Meh. These "tools" are so abstract, that they can as well be abstract "dwellings" or "children" or whatever else you think we may have natural propensity to channel. There are so many layers that separate these abstractions from reality that you can find the cross interests of abstractions at much lower levels. If math occupies levels 14-20 of your abstract thinkings and programming occupies levels 10-15 for someone else, while it occupies levels 18 to 23 for someone who knows math well, you'll have to explain to me why it matters what kind of primitive motivation exists at levels 3-6.
You can stop holding your breath. In fact, you never had to start. The thing which you predicted would never happened. Happened 14 hours before you made your prediction.
Women have evolved to be caretakers and nurturers.
And men have evolved to be hunters and warriors? But how is that related to tech? Channeling natural tendencies into higher-brain-function endeavors requires abstracting away from our basic predispositions.
The fridge analogy is actually pretty good. But calling something a "trap" does not create the same impression as calling it a "drag". Anyone who doesn't understand the topic (and most people who discuss it don't) would be much more frightened at the idea of gasses completely disallowing heat to escape rather than slowing it down. And you do have to understand that popular audience has zero understand of these subtleties so they take these words at their value.
but that clearly isn't happening on time scales that are important
How do you know that exactly? I repeat, the mechanisms responsible for ice ages are not understood. If the mechanisms which cause the warmings which end the ice ages can be expedited, then you have no way of knowing that the mechanism which cause the cooling can or cannot be expedited. 25% of the algae species have increased in population according to the only study (that I know of) published on the subject. And they were the algae which preferred the more acidic (technically more carbon-rich) environments.
Species are always going extinct and new ones emerge. For small cell-count organisms, evolutionary changes are very rapid. As for how they "feel", spare us the anthropomorphisms, please. Poetic license does not contribute much to this debate which already so much contribution from the humanities that it drowns out all the voices from the sciences.
Either way I have no faith in us changing things in time to avert either a US dictatorship or environmental collapse if the anti-science crowd of right wing nutjobs keep holding the reigns of power in the US and elsewhere.
I think genetically engineered crops which will fix more carbon in the roots will solve the issue if it ever becomes a real issue. There is a lot of crops which are grown which don't even make it into the food chain (trees for paper production, for example).
Oh, you poor thing. Wikileaks offered him a job full 14 hours before you published your post. Assange twitted the offer, so it's timestamped, dated and public.
"acidifying" of the ocean is not Oceans turning into acid. It's a slight (very, very slight) change in ph levels of the ocean. Which, incidentally may create environmental bias towards algae species which consume more CO2 (because the acidification is really due to higher levels of CO2 in the ocean water). As higher levels of CO2-voracious algae spread, we may very well see the problem correct itself because these larger algae will fix CO2 and provide more feed higher up the food chain in the oceans. Until there is an explanation of why ice ages happen, don't dismiss the possibility that there is an evolutionary cycle which forces uptake and release of CO2 over long periods of time.
If we can use some gas to trap heat, can we use it to maintain extremely hot conditions? Sun-level temperatures? Not questioning the report here (not agreeing with it). But the way summary was posited is dumb. Neither CO2, nor methane trap heat. they slightly increase the drag on the outflow of the heat from the planet surface.
Anything? Including GoLang? Do you have anything to back that up? I am asking seriously here. Do you have anything beyond suspicion to say that GoLang is a privacy invasion tool?
What do you think they are doing, secretly monitoring you?
Uhm. No, I know they are. That's actually public knowledge. Sorry, I know you were looking for a conspiracy theory nut, but conspiracy requires a secret. If something is in the public domain, then discussing it is not a conspiracy anymore. Do you honestly think they can't figure out your psych state from things you type and view in the browser? And do you want them to sell that info about you to the advertisers?
You've never noticed Mozilla's advocacy of net neutrality and copyright reforms, then....?
These are technology issue. It's not quite the same as taking a position on something which is, at best, a personal issue. If the guy was publically spouting something about tech at Google being sub par, that would be fair grounds for kicking him out. But Google took a position in a political debate which does not affect its core business (again personal does not count as core business). That makes their products suspect.
And the backlash against 3rd wave feminism is quite strong.
Horseshit. There's no way you can call any man campaigning against third wave feminism (which is the feminism of actually implementing the previous two at a practical level) 'quite strong'. And collectively they are weaker.
