There are plug-in hybrids that are built for exactly that usage model. As a Volt owner, I drive electrically almost all of the time, but when I have a long trip to make, the gas engine comes in quite handy. Aside from difficult terrain, I've not found something for which a plug-in hybrid isn't well suited.
No, you were advocating actively blocking people in a manner akin to maintaining a "no trespassing" zone. At the end of your post, you said "your right to speak doesn't mean you have the right to force me to listen," and I completely agree, but you implied that posts from your crazy aunt or recommended videos you can't control constitute forced listening, which they just do not. Regarding social media, the notion that, "the two choices are to turn it all off, or block any individual that mentions them," is, frankly, just wrong. Again, nobody is forcing you to pay attention to those things, you can scroll past without blocking and without listening.
Are you in the habit of retroactively claiming things once they suit you?
Any time anyone has the ability to moderate or respond to others, they're interested in maintaining an echo-chamber sympathetic to their particular views. This is true for SJWs of any variety, anti-SJWs, anarchists, anyone. Why? People are biased.
I've seen posts that I personally thought were good, and partial to SJW messaging, down-modded, and I've seen anti-SJW posts that I personally thought were good down-modded. I've also seen you, in particular, down-modded, but not without reason (since, from what I've seen, you love your broad generalizations). If you think that you're being unfairly moderated, maybe it's not everybody else that's wrong, maybe it's you.
Anyway, any time people are involved in moderating discussions, mistakes are going to get made. That said, Slashdot's moderation system, while far from perfect, is actually the best I've seen thus far, mostly because it doesn't delete posts. If you have moderation in place (and there are obviously good reasons for moderation), you should at least make it possible to view all posts, which is what Slashdot does.
You make it sound like you can't not click on recommended videos, or scroll past your crazy aunt's political statements. Nobody's forcing you to listen to those things; you can see that it's something you'd rather not delve into, and move on. Now, if you see something you disagree with, and immediately react with "that's wrong! I must set them straight!" well, that's on you.
By the way, I'm not taking the position that Twitter-banning is necessarily wrong: they are, after all, a private (in the non-governmental sense for you pedants) company offering access to their platform, which is a privilege, and they should be free to remove that privilege from whomever they desire. That said, the privilege aspect applies to those needlessly taking offense, as well: Twitter should feel no obligation to appease anyone overreacting to inflammatory tweets beyond whatever market-competition demands.
You had a point until the "which generally means people stop making them feel uncomfortable and allow them to be bigots" part. If that's what you're defining as SJW behavior, then there's no hope for you. You should be allowed to express bigoted views. Similarly, you should be allowed to call somebody out for being bigoted. Freedom of expression should basically be absolute (exceptions being when a serious and direct threat calling for actual, physical harm is made.
I'm stunned that you would go with the whole "whining about not being able to express themselves," argument instead of the more worrisome, "let's legislate that different people can't be different" argument.
Conservatives absolutely engage in authoritarian behavior, which is, incidentally, really what it means to be an SJW, but right now, it's really not conservatives that are the most problematic (in the US, at least).
Oh come on, that question is bogus to begin with. Most nobody wants to be anybody but themselves. Can you, for example, give me an example of a black woman who'd rather be a white man in America today? Or how about this: since whites make roughly 80% of what Asian-Americans do, and since Asian-Americans have great educational and career opportunities as evidenced by their relative dominance in universities, it'd make sense that whites should want to be Asian, right? Can you point out a white man who'd rather be Asian in America today?
If you're really questioning whether someone like me would like to be given the same set of opportunities and stigmas that a black woman receives, then, sure, sign me up. I'll take the bad with the good in that example. But that's not good enough for you, is it?
Racism doesn't require a particular result, it requires a mindset -- which you quite clearly possess. Now, I can agree that whites have not been rejected, by and large, from most companies, probably because those companies aren't controlled by people like you. That's not relevant to the position you're advocating, though, which is a racist position to take. You racist.
Racism is institutional use of race to limit certain demographics access or equal treatment under the law.
Incorrect. Here's the definition:
Racism: noun - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
This is what you said:
[Non-white diversity] can benefit a corporation more than having a large group of cookie-cutter [white] people who have all had nearly identical life experiences and all come from very similar culture.
