Don't forget that Citizen's United was ultimately about whether you need the government's permission to make a movie about a politician. Do you really want the government deciding what movies we're allowed to see? I also notice people screaming about Campaign Finance Reform are never demanding regulation for, say, Michael Moore or Jon Stewart. How come it's okay for Miramax and Viacom to pollute politics with their corrupting corporate money?
I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.
It's more that it's a human that is expected to behave irrationally, which gives the machine an easy out. If it ever gets to a point where it's not sure how to respond, just do something irrational to kick the conversation onto a different topic.
YouTube performance over Verizon has been terrible for about a year now too. It's not a throughput problem, but the connection keeps stalling out at random intervals, requiring you to restart the video every minute or two.
In the US, it doesn't matter if there's no proof that Verizon is responsible for Netflix's issues. As the plaintiff, it would be Verizon's burden to show that there is proof that they aren't.
Yes, but as I understand it, the whole point of supersymmetry was to solve the Hierarchy problems. Even if one of those other variants of supersymmetry holds, they would do so at an energy too high to still resolve the hierarchy problem. So the question becomes what the point of them is, other than having supersymmetry purely for the sake of having supersymmetry.
LaVar Burton wasn't one of the creators of Reading Rainbow. He wasn't a producer, he was an Executive Producer, a title that doesn't indicate any actual involvement in the running of the show. You're assuming that because he was the guy on screen that he was deeply involved in the decision making about what to put on the air, rather than just the guy reading the words other people wrote for him.
Considering their business plan appears to be based around getting schools to pay for access to this new online version of Reading Rainbow, it may very well end up being funded by tax payers.
Nothing wrong with making a profit. There is something wrong with asking me for a handout to do so. So kickstarters accept all the risk if it fails, but Levar Burton gets all the money if it succeeds?
1. No, but if you want to make a commercial enterprise, don't come looking to me for a free hand out to get it started. 2. Yes, the original Reading Rainbow was created and produced by Dr. Twila Liggett who had a PhD in education and was supported by the college of education at the University of Nebraska.
It wasn't true when he was on the TV Show. The original Reading Rainbow was created and produced by Dr. Twila Liggett who had a PhD in education and was supported by the college of education at the University of Nebraska.
As much as I loved Reading Rainbow growing up, I have two problems with this:
1. If you go to their website, nothing indicates this is a non-profit corporation. 2. None of the people involved has a background in education, child development, psychology, etc.
I'm reminded of similar studies showing that by various members, people suffering from depression tend to have more accurate assessments of themselves and others, are better at predicting the results of a particular plan, etc.
Being aware of what is actually going on is just a recipe for personal misery. Delusional mooncalves may be less successful, but they're a lot happier.
"Even though I have no contradictory evidence to provide; I'm going to just ignore this data because I prefer my feels that crime must be getting worse"
It only appears to be happening with greater frequency due to news media needing sensationalist coverage to drive viewership. That is, there's the same number of shootings, we just hear about it a lot more than we used to.
This is what the OP should have said because it addressess the actual problem (victims of abuse perpetuating the cycle of violence by becoming perpetrators) rather than just flippantly delegitimizing the readers.
a bunch of my fellow guys jump in and change the conversation to be about something else
No they're not trying to change the conversation, they're responding to the OP's assertion that nerds have never suffered abuse. If you're upset about the conversation being derailed, why don't you chew out the OP for making a pointless and inflammatory comment instead of the commenters for being upset that OP is delegitimizing them.
To paraphrase the great John Oliver, listen up, fellow self-pitying nerd boys — we are not the victims here. We are not the underdogs. We are not the ones who have our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly by other people's entitlement. We're not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.'
Uh yes, a lot of us geeks HAVE had our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly. A lot of us HAVE someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes. I have about a dozen inch to two inch long scars on my left hand from where a locker door was repeatedly slammed on it.
Now the fact many geeks have been the victims of abuse in their past doesn't justify them turning around victimizing women who had nothing to do with it, but the problem is that they're transferring their anger onto innocent victims, not necessarily that they're upset to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that Citizen's United was ultimately about whether you need the government's permission to make a movie about a politician. Do you really want the government deciding what movies we're allowed to see? I also notice people screaming about Campaign Finance Reform are never demanding regulation for, say, Michael Moore or Jon Stewart. How come it's okay for Miramax and Viacom to pollute politics with their corrupting corporate money?
