Because the portion of the brain responsible for detecting threats and territorial behavior is triple the size in men than it is in the brains of women.
Thus men engage in more violent behavior and are quicker to both perceive and respond to threats. In our society this sort of behavior tends to be illegal.
Women have lower conviction rates because they are guilty less often.
People with different color skin are not different in fundamental ways aside from skin color. Men and women are not equal, are not the same, do not have the same capabilities or behaviors. Racial equality is largely a fact, gender equality nothing short of a blatantly false politically correct myth.
You forgot the part where they buy politicians to pass laws outlawing 3rd party music and to fund them via things like cd-r and internet radio play taxes/fees.
"1. Great, I want all the data on how to make an atom bomb provided in a neat easy to use format. "
Your point being? That comment doesn't relate to anything I said.
"2. I accept that the viewer is ultimately responsible for their own due diligence, but why am I paying for a newspaper if the media aren't being held to reasonable standards of diligence? "
I don't know. Do you read The Weekly World News? Deciding which news sources have such standards is part of the due dilligence of the consumer.
"You're not required to address specific demands of every crank who claims your data proves the existence of aliens."
This annoys me since intelligent life elsewhere more likely than not exists (regardless of whether or not it mutilates our cows or is physically possible for us to reach).
How about this instead:
"You're not required to address specific demands of every crank who claims your data proves the existence of a deity."
"If I'm -not- evil though, this could hurt me. If I looked at say 3000 cells, and 10 were doing a thing that I thought was significant, I could have my reasons. Maybe the other 2990 were the wrong cell type or something. Being the expert, that might be obvious to me just from looking at them."
And no doubt it will be equally obvious to all your expert colleagues should have to defend your decision. The support for your conclusions would thus be in the data.
If you are basing decisions on things that are not in the data then you're a quack or a fraud and its best it be uncovered anyway.
It is neither the duty nor the right of scientists to be the gatekeepers of public interpretation or opinion.
That is akin to claiming that only ABA lawyers should be permitted access to the law or computer technicians access to benchmarks.
As far as I am concerned the media can stick anyone they like in front of a microphone to speak on any issue they like. It IS the duty of the VIEWER to access the competence of the individual speaking.
If you have a problem with the fact that viewers do not do their due diligence than I suggest supporting efforts to add critical thinking and local the curriculum in our grade schools.
In other words, regardless of what facts might actually be contained in this data you've already made up your mind. Anything to the contrary "will undoubtedly cherry pick out from the data, take things out of context from studies supporting climate change as a theory, and those people whose support of climate change is based more off of religion than science will do the same to studies that reach opposite conclusions."
*wipes a bit of foam from the corner of your mouth with his handkerchief* You don't exactly sound like a neutral undecided to me.
"What does my admitting that these people have technical skills have to do with it? I did not say they had people skills."
Your point being? I spoke regarding your admission of varied objectives not skills.
"If you put yourself up as an expert and willing to help that simply isn't an assumption."
You do realize that one does not automatically include the other right? Putting oneself up as an expert and/or being generous enough to release code to the community does NOT equate to 'willing to help'. Such an individual has no obligation to assist further and may well participate IRC channels, message boards, mailing lists, etc primarily to further their own goals and discuss issues with their peers.
"You're just hand waving and talking jibberish and hoping I won't notice. You haven't made any kind of coherent argument here."
Always the best tatic. Ignore the arguments presented, raise up your own strawmen and bash them down, and last but not least toss in some petty insults.
Just because undeserved reputations exist doesn't mean all or even anything near a majority of reputations are undeserved.
I am not a kernel hacker it could be a much maligned codebase that is in truth full of coding bliss. It could be that when you've parsed a few hundred lines of kernel code your eyes cross and the hidden comments pop out in 3D, angels sing and play harps, and nymphs appear and give you blowjobs.
But then again, probably not.
"Meanwhile, there are hundreds of projects that run on Linux. From Apache to Samba to KDE."
Coding something to run on top of linux is not the same thing as coding linux.
