Slashdot Mirror


Intel Drops Support For Science Talent Search

An anonymous reader writes: Started by Westinghouse Electric, the Science Talent Search (STS) has for 73 years been the nation's oldest and most prestigious science competition for high school students. Intel has been sponsoring the competition since 1998 at an annual cost of approximately ~$6M, representing 0.01 of the company's $56B revenue last year. Intel's abrupt decision to cancel sponsorship of this beloved and venerable institution is baffling to students and educators the world over. Former STS finalists include inventor Ray Kurzweil and physicist Brian Greene.

115 comments

  1. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hippie Rule of Imposition #36:

    When reality stubbornly refuses to conform to what you think it should be, simply ignore reality.

  2. If an idiot like Ray Kurzweil can be a finalist... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    ... then this cannot be any good. Time to terminate it. We really do not need more cretins with huge visions and zero understanding of how things actually work.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has bought Intel? News to me....

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Science Talent Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    An opportunity for Apple, Google or Microsoft to step forward...?

    1. Re:Science Talent Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Silicon Valley company is going to step forward until they change the rules to make sure that a bunch of black people win too, whether they actually deserve it or not. They don't want to lose their membership in the Silicon Valley SJW Club.

    2. Re:Science Talent Search by Whiternoise · · Score: 1

      Google already has science fairs https://www.googlesciencefair....

  5. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    I know people don't like Microsoft around here, but this is a story about Intel. You'd think a person would at least get company right before going of on a screed, but apparently not.

  6. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Barbecue911 · · Score: 1

    MS no longer wanted to be associated with competition based on merit because the results indicated that distribution of merit along gender and racial lines was inconsistent with what MS wanted it to be.

    Is MS Intel's new initials? Intel's withdrawal is indeed puzzling. But former chairman Craig Barrett offers a possible explanation:

    “It’s such a premier event in terms of young people and technology,” Mr. Barrett said. “But they appear to be more interested in applied things, like” Maker Faire, an all-ages event that showcases homemade engineering projects.

  7. Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by damicatz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm not surprised. The fact that the vast majority of the winners were Asians and Whites doesn't fit the SJW agenda so the program had to be cancelled. Intel is more interested in hiring based on skin color rather than merit. Funny how Asians never seem to count as a minority as far as SJWs are concerned despite making up an even lesser amount of the US population than most other minorities.

    1. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, it really is this.

      Intels support during the whole Gamergate nonsense of those mentally hilarious types from Tumblr says a lot.

      Diversity this, Diversity that. Fuck Diversity.
      SKILLS matter. Diversity means nothing other than for the stability of the human genome. (and even that is questionable)

      I'm hating Intel more and more due to shit like this.
      Calling a future headline right now, "Intel sponsors getting minorities in to IT.". I give it a year or less.
      Probably an even larger budget as well.

    2. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would love to see some Chinese company take over the sponsorship from Intel.

    3. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how Asians never seem to count as a minority as far as silly people who constantly rant on Internet forums about SJWs are concerned

      ftfy

    4. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling a future headline right now, "Intel sponsors getting minorities in to IT.". I give it a year or less.
      Probably an even larger budget as well.

      As others had already commented prior to your post, Intel's "Diversity Initiative" is getting $300 million.

    5. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes for Irish and Italians. Both groups were lower than scum in the US in revent history.

    6. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Funny how Asians never seem to count as a minority

      Maybe that's because they aren't. Nearly 2/3 of the population of this planet lives in Asia. And relatively few of those Asians are light-skinned.

      Pasty white people are more of a minority than you have been led to believe. It's just simple 1st-grade-science-class genetics. White skin is a recessive trait. So are blue eyes. It's entirely unlikely to have a majority population with a single shared recessive trait. It's only the extraordinary violence, greed, and ambition of medieval Europe that put the descendants of its population in control of the last few centuries of human history. They're a minority, but they're not an oppressed one.

      And that's the distinction everyone is looking for, but some are too blind (or, more accurately, willfully ignorant) to see. Not "minority", but "discriminated against". When you discriminate against black people, for whatever reason (racism of some form or another, usually), you're rightly called a racist. But when you discriminate against white people (usually because of their overrepresentation in some categorical subset of the population), it's still discrimination, and you're still being a racist asshole.

      Basically, "SJW's" are a bunch of racist fucks, just like the other side. The only winning move is to not play.

