The difference here as usual is that women expect to be treated differently. They don't think that's what they want but it is actually what they want.
The real truth is something that most men have trouble understanding: That women, like lawyers, have no problem at all holding two mutually exclusive opinions at the same time. They want to be skinny and make a diet and they want to eat that cake. To many women, there's no conflict in that.
And when it comes to equal rights and stuff, they want to be equal, but treated specially, and they don't notice that these two things cannot co-exist. You can be my equal or you can be my princess, but you cannot be both.
I'll hold the same position here for the same reasons. If the girls want to be treated like girls then that's fine. If they want to be treated like men, that's fine. But stop trying to eat your man cake and have your girl perks too. Its either/or.
Anyone can push for anything in our society. If you hate Free Speech as well, just come out and say it. Also, unions are not deep sea monsters, they are groups of people, so claiming that people didn't, but unions did is just more handwaving.
The democracy is broken specifically because it allows large organisations to destroy individual rights of people that are not organised that way,
I'm not a big fan of our current political system. But you're a lunatic. Individual people have the right to form these organisations and have them push for legislation. It's how the system works. It's actually a pretty great part of the system, because through unions and other organisations, groups of individually weak people can accumulate enough voice to actually be heard.
Unions destroyed competition in the job market.
Yes, that's their job. It's because total competition is good for the bottom line, and bad for absolutely everything else, including society, freedom, health. Read a history book about when and why unions formed. You want to go back to the times before that, when people worked 16 hour shifts and serious health issues or death were regular results of your work conditions?
as many other horrific things that were pushed through during the FDR
This is the first time ever I've heard anyone call the New Deal "horrific". You do realize that even the hardcore Keynesians who argued strongly against it at first later on agreed that it was a success, yes?
which is what destroys the economy when the majority (employees) are pitted against a minority (employers).
You could've said that earlier, it would've saved me a lot of time if you had admitted that you are completely delusional and honestly believe that in the employee/employer relationship, the employers are the weaker party. Now I understand why you're afraid of majorities dominating minorities - you are a member of a very, very tiny minority with that POV that the real world refutes every minute of every day.
- I am not part of the majority on anything, when you find yourself to be 'part of the majority' that is the time to reform yourself. Majority rule is 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner.
And your advise to the wolves one sentence before that is to become sheep. Priceless.:-)
- the facts are in, I am an employer
anecdotal evidence isn't, and a single data point is meaningless in any and all statistics.
including the fakes with the PhD behind their names, the likes of Krugman, who only proves that illiterate fools can too get Nobel prizes
hogwash. It's a law. Laws are passed by elected representatives, which is the form that we, as society, have agreed upon. Saying "this wasn't society" is the same handwaving as saying "it wasn't me who pulled the trigger, officer, it was my finger".
Minimum wage is a vestigal expression of racism in the US.
Which is why it exists in a hundred other countries who don't have the US racism, yes? Try again, maybe with an argument that survives for three seconds.
Secondly there are plenty of people that [...]
If you don't like democracy, how about you say it outright? If you have a couple million people, then no matter what you will always find "plenty of people" who disagree. You could pass a law that says the sky is blue and you'd find people who dislike it. That doesn't prove a thing and it's not an argument. We live in a society that has agreed that majority decides which way we go. If you don't like it, at least say you hate democracy. But I'm pretty sure you don't - you only hate it when you're not part of the majority, right?
The minimum does not apply to various categories of people, for example the mentally retarded (medical term).
Yes, but in that case there is an objective, rational reason for it. That's quite a different category from "I and some other people don't like it".
economically horrid idea
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Unless you have actual evidence of economic damage, you're spreading lies here.
and the likes of you are so economically illeterate,
Maybe you shouldn't throw cheap ad-hominem attacks on people whose educational background and profession you don't know. There's a real danger it'll make you look like a complete idiot later in the discussion.;-)
We can agree that X units of currency will pay for a shovel, Y units for a cow, and Z units per hour for weeding the garden.
That's true.
The drawing, and more importantly, who made it, has value; but that puts us back to "how many Garfield sketches does a cow cost?
It depends. What you basically end up with here is custom fiat money. It's the digital version of IOWs. It is worth what I say it is worth multiplied by your trust in me actually holding up my bargain. It's interesting, but we agree that it goes too far on the customizability end.
