No seriously, as someone with no stake and barely any opinion on the matter, the only thing I've ever really heard about it has been from here on Slashdot and always to the tune of "H1B bad". When has Slashdot ever said "H1B good"?
As gender is just social category (not to be confused with sex, the biological category) there is no difference between gender and "desired gender" outside of insignificant matters of social (dis)recognition. It's like if there were a room where only "nerds" are allowed; being a nerd or not is purely something you decide about yourself, and telling someone who identifies themselves as one that they're "really not" is descriptively meaningless because there is no "really" at stake; it's purely an insult.
Correlation != causation. Lets think this through. If a fully qualified black woman who is a perfect match for a given job will get paid 75% of a while male why the hell aren't all businesses hiring black woman and telling white men to pound sand?
If underskilled people get paid less than well-qualified people, why aren't all business hiring exclusively underskilled people and telling well-qualified people to pound sand?
Answer: because the cause of them being paid less and the cause of them not being hired more is the same -- they are less desired. For good reason in the case of skill, but not in the case of race or sex.
I hate to reply to you, but you've got point 5 completely backwards. Transgender people want the right to use the same bathrooms everyone else of their gender uses. Their own bathrooms is completely the opposite of what they want.
You seem to be mixing personal and household incomes here. The median personal income is closer to $25k. The median household income is around twice that, in the $50k-ish range, because the median household has about two-ish people. So your median income figure must be household income, or else it's off by an order of magnitude. But your college graduate income figure has to be personal income, because households don't go to college, individuals do.
Either that or you meant mean personal income, not median? Which is also around twice the median personal income, near the median household income, because the distribution curve is so top-heavy that the mean is around the 75th percentile.
That's exactly what makes it bigger news. Like I said, "man bites dog". Rating dog-bites-man stories as low significance qua news doesn't mean you don't care about people getting bitten by dogs, but it's a widely known phenomenon that dogs sometimes bite people and we have processes in place to handle it when it happens. (A systemic failure of those processes, which it seems is your analogous concern, could be newsworthy, but not every single dog bite). It's a problem sure, but it's a routine problem that doesn't make for interesting news. When a man bites a dog (or analogously, when someone who's supposed to be enforcing the law egregiously violates it), that's weird and thus newsworthy.
They're both real news (assuming they're both true), but a crime committed by a public official supposed to be entrusted with the judicious use of force is certainly a bigger news story than some random criminal did another crime. It's the "man bites dog" thing at play.
This is a thing that conspiracy theorists I've talked to never seem to get. They'll talk about, say, chemtrails, and when I don't believe it, they respond with something like "oh you don't think the government would do something like that? don't be so naive". No, the issue here is not that I trust the government (or whoever) not to be malicious. I know very well that they (government and otherwise) are malicious all the time. If it came to light that this outlandish thing you claim they're doing was actually happening, I wouldn't be like "oh no, my trust is betrayed, how could I have been so naive". It would be completely expected; yep, that sounds like the kind of thing they would do. It's just your specific claims smell like bullshit, for some combination of you seeming not to know what you're talking about on the subject matter to begin with before you add on bold claims, e.g. not knowing what an ordinary contrail is and how and why they form even before you start talking about the government adding chemicals into them, and on top of that the presence of tropes and memes prevalent in other known-bullshit claims.
It's not whether or not I wouldn't put it past $whoever to do $whatever, it's that the $whatever in question sounds like bad old sci-fi as relayed through a game of telephone composed of people who flunked high school science class. Tell me a fantastic conspiracy story with the verisimilitude of good hard science fiction written by real scientists (of both the natural and social varieties) and then maybe I might buy it. Even then, though, not just on your word, or the word of some blog post / podcast / disreputable website / middle-of-the-night radio talk show.
Because by saying that you of course suggest the other side of the coin, being that conservatism in the US has shifted towards ignorance, populism and a science-denying base of people with simple solutions to complex problems.
Reminds me of a similar flaw I've loved to point out in some so-called feminist claims that putting emphasis on things like "logic" or "justice" is emphasizing the masculine over the feminine: "really? do you realize you are thereby claiming that logic/justice/etc are unfeminine; that women are illogical/unjust/etc? and you call yourself a feminist?"