    7. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except to silly people who constantly rant on Internet forums about SJWs Asians are minorities who help disprove SJW theory. Your whole ftfy is a major fail.

    8. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck a "pasty" white dick you racist piece of shit.

    9. Re:Doesn't fit the SJW agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standing up for the real minority = racist? Agree with OP, the only winning move is not to play.

  8. How much for the Diversity Initiative? by sithkhan · · Score: 5, Informative

    $300 million? Oh, that's right, the executive who pushed Intel this direction is leaving now. Here's her announcement to leave: https://archive.is/egdkd Here's her announcement for the Diversity Program. https://archive.is/YYbrY Here's where that $300 million came from: https://archive.is/EIqxl

    --

    is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
    1. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an evil and pathetic excuse for a human being.

    2. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2

      Moderators, please, this is not a troll: not even if you do not like what it says.

    3. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel has already announced that it will reduce R&D spending by $300M this year, so the cuts to headcount appear related to balancing the company’s books.

    4. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      From your third link: "Intel may be planning layoffs based on poor outlook for PC industry in 2015"

      So somehow less revenue from the PC industry creates £300m to pay for a diversity programme. I think your logic may have a flaw.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The above paints a (probably accurate) picture that Intel is cutting $300M in R&D and starting $300M in Diversity Initiatives. The STS highlights "Independent individual [student] research", and is (likely) funded out of the R&D budget. It seems like a pretty clear message of valuing genitalia/pigmentation above talent/competence. I disagree with this corporate value stance, but it is not my company.

      I really hate to think of the R&D scientists/engineers who will be laid off, go without equipment, or be unable to investigate new projects because the company believes that more representatives having certain genitalia or pigmentation should instead be subsidized. Doubly so for student researchers (bearing the wrong genitalia or pigmentation).

    6. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gnaanp! Growlel hgnaglers! You hate women you cis sexist hetro white racist male nerd. This triggers me. Slashdot is supporting rape culture by allowing moderators to promote this kind of misogyny. Please donate to my patreon to help fight this oppression and exclusionsary hate towards woymen of all colors.

    7. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less revenue from the PC industry creates the need to save money; Intel poored 300 million dollars into a "diversity" program for kids instead of keeping actual, working, responsible adults employed.

    8. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's just the tip of the iceberg, there's plenty of SJW's in the ranks. Intel sponsors meetings where women engineers get together and rant about how all their problems are due to their oppression by men.

    9. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's now how business works. If a product makes less money because of a decline in the sector, the business does not subsidise it from elsewhere. $300m sounds like a lot, but it's a one-time hit on revenues of tens of billions a year and a large chunk is likely to be tax deductible anyway.

      If the PC industry is declining that will be constant losses for the foreseeable future, so the only fix is to downsize. A one-off cash injection might keep some people working (at a loss) for another year at best.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, this is a liar and a troll, even if you do like what it says and want to hear more of it.

    11. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The above paints a (probably accurate) picture that Intel is cutting $300M in R&D and starting $300M in Diversity Initiatives.

      It doesn't say that at all. For a start it's not even comparing the same things. $300M for diversity is a one-off cost, $300M from R&D is a repeating cost year on year.

      Also note that Intel has just bid $16.7Bn (with a B) for Altera. Sounds like they are pivoting away from desktop and into other areas, rather than simply diverting money. If anything is sucking money away from R&D it's probably the fact that they just bought a company with a huge R&D department.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a product makes less money because of a decline in the sector, the business does not subsidise it from elsewhere.

      You also wouldn't spend spend 300M in a diversity program, so that you can train women and minorities you won't hire, what with you shrinking your workforce and all.

      And it's going to be real fun trying to find those women and minorities, when you decided to cut the STS (which apparently could be funded for many years with 300M, TFS says it only costs ~6M a year), which was one of the ways girls and minorities interested in STEM could have distinguished themselves!

    13. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about the Personal Computers industry or the Politically Correct industry? In the last four years I have only seen you comment on the latter.

    14. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to do with the diversity program.
      Intel is dropping this, dropping sponsorship of hackathons and MakerFaires and instead investing cash in a TV program. http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/intel-turner-mark-burnett-americas-greatest-makers-1201572460/

      In simple terms corporate money gets more marketing bang for it's buck with vacuous nonsense on TV than with outreach to young people and 'makers'. Makers have no money - Intel is interested in selling to the Dell's, HPs, Lenovo's, Huawei's and Apple's of the world - couldn't give a tuppence about random guy, making yet another drone, alarm system or pervcam.