The idea that people will move is just a scare story that the rich use to try and maintain the ability to pay less in taxes or employers use to justify being able to pay as little in wages as possible.
Basically: Most of the rich really like having their money in some tax heaven, but they don't want to live there.
No, it is not. You are complaining that people who are "worth" less than X cannot be differentiated out. But that, exactly, is the point. Society says that below X, we do not want to differentiate anymore, because the cost to society for doing it is higher than the benefit. We should probably do the same at the other end of the spectrum, but that's a different discussion.
but it can prevent people with abilities that are below minimum wage from finding jobs.
It works the other way around. If your business needs the job done, it will pay minimum wage. Your decision is not between different people, your decision is whether or not this job is worth hiring someone for at all.
Now, after the neoliberal Hartz "reforms", the unemployment rate has decreased,
Not really. Lots of people are stuffed into projects, short-term contracts that pay next to nothing, or encouraged to start their own business even though they know nothing about business and will certainly fail - all so they drop out of the statistics.
There's a huge amount of actually unemployed people who don't count, but the exact number is everyones guess.
Give us back protectionism, big state-owned companies, the welfare state and "socialism", please. We don't like this alleged new "freedom" (of the rich from the poor).
In everything, there is good and bad. While the past 20 years are largely bad, there are some good things I'd like to keep. For example, privatization is a huge failure at massive costs in most industries, but in telecommunications it worked pretty well and gave us DSL and three mobile networks to choose from. (though I agree right now half of the telcos have become scumbags after realizing their own price wars have driven them to the brink of not being profitable anymore).
I was being intentionally inaccurate to draw attention, in the same way that ads do it.;-)
Of course it works. But if you don't know how and can't reliably predict when, then for practical purposes it is far, far less useful than the people selling you the advertisement want to make you believe.
Most of the time when advertisers do a campaign, they study the effects to see what it did to sales.
Of course, but it's far from scientific. As I said: Controlled tests are difficult. You know that you did your campaign in this week and these are the sales figures for the week, and the weeks before and the weeks after.
But firstly there could be other effects and secondly it's very hard to establish what worked and why. That's why many companies these days simply run image campaigns - they're not promoting a product, they're just pushing a brand name into your brain.
I don't think this has a problem with double-spending, because it has no actual value.
Wrong. It has not centrally defined value, but it has value. If you give me X for this painting on my wall, then X is its value, regardless of what X is. It could be US$ or pieces of cake or a service.
For the other 50%, if you follow studies and publications, the exact effect is unclear. Yes, we know that advertisement in general does have an effect, but it is very hard to quantify it and controlled tests are difficult.
I could go into details, but what for? We're talking about ads as pollution here, and if half of what you put out into the environment has no effect except making the place dirty, then that is pollution, plain and simple.
That's why they power a million homes, yes? It's all an illusion, or all those people just pretend that they have light and warm water. I'll tell a friend of mine, she works in the industry, and runs the numbers on wind power generators for a living.
Wind power generators work fucking well. In fact, they cover about 9% of Germanys energy use. Oh wow, 8 GW of new installed coal power plants, that's your argument? You argue with 8 GW as proof that 35 GW of installed wind power capacity somehow "don't work" and nobody has ever noticed?
Germany has been a NET IMPORTER of energy.
Of energy, yes - because phrased that way, oil also counts and we don't have much of it. But of electrical energy, which this is all about, nope.
Germany has so much electrical energy generation, that most days of the year, a considerable part of our power plants are shut down because the grid can't handle it.
...except, of course, for the ad companies selling it to companies who try to get sales. I'm not in marketing, but I got some insider information from people who are, and they all say that about 50% of all the money put into advertisement has basically the same effect on sales as burning it would have. The only reason it is wasted this way is that a) many customers don't know it and - more importantly - b) they don't know which 50%.
But, as in so many things, when something stops being effective, the first answer to the problem is to do more of it. The enemy has built bunkers against our bombs? Drop more bombs! The virus is becoming immune to our medicine? Raise the dosage. People have begun to ignore or block advertisement? Throw more ads their way.
