnormal. For all we know secondary factors cause quirks like this all the time.
Second, half way through the prohibition period the grades of the DGB students who can buy pot starts shooting up. By the end of the prohibition they're actually doing better relative to the non-DGB students then they were before prohibition!
Maybe they're onto something, but of the stuff I've seen I'm still really skeptical.
he expressed a sincere, clear, sustained desire to mass murder, then went through the motions to do exactly that, only neutralized by fbi providing him with dummy equipment
Half right. He expressed the desire, but it was the FBI who prompted him to go through the motions.
if the fbi wasn't around, he would have figured out how to buy gasoline or fertilizer on his own, or he would have hooked up with a genuinely malicious crew
Possibly.
intent, do you what that is? do you know what that means in terms of morality and law?
if you INTEND to do harm, stopping you from following through on your intent is doing good in the world, and removing you from society for being a murderous asshole is doing good in the world
We don't know that he had genuine intent before the FBI intervened because he was all talk at that point.
it's not entrapment. it does not fit the definition of the concept, which you don't seem to understand
it's neutralization of dangerous assholes before they cause great harm
understand intent. understand entrapment. then comment on this topic. you don't seem to have the moral or social faculties to comment intelligently at this time, as you don't seem to understand the concepts involved
I forgot to mention in my original response that I don't think for a moment a US court would rule this as entrapment.
However, I do think you're significantly underestimating the degree of influence the FBI may have had. This was a very troubled person and was obviously very susceptible for being recruited into being a jihadist.
However, that in itself isn't a crime, planning or committing a terror plot is a crime, and when the FBI is the one supplying the crime and the prompt I find that problematic. They've taken him an at-risk individual and turned him into a terrorist, I think there were better ways to handle it.
entrapment is getting you to do something you don't want to do
if the guy expresses his sincere, original desire to do something, no coaxing, no suggestion, that's 100% on him
i don't know why so many people don't understand what entrapment is
No it isn't. Entrapment is getting you to do something you wouldn't have done otherwise.
In this case the FBI recruited Booker, planned the plot, and then gave him the materials to carry out the plot.
Now this kid obviously has some serious issues, he was basically asking for an ISIS recruiter to come along and find him, if one didn't come along there is a possibility he would have eventually committed a lone attack on his own.
That being said he also might have grown out of it, either way I suspect that both Booker and society would have been much better served with some court mandated counselling. The major justification for this operation is the FBI showing they can thwart a major terrorist operation by thwarting their own operation (though they're also hopefully making it more difficult for actual recruiters).
Slashdot, always concerned about equality, the evils of mass deportation, international development, free movement, and promoting libertarianism.
Until a scenario comes up where they're personally impacted, then it's close the borders and toss the foreigners out.
I know right? It's almost as if it's not a single hive mind but over 3,000,000 registered users all with different opinions. But that's so crazy it couldn't possibly be true.
Many discussions reach a sort of general consensus, that consensus is the opinion to which I refer.
Slashdot, always concerned about equality, the evils of mass deportation, international development, free movement, and promoting libertarianism.
Until a scenario comes up where they're personally impacted, then it's close the borders and toss the foreigners out.
Yes the H-1B system is problematic, it gives the employers an inordinate amount of power and makes it very difficult for people to stay long term.
But the fix for that is to allow them to change jobs with ease and to give them a simple path to long term residency if they wish it.
Instead the only solution that interests people here is to lock up the borders. Maybe that is the right call but I thought it was important to point out how quickly the idealistic egalitarian tone shifts the moment they might be on the losing end.
Translation: I make bombastic claims out of the wrong orifice and weasel out, when asked for substantiation.
Read his Wikipedia page. He has a well documented history of misleading people with his videos. To be honest I only glanced at portions of the video as I really can't stand him. As for an actual debunking of whatever claims he made I'd be surprised if many people cared enough to do so anymore because no one takes him seriously.
No one claims there aren't a lot of places where you can't just walk across the border
Well, when you ridiculed O'Keefe's claim, that it is possible, and called him a liar (without any evidence) you seemed to imply, that his claim was false, and it is not, in fact, possible to "just walk across the border". I mean, why would you call a claim "a lie", if you agree with it?
But you are already demonstrated to be a weasel, so I don't really care, what you still have to say. Hop along.
I never said or meant to say that O'Keefe was lying in that specific video, and as for evidence that he's a liar in general some things are simply established fact.
What I meant to say is exactly what I said, he had zero credibility and he's such a terrible source to use that it reflects very badly on you to use him.
