"Rape Culture" (in the 1st world) is the modern version of the ritual child abuse stories in the 1980s. With any luck, the false story about UVA in Rolling Stone will be the McMartin Preschool case of "rape culture" and the concept will lose all credibility.
The thing is, people aren't getting anywhere any faster by speeding. 5-10 minutes? More like 5-10 seconds. Everyone has to sit at the same traffic lights.
Traffic lights quantize the gains, they don't eliminate them. Floor it to make one long traffic light and you've saved 4 minutes right there.
I'm sure they'd still choose to pick the one that would generate the most money and not the best performance of time spent driving.
Of course they do. For instance, the AASHTO design speed calculations are based on a driver eye height of a modern sedan, on a car with the suspension and bias-ply tires of a 1950s sedan.
Studies have shown that on average drivers will go the safe speed (as determined by the best practices of traffic engineering) for conditions regardless of the posted limit. In that sense, looking at the average speed is a scientific determination.
Not on average. On average, most drivers will go slower than the safest speed. The safest speed is slightly above the average speed, and accident risk increases faster as you go below, not above, the safest speed.
The mere act of/fucking using/ something you purchased is at least two copies according to fairly established law, which is why you can purchase software and not have the right to use it.
You should have read the next chapter of your textbook, because while there is precedent for that, it's no longer good law in the US. Reason? 17 USC 117(a)(1)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
This only holds for software, but for music, the Diamond Rio decision holds "space shifting" as fair use. I don't know that there's law specifically on "space shifting" audiovisual works.
By 1994, the gender gap in tech was already well-established; it wouldn't become much greater until the.com crash. And it didn't start at Stanford, it was at least a national phenomenon. My second-rate east coast state school showed the same trends.
1) the core claims of Gamergate have now been shown to be overblown at best
The initial claim turned out not to be a simple quid pro quo. The person who gave the favorable mention of Depression Quest turned out to have been mentioned in the credits for the game, however. He gave a mention to a game he was involved in the development of. This is certainly less headline-grabbing than sex-for-coverage, but I don't think it's any better. Either way it's a tempest-in-a-teapot at that point... but the more people started looking, the more rot they found.
It's clear at this point that there's a group of "gaming journalists" who give favorable reviews to their friends and political allies while giving unfavorable reviews to others on the same bases. And who are contemptuous of gamers, though that's not in itself unethical.
there is no public evidence that any of the claims of harassment or threat at question were fabricated, only speculation
There's little public evidence on either side about threats and harassment. The most well-investigated threat (to Anita Sarkeesian) seems to have been from someone in Brazil who she already knew about and has been threatening her since long before GamerGate got going.
A lot of the so-called harassment is just people responding publicly to statements made publicly. That's not harassment. Dot-mentioning someone on twitter is not "harassment". Making a response video to someone else's video is not "harassment".
Do you really find it hard to believe that these death threats are genuine?
As with harassment, a lot of these so-called death threats don't even fit the form. They count things like "I hope you die" or "Go kill yourself" as death threats, when they're clearly not. Some of these death threats were actually threats and actually happened, but "someone sent me a death threat therefore my opponents are wrong and evil" still doesn't hold together.
Are you dense or do you not understand gaming isn't a zero-sum game? You can have a billion more ladies making games and that doesn't mean games like Hatred or Call of Duty are going anywhere.
No one objects to women making games. But who was it who ran a successful campaign to get GTA V pulled from Target Australia because, specifically, of misogyny?
EVERYONE outside your echo chamber ONLY sees harassment and hate coming from people using that name. The name "GamerGate" is synonymous with a hate movement.
GamerGate isn't an echo chamber. GamerGaters do in fact question each others positions and claims. And sometimes find them wanting, as in the case of a pro-GG person who claimed he was physically assaulted and forced out of the apartment he shared with his girlfriend because of his pro-GG stance.
It's not surprising GG has a bad reputation; when you fight the press you can't expect anything but bad press.
No, see, you can STOP F*#^%& USING THE NAME "GamerGate". It is poison. It kills your point. The name was coined as part of the initial hate attacks on Zoe Quinn.
Except that it wasn't coined as part of that particular bit of chan drama. It came up a month later -- coincidentally, just as the "gamers are dead" articles came out.
You don't need basic computer education early. You need basic math education early. You need people to learn the basics of arithmetic early enough that you can move on to other things later, but still before high school -- other things including Boolean logic and alternate number bases as well as algebra, geometry, trignometry, and the usual.
