So you claim that I can't back up my statement of most, then agree with me using the same exact terminology.
No. You can't back up the claim that "most [...] results from a person saying that someone looks nice". Most sexual harassment is nowhere near as simple as that. An isolated instance of someone saying that someone else looks nice is not enough to trigger a sexual harassment complaint in most cases.
Having said that, I'm sure you can see how the context, or constantly commenting on someone's appearance, could easily end up in creepy territory.
Yet, this same phrase is repeated by propagandists as an example of sexual harassment.
Without knowing anything about who these "propagandists" are, or what they exactly said, and in what context they said it, it's hard to say.
Most "sexual harassment" today results from a person saying that someone looks nice, not the other way around.
If I asked you to back up this statement with evidence, particularly the word "most", you could not do so.
Now it is true that most sexual harassment is not intended to harass, and stops as soon as the person doing it understands that what they did (or continue to do) is unwanted and inappropriate. In many jurisdictions, it's only legally "sexual harassment" if the behaviour doesn't stop when you're told to stop.
This is precisely why the attitude that you see a lot of in the comments here (of the "it's already illegal so what's the deal" kind) misses the point. Raising inept social interactions (which happen to foster a hostile or uncomfortable work environment) to the level of criminality would be stupid. This is why it makes far more sense to deal with it at the company level instead.
Even more than that, the Higgs mechanism is not responsible for most of the mass of atoms or nuclei, just the fundamental particles that make them up.
A proton is made from two up quarks and a down quark. Up quarks weigh in at about 2MeV each, and down quarks are about 5MeV. A proton, by contrast, has a mass of 938MeV. So that's about 1% quarks-interacting-with-the-Higgs-field and 99% quarks-interacting-with-each-other.
Well, exciting if it leads to something. Say the temporary removal of mass. That would be very interesting (if also quite improbable).
"Improbable" is stating it mildly. If the fundamental particles in a macroscopic object stopped interacting with the Higgs field, they'd still presumably be interacting with each other. The particles wouldn't have any mass, but the nuclei and atoms would still have the vast majority of their mass.
If you got rid of the mutual interaction energy too, then you wouldn't have a macroscopic object any more. (As an added bonus, you'd have proven Asimov wrong experimentally.) Instead, you'd have a bunch of quarks and electrons moving at the speed of light in quantum-random directions.
Where I live, most harassment is not illegal, but allowing harassment to go unchecked is (for the company).
It's no different from any other issue which might make a workplace unsafe or hostile. Consider health and safety, for example. Making a mistake is usually not illegal, but it is illegal for a company not to take appropriate steps when someone raises a safety issue.
Never say "never". The kid who occasionally mows my lawn has a smartphone. I can see a day, not too far off, when this is the customary mechanism for doing that kind of payment. As soon as the transaction cost goes down to negligible.
So yes, there may come a time when government-supplied currency tokens are obsolete for almost all transactions. That may not be in my lifetime, although the phasing out of postage stamps may happen in the next couple of decades. Illicit transactions may just move to barter.
Oh, you naïve person, you. Don't you know that your privacy rights aren't violated as long as you never know your personal data was being scraped and stored? It's the disclosure that is the privacy violation.
Besides, the data is only "collected" when someone looks at it. It's basically Schrödinger's database.
Slashdot Mirror
So you claim that I can't back up my statement of most, then agree with me using the same exact terminology.
No. You can't back up the claim that "most [...] results from a person saying that someone looks nice". Most sexual harassment is nowhere near as simple as that. An isolated instance of someone saying that someone else looks nice is not enough to trigger a sexual harassment complaint in most cases.
Having said that, I'm sure you can see how the context, or constantly commenting on someone's appearance, could easily end up in creepy territory.
Yet, this same phrase is repeated by propagandists as an example of sexual harassment.
Without knowing anything about who these "propagandists" are, or what they exactly said, and in what context they said it, it's hard to say.