But you have raised a fallacy of your own. You admit:
"The fact that they have objectives or skills isn't in question."
But make arguments that assume those objectives depend on or include you being able to meet your objectives (or anyone else being able to meet their objectives). Without this false premise, all your arguments collapse.
True emacs is a little bloated but I'd use nothing else to handle my home automation system. Oh, and to run my coffee maker, and to do my taxes of course.
About the only thing I don't find emacs to be suited for is editing text. I'd use something more targeted like vi for that.
The GPP was claiming he never touches a gui. Putty uses a gui by definition. Generally a windows gui is implied since very distro will install telnet and ssh for you by default but that really isn't the point.
Dude failed, he uses a gui as his desktop which means 90% of the time.
"Yes, I get you, but you're still better off making the entire solution functional before spending even one nanosecond on optimization."
I don't. Macro optimization should happen at the drawing board. Micro optimization should happen automatically by never implementing anything but efficient code as a routine.
Only fine tuning optimization and tweaking should come at the end.*
*Note: You might have noticed that I include optimization in EVERY part of the development process. I also fail to see how you can claim efficiently is not part of function.
Tell it to the framework and generalized code wrangling masses.
I don't want to advocate reinventing the wheel but sometimes it's best to spread the best guidelines for implementing a wheel rather than to try to make a single wheel solution fit every project.
In order for that to qualify as democracy-ishness wouldn't the people electing those candidates be a bare minimum? The electorial votes elect presidents, individual citizens don't get a vote. Even if they did, the diebold voting machines are rigged.
Slashdot Mirror
" But what is more important, your job or business, or an innocent persons Freedom?"
To whom? The innocent person or to me?
Because the portion of the brain responsible for detecting threats and territorial behavior is triple the size in men than it is in the brains of women.
Thus men engage in more violent behavior and are quicker to both perceive and respond to threats. In our society this sort of behavior tends to be illegal.
Women have lower conviction rates because they are guilty less often.
People with different color skin are not different in fundamental ways aside from skin color. Men and women are not equal, are not the same, do not have the same capabilities or behaviors. Racial equality is largely a fact, gender equality nothing short of a blatantly false politically correct myth.
I wouldn't. Real attorney's don't give cases real attorney attention without real attorney pay.
Neither do actual public defenders. Both just want to cut a deal.
It's also going to be tying your wired and N speed wireless ports.
You forgot the part where they buy politicians to pass laws outlawing 3rd party music and to fund them via things like cd-r and internet radio play taxes/fees.
"1. Great, I want all the data on how to make an atom bomb provided in a neat easy to use format. "
Your point being? That comment doesn't relate to anything I said.
"2. I accept that the viewer is ultimately responsible for their own due diligence, but why am I paying for a newspaper if the media aren't being held to reasonable standards of diligence? "
I don't know. Do you read The Weekly World News? Deciding which news sources have such standards is part of the due dilligence of the consumer.
That sort of data is only useful if it is anonymous and double-blind anyway.
"You're not required to address specific demands of every crank who claims your data proves the existence of aliens."
This annoys me since intelligent life elsewhere more likely than not exists (regardless of whether or not it mutilates our cows or is physically possible for us to reach).
How about this instead:
"You're not required to address specific demands of every crank who claims your data proves the existence of a deity."
"If I'm -not- evil though, this could hurt me. If I looked at say 3000 cells, and 10 were doing a thing that I thought was significant, I could have my reasons. Maybe the other 2990 were the wrong cell type or something. Being the expert, that might be obvious to me just from looking at them."
And no doubt it will be equally obvious to all your expert colleagues should have to defend your decision. The support for your conclusions would thus be in the data.
If you are basing decisions on things that are not in the data then you're a quack or a fraud and its best it be uncovered anyway.
In that case the results will be natural selection at its finest. What is the problem here?
It is neither the duty nor the right of scientists to be the gatekeepers of public interpretation or opinion.
That is akin to claiming that only ABA lawyers should be permitted access to the law or computer technicians access to benchmarks.
