Consequences to them being human like the rest of us?
Consequences for acting out.
We're all human, but we don't all act out on every impulse. There are actually people who don't try to screw their co-workers. Who don't make asses of themselves at a professional conference in front of peers. Doesn't make them less human just because they happen to have developed some impulse control.
If anything, being in such a position should make you more open minded and not freak out over a joke.
A "joke"?
Here's his statement, please explain the funny part to us:
"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."
Not if you're going to program in Python. But "less than you think" would be a pretty good answer. You're better off knowing Math, because you can always learn Python as you need it. And someone who knows Python and a lot of Math has a much better career path than someone who knows a lot of Python and a little Math. I'm shocked at how much money an entry level Python programmer who's done a masters in say, linear algebra will have thrown at him.
OK, I guess we have to go over the Nobel-winning scientist's statement yet again.
"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."
Dude's got "trouble with girls" because "three things happen". Got that? These aren't things that are possible, these are things that happen so often that they cause old Mr Hunt "trouble". One is that he falls in love with them. Because the old horndog never got the memo that you don't shit where you work. The second is that these "girls" fall in love with him. Because of course they would. He's clearly irresistible. The third thing that "happens" is that he criticizes them and they fall into an hysterical heap of crying femininity, because that's what a woman who had to defend her thesis against a jury of peers would inevitably do, because you know how they are.
Have you ever had to defend a PhD thesis? Have you ever been on a defense committee? (I have done both) They aren't love fests where softballs are thrown around. They can get pretty confrontational, and in my decades I've seen exactly one person tear up, and it was a young man, from gratitude when he was told he was going to matriculate.
Once again, just for review:
"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."
Got that? "three things happen..."
Three things happen when MRAs come to Slashdot bigot clickbait storis. They inevitably prove the worst things that are said about them, they prove themselves to have the cognitive abilities of sea slugs, and their arguments and refutations always amount to no more than this:
The middle-aged women I hang out with tend to refer to themselves as "girls" informally, and the use of "girl" to refer to a woman not actually old was very common during part of my lifetime.
Do you understand the difference between "women I hang out with" and "women I work with"? Why something you do when you're chatting up a middle-aged bar maid with a gold tooth and prison tattoos might not be acceptable when you're in the lab with a woman who also worked her ass off to get that PhD and now just wants to accomplish something without being hit on by a 72 year-old bag of snacks? Can we stipulate the difference between "hanging out" and being in a professional environment among peers?
And I'll bet you're old enough to understand that the way someone refers to themselves when in the company of peers is not always the way they would want someone else to refer to them.
Nobel laureates don't get their Nobels or their ability to speak.
They get their Nobels on their ability to think and apparently this knucklehead's thinking days are behind him if he believes that making this comment to a roomful of prestigious scientists and science journalists at a fucking professional conference is a good idea.
Anybody who has worked in academia (as I have) knows the type. Old fuckers who have had their ass kissed for so long that they think their every utterance is gold. They think their professional position now protects them from any criticism, and so if they want to feel up a co-worker, then by-god they will feel up a co-worker. It works for a while, until some department head or dean realizes that they haven't done anything new in a decade, so it's time to give the office space to someone who's not played out.
Then, it's only a matter of time until they're picked up for exposing themselves to school kids.
I never wanted to get like that, so I retired from academia on the day after my 50th birthday. Now I just expose myself to my wife and dog, and only the dog seems the least bit impressed.
So the people who are against the boss hitting on a subordinate
Everyone is against the boss hitting on a subordinate. The whole point of this article is that we have a Nobel-winning scientist who claims he is unable to resist hitting on female scientists when they work in his lab.
The solution is not the segregate the genders, it's to educate people like this scientist Mike Hunt or whatever his name is so he understands to keep his dick in his pants when he's at the office, and just because he has poor impulse control does not make it the fault of his co-workers.
Because most of us know the difference between informal after-dinner remarks relating personal experience in a not-entirely-serious way and the presentation of a formal paper.
He wasn't making informal after-dinner remarks. He was speaking to a room full of high-ranking scientists and science journalists at a global conference.
The ones who see well into the future are the ones that create and operate the lotteries (and casinos, etc.), not those who play them.
