Extraordinary claims just require evidence, that is all. Reproducible, confirmed scientific evidence is all that is required.
I think I get what you're trying to say but you treat "evidence" as an absolute. While that is sometimes -- perhaps even often -- possible, there have been more than a few cases where extraordinary claims were made and the evidence was inconclusive. Not debunked, not confirmed, but inconclusive or otherwise not grandiose enough to fully justify the initial claims. What hat do you sort that result into?
Trump has proven you can have any mix of abhorrent moral values and still become President by spending enough money and spewing enough lies.
And this is unlike Bill Clinton...how, exactly? Yet I seem to recall the same senators rushing to his defense and not believing the credible accusations of rape and sexual harassment from his accusers. And, unlike BK, Clinton paid a settlement to avoid going to court over the accusations and was disbarred.
The hypocrisy on display here would be staggering if it wasn't so expected.
You don't fix sexism with sexism just like you don't fix racism with racism.
How dare you bring logic into this emotional, knee-jerk argument! Don't you know that's sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/arachnophobic/whateverphobic??? You must be an old, rich, white guy and therefore your opinion is automatically invalid!
What's amazing to me is that California figured out 20 years ago that affirmative action didn't work and outlawed it.
And yet, even "outlawed", it is still openly practiced in every nook and cranny it can be wormed into.
The argument will be that the Constitution was written by a bunch of rich, old, white men and is therefore inapplicable to this situation. But how quaint that you think the people who are behind this law -- both the politicians and their constituents -- give a damn about the Constitutionality of any of their actions.
My state really is run by a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots.
If only this were true. It's actually run by a bunch of very politically-astute people who are experts at manipulating the dumb masses with spectacles like this. The fools who continually vote them into office are oblivious to the cognitive dissonance being heaped upon them. They'll continue to be oblivious right up to the point where the whole system collapses, at which time they'll cry "how did this happen?"
There is no political or social fix for coddled stupidity.
These types of laws have the opposite effect. Women on these boards will be seen as only having the position because the laws demand it, so they won't be taken seriously. This is a blow to female advancement, not an improvement.
You assume the point of the law is to advance female interests. It is not. It is a law designed to score political points. Create a conflict where none exists, then appoint yourself as the savior of the imaginarily-oppressed! The dumb masses fall all over themselves declaring their support for you. Anyone pointing out the illogic of your argument is instantly marginalizes as "part of the problem" and unworthy of being listened to regardless of their reasoning. It's Liberal Politics 101.
I think you should definitely try to get this in front of a judge.
Then you obviously haven't thought this through as it conflicts with your basic ideology. Such a case would be a lose-lose for liberals no matter how it turned out. The courts decide you cannot arbitrarily self-identify as a given gender? BOOM! There goes your argument that gender is fluid and nothing more than a social construct. The courts decide you can arbitrarily declare yourself a given gender? BOOM! There goes your feminist-equality-for-boards argument.
I for one would buy tickets to witness the legal implosion of this kind of cognitive dissonance.
Half of the country voted for Trump: maybe half of CA boards should be conservatives?
Because diversity only matters when considering unchangeable traits you were born with and can't change. However, things like thoughts and speech must be rigidly controlled by the diversity police. You can be as diverse as you like so long as you think exactly like everyone else. No cognitive dissension is allowed. That might lead to ideas and ideas contrary to the orthodoxy must be quashed.
For tech companies that should scare the hell out of anyone since what graduates from university is not a proportional representation of the general population at all....
Then clearly a law should be passed that automatically grants university degrees to women and minorities regardless of their actual academic achievements in order to remedy this shortfall! Who cares if they can function usefully in their field? DIVERSITY MUST BE SERVED REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES!
