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


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:Given his record, why am I listening to him? (Score 1) 369

by Karmashock (#49389971) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

As to me stating my opinion, it isn't my opinion. He has been caught repeatedly lifting material from other people as well as using bogus attributions.

Whether this is due to laziness, time constraints, or a general lack of ethics is debatable. But that is a fact.

As to me using that to frame my whole discussion, I didn't.

That's you lying again. I instead stated my impression of the person and then moved on to discuss the issue without referencing him again.

That's a fact. I know you don't like facts. But the Sun doesn't care if you don't like it... it is still going to rise tomorrow in the east and set in the west... and you'll still be full of shit.

Good day, chump.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 357

You are just addicted to logical fallacies apparently...

Nope. Case in point: I don't need to know why someone says "all men are smelly violent thugs who will rape women given the opportunity" to know that they're a bigoted fool.
False equivalency. You have evidence of behavior but not attitudes. Your example also was giving REASONS for why someone should be avoided while the study included no reasons at all. A reason is a why.

Your study includes none of that.

A better example would be:

""we have evidence that women will cross the street statistically in when groups of men approach.""

That includes no why or reasoning. We can infer it but those inferences will be suppositions and not conclusive.

What is more, my example like the article includes no context. For example, in my study what is the significance of the danger in the neighborhood itself? Maybe in my study, what is going on is that women do that in bad neighborhoods but not good neighborhoods. And simply because it happens in bad neighborhoods, if you combine the two data sets, the average is still that women tend to do that.

In this way, you'd have misrepresented the data by implying that the casual factor is that it is men and not that it is men in a bad neighborhood.

Statistics are complicated and really most people don't have the logical discipline to be able to deal with them. People tend to mistake their biases and assumptions for being causal evidence. It doesn't work that way.

You're reading more into the data than is actually there.

As to you not speaking to motivations, then you can't cite bias or prejudice. That is a why.

As to reasons being of cold comfort, the reasons would give you the ability to address any problem if it exists at all. Absent reasons you don't know why it is happening and you don't know how to fix it. You just have some statistics. Absent the why you can't criticize or point to this as being evidence of prejudice.

The why is quite important, I am afraid. You need it to morally and ethically judge the issue.

You are attempting to use this study to make a moral and ethical point. You can't do that without the "why".

As to plenty of women disagreeing with universal suffrage, the majority of MEN agreed with it or women wouldn't have it today.

We're talking about statistics. Statistical outliers are not going to help you because we're talking about averages. You can't cite the possibility that some small portion of women might be biased against women when the study was showing that the women are JUST as likely as the men to do it and that they were doing it with some consistency.

You're not rational enough to have this discussion. You need to be much more anal and literal with your data... or you really can't delve into statistics to this degree. I know that comes off as insulting and that isn't my intention. The issue is that you're not taking the data seriously enough or limiting your conclusions to the scope of the data itself. If you don't do that then you start spewing bullshit.

I'm regret that this has become hostile and personal and that you're going to feel badly towards me here after. That was not my intention and I regret the inevitability of it.

I ask only this going forward... consider what the data actually is LITERALLY saying and process it literally. I'm struggling for examples to express the problem. It is sort of like when you play minesweeper or sodoku and you mistake a high probability of something for conclusive proof of it. It works out most of the time but the likelihood of something is not evidence of it. And every so often when you just run on those hunches and assumptions you screw yourself because it turned out the assumption was wrong.

Keep in mind, I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. I believe in the equality of the sexes and if and when there are problems there, I think we should look into them so we can address those problems.

However, it is important to remember that equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome. Some statistics may never balance. We may never have as many women working in financial banking as we do in maternity wards. That doesn't mean that women are being discriminated against in investment banking.

Some jobs require a given personality type or philosophy to be successful or even competent. And for various reasons the sexes have different distributions of these personality types which in itself is going to lead to statistical differences.

There are lots of other things that could happen that don't have anything to do with prejudice or discrimination. And it is not helpful when examining these things to immediately approach them from the perspective of a moral crusader. You're not helping anyone with that. You're alienating people, making people feel defensive, making people clamp down in self defense, and generally making any investigation of the issue much more complicated and time consuming.

I am not your enemy. I am not an idiot. And I am not a bad person. I am trying to address this issue in an adult, measured, , and rational manner. While I am sure you mean well, I don't think you're being so kneejerk and group think about the issue that you're not actually engaging your brain. I don't think you're stupid or ignorant. I think you might lack some intellectual discipline so you can compartmentalize your feelings appropriately. But beyond that, I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent, educated, and reasonable person.

I regret that our discussions left something to be desired and hope that in the future we can have more productive engagements.


Comment: Re:I hate this day (Score 1) 167

by Karmashock (#49386959) Attached to: Tatooine Youth Suspected In Terrorist Attack

Actually, you take me far more seriously than I take either you or myself COMBINED. You are literally stalking me on this forum in your AC sockpuppet in a pathetic attempt to eek out some revenge for getting your underwear rhetorically wedged so hard your gender flipped.

You're never going to win against me. I've more intelligence, more education, and more experience... you're like some savage in a canoe challenging a space ship. You're so fucking far out of your league you literally give me the giggles every time you make another pathetic attempt to redeem yourself.

*rolls eyes*

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 357

The reason for their behaviour is interesting, but I don't know what it is

And checkmate.

You don't know the reason for the behavior. And absent a "why" you can't cite bigotry or prejudice.

The "why" is critical. And without that you can't speak to the motivations of anyone making any of those choices.