A quick scan of TFA is enough to convince me this is fundamentally flawed. Case in point: He doesn't even bother to prevent double-spending, instead relying on an ill-defined concept of "people will notice and devalue you", which is basically handwaving. And that for a problem that's been solved 20 times over.
The idea is cute, but I wouldn't trust his implementation one inch.
Well, seeing that your Germany, and renewable stuff does tend to have some reliability issues (wind isn't always blowing, sun isn't always shining, I seem to recall you were importing a lot of electricity from France due to their abundance of nuclear and your need to fill in gaps with renewable,
This is total hogwash, all of it.
Sun is not always shining in the same location, same for wind. But if you have a whole country, there will be sun somewhere, and wind somewhere. Especially for wind, near the coast (where almost all our wind turbines are located), there is always some wind.
Secondly, this "we had to import power from France" is a media lie. What actually happened was that yes, electricity was brought into Germany from France. However, it was not for Germany, it was transferred on to Switzerland and Austria. In fact, on the very same days that the liars cite, Germany actually produced a surplus of electricity and was a net exporter.
Germany is trying to become completely energy self sufficient again because they're planning on invading France.
Actually, we've orchestrated the financial crisis as a plot to destroy the french banking sector so we can simply buy them this time.
As an Australian, I am bitterly disappointed in my Government. Whilst the rest of the world is ramping up their climate protection measures, our government is ramping up their BIG Industry protection measures.
You think you're alone?
I live in Germany, a country that has spearheaded the move to renewable energy with a law (EEG) so good that 65 countries have copied it.
Our latest government has been busy dismantling it, because the large energy companies cry wolf. They've destroyed thousands of jobs in the solar industry, and we've lost our world leadership in it as a direct result.
Oh yes, they've also given new licenses to build new fucking coal power plants, as if we lived in the 19th century.
Because it's not required for the employee to read the policy in order for them to be held accountable for it. The policy is in place to protect the company from liability, and allow them to get rid of people.
It works until the other side has a lawyer who can argue that due to the length and constant changes, his client could not reasonably expected to know all the details.
Paperwork to cover your ass is nice, but just because you put it on paper doesn't mean it'll survive scrutiny.
are you seriously suggesting if men were allowed to make lewd or sexual comments at women (or other men) whenever they liked there'd be less rape.
Reading properly instead of fuming at the mouth would have revealed that I simply stated the counterpoint to the GP and said that without evidence, they are equally plausible.
Here's what problem I have with this, as someone who has written and implemented policies: The longer it is, and the more content that the reader thinks of as boring and "why the fuck do they even mention this?", the higher the chance it won't get read.
If you want your employees to actually read and know your policy, it must be short, to the point, and use redundancy very sparsely and intentionally.
You're committing the "gateway drug" fallacy. Do you have any evidence to back up that sexual jokes promote rape, or did you pull that out of a hat?
And not "obviousness" is not an argument. I can just as well claim that it is obvious that if the environment allows for the harmless discharge of sexual tension, more serious offenses would be contained.
The GP is right, lumping these things together is evil. The human mind likes to group things that are alike, and it commonly makes the mistake of believing that things that are grouped are alike. But especially in a scientific environment, those assumptions should be questioned, and proved before they are used.
A lot of security experts (myself included) have been saying this for years. It's nice to have an actual paper out on it, but it is quite trivial and obvious.
Password systems and the core elements of even most modern password policies were developed at a time when you had 3 or 4 different systems you needed to access. And when almost everyone doing it was a geek and could actually remember 65**L;)Y\BLe-A (an actual "secure password" I just generated on a password generator website).
Once you add normal people and 50 or so additional systems to the mix, you would have to be a total idiot to believe that users actually use 50 different 65**L;)Y\BLe-A style passwords, or that it is even within the capacity of the typical human mind to remember those.
In the real world, if your password policy is crazy, people will either break or circumvent it, most commonly by writing their passwords down. Which, of course, does not exactly make you more safe.
where is the retconning, exactly? [...] marvel is saying that thor is whoever's wielding the hammer.
Answering your own questions much? Up until now, Thor had a lot of powers not derived from Mjolnir. On the contrary, Thors soul is imbued in the hammer, not the other way around. Mjolnir is a part of Thor, not Thor an extension of Mjolnir.
