In other words, departments are willing to lower the standards for minority and female candidates, by a "*very* generous ballpark", with the consent of the University administration; but they are still unable to find sufficient candidates.
In other words, they're trying to fix the problem in the wrong place. At the end, in the professional hiring process. The way to increase the diversified talent pool is to focus much earlier in the cycle, in childhood.
What did the previous version of the book state? Why was it changed?
Because we learn things over time and what people believed to be true in the past isn't always what we believe to be true today? Our understanding of how people work increases over time. It's not set in stone.
Snark is a natural pushback to the yearly lengthening of that acronym. It used to be LGB, but then the trans folks wanted in, so it became LGBT. But hey, somehow "queer" is totally fucking different, so we had to add a Q onto that. Now Intersex and Asexual people want their feelings validated and to have someone say that their issues are exactly as real as the LGB folks, so now the acronym has grown to LGBTQIA. How many more letters can we add onto this? I don't know, what is the orientation fad of the day? Who knows, maybe we can add 'furry' to the list, then it'll be LGBTQIAF, and then I can finally win when we play sexual orientation Bingo.
LGBTQ rights have a lot to do with science if you're a LGBTQ person who happens to be a scientist but you have difficulty doing so
That's fine, but that's hardly what Metcalf was arguing for. It would be a lot more kin to saying that science needs to prove that we need a third bathroom type for trans folks in public areas, et all. She is specifically asking for scientific studies to use to enforce her political philosophies, rather than follow the science and craft policy from that. The former is considered about as anti-scientific-method as you can get.
Worse, she is saying that her preferred political solution to issues can be scientifically proven, which is absolutely false and leads to a lot of justifiable mistrust of her and that movement. That she could say that she's interested in science helping to solve political issues and of course all the results are going to 'progessive' because progressives are totally scientific and conservatives hate science... the WILLFUL bias while claiming kinship with something (science) that strives to eliminate bias from its results is just.. it's incredible.
She's demanding that science be simply a tool for progressive causes. Good lord.
Health insurance companies do make their money by charging premiums for policies that cover treatment. If there suddenly were no disease and no injuries, health insurance companies (and branches of companies) would go out of business, even if this were established by some magical means rather than simply wiping out humanity.
Insurance companies would make an incredible amount of money if they could just get paid every month, yet not have to do much of anything. The catastrophic illness that a person cannot pay for costs them huge bundles of money. That's why the Individual Mandate of Obamacare was considered such a windfall for the insurance companies, because the healthy people who don't need treatment are the ones who generate profits, not the sick with pre-existing conditions they were so easy to jettison.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
There is no free market in ISPs, so consumer choice does not exist. People don't have Comcast because they loooooove Comcast as the ISP and like paying high prices for ok speed and disgusting policies, they have Comcast because in their area, it's Comcast/AT&T duopoly. I would LOVE a totally free market for ISPs, but we seem hell-bent to not allow that, mostly because we let ISPs completely control the infrastructure.
As an older worker, I'm extremely offended that you would assume I'm unwilling to comply with job requirements and move if necessary to retain a job I am good at and I love. That is extremely discriminatory.
It's more that younger workers have fewer ties to the place where they currently live. They may be unmarried, they may be totally career-motivated, they're unlikely to have kids. Older workers CAN move if absolutely necessary, but they may be unwilling to bother. But there are other factors as well.
Factors on the side of older workers be more willing to move: *) Older workers have more money. Moving can be expensive. *) Older workers might be more concerned about being -able- to find a new job, so they might stick with what they have. *) Older workers might have more ties to their jobs, IE, responsibility, management positions, etc, so they might not be interested in starting over on a new one. *) Older workers might value face-to-face contact more.
It's not just a stealth layoff, it's stealth ageism. I'd wager that much of IBM's older, higher salaried workforce is participating in the remote program, while the workers who are already in the urban centers around the offices or are willing to uproot their lives to move to one are younger and cheaper.
That's bizarre. It's the older workers who appreciate most the face-to-face interactions.
What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had?
