Except that they do make news. You would never have even heard of this story if it weren't news and weren't of interest to a lot of people. Maybe you don't think it's important and you treat gays exactly the same way you treat anyone else, yawning if someone announces being either gay or straight. But the world itself is not as comfortable with it as you are, and the world still feels it's unusual, there are places where it's still illegal to be gay.
I didn't think there were ads on youtube either. Granted I don't use it all that much. Maybe they're talking about those stupid boxes that pop up blocking part of the video which are trying to get me to watch a different video .
There are two tiers of these H1B workers though. The smart people, where companies want to hire that specific person because they have great experience and recommendations, and the average seat warmers and the below average grunts. So while the best H1B workers make a decent wage there are all of those who don't. The labor brokers don't deal with the stars, they deal in filling positions where the actual person doesn't matter just the fact that the person has a certificate.
There are even the workers who aren't really H1B either. They're rotated in on other visas for a short term, maybe six months or so, then shipped back home again. They really work for the office back home but they're here because the job may require some face to face meetings or quick turn around rather than being done entirely overseas.
STEM is a stretch though. Many of these workers are very much the low tech workers. IT grunts, support desk, installing equipment, always recommended purchases from major manufacturers they learned about in school, etc. They fill the basic jobs and are interchangeable cogs. That's why they have labor brokers, because they're hired as warm bodies rather than as key employees. These are the modern factory floor workers, with the difference of being slightly skilled. The media doesn't seem to see this because they think that using a mouse is the same as being high tech.
Sure there are the best and brightest students and employees from those countries, and they deserve to get in on visas because they do great work. But there are so many who go to the average schools where they teach only the current fashionable job skills, knowing enough to get a certificate, then they end up taking jobs that can already be filled by workers in the US. I honestly think a high school education in the US is good enough to fill many of these jobs.
In the past it was about looking for the cheapest workers who can use a wrench, today it's about finding the cheapest workers who can use some generic technology.
I would categorize it more as a three centuries of enslavement and discrimination do not end overnight with equality for all just because a law is signed. Saying "you're free now, get off my land and go get a job" isn't enough. Add in several states that refused to provide quality education for blacks, then assumed that they were naturally not as bright because they were so poorly educated. There was also a very broad attitude, in north and south, that nothing needed to be done, the past was in the past, don't blame me instead blame my ancestors.
So the whole point of affirmative action was what the name says - take some positive action to redress the past wrongs instead of the hands-off neutral approach which clearly was not working. No matter how much some people hate affirmative action, you can't deny that it's a whole helluva lot cheaper than fair and just compensation would be. But no, people seem to think it's a quota system, they whine about how their C student can't get into college or that money is wasted on outreach programs. Reverse discrimination may be a bitch, assuming it even exists, but it's not nearly as bad as actual discrimination where you're not allowed to be educated or hold a job or even vote.
(speaking of, cancel out so many of the voter rights act provisions recently and all those old plans to keep people from voting are rearing their heads again, so it's clear that affirmative action was not obsolete or that racism is in the past)
But if you point out things by Mendel or a pope, it won't hold any weight either as these are imperfect Christians who have missed the truth in the eyes of the Protestant creationists.
I went to a creationist museum once, keeping mom happy when she was visiting. One surprise was how many of the exhibits had nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, but were mostly 'proof' that later biblical events were true (Hebrews enslaved in Egypt), or dioramas of later events (Roman empire, spread of Christianity, etc).
There was one exhibit I remember about the Grand Canyon, about how it could have been created quickly (this place believed in young earth only a few millenia old). They tied this into the flood, about how receding waters dug it, that the sandstone hardened relatively quickly, and so forth. Lots of hand waving about it despite the story of the flood occuring long long after the story of creation.
That's one reason I found the 'intelligent design' to be so transparent. These people aren't about just creation, or some amorphous entity that guided creation, they absolutely 100% are about the literal protestant biblical accounts. They don't care about native American stories, Hindu stories, Chinese stories, etc.
I actually like the windows 8 UI (not metro). I was never fond of the Windows 7 look, aero, and stuff. Overall, I'd prefer to have zero width borders like osx, and one fault of windows 8 is that they removed the display settings to change border width (the default fat borders are just ridiculously ugly, and you have to use the registry to fix it).
What about systemd trying to do too much? Ie, someone earlier said it was great that systemd did ntp and dhcp, which seems ridiculous to me; if those services had problems then get better services, don't just wrap them up into systemd. Were those written as examples of systemd services to be emulated, or do the systemd devs really think it's their job to subsume services?
So an overwhelming level of support by linux users, or an overwhelming level of support by the distribution developers? Was there a vote taken that I missed?
Is there no middle road between init/inittab and systemd? Why the abrupt change over in a short period of time with a program that hasn't been time tested and comes with a lot of objections? Are there ways to make incremental changes towards the goals that systemd has?
