Old news. 15 years ago Philadelphia was trying to build out public WiFi.
Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T had nothing to do with ensuring it failed.
Verizon is far more evil than Comcast or Time Warner. They've been at it longer and are more entrenched and subtle. They're the phone company after all.
The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area.
That's not the problem. Neither do the other two parties and they do fine.
I used to think the problem with third parties was that they do not run for local offices and only focus on national offices unlesd it is a plant designed to siphon votes from a particular canditate in order to let a less desirable one get elected. But after looking around a bit, i have concluded that the honest reality is that third parties simply do not have much support. I tend to disagree with less on issues from a candidate with a big party than i disagree with on with the closest counter part third party. Many people feel the same at least on a local level and a third party is a waste on the national level because they will have to either caucus with a big party or fight both of them and end up being ignored.
Third parties simply are not big tent parties and are likely better off running as one of the big parties through the primary process. An example of this is the tea parties (yes, there are more than one).
Now if you disagree, before replying, think about how the tea party republicans have been treated and explain how any third party trying to do something without even partial support of a big party would do any better.
The problem is that you're (and the rest of us) voting for the two candidates that the "Lesters" have picked for us to vote on. The game is rigged.
Law always trumps private contracts. Private contracts are enforced by law and dependent upon it. If I signed a contract that would make me a slave you couldn't enforce it (not with the legal system at least).
The abstract lists significant % changes for the low-carb group - but doesn't show the numbers for the low-fat group. If the change is significant but tiny then it may as well be insignificant.
Okay grandpa. Just FYI don't be scared of all those loud things out on the roads. They're like buggies only without horses. No they're not run by magic.
init scripts are already a mess of incompatibility across Linux distros. So what if systemd is "yet one more" different? At least it brings proper process management.
This is data mining. If you compare enough things you'll find strange correlations. There is little plausible reason to believe there is an actual causal relationship here.
These are also "irrefutable correlations":
US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation: http://www.tylervigen.com/view...
Number people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with Number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in http://tylervigen.com/view_cor...
Per capita consumption of cheese (US) correlates with Number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets: http://tylervigen.com/view_cor...
I didn't say we can't have "machines that fly." But that we won't have a machine that performs the functions of a "machine that can fly" and a "machine that drives on roads and fits in my parking space at work."
Pick any random story about equality and it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches.
Clarify this for me: Are you saying: 1. Such posts exist, and some get upmodded. - or - 2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.
If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken.
So you're saying he also shouldn't hire any whites either then right? Because that would, by your calculation, discriminate against all other non-white groups too!
But wait - using your logic we've now shown that it is immoral to hire *anybody*. So something must not be right...
Perhaps it is your definition of "discrimination" as "hiring person A rather than person B." Well that is certainly discrimination by a strict definition of the term and is perfectly acceptable.
BUT what we're talking about is "racial and gender discrimination" which is favoring one population over another based on biological rather than qualification attributes. So that's a bit different. From experimentation we know that men will be judged more competent at certain tasks (math, programming, other "male subjects") than women (from double-blinded tests done using the same exact resumes with recognizably male or female names). And we know this affects everybody (men and women across different groups). Then we can assume that Apple is probably discriminating (on at least a subconscious level) against women already if they aren't aware that they are since nothing will have been done to off-set this effect.
So some people would propose off-setting that amount consciously rather than allow it to continue as an unconscious bias in corporate hiring philosophy. They do this by changing hiring methodology (perhaps removing names from resumes, doing phone and remote interviews rather than in-person, etc.). Perhaps they take the percentage they know to be 'bias' and give a slight advantage to the minority (in some cases they will break the tie in favor against the internal bias).
So *this* is what you think will be "reverse-discrimination" then? Offsetting a known bias? I'm interested in hearing how you may think this is wrong - and even *more* interested in hearing your solutions to the problem.
Careful. Your assumptions are very telling. Did you know college girls are often much more likely to be steered away from "male subjects" by counselors? Or to be questioned "are you sure you want to do this?" rather than encouraged? And to be given menial tasks as grad students rather than challenging ones which, while harder, have greater payoff?
Did you just disregard all of the evidence that supports the above (and yes, there is evidence for it) and replace that with "girls don't like hard work?" Or were you genuinely ignorant of the above? If the latter then this is your opportunity to learn. If the former then I'm afraid you have some critical thinking skills to work on.
Your assumption is so horribly flawed. That is to say - you're assuming that the only reason to drop out is due to not being "obsessed with computers enough to excel." To begin with only a small percentage of students are "obsessed" with their subject. Others may be good, great, poor, etc. There's a spectrum. And I would say that the 5% females who did graduate are the ones who were obsessed. But to assume that all 95% of the remaining men *were* obsessed is just flawed reasoning.
