>> it doesn't excuse Clinton's behavior by saying that everyone else is corrupt. That's just a cop out.
I agree and actually didn't (intend to) say that. I was more lamenting the lack of choice than anything else.
>> I think that there are some honorable politicians but once they get to the top of the heap all the morals are left behind.
I see ith the other way actually. I think that its only after they have gotten so high there's nowhere left to go that they stop fucking people over and start worring about their sould/legacy/image/payback. Most 2-term presidents do some token thing close to the end. Bill Gates is a perfect example of an absolute bastard who fucked over many people, now trying to get perceived as a good guy (while still actually fucking people over).
You're not trying to suggest that there's any such thing as a US politician that isn't corrupt are you?
The system itself is making sure there can't be... politicians have to "play the game" in order to get anywhere in the first place, so the system is actually weeding out the really honest guys (i.e. the guys that we actually want to run) by making sure they can't even get a start.
This is also why all the parties get involved in dirt-digging and mud-slinging... they all know there's no way any candidate can be actually clean. You may have to dig to find it, but the corruption must be there somewhere.
What they really mean is business data-mining experts. Unfortunately AI expert just sounds cooler and is easier to say, no matter how far from the truth it is.
>> a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.
I don't see that as being self-evident at all, In fact I can't even see what part of the above could be considered sexist or even controversial if you analyse what was actually said.
There seems to be 3 potential points of issue:
* The comment that as the researchers didnt include a male would mean their paper risks being gender-biassed seems perfectly reasonable, especially as the papaer itself is about gender balance.
* The statment that on average, most men can probably run a mile faster than most women. Check any sports timings. This seems to be beyond doubt to any but the most unreasonable person.
* That men's papers are on average higher quality than women's. Since I have no personal experience of reveiewing papers submitted for publishing I have no valid comment either way, however lets do some logical ananlysis: If we assume that the stated position of their own paper is in fact correct; that men tend to publish more papers, and in more prestigious academic journals, than women. It therefore necessarily follows that men actually must have more experience on what it takes to get their papers past reviewers (i.e. to impress them) than women.
There are way too many "peecee" people (and apparently you may be one of them) that see any acknowlegdement or even mention of gender differneces (especially the ones where women don't do as well as men) as automatic cause to yell "sexist". This is patently ridiculous given the existence of physiological and mental gender differences is undeniable. Shouting "sexist" at every mention of these really does not do anyone any favours, least of all, the women that are fighting to attain actual equality.
Since there doesn't seem to be any effective oversight of the NSA (or CIA) or any actual consequences when they break the law, why would anyone seriously expect the NSA would actually stop mass collection or even give a shit about this bill passing?
The expensive mass-surveilance mechanisms and technologies are already developed and in place. Unless all the secret data centres and backbone taps are identified and physically destroyed in front of independent monitors, There's not a hope in hell that the NSA and their buddies won't just keep using it no matter what some stupid bill says.
>> The problem is that they'll run out of bitcoins to sell,
No, they just need to keep busting drug dealers that take bitcoins. if those hauls over time net less bitcoins it just means the popularity of bitcoin itself is going away, therefore the number of bitcoins they need to sell to affect the market is less.
>> mining produces smaller and smaller amounts over time. True but thats controlled by difficulty which is adjusted montlhy, and does not necessarily always increase. In fact its decreased several times lately, since there is no new generation of hardware that can mine bitcoins significantly faster or with using less power to justify the cost of keeping mining given a continuing increase in difficulty and a continuing cost of electricity. In fact we're already well past the break even point for most miners. The government have no such problem, since unlike every other miner, their goal is not to make a net profit, but to crash the bitcoin economy at any cost.
>> At least it can't be devalued like government's magic paper.
Sure it can. The government already got their hands on 30,000 ( worth about $18 million then) of Silk Road's bitcoins and more from other busts, and the NSA already has masive computers that could mine bitcoins like there's no tomorrow.
Complete conspiracy theorizing herre, but it really wouldn't be hard or even unlikely for the US government to use any bitcoins they recover from criminal activity, along with power-mining to keep anonymously bulk-selling bitcoins at a big loss just to crash the whole bitcoin market. Their motivation would presumably be to both kill anything that faciliates the existence of black-markets and also kill anything that competes even slightly with the almighty $.
>> At the end of 2014, for example, the peso was worth 25 percent less than it was at the beginning of the year.
Even as someone who believed in Bitcoin enough to spend significant $ on mining hardware, I know bitcoin has been far more volatile and has devalued far more than that in the same period.
