This kind of arms race is just going to fragment the 'net, and the consumers like you and me are going to the losers.
No, consumers like you are going to be a loser.
If I don't like it, I don't buy it. Just because you're a moron and fail at your own attempts to vote with your wallet doesn't mean I made the same mistakes.
MBAs don't care what the seminar is supposed to teach, they care about, when you go and rape a coworker, can they show that they took reasonable steps to prevent it? That's all they care about; is the seminar on a list of seminars that help to cover your ass when your underlings do evil?
HR is supposed to be the ones firing the assholes that create a liability! Same pointy hair, different department.
The people assembling cars didn't commonly make the leap into designing them, either. And we don't refer to them as "the first automotive engineers."
This is false. Prior to Henry Ford inventing the modern "assembly line," there were lots of engineers who started as apprentices in the factories. The thing about the modern assembly line is that the workers don't need to understand as much anymore; they just need simple jobs and simple, strict rules about how to do that job. So there is no room for an apprentice engineer to be doing it anymore. Now engineers have to learn through a strictly academic program.
In the steam era, you'll find that many of the engineers did in fact get their start as factory workers working for another engineer!
I think it is just that few people are working at age 90 anyways, and so it would be different people in your workplace regardless. They're not even talking about your workplace.
Honey, if we have to take you to Mancourt we're not going to tell you what deal we made. The Big Boys will decide that in the back room. If you're a good girl, we'll let you read the ruling that says what we're pretending we did.
it still says nothing about the 25% who stayed on the job.
It does, it says the 25% are going to be unhappy about the results, because business people care about numbers.
Business people don't claim to be making decisions based on how fair it will be for individual workers. They do not care about individuals, they care about profit.
It was probably over 90% until the 70s, and it was the 80s when married women really joined the workforce in large numbers. Many of them women who had already left the workforce earlier in life, when they were married! Married women returned to the workforce at the same time that women stopped leaving the workforce upon marriage.
And in the 60s is when cultural views shifted so that young people thought women could do anything they wanted. In the 1950s, most women still believed that women are less capable than men at most serious tasks! It took the 60s for young people to believe that was false, and then the 70s for women to explore personal freedom, and by the late 70s attitudes were starting to normalize.
The problem now is that even though society in general changed a long time ago, we've never driven out the assholes and so there a bunch of hidden roadblocks for women in the workplace. This step is finally happening.
There is a lot of moronic bullshit, starting with "Editor's note: the link could be paywalled." No, asshole, you do know that the it is paywalled, that's why you were providing an alternate link. Why get all mealy-mouthed about it? WSJ is paywalled.
Then it blathers on about how it was written by a millennial without enough knowledge of cultural history to know that women usually did leave professional jobs after being married in those times. A few would try to keep the jobs and complain if they were forced out, but it was somewhat rare. It was only much later in the 70s and 80s when the demand from women to keep those jobs after marriage picked up; and the societal changes allowing it happened rapidly.
It wasn't normally government bureaucrats who were keeping married women out of the work force, it was either the women themselves, or their husbands, depending. They didn't anticipate women leaving those jobs after the war because they were uniquely sexist; women in those jobs also anticipating moving on to other things after the war in most cases.
You can always find the exceptions and trumpet their voices, but it doesn't always really explain what was going on in society. It is simply not the case that women were perfect and enlightened and without stereotypes, and the evil men were mean and held them down. That isn't how it was at all. In reality, men and women were both filled with the exact same gender stereotypes. Everybody was harmed by it. And a small minority outgrew the stereotypes together, and society was seen to have changed.
In fairness, what Timothy Leary was talking about was two or more humans being able to choose their reality together for that sort of activity; I'm sure it was quite obvious to him that the emotional aspect is the important human part.
He did say everybody can have the pixels they deserve, but I don't think it is really intended as encouragement to worry about what boring mindless people will want to use it for.
Also, evolution doesn't care how you spent the rest of your life; unless the machine malfunctions and cuts your equipment off, you might still breed. There is no reason to believe they're not sometimes interested in something else; just like, crackheads still sometimes find time to breed, even though everybody knows they care more about the crack.
OK cluestick, if half the cars are self-driving, and they cause less liabilities, that lowers liability for everybody! That means less crashes for everybody, including less crashes for manually driven cars. Self-driving cars don't crash just because it would be your fault, they actually don't care whose fault it is; if they can stop in time, they will.
Really supper-sloppy thinking all around. And I called you out on viewing it as a "sin tax," and all you did is try to shuffle your sin tax around; you didn't do anything to clean up your thinking and establish where the fuck this extra sin tax is coming from; what causes it to be part of the equation? The other company across the street already isn't charging it, won't I just keep buying insurance there? You just go all hand-wavy and fall off the rails.