You've rejected a group of people from a particular race under the assumption that they have less to offer than other races. That's very much in line with the actual definition of racism -- you know, the whole "especially so as to distinguish [a specific race] as inferior or superior to another race or races" part -- even if it doesn't jive well with the fiction you conjured to suit your agenda.
Hmm. I wonder what Apple could have that neither Facebook nor Google possess in the US? What might possibly account for the discrepancy between Apple and other big tech companies? Oh yeah, probably the 30,000 retail workers (out of a total of 43,000) in their Apple stores. I wonder what the breakdown would be for the technical jobs that Apple relies upon for the products those retail workers are hawking? I'm guessing that it'd probably be in line with what Facebook and Google are posting.
Good for Apple for being more diverse that Google, I guess, but I'd bet it's a hell of a lot easier to broaden overall diversity when you essentially require a Starbucks level of skill for the majority of your workforce.
If memory serves, Clinton won in terms of both delegates and super-delegates. Like it or not, she is the popular (meaning majority of primary voters) Democratic choice; not Bernie. To claim otherwise is to disregard the majority of people of voting in the Democratic primary.
Not to be that guy, but, if you hate Hillary and Trump so much, why not put your vote toward a 3rd party candidate? I mean, it's not going to support anyone with a chance of actually winning, to be sure, but it'll at least serve to grow their platform and representation a bit.
Of course, that assumes that you actually side, to a degree, with a 3rd party. Even if you don't, though, it's not like the election will only be for whomever is seeking the presidency. Truth be told, all those other local and state elections will matter much more for you -- for better or worse -- so I don't know why you'd ignore those candidates just because presidential candidates seem so bad.
I'm smarter than everybody else in the world... and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me.
I bet [your strawman] works great with conservatives and other people with severe intellectual challenges.
Much as I hate logical fallacies, such as the one put forward by the GP, you -- and you in particular -- perfectly illustrated their claim. I mean, it's really quite amazing.
He has, as he does with most things, sat on both sides of the fence. In the anti-gay column, he has:
* Supported North Carolina's effort to stop transgender people from using the bathroom matching their identity
Hey wait a second. I thought that transgender people are the gender that they identify with. I mean, gender is a social construct, after all, right? While some transgender people may harbor an attraction toward the same gender they're transitioning to, many don't. Lumping all transgender people into the gay community is pretty damn disrespectful, both to the transgender community, and to the gay community, is it not? <outrage>You fucking bigot!<\outrage>
I love how someone moderated you as a troll; it's pretty evident that you tapped into their view of heresy. I mean, you simply stated a reasoned disagreement with the way some people are often portrayed -- didn't even trot out the SJW label -- but that's apparently enough to warrant troll status.
No. If you'll recall, I'm not the one who used ICs as an example. That was Intron. You argued against that example, and I just ran with it. That said, it wasn't a bad example, since it pretty much contradicted the point you were making flat out.
The rest is you just being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. But, you're still wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrongity Wrong:)
Well, for starters, you don't necessarily need an exponential curve like that displayed for integrated circuits. There are numerous products that start off expensive individually, due to exorbitant sunk R&D costs, but come down in price drastically -- basically in a step function -- before stabilizing. For example, pretty much every prescription drug manufactured.
If you're wanting other examples of exponential improvement, though, how about DNA sequencing? Or how about medical scanning, like brain scanning? If you can't think of any other examples, you're not thinking hard enough (or just willfully ignoring other examples)... That's on you.
In full agreement. I really don't understand why people are so opposed to cultured meat, but, then again, I don't know why people are so opposed to GM food, even in theory (though I'm not saying that there can't be bad players involved). I guess it comes down to, "it's unnatural, so it's evil!" Never mind the hypocrisy of posting a critique along those lines, or even, you know, existing.
Why is that? Are there no grades of meat in your world?
If you set out to surpass the best quality meat available, then maybe you might have a point, but, assuming you can observe and economically reproduce what makes that meat so great, why wouldn't you be able to approach it's quality with cultured meat? At some point, given production efficiencies that would be introduced, cultured meat that closely approximates very high quality meat would be cheaper than low quality meat that's used today. At that point, you'd be comparing crappy real meat against exceptional cultured meat, so, yeah, you'd have something that, at a given price, is superior in taste and tone.
Come on dude, you're obviously comparing an essentially mature technology against one that was still rapidly developing. Once Moore's law has reached its end, computing hardware prices will stabilize for the performance offered similar to what's happened with your car.
