The American Medical Association? I should think not. If you did that, each drone would cost something north of 5 figures and could only be used by someone who went through a decades long training program while channeling hallucinations from some old dead Greek guy.
Unfortunately, while it's the Academy of Model Aeronautics rather than the American Medical Association, this isn't far from the truth. The AMA isn't fond of FPV in the first place, it's just that they want to be the model aircraft police rather than the FAA, and the want to make it so model aircraft flying consists mostly of old retired guys (who went through a long training program, though without the dead Greek guy) flying planes in circles in AMA-approved locations.
I consider the term "social justice warrior" perjorative.
Take it any way you want it; if it's pejorative, you've earned more than a few pejoratives thrown your way.
Shouldn't we all be striving for social justice that betters us all?
Ah, but you're not; you're striving for social justice that puts the heterosexual white man down. I'm aware you think that's because we have unearned advantage that you'd like to take away, but even if that's so, it's still not bettering us all.
The overuse of that term (and others like "White knight") over the past few months of the various minorities in computing discussions on Slashdot has made me rather angry at what I perceive as the overly privileged locker room mentality here.
You know the term "white knight" comes from modern feminism, right? And it's pejorative there. It's about the only thing in these discussions nearly all parties agree on (except the white knights) -- nobody likes a white knight.
As for your anger at a perceived "locker room mentality" (which is pretty ridiculous, considering the traditional divide between geeks and jocks), getting angry at those who disagree with you might work in an environment like the workplace where you have authority to back up your anger and claims that disagreement counts as oppression; it isn't going to work here.
Normally I'm rather easy going and don't participate in the women in IT discussions in part because I find the misogyny in them disgusting....but I've had enough of what I think of as overly selfish jerks on Slashdot. It's 2014, it's time for those people to get with the program. I'm tired of being "nice".
Ah, but that's just the thing; you have neither consensus on what "the program" is nor the power to impose it on those who don't agree. You're skipping the step of demonstrating that your "program" is in fact the right thing, and getting angry when everyone won't just fall into line.
I consider the term "social justice warrior" perjorative.
Take it any way you want it; if it's pejorative, you've earned more than a few pejoratives thrown your way.
Shouldn't we all be striving for social justice that betters us all?
Ah, but you're not; you're striving for social justice that puts the heterosexual white man down. I'm aware you think that's because we have unearned advantage that you'd like to take away, but even if that's so, it's still not bettering us all.
The overuse of that term (and others like "White knight") over the past few months of the various minorities in computing discussions on Slashdot has made me rather angry at what I perceive as the overly privileged locker room mentality here.
You know the term "white knight" comes from modern feminism, right? And it's pejorative there. It's about the only thing in these discussions nearly all parties agree on (except the white knights) -- nobody likes a white knight.
As for your anger at a perceived "locker room mentality" (which is pretty ridiculous, considering the traditional divide between geeks and jocks), getting angry at those who disagree with you might work in an environment like the workplace where you have authority to back up your anger and claims that disagreement counts as oppression; it isn't going to work here.
Normally I'm rather easy going and don't participate in the women in IT discussions in part because I find the misogyny in them disgusting....but I've had enough of what I think of as overly selfish jerks on Slashdot. It's 2014, it's time for those people to get with the program. I'm tired of being "nice".
Ah, but that's just the thing; you have neither consensus on what "the program" is nor the power to impose it on those who don't agree. You're skipping the step of demonstrating that your "program" is in fact the right thing, and getting angry when everyone won't just fall into line.
So explain then why 30 years ago or so there are many many more women in computing, as a percentage, than there are today?
That's certainly a good question, and one I've seen no one try to answer aside from the knee-jerk orthodoxy about smelly and misogynistic nerds. Percentage of women getting a bachelors degree in computer science peaked in 1984; absolute number peaked in 1986. Up until 1984 it had been rising since 1967, after 1984 it dropped sharply then slowly leveled off. Then it dropped like a rock again in 2004.
Yes, but in the social justice hierarchy, ANY white male, even the illegitimate son of a meth-addled trailer-park whore, is privileged above ANY female or minority (except Asians don't usually count), and can therefore be discriminated against freely on the grounds that it is merely leveling the playing field.
Look, I understand how you feel, and posted similar things in the other recent discussions on this...but all you'll get is a bunch of overprivileged twats working together to flame you to oblivion and pulling out various "it isn't a problem" "It's not my problem" or "citation needed" on you.
