You point to an outlier and expect... what, exactly? Surely you're not making the ridiculous claim that all women, hell even most women, are budding Lovelace's or similar?
Of course, the basics that help make good STEM students - teaching kids how to learn instead of just rote memorization and regurgitation of facts, how to solve problems using the tools at hand, how to think critically - are very useful no matter what field someone ends up in, be it programming or performance art.
When I was in school, just after the last ice-age the teaching methods of the time relied heavily on rote memorization (times tables, for example). Thanks to that I can do extremely quick calculations in my head and get approximate answers (good enough, anyway). Hand me a slide rule and I'll do even more complex calculations.
There is nothing wrong with rote memorization as long as you understand it's just a tool to avoid time-wasting look-ups.
If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it:-) I'm not an SJW, so I can change my mind when presented with facts.
Hell I forgot about that study - quite recent too - It's in the CDC site somewhere (I trust you'll find it if you look:-) Basically as a woman your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man. If you're a man your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man.
In short, if you're a female you're safest living with a man; if you're a man you're safest living with a man too. If you're living with a woman your odds of getting seriously hurt and/or raped doubles (yes, literally doubles) over those that result from living with a man.
When you go bankrupt personally, you don't get to keep all your stuff anyway.
That's why I qualified it with "only negative consequence is lower credit rating" - Greece gets to keep all their existing stuff if they default.
Better to sell it and clear the debt, than to lose it and retain the debt because it sold for pennies on the dollar at auction.
They also do have the power to impose currency controls to prevent the outflow of capital.
Some other countries might trade with them, provided they can then sell the drachmas for another currency - but not too many people are going to want to hold drachmas.
Trade goes both ways - even if others don't want drachmas (they don't want to sell to Greece) they may still buy goods/services from Greece which is a net win for Greece.
You really should look at what happened to Argentina when they defaulted in 2002. It's still causing problems today.
In all fairness, I said they'd get the *ability* to bring the spiral under control, I didn't say they'd actually exercise that ability:-) The way things are now they don't have the option of currency controls!. If they get the option there is still the possibility that they abuse it.
From Greece's PoV, it's better to have the ability to control and not need it rather than needing the ability to control and not having it!
The austerity measures proposed would leave them with indefinite debt that can never be repaid. If the option of staying in the EU means that they'll be debtors for the rest of time then they may as well take their chances and default on the debt instead - defaulting at least gives them a chance.
Think about it this way: Let's say you are in debt, and the only penalty for defaulting is lower credit rating. If your creditor asks you to sell your means of earning money (say, sell all your computing equipment, car and house) as part of "austerity measures" before they give you any more money, you are better off defaulting on the debt. Their austerity measures will handicap your ability to repay the debt anyway, so why not default?
This is the state that Greece finds itself in, and the EU knows full well that if a precedence is set regarding defaults then just about all the weaker/debtor economies in EU will consider defaulting as well. After all, countries leaving the EU can still trade with China, Middle East and the whole of Africa for essentials - maybe the Russians too. It won't be perfect, nor better, but it will be an option. Trading with the strong economies do not work so well when you don't control your own currency.
...Greece probably won't care if no one wants their drachmas; creditors (like Germany) will have to either take it or forfeit the debt.
Wow - is that ever simplistic.
As simplistic as you think it is, it's happened before and it will happen again.
That kind of thinking leads to foreign investment dropping to absolute zero, tariffs and sanctions from your biggest sources of tourism (which makes up something like 20% of the Greek economy) - that's a bright future for Greece you're advocating. If they play all their cards right, maybe in a hundred years or so they'll be back at the level of Portugal.
You appear to be under the impression that this doesn't happen often, of that if it does the results are as dire as you say. In actual fact it happens so often with few highly negative consequences that there is even discussion about how to stop countries simply inflating away their debt.
Yes, it is that common, and countries regularly do this with few highly negative results, mostly because they are already at the bottom and can only go up. Greece is in this position - bowing to the EU pressure for certain austerity policies might hurt far far worse than simply telling the creditors to fuck off and printing their own money.
