I don't know about that. It didn't stop loads of people from buying and selling drugs through the silk road or any of the people who are using it for peddling child porn or other illegal services. It's pretty unlikely that all of those people started off as computer savvy individuals. I suspect it only adds to the illusion of persecution that so many of these idiots believe that they face and makes it more appealing. You're also introducing them to the dark web where they can probably get involved in other kinds of illegal activities as well or find ways to purchase illegal weapons, etc.
I don't think they'll go that route either as its a lot easier to self-host a website, or at least it doesn't require the same level of technical knowledge as setting up a presence on the dark web. I think its far better to just leave it on the web, where it's just as easy to signal boost websites and messages to help people avoid falling into hatred. Once you drive them further underground, you've also driven them further away from viewpoints that might allow them to get away from their echo chamber.
It could well be true evidence, but something that was obtained illegally. We have the fruit of the poisonous vine/tree metaphor that covers that a person could be completely guilty of something, but that the government had no legal cause to gather that evidence or acted outright illegally in obtaining it. Of course the government agencies are typically good enough at parallel construction so that this isn't always a problem. It will be interesting to follow, but I won't be surprised if he violated some strict liability law which gives the law some justification for looking into him further, so of course it wasn't just a random tip from some other agency.
I think that counter protests to things like this are good. You could make just as much argument that if no one shows up that these's idiots will feel emboldened or as though the whole country agrees with them but are just too scared to come out and join them. To some degree no matter what you do, people in groups like that are going to look to rationalize any action at all to feed the internal narrative they've constructed.
However, I think counter protests should be a lot more clever. You can't really fight groups like this using a fire with fire type of approach. Instead you need to do something that mocks them while making them feel their demonstration is counter-productive. Here's a news article about how one German town handled a similar march/demonstration a few years back. Just watch the video included in the article and see how deflated a lot of those people look.
Are they Confederate Nazi's then since they've got the battle flag flag proudly on display as well? They're adopting the symbols of other groups (that shared some or many of their views) in order to bolster their own self-image, and to some degree to garner attention. They don't see the Nazi's as bad, they see the Nazi's as people who shared some of their ideas and were really successful and want to be able to project that they'll be successful and powerful too.
They're too weak (and unoriginal) to create their own original banner, so they rely on some idea of they past they've glorified instead. I'll be far more worried when they unite under a new banner, a banner that doesn't carry any historical significance that might set off some alarm bells for people getting involved. You're not going to fool anyone when you walk around waving a Nazi flag and of those who do rally under it, many will only leave after experiencing the dreadful life that comes along with such causes, and some are beyond any redemption, being true believers in their cause.
They're a bunch of sad wanna-be's and I suspect that the sooner the world can help them realize that, the sooner some of them will quit.
Yes and it was the Republican Party that freed the slaves so black people should vote for them right?
If this band of losers had called themselves "The Sons of Liberty" or some other organization or movement, you'd hardly suddenly support them because Samuel Adams did something 200 years ago under a similar name. The Patriot Act should have taught you how meaningless a name is.
There were what a few thousand of them? Contrast this with the various anti-Trump demonstrations and unless your business is in Naziville it won't matter to a national chain and if they are a big enough group they'll just start their own companies. The Mormons did it so there's no reason these idiots couldn't. They probably do have a few cottage industries that sell them their Nazi-themed shit.
As an aside I have a hard time calling them Nazis. The Nazis ran one of the most horrible and efficient genocides of all time and built a war machine that took the rest of the continent and much of the world to fight off. These are just shit head white supremacists that were leftovers scraped from a gene Dixie cup adopting Nazi symbols. Another few generations of their racial purity and they'll all have more toes than chromosomes. Calling them Nazis just lets them think they're more badass than they are.
They're also free to start their own hosting company. The first amendment doesn't require others to let you use their press. In an ideal world every company would agree with you, but we don't live there and if GoDaddy thinks being associated with these people will hurt their business then they're obligated to ditch them.
Nonsense. Businesses should be free to associate with whom they wish. Typically they accept just about anyone because everyone's money is equally green (or whatever color your country uses) but places have dress codes, conduct rules for members, etc.
Even if you want to get into the messy part of the argument about whether a business could refuse service to Jews or homosexuals, the general argument still stands in that limiting your customers isn't a good bussiness move.
Aside from currencies not being actual wealth themselves, most modern currencies aren't any more substantive than bitcoint. They're all essentially commodities with the only real advantage over bitcoin being that they're legal tender. Ask Zimbabwe or more recently Venezuela how much something their currency is made out of.
