If you are assuming a completely new definition for the word "advanced" I agree. I picture poo flinging monkeys landing a steamer on a button for the submission process.
This is something trying to build a hypothesis on a theory that has no evidence at all. Sure, I find it as interesting as most people in terms of discussing possibilities, but this is dreaming and not "science". Anyone discussing life off of our own Earth needs lots of research.. like namely finding life so we could possibly begin to formulate a hypothesis on it's origin.
I actually suspect that the majority of life - and intelligent life - in the universe is probably ocean-based. If ever space aliens visit us, unlike the movies, I suspect their spaceships may be more likely to be like sealed aquariums than an air-breathing setup. I've never seen this idea reflected in science fiction though.
Look, I am honestly not trying to be a Debbie Downer on you, but you are attempting to critique someone's imagination with your own imagination. Dreaming and imagining are good things, and we need them. Dream, write about your dreams, and make a billion dollars in book sales. Just don't confuse imagination with facts and attempt to "correct" other people's imaginations with your own..
If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 [austlii.edu.au] which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings.
Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence, you tried to cherry pick something you thought would keep you floating instead of spending a few minutes to research. For posterity, a few minutes is a gross exaggeration.
In what possible way is the university obstructing justice?
I gave three other examples and you just pretend that they did not exist. I should not go back the post you responded to and quote information you should have read in both of my posts. You did not claim I was wrong, you did not provide counter analogy, you are PRETENDING that they are not there.
No I'm not, you simply do not understand the legal issues. And what is does "fine" mean as opposed to fine.
That is a gem in and of itself. I'm wrong because you say I am, regardless of facts or argument. Do you claim that anyone not believing your opinion on everything does not understand, or do you restrict this bit of circular logic to just political issues? Rhetorical question, I don't want to read what ever you respond with but give it a good amount of consideration.
I did not read further, because at this point you must convince me that you are not a deranged lunatic who is simply trolling. I won't hold my breath, but I've been surprised before. If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented instead of ignoring them or repeating the opinion I initially challenged and pretending that repetition makes it valid.
What are you on about? The standard for accusation at a US university is vastly below any judicial standard for rape. At some places, the accused isn't even given a chance to defend himself.
Hahaha, here are two words for you to research. Penn State.
After those two words, there are plenty of other Universities for you to investigate and see what happens with reported crimes. UCxx would be another great piece of research.
The university is fining (no scare quotes) the students for breaching the by-laws of the university.
We know why they are fining, it says so in TFA. We also know that this relates to illegally downloading Copyrighted material. Downloading Copyrighted material without permission of the owner is also illegal. The University is not bothering to notify either the Copyright owner or Law enforcement that the student is breaking the law.
You are trying to argue that based on the technicality of the verbiage for the "fine", the University is not obstructing justice and coercing students into paying them money which happens to result in no legal action against those students. No matter how you try and pretty it up, the students are being coerced into paying "hush" money..
Do you understand that the university has the legal right, bestowed by parliament, to formulate by-laws and issue fines for the breach thereof (ie. they have delegated legislative power)?
Oh come now, are you trying to claim that the University has been granted powers that can allow them to ignore the law of the land? This is not creating laws that include the National laws, this is a policy which thumbs it's nose at those laws.
If, and only if, the University was passing this information over to law enforcement agencies or copyright owners (so that they could contact law enforcement or take other action) would I agree with their methods.
I have no issues with a University having 100.00 citations for Toga parties, if students agree with their terms not to have Toga parties or pay the fine. That would not allow the University to ignore crimes associated with a Toga party, such as providing alcohol to minors, any type of assault (including sexual assault), larceny, murder, etc... If the University took the cash for any of those other things and did not call in Law Enforcement, University Administrators would be in jail and the University would be suffering massive amounts of law suits by the victims of those crimes. Since it's only "copyright" we let them get away with racketeering?
Look, I'm not a fan of copyright law implementation (at least in the US where I live), but that does not mean that we can selectively enforce the law. If they are universally enforced it may result in better copyright law. As a selective punishment, it allows for illegal activities such as this University has been involved in.
If the University is "fining" the students and not turning them over the the proper authorities how are they not complicit in the theft exactly? What they are doing is exactly the definition of racketeering.
Racketeering refers to criminal activity that is performed to benefit an organization such as a crime syndicate. Examples of racketeering activity include extortion, money laundering, loan sharking, obstruction of justice and bribery.