Regardless of how simplistic you may think this is, the only chance they have might be to print their own money, albeit in a responsible manner. The austerity measures proposed seem to be punitive at best; such measures would definitely result in almost perpetual debt (Some other poster elsethread posted a very informative and insightful breakdown of *why* the austerity measures are worse for greece than simply printing their own money).
Poor economies need weak currencies to enable profitable exports.
Or they can use a strong currency, and lower their wages.
I don't understand what you mean by this (I'm serious, not being facetious): weak economies need to export goods and services/import currency. Greece doesn't need to worry about anyone wanting their drachmas - they should be trying to get dollars/euros/etc *in*, not drachmas *out*. Hence my reply to "printing money that nobody wants". Sure, nobody wants it outside of Greece, but a weak currency for Greece means that, for things Greece does not need to import, it becomes cheaper to live.
Sure - they'll pay more for iShinies and automobiles. But, they'll pay less for food (they *can* grow themselves) and a weak currency gives them more value on any goods/service surplus they possess. With the strong currency, it doesn't matter what austerity measures they take - they'll still drown.
PS. It's nice to have someone disagree on slashdot without first hurling insults about "crying manbabies", "clueless noob", "libertard/republitard", etc. Please keep up the good work:-)
The country that leaves instantly get's the ability to control their economy
How ? By printing money nobody wants ?
Currency control is widely acknowledged as one of the levers used in directing the economy. Surely you are not proposing that currency control has no effect no the economy? After all, Greece probably won't care if no one wants their drachmas; creditors (like Germany) will have to either take it or forfeit the debt.
Managing the exchange rate is something a country can do if they print their own money. They can't do it if they have no control over the currency. Poor economies need weak currencies to enable profitable exports. Rich economies need strong currencies to enable profitable imports. Greece would do better with a weak currency than with a strong one at this point.
As I keep pointing out, weak economies have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they cannot control the production of their currency. The weakest EU member (currently Greece) will always be at a trade disadvantage if forced to use money not under their control. Weak economies use a mixture of both currency and interest rates to reign in a spiral. Greece can't do this if they're using the euro.
Grexit now is much less harmful to Eurozone than it would have been two years ago, so being kicked out of the house isn't out of the question at all.
Hah! The EU would be much more harmed by a country leaving than the country that leaves. The country that leaves instantly get's the ability to control their economy. All the EU gets, OTOH, is the danger set by a precedent. Only the rich countries benefit from a common currency. Should all the poor countries leave those rich countries would be in more than a little trouble.
I'm just saying that based on my own biased and subjective experience, I've come to find that gamers didn't make great Computer Science students at all.
I found that gamers didn't make great Computer Programming students either. OTOH, many computer programmers love games.
The reason is because only a relative few readers are qualified to discuss the latest in astrophysics, let's say, but anyone can jump in and talk about politics.
Sure, more little dollars for everyone! Anyone bother to think of the ramifications involving this country printing money every 6 months just to keep the governments doors open? They call it hyperinflation and raising minimum wage is a component of that. Want to see where that road goes? Take a good look at South Africa.
You're confused. I'm in South Africa. I live here. We have never had hyperinflation. Perhaps you meant "Zimbabwe"?
Not going looking to play a pathetic little deliberately time wasting game while time was short is of course the reason - and where did the +3 come from? New goalpost shift from the shitting seagull by the looks.
Here - Eat your words: you said more than one comment floated to +3
If you aren't prepared to eat your words, you shouldn't say them!
That's actually quite funny, I assumed that you were making claims about that story. Why on earth would I suddenly post comments about different stories?
FCOL! You made a claim that numerous such posts exist. Now you can't find even one. How is that *my* fault? You keep saying that that +3 post exists... why claim that it exists if no one can find it?
So not being content with flying in from nowhere and shitting all over me, refusing to justify why then buggering off, you now want me to go off on a fishing expedition? Why do I have to provide proof (which you've ALREADY SEEN FFS) while you get to attack me for what your invisible strawman did?
You made the claim that numerous such posts exists. I couldn't find even one. Neither can you, it seems. There's no point in replying anymore - you can't find an example of such a comment/post, and neither can I.