      Google will probably step in...

    15. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It doesn't say that at all. For a start it's not even comparing the same things. $300M for diversity is a one-off cost, $300M from R&D is a repeating cost year on year.

      How do you know the diversity initiative isn't year to year? I haven't seen it stated either way. Don't you find it just a little bit suspect that $300 million was cut from one area while $300 million was announced for another initiative?

    16. Re:How much for the Diversity Initiative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hate to think of the R&D scientists/engineers who will be laid off, go without equipment...

      Don't worry about us. Plenty of others are hiring and valuing our work appropriately.

  9. Ass-hat alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really the title says it all.

    1. Re:Ass-hat alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is really nice that you warn people that you're an a-hat before you post.

  10. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High school promotes competition based on merit? Are you high?

    I went to a £30,000/year private ("Public", in England) school... well, my parents paid £0/year because I got a scholarship after attending a prep school with class sizes of between 5-15 people. I took part in and won a few local science & other competitions. I'm not the brightest guy in the world, but I had the best teaching in the cushiest environment. Many people in my position would have done as well or better.

    It did not escape my attention that pretty much everyone in my school was Anglo-Saxon or Far East Asian - yeah, there was the occasional son of an African politician or "businessman", and hell I was considered different because I'm Spanish and look like an Arab. Tell me, do you think this might affect results?

    Yes, there's the fact that some cultures don't go in for competition as much as others. Asian SHUT UP AND WORK AND BE THE BEST. White YOU HAVE IT ALL ON A PLATTER, DO WHAT YOU CAN TO GET AHEAD, AND BE COOOOOL. Indian READ THE BOOK, GET IN YOUR PLACE. Black YOU'RE FAIRLY FUCKED, MY FRIEND... it's little to do with inherent ability and a lot to do with where your parents came from and your perceived position in society.

  11. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are going to troll, at least get the name right - Intel, not MS...

  12. Re:If an idiot like Ray Kurzweil can be a finalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I was thinking the same thing. If anything he is anti-science. Just a self-promoting flim flam artist.

  13. irrelevant by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intel has been sponsoring the competition since 1998 at an annual cost of approximately ~$6M, representing 0.01 of the company's $56B revenue last year

    If we're going to be on a website where people presumably understand basic math, can we at least use the relevant number? Revenue is not money that a company can use freely......most of it goes to paying for supplies, paying employees, etc.

    A more relevant number is profit, that tells you how much money a company has after paying the bills. Another interesting number might be the advertising budget, since that's kind of what Intel is doing there.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:irrelevant by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      By their own word, revenue was $55.9 billion, and net income was $11.7 billion, so it's 0.05% of their net income.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    2. Re:irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct profit is more relevant. But you can't say it's not factually correct assuming that is that 0.01 was meant to be 0.01%

      so the basic math is correct, technically correct, the best kind of correct.

    3. Re:irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Revenue is not money that a company can use freely......most of it goes to paying for supplies, paying employees, etc."

      Well it can use it freely, and that's kind of the point, it can spend it on what it likes, including spending $6m on competitions, and the things you mention like paying suppliers and so forth.

      Profit is effectively what's left after expenditure for that particular accounting period, if you spend any of that on something like a competition in a particular accounting period, then it's no longer profit, it's spent revenue.

      So even profit wouldn't tell us the full story, because spent as revenue means it's also tax deductible. Saving $6m in expenditure from your revenue wont translate to $6m in additional profit, because you'll lose about $2m of that in corporate income tax in the US I believe.

    4. Re:irrelevant by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      And it's probably a smaller percentage than that, since it probably counts as a tax deduction.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:irrelevant by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Well it can use it freely, and that's kind of the point, it can spend it on what it likes,

      It really can't.....if someone builds Intel a $4billion fab, and Intel decides not to pay, then Intel will not be in business very long, and possibly will have execs in jail afterwards. In a typical company, most revenue goes towards paying employees, suppliers, and such. In a lot of companies, a good chunk of it goes to advertising. Usually only a small percentage of revenue is available for discretionary purposes, but it varies widely by industry.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:irrelevant by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      It is not factually relevant. It is, in fact, factually misleading. Talking about revenue percentage tells you nothing about how reasonable it is for a company to continue doing this kind of charity. If Intel had X revenue but lost money for the year such that they had negative profit, that highlights even more starkly just how irrelevant the revenue percent is. But by highlighting percent of revenue, the article summary make it sound like Intel is obviously doing this for reasons other than financial, whereas by stating it as a percent of profit, we can have a real debate about whether the financial incentives are sufficient motivation, without trying to pre-judge Intel with other motivations.