When I was in school learning about the resistor color code a *teacher* told the students about the mnemonic "black boys rape only young girls but violet gives willingly." Sadly it's the only one I still remember...
But tell me - what does that do to inspire black students and girls to continue learning about electrical engineering?
What does equality mean to you? Equal access? Equal opportunity? Equal opportunity but only when it doesn't affect you personally?
What would you say if you entered a race that was touted as being fair. Yet participants of one "class" were put much further along the course than you for no better reason than chance (lets say they had even numbers on their shirts and you had odd). Would you consider that to be "equal" or "fair?"
Those scholarships that were specialized to minority groups and females had no affect on you. They were extra opportunities to those groups not removing opportunities from you. They are *in addition* to the other scholarships out there. The fact that you couldn't get one of those other scholarships is your own problem and it's shameful that you would blame minorities who struggle much more than you for something that wasn't their fault.
If the PC-crowd doesn't like it, then they need to encourage more minorities to get the required education and get qualified.
First - replace "the PC-crowd" with "people who are struggling to get a job as a minority." It is demonstrably true that people are more inclined to hire people of their same gender / color (one such source: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...). Cook is recognizing that his company may be guilty of this and is looking to correct it.
Second - what better way to encourage more minorities to get the required education than to show that there are jobs waiting for them and they won't be unduly discriminated against? Cook would be providing the demand for these students need to begin with. Or did you expect a bunch of minorities and women to enter college on a prayer and dream?
It's already a NYT best seller. This isn't some un-read pamphlet. At this point the errors in it need to be addressed. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Old news. 15 years ago Philadelphia was trying to build out public WiFi.
Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T had nothing to do with ensuring it failed.
Verizon is far more evil than Comcast or Time Warner. They've been at it longer and are more entrenched and subtle. They're the phone company after all.
"We don't care, we don't have to. We're The Phone Company."
The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area.
That's not the problem. Neither do the other two parties and they do fine.
I used to think the problem with third parties was that they do not run for local offices and only focus on national offices unlesd it is a plant designed to siphon votes from a particular canditate in order to let a less desirable one get elected. But after looking around a bit, i have concluded that the honest reality is that third parties simply do not have much support. I tend to disagree with less on issues from a candidate with a big party than i disagree with on with the closest counter part third party. Many people feel the same at least on a local level and a third party is a waste on the national level because they will have to either caucus with a big party or fight both of them and end up being ignored.
Third parties simply are not big tent parties and are likely better off running as one of the big parties through the primary process. An example of this is the tea parties (yes, there are more than one).
Now if you disagree, before replying, think about how the tea party republicans have been treated and explain how any third party trying to do something without even partial support of a big party would do any better.
The problem is that you're (and the rest of us) voting for the two candidates that the "Lesters" have picked for us to vote on. The game is rigged.
There are vineyards in NH and upstate NY today. Not all grapes need warm weather. And not all wine made is "good" wine.
Law always trumps private contracts. Private contracts are enforced by law and dependent upon it. If I signed a contract that would make me a slave you couldn't enforce it (not with the legal system at least).
Driving? Is that something like burning gasoline to physically relocate his body?
Oh the horror! Imagine skills that transfer across Linux distributions! I won't LIVE in such a world!
Ahh, I see - I read that wrong. I thought it was the difference of "before vs. after" for the low-carb group.
The abstract lists significant % changes for the low-carb group - but doesn't show the numbers for the low-fat group. If the change is significant but tiny then it may as well be insignificant.
Contrary to the typical libertarian viewpoint not all opinions matter or are worth considering.
My kingdom for mod points...
Okay grandpa. Just FYI don't be scared of all those loud things out on the roads. They're like buggies only without horses. No they're not run by magic.
init scripts are already a mess of incompatibility across Linux distros. So what if systemd is "yet one more" different? At least it brings proper process management.
This is data mining. If you compare enough things you'll find strange correlations. There is little plausible reason to believe there is an actual causal relationship here.
These are also "irrefutable correlations":
US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation:
http://www.tylervigen.com/view...
Number people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with Number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in
http://tylervigen.com/view_cor...
Per capita consumption of cheese (US) correlates with Number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets:
http://tylervigen.com/view_cor...
I didn't say we can't have "machines that fly." But that we won't have a machine that performs the functions of a "machine that can fly" and a "machine that drives on roads and fits in my parking space at work."
AKA a "flying car."
Perhaps more like "we'll never have flying cars."
Click the panel itself. Brings you here:
http://geekwagon.net/projects/...
