Yes, it also CAN cause costly boondoggles because there's little incentive for a cost/benefit analysis. If the taxpayers were stockholders, they could force the issue, but they aren't. They are compelled to pay taxes regardless. Then there's stupid shit from certain politicians like "You didn't build that." How does that inspire anyone?
I don't mind seeing public investments in knowledge, but it must be subject to ROI. Now that return doesn't have to be dollars (but it would be nice if it at least paid for itself), but it should be something very tangible and beneficial for society. Unfortunately, the only thing the state seems to do these days is corner the market for its largest lobbies, then force the taxpayers to fund the execution. Fuck funding that.
It's just that most people, today, have been conditioned to think freedom isn't terribly important. Being entertained is. What good is a mobile phone if you're limited by public transport predestinations or walking? Might as well just stay home and use a proper desktop/laptop.
If you play games or use any industry specific software (adobe autodesk etc), you're stuck running windows on bare metal. VM kills performance, if it works at all.
The key point is right at the beginning "Once you stratify.." The premise is wrong. Comparing it historically, society, today is anything but stratified, never mind by some conspiratorial force that conveniently needs another conspiracy to fight it. Just because certain traits don't represent equally in a given population isn't proof them being kept out either. Ensuring people aren't shut out of opportunities based on irrelevancies is fine, but the moment you let some cut ahead of others to force equality of outcome, you enable the same kind of discrimination in the other direction.
No it doesn't. It helps normalize discrimination on the target traits, building it into every institution. Discrimination on irrelevant attributes for or against is wrong, no matter who's involved. What if that C+ student was female and someone, say a male supervisor, rolled his eyes at her? What if that C+ student outplaced a better qualified male because of genitalia? What of his rights?
No. Affirmative action is at the very heart of the matter. It assumes discrimination everywhere by default, thus imposing it by default. Employment quotas already exist and more are being asked for. You suggest we replace seat warmers with people who were selected because of certain genitalia instead of merit? How is that any better?
You mean a convenient assumption of divisions? For the most part, divisions exist on merit as they should. Sometimes, individuals use irrational discriminators to either reject or accept other individuals, and that should be dealt with. However...
The feminists (and their social justice relatives) don't like merit because it conflicts with the precepts of socialist ideology. Their definition of equality is equal outcome at any cost, ie we're all interchangeable drones, and "gender is a social construct", therefore any inequity in distribution must be due to discrimination. I've always found this hilarious because this is brought up under the guise of promoting tolerance of DIVERSITY, which assumes we're NOT all the same. The fact is, women over represent with certain traits and men do with others. Cultures have traits too. This is what makes them diverse. This also means that certain groups will over represent in some areas and under represent in others. This is not systemic discrimination. It's self discriminatory on the part of these individuals. Fewer women choose to go into engineering and fewer men choose to go into nursing. This is ok.
Any attempt to artificially manipulate this will result in the very systemic discrimination feminists claim to fight. What you are seeing, here, on slashdot and other places is resentment of affirmative action's hypocrisy that, if strong enough, will motivate people to discriminate on those traits, eg: "Did she get this senior engineer position because of merit or because of her vagina?" or "You're just criticizing my work because I'm a woman." This shows that the so-called victim classes are actually the privileged ones. They get to escape criticism by playing the oppression card while praise is heaped on them by those wishing to prove their social justice street cred (often just to avoid any future lawsuits).
This is why there are women who are anti-feminist. They want that opportunity to earn the respect of their peers, and I don't blame them. Succeeding on merit is true accomplishment. 'Offsets' as you put it, just deny them this opportunity and build systemic discrimination against men, oppressing them and giving them reason to resent. The feminist response? "Check your privilege!" which is not an argument at all, it's just shaming language meant to shut down the discussion argument because they don't have one.
Apparently, even questioning this narrative like I've done here is an example of bigoted discrimination now. This is certifiably insane, and it's being taught as truth in the university system. Instead of silencing certain forms of speech, I would advocate silencing no one. http://www.ucop.edu/academic-p...