Students give the University hush money, gets a slap on the hand "oh noez, no free wireless for up to a few months" and the University profits. Copyright holders are not seeing a penny of this money, Law enforcement is not prosecuting people for theft.
Should the University fine rapists for profit and not turn them over to Law enforcement as well? Oh wait, this already happens in the US (if people are charged at all) so I'm sure it happens there too... Yeah, University officials should be in jail over this one. I doubt it will happen because people will focus on everything but the obvious.
Your alleged only runner in the race is completely false. Good grief man, read some history. Start with the "first" milestones here. The Soviets were ahead of us in many areas, but we decided to take risks that pushed us ahead. It was a gamble that paid off, but a close run. Here is an excerpt.
First animals returned safely from orbit August 1960 USSR Sputnik 5
First simultaneous flight of crewed spacecraft. Andriyan Nikolayev and Pavel Popovich August 1962 USSR Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
First woman in space. Valentina Tereshkova June 1963 USSR Vostok 6
Longest crewed solo orbital flight. Valery Bykovsky June 1963 USSR Vostok 5
Your other statements about JFK backing away is just as wrong, at least in terms of the race to the Moon. Are you confusing US involvement in Vietnam with the Space Race or something? You sure don't seem to have any concern for actual events and history.
Okay smart guy, where in Chrome can I change my Network settings to use a Proxy server? Oh wait, I have to change IE settings to do this. Chrome pulls many settings from the same exact resource as IE. I can add a few customer extensions, which is why I said it's a glorified IE.
Before your next attempt at trolling with a personal attack, at least attempt to learn what the fuck you are talking about.
I still use Firefox primarily, and most IT people I know do the same. Chrome is glorified IE that runs in Linux too.. big whoop I don't wanna use it because I have very little trust for Google or MS. Opera is my 2nd favorite, but can be bothersome for certain tasks. Firefox used to be a friendly thing for Google, but Google now pushes their own browser..their prerogative, I don't mean that as an insult.
So Firefox defaults to Yahoo.. no biggie. I can turn that off as easily as I can change IE to something other than Bing. If I could not do that, it would be a problem.. as it is.. it's just a minor inconvenience I'm willing to accept. If they fund Firefox better, so be it. Yahoo's their own company too and can make their own choice (though I won't use them either, except for burner test accounts)
That we don't prosecute enough false advertising and deception with intent to defraud claims!
It's hard to blame the root cause of the problem on anything but the current levels of corruption infesting our Government. Instead of agencies built to enforce regulations doing what they are intended, they are investigating bullshit to make corporations more and more money and keep the cronies in office so that their circle continues to have revenue while the "common" people suffer.
Yup, stories like yours are a shame. These scams have been known about for at least 4-5 years (if you don't remember the my clean PC bullshit.. well, you could be a n00b), but instead of putting these shitbags out of business we have agencies focusing on Youtube videos that have background audio of a song, or grandma downloading a free MP3 file, or heaven forbid a goddamn whistle blower that must be lambasted and castrated.
Don't get me wrong, "Greed" is a problem but it's a problem we have known about for at least as long as we have been able to write and read. The whole point of Government is to enforce regulation and prosecute snake oil salesmen to protect the populace from greedy fucks that gain power (in some/any form). The fact that this shit has gone on for this long demonstrates that our Government is a failure. Massive bureaucracies are a failure! (The problems with journalism today, or more properly the lack thereof, fall into these categories so I can't blame them separately).
I don't know your brother and can't speak for him. I also don't have the same beliefs, I think evolution is real and humans have caused massive problems on Earth including Global Warming. At the same time, I don't believe everything people claim about either of those things. I question what I'm told, and that gets me labelled as a 'conspiracy theorist'.
As one easy example, I read through the UN Agenda 21 reports which were out well before many people were talking about global warming. Since I know the information in Agenda 21 I have to ask how much of the debate is real and how much is fabricated to fit someone's agenda. At the same time, the "debate" seems to be an artificial means to start taxing some people for Carbon while other people (producing the same or more carbon) benefit from the tax and don't have to change their behavior.
The best lies contain a thread of truth.
A big part of the problem is that people on both sides believe anything they are told, as long as it matches their belief. Not an accusation, but a general observation is that people today can't seem to tell the difference between facts an opinion. Perhaps its always been that way and I'm just noticing as I get older.
