Don't tell me how much they've raised from investors, as some metric to the viability of a concept; investing is risky by nature. How many expensive failures do we need to see before we understand this concept?
Not that I'm apposed to the idea, necessarily, but I'm not sold that it's any better than our current system. It sounds like a tax on the rich to subsidize the poor ( and poor decision makers who pursue lower-value degrees because "DREAMS" and all ). In essence, it sounds like an abdication of personal responsibility.
Nonsense. Anytime someone sets them up as the "gatekeepers" to information, they deserve to be challenged. Continually and repeatedly.
This action suggests that the university holds these journals up as some impeachable resource. Dangerous ground, for precisely the reason these folks showed.
After all disrupting these organisations wouldn't be a big loss because they don't pay much into society now anyway.
Ya, fuck all those employees. Oh, and the people using their mapping software, and any other services millions ( if not billions ) use each and every day.
Sarcasm aside, I get the outrage; it seems as if google isn't paying "their fair share". What is their fair share? What's yours, for that matter? How are you sure you're paying your fair share?
I know we're all supposed to be angry at democrats/republicans ( depending on your allegiance of course ), but I just can't bring myself to be upset about the shutdown, or this particular aspect of it. Perhaps we should consider making this a more permanent state of affairs?
And here, again, you pivot without significant argument to ad hominem attacks on the humanities.
Without significant argument? You, yourself, are providing all the "argument" I need.
Nobody is saying that they bear all the guilt, but when that demographic has had pretty much all the power in a particular area for centuries, there is a certain culpability. Why is it so difficult to admit this?
Victimhood mentality, brought to you by the humanities. Honestly, they should just flush the entire dept at most colleges. Nothing of value would be lost, and in fact property values would probably go up.
Nobody had their free speech rights suppressed. Nobody is entitled to a platform.
Point of fact, as colleges are funded at least in part from federal funds, the invited speakers were entitled to their platforms. This has been upheld in the courts, btw.
My guess is that you are claiming that the teaching of the uglier parts of the past of the US and Europe has lead directly to open hostility to anyone who is a white male.
Your guess would be wrong. Look; I'm all for teaching the dirty parts of history. The more kids who mistrust the government, the happier I am. Note: that doesn't require skin color or gender to convey the point, nor should it. Both of these are irrelevant metrics. Just as you'd (rightly) call me racist for insinuating that all blacks must be violent because blacks committed 52% of all murders in the united states( https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu... ), it's wrong to imply that white males are somehow guilty for all the ills of society's past ( while, at the very same time, ignoring all the advancements made during the same time period mind you ).
The humanities advance this victimhood narrative, which necessitates a villain. This kind of thinking is sloppy and meaningless, undermining any credibility they may have in arguing for "critical thinking". They are simply incapable of it.
Ok, so given your position, why did you involve yourself in a discussion in opposition to a point you don't have a fault with?
Suppressing free speech via any means is wrong in context of the college speakers. The humanities in college gave rise to that behavior, it's a direct causal relationship. While their intent may line up with teaching "Critical thinking", in actuality their execution speaks directly to their unworthiness to be trusted with such responsibility.
I also have free speech rights, and when someone is saying something hateful, I will exercise MY rights to assembly and to speak to shout them down.
This is what I'm advocating, and this is how it is supposed to work.
If not, are you really advocating that all viewpoints should always get equal representation? Should a meeting of planetary scientists allow a flat-earther to speak? Should a conference on evolution allow a creationist to speak?
So whoever is loudest gets to be heard?
I'm not entirely sure you understand how free speech is really supposed to work. Further, your example is suspect; a meeting of planetary scientists is a specific forum often funded by private funds. A college campus accepts public funds, and furthermore the speakers you find so distasteful are invited to speak.
The proper response when someone says something you disagree with is to respond in kind; advocate against their position without attempting to suppress it.
That, however, is not what you or these protesters are doing. "Shouting someone down" deprives people of their natural right to free speech.
Not all opinions are equal and deserve equal weight in discussions. Some should be shouted down in protest.
So free speech, but only for those you agree with? It's almost like you are arguing my point for me, and in any case you are arguing my point far more effectively than I could.
The humanities typically include black and feminist theory courses, often with an emphasis on oppression by white male European decedents. I'd say that tying together that and the resultant behavior isn't a fallacy at all.
As far as the impact, one need look no further than the variety of violent protests to conservative speakers to dismiss your point as foolish. Not that the political ideology is relevant, merely that someone they disagree with was coming to speak on campus and thus they protested.
So much for the humanities being the appropriate place to foster "Critical Thinking".
