1951
Bay 12 Games Forum
- April 13, 2024, 08:25:08 pm
- Welcome, Guest
News:
March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1952
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 20, 2011, 01:12:00 pm »Everyone needs to read this.Just want to try to work this out, because the reporting around this is confusing.
There isn't a permalink to the amendment available yet. The actual text proposed is;
Quote
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486.This matches the text of an amendment from Steve King in the House.
The justification given by both was to stop Planned Parenthood using teleconferencing in prescribing the drug, but there is no explicit block on discussing abortion via the internet or any similar behaviour. I'm not even sure that there was a penny going from this bill (and this amendment only applies to this bill) towards RU-486. It seems more likely this is pure grandstanding about abortion to make headlines and that the pro-choice side are buying into it as well.
1953
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 19, 2011, 01:04:26 pm »No, I think that the whole scenario of going out of my way to make you feel comfortable is absolutely wrong. It doesn't smack of equality in any measure. It only serves to elevate women to a stature of higher class individuals where men are mere peasants to their whim. "Excuse me ma'am, but can I ask for your attention?" If rejected, you have to bow politely three times and back away as to not be mistaken for showing aggression. Obviously, women deserve this sort of treatment because they are much more respectable people opposed to us despicable sex driven male pigs.And this is back to the earlier problem.
When guys response to women saying "I find this creepy," or "I feel threatened when guys do that," is to attack them and say it's an excessive imposition, that's when I have a problem.
It's simply saying that you don't care how you come across to women, if you intimidate or scare them.
Now I don't know how you behave in real life, if you are cautious about your interactions and come across as the sweetest guy on the planet. But in this exchange you are saying that you don't care if you do or not, and you are defending your right to behave in ways that you have been told women find intimidating and creepy. That's creepy in itself.
1954
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 19, 2011, 10:34:04 am »And I think the possibility of a lasting friendship versus the chance of temporarily creeping somebody out is a good tradeoff.But you don't exactly go up to everyone you could possibly talk to and introduce yourself, do you?
There are always some level of social and situation cues being used. An increased awareness of some more of these might help people avoid situations where they make a fool of themselves or put someone in a really uncomfortable situation, neither of which was going to end up in a lasting friendship (or anything else positive) anyway.
1956
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 19, 2011, 09:59:13 am »The only way that the elevator guys actions were "sexist" is if he did it EXPRESSLY to make her uncomfortable due to her gender.Where is the claim that he was being sexist coming from? His actions were used as an example of what not to do because they were creepy, not as sexist.
The sexism was much later, in the attacks by certain groups within the community against Rebecca and others who supported her.
1957
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 19, 2011, 09:28:45 am »
Just going to post this link again. I think this bit is relevant;
It's entirely this point that was the point of the initial video and early follow up. Basically, "see this behaviour? It's creepy. DON'T DO THAT!" The difficulty in communicating it really baffles and worries me. The massive backlash and attacks against those trying to communicate it is enraging and sickening.
Quote
When I was about 14 through 17, hanging around in an urban environment, with no car, and spending a lot of time at night on foot going places, I learned to do this trick. Say I'm walking down State Street and it's 1:00 AM and there's a woman walking in front of me in the same direction. With very few exceptions, I'll overtake her, and there will then be this long, maybe one-third of a city block long period when I'm right behind her, then right next to her, then just in front of her.I don't know if I'm particularly sociable, but this kind of thing has just seemed obvious to me. I'm a six foot tall guy. On one occasion when I was wearing a hood up due to rain I had a girl come up to me (while I was in a large group of mixed friends) and take it down saying I looked too scary like that. It's always seemed obvious to me that I could creep someone out without meaning to or ever being a threat. I've also lived in fairly safe places, crime wise, so walking around at night isn't something I think twice about doing myself. But I'm also aware that what I think of as safe places are places where women are still assaulted or raped with enraging frequency.
From any of those three vantage points, I could grab her. From behind, or from next to her, or by turning around and grabbing her from the front. Then I could push her to the ground and drag her into an alley or whatever.
