So why do men want to go into the field if it's so unpleasant?
I'm not so certain all that many do any more. And the stereotype of the shy geek does have some origins based in reality. Its also how I got involved in it, because all of our IT people had great trouble interfacing with the suits. So they needed someone who was comfortable around shakers and movers.
I do know that when we moved my whole group into the basement area where before there were only a few of us, the ladies wanted carpeting, and they wanted a drop ceiling put in where there were once only concrete floors and pipes and ductwork ceilings. Before that, I never gave much thought to the decor.
It is folly to think that women and men have the exact same thought processes. Women are in general, better communicators, and much more aware of their surroundings. Men are in general, much more focused on problems. Put those things together, and you have a darn good synergy. Having people not think alike and make for great innovation.
I've always identified as a pragmatic. Ideology takes a distant second to the concept of having things work. Which is all to say that Identifying IT as a hotbed of sexual discrimination and harassment, and the weak examples put out as proof - like a photo of a Playboy model's face, long used in Classes on digital photo work, or dongle jokes, or the word "bossy" - as the root causes of less female participation are silly and destructive to women.
Because you cannot buy into those excuses without buying into the idea that women are weak, and cannot handle anything perceived as a problem. I know women are not weak, but there is a lot of pressure put on society to accept that almost Victorian model of gender.
But why did we have so many more women in computing in the 80s and 90s? Why did the "weak woman" appear after that point in time? It's recent enough that we should be able to reverse it before it becomes entrenched.
I'm saying that the things that keep women out of STEM, especially programming, are it's inherent unpleasantnesses - no respect by management, not so hot pay, primitive working conditions, long hours, and not particularly good employment prospects. I've asked more than once, "Why would anyone want to go to this field?"
It's entrenched pretty well, I doubt that it will change.
The thing I don't like about blaming it on the patriarchy is that with the other things mentioned above, we can spend a long time trying to fix the wrong problem.
Why don't you care? Worried about competition? Basically, if everything is fair and above board, why only 5% female programmers instead of 50%?
Are you going to answer my questions? You ask a lot of them, yet provide no insight.
Is it impossible that given the respect, the pay, the working conditions many in IT face, that women might want to go into different fields?
I say that is correct, and given that women go into other fields with a solid track record of sexual harassment and evenassault, it might not be those poor shy geeks that are causing the problem. The job often sucks.
Any thoughts, or are you just giong to recycle the same questions over again?
There's simply no evidence that 95% of men have zero interest in being around small children, absent social stigma.Anyway, I know you're joking about the cartel thing, but there's definitely a stigma about having men around small kids without female supervision, and this really is an inefficiency that's bad for society. Personally I think it results in a lot of women being around kids (because they fill the void basically) who really shouldn't be. As a society, we seem to have this idea that women are all wonderful, caring people when around small children, and it simply isn't true. A lot of them are nasty, heartless bitches and shouldn't be around any kids or have their own. Assuming men are generally bad and women are generally great with kids is bound to result in a bunch of these women taking jobs with children.
And the great irony in the all men are pesos/ all women are saints outlook is that all you need to do is go to the sex offender registry, and see that there are a lot of women on them. There's still a lot of sexual abuse going on in schools. Only now that male teachers are almost nonexistent, it is becoming pretty difficult to blame the guys. Though no doubt some will try.
Which is why although I think that everyone should have their say, and if you are a misandryst who sees every problem as men's fault, yeah, you should be able to speak your mind.
But freedom of expression does not mean we have to pay attention to these people. Kooks are kooks, and will never be anything different. TWF's are actually promoting the weird idea that women are very weak, if you listen to them long enough.
Right. If you are all about equality that is great. Explain then why the equality has dropped over the years.
They don't want the lack of respect from management, the mediocre pay, the crappy work surroundings, and the innsane hours.
Perhaps you might answer a question yourself since you seem to ask a lot of them, and as if there is no answer than different versions of "All IT is sexist assholes".
Tell me why there is no sexism, no good old boys club patriarchy in the fields that women do go into.
Business - now there is a field devoid of any sexual anything. Right? My wife cold tell you tales that would curl your toes about the business world and the shit that goes on there.
So you have made the accusations against us. Now answer the questions of why this situation doesn't exist in the fields womendo go into.
They are in an amazingly advantaged group and can not even see it, instead acting afraid that one day they might not be able to tell sex jokes at work as if that is the worst possible discrimination.
I had to chuckle at that. Have you ever heard a group of women getting together and either telling raunchy jokes or graphically describig their boyfriend/husband's funy face when he cums? I have.
All of this bullshit is bullshit for very large values of bullshit.
Its like third wave feminism has gone so far around the bend that thy hate a victorian era version of women's psyches. The present day idea that hearing a bad sexully oriented word irreparably damages a women is plain unrealistic.
Women have sex drives
Women have a sense of humor
The two most filthy minded raunchiest people I have ever worked with were women.
Very very few are as pure as the driven snow.
And yet we somehow have follen into a pit dug for us by humorless misandrysts.
My favorite story of the utterly screwed up system we have fallen into comes from my lab's machine shop, where of course, the old days of calendars showing women in bikinis have been utterly banned.
I the pursuit of banning any "offensive images from the workplace, one day, the wrong person saw on the inside of one of the machinists toolboxes, an offending photograph of a young woman in a cheerleading outfit. She went to HR to complain. After all, the obvious sexual undertones of a machinist, and seeinf the tittlation such a person would get from looking at such an offensive image were all there.
So HR aid the guy a visit. Told him the photo was offensive to a woman and must be removed immediately.
His answer - and this is paraphrased, because it became a legend around the place, went something like "I'll take the picute of my daughter, who is a high school cheerleader out of my toolbox when you put out a memo that there wil be no photos of people's children allowed anywhere here."
