It's the IIII RRRRR SSSSS. You know.... the people who get electronic records of all executed buy/sell orders of all the public exchanges... among other electronic documents that they manage of infinitely higher complexity than an email server. Yeah, crashing computers is NOT the reason they don't have those emails. This isn't kindergarten. IRS losing a Summer's worth of emails of a supervisor-level employee doesn't even work as a science fiction scenario.
Were those her emails to herself? Otherwise, they went through servers. This isn't a school board email server.... it's the IRS. Does anyone seriously think they don't have copious records of all the documents? My dog ate my homework? If you are gonna post any kind of credible reply to this, don't be an AC. Any AC reply to this will be assume to be coming from the legal staff of the Criminal Democratic Party.
It all comes full circle. First black lung was a disability because once you get too old and too stupid to be a coal miner, they no longer want you in that profession. The very opposite is true of a judge. I guess now that they have gotten too fat and too stupid to ever be anything but judges, that must be considered a disability.
"There were anonymous reports of possible robbery attempts by someone matching your physical description." Done. Once the police allow themselves to lie, a plausible and court-accepted lie is not hard to come up with.
Oh, and on a personal note, the charge of racism is about as serious as you can make in our society. Making this charge, while you have absolutely positively unequivocally no evidence for it (as is the case here), makes you quite an ass hole.
However, I did (correctly) posit that correlation does not imply causation. Any accusation based exclusively on correlational evidence is a shake down. That is also 100% true. You are arguing with claims that no one has made in order to prove a point for which you have no evidence.
Your tirade can be shortened: correlation does not imply causation. While disproportionate representation is correlated with personal bias of those hiring, it does not even as much as suggest that such bias is present. Just as high correlation of left-handedness and talent does not imply that there is a left-handed conspiracy to promote their own.
Diversity does have value. So does innovation though. But I am not sure why Google has to chase one value when its stated purpose is chasing another value. It can't be attempting to gain all that is valuable.
Oh, and let's be clear: claims of discrimination, when these claim are made on nothing but correlation-based evidence, are a shakedown. In the cases when only correlation-based evidence exists, these claims are always (without a single exception) a shakedown.
You cannot infer bias from disproportionate results. Disproportionate results are correlated with bias. But correlation does not imply causation. There is no evidence that Google would reject a qualified minority candidate. Which means practices are not discriminatory. I am not making ANY mistakes. Not even the ones you are attributing to me. I am 100% correct.
The government may want to care about diversity because it wants to affect social change. So might cultural institutions. If Google was hiring editors for content, they would need to be aware of cultural diversities. But why would they need to do that to create better technical solutions? Does being a minority member make one a more competent engineer? Please, don't make the "all other things being equal" arguments, by the way. All things are never equal when it comes to human beings. Why wouldn't Google want to find the best technical people to solve technical problems? Let's be clear, Google is very good at doing what they do. So anyone making an argument that Google is deliberately rejects minorities is actually racist. They are making the argument that rejecting minorities is what makes someone technologically better. This is not an argument worthy of minority-rights advocates. It's an argument worthy of white supremacists. In fact, I have heard white supremacists make arguments just like that. Google finds people who are best at developing technology. The proof is in the pudding.
The random element seems to be there to avoid having to come up with an optimal distribution of information. Otherwise, it seems like a frame-level (or even finer) RAID.
The only way that'd work is if you define people who have different opinions as insane.
Or if I prove my premise. This:
There are many ideologies in the left and you haven't specified any particular one so presumably all of them.
doesn't quite rise to a reductio ad absurdum.
I'm unaware that even insanity could be proved let alone stating an ideology is based on it.
There are certain faculties whose lack would be considered insanity. Which is to say that these faculties are necessary, rather than sufficient, conditions for sanity. Thus insanity can be, from time to time, ascertained even if sanity cannot be.
Chief among faculties viewed as required for sanity is the ability to make a discerning judgement. Therefore, any call for suspending a discerning judgement is a call for voluntary insanity. The call to not be "judgemental" is such a call and it stems from the main leftist premise (which I have not yet stated, but will do so in the next paragraph).
The main premise of all leftist philosophies is that equality (or, more precisely, similarity) of outcomes, in response to similar efforts and similar opportunities, is more desirable than inequality of outcomes due to inequality of efficacy of those efforts.
They have, over the years, realized that this is a hard sell and have attempted to rebrand their fight for equality of results as a fight for equality of opportunities. But they want nothing like the equality of opportunities. They wish to hamper opportunities of the more capable and improve opportunities of the less capable in order to produce more equal results. In order to make their views seem less monstrous, they often attempt to argue that the simple way to observe inequality of opportunities is to look at the inequality of results. But that, again, is absurd because given equal opportunities, different results would be achieved by individuals of different talents.