Nice catch that conservatives are basically doing the same thing with their attacks on intellectualism: unwittingly claiming willful ignorance as a trait of their side in contrast.
"Your brain tells you 'Hey, I got this from three different sources,'" Starbird says. "But you don't realize it all traces back to the same place
I had none less than a philosophy professor once (philosophy of religion, natch) try to argue that multiple non-independent attestations to a claim do in fact add up to more reason to believe the claim than fewer (equally non-independent) claims do.
Say for instance there are two eye-witnesses to an event, one of whom is immensely social, and the other of whom is a shut-in who only knows a few other shut-ins like himself. In time, all of the many friends of friends of friends of friends of the more-social eye-witness are repeating his account of the event, while only a handful of people will recount the less-social eye-witness's version of events. You, coming into the scene, thus have many attestations to one claim, but all deriving from the same original source; and a few attestations to a counter-claim, likewise deriving from a single source. The logic here is obvious: you really have only two competing versions of events each with a single attestation and different numbers of what are effectively echoes of each based on nothing more than the metaphorical volume with which they were asserted.
The matter at hand in that class was reason (or lack thereof) to believe religious claims, with the professor claiming that the widespread popular attestation of a religion does actually give (still quite weak but) greater epistemic justification to that religion than to a less-popular one. But that's unsound reasoning there and equally unsound here, and if even a philosophy professor can't get basic epistemology like this straight I've no hope for the rest of mankind.
I always thought that way until I realized that for the new majority of people on the internet today, the net is a tool for communicating mostly with people they know in person. So, to use old tech to give a loose analogy, online bullying is more like a real life bully who has put attack ads against you in all the commercial breaks on every channel of your TV. Even if you just want to disengage from the real world and distract yourself with electronic media, the real world jackasses can follow you there now too.
The word originated as a term for burnt offerings to God in Jewish religious ceremonies, so yeah they kinda do.
The generic word you're looking for, for a killing off of an entire people, is "genocide". The Holocaust is a specific genocide the way Los Angeles is a specific city; you wouldn't say something like "the Massachuetts los angeles" when what you mean is Boston, even though Boston is the same kind of thing as Los Angeles, a city. Because it's not that specific city by that name.
There is no such thing as "a holocaust" any more than there's such a thing as "a los angeles". There's just The Holocaust, which is one specific genocide, like there's just Los Angeles, which is one specific city. It's not a generic noun, it's a proper noun.
Commenter grammar is one thing, editor grammar is another -- and quotes from the article grammar is something else entirely! The latter two categories profess to be increasingly professional writers. Writing is their job. So yeah, when they do it badly, that's shit.
But when ordinary people who aren't professing to be producing writing as a product for money make casual mistakes, who cares, yeah.
something that laptop, tablet, and smartphone owners can all relate.
Unless you mean that those people will all testify to the aforementioned something, you're missing either a "to" or a "to which" depending on how pedantic you want to be. Those people don't relate it; they relate to it. It is something they can relate to, or if you want to be fancy, it is something to which they can relate.
If a super hard password that has to be written down to be remembered is basically a "what you have", then require one of those and also another much easier-to-remember password that users will actually be able to remember. Now you have two-factor authorization.
This is not so different from the card-and-PIN situation used for ATMs. The card is basically just storing a long password for you that you don't have to bother memorizing, the the PIN is an easy-to-remember password that you don't need to write down. The only difference here is that you can write down the hard-to-memorize part of it however you want, and you have to manually type it in.
That makes me think of another good reason to do this: since light users won't make much of a dent in available bandwidth, prioritizing them ensures that the largest number of users get full speed for all their usage. Like how if you have many things to do, you can get more of them done sooner by doing the quick ones first.
Slashdot Mirror
No seriously, as someone with no stake and barely any opinion on the matter, the only thing I've ever really heard about it has been from here on Slashdot and always to the tune of "H1B bad". When has Slashdot ever said "H1B good"?
