|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Pretty sure Trump would 100% do everything in his power (instead of just kind of limply dissing NATO) to drop the U.S. out of NATO if there was an attempt to invoke any kind of NATO article and everyone didn't jump ASAP, regardless of technical rules. He's the kind of petulant child that blusters about how he doesn't need anyone to help then runs screaming for help as soon as he bumps his knee.
|
On August 11 2017 12:15 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A ray of good news in this end shit times this country and possibly the world is living in right now. A California court has ordered a Silicon Valley billionaire to restore access to a beloved beach that he closed off for his private use, a major victory for public lands advocates who have been fighting the venture capitalist for years.
An appeals court ruled Thursday that Vinod Khosla, who runs the venture capital firm Khosla Ventures and co-founded the tech company Sun Microsystems, must unlock the gates to Martins Beach in northern California by his property.
The decision is a major blow to Khosla and other wealthy landowners who have increasingly tried to buy up the internationally celebrated beaches along the California coast and turn public lands into private property.
The beach was a popular destination for fishing, surfing and other recreational activities for nearly a century, and the previous owners provided a general store and public restroom. But Khosla eventually bought the property and in 2010 closed public access, putting up signs warning against trespassing.
Khosla, who has a net worth of $1.55bn and does not live on the property, has faced multiple lawsuits and legislative efforts to get him to open up the gate to the beach near Half Moon Bay, about 30 miles south of San Francisco. The law in California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the “mean high tide line”.
The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the US.
“Vinod Khosla, with his billions of dollars, bought this piece of property and said, ‘No, no, the public isn’t going to use this anymore. End of story,’” the Surfrider attorney Joe Cotchett said by phone on Thursday. “He got away with it for many years … This is probably one of the most important public right-of-access cases in the country.”
Khosla’s refusal to restore access has made him something of a symbol of the immense wealth in the tech industry and rising income inequality in the region.
Last year, his attorneys claimed that he would open the gate to the beach only if the government paid him $30m, an amount that state officials said was unreasonably high. In October, Khosla also sued two state agencies, accusing the government of using “coercion and harassment” to infringe on his private property rights.
The California coastal commission, established by voters in 1972 to protect public use of the coast, has reported that beachgoers have increasingly complained about private security guards telling them they are trespassing on private property and forcing them to leave the public beaches.
“The issue here is, can wealthy private individuals buy up our beautiful beaches for their own use?” said Cotchett, adding that he expects Khosla to appeal the decision and attempt to bring the case to the US Supreme Court.
Khosla’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Khosla recently made headlines when he downplayed the problem of sexual harassment in the venture capital industry, which has recently been exposed as a major concern among female founders. “I did not know that there was any discrimination,” Khosla said at a recent event, adding that it was “rarer than in most other businesses”. Source I am absoluteley uneducated when it comes to buying / selling land in the USA, but I feel like you should be able to decide who is allowed on your property, unless you don't impact society in a major way by doing so. I assume the first private owner bought the beach from the state, so the obvious thing would be not trying to make money by selling public property... I don't like the idea of smomeone buying beaches etc. and closing them, but isn't this ruling like when I would force you to let other people hold a barbeque in your garden? With this ruling the deal gets altered afterwards, he keeps all the negatives of owning that beach while losing some of the positive aspects.
California voted to make all beaches public. (although I think UC Santa Barbara has it's own beach sort of). State law in California says (and has been clarified due to lawsuits against this guy) that you have to provide a way for the public to access the beach. Usually houses aren't literally on the beach so the idea that somebody would be literally in your back yard seems a bit silly. (I don't know what the actual layout o his house is. He doesn't actually live there so he's really just being an A hole. By law he doesn't own the beach. The laws been on the books for a long time.
but yeah from occasionally reading it the beach has traditionally been used by people.
|
On August 11 2017 14:26 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 12:15 Artesimo wrote:On August 11 2017 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A ray of good news in this end shit times this country and possibly the world is living in right now. A California court has ordered a Silicon Valley billionaire to restore access to a beloved beach that he closed off for his private use, a major victory for public lands advocates who have been fighting the venture capitalist for years.
An appeals court ruled Thursday that Vinod Khosla, who runs the venture capital firm Khosla Ventures and co-founded the tech company Sun Microsystems, must unlock the gates to Martins Beach in northern California by his property.
The decision is a major blow to Khosla and other wealthy landowners who have increasingly tried to buy up the internationally celebrated beaches along the California coast and turn public lands into private property.