The left often makes an attempt to vilify and demonize those who would point out the logical error in their reasoning (the one stated in the previous paragraph). But any attempt to argue through vilification of a logical argument is an attempt to get people to suspend their faculty of reasoning. This also is tantamount to requesting that people accept voluntary insanity.
Another faculty that is necessary to sanity and which is hindered by the leftist ideologies is the ability to make a decision. Decisions result from inner products of impetuses and opportunities. The left attempts to argue that moral relativism is a virtue. But moral relativism brands all actions equal (or, at least, less discerned than they really are in value). Thus it removes the ability to pick one action over another and severely hampers the impetus to act. In the face of reduced impetus to act, all opportunities become worth less (albeit not worthless). The ideology thus leads to the inability of people to better their lot in life (even of the people who have talents and are presented with opportunities) . That is insanity (if not in a medical sense of the word, then certainly in the colloquial one).
I'm calling you out, prove it.
I've had these arguments too many times already. Repeating them is tiresome. If you challenge me, at the very least, you could not do it as AC.
Leftist ideology is based (and this is provable) on voluntary insanity. The fact that he is a leftist and goes around calling other people crazy (as is implied by his comment) is pretty good evidence that he is projecting. I wasn't sure if he knew that he was doing that. So I provided him with a link to help him learn about his (possibly self-imposed) condition. The link didn't prove anything. It was only there to help him start reflecting on what he was doing.
Another attempt by the Criminal Democratic Party to justify stealing money. It won't work. Anyone still believing the leftist ideas is beyond help.
I'd worry - indications are that you may have a short lifespan
Not sure if you are doing it consciously. In case if you are not only lacking awareness, but are also lacking self-awareness, let me help you out here:
By encouraging people to challenge each other, the game companies distract them from paying attention to the game content. The players get emotionally invested in their egos rather than the reason they took up the games in the first place (escape from real-world challenges). Sports allow TV networks to attract viewers (also by getting them invested in being fans or stroking their own egos) and forcing them to "challenge" other teams without actually viewing any real content. There is no script or acting necessary to play a sport. It's the game that is always plays with the same rules. There is never any original content. It's all the same content every time. And so is PVP.
I, as a man, demand the right to have a baby. You already have a right to be forgotten. There is no obligation for you to be remembered. That is what gives you a right to be forgotten. Any right, by definition, comes with a counterparty's responsibility to respect the right. The fact that everyone has something they wish everyone would forget doesn't mean they have a right to demand that everyone forget it. It means that we have to come to grips with the fact that people are fallible and have faults. It doesn't mean that we to have embrace the faults. But our reduced ability to forget does put a higher pressure on society to learn when and how to forgive.. Judging people is a mandatory requirement of being reasonable. Without discerning judgement there is no intelligence. And I, for one, don't want to go down the path of embracing stupidity.
Right, except they are fighting government subsidies because they would effectively take money from efficient businesses and distribute it to inefficient businesses. They are the Reardens in this analogy. They oppose subsidies to green energy rather than demand subsidies to coal.
For example, a billionaire influencing politics so that certain ethnicities are rounded up and placed in offshore torture camps is clearly worse than a billionaire influencing politics so that charities that provide surgery for children with cleft palates are exempt from taxation.
Is it? Both surrender control of national policy to the whims of self-selected individuals. Both elevate the rule of men over the rule of law. Is a good-willed dictator better than a mean dictator? Are you familiar with the story of Passover? Just as a parable... not as a religious story. "And then came the Pharaoh who did not know Moses." Meaning that when you enable a dictatorship as a social structure, inevitably the position of power will be occupied by a dictator who won't like you very much. The only solution is to not enable a dictatorship even when it seems like a benevolent one.
What scientific issues? The talk here is purely about cost. Coal burning is a net plus for energy generation and solar isn't (because it requires subsidies to break even). Oh, and yes, if it costs too much, it is a net negative in energy. Money controls distribution of resources. If something costs more money than it generates, then it consumes more resources than it produces.
Yep. Provoke tensions. Create bogus calls for international "peace force" lead by Russia. Provoke more tensions to justify the further military occupation. Are you familiar with the old Russian proverb, "screw me once, shame one you; screw me twice shame on me?"
What both sides? Russia is the only side who has anything to gain. Who is the "other side"? Status quo? Peace? You think Ukraine needs propaganda? To what end?
Slashdot Mirror
I think those emails were personally erased by Bush tax cuts coming life as a Cheney-strain Faux Neus virus.
