Women's brains are NOT "wired" differently when it comes to math and science - studies have shown that women perform at comparable levels to men when they are given the same levels of instruction. I know it's fun to have your own little boys' club, but if you grow up, you'll get over that.
Exactly. If women choose to, they can. Most choose not to, and it's not due to some conspiracy.
There are innate behavioral differences in the genders that have neurological roots.. It's obvious even in very early childhood. Any child psychologist can tell you this. It's only the cultural marxists who think everything is a 'social construct' that can and should be monkeyed with. There is a continuum where these traits overlap, so there are some men and some women who prefer traits of the opposing gender, but they are a small percentage of the population...and yes, they're welcome to pursue whatever they want.
In the same way a bible thumping baptist father cannot beat the gay out of his son, political correctness cannot beat the feminine out of women, or the masculine out of men.. Well they can to some degree, but not without serious long term consequences to society.
Uh no.. The reality is that women harass (using the ever expanding feminist definition) men, too, just about as many times except that men don't get to use the state and sympathetic media to amplify the fallout when she wont' leave him alone. We never hear about it as a result, and really, most men just don't think it's a big deal. It's time women learned the same lesson. While men are expected to deal with it, women are taught to play the victim role and use the hair-trigger laws given to them whenever and whereever they choose. The result is a feral, junior highschool-like behavior in women in 'politically protected' situations like university, employment, and nearly everything else. The result for men has been increasing avoidance of women and in anything feminists have managed to gain a dominant feminine culture. That's why fewer and fewer men are going to college, and are not doing as well in primary school as boys. The standard by which we are all judged is becoming hyper feminine, and of course, guys are coming up short. Men make shitty women. This is does not produce equal opportunity of any sort. Examples like obama's recent 'dear colleague' letter show just how twisted and biased this situation really is. The implication from that letter suggests that we are to treat her sayso as holy writ, while he's guilty until proven innocent. I see no equality in that either.
I don't think people like you understand the implications of the word equality or today's reality. I suppose you're too busy spouting feminist propaganda you were fed in highschool and university to notice the crazy contradictions passed into law and culture.
Buy dead tree until these companies realize no one wants to pay big bucks for indian-giving schemes. There've already been cases where purchases have been revoked due to publishing squabbles and other rubbish. Whether it was accidental or not, the point is, they shouldn't be able to yank anything after it's been sold.
If publishers want DRM on their products, I want the same DRM on my money.
Like him, you're also glossing over reality. In this case you misrepresent the reality of governments "created by the people" to "ensure the common good." Those phrases sound like they were read right out of a playbook. History has shown us that societies ruled by governments that prefix everything with "The People's $whatever" are anything but free.
Dissatisfied workers could theoretically create their own company that does not require them to wear the badges and go into competition with their old employers. However, the reality is that such employers often enjoy natural market dominance which prevents any real competition, and many of them use governments to manipulate the market in order to ensure that dominance. Well monied lobbyists are the bread and butter of every western government. This is why workers rights are a good thing, and when I say rights, I mean rights, not privileges. Things like 40 hour work weeks and sick leave reflect the limits of human existence. We are not robots and we cannot function well as a society if we work ourselves beyond endurance.
However, on the flip side, 'civil rights' has been largely perverted into a social weapon to shut people down when they step out of line. It's done by making it easy to accuse specific groups of 'discrimination', while arguing for privilege (at taxpayer expense) under the guise of fighting for 'rights' for other groups, who are told the former is their social and economic enemy. This creates indefinite cycles of resentment in both camps, leading to those "we must do more" propaganda campaigns, which of course helps keep statists in office. It also causes private institutions to pass paranoid policies that oppress their employees in order to protect themselves from legal collateral damage. It may have been conceived to do this from the beginning, with the public narrative just good marketing, but even if that's not the case, the current reality is that as long as the ruling class uses the civil rights mantra to keep the rest of us divided over things like race, gender, and other 'identity' nonsense, we'll be too busy squabbling amongst ourselves (and irrationally voting for more government in the process) to care what the 1% are doing. After all, they don't have to answer to government, really, except when one of their own tosses them to the wolves.