The beach was a popular destination for fishing, surfing and other recreational activities for nearly a century, and the previous owners provided a general store and public restroom. But Khosla eventually bought the property and in 2010 closed public access, putting up signs warning against trespassing.
Khosla, who has a net worth of $1.55bn and does not live on the property, has faced multiple lawsuits and legislative efforts to get him to open up the gate to the beach near Half Moon Bay, about 30 miles south of San Francisco. The law in California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the “mean high tide line”.
The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the US.
“Vinod Khosla, with his billions of dollars, bought this piece of property and said, ‘No, no, the public isn’t going to use this anymore. End of story,’” the Surfrider attorney Joe Cotchett said by phone on Thursday. “He got away with it for many years … This is probably one of the most important public right-of-access cases in the country.”
Khosla’s refusal to restore access has made him something of a symbol of the immense wealth in the tech industry and rising income inequality in the region.
Last year, his attorneys claimed that he would open the gate to the beach only if the government paid him $30m, an amount that state officials said was unreasonably high. In October, Khosla also sued two state agencies, accusing the government of using “coercion and harassment” to infringe on his private property rights.
The California coastal commission, established by voters in 1972 to protect public use of the coast, has reported that beachgoers have increasingly complained about private security guards telling them they are trespassing on private property and forcing them to leave the public beaches.
“The issue here is, can wealthy private individuals buy up our beautiful beaches for their own use?” said Cotchett, adding that he expects Khosla to appeal the decision and attempt to bring the case to the US Supreme Court.
Khosla’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Khosla recently made headlines when he downplayed the problem of sexual harassment in the venture capital industry, which has recently been exposed as a major concern among female founders. “I did not know that there was any discrimination,” Khosla said at a recent event, adding that it was “rarer than in most other businesses”. Source I am absoluteley uneducated when it comes to buying / selling land in the USA, but I feel like you should be able to decide who is allowed on your property, unless you don't impact society in a major way by doing so. I assume the first private owner bought the beach from the state, so the obvious thing would be not trying to make money by selling public property... I don't like the idea of smomeone buying beaches etc. and closing them, but isn't this ruling like when I would force you to let other people hold a barbeque in your garden? With this ruling the deal gets altered afterwards, he keeps all the negatives of owning that beach while losing some of the positive aspects. California voted to make all beaches public. (although I think UC Santa Barbara has it's own beach sort of). State law in California says (and has been clarified due to lawsuits against this guy) that you have to provide a way for the public to access the beach. Usually houses aren't literally on the beach so the idea that somebody would be literally in your back yard seems a bit silly. (I don't know what the actual layout o his house is. He doesn't actually live there so he's really just being an A hole. By law he doesn't own the beach. The laws been on the books for a long time. but yeah from occasionally reading it the beach has traditionally been used by people.
I am genuinely confused about the case but if he owns the land the beach is on it seems like he would be definition own the beach. If they are going to say he owns the beach but not really they could at least have the decency to pay him for the beach.
|
On August 11 2017 14:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 14:26 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 11 2017 12:15 Artesimo wrote:On August 11 2017 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A ray of good news in this end shit times this country and possibly the world is living in right now. A California court has ordered a Silicon Valley billionaire to restore access to a beloved beach that he closed off for his private use, a major victory for public lands advocates who have been fighting the venture capitalist for years.
An appeals court ruled Thursday that Vinod Khosla, who runs the venture capital firm Khosla Ventures and co-founded the tech company Sun Microsystems, must unlock the gates to Martins Beach in northern California by his property.
The decision is a major blow to Khosla and other wealthy landowners who have increasingly tried to buy up the internationally celebrated beaches along the California coast and turn public lands into private property.
The beach was a popular destination for fishing, surfing and other recreational activities for nearly a century, and the previous owners provided a general store and public restroom. But Khosla eventually bought the property and in 2010 closed public access, putting up signs warning against trespassing.
Khosla, who has a net worth of $1.55bn and does not live on the property, has faced multiple lawsuits and legislative efforts to get him to open up the gate to the beach near Half Moon Bay, about 30 miles south of San Francisco. The law in California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the “mean high tide line”.
The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the US.
“Vinod Khosla, with his billions of dollars, bought this piece of property and said, ‘No, no, the public isn’t going to use this anymore. End of story,’” the Surfrider attorney Joe Cotchett said by phone on Thursday. “He got away with it for many years … This is probably one of the most important public right-of-access cases in the country.”
Khosla’s refusal to restore access has made him something of a symbol of the immense wealth in the tech industry and rising income inequality in the region.