You just imagine that good drivers will adopt self-driving cars but you don't have reasons; all you do is measure supposed virtue, and decide that the virtuous people will make good decisions. That isn't the way the world works at all. People who suck at driving often also find driving to be really unpleasant; driving is extra-stressful for people who have already had a few wrecks! That should be obvious. And old people who know darn well that they can't drive worth a shit anymore, but they're not going to give up the freedom that driving brings. Those people are more likely to want a self-driving car, and more likely to be able to afford it too. Those are people you'll think of when you're doing real analysis, instead of just virtue-imagining.
If it is serious or not is a totally different measurement than if it is creeper shit. People who aren't creepers, are still not creepers when they're joking around.
It is a pointless way to be defensive; you have a much greater need to learn what makes you a creeper than to impress me or convince me you're not. You should care more about yourself and not at all about me.
And no, there is absolutely no fucking need for the computer to understand your emotions. The humans are supposed to do that part.
It isn't fake incest, it is just incest-related tags on the website that have become popular.
It isn't intended to imply actual incest, or videos that involve roleplaying incest; just like, "teen" means "looks under 35" or at least "all wrinkles covered with makeup." Everybody knows that thirty-teen is not a real number.
Also on the internet, "technology news" doesn't mean "news about technology," it means "business news about companies with consumer electronics or computer-related products." Same thing; probably even the same marketing firms!
Slashdot Mirror
In my country, cell phones have off buttons. #LivingInTheFuture
No, you're the one introducing that into the conversation.
See also: "The Rule of Goats"
https://twitter.com/popehat/st...
Sometimes it feels like I'm in a video game
You're not.
and a majority of people around me are NPC.
They are.
That's complete nonsense. The 90s wants their "programs aren't compatible" talking points back.
Existing hardware isn't a business need. That is a personal need.
Businesses don't pay for their hardware, taxpayers pay for it.
Net Neutrality is not about the WWW or about servers.
It is about routers.
Internet routers should not discriminate. That is net neutrality. If a server wants to discriminate, that is just Freedom.
This kind of arms race is just going to fragment the 'net, and the consumers like you and me are going to the losers.
No, consumers like you are going to be a loser.
If I don't like it, I don't buy it. Just because you're a moron and fail at your own attempts to vote with your wallet doesn't mean I made the same mistakes.
MBAs don't care what the seminar is supposed to teach, they care about, when you go and rape a coworker, can they show that they took reasonable steps to prevent it? That's all they care about; is the seminar on a list of seminars that help to cover your ass when your underlings do evil?
HR is supposed to be the ones firing the assholes that create a liability! Same pointy hair, different department.
No, usually the bullying is by assholes full of stereotypes. Like you.
It isn't the other nurses doing the bullying, it is the doctors and patients.
What's funny to me is... I'm not a rapist.
I have no idea if you are or not, but you sure sound like one!
The people assembling cars didn't commonly make the leap into designing them, either. And we don't refer to them as "the first automotive engineers."
This is false. Prior to Henry Ford inventing the modern "assembly line," there were lots of engineers who started as apprentices in the factories. The thing about the modern assembly line is that the workers don't need to understand as much anymore; they just need simple jobs and simple, strict rules about how to do that job. So there is no room for an apprentice engineer to be doing it anymore. Now engineers have to learn through a strictly academic program.
In the steam era, you'll find that many of the engineers did in fact get their start as factory workers working for another engineer!
I think it is just that few people are working at age 90 anyways, and so it would be different people in your workplace regardless. They're not even talking about your workplace.
Honey, if we have to take you to Mancourt we're not going to tell you what deal we made. The Big Boys will decide that in the back room. If you're a good girl, we'll let you read the ruling that says what we're pretending we did.
it still says nothing about the 25% who stayed on the job.
It does, it says the 25% are going to be unhappy about the results, because business people care about numbers.
Business people don't claim to be making decisions based on how fair it will be for individual workers. They do not care about individuals, they care about profit.
That happened 20 years ago, why were you still calling it "maternity" leave?
Wow.
30+ isn't the right time period.
It was probably over 90% until the 70s, and it was the 80s when married women really joined the workforce in large numbers. Many of them women who had already left the workforce earlier in life, when they were married! Married women returned to the workforce at the same time that women stopped leaving the workforce upon marriage.
