If Herr Hitler had had nukes, that may have been the ultimate deal. That is precisely what happened during the Cold War; the West had to accept Soviet control of the Warsaw Pact countries, even when the people of Czechoslovakia rose up to try to toss out the Communists (the Prague Spring).
And what could Clinton or Obama have done differently? At the end of the day, neither one of them wanted to rain down fire on the Korean Peninsula, and at the end of the day, I have a feeling Trump will be restrained by calmer voices. The price of a military attack on North Korea would have been huge 20 years ago, and it would be huge today. At no point was NK ever going to seriously stop developing nuclear weapons.
Of course that's his claim. He can couch it any way he wants, but at the end of the day, the argument being made is that women are, as a group (yes he makes a nod towards outliers) are less capable of certain kinds of technical jobs. This is clearly a claim of cognitive differences that lead to inability. You can try to reject that assertion, but the only other alternative would be cultural explanations for a lack of women in tech, but then if you accept that, then the solution is alteration of the tech culture (which Google is trying to do), whereas his solution is "Hey, fuck women, the majority can't hack it and Google shouldn't even try."
I doubt very much that China is going to defend NK if it comes down to it. It's been a useful regime for preventing US dominance over the Korean Peninsula, but even China over the last year or so has been making some show of public annoyance with Pyongyang. China's chief concern at this point is likely the serious regional destabilization of North Korean collapse, in particular the likelihood of millions of North Korean refugees trying to get into China.
The problem is that, for the moment, Japan has no nukes, and its military power, by and large, is defensive in nature (due to the confines of the post-war constitution). Japan, and to a lesser extent South Korea, both rely upon the United States to serve as their primary guarantor of security.
Now there's certainly a growing movement in Japan towards amending the constitution, and some view a nuclear-armed Japan as a possibility, and this is why it has long been in the US's interest to act as Japan's primary defense, so as to prevent nuclear proliferation.
If North Korea is allowed to continue its nuclear program, then it makes the possibility of other Asian states, in particular Japan and South Korea, becoming nuclear armed states more likely. Thus Pyongyang's program is likely to lead nuclear proliferation in the Asia-Pacific. This certainly doesn't serve China's interests, and for many in the region, a nuclear-capable Japan is going to raise some rather longstanding concerns over Japanese militarism.
The real problem here isn't whether NK should be allowed to continue working towards functional ICBMs. As the unity of purpose in the Security Council demonstrates, the one thing that everyone can agree on, even if they can't agree on anything else, is that North Korea gaining ICBM delivery of nuclear warheads. The problem is what to do about it. China seems prepared to back up its displeasure with sanctions, but NK is a master of evading sanctions. Further, it is a regime that seems to have no problem allowing large numbers of its citizens to suffer, so in the short, and possibly the medium term, I doubt the sanctions will impact its weapons program at all.
But a military attack against NK is going to have significant ramifications. Even with its conventional weapons, NK has spent six decades arming its border with SK to the teeth. While there is some debate over how much damage it could do to South Korea, there's no doubt that the regime, even as a death spasm, could cause tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths. It could even do damage to Japan as well. Such an event would create heavy casualties, not to mention the significant blow to the global economy; South Korea and Japan are among the most economically important nations in the world.
There simply appears to be no good answer to this problem. An out and out attack could destroy the regime, but the costs would be very high. Allowing NK to pursue its nuclear weapons ambitions, which I view anything but absolute economic isolation enforced by a blockade (which is really a declaration of war anyways), is not going to stop those ambitions. We've been on this course for over a decade. NK has made no secret of its ambitions, and now doesn't even seem to want to use it as a pretext for aid from South Korea and the US, and fear over the consequences of outright military intervention has stayed the US's hand.
I'm not that hopeful. I think Letterman really has become the curmudgeon he used to play on TV.
Now if they'd give Ferguson a show on Netflix, that would be truly awesome. His standup is pretty brilliant, and given a venue where even the lighter fetters of late night censors isn't present, I think he'd be brilliant.
His assertion was one of capability. If there's some evidence that core cognitive capability to be an engineer differs between men and women, then he should be able to provide actual citations.
The chief problem was the move from NBC and the earlier time, which meant he had to reign himself in. The more interesting talk shows have always been the later ones. While Letterman became pretty blah, Craig Ferguson, during his tenure on the late show, was frequently brilliant.