Hey, I know this is off topic, but why is it that you social justice warriors tend to be some of the nastiest posters around? And in particular why so free with insults related to reproductive parts, such as "dick" and "twat", the sorts of things you'd find horribly offensive from the rest of us? Are you just utter hypocrites, or is there some twisted sort of point you're trying to make?
I don't even know what you're trying to say. How do you propose to fix the obvious and real problem of underrepresentation of over half of our population?
I agree that underrepresentation is real and obvious; I do not agree that it is obvious that this is a problem, and I certainly don't think it's the sort of problem which is so dire that the ends justify nearly any means.
Is it to have more classes dominated by white guy brogrammers?
Please. You know brogramming was a hoax, right? That the reason the hoax was funny is because the stereotype of geeks is so far from the stereotype of nerds that the juxtaposition is funny. There may be a few brogrammers out there in a life-imitates-art kind of way. But it isn't and never was any sort of norm.
You've never been in an office full of people who are different than you are.
That's sort of amusing, as I'm the only white American on my team right now.
I _am_ a white guy who had a very large amount of privilege globally-speaking, but through various life experiences I have developed the ability to recognize that. You should, too.
I'm supposed to believe that I had and continue to have it easy because I'm a white man, and that this justifies any amount of discrimination against me? That any (e.g.) white woman has had it infinitely more difficult than me? No, I do not subscribe to your philosophy.
There's places which hire H-1B workers the way you say. But there's also places that hire H-1B workers by the planeload at cut-rate wages; it is easy enough to play games with job titles to make it look legal.
From the text: "And those premature deaths cost the United States $224 billion a year, the report found, or $1.90 a drink."
That's a lie, as it turns out. The study they reference finds a $1.90/drink figure for all effects attributed to excessive drinking, not premature deaths. The lion's share of the cost was "lost productivity", to which I reply "It was mine to lose, I'm not your slave. Bartender, another drink."
The problem with saving those 100,000 lives is they won't be in the healthy productive years.
Oh, it's worse than that. You can do all sorts of preventative (but generally unpleasant) things during those healthy productive years which (statistically) add years to your life at the end. But then what have you really done? You've traded pleasure during the years when you can enjoy it for an extra few years of misery.
But the cop will straight-up murder you for that... so it might be best to let the lawyer fight that one for you.
Unfortunately, once you're in court without a recording of the incident, you've already lost; the cop will invent whatever narrative is necessary for a conviction, and the court will believe him over you even if there's circumstantial evidence otherwise. So depending on how much time you think spending in prison is equivalent to death, you might choose to take the quick death over the slow one.
If you're going to bother at all, don't just quote the penalty, quote the whole statute. It clearly states that intent to use the tools for a criminal purpose is required for prosecution.
Ha. They get around that by inferring bad intent from your possession.
Nope. Good ideas die that way; bad ones keep getting pushed until they pass. Today it's shot down. Tomorrow it fails narrowly in the legislature. The day after that it passes, and a day after that everyone takes it as a given and doesn't understand how they ever lived without it.
Exactly. He doesn't need to do squat. He's implicitly selling the idea that he will be using all those secrets to help out his clients, but it's a flim-flam; he doesn't actually have to do it. And he was the head of the NSA, an administrator...what's the chance he knows much in the way of recent technical details anyway?
I don't know if the above poster was sincere or sarcastic, but this does illustrate a slippery slope. Nobody would care about bad eating habits, if they had decided, for example, to let everyone fend for themselves.
Those of us opposed to government-provided health care have been pointing this out for decades; that once you have the government providing health care, that can be used as an excuse to control everything and anything which could affect anyone's health. Of course proponents poo-poohed that and said we were paranoid and yelled "slippery slope fallacy".
I didn't say economic factors didn't matter; I said they weren't sufficient. Something like 33% of black households earn more than $50,000 per year, compared to 52% of white households. For $75,000 and up, it's 18% compared to 32%. For $100,000 and up, it's 9.3% compared to 20.1%.
So perhaps by economic factors alone you'd expect black tech workers to be under-represented by 50% compared to white people. Non-Hispanic black people make up 12% of the population, non-Hispanic white 64%. Facebook has 53% white people in tech, so you'd expect maybe 6% black people...actual number 1%.
Leveling the playing field isn't disadvantaging, though I can imagine some are upset that they are being called on their unearned privilege.
Unearned privilege... that's like original sin, right? Everyone white or male has it, and it's sufficient unto itself to justify any punishment which may be dished out.
Yeah, at least until you invent baptism, I don't think I'll be subscribing to your philosophy.