Every fucking time there is a "women in IT" or "women in STEM" article on this site there are plenty, are you really telling me you have not seen at least a dozen by now?
It's got everything to do with fear. Man I tell you, if I was part of a demographic that was the majority in college degree's awarded and minority in deaths, incarceration, fatal disease, dangerous occupations, victim of violence, etc... well, I'd keep my mouth shut:-)
Obviously it's a reply directly to a "poor me I can't do anything right" post but don't let your choice of pretending to be an idiot get in the way of reality.
It's anything but obvious.
By logic it applies only to "whiny virgins who feel they should have got a free supermodel" despite your attempt to show otherwise.
Nope - I even quoted it so that you won't get it wrong - parent in that thread said "Nerds are...", and you went ahead and replied "you forgot..."
You painted with a broad brush, and I called you out on it - all the abuse in that story is directed *to* nerds, not by them, and you happily joined the mob.
However you got very quiet instead of contesting the subject when I pointed out how far you were off the mark earlier, and here you are back without addressing it - so OK for you to dish it out but not me even when I wasn't actually dishing it out?
What mark? I got busy, it was a weekend after all, so for the fourth and final time, I ask you can point out the upvoted comment that you claimed was made that said "women are unsuitable for tech". You actually claimed that many such comments were made, IIRC, not just one.
(I actually understand: you have to *believe* that it exists. Because if it doesn't exist it means that you were part of the mindless mob. You don't want to believe that you'll be part of a mob.)
Yea, well you were not kept as slaves, killed for learning to read, beaten with inch and a quarter thick poles (often to death). Your families were not sold separately to different owners and broken up. You were not systematically excluded from education, jobs, housing, medical care for generations and eveb lynched for generations (as recently as the 1990s for several of those). The police don't selectively stop you, shoot you, arrest you while letting other races go without an arrest record.
He said he's Asian, so it's highly probable that someone in his ancestry endured all of that.
(PS. Every race was oppressed at one time or another. The line is drawn with the question "how far back was $FOO's oppression?", and not "were $FOOs ever oppressed?")
So, he's not allowed to say he's not, but because everyone says he is, then that's good enough for you?
I'm allowed to say that I'm LeBron James, but if people can clearly see that I'm not LeBron James, then no, it doesn't matter what I say I am or am not.
That's a different thing to what the article author is claiming. He's distancing himself from a group, he is not affiliating with a group. You, for example, are allowed to distance yourself from whichever group you want to, and you frequently do - you distance yourself regularly from equality groups/people whom you perceive as not being tough enough on males.
No...because they feel that empowerment slipping away, and they fear payback.
Considering that men die more often on the job, more often off the job, in more violent ways and with higher chance of fatal disease and* kill themselves more often, I seriously wonder what it is "they" fear...
Of course, since you take things personally that are aimed in completely the opposite direction. Where is your apology for your accusation that I was attacking all geeks?
You really won't let this go, will you? Fair enough:
This post over here refers to all geeks. You reply to the post that refers to all geeksover here and add an item - " for being whiny virgins who feel they should have got a free supermodel".
When one refers to $FOO unqualified like you did, you refers to all $FOO. You could have said "$FOO, in general", "many $FOO", or even "some $FOO", "$FOO, usually", etc...
Now, how about addressing the fact that you said, in that thread, that *most* of the comments derogatory to women are upvoted, hmm? Now that I've shown you where you called all nerds whiny, you could show me where the upvoted comments that were derogatory to women are in that story?
(PS, I know you can't; this is not the first time the that claim "most/. commenters are mostly misogynistic most of the time" are made, and then the claimers go silent when asked for proof...)
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody told this silly female: http://boingboing.net/2015/05/...
You point to an outlier and expect... what, exactly? Surely you're not making the ridiculous claim that all women, hell even most women, are budding Lovelace's or similar?
Of course, the basics that help make good STEM students - teaching kids how to learn instead of just rote memorization and regurgitation of facts, how to solve problems using the tools at hand, how to think critically - are very useful no matter what field someone ends up in, be it programming or performance art.