“We need more people in parliament who can code, not because we need them to spend their time coding but because they have got to understand how powerful a weapon it is, so that they can make laws that require people to code to make machines behave in different ways.”
I key in particularly on their desire to "make people behave in different ways". I'm not a big fan of obvious social engineering, at least try to hide it.
To Putin's plane being in the same area I provided a link elsewhere in the thread. It was not rumor but fact and quickly ignored by western media (though early on there was a mention on Fox). I never said the released satellite photos in TFA were "good" or "valid". I only pointed to a lack of evidence and a whole lot of muddy water for the whole situation.
And where is the valid pretext, that you told us about, for Russia's invasion of the Crimea?
What valid pretext are you talking about exactly? That US "think-tank" groups pumped tons of money into the Euromaiden movement? That pro-Russian civilians are and were being killed by Kiev? Be more clear on this, because this is a lengthy discussion with many points and none match your particular verbiage.
To make sure you understand my first paragraph the link to the article does not exist, what you linked is a few Tweets. There is no article, there is no journalism, you managed to prove nothing proving the person's journalistic integrity or a fact based opinion. Second point. Since you did not, or can not, read and comprehend a dictionary here is the definition of Journalism. Relevant portions are in bold.
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest
I'm not the arbiter of journalism, the dictionary is. Nowhere does the definition claim that journalism is publishing your personal opinion to cause harm or benefit as you see fit.
That article does not point to misogyny, unless of course you wish to claim that misogyny includes 99.999% of all modelling where a women uses sexuality and her appearance to make money. You would further have to claim that female musicians are all victims of misogyny, and are victimized and abused into appearing in their own videos and singing about sex and appearance. The overwhelming majority of actresses would also all have to be victims of misogyny, or hell even hostesses and concierges are victims.
Where did anyone say any of that?
So you are admitting that her published opinion about Uber being misogynistic are bias, and not based on any real facts? Are you still going to argue that her rant about "Deleting Uber" is because Uber is just some big mean company or will you concede that point?
Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.
And you can't possibly see how a reporter could lead a conversation that way? You think that it's impossible to manipulate dialogue? How much money do you have, I'll be willing to bet that during a conversation over a few drinks I can get you say all kinds of incriminating things and use them to portray you as a bad person. Shockingly I don't even have to know much about you to do so, and the "reporter" knows more about the executive than is needed just based on the company he works for. Yeah, I know.. hard to imagine that attacking someone's livelihood would be enough to incite a response, but it happens pretty often. *hopefully the sarcasm is obvious*
The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.
Oh, how the picture becomes very clear now. When the questions hurt attack the person asking questions. So how much better than this exec do you think you are? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question and you have just demonstrated who you are.
It's the writer's opinion that working with an escort service is misogynistic.
Awesome, where is the journalism to back her opinion? I found no journalism comparing Uber to other Taxi services in France to show how Uber is worse than them. I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.
Journalism has meaning, Journalists are supposed to do journalism. Show me the work, because I searched and could find nothing but her opinion. Without facts, her opinion is nothing but bias, and anyone believing or following that opinion is only following the same bias. So prove it, or you are just repeating the same bias.
I'm sure you think Anita Sarkeesian faked her death threats as well. Or rather, whether or not she did is a "valid question"
WTF? You really don't seem to be thinking very clearly. I provided a similiar dialog as an example above, but lets try this. Remember this is a private dinner, probably a glass or two of wine. I start a conversation about your ex-girlfriend and keep pestering about how cheating is wrong, because I know she dumped you for a guy she was cheating on (assuming you are a hetero male, you can change it to your preference). I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."
From that statement, I can now claim "This guy want's to smear his ex girlfriend posting nasty stuff about her". This is why context is critical, and we have absolutely NO context. We have quotes that were pulled out of a conversation to present an image of a person without the other half of the conversation.
No, I don't know that the above happened but there is no evidence that the guy just started saying this stuff either. Neither of us know. Again, this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.
Just my 2 cents obviously, but I strongly recommend you keep that up and try to veer away from computers. (obviously computers have replaced libraries for research, and I'm not an absolutist). Challenge her to look at the stars and remember constellation names, challenge her to solve algebra problems on a white board for you, paint a picture of a pony, now in proper colors, now racing, now a lathered horse, etc...
