Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

Either tell me where I said someone was wrong simply because I disagreed with them or concede that you just attempted a rather pathetic strawman.

I have reasons... logical falsifiable rational reasons for EVERYTHING. If you haven't seen it yet, then you just haven't seen it yet. its there. And I would be HAPPY to point it out or repeat myself if you so much as ask.

I am hyper rational, sport. I don't make dumb logical errors. If I make any kind of error, then I admit it immediately and thank the person that pointed it out. I then adapt my thinking to take that into consideration which often as not requires almost no change because the error was a logical typo.

You just strawmanned me. I am putting on notice simply because I don't want you think that you can make such things the basis of any rebuttal against me. They stand out like a striptease in a church choir. I will notice them every single time and strip them out of your argument. And when people use fallacies they tend to not have anything else in their argument. The fallacy tends to be fundamental. Which means when I strip it out, your argument will probably collapse.

To avoid your argument collapsing and me insulting you for it... please avoid fallacies. They're a stupid way to make a point.

Comment: Re:Why is this a good thing again? (Score 1) 153

by Karmashock (#49503029) Attached to: The Upsides of a Surveillance Society

You're assuming that anyone would look at stuff like that. They wouldn't.

At best you'd create a lot of videos that no one watches while the elites scour through them using robotic algorithms and sort of paid sweatshop labor to find videos that advance their interests.

In no way is something like this ever going to help the public.

Comment: Why is this a good thing again? (Score 5, Insightful) 153

by Karmashock (#49501255) Attached to: The Upsides of a Surveillance Society

Yes, people shouldn't be raging assholes but in what way is shaming the occasional raging asshole justification for a surveillance society?

This like... pros and cons of an alien invasion from outer space.

On the down side we're all going to be slaves.

But on the plus side we have ray guns now. We don't control the ray guns... they're mostly pointed at us and our overlords exploit their advantages ruthlessly... but hey... ray guns.

I mean seriously, do we control these cameras at all? No. They're not controlled by the public. The public in fact didn't even want them. They were IMPOSED and they serve the whims of whomever is in charge of the security system.

So we're told "hey good news guys, the upside of the alien invasion is that your alien overlords will occasionally disintegrate the occasionally asshole of your pathetic squishy species. ALL HAIL YOUR TENTACLE MASTERS!"

What the actual fuck.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

Also an interesting video to check out:

It is funny by the way... it isn't a dry boring video... it full of information though and possibly if watched it you'd see what I was talking about.

The data so far as you understand it... is a lie. Made for political convenience. And it has been a lie since the 1970s. And everyone that has bothered to look into it has known that since the 1970s.

The wage gap falls within the margin of error very quickly when you control for a few variables. The department of labor knows this, the big political parties know it, all the big politicians know it, all the gender advocacy groups know it... the only people that don't know it are the peasants in the middle that the nobles try to use like cannon fodder between them in their various wars.

Don't be an ignorant peasant. Inform yourself.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

So you're saying that if you were trolled by the same AC for weeks on end that you'd not snap at any AC that sounded remarkably like that AC?

Want to put that to the test. Login. I'll troll you as an AC until you decide it isn't what you agree with me.

You're wrong. And your lack of imagination speaks poorly for you.

Comment: The dude pushes faith healing... (Score 2) 296

by Karmashock (#49498819) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

... and like... alternative crystal healing... so... why is he not simply tased when he sets foot on the property? Possibly have some gentlemen run out with a big butterfly net, then give him a shirt with really long sleeves... and then give him a nice quite room with pillows on the walls.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

If you're not claiming I don't have to show why then your post just collapses into nothing but meaningless trolls and insults.

As usual.

Then you go on to say that I'm not providing a "why" despite saying at the beginning that I don't have to... You are a halfwit.

Then you conflate "why" with causation. Which is also stupid because they're not the same thing, twit.

Skipping over more mindless insults...

and that's the end of your post.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

Sockpuppetting yourself isn't convincing.

Furthermore, you didn't establish why a "why" was needed.

Why is not needed for causation, little one. "Why" is needed for moral judgement.

Your sad attempts at trolling fail because you lack the wit to actually challenge my arguments. All you've got is your ignorance of your own failure an annoying indifference to being proven wrong.

As I've said many times... You're the black knight. I can hack off your arms and legs... and you'll sit there on the ground challenging me to a fight as if you didn't already lose.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

Are you saying that viagra doesn't give you an erection or did you just concede?