But I would not do that. Therefore, the woman walking alone at 1:00 AM in the morning downtown has nothing to worry about, right? Well, actually, since she does not know me she has a great deal to worry about because the chances that some guy walking (fast) alone down State Street in the middle of the night is a perfectly nice guy who will do no harm (me) vs. the chance that the guy is some sort of sexual assaulter or mugger is hard to assess, and the chance of the latter being the case is far from zero.
So I learned this trick. Cross the street about a block back and "pass" the lady that way. Same with a potential head-on encounter. If you see a woman walking towards you in the middle of the night on a lonely urban street, my practice in those days was to cross the street to not stress her out.
...
All men. ALL men who have given sufficient consideration to women's position in our society do this walking trick. If you are a man and you do not know about this trick then there is a problem with you.
It's entirely this point that was the point of the initial video and early follow up. Basically, "see this behaviour? It's creepy. DON'T DO THAT!" The difficulty in communicating it really baffles and worries me. The massive backlash and attacks against those trying to communicate it is enraging and sickening.
1958
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 18, 2011, 08:35:20 pm »And the point being?No point. Just figured they might help explore that question. It popped up just before I was going to post and her blog happened to be in a tab already.
If you want what I take away from them it's that stringent gender roles in this case harm everyone, male and female, and I'm damned glad the social circles I mostly hang out in (tending towards the alternative when it comes to music and sexuality) tend to avoid such hangups. I don't think individual cases usually stem from personal misogyny or misandry, rather from internalised gender roles that come from social misandry/misogyny, and I'm not entirely confident those are the right terms for this context.
On the other hand I think that such things are often the origin of misogyny. See the Nice Guys™ problem.
The thing is : no this behaviour was not sexism, that was selfishness or rudeness, but not sexism,I'm not clear what point you are talking about here. If it's the original incident then I mostly agree, although I do think that such a lack of empathy or consideration in this context is an issue of concern for feminists and anyone interested in gender issues.
Quote
as for the article you're quoting "we are explaining you (stupid male) how to get laid" was bad enough, I don't exactly see how "if you disagree with me you're a sexist pig" make it better.Except that you still seem to be missing her point. She was describing the exchanges that took place between herself and a number of others and those on the other side of the debate.
Trust me, I get her point perfectly, I just disagree completely with that being feminism or a problem specific to the atheist community at all.
The people on her side tried to help men who explicitly didn't get the problem understand. These were the point who were saying there was 'zero bad' in the situation and that they didn't see anything wrong with what the man did. I think we can both agree someone who says that needs help and advice on how to deal with women, even if it's just "don't do that, it's creepy."
The getting laid part is incidental; the context for understanding was hitting on women, so trying for sex is sort of implied.
The men's response was to scream about her (and the others) trying to stop them flirting with or hitting on women at all, despite that not being anything to do with what she said. It was the very criticism of their privileged position - the very pointing out that they are privileged at all - that they were objecting to.
That is, they were saying she was a misandrist to avoid having to engage her actual arguments. Effective strategy I'm sure.
As for this being specific to the atheist community, it's not. I actually find it's even worse in other online communities (and the gaming community had it's own recent blowup with that Magic date nonsense). On the other hand the atheist community is a group that loves to contrast itself with restrictive religious groups by how progressive it is, often explicitly on gender issues. For it to have such a large segment have such a sexist meltdown is a real worry.
1959
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 18, 2011, 07:36:04 pm »The level of mysandry involved in her defence matched the misogynyThat is flatly absurd and requires a wilful misreading of her article. The context for that comes shortly afterwards;
Quote
And if you’re fervently resisting that help… then I have to assume that getting laid is not the point.The early responses were mostly pointing out why the behaviour was seen as wrong and trying to help guys who couldn't see why propositioning a woman in a situation where she couldn't get away in the small hours of the morning might be seen as threatening. People were trying to help men understand why women may feel uncomfortable in certain situations, helping those men deal with women in social situations and, by extension, get laid.