The difference is that the ISPs are now also setting themselves up to be primary content providers, thus giving a financial incentive to degrade Internet services which they didn't have before. It also didn't used to matter in the old days before we could stream TV and movies in any real quality. The purposes for which end subscribers use the Internet have changed in the last several years, and the business goals and products of the Internet Service Providers have also changed in the same time period.
It's not double dipping unless you think that companies should be able to connect to the internet for free.
They paid their own ISP. That was never the problem, and no one is debating that. The double dipping is requiring Netflix to pay the end ISP as well for their packets to get routed to end users in a timely manner. It's pertinent to Net Neutrality because the ISPs had a financial incentive in doing this to promote their own (non-throttled) offerings that directly competed against Netflix.
Because "no net neutrality" fits very well with the Republican plan to eliminate or greatly reduce government regulation on businesses. Net Neutrality is one of the very few regulations that I've seen which has a cute name that people like and has a lot of people interested in it.
Considering I've lived here for over forty years and haven't met another real leftist, no. Too many people here think that single family housing isn't morally wrong. It is. That is destroying the environment.
Single-family housing isn't morally wrong -- forcing people to be packed together like rats is morally wrong. Having eight children is morally wrong. High-density living and high populations are the problems, not the solutions.
How are they going to charge at night? My inlaws house... they couldn't get permitting to add a telsa fast charging port, they'd need a new electrical box, inspections, new wiring...
Wait, why would they need a "fast charger?" Are you talking about the "charge from 0 to full in half an hour" ports? Those are super expensive and horribly overkill for home users. But a simpler 11 or 22kW is not terribly expensive, nor was permitting. Most homes can handle the electrical load, older ones with a lower ampage would need a new circuit, but it's not THAT expensive, and since they'll need it sooner or later, it'll happen. But yeah, the 8-year figure is laughably unrealistic. More like 30+ years.
Something tells me that the average car buyer won't really want a fully electric car for another 5 years, when Tesla finally gets some real competition in the electric car space
Tesla has real competition, in that the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S sold about the same number of units in 2016. They're not directly competing against each other though, that'll happen more in a year when the Model 3 goes against the Leaf.
If you want Trump to do anything about climate change, get behind nuclear to replace coal for base load power generation, which I'd imagine he'd support.
Maybe. Nuclear competes most directly with coal, and "bringing back coal" was one of his big campaign planks. More nuclear means less coal, something I'm 100% in favor of, but it goes against Trump's campaign.
Come on comrade, where the hell are you getting your info from? Greenpeace hates coal
Greenpeace hates coal, but they also hate nuclear. They also detest the creation of man-made lakes to power hydro. They don't like anything that's reliable, and they love the idea of returning to a more simple, in-tune-with-nature time, IE, not using energy in the first place.
If your idea of 'over-regulation' is having clean air to breathe, clean water coming out of the tap, clean soil to plant food crops in, clean soil underneath the playgrounds your kids are playing in, [ etcetc ]
And who pays for that? Those things cost money. Who pays? If you say "Well, X is going to pay for this so X, Y, and Z can benefit while Y and Z do squat," then expect that X will not be terribly thrilled with that deal.
What if China didn't do anything (they are waking up to it, fortunately)? Should we just let everything go to hell then?
Possibly. Because it HAS to be "fair." There has never been a civilization so uniformly altruistic that they'll just sacrifice their well being to benefit those not in their civilization. That's not how we evolved as people, and don't look for humanity to outgrow tribalism any time soon. Efforts to push against something so deeply ingrained in us on a societal level have always ended in failure.
So if you ever want something like this to actually WORK, it has to be fair, with sacrifice shared at all. Don't look to one to take the hit if others won't follow.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, departments are willing to lower the standards for minority and female candidates, by a "*very* generous ballpark", with the consent of the University administration; but they are still unable to find sufficient candidates.
In other words, they're trying to fix the problem in the wrong place. At the end, in the professional hiring process.
The way to increase the diversified talent pool is to focus much earlier in the cycle, in childhood.
What did the previous version of the book state? Why was it changed?
Because we learn things over time and what people believed to be true in the past isn't always what we believe to be true today? Our understanding of how people work increases over time. It's not set in stone.
