If you don't correct mistakes, those who do not know will define what words mean and the ability to understand the older meanings will be more quickly lost.
It's used in Minesweeper (at least the old versions that were worth a damn) to clear the tiles surrounding your cursor. That is the only use I can think of.
(You can also use a "middle" or third button, but the finger travel can slow you down depending on your muscle memory.)
They did commit suicide at work. One condition of work is living at work. Not near work. And it's quite likely there's a correlation there. As far as I'm aware, the suicides don't typically involve guns nor cutting nor pills, but jumping. Hence the suicide nets around the factory.
The point of the figures I provided is to find something close to comparable—far closer than general population suicides. These are not GP suicides, and GP suicides are, across the board and as you say yourself, far higher than workplace suicides. We're not going to find anything similar in the U.S. on any comparable scale. We'd be much better off looking at figures across China's industrial workforce. My not-so-wild guess is that we'd find:
- Foxconn isn't particularly an outlier among Chinese industrial labor suicides - Foxconn conditions are not substantially unusual for Chinese industrial labor, certainly not substantially worse - Chinese industrial labor suicides are substantially higher than comparable U.S. suicides
The "clever abuse of statistics" began with comparing apples to horses, of workplace suicides versus GP suicides. I'm just trying to put them in perspective. As far as I can tell, you're presenting more abusive—incompatible—statistics as that perspective. The question, when people are interested in this, is whether there's a "suicide problem at Foxconn"—or more broadly if there's a "suicide problem in Chinese industrial labor". Without cynicism, I would say categorically yes! After all, one workplace suicide is too many. WIth the cynicism necessary to process large figures... all we can do is compare like things, particularly against something resembling an acceptable standard, and see if the numbers line up. They quite clearly don't.
And the more honest question we're all asking, or evading, is whether we're comfortable with the consequences of our economic configuration and our consumer behavior. Comparing vastly unlike things is the first step in evading an honest question.
the Foxconn suicide rate from those figures is lower than the suicide rate for not only CHina as a whole, but also it's lower than the US suicide rate
I'm so sick of this "gotcha" point. Guess what: Foxconn isn't a country, it's a workplace. Suicide rates at the workplace are not the same as overall suicide rates.
You can't compare to US suicide rates. You can, however, compare to US workforce suicide rates:
I can't find data on China's general workforce suicide rate, and the US numbers are really out of date. But it's a much closer comparison than comparing a factory in China to the overall U.S. population. And the delta is astonishing.
Three hops from 9,000 people is a very large net. And three hops from 866,000 is a much larger net, surely including many many more Americans. And people who aren't Americans are also people.
I hate when I get done typing up what I think is an insightful comment, then look down and discover someone else basically already did. I've already posted so I can't mod you up. So this is a statement that your point about metrics and evaluating the model is spot on.
It can have a high rate of coincidence though. Not even because of language quality, so much as language popularity. I've said this before in defense of JavaScript, but most programmers aren't particularly good. Find the place where most programmers are, and you'll surely find poor programmers. That goes for Java and PHP and probably Python as well.
if your son came up to you and told you he didnt "feel" like a person who was mobile, and wanted to break his own back and or neck and become a quadriplegic, you would support him right?
Of course not. Your analogy is irrelevant, ignorant and moronic. And since other commenters have dealt with the content of it well, I want to ask what the hell your response had to do with my comment.
cutting off your own cock is totally normal
Wait, no one (as far as I'm aware) has said anything is normal, and I can't really understand why you think that has anything to do with this discussion. I think we can all agree that transgenderism of any form is not normal or else we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. What difference does it make whether it's normal? Are you conflating "normal" and "correct"?
The accusations of bigotry against people who have done nothing to harm the transgendered is an attempt to make those who disagree into the "circus freaks".
Calling people circus attractions is bigoted and harmful.
So many transgendered are thus no better than those they complain about! Hypocrites. Guess what? The idea that everyone must agree with and accept and actively facilitate every weird lifestyle choice is MADNESS.
Calling bigotry what it is is not the same thing as abuse. Being called a bigot for expressing bigotry (obviously!) doesn't make you agree with, accept, or facilitate anything. This is the same kind of false equivalency that racists and sexists and all manner of other bigots raise when being called out.
And you know what? I want to be absolutely clear on this point: you can go on believing that people are circus attractions because of who they are. I'll go on believing you're a bigot. Neither of us has to change a bit.
Although fertility is possible in true hermaphrodites (as of 2008 there have been at least 11 reported cases of fertility in true hermaphrodite humans in scientific literature), there has yet to be a documented case where both gonadal tissues function; contrary to rumors of hermaphrodites being able to impregnate themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
What remains to be demonstrated is the actual harm done by this evolution of language, without begging the question.
To be fair, the display is probably 1/3 to 1/2 the price.
Speak for yourself!
None of those examples reduce anyone's ability to communicate clearly. Except possibly yours, as myself may have missed your point.
Wush!
If you don't correct mistakes, those who do not know will define what words mean and the ability to understand the older meanings will be more quickly lost.
I could care less. Literally.
One of the founding principles, and certainly the best of them, was that principles may be amended.
That's fucking retarded.
We're demanding equal treatment under the law.
It's used in Minesweeper (at least the old versions that were worth a damn) to clear the tiles surrounding your cursor. That is the only use I can think of.
(You can also use a "middle" or third button, but the finger travel can slow you down depending on your muscle memory.)