    7. Re: irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does increasing payroll, since increasing payroll reduces net income.

    8. Re:irrelevant by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And it's probably a smaller percentage than that, since it probably counts as a tax deduction.

      Any expense is a "tax deduction" in the sense that it reduces your taxable profits.

      Example. Tax rate is 30%. Your company makes $2000 operating profit. You pay the government $600 tax and are left with $1400 profit to distribute, invest or whatever.

      If you decide to make a further allowable payment of $1200, you then pay tax of $240 [30% of 2000 - 1200] leaving you with $560 profit [2000 - 1200 - 240] to distribute or invest.

      Unless your marginal tax rate is over 100% it just means you're paying your money to someone other than the government, not that you're actually saving money.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  14. Re:If an idiot like Ray Kurzweil can be a finalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

  15. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a troll if it's true.

  16. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Space Nutter Law Zero.

  17. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    The gender distribution was getting more and more female, so that's probably not why. One year, Natalie Portman was a winner.

    Hot grits!!

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  18. Maybe they could take it out of by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 1

    the diversity funds. $300 million in feel good money. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

  19. nice ad hominem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all you know, when Kurzweil was a finalist in 1965, he was very, very different from today, some 50 years later.
    I believe his STS entry was a computer program that composed music or something along those lines.

    Besides if you're doing ad hominem attacks, given the popularity of Natalie Portman (another STS finalist) on /., wouldn't that cancel out Kurzweil?

    1. Re:nice ad hominem.. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      My observation is that people do not change that much in the course of one lifetime. My guess is that he already was an idiot back then.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:nice ad hominem.. by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Newton was an avid Alchemist and spent more time searching for the elixir of life than developing calculus and his theories of motion and optics.

  20. Gender has been balanced for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STS has had lots of girls as contestants (since it's largely under 18s entering, I think you're safe in saying boys and girls).. In early ones, the winners were identified as "Top Boy" and "Top Girl" and they probably had equal numbers of finalists.

  21. Lack of interest in basic science? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    “It’s such a premier event in terms of young people and technology,” Mr. Barrett said. “But they appear to be more interested in applied things, like” Maker Faire, an all-ages event that showcases homemade engineering projects.

    I see everyone jumping on the diversity bandwagon as an explanation, but I'm guessing one of the reasons they're not supporting this anymore is that it doesn't fit with their business model anymore. To a layman, technology is more about apps and social media now than the solid state electronics, physics and chemistry needed to power it. Of course, no one thinks about the fact that these fundamentals will have to keep advancing if we want cheaper, faster, smaller computers and phones to run those apps on. This is a pretty clear signal that Intel is an engineering company, not a science company.

    Corporate basic research is pretty much dead now unfortunately -- Bell Labs is a tiny sliver of what it was, HP is almost entirely product-focused now, and who knows what's going on with IBM. Things like this, plus the fact that scientists are entering a shrinking market and treated badly, are only going to serve to reduce the number of students interested in science. US science students are seeing a lot of the same things IT workers are seeing now -- foreign students willing to work for any wage just to get the opportunity to study here, the slow demise of permanent solid employment, and a general lack of interest by the public.

    It's going to take something like the Chinese colonizing Mars and extracting all its natural resources before a Soviet-style space race shocks the US out of its disinterest in science. This was one of the only good things to come out of the Cold War -- look how many state university systems were built up in the 60s and 70s and how much research got funded without griping about the cost.

    1. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrase you're looking for is "indifference to science", not "disinterest in science".

      When will Americans care about language?

    2. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      It's going to take something like the Chinese colonizing Mars and extracting all its natural resources before a Soviet-style space race shocks the US out of its disinterest in science.

      Don't you know, America would be foolish to worry about home-grown talent. We will just import all of our talent from the rest of the world, allowing our lazyass native-born children to become rich off of the hard work of others!

