The problem is that men are intimidated by the presence of women, according to the article. But in my experience, men are afraid to be in a "women's profession" because it makes them look feminine. Those are different issues, but it happened with nurses and teachers before. Once women are "allowed" in large numbers, the men run off.
I read where the vets are about 50/50 now, but with more women than men in vet schools. Used to be 80% male. Large animal specialties are still male. But is there a disproportionate number of female vets now?
The point is, when they show interest, they are less likely to have access to a computer. It's presumed a girl who likes computers will grow out of it. So they are discouraged, until they are discouraged.
Girls like porn. They just aren't allowed to admit it. They also like different kinds, and the porn on the Internet is guy porn. And that doesn't explain the '80s. That was still the time of ASCII porn and such, before images were common. This effect pre-dated the proliferation of porn.
In your view, is it a problem that men are nearly 10x as likely as women to die on the job?
No. Men self-select the dangerous jobs. I've never met a deep sea welder who was a woman. Women don't self-select out of their area of interest, they are persuaded out of it by parents and colleagues.
Fixing it when the children are 3 is easy. But "invasive" to have children raise their children right.
When my son was 3 his favorite color was pink. It was bright and fun. When he was 5 and headed to school soon, he picked out his bag for school. He had the choice of Wiggles (Blue) or Dorothy the Dinosaur (pink). He picked the pink one. I let him, as it was his choice. When he got to school, the children made fun of him for having a "girls bag" (the exact same bag as the other, but different color).
Now, at 8, pink is his favorite color again. It took a few years to convince him that the opinions of others don't matter for that, and they were wrong. Every color belongs to everyone.
But beating "pink is a girls color" into him at 3 would have been easier and saved him a teary day or two at school, but at 18+, he'd be raising his children to be like the mean kids at school.
Similarly, fixing the sexism by parents (and others) as the children grow up is easier at 3 than 18. But in college, they are already 18, so the "fix" is much more obvious and extreme.
Oh, and it doesn't hurt CS to work harder at being inclusive. Women are run off by jackasses. And men into computers are more likely jackasses. Women will change jobs more readily to get away from bad people. So naturally, they'll change majors for the same reason.
It's not a fabrication. Regardless of aptitude in math, science or computers, girls are less likely to grow up with a computer than boys. The difference is real, but anyone asking why is dismissed as a feminist? That doesn't make sense.
The introduction is what they sell it to the people as. You lie when you say people want the two-tier Internet that you describe. The people want the introduction, not the legal weaseling written by Comcast lawyers.
The only reasonable theory I heard previously is that other people's brains filter out background noise better, and I'm stuck with a poor noise filter. One could classify it as a form of "brain damage". And your explanation should be discovered in the numerous hearing tests I've had. The tones are repeated at various frequencies and volumes, and I have to press a button when I hear something. Some were even conducted in an anechoic chamber with the tester in another room, unable to see me, so as not to influence the test. That should have eliminated the effect of the headphones, as none were used.
Nope. You get a surprisingly large amount of directionality with one ear. Much like 95% of depth perception is unaffected by the loss of an eye. It's just the annoying 5%, that's mainly close-up work that makes it really really annoying. I've worked with the deaf (including one-ear loss) and my mother is blind on one eye, so I have asked thousands of questions of those with problems, and have had temporary conditions that rendered one ear or eye unusable for a period, which validated my earlier discoveries.
That you are an audiophile doesn't mean that anyone else cares about the extra ear. It mattered a whole lot more in the wild, when small noises needed precise directionality to live.
We know loud sound and loss of sleep can cause direct physical harm. That's the basis for not yelling, bullhorns, and so on.
There is no sane basis for banning words, drawings, sculptures, renderings, woodcarvings and so on. None whatsoever.
So it's the message, and not the act of speech that should be protected? The courts (here, and everywhere else in the world) have ruled that lying to harm someone is illegal. So the protection of speech isn't absolute. Fraud is illegal, as it should be.
So now that we've discovered that there are limits to speech, can we not discuss where to draw lines?
"There is no sane basis for banning words," So one can lie to others for personal gain (fraud)? Oh, and libel too, that should be fine, as laws against libel must be insane, by your measure.
You miss the point that your absolutism isn't as absolute as you assert.
There is no reasonable argument that can justify a "right not to be offended", and there never, ever should be such a thing encoded in law. It should be painfully obvious as to why. If it isn't... oy.
Yes, and I'm sure that the case of the cheerleader parent who targeted a mentally unstable child and tried her best to cause a suicide, and managed to succeed, should have a statue of her made for the excellent work she did exercising her right to lie to cause harm in others. All she did was fraud. But because no money changed hands, it was legal. Attempted fraud is legal.
I didn't. I quoted the plain English goal of the 107 pages, not the legal statements in there that mention "lawful". It was a direct quote, but you don't recognize it, because it doesn't say what you want it to say.