Last year, his attorneys claimed that he would open the gate to the beach only if the government paid him $30m, an amount that state officials said was unreasonably high. In October, Khosla also sued two state agencies, accusing the government of using “coercion and harassment” to infringe on his private property rights.
The California coastal commission, established by voters in 1972 to protect public use of the coast, has reported that beachgoers have increasingly complained about private security guards telling them they are trespassing on private property and forcing them to leave the public beaches.
“The issue here is, can wealthy private individuals buy up our beautiful beaches for their own use?” said Cotchett, adding that he expects Khosla to appeal the decision and attempt to bring the case to the US Supreme Court.
Khosla’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Khosla recently made headlines when he downplayed the problem of sexual harassment in the venture capital industry, which has recently been exposed as a major concern among female founders. “I did not know that there was any discrimination,” Khosla said at a recent event, adding that it was “rarer than in most other businesses”. Source I am absoluteley uneducated when it comes to buying / selling land in the USA, but I feel like you should be able to decide who is allowed on your property, unless you don't impact society in a major way by doing so. I assume the first private owner bought the beach from the state, so the obvious thing would be not trying to make money by selling public property... I don't like the idea of smomeone buying beaches etc. and closing them, but isn't this ruling like when I would force you to let other people hold a barbeque in your garden? With this ruling the deal gets altered afterwards, he keeps all the negatives of owning that beach while losing some of the positive aspects. California voted to make all beaches public. (although I think UC Santa Barbara has it's own beach sort of). State law in California says (and has been clarified due to lawsuits against this guy) that you have to provide a way for the public to access the beach. Usually houses aren't literally on the beach so the idea that somebody would be literally in your back yard seems a bit silly. (I don't know what the actual layout o his house is. He doesn't actually live there so he's really just being an A hole. By law he doesn't own the beach. The laws been on the books for a long time. but yeah from occasionally reading it the beach has traditionally been used by people. I am genuinely confused about the case but if he owns the land the beach is on it seems like he would be definition own the beach. If they are going to say he owns the beach but not really they could at least have the decency to pay him for the beach.
If i understand correctly, he does not own the beach. He owns the land you need to pass to get to the beach. He decided not to allow people through there. So they are still allowed on the public beach, but they can't get there, because he owns all they ways towards that beach and puts a gate on them.
|
On August 11 2017 14:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 14:26 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 11 2017 12:15 Artesimo wrote:On August 11 2017 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A ray of good news in this end shit times this country and possibly the world is living in right now. A California court has ordered a Silicon Valley billionaire to restore access to a beloved beach that he closed off for his private use, a major victory for public lands advocates who have been fighting the venture capitalist for years.
An appeals court ruled Thursday that Vinod Khosla, who runs the venture capital firm Khosla Ventures and co-founded the tech company Sun Microsystems, must unlock the gates to Martins Beach in northern California by his property.
The decision is a major blow to Khosla and other wealthy landowners who have increasingly tried to buy up the internationally celebrated beaches along the California coast and turn public lands into private property.
The beach was a popular destination for fishing, surfing and other recreational activities for nearly a century, and the previous owners provided a general store and public restroom. But Khosla eventually bought the property and in 2010 closed public access, putting up signs warning against trespassing.
Khosla, who has a net worth of $1.55bn and does not live on the property, has faced multiple lawsuits and legislative efforts to get him to open up the gate to the beach near Half Moon Bay, about 30 miles south of San Francisco. The law in California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the “mean high tide line”.
The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the US.
“Vinod Khosla, with his billions of dollars, bought this piece of property and said, ‘No, no, the public isn’t going to use this anymore. End of story,’” the Surfrider attorney Joe Cotchett said by phone on Thursday. “He got away with it for many years … This is probably one of the most important public right-of-access cases in the country.”
Khosla’s refusal to restore access has made him something of a symbol of the immense wealth in the tech industry and rising income inequality in the region.
Last year, his attorneys claimed that he would open the gate to the beach only if the government paid him $30m, an amount that state officials said was unreasonably high. In October, Khosla also sued two state agencies, accusing the government of using “coercion and harassment” to infringe on his private property rights.
The California coastal commission, established by voters in 1972 to protect public use of the coast, has reported that beachgoers have increasingly complained about private security guards telling them they are trespassing on private property and forcing them to leave the public beaches.
“The issue here is, can wealthy private individuals buy up our beautiful beaches for their own use?” said Cotchett, adding that he expects Khosla to appeal the decision and attempt to bring the case to the US Supreme Court.