Lab grown meat is obviously still in the prototype phase right now, and pricing reflects that. Once economies of scale are introduced, and production efficiencies are realized, price per volume will quite predictably plummet. This is basic economics stuff right here.
I don't know why people are so opposed to this line of thinking. Including third (or forth) party candidates in the process seems like something that would be especially useful this time around -- if only to drive more discussion and call Republicans and Democrats on their bullshit -- but it's not going to happen if people reserve their vote for "the lesser of two evils." Also, let's face it, individual votes don't really matter for determining the outcome of most states, but they can matter, in aggregate, in giving a third party a voice on the national stage.
I love how they can seriously write this with a straight face in the wake of Hillary's email scandal. I mean, I'm not arguing that Trump knows what he's doing either, but come the fuck on! Hillary's grasp of technology was so grossly negligent that, had she actually continued on in her cabinet position, she'd have been asked to resign, and yet they bring up technological incompetence as a talking point. This is just ludicrous and pathetic.
Just remember this: every time you say Trump will start WW3 or compare him to Hitler, you create another 10 Trump supporters.
I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way, and I agree that "what he says he'll do is so insane he can't actually do it," is a really bad position to take, because he may actually mean some of what he says, and he may actually have the means to accomplish it. He will not, however, have the means to start a war without provocation, nor will he actually be able to round up people already residing in the US of a certain race or religious creed. That would take more than the powers granted to the office of the presidency, and given how little favor he has among both parties, he's exceptionally unlikely to persuade enough politicians to get on board with him to do anything of that magnitude. He can, however, influence things like tax policy and government spending, pointing to a mandate if he wins. In these areas, he really would be a disaster, but I guess it's far more satisfying -- and far less convincing -- to paint him as an evil tyrant.
And by "private company," I mean, of course, "public company." D'oh.
Clearly, what I was getting at is that this is a company that you don't absolutely have to affiliate with. It can't govern you, and there are alternatives -- even to a behemoth like Google -- if this issue really rises to the level of boycotting or something.
Slashdot Mirror
You know they've designed cars that do exactly that (really quite well) already, right?
There are plug-in hybrids that are built for exactly that usage model. As a Volt owner, I drive electrically almost all of the time, but when I have a long trip to make, the gas engine comes in quite handy. Aside from difficult terrain, I've not found something for which a plug-in hybrid isn't well suited.
I'm not claiming to know what you thought, just what you said, and what you said is pretty clearly not what you later claimed.
You sound like someone who can't stand to admit they're wrong. No wonder you have such issues with social media.
No, you were advocating actively blocking people in a manner akin to maintaining a "no trespassing" zone. At the end of your post, you said "your right to speak doesn't mean you have the right to force me to listen," and I completely agree, but you implied that posts from your crazy aunt or recommended videos you can't control constitute forced listening, which they just do not. Regarding social media, the notion that, "the two choices are to turn it all off, or block any individual that mentions them," is, frankly, just wrong. Again, nobody is forcing you to pay attention to those things, you can scroll past without blocking and without listening.
Are you in the habit of retroactively claiming things once they suit you?
Any time anyone has the ability to moderate or respond to others, they're interested in maintaining an echo-chamber sympathetic to their particular views. This is true for SJWs of any variety, anti-SJWs, anarchists, anyone. Why? People are biased.
I've seen posts that I personally thought were good, and partial to SJW messaging, down-modded, and I've seen anti-SJW posts that I personally thought were good down-modded. I've also seen you, in particular, down-modded, but not without reason (since, from what I've seen, you love your broad generalizations). If you think that you're being unfairly moderated, maybe it's not everybody else that's wrong, maybe it's you.
Anyway, any time people are involved in moderating discussions, mistakes are going to get made. That said, Slashdot's moderation system, while far from perfect, is actually the best I've seen thus far, mostly because it doesn't delete posts. If you have moderation in place (and there are obviously good reasons for moderation), you should at least make it possible to view all posts, which is what Slashdot does.
Well, don't listen?
You make it sound like you can't not click on recommended videos, or scroll past your crazy aunt's political statements. Nobody's forcing you to listen to those things; you can see that it's something you'd rather not delve into, and move on. Now, if you see something you disagree with, and immediately react with "that's wrong! I must set them straight!" well, that's on you.
