Yeah, this is the attitude I endorse. Contractual fine print shouldn't allow important distinctions between what you claim to offer and what you offer. To me that means you're either engaged in false advertisement or fraud.
The main goal for Floating Point coprocessor sine calculations is to get a good enough result in a set number of cycles.
Given that fully approximating sine takes about as many concrete operations as bits in the value, getting it exactly right isn't usually a trade off people want to make.
There's a reason the C standard specifies that mathematical trig functions are platform dependent. If you want it precise, do it yourself to the level of precision you need.
They asked the people themselves, if they were unable to consent. That's not ambiguous.
No one cares what other questions are on the survey, because we're talking about one stupid point contested by an AC. I see no reason to discuss the rest of the results, except as some kind of deflection about how you're totally and completely wrong about the rape part.
Be aware of travelers to west central Africa in your life. Make competent decisions about whether you, yourself should go there. Go to your doctor for any suspicious illness if you have any reason to believe you're exposed at all.
Getting someone drunk to get them to have sex with you isn't okay.
Actual fucking question for disingenuous jerks:
When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever
had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}.
{if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?
made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?1
put their mouth on your anus?1
made you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?1
made you put your mouth on their penis?1
put their fingers or an object in your [if female: vagina or} anus?1
Clearly fucking rape. The question includes the phrase "unable to consent". You have zero legs to stand on. Making shit up about the methodology to invent a narrative where it's "not rape" is basically utterly shitty.
The specific types of sexual violence assessed included rape (completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration) and sexual violence other than rape, including being made to penetrate a perpetrator, sexual coercion (nonphysically pressured unwanted penetration), unwanted sexual contact (e.g., kissing or fondling), and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., being flashed or forced to view sexually explicit media).
Those are the categories they questioned about. If you really think that forced penetration or alchohol/drug facilitated penetration isn't rape, I've got news for you, son.
Well, yeah, if someone is leeching your bandwidth, they aren't paying customers who can use whatever technologies they want.
On the other hand, the cheapness of cloud bandwidth has eliminated all the legal utility of bit torrent for me. "Large" legal collections of things tend to be available for straight download nowadays.
Argument by analogy: If blacks don't want to vote because of KKK threats, that's fine. That's their choice. It's not something I need to concern myself with. Maybe it'll change in the future.
What does the bubble have to do with it if it's purely genetic?
What do genes care about cultural artifacts like bubbles?
You're the one alleging a mechanism to explain a phenomenon. I've supplied counter-evidence, you really ought to be able to back up your pet hypothesis better than "nuh uh"
Well, yeah. I'm sure everyone is looking for a better process to ensure fairness at all times. We'll disagree with you when you come up with something, but no one thinks the status quo is perfect.
Oh, so it's entirely genetic, and that's why 20 years ago, the field's gender mix was almost 60-40 and now 85-15. Because genetics change dramatically over short timespans.[1][2]
Bio-determinism bites. And it's an easy, lazy, insufficient answer. I, and others, are prepared to accept that there exist biological gender differences. But, given human history, you can't say that gender differences are strictly biological without evidence. And you can examine socioeconomic factors that influence gender-based occupation decisions. In the previous link, girls(and boys) with higher self-esteem are more likely to avoid gender-typical job roles. Rather substantially, if you can actually read the article, and not just the abstract. Primitivistic psychoanalysis suggests that people who fill gender-typical jobs are likely following social pressure, than innate instincts.
Upbringing has a well understood implication on anti-social personality disorders. Very early upbringing. (Warning, "I watched a documentary" level knowledge) Parents who are scared or nervous around their children greatly increase the likliehood that that child will turn out sociopathic.
But in spite of its primarily environmental cause, we don't have any known treatments for it. It's a disorder, and that sucks.
And, of course, upbringing affects more substantive things like beliefs and behaviors. How that in turn interacts with culture is extremely complicated and is probably not within the bounds of currently understood sociology.
Of course it is, but your "just asking questions" is bullshit. The way you assume it's a likely situation is your problem.
She clearly didn't fabricate this fucking case, because the evidence made it onto the damn news, and faceboook has fucking records. Now you can "investigate" well established facts all you want, but the fact that you didn't even look at the article before "questioning" the threat is your fucking problem
Once again I have the "obsessed with false accusations of rape" reality denier. Because you are a person who believes in an a world where women are serial liars, and you're inured to observational evidence about it by some mental block I don't get.
