This article and the one before it about hollywood vs google are indicators of the same problem. When government and industry collude, the public becomes the enemy.
I think he considers belief as part of the problem. It's an emotional attachment to a position that lacks evidence. People who get butthurt over being challenged are the ones with the problem. The problem is that today, the culture increasingly defends people with strong emotional positions and sensitivity at the expense of rationality and learning what is. The censorious policy that backs this is the primary threat to free speech.
The notion of end justified means is also part of the problem. Sure, showering someone with deference may get them on your side but it is for the wrong reasons. This is one of the major issues that shapes modern politics. Science is concerned with truth, regardless of politics.
That has no bearing on his science. From muslims to feminists, there are plenty of people who would decapitate him, so I think he's quite tolerant considering. Compared to the wealth of super churches and oil funded middle eastern islam, he's a pauper, both in terms of money and arrogance. There's also the wealth behind the left wing super pacs funding modern 'social justice'.
That said, I agree that arrogance has no place in science as it is merely a strongly held emotional belief in one's superior ability that may or may not actually be there. Like any other belief, it can blind one from the truth.
Title 9 is used to justify presumed guilt of men on campus. All that's required of her is an accusation to get the ball rolling. Really, the school should not get involved other than to refer the victim to the police. Of course, these socalled victims rarely do because they know they can't file a false report.
The only reason they have to 'protect' the institution is because of the warlockhunt atmosphere laws like title 9 create.
It shouldn't, actually. His humor hasn't changed. Destroying someone's life and censoring his accomplishments over unrelated behavior is what's immoral.
Assuming the policies he was judged by are sane (doubtful in today's climate) and the accuser isn't lying (always questionable in guilty-until-proven-innocent systems), sure, but knowledge is knowledge. If the lectures are solid, they should stay up.
I would argue that the 'science' done around politically contentious issues should be considered tainted by default, regardless of the results it shows. Usually the left wing academic majority will show one view, and the right, another. What's hard to determine is whether one side is telling the truth and the other lying to promote its politics, or whether both are misrepresenting all or part of it, or just wrong. Yuck. This is why the politicization of science is toxic to understanding.
A lot of times these 'studies' are released by thinktanks like SPLC or NAACP (and yes PNAC and heritage foundation on the right) with obvious agendas that conflict with objectivity. The real problem is that academia is infected with political bias when it should be striving for objectivity.
"Racist" only implies that race is counted as a relevant discriminator. It's just as 'racist' to say 'blacks suffer more from sickle cell anemia than whites do.' It's also the truth. Assigning race to some perceived negative that isn't true and/or doesn't apply to the target is what turns it into an insult. Ignoring facts for the sake of 'decency' is exactly the kind of fallacious, dogmatic crap hurled by religious lunatics, except that it usually comes from left wing social justice sorts. Now, whether some race is smarter on average than another is still up for debate, and no scientist should be silencing others or reframing the narrative of the conversation for political reasons. Those that are, are the ones who should lose credibility.
Your language says you're willing to ignore statements that don't agree with your politics, whether they are true or not. What does that say about you? Are you a dogmatic fool who thinks everyone is perfectly equal and interchangeable like a creationist buys into a sky daddy? Reality doesn't give a shit about your beliefs or your feelings on what should be, and science is the process of learning about that truth. A scientist understands this. Today's dominant leftist politics do not.
Yeah really. Why is the text set to 18 point? What's with the ugly graphics that just get in the way? I used a firefox plugin to disable CSS and scrolled down til I found the text. At least it was readable without resorting to a full screen browser (why do people work like that nowadays??!)
Slashdot Mirror
This article and the one before it about hollywood vs google are indicators of the same problem. When government and industry collude, the public becomes the enemy.
There are fundamental abuses of rights here too. Is google going to shut down here as well? Google regularly participates in illegal spying programs.
I think he considers belief as part of the problem. It's an emotional attachment to a position that lacks evidence. People who get butthurt over being challenged are the ones with the problem. The problem is that today, the culture increasingly defends people with strong emotional positions and sensitivity at the expense of rationality and learning what is. The censorious policy that backs this is the primary threat to free speech.