I haven't used it, but the whole thing feels like it's being adopted en-masse by a large number of distributions when it is still essentially a new program and new way of doing things. Sure, experimental stuff is nice, but it should be experimental. Try it out for a few years before rolling it out to everyone. It feels like "boots fast" is being used to nullify all objections to it.
However there is a large and growing group that deeply believes there is a social war going on, that there is an outright attack on beliefs by the cultural elite. These groups become more insular over time, and they're getting support from politicians, and politicians are getting support for them. It's the primary reason why things like climate change is getting wrapped up in politics. So when groups of students protest these talks it actually encourages the faithful, presents evidence that the us versus them struggle is ongoing, that universities are becoming unredeemably liberal, and that home schooling is the best way to avoid tainting your children.
Treat it as a learning experience, since it is a university. Show up, listen and learn what these people think, and if possible debate them. Automatically starting with the name calling and insults just promotes the us-versus-them mentality which is fueling these movements.
This is true, but I think we still have a couple of decades before we can get there. All we have today are a few cars that can follow preset directions based on highly detailed maps. These current autos aren't even going to be personal autos since they will be unable to take you into your garage or find a parking spot at the local grocery store, they're oriented towards being a shuttle service.
Best bet will be a hybrid, self driving only on freeways or major roads, human driven elsewhere. (but then some idiot will take over on the freeway because it's going too slow, get an accident, then blame it on the AI)
Read the summary, if not the article. It is talking about a _declining_ rate of enrollment. Why were there so many more women in CS when I was a student, and why has it greatly shrunk over time? Has socialization changed so much, have we actually gotten more sexist over the last thirty years?
The whole topic is about the declining rate of enrollment, not a steady state. If those boxes were accurately describing reality then they do not describe a genetic basis and instead a socializing factor that can be fixed. Assuming you want it fixed, I certainly want to see many more women in STEM and CS to balance out the frat boy attitude I see in too many places. Are you defending the status quo or just presenting a neutral observation?
I wish students would research this, but take note of the very large number of undecided majors.
If girls start losing interest in STEM, then should we not try to discover why? Saying that they should be allowed to skip it implies that the status quo is ok, and I disagree thinking we need _more_ women in STEM not fewer.
Slashdot Mirror
Servers contain lots of silicon. Maybe we should say "I'm storing my data in the sand".
It's slashdot though, who here watches sports?
Except that they do make news. You would never have even heard of this story if it weren't news and weren't of interest to a lot of people. Maybe you don't think it's important and you treat gays exactly the same way you treat anyone else, yawning if someone announces being either gay or straight. But the world itself is not as comfortable with it as you are, and the world still feels it's unusual, there are places where it's still illegal to be gay.
Which part is illegal? The part where they got a warrant, or the part where they targeted only one person?
I didn't think there were ads on youtube either. Granted I don't use it all that much. Maybe they're talking about those stupid boxes that pop up blocking part of the video which are trying to get me to watch a different video .
There are two tiers of these H1B workers though. The smart people, where companies want to hire that specific person because they have great experience and recommendations, and the average seat warmers and the below average grunts. So while the best H1B workers make a decent wage there are all of those who don't. The labor brokers don't deal with the stars, they deal in filling positions where the actual person doesn't matter just the fact that the person has a certificate.
There are even the workers who aren't really H1B either. They're rotated in on other visas for a short term, maybe six months or so, then shipped back home again. They really work for the office back home but they're here because the job may require some face to face meetings or quick turn around rather than being done entirely overseas.
STEM is a stretch though. Many of these workers are very much the low tech workers. IT grunts, support desk, installing equipment, always recommended purchases from major manufacturers they learned about in school, etc. They fill the basic jobs and are interchangeable cogs. That's why they have labor brokers, because they're hired as warm bodies rather than as key employees. These are the modern factory floor workers, with the difference of being slightly skilled. The media doesn't seem to see this because they think that using a mouse is the same as being high tech.
Sure there are the best and brightest students and employees from those countries, and they deserve to get in on visas because they do great work. But there are so many who go to the average schools where they teach only the current fashionable job skills, knowing enough to get a certificate, then they end up taking jobs that can already be filled by workers in the US. I honestly think a high school education in the US is good enough to fill many of these jobs.
In the past it was about looking for the cheapest workers who can use a wrench, today it's about finding the cheapest workers who can use some generic technology.
On the other hand, if it were not for the news about these restrictions, no one would ever have heard of or cared about SugarString.com.
I would categorize it more as a three centuries of enslavement and discrimination do not end overnight with equality for all just because a law is signed. Saying "you're free now, get off my land and go get a job" isn't enough. Add in several states that refused to provide quality education for blacks, then assumed that they were naturally not as bright because they were so poorly educated. There was also a very broad attitude, in north and south, that nothing needed to be done, the past was in the past, don't blame me instead blame my ancestors.