The problem with liberty is that human nature ensures we can't ever actually have it. There's always some dick that thinks he's got a god-given right to tell everyone else what to do.
Even if you could create a a free environment, some fucktard will just take advantage of it to recruit an army (a.k.a police force) then declare himself the boss of everyone by force. Kinda like the government already does and the leaders of most religions try to do.
Yep. The differences are that you are probably a lot fitter and younger than most experienced pilots. For example, 40 is considered young to be a 777 pilot. They have a sedentary job and they spend a lot of time away from home, living out of hotels/restaurants, which is also very not conducive to healthy eating or healthy lifestyle. Besides your backpack is a lot more ergonomically designed so far easier to tote than most pilots flightbags that I've seen. They are basically a wheelly suitcase.
I don't subscribe to the thinking that attracting more women to engineering just because they're women is somehow a self-evidently good thing, consequently I personally don't care or see it as a necessarily bad thing if the field has a (largely untrue) stereotype of being mostly a job for men.
To be honest I think that if someone can't get past some perceved stereotype and simply do enough minimal research to find out that the field they're interested in actually has opportunities regardless of the sterotype, then they already proved themselves a bad fit by demonstrating they don't have fact-based aproach to problem solving so won't be a good fit to be an engineer in the first place. Think of it as natural selection. The first round of the interview is just turning up.
Why? Its not a problem that most women chose to do other things. Its nice to see freedom of choice in action. Unless you can prove to me that women actually have less opportunities than men to get into STEM in the first place, this whole article is just misandry.
>> She notes that....at Princeton, the student chapter of Engineers Without Borders has an executive board that is nearly 70 percent female,
I trust that she is equally concerned about that gender bias and getting more men into that board then? No? Funny how she suddenly gives equality a hall pass when it happens to be women that dominate something.
I'm sorry but the argument that there *needs* to be more women in computing just because vagina makes no sense to me.
Why does she just blindly assume that we all see the relative low percentage of women in the field as a problem? There is already nothing inherently gender specific in the subjects that make up CS (math, AI, good algorithm design etc). Lets keep it that way.
Remember the road to equality (and freedom of choice) is to keep the opportunities equal to both genders, not make equal numbers of both genders take those opportunities. If you introduce artificial advantages that only benefit one gender, even if it is to address some perceived numerical imbalance, you're necessarily reducing ACTUAL equality.
>> So what is so wrong with making a curriculum more attractive to women?
It depends what you mean. I agree the learning environment should be gender neutral, and changes to make that happen are of course good. But you're talking about the curriculum itself, i.e. the subjects being taught. There is currently absolutely nothing in the subject matter itself that makes up Computer Science (math, logic, algorithm design, AI, etc etc) that is inherently gender-specific (unless you start considering the inherent gender-specific differences in mental skills between the average mens and womens brains and yes those differences really do exist).
By introducing gender-specific changes to completely gender-neutral subject matter you cannot help but make gender and sexual equality more of an issue not less.
Remember the road to equality is to keep the opportunities equal, not force equal numbers of both genders to take those opportunities. If you create additional artificial advantages that only benefit one gender, even if it is to address some perceived imbalance, you're just making the problem worse.
Yeah I'm not sure I believe anything the FDA says or that they put the interests of the public first.
About half of their funding and much of their upper management comes directly from the drug industry. The FDA seems to be the very definition of a fox watching the hen house.
I really tried with stevia since it at least superficially seemed to be the way to go weight-wise, but i just couldn't get used to its nasty taste. I couldn't find one use for it where even a little didn't badly screw up whatever I put it in (Tea, coffee, cooking, etc.).
I think I'm proably like a lot of (non-diabetic) Europeans in that I mentally lump aspartame, sucralose, splenda, corn syrup, saccharin, MSG and all other man-made sweeteners into the same "big money is covering these up as a direct cause of serious health issues" category, and sucrose into a "not great, but way better than anything artificial" category.
My question is: Is my paranoia scientifically justified?
>> He only wants the best for the next generation of Americans.
Ahh so thats why he's trying to directly engineer mass unemployment of home-grown US engineers, and replace them with a dependency on a 3rd world country where the academic system is a complete sham that is based on widespread cheating and the sale of degrees as standard practice?
Slashdot Mirror
Because not one of its components is a mug of hot tea. Where are they going to get the source of brownian motion from otherwise?
>> it doesn't excuse Clinton's behavior by saying that everyone else is corrupt. That's just a cop out.
I agree and actually didn't (intend to) say that. I was more lamenting the lack of choice than anything else.
>> I think that there are some honorable politicians but once they get to the top of the heap all the morals are left behind.
