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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:What does THAT have to do with anything? (Score 1) 102

Oh how sweet. You're still around. And you're still trying to peddle that evidence argument.

The point is your "definition" of evidence is base completely in emotion.

Really? Perhaps you can provide some non-emotional evidence for that assertion. You see, I have quoted you before. I have quoted the articles that we are (supposed to be) discussing. I have also linked to other sources to back up my claims.

You have done none of this. You don't quote anything. you don't cite anything. You make off-topic claims that get more fanciful all the time. My "emotional" evidence for my claim is this entirely unrelated tangent you are going on now about the definition of a word. You just keep changing the subject all the time because you can't actually back up your original rant and are desperate to move the topic elsewhere.

You are obviously and seriously mentally ill and probably illiterate.

That's funny, especially the part about me being illiterate. Remind me again which of us was able to actually read the article? Which of us refused to read what the other posted because it was a "wall of text"?

I addressed and refuted every point you tried to make.

That is obviously not true if you admit that you haven't even read some of what I have written. But even then, your so-called refutations tend to be just generalisations. I have quoted the article to you where they explain their reasons, cited an OECD report and U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics demonstrating the need to tackle the issue of female representation in computer science education, and given my cynical analysis of Microsoft's motives based on their self-interest (none of which had anything to do with affirmative action), and this was your refutation of all that:

The fact that you are making such an effort to deny it and ignore my criticism of your argument could be taken as proof that I am correct on all counts.
You are totally ignoring that affirmative action exists everywhere and is totally unjustifiable.

Wow! That is your idea of you refuting my every point? Colour me unimpressed.

For anything I say against you, you then get the idea to say the exact same against me.

Yes, of course I do. That is because you keep saying stupid things that really apply to you. For example:

You are obsessed with quibbling over this specific article when its only significance is in a bigger picture. And you have absolutely NO POINT about the article itself. When your points are refuted you turn to taking things out of context and twisting meanings to fit your point of view, and above all cherry-picking an appropriate scope of things to fit your point of view regardless of any rationale.

So in one paragraph you say that I spend too much time talking about the article and yet I don't talk about the article. Also, you say I should look at the bigger picture instead and then claim that I am the one who wants to change the scope of things to fit my point of view! But ignoring your logical incongruities, naturally I have to reflect what you said back at you.

Because it is you, and not me, who has absolutely no point about the article.
Because it is you, and not me, who wants to change the scope from the article to "the big picture".
Because it is you, and not me, who uses emotion rather than logic and evidence.
Because it is you, and not me, who doesn't read things and then claims that the other person is illiterate.
Because it is you, and not me, who gives the lesson "when you become this obsessed over a simple thing, you are wrong and you know it. Learn how to lose, learn how to change your mind" but then sticks dogmatically to the concept of the big picture to even consider that this is not an example of affirmative action.

But that's OK. I'm patient, and I'm here to help.

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 2, Insightful) 469

You can't vote without a voter registration card or some other proof of who you are (e.g. an electric bill), and you can't vote unless you have at some point properly registered to vote, which you can't do without a SSN. So for illegals to vote, they would have to either commit outright identity theft to register fraudulently (which they screen for and actively remove when found) or steal somebody else's mail and vote in his/her name (which would likely be discovered when that other person went to vote).

In short, the absence of strong evidence supporting such a claim is, in this case, strong evidence of the absence of such fraud.

Comment Re:What does THAT have to do with anything? (Score 1) 102

It doesn't matter if you and I have different definitions of evidence, because you haven't even attempted to provide anything that could be considered remotely like evidence. Your entire argument is that affirmative action exists; they only surveyed women; so therefore this is an example of affirmative action. You managed to do this all without reading the article. When I pointed out that the article directly contradicts what you admitted what just a guess, you said that their stated reason was implausible and so what you guessed is more accurate.

And now, in an attempt to deflect the conversation away from your obvious mistakes, you state that my definition of evidence is wrong. But guess what? Yet again you provide no evidence to back up that absurd statement (by anyone's definition). You refuse to say what you think my "wrong" idea is or what your "correct" answer is.

Your logical skills are flawed and you seem to have reading comprehension problems, so I can't imagine you could outwit me based on the definitions of words. I bet the only reason why you would ever open a dictionary would be to colour in all the 'O's!

Comment Re:What does THAT have to do with anything? (Score 1) 102

how do you justify what you're doing?

I justify it by actually proving what I'm saying, unlike you who simply claims to be right based on guesses and preconceived notions of the "broader picture" without offering a single shred of evidence for anything that you say.

It seems fitting that I finished off by asking you to admit one of your mistakes; that you hadn't even read the article about which you ranted and raved. It seems fitting that you didn't even read that!

Comment Re:Preempting Apple (Score 1) 104

Apple is about the last company to incorporate new tech into phones

Multi-touch capacitive touch screen. Accelerometers. Reversible data / charging port that can be used when flipped either way. Haptic feedback engine (not talking about just vibration). Using the body of the phone as the antenna. Those are just some I can name off the top of my head.

Just the capacitive touch screen alone is what revolutionized mobile devices.