By the way, I'm not taking the position that Twitter-banning is necessarily wrong: they are, after all, a private (in the non-governmental sense for you pedants) company offering access to their platform, which is a privilege, and they should be free to remove that privilege from whomever they desire. That said, the privilege aspect applies to those needlessly taking offense, as well: Twitter should feel no obligation to appease anyone overreacting to inflammatory tweets beyond whatever market-competition demands.
You had a point until the "which generally means people stop making them feel uncomfortable and allow them to be bigots" part. If that's what you're defining as SJW behavior, then there's no hope for you. You should be allowed to express bigoted views. Similarly, you should be allowed to call somebody out for being bigoted. Freedom of expression should basically be absolute (exceptions being when a serious and direct threat calling for actual, physical harm is made.
I'm stunned that you would go with the whole "whining about not being able to express themselves," argument instead of the more worrisome, "let's legislate that different people can't be different" argument.
Conservatives absolutely engage in authoritarian behavior, which is, incidentally, really what it means to be an SJW, but right now, it's really not conservatives that are the most problematic (in the US, at least).
Oh come on, that question is bogus to begin with. Most nobody wants to be anybody but themselves. Can you, for example, give me an example of a black woman who'd rather be a white man in America today? Or how about this: since whites make roughly 80% of what Asian-Americans do, and since Asian-Americans have great educational and career opportunities as evidenced by their relative dominance in universities, it'd make sense that whites should want to be Asian, right? Can you point out a white man who'd rather be Asian in America today?
If you're really questioning whether someone like me would like to be given the same set of opportunities and stigmas that a black woman receives, then, sure, sign me up. I'll take the bad with the good in that example. But that's not good enough for you, is it?
Not negative. You are a racist.
Racism doesn't require a particular result, it requires a mindset -- which you quite clearly possess. Now, I can agree that whites have not been rejected, by and large, from most companies, probably because those companies aren't controlled by people like you. That's not relevant to the position you're advocating, though, which is a racist position to take. You racist.
Racism is institutional use of race to limit certain demographics access or equal treatment under the law.
Incorrect. Here's the definition:
Racism: noun - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
This is what you said:
[Non-white diversity] can benefit a corporation more than having a large group of cookie-cutter [white] people who have all had nearly identical life experiences and all come from very similar culture.
You've rejected a group of people from a particular race under the assumption that they have less to offer than other races. That's very much in line with the actual definition of racism -- you know, the whole "especially so as to distinguish [a specific race] as inferior or superior to another race or races" part -- even if it doesn't jive well with the fiction you conjured to suit your agenda.
You are a racist, plain and simple.
Hmm. I wonder what Apple could have that neither Facebook nor Google possess in the US? What might possibly account for the discrepancy between Apple and other big tech companies? Oh yeah, probably the 30,000 retail workers (out of a total of 43,000) in their Apple stores. I wonder what the breakdown would be for the technical jobs that Apple relies upon for the products those retail workers are hawking? I'm guessing that it'd probably be in line with what Facebook and Google are posting.
Good for Apple for being more diverse that Google, I guess, but I'd bet it's a hell of a lot easier to broaden overall diversity when you essentially require a Starbucks level of skill for the majority of your workforce.
If memory serves, Clinton won in terms of both delegates and super-delegates. Like it or not, she is the popular (meaning majority of primary voters) Democratic choice; not Bernie. To claim otherwise is to disregard the majority of people of voting in the Democratic primary.
Not to be that guy, but, if you hate Hillary and Trump so much, why not put your vote toward a 3rd party candidate? I mean, it's not going to support anyone with a chance of actually winning, to be sure, but it'll at least serve to grow their platform and representation a bit.
Of course, that assumes that you actually side, to a degree, with a 3rd party. Even if you don't, though, it's not like the election will only be for whomever is seeking the presidency. Truth be told, all those other local and state elections will matter much more for you -- for better or worse -- so I don't know why you'd ignore those candidates just because presidential candidates seem so bad.
I'm smarter than everybody else in the world ... and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me.
I bet [your strawman] works great with conservatives and other people with severe intellectual challenges.
Much as I hate logical fallacies, such as the one put forward by the GP, you -- and you in particular -- perfectly illustrated their claim. I mean, it's really quite amazing.
