"...underlying assumption that biology makes genders more suitable for different roles..."
this is true, how many example would you need to be convinced?
and it's not that there's not ~100 suitable women in google's upper mgmt.... more to it than that; let's just say that you have 100 suitable women for a position but they're competing against 10,000 suitable men; high chance that the position will be filled with a man not because of unfairness, but because each candidate is competing against 10,099 others; it just seems unfair because of some arbitrary bucket the candidates are placed in to; instead of gender lines, put candidates in buckets by race, religion, nationality, shoe size, fucking anything and it can be made to look unfair
do the 9,999 men that didn't get hired also get to cite unfairness? or maybe they just weren't chosen, simple as that
and now comes the standard disclaimer to head off the intentionally(?) obtuse: this does not mean unfairness doesn't exist; you are free to fix the world as you wish; don't require me to participate
since when is it my job to help disadvantaged groups? I've got a list of disadvantages, too, just like everybody else; to think someone else or society at large is on the hook to make my life easier is a symptom of a weak mind in that it makes one a dependent not on one's own merits, but on others' guilt-induced generosity
slow down there, Bucko, we'll be having none of that sensible talk around here; just stick to Trump/Hillary/Obama and red vs blue and we vs them.... ah fuck it, I hate everyone equally
seriously, let's keep squabbling amongst ourselves so it'll be easier for those in power to keep it; and know this: those people's only political ideology is whichever will benefit them the most
some kid gets lucky with an app and becomes rich; sure, maybe he's a good programmer, dunno, but by far the majority of his financial success is from luck; good for him, no grudge on my end and maybe I could learn something from how it all happened
so why does he get special air time for anything outside of that? our society has a strange way of giving folks who've done something of note in one area a free pass in other areas for which they have no credentials
for example, asking an actor who they recommend for president..... really? someone who is good at pretending to be somebody else is now someone we should listen to about such weighty issues? sure, they *might* be a pundit of sorts but that credibility has to be earned outside of them being famous for acting
similar to how we pedestalize sports and entertainment figures and report on their every mouth fart on topics far outside playing with a ball or singing and dancing
if he had not become rich/famous at 20-ish and was just another programmer at some XYZ corp.... would he be listened to as intently by an eager reporter? has
he enough life experience to run his mouth intelligently on anything? so since he DID get rich/successful while very young, and lived in a rich-guy bubble since then wherein his posse constantly cups his balls, do you think he's lived the kind of life to qualify as someone to be taken seriously outside of any of that?
he's still a child, stunted by not having to live his critical 20's dealing with regular-guy shit like the rest of us; if he's got something important to say to me, it'll have to be done while NOT riding on the coat tails of his super-lucky app success
changing printers would change margins etc. depending upon the capabilities of the printer... not random, but not nice either
I usually had the most problems going between a laser printer to/from a color printer; for a long time, only the laser printers had margins that could be less than about 3/4" and inkjets required at least that; if I had composed something on a document with one printer as its default but later realized my error, it always meant going back and re-doing some formatting
It's not about regulation, it's about money, power and control. By keeping the FCC on a leash, there is still the option to sic them on anyone when the power to regulate is desired over the inability to regulate... whatever works in that particular context.
Private prisons are an abomination. How we treat prisoners is an indicator of civilization. Seeing the weak and defenseless (legally speaking) as nothing more than a money resource is such an obvious aberration of what our country is supposed to be about that the only way to not know is to intentionally ignore it. It's political cancer to want to defend prisoners and that's why they're easy pickings for the unethically greedy.
What do you think the public response would be if you switched out 'prisoners' with 'cancer patients' in the story? Is there any reason why it's okay to price gouge one group but not another? The quick go-to answer is "... fuck 'em, they shouldn't have been doing criminal things." To a degree, that's correct. Through due process they were stripped of certain rights and incarcerated. But incarceration is the punishment... not financial ruination because you want to communicate to family, friends and legal counsel.
Sounds like you're fine with unilateral decisions from others, though. People with no accountability, and certainly their own biases, are the last people to ever decide things such as whether or not something is whistleblowing or espionage.
Sure, try her. Let her defend herself as she sees fit. Let a jury of peers decide guilt. Then, and only then, is punishment acceptable. Before destroying someone's life, if you don't even see the sense in letting them say their piece then you're no better than any fucking commie or fascist we're supposedly at odds with.
Thanks for looking at and explaining the actual legal text.
In today's world, the power to control information is the One Ring to Rule Them All. Any suppression of the ability of a defendant to actually defend themselves is certainly not in the spirit nor intent of our Founding Fathers. A government agency with the powers to not only accuse but limit/control evidence of either innocence or guilt, and with no accountability, is surely a festering cesspool of corruption in need of wholesale application of convictions via juries that they didn't give anyone else.
