Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the gender wage gap truly a result of discrimination?

Originally posted by Kasic:

There are definitely some men in our government at the moment who hold distinctly sexist views. The problem is, they get elected because not only men but women vote for them too. It’s not just the fault of men, but of humanity’s collective tendency to believe what they’re told as they are raised and be completely unable to think critically.

Worth pointing out that some women hold equally sexist views. Some individual women even get a kick out of seeing other women fail in the workplace because they enjoy seeing women fail but emply cognitive dissonance in their own success.

Being a woman doesn’t dictate your personality or your political agenda, or your economic agenda or your fetishes, any more than being a man dictates what those same things will be.


Originally posted by petesahooligan:

On-site daycare services are big. Companies that provide these services attract young professional women and the company benefits as a result.

One potential issue you’ve clipped the edge of here, is the assumption that a professional woman is going to be a mother at some point. It’s back to the old subconscious assumption that we’re baby-making machines, and the company needs incorporate that into its HR functions. As such even when you are not going to have a child, ever, ever, ever, you still have to deal with that innate assumption that the company is going to definitely lose you for a year at some unspecified future point, because of what reproductive system you have.

It’s an implied subconscious cultural element, and it’s a bloody pain.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is feminism obsolete???

It’s probably a good idea to restart it at least once a week anyway. Clears out any memory allocation problems. They add up after awhile.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the gender wage gap truly a result of discrimination?

The old adage you stuck by as a woman in a professional role during the 90s and 2000s (in the 60s, 70s, and 80s too but I didn’t experience working in them) was that in order for a woman to be the equal of a man, she needed to be at least twice as qualified, and work twice as hard as he did. Only then could stand on equal shoulders with him.

It was incredibly stupid, and started to tail out during the 2,000s, at least to a noticable degree. The breaking of the glass ceiling really helped. The glass cliffs…not so much. These days the problems we encounter are nothing like as bad as they were, but there are still problems.

For example, if I’ve created a new product or sizable product enhancement the company wishes to promote to a group of investors, in order to secure additional capital for its development and eventual deployment, we keep a close check on who those investors are. They’re typically fairly wealthy older gentlemen (as you would expect). This has led to a problem with several of them, where if we wish to secure funding, we have to send a man in to demonstrate the product.

I have wondered if it was a problem with me, as I tend to say what I think, but it’s a problem with several influential investors, and although we have several women in active rolls in the company (including one who helped design the frigging Argus array for crying out loud), putting such individuals in front of the board tends to cut our chances of securing funding drastically.

It’s an ‘old boy network’ kind of thing. The old boys expect a gentleman to present the findings, and don’t take a woman in charge particularly seriously. As such our chances of selling the merits of the design are hurt by the gender of the person who is demonstrating it.

It’ll fade in time, as these old boys pop their clogs and are replaced by younger, more worldly-wise individuals of both genders, and the problem will become a non-issue. However, for now, we’re still dealing with the legacy of the old boy network running everything, and the culture that sees females as ‘lesser creatures, that should be silent in the presence of a man’.

Funding is more important than my ego, so I put up with it, for now, but the tide has definitely turned on that world-view, and it’s just a matter of time now, before they’re in the shunned minority.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is feminism obsolete???

Seeing as Godwin’s Law has already been called, and Rush Limbaugh has already been invoked, I might as well wade in with an oldie but a goodie exploring Rush Limbaugh’s Nazi connection. It’s from a site that was dedicated to the idiocies of the Bush Administration, and that site has long since been taken down by its creator, but someone saved a copy of at least one of the flash animations on YouTube.

Rush Limbaugh Singing “I’m a Nazi!”. YouTube video, 3:41 secs in length. Might be worth a chuckle.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

But I’d argue (largely for the sake of conversation) that the scale of risk doesn’t substantiate the scale of the threat. For example, just because a life hangs in the balance doesn’t mean that bullying is a factor in a person’s decision to end their life.

It doesn’t matter whether it is bullying, or they wish to end it all because they are depressed, because their lover has forsaken them, or because their spouse wants rid of them.

If we’re talking about assisting another in the ending of their life, it is our duty as medics to make absolutely sure it is for the right reasons. Need to be sure that it is what the person really wishes, that they are of sound mind when they make the request (and that if the request is made by a third party on their behalf, there is solid medical evidence for why this person is permanently unable to make or refute such a request), and that there is not a treatment option other than death available.