The notion of end justified means is also part of the problem. Sure, showering someone with deference may get them on your side but it is for the wrong reasons. This is one of the major issues that shapes modern politics. Science is concerned with truth, regardless of politics.
That has no bearing on his science. From muslims to feminists, there are plenty of people who would decapitate him, so I think he's quite tolerant considering. Compared to the wealth of super churches and oil funded middle eastern islam, he's a pauper, both in terms of money and arrogance. There's also the wealth behind the left wing super pacs funding modern 'social justice'.
That said, I agree that arrogance has no place in science as it is merely a strongly held emotional belief in one's superior ability that may or may not actually be there. Like any other belief, it can blind one from the truth.
Why is that?
Now they can dump your phone when they pull you over..
grind wide open!
Title 9 is used to justify presumed guilt of men on campus. All that's required of her is an accusation to get the ball rolling. Really, the school should not get involved other than to refer the victim to the police. Of course, these socalled victims rarely do because they know they can't file a false report.
The only reason they have to 'protect' the institution is because of the warlockhunt atmosphere laws like title 9 create.
What's wrong with hoarding? Duplication is what protects against censorious assholes.
It shouldn't, actually. His humor hasn't changed. Destroying someone's life and censoring his accomplishments over unrelated behavior is what's immoral.
Your reading comprehension sucks. Just because MIT can doesn't mean they should have.
Assuming the policies he was judged by are sane (doubtful in today's climate) and the accuser isn't lying (always questionable in guilty-until-proven-innocent systems), sure, but knowledge is knowledge. If the lectures are solid, they should stay up.
You will not notice 500mw of draw on your monthly bill. You lose more in the conversion losses of the power supply.
short the antenna wire to ground.
lol.. since when is gnome, nevermind gnome 3 considered minimalist?
They're not. Windows has and makes use of dlls. They're trying to turn linux into dos.
Politics are dated of course, but the message is still relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/playli...
I would argue that the 'science' done around politically contentious issues should be considered tainted by default, regardless of the results it shows. Usually the left wing academic majority will show one view, and the right, another. What's hard to determine is whether one side is telling the truth and the other lying to promote its politics, or whether both are misrepresenting all or part of it, or just wrong. Yuck. This is why the politicization of science is toxic to understanding.
A lot of times these 'studies' are released by thinktanks like SPLC or NAACP (and yes PNAC and heritage foundation on the right) with obvious agendas that conflict with objectivity. The real problem is that academia is infected with political bias when it should be striving for objectivity.
"Racist" only implies that race is counted as a relevant discriminator. It's just as 'racist' to say 'blacks suffer more from sickle cell anemia than whites do.' It's also the truth. Assigning race to some perceived negative that isn't true and/or doesn't apply to the target is what turns it into an insult. Ignoring facts for the sake of 'decency' is exactly the kind of fallacious, dogmatic crap hurled by religious lunatics, except that it usually comes from left wing social justice sorts. Now, whether some race is smarter on average than another is still up for debate, and no scientist should be silencing others or reframing the narrative of the conversation for political reasons. Those that are, are the ones who should lose credibility.
Your language says you're willing to ignore statements that don't agree with your politics, whether they are true or not. What does that say about you? Are you a dogmatic fool who thinks everyone is perfectly equal and interchangeable like a creationist buys into a sky daddy? Reality doesn't give a shit about your beliefs or your feelings on what should be, and science is the process of learning about that truth. A scientist understands this. Today's dominant leftist politics do not.
It depends on the problem.
You'd think that the average slashdot user knows how to install adblockplus...
Except that nowadays, it's the EU that can't seem to police itself.
Of course, the ones doing the spying are the ones who make the laws. There's no problem at all. Move along, comrade.
Yeah really. Why is the text set to 18 point? What's with the ugly graphics that just get in the way? I used a firefox plugin to disable CSS and scrolled down til I found the text. At least it was readable without resorting to a full screen browser (why do people work like that nowadays??!)
videos replacing prose for the frontally compromised is not a new idea. It sucks.