It's always about power and money. But all you ever hear is obfuscations from using inappropriate words like 'patriotism' and 'national security' but never the unvarnished truth which would be more like 'because we can' and 'because we want to keep our power base intact' and 'keep believing the lies, Common Man.'
Most racists don't consider themselves racist. You got a citation for this one? Never heard this before.
Most people who voted for Trump are sympathetic to his racist, misogynist, xenophobic, islamophobic views. The only people saying this are his enemies, no surprises there. Standard political vilifying. Much has also been said about the types of folks who voted for HC. Probably a lot of bullshit in that, too.
Your rationalization is that you wanted a "Scalia" replacement. He was a blatant racist so you are a racist for wanting someone like him. Better, but your citations only reference what his enemies say about him. Perfect agreement with another person will never happen. Sometimes you have to make concessions. Where you draw the line will likely be different than another's but to only allow your viewpoint to have any value is tyranny and no better than they man you rail against.
I don't know either way. What I do know is that the whole truth won't be found in just one side's viewpoint. I am open to your ideas but will need more than echo chamber reverberations to be convinced.
No forcing. They just offer a product and you decide if it works for or not.
And yes, use of the word 'threaten' shows editorial bias but the article is not presented as an opinion piece. The author ANDREW CUNNINGHAM, with his degree in the Classics, should be aware of this but it isn't mentioned.
Job market realities are one thing and they do have to be factored in the equation, but the above line-out by cayanne8 was fairly good at explaining the non-coding (IT, whatever) aspects of running as a contractor business. I've had my own consulting/contracting company and ended up doing all of that stuff listed but had to learn the hard way over the years.
Like most things, it's not for everyone but I've seen it work... it can be done, and yes, there is a certain amount of chance involved.
Slashdot Mirror
"...underlying assumption that biology makes genders more suitable for different roles..."
this is true, how many example would you need to be convinced?
and it's not that there's not ~100 suitable women in google's upper mgmt.... more to it than that; let's just say that you have 100 suitable women for a position but they're competing against 10,000 suitable men; high chance that the position will be filled with a man not because of unfairness, but because each candidate is competing against 10,099 others; it just seems unfair because of some arbitrary bucket the candidates are placed in to; instead of gender lines, put candidates in buckets by race, religion, nationality, shoe size, fucking anything and it can be made to look unfair
do the 9,999 men that didn't get hired also get to cite unfairness? or maybe they just weren't chosen, simple as that
and now comes the standard disclaimer to head off the intentionally(?) obtuse: this does not mean unfairness doesn't exist; you are free to fix the world as you wish; don't require me to participate
since when is it my job to help disadvantaged groups? I've got a list of disadvantages, too, just like everybody else; to think someone else or society at large is on the hook to make my life easier is a symptom of a weak mind in that it makes one a dependent not on one's own merits, but on others' guilt-induced generosity
slow down there, Bucko, we'll be having none of that sensible talk around here; just stick to Trump/Hillary/Obama and red vs blue and we vs them.... ah fuck it, I hate everyone equally
seriously, let's keep squabbling amongst ourselves so it'll be easier for those in power to keep it; and know this: those people's only political ideology is whichever will benefit them the most
we're all getting played for suckers
you might add logical fallacies and foolish conclusions but your comment shows that it's not really just for conservatives
some kid gets lucky with an app and becomes rich; sure, maybe he's a good programmer, dunno, but by far the majority of his financial success is from luck; good for him, no grudge on my end and maybe I could learn something from how it all happened
so why does he get special air time for anything outside of that? our society has a strange way of giving folks who've done something of note in one area a free pass in other areas for which they have no credentials
for example, asking an actor who they recommend for president..... really? someone who is good at pretending to be somebody else is now someone we should listen to about such weighty issues? sure, they *might* be a pundit of sorts but that credibility has to be earned outside of them being famous for acting
similar to how we pedestalize sports and entertainment figures and report on their every mouth fart on topics far outside playing with a ball or singing and dancing
if he had not become rich/famous at 20-ish and was just another programmer at some XYZ corp.... would he be listened to as intently by an eager reporter? has he enough life experience to run his mouth intelligently on anything? so since he DID get rich/successful while very young, and lived in a rich-guy bubble since then wherein his posse constantly cups his balls, do you think he's lived the kind of life to qualify as someone to be taken seriously outside of any of that?
he's still a child, stunted by not having to live his critical 20's dealing with regular-guy shit like the rest of us; if he's got something important to say to me, it'll have to be done while NOT riding on the coat tails of his super-lucky app success
changing printers would change margins etc. depending upon the capabilities of the printer... not random, but not nice either
I usually had the most problems going between a laser printer to/from a color printer; for a long time, only the laser printers had margins that could be less than about 3/4" and inkjets required at least that; if I had composed something on a document with one printer as its default but later realized my error, it always meant going back and re-doing some formatting
good times
not sure what the *real* reason is, but it sure isn't what they're saying
this type of PR where is everything is always rosy and noble is one of the most obvious signs of turd polishing
I also replied but I think you said it better.