The point of an AP course, in particular, is to get college credit for work done earlier. What college is going to give credit for a course like this? Maybe towards some sort of "Sociology of Computing" degree?
Computer Science *already has* a massive gender divide. Taking the nerds who are making the topic hostile to women and forcing them into close proximity to the few remaining women is a recipe for a completely gender-based educational program.
If you're going to be anti-nerd, you're going to lose out on most of your best students. It's not mere accident that CS and nerds go together.
And of course as a nerd myself, if you're anti-nerd and consider nerds to be a problem, I'm against your programs; you're just another nerd-despising member of the mainstream, dressing your hatred up in progressive ideology.
I don't know, perhaps you should ask the GP poster, who posited that somehow, anybody showing enthusiasm is being "shut down by the professor" who is "cruelly rebuking them" by telling them "Let's talk about this item of common interest together after class, rather than distracting everybody in the class with topics that aren't relevant to the class."
Which actually seems like a pretty nice way of putting it, if you ask me.
Not "anybody showing enthusiasm" Specifically "guys" showing enthusiasm. Nobody but you (assuming you're the same AC) said anything about Hadoop or Erlang or any other irrelevant subject during a lecture about C; the language of the course was Python in any case.
And what the enthusiastic guys were told was "You're so passionate about the material and you're so well prepared. I'd love to continue our conversations but let's just do it one on one." This was a _stock_ answer, so obviously not a sincere invitation but rather merely a politely-phrased rebuke.
You are absolutely correct. African Americans are the ones who chose to separate from American culture. When the US Constitution was written, African Americans volunteered to be slaves and quite vociferously demanded that they were only as 2/3rds of a person.
Can always tell a knee-jerker on this issue, because they've heard of the 3/5ths compromise but they don't know which side was which. Bonus points for getting the number wrong though.
But people who follow your line of reasoning will be almost entirely those who would have acted that way anyway.
Game theorists?
If one group is going to define things as "us vs. them" and make the categories immutable, members of the other group have to play along or be at a disadvantage.
Do I unreasonably stereotype you? Then perhaps you should consider whether you do that same thing to others.
Hmm... let me consider that...... considered. No, you're just an ass.
It seems to me that if we are truly one nation of Americans, we as a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure that nobody gets left behind.
Does not follow. There's always going to be winners and losers, even if there are no racial, ethnic, or gender schisms dividing them.
If we are one nation, then the onus is upon every one of us to do all we can to help undermine the barriers that keep a group of Americans, simply through accident of birth, from achieving social parity.
Unfortunately there's a prisoners dilemma here. If one subgroup chooses not to identify with the nation but only with themselves against another subgroup, they gain an advantage. The other subgroup can neutralize this disadvantage only by reacting in kind.
So, given that white men (or more specifically cis-white-hetero-males, though for the purposes of CS Asian males are included as well) are the target of various "social justice" initiatives, and in fact are now suffering for it (note the gender disparity in college admissions), it makes sense for white men to NOT be concerned with boosting the groups who have labeled them the enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, God's an atheist too, from his own perspective.
Anyway, I'm fine if the Catholics want to shiver in the dark. Cheaper energy for me.
"Rape Culture" (in the 1st world) is the modern version of the ritual child abuse stories in the 1980s. With any luck, the false story about UVA in Rolling Stone will be the McMartin Preschool case of "rape culture" and the concept will lose all credibility.
Dog in the manger. Can't protect you, can punish you for doing anything to protect yourself.
Traffic lights quantize the gains, they don't eliminate them. Floor it to make one long traffic light and you've saved 4 minutes right there.
Of course they do. For instance, the AASHTO design speed calculations are based on a driver eye height of a modern sedan, on a car with the suspension and bias-ply tires of a 1950s sedan.
Not on average. On average, most drivers will go slower than the safest speed. The safest speed is slightly above the average speed, and accident risk increases faster as you go below, not above, the safest speed.
Snowden: Faced the full power of the United States government.
Sarkeesian: Faced the sort of people who send anonymous threats over the Internet.
One of these personal risks is greater than the other.
...and for once again demonstrating that just because something sounds like tinfoil-hattery doesn't mean it isn't true.
As for Sarkeesian, I say we arrange for a debate between her and Theo de Raadt.
If you can follow the money there's probably a Pulitzer in it for you. Or more likely some sort of accident.
You should have read the next chapter of your textbook, because while there is precedent for that, it's no longer good law in the US. Reason? 17 USC 117(a)(1)
This only holds for software, but for music, the Diamond Rio decision holds "space shifting" as fair use. I don't know that there's law specifically on "space shifting" audiovisual works.