There is this thing lately, a push, that all kids should be "connected" and everyone needs to program computers all the time. I don't see how it's been helpful, I see lots of problems due to this mentality. Look at the most brilliant minds you can think of, and none of them grew up programming computers. Archimedes, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, none of them had computers yet were all absolutely brilliant. Now look at most modern geniuses, and most were not using computers until the University level. Kernighan and Ritchie, Stephen Wolfram, I think you get the point. If computers solved all the education problems we would be seeing higher IQs in society, not lower IQs. Everyone that owned a computer or went to school with a computer would be much better off, but that is not the case.
I'm guessing that your kids doing this level of programming are not in elementary school, this guys daughter is 9! Good Grief!
Personally I would not even consider trying to get a 9 year old kid into programming outside of school (boy or girl). If she want's to mod Minecraft good for her, but don't pressure her or even encourage her beyond this. 9 years old is an age where kids should be learning social skills and exercising their imaginations. Motor skill development at this age is also important. Teach her chess and play with her, make sure she has social activities with friends her own age, let her get involved in school plays and be in the band, baseball and soccer are other great activities. Sculpting, painting, drawing, reading, Tai Kwon Do, anything but encouraging her sitting in front of a computer for hours at a time.
A game like chess can develop logic skills and planning abilities without the isolation of programming (I.E. Don't dump her off on chess.com and leave her there). Encourage what she should be learning at 9, not what is the most convenient for you to have her learn at 9. Here is a consideration: If your daughter was one of those rare geniuses ready to graduate college when other kids her age are in the 7th grade, you would not be asking the question. She would have picked up C on her own and been programming already, without your assistance.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are assuming a completely new definition for the word "advanced" I agree. I picture poo flinging monkeys landing a steamer on a button for the submission process.
This is something trying to build a hypothesis on a theory that has no evidence at all. Sure, I find it as interesting as most people in terms of discussing possibilities, but this is dreaming and not "science". Anyone discussing life off of our own Earth needs lots of research.. like namely finding life so we could possibly begin to formulate a hypothesis on it's origin.
I actually suspect that the majority of life - and intelligent life - in the universe is probably ocean-based. If ever space aliens visit us, unlike the movies, I suspect their spaceships may be more likely to be like sealed aquariums than an air-breathing setup. I've never seen this idea reflected in science fiction though.
Look, I am honestly not trying to be a Debbie Downer on you, but you are attempting to critique someone's imagination with your own imagination. Dreaming and imagining are good things, and we need them. Dream, write about your dreams, and make a billion dollars in book sales. Just don't confuse imagination with facts and attempt to "correct" other people's imaginations with your own..
If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 [austlii.edu.au] which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings.
Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence, you tried to cherry pick something you thought would keep you floating instead of spending a few minutes to research. For posterity, a few minutes is a gross exaggeration.
In what possible way is the university obstructing justice?
I gave three other examples and you just pretend that they did not exist. I should not go back the post you responded to and quote information you should have read in both of my posts. You did not claim I was wrong, you did not provide counter analogy, you are PRETENDING that they are not there.
No I'm not, you simply do not understand the legal issues. And what is does "fine" mean as opposed to fine.
That is a gem in and of itself. I'm wrong because you say I am, regardless of facts or argument. Do you claim that anyone not believing your opinion on everything does not understand, or do you restrict this bit of circular logic to just political issues? Rhetorical question, I don't want to read what ever you respond with but give it a good amount of consideration.
I did not read further, because at this point you must convince me that you are not a deranged lunatic who is simply trolling. I won't hold my breath, but I've been surprised before. If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented instead of ignoring them or repeating the opinion I initially challenged and pretending that repetition makes it valid.
What are you on about? The standard for accusation at a US university is vastly below any judicial standard for rape. At some places, the accused isn't even given a chance to defend himself.
Hahaha, here are two words for you to research. Penn State.
After those two words, there are plenty of other Universities for you to investigate and see what happens with reported crimes. UCxx would be another great piece of research.
The university is fining (no scare quotes) the students for breaching the by-laws of the university.
We know why they are fining, it says so in TFA. We also know that this relates to illegally downloading Copyrighted material. Downloading Copyrighted material without permission of the owner is also illegal. The University is not bothering to notify either the Copyright owner or Law enforcement that the student is breaking the law.