Plus, I believe there IS negative impact in adopting a review process that may be onerous given the person’s situation. When an individual has 6 months to live — and 6 months is not really an arbitrary number but rather a duration that some courts have determined to be a reasonable threshold when allowing end-of-life care — that time is of the essence.

What the courts have decided is irrelevant. We are not discussing death as a punishment regardless of the patient’s will, but as a medical solution when all else has failed, in order to ensure that their ending has some dignity.

A person facing a terminal illness wants to make the end of their life meaningful and significant. They should be empowered to make self-determinations… and should they choose to have “bullying” be a factor in their decision, that should be their right.

To an extent they do. However, they are nto taking their own lives, but insisting that another takes their life for them. In order to permit that, the other must make sure that this course of treatment is in the best interests of the patient. If it is not in their best interests, then it is not the appropriate course of treatment to undertake.


Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Is that to say that the underlying cause of all desire to cease living is “clinical depression?”

Obviously not.

However, patients suffering clinical depression must be assessed carefully. Depression alters the brain processes, making things seem worse than they are. Plus depression is usually treatable. It is transatory, and the moment passes. Death is not transitory.

Euthenasia is thus an option when the underlying condition is not treatable, and is only going to deteriorate with time. That is when the person can make a decision as to the point they are willing to put up with the collapse of their self, and present it to the medical community, for their assessment and ultimate agreement that this is the proper course to take.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

But I mean, is being bullied into suicide a significant enough risk to warrant this screening process?

Absolutely. After all you’re talking about deliberately ending a sentient life. Plus having a third party complicit in the deed. Just as in every other situation where a sentient life is deliberately taken, every effort should be made to determine if this is the right course of action before actually going ahead with it, as there are no take-backsies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

The process of psychological screening would be required for all cases? Wouldn’t that add a lot of cost and time to an intervention that often needs to be fluid and responsive?

It doesn’t need to be that fluid; the people involved aren’t going anywhere. Assisted suicide is solely for those individuals who cannot physically complete the act themselves without outside help, due to the nature of their condition. Anyone who is physically capable of committing suicide, will try to do so if driven to it, regardless of whether outside forces disagree.

As such there is a considerable timeframe to operate on, to determine if the individual wishing assistance with ending their life, is in the right frame of mind to do so, and is not being bullied into it by outside forces.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

How does one separate a “desire to live” from the guilt of being a burden?

Psychological screening. Ideally at least two different sets of psychological screening by two different qualified consultants. Only if both concur that it truly is the patient’s own wish and not that of an outside force, should the euthenasia be permitted to go ahead.

Generally those who do truly wish to end it all, are losing their cognitive facilities, and are aware they are losing the very essence of who they are. They tend to wish to go whilst they are still themselves as opposed to a hollow shell with nobody inside, hanging out to the last gasp. Their family then remember them as who they were and not as that shell. They become empowered to choose their own ending rather than let the disease do it for them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ancient Rome and the United States

Originally posted by wargamer1000:

I doubt I’d give. Perhaps you think morality at all isn’t a factor for societies and states? I’d like to hear not matters of fact, but your opinion.

Morality is fluid. Regardless of the morality the state holds, it is only ever going to reflect the morality of a portion of the populace. There is no one true morality or one ‘right’ morality, so any claim that a society fell because it held the ‘wrong’ morality sounds a little … odd.

Is that always the case? that a few must never hold most of the power? and that disasters are its consequence? Was this even the case for Rome?

It tends to be true, yeah. Put any group of random humans in confinement together. Sooner or later a hierarchy will emerge, with a few at the very top and a large number at the bottom. That’s just raw human nature; we’re hardwired to form into organised societies.

So you’re always going to encounter in a society of any real size and complexity, a few individuals at the top, and descending layers going down. It’s not intrinsically a bad thing, as the ones at the top tend to be charged with providing direction to those below them; a unifying vision of what the group’s doing. It only goes wrong when the individuals currently at the top get a little rotten and there is not an easy way to remove them.

But that’s a criticism of specific circumstances, not that type of system as a whole; as a whole it works.