As gender is just social category (not to be confused with sex, the biological category) there is no difference between gender and "desired gender" outside of insignificant matters of social (dis)recognition. It's like if there were a room where only "nerds" are allowed; being a nerd or not is purely something you decide about yourself, and telling someone who identifies themselves as one that they're "really not" is descriptively meaningless because there is no "really" at stake; it's purely an insult.
The white men are expensive because corporations prefer to hire them. Demand drives cost up.
Correlation != causation. Lets think this through. If a fully qualified black woman who is a perfect match for a given job will get paid 75% of a while male why the hell aren't all businesses hiring black woman and telling white men to pound sand?
If underskilled people get paid less than well-qualified people, why aren't all business hiring exclusively underskilled people and telling well-qualified people to pound sand?
Answer: because the cause of them being paid less and the cause of them not being hired more is the same -- they are less desired. For good reason in the case of skill, but not in the case of race or sex.
when has slashdot ever posted a pro-h1b story?
I hate to reply to you, but you've got point 5 completely backwards. Transgender people want the right to use the same bathrooms everyone else of their gender uses. Their own bathrooms is completely the opposite of what they want.
You seem to be mixing personal and household incomes here. The median personal income is closer to $25k. The median household income is around twice that, in the $50k-ish range, because the median household has about two-ish people. So your median income figure must be household income, or else it's off by an order of magnitude. But your college graduate income figure has to be personal income, because households don't go to college, individuals do.
Either that or you meant mean personal income, not median? Which is also around twice the median personal income, near the median household income, because the distribution curve is so top-heavy that the mean is around the 75th percentile.
Oh no, my trust is betrayed, how could I have been so naive.^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^WYep, that sounds like the kind of thing they would do.
The cop is an aberration.
That's exactly what makes it bigger news. Like I said, "man bites dog". Rating dog-bites-man stories as low significance qua news doesn't mean you don't care about people getting bitten by dogs, but it's a widely known phenomenon that dogs sometimes bite people and we have processes in place to handle it when it happens. (A systemic failure of those processes, which it seems is your analogous concern, could be newsworthy, but not every single dog bite). It's a problem sure, but it's a routine problem that doesn't make for interesting news. When a man bites a dog (or analogously, when someone who's supposed to be enforcing the law egregiously violates it), that's weird and thus newsworthy.
They're both real news (assuming they're both true), but a crime committed by a public official supposed to be entrusted with the judicious use of force is certainly a bigger news story than some random criminal did another crime. It's the "man bites dog" thing at play.
This is a thing that conspiracy theorists I've talked to never seem to get. They'll talk about, say, chemtrails, and when I don't believe it, they respond with something like "oh you don't think the government would do something like that? don't be so naive". No, the issue here is not that I trust the government (or whoever) not to be malicious. I know very well that they (government and otherwise) are malicious all the time. If it came to light that this outlandish thing you claim they're doing was actually happening, I wouldn't be like "oh no, my trust is betrayed, how could I have been so naive". It would be completely expected; yep, that sounds like the kind of thing they would do. It's just your specific claims smell like bullshit, for some combination of you seeming not to know what you're talking about on the subject matter to begin with before you add on bold claims, e.g. not knowing what an ordinary contrail is and how and why they form even before you start talking about the government adding chemicals into them, and on top of that the presence of tropes and memes prevalent in other known-bullshit claims.
It's not whether or not I wouldn't put it past $whoever to do $whatever, it's that the $whatever in question sounds like bad old sci-fi as relayed through a game of telephone composed of people who flunked high school science class. Tell me a fantastic conspiracy story with the verisimilitude of good hard science fiction written by real scientists (of both the natural and social varieties) and then maybe I might buy it. Even then, though, not just on your word, or the word of some blog post / podcast / disreputable website / middle-of-the-night radio talk show.
You besmirch a lot of very intellectual anarchists with your association of disinformation and anarchy.
Because by saying that you of course suggest the other side of the coin, being that conservatism in the US has shifted towards ignorance, populism and a science-denying base of people with simple solutions to complex problems.
Reminds me of a similar flaw I've loved to point out in some so-called feminist claims that putting emphasis on things like "logic" or "justice" is emphasizing the masculine over the feminine: "really? do you realize you are thereby claiming that logic/justice/etc are unfeminine; that women are illogical/unjust/etc? and you call yourself a feminist?"