Most companies hire white and Asian men because those are the majority of people obtaining degrees in computer and IT fields and applying for positions. That's why quota systems at companies aren't going to fix the problem. Even if company X does almost exclusively hire women or non-Asian minorities, it just means that the white and Asian men end up working somewhere else. It isn't as though there are a shortage of tech positions available for anyone who's capable enough to demonstrate a bit of competence.
Because that was 100 years ago and doesn't have a lot of bearing on the current goals or motivations of the organization. It's a bit like telling a black person that they're terrible for not voting Republican because they were the party that freed the slaves. You may have stated a perfectly true fact, but its one that is irrelevant at the current time.
I'm not familiar with this particular case, but I'm guessing that the road was already there and may have already had an easement attached to it at the time of sale, in which case the new owner would still need to abide by it.
It hardly matters when its all too clear that no matter what kinds of comments they receive or in what number they receive them that they already intend to remove net neutrality.
I don't know what another posters race has to do with anything, but what part of what he wrote did you find unreasonable or lacking in scientific backing? By all means point to a page or a particular point and we can discuss it.
There's an old saying (though it's related to law) that when the facts on are you side, pound the facts and when the law is on your side, pound the law. But if neither the facts or the law are on your side then pound the table.
I guess I was mistaken in my beliefs, it was just something I had read from the/. story yesterday, and really should have verified it for myself.
But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD.
I didn't attempt to do that. I merely pointed out that he probably has more background knowledge than most people, not that he's an expert. You were the one who was calling his background into question, and it seems that many of the researchers who are experts in the particular fields from which the research is coming are stating that his understanding of their research and its use in his report (or manifesto or whatever it is) is correct.
In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
Humans in general seem biologically disposed to falling into certain cognitive traps, so I don't think culture has anything to do with it. Also, you seem to have engaged in a few fallacies of your own. You also ignored the rest of my post, but if you feel I've made any mistakes there, please do feel free to point them out.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
What do you mean by a statistical edge over them? His argument wasn't that male engineers were better than female engineers, simply that women may be less likely to want to have careers in computing. You may want to actually read his document.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies?
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are. Also, from what some other posters have said in previous/. stories related to this, affirmative action is illegal in California, so they may be running afoul of the law.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences.
Almost all of the evidence (at least everything I've seen) points to it being largely biological. I've seen a lot of people claim it isn't, but they have yet to post all of this evidence that supposedly suggests otherwise. I think that many here are more than willing to consider this other evidence, but so far no one has actually posted any of it.
Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
Apparently he has a Ph.D. in biology, so he's probably got more background than most people here. Also, if it really is factual, I don't think it's fair to call it a stereotype. You wouldn't tell me I was being stereotypical if I told you that men were taller than women.
There are several different polynomial algorithms that produce solutions to a traveling salesman-like problem that are typically within around 20% of the ideal solution. I'll take a good enough answer over one that's perfect but won't be available until well after the heat death of the universe.
I certainly hope so otherwise the bus drivers won't be able to pay the whip and buggy makers they put out of work. And won't someone think of the poor farriers.
Capitalism just means that wealth is privately owned or not controlled by the government. There have been some examples of countries that were capitalist, but lacked a free market (or simply had highly controlled markets) and it's really a strong market-based economy that leads to greater prosperity. It's just also the case that it's hard to have a market economy without some degree of capitalism. I suppose you could have some kind of syndicalist system that still allows for a free market, but no such systems have emerged organically on a large scale so it's hard to say how it would work out in practice.
Except that's fucking bullshit.
Until there are blind resume reviews and tests, the myth of the meritocracy is just so-much garbage spouted by people that are worried they'll lose their jobs to someone ACTUALLY qualified.
I'm not aware of the breadth of literature on the topic, but there was a study from Australia from just this year that found that using blind resumes had worse results for women then if information about the candidates sex was available. I also recall a study I read some time ago that found large levels of discrimination against job (or it may have been for apartment applications, but the idea is still generally the same) applicants with names that are typically associated with black people. For example Jamal vs. James.
Personally I think resumes should be blind as it does limit bias. You'd probably want to go just beyond name, race, and gender though as there are some colleges that essentially give that information away or perhaps create other types of bias. Sure you'll eventually have to bring in some candidates for an in person interview, but I think at that point it's a lot harder for people, even those who are racist, to fall back on prejudices when they're dealing with an actual individual who probably doesn't conform to their notions. I'm reminded of the story of one black man who has probably gotten more people to leave the KKK than the untold thousands that just insult them on the internet. All he did was go and talk with them and try to be their friends. If you can get people who joined a white nationalist movement to quit just by meeting them in person and interacting with them for a while, I think you can probably overcome any slight racism that a hiring manager might have as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about that. It didn't stop loads of people from buying and selling drugs through the silk road or any of the people who are using it for peddling child porn or other illegal services. It's pretty unlikely that all of those people started off as computer savvy individuals. I suspect it only adds to the illusion of persecution that so many of these idiots believe that they face and makes it more appealing. You're also introducing them to the dark web where they can probably get involved in other kinds of illegal activities as well or find ways to purchase illegal weapons, etc.