Comment Preempting Apple (Score 1) 104

Both of these design changes (screen taking up the entire face of the device, home button integrated into the display) are also rumors that have been floating around for the iPhone 8. The iPhone 7's design that changed the home button from a physical button to a capacitive touch "button" using the haptic feedback engine was an incremental step towards that end. Samsung is trying to preempt Apple and get a phone to market first that incorporates the rumors of what Apple is going to do.

Comment Re:What does THAT have to do with anything? (Score 1) 102

You are obsessed with quibbling over this specific article when its only significance is in a bigger picture. And you have absolutely NO POINT about the article itself.

Oh this is hilarious! I'm obsessed with quibbling about the specifics of the article, and yet at the same time I have no point about the article? Which is it??? There is no significance in any bigger picture because this topic was not about affirmative action in the first place. It was presented here about tech predictions for next year and beyond. That fact that this was done as part of a project to encourage girls (which once again has nothing to do with affirmative action) is just coincidental and deemed so irrelevant that it barely rated a mention.

When your points are refuted you turn to taking things out of context and twisting meanings to fit your point of view, and above all cherry-picking an appropriate scope of things to fit your point of view regardless of any rationale.

Oh the laughs just keep coming! When have you EVER even referred to (let alone refuted) my points at all, other than to say that they are irrelevant because I'm not looking at the big picture? How have I taken things out of context when I keep quoting and linking to everything that I have written about? And cherry picking the scope??? Which of us wants to talk about the story as posted, and which of us wants to ignore it and talk about the big picture? That is changing scope. I am the only one who has stayed on topic. As I said, you might as well have talked about climate change for all the relevance it had on this /. story.

If this is "about encouraging girls to choose STEM careers" then it is a falsehood because on its face it says "Microsoft Researchers Offer Predictions For AI, Deep Learning" which implies a different purpose entirely. Why do they need to lie in order to push this "self esteem booster" for women?

How is that a lie? Are they not Microsoft Researchers? Do they not offer predictions on topics like AI and Deep learning? The headline is correct. The fact that they asked women in the hope of inspiring the next generation of girls is not something that they hid. They opened with that information. Where is the lie???

"less need for affirmative action programs"
And what is the need to begin with? It seems like your entire point of view is based on this but you feel content to blather on and never explain the foundation for your supposed argument.

And look who is the one who is lying. Could you point to the the part where I ever advocated a need for affirmative action? All I have said is that this ISN'T an affirmative action program, and that if it works then there won't be a need to have one. And what would the need be? I pointed out that companies are named and shamed for not achieving a gender balance, so to avoid negative PR then Microsoft would want to increase the intake of high achieving girls. At no point have I said that I want them to have gender balance. In fact, I have said that my natural tendency is to be suspicious of this sort of thing, and that in my early years I would have been ranting just like you. Does that really sound like someone who advocates affirmative action?

I know you've probably grown up in a "hug box" where you are "never wrong", but learn this lesson: when you become this obsessed over a simple thing, you are wrong and you know it. Learn how to lose, learn how to change your mind.

I really hope that you are actually writing this to yourself, because you have been describing you in your comment. Once again, I refer you to my previous anecdote where I said that I was once like you in my teenage years until I realised that I was letting my prejudices cloud my view of the world and I have since learned to examine the facts before deciding. This shows that I am willing to admit when I'm wrong, and that I have already changed my mind in the past. Are you?

If you really believe what you just wrote, then why don't you lead by example? Here is how you started this entire thread:

The fact that they ask only women implies there is some reason to do that,
Yet we are left to guess at what that reason is.
The most obvious is that women have a better opinion.
How is that supportable? Why would they?

Why don't you admit that you were wrong and that you never had to guess what the reason was. If you had read the article, they stated explicitly that it wasn't what you thought was the obvious answer, but that this was an exercise for Computer Science Education Week to inspire girls. Admit that your entire rant about affirmative action was null and void right from the start because you guessed wrongly.

Then, if you like, you can also quote something that I have said that you think is wrong and, if you are right, I will happily admit my mistakes.

Comment Re:IL had free rides to all senior citizens 2008-2 (Score 1) 237

While you are correct that you couldn't economically use taxis to replace all you driving, in some circumstances the mixture of walking, cycling, public transport and taxis/Uber can be cheaper than owning and operating a car. It depends on how much you travel and where you need to go. I also did the sums and decided to not replace my car when it gave up the ghost. I found that it was cheaper for me to use the other transport options.

Whenever I have moved to a new home, I have always chosen a location that is close to a major public transport hub and either walking or cycling distance to university and work. For those rare occasions when I have to go somewhere that is not easily serviced by trains or buses, I get a taxi. Doing this is still cheaper for me than buying, maintaining, fueling, insuring and parking a car. I am also able to spend my commuting time working, surfing the web, or even playing video games. It's nice if you can get it to work for you.

Comment Re:But... (Score 2) 237

I wish the French good luck on this, but I don't think it will do much except push homeless people into underground metro stations.

I think that you are wrong about that prediction. In my area they effectively halved the price of public transport by reducing the number of tariff zones and usage rose dramatically. It was most notable during off-peak times when the trains had been quite underused but are now fairly full until the last service.

Previously I had advocated for making public transport completely free, and I thought it was a stupidly short-sighted move to simply reduce the costs. But after I saw how many extra people began using the system after they did that, I have had to change my mind because I don't think if they could support the extra passengers if the service was completely free; at least not without some major expansion of capacity.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.