The counterargument from the anti-'social justice' crowd is that affirmative action is its own form of discrimination. It categorizes people into classes based on attributes that aren't supposed to matter, and then judges them accordingly. The system should be looking at people as individual humans first, not as a collections of skin tones or genitals. If 'a' woman or man claims to have been discriminated against (or another discriminated FOR) on attributes that the person thinks are irrelevant, the right of redress should be guaranteed. That doesn't mean we should guarantee a favorable outcome in any direction. The facts and justifications from involved parties should be considered. This is a 180 from current affirmative action policy, which favors women over men, darker skin over lighter skin, non-straight over straight, muslims over atheists, atheists over christians etc. The fact this is enforced by the state makes it, by definition, systemic discrimination.
If they do earn it, half their misogynist colleagues will still think they didn't deserve it and are diversity or affirmative action hires
Well, there you go. Time for affirmative action to go, right? That's why social justice policy is the real threat. It oppresses both men and women by corralling them into oppressor and victim roles, respectively, instead of treating them as individuals.
Whether they involve running around throwing/kicking balls on a field, twitching a mouse, or moving bits of plastic on a board, they're all games. They all have the potential to be done for fun or professionally. The fact that people (for some strange reason) are willing to watch others play competitive (and even non competitive) video games, suggests this. To me, 'sport' is a distinction without a difference. Usually, the people I run into who want to draw lines are those who think their particular game is a cut above others' games. For me, I'd rather be playing than watching, and that goes for any of them.
If you want to argue from authority, chess is considered a sport by the IOC (but it is not contested so wtf?) according to wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't know.. I'm sure if you asked avid fans, they'd like to believe they are. If you ask people who think only athletics count, they'd likely say no. Both camps' reasoning probably boils down to ego.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it also CAN cause costly boondoggles because there's little incentive for a cost/benefit analysis. If the taxpayers were stockholders, they could force the issue, but they aren't. They are compelled to pay taxes regardless. Then there's stupid shit from certain politicians like "You didn't build that." How does that inspire anyone?
I don't mind seeing public investments in knowledge, but it must be subject to ROI. Now that return doesn't have to be dollars (but it would be nice if it at least paid for itself), but it should be something very tangible and beneficial for society. Unfortunately, the only thing the state seems to do these days is corner the market for its largest lobbies, then force the taxpayers to fund the execution. Fuck funding that.
Dear Leader must be protected after all. There are many terrible secrets of space..
It's just that most people, today, have been conditioned to think freedom isn't terribly important. Being entertained is. What good is a mobile phone if you're limited by public transport predestinations or walking? Might as well just stay home and use a proper desktop/laptop.
So what? we should all bow down? It's people with your attitude that allows governments to get away with this shit.
Actually, aero increased latencies. It did replace the GDI+ stuff which was single threaded (I think) and would artifact from time to time.
Not if you want/need full 3D acceleration. IO passthrough still has significant performance impact.
They want to replicate the shitty mobile experience on desktops.. They've succeeded.
Discrimination and segregation are discrimination and segregation no matter which direction they're employed.
..or perhaps direct feedback should be encouraged over passive aggression and political correctness.
Does that make SCO the sphincter?
If you play games or use any industry specific software (adobe autodesk etc), you're stuck running windows on bare metal. VM kills performance, if it works at all.
Yes.. On multi ghz clockspeeds, there's NO excuse for GUI lag, even on mobile devices. Today's software is total shit.
It's not windows 10. It's windows update that was 'misconfigured.' You're just being a shill.
Shut up, shill.
Being nice to stupid just allows it to propagate.
The key point is right at the beginning "Once you stratify.." The premise is wrong. Comparing it historically, society, today is anything but stratified, never mind by some conspiratorial force that conveniently needs another conspiracy to fight it. Just because certain traits don't represent equally in a given population isn't proof them being kept out either. Ensuring people aren't shut out of opportunities based on irrelevancies is fine, but the moment you let some cut ahead of others to force equality of outcome, you enable the same kind of discrimination in the other direction.
No it doesn't. It helps normalize discrimination on the target traits, building it into every institution. Discrimination on irrelevant attributes for or against is wrong, no matter who's involved. What if that C+ student was female and someone, say a male supervisor, rolled his eyes at her? What if that C+ student outplaced a better qualified male because of genitalia? What of his rights?
No. Affirmative action is at the very heart of the matter. It assumes discrimination everywhere by default, thus imposing it by default. Employment quotas already exist and more are being asked for. You suggest we replace seat warmers with people who were selected because of certain genitalia instead of merit? How is that any better?
