(admittedly, a bit further in the article, it is mentioned that the relation is not neccesarily causal -my bad)
Even if it is causal, IIRC it's currently understood to have the potential to trigger (or be one in a combination of triggers) for a psychotic break in people already susceptible to schizophrenia.
You can argue the same for psychedelics like LSD, which are generally safe but can also cause disastrous psychotic breakdowns for some people.
The problem is that we don't know which people are susceptible to schizophrenia in advance.
So it's a bit like playing Russian Roulette, albeit there are a hundred empty chambers (or whatever) and one bullet.
The difference with a legal drug like alcohol is that while it undoubtedly causes long term health problems in many people, it rarely produces immediate psychotic breakdown as far as I know.
What is right wing about that process? The Democrats support the movie industry, not the Republicans. Or are you one of those Europeans that thinks all of america is right wing compared to them?
If your "left wing" party supports big business, then I think it really is fair to say that the US is on average more right wing than Europe, certainly in economic terms.
What complicates things is that in many European countries, the formerly left wing parties have also become centre-right (e.g. New Labour in the UK), although there do seem to be signs of a leftward swing back again, as with the anti-austerity movements in Greece or Spain.
And every soccer team, foot ball team, basket ball team, etc. proves you wrong.
The team consisting of people working together for a common goal is the winning one. The manager only has to organize the bus to the game and back home. He has no influence on the outcome of any game.
Bad example. The manager of a sports team makes an enormous difference, far more than any individual player, however good. It's a combination of organising training, developing talent, choosing who to play and when, motivation and all sorts of other things.
In the UK, when a football team starts doing badly, it's the manager who's sacked, not the star striker who hasn't scored a goal for two months.
Just because something is accepted as a usage by a dictionary doesn't mean that actually using it is a good idea.
Buzzwords may be valid in themselves, they just make you sound like a twat if you use them too much.
The following is made up of dictionary words, but is basically bollocks:
"Our organisations's strategic goal is to impact a corporate paradigm shift by standardising the mission critical infrastructures and methodologies to drive down operating spend through supply based logistical consolidation and leveraging group in-year cost savings as well as exploiting best-in-class technologies and next generation behavioural practices to maximise robust, scalable and agile services with excellent customer experience in the global market place through the implementation of disruptive innovation."
In most places I have worked, if anyone needed training and didn't pick up stuff by themselves, they weren't useful and didn't last long. No matter what gender.
Mentoring, yes. Training, no. Unless you're a line worker, training does more harm than good, turning people into stunted robotniks.
Recognize that there is no justification for the treatment received by Anita Sarkeesian for challenging sexim in games, that would help.
99% of the treatment she calls harassment is people calling her out on her bullshit. She spins this into "Its because I'm a woman/feminist", but the reality is its just the internet doing what it does best: Calling you out publicly on your bullshit. She is also a public figure at this point, and as such, has been receiving what plenty of public figures get - Non-credible death threats and some pretty mean tweets. So what you are saying is that we should treat her different because she is a woman? Or are you being sexist and not saying that all harassment of that nature is bad, but you will only defend it because it is happening to a woman?
1% of a large number is a large number. Adolescent name calling is one thing, escalating it into death threats (whether "credible" or not) is unacceptable whether the victim is male or female.
Especially when all the person is doing is discussing something trivial like video game entertainments. I mean, who gives a fuck apart from dysfunctional twelve year olds?
Of course, many people are not particularly good at anything, so they may have personalities weak enough to be formed to a degree. But these people will never find the dedication and level of fascination with coding that is an absolute pre-requisite to ever be good at it.
This is the purest bullshit. There are very good coders, mediocre coders and very bad coders, the same as in every other field of human endeavour. Programmers are not special snowflakes.
So women don't get into coding because of societal pressures? I, quite frankly, find that insulting. Women are not meek little creatures that need you and your SJWs to circle jerk over their cause. They are human beings capable of extraordinary things when you get out of their way, and let them take care of themselves. Just like all other human beings.
Yes, we live in a society of perfectly equal opportunities, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar and intent on murdering all white men.
People being dicks have managed teams that produce the most well-known products on the planet, continuing over decades - see Linus, RMS and Jobs. Asshole-ish behaviour gets rewarded by the masses *because* it produces what people want.
That's three examples, and just in the tech industry. There are plenty of non-assholes in the tech industry as a whole, and even more in other industries.
It is more true to say that Linus et al are successful *despite* being asshole-ish.
In the real world there are assholes that stand in your way and you have to find a way to deal with them.
Unless you have some religious or other vocation and have to accept them, the easiest way is to walk away from assholes if they are in a position of power over you.
