Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Well that's a town to avoid. (Score 1) 760

Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.

Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina. Or if Clinton had been indicted for getting a blowjob, rather than for perjury and obstruction of justice (both of which he was clearly *guilty* of -- the politicians of his own party just declined to *impeach* him for it).

More generally speaking, in a thread about ignorance, your whole post doesn't exactly come across as Nobel Prize-winning stuff. I guess maybe it felt clever to you when you wrote it, but I feel like I should advise you it doesn't really come across that way to others.

lllll AJ

Comment A possible explanation (Score 1) 301

So here we have a paper about *sexism*, garnering a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.

So, this would suggest to me (not by any means an expert) that the reviewer was quite aware of what he was saying -- he was being sarcastic, and/or trying to be funny. In other words, the over-the-top sexist tone was deliberate.

Wise? Probably not. But people often try to make points in misguided ways, and of those, sarcasm probably leads the pack. I'm reminded of the Justine Sacco controversy. Sacco, if you recall, was the flack who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just Kidding. I'm White!" So all the Right-Thinking People were all outraged. Except, Sacco is a Good Progressive. Her tweet was (obviously, to some of us) an attempt to sarcastically tweak White Privilege. (Picture her saying it while rolling her eyes.)

Same idea might apply here.

Comment Re:Strictly speaking... (Score 1) 417

Hey, Mr. Science: Were you trying to give us textbook examples of both Argument Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority?

Save me your sputtering but nonsensical reply (which is what you guys ALWAYS respond with, every time, without fail). tompaulco presented facts. Are they correct? I don't know - but I know even less after your reply, which just makes everyone who reads it a little stupider. If the information exists to refute it ... well, why not present THAT, and really look smart, instead of spouting your textbook examples of logical fallacies?

Comment Re:"Getting whiter" (Score 1) 496

No, no, he was talking about Japan, right? Or, no, wait -- Switzerland?

Well, let's see what Google ("World's most peaceful countries") gives us.

Iceland tops that list, followed by Denmark, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Japan, Belgium and Norway.

[Scanning list for diversity] ... Well ... let's see ... Those are some startlingly homogeneous cultures. I guess New Zealand is a bit diverse? No, not really -- 69 percent are "New Zealand European." OK. Canada? Well, according to Wikipedia, their largest non-European ethnicity is Chinese at ... 4.31 percent.

Bottom line: Evidence that more homogeneity means more strife = ... zero.

lllll AJ

Comment Re:Here we go again (Score 1) 496

You live in a libertarian fantasy land where wages have much at all to do with competition.

I don't understand. I've read that for most large companies, at least, wages and associated benefits are their primary expense. Is that not true? I didn't read it in some libertarian fantasy newsletter -- it was on Forbes or the WSJ or something.

Comment I have a suggestion as to where to get funding (Score 1) 198

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) just announced that it will be spending $31 million to "enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce."

$31 million seem like it would buy ... a lot of diversity ... I guess.

Maybe some of the money could be diverted toward actual research like this.

lllll AJ

Submission + - What You Must Know About the Products (2penniesworth.info)

morganjlbv writes: Be as detailed as possible when advertising a product. Studies show that profuse explanations are needed by substantial percentages of the citizenry about the advantages of these products they may be thinking of buying to be able to be convinced. If customers truly consider the marketing, they'll be much more willing to buy the product. Researchers have found that many people will trust a web site with several paragraphs of info about a product over a website that's very succinct.

Comment Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (Score 0) 389

"Scum"?

I have no dog in this fight -- I wouldn't know Watt from Adam. I'm only commenting because I'm curious -- you do realize, right, then when people talk about how the science gets drowned out by immature idiots spouting partisan garbage, that they're talking about people like you? Right?

lllll AJ

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...