Nice catch that conservatives are basically doing the same thing with their attacks on intellectualism: unwittingly claiming willful ignorance as a trait of their side in contrast.
"Your brain tells you 'Hey, I got this from three different sources,'" Starbird says. "But you don't realize it all traces back to the same place
I had none less than a philosophy professor once (philosophy of religion, natch) try to argue that multiple non-independent attestations to a claim do in fact add up to more reason to believe the claim than fewer (equally non-independent) claims do.
Say for instance there are two eye-witnesses to an event, one of whom is immensely social, and the other of whom is a shut-in who only knows a few other shut-ins like himself. In time, all of the many friends of friends of friends of friends of the more-social eye-witness are repeating his account of the event, while only a handful of people will recount the less-social eye-witness's version of events. You, coming into the scene, thus have many attestations to one claim, but all deriving from the same original source; and a few attestations to a counter-claim, likewise deriving from a single source. The logic here is obvious: you really have only two competing versions of events each with a single attestation and different numbers of what are effectively echoes of each based on nothing more than the metaphorical volume with which they were asserted.
The matter at hand in that class was reason (or lack thereof) to believe religious claims, with the professor claiming that the widespread popular attestation of a religion does actually give (still quite weak but) greater epistemic justification to that religion than to a less-popular one. But that's unsound reasoning there and equally unsound here, and if even a philosophy professor can't get basic epistemology like this straight I've no hope for the rest of mankind.
I always thought that way until I realized that for the new majority of people on the internet today, the net is a tool for communicating mostly with people they know in person. So, to use old tech to give a loose analogy, online bullying is more like a real life bully who has put attack ads against you in all the commercial breaks on every channel of your TV. Even if you just want to disengage from the real world and distract yourself with electronic media, the real world jackasses can follow you there now too.
Nice pun, whether you meant it or not.
The word originated as a term for burnt offerings to God in Jewish religious ceremonies, so yeah they kinda do.
The generic word you're looking for, for a killing off of an entire people, is "genocide". The Holocaust is a specific genocide the way Los Angeles is a specific city; you wouldn't say something like "the Massachuetts los angeles" when what you mean is Boston, even though Boston is the same kind of thing as Los Angeles, a city. Because it's not that specific city by that name.
There is no such thing as "a holocaust" any more than there's such a thing as "a los angeles". There's just The Holocaust, which is one specific genocide, like there's just Los Angeles, which is one specific city. It's not a generic noun, it's a proper noun.
"Holocaust" and "genocide" are not synonyms. The Holocaust is a specific attempted genocide, namely that against the Jews by the Germans.
Thanks!
A while back I wrote a brief synopsis of how I thought the Matrix trilogy should have gone that was kinda similar to your idea except for the ending.
Commenter grammar is one thing, editor grammar is another -- and quotes from the article grammar is something else entirely! The latter two categories profess to be increasingly professional writers. Writing is their job. So yeah, when they do it badly, that's shit.
But when ordinary people who aren't professing to be producing writing as a product for money make casual mistakes, who cares, yeah.
something that laptop, tablet, and smartphone owners can all relate.
Unless you mean that those people will all testify to the aforementioned something, you're missing either a "to" or a "to which" depending on how pedantic you want to be. Those people don't relate it; they relate to it. It is something they can relate to, or if you want to be fancy, it is something to which they can relate.
You know, this gives me an interesting idea.
If a super hard password that has to be written down to be remembered is basically a "what you have", then require one of those and also another much easier-to-remember password that users will actually be able to remember. Now you have two-factor authorization.
This is not so different from the card-and-PIN situation used for ATMs. The card is basically just storing a long password for you that you don't have to bother memorizing, the the PIN is an easy-to-remember password that you don't need to write down. The only difference here is that you can write down the hard-to-memorize part of it however you want, and you have to manually type it in.
That makes me think of another good reason to do this: since light users won't make much of a dent in available bandwidth, prioritizing them ensures that the largest number of users get full speed for all their usage. Like how if you have many things to do, you can get more of them done sooner by doing the quick ones first.