To change that is very much a retcon. To call a new, different character "Thor" means changing "Thor" from a name to a title.
It's a publicity stunt, and a pretty stupid one. In so far, you are right:
seriously, if you think that casting a female as the new thor is somehow equivalent to "bowing down to radical feminism nazi shit" then you are a lost cause and should probably just eat a bullet.
Yes, I do in fact think that it is a misguided attempt at catering to a very specific, ideologically driven "audience". It's the attempt to cash in bonus points with the crowd that wants more female characters, but without the hassle of actualy creating one.
it's also amusing that you are TOTALLY FINE with the fact that marvel has already changed the norse mythology WILDLY.
Yepp, totally fine. Because I understand the concept of "based on..."
you DID read the fucking summary and see that this is a new character, right?
Which is why they call the new character "Thor", yes? Because "Thor" is an old norse word that means "whoever holds the hammer", yes? Are you really so easily tricked by comic-book-retcon-handwaving?
It's clear that people are already fighting this with sarcasm. There are a couple famous products on Amazon with comments that laud them and praise them so much, you would have to be a total idiot to not understand they mean the exact opposite.
Because everything that doesn't bow down to radical feminism nazi shit and kisses its feet is automatically misogyny?
There are male characters in mythology, and there are female characters in mythology. If you want a female character, a strong warrior type with power, who commands respect and is listened to by the other gods - the norse mythology has several you can take.
Making an inherently male character female is at best stupid, and at worst both misgoynic and misandric. If you have to look that last word up in a dictionary, you've just revealed your true nature.
If I were a feminist, I'd probably hate this. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.
The only people who I can see to support an idiot move like this are feminazis, the people who're not really interested in equality of any kind, but believe in women being the master race. They are the only people who can possibly have a problem with a beloved male comic book character not being a woman.
Everyone who simply would like to see more female characters on screen, in books or elsewhere would understand that this new "Thor" is not actually a woman. He's a male character in a female body, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference here as usual is that women expect to be treated differently. They don't think that's what they want but it is actually what they want.
The real truth is something that most men have trouble understanding: That women, like lawyers, have no problem at all holding two mutually exclusive opinions at the same time. They want to be skinny and make a diet and they want to eat that cake. To many women, there's no conflict in that.
And when it comes to equal rights and stuff, they want to be equal, but treated specially, and they don't notice that these two things cannot co-exist. You can be my equal or you can be my princess, but you cannot be both.
I'll hold the same position here for the same reasons. If the girls want to be treated like girls then that's fine. If they want to be treated like men, that's fine. But stop trying to eat your man cake and have your girl perks too. Its either/or.
+1
unions pushed for this legislature,
Anyone can push for anything in our society. If you hate Free Speech as well, just come out and say it. Also, unions are not deep sea monsters, they are groups of people, so claiming that people didn't, but unions did is just more handwaving.
The democracy is broken specifically because it allows large organisations to destroy individual rights of people that are not organised that way,
I'm not a big fan of our current political system. But you're a lunatic. Individual people have the right to form these organisations and have them push for legislation. It's how the system works. It's actually a pretty great part of the system, because through unions and other organisations, groups of individually weak people can accumulate enough voice to actually be heard.
Unions destroyed competition in the job market.
Yes, that's their job. It's because total competition is good for the bottom line, and bad for absolutely everything else, including society, freedom, health. Read a history book about when and why unions formed. You want to go back to the times before that, when people worked 16 hour shifts and serious health issues or death were regular results of your work conditions?
as many other horrific things that were pushed through during the FDR
This is the first time ever I've heard anyone call the New Deal "horrific". You do realize that even the hardcore Keynesians who argued strongly against it at first later on agreed that it was a success, yes?
which is what destroys the economy when the majority (employees) are pitted against a minority (employers).
You could've said that earlier, it would've saved me a lot of time if you had admitted that you are completely delusional and honestly believe that in the employee/employer relationship, the employers are the weaker party. Now I understand why you're afraid of majorities dominating minorities - you are a member of a very, very tiny minority with that POV that the real world refutes every minute of every day.
- I am not part of the majority on anything, when you find yourself to be 'part of the majority' that is the time to reform yourself. Majority rule is 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner.