I don't think they'll go that route either as its a lot easier to self-host a website, or at least it doesn't require the same level of technical knowledge as setting up a presence on the dark web. I think its far better to just leave it on the web, where it's just as easy to signal boost websites and messages to help people avoid falling into hatred. Once you drive them further underground, you've also driven them further away from viewpoints that might allow them to get away from their echo chamber.
It could well be true evidence, but something that was obtained illegally. We have the fruit of the poisonous vine/tree metaphor that covers that a person could be completely guilty of something, but that the government had no legal cause to gather that evidence or acted outright illegally in obtaining it. Of course the government agencies are typically good enough at parallel construction so that this isn't always a problem. It will be interesting to follow, but I won't be surprised if he violated some strict liability law which gives the law some justification for looking into him further, so of course it wasn't just a random tip from some other agency.
I think that counter protests to things like this are good. You could make just as much argument that if no one shows up that these's idiots will feel emboldened or as though the whole country agrees with them but are just too scared to come out and join them. To some degree no matter what you do, people in groups like that are going to look to rationalize any action at all to feed the internal narrative they've constructed.
However, I think counter protests should be a lot more clever. You can't really fight groups like this using a fire with fire type of approach. Instead you need to do something that mocks them while making them feel their demonstration is counter-productive. Here's a news article about how one German town handled a similar march/demonstration a few years back. Just watch the video included in the article and see how deflated a lot of those people look.
Are they Confederate Nazi's then since they've got the battle flag flag proudly on display as well? They're adopting the symbols of other groups (that shared some or many of their views) in order to bolster their own self-image, and to some degree to garner attention. They don't see the Nazi's as bad, they see the Nazi's as people who shared some of their ideas and were really successful and want to be able to project that they'll be successful and powerful too.
They're too weak (and unoriginal) to create their own original banner, so they rely on some idea of they past they've glorified instead. I'll be far more worried when they unite under a new banner, a banner that doesn't carry any historical significance that might set off some alarm bells for people getting involved. You're not going to fool anyone when you walk around waving a Nazi flag and of those who do rally under it, many will only leave after experiencing the dreadful life that comes along with such causes, and some are beyond any redemption, being true believers in their cause.
They're a bunch of sad wanna-be's and I suspect that the sooner the world can help them realize that, the sooner some of them will quit.
Yes and it was the Republican Party that freed the slaves so black people should vote for them right?
If this band of losers had called themselves "The Sons of Liberty" or some other organization or movement, you'd hardly suddenly support them because Samuel Adams did something 200 years ago under a similar name. The Patriot Act should have taught you how meaningless a name is.
There were what a few thousand of them? Contrast this with the various anti-Trump demonstrations and unless your business is in Naziville it won't matter to a national chain and if they are a big enough group they'll just start their own companies. The Mormons did it so there's no reason these idiots couldn't. They probably do have a few cottage industries that sell them their Nazi-themed shit.
As an aside I have a hard time calling them Nazis. The Nazis ran one of the most horrible and efficient genocides of all time and built a war machine that took the rest of the continent and much of the world to fight off. These are just shit head white supremacists that were leftovers scraped from a gene Dixie cup adopting Nazi symbols. Another few generations of their racial purity and they'll all have more toes than chromosomes. Calling them Nazis just lets them think they're more badass than they are.
They're also free to start their own hosting company. The first amendment doesn't require others to let you use their press. In an ideal world every company would agree with you, but we don't live there and if GoDaddy thinks being associated with these people will hurt their business then they're obligated to ditch them.
Nonsense. Businesses should be free to associate with whom they wish. Typically they accept just about anyone because everyone's money is equally green (or whatever color your country uses) but places have dress codes, conduct rules for members, etc.
Even if you want to get into the messy part of the argument about whether a business could refuse service to Jews or homosexuals, the general argument still stands in that limiting your customers isn't a good bussiness move.
So why shouldn't wealth be made out of nothing?
Aside from currencies not being actual wealth themselves, most modern currencies aren't any more substantive than bitcoint. They're all essentially commodities with the only real advantage over bitcoin being that they're legal tender. Ask Zimbabwe or more recently Venezuela how much something their currency is made out of.
XML is like violence. If it's not solving your problem, you're not using enough.
Most companies hire white and Asian men because those are the majority of people obtaining degrees in computer and IT fields and applying for positions. That's why quota systems at companies aren't going to fix the problem. Even if company X does almost exclusively hire women or non-Asian minorities, it just means that the white and Asian men end up working somewhere else. It isn't as though there are a shortage of tech positions available for anyone who's capable enough to demonstrate a bit of competence.