Or at least that's what we're being told. Let me know how well the next airplane designed by a diversity engineer flies, or how well the brain surgery by the diversity neurosurgeon goes, or how well the IT security is on systems implemented by the diversity security engineer. It's all fine and dandy to whine and froth about diversity because the fools who are doing the whining and frothing are insulated from the consequences. They magically find the best and brightest without consulting the diversity goddess and are invulnerable to criticism because hey, they champion diversity for everyone else.
On one side, we have those who believe that the "best" candidate should always get the job. They don't really know what "best" means, because they clearly keep hiring the guy who is not the "best", but he's a great guy from a great family from the best schools, so there.
Given that many boards populate with members based upon their influence -- be it political, economic, or social -- the metrics like "great family" and "best schools" do, in fact, fit the requirements. Sure, some boards appoint based on business acumen or expertise in fields relevant to the business, but that isn't always what the board needs. Looking to land a lucrative contract with the military? Hire a retired general with deep contacts and long relationships with the decision makers! Or better yet, a former member of Congress who sat on the appropriations committee for military contracts. They're not there to make decisions; they're there to provide access. It's ugly but that's how the system works. Influence peddling has existed for as long as groups of humans have existed. No silly quota law is going to change that.
Should be placed due to qualifications, not gender.
Yes but this does not create the desired "Harrison Bergeron" outcome we're told must be the ideal, where everyone is completely equal despite everyone being completely different. Therefore laws must be made to force logic aside and embrace such cognitive dissonance.
What is wrong with all male boards? And why do the people pushing for this law seem to think correlation is causation, and forcing women in will result in better leadership?
Because inventing a "war on women" and then appointing yourself as their politically-convenient protector is all the rage these days. This is not a new story. Invent a crisis then present yourself as the savior. Excoriate anyone who challenges the logic of your action as "part of the problem" in order to marginalize them. The dumb masses fall into line, practically chanting "four legs good, two legs bad" (Animal Farm reference for the literary challenged). The motion passes with a majority -- perhaps even unanimously -- because no politician would risk being cast as "against women" despite the total lack of logic in the bill.
forcing companies to take on women in such roles will reduce such sexism over time to the point where affirmative action isn't needed anymore.
A noble goal in theory but in practice this never happens. Once enshrined, such race/gender/whatever quotas become permanent fixtures, as no politician has the courage to suggest they be removed. The cries of "they want a return to sexism/bigotry/whatever" would be so deafening they'd be drummed out of office before the ink was dry on the proposal. This is why such laws should never be implemented in the first place.
For that matter, how do you think this "diversity quota" appointee to the board will be viewed by pre-existing board members? The idealists (that's being charitable) who came up with this idea don't bother to consider the psychological effects on the "diversity quota" board member either. Can you imagine a more demeaning setup than to know you only got the position because a law required someone without a penis to sit in a chair?
I'm sure they're merely holding it wrong. Please consult the manual and hold it only with the specified fingers in the specified manner with the specified pressure in the specified orientation. It's not a design flaw; the design is perfect just like everything that comes out of Apple. Your body is flawed and must adapt to service our engineering.
Your post is so incoherent and full of ad hominem attacks I'm not even going to attempt a rebuttal. In fact, there's no substance in your post that can be addressed since it's nothing but a childish tantrum.
What university do you have your damn doctoral position at? I'd like to let them know they have someone on staff that's unable to form a coherent argument and must resort to personal attacks to camouflage their lack of intelligence. You might just get a promotion out of it!
Your only options to prevent injury and death is reducing energy or increasing time. Cars are intentionally designed to fall apart in order to increase time during a collision.
None of this is up for debate and I agree entirely. However that's not was was being debated. The point in question was saying the weight -- or in more proper terms, mass -- of a vehicle wasn't the important thing and safety was. I'm saying that beyond a certain point the two cannot be considered separately. This is why cars are made out of steel, aluminum, high-strength plastics, and even carbon fiber instead of papier-mâché and styrofoam.
