One could argue that this is due to societal perceptions of what a particular sex "should like", causing people, either subconsciously or consciously, to avoid fields that are commonly perceived to be for the opposite sex.
One could argue that, but then one would have to ignore the fact that there ARE difference between men and woman
Um, no he wouldn't. Are you suggesting a person can't be subject to both genes and environmental influences at the same time? Because that would be a mighty odd thing to suggest.
Yes, as you argue, people's brains are predisposed to different stuff, and some of those predispositions are statistically correllated to sex.
But you can't argue from that to the normative claim that we should therefore not worry about how our behaviour might unintentionally (or otherwise) discourage people from entering the field they want. Total non sequitur.
You can't think of any other influencing factor that might bias men against pursuing careers in flower arranging? Something other than inborn aptitude?
The legitimacy of rhythmic gymnastics as a "sport" is certainly up for debate. The objection raised, though, was to the "ha ha chicks don't like real sports" bit of childish misogyny in the OP.
Actually, it's supported by a much larger, poorer city than you'd guess from looking at the Strip. The casino hotels are largely run by people who could never afford to stay in them.
Talk to one of the illegal Mexicans who have to loiter street-level handing out callgirl cards. They can tell you about the real LV experience.
Even if there is a thousand of them - that's not enough to justify a qualifier.
but this point is where every one of them are wrong...
Do you see how these two sentences reveal a certain disregard for the truth of your assertions? You are still playing fast and loose with group memberships, and it's evident that you don't care if you misrepresent some people because of that.
Your problem is not with "Arabs" but with "Opponents of Israel." Regardless of how many members they may have in common, these are two different groups. Talking about an entire racial group as if they hold universally shared political beliefs just is racist.
I'm open to suggestion for a better term.
There are lots of better terms already in common use. If you can't bring yourself to say "Palestinian" (which is pretty childish by the way; do you also say "anti-life" because "pro-choice" grates on your ears?) then just say "anti-Zionist."
That said, I doubt (although don't completely rule out) there exists an Arab in the world, who means anything else by the term "occupation" in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This assertion is patently silly at best, and offensive at worst. You don't think a single member of the Arab race is a Zionist?
Say "Palestinian sympathizers" if that's what you mean. I promise it will fit into the character limit. Maybe then your rhetoric will sound less like thinly-veiled racism.
Hey, you! Did you know that you got your math wrong? I know that errors like that usually go unnoticed around here, because pedants generally don't hang out around here.
Not to go (-1, Offtopic) but... The fact that your sig has the phrase "What Arabs mean", without any further group quantifiers, is evidence that you don't have anything useful or coherent to say about world politics.
their domain name used to be "expertsexchange.com". Then one day that address suddenly redirected to "experts-exchange.com" You could almost feel the webmasters smacking themselves in the forehead.
Not really. Scrabulous's game board depicts the same 15x15 array of squares, but it doesn't include the same embellishments, the shades of pink and blue are different, and I don't think the bonus squares even have the same little spiky edges.
you are proposing a return to the days when only the rich have access to music and art?
Not at all! The difference between the old days and the new is that the tools to make this stuff are now within the reach of most of the middle class. And we have all this digital technology to thank for that.
What I want to know is whether this HPB protocol itself is vulnerable to attack. Can I spoof a few packets at a few common targets and get some sucker blacklisted by half the Internet? Can I run 30,000 virtualized HPB nodes and use them to stack the deck with maliciously generated logs?
Consistent with the 'Common Carrier' gambit we used to enforce on our telcos, perhaps the right answer is: yes they can snoop, but if they do, they are accessories to any criminal activity the exit node engages in.
Apple has the die-hard users it does because it functions perfectly for their needs and doesn't make them do any work.
When you don't have to present too many diverse options and functions, it's pretty easy to make the results look sleek. If Apple even tried to provide as much at-a-glance information in their UI that Linux users have gotten used to, they'd have something as messy as the Vista dockwharfpier.
Unless, of course, the idea is so general that it qualifies pretty much every reasonably simple solution to a given engineering problem.
The idea of a clicky button on a joystick is not a mechanistic innovation - it's a direct, simple response to an engineering requirement.
It seems silly that every manufacturer to hit such a requirement should be required to come up with a more convoluted, unique solution just because the simplest one has already been written down by someone who got to it first.
Imagine if the second automotive manufacturer to hit the market had to come up with an engine without reciprocating pistons, because the first was already using them.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no he wouldn't. Are you suggesting a person can't be subject to both genes and environmental influences at the same time? Because that would be a mighty odd thing to suggest.