What you're asking for, in fact, is government regulation of the Internet.
Quit lying you lying piece of shit. I never asked for such a thing. I asked for "net neutrality".
Net Neutrality is enforcing existing anti-trust laws against local monopolies. The antitrust legislation was deemed unsuitable to go after local monopolies because there's an insane argument that if you live in a place under a monopoly, you can move to another state to get away from them, and thus they aren't a monopoly.
If antitrust laws were enforced against local monopolies, there'd be no need to the FCC to get involved. But the FTC refuses to enforce the law for the benefit of the people, so we looked to someone else to try to stop monopolies from harming their customers by performing anti-competitive actions.
That takes no "new" government regulation, just applying existing laws as intended. But since the government refuses to do so, people called for the government to make more regulations (on companies, not people or the Internet) to prevent damaging behavior.
Nope. The Supreme Court would have a job, even if they did nothing. They are appointed for life. Unless you think there'd be massive assassinations if a ruling was "wrong".
Based on the record, we propose a general rule prohibiting a broadband Internet access service provider from discriminating against, or in favor of, any content, application, or service, subject to
reasonable network management.
That's the rule we asked for. That's the rule the FCC says they are making.
The rest is the provider's wording to abuse the people, or the FBI trying to force carriers to enforce laws the FBI is incapable of enforcing.
So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for
We are screaming for a law against traffic discrimination (aside from reasonable network management). No idiot is screaming for rules that will create "fastlanes", though those are being proposed and tied to "neutrality". No idiot is screaming for a "legal" and "illegal" Internet. Those are strawmen you are making up. People are screaming for rules that prevent Comcast from blocking all SIP that doesn't terminate on their servers, and slowing all streaming that isn't from their servers to the "ISP" customers getting a filtered AOL experience due to anti-competitive behavior breaking the Internet for their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost always, but not always. http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/...
Yes, for the 30 seconds per day they have "news" they are. For the other 24 hours, it's all conservative opinion shows pretending to be the news.
The problem is that men are intimidated by the presence of women, according to the article. But in my experience, men are afraid to be in a "women's profession" because it makes them look feminine. Those are different issues, but it happened with nurses and teachers before. Once women are "allowed" in large numbers, the men run off.
But the issue is there *was*, until the '80s. Why?
I read where the vets are about 50/50 now, but with more women than men in vet schools. Used to be 80% male. Large animal specialties are still male. But is there a disproportionate number of female vets now?
The point is, when they show interest, they are less likely to have access to a computer. It's presumed a girl who likes computers will grow out of it. So they are discouraged, until they are discouraged.
Most men don't want custody. They just don't want to pay child support. It's the lying dead-beat dads that perpetuate these lies.
Girls like porn. They just aren't allowed to admit it. They also like different kinds, and the porn on the Internet is guy porn. And that doesn't explain the '80s. That was still the time of ASCII porn and such, before images were common. This effect pre-dated the proliferation of porn.
In your view, is it a problem that men are nearly 10x as likely as women to die on the job?
No. Men self-select the dangerous jobs. I've never met a deep sea welder who was a woman. Women don't self-select out of their area of interest, they are persuaded out of it by parents and colleagues.
Fixing it when the children are 3 is easy. But "invasive" to have children raise their children right.
When my son was 3 his favorite color was pink. It was bright and fun. When he was 5 and headed to school soon, he picked out his bag for school. He had the choice of Wiggles (Blue) or Dorothy the Dinosaur (pink). He picked the pink one. I let him, as it was his choice. When he got to school, the children made fun of him for having a "girls bag" (the exact same bag as the other, but different color).
Now, at 8, pink is his favorite color again. It took a few years to convince him that the opinions of others don't matter for that, and they were wrong. Every color belongs to everyone.
But beating "pink is a girls color" into him at 3 would have been easier and saved him a teary day or two at school, but at 18+, he'd be raising his children to be like the mean kids at school.
Similarly, fixing the sexism by parents (and others) as the children grow up is easier at 3 than 18. But in college, they are already 18, so the "fix" is much more obvious and extreme.
Oh, and it doesn't hurt CS to work harder at being inclusive. Women are run off by jackasses. And men into computers are more likely jackasses. Women will change jobs more readily to get away from bad people. So naturally, they'll change majors for the same reason.
Yes, it is creepy to go out of your way to be nice with a subset of the people that work there.
It's not a fabrication. Regardless of aptitude in math, science or computers, girls are less likely to grow up with a computer than boys. The difference is real, but anyone asking why is dismissed as a feminist? That doesn't make sense.
The introduction is what they sell it to the people as. You lie when you say people want the two-tier Internet that you describe. The people want the introduction, not the legal weaseling written by Comcast lawyers.
