Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment It never should have been (Score 3, Interesting) 48

A master's degree in my personal experience simply denotes someone who was willing to pay an exorbitant amount of $ for 2 more years of "school time" (I'm not going to say learning) in exchange for the ability to claim a "higher" degree.

Aside from my own experience, I know many people with masters degrees. None of us can point to anything meaningfully learned in those 2 (or more) years. It's a ticket punch for cash.

Setting aside my own knowledge from inside, I have worked with *many* MBAs over the years. I've generally found them to be highly talented at presenting themselves and their ideas as brilliant, no matter how intrinsically stupid either may be. I've yet to meet an MBA that was successful, that (in my opinion) wouldn't have been just as successful without the MBA. Most MBAs I've known are merely the business equivalent of highly polished turds.

Note I'm not hashing on academics; I wouldn't say this about PhD's who have to work fairly-to-incredibly hard and demonstrate meaningful knowledge to earn that degree. I generally admire PhDs.

Comment Now... (Score 3, Insightful) 29

...if only our legal system was that stringent?

Ban on practicing law for a year if your submission to the court includes AI slop, how about that?
A second offense, disbarment.

(Personally I think disbarment should be a first-offense result for an ostensibly high-competence field like law, but our society has gotten away from "consequences" for "easily predictable results of ones actions" in general...)

Comment Re:GIGO (Score 1) 36

Government data has been bullshit since well before the mid 1990s when Clinton rejiggered the employment rate calculation.

I enjoy that a number of people are discovering that the government is generally full of shit. Of course, they still think it's JUST THAT GUY"S SIDE but eventually they may figure it out.

Comment Re:who is protecting us? (Score -1, Offtopic) 74

No, he concluded that in 2024 when his not-democratically-selected candidate, a correctly-colored woman whose political career began with blowjobs to a very powerful West Coast mayor - a last minute "fuck you" by Mr Biden to the party that abandoned him - got whomped by an odious, blowhard NY property developer whose multi-year vilification 2016-2020 turned him from a publicity-seeking opportunitist into a hardened "opponent to everything leftist", made fantastically easier by the lefts own purity-spiral politics, driving even moderate leftists and EVERY SINGLE US DEMOGRAPHIC ASIDE FROM WHITE WOMEN to swing their votes rightward.

This just gives him a chance to complain about it again.

Comment Re:What I don't like about Dawkins (Score 1) 402

XX = ALWAYS female. No alternative. If you are healthy you have a womb and can bear babies. They are intrinsically connected. You have large gametes.
XY = ALWAYS male. No alternative. You cannot ever bear babies, no matter how healthy you are. You have small gametes.

If they ever dig up your body, this is how you will be identified. Your feelings have *nothing* to do with the matter. Nor does your sanity. They will 100% identify you according to the actual, empirical physical characteristics that make you male or female (or a genetic sport of some sort).

That you keep repeating the delusion just makes you delusionAL.
No matter how many times you repeat 1+1=3, it's still not true and never will be.

Comment Re:What I don't like about Dawkins (Score 1) 402

Facts > Feelings.

If you have XX chromosomes, you're female and thus a woman. Cutting off your tits or bolting on a Frankenphallus just makes you a woman with surgical alterations.
If you have XY chromosomes, you're male and thus a man. No amount of makeup, women's underwear, or stripteasing in front of children will change that.

Anything else is an aberration and, like a one-armed person or someone born without eyes, recognized defective. It doesn't make them less human, but the idea we should just pretend that's normal is a weird delusion.

Comment Re:What I don't like about Dawkins (Score 0) 402

No, you're wrong. Period.
Being transgender, like any mental illness, requires sympathy and care - not pretend-endorsement for political points and virtue signaling.

It's no more deserving of "respect" than any other human being, but it is worthy of pity. Some wiring has gone wrong in their heads; that's not their fault.

It's not 2022. Only the truly dogmatic believes that silly shit any more.

Comment Re:What I don't like about Dawkins (Score 0) 402

I love you guys.
Dawkins when attacking Christianity and religion is a super genius, insightful, brilliant ... Until the moment he departs from the canon, now he's a fucking liar and obviously stupid.

Impossible.... IMPOSSIBLE that you might be wrong.

The frothing left can't stop itself from the purity spiral, driving even your allies right. Dawkins himself had to start looking at his intellectual allies and realize they might be the baddies.

You are great. Keep it up. Never change and certainly never, ever doubt yourself.

Comment Re:What I don't like about Dawkins (Score 2, Informative) 402

There are two sexes. Period.
Anything else is, by definition, aberrant & basically broken. Yes, biology makes many errors. Usually they die. Sometimes they don't.

It doesn't mean transgenders should be mistreated, they deserve our pity and whatever help they can get to be happy in their lives.

But fortunately the world has moved on from this absurd delusion that if you really really really pretend you're a donkey, you MUST BE ONE. That's silly. And... basically insane.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mausoleum: The final and funniest folly of the rich. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...