Would you mind citing a source for the somewhat counterintuitive claim that likelihood of getting caught weighs more heavily than severity of punishment?
Please don't write comments like this. You're not a grand political philosopher and this isn't the School of Athens. This low brow form of ideological dribble can just as easily be said in the opposite direction, that capitalists are exploiting their workers and that the free market is inherently unethical, and nobody is better off. If you think the world is that black and white then you're wrong.
Yep, the world really is that simple - abolish government and things will get better. It's a shame so many people don't realize how easy it is to fix all of their problems.
Great comment. If anyone would like to learn more about feminism, I can't recommend highly enough the book "Feminism is for Everybody" by bell hooks. I find a lot of commenters here and on other sites form (strong!) opinions about feminism and sexism despite not understanding basic concepts like privilege, oppression, and intersectionality. That book is an accessible primer on those topics.
I was actually referring to the Sandusky scandal and how Paterno knew Sandusky was sexually abusing children and let the legal process die with minimally plausibly deniable effort.
College football, at least, might as well be a minor league. The stars play for two years, abandon their degree, and join the NFL. You'd have to be very naive to think that the athletes at top div 1 programs are true "student-athletes". Look at Penn State for a prime example of toxic "athletics are everything" college football culture. Look at the numerous recruitment scandals in which players or players' families were offered money or perks in exchange for matriculation. So they can't read? Play calling cards are images anyway. That's the attitude at these schools.
It's a little strange how much vitriol that article contains. It's as if the author is just itching for someone to finally put one of those 20-something entrepreneurs who didn't have to climb the corporate ladder for decades in his place.
Can you give some examples? I'm pretty happy with Spotify, and I've found the Discover tool very useful. I still read music blogs and forums, but Discover finds me about 1 really good, yet-unheard group in every 30 I try. In my experience, that's only a little less signal than the music blogs I use which are curated by humans with similar tastes to mine.
Am I the only one who thinks it's a little distracting how artificially formal this guy is?
Anyway, it's freakin obvious how much easier it is to pull a trigger with only a little hesitation than to get a brick out and beat somebody to death. I don't understand how you don't see that. It's like you've already made your decision and no matter what anyone says, you're 100% confident you can explain it away before you even see it.
Oh come on, pull your head out of the sand. Guns are a complicated issue, and pretending it's this simple makes you sound like a caricature of an American conservative.
I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to point out. Let's not pretend that there are no problems with sexism in tech. While this may or may not be a good example, literature normalizing that programming is a "boy's club" contributes to the problem that programming is perceived as exactly that - a boy's club.
I agree, but there are problems with dressing up a game of "tag" like Counter-Strike in the clothes of violent conflict. The other day a contractor came to my house as I was playing CS:S. He asked if I was in Baghdad. He translated the Arabic on the walls. I realized he might find this game incredibly offensive. Racially ambiguous terrorists fight whiteish police in often middle eastern locales (dust2...?). The game itself is normalizing or maybe is just an example of normalized, simplistic, xenophobic ideas. It is a game of tag and strategy that you might compare to american football in some ways, but its stylized to attract people interested in participating in this "world" of us vs. them, all conflicts are solved by violence fantasy land that has none of the nuance of real life. Is that a problem? Is it a symptom of some of the attitudes the author talks about re. insecurity and fear in "gamers"?
I think the fear is that it will create animosity by making the information so accessible. On some level, the junior-level dev knows he's not making as much as the guy with the PhD in an esoteric mission critical topic, but he has a kind of plausible deniability that lets him avoid thinking about it. If everyone's making 80k and everyone knows that Jane The Expert is making 300k, there's going to be friction. "Hey Jane, why don't you pay for the dinner."