And your advise to the wolves one sentence before that is to become sheep. Priceless. :-)
- the facts are in, I am an employer
anecdotal evidence isn't, and a single data point is meaningless in any and all statistics.
including the fakes with the PhD behind their names, the likes of Krugman, who only proves that illiterate fools can too get Nobel prizes
Sorry, can't answer, I'm laughing too hard.
First of all this wasn't "society",
hogwash. It's a law. Laws are passed by elected representatives, which is the form that we, as society, have agreed upon. Saying "this wasn't society" is the same handwaving as saying "it wasn't me who pulled the trigger, officer, it was my finger".
Minimum wage is a vestigal expression of racism in the US.
Which is why it exists in a hundred other countries who don't have the US racism, yes? Try again, maybe with an argument that survives for three seconds.
Secondly there are plenty of people that [...]
If you don't like democracy, how about you say it outright? If you have a couple million people, then no matter what you will always find "plenty of people" who disagree. You could pass a law that says the sky is blue and you'd find people who dislike it. That doesn't prove a thing and it's not an argument. We live in a society that has agreed that majority decides which way we go. If you don't like it, at least say you hate democracy. But I'm pretty sure you don't - you only hate it when you're not part of the majority, right?
The minimum does not apply to various categories of people, for example the mentally retarded (medical term).
Yes, but in that case there is an objective, rational reason for it. That's quite a different category from "I and some other people don't like it".
economically horrid idea
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Unless you have actual evidence of economic damage, you're spreading lies here.
and the likes of you are so economically illeterate,
Maybe you shouldn't throw cheap ad-hominem attacks on people whose educational background and profession you don't know. There's a real danger it'll make you look like a complete idiot later in the discussion. ;-)
We can agree that X units of currency will pay for a shovel, Y units for a cow, and Z units per hour for weeding the garden.
That's true.
The drawing, and more importantly, who made it, has value; but that puts us back to "how many Garfield sketches does a cow cost?
It depends. What you basically end up with here is custom fiat money. It's the digital version of IOWs. It is worth what I say it is worth multiplied by your trust in me actually holding up my bargain. It's interesting, but we agree that it goes too far on the customizability end.
The idea that people will move is just a scare story that the rich use to try and maintain the ability to pay less in taxes or employers use to justify being able to pay as little in wages as possible.
Basically: Most of the rich really like having their money in some tax heaven, but they don't want to live there.
Minimum wage is actually minimum ability.
No, it is not. You are complaining that people who are "worth" less than X cannot be differentiated out. But that, exactly, is the point. Society says that below X, we do not want to differentiate anymore, because the cost to society for doing it is higher than the benefit. We should probably do the same at the other end of the spectrum, but that's a different discussion.
but it can prevent people with abilities that are below minimum wage from finding jobs.
It works the other way around. If your business needs the job done, it will pay minimum wage. Your decision is not between different people, your decision is whether or not this job is worth hiring someone for at all.
Now, after the neoliberal Hartz "reforms", the unemployment rate has decreased,
Not really. Lots of people are stuffed into projects, short-term contracts that pay next to nothing, or encouraged to start their own business even though they know nothing about business and will certainly fail - all so they drop out of the statistics.
There's a huge amount of actually unemployed people who don't count, but the exact number is everyones guess.
Give us back protectionism, big state-owned companies, the welfare state and "socialism", please. We don't like this alleged new "freedom" (of the rich from the poor).
In everything, there is good and bad. While the past 20 years are largely bad, there are some good things I'd like to keep. For example, privatization is a huge failure at massive costs in most industries, but in telecommunications it worked pretty well and gave us DSL and three mobile networks to choose from. (though I agree right now half of the telcos have become scumbags after realizing their own price wars have driven them to the brink of not being profitable anymore).
I was being intentionally inaccurate to draw attention, in the same way that ads do it. ;-)
Of course it works. But if you don't know how and can't reliably predict when, then for practical purposes it is far, far less useful than the people selling you the advertisement want to make you believe.
Most of the time when advertisers do a campaign, they study the effects to see what it did to sales.
Of course, but it's far from scientific. As I said: Controlled tests are difficult. You know that you did your campaign in this week and these are the sales figures for the week, and the weeks before and the weeks after.