You mean a convenient assumption of divisions? For the most part, divisions exist on merit as they should. Sometimes, individuals use irrational discriminators to either reject or accept other individuals, and that should be dealt with. However...
The feminists (and their social justice relatives) don't like merit because it conflicts with the precepts of socialist ideology. Their definition of equality is equal outcome at any cost, ie we're all interchangeable drones, and "gender is a social construct", therefore any inequity in distribution must be due to discrimination. I've always found this hilarious because this is brought up under the guise of promoting tolerance of DIVERSITY, which assumes we're NOT all the same. The fact is, women over represent with certain traits and men do with others. Cultures have traits too. This is what makes them diverse. This also means that certain groups will over represent in some areas and under represent in others. This is not systemic discrimination. It's self discriminatory on the part of these individuals. Fewer women choose to go into engineering and fewer men choose to go into nursing. This is ok.
Any attempt to artificially manipulate this will result in the very systemic discrimination feminists claim to fight. What you are seeing, here, on slashdot and other places is resentment of affirmative action's hypocrisy that, if strong enough, will motivate people to discriminate on those traits, eg: "Did she get this senior engineer position because of merit or because of her vagina?" or "You're just criticizing my work because I'm a woman." This shows that the so-called victim classes are actually the privileged ones. They get to escape criticism by playing the oppression card while praise is heaped on them by those wishing to prove their social justice street cred (often just to avoid any future lawsuits).
This is why there are women who are anti-feminist. They want that opportunity to earn the respect of their peers, and I don't blame them. Succeeding on merit is true accomplishment. 'Offsets' as you put it, just deny them this opportunity and build systemic discrimination against men, oppressing them and giving them reason to resent. The feminist response? "Check your privilege!" which is not an argument at all, it's just shaming language meant to shut down the discussion argument because they don't have one.
Apparently, even questioning this narrative like I've done here is an example of bigoted discrimination now. This is certifiably insane, and it's being taught as truth in the university system. Instead of silencing certain forms of speech, I would advocate silencing no one.
http://www.ucop.edu/academic-p...
The counterargument from the anti-'social justice' crowd is that affirmative action is its own form of discrimination. It categorizes people into classes based on attributes that aren't supposed to matter, and then judges them accordingly. The system should be looking at people as individual humans first, not as a collections of skin tones or genitals. If 'a' woman or man claims to have been discriminated against (or another discriminated FOR) on attributes that the person thinks are irrelevant, the right of redress should be guaranteed. That doesn't mean we should guarantee a favorable outcome in any direction. The facts and justifications from involved parties should be considered. This is a 180 from current affirmative action policy, which favors women over men, darker skin over lighter skin, non-straight over straight, muslims over atheists, atheists over christians etc. The fact this is enforced by the state makes it, by definition, systemic discrimination.
If they do earn it, half their misogynist colleagues will still think they didn't deserve it and are diversity or affirmative action hires
Well, there you go. Time for affirmative action to go, right? That's why social justice policy is the real threat. It oppresses both men and women by corralling them into oppressor and victim roles, respectively, instead of treating them as individuals.
He was? There's nothing in the post about any of that.
Well, if a man's ability was questioned in the same manner, we'd want to know the truth, right? Why not the same for a woman?
Hopefully because they earned it, not because 'social justice.'
Good riddance. Most of what's on tap these days is garbage.
Whether they involve running around throwing/kicking balls on a field, twitching a mouse, or moving bits of plastic on a board, they're all games. They all have the potential to be done for fun or professionally. The fact that people (for some strange reason) are willing to watch others play competitive (and even non competitive) video games, suggests this. To me, 'sport' is a distinction without a difference. Usually, the people I run into who want to draw lines are those who think their particular game is a cut above others' games. For me, I'd rather be playing than watching, and that goes for any of them.
If you want to argue from authority, chess is considered a sport by the IOC (but it is not contested so wtf?) according to wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't know.. I'm sure if you asked avid fans, they'd like to believe they are. If you ask people who think only athletics count, they'd likely say no. Both camps' reasoning probably boils down to ego.
Differentiate? Check your privilege, comrade. Differentiation leads to bourgeois entitlement and oppression of your fellow workers.