You make it sound almost as if you don't know that most linux kernel work happens by people who are... at work.
And that even if they're not at work, they might want to gain professional benefit in the future from having done it, so they would need to tell people who they are.
And yet, when Torvalds conflates substantive complaints that are worth addressing with non-substantive complaints he didn't even need to bring up, then it seems instead he has something to feel guilty about right there.
That much is true without even trying to cherry-pick which particular complaints to complain about their having been made in hopes of signaling virtue to some faction.
Associating your enemies with a greater common enemy has always been a tactic, the nazis themselves did that too.
Now you have a group of people who are demonising those who simply want to get on with their work, who is the real villain?
If they're going out of their way to ambiguously appear as if they might be supporting nazis, but they're hedging, then I'm definitely concerned they're a real villain.
Gosh darn hippies, what do you mean it is murder if I shoot somebody in front of my own house?!
What if he looked wrong? What if I promise that his presence frightened me? What if I promise that when I saw him bend over to fix his hair in the side mirror of my parked car, I thought he was gonna steal me radio?!
Murder isn't any less political than other laws.
But are all rules equally as political as a law? I would say no. If I am allowed to shoot you for saying something I don't like while in my living room, that is political. But is it political for me to ask you to leave when you say something I don't like? That part doesn't get political until you have to call the police to remove them, ie, invoke a law. Or in the workplace, if I own the business, is it actually "political" if I make rules? Or is it only political once there are accusations that my rules violate the law? If my rules merely suck, but everybody agrees I own the business and my rules are legal, then where is the politics? There isn't any.
Cut the grass to exactly my specifications, and quit making excuses, or I'll find somebody else to do it.
Wait, wait, wait, slow down cowboy. Which is it, twitter storms, which a protected speech, or smashing windows?
You seem to be a little confused about what you're against.
So to be clear, you stand up for the rights of people to twitter-storm against you... right? That's what you're trying to protect when you're talking about free speech... right?
I don't think that all forms of criticism should be conflated with political incorrectness. In the context of a contribution to a software project, "This idea won't work" is politically neutral. "This idea won't work, and you're a bimbo for suggesting it" is politically incorrect.
Why do you interpret intentional pejoratives as "political?" You don't even notice that that is an absurdity on the level of the Sunday comics, do you?
And neutral would be, "This idea is optimized for certain use cases." Or "this idea would work, but hasn't yet been analyzed to see if it fits in the system."
If you're saying it won't work, you're opposing it.
So I don't agree with either side of what you're saying; opposing something isn't neutral, and pejoratives are not political.
Yeah, I for one find it blatantly absurd for him to claim he's gonna try to stop being a raging asshole, and then come out and call concerns about accessibility "political."
News flash, asshole:
*) Complaints about swearing are not the complaints that causes people to request a Code of Conduct. *) Complaints about access are not "political" complaints *) Just write out the words "Code of Conduct" instead of calling it a CoC as if you're still a giant dick-head.
Fox News isn't telling you what "the Left" is. They're not even on the left.
It is the same as if I went to hippie bookstore to ask, "Who is the Right? What do they believe in?" It would be a different answer than if I asked people actually on the right.
I know it is hard, but it is also really important.
Government lawyers get paid a salary, they don't get a cut of the State's winnings.
When they bring a case like this, it is a bunch of hard work that they have to fit into their schedule, for the same pay as if they don't do it.
And in this case, a few of the larger states did all the work, and the rest just phoned in their agreement.
The only way any of this money goes to riders and drivers is if any of them are American citizens, residents, or visitors. In that case they would benefit via their State.
You are right, but prepare to be punished for not towing the biological essentialism line.
Not likely.
* Married, so don't care about social "consequences" unless my wife does. And she doesn't. * I live in a State where the Constitution demands us to implement our equal rights by not discriminating at all in the workplace based on sex or a long list of other things. We're supposed to try to live the goal and treat people as unique individuals. People who believe in biological essentialism are risking real punishment if they also act based on those beliefs. * People support biological essentialism because they don't understand that the tails are symmetrical, and that basal populations contain the highest performing outliers, not the specialist populations. If people understood even just that detail, and internalized it, they would no longer even have the emotional desire for essentialism to be correct.
That isn't a shadow profile.... the user never provided to Facebook but was presumably attached by other sources.
So, you're saying it is not a True Shadow Account, because it is only a Shadow Data Related To An Account.
That seems to submarine your blathering, without even getting to the part where you say, "Golly, somebody else might be doing it too, so it can't be wrong. Bad things can only happen once."
But do you believe that women really do have an innate advantage in non-STEM subjects?
And why are there certain very specific exceptions to this rule? The classic example is the difference between nurses and doctors.
Simple, the subjects in the study are things like Math and English. As is widely known, boys are encouraged to play more athletically than girls, and girls are more likely to be encouraged to play quietly, in a small area, ideally while sitting in a chair. So if they have more than 2 brain cells, they spend an increased time reading, and they therefore have an increased personal value placed on writing.
Boys are given enhanced encouragement for being good at math, but they're also given enhanced encouragement for not sitting still too much. Compared to reading, where boys are not given enhanced encouragement for being good at reading, OR for sitting still. So it makes perfect sense that the irrational inputs counteract each other on one subject, but not all subjects.