But firstly there could be other effects and secondly it's very hard to establish what worked and why. That's why many companies these days simply run image campaigns - they're not promoting a product, they're just pushing a brand name into your brain.
I don't think this has a problem with double-spending, because it has no actual value.
Wrong. It has not centrally defined value, but it has value. If you give me X for this painting on my wall, then X is its value, regardless of what X is. It could be US$ or pieces of cake or a service.
Yes, for the people making and selling it.
For the other 50%, if you follow studies and publications, the exact effect is unclear. Yes, we know that advertisement in general does have an effect, but it is very hard to quantify it and controlled tests are difficult.
I could go into details, but what for? We're talking about ads as pollution here, and if half of what you put out into the environment has no effect except making the place dirty, then that is pollution, plain and simple.
Why? WINDMILLS DON'T WORK!
That's why they power a million homes, yes? It's all an illusion, or all those people just pretend that they have light and warm water. I'll tell a friend of mine, she works in the industry, and runs the numbers on wind power generators for a living.
Wind power generators work fucking well. In fact, they cover about 9% of Germanys energy use. Oh wow, 8 GW of new installed coal power plants, that's your argument? You argue with 8 GW as proof that 35 GW of installed wind power capacity somehow "don't work" and nobody has ever noticed?
Germany has been a NET IMPORTER of energy.
Of energy, yes - because phrased that way, oil also counts and we don't have much of it. But of electrical energy, which this is all about, nope.
For example, we just broke records:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
Germany has so much electrical energy generation, that most days of the year, a considerable part of our power plants are shut down because the grid can't handle it.
Here's an article in german that explains most of your non-questions: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel...
...except, of course, for the ad companies selling it to companies who try to get sales. I'm not in marketing, but I got some insider information from people who are, and they all say that about 50% of all the money put into advertisement has basically the same effect on sales as burning it would have. The only reason it is wasted this way is that a) many customers don't know it and - more importantly - b) they don't know which 50%.
But, as in so many things, when something stops being effective, the first answer to the problem is to do more of it. The enemy has built bunkers against our bombs? Drop more bombs! The virus is becoming immune to our medicine? Raise the dosage. People have begun to ignore or block advertisement? Throw more ads their way.
Yes, it is pollution, the term is spot on.
A quick scan of TFA is enough to convince me this is fundamentally flawed. Case in point: He doesn't even bother to prevent double-spending, instead relying on an ill-defined concept of "people will notice and devalue you", which is basically handwaving. And that for a problem that's been solved 20 times over.
The idea is cute, but I wouldn't trust his implementation one inch.
Well, seeing that your Germany, and renewable stuff does tend to have some reliability issues (wind isn't always blowing, sun isn't always shining, I seem to recall you were importing a lot of electricity from France due to their abundance of nuclear and your need to fill in gaps with renewable,
This is total hogwash, all of it.
Sun is not always shining in the same location, same for wind. But if you have a whole country, there will be sun somewhere, and wind somewhere. Especially for wind, near the coast (where almost all our wind turbines are located), there is always some wind.
Secondly, this "we had to import power from France" is a media lie. What actually happened was that yes, electricity was brought into Germany from France. However, it was not for Germany, it was transferred on to Switzerland and Austria. In fact, on the very same days that the liars cite, Germany actually produced a surplus of electricity and was a net exporter.
Germany is trying to become completely energy self sufficient again because they're planning on invading France.
Actually, we've orchestrated the financial crisis as a plot to destroy the french banking sector so we can simply buy them this time.
As an Australian, I am bitterly disappointed in my Government. Whilst the rest of the world is ramping up their climate protection measures, our government is ramping up their BIG Industry protection measures.
You think you're alone?
I live in Germany, a country that has spearheaded the move to renewable energy with a law (EEG) so good that 65 countries have copied it.
Our latest government has been busy dismantling it, because the large energy companies cry wolf. They've destroyed thousands of jobs in the solar industry, and we've lost our world leadership in it as a direct result.
Oh yes, they've also given new licenses to build new fucking coal power plants, as if we lived in the 19th century.
Because it's not required for the employee to read the policy in order for them to be held accountable for it. The policy is in place to protect the company from liability, and allow them to get rid of people.
It works until the other side has a lawyer who can argue that due to the length and constant changes, his client could not reasonably expected to know all the details.