I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.
It's more that it's a human that is expected to behave irrationally, which gives the machine an easy out. If it ever gets to a point where it's not sure how to respond, just do something irrational to kick the conversation onto a different topic.
YouTube performance over Verizon has been terrible for about a year now too. It's not a throughput problem, but the connection keeps stalling out at random intervals, requiring you to restart the video every minute or two.
In the US, it doesn't matter if there's no proof that Verizon is responsible for Netflix's issues. As the plaintiff, it would be Verizon's burden to show that there is proof that they aren't.
Now is the time to start buying mining rights for all that valuable plastic ore.
Yes, but as I understand it, the whole point of supersymmetry was to solve the Hierarchy problems. Even if one of those other variants of supersymmetry holds, they would do so at an energy too high to still resolve the hierarchy problem. So the question becomes what the point of them is, other than having supersymmetry purely for the sake of having supersymmetry.
Except that that LHC's ongoing failure to find any SUSY particles is making it increasingly unlikely Supersymmetry is right either:
http://scienceblogs.com/starts...
LaVar Burton wasn't one of the creators of Reading Rainbow. He wasn't a producer, he was an Executive Producer, a title that doesn't indicate any actual involvement in the running of the show. You're assuming that because he was the guy on screen that he was deeply involved in the decision making about what to put on the air, rather than just the guy reading the words other people wrote for him.
Considering their business plan appears to be based around getting schools to pay for access to this new online version of Reading Rainbow, it may very well end up being funded by tax payers.
By that logic, Hugh Laurie would be a great doctor because of all those years on House.
If I'm building a bridge, I better hire some engineers, because it's not going to stay up just because my heart is in the right place.
Yeah, and I'm not donating money to you either.
Nothing wrong with making a profit. There is something wrong with asking me for a handout to do so. So kickstarters accept all the risk if it fails, but Levar Burton gets all the money if it succeeds?
1. No, but if you want to make a commercial enterprise, don't come looking to me for a free hand out to get it started.
2. Yes, the original Reading Rainbow was created and produced by Dr. Twila Liggett who had a PhD in education and was supported by the college of education at the University of Nebraska.
It wasn't true when he was on the TV Show. The original Reading Rainbow was created and produced by Dr. Twila Liggett who had a PhD in education and was supported by the college of education at the University of Nebraska.
As much as I loved Reading Rainbow growing up, I have two problems with this:
1. If you go to their website, nothing indicates this is a non-profit corporation.
2. None of the people involved has a background in education, child development, psychology, etc.
Cynicism isn't the opposite of Idealism, it's the opposite of Romanticism. The opposite of Idealism is Realism.
I'm reminded of similar studies showing that by various members, people suffering from depression tend to have more accurate assessments of themselves and others, are better at predicting the results of a particular plan, etc.
Being aware of what is actually going on is just a recipe for personal misery. Delusional mooncalves may be less successful, but they're a lot happier.
"Even though I have no contradictory evidence to provide; I'm going to just ignore this data because I prefer my feels that crime must be getting worse"
Sorry, wrong URL. Meant to include this one:
http://www.boston.com/communit...
The key word is "appears". The actual occurence of mass shootings has been stable for roughly 40 years:
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
It only appears to be happening with greater frequency due to news media needing sensationalist coverage to drive viewership. That is, there's the same number of shootings, we just hear about it a lot more than we used to.
This is what the OP should have said because it addressess the actual problem (victims of abuse perpetuating the cycle of violence by becoming perpetrators) rather than just flippantly delegitimizing the readers.
No they're not trying to change the conversation, they're responding to the OP's assertion that nerds have never suffered abuse. If you're upset about the conversation being derailed, why don't you chew out the OP for making a pointless and inflammatory comment instead of the commenters for being upset that OP is delegitimizing them.
Uh yes, a lot of us geeks HAVE had our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly. A lot of us HAVE someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes. I have about a dozen inch to two inch long scars on my left hand from where a locker door was repeatedly slammed on it.
Now the fact many geeks have been the victims of abuse in their past doesn't justify them turning around victimizing women who had nothing to do with it, but the problem is that they're transferring their anger onto innocent victims, not necessarily that they're upset to begin with.