Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Diversity? (Score 1) 280 280

Imagine a typical PGA par-4 hole that's 520 yards. The very best woman may hit 270 with the driver off the tee. That's barely halfway to the hole; there's 250 yards to go. Assuming a fairway shot, she can use a 3 wood and get another 200, 220 yards with a good strike. That leaves her 30 yards to the hole, meaning she'll be using a wedge to approach and then a possible putt for par.

The top 25 men on the PGA tour mostly average 300+ off the tee, with the best averaging over 310. Hit 300 off the tee on the 520 and you've got 220 to the hole, which a man can do with a 5 wood or a hybrid (or possibly a long iron). That can put him on the green in 2, putting for birdie.

So in this hypothetical average hole, the woman has basically zero chance for a birdie, whereas a man can be on the green putting for birdie in two strokes.

Now for a real world comparison: the 2014 US Open. The men's course was 7,562 yards and the winner (Martin Kaymer) finished in 271 strokes. The women's course was 6,649 yards (almost 100 yards shorter) and the winner (Michelle Wie) finished in 278 strokes. The women's course had par-4s as short as 330 yards, while the shorters par-4 on the men's course was 402.

The average hole on the men's tour is probably around 410 yards. The average on the women's tour is probably around 350.

Comment Re:Diversity? (Score 1) 280 280

There aren't many average men in the NFL or PGA tour. There are no shortage of women that would fare far, far better in the NFL or PGA than an average man. The issue here is at the extremes: there are really no women who will be able to compete with the *best* men in the NFL or PGA tour.

Chances are there will never be a woman who could play in the NFL. The PGA tour is another matter, though.

Comment Re: Like the nazi used to say (Score 1) 431 431

People love to complain about the authorities, but think about it for a minute... It costs money to enforce regulations. Departments are only given limited budgets. They're not going to add to their regulatory duties things that don't matter for no good reason

Oh yes they are. You're right they're only given a limited budget... but agencies are always desperate to increase that budget year-to-year. They certainly don't do that by saving money and not spending their allocation. They make sure to spend it all. They buy equipment they don't need, they institute programs that aren't necessary, etc. They expand their scope and claim they don't have enough money to do all the things that they do, so they're underfunded and need more money next FY.

I worked in state government for a long time. This is SOP.

Comment Re:Both sides of the coin? (Score 1) 256 256

In 2015 do we really believe that some Snidely-Whiplash HR person is rubbing their hands together and cackling while they shred all the valid applications from blacks and other minorities?

No, which is part of the problem. It's a lot more subtle than that. People often don't even realize they're doing it. Look at the experiment where people with "black-sounding" names got passed over while those with "white-sounding" names got interviews, despite identical resumes and cover letters.

Comment Re:Boo hoo... (Score 1) 818 818

...agreed, which still brings us back to my question, which, in short version, is "what's so fucked up with some people that they think such reprehensible things are worthy of celebration?" ;-)

I don't want to stop them - I want them to label themselves by flying such symbols. But I also want to understand what demented rationale they use to sleep at night.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818 818

And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.

Perhaps - but this is not that time. Nor is this issue about "that time" - it is about now. Here and now.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818 818

No, not necessarily. Rallying symbols are a central component to spreading any such message. They are the very symbols of such messages spreading and the mindsets behind it. As a matter of fact, without the revisionist history and without honoring symbols that stand for racism and slavery (as if they were good things), such attitudes would have died down a lot quicker. It's a vicious circle of racism propping up such sick symbols, and such symbols being used to prop up and spread racism.

So, no, those people may not be dead and the f...tard who shot them may not have grown up to be a f...tard.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818 818

And had you lived at the time, assuming you are white, you would have been just as racist as everybody else was back then. You might have even been a slave owner. Makes you wonder what our great grandchildren will condemn us for.

Quite likely. But it's NOT "at (that) time" - it's 2015. And that is my point. Should we celebrate one of the darkest parts of our history as if it was something good? This isn't the 1800's. Google isn't going back in time to not promote racist flags from 1787-1865. They are doing it now. Going forward.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1, Informative) 818 818

In their own words... slavery... blame it on your schools, but you're still wrong. Look it up in your own state houses - these words are in those documents housed therein.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)

Working...