And in the 60s is when cultural views shifted so that young people thought women could do anything they wanted. In the 1950s, most women still believed that women are less capable than men at most serious tasks! It took the 60s for young people to believe that was false, and then the 70s for women to explore personal freedom, and by the late 70s attitudes were starting to normalize.
The problem now is that even though society in general changed a long time ago, we've never driven out the assholes and so there a bunch of hidden roadblocks for women in the workplace. This step is finally happening.
I'm just thankful that society has progressed enough where morons like you get fired the first time they do it now.
There is a lot of moronic bullshit, starting with "Editor's note: the link could be paywalled." No, asshole, you do know that the it is paywalled, that's why you were providing an alternate link. Why get all mealy-mouthed about it? WSJ is paywalled.
Then it blathers on about how it was written by a millennial without enough knowledge of cultural history to know that women usually did leave professional jobs after being married in those times. A few would try to keep the jobs and complain if they were forced out, but it was somewhat rare. It was only much later in the 70s and 80s when the demand from women to keep those jobs after marriage picked up; and the societal changes allowing it happened rapidly.
It wasn't normally government bureaucrats who were keeping married women out of the work force, it was either the women themselves, or their husbands, depending. They didn't anticipate women leaving those jobs after the war because they were uniquely sexist; women in those jobs also anticipating moving on to other things after the war in most cases.
You can always find the exceptions and trumpet their voices, but it doesn't always really explain what was going on in society. It is simply not the case that women were perfect and enlightened and without stereotypes, and the evil men were mean and held them down. That isn't how it was at all. In reality, men and women were both filled with the exact same gender stereotypes. Everybody was harmed by it. And a small minority outgrew the stereotypes together, and society was seen to have changed.
No, not doing it gives you that problem. Clearing the pipes frequently leads to a healthy prostate.
It is probably the only part of the body that benefits!
In fairness, what Timothy Leary was talking about was two or more humans being able to choose their reality together for that sort of activity; I'm sure it was quite obvious to him that the emotional aspect is the important human part.
He did say everybody can have the pixels they deserve, but I don't think it is really intended as encouragement to worry about what boring mindless people will want to use it for.
Also, evolution doesn't care how you spent the rest of your life; unless the machine malfunctions and cuts your equipment off, you might still breed. There is no reason to believe they're not sometimes interested in something else; just like, crackheads still sometimes find time to breed, even though everybody knows they care more about the crack.
OK cluestick, if half the cars are self-driving, and they cause less liabilities, that lowers liability for everybody! That means less crashes for everybody, including less crashes for manually driven cars. Self-driving cars don't crash just because it would be your fault, they actually don't care whose fault it is; if they can stop in time, they will.
Really supper-sloppy thinking all around. And I called you out on viewing it as a "sin tax," and all you did is try to shuffle your sin tax around; you didn't do anything to clean up your thinking and establish where the fuck this extra sin tax is coming from; what causes it to be part of the equation? The other company across the street already isn't charging it, won't I just keep buying insurance there? You just go all hand-wavy and fall off the rails.
You just imagine that good drivers will adopt self-driving cars but you don't have reasons; all you do is measure supposed virtue, and decide that the virtuous people will make good decisions. That isn't the way the world works at all. People who suck at driving often also find driving to be really unpleasant; driving is extra-stressful for people who have already had a few wrecks! That should be obvious. And old people who know darn well that they can't drive worth a shit anymore, but they're not going to give up the freedom that driving brings. Those people are more likely to want a self-driving car, and more likely to be able to afford it too. Those are people you'll think of when you're doing real analysis, instead of just virtue-imagining.
Wow, you got all the way to 5?! I oh, it is generic-viagra-day.
Are you sure the internet is a good way to use that?
If it is serious or not is a totally different measurement than if it is creeper shit. People who aren't creepers, are still not creepers when they're joking around.
It is a pointless way to be defensive; you have a much greater need to learn what makes you a creeper than to impress me or convince me you're not. You should care more about yourself and not at all about me.
And no, there is absolutely no fucking need for the computer to understand your emotions. The humans are supposed to do that part.
It isn't fake incest, it is just incest-related tags on the website that have become popular.
It isn't intended to imply actual incest, or videos that involve roleplaying incest; just like, "teen" means "looks under 35" or at least "all wrinkles covered with makeup." Everybody knows that thirty-teen is not a real number.
Also on the internet, "technology news" doesn't mean "news about technology," it means "business news about companies with consumer electronics or computer-related products." Same thing; probably even the same marketing firms!
You're mistakenly presenting being double-creepy as if it would be a shield to hide your creepiness.
Hint: If you're even talking about one person wearing it, talk about both people wearing it. Parity = Good, groveling at her Pedestal = Creeper