I agree that the religious right is corrupt, but I don't see much difference between their demands for government enforced religion, and the left's culturally marxist policy making. They both use their ideological 'faith' as justification to grow the size of the state for their own benefit. The 'greedy rich' you speak of support BOTH parties for a good reason. There is no such thing as 'common decency.' Those are words of tyrants regardless of what party they hail from. Don't you recall the religious right spouting such nonsense, too?
The inconvenience of forgetting someone's name is far far less problematic than the psychological and social damage pervasive surveillance does to society. I don't see how you can be conflicted at all..
Originally, it was about football.. Now it's about rampant consumerism. Of course, europeans and aussies would know nothing about rabid obsession over soccer...
A weird kind of inverted sexism? There's only one kind of sexism. The fact that the media hypes any sort of female accomplishment in male dominated activities, often while not even mentioning the name of men who do interesting things by name, is blatantly sexist. Of course, even pointing this out is considered 'misogyny' somehow. Right, right.. Yes, those poor helpless women shouldn't have to tolerate any behavior they don't want, when they don't want. How could their lives ever be complete without white knight manginas like you rushing to their defense?
The only reason this is an article here is because of gender politics. If this accomplishment was done by a man, it wouldn't warrant special attention and would not be posted here. Reading data from a radio broadcast is nothing new and is routinely done by the ham radio crowd.
Well, these days, lots of men are realizing that relationships aren't worth the time, resource, and legal risk, and many of them are not 'neckbeard nerds.'
yes.. under carefully controlled circumstances monitored by the engineers who designed the hardware and software.. and with overrides that the end consumer won't get or will lose eventually, like google does with every other product they make. There have been just too many circumstances where people have trusted computers (and the programmers who programmed them) to get it right when they didn't... and these were far simpler situations with far better defined inputs than what a typical driver has to deal with.
I guess we'll find out when these start hitting the roads, but the probability they won't tracked and hacked is virtually zero.
I suppose barriers could be put up to mitigate, but like I was trying to say, that's all that can be done. It still takes a human to say "oh look there's something on the track that might derail the train, time to stop". Good luck getting a computer to recognize that reliably. If I owned amtrak, I wouldn't bet the safety of my passengers (and the long term viability of my company) on a machine alone.
This is even more true with trucks on public roads, so they'll need the public to drive them. While they do spend a lot of time on the relatively simple point-to-point limited access highways, their size and mass (especially the ones that carry volatile material) make them a threat to every other vehicle. While we do get the occasional drunk trucker, he's still less likely than a failed sensor, software bug, or servo control board going bad after years of neglect. Complex machines can do powerful things, but they tend to fail more often and require more maintenance. Trucks, trucking, and the roads are anything but the safe, dry, non-corrosive, static free, regularly maintained environments that microcircuitry requires. Even with current cars, all that computer circuitry drives up failure rates. Replacing those black boxes is crazy expensive. I'm waiting for the lawsuits to crop up from people being hit by others who grew dependent on those anti-collision features on luxury cars when they suddenly stopped working. I really do think this is a situation where keeping it simple/stupid is a better deal. We should be encouraging attentive, alert driving by removing distractions, not removing already half distracted drivers (cell phones) from the controls, handing them to algorithms that can't possibly be ready, and then adding to the distractions.
Yes, they do, but trains are actually easier to automate as they have fixed start and destination points, with preferred arrival times. The open road is nothing like this. There are just too many variables, even if every car was automated, nevermind the reality we live in. I'd rather have the engineer involved in driving the train simply so he's got something to pay attention to. Make him sit there, and he'll doze off. Same goes with human car drivers.