      This was one of the only good things to come out of the Cold War -- look how many state university systems were built up in the 60s and 70s and how much research got funded without griping about the cost

      In all seriousness, do you think there is any correlation between these two things? The government starts spending massive amounts of money on research funding and corporate funding for research dries up. Look at the timeframes involved. Chicken or egg?

    3. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does "care about language" mean "cling to prescriptive shibboleths and single-definition words?"

    4. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate basic research is pretty much dead now unfortunately -- Bell Labs is a tiny sliver of what it was, HP is almost entirely product-focused now, and who knows what's going on with IBM.

      What about Microsoft Research? It is actually quite impressive. There are a million other examples I can think of, but are very domain-specific. Sure, it's not the 50's anymore. Flat-top haircuts are gone. People still do research.

    5. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by sherr · · Score: 1

      What? They are synonyms...

    6. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Don't you know, America would be foolish to worry about home-grown talent. We will just import all of our talent from the rest of the world, allowing our lazyass native-born children to become rich off of the hard work of others!

      Yeah, except both parties have made legal immigration harder, made it harder for college grads to stay after their education is done, and made it easier to outsource work through free trade agreements. I've been saying for years that the answer to the H1B program isn't to have fewer H1B's it's to have more freaking full work visas and to make the green card process for skilled professionals significantly easier and faster. If this country wants to have any chance of competing with China and the EU then we need more human capital, pushing away smart ambitious people is so wrongheaded that I can't comprehend what goals it serves.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They aren't synonyms, but in this context both apply.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by labradore · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. Intel is an Engineering company. And it's a science company.

      Have you looked into how a fab works? How semiconductors work? Chipmakers depend more directly upon using and advancing science than possibly any other industry. Oil and gas companies possibly come close. Advancing the state of the chip making art is not about recombining well-known facts of physics in clever ways or managing complexity more creatively (though that's part of it). It's about finding and using new discoveries with science and making use of them at scale. Every technology node ("transistor shrink") requires advancing the limits of manufacturing for thousands of processes. Intel has armies of people trained purely in physics, chemistry, materials science, etc. solving the problems of reliably scaling the manufacture of things that just couldn't be made even just a few years ago.

      Yes, they have suppliers who make very specialized equipment. These guys are ostensibly even closer to the "science". But, none of this really works without a lot of cooperation.

      Let's be clear: Intel's profits shrink fast if science doesn't advance.

      Funding STS is just about the most appropriate thing for these guys to do.

    9. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What? They are synonyms...

      You are factually incorrect.

      The reason people get legitimately annoyed about mis-using disinterested is precisely because it is NOT a synonym of uninterested.

      Uninterested means that you show no interest in something (i.e. you're bored or indifferent to it). Disinterested means that you are objective about something (i.e. not biased for or against it).

      It is a valuable distinction.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by sherr · · Score: 1

      [sigh] Google: define indifference noun noun: indifference lack of interest, concern, or sympathy. "she shrugged, feigning indifference" synonyms: lack of concern, unconcern, disinterest, lack of interest...

    11. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      and who knows what's going on with IBM.

      IBM has a huge research department that involves biologists, doctors, and materials scientists. Microsoft has a huge fundamental research department too, although it focuses on computer science research. Qualcomm has a very exciting research program, but only if you're interested in obscure radio wave details.

      Fundamental research really isn't as dead as you think, although Bell labs is a truly sad story.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by sherr · · Score: 1

      Google: define disinterest
      1) the state of not being influenced by personal involvement in something; impartiality.
      2) lack of interest in something.
      synonyms: indifference, lack of interest, unconcern,

      It can mean both depending on context. You don't get to claim that the second definition doesn't exist just because you prefer the first.

    13. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, a lot of people are indifferent. Others are antipathetic. Some times the same person is both towards slightly different areas of science. (How do you feel about economics? Parapsychology?)

      You may quibble about how well the science is carried out in a particular area, but that's not quite the same as either being indifferent or antipathetic. I am quite upset about how pharmacological science is done, with intentionally concealed failures, lack of reporting of adverse effects, trumpeting of only slightly statistically significant results, etc., but I'm neither apathetic nor antipathetic towards it as a science. So that's another gradation.

      In this particular case it seemed to me (I haven't reread the context, so my memory has gotten a bit fuzzed..and it's not germane, so I'm not going to bother) that apathetic and antipathetic attitudes were both displayed.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Lack of interest in basic science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent response!