There are a lot more people who play lotteries than create them. So the statement "Human beings are good at seeing well into the future" still doesn't pass the smell test.
That sentence means "these things tend to happen" in English as normal people speak
I admire your willingness to give herr doctor professor the benefit of the doubt, but one would think that a Nobel laureate would understand how to use precise language, especially when he's showing his ass to a conference of professionals. Maybe he's just getting a little dotty with age.
He's 72, I'm sure all thee have in fact happened to him.
If all of these things have happened to him, is it possible that Professor Hunt just isn't very professional? Or maybe his (now former) membership to the Royal Academy has made him feel that inappropriate behavior in the workplace is acceptable because he's just such a big swinging dick.
And by the way, I've seen grown men who have cried in the workplace and who have fallen in love with each other in the workplace. Is that a reason to keep men out of the workplace?
Just doesn't seem remotely controversial to me - those things of course happen from time to time. So what?
Exactly. So what, indeed. So scientists turn out to be human beings like the rest of us. So what? Do we really want to go down the road that fundamentalist Muslims and Jews have gone down and start segregating the sexes in the workplace? I will bet that you don't want to see that happen.
Because...so what? Does being human make us less good at science? Because we already know what happens when scientists become less human, and it's not pretty. And the solution that religious fundamentalists would suggest are every bit as bad in the long run.
No, he didn't make that claim. It's a generalization. A stereotype. And, as with most stereotypes, there's a bit of truth to them, but nobody believes they apply 100%.
Alright, we can look at the quote again:
"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."
If, as you say, it's a generalization, a stereotype, then why are you comfortable with a highly-trained scientist making such generalizations, such stereotypes, in a speech to a professional conference?
Such sweeping generalizations are fallacious, as you admit. This Professor Hunt beclowned himself and showed himself to have very poor impulse control and was unprofessional on a large stage of peers. And if he didn't really mean what he said, then why has he gone on the record now as saying, "Yes, I meant that"? Here's his quote to the BBC when asked about it.
"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.
So, he's basically saying that women and men should be sequestered in the lab because he doesn't know how to act professionally. Yet somehow, science seems to have gotten done all over the world with women and men working together in labs for well over a century.
You don't know what they are thinking or what they are basing their position on so how can we
Yes, we do know, because they have told us. The people who denied service to the gay couples were asked why and they weren't shy about saying that it was because homosexuality violates God's teachings as expressed in the Bible.
They didn't mention whether baking a cake or a pizza also somehow violates God's teachings.
Just walk away and forget about it, take your business someplace else and be done with it.
That's right, the back of the bus is every bit as good as the front of the bus, amirite? I mean, the front and back of the bus go to the same place. The funny thing with bigotry, is that it seems to whisper all sorts of compelling rationalizations into the ear of the bigot.
Just walk away and forget about it, take your business someplace else and be done with it.
I'm sure there were perfectly good lunch counters that would have been happy to serve colored people back in Greensboro, NC in 1960. They could have just taken their business someplace else and been done with it.
Just walk away and forget about it, take your business someplace else and be done with it.
Get the picture?
. How uncivil, rude and combative have we become about this.
Why would blacks want to go to an Alabama school where they're not wanted? They should just walk away and forget about it, and get their education someplace else and be done with it.
Oh yes, my friend. Bigotry has been whispering in your ear.
. How uncivil, rude and combative have we become about this.
"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Speak for yourself:
Ah, what a beautiful statement of totalitarian ideology: people should be governed by their superiors for their own good.
You've got that exactly backwards.
You're suggesting that the only information that can be taken seriously is that which can be understood by the least of us. And fluid dynamics can't be real because you don't know how to solve a partial differential equation. And nobody should use computers because there are a few trailer park meth heads in West Texas who never took to no technology.
Are you fucking kidding me? Which one of us is really the totalitarian?
It's an ultra low volume product that has a very limited audience but looks cool to plebs.
$700 million per quarter in Surface sales. We'r'e talking 900,000 units or so every three months.
It's not iPad numbers, but I'm pretty sure that 3.5 million units a year and over $2billion in sales is more than "ultra low volume". That's enough volume to look into potential cost-savings.
Not impressed
Are you more impressed when a company just moves production to China?