Khosla’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Khosla recently made headlines when he downplayed the problem of sexual harassment in the venture capital industry, which has recently been exposed as a major concern among female founders. “I did not know that there was any discrimination,” Khosla said at a recent event, adding that it was “rarer than in most other businesses”. Source I am absoluteley uneducated when it comes to buying / selling land in the USA, but I feel like you should be able to decide who is allowed on your property, unless you don't impact society in a major way by doing so. I assume the first private owner bought the beach from the state, so the obvious thing would be not trying to make money by selling public property... I don't like the idea of smomeone buying beaches etc. and closing them, but isn't this ruling like when I would force you to let other people hold a barbeque in your garden? With this ruling the deal gets altered afterwards, he keeps all the negatives of owning that beach while losing some of the positive aspects. California voted to make all beaches public. (although I think UC Santa Barbara has it's own beach sort of). State law in California says (and has been clarified due to lawsuits against this guy) that you have to provide a way for the public to access the beach. Usually houses aren't literally on the beach so the idea that somebody would be literally in your back yard seems a bit silly. (I don't know what the actual layout o his house is. He doesn't actually live there so he's really just being an A hole. By law he doesn't own the beach. The laws been on the books for a long time. but yeah from occasionally reading it the beach has traditionally been used by people. I am genuinely confused about the case but if he owns the land the beach is on it seems like he would be definition own the beach. If they are going to say he owns the beach but not really they could at least have the decency to pay him for the beach.
It's hard to own a beach in the US unless it was previously private property. It's like owning part of a national park. If the public has always had access to it, then you can't just close it off because you want to. You have to allow people to use it. If he was smart, he would just pay to play the beach. But he's just greedy. The beach has always been used by the public and he was required to allow access to the beach. He didn't so he has to forfeit the beach. Eminent domain I think is what they are going for, by trying to have the state take back the property. I haven't read the article/lawsuit in its entirety though.
|
On August 11 2017 14:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 14:26 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 11 2017 12:15 Artesimo wrote:On August 11 2017 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A ray of good news in this end shit times this country and possibly the world is living in right now. A California court has ordered a Silicon Valley billionaire to restore access to a beloved beach that he closed off for his private use, a major victory for public lands advocates who have been fighting the venture capitalist for years.
An appeals court ruled Thursday that Vinod Khosla, who runs the venture capital firm Khosla Ventures and co-founded the tech company Sun Microsystems, must unlock the gates to Martins Beach in northern California by his property.
The decision is a major blow to Khosla and other wealthy landowners who have increasingly tried to buy up the internationally celebrated beaches along the California coast and turn public lands into private property.
The beach was a popular destination for fishing, surfing and other recreational activities for nearly a century, and the previous owners provided a general store and public restroom. But Khosla eventually bought the property and in 2010 closed public access, putting up signs warning against trespassing.
Khosla, who has a net worth of $1.55bn and does not live on the property, has faced multiple lawsuits and legislative efforts to get him to open up the gate to the beach near Half Moon Bay, about 30 miles south of San Francisco. The law in California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the “mean high tide line”.
The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the US.
“Vinod Khosla, with his billions of dollars, bought this piece of property and said, ‘No, no, the public isn’t going to use this anymore. End of story,’” the Surfrider attorney Joe Cotchett said by phone on Thursday. “He got away with it for many years … This is probably one of the most important public right-of-access cases in the country.”
Khosla’s refusal to restore access has made him something of a symbol of the immense wealth in the tech industry and rising income inequality in the region.
Last year, his attorneys claimed that he would open the gate to the beach only if the government paid him $30m, an amount that state officials said was unreasonably high. In October, Khosla also sued two state agencies, accusing the government of using “coercion and harassment” to infringe on his private property rights.
The California coastal commission, established by voters in 1972 to protect public use of the coast, has reported that beachgoers have increasingly complained about private security guards telling them they are trespassing on private property and forcing them to leave the public beaches.
“The issue here is, can wealthy private individuals buy up our beautiful beaches for their own use?” said Cotchett, adding that he expects Khosla to appeal the decision and attempt to bring the case to the US Supreme Court.