They did commit suicide at work. One condition of work is living at work. Not near work. And it's quite likely there's a correlation there. As far as I'm aware, the suicides don't typically involve guns nor cutting nor pills, but jumping. Hence the suicide nets around the factory.
The point of the figures I provided is to find something close to comparable—far closer than general population suicides. These are not GP suicides, and GP suicides are, across the board and as you say yourself, far higher than workplace suicides. We're not going to find anything similar in the U.S. on any comparable scale. We'd be much better off looking at figures across China's industrial workforce. My not-so-wild guess is that we'd find:
- Foxconn isn't particularly an outlier among Chinese industrial labor suicides
- Foxconn conditions are not substantially unusual for Chinese industrial labor, certainly not substantially worse
- Chinese industrial labor suicides are substantially higher than comparable U.S. suicides
The "clever abuse of statistics" began with comparing apples to horses, of workplace suicides versus GP suicides. I'm just trying to put them in perspective. As far as I can tell, you're presenting more abusive—incompatible—statistics as that perspective. The question, when people are interested in this, is whether there's a "suicide problem at Foxconn"—or more broadly if there's a "suicide problem in Chinese industrial labor". Without cynicism, I would say categorically yes! After all, one workplace suicide is too many. WIth the cynicism necessary to process large figures... all we can do is compare like things, particularly against something resembling an acceptable standard, and see if the numbers line up. They quite clearly don't.
And the more honest question we're all asking, or evading, is whether we're comfortable with the consequences of our economic configuration and our consumer behavior. Comparing vastly unlike things is the first step in evading an honest question.
the Foxconn suicide rate from those figures is lower than the suicide rate for not only CHina as a whole, but also it's lower than the US suicide rate
I'm so sick of this "gotcha" point. Guess what: Foxconn isn't a country, it's a workplace. Suicide rates at the workplace are not the same as overall suicide rates.
You can't compare to US suicide rates. You can, however, compare to US workforce suicide rates:
U.S. workplace suicides (source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/sh20040126ar01p1.htm - best source I could find):
2170 over 9 years, averaging 241 per year.
U.S. labor force during same period (I picked the lowest, so it doesn't seem like I'm cheating - http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm):
127 million.
Extrapolated U.S. workplace suicide rate:
0.19 per 100,000 (rounded up)
Foxconn's suicide rate:
1.5 per 100,000, or 7.8 times that of the U.S. workplace rate.
The U.S. general population rate (same period - source: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dphillip/suicide_in_the_united_states_cdc_report.pdf):
11.1 per 100,000, or 58 times workplace suicide rates.
China's general population rate (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides):
14 per 100,000, only 9.33 times Foxconn's rate.
I can't find data on China's general workforce suicide rate, and the US numbers are really out of date. But it's a much closer comparison than comparing a factory in China to the overall U.S. population. And the delta is astonishing.
Three hops from 9,000 people is a very large net. And three hops from 866,000 is a much larger net, surely including many many more Americans. And people who aren't Americans are also people.
9,000 is key to what?
Which two weeks? Do you think artists just vomit out tunes in the studio? Maybe you're listening to the wrong music.
I hate when I get done typing up what I think is an insightful comment, then look down and discover someone else basically already did. I've already posted so I can't mod you up. So this is a statement that your point about metrics and evaluating the model is spot on.
Seems like as good a time as any to post Steve Albini's article on the topic: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
I'll have you know that this is so typical I thought you were serious until I got to the end.
If you don't want to get "attacked", don't chase people down for no fucking reason.
In most US jurisdictions, we don't even put the judges in at all, cowards or otherwise.
It can have a high rate of coincidence though. Not even because of language quality, so much as language popularity. I've said this before in defense of JavaScript, but most programmers aren't particularly good. Find the place where most programmers are, and you'll surely find poor programmers. That goes for Java and PHP and probably Python as well.
if your son came up to you and told you he didnt "feel" like a person who was mobile, and wanted to break his own back and or neck and become a quadriplegic, you would support him right?
Of course not. Your analogy is irrelevant, ignorant and moronic. And since other commenters have dealt with the content of it well, I want to ask what the hell your response had to do with my comment.
cutting off your own cock is totally normal
Wait, no one (as far as I'm aware) has said anything is normal, and I can't really understand why you think that has anything to do with this discussion. I think we can all agree that transgenderism of any form is not normal or else we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. What difference does it make whether it's normal? Are you conflating "normal" and "correct"?
The accusations of bigotry against people who have done nothing to harm the transgendered is an attempt to make those who disagree into the "circus freaks".
Calling people circus attractions is bigoted and harmful.
So many transgendered are thus no better than those they complain about! Hypocrites. Guess what? The idea that everyone must agree with and accept and actively facilitate every weird lifestyle choice is MADNESS.
Calling bigotry what it is is not the same thing as abuse. Being called a bigot for expressing bigotry (obviously!) doesn't make you agree with, accept, or facilitate anything. This is the same kind of false equivalency that racists and sexists and all manner of other bigots raise when being called out.
And you know what? I want to be absolutely clear on this point: you can go on believing that people are circus attractions because of who they are. I'll go on believing you're a bigot. Neither of us has to change a bit.
Are you a cartoon?
Although fertility is possible in true hermaphrodites (as of 2008 there have been at least 11 reported cases of fertility in true hermaphrodite humans in scientific literature), there has yet to be a documented case where both gonadal tissues function; contrary to rumors of hermaphrodites being able to impregnate themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism
to be frank
Shirley you jest.