Well that's nice for fuel economy, but if one of those trailers hits a vehicle in front of it (or a vehicle hits it) the others are instantly lost as well. Set them to travel further apart, and now there will be cars cutting between them. It's not a good idea to tailgate regardless of how the vehicle is controlled. I think we already have a happy medium for driving automation: cruise control.
Yes, some automation is ok, though I find most of those features annoying, and they cause me to lose discipline, so I shut them off. I'm talking about those proximity alerts. They don't always work right. Get a bit of dirt on the sensor and suddenly it's useless. I wouldn't trust auto-parallel park either simply because if it gets it wrong, the computer doesn't have to pay the bill for the damages to both your car and the one or more that it hit. I've seen it used, and it is pretty cool, but again, all it takes is some dirt, a broken sensor, or a software bug to ruin your day. Needless complexity just adds stress to life. Ever drive on I95 through NYC? If GPS can't discern whether you're on the highway or a two lane road that runs along side, there's no way there's enough accuracy for the robot to know where it is at all times. That is extremely unsafe. It's bad enough that people are already driving through walls just because the computer told them to. Now they want to remove all humans from the controls and just let the computers do whatever? I'll pass.
The insurance stuff is really scary because the companies will insist on it out of technical ignorance (been sold a bill of goods by government/auto makers/google). all they really care about are their statistics.. However, statistics are really shitty at predicting individual circumstances. They're only good for trends. I dont' want to lose control of my immediate situation so some asshole can bank more of my premium money (because you know the rates will go right back up when they get everyone on those orwellian 'good driver' tracking programs).
Say the people standing to make a lot of money from them (and their fanboys), yes. The problem is that reality tracking technology and heuristics are not even close to making a safe autonomous street robot. The clues are all about us in the non-critical technologies we have already, like voice recognition. It's been 20 years, and it still can't tell what someone's saying when the person has a cold, or even get it 99% correct in ideal conditions. it's slow too. Face recognition is getting slowly better, probably because of tons of government interest in the ability to auto-track everyone, but even that is easily fooled with a bit of makeup or disguise. 'Brittle' programming like this has no business at the top of the driving decision 'train', or any other critical situation.
I see it happening to trains because a fixed point to point track that dictates the physical movement of the vehicle is far simpler to predict than random events in an open terrain. Even then, I'd still want a human engineer at the console in case something happens. Computers may be faster, but humans are still much better at contextual awareness.
True.. the US did the dirty work of NATO, so europe could have someone to blame if/when it goes bad. The russians also tried their hands at 'nation building', and failed spectacularly as well.
Don't let either side confuse the issue by bringing partisan politics into it. Obviously this is not about the average IT worker, but the 'techno elite' who label people as luddites for questioning their 'brilliance'. For one, they're telling us the things they stand to make a lot of money on are safe, when current levels of technological development suggest they are not. In the case of self-driving cars, the relevant areas (robotics, data acquisition, AI and heuristics), aren't ready for prime time. While we have gotten them to work quite successfully in carefully controlled situations, a public road system is anything but. Google, the fortune 500, as well as government, have quite a track record for not respecting privacy, so there's that too.
So, her body, her right, her choice, is somehow his responsibility? If women want sole control over the reproductive process ("It's a woman's issue"), then they should have sole responsibility too. If she wants a man to help, then she has to get him to sign a contract/get married and only have children by him. Now, THAT is equitable. The current status quo is privilege for women at the expense of men.
There's a chance you were trolling/joking, but despite that, you were modded insightful anyway. This shows how badly feminism has biased the society against men.
Slashdot Mirror
Women's brains are NOT "wired" differently when it comes to math and science - studies have shown that women perform at comparable levels to men when they are given the same levels of instruction. I know it's fun to have your own little boys' club, but if you grow up, you'll get over that.
Exactly. If women choose to, they can. Most choose not to, and it's not due to some conspiracy.