It's the IIII RRRRR SSSSS. You know.... the people who get electronic records of all executed buy/sell orders of all the public exchanges... among other electronic documents that they manage of infinitely higher complexity than an email server. Yeah, crashing computers is NOT the reason they don't have those emails. This isn't kindergarten. IRS losing a Summer's worth of emails of a supervisor-level employee doesn't even work as a science fiction scenario.
Were those her emails to herself? Otherwise, they went through servers. This isn't a school board email server.... it's the IRS. Does anyone seriously think they don't have copious records of all the documents? My dog ate my homework? If you are gonna post any kind of credible reply to this, don't be an AC. Any AC reply to this will be assume to be coming from the legal staff of the Criminal Democratic Party.
It all comes full circle. First black lung was a disability because once you get too old and too stupid to be a coal miner, they no longer want you in that profession. The very opposite is true of a judge. I guess now that they have gotten too fat and too stupid to ever be anything but judges, that must be considered a disability.
"There were anonymous reports of possible robbery attempts by someone matching your physical description." Done. Once the police allow themselves to lie, a plausible and court-accepted lie is not hard to come up with.
Oh, and on a personal note, the charge of racism is about as serious as you can make in our society. Making this charge, while you have absolutely positively unequivocally no evidence for it (as is the case here), makes you quite an ass hole.
of course my group is inherently superior
No one has made that claim.
I would never discriminate
Actually, no one even made that claim.
However, I did (correctly) posit that correlation does not imply causation. Any accusation based exclusively on correlational evidence is a shake down. That is also 100% true. You are arguing with claims that no one has made in order to prove a point for which you have no evidence.
Your tirade can be shortened: correlation does not imply causation. While disproportionate representation is correlated with personal bias of those hiring, it does not even as much as suggest that such bias is present. Just as high correlation of left-handedness and talent does not imply that there is a left-handed conspiracy to promote their own.
Diversity does have value. So does innovation though. But I am not sure why Google has to chase one value when its stated purpose is chasing another value. It can't be attempting to gain all that is valuable.
Oh, and let's be clear: claims of discrimination, when these claim are made on nothing but correlation-based evidence, are a shakedown. In the cases when only correlation-based evidence exists, these claims are always (without a single exception) a shakedown.
You cannot infer bias from disproportionate results. Disproportionate results are correlated with bias. But correlation does not imply causation. There is no evidence that Google would reject a qualified minority candidate. Which means practices are not discriminatory. I am not making ANY mistakes. Not even the ones you are attributing to me. I am 100% correct.
The government may want to care about diversity because it wants to affect social change. So might cultural institutions. If Google was hiring editors for content, they would need to be aware of cultural diversities. But why would they need to do that to create better technical solutions? Does being a minority member make one a more competent engineer? Please, don't make the "all other things being equal" arguments, by the way. All things are never equal when it comes to human beings. Why wouldn't Google want to find the best technical people to solve technical problems? Let's be clear, Google is very good at doing what they do. So anyone making an argument that Google is deliberately rejects minorities is actually racist. They are making the argument that rejecting minorities is what makes someone technologically better. This is not an argument worthy of minority-rights advocates. It's an argument worthy of white supremacists. In fact, I have heard white supremacists make arguments just like that. Google finds people who are best at developing technology. The proof is in the pudding.
The random element seems to be there to avoid having to come up with an optimal distribution of information. Otherwise, it seems like a frame-level (or even finer) RAID.
The only way that'd work is if you define people who have different opinions as insane.
Or if I prove my premise. This:
There are many ideologies in the left and you haven't specified any particular one so presumably all of them.
doesn't quite rise to a reductio ad absurdum.
I'm unaware that even insanity could be proved let alone stating an ideology is based on it.
There are certain faculties whose lack would be considered insanity. Which is to say that these faculties are necessary, rather than sufficient, conditions for sanity. Thus insanity can be, from time to time, ascertained even if sanity cannot be.
Chief among faculties viewed as required for sanity is the ability to make a discerning judgement. Therefore, any call for suspending a discerning judgement is a call for voluntary insanity. The call to not be "judgemental" is such a call and it stems from the main leftist premise (which I have not yet stated, but will do so in the next paragraph).
The main premise of all leftist philosophies is that equality (or, more precisely, similarity) of outcomes, in response to similar efforts and similar opportunities, is more desirable than inequality of outcomes due to inequality of efficacy of those efforts.
They have, over the years, realized that this is a hard sell and have attempted to rebrand their fight for equality of results as a fight for equality of opportunities. But they want nothing like the equality of opportunities. They wish to hamper opportunities of the more capable and improve opportunities of the less capable in order to produce more equal results. In order to make their views seem less monstrous, they often attempt to argue that the simple way to observe inequality of opportunities is to look at the inequality of results. But that, again, is absurd because given equal opportunities, different results would be achieved by individuals of different talents.
