Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Biased IQ tests (Score 1) 445

"Regatta" is an example of cultural bias that is okay. It's a standard English word that you'll find in a dictionary, and if it's the example that I've seen (it was an SAT question of the form a is to b as x is to y) then it's being used properly. People in this country are expected (even if not obligated) to learn English. In school, students who don't know English well are given remedial English lessons, so there's pretty much official recognition that English is going to be the lingua franca of learning.

A kid who doesn't know English well is probably going to be a burden on the gifted and talented program. He should learn English and then take the test again later.

Comment Re: Bias? Or reality? (Score 1) 445

That's true, but there is a difference between blaming kids and blaming adults. Those deadbeat dads and moms were once children, but then they became adults and perpetuated the shitty parenting they had received. I think it's fair to expect a relatively normal intelligence human adult to be able to exercise impulse control and understand the consequences of their actions. So you can't really say "Yeah but when they were kids, x y z happened, so now the adults are blameless." (I mean, unless x y z were very damaging and traumatic events.)

Comment Re:Segregation not the answer (Score 1) 449

"a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."

Are you being dense on purpose? That's referring to the people in the safe space. Good God, man. Go to a LGBT safe space and tell them they need to stop bashing straight white males and start respecting them. Go to a woman's safe space and tell them #NotAllMen and that you women had better start showing some respect because respect for all is the point of safe spaces.

I'm 100% sure you've seen these safe spaces in action, just like I have, and you know that you're just spewing absolute nonsense right now. You, I believe, are a straight white male. I'm 99% sure you've been told, prior to or during a safe space encounter, that you need to not be defensive and just listen to what people are saying. If something is offensive, ask yourself what experiences made this person be offensive to you. Etc, etc, other bullshit. I say 99% because you may have been there incognito.

Come on. Be forthcoming with me for a few seconds. Do you honestly not know what I'm talking about?

Comment Re:Segregation not the answer (Score 3, Interesting) 449

Yes it is.

"A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."

"The concept originated in the women's movement, where it "implies a certain license to speak and act freely, form collective strength, and generate strategies for resistance...a means rather than an end and not only a physical space but also a space created by the coming together of women searching for community.""

So, a place where boys can be fully self-expressed... that means if they want to openly talk about how mean girls are for rejecting them, or talk about how useless girls are because they don't know math and can't code, or whatever... they can do that without feeling uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe. They can speak and act freely. They can form collective strength (meaning... boys against girls). They can generate strategies for resistance, which could be political or social... so stuff like talking about how women "trap" men with pregnancy or rape accusations.

You think that sounds crazy? I've seen safe spaces for women and LGBT people, and yes, absolutely fucking crazy things are said there. But that's what it is.

Comment Re:Segregation not the answer (Score 2) 449

Correct. However, as I already pointed out, boys have a safe space. It's the class where there was only one girl and some unknown number of boys.

No, that's not a safe space for boys. They still will get in trouble for doing/discussing things that offend the one girl. Even if there are NO girls in a given camp, it's likely that the material was created with at least the possibility of girls being present. Not so for the girls camp.

Look, if you want segregated camps, then segregate them. That's fine. Segregated camps (or schools) work well.

But learn what the word means. If one camp allows girls and the other camp allows girls, then it's not segregated by gender.

Comment Re:Can the enemy actually shoot down the F35? (Score 1) 732

Nonsense. The US spends over $600 billions/year on military. China spends only 216 and Russia 84. The US could still have the most powerful military on earth while cutting the budget by half.

Annual spending and military strength is related, but not directly.

The US could cut the military budget quite a bit, but since we still have all the old equipment we'd still have the most powerful military. For a while.

We pay a high price to stay ahead for the future.

Comment Re:Technical superiority means very little (Score 1) 279

You could just overlap the circles. Have the "kitten pictures" circle if you like. Or make one giant circle instead.

I know you *could* but I think the culture on Google+ is such that that would be aberrant behavior. If I started posting kitten pics to my one giant circle, people would rightly say "Why are you posting kitten pics, I only know you from this game we both play, I don't want to see that crap." Because they have an expectation that I'm going to make use of the circles and segregate my posts. Circles are a key feature of Google+, and if I don't want to use them, I should go to Facebook.