You personally may think that it's just a method, but such an opinion is just factually wrong. 3rd wave is, in many ways, a rejection of the goals of the 2nd wave. A good deal of the people who would proudly embrace the goals of feminism and 2nd wave feminism would shiver at the goals of the 3rd wave. In many ways 3rd wave asks to embrace the behavior fought against by the 2nd wave by putting the words "proud of" before the antithesis of 2nd wave and, by doing so, turn these antithesis into the goals of the 3rd wave.
Russia is not socialist. Certainly US is more socialist than Russia is. Russia had an actual rebellion against the Soviet Union. Did US ever have an armed uprising against socialism?
Why bad press? If they kept him, it would be good press as far as anyone who agrees with him. And the backlash against 3rd wave feminism is quite strong. That's the problem with injecting politics into decisions which are purported to be based on non-political reasons. You always piss off some people and make other people happy when you get into serious politics.
Guess what? I am now not feeling 100% safe using Chrome. I am seriously going to look into switching back to Mozilla. I don't want to trust my browser binary to a company which has a clear political slant.
C'mon. Google -- the company based on an algorithm deducing what people are attempting to say from what they actually say -- should know better than to hide behind this. It is a very common speech pattern to say "X's are Y" when one means "X's are statistically biased towards Y". Are women universally agreeable? No, obviously not. Are they statistically more likely to be more agreeable? Even if they are not, that's not a point which should get someone fired.
Any other company can claim that they think this difference should be voiced rather than implied. But Google is in the business of understanding the meaning of what is meant to be said from what is said. Insisting on willful ignorance of what the said employee's memo said while claiming to have a deep understanding of how to simulate brain functions of a mature adult to the point where they can produce self-driving cars is only something that Google would have to do due to sheer insanity of our legal regime.
They do get it. But they have to go through the legal fiction of pretending otherwise or to pay through the nose. If anything, this deserves a 2nd look at our harassment laws. People used to meet their spouses at work. Nowadays many companies don't allow fraternization among coworkers.
Of course, this produces neuroticism. People who spend most of their waking hours together are not allowed to be honest with each other. Even if they are well-meaning, but less than extremely eloquent, adults should be able to navigate this field on their own and learn from their mistakes. Prohibition of sexual harassment cannot extend so far as "uncomfortable workplace". Such prohibition has to stop at disallowing sexual coercion in exchange for status quo.
Otherwise, it does creep into this zone of people second guessing normal things which they wish to say. You know what? Sometimes someone can act like an idiot. And you know what? The "punishment" for that has to be telling them "stop acting like an idiot." Instead, we reached the point where it becomes a national scandal and firing is the least of the consequences of what happens. I don't know if this is infantile or insane. I just know that this was brought to us by the lawyers.
While rejection is an immune response, it's not the only type of undesirable immune response. Nor is taking an antirejection medication the only possible reason for being immunocompromised. So by saying "antirejection medication is immunosuppressant" I was clarifying by narrowing down the scope (of what I was referring to) rather than attempting to prove a point through an argument which assumes the said point to be true. The former is a clarification (and a mundane one at that), while the latter would have been a tautology.
I hope that you can appreciate the idea of wishing noninterference from the government.
I don't. I fully support the precept of the civilian control of the military. It's what has kept us from becoming a military dictatorship.
The DoD apparently did a study (or at least such was referred to elsewhere here) which said they were fine with transgender people serving.
Obama administration started an experiment program in its last year in office. Obama administration did a lot of things in its last days in office which, when interpreted in the least convoluted way, seemed to be aimed at creating chaos for the incoming administration. It's not hard to fathom that they started the ball rolling on some of these a full year before rather than in the last few months. And, yes, that means before they knew that Republicans would win the WH. It could have been the Democrats' long-term hedge. The program could have examined certain parameters of risks brought on by having transgendered service members while deliberately ignoring other obvious risks. I don't believe that if the President was a Democrat, and he gave the same exact reasoning (verbatim) as the one given by the current President, anyone would bet an eye at the ban.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh. These "tools" are so abstract, that they can as well be abstract "dwellings" or "children" or whatever else you think we may have natural propensity to channel. There are so many layers that separate these abstractions from reality that you can find the cross interests of abstractions at much lower levels. If math occupies levels 14-20 of your abstract thinkings and programming occupies levels 10-15 for someone else, while it occupies levels 18 to 23 for someone who knows math well, you'll have to explain to me why it matters what kind of primitive motivation exists at levels 3-6.