The snark doesn't help (LGBTXYZ)
Snark is a natural pushback to the yearly lengthening of that acronym. It used to be LGB, but then the trans folks wanted in, so it became LGBT. But hey, somehow "queer" is totally fucking different, so we had to add a Q onto that. Now Intersex and Asexual people want their feelings validated and to have someone say that their issues are exactly as real as the LGB folks, so now the acronym has grown to LGBTQIA. How many more letters can we add onto this? I don't know, what is the orientation fad of the day? Who knows, maybe we can add 'furry' to the list, then it'll be LGBTQIAF, and then I can finally win when we play sexual orientation Bingo.
LGBTQ rights have a lot to do with science if you're a LGBTQ person who happens to be a scientist but you have difficulty doing so
That's fine, but that's hardly what Metcalf was arguing for. It would be a lot more kin to saying that science needs to prove that we need a third bathroom type for trans folks in public areas, et all. She is specifically asking for scientific studies to use to enforce her political philosophies, rather than follow the science and craft policy from that. The former is considered about as anti-scientific-method as you can get.
Worse, she is saying that her preferred political solution to issues can be scientifically proven, which is absolutely false and leads to a lot of justifiable mistrust of her and that movement. That she could say that she's interested in science helping to solve political issues and of course all the results are going to 'progessive' because progressives are totally scientific and conservatives hate science... the WILLFUL bias while claiming kinship with something (science) that strives to eliminate bias from its results is just.. it's incredible.
She's demanding that science be simply a tool for progressive causes. Good lord.
Health insurance companies do make their money by charging premiums for policies that cover treatment. If there suddenly were no disease and no injuries, health insurance companies (and branches of companies) would go out of business, even if this were established by some magical means rather than simply wiping out humanity.
Insurance companies would make an incredible amount of money if they could just get paid every month, yet not have to do much of anything. The catastrophic illness that a person cannot pay for costs them huge bundles of money. That's why the Individual Mandate of Obamacare was considered such a windfall for the insurance companies, because the healthy people who don't need treatment are the ones who generate profits, not the sick with pre-existing conditions they were so easy to jettison.
Pollution is a problem largely caused by the failure to define and enforce property rights. The ham-handed EPA...
Oh wow. WOW. You haven't seen the ham-handedness needed to actually wanted the property rights of the commons protected.
Because lawyers can defend themselves, vigorously and at virtually zero cost.
And almost any lawyer will tell you that a lawyer representing himself has a fool for a client.
ISP's are supposed to provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet
Why? Why does it have to be that way? What if that's what a lot of people want and are willing to pay for?
If people did not want that they would not pay for it and it would die off.
There is no free market in ISPs, so consumer choice does not exist. People don't have Comcast because they loooooove Comcast as the ISP and like paying high prices for ok speed and disgusting policies, they have Comcast because in their area, it's Comcast/AT&T duopoly. I would LOVE a totally free market for ISPs, but we seem hell-bent to not allow that, mostly because we let ISPs completely control the infrastructure.
Now you're threatening the livelihood of thousands of patent attorneys around the world
Hey, if it works for coal, then why not other industries?
retard
Wow, that's even classier and better reasoned!
There are no winners here.
As an older worker, I'm extremely offended that you would assume I'm unwilling to comply with job requirements and move if necessary to retain a job I am good at and I love. That is extremely discriminatory.
It's more that younger workers have fewer ties to the place where they currently live. They may be unmarried, they may be totally career-motivated, they're unlikely to have kids. Older workers CAN move if absolutely necessary, but they may be unwilling to bother. But there are other factors as well.
Factors on the side of older workers be more willing to move:
*) Older workers have more money. Moving can be expensive.
*) Older workers might be more concerned about being -able- to find a new job, so they might stick with what they have.
*) Older workers might have more ties to their jobs, IE, responsibility, management positions, etc, so they might not be interested in starting over on a new one.
*) Older workers might value face-to-face contact more.
It's not just a stealth layoff, it's stealth ageism. I'd wager that much of IBM's older, higher salaried workforce is participating in the remote program, while the workers who are already in the urban centers around the offices or are willing to uproot their lives to move to one are younger and cheaper.