On Facebook that culture doesn't exist. I've heard it's possible to do (friend lists?), but I honestly haven't even checked out the features enough to know. I just know that everybody posts things for everybody to see, and so people expect that. If some work colleague adds me, they KNOW they are signing up to see kitten pics and whatever other random stuff I post.

Also, even if I broke the mold and started sharing everything with everyone on Google+, that's only half the story. Others would have to start doing it to, otherwise the benefit I'm looking for (seeing more stuff about other people) wouldn't ever come about.

Google+ just isn't designed to share as much as Facebook. You limit who you share stuff with, therefore you share less overall. That's a fairly obvious result of what I think was a short-sighted design goal... designing a social network where the expected behavior is to share LESS... that just doesn't make sense.

Comment Re:Peh (Score 1) 388

Actually, pedantically, that's not clear. The KKK for example is a bastion of old, white, hateful assholes. It's not racist to point that out.

They were referring to Slashdot, not the KKK. That is what makes it racist.

In fact if you're going to level an accusation of "racist", it's best to state the acused's race as that generally indicates where and importantly where not their bigotry will be directed.

Honestly I don't know if you're referring to me or the person I called racist.

If you're referring to the other person, they didn't actually call slashdot racist.. so I guess you must be referring to me?

If you're referring to me, how am I to know that person's race? And in any case I don't think it's necessary to identify the accused's race to call something out as racist.

I see what it's directed at, but it still makes very little sense.

What doesn't make sense to you? The general principle is coherent... if a group of people is demonized unfairly, then they have little to lose by engaging in the negative behaviors expected of them. They are already judged. (Barring when there's a third, neutral system at play, like the law... if your group is unfairly demonized as rapists, it obviously hurts you to go out and rape people and then be punished for it, compared to just having people think you *might* want to rape people.)

You may not agree with that, but at least the concept should make sense to you and should sound pretty familiar... I've heard it many times myself.

Comment Re:Thug culture is to blame. (Score 2) 142

This article ( describes them as "Two Philadelphia-area pranksters with millions of online followers"

If their pranks involve filming themselves vandalizing things, is it really inaccurate to describe them as part of thug culture? If not in their day-to-day lives, at least their online personas?

The article also includes a quote from one of them: ""Cops tryin to blame Always Teste," Bassmaster tweeted earlier today."

That sounds pretty thuggy.

Comment Re:Peh (Score 3, Insightful) 388

What SJWs don't understand, along with many other people is your post which seems to be a long, angry undirected rant at I'm not sure what precisely.

It's directed at the person who said, "It's probably that the comments offer nothing of value, having become the bastion of old white hateful assholes." Clearly an anti-white racist who deservedly got smacked down.

Now do you understand, or at least see who/what the post was directed at?

Comment Re:Technical superiority means very little (Score 2) 279

I agree. the circles concept proved to be useless to me for how I use social media, and probably filtered quite a bit of my experience on Plus.

When I signed up, I categorized contacts into appropriate circles, like family, friends, work, and acquaintances. But it turns out, once people are categorized like that, I shared fewer things with fewer people. I'm not going to post a picture of my cat and consciously decide, yes I want my coworkers to see this. So I don't share it to that circle.

Well when you stop sharing as much with as many people, and they do the same thing, it turns out that you don't see a whole lot of what's going on. When my friend started posting kid pics to the family circle, that means I didn't get to see the kid pics, which also generally includes commentary on non-kid stuff, like "oh look we're on vacation in blah, doing blah."

On Facebook, when you share something it generally goes to all your friends. Even that girl from high school you added because it was cool back then to add everyone to try to get the highest friend count. So she gets to see when I visit some new restaurant, and I get to see when she got married.

That is awesome. I like it a lot.

You know what else is cool? I've played a handful of Facebook games in my day, and many of those games give you bonuses for referrals, so there are are discussion threads where people are just randomly posting referrals that require you to add them as friends. So now I have "friends" all over the world. There's a guy from Nigeria who is depressed that his girlfriend dumped him. There's a guy from Sri Lanka who is a big cricket fan, and I've actually watched some cricket (the last world cup) and it's pretty cool. There's a girl from England who lives in a cool looking village that she complains about a lot. There's some chick who seems to have become unbelievably successful with her MLM business in the last 2-3 years, and is some kind of regional director now. She drives a Mercedes.

Again, that is awesome. How do I get that on Google Plus where (and yes I've done this) you just create a circle for people you don't care about (I had/have one for Ingress) and never share anything off-topic there?

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!