In the end, it turns out that only Carson could pull off that time slot, but that's because he was, by the 1970s, probably the single most powerful person on television. No network will ever let their talk show personality have that much power again.
One thing is for certain, where you have a workplace populated by people like the author of this "Manifesto", you have a culture that is decidedly anti-female, and that matches up well to some of the posters on/., who fear and loath women in equal measure, and want to make sure there privilege is maintained, and their right to grab pussies and being absolute fucking bastards to women is protected. Apparently, this is now a "conservative" value.
Well sourced? Are you serious? He made assertions without any empirical backing. He simply repeated long-standing gender stereotypes .
Just because he said things you agree with doesn't make them well-sourced. Well-sourced would be to citations to primary and peer reviewed literature and studies demonstrating his claims.
Bullshit. He was fired because he asserted women were less capable of being engineers. It was a gender stereotype that called out Google's female employees as somehow being lesser in a particular set of fields. In my organization, he'd have been given his walking papers as well.
I'm curious, however, as to the assertion that his views are Conservative. Is Conservativism now about asserting the inferiority of women?
I'm sure 20th Century Fox has a pretty tight contract that means they'll produce Kingsmen films for a while yet. i suspect there won't be any small screen adaptations of that IP, though I suppose now that Netflix owns the IP, it will be getting some nice fat royalty checks from Fox.
Because you can be sure an advanced interstellar civilization is going to have pussy grabbing and minority mocking as key pillars of their philosophical tradition.
So you feel bad you can't make blatant sexual comments to female coworkers, can't mock the gay fellow in your department, or tell dirty jokes in the lunchroom any more? Truly you have suffered mightily, and we all await the day when you can be a bigoted oversexed pig again!
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't answer the question.
How many South Korean (and maybe even Japanese) lives are you prepared to sacrifice?
If Herr Hitler had had nukes, that may have been the ultimate deal. That is precisely what happened during the Cold War; the West had to accept Soviet control of the Warsaw Pact countries, even when the people of Czechoslovakia rose up to try to toss out the Communists (the Prague Spring).
And that's pretty much what the Obama Administration was working towards; Containment.
So what's your solution? How many South Koreans are you prepared to sacrifice?
And what could Clinton or Obama have done differently? At the end of the day, neither one of them wanted to rain down fire on the Korean Peninsula, and at the end of the day, I have a feeling Trump will be restrained by calmer voices. The price of a military attack on North Korea would have been huge 20 years ago, and it would be huge today. At no point was NK ever going to seriously stop developing nuclear weapons.
Of course that's his claim. He can couch it any way he wants, but at the end of the day, the argument being made is that women are, as a group (yes he makes a nod towards outliers) are less capable of certain kinds of technical jobs. This is clearly a claim of cognitive differences that lead to inability. You can try to reject that assertion, but the only other alternative would be cultural explanations for a lack of women in tech, but then if you accept that, then the solution is alteration of the tech culture (which Google is trying to do), whereas his solution is "Hey, fuck women, the majority can't hack it and Google shouldn't even try."
I doubt very much that China is going to defend NK if it comes down to it. It's been a useful regime for preventing US dominance over the Korean Peninsula, but even China over the last year or so has been making some show of public annoyance with Pyongyang. China's chief concern at this point is likely the serious regional destabilization of North Korean collapse, in particular the likelihood of millions of North Korean refugees trying to get into China.
The problem is that, for the moment, Japan has no nukes, and its military power, by and large, is defensive in nature (due to the confines of the post-war constitution). Japan, and to a lesser extent South Korea, both rely upon the United States to serve as their primary guarantor of security.
Now there's certainly a growing movement in Japan towards amending the constitution, and some view a nuclear-armed Japan as a possibility, and this is why it has long been in the US's interest to act as Japan's primary defense, so as to prevent nuclear proliferation.
If North Korea is allowed to continue its nuclear program, then it makes the possibility of other Asian states, in particular Japan and South Korea, becoming nuclear armed states more likely. Thus Pyongyang's program is likely to lead nuclear proliferation in the Asia-Pacific. This certainly doesn't serve China's interests, and for many in the region, a nuclear-capable Japan is going to raise some rather longstanding concerns over Japanese militarism.