  22. How Common Is This? by Kunedog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After the Gnome Foundation said they were out of money, it was revealed that they had blown a huge chunk of the budget on "women's outreach" instead of developing software. The top dog (Karen Sandler) departed soon after.

    Will companies ever get savvy enough to detect these ideologues before it's too late, or will they do a lot more damage in the future? We've all seen what's happened at Reddit . . .

    1. Re:How Common Is This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sandler? Shit... it's always the Jews who fuck things up.

    2. Re:How Common Is This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnome 3 was because 25% of their budget went to women's outreach instead of their mission statement? Not too dissimilar to what Mozilla is up to.

      There seems to be this prevailing pattern where organizations that switch over to a focus on diversity really only means that they are going to stupefy and obfuscate the interface while shaming the very same people that give them the money they are wasting. The only real question in my mind is when will the systemd crowd claim to do what it does out of a desire for inclusion and to not use systemd you are a misogynist.

  23. Re:Probably not enough women and minorities winnin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except most of the winners were not white males. If you consider Jews a minority, then nearly all of the winners have been either minority or female.

  24. H1B's are cheaper and can be made to work 60-80 ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    H1B's are cheaper and can be made to work 60-80 hour weeks for 40K or 50K bay area.

  25. Re:H1B's are cheaper and can be made to work 60-80 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    H1B's are cheaper and can be made to work 60-80 hour weeks for 40K or 50K bay area.

    This. How are they going to make the case for importing foreigners if they keep finding talent here at home?

  26. tradeoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that $125M capital fund to invest in women and unrepresented minorities? That money needs to come from somewhere, and you better believe it wont be from the investors pockets.

  27. 18 MONTHS? by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

    Why has it taken 18 MONTHS to start looking for another sponsor?

    --

    To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

  28. Re: If an idiot like Ray Kurzweil can be a finalis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best post on here. Ray Kurzweil is a fucking idiot.

  29. Re:Probably not enough women and minorities winnin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SJW's don't count jews and asians as minorities, only blacks and some hispanics (not the rich or successful ones). The second your race or religion begins to succeed, then SJW's can't use you as an example of evil white male oppression, and so you're not a minority anymore.

  30. Re:Probably not enough women and minorities winnin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what you're saying is, Intel hates complete male genitalia.

  31. Re:Probably not enough women and minorities winnin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't Intel have added a "Poetry Slam" category or something and gave the award to a black kid? Then when President Obama visits the winners everyone can feel good and go home happy!

  32. Kickstarter campaign? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Westinghouse^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HIntel^H^H^H^H^HGeeks Of The World Science Talent Search

    Where do I send my contribution?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  33. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Your parents emphasize education, as do East Asian parents. Studies show family emphasis on education outweighs any other factor.

    The Left and Right argue about funding levels, and what goes where, but both ignore this elephant in the room.

    You would have done well going to a terrible school, as would East Asian kids. Kids from families that don't care won't do very much better in an awesome school. The link with money per pupil, class size, and so on is gossamer compared to family emphasis on scholastics. These are red herring talking points.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  34. FUD around diversity as usual by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 1
    When it comes to diversity, reasoning goes out the window.

    None of the links you posted shows a causal link between Intel's Diversity Initiatives and ending support for the science fair.

    Do you actually believe Intel could not afford $306M for both programs?

    TFA itself quotes the reason Intel dropped the funding. Intel wants to focus on more "applied" programs...

    Mr. Barrett said. “But they appear to be more interested in applied things, like” Maker Faire, an all-ages event that showcases homemade engineering projects.

    But don't let the facts get in the way of a good hate-filled post.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  35. Re:Probably not enough women and minorities winnin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fantasy is you're trying to connect two distinct things, with nothing more than conjecture and speculation.

  36. Science fairs aren't profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an INTC shareholder, I'd prefer if they focus on maximizing shareholder return. Science fairs aren't profitable.

    1. Re:Science fairs aren't profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually considering how much attention people paid to some shit that only cost 6 million dollars, i'd say that's pretty good ROI.

    2. Re:Science fairs aren't profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather pocket the cash.

  37. It's about accessibility to tools for creation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See subject: Most U.S. Citizens have benefitted by economies of scale in computers (PC's primarily, from which smartphone toys even get their coding done) & them becoming easily affordable by most!