It's not about regulation, it's about money, power and control. By keeping the FCC on a leash, there is still the option to sic them on anyone when the power to regulate is desired over the inability to regulate... whatever works in that particular context.
Private prisons are an abomination. How we treat prisoners is an indicator of civilization. Seeing the weak and defenseless (legally speaking) as nothing more than a money resource is such an obvious aberration of what our country is supposed to be about that the only way to not know is to intentionally ignore it. It's political cancer to want to defend prisoners and that's why they're easy pickings for the unethically greedy.
What do you think the public response would be if you switched out 'prisoners' with 'cancer patients' in the story? Is there any reason why it's okay to price gouge one group but not another? The quick go-to answer is "... fuck 'em, they shouldn't have been doing criminal things." To a degree, that's correct. Through due process they were stripped of certain rights and incarcerated. But incarceration is the punishment... not financial ruination because you want to communicate to family, friends and legal counsel.
Sounds like you're fine with unilateral decisions from others, though. People with no accountability, and certainly their own biases, are the last people to ever decide things such as whether or not something is whistleblowing or espionage.
Sure, try her. Let her defend herself as she sees fit. Let a jury of peers decide guilt. Then, and only then, is punishment acceptable. Before destroying someone's life, if you don't even see the sense in letting them say their piece then you're no better than any fucking commie or fascist we're supposedly at odds with.
Thanks for looking at and explaining the actual legal text.
In today's world, the power to control information is the One Ring to Rule Them All. Any suppression of the ability of a defendant to actually defend themselves is certainly not in the spirit nor intent of our Founding Fathers. A government agency with the powers to not only accuse but limit/control evidence of either innocence or guilt, and with no accountability, is surely a festering cesspool of corruption in need of wholesale application of convictions via juries that they didn't give anyone else.
It's always about power and money. But all you ever hear is obfuscations from using inappropriate words like 'patriotism' and 'national security' but never the unvarnished truth which would be more like 'because we can' and 'because we want to keep our power base intact' and 'keep believing the lies, Common Man.'
I like your moxie, more tips please
lotta truth here
equal but not
you're too sensitive, what's wrong with being a student?
and don't forget to mention the telemetry so that the data can be ....uh.... processed in the cloud
damn nerds will do anything for boobage
gonna need a citation for that, too
Most racists don't consider themselves racist. You got a citation for this one? Never heard this before.
Most people who voted for Trump are sympathetic to his racist, misogynist, xenophobic, islamophobic views. The only people saying this are his enemies, no surprises there. Standard political vilifying. Much has also been said about the types of folks who voted for HC. Probably a lot of bullshit in that, too.
Your rationalization is that you wanted a "Scalia" replacement. He was a blatant racist so you are a racist for wanting someone like him. Better, but your citations only reference what his enemies say about him. Perfect agreement with another person will never happen. Sometimes you have to make concessions. Where you draw the line will likely be different than another's but to only allow your viewpoint to have any value is tyranny and no better than they man you rail against.
I don't know either way. What I do know is that the whole truth won't be found in just one side's viewpoint. I am open to your ideas but will need more than echo chamber reverberations to be convinced.
The name refers to the last name.... which used to be Jenner. Confusing, I know.
No forcing. They just offer a product and you decide if it works for or not.
And yes, use of the word 'threaten' shows editorial bias but the article is not presented as an opinion piece. The author ANDREW CUNNINGHAM, with his degree in the Classics, should be aware of this but it isn't mentioned.
Your comment is quite the zinger.... hopefully makes some folks here think a bit.
Wish I had mod points.
I remember the Turbo button. Don't remember it affecting the games I was playing (much), though I tried.
Why would something that slowed things down be called 'Turbo?'
Reminds me of my own painful process to learn to save early, save often.
Some of us have to learn the hard way.
'cause it's low hanging fruit
Since air is not visible, it doesn't bother me much to see folks breathe.
Job market realities are one thing and they do have to be factored in the equation, but the above line-out by cayanne8 was fairly good at explaining the non-coding (IT, whatever) aspects of running as a contractor business. I've had my own consulting/contracting company and ended up doing all of that stuff listed but had to learn the hard way over the years.
Like most things, it's not for everyone but I've seen it work... it can be done, and yes, there is a certain amount of chance involved.