His video has no evidentiary value, in the time it would take to verify you could find a much better source who could give a proper argument.
It's not Ad hominem to attack the integrity of your source
Except your attack was on me. You claimed, I base my world view on James O'Keefe.
Call it a bit of hyperbole. The point there wasn't to disprove your argument, I didn't even mention it. The point was to point out that James O'Keefe is an absolutely ridiculous person to cite.
James O'Keefe lies with his video, this has been shown repeatedly.
This was a fantastic opportunity for you to provide a link, where the allegation, that O'Keefe crossed the border dressed like bin Laden, is convincingly disputed.
In other words, citations needed.
Perhaps if he were still credible. Either way the video and the implied argument are irrelevant. No one claims there aren't a lot of places where you can't just walk across the border, stupid mask or not, it's about the ability to insinuate yourself into secure positions that they're talking about.
It means it's a made-up problem. "Climate change is causing wildfires" is a red-herring: a lot of wildlife depends on fires to survive. Some tree seeds don't grow if they're not set fire to first; and the growth and spread of various species of underbrush rely on underbrush clearing every few years, historically done by wildfires.
We have fewer wildfires now due to suppression efforts, which we've scaled back massively because we realized suppressing wildfires is a really fucking bad idea. Global Wargarbling isn't causing wildfires, isn't increasing the amount of wildfire pollution in the air, and isn't threatening people by mechanisms spawned from wildfires.
This kind of spouting makes the President sound dangerously uneducated. We're lead to question more things: what is this lengthening of the allergy season, and how is it different from living in the South? Are we only concerned about half of the United States?
Another interpretation is that particulates from wildfires were a major health hazard pre-20th century, but no one cared because there were a million major health hazards. Since then we've gained the ability to strike a proper balance between fire suppression and controlled burns for ecosystem management. But now climate change means dryer, less healthy forests that make fire suppression much more difficult. Thus wildfire pollution is becoming a larger problem than it has been for recent history.
Slashdot Mirror
So the real story is that bad contracts killed a gaming studio?
What idiots signed a contract allowing Microsoft to unilaterally change requirements mid-project with no increase in budget?
Three theories:
1) The execs were idiots for signing the contract.
2) If the execs didn't sign the contract Microsoft would just go to another studio and they'd just have died a slower death.
3) The contract didn't really matter, Microsoft always had the option to walk away and if that happened the studio would die.
I'm guessing some combination of 2 and 3.
Did you read you link?
It doesn't say what you think it says. Not surprising. It's deliberately unclear, like most social science.
Men in traditional woman jobs were rated second highest of categories. The highest rated category was (wait for it) women in traditional woman jobs.
Basically it says the opposite of what you claim it says.
Sorry, I thought the link was talking about the professional effect rather than perception.
This paper suggest an actual professional advantage for male nurses though the abstract doesn't mention in comparison to what. There's various other sites talking about the effect but that's the only peer reviewed study I saw.
So we'll see the opposite in nursing schools?
No? You must be full of shit.
Actually yes
And there should be (assuming male dominated professions have similar corrections).
The job of a faculty member is to do research and teach, having a novel perspective is a huge benefit for both.
An easy way to get a novel perspective is different life experiences, this means different races, cultures, and gender.
So if you have two otherwise equal candidates of different genders then your organization will be best served by selecting the under-represented gender.
Probably because the fact that Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother clearly meets the criteria of being a natural born citizen.
But if Obama was born in another country an American mother he wouldn't meet the criteria?
Smartwatches were the #1 most returned tech item of 2014. Some models were as much as 60% returned! They're absolutely despised by anyone who has used one. I'm one of newegg's product testers and I tested the 2nd generation of Samsung smartwatches. I and everyone gave it a horrible review then I sold it. But this time around, it's Apple fans buying the product. So who will win in this epic battle of Apple false superiority and arrogant smugness versus the strong urge to return their useless, annoying product.
Possibly though I'll hand it to Apple that they've had a fairly decent track record in figuring out products that people will actually use.
Outside of a fancy running watch I'm not sure what a smart watch is good for, then again I wasn't sure what a tablet was good for either.
Oh, Hugh Pickens. 'Nuf said. As if being the #1 pirated show doesn't bring it enough publicity, they have to advertise it here.
I pride myself in the fact that I have never watched even a single episode of the show. Judging by the hype and how popular it is with the general populace, it seems my decision is the correct one.
Silly me, I tend to base my viewing decisions on whether a particular show is good or not, whether the "right" people share my particular taste is irrelevant.