I see ith the other way actually. I think that its only after they have gotten so high there's nowhere left to go that they stop fucking people over and start worring about their sould/legacy/image/payback.
Most 2-term presidents do some token thing close to the end. Bill Gates is a perfect example of an absolute bastard who fucked over many people, now trying to get perceived as a good guy (while still actually fucking people over).
You're not trying to suggest that there's any such thing as a US politician that isn't corrupt are you?
The system itself is making sure there can't be... politicians have to "play the game" in order to get anywhere in the first place, so the system is actually weeding out the really honest guys (i.e. the guys that we actually want to run) by making sure they can't even get a start.
This is also why all the parties get involved in dirt-digging and mud-slinging... they all know there's no way any candidate can be actually clean. You may have to dig to find it, but the corruption must be there somewhere.
>> AI Experts In High Demand
What they really mean is business data-mining experts. Unfortunately AI expert just sounds cooler and is easier to say, no matter how far from the truth it is.
No I really wasn't trolling but I guess being marked as a troll exactly justfied my last point.
>> a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.
I don't see that as being self-evident at all, In fact I can't even see what part of the above could be considered sexist or even controversial if you analyse what was actually said.
There seems to be 3 potential points of issue:
* The comment that as the researchers didnt include a male would mean their paper risks being gender-biassed seems perfectly reasonable, especially as the papaer itself is about gender balance.
* The statment that on average, most men can probably run a mile faster than most women. Check any sports timings. This seems to be beyond doubt to any but the most unreasonable person.
* That men's papers are on average higher quality than women's. Since I have no personal experience of reveiewing papers submitted for publishing I have no valid comment either way, however lets do some logical ananlysis:
If we assume that the stated position of their own paper is in fact correct; that men tend to publish more papers, and in more prestigious academic journals, than women. It therefore necessarily follows that men actually must have more experience on what it takes to get their papers past reviewers (i.e. to impress them) than women.
There are way too many "peecee" people (and apparently you may be one of them) that see any acknowlegdement or even mention of gender differneces (especially the ones where women don't do as well as men) as automatic cause to yell "sexist". This is patently ridiculous given the existence of physiological and mental gender differences is undeniable. Shouting "sexist" at every mention of these really does not do anyone any favours, least of all, the women that are fighting to attain actual equality.
Since there doesn't seem to be any effective oversight of the NSA (or CIA) or any actual consequences when they break the law, why would anyone seriously expect the NSA would actually stop mass collection or even give a shit about this bill passing?
The expensive mass-surveilance mechanisms and technologies are already developed and in place. Unless all the secret data centres and backbone taps are identified and physically destroyed in front of independent monitors, There's not a hope in hell that the NSA and their buddies won't just keep using it no matter what some stupid bill says.
>> Please do some research first into bitcoin before spreading misinformation.
and you please stop being an arrogant dick.
As it happens I already know quite a lot about bitcoin.
>> The problem is that they'll run out of bitcoins to sell,
No, they just need to keep busting drug dealers that take bitcoins. if those hauls over time net less bitcoins it just means the popularity of bitcoin itself is going away, therefore the number of bitcoins they need to sell to affect the market is less.
>> mining produces smaller and smaller amounts over time.
True but thats controlled by difficulty which is adjusted montlhy, and does not necessarily always increase. In fact its decreased several times lately, since there is no new generation of hardware that can mine bitcoins significantly faster or with using less power to justify the cost of keeping mining given a continuing increase in difficulty and a continuing cost of electricity. In fact we're already well past the break even point for most miners.
The government have no such problem, since unlike every other miner, their goal is not to make a net profit, but to crash the bitcoin economy at any cost.
>> At least it can't be devalued like government's magic paper.
Sure it can. The government already got their hands on 30,000 ( worth about $18 million then) of Silk Road's bitcoins and more from other busts, and the NSA already has masive computers that could mine bitcoins like there's no tomorrow.
Complete conspiracy theorizing herre, but it really wouldn't be hard or even unlikely for the US government to use any bitcoins they recover from criminal activity, along with power-mining to keep anonymously bulk-selling bitcoins at a big loss just to crash the whole bitcoin market. Their motivation would presumably be to both kill anything that faciliates the existence of black-markets and also kill anything that competes even slightly with the almighty $.
>> This is an oppressive government with immoral laws that are being circumvented.
Thats also true of literally every government in the world.
>> At the end of 2014, for example, the peso was worth 25 percent less than it was at the beginning of the year.
Even as someone who believed in Bitcoin enough to spend significant $ on mining hardware, I know bitcoin has been far more volatile and has devalued far more than that in the same period.