   

Sanii, if you wish to remove a post of yours, you can delete it completely, by editing it and then looking to the far top right of the grey box surrounding the textbox. Where it says ‘Formatting Help’ on the right, if you go to the right of that there’s a link marked ‘delete post’ which does exactly what it says on the tin :)

Most people have trouble noticing the option is even there before they’ve used it for the first time. Because of the way it’s positioned away from anything else it makes it easy to miss. So don’t worry about overlooking it – most do :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Tutorial: How to Troll

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Maybe it’s like a troll onion… layers and layers deep… each one making us cry a little harder.

True that. As with old usenet, the ultimate point of trolling is to cause real and lasting harm to the person being trolled. A successful troll would see the target losing their job, lasting or permanant harm to any current relationship, heavy loss of reputation, or even losing their life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

There is however a danger present with euthenasia, that must be carefully managed.

That is the difference between a person desiring euthenasia because their condition is progressive, incurable, and they no-longer wish to live. Versus a person desiring euthenasia because their condition is progressive, incurable, and they have been pressured into it because of family members or guilted into it as they do not wish to be seen as a burden, despite otherwise having a wish to live.

Thus it requires a filter, a medical filter to assess whether the person desiring to end their life truly and deeply wishes to do so, or if they are being pressured into it by outside forces.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Millennial workplace horror stories

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

We are becoming a nomadic workforce.

I certainly agree with that. After all, the term ‘digital nomad’ which has been about for a few years, refers to people who conduct their lives in a nomadic manner, because the influx of new technologies allows for this. It doesn’t matter where in the world they are, in order to do the job of the moment, or complete the activity.

* Well, it does matter, but only in two ways: 1. The extent their current country of residence has sufficient capacity & stability of network backbone to permit their activities. 2. There is a ‘hard limit’ of approx 1,400 km for anything heavily direct artificial sensation based due to the propagation difference between the human PNS and our electronic network.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Millennial workplace horror stories

Originally posted by Frostbringer:

Also, I noticed a dozen of grammatical errors in my text. Seems like I have to work on my English again. Sorry for this. It must be a pain reading my text.

Don’t worry about it. As you noticed, I got your meaning (I just found the terminology confusion amusing). Besides, considering how many typos I catch in my own writing, and the times I accidentally confuse people by using Queen’s English and American English words interchangably.. well, let’s just say it would be highly hypocritical of me to insist every post I was willing to read was perfect.

So long as I can understand the gist, and it’s clear you tried, that’s good enough for me. Besides, the less said about my German the better :)

This said, self-education is a valid point. And this is really something I can see in the USA. But most of the material that I know are at a fairly low level. And the acceptance isn’t that great either.

Both are going to have to change for the US to keep on functioning. The US relies on graduates, far more than I suspect the average person realises. Specialised knowledge drives a country. Always has. As a country becomes more technologically adept, it relies on those subject specialists more and more. When we see a critical mass unable to afford higher or further education, we’ll see a change.

I rather suspect it won’t be entirely self-driven learning that we’ll see, but rather alternative models of further and higher education that don’t rely on the standard model. That way you still get the important standardised testing, but don’t have the associated costs.

For example, an entitrely-online institution would have the benefits of a complete lack of a physical campus. No building, renting or maintenance costs. Staff subcontracted from existing experts anywhere in the country / world. No tenure. You’re already seeing massive cost savings there. Research is still possible through an online medium (I’ve done it, so I damn well know it is), or through subcontracted time in regional facilities. The institution still gets all the benefits of name-association and post-grads working for peanuts, but doesn’t have to pay for their own facilities.

There are other potential examples, but it would all point towards a fundamental shift away from the traditional higher education system, towards a newer, more dynamic one catering to lower budgets and lower costs.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Millennial workplace horror stories

Frost, are you seriously equating a high school with higher education?

I agree to a point with a university education – it’s reached breaking point in the US ATM, but rather than assuming everyone will now give up on educating themselves further, I suspect it’ll just lead to a wider uptake of (and recognition of) alternate paths to self-education.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Millennial workplace horror stories

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

• A young child can easily accept new ideas because the frequency of new ideas is very high. Most ideas are new. New is normal.
• A very old person has difficulty accepting new ideas because new ideas are uncommon and unfamiliar. New is not normal.