That's bizarre. It's the older workers who appreciate most the face-to-face interactions.
What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had?
The difference is that the ISPs are now also setting themselves up to be primary content providers, thus giving a financial incentive to degrade Internet services which they didn't have before. It also didn't used to matter in the old days before we could stream TV and movies in any real quality. The purposes for which end subscribers use the Internet have changed in the last several years, and the business goals and products of the Internet Service Providers have also changed in the same time period.
It's not double dipping unless you think that companies should be able to connect to the internet for free.
They paid their own ISP. That was never the problem, and no one is debating that.
The double dipping is requiring Netflix to pay the end ISP as well for their packets to get routed to end users in a timely manner.
It's pertinent to Net Neutrality because the ISPs had a financial incentive in doing this to promote their own (non-throttled) offerings that directly competed against Netflix.
Thats it! Alexa!: Destruct sequence 1, code 1, 1-A!
Sorry, but you'll need Scotty and Acting Science Officer Chekov to give their codes as well.
Why do you call this a Republican plan?
Because "no net neutrality" fits very well with the Republican plan to eliminate or greatly reduce government regulation on businesses. Net Neutrality is one of the very few regulations that I've seen which has a cute name that people like and has a lot of people interested in it.
Considering I've lived here for over forty years and haven't met another real leftist, no. Too many people here think that single family housing isn't morally wrong. It is. That is destroying the environment.
Single-family housing isn't morally wrong -- forcing people to be packed together like rats is morally wrong. Having eight children is morally wrong. High-density living and high populations are the problems, not the solutions.
How are they going to charge at night? My inlaws house... they couldn't get permitting to add a telsa fast charging port, they'd need a new electrical box, inspections, new wiring...
Wait, why would they need a "fast charger?" Are you talking about the "charge from 0 to full in half an hour" ports? Those are super expensive and horribly overkill for home users. But a simpler 11 or 22kW is not terribly expensive, nor was permitting. Most homes can handle the electrical load, older ones with a lower ampage would need a new circuit, but it's not THAT expensive, and since they'll need it sooner or later, it'll happen. But yeah, the 8-year figure is laughably unrealistic. More like 30+ years.
Amazing, my parents paid off their mortgage in ten years, and they had domething worth something at the end
Do-Meth-ing? Now I know how your parents afforded their 10-year mortgate, Mister White.
Something tells me that the average car buyer won't really want a fully electric car for another 5 years, when Tesla finally gets some real competition in the electric car space
Tesla has real competition, in that the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S sold about the same number of units in 2016. They're not directly competing against each other though, that'll happen more in a year when the Model 3 goes against the Leaf.
If you want Trump to do anything about climate change, get behind nuclear to replace coal for base load power generation, which I'd imagine he'd support.
Maybe. Nuclear competes most directly with coal, and "bringing back coal" was one of his big campaign planks. More nuclear means less coal, something I'm 100% in favor of, but it goes against Trump's campaign.
Come on comrade, where the hell are you getting your info from? Greenpeace hates coal
Greenpeace hates coal, but they also hate nuclear. They also detest the creation of man-made lakes to power hydro. They don't like anything that's reliable, and they love the idea of returning to a more simple, in-tune-with-nature time, IE, not using energy in the first place.
If your idea of 'over-regulation' is having clean air to breathe, clean water coming out of the tap, clean soil to plant food crops in, clean soil underneath the playgrounds your kids are playing in, [ etcetc ]
And who pays for that? Those things cost money. Who pays? If you say "Well, X is going to pay for this so X, Y, and Z can benefit while Y and Z do squat," then expect that X will not be terribly thrilled with that deal.
What if China didn't do anything (they are waking up to it, fortunately)? Should we just let everything go to hell then?
Possibly. Because it HAS to be "fair." There has never been a civilization so uniformly altruistic that they'll just sacrifice their well being to benefit those not in their civilization. That's not how we evolved as people, and don't look for humanity to outgrow tribalism any time soon. Efforts to push against something so deeply ingrained in us on a societal level have always ended in failure.
So if you ever want something like this to actually WORK, it has to be fair, with sacrifice shared at all. Don't look to one to take the hit if others won't follow.