I think the STEM area would be more appropriate; to become a scientist you have to accept the world as it is and accept that sometimes you are wrong; two key elements in critical thinking. Math doesn't care about your feelings, for instance, nor do experimental results change because you believe them to be wrong.
The humanities have done enough damage, wouldn't you say? The "speech is violence" nonsense on modern campuses can be directly traced to their "teachings".
Critical thinking should absolutely be taught, but let's not leave that to a racist and misandric group of idiots.
Where I work, around %5 of the people do the work, while the rest are dead weight. I've been a few places and this seems to be the norm; I wonder if employees are getting "burn out" because A) They're the deadweight who aren't going to do anything anyway or B) they're the ones running around doing all the work.
Idle thoughts. I'd like to see someone study this.
Look, google may have been dicking around with the code, I'll grant you that, but Edge was horrible even on non-google sites. Shit, it's horrible on MS sites.
They gave up because they haven't been able to bring a solid browser to market in nearly 2 decades and someone, somewhere, finally decided to call ToD.
Also; in professional communities, coworkers are always aware of who the flakes are. I have had several opportunities to recommend people for positions, and I always keep in mind who's likely to embarrass me if I make that recommendation, as well as who I'd be proud to have recommended.
I think most people don't know about the privacy issues- and many that do feel like they "have to be on facebook to stay relevant" (ridiculous belief, but one shared by many).
Not "stay relevant" perhaps, but rather "up to date" with their family and other long distance relationships. Sure, you and I probably don't fall into that demographic, but I'd bet that a majority of facebook users do.
I know my family and non-tech friends have FB for that precise reason; it's a way to maintain social connections that they otherwise wouldn't have.
Based on the history of "work place revolutions", the new hotness will be standing workstations on airport tarmacs. Because "collaboration!" and "synergy!".
...and this is one of the many reasons why. I flushed them out of my life years ago, both residentially AND commercially, and I often am recommending to colleagues to get rid of them as well.
It's one of those decisions you end up asking yourself why you didn't make it sooner. Even comcast is better than they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't tell me how much they've raised from investors, as some metric to the viability of a concept; investing is risky by nature. How many expensive failures do we need to see before we understand this concept?
Not that I'm apposed to the idea, necessarily, but I'm not sold that it's any better than our current system. It sounds like a tax on the rich to subsidize the poor ( and poor decision makers who pursue lower-value degrees because "DREAMS" and all ). In essence, it sounds like an abdication of personal responsibility.
Nonsense. Anytime someone sets them up as the "gatekeepers" to information, they deserve to be challenged. Continually and repeatedly.
This action suggests that the university holds these journals up as some impeachable resource. Dangerous ground, for precisely the reason these folks showed.
Ah, of course; shoot the messenger. Time honored "head in sand" technique.
That'll solve the credibility problem!
I've been assured that gender is merely a social construct. If so, how is there a gender gap?
Shitlord scientists using their science...literally hitlers.
LITERALLY.
After all disrupting these organisations wouldn't be a big loss because they don't pay much into society now anyway.
Ya, fuck all those employees. Oh, and the people using their mapping software, and any other services millions ( if not billions ) use each and every day.
Sarcasm aside, I get the outrage; it seems as if google isn't paying "their fair share". What is their fair share? What's yours, for that matter? How are you sure you're paying your fair share?
I know we're all supposed to be angry at democrats/republicans ( depending on your allegiance of course ), but I just can't bring myself to be upset about the shutdown, or this particular aspect of it. Perhaps we should consider making this a more permanent state of affairs?
And here, again, you pivot without significant argument to ad hominem attacks on the humanities.
Without significant argument? You, yourself, are providing all the "argument" I need.
Nobody is saying that they bear all the guilt, but when that demographic has had pretty much all the power in a particular area for centuries, there is a certain culpability. Why is it so difficult to admit this?
Victimhood mentality, brought to you by the humanities. Honestly, they should just flush the entire dept at most colleges. Nothing of value would be lost, and in fact property values would probably go up.
Nobody had their free speech rights suppressed. Nobody is entitled to a platform.
Point of fact, as colleges are funded at least in part from federal funds, the invited speakers were entitled to their platforms. This has been upheld in the courts, btw.
My guess is that you are claiming that the teaching of the uglier parts of the past of the US and Europe has lead directly to open hostility to anyone who is a white male.
Your guess would be wrong. Look; I'm all for teaching the dirty parts of history. The more kids who mistrust the government, the happier I am. Note: that doesn't require skin color or gender to convey the point, nor should it. Both of these are irrelevant metrics. Just as you'd (rightly) call me racist for insinuating that all blacks must be violent because blacks committed 52% of all murders in the united states( https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu... ), it's wrong to imply that white males are somehow guilty for all the ills of society's past ( while, at the very same time, ignoring all the advancements made during the same time period mind you ).
