Comment Re:Is it a matter of sexual attraction? (Score 1) 599
I did cover bi. I don't know enough about transsexuals to know where they fit into this schema.
I did cover bi. I don't know enough about transsexuals to know where they fit into this schema.
If it's a matter of not having students who are sexually attracted to each other, they have a serious logistical problem:
I'm not positive, but I think you'd need something like this:
When they ace it, end up in one of the ultra competitive CS schools (or work environment) and haven't been exposed to whatever it is that causes female students to not do well right now, all in one shot? It would even out eventually, but the first few batches will be in for a rude awakening.
Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs! Well, actually, if they're female eggs than the federal government will be all over you. But if they're male eggs, screw `em. Because, you know, equality.
Nice explanation, thanks for taking the time.
I got the sense that you were implying that the right side of history == the more moral position. Is that where you were going with that?
I appreciate your comment. I suspect that everyone is to some extent ideologically driven. I think it matters quite a bit what the ideology is, and what ours is, and how strongly each of us clings to it, if we hope to come to agreement on an issue.
Either way, welcome to the wrong side of history.
Could you explain more about when you mean by being on the "wrong side of history"? I find it an interesting concept, but I'm not positive what you mean by it.
Only an idiot would bother trying to persuade someone called DoofusOfDeath of anything. It's clearly a pointless endeavour.
I find your logic compelling. I am now fully persuaded of the OP's assertion. Well done, sir.
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
You'll need to define those terms carefully before you have any hope of persuading us.
We'll give the NSA expedient access to our encrypted data...
When they'll confess to all possible breaches of our Constitution, and submit to the death penalty for any actual breaches.
Have we got a deal, NSA? Oh, why not? You fucking traitors.
should be required to cease algorithmic trading until they can prove that their trading algorithms are logically equivalent to a particular reference algorithm provided by the FTC!
Coding is NOT Computer Science
I'd like to understand you, but could you please restate that in untyped lambda calculus?
Haircut, beard trim
... not replenishing their Hot Pockets supply in the break-room freezer.
Most news analysts had a guilty verdict as a foregone conclusion, with the real question being whether the bomber would face the death penalty. It's strange that it took 11 and a half hours to reach the verdict.
Because (1) news analysts aren't juries, and (2) we try to be careful when considering whether or not to hold a man culpable for mass-murder.
So as long as my boss tells me it's okay to torture people and routinely violate the Consittution, it's okay?
Fuck you, cowardly anti-democratic traitor.
No, the 9th circle is reserved for Snowden.
Those who defend him would probably be in a lesser circle, if unrepentant.
So our government betrays us and the Constitution, and the person who lets us know is a traitor? Odd reasoning.
Different levels of Hell, at least according to Dante, but I suspect we're pretty much in agreement
Good call. The eigth circle was for fraudsters (Wall Street), but the ninth circle was for traitors (NSA, CIA, Congress, POTUS).
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