What's yer point?
You can stop holding your breath. In fact, you never had to start. The thing which you predicted would never happened. Happened 14 hours before you made your prediction.
Women have evolved to be caretakers and nurturers.
And men have evolved to be hunters and warriors? But how is that related to tech? Channeling natural tendencies into higher-brain-function endeavors requires abstracting away from our basic predispositions.
Unless the memo is right. In which case, this is a witch hunt that the memo itself predicted.
The fridge analogy is actually pretty good. But calling something a "trap" does not create the same impression as calling it a "drag". Anyone who doesn't understand the topic (and most people who discuss it don't) would be much more frightened at the idea of gasses completely disallowing heat to escape rather than slowing it down. And you do have to understand that popular audience has zero understand of these subtleties so they take these words at their value.
but that clearly isn't happening on time scales that are important
How do you know that exactly? I repeat, the mechanisms responsible for ice ages are not understood. If the mechanisms which cause the warmings which end the ice ages can be expedited, then you have no way of knowing that the mechanism which cause the cooling can or cannot be expedited. 25% of the algae species have increased in population according to the only study (that I know of) published on the subject. And they were the algae which preferred the more acidic (technically more carbon-rich) environments.
Species are always going extinct and new ones emerge. For small cell-count organisms, evolutionary changes are very rapid. As for how they "feel", spare us the anthropomorphisms, please. Poetic license does not contribute much to this debate which already so much contribution from the humanities that it drowns out all the voices from the sciences.
Either way I have no faith in us changing things in time to avert either a US dictatorship or environmental collapse if the anti-science crowd of right wing nutjobs keep holding the reigns of power in the US and elsewhere.
I think genetically engineered crops which will fix more carbon in the roots will solve the issue if it ever becomes a real issue. There is a lot of crops which are grown which don't even make it into the food chain (trees for paper production, for example).
As a biologist writing down thoughts that there is difference between sexes? Hmm. Well, maybe someone should take up the suit.
Oh, you poor thing. Wikileaks offered him a job full 14 hours before you published your post. Assange twitted the offer, so it's timestamped, dated and public.
"acidifying" of the ocean is not Oceans turning into acid. It's a slight (very, very slight) change in ph levels of the ocean. Which, incidentally may create environmental bias towards algae species which consume more CO2 (because the acidification is really due to higher levels of CO2 in the ocean water). As higher levels of CO2-voracious algae spread, we may very well see the problem correct itself because these larger algae will fix CO2 and provide more feed higher up the food chain in the oceans. Until there is an explanation of why ice ages happen, don't dismiss the possibility that there is an evolutionary cycle which forces uptake and release of CO2 over long periods of time.
If we can use some gas to trap heat, can we use it to maintain extremely hot conditions? Sun-level temperatures? Not questioning the report here (not agreeing with it). But the way summary was posited is dumb. Neither CO2, nor methane trap heat. they slightly increase the drag on the outflow of the heat from the planet surface.
Anything? Including GoLang? Do you have anything to back that up? I am asking seriously here. Do you have anything beyond suspicion to say that GoLang is a privacy invasion tool?
Every organization has a political slant.
But not every organization wears it on its sleeve.
What do you think they are doing, secretly monitoring you?
Uhm. No, I know they are. That's actually public knowledge. Sorry, I know you were looking for a conspiracy theory nut, but conspiracy requires a secret. If something is in the public domain, then discussing it is not a conspiracy anymore. Do you honestly think they can't figure out your psych state from things you type and view in the browser? And do you want them to sell that info about you to the advertisers?
I'll do what Google should have done in this case. I'll simply tell you what you deserve to hear. You are nuts.
You've never noticed Mozilla's advocacy of net neutrality and copyright reforms, then....?
These are technology issue. It's not quite the same as taking a position on something which is, at best, a personal issue. If the guy was publically spouting something about tech at Google being sub par, that would be fair grounds for kicking him out. But Google took a position in a political debate which does not affect its core business (again personal does not count as core business). That makes their products suspect.
I think I don't take any advice from anyone your age.
And the backlash against 3rd wave feminism is quite strong.