The internal combustion engine has made leaps and bounds towards efficiency in the last few decades but we've reached a point of diminishing returns. The low hanging fruit has been picked and further increases can only come from more exotic materials and engine complexity, both of which come along with very high costs. The next step was reducing overall vehicle mass. Again, all the low-hanging fruit has been taken to the point where manufacturers are celebrating cutting ounces (or grams) instead of pounds (or kilos). Further weight reductions require exotic materials like carbon fiber which are exorbitantly expensive and impractical for mass-market vehicles the average consumer can afford. Thus higher MPG requirements for manufacturers can only be met by one thing: removing larger vehicles from their lineup. In essence, these regulations are attempting to ban, through regulatory fiat, customer choice.
Seriously, the best you can do is ignore facts while shouting facts?
This can't be true because government didn't require it. I mean, it's almost like the free market organically created a product to satisfy a demand, and we all know that's impossible without government mandating, regulating, or banning something.
For those who can't figure it out, the above is sarcasm.
That's not what's happening here. What's happening is someone trying to pin something on Obama because Obama. And I can tell they're racist because their misspelling of his name in that particular way functions as a dog whistle.
Obviously your inerrant ability to spot racist "dog whistles" must be respected because reasons. You know all and see all and are fully qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner of labeling people you know next to nothing about...other than you don't like what they're saying.
Seriously, the best you can do is ignore facts while shouting facts?
And yet you are utterly unable to produce anything to contradict the facts put forth.
Here's a question I'd love you to answer: name me anything about this rollback that prevents any manufacturer anywhere from exceeding them?
You can't, because it doesn't. If there's market demand for smaller, more fuel-efficient econoboxes then manufacturers will make them in droves to satisfy that demand. What you don't like is there is no such demand. You don't like that people are making choices of their own free economic will that conflict with what you think they should choose. And rather than allowing people to choose, you want them forced to choose the way you want them to choose, which isn't choice at all. It's compulsion by government force. You're obviously not aware that giving the government the power to regulate your right to make free, nonviolent choices is a bad thing, probably because you've never studied the history of what happens when you give government more and more power over your daily life. I'll give you the TL;DR version: it doesn't end well and your cherished utopia where everyone makes choices you want them to make can't exist.
It is the responsibility of the state to reduce that asymmetry and improve welfare by taxing the contrary impulses and if necessary outright criminalizing them.
North Korea called. They want to know how you managed to copy and promote their government rulebook without the consent of Dear Leader. Report to a gulag immediately for punishment and re-education.
California had its own emissions standards before Obama. That may come as a shock to racists looking for a way to pin all America's problems on him.
Yes, because people aren't allowed to have differing policy opinions anymore. If you don't like something Obama did you're RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!
Seriously, is this the best you can do in a debate? Namecalling? No need to be correct or have facts on your side or anything like that. Just call your opponent a racist and you automatically win, right?
Now now...don't argue with him. He's got a damn doctoral position at university and therefore none of your facts and truths matter. His damn doctoral position at university grants him carte blanche to ignore reality and argue fantasy. Because he has a damn doctoral position at university! You'll be condescended to and you'll like it dammit because he has a damn doctoral position at university and don't you forget it buster!
The arrogance of academia never ceases to amaze me.
And beyond a certain point, the strength of the vehicle -- or lack thereof -- does compromise safety. You can only make a steel or aluminum chassis so light before further reductions compromise its ability to protect occupants in a crash. Of course there's always carbon fiber but that would make the average car cost several hundred thousand dollars even with economies of scale.
That you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of physics speaks volumes on your understanding of the issue the OP brought up.
First day of my first vacation this year was 800 miles. Yeah, people drive farther than 1 tank of gas.
How DARE you! Don't you know you're supposed to constrain all your activities to within the range of the typical electric vehicle? Or build time into your travel schedule for hours of recharging along the way? You must want puppies to die, don't you! Puppies and baby seals! You monster!
Slashdot Mirror
Extraordinary claims just require evidence, that is all. Reproducible, confirmed scientific evidence is all that is required.