False accusations do exist but those 2-5% of cases are for our justice system to handle, and not a widespread systemic issue(and there's all sorts of clues as to when an accusation is made up).
Bullshit. I'm not going to deconstruct this "there's a double standard" argument every fucking time.
Let's go over the differences here:
A. The threats in this case specifically made it clear that it was because she was female. Like the threateners made absolutely zero pretense at hiding that. If you argue with this at all, I'm going to assume your entire argument is predicated on it. Consider carefully. B. I personally, along with a lot of other slashdotters have indeed condemned internet threats directed at the architect of systemd just a few days ago. Who is male.
Except you douchebags have been wrong every fucking time.
Like when you pretended there was no police report for the threats that made Sarkeesian move out of her house, without even a hint of investigating it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is an obvious manifestation of misogynistic stereotypes of women being manipulative liars, not any sort of rational consideration.
We just had an article a few days ago where the male architect of systemd got similar hate. We all condemned that too, the difference is there was no one in that thread arguing there was some double standard.
It's hard to divorce politics from the notion of peace. There are people whose political beliefs go as far as the notion that going to war promotes peace. The best you can do is try to ensure there is non-partial input.
I love how you conflate disregarding constant, unsubstantiated claims of false flags with believing they can't exist. It shows just how deep in your own conspiracies you've gotten.
Derpy do. You didn't threaten me. Everyone knows what "fuck you" means. The article on the other hand, mentions people photoshopping a woman's face with bruises and abrasions with the caption "Women are like grass, they need to be beaten and cut sometimes" after she voiced an objection to some torture porn.
Kathy Sierra did no such thing. Making shit up just makes you exactly the like the OP I was chastizing for needing a straw-argument to dismantle, all the while feeling SOOOO oppressed.
As for the 1 in 5 women thing... well
The CDC just recently verified that number that MRA types have been insisting is biased. Every study comes up with markedly similar results about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this is the attitude I endorse. Contractual fine print shouldn't allow important distinctions between what you claim to offer and what you offer. To me that means you're either engaged in false advertisement or fraud.
The main goal for Floating Point coprocessor sine calculations is to get a good enough result in a set number of cycles.
Given that fully approximating sine takes about as many concrete operations as bits in the value, getting it exactly right isn't usually a trade off people want to make.
There's a reason the C standard specifies that mathematical trig functions are platform dependent. If you want it precise, do it yourself to the level of precision you need.
They asked the people themselves, if they were unable to consent. That's not ambiguous.
No one cares what other questions are on the survey, because we're talking about one stupid point contested by an AC. I see no reason to discuss the rest of the results, except as some kind of deflection about how you're totally and completely wrong about the rape part.
Be aware of travelers to west central Africa in your life. Make competent decisions about whether you, yourself should go there. Go to your doctor for any suspicious illness if you have any reason to believe you're exposed at all.
You know, nothing major.
Do you not know what "facilitated" means? No.
Getting someone drunk to get them to have sex with you isn't okay.
Actual fucking question for disingenuous jerks:
When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever
had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}.
{if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?
made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?1
put their mouth on your anus?1
made you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?1
made you put your mouth on their penis?1
put their fingers or an object in your [if female: vagina or} anus?1
Clearly fucking rape. The question includes the phrase "unable to consent". You have zero legs to stand on. Making shit up about the methodology to invent a narrative where it's "not rape" is basically utterly shitty.
From the methods section
The specific types of sexual violence assessed included rape (completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration) and sexual violence other than rape, including being made to penetrate a perpetrator, sexual coercion (nonphysically pressured unwanted penetration), unwanted sexual contact (e.g., kissing or fondling), and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., being flashed or forced to view sexually explicit media).
Those are the categories they questioned about. If you really think that forced penetration or alchohol/drug facilitated penetration isn't rape, I've got news for you, son.
Well, yeah, if someone is leeching your bandwidth, they aren't paying customers who can use whatever technologies they want.
On the other hand, the cheapness of cloud bandwidth has eliminated all the legal utility of bit torrent for me. "Large" legal collections of things tend to be available for straight download nowadays.
Argument by analogy:
If blacks don't want to vote because of KKK threats, that's fine. That's their choice. It's not something I need to concern myself with. Maybe it'll change in the future.
Yes, I was in that threat condemning not just the threateners but the condoners too. See?
I JUST SAID
Nobody said women are "always victims"
Can you approach this debate honestly even once?
