You don't need a digital timer to make a bomb. Why suspect that, and not a shoe or a bag or a pair of glasses? If they are school teachers and not bomb experts, how can they tell that a shoe will not explode?
As has been said already, it's a Hollywood/TV reality problem. In films, bombs have big count down timers so the hero can stop it at 2 seconds to go when he takes the calculated risk of cutting the blue wire instead of the red one.
Go fuck yourself! EVERYWHERE is the place for political protests, especially places that people say "aren't the place for political protests" and 20 feet outside the bullshit "free speech zone!"
Well, if this was a political protest, it certainly achieved its goals.
Even on a broadly anti-Muslim, right wing site like slashdot, ony a couple of posts here are defending the authorities' actions.
The narrative of "the US discriminates against Muslims" comes over pretty strongly.
In an ideal world, a Muslim should be able to walk into a mall in Tel Aviv with a giant box marked "Allah Akbar!!! Death to Israel!" with a giant countdown timer on it and shop in peace, unmolested
No, in anything but a libertarian fantasy world that is a direct physical threat rather than an expression of free speech.
Maybe the people educating our youth shouldn't be basing their opinion of what is and isn't dangerous from Hollywood movies? Just a thought...
I have long been told that people can and do separate fiction from reality. That what we see on TV and in movies is known to be fictional and not real. I have never believed it for one minute.
Careful, that plays right into the "playing Call of Duty makes you a violent psychopath" argument that slashdotters rightly mock.
You can't mock people just because they're not consuming acceptably geeky media and then get annoyed when the same argument is used against geeks.
Objectifying a woman-shaped sexbot will only train men (or women) to objectify women.
You're not seeing the long picture here.
Once we have trained people to desire sexbots, we can start slowly morphing the sexbots away from looking like women (or men for that matter) and over to some other form entirely. In the end, when the sexbots look completely non human like, we will have trained men to feel no sexual desire to woman-shaped forms at all and everyone wins!
Yes, but presumably the idea of a "sexbot" is that it is indistinguishable from a real woman, not that it's just a slightly more complicated blow up doll?
I don't think you can compare sexbots and dildoes.
It's the "there isn't a woman in the world" comment I'm responding to as there was at least one woman in Maryland I believe who attached a dildo to a saber saw and had to go to the hospital because the dildo came off.
No, I'm not looking it up:)
[John]
You are being too literal. When someone says something like "there isn't anyone who would do X" they are implicitly not counting the psychotic or terminally stupid.
If I said "there isn't a man in the world who would cut off his own balls to celebrate a sports victory" the fact that some Welsh rugby fan actually did this when they beat England does not invalidate the general truth of my statement.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong choices. Once the freedom to make such choices is taken away, ethics ceases to be involved. That is, if you outlaw sex bots, then the choice not to obtain a sex bot is not an ethical choice anymore, it is a pragmatic or utilitarian choice.
You are quite wrong.
We already outlaw murder. That does not mean that the decision to commit murder becomes purely a utilitarian choice. Most people woulld still say it is wrong to murder.
And my misuse of proper English failed to convey the intent how?
I, for one, assumed you were referring to someone else, although it was impossible to tell who. Causing such initial confusion in your reader means they are unlikely to take the effort to read everything you wrote.
I deliberately went back to read your whole post to prove to myself that your misuse of English genuinely had distorted your meaning, and I was right. Normally, I would just have stopped reading and gone on to the next post.
Working two jobs, eh? Then how do the Asians do it? They work their asses off, 80+ hours a week at their restaurant, laundry, whatever they decided to do for a living, and still manage to beat (or raise) their kids into a work ethic.
"Poverty" my ass. "Race" my ass. It's all about culture.
It's great that a vast populous continent like Asia produces people who are all so perfectly stereotypical, isn't it?
I think a lot of your points are subject to the classic correlation!=causation meme so beloved of slashdotters in other contexts.
For example, if you have a professional career and are well-educated, you are far more likely to have kids after 22 than before simply because you will have been too busy before then. And if you have a professional career you have a very high probability of not being poor.