So the whole point of affirmative action was what the name says - take some positive action to redress the past wrongs instead of the hands-off neutral approach which clearly was not working. No matter how much some people hate affirmative action, you can't deny that it's a whole helluva lot cheaper than fair and just compensation would be. But no, people seem to think it's a quota system, they whine about how their C student can't get into college or that money is wasted on outreach programs. Reverse discrimination may be a bitch, assuming it even exists, but it's not nearly as bad as actual discrimination where you're not allowed to be educated or hold a job or even vote.
(speaking of, cancel out so many of the voter rights act provisions recently and all those old plans to keep people from voting are rearing their heads again, so it's clear that affirmative action was not obsolete or that racism is in the past)
But if you point out things by Mendel or a pope, it won't hold any weight either as these are imperfect Christians who have missed the truth in the eyes of the Protestant creationists.
I went to a creationist museum once, keeping mom happy when she was visiting. One surprise was how many of the exhibits had nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, but were mostly 'proof' that later biblical events were true (Hebrews enslaved in Egypt), or dioramas of later events (Roman empire, spread of Christianity, etc).
There was one exhibit I remember about the Grand Canyon, about how it could have been created quickly (this place believed in young earth only a few millenia old). They tied this into the flood, about how receding waters dug it, that the sandstone hardened relatively quickly, and so forth. Lots of hand waving about it despite the story of the flood occuring long long after the story of creation.
That's one reason I found the 'intelligent design' to be so transparent. These people aren't about just creation, or some amorphous entity that guided creation, they absolutely 100% are about the literal protestant biblical accounts. They don't care about native American stories, Hindu stories, Chinese stories, etc.
I actually like the windows 8 UI (not metro). I was never fond of the Windows 7 look, aero, and stuff. Overall, I'd prefer to have zero width borders like osx, and one fault of windows 8 is that they removed the display settings to change border width (the default fat borders are just ridiculously ugly, and you have to use the registry to fix it).
Welsh spelling rules mandate several more soft consonants.
Free as in bird.
Very interesting, thanks.
What about systemd trying to do too much? Ie, someone earlier said it was great that systemd did ntp and dhcp, which seems ridiculous to me; if those services had problems then get better services, don't just wrap them up into systemd. Were those written as examples of systemd services to be emulated, or do the systemd devs really think it's their job to subsume services?
So an overwhelming level of support by linux users, or an overwhelming level of support by the distribution developers? Was there a vote taken that I missed?
Is there no middle road between init/inittab and systemd? Why the abrupt change over in a short period of time with a program that hasn't been time tested and comes with a lot of objections? Are there ways to make incremental changes towards the goals that systemd has?
I haven't used it, but the whole thing feels like it's being adopted en-masse by a large number of distributions when it is still essentially a new program and new way of doing things. Sure, experimental stuff is nice, but it should be experimental. Try it out for a few years before rolling it out to everyone. It feels like "boots fast" is being used to nullify all objections to it.
However there is a large and growing group that deeply believes there is a social war going on, that there is an outright attack on beliefs by the cultural elite. These groups become more insular over time, and they're getting support from politicians, and politicians are getting support for them. It's the primary reason why things like climate change is getting wrapped up in politics. So when groups of students protest these talks it actually encourages the faithful, presents evidence that the us versus them struggle is ongoing, that universities are becoming unredeemably liberal, and that home schooling is the best way to avoid tainting your children.
Treat it as a learning experience, since it is a university. Show up, listen and learn what these people think, and if possible debate them. Automatically starting with the name calling and insults just promotes the us-versus-them mentality which is fueling these movements.
This is true, but I think we still have a couple of decades before we can get there. All we have today are a few cars that can follow preset directions based on highly detailed maps. These current autos aren't even going to be personal autos since they will be unable to take you into your garage or find a parking spot at the local grocery store, they're oriented towards being a shuttle service.
Best bet will be a hybrid, self driving only on freeways or major roads, human driven elsewhere. (but then some idiot will take over on the freeway because it's going too slow, get an accident, then blame it on the AI)
Read the summary, if not the article. It is talking about a _declining_ rate of enrollment. Why were there so many more women in CS when I was a student, and why has it greatly shrunk over time? Has socialization changed so much, have we actually gotten more sexist over the last thirty years?
The whole topic is about the declining rate of enrollment, not a steady state. If those boxes were accurately describing reality then they do not describe a genetic basis and instead a socializing factor that can be fixed. Assuming you want it fixed, I certainly want to see many more women in STEM and CS to balance out the frat boy attitude I see in too many places. Are you defending the status quo or just presenting a neutral observation?
I wish students would research this, but take note of the very large number of undecided majors.
If girls start losing interest in STEM, then should we not try to discover why? Saying that they should be allowed to skip it implies that the status quo is ok, and I disagree thinking we need _more_ women in STEM not fewer.