You are trying to argue that based on the technicality of the verbiage for the "fine", the University is not obstructing justice and coercing students into paying them money which happens to result in no legal action against those students. No matter how you try and pretty it up, the students are being coerced into paying "hush" money..
Do you understand that the university has the legal right, bestowed by parliament, to formulate by-laws and issue fines for the breach thereof (ie. they have delegated legislative power)?
Oh come now, are you trying to claim that the University has been granted powers that can allow them to ignore the law of the land? This is not creating laws that include the National laws, this is a policy which thumbs it's nose at those laws.
If, and only if, the University was passing this information over to law enforcement agencies or copyright owners (so that they could contact law enforcement or take other action) would I agree with their methods.
I have no issues with a University having 100.00 citations for Toga parties, if students agree with their terms not to have Toga parties or pay the fine. That would not allow the University to ignore crimes associated with a Toga party, such as providing alcohol to minors, any type of assault (including sexual assault), larceny, murder, etc... If the University took the cash for any of those other things and did not call in Law Enforcement, University Administrators would be in jail and the University would be suffering massive amounts of law suits by the victims of those crimes. Since it's only "copyright" we let them get away with racketeering?
Look, I'm not a fan of copyright law implementation (at least in the US where I live), but that does not mean that we can selectively enforce the law. If they are universally enforced it may result in better copyright law. As a selective punishment, it allows for illegal activities such as this University has been involved in.
If the University is "fining" the students and not turning them over the the proper authorities how are they not complicit in the theft exactly? What they are doing is exactly the definition of racketeering.
Racketeering refers to criminal activity that is performed to benefit an organization such as a crime syndicate. Examples of racketeering activity include extortion, money laundering, loan sharking, obstruction of justice and bribery.
Students give the University hush money, gets a slap on the hand "oh noez, no free wireless for up to a few months" and the University profits. Copyright holders are not seeing a penny of this money, Law enforcement is not prosecuting people for theft.
Should the University fine rapists for profit and not turn them over to Law enforcement as well? Oh wait, this already happens in the US (if people are charged at all) so I'm sure it happens there too... Yeah, University officials should be in jail over this one. I doubt it will happen because people will focus on everything but the obvious.
Your alleged only runner in the race is completely false. Good grief man, read some history. Start with the "first" milestones here. The Soviets were ahead of us in many areas, but we decided to take risks that pushed us ahead. It was a gamble that paid off, but a close run. Here is an excerpt.
First animals returned safely from orbit August 1960 USSR Sputnik 5
First simultaneous flight of crewed spacecraft. Andriyan Nikolayev and Pavel Popovich August 1962 USSR Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
First woman in space. Valentina Tereshkova June 1963 USSR Vostok 6
Longest crewed solo orbital flight. Valery Bykovsky June 1963 USSR Vostok 5
Your other statements about JFK backing away is just as wrong, at least in terms of the race to the Moon. Are you confusing US involvement in Vietnam with the Space Race or something? You sure don't seem to have any concern for actual events and history.
Okay smart guy, where in Chrome can I change my Network settings to use a Proxy server? Oh wait, I have to change IE settings to do this. Chrome pulls many settings from the same exact resource as IE. I can add a few customer extensions, which is why I said it's a glorified IE.
Before your next attempt at trolling with a personal attack, at least attempt to learn what the fuck you are talking about.
He's going to make a giant drill bit and point it toward the core of the Earth. His plan is being called.. Preparation H
I still use Firefox primarily, and most IT people I know do the same. Chrome is glorified IE that runs in Linux too.. big whoop I don't wanna use it because I have very little trust for Google or MS. Opera is my 2nd favorite, but can be bothersome for certain tasks. Firefox used to be a friendly thing for Google, but Google now pushes their own browser..their prerogative, I don't mean that as an insult.
So Firefox defaults to Yahoo.. no biggie. I can turn that off as easily as I can change IE to something other than Bing. If I could not do that, it would be a problem.. as it is.. it's just a minor inconvenience I'm willing to accept. If they fund Firefox better, so be it. Yahoo's their own company too and can make their own choice (though I won't use them either, except for burner test accounts)
That we don't prosecute enough false advertising and deception with intent to defraud claims!