Oh, on looking more, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... looks to be more like what I have. Normal hearing, but problems processing voices.
The only reasonable theory I heard previously is that other people's brains filter out background noise better, and I'm stuck with a poor noise filter. One could classify it as a form of "brain damage". And your explanation should be discovered in the numerous hearing tests I've had. The tones are repeated at various frequencies and volumes, and I have to press a button when I hear something. Some were even conducted in an anechoic chamber with the tester in another room, unable to see me, so as not to influence the test. That should have eliminated the effect of the headphones, as none were used.
A small amount? Are you kidding?
Nope. You get a surprisingly large amount of directionality with one ear. Much like 95% of depth perception is unaffected by the loss of an eye. It's just the annoying 5%, that's mainly close-up work that makes it really really annoying. I've worked with the deaf (including one-ear loss) and my mother is blind on one eye, so I have asked thousands of questions of those with problems, and have had temporary conditions that rendered one ear or eye unusable for a period, which validated my earlier discoveries.
That you are an audiophile doesn't mean that anyone else cares about the extra ear. It mattered a whole lot more in the wild, when small noises needed precise directionality to live.
Neither. It's a propulsion assist. Really huge and expensive flippers.
I pointed out what the regulation says, with a verbatim quote, and you accused me of lying (editing it).
You're being disingenuous here.
I'm being excessively literal.
We know loud sound and loss of sleep can cause direct physical harm. That's the basis for not yelling, bullhorns, and so on.
There is no sane basis for banning words, drawings, sculptures, renderings, woodcarvings and so on. None whatsoever.
So it's the message, and not the act of speech that should be protected? The courts (here, and everywhere else in the world) have ruled that lying to harm someone is illegal. So the protection of speech isn't absolute. Fraud is illegal, as it should be.
So now that we've discovered that there are limits to speech, can we not discuss where to draw lines?
"There is no sane basis for banning words," So one can lie to others for personal gain (fraud)? Oh, and libel too, that should be fine, as laws against libel must be insane, by your measure.
You miss the point that your absolutism isn't as absolute as you assert.
There is no reasonable argument that can justify a "right not to be offended", and there never, ever should be such a thing encoded in law. It should be painfully obvious as to why. If it isn't... oy.
Yes, and I'm sure that the case of the cheerleader parent who targeted a mentally unstable child and tried her best to cause a suicide, and managed to succeed, should have a statue of her made for the excellent work she did exercising her right to lie to cause harm in others. All she did was fraud. But because no money changed hands, it was legal. Attempted fraud is legal.
Why did you leave out the "lawful" qualifier?
I didn't. I quoted the plain English goal of the 107 pages, not the legal statements in there that mention "lawful". It was a direct quote, but you don't recognize it, because it doesn't say what you want it to say.
What you're asking for, in fact, is government regulation of the Internet.
Quit lying you lying piece of shit. I never asked for such a thing. I asked for "net neutrality".
Net Neutrality is enforcing existing anti-trust laws against local monopolies. The antitrust legislation was deemed unsuitable to go after local monopolies because there's an insane argument that if you live in a place under a monopoly, you can move to another state to get away from them, and thus they aren't a monopoly.
If antitrust laws were enforced against local monopolies, there'd be no need to the FCC to get involved. But the FTC refuses to enforce the law for the benefit of the people, so we looked to someone else to try to stop monopolies from harming their customers by performing anti-competitive actions.
That takes no "new" government regulation, just applying existing laws as intended. But since the government refuses to do so, people called for the government to make more regulations (on companies, not people or the Internet) to prevent damaging behavior.
Nope. The Supreme Court would have a job, even if they did nothing. They are appointed for life. Unless you think there'd be massive assassinations if a ruling was "wrong".
Yeah, but I gave the same general impression with many fewer words. I didn't want to get on the SS's clown-beating radar.
How do you judge guilt and innocence without understanding the words in the laws?
they made it up out of thin air.
Based on Common Law, which is what the Constitution is based on. Not thin air
Based on the record, we propose a general rule prohibiting a broadband Internet access service provider from discriminating against, or in favor of, any content, application, or service, subject to reasonable network management.
That's the rule we asked for. That's the rule the FCC says they are making.
The rest is the provider's wording to abuse the people, or the FBI trying to force carriers to enforce laws the FBI is incapable of enforcing.
So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for
We are screaming for a law against traffic discrimination (aside from reasonable network management). No idiot is screaming for rules that will create "fastlanes", though those are being proposed and tied to "neutrality". No idiot is screaming for a "legal" and "illegal" Internet. Those are strawmen you are making up. People are screaming for rules that prevent Comcast from blocking all SIP that doesn't terminate on their servers, and slowing all streaming that isn't from their servers to the "ISP" customers getting a filtered AOL experience due to anti-competitive behavior breaking the Internet for their customers.