Girls are also more likely to be given encouragement for aesthetically appealing chirography, which would naturally enhance their individual value for what others think of their writing, also leading to enhanced scores.
If you had two groups of children of the same gender, and you treated the groups in these different ways, you'd expect very similar outcomes just from that. Both in preferences, and average abilities.
Insisting on equality of outcome (such as perfect gender balance) is tyranny.
I remember in 1998 I asked a female friend with a high IQ how society should go about creating gender balance in technical jobs like computer programming, and she told me it wasn't a reasonable goal because women have less interest in being toolmakers than men; if they have the same technical education, a lower percentage of the women will want to be toolmakers.
Outcome as measured by STEM scores might be irrelevant to average preferences. And average preferences might also be irrelevant to individual preferences. Leading to a complete wash on that part, in the best case, and a bunch of confused nonsense in every direction in the worst case.
Maybe society should figure out the morals and ethics of how tool makers and tool users share the benefits of those actions first, and then circle back and see if we even still need to worry about the ratio of average preferences vs reproductive bits.
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
There's no absolute way to exclude them, that I'm aware of. But that's not really how science works. We don't have to exclude every single possibility before drawing a conclusion, or we would never be able to draw any conclusions at all.
Horseshit. If science can't answer all the questions you can think up, it just means science can't answer all the questions you can think up. The difficulty of answering certain questions using science simply calls into question the attempt to answer them using science; it does not in fact lower the bar of what is science just so that you can have an answer that says "science" next to it.
Maybe most of the reasons people are asking the question are ethical rather than scientific in the first place, and the only role of the studies is to prove again and again that science still can't solve this? Maybe instead the solutions will have to be based on ethics and policy, which are non-scientific but still have measurable objective components?
Slashdot Mirror
Any post that is anti-[some race] is racist, duh.
Duh.
You make it sound almost as if you don't know that most linux kernel work happens by people who are... at work.
And that even if they're not at work, they might want to gain professional benefit in the future from having done it, so they would need to tell people who they are.
That's why he's still tilting at strawmen; he's still worried about being associated with bad people, instead of worrying if his own behavior was bad.
And yet, when Torvalds conflates substantive complaints that are worth addressing with non-substantive complaints he didn't even need to bring up, then it seems instead he has something to feel guilty about right there.
That much is true without even trying to cherry-pick which particular complaints to complain about their having been made in hopes of signaling virtue to some faction.
Associating your enemies with a greater common enemy has always been a tactic, the nazis themselves did that too.
Now you have a group of people who are demonising those who simply want to get on with their work, who is the real villain?
If they're going out of their way to ambiguously appear as if they might be supporting nazis, but they're hedging, then I'm definitely concerned they're a real villain.
Gosh darn hippies, what do you mean it is murder if I shoot somebody in front of my own house?!
What if he looked wrong? What if I promise that his presence frightened me? What if I promise that when I saw him bend over to fix his hair in the side mirror of my parked car, I thought he was gonna steal me radio?!
Murder isn't any less political than other laws.
But are all rules equally as political as a law? I would say no. If I am allowed to shoot you for saying something I don't like while in my living room, that is political. But is it political for me to ask you to leave when you say something I don't like? That part doesn't get political until you have to call the police to remove them, ie, invoke a law. Or in the workplace, if I own the business, is it actually "political" if I make rules? Or is it only political once there are accusations that my rules violate the law? If my rules merely suck, but everybody agrees I own the business and my rules are legal, then where is the politics? There isn't any.
Cut the grass to exactly my specifications, and quit making excuses, or I'll find somebody else to do it.
Wait, wait, wait, slow down cowboy. Which is it, twitter storms, which a protected speech, or smashing windows?
You seem to be a little confused about what you're against.
So to be clear, you stand up for the rights of people to twitter-storm against you... right? That's what you're trying to protect when you're talking about free speech... right?
If you check history, that really is how it works with Nazis. People not against them are for them.
If you consider X-ism to be just a matter of "political correctness," guess what? I found the X-ist!
I don't think that all forms of criticism should be conflated with political incorrectness. In the context of a contribution to a software project, "This idea won't work" is politically neutral. "This idea won't work, and you're a bimbo for suggesting it" is politically incorrect.
Why do you interpret intentional pejoratives as "political?" You don't even notice that that is an absurdity on the level of the Sunday comics, do you?
And neutral would be, "This idea is optimized for certain use cases." Or "this idea would work, but hasn't yet been analyzed to see if it fits in the system."
If you're saying it won't work, you're opposing it.
So I don't agree with either side of what you're saying; opposing something isn't neutral, and pejoratives are not political.
fuck if you can't take a bit of foul language i suggest you fuck off to a convent..
In the context of what you replied to, I can say, it isn't that you said "fuck," it is that you said "fuck off."
It has nothing to do with the "foul" part, it is the "asshole" part that is bothersome.
Yeah, I for one find it blatantly absurd for him to claim he's gonna try to stop being a raging asshole, and then come out and call concerns about accessibility "political."