By taking pride in not seeing a single episode you're not celebrating refined taste, you're celebrating ignorance.
Gotcha. It wasnt Hilly noooo, she was just...gasp!...the victim of over-aggressive supporters. I bet you will say the same thing about her "3 in the morning phone call" ad too right...you know the one that undermined Barry in the eyes of 50% of the population and made his job a shit ton harder.
Did that argument sound convincing while you were writing it because it sure as hell isn't convincing reading it.
There is a massive difference between an ad created by the candidate's team, starring the candidate, and explicitly approved by the candidate, and a rumour started by self-declared supporters of the candidate.
And then you move the goal posts.
How?
"If people consistently think your criticism has racial overtones "
It's certainly not consistently, but has happened. Mostly I've chuckled at how ridiculous it is, or replied: In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
Laughing at misplaced righteous outrage usually works a lot better than replying in kind.
That's plausible, I don't know what criticism you've actually received or what you said to trigger it.
My only point is that there's a lot of racist criticism of Obama and there will be sexist criticism of Hillary. Even if you're not doing it consciously you can be caught if you're unaware of the origin of the criticisms you make.
You do realize that is was Hillary's camp that created the whole Barrry is not a US citizen right? it wasnt the Repubs it was the Democrats.
Incorrect.
It was Hillary Clinton supporters who created the rumour, "camp" implies that it was started by people acting under her direction, I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect.
Either way the right is where it actually took hold which is an important distinction. For a comparable issue look at Mitt Romney's Mormonism, that started as a controversy on the right, and when the general election came around it mostly went away. There was still media chatter but very few people on the left actually cared and no one on the right wanted to turn on their own candidate.
Sorry the silence is not deafening. It's been repeatedly raised and stomped flat since he announced. Just as there was no credence to the claim against Obama, but some idiots couldn't let it go. So there are idiots who cannot let go of the issue for Cruz. The right is not silent on the topic. If you haven't seen anything on it, you need to get a bit more balance in your choice of media sources. All left-wing or all right-wing for your news is a bad idea. You should read both sides of the spectrum to get a better picture of what's going on.
Frankly the number of people talking about Cruz's eligibility are a tiny subset of those who did it for Obama, and I suspect that most of those are just doing it so they don't get called hypocrites.
But there's also a lot of criticism of Obama that's either openly racist or wailing on dog whistles
Bullshit.
Every time you make these bullshit claims, another white person hates Democrats.
Remember the years of birther nonsense over Obama's birth certificate, conspiracy theories that he was ineligible because he was supposedly born outside the US or a dual citizen at some point? Notice the deafening silence over Ted Cruz's eligibility for whom both of those apparently disqualifying things are established fact?
What do you think the basis is for all those claims that he hates America, or he's a closet Muslim doing mischievous Muslim things, or the obsession with including his middle name "Hussein"? There's a really obvious "he's not one of us" subtext to the whole thing.
After almost 7 years of implications that I'm racist when I disagree with the surveillance and foreign policies of the current administration, I can look forward to now being called a sexist instead!
Free at last!
I've heard a lot of criticism of Obama across many issues where I never thought there was a racial motive for a second, same thing with Hillary and gender.
But there's also a lot of criticism of Obama that's either openly racist or wailing on dog whistles, and the people making those statements are still welcomed in the Republican party and even show up on Fox News.
If people consistently think your criticism has racial overtones then I'm tempted to suggest they may be right.
I hadn't read any of the comics when I went to see the Daredevil movie in the theater. I enjoyed it. Why do I keep seeing people online say it sucked? Probably the same tools who didn't like the Thomas Jane Punisher movie, which was also good.
It's a big budget Hollywood film, popular opinion isn't necessarily correlated to quality.
There's nothing worse than seeming to be one of the uneducated masses, if all the cool people decides that X is terrible then saying you like it just tells people you have poor taste.
For what it's worth I saw the apparently bad theatrical release and I recall enjoying it, then again I might have terrible taste in movies.
Part of my gut says budget, I suspect they have a small budget and I honestly feel a lot of screen action is ruined by a big budget. The more money you get, the more fancy stuff you throw in, and the less you can empathize with what's happening to the characters.
I truly find a lot of action films boring, when I see a guy who can defy the laws of physics get punched it's hard for me to empathize. But if I see a guy who's just a really good athlete get thrown into a wall I can actually relate to how that feels.