Partially. The other half is that a young child exposed to new ideas does not yet have a fully functional core neural network in their brain; it’s still being built. So the new ideas are incorporated into the very structure of that network. An older person has a fully developed core neural network, and if that idea’s structure is at odds with their own structure, it is going to be much more difficult for them to fully grasp that idea and integrate it into their own structure.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Tutorial: How to Troll

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

At this point in this highly educational thread I’d like to interject a quick quiz:

1. How old is Cromagin really?
E. Late 20s/ early 30s most likely. Possibly a little older. You’re aware he’s Vanguarde right? None of your existing answers are physically possible considering how long he’s been here.

2. What phrase would one be most likely to read from Karmakoolkid?
E. LOL.

It’s kinda his catchpase. The other examples are written too eloquently to be Karma. Seriously, have you looked at his early way of writing here? :)

3. The earliest Serious Discussion forum was known as…
E. Off Topic. It’s where we came from, split off from there as a place to hold more sensible conversations. Look at how well that worked out.

4. Who is the smartest band in the world?
E. After they start taking heroin to be ‘cool’? I doubt any established band has a working braincell between all the members.

5. Why are you anonymous?
B. To protect myself from havoc. Also those I care about, but it’s semi-anonymous at best.

6. The internet’s sole purpose is…
E. To facilitate communication.

:P

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Millennial workplace horror stories

Probably more of a result of the correlation between the degree of difficulty people have dealing with change, and the length of time they’ve not seen any reason to change or perhaps more pertinently, been unable to follow the pace of change.

Newer generations are able to adapt much more easily to changes in how things can be done, precisely because their brains were exposed to the changes during their formulative years, and because they don’t have the baggage of decades of memory of doing things the old way.


EDIT: The only exceptions I’m aware of are people who have not allowed themselves to become stuck in a routine pattern of behavior or complacency that the existing way of doing things is ‘good enough’. Those same individuals who never let themselves get stuck in complacency over how things are going, seem relatively immune to the ‘old codger’ effect, and are continually able to incorporate new ways of doing things into their practices.

However, these people are literally just that: Exceptional, and in no way, shape or form, represent even a sizable minority of professionals in any but the most esoteric of fields.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are vaccines a gateway drug to heroin addiction?????

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

Yes. Lets look at the facts:

1. All drugs are chemicals that affect or alter the workings of the body
2. All food and drink contains such chemicals so all food and drink contain drugs (this is quite true by the by)
3. 100% of heroin users have consumed food and drink prior to becoming a heroin user.

Thus surely by the same logic as the OP, anyone who consumes food or drink at any point, is destined to become a heroin user?

Also OP:

2. vaccines teach children that injecting yourself with weird toxins is “good” for you

Which doctors’ office do you use please? I only ask so I can avoid it like the plague. Any ‘professional’ who routinely lets young kids play with sharps and trusts a young kid to use a highly dangerous injecting needle on their own, is a quack best avoided. :P

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Millennial workplace horror stories

Originally posted by Pessimista:

millenials have low tolerance to bureaucratic crap from archaic work schedules and methods

This is perhaps one of the central cores of the issue, and is I believe a very good point of contention. Smart new blood always tends to have issue with the old ways, as the old ways are usually maintained through tradition, or through the older minds of the company having been established in a different world.

With the rapid pace of socio-technological change, new blood is entering the workplace from a world where increasingly they are seeing more and more possibilities that just didn’t actually exist when the old guard started out. So it’s only logical they’d push to integrate some of these capabilities into their workplace?

It’s been the way since time immemorial that new blood displaces the old, and brings in fresh new ideas, and new ways of doing things. The only difference this generation has is that the pace of innovation driving the uptake of those fresh new ideas, is faster than it has ever been before.

But even us of the previous generations, well, has anyone here who is old enough to be in the workplace not championed at least a handful of changes, whether minor or major, to the organisations they’ve worked with/for?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Meat of the future

I’ve found an interesting mainstream debate on a highly related subject with a wide variety of responses. The BBC query ‘Would you eat cloned meat? ’ has a wide range of responses and viewpoints. It’s not quite the same, as as we’ve discussed here, lab-grown meat doesn’t have to be cloned in origin, although cloning is one valid way of making it.

