Come on, that is not an argument. Just because some extremists thought that the book was not men-hating enough, doesn't mean it wasn't men-hating at all. It is like a neonazi accusing a Trump fanboi not being right wing enough.
And as for completely missing the point, Ged wasn't really spared from all the hate, just got less of it because at that point of time he was reduced to being a cripple.
Not quite. USA got all the German rocket scientists, all the Soviets had were the guys working at the V-2 assembly lines and a couple of less important engineers. This is why the Americans have used a direct V-2 descendant till late 1960ies, launching their first astronauts with it while the Soviets have quickly established their own rocket designs while reusing some engineering solutions from the V-2 for decades (like running the turbopumps on hydrogen peroxide) in unrelated hardware.
This describes how a libertarian government would look in the real world instead of wet dreams. Oh, by the way, Russia in the early 1990ies also qualifies because of its economical policies - laissez faire dog eat dog capitalism, privatising everything until all assets were stripped, a total race to the bottom in goods and services, sending countless people into poverty. Anarchy ist just libertarianism brought to its logical conclusion.
No need to go that far. Russia in the early 1990ies was in practice a libertarian paradise since the government was basically powerless, the law enforcement was the best the money could buy and people could get away literally (not figuratively, really literally) with anything if they were able to pay for it. This is why Putin is so popular there, by the way. People consider a dictatorship better than what amounts to way too much freedom.
Where are the people demanding forced repatriation of anybody not born in the UK? They're meeting in small pub rooms, decried by the general population, gaining no traction politically.
And yet Germany has one of the longest and densest railway grids in the world. There are several power plants in Germany that provide electrical power just for the trains, even one nuclear reactor used to be amongst them. It is true that the fractional frequency supply is more expensive, but it is manageable.
What you describe is absolutely not a modern airliner, but rather a newer version of a 737 - a 1960ies design that is a direct derivative of a 1950ies design (707). It looks the way it looks because Boeing kept the short gear struts after reengining. Aircraft designed with a high bypass turbofan in mind doesn't have flattened engine cowlings and the fans definitely don't extend above the wing. 737 is not a modern aircraft, it is an ancient pig with a lot of lipstick.
Furthermore, I quoted from an article, not a headline.
Where in the study excerpt have you - or Damore, for that matter - found the word "conservative"? This already shows that both of you either have pulled the statement out of your arses or are unable to work with primary sources.
What part of "valid predictor" do you not understand? It correlates exactly with what James said, "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness".
What part of "less robust and replicable" do you not understand?
You originally claimed he pulled it out of his ass, even though it was clearly sourced.
I stand by my assertion. I have previously mentioned that the word "conservatives" doesn't appear even once in the excerpt, furthermore the study doesn't show anywhere that voters for right wing parties tend to be higher in conscientiousness because it is a less replicable predictor than others resulting in a person higher both in openness and in conscientiousness voting for a left wing party with high probability, despite being higher in conscientiousness since the personality traits in the Big Five model are not mutually exclusive. That all is why it is an arse pull - you are - and Damore is - confusing "conservative" with "voting for right wing parties". You both don't understand the Big Five model. And, most importantly, you both don't understand the difference between equivalence and entailment, which is, for a software developer, very embarassing.
Furthermore, we have countries like Poland, which is currently demonstrating a strong parallel to conservatism in the United States.
Poland is nothing like the USA. It is a piss poor wannabe catholic theocracy that defines itself by the hate it has for its neighbours.
Again, having moved the goalposts, you are arguing competing science.
I am arguing cherrypicking and misrepresenting evidence. Whether it is by ignorance or intent is left to be seen.
This is very sloppy of you because you haven't read the actual excerpt, just a sensationalised headline. The " Conscientiousness was also a valid predictor, although its effect was less robust and replicable" line is difficult to miss. Moreover, this is an European study, the line between left and right wing are completely different here. Not only that, The Big Five personality traits are significantly different across cultures, making this study even less appicable to Amerians. So much for being "higher in conscientiousness". Finally, going with the Big Five personality traits, people higher in conscientiousness are more often than not better educated. But a different study shows that conservative people are generally less educated. (http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/). Either one of the studies is incorrect or - which is far more realistic - the cultural differences between Europeans and Americans making this kind of studies not interchangeable.
All of it just shows that it was really an uninformed rant which only appeared well researched at a shallow glance. That you are willing to defend it, tells a lot about yourself, none of it flattering.
ORLY? Then please show me the source of Damore's conviction that conservatives somehow "tend to be higher in conscientiousness". If that is not an arsepull, then what is?
This reminds me of a joke I heard once about a proctologist who had painted a room through the keyhole. Many things are possible, but most of them are not practical and frankly shouldn't be done.
So you'd rather have the pilot fly you into the ground? Or maybe you are a fan of frayed steering cables that can snap and leave a control surface in the whatever state the aerodynamics want it to be? Stop living in the past.
Well, there was the NexGen, but I have only seen it being sold in a shop once - with the motherboard - and when I've returned with cash it was already gone.
The Democrats only started (slowly) moving to the left in the 1930ies. I never have been in the Americas in the first place, yet I know that. Why don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, that is not an argument.
Just because some extremists thought that the book was not men-hating enough, doesn't mean it wasn't men-hating at all. It is like a neonazi accusing a Trump fanboi not being right wing enough.