Very nice example of confirmation bias. You went looking for everything that supported your belief.
Now go look at the down-modded ones as well. As I said - anything not toeing the line is at 1 or 2.
"2 hidden comments"
> How about hiring qualified applicants?
>> "2 hidden comments"
Notice how you only see one side of the conversation?
Pick any random story about equality and it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches.
Clarify this for me: Are you saying:
1. Such posts exist, and some get upmodded.
- or -
2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.
If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken.
http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
I await your action and apology. Very clear pattern of up-mods for misogynistic crap and down-mods for anything not toeing the line.
What a stupid thing to do...
I replace "terrorist" with the word "peace loving hippie" and therefore can conclude that there is no terrorism!
So you're saying he also shouldn't hire any whites either then right? Because that would, by your calculation, discriminate against all other non-white groups too!
But wait - using your logic we've now shown that it is immoral to hire *anybody*. So something must not be right...
Perhaps it is your definition of "discrimination" as "hiring person A rather than person B." Well that is certainly discrimination by a strict definition of the term and is perfectly acceptable.
BUT what we're talking about is "racial and gender discrimination" which is favoring one population over another based on biological rather than qualification attributes. So that's a bit different. From experimentation we know that men will be judged more competent at certain tasks (math, programming, other "male subjects") than women (from double-blinded tests done using the same exact resumes with recognizably male or female names). And we know this affects everybody (men and women across different groups). Then we can assume that Apple is probably discriminating (on at least a subconscious level) against women already if they aren't aware that they are since nothing will have been done to off-set this effect.
So some people would propose off-setting that amount consciously rather than allow it to continue as an unconscious bias in corporate hiring philosophy. They do this by changing hiring methodology (perhaps removing names from resumes, doing phone and remote interviews rather than in-person, etc.). Perhaps they take the percentage they know to be 'bias' and give a slight advantage to the minority (in some cases they will break the tie in favor against the internal bias).
So *this* is what you think will be "reverse-discrimination" then? Offsetting a known bias? I'm interested in hearing how you may think this is wrong - and even *more* interested in hearing your solutions to the problem.
Careful. Your assumptions are very telling. Did you know college girls are often much more likely to be steered away from "male subjects" by counselors? Or to be questioned "are you sure you want to do this?" rather than encouraged? And to be given menial tasks as grad students rather than challenging ones which, while harder, have greater payoff?
Did you just disregard all of the evidence that supports the above (and yes, there is evidence for it) and replace that with "girls don't like hard work?" Or were you genuinely ignorant of the above? If the latter then this is your opportunity to learn. If the former then I'm afraid you have some critical thinking skills to work on.
Obligatory XKCD even: http://xkcd.com/385/
Your assumption is so horribly flawed. That is to say - you're assuming that the only reason to drop out is due to not being "obsessed with computers enough to excel." To begin with only a small percentage of students are "obsessed" with their subject. Others may be good, great, poor, etc. There's a spectrum. And I would say that the 5% females who did graduate are the ones who were obsessed. But to assume that all 95% of the remaining men *were* obsessed is just flawed reasoning.
When I was in school learning about the resistor color code a *teacher* told the students about the mnemonic "black boys rape only young girls but violet gives willingly." Sadly it's the only one I still remember...
But tell me - what does that do to inspire black students and girls to continue learning about electrical engineering?
What does equality mean to you? Equal access? Equal opportunity? Equal opportunity but only when it doesn't affect you personally?
What would you say if you entered a race that was touted as being fair. Yet participants of one "class" were put much further along the course than you for no better reason than chance (lets say they had even numbers on their shirts and you had odd). Would you consider that to be "equal" or "fair?"
Those scholarships that were specialized to minority groups and females had no affect on you. They were extra opportunities to those groups not removing opportunities from you. They are *in addition* to the other scholarships out there. The fact that you couldn't get one of those other scholarships is your own problem and it's shameful that you would blame minorities who struggle much more than you for something that wasn't their fault.
If the PC-crowd doesn't like it, then they need to encourage more minorities to get the required education and get qualified.
First - replace "the PC-crowd" with "people who are struggling to get a job as a minority." It is demonstrably true that people are more inclined to hire people of their same gender / color (one such source: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...). Cook is recognizing that his company may be guilty of this and is looking to correct it.
Second - what better way to encourage more minorities to get the required education than to show that there are jobs waiting for them and they won't be unduly discriminated against? Cook would be providing the demand for these students need to begin with. Or did you expect a bunch of minorities and women to enter college on a prayer and dream?
It's already a NYT best seller. This isn't some un-read pamphlet. At this point the errors in it need to be addressed. Ignoring it won't make it go away.