When women explain to you — in a calm, nuanced, proportionate way — that there are some contexts in which your advances are less likely to be well-received than others, and you respond by sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming about ball-busting, man-hating feminists who are hell-bent on eradicating all flirting and sex and eroding your First Amendment right to proposition any woman at any time and place? When you resist hearing that hitting on a woman who’s alone in an elevator in a strange city at four o’clock in the morning is not likely to be well-received, that it’s likely to be perceived as a potential threat, and that you are likely to be perceived as an insensitive clod at best if you do it? When we explain ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times, that elevators are well-documented as a common place for women to get raped and that it’s therefore not an appropriate place to make sexual advances — and you still reply, “But I don’t understand what the problem is with elevators”?
I have to assume that getting laid is not the point.
I have to assume that the point is something entirely different. I have to assume that you will do anything to resist hearing that women experience male advances in a very different context from the way men experience female advances. I have to assume that you have an active resistance to understanding that women’s experiences are different from men’s: that (among other things) women routinely get our professional/ intellectual/ artistic accomplishments dismissed in favor of a focus on our sexual attractiveness, and that women have to be seriously cautious about physical and sexual violence from men. When you are so vehemently unwilling to see some of the ways that privilege works in your favor, I have to assume that maintaining privilege is the point.
Claiming mysandry in this post is a real reach, and using that one reach as an extension to dismiss both sides as equally bad is even worse.
I did not see misogyny in the incident in the elevator at all.It was much more the response to the incident and the online arguments afterwards. The one incident is a single worrying symptom of men in the movement not getting it. The response online has been an extended exposure of a really nasty underbelly of sexism within the atheist/sceptic movement.
So, I've just one question: when a woman actually expects the man she's attracted to to be the active side, is she misogynistic or misandric?Related three posts.
1960
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 18, 2011, 06:17:00 pm »Quick summary;Probably the elevatorgate thing?What's that?
High profile atheist/sceptic blogger Rebecca Watson was on a panel at a convention of atheist/sceptic types about "Communicating Atheism". During the panel she said she found it sexist for guys she doesn't know to hit on her.
She then spent some time in the bar with a number of others from the conference before heading to bed in the hotel around 4AM.
When she left one of the guys from the bar (who she didn't know) followed her into the elevator. While in the elevator with her he asked her back to his room for a cup of coffee.
Needless to say this freaked her out a bit and she said as much in a video she made after the incident. Video here. Probably worth watching that and reading the first few comments to see the early response. In particular this exchange;
Quote from: Quaap
Not sure the guy in the elevator thing was an instance of sexualizing you, just an example of a bad way to approach someone.
Quote from: Rebecca Watson
There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone’s hotel room to have it. Sure. There’s a chance.Greg Laden outdid himself with a post going back to Rebecca's original point from that early comment. Sadly that whole debate was quickly overshaddowed by the shitstorm to follow.
But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long.
The shitstorm started after Richard Dawkins made a few really, really stupid comments. This is a good place to read up on that.
A number of the feminists within the atheist movement condemned these comments, but a massive number of people came out in support of Dawkins and the guy from the original incident, claiming there was 'zero bad' in the incident and that Rebecca was deliberately creating a massive scandal to... well, not entirely sure. Most people are content to just attack her as an annoying woman who wouldn't shut up.
The level of misogynistic attacks involved in any discussion of the incident is incredible. A lot of previously respected individuals have lost all that respect. And a few have really distinguished themselves.
Frankly, the atheist/sceptic movement seem to think that they are the progressive ones compared to the nasty regressive/conservative religious groups, so sexism isn't a problem for them. After all, the oppose religious restrictions on women, so how can anyone accuse them of being misogynistic? That largely means that when people do start pointing out sexism within the movement the reaction is vitriolic and aggressive attacks against the accuser. And so the problems are never addressed and/or get worse.
1961
General Discussion / Re: CERN has accidentally the everything.