In itself, having kids after 22 doesn't prove anything. If I get sent to prison at the age of 16 and serve ten years, it's not likely I'll have kids before 22
The point about IQ is that it's meaningless. If you want to test someone's mathematical ability, you give them a maths test. Same with spelling or music. there are problems with the idea of tests too (like people being coached to pass exams rather than actually learn things properly) but at least you're attempting to measure something specific.
Smart, but formally uneducated, and poor parents works too.
And stupid, abusive, dirt poor, alcoholic parents can also produce child geniuses. They're just the exception rather than the rule.
I don't think anyone would seriously contend that other things being equal having rich parents isn't an advantage. Otherwise, you might as well introduce 100% inheritance taxes and just share the money out equally.
In the UK, the main thing that predicts parental involvement is social class. But of course, you don't have a class system in the US, as everyone is rich, so maybe it depends on race there.
If a problem is so simple that cutting and pasting the answer can yield the solution, I doubt it does much to enhance critical thinking skills no matter what.
When you're learning something new, you generally have to start with simple problems. (Most people aren't genius-level polymaths like everyone on slahsdot seems to be.).
Twelve year old kids doing history homework by cutting and pasting from wikipedia is not the same as a PhD history researcher doing the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need a digital timer to make a bomb. Why suspect that, and not a shoe or a bag or a pair of glasses? If they are school teachers and not bomb experts, how can they tell that a shoe will not explode?
As has been said already, it's a Hollywood/TV reality problem. In films, bombs have big count down timers so the hero can stop it at 2 seconds to go when he takes the calculated risk of cutting the blue wire instead of the red one.
Most people have only ever seen bombs on screen.
These people should be made to grovel for forgiveness for the rest of their fucking lives because this sort of over reaction is a disgrace.
People who over-exaggerate should be hanged, disembowelled, castrated, dismembered then burned alive.
Go fuck yourself! EVERYWHERE is the place for political protests, especially places that people say "aren't the place for political protests" and 20 feet outside the bullshit "free speech zone!"
Well, if this was a political protest, it certainly achieved its goals.
Even on a broadly anti-Muslim, right wing site like slashdot, ony a couple of posts here are defending the authorities' actions.
The narrative of "the US discriminates against Muslims" comes over pretty strongly.
In an ideal world, a Muslim should be able to walk into a mall in Tel Aviv with a giant box marked "Allah Akbar!!! Death to Israel!" with a giant countdown timer on it and shop in peace, unmolested
No, in anything but a libertarian fantasy world that is a direct physical threat rather than an expression of free speech.
If I saw a padded envelope with a bit of wire sticking out of it and making a ticking noise, I'd assume it was a letter bomb and react accordingly.
Maybe the people educating our youth shouldn't be basing their opinion of what is and isn't dangerous from Hollywood movies? Just a thought...
I have long been told that people can and do separate fiction from reality. That what we see on TV and in movies is known to be fictional and not real. I have never believed it for one minute.
Careful, that plays right into the "playing Call of Duty makes you a violent psychopath" argument that slashdotters rightly mock.
You can't mock people just because they're not consuming acceptably geeky media and then get annoyed when the same argument is used against geeks.
Dildo's give hetrosexual women more options. That's empowering. Sexbots give hetero men more options. That's misogynistic.
Dildo != sexbot
Objectifying a woman-shaped sexbot will only train men (or women) to objectify women.
You're not seeing the long picture here.
Once we have trained people to desire sexbots, we can start slowly morphing the sexbots away from looking like women (or men for that matter) and over to some other form entirely. In the end, when the sexbots look completely non human like, we will have trained men to feel no sexual desire to woman-shaped forms at all and everyone wins!
The misogyny is strong with this one.
I don't think you can compare sexbots and dildoes.
It's the "there isn't a woman in the world" comment I'm responding to as there was at least one woman in Maryland I believe who attached a dildo to a saber saw and had to go to the hospital because the dildo came off.