When I was in school, just after the last ice-age the teaching methods of the time relied heavily on rote memorization (times tables, for example). Thanks to that I can do extremely quick calculations in my head and get approximate answers (good enough, anyway). Hand me a slide rule and I'll do even more complex calculations.
There is nothing wrong with rote memorization as long as you understand it's just a tool to avoid time-wasting look-ups.
If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it :-) I'm not an SJW, so I can change my mind when presented with facts.
Hell I forgot about that study - quite recent too - It's in the CDC site somewhere (I trust you'll find it if you look :-) Basically as a woman your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man. If you're a man your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man.
In short, if you're a female you're safest living with a man; if you're a man you're safest living with a man too. If you're living with a woman your odds of getting seriously hurt and/or raped doubles (yes, literally doubles) over those that result from living with a man.
When you go bankrupt personally, you don't get to keep all your stuff anyway.
That's why I qualified it with "only negative consequence is lower credit rating" - Greece gets to keep all their existing stuff if they default.
Better to sell it and clear the debt, than to lose it and retain the debt because it sold for pennies on the dollar at auction.
They also do have the power to impose currency controls to prevent the outflow of capital.
Some other countries might trade with them, provided they can then sell the drachmas for another currency - but not too many people are going to want to hold drachmas.
Trade goes both ways - even if others don't want drachmas (they don't want to sell to Greece) they may still buy goods/services from Greece which is a net win for Greece.
You really should look at what happened to Argentina when they defaulted in 2002. It's still causing problems today.
In all fairness, I said they'd get the *ability* to bring the spiral under control, I didn't say they'd actually exercise that ability :-) The way things are now they don't have the option of currency controls!. If they get the option there is still the possibility that they abuse it.
From Greece's PoV, it's better to have the ability to control and not need it rather than needing the ability to control and not having it!
The austerity measures proposed would leave them with indefinite debt that can never be repaid. If the option of staying in the EU means that they'll be debtors for the rest of time then they may as well take their chances and default on the debt instead - defaulting at least gives them a chance.
Think about it this way: Let's say you are in debt, and the only penalty for defaulting is lower credit rating. If your creditor asks you to sell your means of earning money (say, sell all your computing equipment, car and house) as part of "austerity measures" before they give you any more money, you are better off defaulting on the debt. Their austerity measures will handicap your ability to repay the debt anyway, so why not default?
This is the state that Greece finds itself in, and the EU knows full well that if a precedence is set regarding defaults then just about all the weaker/debtor economies in EU will consider defaulting as well. After all, countries leaving the EU can still trade with China, Middle East and the whole of Africa for essentials - maybe the Russians too. It won't be perfect, nor better, but it will be an option. Trading with the strong economies do not work so well when you don't control your own currency.
...Greece probably won't care if no one wants their drachmas; creditors (like Germany) will have to either take it or forfeit the debt.
Wow - is that ever simplistic.
As simplistic as you think it is, it's happened before and it will happen again.
That kind of thinking leads to foreign investment dropping to absolute zero, tariffs and sanctions from your biggest sources of tourism (which makes up something like 20% of the Greek economy) - that's a bright future for Greece you're advocating. If they play all their cards right, maybe in a hundred years or so they'll be back at the level of Portugal.
You appear to be under the impression that this doesn't happen often, of that if it does the results are as dire as you say. In actual fact it happens so often with few highly negative consequences that there is even discussion about how to stop countries simply inflating away their debt.
Yes, it is that common, and countries regularly do this with few highly negative results, mostly because they are already at the bottom and can only go up. Greece is in this position - bowing to the EU pressure for certain austerity policies might hurt far far worse than simply telling the creditors to fuck off and printing their own money.
Regardless of how simplistic you may think this is, the only chance they have might be to print their own money, albeit in a responsible manner. The austerity measures proposed seem to be punitive at best; such measures would definitely result in almost perpetual debt (Some other poster elsethread posted a very informative and insightful breakdown of *why* the austerity measures are worse for greece than simply printing their own money).