The allegation is sexual discrimination. You don't know that. You know that decisions are being made on a single variable but you don't know WHY.

The fact that both sexes are making the same choice suggests that it is not discrimination. It does not prove that it is not however it does suggest that.

The only theory to the contrary would be your subconscious bias theory which is incredibly thin.

At best, what you have is grounds to do a more involved study and make contact with the managers to ask them why they offered one price to one person and another price for another.

Until that happens you don't have "why" which means the underlying motivations shall remain unknown.

Which is the best evidence you've got so far apparently. Unknown. *golf clap*

Comment: Re:I hate this day (Score 1) 167

by Karmashock (#49385657) Attached to: Tatooine Youth Suspected In Terrorist Attack

When I saw I got a message from an AC in this thread, I KNEW you were going to make my day.

You ARE trolling me! :D


That's fucking priceless. You're so butt hurt over getting raped in the previous discussions that you're following me around on Slashdot to make stupid comments under your AC name.

Too funny.

Well, thanks for the laugh... you do realize that the more you obessess over me, the more you prove how much I got to you... right? I mean, I don't give a shit about you. Even if you weren't hiding behind that AC sockpuppet. But I apparently mean something to you.

That just means I out trolled you without even trying to troll you. I mean, you're sitting there TRYING to piss me off and really... you're just making yourself more and more upset.


See in the next thread. I'm sure you'll be there to make self defeating comments there too. :D

Comment: Re:Given his record, why am I listening to him? (Score 1) 369

by Karmashock (#49385173) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

You tried to build your entire argument around how you feel about someone. You don't have a moral upper hand here.

I just stated the record and then moved on with my argument. I actually spent very little time actually talking about him. I focused most of my post on the issue itself and not on him.

You are a liar who lied with his pants on fire.

You're also an AC POS. :D

Understand, you're not a liar because you're an AC. You're a liar that happens to be an AC... and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that most ACs are just fucking stupid trolls.

As to me not understanding your statement, I note that you don't clarify or explain your statement or in fact correct me at all.

Which means... I did understand your statement? Correct me, bitch. I double dog dare your stupid ass.

Why is fox news or the old left versus right thing coming into this issue? I didn't bring ideology into this discussion, but YOU just did. Could it be that YOU are such a political tool that you'll go to bat for plagiarists if they happen to share your ideology? :D Seems so, sunshine.

I don't want tv news by the way... its full of idiots. I stick to the written word.

Anywho, thanks for validating my theories on ACs and on you in particular. Stellar job living up to precisely the sort of shit I'm talking about.

For the record, why are you on an AC account? I'd love to know another reason for why so many trolls are on hyper anonomymized sockpuppetable accounts. You know... besides trolling. :D

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 357

As to what you have to do... make a coherent argument. You can't just cite that study without analysis and sit there with your arms crossed.

That's just a forfeit on your part.

Engage or disengage. Choose.

As to the article's proof, I provided a variaty of reasons for it. And really, your disinterest in the reasons and motivations of the female employers is disturbing. It displays an incurious mentality.

As to your assertion that attacking a theory is inherently ad hominem... that's not what those words mean. You say I'm not offering reasons? They don't have evidence. The whole thing is at best a pseudo science. That is not an insult. That is a challenge of the the discipline's credibility. I cited that related theories have been debunked quite intensely and the only reason subconscious bias survives at all is because the concept is so nebulous that it is like trying to attack smoke.

There is no concrete evidence for it. And I could no more prove it doesn't exist by finding it then you could prove God exists or any other negative.

As to your assertion that I'm taking you out of context, I admit I am... intentionally. But only after you have taken your study out of context.

Your study applies to academia. That is its context. You apply it outside of that context and YOU are taking it out of context.

In any case, it is quite clear you're not interested in an actual discussion. You just commented to shit talk. You're neither very good at it, nor do you know anything I don't already know.

You're therefore boring to me and since the only reason I comment here is to entertain myself... you have no value to me anymore.

This discussion is concluded.

Good day.

Comment: Re:Don't conflate the prequels... (Score 1) 306

by Karmashock (#49384275) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

Empire strikes back is solid. Come on.

Also, it has one of the best sound tracks of any movie ever... and it is generally a fun movie. It has lasted this long for a reason.

You know want to know something that didn't last?... Dark star... I think is what it was called. It came out after starwars from warner brothers as a me too movie. And it died and no one remembers it.

Comment: Re:Given his record, why am I listening to him? (Score 1) 369

by Karmashock (#49383411) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

Oh look, an AC opens his comment with a stupid insult. How novel.

As to your comment that the expense of higher education isn't relevant its all about the next disruptive TECHNOLOGY and we don't know what that is going to be... will this technology be in the humanities? Will it be a poetry robot?

Give a flying fucking break.

As to poets just being linguists... how many of those jobs opened up in the last few years and what do they make?

Next issue.

As to my grammatical error, that was a typo. You're attempting to claim superiority to me on an internet forum because of a typo. How pathetic and desperate are you?

As to your conclusion that I am a hypocrite for condemning reactionary behavior when I noted that the person being quoted is a known plagiarist with a poor record of journalistic ethics... So, you think not being a reactionary means having no fucking brain what so ever?

don't respond. Either log in to your real account or just don't post. I'm so fucking tired of these idiot ACs making stupid shit comments behind a triple layer of anonymity.

You people are literally ruining this community with your crap.

"Most of us, when all is said and done, like what we like and make up reasons for it afterwards." -- Soren F. Petersen