No, I'm not looking it up :)
[John]
You are being too literal. When someone says something like "there isn't anyone who would do X" they are implicitly not counting the psychotic or terminally stupid.
If I said "there isn't a man in the world who would cut off his own balls to celebrate a sports victory" the fact that some Welsh rugby fan actually did this when they beat England does not invalidate the general truth of my statement.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong choices. Once the freedom to make such choices is taken away, ethics ceases to be involved. That is, if you outlaw sex bots, then the choice not to obtain a sex bot is not an ethical choice anymore, it is a pragmatic or utilitarian choice.
You are quite wrong.
We already outlaw murder. That does not mean that the decision to commit murder becomes purely a utilitarian choice. Most people woulld still say it is wrong to murder.
There is very little that is remotely as sexually objectifying as a dildo. Reducing a man to his sex organ.
Well, doc? Why the outrage against sex bots? Maybe you should start with a campaign against dildos?
But ... I've seen you. I dare say that you probably are quite happy that they exist.
Says the Adonis posting on slashdot.
some men just have higher sex drive and just need to deal with some physical discomfort
What, and they're too stupid to work out how to have a wank?
Now, they don't do things that we like any more, and now, outside of fucking them, we don't particularly like them.
Sounds like a pretty good summation of the worldview of most Red Pill/MRA types out there.
Straight men can have female friends. Fat, ugly, old ones.
You must be a bundle of joy at work.
Ah yes, the safe and secure USB stick.
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
There are things called passwords and back ups. And it's not like school pupils will be carrying around state secrets.
And my misuse of proper English failed to convey the intent how?
I, for one, assumed you were referring to someone else, although it was impossible to tell who. Causing such initial confusion in your reader means they are unlikely to take the effort to read everything you wrote.
I deliberately went back to read your whole post to prove to myself that your misuse of English genuinely had distorted your meaning, and I was right. Normally, I would just have stopped reading and gone on to the next post.
Working two jobs, eh? Then how do the Asians do it? They work their asses off, 80+ hours a week at their restaurant, laundry, whatever they decided to do for a living, and still manage to beat (or raise) their kids into a work ethic.
"Poverty" my ass. "Race" my ass. It's all about culture.
It's great that a vast populous continent like Asia produces people who are all so perfectly stereotypical, isn't it?
For example, if you have a professional career and are well-educated, you are far more likely to have kids after 22 than before simply because you will have been too busy before then. And if you have a professional career you have a very high probability of not being poor.
In itself, having kids after 22 doesn't prove anything. If I get sent to prison at the age of 16 and serve ten years, it's not likely I'll have kids before 22
Households in the top quintile, have, on average, 2.1 people employed
Are there really that many families with three or more parents?
The point about IQ is that it's meaningless. If you want to test someone's mathematical ability, you give them a maths test. Same with spelling or music. there are problems with the idea of tests too (like people being coached to pass exams rather than actually learn things properly) but at least you're attempting to measure something specific.
Smart, but formally uneducated, and poor parents works too.
And stupid, abusive, dirt poor, alcoholic parents can also produce child geniuses. They're just the exception rather than the rule.
I don't think anyone would seriously contend that other things being equal having rich parents isn't an advantage. Otherwise, you might as well introduce 100% inheritance taxes and just share the money out equally.
In the UK, the main thing that predicts parental involvement is social class. But of course, you don't have a class system in the US, as everyone is rich, so maybe it depends on race there.
the meaning of "critic", which has a negative connotation in English
No, it doesn't. A film or art critic doesn't just say negative things about movies or paintings.
The verb "criticise" in everyday speech is negative, but that's a different use case.
If a problem is so simple that cutting and pasting the answer can yield the solution, I doubt it does much to enhance critical thinking skills no matter what.
When you're learning something new, you generally have to start with simple problems. (Most people aren't genius-level polymaths like everyone on slahsdot seems to be.).
Twelve year old kids doing history homework by cutting and pasting from wikipedia is not the same as a PhD history researcher doing the same thing.