The other part is whatever random assortment of actors and writers they threw together is actually working really well, I even enjoyed the lame "lets show the character's personal lives so we can let the actors emote and be all actory" scenes.
I find it quite surprising.
Sure being a pot head is going to have a detrimental effect on your grades.
But given my experiences with university in a place where marijuana was not legal I can't believe there are enough students who would not smoke when it is illegal but would when it is legal to swing the overall grade by 5%.
So in the article the authors stated the following:
“The effects we find are large, consistent and statistically very significant,” Marie told the Observer. “For example, we estimate that students who were no longer able to buy cannabis legally were 5% more likely to pass courses. The grade improvement this represents is about the same as having a qualified teacher and, more relevantly, similar to decreases in grades observed from reaching legal drinking age in the US.”
For low performers, there was a larger effect on grades. They had a 7.6% better chance of passing their courses.
Note that they don't seem to be saying that pot smokers in specific are affected, but rather that any student who was legally barred from buying pot got a 5% better chance of passing. I can't imagine the total number of students who were buying legal pot before and stopped buying after was very large.
Note they got their study populations by looking at a city where they banned most foreign students from buying pot for several years:
Economists Olivier Marie of Maastricht University and Ulf Zölitz of IZA Bonn examined what happened in Maastricht in 2011 when the Dutch city allowed only Dutch, German and Belgian passport-holders access to the 13 coffee shops where cannabis was sold. The temporary restrictions were introduced because of fears that nationals from other countries, chiefly France and Luxembourg, were visiting the city simply to smoke drugs, which would tarnish its genteel image.
After studying data on more than 54,000 course grades achieved by students from around the world who were enrolled at Maastricht University before and after the restrictions were introduced
So I looked around and I think I found the paper here. I haven't digested it but there's a table on page 33 that shows the average grade change over the study period. There's two things that strike me about this table.
First there's not a lot of data to convince me that big divergences in grades by nationality are abnormal. For all we know secondary factors cause quirks like this all the time.
Second, half way through the prohibition period the grades of the DGB students who can buy pot starts shooting up. By the end of the prohibition they're actually doing better relative to the non-DGB students then they were before prohibition!
Maybe they're onto something, but of the stuff I've seen I'm still really skeptical.
he expressed a sincere, clear, sustained desire to mass murder, then went through the motions to do exactly that, only neutralized by fbi providing him with dummy equipment
Half right. He expressed the desire, but it was the FBI who prompted him to go through the motions.
if the fbi wasn't around, he would have figured out how to buy gasoline or fertilizer on his own, or he would have hooked up with a genuinely malicious crew
Possibly.
intent, do you what that is? do you know what that means in terms of morality and law?
if you INTEND to do harm, stopping you from following through on your intent is doing good in the world, and removing you from society for being a murderous asshole is doing good in the world
We don't know that he had genuine intent before the FBI intervened because he was all talk at that point.
it's not entrapment. it does not fit the definition of the concept, which you don't seem to understand
it's neutralization of dangerous assholes before they cause great harm
understand intent. understand entrapment. then comment on this topic. you don't seem to have the moral or social faculties to comment intelligently at this time, as you don't seem to understand the concepts involved
I forgot to mention in my original response that I don't think for a moment a US court would rule this as entrapment.
However, I do think you're significantly underestimating the degree of influence the FBI may have had. This was a very troubled person and was obviously very susceptible for being recruited into being a jihadist.
However, that in itself isn't a crime, planning or committing a terror plot is a crime, and when the FBI is the one supplying the crime and the prompt I find that problematic. They've taken him an at-risk individual and turned him into a terrorist, I think there were better ways to handle it.
it's not entrapment
it really isn't
entrapment is getting you to do something you don't want to do
if the guy expresses his sincere, original desire to do something, no coaxing, no suggestion, that's 100% on him
i don't know why so many people don't understand what entrapment is
No it isn't. Entrapment is getting you to do something you wouldn't have done otherwise.
In this case the FBI recruited Booker, planned the plot, and then gave him the materials to carry out the plot.
Now this kid obviously has some serious issues, he was basically asking for an ISIS recruiter to come along and find him, if one didn't come along there is a possibility he would have eventually committed a lone attack on his own.
That being said he also might have grown out of it, either way I suspect that both Booker and society would have been much better served with some court mandated counselling. The major justification for this operation is the FBI showing they can thwart a major terrorist operation by thwarting their own operation (though they're also hopefully making it more difficult for actual recruiters).
Slashdot, always concerned about equality, the evils of mass deportation, international development, free movement, and promoting libertarianism.