Khosla’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Khosla recently made headlines when he downplayed the problem of sexual harassment in the venture capital industry, which has recently been exposed as a major concern among female founders. “I did not know that there was any discrimination,” Khosla said at a recent event, adding that it was “rarer than in most other businesses”. Source I am absoluteley uneducated when it comes to buying / selling land in the USA, but I feel like you should be able to decide who is allowed on your property, unless you don't impact society in a major way by doing so. I assume the first private owner bought the beach from the state, so the obvious thing would be not trying to make money by selling public property... I don't like the idea of smomeone buying beaches etc. and closing them, but isn't this ruling like when I would force you to let other people hold a barbeque in your garden? With this ruling the deal gets altered afterwards, he keeps all the negatives of owning that beach while losing some of the positive aspects. California voted to make all beaches public. (although I think UC Santa Barbara has it's own beach sort of). State law in California says (and has been clarified due to lawsuits against this guy) that you have to provide a way for the public to access the beach. Usually houses aren't literally on the beach so the idea that somebody would be literally in your back yard seems a bit silly. (I don't know what the actual layout o his house is. He doesn't actually live there so he's really just being an A hole. By law he doesn't own the beach. The laws been on the books for a long time. but yeah from occasionally reading it the beach has traditionally been used by people. I am genuinely confused about the case but if he owns the land the beach is on it seems like he would be definition own the beach. If they are going to say he owns the beach but not really they could at least have the decency to pay him for the beach.
It's more than possible to buy property with pre-existing conditions for that land. And as long as it was all made clear to you before purchase, you have no complain when asked to comply with those conditions.
No idea what the situation here is, specifically, though.
|
Imagine if there was a public park. You bought the public park knowing that the law says you still had to allow the public access to it. You then built gates all around the park and said you'd only open the gate if the county paid you 30 million dollars.
It might even not be that; from reading the article there's a possibility he bought the property on the only way to *access* the beach, rather than the beach itself, and then closed that off. Which would be like buying all the area around a public park, gating off the park, and then demanding 30 million dollars.
|
On August 11 2017 12:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 12:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 11 2017 12:34 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 11 2017 12:25 m4ini wrote:
TIL that in case those Guam missiles actually fly, the US would not be able to officially invoke Article 5. It's safe to assume that the NATO members would still offer military assistance, but technically they wouldn't need to.
I actually didn't know that. Makes Guam even "better" of a target from an insane minds standpoint.
edit: what's your guys opinions on that, do you think NATO countries would be morally obligated to offer help in case Guam gets hit (splashed, whatever)? I feel like there's compelling cases to be made for both arguments. If the other countries didn't reply in a positive they can kiss NATO goodbye and all cooperation funding, military, and intelligence goodbye. On what basis? To invoke Article 5 means a NATO member is under threat and the rest must comply to defend as a whole the Alliance is under threat. Guam is US territory hence one can argue missiles were just fired at the United States a NATO member. The US has never refused to honor a Article 5 call. Ever. Imagine being the country to do that and after North Korea is obliterated, the tens of millions dead, being the one country to be facing backlash from the US and other countries. NM: m4ini got it. Looks like a PHD in Evolutionary biology decided to look at the memo: Along with some other scientist
Skimming over their responses, I'm obviously aligned with the 4 scientists on Quillette, not the 1 on Quora.
I can also recommend reading the books of Jonathan Haidt. Very enlightening man, that.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The California beach billionaire sounds like a straight-up asshole who is doing things because he can. No surprise, but it's nice to see him get smacked down again and again pursuing a venture where he is clearly wrong.
|
On August 11 2017 15:29 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 12:40 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 12:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 11 2017 12:34 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 11 2017 12:25 m4ini wrote:
TIL that in case those Guam missiles actually fly, the US would not be able to officially invoke Article 5. It's safe to assume that the NATO members would still offer military assistance, but technically they wouldn't need to.
I actually didn't know that. Makes Guam even "better" of a target from an insane minds standpoint.
edit: what's your guys opinions on that, do you think NATO countries would be morally obligated to offer help in case Guam gets hit (splashed, whatever)? I feel like there's compelling cases to be made for both arguments. If the other countries didn't reply in a positive they can kiss NATO goodbye and all cooperation funding, military, and intelligence goodbye. On what basis? To invoke Article 5 means a NATO member is under threat and the rest must comply to defend as a whole the Alliance is under threat. Guam is US territory hence one can argue missiles were just fired at the United States a NATO member. The US has never refused to honor a Article 5 call. Ever. Imagine being the country to do that and after North Korea is obliterated, the tens of millions dead, being the one country to be facing backlash from the US and other countries. NM: m4ini got it. Looks like a PHD in Evolutionary biology decided to look at the memo: Along with some other scientist Skimming over their responses, I'm obviously aligned with the 4 scientists on Quillette, not the 1 on Quora. I can also recommend reading the books of Jonathan Haidt. Very enlightening man, that.