Smoking isn't a crisis. Lung cancer is the crisis. Smoking is a bad decision that can lead to a crisis. Crisis is an actual word with an actual definition:
a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger.
Dig a little deeper into the etymology of the word, "crisis".
From Ancient Greek (krísis, “a separating, power of distinguishing, decision, choice, election, judgment, dispute”), from (kríno, “pick out, choose, decide, judge”)
It sounds to me like the decision to keep smoking is very much the crisis, in that it is a critical moment which leads to a point of no return.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://guyspeed.com/famous-ath...
https://youtu.be/DvHpzyWc1kc
Consequences for acting out.
We're all human, but we don't all act out on every impulse. There are actually people who don't try to screw their co-workers. Who don't make asses of themselves at a professional conference in front of peers. Doesn't make them less human just because they happen to have developed some impulse control.
I think we all know where this is going.
You want to take away one of the few pleasures I have left in life. You monster.
https://youtu.be/Lf3EC6OUk_Y
And there are consequences.
So what?
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12...
http://www.thegoodphight.com/2...
What was the last time you were in a small town?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
http://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/v...
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/C...
http://www.csg.org/knowledgece...
http://www.gainesville.com/art...
A "joke"?
Here's his statement, please explain the funny part to us:
In Soviet Russia, jokes find you.
Robots are people, my friend.
I bought my Roomba it's own cat. Though now that I think about it, I haven't seen the cat since last weekend.
Personally I've run into very few women at work who cried when criticized... but no men.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
Not if you're going to program in Python. But "less than you think" would be a pretty good answer. You're better off knowing Math, because you can always learn Python as you need it. And someone who knows Python and a lot of Math has a much better career path than someone who knows a lot of Python and a little Math. I'm shocked at how much money an entry level Python programmer who's done a masters in say, linear algebra will have thrown at him.
OK, I guess we have to go over the Nobel-winning scientist's statement yet again.
Dude's got "trouble with girls" because "three things happen". Got that? These aren't things that are possible, these are things that happen so often that they cause old Mr Hunt "trouble". One is that he falls in love with them. Because the old horndog never got the memo that you don't shit where you work. The second is that these "girls" fall in love with him. Because of course they would. He's clearly irresistible. The third thing that "happens" is that he criticizes them and they fall into an hysterical heap of crying femininity, because that's what a woman who had to defend her thesis against a jury of peers would inevitably do, because you know how they are.
Have you ever had to defend a PhD thesis? Have you ever been on a defense committee? (I have done both) They aren't love fests where softballs are thrown around. They can get pretty confrontational, and in my decades I've seen exactly one person tear up, and it was a young man, from gratitude when he was told he was going to matriculate.
Once again, just for review:
Got that? "three things happen..."
Three things happen when MRAs come to Slashdot bigot clickbait storis. They inevitably prove the worst things that are said about them, they prove themselves to have the cognitive abilities of sea slugs, and their arguments and refutations always amount to no more than this:
Do you understand the difference between "women I hang out with" and "women I work with"? Why something you do when you're chatting up a middle-aged bar maid with a gold tooth and prison tattoos might not be acceptable when you're in the lab with a woman who also worked her ass off to get that PhD and now just wants to accomplish something without being hit on by a 72 year-old bag of snacks? Can we stipulate the difference between "hanging out" and being in a professional environment among peers?
And I'll bet you're old enough to understand that the way someone refers to themselves when in the company of peers is not always the way they would want someone else to refer to them.
vis a vis, https://youtu.be/MSrTnWDTdwI
They get their Nobels on their ability to think and apparently this knucklehead's thinking days are behind him if he believes that making this comment to a roomful of prestigious scientists and science journalists at a fucking professional conference is a good idea.
Anybody who has worked in academia (as I have) knows the type. Old fuckers who have had their ass kissed for so long that they think their every utterance is gold. They think their professional position now protects them from any criticism, and so if they want to feel up a co-worker, then by-god they will feel up a co-worker. It works for a while, until some department head or dean realizes that they haven't done anything new in a decade, so it's time to give the office space to someone who's not played out.
Then, it's only a matter of time until they're picked up for exposing themselves to school kids.