Paperwork to cover your ass is nice, but just because you put it on paper doesn't mean it'll survive scrutiny.
are you seriously suggesting if men were allowed to make lewd or sexual comments at women (or other men) whenever they liked there'd be less rape.
Reading properly instead of fuming at the mouth would have revealed that I simply stated the counterpoint to the GP and said that without evidence, they are equally plausible.
Here's what problem I have with this, as someone who has written and implemented policies: The longer it is, and the more content that the reader thinks of as boring and "why the fuck do they even mention this?", the higher the chance it won't get read.
If you want your employees to actually read and know your policy, it must be short, to the point, and use redundancy very sparsely and intentionally.
You're committing the "gateway drug" fallacy. Do you have any evidence to back up that sexual jokes promote rape, or did you pull that out of a hat?
And not "obviousness" is not an argument. I can just as well claim that it is obvious that if the environment allows for the harmless discharge of sexual tension, more serious offenses would be contained.
The GP is right, lumping these things together is evil. The human mind likes to group things that are alike, and it commonly makes the mistake of believing that things that are grouped are alike. But especially in a scientific environment, those assumptions should be questioned, and proved before they are used.
A lot of security experts (myself included) have been saying this for years. It's nice to have an actual paper out on it, but it is quite trivial and obvious.
Password systems and the core elements of even most modern password policies were developed at a time when you had 3 or 4 different systems you needed to access. And when almost everyone doing it was a geek and could actually remember 65**L;)Y\BLe-A (an actual "secure password" I just generated on a password generator website).
Once you add normal people and 50 or so additional systems to the mix, you would have to be a total idiot to believe that users actually use 50 different 65**L;)Y\BLe-A style passwords, or that it is even within the capacity of the typical human mind to remember those.
In the real world, if your password policy is crazy, people will either break or circumvent it, most commonly by writing their passwords down. Which, of course, does not exactly make you more safe.
where is the retconning, exactly? [...] marvel is saying that thor is whoever's wielding the hammer.
Answering your own questions much? Up until now, Thor had a lot of powers not derived from Mjolnir. On the contrary, Thors soul is imbued in the hammer, not the other way around. Mjolnir is a part of Thor, not Thor an extension of Mjolnir.
To change that is very much a retcon. To call a new, different character "Thor" means changing "Thor" from a name to a title.
It's a publicity stunt, and a pretty stupid one. In so far, you are right:
nothing new to see here
seriously, if you think that casting a female as the new thor is somehow equivalent to "bowing down to radical feminism nazi shit" then you are a lost cause and should probably just eat a bullet.
Yes, I do in fact think that it is a misguided attempt at catering to a very specific, ideologically driven "audience". It's the attempt to cash in bonus points with the crowd that wants more female characters, but without the hassle of actualy creating one.
it's also amusing that you are TOTALLY FINE with the fact that marvel has already changed the norse mythology WILDLY.
Yepp, totally fine. Because I understand the concept of "based on ..."
you DID read the fucking summary and see that this is a new character, right?
Which is why they call the new character "Thor", yes? Because "Thor" is an old norse word that means "whoever holds the hammer", yes? Are you really so easily tricked by comic-book-retcon-handwaving?
It's clear that people are already fighting this with sarcasm. There are a couple famous products on Amazon with comments that laud them and praise them so much, you would have to be a total idiot to not understand they mean the exact opposite.
smells like misogyny to me!
Because everything that doesn't bow down to radical feminism nazi shit and kisses its feet is automatically misogyny?
There are male characters in mythology, and there are female characters in mythology. If you want a female character, a strong warrior type with power, who commands respect and is listened to by the other gods - the norse mythology has several you can take.
Making an inherently male character female is at best stupid, and at worst both misgoynic and misandric. If you have to look that last word up in a dictionary, you've just revealed your true nature.
If I were a feminist, I'd probably hate this. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.
The only people who I can see to support an idiot move like this are feminazis, the people who're not really interested in equality of any kind, but believe in women being the master race. They are the only people who can possibly have a problem with a beloved male comic book character not being a woman.
Everyone who simply would like to see more female characters on screen, in books or elsewhere would understand that this new "Thor" is not actually a woman. He's a male character in a female body, that's all.