The real problem here isn't whether NK should be allowed to continue working towards functional ICBMs. As the unity of purpose in the Security Council demonstrates, the one thing that everyone can agree on, even if they can't agree on anything else, is that North Korea gaining ICBM delivery of nuclear warheads. The problem is what to do about it. China seems prepared to back up its displeasure with sanctions, but NK is a master of evading sanctions. Further, it is a regime that seems to have no problem allowing large numbers of its citizens to suffer, so in the short, and possibly the medium term, I doubt the sanctions will impact its weapons program at all.
But a military attack against NK is going to have significant ramifications. Even with its conventional weapons, NK has spent six decades arming its border with SK to the teeth. While there is some debate over how much damage it could do to South Korea, there's no doubt that the regime, even as a death spasm, could cause tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths. It could even do damage to Japan as well. Such an event would create heavy casualties, not to mention the significant blow to the global economy; South Korea and Japan are among the most economically important nations in the world.
There simply appears to be no good answer to this problem. An out and out attack could destroy the regime, but the costs would be very high. Allowing NK to pursue its nuclear weapons ambitions, which I view anything but absolute economic isolation enforced by a blockade (which is really a declaration of war anyways), is not going to stop those ambitions. We've been on this course for over a decade. NK has made no secret of its ambitions, and now doesn't even seem to want to use it as a pretext for aid from South Korea and the US, and fear over the consequences of outright military intervention has stayed the US's hand.
I'm not that hopeful. I think Letterman really has become the curmudgeon he used to play on TV.
Now if they'd give Ferguson a show on Netflix, that would be truly awesome. His standup is pretty brilliant, and given a venue where even the lighter fetters of late night censors isn't present, I think he'd be brilliant.
His assertion was one of capability. If there's some evidence that core cognitive capability to be an engineer differs between men and women, then he should be able to provide actual citations.
The chief problem was the move from NBC and the earlier time, which meant he had to reign himself in. The more interesting talk shows have always been the later ones. While Letterman became pretty blah, Craig Ferguson, during his tenure on the late show, was frequently brilliant.
In the end, it turns out that only Carson could pull off that time slot, but that's because he was, by the 1970s, probably the single most powerful person on television. No network will ever let their talk show personality have that much power again.
No, it wasn't a scientific paper at all.
And you have canvassed biologists to verify his claim, have you?
One thing is for certain, where you have a workplace populated by people like the author of this "Manifesto", you have a culture that is decidedly anti-female, and that matches up well to some of the posters on /., who fear and loath women in equal measure, and want to make sure there privilege is maintained, and their right to grab pussies and being absolute fucking bastards to women is protected. Apparently, this is now a "conservative" value.
Well sourced? Are you serious? He made assertions without any empirical backing. He simply repeated long-standing gender stereotypes .
Just because he said things you agree with doesn't make them well-sourced. Well-sourced would be to citations to primary and peer reviewed literature and studies demonstrating his claims.
Bullshit. He was fired because he asserted women were less capable of being engineers. It was a gender stereotype that called out Google's female employees as somehow being lesser in a particular set of fields. In my organization, he'd have been given his walking papers as well.
I'm curious, however, as to the assertion that his views are Conservative. Is Conservativism now about asserting the inferiority of women?
Well, you don't have to watch them.
I'm sure 20th Century Fox has a pretty tight contract that means they'll produce Kingsmen films for a while yet. i suspect there won't be any small screen adaptations of that IP, though I suppose now that Netflix owns the IP, it will be getting some nice fat royalty checks from Fox.
And congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Millar. It sounds like a good news story all around!
A workplace isn't a democracy.
How is it a strawman? This is the kind of behavior, that when organizations try to stop it out, gets them accused of being SJW.
Because you can be sure an advanced interstellar civilization is going to have pussy grabbing and minority mocking as key pillars of their philosophical tradition.
A lot of bluster, but nothing that even resembles a critique.
So you feel bad you can't make blatant sexual comments to female coworkers, can't mock the gay fellow in your department, or tell dirty jokes in the lunchroom any more? Truly you have suffered mightily, and we all await the day when you can be a bigoted oversexed pig again!
Engineers are just as capable of irrationality as anyone else. Re: the Salem Hypothesis.