I never wanted to get like that, so I retired from academia on the day after my 50th birthday. Now I just expose myself to my wife and dog, and only the dog seems the least bit impressed.
Everyone is against the boss hitting on a subordinate. The whole point of this article is that we have a Nobel-winning scientist who claims he is unable to resist hitting on female scientists when they work in his lab.
The solution is not the segregate the genders, it's to educate people like this scientist Mike Hunt or whatever his name is so he understands to keep his dick in his pants when he's at the office, and just because he has poor impulse control does not make it the fault of his co-workers.
Fucking 8chan mentality is just too much.
He wasn't making informal after-dinner remarks. He was speaking to a room full of high-ranking scientists and science journalists at a global conference.
http://time.com/3917390/scienc...
There are a lot more people who play lotteries than create them. So the statement "Human beings are good at seeing well into the future" still doesn't pass the smell test.
I admire your willingness to give herr doctor professor the benefit of the doubt, but one would think that a Nobel laureate would understand how to use precise language, especially when he's showing his ass to a conference of professionals. Maybe he's just getting a little dotty with age.
If all of these things have happened to him, is it possible that Professor Hunt just isn't very professional? Or maybe his (now former) membership to the Royal Academy has made him feel that inappropriate behavior in the workplace is acceptable because he's just such a big swinging dick.
And by the way, I've seen grown men who have cried in the workplace and who have fallen in love with each other in the workplace. Is that a reason to keep men out of the workplace?
Exactly. So what, indeed. So scientists turn out to be human beings like the rest of us. So what? Do we really want to go down the road that fundamentalist Muslims and Jews have gone down and start segregating the sexes in the workplace? I will bet that you don't want to see that happen.
Because...so what? Does being human make us less good at science? Because we already know what happens when scientists become less human, and it's not pretty. And the solution that religious fundamentalists would suggest are every bit as bad in the long run.
Alright, we can look at the quote again:
If, as you say, it's a generalization, a stereotype, then why are you comfortable with a highly-trained scientist making such generalizations, such stereotypes, in a speech to a professional conference?
Such sweeping generalizations are fallacious, as you admit. This Professor Hunt beclowned himself and showed himself to have very poor impulse control and was unprofessional on a large stage of peers. And if he didn't really mean what he said, then why has he gone on the record now as saying, "Yes, I meant that"? Here's his quote to the BBC when asked about it.
So, he's basically saying that women and men should be sequestered in the lab because he doesn't know how to act professionally. Yet somehow, science seems to have gotten done all over the world with women and men working together in labs for well over a century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Yes, we do know, because they have told us. The people who denied service to the gay couples were asked why and they weren't shy about saying that it was because homosexuality violates God's teachings as expressed in the Bible.
They didn't mention whether baking a cake or a pizza also somehow violates God's teachings.
That's right, the back of the bus is every bit as good as the front of the bus, amirite? I mean, the front and back of the bus go to the same place. The funny thing with bigotry, is that it seems to whisper all sorts of compelling rationalizations into the ear of the bigot.
I'm sure there were perfectly good lunch counters that would have been happy to serve colored people back in Greensboro, NC in 1960. They could have just taken their business someplace else and been done with it.
Get the picture?
Why would blacks want to go to an Alabama school where they're not wanted? They should just walk away and forget about it, and get their education someplace else and be done with it.
Oh yes, my friend. Bigotry has been whispering in your ear.
"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Speak for yourself:
https://i1.wp.com/listverse.co...
You've got that exactly backwards.
You're suggesting that the only information that can be taken seriously is that which can be understood by the least of us. And fluid dynamics can't be real because you don't know how to solve a partial differential equation. And nobody should use computers because there are a few trailer park meth heads in West Texas who never took to no technology.
Are you fucking kidding me? Which one of us is really the totalitarian?
$700 million per quarter in Surface sales. We'r'e talking 900,000 units or so every three months.
It's not iPad numbers, but I'm pretty sure that 3.5 million units a year and over $2billion in sales is more than "ultra low volume". That's enough volume to look into potential cost-savings.
Are you more impressed when a company just moves production to China?
Dig a little deeper into the etymology of the word, "crisis".
It sounds to me like the decision to keep smoking is very much the crisis, in that it is a critical moment which leads to a point of no return.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...