The humanities advance this victimhood narrative, which necessitates a villain. This kind of thinking is sloppy and meaningless, undermining any credibility they may have in arguing for "critical thinking". They are simply incapable of it.
Ok, so given your position, why did you involve yourself in a discussion in opposition to a point you don't have a fault with?
Suppressing free speech via any means is wrong in context of the college speakers. The humanities in college gave rise to that behavior, it's a direct causal relationship. While their intent may line up with teaching "Critical thinking", in actuality their execution speaks directly to their unworthiness to be trusted with such responsibility.
I also have free speech rights, and when someone is saying something hateful, I will exercise MY rights to assembly and to speak to shout them down.
This is what I'm advocating, and this is how it is supposed to work.
If not, are you really advocating that all viewpoints should always get equal representation? Should a meeting of planetary scientists allow a flat-earther to speak? Should a conference on evolution allow a creationist to speak?
So whoever is loudest gets to be heard?
I'm not entirely sure you understand how free speech is really supposed to work. Further, your example is suspect; a meeting of planetary scientists is a specific forum often funded by private funds. A college campus accepts public funds, and furthermore the speakers you find so distasteful are invited to speak.
The proper response when someone says something you disagree with is to respond in kind; advocate against their position without attempting to suppress it.
That, however, is not what you or these protesters are doing. "Shouting someone down" deprives people of their natural right to free speech.
Not all opinions are equal and deserve equal weight in discussions. Some should be shouted down in protest.
So free speech, but only for those you agree with? It's almost like you are arguing my point for me, and in any case you are arguing my point far more effectively than I could.
The humanities typically include black and feminist theory courses, often with an emphasis on oppression by white male European decedents. I'd say that tying together that and the resultant behavior isn't a fallacy at all.
As far as the impact, one need look no further than the variety of violent protests to conservative speakers to dismiss your point as foolish. Not that the political ideology is relevant, merely that someone they disagree with was coming to speak on campus and thus they protested.
So much for the humanities being the appropriate place to foster "Critical Thinking".
I think the STEM area would be more appropriate; to become a scientist you have to accept the world as it is and accept that sometimes you are wrong; two key elements in critical thinking. Math doesn't care about your feelings, for instance, nor do experimental results change because you believe them to be wrong.
The humanities have done enough damage, wouldn't you say? The "speech is violence" nonsense on modern campuses can be directly traced to their "teachings".
Critical thinking should absolutely be taught, but let's not leave that to a racist and misandric group of idiots.
Do you have stairs in your house?
*Should* is the operative word here. Universities absolutely should be teaching students how to think and listen critically.
Instead they have safe spaces and riots when someone who "Thinks Different" comes to give a speech.
Where I work, around %5 of the people do the work, while the rest are dead weight. I've been a few places and this seems to be the norm; I wonder if employees are getting "burn out" because A) They're the deadweight who aren't going to do anything anyway or B) they're the ones running around doing all the work.
Idle thoughts. I'd like to see someone study this.
Look, google may have been dicking around with the code, I'll grant you that, but Edge was horrible even on non-google sites. Shit, it's horrible on MS sites.
They gave up because they haven't been able to bring a solid browser to market in nearly 2 decades and someone, somewhere, finally decided to call ToD.
Also; in professional communities, coworkers are always aware of who the flakes are. I have had several opportunities to recommend people for positions, and I always keep in mind who's likely to embarrass me if I make that recommendation, as well as who I'd be proud to have recommended.
Let's tax every stupid idea a politician has. 1 cent per.
We'd be able to pay off the national debt before the end of the year.
I'm never sure if I'm making a joke or giving someone a really bad idea.
If it happens, I'm so sorry!
No kidding.
Now if only we can put att out of everyone's misery...
I'd be lying if that weren't exciting to me.
I think most people don't know about the privacy issues- and many that do feel like they "have to be on facebook to stay relevant" (ridiculous belief, but one shared by many).
Not "stay relevant" perhaps, but rather "up to date" with their family and other long distance relationships. Sure, you and I probably don't fall into that demographic, but I'd bet that a majority of facebook users do.
I know my family and non-tech friends have FB for that precise reason; it's a way to maintain social connections that they otherwise wouldn't have.
Based on the history of "work place revolutions", the new hotness will be standing workstations on airport tarmacs. Because "collaboration!" and "synergy!".
...and this is one of the many reasons why. I flushed them out of my life years ago, both residentially AND commercially, and I often am recommending to colleagues to get rid of them as well.
It's one of those decisions you end up asking yourself why you didn't make it sooner. Even comcast is better than they are.