Because if it does CAUSE an errection then you have causation.

Causation does not require you understand a thing merely that you know X input leads to Y output. What happens inbetween is not required for causation.

What you're transparnetly attempting is to throw my own words back in my face to catch me in hypocrisy and self contradiction.

The problem you're going to run into here is that I don't make those sorts of errors. The error you are attempting to exploit does not exist.

When I asked for a WHY, that was not linked to causation. The WHY was required for moral judgment.

And in any case, I'm not especially attached to some study out of france about grades given to children. It doesn't especially matter. The only point was to show that there are datums that suggest the winds blow in other directions.

I don't need to prove female preference. I merely need to undermine the argument that suggests that male preference exists.

I don't need to defend the article at all... I just throw it out there like a leaf in the wind. Where it goes is none of my concern.

All you'll do by undermining my position is leave us with an inconclusive gray.

I am blowing on houses of cards. I like to watch them flutter and fall.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

So the FDA doesn't determine various drugs cause the various healing effects prior to approving them for doctors to proscribe to treat those illnesses?

Do you see how bad your logic is here? I mean... I laid it out for you in the previous post and you didn't figure it out... you just thought you had something to troll me with and you could keep going.

Never mind that I annihilated it in about two seconds. You're still waving the burned tatters of your argument in front of me like you're not already done.

You are little more than a living reminder of why the real world is better than the internet... Real people can be locked in little white rooms and fed mind destroying quantities of sedatives when they act like crazy people. Here on the internet, we just have to suffer through this shit.

Kindly troll someone else with your idiocy... I'd had to tolerate far more of this crap from you than any one person should have to bare.

Please... Fuck off.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a study that said the opposite? (Score 1) 499

I had to scrabble around for a link and I wanted one you'd accept. I found one on ThinkProgress which is a leftwingy bloggy place.

And they cite some re-visitation of the 1977 study here:

In it they're of course upset that women that have children are paid less than women that don't have children. That is their big complaint. As if it is the company's fault that someone took a few years off work or decided to take an easier career track because they wanted to spend more time with their children.

But the fun thing is that these people are so biased that they don't realize they're doing all the work for me here. By their citation the pay discrepancy falls to 7 percent if you exclude mothers and that has been true by their citation since 1977. I remembered the numbers differently... I remembered about 2 percent and 1972. But I could have gotten that wrong.

Now, lets revisit the wage gap discussion with the understanding that the actual wage gap is closer to 7 percent or women are paid 93% as much as women. Not 77 percent... 93 percent. That is a huge difference.

Now, that remaining 7 percent... who knows what the fuck that is... there could even be some honest to god discrimination in there. But are you going to start a holy gender crusade on 7 percent? No you're not. It isn't big enough to get anyone freaking out about it. It isn't politically useful. So you don't hear 7 percent. You hear 35 percent or something because that is big enough to get people angry. Only its bullshit. Which means the people angry about it are like those morons in the congress of Idiocracy that are too stupid to actually process a complicated or audit a falsified argument.

Now, if you want to talk about the remaining 7 percent, we can do that... I think that is an interesting topic but even then you can't just say the 7 percent is discrimination. Some of it might be... who knows. But you have a lot of variables to process in that. All told you know that under analysis you're going to lose a few percentage points at least. Which means if there is discrimination that is even statistically significant... you're going to be looking at something like a couple percent. A couple pennies on the dollar. And even one percent is unfair and wrong... but life isn't fair. I'm not getting excited or going to hold a grand inquisition over a couple percent. Which is at most the sort of discrimination that is actually real. And that assumes that the discrimination doesn't actually go in the opposite direction. As we saw in a couple other studies there are situations where women are favored for no apparent reason.

So it could be that the men that are getting paid more are actually getting UNDER paid because they're significantly overworking beyond what the women are doing. You don't know.

The point is that indifferent to any of that, if the number falls to 7 percent when you remove motherhood... it is generally speaking a bullshit issue. You have to admit that. Am I wrong? Is 7 percent enough for you to go on a rampage over it? Or like me, do you feel that they would need to show more discrimination than that to justify significant political and cultural effort? And keep in mind again, that 7 percent is still bullshit in and of itself because we haven't filtered out a half dozen other things that are going to push that number lower. I have no idea what would be left after that. It could be negative 10 for all either of us know.

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.