Horseshit. There's no way you can call any man campaigning against third wave feminism (which is the feminism of actually implementing the previous two at a practical level) 'quite strong'. And collectively they are weaker.
You personally may think that it's just a method, but such an opinion is just factually wrong. 3rd wave is, in many ways, a rejection of the goals of the 2nd wave. A good deal of the people who would proudly embrace the goals of feminism and 2nd wave feminism would shiver at the goals of the 3rd wave. In many ways 3rd wave asks to embrace the behavior fought against by the 2nd wave by putting the words "proud of" before the antithesis of 2nd wave and, by doing so, turn these antithesis into the goals of the 3rd wave.
I doubt he'll ever have to work again.
Russia or china make one?
Russia is not socialist. Certainly US is more socialist than Russia is. Russia had an actual rebellion against the Soviet Union. Did US ever have an armed uprising against socialism?
Why bad press? If they kept him, it would be good press as far as anyone who agrees with him. And the backlash against 3rd wave feminism is quite strong. That's the problem with injecting politics into decisions which are purported to be based on non-political reasons. You always piss off some people and make other people happy when you get into serious politics.
Guess what? I am now not feeling 100% safe using Chrome. I am seriously going to look into switching back to Mozilla. I don't want to trust my browser binary to a company which has a clear political slant.
C'mon. Google -- the company based on an algorithm deducing what people are attempting to say from what they actually say -- should know better than to hide behind this. It is a very common speech pattern to say "X's are Y" when one means "X's are statistically biased towards Y". Are women universally agreeable? No, obviously not. Are they statistically more likely to be more agreeable? Even if they are not, that's not a point which should get someone fired.
Any other company can claim that they think this difference should be voiced rather than implied. But Google is in the business of understanding the meaning of what is meant to be said from what is said. Insisting on willful ignorance of what the said employee's memo said while claiming to have a deep understanding of how to simulate brain functions of a mature adult to the point where they can produce self-driving cars is only something that Google would have to do due to sheer insanity of our legal regime.
They do get it. But they have to go through the legal fiction of pretending otherwise or to pay through the nose. If anything, this deserves a 2nd look at our harassment laws. People used to meet their spouses at work. Nowadays many companies don't allow fraternization among coworkers.
Of course, this produces neuroticism. People who spend most of their waking hours together are not allowed to be honest with each other. Even if they are well-meaning, but less than extremely eloquent, adults should be able to navigate this field on their own and learn from their mistakes. Prohibition of sexual harassment cannot extend so far as "uncomfortable workplace". Such prohibition has to stop at disallowing sexual coercion in exchange for status quo.
Otherwise, it does creep into this zone of people second guessing normal things which they wish to say. You know what? Sometimes someone can act like an idiot. And you know what? The "punishment" for that has to be telling them "stop acting like an idiot." Instead, we reached the point where it becomes a national scandal and firing is the least of the consequences of what happens. I don't know if this is infantile or insane. I just know that this was brought to us by the lawyers.
Rejection is an immune response.
While rejection is an immune response, it's not the only type of undesirable immune response. Nor is taking an antirejection medication the only possible reason for being immunocompromised. So by saying "antirejection medication is immunosuppressant" I was clarifying by narrowing down the scope (of what I was referring to) rather than attempting to prove a point through an argument which assumes the said point to be true. The former is a clarification (and a mundane one at that), while the latter would have been a tautology.
I hope that you can appreciate the idea of wishing noninterference from the government.
I don't. I fully support the precept of the civilian control of the military. It's what has kept us from becoming a military dictatorship.
The DoD apparently did a study (or at least such was referred to elsewhere here) which said they were fine with transgender people serving.
Obama administration started an experiment program in its last year in office. Obama administration did a lot of things in its last days in office which, when interpreted in the least convoluted way, seemed to be aimed at creating chaos for the incoming administration. It's not hard to fathom that they started the ball rolling on some of these a full year before rather than in the last few months. And, yes, that means before they knew that Republicans would win the WH. It could have been the Democrats' long-term hedge. The program could have examined certain parameters of risks brought on by having transgendered service members while deliberately ignoring other obvious risks. I don't believe that if the President was a Democrat, and he gave the same exact reasoning (verbatim) as the one given by the current President, anyone would bet an eye at the ban.