« on: October 17, 2011, 08:14:15 pm »It is almost impossible to perfectly synchronize two signals simultaneously when they are different distances from a satellite, and that satellite is moving.Not really given that these are GPS satellites. Really you can pull it off with any old bird, but GPS makes it incredibly easy.
GPS satellites act as orbiting atomic clocks, constantly firing off the exact time. This is coupled with similarly precise orbital details. Normal GPS location calculations use multiple time and location signals to triangulate the precise location of a receiver relative to the satellites. Note that a 1ns error in the time signal is equal to roughly 1 foot (30cm) in location signal and GPS can reach accuracies of 20cm.
There is a protocol called Common view GPS time transfer that lets you synch up a pair of clocks using an orbital reference signal. This lets you achieve sub 10ns error between two clocks.
Also note that the first paper on that page, describing the synch setup, was published in 1980. This isn't cutting edge science any more. There are even commercial services offering clock synch accurate to the 10s of nanoseconds.
1962
General Discussion / Re: Vector's Chill and Relaxed Progressive Rage Thread
« on: October 17, 2011, 07:08:32 pm »
There are some rough stats here suggesting that women make up 57% of all government jobs, rising to 62% in local government. That's dated to earlier this year.
More likely the women are more concentrated in areas that are being attacked while male dominated areas are being protected. Firefighters and police officers are normally the last to be cut, and those fields are massively male. Teachers are a favourite target for anti-union types and that's hugely female (76% according to that article). They also note 'home based-child-care workers' at 96% female being stripped of collective bargaining rights.
And women are the ones hit hardest by bargaining rights and benefits being cut. While most such issues like childcare and healthcare are far from exclusively female, they have far harsher effects on women than on men, statistically speaking.
There are similar results in the UK, with female employment taking particularly harsh hits in the youngest and oldest age bands.
As for the Tea Party wanting this, probably not. There are more obvious opponents here. Start with the Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schlafly and go from there.
More likely the women are more concentrated in areas that are being attacked while male dominated areas are being protected. Firefighters and police officers are normally the last to be cut, and those fields are massively male. Teachers are a favourite target for anti-union types and that's hugely female (76% according to that article). They also note 'home based-child-care workers' at 96% female being stripped of collective bargaining rights.
And women are the ones hit hardest by bargaining rights and benefits being cut. While most such issues like childcare and healthcare are far from exclusively female, they have far harsher effects on women than on men, statistically speaking.
There are similar results in the UK, with female employment taking particularly harsh hits in the youngest and oldest age bands.
As for the Tea Party wanting this, probably not. There are more obvious opponents here. Start with the Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schlafly and go from there.
1963
General Discussion / Re: CERN has accidentally the everything.
« on: October 17, 2011, 03:01:11 pm »tldr; of the article: clocks were synced using satellites whose velocity led to slight relativistic changes in the times sent out, fully accounting for the 60 nanosecond difference.Except...
Well, for one thing those sorts of corrections are so basic to the system they are built into it. The idea that it wasn't taken into account in a system designed to give 20cm resolution... yeah, not buying it.
For another, this kinda fails the smell test. The author is a theorist working in AI and the paper reads like an undergraduate attempt to get the rights numbers out of a special relativity problem. The proposed error is incredibly simple, theory wise, and yet was supposedly missed by the 175 physicist co-authors of the original paper during their six months sanity checking the result.
Finally, it looks to me like he is assuming the clock used for timing was the one on the GPS satellite. That is simply wrong. The group used a pair of atomic clocks synchronised by GPS. GPS satellites themselves have frequency correction so they are keeping earth time, so if you receive a GPS signal the only adjustment from that you need to make is for transmission time.
Most of the experimentalists I follow are very unimpressed. Try Tom (who works with atomic clocks), his follow up about time synch or Chad for the standard responses.
I'm buying the majority view here that this is going to be a hard to find error deep in their code or something interesting in the decay physics rather than the neutrino speed itself. But it's probably not a weak quantum measurement effect.