Unless you are really good at internal politics, picking fights with your superiors is generally a pointless exercise.
Exactly this. My Dad is against gay marriage, but it's because he's very religious and believes in protecting what he precises marriage is. I've had many drunk arguments with him over it. He doesn't hate gay people, he just had different values. Unfortunately it's really easy for people to twist those values as representing a bigoted position so they can call him names, mock him and dismiss any arguments he has to make. It kills me sometimes because I don't agree with him, but I despise the way people treat him because of that one view.
Remember it's not bullying or discrimination as long as you pick the "right" target
You can't say that because a belief has a religious justification it's therefore valid.
People have used selective quotes from the Bible to justify racism, sexism and many other things.
You are perfectly free to say that you think homosexuality is disgusting or all black women are unattractive, in the same way you are free to say that you believe having sex with children should be illegal or that Star Wars is the worst film ever made.
What you cannot seriously expect is for your beliefs to be accepted without criticism by everyone else.
I remember Isaac Asimov saying "Either everything we know about particle physics is wrong, or the sun has gone out; therefore the sun has gone out". in regards to neutrino flip.
(As an aside, how would you make out with your girlfriend (or whatever) in one of these things? Do younger people still do that or do they just fuck in their
bedrooms? Did I miss it, again?)
Boy did you pick the wrong forum to ask that question.
Only old people experience directly. Unmediated experiences are boring. How can you properly appreciate what you're experiencing unless 5000 of your closest friends are telling you?
Slashdot Mirror
(admittedly, a bit further in the article, it is mentioned that the relation is not neccesarily causal -my bad)
Even if it is causal, IIRC it's currently understood to have the potential to trigger (or be one in a combination of triggers) for a psychotic break in people already susceptible to schizophrenia.
You can argue the same for psychedelics like LSD, which are generally safe but can also cause disastrous psychotic breakdowns for some people.
The problem is that we don't know which people are susceptible to schizophrenia in advance.
So it's a bit like playing Russian Roulette, albeit there are a hundred empty chambers (or whatever) and one bullet.
The difference with a legal drug like alcohol is that while it undoubtedly causes long term health problems in many people, it rarely produces immediate psychotic breakdown as far as I know.
IANAL
I know it's childish, but I can't help sniggering when someone posts this in a thread about porn films.
What is right wing about that process? The Democrats support the movie industry, not the Republicans. Or are you one of those Europeans that thinks all of america is right wing compared to them?
If your "left wing" party supports big business, then I think it really is fair to say that the US is on average more right wing than Europe, certainly in economic terms.
What complicates things is that in many European countries, the formerly left wing parties have also become centre-right (e.g. New Labour in the UK), although there do seem to be signs of a leftward swing back again, as with the anti-austerity movements in Greece or Spain.
Another way to say it is that if you haven't made your money on it within 5 years, you almost certainly never will.
Not all artistic works have the short life of a Hollywood blockbuster or Top 10 music track.
And every soccer team, foot ball team, basket ball team, etc. proves you wrong. The team consisting of people working together for a common goal is the winning one. The manager only has to organize the bus to the game and back home. He has no influence on the outcome of any game.
Bad example. The manager of a sports team makes an enormous difference, far more than any individual player, however good. It's a combination of organising training, developing talent, choosing who to play and when, motivation and all sorts of other things.
In the UK, when a football team starts doing badly, it's the manager who's sacked, not the star striker who hasn't scored a goal for two months.
The problem with good managers is they look like they are doing nothing.
So as I'm sitting here drinking coffee with my feet up and posting on slashdot while my minions beaver away, I must be a great manager.
Anyone who uses "architect" as a verb should be banned from the workplace.
...even if they provide a value-added service or enhance the synergies?
When I was a lad we used to leverage our synergies, and that's the way we liked it.
How is it not perfectly valid?
Just because something is accepted as a usage by a dictionary doesn't mean that actually using it is a good idea.
Buzzwords may be valid in themselves, they just make you sound like a twat if you use them too much.
The following is made up of dictionary words, but is basically bollocks:
"Our organisations's strategic goal is to impact a corporate paradigm shift by standardising the mission critical infrastructures and methodologies to drive down operating spend through supply based logistical consolidation and leveraging group in-year cost savings as well as exploiting best-in-class technologies and next generation behavioural practices to maximise robust, scalable and agile services with excellent customer experience in the global market place through the implementation of disruptive innovation."
Think any of them have a 50/50 split in the HR department? I'm thinking not.
That's because there isn't a 50/50 quota in HR. Just like there isn't a 50/50 quota anywhere else.
Encouraging more women to apply for interviews is not the same thing as enforcing a rigid 50/50 split of successful applicants between men and women.