Poor economies need weak currencies to enable profitable exports.
Or they can use a strong currency, and lower their wages.
I don't understand what you mean by this (I'm serious, not being facetious): weak economies need to export goods and services/import currency. Greece doesn't need to worry about anyone wanting their drachmas - they should be trying to get dollars/euros/etc *in*, not drachmas *out*. Hence my reply to "printing money that nobody wants". Sure, nobody wants it outside of Greece, but a weak currency for Greece means that, for things Greece does not need to import, it becomes cheaper to live.
Sure - they'll pay more for iShinies and automobiles. But, they'll pay less for food (they *can* grow themselves) and a weak currency gives them more value on any goods/service surplus they possess. With the strong currency, it doesn't matter what austerity measures they take - they'll still drown.
PS. It's nice to have someone disagree on slashdot without first hurling insults about "crying manbabies", "clueless noob", "libertard/republitard", etc. Please keep up the good work :-)
The country that leaves instantly get's the ability to control their economy
How ? By printing money nobody wants ?
Currency control is widely acknowledged as one of the levers used in directing the economy. Surely you are not proposing that currency control has no effect no the economy? After all, Greece probably won't care if no one wants their drachmas; creditors (like Germany) will have to either take it or forfeit the debt.
Managing the exchange rate is something a country can do if they print their own money. They can't do it if they have no control over the currency. Poor economies need weak currencies to enable profitable exports. Rich economies need strong currencies to enable profitable imports. Greece would do better with a weak currency than with a strong one at this point.
Nobody bankrupted Greece except Greece -
As I keep pointing out, weak economies have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they cannot control the production of their currency. The weakest EU member (currently Greece) will always be at a trade disadvantage if forced to use money not under their control. Weak economies use a mixture of both currency and interest rates to reign in a spiral. Greece can't do this if they're using the euro.
Grexit now is much less harmful to Eurozone than it would have been two years ago, so being kicked out of the house isn't out of the question at all.
Hah! The EU would be much more harmed by a country leaving than the country that leaves. The country that leaves instantly get's the ability to control their economy. All the EU gets, OTOH, is the danger set by a precedent. Only the rich countries benefit from a common currency. Should all the poor countries leave those rich countries would be in more than a little trouble.
Marriage is a union of two people who love each other and that is all it is,
Why the arbitrary limit?
That's probably what got the woman in the picture of 'only person to be directly hit by a meteor'.
I heard it was waiting for her in an alley.
I'm just saying that based on my own biased and subjective experience, I've come to find that gamers didn't make great Computer Science students at all.
I found that gamers didn't make great Computer Programming students either. OTOH, many computer programmers love games.
Same for insects like me! :P
What's the official stance on avians? ;-)
The reason is because only a relative few readers are qualified to discuss the latest in astrophysics, let's say, but anyone can jump in and talk about politics.
Therein lies the problem.
Look up the bike-shed problem.
Sure, more little dollars for everyone! Anyone bother to think of the ramifications involving this country printing money every 6 months just to keep the governments doors open? They call it hyperinflation and raising minimum wage is a component of that. Want to see where that road goes? Take a good look at South Africa.
You're confused. I'm in South Africa. I live here. We have never had hyperinflation. Perhaps you meant "Zimbabwe"?
Not going looking to play a pathetic little deliberately time wasting game while time was short is of course the reason - and where did the +3 come from? New goalpost shift from the shitting seagull by the looks.
Here - Eat your words: you said more than one comment floated to +3 If you aren't prepared to eat your words, you shouldn't say them!
Here's an entire article with a vast number of comments along those lines: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Too old? Then let's try this one: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Ah. So when you claimed that comments about women being unsuitable for tech were at +3, you meant in a different story?
That's actually quite funny, I assumed that you were making claims about that story. Why on earth would I suddenly post comments about different stories?
FCOL! You made a claim that numerous such posts exist. Now you can't find even one. How is that *my* fault? You keep saying that that +3 post exists... why claim that it exists if no one can find it?