So if American Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in the Software Development field compared to the overall American population, one question to ask is, is it because Blacks and Hispanics are "simply not interested" in Software Development, or is it because they generally come from less affluent backgrounds, in school districts that cannot afford to provide the same resources toward educating and encouraging students who might otherwise be interested in these fields?
I believe you'll find the difference, at least for blacks is not fully explainable by economic factors. There is a significant middle-and-upper-class black population.
The reason some people care about equal access and encouragement for STEM fields (as opposed to, say, food service) is that they pay extremely well and yet, unlike sports, these careers are attainable by nearly anyone with determination and encouragement.
No, they really aren't. Just because the difference between a person with intelligence and talent and one without in more cerebral fields isn't as obvious as the difference between a person with talent in sports and one without doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
However, getting a STEM Ph.D. closes nearly all doors except becoming a researcher or teacher in your field.
Drug companies don't hire biology and chemistry PhDs? Chemical companies don't hire chemistry PhDs? Oil companies don't hire geology PhDs? Tech companies don't hire Computer Science PhDs (there sure seem to be a lot of them around my office if they're not working there)?
Tornados aren't like tsunamis or seismic waves. They don't start in some central location and travel great distances to smash puny human works. They typically form in thunderstorms, smash a few trailers, then dissipate. When they do damage over a wide area, it's usually because the same storm formed many tornadoes. So your pachinko array has two problems -- one, it would have to be everywhere. Two, the columns would have to be high enough to extend well into a thundercloud to disrupt funnel formation.
That, of course, pubs all of the criminals behind walls, leaving the innocent people outside. And now a slight change of topic: did you know there are so many laws that everyone is guilty of something.
Fine, put the wall around DC. We'll tell the politicians they're on the outside.
My partner just told me that I wasn't allowed to apply for a $60k/year job in a city with more opportunities, because she would need to find a new job and she refused to move and *cry* and *bully* and *threaten*.
So I didn't apply for it.
72 hours after the closing time for applications, she, her mother, and her father, all started on me to find a full time job in a town that prides itself on being 60% part-time minimum wage employment (and those employers demand more hours than they'll pay for).
So you told her parents to fuck off and filed for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, while it's the Academy of Model Aeronautics rather than the American Medical Association, this isn't far from the truth. The AMA isn't fond of FPV in the first place, it's just that they want to be the model aircraft police rather than the FAA, and the want to make it so model aircraft flying consists mostly of old retired guys (who went through a long training program, though without the dead Greek guy) flying planes in circles in AMA-approved locations.
Take it any way you want it; if it's pejorative, you've earned more than a few pejoratives thrown your way.
Ah, but you're not; you're striving for social justice that puts the heterosexual white man down. I'm aware you think that's because we have unearned advantage that you'd like to take away, but even if that's so, it's still not bettering us all.
You know the term "white knight" comes from modern feminism, right? And it's pejorative there. It's about the only thing in these discussions nearly all parties agree on (except the white knights) -- nobody likes a white knight.
As for your anger at a perceived "locker room mentality" (which is pretty ridiculous, considering the traditional divide between geeks and jocks), getting angry at those who disagree with you might work in an environment like the workplace where you have authority to back up your anger and claims that disagreement counts as oppression; it isn't going to work here.
Ah, but that's just the thing; you have neither consensus on what "the program" is nor the power to impose it on those who don't agree. You're skipping the step of demonstrating that your "program" is in fact the right thing, and getting angry when everyone won't just fall into line.
That's certainly a good question, and one I've seen no one try to answer aside from the knee-jerk orthodoxy about smelly and misogynistic nerds. Percentage of women getting a bachelors degree in computer science peaked in 1984; absolute number peaked in 1986. Up until 1984 it had been rising since 1967, after 1984 it dropped sharply then slowly leveled off. Then it dropped like a rock again in 2004.
Yes, but in the social justice hierarchy, ANY white male, even the illegitimate son of a meth-addled trailer-park whore, is privileged above ANY female or minority (except Asians don't usually count), and can therefore be discriminated against freely on the grounds that it is merely leveling the playing field.
Hey, I know this is off topic, but why is it that you social justice warriors tend to be some of the nastiest posters around? And in particular why so free with insults related to reproductive parts, such as "dick" and "twat", the sorts of things you'd find horribly offensive from the rest of us? Are you just utter hypocrites, or is there some twisted sort of point you're trying to make?
You're all wrong. You should use ed. Ed is the standard text editor.