Don't redact their name. Name and shame. Then don't deal with them any more.
Or "DDoS" caused by everyone trying to get their new Christmas toys on line at the same time, and Sony damage control claiming an attack?
By 1994, the gender gap in tech was already well-established; it wouldn't become much greater until the .com crash. And it didn't start at Stanford, it was at least a national phenomenon. My second-rate east coast state school showed the same trends.
The initial claim turned out not to be a simple quid pro quo. The person who gave the favorable mention of Depression Quest turned out to have been mentioned in the credits for the game, however. He gave a mention to a game he was involved in the development of. This is certainly less headline-grabbing than sex-for-coverage, but I don't think it's any better. Either way it's a tempest-in-a-teapot at that point... but the more people started looking, the more rot they found.
It's clear at this point that there's a group of "gaming journalists" who give favorable reviews to their friends and political allies while giving unfavorable reviews to others on the same bases. And who are contemptuous of gamers, though that's not in itself unethical.
There's little public evidence on either side about threats and harassment. The most well-investigated threat (to Anita Sarkeesian) seems to have been from someone in Brazil who she already knew about and has been threatening her since long before GamerGate got going.
A lot of the so-called harassment is just people responding publicly to statements made publicly. That's not harassment. Dot-mentioning someone on twitter is not "harassment". Making a response video to someone else's video is not "harassment".
As with harassment, a lot of these so-called death threats don't even fit the form. They count things like "I hope you die" or "Go kill yourself" as death threats, when they're clearly not. Some of these death threats were actually threats and actually happened, but "someone sent me a death threat therefore my opponents are wrong and evil" still doesn't hold together.
No one objects to women making games. But who was it who ran a successful campaign to get GTA V pulled from Target Australia because, specifically, of misogyny?
GamerGate isn't an echo chamber. GamerGaters do in fact question each others positions and claims. And sometimes find them wanting, as in the case of a pro-GG person who claimed he was physically assaulted and forced out of the apartment he shared with his girlfriend because of his pro-GG stance.
It's not surprising GG has a bad reputation; when you fight the press you can't expect anything but bad press.
Except that it wasn't coined as part of that particular bit of chan drama. It came up a month later -- coincidentally, just as the "gamers are dead" articles came out.
You don't need basic computer education early. You need basic math education early. You need people to learn the basics of arithmetic early enough that you can move on to other things later, but still before high school -- other things including Boolean logic and alternate number bases as well as algebra, geometry, trignometry, and the usual.
The point of an AP course, in particular, is to get college credit for work done earlier. What college is going to give credit for a course like this? Maybe towards some sort of "Sociology of Computing" degree?
Did they perhaps have OTHER illegal evidence that they couldn't bring to a judge to get a warrant, like a tip from the NSA perhaps?
If you're going to be anti-nerd, you're going to lose out on most of your best students. It's not mere accident that CS and nerds go together.
And of course as a nerd myself, if you're anti-nerd and consider nerds to be a problem, I'm against your programs; you're just another nerd-despising member of the mainstream, dressing your hatred up in progressive ideology.
Not "anybody showing enthusiasm" Specifically "guys" showing enthusiasm. Nobody but you (assuming you're the same AC) said anything about Hadoop or Erlang or any other irrelevant subject during a lecture about C; the language of the course was Python in any case.
And what the enthusiastic guys were told was "You're so passionate about the material and you're so well prepared. I'd love to continue our conversations but let's just do it one on one." This was a _stock_ answer, so obviously not a sincere invitation but rather merely a politely-phrased rebuke.
Can always tell a knee-jerker on this issue, because they've heard of the 3/5ths compromise but they don't know which side was which. Bonus points for getting the number wrong though.
Game theorists?
If one group is going to define things as "us vs. them" and make the categories immutable, members of the other group have to play along or be at a disadvantage.
Hmm... let me consider that...... considered. No, you're just an ass.
"Apache" isn't originally the name of a tribe either.
Does not follow. There's always going to be winners and losers, even if there are no racial, ethnic, or gender schisms dividing them.
Unfortunately there's a prisoners dilemma here. If one subgroup chooses not to identify with the nation but only with themselves against another subgroup, they gain an advantage. The other subgroup can neutralize this disadvantage only by reacting in kind.
So, given that white men (or more specifically cis-white-hetero-males, though for the purposes of CS Asian males are included as well) are the target of various "social justice" initiatives, and in fact are now suffering for it (note the gender disparity in college admissions), it makes sense for white men to NOT be concerned with boosting the groups who have labeled them the enemy.