I think I get what you're trying to say but you treat "evidence" as an absolute. While that is sometimes -- perhaps even often -- possible, there have been more than a few cases where extraordinary claims were made and the evidence was inconclusive. Not debunked, not confirmed, but inconclusive or otherwise not grandiose enough to fully justify the initial claims. What hat do you sort that result into?
The evidence should scale to the claim.
"Gender doesn't matter! Everyone is exactly the same as everyone else!"
Yet we're constantly having "I'm a woman therefore my accomplishments are special!"
If gender doesn't matter, why is it constantly thrown in our faces?
Trump has proven you can have any mix of abhorrent moral values and still become President by spending enough money and spewing enough lies.
And this is unlike Bill Clinton...how, exactly? Yet I seem to recall the same senators rushing to his defense and not believing the credible accusations of rape and sexual harassment from his accusers. And, unlike BK, Clinton paid a settlement to avoid going to court over the accusations and was disbarred.
The hypocrisy on display here would be staggering if it wasn't so expected.
You don't fix sexism with sexism just like you don't fix racism with racism.
How dare you bring logic into this emotional, knee-jerk argument! Don't you know that's sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/arachnophobic/whateverphobic??? You must be an old, rich, white guy and therefore your opinion is automatically invalid!
What's amazing to me is that California figured out 20 years ago that affirmative action didn't work and outlawed it.
And yet, even "outlawed", it is still openly practiced in every nook and cranny it can be wormed into.
The argument will be that the Constitution was written by a bunch of rich, old, white men and is therefore inapplicable to this situation. But how quaint that you think the people who are behind this law -- both the politicians and their constituents -- give a damn about the Constitutionality of any of their actions.
My state really is run by a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots.
If only this were true. It's actually run by a bunch of very politically-astute people who are experts at manipulating the dumb masses with spectacles like this. The fools who continually vote them into office are oblivious to the cognitive dissonance being heaped upon them. They'll continue to be oblivious right up to the point where the whole system collapses, at which time they'll cry "how did this happen?"
There is no political or social fix for coddled stupidity.
These types of laws have the opposite effect. Women on these boards will be seen as only having the position because the laws demand it, so they won't be taken seriously. This is a blow to female advancement, not an improvement.
You assume the point of the law is to advance female interests. It is not. It is a law designed to score political points. Create a conflict where none exists, then appoint yourself as the savior of the imaginarily-oppressed! The dumb masses fall all over themselves declaring their support for you. Anyone pointing out the illogic of your argument is instantly marginalizes as "part of the problem" and unworthy of being listened to regardless of their reasoning. It's Liberal Politics 101.
I think you should definitely try to get this in front of a judge.
Then you obviously haven't thought this through as it conflicts with your basic ideology. Such a case would be a lose-lose for liberals no matter how it turned out. The courts decide you cannot arbitrarily self-identify as a given gender? BOOM! There goes your argument that gender is fluid and nothing more than a social construct. The courts decide you can arbitrarily declare yourself a given gender? BOOM! There goes your feminist-equality-for-boards argument.
I for one would buy tickets to witness the legal implosion of this kind of cognitive dissonance.
Half of the country voted for Trump: maybe half of CA boards should be conservatives?
Because diversity only matters when considering unchangeable traits you were born with and can't change. However, things like thoughts and speech must be rigidly controlled by the diversity police. You can be as diverse as you like so long as you think exactly like everyone else. No cognitive dissension is allowed. That might lead to ideas and ideas contrary to the orthodoxy must be quashed.
For tech companies that should scare the hell out of anyone since what graduates from university is not a proportional representation of the general population at all....
Then clearly a law should be passed that automatically grants university degrees to women and minorities regardless of their actual academic achievements in order to remedy this shortfall! Who cares if they can function usefully in their field? DIVERSITY MUST BE SERVED REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES!