He has, as he does with most things, sat on both sides of the fence. In the anti-gay column, he has:
* Supported North Carolina's effort to stop transgender people from using the bathroom matching their identity
Hey wait a second. I thought that transgender people are the gender that they identify with. I mean, gender is a social construct, after all, right? While some transgender people may harbor an attraction toward the same gender they're transitioning to, many don't. Lumping all transgender people into the gay community is pretty damn disrespectful, both to the transgender community, and to the gay community, is it not? <outrage>You fucking bigot!<\outrage>
I love how someone moderated you as a troll; it's pretty evident that you tapped into their view of heresy. I mean, you simply stated a reasoned disagreement with the way some people are often portrayed -- didn't even trot out the SJW label -- but that's apparently enough to warrant troll status.
This intellectual intolerance is just pathetic.
No. If you'll recall, I'm not the one who used ICs as an example. That was Intron. You argued against that example, and I just ran with it. That said, it wasn't a bad example, since it pretty much contradicted the point you were making flat out.
The rest is you just being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. But, you're still wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrongity Wrong :)
Well, for starters, you don't necessarily need an exponential curve like that displayed for integrated circuits. There are numerous products that start off expensive individually, due to exorbitant sunk R&D costs, but come down in price drastically -- basically in a step function -- before stabilizing. For example, pretty much every prescription drug manufactured.
If you're wanting other examples of exponential improvement, though, how about DNA sequencing? Or how about medical scanning, like brain scanning? If you can't think of any other examples, you're not thinking hard enough (or just willfully ignoring other examples)... That's on you.
In full agreement. I really don't understand why people are so opposed to cultured meat, but, then again, I don't know why people are so opposed to GM food, even in theory (though I'm not saying that there can't be bad players involved). I guess it comes down to, "it's unnatural, so it's evil!" Never mind the hypocrisy of posting a critique along those lines, or even, you know, existing.
Why is that? Are there no grades of meat in your world?
If you set out to surpass the best quality meat available, then maybe you might have a point, but, assuming you can observe and economically reproduce what makes that meat so great, why wouldn't you be able to approach it's quality with cultured meat? At some point, given production efficiencies that would be introduced, cultured meat that closely approximates very high quality meat would be cheaper than low quality meat that's used today. At that point, you'd be comparing crappy real meat against exceptional cultured meat, so, yeah, you'd have something that, at a given price, is superior in taste and tone.
Come on dude, you're obviously comparing an essentially mature technology against one that was still rapidly developing. Once Moore's law has reached its end, computing hardware prices will stabilize for the performance offered similar to what's happened with your car.
Lab grown meat is obviously still in the prototype phase right now, and pricing reflects that. Once economies of scale are introduced, and production efficiencies are realized, price per volume will quite predictably plummet. This is basic economics stuff right here.
I don't know why people are so opposed to this line of thinking. Including third (or forth) party candidates in the process seems like something that would be especially useful this time around -- if only to drive more discussion and call Republicans and Democrats on their bullshit -- but it's not going to happen if people reserve their vote for "the lesser of two evils." Also, let's face it, individual votes don't really matter for determining the outcome of most states, but they can matter, in aggregate, in giving a third party a voice on the national stage.
I love how they can seriously write this with a straight face in the wake of Hillary's email scandal. I mean, I'm not arguing that Trump knows what he's doing either, but come the fuck on! Hillary's grasp of technology was so grossly negligent that, had she actually continued on in her cabinet position, she'd have been asked to resign, and yet they bring up technological incompetence as a talking point. This is just ludicrous and pathetic.
Just remember this: every time you say Trump will start WW3 or compare him to Hitler, you create another 10 Trump supporters.
I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way, and I agree that "what he says he'll do is so insane he can't actually do it," is a really bad position to take, because he may actually mean some of what he says, and he may actually have the means to accomplish it. He will not, however, have the means to start a war without provocation, nor will he actually be able to round up people already residing in the US of a certain race or religious creed. That would take more than the powers granted to the office of the presidency, and given how little favor he has among both parties, he's exceptionally unlikely to persuade enough politicians to get on board with him to do anything of that magnitude. He can, however, influence things like tax policy and government spending, pointing to a mandate if he wins. In these areas, he really would be a disaster, but I guess it's far more satisfying -- and far less convincing -- to paint him as an evil tyrant.
And by "private company," I mean, of course, "public company." D'oh.
Clearly, what I was getting at is that this is a company that you don't absolutely have to affiliate with. It can't govern you, and there are alternatives -- even to a behemoth like Google -- if this issue really rises to the level of boycotting or something.