It's hard to blame the root cause of the problem on anything but the current levels of corruption infesting our Government. Instead of agencies built to enforce regulations doing what they are intended, they are investigating bullshit to make corporations more and more money and keep the cronies in office so that their circle continues to have revenue while the "common" people suffer.
Yup, stories like yours are a shame. These scams have been known about for at least 4-5 years (if you don't remember the my clean PC bullshit.. well, you could be a n00b), but instead of putting these shitbags out of business we have agencies focusing on Youtube videos that have background audio of a song, or grandma downloading a free MP3 file, or heaven forbid a goddamn whistle blower that must be lambasted and castrated.
Don't get me wrong, "Greed" is a problem but it's a problem we have known about for at least as long as we have been able to write and read. The whole point of Government is to enforce regulation and prosecute snake oil salesmen to protect the populace from greedy fucks that gain power (in some/any form). The fact that this shit has gone on for this long demonstrates that our Government is a failure. Massive bureaucracies are a failure! (The problems with journalism today, or more properly the lack thereof, fall into these categories so I can't blame them separately).
I'll get off my soap box now.
I don't know your brother and can't speak for him. I also don't have the same beliefs, I think evolution is real and humans have caused massive problems on Earth including Global Warming. At the same time, I don't believe everything people claim about either of those things. I question what I'm told, and that gets me labelled as a 'conspiracy theorist'.
As one easy example, I read through the UN Agenda 21 reports which were out well before many people were talking about global warming. Since I know the information in Agenda 21 I have to ask how much of the debate is real and how much is fabricated to fit someone's agenda. At the same time, the "debate" seems to be an artificial means to start taxing some people for Carbon while other people (producing the same or more carbon) benefit from the tax and don't have to change their behavior.
The best lies contain a thread of truth.
A big part of the problem is that people on both sides believe anything they are told, as long as it matches their belief. Not an accusation, but a general observation is that people today can't seem to tell the difference between facts an opinion. Perhaps its always been that way and I'm just noticing as I get older.
Are kidding me? We can compile a program for the government in a few lines. Note that I don't think this is completely illegitimate.!
#include <stdio.h>
void main () {
printf("Hello America\n");
while (1) {
sleep(9999);
}
}
“We need more people in parliament who can code, not because we need them to spend their time coding but because they have got to understand how powerful a weapon it is, so that they can make laws that require people to code to make machines behave in different ways.”
I key in particularly on their desire to "make people behave in different ways". I'm not a big fan of obvious social engineering, at least try to hide it.
How about "Bring an umbrella, because like R. Kelly we are gonna pee on you!"? Obligatory link to a great Chapelle skit..
I don't believe it was not the part about communism that got the post marked negatively, it was the other part relating to a certain political party.
To Putin's plane being in the same area I provided a link elsewhere in the thread. It was not rumor but fact and quickly ignored by western media (though early on there was a mention on Fox). I never said the released satellite photos in TFA were "good" or "valid". I only pointed to a lack of evidence and a whole lot of muddy water for the whole situation.
And where is the valid pretext, that you told us about, for Russia's invasion of the Crimea?
What valid pretext are you talking about exactly? That US "think-tank" groups pumped tons of money into the Euromaiden movement? That pro-Russian civilians are and were being killed by Kiev? Be more clear on this, because this is a lengthy discussion with many points and none match your particular verbiage.
To make sure you understand my first paragraph the link to the article does not exist, what you linked is a few Tweets. There is no article, there is no journalism, you managed to prove nothing proving the person's journalistic integrity or a fact based opinion. Second point. Since you did not, or can not, read and comprehend a dictionary here is the definition of Journalism. Relevant portions are in bold.
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press
c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest
I'm not the arbiter of journalism, the dictionary is. Nowhere does the definition claim that journalism is publishing your personal opinion to cause harm or benefit as you see fit.
That article does not point to misogyny, unless of course you wish to claim that misogyny includes 99.999% of all modelling where a women uses sexuality and her appearance to make money. You would further have to claim that female musicians are all victims of misogyny, and are victimized and abused into appearing in their own videos and singing about sex and appearance. The overwhelming majority of actresses would also all have to be victims of misogyny, or hell even hostesses and concierges are victims.
Where did anyone say any of that?
So you are admitting that her published opinion about Uber being misogynistic are bias, and not based on any real facts? Are you still going to argue that her rant about "Deleting Uber" is because Uber is just some big mean company or will you concede that point?
Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.