Yes, as you argue, people's brains are predisposed to different stuff, and some of those predispositions are statistically correllated to sex.
But you can't argue from that to the normative claim that we should therefore not worry about how our behaviour might unintentionally (or otherwise) discourage people from entering the field they want. Total non sequitur.
You can't think of any other influencing factor that might bias men against pursuing careers in flower arranging? Something other than inborn aptitude?
really?
Are you
Hey, uh, welcome to Internet. You must be new here, I'll show you around.
The legitimacy of rhythmic gymnastics as a "sport" is certainly up for debate. The objection raised, though, was to the "ha ha chicks don't like real sports" bit of childish misogyny in the OP.
Actually, it's supported by a much larger, poorer city than you'd guess from looking at the Strip. The casino hotels are largely run by people who could never afford to stay in them.
Talk to one of the illegal Mexicans who have to loiter street-level handing out callgirl cards. They can tell you about the real LV experience.
Don't you mean grammer?
Oh no no, that was just Eddie Izzard. He does that every so often. Kills me every time.
You have got exactly the right attitude.
Ham sandwiches for all!*
(*kosher or halal substitutes where applicable;)
Meh. That means nothin'. You don't know of any charismatic, quasi-Messianic personalities rising to power at the moment, do you?
Do you see how these two sentences reveal a certain disregard for the truth of your assertions? You are still playing fast and loose with group memberships, and it's evident that you don't care if you misrepresent some people because of that.
Your problem is not with "Arabs" but with "Opponents of Israel." Regardless of how many members they may have in common, these are two different groups. Talking about an entire racial group as if they hold universally shared political beliefs just is racist.
There are lots of better terms already in common use. If you can't bring yourself to say "Palestinian" (which is pretty childish by the way; do you also say "anti-life" because "pro-choice" grates on your ears?) then just say "anti-Zionist."
This assertion is patently silly at best, and offensive at worst. You don't think a single member of the Arab race is a Zionist?
Say "Palestinian sympathizers" if that's what you mean. I promise it will fit into the character limit. Maybe then your rhetoric will sound less like thinly-veiled racism.
Hey, you! Did you know that you got your math wrong? I know that errors like that usually go unnoticed around here, because pedants generally don't hang out around here.
Not to go (-1, Offtopic) but...
The fact that your sig has the phrase "What Arabs mean", without any further group quantifiers, is evidence that you don't have anything useful or coherent to say about world politics.
http://burntherapist.com/
their domain name used to be "expertsexchange.com".
Then one day that address suddenly redirected to "experts-exchange.com" You could almost feel the webmasters smacking themselves in the forehead.
Not really. Scrabulous's game board depicts the same 15x15 array of squares, but it doesn't include the same embellishments, the shades of pink and blue are different, and I don't think the bonus squares even have the same little spiky edges.
you are proposing a return to the days when only the rich have access to music and art?
Not at all! The difference between the old days and the new is that the tools to make this stuff are now within the reach of most of the middle class. And we have all this digital technology to thank for that.
What I want to know is whether this HPB protocol itself is vulnerable to attack. Can I spoof a few packets at a few common targets and get some sucker blacklisted by half the Internet? Can I run 30,000 virtualized HPB nodes and use them to stack the deck with maliciously generated logs?
Suck my double-precision floats, AC!
prior art.
Consistent with the 'Common Carrier' gambit we used to enforce on our telcos, perhaps the right answer is: yes they can snoop, but if they do, they are accessories to any criminal activity the exit node engages in.
Then why would you (sic) a correctly spelled word?
This thread is the correct one.
Apple has the die-hard users it does because it functions perfectly for their needs and doesn't make them do any work.
When you don't have to present too many diverse options and functions, it's pretty easy to make the results look sleek. If Apple even tried to provide as much at-a-glance information in their UI that Linux users have gotten used to, they'd have something as messy as the Vista dockwharfpier.
Unless, of course, the idea is so general that it qualifies pretty much every reasonably simple solution to a given engineering problem.
The idea of a clicky button on a joystick is not a mechanistic innovation - it's a direct, simple response to an engineering requirement.
It seems silly that every manufacturer to hit such a requirement should be required to come up with a more convoluted, unique solution just because the simplest one has already been written down by someone who got to it first.
Imagine if the second automotive manufacturer to hit the market had to come up with an engine without reciprocating pistons, because the first was already using them.