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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Because you say so? (Score 1) 193

You didn't read the book either. Don't attempt to critique me on things I never wrote. There is no character Digby in "Atlas Shrugged." Yes, I know Fountainhead too, but it was an earlier work not as fully developed.

How do I know you didn't read it? Because you are not even near the mark on my comment regarding a delusional person claiming reality is false and their fantasy is real. It's about 1200 pages, and I highly recommend it. I have read Heinlein too, but he's was not a Philosopher.

Comment Re: Given that Venezuela's economy is tanking (Score 1) 52

You did miss the last 100 years of history. In fact you just missed history in general.

Communism does not make the people the owners of the fruits of their labors, it makes the bureaucrats the owners of the fruits of people's labor. Straight from the manifesto you find 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' People are incentivized to be lazy and complacent, and just yell about how much stuff they need. Working harder than your neighbor does not get you more stuff and inventing new technology does not get you new stuff. Those two things can make you an enemy of your neighbors and get you jailed or killed.

Both Russia and China moved to a controlled form of a market economy. Stealing technology was not enough to keep them afloat, so they had to do something to incentivize people. The partial market is still the suck for people that live there, because if you do too well you are killed and the Government just takes your stuff anyway.

Comment Re:Because you say so? (Score 1) 193

Discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since I was a kid in the 70s. This includes discrimination against women.

Oh I see, it's illegal so it doesn't ever happen. That's why I also never see anyone going over the speed limit. True story.

What a moronic statement. What It means that there should be plenty of court cases proving that discrimination exists if it was true. You see, those cases with guilty verdicts would be something we call facts. Facts are used to form valid opinions, and of course debate a position. The more fact you have, the better your opinion and the better one can debate their position.

In the case of people speeding, we do have these things called facts. Millions upon millions of tickets are on record proving that speeding happens. Do you notice the difference between Speeding tickets and Sexual harassment in the STEM workplace? I agree it would be harder to prove sexual harassment, but people like you who claim it's so common should be able to easily justify your opinion with a reasonable number of _facts_. Those would be guilty verdicts in discrimination cases.

It is quite remarkable that you believe, without any facts, that nasty men are all out to abuse women in the workplace. Even worse, when asked to present facts you hide, and ignore any fact that runs contrary to your fantasy. Sane people work differently. When presented with facts they perform research and adjust their opinions based on new information.

People like you walk around claiming that reality is false and your fantasy is reality. The more people like you I read the more I am amazed at how prophetic Ayn Rand was with "Atlas Shrugged". No, you never read it so don't bother with more lies. Yes, I was correct stating that you were not sane. (unless you are a shill being paid to spread the delusion, which I highly doubt.)

Comment BS (Score 2) 193

Your second and third sentences have no basis in reality. There was a massive push to social welfare programs to assist women with College in the later 80s and 90s. This includes assistance with child care so that Single Moms (a massively grown demographic) could go to College and not worry about their kids. Hence the disparity we have today which has 61% of all College students being women. You can't be so delusional that you believe moving women up to 61% of all college students is the result of a year, or even a few years. Then again, it seems like you really can be that delusional.

Comment Re:Prove it! (Score 2) 193

"Any more" is a complete misnomer. When people claim the "good ole days" they neglect the fact that most women were busy at home raising families. The majority could not afford to work, or could not afford to work full time. Single and wealthy women worked full time, not usually women with families.

The State was not the primary path for raising kids in the 70s and early 80s, parents were. Due to both social pressure to put women into the workplace and another fine program pushing self happiness as the number one consideration in your actions (both social engineering) that is no longer true. A majority of people today are being raised by the State, but that's not the same as the good ole days you claim was so great.

There are countless factors involved in people's choices of careers, and society has changed drastically since the 70s and 80s.

So what is your expectation in an answer? Nothing you could provide as a rational explanation is simple. Meaning, the simple explanation of sexism is also wrong.

Comment Prove it! (Score 2, Insightful) 193

Women _CHOOSING_ not to obtain a degree in Software is the problem. That is not sexism, that is a fact with statistics to back the fact. Women are getting far more degrees than men, but are choosing degrees in Psychology, Medical Doctors, Law, Political Science, Journalism, and other fields not related to Software.

Prove to us that you are correct, show me the College discrimination that keeps women away from STEM. I searched, there is no such thing as institutional sexism in College prohibiting women from obtaining a degree related to software. In fact it is quite the opposite. Universities are begging for women to obtain STEM degrees, as is society, as are employers.

Next, prove that degrees don't matter. I have a Mathematics degree. Is the fact that I can't get a job as a MRI specialist or BioChemist related to the fact that I'm being discriminated against, or my _CHOICE_ in degrees? A Law degree does not provide any credentials for STEM.

Lastly, prove to me that women are choosing other fields due to discriminatory aptitude tests which give a lower score to women because "sexism". Aptitude testing is the number one factor for determining a degree choice.

You can't prove any of those things. Go ahead and try to back your allegation with _FACTS_. Something you SJWs seem to despise with a passion.

Comment Because you say so? (Score 4, Interesting) 193

0.70c on the dollar has been debunked over and over again. Discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since I was a kid in the 70s. This includes discrimination against women. Currently 64% of all Doctorates, 61% of all Masters degrees, 58% of all Bachelors, and 57% of all Associated degrees go to women. Women are more likely to get hired for a job when put against a man with the same credentials, and even higher when you compare ethnicity. A Hispanic/Black woman will be hired 80% of the time over a Hispanic/Black male. Women have more scholarships, higher rate of approvals for education grants, and higher rate of student loans. Non Whites have the same advantages. The only people getting "screwed" by the system currently are white males. The rest is a fabrication based on repeated propaganda (lies).

Do a web search for stats yourself, I'm tired of providing citations. People with agenda will deny they exist regardless, and if you are curious they are easy enough to find.

Sadly, this has made it a place where people no longer believe real issues. When everything is an "ism", nothing is an "ism".

The country is not going to be competitive in the future because identity politics is isolating people into fact averse gangs, each using their own type of thuggery to get "theirs".

Comment Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation (Score 4, Insightful) 188

I admire billionaires. I seek to be rich like they are. Why wouldn't you? Do you like being a poor chump?

Personally, it's because I believe that behind every great fortune is a great crime. You can't accumulate money at that scale without fucking people over in some way.

Comment Missing operant term (Score 4, Insightful) 225

The people arrested didn't seem to be the deluge of selfie taking people. The recommendation should be to simply not be violent at a protest so that you are not arrested, which results in the confiscation of your phone (and generally a good chuck of cash, and perhaps anal virginity).

I'm probably one of the most pro Free Speech people you will ever meet. Free Speech does not include any form of violence. See the Non Aggression Principle

Comment Great advice (Score 3, Interesting) 99

While sabotage is possible, so is carelessness from a soldiers assigned to the depot. When I was in the Army I was a member of a team who did pre ARTEP OPFOR. Supply units were horrible, the worst of the back lines units. It's boring work for the soldiers, leading to massive complacency and struggles with morale. Medical units were much more alert, much busier, and tended to have much higher morale.

Considering many of these depots are not as well constructed or older, it only takes a small accident to have a big result.

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Working...