So not being content with flying in from nowhere and shitting all over me, refusing to justify why then buggering off, you now want me to go off on a fishing expedition? Why do I have to provide proof (which you've ALREADY SEEN FFS) while you get to attack me for what your invisible strawman did?
You made the claim that numerous such posts exists. I couldn't find even one. Neither can you, it seems. There's no point in replying anymore - you can't find an example of such a comment/post, and neither can I.
Every fucking time there is a "women in IT" or "women in STEM" article on this site there are plenty, are you really telling me you have not seen at least a dozen by now?
You said :
Some of the AC shit about how women have unsuitable brains etc has floated up to 3 or more.
yeah, I don't believe you: prove me wrong and link to one, please.
What does that have to do with empowerment?
It's got everything to do with fear. Man I tell you, if I was part of a demographic that was the majority in college degree's awarded and minority in deaths, incarceration, fatal disease, dangerous occupations, victim of violence, etc ... well, I'd keep my mouth shut :-)
Obviously it's a reply directly to a "poor me I can't do anything right" post but don't let your choice of pretending to be an idiot get in the way of reality.
It's anything but obvious.
By logic it applies only to "whiny virgins who feel they should have got a free supermodel" despite your attempt to show otherwise.
Nope - I even quoted it so that you won't get it wrong - parent in that thread said "Nerds are...", and you went ahead and replied "you forgot..."
You painted with a broad brush, and I called you out on it - all the abuse in that story is directed *to* nerds, not by them, and you happily joined the mob.
However you got very quiet instead of contesting the subject when I pointed out how far you were off the mark earlier, and here you are back without addressing it - so OK for you to dish it out but not me even when I wasn't actually dishing it out?
What mark? I got busy, it was a weekend after all, so for the fourth and final time, I ask you can point out the upvoted comment that you claimed was made that said "women are unsuitable for tech". You actually claimed that many such comments were made, IIRC, not just one.
(I actually understand: you have to *believe* that it exists. Because if it doesn't exist it means that you were part of the mindless mob. You don't want to believe that you'll be part of a mob.)
Yea, well you were not kept as slaves, killed for learning to read, beaten with inch and a quarter thick poles (often to death). Your families were not sold separately to different owners and broken up. You were not systematically excluded from education, jobs, housing, medical care for generations and eveb lynched for generations (as recently as the 1990s for several of those). The police don't selectively stop you, shoot you, arrest you while letting other races go without an arrest record.
He said he's Asian, so it's highly probable that someone in his ancestry endured all of that.
(PS. Every race was oppressed at one time or another. The line is drawn with the question "how far back was $FOO's oppression?", and not "were $FOOs ever oppressed?")
I'm allowed to say that I'm LeBron James, but if people can clearly see that I'm not LeBron James, then no, it doesn't matter what I say I am or am not.
That's a different thing to what the article author is claiming. He's distancing himself from a group, he is not affiliating with a group. You, for example, are allowed to distance yourself from whichever group you want to, and you frequently do - you distance yourself regularly from equality groups/people whom you perceive as not being tough enough on males.
That's basically how group affiliation works.
No...because they feel that empowerment slipping away, and they fear payback.
Considering that men die more often on the job, more often off the job, in more violent ways and with higher chance of fatal disease and* kill themselves more often, I seriously wonder what it is "they" fear...
Of course, since you take things personally that are aimed in completely the opposite direction. Where is your apology for your accusation that I was attacking all geeks?
You really won't let this go, will you? Fair enough:
This post over here refers to all geeks. You reply to the post that refers to all geeks over here and add an item - " for being whiny virgins who feel they should have got a free supermodel".
When one refers to $FOO unqualified like you did, you refers to all $FOO. You could have said "$FOO, in general", "many $FOO", or even "some $FOO", "$FOO, usually", etc...
Now, how about addressing the fact that you said, in that thread, that *most* of the comments derogatory to women are upvoted, hmm? Now that I've shown you where you called all nerds whiny, you could show me where the upvoted comments that were derogatory to women are in that story?
(PS, I know you can't; this is not the first time the that claim "most /. commenters are mostly misogynistic most of the time" are made, and then the claimers go silent when asked for proof...)