The left often makes an attempt to vilify and demonize those who would point out the logical error in their reasoning (the one stated in the previous paragraph). But any attempt to argue through vilification of a logical argument is an attempt to get people to suspend their faculty of reasoning. This also is tantamount to requesting that people accept voluntary insanity.
Another faculty that is necessary to sanity and which is hindered by the leftist ideologies is the ability to make a decision. Decisions result from inner products of impetuses and opportunities. The left attempts to argue that moral relativism is a virtue. But moral relativism brands all actions equal (or, at least, less discerned than they really are in value). Thus it removes the ability to pick one action over another and severely hampers the impetus to act. In the face of reduced impetus to act, all opportunities become worth less (albeit not worthless). The ideology thus leads to the inability of people to better their lot in life (even of the people who have talents and are presented with opportunities) . That is insanity (if not in a medical sense of the word, then certainly in the colloquial one).
I'm calling you out, prove it.
I've had these arguments too many times already. Repeating them is tiresome. If you challenge me, at the very least, you could not do it as AC.
Leftist ideology is based (and this is provable) on voluntary insanity. The fact that he is a leftist and goes around calling other people crazy (as is implied by his comment) is pretty good evidence that he is projecting. I wasn't sure if he knew that he was doing that. So I provided him with a link to help him learn about his (possibly self-imposed) condition. The link didn't prove anything. It was only there to help him start reflecting on what he was doing.
Another attempt by the Criminal Democratic Party to justify stealing money. It won't work. Anyone still believing the leftist ideas is beyond help.
I'd worry - indications are that you may have a short lifespan
Not sure if you are doing it consciously. In case if you are not only lacking awareness, but are also lacking self-awareness, let me help you out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Another attempt by the Criminal Democratic Party to justify stealing money. It won't work. Anyone still believing the leftist ideas is beyond help.
By encouraging people to challenge each other, the game companies distract them from paying attention to the game content. The players get emotionally invested in their egos rather than the reason they took up the games in the first place (escape from real-world challenges). Sports allow TV networks to attract viewers (also by getting them invested in being fans or stroking their own egos) and forcing them to "challenge" other teams without actually viewing any real content. There is no script or acting necessary to play a sport. It's the game that is always plays with the same rules. There is never any original content. It's all the same content every time. And so is PVP.
I, as a man, demand the right to have a baby. You already have a right to be forgotten. There is no obligation for you to be remembered. That is what gives you a right to be forgotten. Any right, by definition, comes with a counterparty's responsibility to respect the right. The fact that everyone has something they wish everyone would forget doesn't mean they have a right to demand that everyone forget it. It means that we have to come to grips with the fact that people are fallible and have faults. It doesn't mean that we to have embrace the faults. But our reduced ability to forget does put a higher pressure on society to learn when and how to forgive.. Judging people is a mandatory requirement of being reasonable. Without discerning judgement there is no intelligence. And I, for one, don't want to go down the path of embracing stupidity.
Right, except they are fighting government subsidies because they would effectively take money from efficient businesses and distribute it to inefficient businesses. They are the Reardens in this analogy. They oppose subsidies to green energy rather than demand subsidies to coal.
Ban political contributions altogther, beginning of solving the problem.
Or reduce the power of the government so that there is nothing to bribe politicians over. I wonder which one is more sustainable in the long run.
For example, a billionaire influencing politics so that certain ethnicities are rounded up and placed in offshore torture camps is clearly worse than a billionaire influencing politics so that charities that provide surgery for children with cleft palates are exempt from taxation.
Is it? Both surrender control of national policy to the whims of self-selected individuals. Both elevate the rule of men over the rule of law. Is a good-willed dictator better than a mean dictator? Are you familiar with the story of Passover? Just as a parable... not as a religious story. "And then came the Pharaoh who did not know Moses." Meaning that when you enable a dictatorship as a social structure, inevitably the position of power will be occupied by a dictator who won't like you very much. The only solution is to not enable a dictatorship even when it seems like a benevolent one.
What scientific issues? The talk here is purely about cost. Coal burning is a net plus for energy generation and solar isn't (because it requires subsidies to break even). Oh, and yes, if it costs too much, it is a net negative in energy. Money controls distribution of resources. If something costs more money than it generates, then it consumes more resources than it produces.
Yep. Provoke tensions. Create bogus calls for international "peace force" lead by Russia. Provoke more tensions to justify the further military occupation. Are you familiar with the old Russian proverb, "screw me once, shame one you; screw me twice shame on me?"
What both sides? Russia is the only side who has anything to gain. Who is the "other side"? Status quo? Peace? You think Ukraine needs propaganda? To what end?