And as for completely missing the point, Ged wasn't really spared from all the hate, just got less of it because at that point of time he was reduced to being a cripple.
Not quite. USA got all the German rocket scientists, all the Soviets had were the guys working at the V-2 assembly lines and a couple of less important engineers. This is why the Americans have used a direct V-2 descendant till late 1960ies, launching their first astronauts with it while the Soviets have quickly established their own rocket designs while reusing some engineering solutions from the V-2 for decades (like running the turbopumps on hydrogen peroxide) in unrelated hardware.
Unfortunately it is not. The #4 Earthsea book, Tehanu, was written during Le Guin's feminist phase and is, unfortunately, downright misandric.
This describes how a libertarian government would look in the real world instead of wet dreams. Oh, by the way, Russia in the early 1990ies also qualifies because of its economical policies - laissez faire dog eat dog capitalism, privatising everything until all assets were stripped, a total race to the bottom in goods and services, sending countless people into poverty. Anarchy ist just libertarianism brought to its logical conclusion.
So when you develop software, do you invent variables or do you declare them?
No need to go that far. Russia in the early 1990ies was in practice a libertarian paradise since the government was basically powerless, the law enforcement was the best the money could buy and people could get away literally (not figuratively, really literally) with anything if they were able to pay for it.
This is why Putin is so popular there, by the way. People consider a dictatorship better than what amounts to way too much freedom.
Liar.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.dw.com/en/britain-s...
Liar.
https://www.theguardian.com/po...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Pants on fire.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
https://www.theguardian.com/po...
Well, the Brits generally are quite xenophobic anyway so there is no real need to stir up anything.
And yet Germany has one of the longest and densest railway grids in the world. There are several power plants in Germany that provide electrical power just for the trains, even one nuclear reactor used to be amongst them. It is true that the fractional frequency supply is more expensive, but it is manageable.
Let me give you some perspective on the A350
http://www.aerospacemanufactur...
Perfectly valid in my part of the world.
What you describe is absolutely not a modern airliner, but rather a newer version of a 737 - a 1960ies design that is a direct derivative of a 1950ies design (707). It looks the way it looks because Boeing kept the short gear struts after reengining. Aircraft designed with a high bypass turbofan in mind doesn't have flattened engine cowlings and the fans definitely don't extend above the wing. 737 is not a modern aircraft, it is an ancient pig with a lot of lipstick.
Boeing didn't listen to their own advice - see 747-8I.
Even the hamas monkeys manage to work with HE just fine.
It could have been a hostage sent to open the door. So yes, they have killed an unarmed man for no reason.
The brakes, obviously. Hit the brakes.
Where in the study excerpt have you - or Damore, for that matter - found the word "conservative"? This already shows that both of you either have pulled the statement out of your arses or are unable to work with primary sources.
What part of "less robust and replicable" do you not understand?
I stand by my assertion. I have previously mentioned that the word "conservatives" doesn't appear even once in the excerpt, furthermore the study doesn't show anywhere that voters for right wing parties tend to be higher in conscientiousness because it is a less replicable predictor than others resulting in a person higher both in openness and in conscientiousness voting for a left wing party with high probability, despite being higher in conscientiousness since the personality traits in the Big Five model are not mutually exclusive. That all is why it is an arse pull - you are - and Damore is - confusing "conservative" with "voting for right wing parties". You both don't understand the Big Five model. And, most importantly, you both don't understand the difference between equivalence and entailment, which is, for a software developer, very embarassing.
Poland is nothing like the USA. It is a piss poor wannabe catholic theocracy that defines itself by the hate it has for its neighbours.
I am arguing cherrypicking and misrepresenting evidence. Whether it is by ignorance or intent is left to be seen.
This is very sloppy of you because you haven't read the actual excerpt, just a sensationalised headline. The " Conscientiousness was also a valid predictor, although its effect was less robust and replicable" line is difficult to miss.
Moreover, this is an European study, the line between left and right wing are completely different here. Not only that, The Big Five personality traits are significantly different across cultures, making this study even less appicable to Amerians. So much for being "higher in conscientiousness".
Finally, going with the Big Five personality traits, people higher in conscientiousness are more often than not better educated. But a different study shows that conservative people are generally less educated. (http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/). Either one of the studies is incorrect or - which is far more realistic - the cultural differences between Europeans and Americans making this kind of studies not interchangeable.
All of it just shows that it was really an uninformed rant which only appeared well researched at a shallow glance. That you are willing to defend it, tells a lot about yourself, none of it flattering.
ORLY? Then please show me the source of Damore's conviction that conservatives somehow "tend to be higher in conscientiousness". If that is not an arsepull, then what is?
I am one. But I agree, C sucks. I am glad that my Pascal days have taught me not to try to be clever when developing software.
This reminds me of a joke I heard once about a proctologist who had painted a room through the keyhole.
Many things are possible, but most of them are not practical and frankly shouldn't be done.
So you'd rather have the pilot fly you into the ground? Or maybe you are a fan of frayed steering cables that can snap and leave a control surface in the whatever state the aerodynamics want it to be?
Stop living in the past.
Well, there was the NexGen, but I have only seen it being sold in a shop once - with the motherboard - and when I've returned with cash it was already gone.
The Democrats only started (slowly) moving to the left in the 1930ies. I never have been in the Americas in the first place, yet I know that. Why don't you?
So you really think that the price elasticity is absolute? How quaint.