In most places I have worked, if anyone needed training and didn't pick up stuff by themselves, they weren't useful and didn't last long. No matter what gender.
Mentoring, yes. Training, no. Unless you're a line worker, training does more harm than good, turning people into stunted robotniks.
Mentoring is just a less formal way of training.
News flash: the world isn't fair. Live with it.
I could have said the same thing to a slave three hundred years ago, or a child working in a coal mine a hundred and fifty years ago.
Fortunately, while the universe is uncaring either way, societies can become fairer.
Recognize that there is no justification for the treatment received by Anita Sarkeesian for challenging sexim in games, that would help.
99% of the treatment she calls harassment is people calling her out on her bullshit. She spins this into "Its because I'm a woman/feminist", but the reality is its just the internet doing what it does best: Calling you out publicly on your bullshit. She is also a public figure at this point, and as such, has been receiving what plenty of public figures get - Non-credible death threats and some pretty mean tweets. So what you are saying is that we should treat her different because she is a woman? Or are you being sexist and not saying that all harassment of that nature is bad, but you will only defend it because it is happening to a woman?
1% of a large number is a large number. Adolescent name calling is one thing, escalating it into death threats (whether "credible" or not) is unacceptable whether the victim is male or female.
Especially when all the person is doing is discussing something trivial like video game entertainments. I mean, who gives a fuck apart from dysfunctional twelve year olds?
Of course, many people are not particularly good at anything, so they may have personalities weak enough to be formed to a degree. But these people will never find the dedication and level of fascination with coding that is an absolute pre-requisite to ever be good at it.
This is the purest bullshit. There are very good coders, mediocre coders and very bad coders, the same as in every other field of human endeavour. Programmers are not special snowflakes.
More men than women are that kind of person, they are not taught to be that way, they just are.
And two hundred years ago, women were (almost) never engineers, scientists, soldiers, company directors, lawyers or doctors.
Either society or human nature has changed, and I know which is more likely. Did women get the vote because their brains suddenly grew to match mens'?
So women don't get into coding because of societal pressures? I, quite frankly, find that insulting. Women are not meek little creatures that need you and your SJWs to circle jerk over their cause. They are human beings capable of extraordinary things when you get out of their way, and let them take care of themselves. Just like all other human beings.
Yes, we live in a society of perfectly equal opportunities, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar and intent on murdering all white men.
People being dicks have managed teams that produce the most well-known products on the planet, continuing over decades - see Linus, RMS and Jobs. Asshole-ish behaviour gets rewarded by the masses *because* it produces what people want.
That's three examples, and just in the tech industry. There are plenty of non-assholes in the tech industry as a whole, and even more in other industries.
It is more true to say that Linus et al are successful *despite* being asshole-ish.
I thought Haikus were supposed to mention the seasons?
A man's stiff penis
In another man's anus:
Spring time for faggots.
It's time to really settle if nice communications, SJW style, matters more than coding competence.
It's not an either/or choice, you know.
In the real world there are assholes that stand in your way and you have to find a way to deal with them.
Unless you have some religious or other vocation and have to accept them, the easiest way is to walk away from assholes if they are in a position of power over you.
Unless you are really good at internal politics, picking fights with your superiors is generally a pointless exercise.
Exactly this. My Dad is against gay marriage, but it's because he's very religious and believes in protecting what he precises marriage is. I've had many drunk arguments with him over it. He doesn't hate gay people, he just had different values. Unfortunately it's really easy for people to twist those values as representing a bigoted position so they can call him names, mock him and dismiss any arguments he has to make. It kills me sometimes because I don't agree with him, but I despise the way people treat him because of that one view. Remember it's not bullying or discrimination as long as you pick the "right" target
You can't say that because a belief has a religious justification it's therefore valid.
People have used selective quotes from the Bible to justify racism, sexism and many other things.
What you cannot seriously expect is for your beliefs to be accepted without criticism by everyone else.
I remember Isaac Asimov saying "Either everything we know about particle physics is wrong, or the sun has gone out; therefore the sun has gone out". in regards to neutrino flip.
So which was it then? Don't leave us in suspense.
(As an aside, how would you make out with your girlfriend (or whatever) in one of these things? Do younger people still do that or do they just fuck in their bedrooms? Did I miss it, again?)
Boy did you pick the wrong forum to ask that question.
Only old people experience directly. Unmediated experiences are boring. How can you properly appreciate what you're experiencing unless 5000 of your closest friends are telling you?
Ob. Sartre:
Hell is other people.
It's certainly other drivers. ALL other drivers.
I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that everyone except me drives either too slowly or too fast.