I agree that underrepresentation is real and obvious; I do not agree that it is obvious that this is a problem, and I certainly don't think it's the sort of problem which is so dire that the ends justify nearly any means.
Please. You know brogramming was a hoax, right? That the reason the hoax was funny is because the stereotype of geeks is so far from the stereotype of nerds that the juxtaposition is funny. There may be a few brogrammers out there in a life-imitates-art kind of way. But it isn't and never was any sort of norm.
That's sort of amusing, as I'm the only white American on my team right now.
I'm supposed to believe that I had and continue to have it easy because I'm a white man, and that this justifies any amount of discrimination against me? That any (e.g.) white woman has had it infinitely more difficult than me? No, I do not subscribe to your philosophy.
There's places which hire H-1B workers the way you say. But there's also places that hire H-1B workers by the planeload at cut-rate wages; it is easy enough to play games with job titles to make it look legal.
That's a lie, as it turns out. The study they reference finds a $1.90/drink figure for all effects attributed to excessive drinking, not premature deaths. The lion's share of the cost was "lost productivity", to which I reply "It was mine to lose, I'm not your slave. Bartender, another drink."
Oh, it's worse than that. You can do all sorts of preventative (but generally unpleasant) things during those healthy productive years which (statistically) add years to your life at the end. But then what have you really done? You've traded pleasure during the years when you can enjoy it for an extra few years of misery.
But the cop will straight-up murder you for that... so it might be best to let the lawyer fight that one for you.
Unfortunately, once you're in court without a recording of the incident, you've already lost; the cop will invent whatever narrative is necessary for a conviction, and the court will believe him over you even if there's circumstantial evidence otherwise. So depending on how much time you think spending in prison is equivalent to death, you might choose to take the quick death over the slow one.
Ha. They get around that by inferring bad intent from your possession.
"Leveling the playing field" is what is being said, but "evening the score" is a better fit for what is meant.
Nope. Good ideas die that way; bad ones keep getting pushed until they pass. Today it's shot down. Tomorrow it fails narrowly in the legislature. The day after that it passes, and a day after that everyone takes it as a given and doesn't understand how they ever lived without it.
Exactly. He doesn't need to do squat. He's implicitly selling the idea that he will be using all those secrets to help out his clients, but it's a flim-flam; he doesn't actually have to do it. And he was the head of the NSA, an administrator...what's the chance he knows much in the way of recent technical details anyway?
Those of us opposed to government-provided health care have been pointing this out for decades; that once you have the government providing health care, that can be used as an excuse to control everything and anything which could affect anyone's health. Of course proponents poo-poohed that and said we were paranoid and yelled "slippery slope fallacy".
I didn't say economic factors didn't matter; I said they weren't sufficient. Something like 33% of black households earn more than $50,000 per year, compared to 52% of white households. For $75,000 and up, it's 18% compared to 32%. For $100,000 and up, it's 9.3% compared to 20.1%.
So perhaps by economic factors alone you'd expect black tech workers to be under-represented by 50% compared to white people. Non-Hispanic black people make up 12% of the population, non-Hispanic white 64%. Facebook has 53% white people in tech, so you'd expect maybe 6% black people...actual number 1%.
Unearned privilege... that's like original sin, right? Everyone white or male has it, and it's sufficient unto itself to justify any punishment which may be dished out.
Yeah, at least until you invent baptism, I don't think I'll be subscribing to your philosophy.
I believe you'll find the difference, at least for blacks is not fully explainable by economic factors. There is a significant middle-and-upper-class black population.
No, they really aren't. Just because the difference between a person with intelligence and talent and one without in more cerebral fields isn't as obvious as the difference between a person with talent in sports and one without doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
Non-hispanic whites are 64% of the US population, but only 57% of Facebook's employee base. White people are under-represented.
Drug companies don't hire biology and chemistry PhDs? Chemical companies don't hire chemistry PhDs? Oil companies don't hire geology PhDs? Tech companies don't hire Computer Science PhDs (there sure seem to be a lot of them around my office if they're not working there)?
Tornados aren't like tsunamis or seismic waves. They don't start in some central location and travel great distances to smash puny human works. They typically form in thunderstorms, smash a few trailers, then dissipate. When they do damage over a wide area, it's usually because the same storm formed many tornadoes. So your pachinko array has two problems -- one, it would have to be everywhere. Two, the columns would have to be high enough to extend well into a thundercloud to disrupt funnel formation.
Fine, put the wall around DC. We'll tell the politicians they're on the outside.
So you told her parents to fuck off and filed for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, right?