    Thus, "the common man" has access to the tools needed to create software...

    (Much easier & readily available access @ HOME no less, right off the bat, vs. full-blown electronics labs with HIGHER END componentry + toolsets for it).

    APK

    P.S.=> That's my take on your statement - do consider it... apk

  38. Re:Probably not enough women and minorities winnin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    *sigh*

    It's not a silly victim fantasy when it's happened to you before. I had thought I was done being judged by my gender and skin color when I left college and got out on my own.

    Consider yourself lucky it hasn't happened to you. I can appreciate the problem that CEOs and other leaders disproportionately have a similar skin color the same legal gender I do. That does not help me when unemployment benefits run out and I find myself in a soup line. That does not help pay my rent. That does not give me an automatic pay raise. (Please don't post that absurd figure from 30 years ago that does not control for things like level of education. It turns out that women who are college graduates make about 2% less if hired by a man and 3% less if hired by a woman. I can also appreciate the problem that women who don't graduate college don't go into careers like construction or HVAC, and that's where you see your 25% pay gap. Unfortunately I don't know what to say about that problem, but it seems nobody but us misogynerds even recognizes it.)

    I can appreciate that tech has a diversity problem. I'm doing my part and lucky to consistently find and help capable women who are interested in more technical roles. What I can't help are women who believe programming comes naturally to people with an M stamped on their birth certificate or that programming just isn't something a woman should do. I've tried arguing the point with them, but that only gets me labeled an asshole.

    I am also sick of people in non-technical roles who are clearly misogynists who get a free pass in all of this. I am sick of men who come to me for shit I am not even remotely responsible for when a female co-worker in their own fucking department could help them better. I am told that I should feel "flattered" because I am so "respected," but it's clearly the "Can I talk to a man?" phenomenon. So many times it's questions that any of the line workers could answer, probably more insightfully or accurately, but no, he just needs to talk to a man.

    Now here comes the Narrative. Not only does tech have a diversity problem, but it's the fault of geeks themselves, not high school counselors, not college advisers, not HR departments and non-technical managers. Let's ignore the subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle racism and sexism we see out of business types. Programming is actually easy, doesn't even require knowledge of maths, and it's just us misogynerds making everything too technical to keep women out. Now I have to be on the defensive. I have had more than one woman come to me to "learn programming" in order to intentionally fail and accuse me of being sexist. (Actually I don't know if it was intentional every time, but "u sexist! world's frist programmer was a woman!" has been made too much of an easy excuse for women who just can't program. I can tell a guy who will just never be able to program flat out to pound sand, no problem. Can't tell a woman that. But there's a solution here. When I can point to a woman I've successfully mentored into a more technical role, then I can tell a woman who will never be able to program to pound sand. See, diversity is good for many reasons. I'm just not sure that these "diversity initiatives" and labeling an entire demographic misogynerds is the way to achieve it.)

    This is all quite disheartening. If TPTB actually wanted more women in tech, they would be doing things to make tech attractive, not just to women, but to everyone (e.g. cut the H1B nonsense out, let wages rise if tech workers are really in demand, require overtime be compensated, allow more work from home, etc).

    tl;dr Maybe it's a win for diversity for diversity's sake, but I will probably be leaving tech for good very soon now. I do not need to be judged by my skin color and gender on paper and stereotyped as a racist and sexist because I do things with computers most people don't even try to understand. I would rather flip burgers.

  39. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Left and Right argue about funding levels, and what goes where, but both ignore this elephant in the room.

    Funny, all I hear from the "Right" is how funding level doesn't really matter, and getting families involved in the education process would fix things.

    Maybe you need to reconsider who you trust to tell you what other people are saying.

  40. Re:If an idiot like Ray Kurzweil can be a finalist by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Well said.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  41. intel probably just simply doesn't care anymore by slew · · Score: 1

    Craig Barrett was a big proponent of education and was the CEO when Intel submitted its bid to take over sponsor the Science Talent Search. Now that he's out of the picture, the new folks in charge probably just lost interest.

  42. Re:Probably not enough women and minorities winnin by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 2

    Jews are the only minority that can occupy two spots on the organizational ladder of "oppression", bot the bottom rung as "most oppressed" as well as the top rung "publicly make jokes and articles about running the media and influencing politics." As various SJWs argue over which of them is more oppressed than the next, Jews take an entirely different stance, proving that the ladder is in fact a wheel that we are simply viewing in 2D.