There are innate behavioral differences in the genders that have neurological roots.. It's obvious even in very early childhood. Any child psychologist can tell you this. It's only the cultural marxists who think everything is a 'social construct' that can and should be monkeyed with. There is a continuum where these traits overlap, so there are some men and some women who prefer traits of the opposing gender, but they are a small percentage of the population...and yes, they're welcome to pursue whatever they want.
In the same way a bible thumping baptist father cannot beat the gay out of his son, political correctness cannot beat the feminine out of women, or the masculine out of men.. Well they can to some degree, but not without serious long term consequences to society.
Uh no.. The reality is that women harass (using the ever expanding feminist definition) men, too, just about as many times except that men don't get to use the state and sympathetic media to amplify the fallout when she wont' leave him alone. We never hear about it as a result, and really, most men just don't think it's a big deal. It's time women learned the same lesson. While men are expected to deal with it, women are taught to play the victim role and use the hair-trigger laws given to them whenever and whereever they choose. The result is a feral, junior highschool-like behavior in women in 'politically protected' situations like university, employment, and nearly everything else. The result for men has been increasing avoidance of women and in anything feminists have managed to gain a dominant feminine culture. That's why fewer and fewer men are going to college, and are not doing as well in primary school as boys. The standard by which we are all judged is becoming hyper feminine, and of course, guys are coming up short. Men make shitty women. This is does not produce equal opportunity of any sort. Examples like obama's recent 'dear colleague' letter show just how twisted and biased this situation really is. The implication from that letter suggests that we are to treat her sayso as holy writ, while he's guilty until proven innocent. I see no equality in that either.
I don't think people like you understand the implications of the word equality or today's reality. I suppose you're too busy spouting feminist propaganda you were fed in highschool and university to notice the crazy contradictions passed into law and culture.
Care to explain how you came to this conclusion? Where did he say he loathes women, his mother, or that he has poor game?
Equal outcome is a poor measure of equal opportunity.
It usually takes a strong ego to cut new paths. Insecure types rarely step outside the box because they're unwilling to challenge groupthink.
I wouldn't call doom 1/2 and the first three quakes failures..
Buy dead tree until these companies realize no one wants to pay big bucks for indian-giving schemes. There've already been cases where purchases have been revoked due to publishing squabbles and other rubbish. Whether it was accidental or not, the point is, they shouldn't be able to yank anything after it's been sold.
If publishers want DRM on their products, I want the same DRM on my money.
Because the elite there want a piece of your action.
Like him, you're also glossing over reality. In this case you misrepresent the reality of governments "created by the people" to "ensure the common good." Those phrases sound like they were read right out of a playbook. History has shown us that societies ruled by governments that prefix everything with "The People's $whatever" are anything but free.
Dissatisfied workers could theoretically create their own company that does not require them to wear the badges and go into competition with their old employers. However, the reality is that such employers often enjoy natural market dominance which prevents any real competition, and many of them use governments to manipulate the market in order to ensure that dominance. Well monied lobbyists are the bread and butter of every western government. This is why workers rights are a good thing, and when I say rights, I mean rights, not privileges. Things like 40 hour work weeks and sick leave reflect the limits of human existence. We are not robots and we cannot function well as a society if we work ourselves beyond endurance.
However, on the flip side, 'civil rights' has been largely perverted into a social weapon to shut people down when they step out of line. It's done by making it easy to accuse specific groups of 'discrimination', while arguing for privilege (at taxpayer expense) under the guise of fighting for 'rights' for other groups, who are told the former is their social and economic enemy. This creates indefinite cycles of resentment in both camps, leading to those "we must do more" propaganda campaigns, which of course helps keep statists in office. It also causes private institutions to pass paranoid policies that oppress their employees in order to protect themselves from legal collateral damage. It may have been conceived to do this from the beginning, with the public narrative just good marketing, but even if that's not the case, the current reality is that as long as the ruling class uses the civil rights mantra to keep the rest of us divided over things like race, gender, and other 'identity' nonsense, we'll be too busy squabbling amongst ourselves (and irrationally voting for more government in the process) to care what the 1% are doing. After all, they don't have to answer to government, really, except when one of their own tosses them to the wolves.