Oooops
"Our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often," the researchers wrote in a study that was published Feb. 9
Study: Female Coders Better Than Men, But Perceived As Worse
On a related note. Until the XXth century, there were not a single female classical music composer of significance. It was SCIENCE that men were creative, had the genius to compose symphonies when clearly women couldn't. First they were not that interested. And secondly it was backed up by facts. Hundreds of great men composers. Zero female. End of story.
Well, things have changed, and there are plenty of female composers now. Gubaidulina, Kaija Saariaho, etc etc... When I was at college, composing students were 50/50 male women. It's just that composing music has stopped being a boy's stuff, and that women are not discouraged anymore to do it (Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn and Alma Mahler had arguably as much talent to start with than their spouses / brother. But composing was not a lady stuff so they had to give up. Keep playing girls, but don't compose, kthx). In a few decades 100/0% has become 50/50%.
That women are biologically worse at tech stuff than men is an idea so unbelievably retarded I can't believe we are even talking about it. Computers are a boy thing in our society, and it's weirder for a little girl to be a computer nerd than for a little boy. There is nothing biological about it, and no big mystery really.
|
Say what?
Again. Never said they would be worse. You are straw-manning. Stop doing that. It is a matter of interest. When they have the same interests, they are just as good, and potentially even better. It can be argued that only the women who are best at it will be inclined to pursue their interest in coding, while men who are average at it will also pursue coding, in both cases due to sociologically induced biases (thus making woman coders better on average). But I never said they would be worse at it. Nobody has ever said that in this thread as far as I know, except to strawman like you just did.
There is also evidence of sexism towards women who are not frequent contributors (and thus have not proven themselves) in the statistics they found on GitHub. That is what your quote is about and it is obviously a problem within society that is supported by a lot of evidence in other fields as well. But I never made any claims that women who are interested in coding are worse at it simply because, statistically, their gender is less inclined to be interested in it.
That interest (again, not SKILL, can you comprehend the difference between these two things?) looks like it has some basis in biology/chemicals/whatever. It is not exclusively biology, but did you not see the monkey study I linked where boy monkeys are inclined to play with wheeled trucks, while girl monkeys prefer the dolls? Monkeys don't understand what cars are for, monkeys don't understand that cars are marketed towards boys, yet they share this bias in interests with humans.
For gods sake. This will be my last post on the issue. I'm done with this.
|
The beach land between the normal high water mark and the waters edge is held in public trust in most states and cannot be owned by anyone, even the government technically.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think there's a reason to take any of Trumps tweets very seriously in a direct sort of manner. They're all laced with deception and intended as pandering to his base. His tweeting is the epitome of the social media bubble/polarization/etc. Clinton would have likely approved the same actual military preparations that the Pentagon presented to counter the threats of North Korea, she just would've been less noisy about it.
We can only hope the two countries won't give each other an excuse to 'retaliate'.
|
I doubt those "plans" are as in-depth as he claims them to be. I'll wait for Mattis or someone else to confirm. Or a leak from that sinking WH ship.
|
On August 11 2017 21:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I doubt those "plans" are as in-depth as he claims them to be. I'll wait for Mattis or someone else to confirm. Or a leak from that sinking WH ship.
He either signed something, or received a report that preparations have been made lol. The stupid blustering idiot that he is.
|
On August 11 2017 21:04 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 21:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I doubt those "plans" are as in-depth as he claims them to be. I'll wait for Mattis or someone else to confirm. Or a leak from that sinking WH ship. He either signed something, or received a report that preparations have been made lol. The stupid blustering idiot that he is.
How great would it be if he signed a document that says he colluded with russia and it was titled "north korea military options"? Oh, I can dream.
|
More Americans are drinking alcohol, and a growing number of them are drinking to a point that's dangerous or harmful, according to a new study published in JAMA Psychiatry this week.
The study, sponsored by a federal agency for alcohol research, examined how drinking patterns changed between 2002 and 2013, based on in-person surveys of tens of thousands of U.S. adults.
They found that drinking, in general, rose substantially over that time frame. Problem drinking increased by an even greater percentage, and women, racial minorities, older adults and the poor saw particularly large spikes.
The findings suggest "a public health crisis," the researchers say, given the fact that high-risk drinking is linked to a number of diseases and psychiatric problems, as well as violence, crime and crashes.
Source
Guess I should put this .750ml bottle of whiskey away.
|
0.75ml isn't a lot, I'm sure you'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