As far as I am concerned the media can stick anyone they like in front of a microphone to speak on any issue they like. It IS the duty of the VIEWER to access the competence of the individual speaking.
If you have a problem with the fact that viewers do not do their due diligence than I suggest supporting efforts to add critical thinking and local the curriculum in our grade schools.
In other words, regardless of what facts might actually be contained in this data you've already made up your mind. Anything to the contrary "will undoubtedly cherry pick out from the data, take things out of context from studies supporting climate change as a theory, and those people whose support of climate change is based more off of religion than science will do the same to studies that reach opposite conclusions."
*wipes a bit of foam from the corner of your mouth with his handkerchief* You don't exactly sound like a neutral undecided to me.
"What does my admitting that these people have technical skills have to do with it? I did not say they had people skills."
Your point being? I spoke regarding your admission of varied objectives not skills.
"If you put yourself up as an expert and willing to help that simply isn't an assumption."
You do realize that one does not automatically include the other right? Putting oneself up as an expert and/or being generous enough to release code to the community does NOT equate to 'willing to help'. Such an individual has no obligation to assist further and may well participate IRC channels, message boards, mailing lists, etc primarily to further their own goals and discuss issues with their peers.
"You're just hand waving and talking jibberish and hoping I won't notice. You haven't made any kind of coherent argument here."
Always the best tatic. Ignore the arguments presented, raise up your own strawmen and bash them down, and last but not least toss in some petty insults.
An example for the parent would have been a sexier kernel, the examples provided were higher level platforms.
The one who actually enjoys what he does and works toward internal rather than external rewards.
I do what I do because I love to do it. I do it for someone else to get paid. In that order.
I don't know which shows greater ignorance. Your sense of humor or your belief that ham is delicious...
Just because undeserved reputations exist doesn't mean all or even anything near a majority of reputations are undeserved.
I am not a kernel hacker it could be a much maligned codebase that is in truth full of coding bliss. It could be that when you've parsed a few hundred lines of kernel code your eyes cross and the hidden comments pop out in 3D, angels sing and play harps, and nymphs appear and give you blowjobs.
But then again, probably not.
"Meanwhile, there are hundreds of projects that run on Linux. From Apache to Samba to KDE."
Coding something to run on top of linux is not the same thing as coding linux.
True enough. I've known very few 'advanced' technical people who aren't willing to shoot the shit on a problem with other 'advanced' technical people.
But you have raised a fallacy of your own. You admit:
"The fact that they have objectives or skills isn't in question."
But make arguments that assume those objectives depend on or include you being able to meet your objectives (or anyone else being able to meet their objectives). Without this false premise, all your arguments collapse.
True emacs is a little bloated but I'd use nothing else to handle my home automation system. Oh, and to run my coffee maker, and to do my taxes of course.
About the only thing I don't find emacs to be suited for is editing text. I'd use something more targeted like vi for that.
The GPP was claiming he never touches a gui. Putty uses a gui by definition. Generally a windows gui is implied since very distro will install telnet and ssh for you by default but that really isn't the point.
Dude failed, he uses a gui as his desktop which means 90% of the time.
"Yes, I get you, but you're still better off making the entire solution functional before spending even one nanosecond on optimization."
I don't. Macro optimization should happen at the drawing board. Micro optimization should happen automatically by never implementing anything but efficient code as a routine.
Only fine tuning optimization and tweaking should come at the end.*
*Note: You might have noticed that I include optimization in EVERY part of the development process. I also fail to see how you can claim efficiently is not part of function.
Tell it to the framework and generalized code wrangling masses.
I don't want to advocate reinventing the wheel but sometimes it's best to spread the best guidelines for implementing a wheel rather than to try to make a single wheel solution fit every project.
Not all of us group politicians and their overlords in with humans.
In order for that to qualify as democracy-ishness wouldn't the people electing those candidates be a bare minimum? The electorial votes elect presidents, individual citizens don't get a vote. Even if they did, the diebold voting machines are rigged.