Because that was 100 years ago and doesn't have a lot of bearing on the current goals or motivations of the organization. It's a bit like telling a black person that they're terrible for not voting Republican because they were the party that freed the slaves. You may have stated a perfectly true fact, but its one that is irrelevant at the current time.
Reminds me of the controversy surrounding Zuckerberg building a wall around his estate in Hawaii and pissing off a lot of locals.
I'm not familiar with this particular case, but I'm guessing that the road was already there and may have already had an easement attached to it at the time of sale, in which case the new owner would still need to abide by it.
Nah, it's Keyser Soze that's fake. Satoshi is real. Hangs out on an island with Tupac.
It hardly matters when its all too clear that no matter what kinds of comments they receive or in what number they receive them that they already intend to remove net neutrality.
I don't know what another posters race has to do with anything, but what part of what he wrote did you find unreasonable or lacking in scientific backing? By all means point to a page or a particular point and we can discuss it.
There's an old saying (though it's related to law) that when the facts on are you side, pound the facts and when the law is on your side, pound the law. But if neither the facts or the law are on your side then pound the table.
But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD.
I didn't attempt to do that. I merely pointed out that he probably has more background knowledge than most people, not that he's an expert. You were the one who was calling his background into question, and it seems that many of the researchers who are experts in the particular fields from which the research is coming are stating that his understanding of their research and its use in his report (or manifesto or whatever it is) is correct.
In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
Humans in general seem biologically disposed to falling into certain cognitive traps, so I don't think culture has anything to do with it. Also, you seem to have engaged in a few fallacies of your own. You also ignored the rest of my post, but if you feel I've made any mistakes there, please do feel free to point them out.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
What do you mean by a statistical edge over them? His argument wasn't that male engineers were better than female engineers, simply that women may be less likely to want to have careers in computing. You may want to actually read his document.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies?
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are. Also, from what some other posters have said in previous /. stories related to this, affirmative action is illegal in California, so they may be running afoul of the law.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences.
Almost all of the evidence (at least everything I've seen) points to it being largely biological. I've seen a lot of people claim it isn't, but they have yet to post all of this evidence that supposedly suggests otherwise. I think that many here are more than willing to consider this other evidence, but so far no one has actually posted any of it.
Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
Apparently he has a Ph.D. in biology, so he's probably got more background than most people here. Also, if it really is factual, I don't think it's fair to call it a stereotype. You wouldn't tell me I was being stereotypical if I told you that men were taller than women.
There are several different polynomial algorithms that produce solutions to a traveling salesman-like problem that are typically within around 20% of the ideal solution. I'll take a good enough answer over one that's perfect but won't be available until well after the heat death of the universe.
I certainly hope so otherwise the bus drivers won't be able to pay the whip and buggy makers they put out of work. And won't someone think of the poor farriers.
Well Iran is sort of already doing it, only it's because men are gay.
Capitalism just means that wealth is privately owned or not controlled by the government. There have been some examples of countries that were capitalist, but lacked a free market (or simply had highly controlled markets) and it's really a strong market-based economy that leads to greater prosperity. It's just also the case that it's hard to have a market economy without some degree of capitalism. I suppose you could have some kind of syndicalist system that still allows for a free market, but no such systems have emerged organically on a large scale so it's hard to say how it would work out in practice.
Except that's fucking bullshit. Until there are blind resume reviews and tests, the myth of the meritocracy is just so-much garbage spouted by people that are worried they'll lose their jobs to someone ACTUALLY qualified.
I'm not aware of the breadth of literature on the topic, but there was a study from Australia from just this year that found that using blind resumes had worse results for women then if information about the candidates sex was available. I also recall a study I read some time ago that found large levels of discrimination against job (or it may have been for apartment applications, but the idea is still generally the same) applicants with names that are typically associated with black people. For example Jamal vs. James.
Personally I think resumes should be blind as it does limit bias. You'd probably want to go just beyond name, race, and gender though as there are some colleges that essentially give that information away or perhaps create other types of bias. Sure you'll eventually have to bring in some candidates for an in person interview, but I think at that point it's a lot harder for people, even those who are racist, to fall back on prejudices when they're dealing with an actual individual who probably doesn't conform to their notions. I'm reminded of the story of one black man who has probably gotten more people to leave the KKK than the untold thousands that just insult them on the internet. All he did was go and talk with them and try to be their friends. If you can get people who joined a white nationalist movement to quit just by meeting them in person and interacting with them for a while, I think you can probably overcome any slight racism that a hiring manager might have as well.