    --
    http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
  43. They just spent $300m on a "diversity drive"... by gnaarly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intel just spent $300 million on a "diversity drive". But $6m for a race-and-gender-neutral science talent search was too much for them.

    Of course, there's a radical subset of the population who hates that I point this out.

    1. Re:They just spent $300m on a "diversity drive"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away, Gator. Private companies can decide where to spend their money, that's their freedom of speech to do so. Are you going to force them to spend their money on something they don't want to support anymore, you useless right wing spongecake?

  44. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by gnaarly · · Score: 1

    "it's little to do with inherent ability and a lot to do with where your parents came from and your perceived position in society."

    If you had the ability to justify a scholarship like that, you should know that you're just voicing your own pseudoreligion as truth.

    Maybe you were the quota.

  45. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, instead of spending money on graphene or any material to substitute silicone since it has pretty much reached its limits and thus pave the way towards a gigantic technological leap for Humanity that would affect every single part of society and industry,
    they'd rather suspend a program for developing and motivating great future minds, and waste money on social justice BS mainly driven by Twitter and Tumblr basement dwellers who haven't seen the world nor read a scientific book in their lives.
    That's just great. Maybe AMD can finally wise up and take this opportunity as quickly as possible to get on even level with Intel with any hope, and force a competitive conflict that has been lacking in the CPU segment for quite some time.

  46. Re:Gender/Racial makeup of the results was behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my dear no this isn't the USofA and there was certainly no such thing as a Spanish quota. I got my scholarship because my quantitative performance in the various academic scholarship exams was 4th from the top that year, and the top I-can't-remember-how-many places got academic scholarships. There were also music scholarships and a fund for the offspring of clergy - since this was all privately funded, of course any wealthy body was welcome to pay toward anybody's fees for whatever reason they pleased. But there was no fund which measured on the basis of colour or country of origin.

    Perhaps you're not following my argument, though. As you advance your years of compulsory schooling, performance is a lot to do with where your parents came from and your perceived position in society: if your parents can pay for good education AND your culture (which starts at home) pushes the appropriate ethos, you will perform better. So, ignoring both racists and political correctness, black people perform worse both because they're typically from poorer backgrounds AND because well Bill Cosby was *unusual* in pushing the right message to black youth but then look what it turned out he was doing... but it has nothing to do with inherent (lack of) ability based on race.

  47. All the more reason... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    to not work for one of these giant corporations. These places are up to their collective asses in political correctness and "diversity". Policies that are seriously diluting their talent pool. When you abandon traditional hiring practices of picking the best person for the job and instead pick a certain quota from group A and a certain quota from group B it is bound to happen.

    It's no wonder that the real talent is working for small companies or going independent or just starting their own company.

    On the other hand, if you are looking to work for an employer with tons of HR drones and enough middle management glut to stuff the Hoover dam then by all means step up to a career in big corporate America.

    1. Re:All the more reason... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, the great "quota" myth.

      If it was actually true, then slightly over 50% of all employees at any level would be women.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:All the more reason... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      "Ah yes, the great "quota" myth." - Is it? Have a look at this -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      From the article..."In 2012, the European Union Commission approved a plan for women to constitute 40% of non-executive board directorships in large listed companies in Europe by 2020". That sure looks like a quota to me.

      And this "In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students.[71] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions.". This gives preference to people from minority groups with respect to admissions. While it does not spell out a specific percentage I would consider it a "soft quota". In other words, tell your admissions department to make room for minorities.

  48. Cue the MBA's in 3...2...1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6 million dollars? And it doesn't generate profit? CUT! I don't care if we make more on interest from the $56 Billion in revenue we made last year in a second than the 6 million, if its a loss then we chop. That's what MBA's do. We look for rolls of toilet paper, identify that they have two sides, and then insist that both sides get used before disposal, representing a 50% cost savings. When MBA's start running things, we cut and cut and cut and save and save and save till there are only MBA's left, to retire with a golden parachute, after which we wind down the company.

  49. Re:If an idiot like Ray Kurzweil can be a finalist by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I don't think you're allowed to criticise Kurzweil here. The argument that someone can have produced excelent software, but be an idiot in every other imaginable way, does not compute in the slashdot binary hive mind.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  50. People suck at math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .01 of 56 billion is $560 million.

    How did this not get noticed?