I'd think you were joking if you hadn't run with it. Of course the law mandates that a policy meets certain minimal criteria.
Most "sexual harassment" today results from a person saying that someone looks nice, not the other way around.
If I asked you to back up this statement with evidence, particularly the word "most", you could not do so.
Now it is true that most sexual harassment is not intended to harass, and stops as soon as the person doing it understands that what they did (or continue to do) is unwanted and inappropriate. In many jurisdictions, it's only legally "sexual harassment" if the behaviour doesn't stop when you're told to stop.
This is precisely why the attitude that you see a lot of in the comments here (of the "it's already illegal so what's the deal" kind) misses the point. Raising inept social interactions (which happen to foster a hostile or uncomfortable work environment) to the level of criminality would be stupid. This is why it makes far more sense to deal with it at the company level instead.
Even more than that, the Higgs mechanism is not responsible for most of the mass of atoms or nuclei, just the fundamental particles that make them up.
A proton is made from two up quarks and a down quark. Up quarks weigh in at about 2MeV each, and down quarks are about 5MeV. A proton, by contrast, has a mass of 938MeV. So that's about 1% quarks-interacting-with-the-Higgs-field and 99% quarks-interacting-with-each-other.
Well, exciting if it leads to something. Say the temporary removal of mass. That would be very interesting (if also quite improbable).
"Improbable" is stating it mildly. If the fundamental particles in a macroscopic object stopped interacting with the Higgs field, they'd still presumably be interacting with each other. The particles wouldn't have any mass, but the nuclei and atoms would still have the vast majority of their mass.
If you got rid of the mutual interaction energy too, then you wouldn't have a macroscopic object any more. (As an added bonus, you'd have proven Asimov wrong experimentally.) Instead, you'd have a bunch of quarks and electrons moving at the speed of light in quantum-random directions.
Unless there is some evidence that it is specifically more prevalent during scientific field work, just reporting that "it occurs" is meaningless.
So you do see the point, you just didn't RTFA.
TFA claims (based on the research) that it is indeed far more prevalent in fieldwork than in the office.
Where I live, most harassment is not illegal, but allowing harassment to go unchecked is (for the company).
It's no different from any other issue which might make a workplace unsafe or hostile. Consider health and safety, for example. Making a mistake is usually not illegal, but it is illegal for a company not to take appropriate steps when someone raises a safety issue.
That wasn't actually what I was referring to.
My country has a law like that, too. One thing it mandates is that companies have a sexual harassment policy.
Suit yourself.
...says the Anonymous Coward.
(No, the irony is not lost on me, either.)
"Yes" - everyone on Slashdot who plays Ingress.
Damn, I wish I'd thought of that.
Me FTW!
For that matter, Scotland might not be Britain by the time it's built.
I hope you were being sarcastic too. It's so hard to tell these days.
I kid of course, but you know there are parents that feel like that.
I didn't say I liked the sound of it. But I can see it coming.
Not in Australia, he can't. (By the way, how did you know it was a "he"?)
You let your child travel to the convenience store without adult supervision, without even a phone just in case? You child abuser, you.
Never say "never". The kid who occasionally mows my lawn has a smartphone. I can see a day, not too far off, when this is the customary mechanism for doing that kind of payment. As soon as the transaction cost goes down to negligible.
So yes, there may come a time when government-supplied currency tokens are obsolete for almost all transactions. That may not be in my lifetime, although the phasing out of postage stamps may happen in the next couple of decades. Illicit transactions may just move to barter.
Oh, you naïve person, you. Don't you know that your privacy rights aren't violated as long as you never know your personal data was being scraped and stored? It's the disclosure that is the privacy violation.
Besides, the data is only "collected" when someone looks at it. It's basically Schrödinger's database.
It's probably fair to say that C++ will never have a standard metaobject protocol. (Though it might get multiple dispatch at some point.)
So you're saying it's perfect for someone who thinks that Perl is ossifying, then?
Nice try, but CLOS dates from 1988.