Or at least that's what we're being told. Let me know how well the next airplane designed by a diversity engineer flies, or how well the brain surgery by the diversity neurosurgeon goes, or how well the IT security is on systems implemented by the diversity security engineer. It's all fine and dandy to whine and froth about diversity because the fools who are doing the whining and frothing are insulated from the consequences. They magically find the best and brightest without consulting the diversity goddess and are invulnerable to criticism because hey, they champion diversity for everyone else.
On one side, we have those who believe that the "best" candidate should always get the job. They don't really know what "best" means, because they clearly keep hiring the guy who is not the "best", but he's a great guy from a great family from the best schools, so there.
Given that many boards populate with members based upon their influence -- be it political, economic, or social -- the metrics like "great family" and "best schools" do, in fact, fit the requirements. Sure, some boards appoint based on business acumen or expertise in fields relevant to the business, but that isn't always what the board needs. Looking to land a lucrative contract with the military? Hire a retired general with deep contacts and long relationships with the decision makers! Or better yet, a former member of Congress who sat on the appropriations committee for military contracts. They're not there to make decisions; they're there to provide access. It's ugly but that's how the system works. Influence peddling has existed for as long as groups of humans have existed. No silly quota law is going to change that.
Should be placed due to qualifications, not gender.
Yes but this does not create the desired "Harrison Bergeron" outcome we're told must be the ideal, where everyone is completely equal despite everyone being completely different. Therefore laws must be made to force logic aside and embrace such cognitive dissonance.
What is wrong with all male boards? And why do the people pushing for this law seem to think correlation is causation, and forcing women in will result in better leadership?
Because inventing a "war on women" and then appointing yourself as their politically-convenient protector is all the rage these days. This is not a new story. Invent a crisis then present yourself as the savior. Excoriate anyone who challenges the logic of your action as "part of the problem" in order to marginalize them. The dumb masses fall into line, practically chanting "four legs good, two legs bad" (Animal Farm reference for the literary challenged). The motion passes with a majority -- perhaps even unanimously -- because no politician would risk being cast as "against women" despite the total lack of logic in the bill.
forcing companies to take on women in such roles will reduce such sexism over time to the point where affirmative action isn't needed anymore.
A noble goal in theory but in practice this never happens. Once enshrined, such race/gender/whatever quotas become permanent fixtures, as no politician has the courage to suggest they be removed. The cries of "they want a return to sexism/bigotry/whatever" would be so deafening they'd be drummed out of office before the ink was dry on the proposal. This is why such laws should never be implemented in the first place.
For that matter, how do you think this "diversity quota" appointee to the board will be viewed by pre-existing board members? The idealists (that's being charitable) who came up with this idea don't bother to consider the psychological effects on the "diversity quota" board member either. Can you imagine a more demeaning setup than to know you only got the position because a law required someone without a penis to sit in a chair?
I'm sure they're merely holding it wrong. Please consult the manual and hold it only with the specified fingers in the specified manner with the specified pressure in the specified orientation. It's not a design flaw; the design is perfect just like everything that comes out of Apple. Your body is flawed and must adapt to service our engineering.
Your post is so incoherent and full of ad hominem attacks I'm not even going to attempt a rebuttal. In fact, there's no substance in your post that can be addressed since it's nothing but a childish tantrum.
What university do you have your damn doctoral position at? I'd like to let them know they have someone on staff that's unable to form a coherent argument and must resort to personal attacks to camouflage their lack of intelligence. You might just get a promotion out of it!
Your only options to prevent injury and death is reducing energy or increasing time. Cars are intentionally designed to fall apart in order to increase time during a collision.
None of this is up for debate and I agree entirely. However that's not was was being debated. The point in question was saying the weight -- or in more proper terms, mass -- of a vehicle wasn't the important thing and safety was. I'm saying that beyond a certain point the two cannot be considered separately. This is why cars are made out of steel, aluminum, high-strength plastics, and even carbon fiber instead of papier-mâché and styrofoam.
