The AC already answered you. You can't just pick the Affirmative Action part and say, "Yeah, I'll take that." You get the whole enchilada. You get to grow up going to relatively poor schools, you get to have your resume ignored because your name sounds black, you get to wonder if that loan rejection was because of your skin, you get to be followed around by security in nice stores, you get to live with the fact that many people attribute your successes to lower standards (e.g., what you just did to that black pilot).
I'm just scratching the surface. I'm white, so I can't imagine the the extent of the hardships that are imposed on minorities in this country. But I'm honest enough to recognize that being born white is a big head-start.
I think that on the whole, if you were to take a sampling across the political spectrum and ask whether people should be treated the same regardless of their race or color, you would get a lot more "yes" replies from Republicans.
Of course. Conservatives want to believe that the racism problem has been solved (except for a few holdovers, who can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis).
Democrats, on the other hand, would reject this philosophy in favor of an affirmative-action approach, swinging the pendulum of discrimination the other way instead of putting it behind us once and for all.
The purpose of affirmative action is to counter-act the existing institutional biases that favor whites in this country. Nobody advocates that the pendulum needs to swing the other way. If you believe that affirmative action swings the pendulum too far, then you must think that an objective white person would be happy to trade places with any protected racial minority. If you can find a single white person who believes that, then I'll believe you.
Unfortunately for them, I think the former position has broader (though perhaps less vocal) support among mainstream voters.
"I have not seen anything like it in my entire career as a solar physicist. The probability of this happening is so low that it is a statistical anomaly."
Would he say that the probability is astronomically low?
Even lasers in the visible light spectrum are generally invisible. There has to be significant amounts of dust or particulates in the air before the beam is visible.
Haven't you ever been in a movie theater while some fool is playing with a laser pointer? Not too many of those dorks ever get caught.
The market will be open only to qualified and vetted analysts. Members of some terrorist's family will not be involved, and no terrorists or insider traders will be making money.
Also, the futures available for speculation will be limited to items the Pentagon is interested in. For example, in February, they'll add a 'commodity' regarding the possibility of an attack on US soil on the anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. There will not be items like 'four guys hijack an oil tanker and plow into the NY Port Authority.' So the terrorists will not be using this mechanism to measure the probability of success for specific attacks.
But I do think it's funny that everyone complaining about this idea is participating in a very similar process here on/. We're just gambling with karma points instead of dollars, and the issue currently being traded is this: is this futures market a workable idea?
Let's see - 4 days is 5760 minutes. Therefore, 606 takes would equate to about 9.5 minutes/take.
Even if the majority of the takes failed early (mention was made of the twirling wiper blade contraption), I don't think 9.5 minutes is achievable, even if you were just filming a cereal box.
Slashdot Mirror
The AC already answered you. You can't just pick the Affirmative Action part and say, "Yeah, I'll take that." You get the whole enchilada. You get to grow up going to relatively poor schools, you get to have your resume ignored because your name sounds black, you get to wonder if that loan rejection was because of your skin, you get to be followed around by security in nice stores, you get to live with the fact that many people attribute your successes to lower standards (e.g., what you just did to that black pilot).
I'm just scratching the surface. I'm white, so I can't imagine the the extent of the hardships that are imposed on minorities in this country. But I'm honest enough to recognize that being born white is a big head-start.
Are you still willing to trade places?
Of course. Conservatives want to believe that the racism problem has been solved (except for a few holdovers, who can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis).
Democrats, on the other hand, would reject this philosophy in favor of an affirmative-action approach, swinging the pendulum of discrimination the other way instead of putting it behind us once and for all.
The purpose of affirmative action is to counter-act the existing institutional biases that favor whites in this country. Nobody advocates that the pendulum needs to swing the other way. If you believe that affirmative action swings the pendulum too far, then you must think that an objective white person would be happy to trade places with any protected racial minority. If you can find a single white person who believes that, then I'll believe you.
Unfortunately for them, I think the former position has broader (though perhaps less vocal) support among mainstream voters.
Less vocal? Are you watching Fox or something?
Would he say that the probability is astronomically low?
Even lasers in the visible light spectrum are generally invisible. There has to be significant amounts of dust or particulates in the air before the beam is visible.
Haven't you ever been in a movie theater while some fool is playing with a laser pointer? Not too many of those dorks ever get caught.
Thanks, Llywelyn. Finally, some common sense.
/. We're just gambling with karma points instead of dollars, and the issue currently being traded is this: is this futures market a workable idea?
The market will be open only to qualified and vetted analysts. Members of some terrorist's family will not be involved, and no terrorists or insider traders will be making money.
Also, the futures available for speculation will be limited to items the Pentagon is interested in. For example, in February, they'll add a 'commodity' regarding the possibility of an attack on US soil on the anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. There will not be items like 'four guys hijack an oil tanker and plow into the NY Port Authority.' So the terrorists will not be using this mechanism to measure the probability of success for specific attacks.
But I do think it's funny that everyone complaining about this idea is participating in a very similar process here on
Even if the majority of the takes failed early (mention was made of the twirling wiper blade contraption), I don't think 9.5 minutes is achievable, even if you were just filming a cereal box.
What gives?
Let's send Buzz Aldrin over to his house.