Until a scenario comes up where they're personally impacted, then it's close the borders and toss the foreigners out.
I know right? It's almost as if it's not a single hive mind but over 3,000,000 registered users all with different opinions. But that's so crazy it couldn't possibly be true.
Many discussions reach a sort of general consensus, that consensus is the opinion to which I refer.
Slashdot, always concerned about equality, the evils of mass deportation, international development, free movement, and promoting libertarianism.
Until a scenario comes up where they're personally impacted, then it's close the borders and toss the foreigners out.
Yes the H-1B system is problematic, it gives the employers an inordinate amount of power and makes it very difficult for people to stay long term.
But the fix for that is to allow them to change jobs with ease and to give them a simple path to long term residency if they wish it.
Instead the only solution that interests people here is to lock up the borders. Maybe that is the right call but I thought it was important to point out how quickly the idealistic egalitarian tone shifts the moment they might be on the losing end.
Translation: I make bombastic claims out of the wrong orifice and weasel out, when asked for substantiation.
Read his Wikipedia page. He has a well documented history of misleading people with his videos. To be honest I only glanced at portions of the video as I really can't stand him. As for an actual debunking of whatever claims he made I'd be surprised if many people cared enough to do so anymore because no one takes him seriously.
No one claims there aren't a lot of places where you can't just walk across the border
Well, when you ridiculed O'Keefe's claim, that it is possible, and called him a liar (without any evidence) you seemed to imply, that his claim was false, and it is not, in fact, possible to "just walk across the border". I mean, why would you call a claim "a lie", if you agree with it?
But you are already demonstrated to be a weasel, so I don't really care, what you still have to say. Hop along.
I never said or meant to say that O'Keefe was lying in that specific video, and as for evidence that he's a liar in general some things are simply established fact.
What I meant to say is exactly what I said, he had zero credibility and he's such a terrible source to use that it reflects very badly on you to use him.
His video has no evidentiary value, in the time it would take to verify you could find a much better source who could give a proper argument.
Except your attack was on me. You claimed, I base my world view on James O'Keefe.
Call it a bit of hyperbole. The point there wasn't to disprove your argument, I didn't even mention it. The point was to point out that James O'Keefe is an absolutely ridiculous person to cite.
This was a fantastic opportunity for you to provide a link, where the allegation, that O'Keefe crossed the border dressed like bin Laden, is convincingly disputed.
In other words, citations needed.
Perhaps if he were still credible. Either way the video and the implied argument are irrelevant. No one claims there aren't a lot of places where you can't just walk across the border, stupid mask or not, it's about the ability to insinuate yourself into secure positions that they're talking about.
This is not about my (deeply flawed) person. Ad hominem much?
It's not Ad hominem to attack the integrity of your source if your evidence is based on their integrity.
What's wrong with that? Police detectives deceive people all the time too, for just one example — it is part of their job.
Same goes for intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies. Deceiving your enemy is a good thing...
Are you O'Keefe's enemy? Because he's lying to you.
Good detectives lie to criminals, good spies lie to enemy operatives. Bad detectives lie to courts, bad spies lie to your bosses.
James O'Keefe lies with his video, this has been shown repeatedly.
Nonsense! James O'Keefe has crossed the border masquarading as Osama bin Laden.
Translation: I base my world view on the authority of self-promoters who's career is based on deceiving people.
Mosquitoes are not limited to warm climates
But the ones that spread malaria are.
It means it's a made-up problem. "Climate change is causing wildfires" is a red-herring: a lot of wildlife depends on fires to survive. Some tree seeds don't grow if they're not set fire to first; and the growth and spread of various species of underbrush rely on underbrush clearing every few years, historically done by wildfires.
We have fewer wildfires now due to suppression efforts, which we've scaled back massively because we realized suppressing wildfires is a really fucking bad idea. Global Wargarbling isn't causing wildfires, isn't increasing the amount of wildfire pollution in the air, and isn't threatening people by mechanisms spawned from wildfires.
This kind of spouting makes the President sound dangerously uneducated. We're lead to question more things: what is this lengthening of the allergy season, and how is it different from living in the South? Are we only concerned about half of the United States?
Another interpretation is that particulates from wildfires were a major health hazard pre-20th century, but no one cared because there were a million major health hazards. Since then we've gained the ability to strike a proper balance between fire suppression and controlled burns for ecosystem management. But now climate change means dryer, less healthy forests that make fire suppression much more difficult. Thus wildfire pollution is becoming a larger problem than it has been for recent history.