And you can't possibly see how a reporter could lead a conversation that way? You think that it's impossible to manipulate dialogue? How much money do you have, I'll be willing to bet that during a conversation over a few drinks I can get you say all kinds of incriminating things and use them to portray you as a bad person. Shockingly I don't even have to know much about you to do so, and the "reporter" knows more about the executive than is needed just based on the company he works for. Yeah, I know.. hard to imagine that attacking someone's livelihood would be enough to incite a response, but it happens pretty often. *hopefully the sarcasm is obvious*
The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.
Oh, how the picture becomes very clear now. When the questions hurt attack the person asking questions. So how much better than this exec do you think you are? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question and you have just demonstrated who you are.
It's the writer's opinion that working with an escort service is misogynistic.
Awesome, where is the journalism to back her opinion? I found no journalism comparing Uber to other Taxi services in France to show how Uber is worse than them. I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.
Journalism has meaning, Journalists are supposed to do journalism. Show me the work, because I searched and could find nothing but her opinion. Without facts, her opinion is nothing but bias, and anyone believing or following that opinion is only following the same bias. So prove it, or you are just repeating the same bias.
I'm sure you think Anita Sarkeesian faked her death threats as well. Or rather, whether or not she did is a "valid question"
WTF? You really don't seem to be thinking very clearly. I provided a similiar dialog as an example above, but lets try this. Remember this is a private dinner, probably a glass or two of wine. I start a conversation about your ex-girlfriend and keep pestering about how cheating is wrong, because I know she dumped you for a guy she was cheating on (assuming you are a hetero male, you can change it to your preference). I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."
From that statement, I can now claim "This guy want's to smear his ex girlfriend posting nasty stuff about her". This is why context is critical, and we have absolutely NO context. We have quotes that were pulled out of a conversation to present an image of a person without the other half of the conversation.
No, I don't know that the above happened but there is no evidence that the guy just started saying this stuff either. Neither of us know. Again, this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.
That is awesome, many people don't understand why not to push their kids into computers. Pat yourself on the back for being a good parent!
Just my 2 cents obviously, but I strongly recommend you keep that up and try to veer away from computers. (obviously computers have replaced libraries for research, and I'm not an absolutist). Challenge her to look at the stars and remember constellation names, challenge her to solve algebra problems on a white board for you, paint a picture of a pony, now in proper colors, now racing, now a lathered horse, etc...
There is this thing lately, a push, that all kids should be "connected" and everyone needs to program computers all the time. I don't see how it's been helpful, I see lots of problems due to this mentality. Look at the most brilliant minds you can think of, and none of them grew up programming computers. Archimedes, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, none of them had computers yet were all absolutely brilliant. Now look at most modern geniuses, and most were not using computers until the University level. Kernighan and Ritchie, Stephen Wolfram, I think you get the point. If computers solved all the education problems we would be seeing higher IQs in society, not lower IQs. Everyone that owned a computer or went to school with a computer would be much better off, but that is not the case.
This is a great article on the subject.
Fucking slashdot ate all my [tags], and I can't edit posts. Why can't I edit posts?
RTFM!
I'm guessing that your kids doing this level of programming are not in elementary school, this guys daughter is 9! Good Grief!
Personally I would not even consider trying to get a 9 year old kid into programming outside of school (boy or girl). If she want's to mod Minecraft good for her, but don't pressure her or even encourage her beyond this. 9 years old is an age where kids should be learning social skills and exercising their imaginations. Motor skill development at this age is also important. Teach her chess and play with her, make sure she has social activities with friends her own age, let her get involved in school plays and be in the band, baseball and soccer are other great activities. Sculpting, painting, drawing, reading, Tai Kwon Do, anything but encouraging her sitting in front of a computer for hours at a time.
A game like chess can develop logic skills and planning abilities without the isolation of programming (I.E. Don't dump her off on chess.com and leave her there). Encourage what she should be learning at 9, not what is the most convenient for you to have her learn at 9. Here is a consideration: If your daughter was one of those rare geniuses ready to graduate college when other kids her age are in the 7th grade, you would not be asking the question. She would have picked up C on her own and been programming already, without your assistance.
Going once! Going twice! Sold to the man with the Facebook lapel pin for 40 Billion dollars!
- not intended to be offensive to auctioneers, but poking fun at the over inflation of everything "tech" -