As usual, the general public appears deeply split on the issue, and no real consensus is evident.

(On that note, I’d imagine vat grown meat will probably confuse the hell out of anybody trying to figure out if it’s technically kosher or halal or otherwise "OK’ according to other ancient religious dietary laws.)

Halal meat couldn’t be lab grown (other than via cloning/GMO) I don’t believe, because it is defined as halal because it was killed in a specific way. As you wouldn’t be able to slash a major artery or crush the windpipe of vat grown meat that lacks either of these things, it could never qualify as scriptually acceptable meat.

Kosher should be ok, because the demands include that the meat is killed painlessly, and you cannot inflict pain on something that lacks a nervous system.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / United States shame "California Edition".

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Maybe cro could THEN stimulate us to discuss the pros and CONS of skateboarding in areas where such would be more appropriate in parks and other such specifically designated areas.

Not just skateboarding. Most of Pete’s examples to date apply equally well to wheelchairs, accessibility scooters, prams and pushchairs as they do to skateboards. They’re basically creating areas where wheeled vehicles are not acceptable, even if you cannot travel without the aid of said vehicle.

Most of them also penalise the partially sighted by creating obstacle courses for them and public health risks precisely because they likely won’t see the spikes until they step on / trip over one.

That bench though was particularly vile, as it also included those with movement disorders incl pregnancy on the list of ‘undesirable persons’ using the space, whether intended or not.

One other side-note about that bench. I didn’t see any form of ‘time left’ counter on it, so do you get a sudden shock as you are impaled through the posterior without any warning whatsoever if you sit on it too long?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Meat of the future

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Granted there is currently a sort of niche market for people looking for “heritage breeds” of livestock/crops that have only undergone traditional forms of artificial selections (non-GMOs).

Amusingly, (and as Implosion and I are both aware) ‘traditional’ selection methods usually involve producing f1, f2 etc hybrid species which is itself a form of GMO. It’s just the general public doesn’t associate the creation of hybrids and even just selecting for specific physical traits as gene modifying, simply because it doesn’t involve splicing.

Technically there isn’t a non genetically modified lifeform on the planet…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Meat of the future

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Well, yeah, since making a whole organ is much more complicated than just producing muscle fibers I would imagine they’d probably use much more sophisticated equipment in the organ factory.

Not necessarily. Urinal tract tissue and the bladder itself are both less complex than muscle tissue, and the liver is basically a mass of undifferentiated tissue with blood vessels running through it. The heart is muscle tissue upon a scaffold, and the brain itself is mostly fatty tissue. We’re not talking a huge leap in complexity for the basics. Besides, a meat printer could make things like kidneys and liver, and tongue, and heart for that matter, specifically for the purpose of consumption.

The primary difference is that one usage would consume human cellular matter, and one would not. (Not a good idea to get the deliveries muddled up :P )


Originally posted by cromagintwo:

But you are reducing it’s brain power. It will not be able to retain it’s experiences as much if not at all, compared to wild caught pure salmon who have their full brainpower intact.

Brain power doesn’t determine species.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Meat of the future

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Then again, in order to make ‘growing meat in vats’ economically viable, I would assume some genetic modification would probably be necessary to optimize the process.

Honestly not sure. As you’re laying down cells, you could in theory use an organ 3D printer to create the meat, using the exact same technology currently being developed for the medical industry, to 3D print donor organs.

It would be a case of the two industries – medicine and food production – working together to create a technology that could create both with equal ease, and bring the cost of medically created replacement organs down through the mass production of 3D printed meat lowering the costs of each printing.

Though it would probably be better if your new heart was printed in a different facility to the one making beef patties. Ick.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Meat of the future

Originally posted by cromagintwo:

The question is, if you modify a salmon to “reduce brain function” would it still be a salmon?

Yes. You’re likely not affecting its reproductive capability to cross-breed with other salmon, so it would still be a salmon. If it cannot crossbreed with its parent species, then it is still a salmon, just a new species of salmon.

The meat’ll still taste like salmon should. (Or could be altered as desired, into new tastes, with new sub-species, still salmon so long as they retain enough attributes of salmon.)

It’s still lab-made meat, only this time you’re using nature’s cookbook to make the meat rather than laying it down from scratch yourself.