I agree that the religious right is corrupt, but I don't see much difference between their demands for government enforced religion, and the left's culturally marxist policy making. They both use their ideological 'faith' as justification to grow the size of the state for their own benefit. The 'greedy rich' you speak of support BOTH parties for a good reason. There is no such thing as 'common decency.' Those are words of tyrants regardless of what party they hail from. Don't you recall the religious right spouting such nonsense, too?
Yeah, except that people aren't a hive mind and do not retain visual, searchable, verifiable records of every place they've been.
The inconvenience of forgetting someone's name is far far less problematic than the psychological and social damage pervasive surveillance does to society. I don't see how you can be conflicted at all..
Great, anther toy encouraging society to regress back to adolescent behavior...with much higher stakes.
It hasn't reached reddit levels of stupid yet, but movement in that direction is a valid complaint. I guess it depends how you define 'success.'
Originally, it was about football.. Now it's about rampant consumerism. Of course, europeans and aussies would know nothing about rabid obsession over soccer...
A weird kind of inverted sexism? There's only one kind of sexism. The fact that the media hypes any sort of female accomplishment in male dominated activities, often while not even mentioning the name of men who do interesting things by name, is blatantly sexist. Of course, even pointing this out is considered 'misogyny' somehow. Right, right.. Yes, those poor helpless women shouldn't have to tolerate any behavior they don't want, when they don't want. How could their lives ever be complete without white knight manginas like you rushing to their defense?
The only reason this is an article here is because of gender politics. If this accomplishment was done by a man, it wouldn't warrant special attention and would not be posted here. Reading data from a radio broadcast is nothing new and is routinely done by the ham radio crowd.
Well, these days, lots of men are realizing that relationships aren't worth the time, resource, and legal risk, and many of them are not 'neckbeard nerds.'
yes.. under carefully controlled circumstances monitored by the engineers who designed the hardware and software.. and with overrides that the end consumer won't get or will lose eventually, like google does with every other product they make. There have been just too many circumstances where people have trusted computers (and the programmers who programmed them) to get it right when they didn't... and these were far simpler situations with far better defined inputs than what a typical driver has to deal with.
I guess we'll find out when these start hitting the roads, but the probability they won't tracked and hacked is virtually zero.
I suppose barriers could be put up to mitigate, but like I was trying to say, that's all that can be done. It still takes a human to say "oh look there's something on the track that might derail the train, time to stop". Good luck getting a computer to recognize that reliably. If I owned amtrak, I wouldn't bet the safety of my passengers (and the long term viability of my company) on a machine alone.
This is even more true with trucks on public roads, so they'll need the public to drive them. While they do spend a lot of time on the relatively simple point-to-point limited access highways, their size and mass (especially the ones that carry volatile material) make them a threat to every other vehicle. While we do get the occasional drunk trucker, he's still less likely than a failed sensor, software bug, or servo control board going bad after years of neglect. Complex machines can do powerful things, but they tend to fail more often and require more maintenance. Trucks, trucking, and the roads are anything but the safe, dry, non-corrosive, static free, regularly maintained environments that microcircuitry requires. Even with current cars, all that computer circuitry drives up failure rates. Replacing those black boxes is crazy expensive. I'm waiting for the lawsuits to crop up from people being hit by others who grew dependent on those anti-collision features on luxury cars when they suddenly stopped working. I really do think this is a situation where keeping it simple/stupid is a better deal. We should be encouraging attentive, alert driving by removing distractions, not removing already half distracted drivers (cell phones) from the controls, handing them to algorithms that can't possibly be ready, and then adding to the distractions.