The internal combustion engine has made leaps and bounds towards efficiency in the last few decades but we've reached a point of diminishing returns. The low hanging fruit has been picked and further increases can only come from more exotic materials and engine complexity, both of which come along with very high costs. The next step was reducing overall vehicle mass. Again, all the low-hanging fruit has been taken to the point where manufacturers are celebrating cutting ounces (or grams) instead of pounds (or kilos). Further weight reductions require exotic materials like carbon fiber which are exorbitantly expensive and impractical for mass-market vehicles the average consumer can afford. Thus higher MPG requirements for manufacturers can only be met by one thing: removing larger vehicles from their lineup. In essence, these regulations are attempting to ban, through regulatory fiat, customer choice.
Seriously, the best you can do is ignore facts while shouting facts?
This can't be true because government didn't require it. I mean, it's almost like the free market organically created a product to satisfy a demand, and we all know that's impossible without government mandating, regulating, or banning something.
For those who can't figure it out, the above is sarcasm.
That's not what's happening here. What's happening is someone trying to pin something on Obama because Obama. And I can tell they're racist because their misspelling of his name in that particular way functions as a dog whistle.
Obviously your inerrant ability to spot racist "dog whistles" must be respected because reasons. You know all and see all and are fully qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner of labeling people you know next to nothing about...other than you don't like what they're saying.
Seriously, the best you can do is ignore facts while shouting facts?
And yet you are utterly unable to produce anything to contradict the facts put forth.
Here's a question I'd love you to answer: name me anything about this rollback that prevents any manufacturer anywhere from exceeding them?
You can't, because it doesn't. If there's market demand for smaller, more fuel-efficient econoboxes then manufacturers will make them in droves to satisfy that demand. What you don't like is there is no such demand. You don't like that people are making choices of their own free economic will that conflict with what you think they should choose. And rather than allowing people to choose, you want them forced to choose the way you want them to choose, which isn't choice at all. It's compulsion by government force. You're obviously not aware that giving the government the power to regulate your right to make free, nonviolent choices is a bad thing, probably because you've never studied the history of what happens when you give government more and more power over your daily life. I'll give you the TL;DR version: it doesn't end well and your cherished utopia where everyone makes choices you want them to make can't exist.
It is the responsibility of the state to reduce that asymmetry and improve welfare by taxing the contrary impulses and if necessary outright criminalizing them.
North Korea called. They want to know how you managed to copy and promote their government rulebook without the consent of Dear Leader. Report to a gulag immediately for punishment and re-education.
California had its own emissions standards before Obama. That may come as a shock to racists looking for a way to pin all America's problems on him.
Yes, because people aren't allowed to have differing policy opinions anymore. If you don't like something Obama did you're RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!
Seriously, is this the best you can do in a debate? Namecalling? No need to be correct or have facts on your side or anything like that. Just call your opponent a racist and you automatically win, right?
Now now...don't argue with him. He's got a damn doctoral position at university and therefore none of your facts and truths matter. His damn doctoral position at university grants him carte blanche to ignore reality and argue fantasy. Because he has a damn doctoral position at university! You'll be condescended to and you'll like it dammit because he has a damn doctoral position at university and don't you forget it buster!
The arrogance of academia never ceases to amaze me.
Cars aren't about strength. They're about safety.
And beyond a certain point, the strength of the vehicle -- or lack thereof -- does compromise safety. You can only make a steel or aluminum chassis so light before further reductions compromise its ability to protect occupants in a crash. Of course there's always carbon fiber but that would make the average car cost several hundred thousand dollars even with economies of scale.
That you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of physics speaks volumes on your understanding of the issue the OP brought up.
First day of my first vacation this year was 800 miles. Yeah, people drive farther than 1 tank of gas.
How DARE you! Don't you know you're supposed to constrain all your activities to within the range of the typical electric vehicle? Or build time into your travel schedule for hours of recharging along the way? You must want puppies to die, don't you! Puppies and baby seals! You monster!