I'm calling you names because you're being a disingenuous little shit.
What does the bubble have to do with it if it's purely genetic?
What do genes care about cultural artifacts like bubbles?
You're the one alleging a mechanism to explain a phenomenon. I've supplied counter-evidence, you really ought to be able to back up your pet hypothesis better than "nuh uh"
Well, yeah. I'm sure everyone is looking for a better process to ensure fairness at all times. We'll disagree with you when you come up with something, but no one thinks the status quo is perfect.
Oh, so it's entirely genetic, and that's why 20 years ago, the field's gender mix was almost 60-40 and now 85-15. Because genetics change dramatically over short timespans.[1] [2]
Bio-determinism bites. And it's an easy, lazy, insufficient answer. I, and others, are prepared to accept that there exist biological gender differences. But, given human history, you can't say that gender differences are strictly biological without evidence. And you can examine socioeconomic factors that influence gender-based occupation decisions. In the previous link, girls(and boys) with higher self-esteem are more likely to avoid gender-typical job roles. Rather substantially, if you can actually read the article, and not just the abstract. Primitivistic psychoanalysis suggests that people who fill gender-typical jobs are likely following social pressure, than innate instincts.
Sexism in IT is real, I mean, hell, ask a transgender person whose seen both sides. But even if that were 0% of the problem, it wouldn't imply genetic determinism.
Upbringing has a well understood implication on anti-social personality disorders. Very early upbringing. (Warning, "I watched a documentary" level knowledge) Parents who are scared or nervous around their children greatly increase the likliehood that that child will turn out sociopathic.
But in spite of its primarily environmental cause, we don't have any known treatments for it. It's a disorder, and that sucks.
And, of course, upbringing affects more substantive things like beliefs and behaviors. How that in turn interacts with culture is extremely complicated and is probably not within the bounds of currently understood sociology.
Of course it is, but your "just asking questions" is bullshit. The way you assume it's a likely situation is your problem.
She clearly didn't fabricate this fucking case, because the evidence made it onto the damn news, and faceboook has fucking records. Now you can "investigate" well established facts all you want, but the fact that you didn't even look at the article before "questioning" the threat is your fucking problem
Once again I have the "obsessed with false accusations of rape" reality denier. Because you are a person who believes in an a world where women are serial liars, and you're inured to observational evidence about it by some mental block I don't get.
But here. Here's how wrong you are about false rape accusations.
False accusations do exist but those 2-5% of cases are for our justice system to handle, and not a widespread systemic issue(and there's all sorts of clues as to when an accusation is made up).
Bullshit. I'm not going to deconstruct this "there's a double standard" argument every fucking time.
Let's go over the differences here:
A. The threats in this case specifically made it clear that it was because she was female. Like the threateners made absolutely zero pretense at hiding that. If you argue with this at all, I'm going to assume your entire argument is predicated on it. Consider carefully.
B. I personally, along with a lot of other slashdotters have indeed condemned internet threats directed at the architect of systemd just a few days ago. Who is male.
Except you douchebags have been wrong every fucking time.
Like when you pretended there was no police report for the threats that made Sarkeesian move out of her house, without even a hint of investigating it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is an obvious manifestation of misogynistic stereotypes of women being manipulative liars, not any sort of rational consideration.
We just had an article a few days ago where the male architect of systemd got similar hate. We all condemned that too, the difference is there was no one in that thread arguing there was some double standard.
It's hard to divorce politics from the notion of peace. There are people whose political beliefs go as far as the notion that going to war promotes peace. The best you can do is try to ensure there is non-partial input.
Wait is that UK "private" or US "private"? They're almost opposite in meaning.
I love how you conflate disregarding constant, unsubstantiated claims of false flags with believing they can't exist. It shows just how deep in your own conspiracies you've gotten.
Derpy do. You didn't threaten me. Everyone knows what "fuck you" means. The article on the other hand, mentions people photoshopping a woman's face with bruises and abrasions with the caption "Women are like grass, they need to be beaten and cut sometimes" after she voiced an objection to some torture porn.
That's a fairly targeted and overt threat.
Kathy Sierra did no such thing. Making shit up just makes you exactly the like the OP I was chastizing for needing a straw-argument to dismantle, all the while feeling SOOOO oppressed.
As for the 1 in 5 women thing... well
The CDC just recently verified that number that MRA types have been insisting is biased. Every study comes up with markedly similar results about that.