1964
General Discussion / Re: Learning Programming
« on: October 14, 2011, 10:29:14 am »I have this book, which is now out of date (there's a third edition). Is this enough to start on?I tend to find that multiple sources and people chipping in help, but pretty much any guide is good as a core program to follow. It doesn't really matter how out of date it is, you just want to learn the core ideas behind programming on which you can bolt anything new you want to try. I found a really outdated Fotran book (around the time GOTO was first being seen as maybe not all that great) that was really helpful for a lot of the core concepts.
It's one of the reasons Fotran is still taught (OK, Fotran90 - hey, that's in Firefox's spellcheck where Fotran isn't...) in some physics degrees (like mine). The language and even specific methods you are taught don't matter so much as learning to program and the ideas behind those methods, so may as well teach a language not usually learnt elsewhere, but which still has massive amounts of code lying around from previous generations. Job security. Fewer people who can read your code the fewer people can replace you in your job. Obviously not that useful for going into a specific industry, but for people who build and maintain their own code it's not a problem.
I went from very basic DIV (a cross between BASIC and C) as a kid, to Fortran90, to LabView/G (which is arguably not really a language, but uses most of the same skillset other than typing), to some C, some C++, some Java, some C#, back to Fotran, back to LabView, to now starting to learn Lisp, with some detours into pathelogical languages as curiosities*. Oh, and I've used lots of mathematical/statistical data processing languages/packages, including Matlab, Maple, R and IDL, plus got a little addicted to AutoHotkey scripting along the way. Basically just playing with code and scripts to achieve whatever was lying in front of me at the time with whatever tools happened to hand or looked like fun to use.
* I adore SNUSP despite never having any cause or desire to do any work with it. Even Brainfuck is more useful, but SNUSP is simply beautiful. From the link, this is a multiplication function;
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
1965
General Discussion / Re: TV (or any other media) Universes You Would and Wouldn’t Want to Live In
« on: October 06, 2011, 09:41:37 pm »
I don't think you can really argue with the Culture.
As a place you really don't want to live, the Laundryverse (TV Tropes warning). When you aren't being stalked by the many angled ones from the bottom of the Mandelbrot set, escaping from their cultists, stuck on an airless earth where the Nazis won or in a graveyard where all the interred just turned out for lunch... your day job is as a civil service network technician and IT gofer, dealing with human resources and the ever present threat of Microsoft sponsored software audits.
Just to make the level of suck clear, this is a universe where mathematics and magic are one and the same. Where the right computation can summon unspeakable horrors or, worse, one of the True Gods. Oculists who worship such beings are somewhat less dangerous than the mathematicians and CS majors who want to explore the theory.
Then realise that MMOs exist...
Also that human brains are computation devices. And there are lots of them around. All CCTV cameras have been set up to instantly turn anyone in their view into stone as a safety precaution ahead of CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN, mostly just in hope of reducing the population enough to avoid the worst of things. A nuclear war was considered, but such mass death would be just as attractive to certain classes of being.
As a place you really don't want to live, the Laundryverse (TV Tropes warning). When you aren't being stalked by the many angled ones from the bottom of the Mandelbrot set, escaping from their cultists, stuck on an airless earth where the Nazis won or in a graveyard where all the interred just turned out for lunch... your day job is as a civil service network technician and IT gofer, dealing with human resources and the ever present threat of Microsoft sponsored software audits.
Just to make the level of suck clear, this is a universe where mathematics and magic are one and the same. Where the right computation can summon unspeakable horrors or, worse, one of the True Gods. Oculists who worship such beings are somewhat less dangerous than the mathematicians and CS majors who want to explore the theory.
Then realise that MMOs exist...
Also that human brains are computation devices. And there are lots of them around. All CCTV cameras have been set up to instantly turn anyone in their view into stone as a safety precaution ahead of CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN, mostly just in hope of reducing the population enough to avoid the worst of things. A nuclear war was considered, but such mass death would be just as attractive to certain classes of being.