News flash, asshole:
*) Complaints about swearing are not the complaints that causes people to request a Code of Conduct.
*) Complaints about access are not "political" complaints
*) Just write out the words "Code of Conduct" instead of calling it a CoC as if you're still a giant dick-head.
*Newsvertainment Flash!*
Fox News isn't telling you what "the Left" is. They're not even on the left.
It is the same as if I went to hippie bookstore to ask, "Who is the Right? What do they believe in?" It would be a different answer than if I asked people actually on the right.
I know it is hard, but it is also really important.
Googleâ(TM)s illegal âoewi-spyâ
You lost me at "âoewi-spyâ"
Government lawyers get paid a salary, they don't get a cut of the State's winnings.
When they bring a case like this, it is a bunch of hard work that they have to fit into their schedule, for the same pay as if they don't do it.
And in this case, a few of the larger states did all the work, and the rest just phoned in their agreement.
The only way any of this money goes to riders and drivers is if any of them are American citizens, residents, or visitors. In that case they would benefit via their State.
And yet.
You are right, but prepare to be punished for not towing the biological essentialism line.
Not likely.
* Married, so don't care about social "consequences" unless my wife does. And she doesn't.
* I live in a State where the Constitution demands us to implement our equal rights by not discriminating at all in the workplace based on sex or a long list of other things. We're supposed to try to live the goal and treat people as unique individuals. People who believe in biological essentialism are risking real punishment if they also act based on those beliefs.
* People support biological essentialism because they don't understand that the tails are symmetrical, and that basal populations contain the highest performing outliers, not the specialist populations. If people understood even just that detail, and internalized it, they would no longer even have the emotional desire for essentialism to be correct.
That isn't a shadow profile. ... the user never provided to Facebook but was presumably attached by other sources.
So, you're saying it is not a True Shadow Account, because it is only a Shadow Data Related To An Account.
That seems to submarine your blathering, without even getting to the part where you say, "Golly, somebody else might be doing it too, so it can't be wrong. Bad things can only happen once."
Your point seems to only be, "I didn't want privacy, why did anybody else want any?"
I remember in the 1980s in middle school, there were about an equal number of boys and girls in the advanced math class.
Keyboarding class was close to even.
Computer Applications class was close to even.
Programming was mostly boys.
After school hanging out in the computer lab was mostly boys.
But do you believe that women really do have an innate advantage in non-STEM subjects?
And why are there certain very specific exceptions to this rule? The classic example is the difference between nurses and doctors.
Simple, the subjects in the study are things like Math and English. As is widely known, boys are encouraged to play more athletically than girls, and girls are more likely to be encouraged to play quietly, in a small area, ideally while sitting in a chair. So if they have more than 2 brain cells, they spend an increased time reading, and they therefore have an increased personal value placed on writing.
Boys are given enhanced encouragement for being good at math, but they're also given enhanced encouragement for not sitting still too much. Compared to reading, where boys are not given enhanced encouragement for being good at reading, OR for sitting still. So it makes perfect sense that the irrational inputs counteract each other on one subject, but not all subjects.
Girls are also more likely to be given encouragement for aesthetically appealing chirography, which would naturally enhance their individual value for what others think of their writing, also leading to enhanced scores.
If you had two groups of children of the same gender, and you treated the groups in these different ways, you'd expect very similar outcomes just from that. Both in preferences, and average abilities.
I can haz neckbaerd? I can haz standards?
slashdiot has gurlz?
You totally forgot about the grits, didn't you?
Insisting on equality of outcome (such as perfect gender balance) is tyranny.
I remember in 1998 I asked a female friend with a high IQ how society should go about creating gender balance in technical jobs like computer programming, and she told me it wasn't a reasonable goal because women have less interest in being toolmakers than men; if they have the same technical education, a lower percentage of the women will want to be toolmakers.
Outcome as measured by STEM scores might be irrelevant to average preferences. And average preferences might also be irrelevant to individual preferences. Leading to a complete wash on that part, in the best case, and a bunch of confused nonsense in every direction in the worst case.
Maybe society should figure out the morals and ethics of how tool makers and tool users share the benefits of those actions first, and then circle back and see if we even still need to worry about the ratio of average preferences vs reproductive bits.
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
There's no absolute way to exclude them, that I'm aware of. But that's not really how science works. We don't have to exclude every single possibility before drawing a conclusion, or we would never be able to draw any conclusions at all.
Horseshit. If science can't answer all the questions you can think up, it just means science can't answer all the questions you can think up. The difficulty of answering certain questions using science simply calls into question the attempt to answer them using science; it does not in fact lower the bar of what is science just so that you can have an answer that says "science" next to it.
Maybe most of the reasons people are asking the question are ethical rather than scientific in the first place, and the only role of the studies is to prove again and again that science still can't solve this? Maybe instead the solutions will have to be based on ethics and policy, which are non-scientific but still have measurable objective components?
I was always pretty good at street biology.
Road pizza is an often-overlooked specialty with limited competition, I can see how it might be appealing in this over-degreed academic environment.
Though it might suggest it a reevaluation of the pros and cons of academic work compared to commercial work.