The problem with liberty is that human nature ensures we can't ever actually have it. There's always some dick that thinks he's got a god-given right to tell everyone else what to do.
Even if you could create a a free environment, some fucktard will just take advantage of it to recruit an army (a.k.a police force) then declare himself the boss of everyone by force. Kinda like the government already does and the leaders of most religions try to do.
Yep. The differences are that you are probably a lot fitter and younger than most experienced pilots. For example, 40 is considered young to be a 777 pilot.
They have a sedentary job and they spend a lot of time away from home, living out of hotels/restaurants, which is also very not conducive to healthy eating or healthy lifestyle.
Besides your backpack is a lot more ergonomically designed so far easier to tote than most pilots flightbags that I've seen. They are basically a wheelly suitcase.
>> And as to Catholics outside of south america... most of them are lapse Catholics that don't especially care what the pope says either.
I understand he's very important in The Congo.
I don't subscribe to the thinking that attracting more women to engineering just because they're women is somehow a self-evidently good thing, consequently I personally don't care or see it as a necessarily bad thing if the field has a (largely untrue) stereotype of being mostly a job for men.
To be honest I think that if someone can't get past some perceved stereotype and simply do enough minimal research to find out that the field they're interested in actually has opportunities regardless of the sterotype, then they already proved themselves a bad fit by demonstrating they don't have fact-based aproach to problem solving so won't be a good fit to be an engineer in the first place. Think of it as natural selection. The first round of the interview is just turning up.
Why?
Its not a problem that most women chose to do other things. Its nice to see freedom of choice in action.
Unless you can prove to me that women actually have less opportunities than men to get into STEM in the first place, this whole article is just misandry.
...so you're simply advocating for better (i.e. more misleading) advertising of the same old product?
That just seems deceptive and immoral to me, and would cause even more women to drop out as soon as they figure it out for themselves.
>> She notes that....at Princeton, the student chapter of Engineers Without Borders has an executive board that is nearly 70 percent female,
I trust that she is equally concerned about that gender bias and getting more men into that board then? No? Funny how she suddenly gives equality a hall pass when it happens to be women that dominate something.
I'm sorry but the argument that there *needs* to be more women in computing just because vagina makes no sense to me.
Why does she just blindly assume that we all see the relative low percentage of women in the field as a problem? There is already nothing inherently gender specific in the subjects that make up CS (math, AI, good algorithm design etc). Lets keep it that way.
Remember the road to equality (and freedom of choice) is to keep the opportunities equal to both genders, not make equal numbers of both genders take those opportunities. If you introduce artificial advantages that only benefit one gender, even if it is to address some perceived numerical imbalance, you're necessarily reducing ACTUAL equality.
>> So what is so wrong with making a curriculum more attractive to women?
It depends what you mean. I agree the learning environment should be gender neutral, and changes to make that happen are of course good. But you're talking about the curriculum itself, i.e. the subjects being taught. There is currently absolutely nothing in the subject matter itself that makes up Computer Science (math, logic, algorithm design, AI, etc etc) that is inherently gender-specific (unless you start considering the inherent gender-specific differences in mental skills between the average mens and womens brains and yes those differences really do exist).
By introducing gender-specific changes to completely gender-neutral subject matter you cannot help but make gender and sexual equality more of an issue not less.
Remember the road to equality is to keep the opportunities equal, not force equal numbers of both genders to take those opportunities. If you create additional artificial advantages that only benefit one gender, even if it is to address some perceived imbalance, you're just making the problem worse.
Yeah I'm not sure I believe anything the FDA says or that they put the interests of the public first.
About half of their funding and much of their upper management comes directly from the drug industry. The FDA seems to be the very definition of a fox watching the hen house.
I really tried with stevia since it at least superficially seemed to be the way to go weight-wise, but i just couldn't get used to its nasty taste. I couldn't find one use for it where even a little didn't badly screw up whatever I put it in (Tea, coffee, cooking, etc.).
I think I'm proably like a lot of (non-diabetic) Europeans in that I mentally lump aspartame, sucralose, splenda, corn syrup, saccharin, MSG and all other man-made sweeteners into the same "big money is covering these up as a direct cause of serious health issues" category, and sucrose into a "not great, but way better than anything artificial" category.
My question is: Is my paranoia scientifically justified?
>> He only wants the best for the next generation of Americans.
Ahh so thats why he's trying to directly engineer mass unemployment of home-grown US engineers, and replace them with a dependency on a 3rd world country where the academic system is a complete sham that is based on widespread cheating and the sale of degrees as standard practice?