Yes, they do, but trains are actually easier to automate as they have fixed start and destination points, with preferred arrival times. The open road is nothing like this. There are just too many variables, even if every car was automated, nevermind the reality we live in. I'd rather have the engineer involved in driving the train simply so he's got something to pay attention to. Make him sit there, and he'll doze off. Same goes with human car drivers.
Well that's nice for fuel economy, but if one of those trailers hits a vehicle in front of it (or a vehicle hits it) the others are instantly lost as well. Set them to travel further apart, and now there will be cars cutting between them. It's not a good idea to tailgate regardless of how the vehicle is controlled. I think we already have a happy medium for driving automation: cruise control.
Yes, some automation is ok, though I find most of those features annoying, and they cause me to lose discipline, so I shut them off. I'm talking about those proximity alerts. They don't always work right. Get a bit of dirt on the sensor and suddenly it's useless. I wouldn't trust auto-parallel park either simply because if it gets it wrong, the computer doesn't have to pay the bill for the damages to both your car and the one or more that it hit. I've seen it used, and it is pretty cool, but again, all it takes is some dirt, a broken sensor, or a software bug to ruin your day. Needless complexity just adds stress to life. Ever drive on I95 through NYC? If GPS can't discern whether you're on the highway or a two lane road that runs along side, there's no way there's enough accuracy for the robot to know where it is at all times. That is extremely unsafe. It's bad enough that people are already driving through walls just because the computer told them to. Now they want to remove all humans from the controls and just let the computers do whatever? I'll pass.
The insurance stuff is really scary because the companies will insist on it out of technical ignorance (been sold a bill of goods by government/auto makers/google). all they really care about are their statistics.. However, statistics are really shitty at predicting individual circumstances. They're only good for trends. I dont' want to lose control of my immediate situation so some asshole can bank more of my premium money (because you know the rates will go right back up when they get everyone on those orwellian 'good driver' tracking programs).
Say the people standing to make a lot of money from them (and their fanboys), yes. The problem is that reality tracking technology and heuristics are not even close to making a safe autonomous street robot. The clues are all about us in the non-critical technologies we have already, like voice recognition. It's been 20 years, and it still can't tell what someone's saying when the person has a cold, or even get it 99% correct in ideal conditions. it's slow too. Face recognition is getting slowly better, probably because of tons of government interest in the ability to auto-track everyone, but even that is easily fooled with a bit of makeup or disguise. 'Brittle' programming like this has no business at the top of the driving decision 'train', or any other critical situation.
I see it happening to trains because a fixed point to point track that dictates the physical movement of the vehicle is far simpler to predict than random events in an open terrain. Even then, I'd still want a human engineer at the console in case something happens. Computers may be faster, but humans are still much better at contextual awareness.
True.. the US did the dirty work of NATO, so europe could have someone to blame if/when it goes bad. The russians also tried their hands at 'nation building', and failed spectacularly as well.
Don't let either side confuse the issue by bringing partisan politics into it. Obviously this is not about the average IT worker, but the 'techno elite' who label people as luddites for questioning their 'brilliance'. For one, they're telling us the things they stand to make a lot of money on are safe, when current levels of technological development suggest they are not. In the case of self-driving cars, the relevant areas (robotics, data acquisition, AI and heuristics), aren't ready for prime time. While we have gotten them to work quite successfully in carefully controlled situations, a public road system is anything but. Google, the fortune 500, as well as government, have quite a track record for not respecting privacy, so there's that too.
you will, when they then have to drop out of highschool, which makes them and their kids taxpayer dependent for life
So, her body, her right, her choice, is somehow his responsibility? If women want sole control over the reproductive process ("It's a woman's issue"), then they should have sole responsibility too. If she wants a man to help, then she has to get him to sign a contract/get married and only have children by him. Now, THAT is equitable. The current status quo is privilege for women at the expense of men.
There's a chance you were trolling/joking, but despite that, you were modded insightful anyway. This shows how badly feminism has biased the society against men.