HR left, with their tails between their legs. I have no idea what they told the offended woman.
But as I have always said about these things, you have to pay attention to who you listen to. Because outraged humorless misandrysts won't ever be actually satisfied. No outraged humorless people ever are.
This isn't about forcing people to take jobs they don't want. However women are clearly capable of these jobs, and were clearly interested in them in the past.
If there is some biological basis then it does not account why the percentage of female programmers has declined over time, so I seriously doubt it's some sort of innate bias. There's a clear problem, even if you fail to acknowledge it. Why has the percentage dropped? You clearly don't care, but some people do.
There has been a lot of conjecture. And your choice is who you want to listen to.
At can be either the third wave "weak woman" model, where some incredibly trivial things can apparently force a young lady who is passionately into programming into dropping it completely.
Or it might be that women who have now re-entered the workforce voluntarily - as opposed to the "Rosey the Riveter" WW2 example of dire need - to perhaps adjust over time to what they find as a good career path.
Now an analysis of the two "reasons" is pretty important. The "weak woman" model presupposes that any negativity will destroy a woman's passion for the work, as well as ruin her self esteem. It's the same rationale that Barbie Dolls turn young ladies into anorexics.
It also fails because it assumes that the only career field in which there is any form of sexual harassment is STEM. Because I don't hear people whining too much about rampant sexism in the business sector, and there are a lot of women employed there. And if a dongle joke or a image of a Playboy model's face can destroy a young lady's passion for STEM, imagine when she gets to the workforce. You get hammered with more negativity than that every day. If that's the real reason, it makes no sense.
Now the other thesis, which I espouse based on many years of experience trying to recruit young women into STEM fields is that they have seen STEM, and want no part of it. And for much different reasons.
And those reasons are really long hours, mediocre pay, and an utter lack of respect. The image of the geek, working in the company basement, living on Cheetos and Mountain Dew, and working 20 hour days is not terribly inaccurate (I like their Crunchy Jalepeno Cheddar ones myself)
There might also be a correlation with thought process, but it is like walking into a minefield trying to suggest that there is any difference between the way men and women think in general.
But you do not have to invoke the second one, the first reasoning is fine by itself.
In the end, I question not so much why women are not going for STEM careers, but why any men are.
All of this is to say, if there is enough pay and prestige, and pleasant work environment, they will show up.
And good luck with the idea of making the geek's work life better. That would cost money, and the woman making that decision might not want to spend it.
It's the same sort of story as when Microsoft commissioned a study to show how Office 365 was less expensive to use than Open Office, using some outfit in Italy that went open source.
But wait - the Office 365 was compared to 6 year old Open office software, and numbers were fudged a lot, as in while the cost of learning the software was considered the same across the entirety of the study, whereas, as with any software product, it falls over time, from when everyone must learn it, to when only new or inexperienced people do. Nor does it take the costs of changing from OO to Microsoft.
So sorry, 6 years ago, the self driving cars were just starting out, so I'm not going to get all spun up about software issues. After all, that's why they have testing.
But yeah, they had that issue back in 2009. Six years ago. Makes a good talking point for ya.
Here's another one. When dissing solar cells, just the type Charles Fritts invented in 1883 as your metric. It used gold and selenium - and had about 1% efficiency. With your logic, thats what they are all like today...right?
Maybe time moves on, and things improve. If you have to go back six years to find this software problem, it probably doesn't exist any more.
Greenhouses are supposed to trap, and therefore produce energy, not to consume it.
Good gawd!
first thing is trapping energy is not producing energy.
Second thing is why don't you go into a closed greenhouse on a 100 degree day. You probably won't find one, because they have to be opened up to get rid of the excess heat.
And during the winter, they need heat just like any other building does where you don't want the temps to dip below freezing.
They do a fine job in operating at the spring/fall portions of the year. Or when there is some abundant energy source, like the thermal energy used to heat the big Icelanndic greenhouses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I did specifically qualify it as "without a sanitary cleanout". 20 days is most certainly not shorter than the life cycle than most plant pests, but is enough to keep them from establishing a colony so yah that would work.
However, i do wonder how much of this significant amount of work is being considered when saying its so much more efficient.
In many ways a closed environment can be worst than open air because open air crops attract both pest and pest predator, closed environments are far more resistant to predator establishment than pest.
Have you worked at a greenhouse? Seems like you know everything about both modes of operation.
What you are telling us is that plants just grow themselves in greenhouses, The farmer sleeps in every day, and the plants plant themselves, wed and feed and water themselves, and harvest with no human labor.
Serously to make a aotomobile analogy, You are like the person who claims that Tesla's are failure, because their batteries have less energy when it's really vcold, conveniently forgetting that people have to use engine block and battery heaters, and diesel truck owners leave them rnning 24-7.
So old school petrofuel FTW!
There are some real advantadges to being underground. Constant temperature is one. A greenhouse needs constant monitoring, because the amount of insolation during the summer. Coupled with the greenhouose effect (even though that really doesn't exist) will warm the crap out of the place, necessitating a lot of fans first, than removal of the sides to open it up. During the winter, the greenhouose needs heated - a lot.
Whereas underground, the heat tends to be constant year-round. Less labor for spraying pesticides because they don't use any, and the leds don't produce much heat, unless you are hammering them hard.
The summary claims that the underground solution uses less energy than a greenhouse. Maybe the summary is bad (I know that'd be a first on slashdot).
I wouldn't doubt it at all. LEDs do a really good job of turning little sips of electricity into bright light. They certainly use less energy than CFLs, and a metric shitload less than Filament based bulbs. Even more savings are to be had with banks of them powered with DC, since you don't have the energy suckage of an individual power supply to each bulb.
And you do have a fair amount of electricity at work for that aboveground greenhouse.
They're not even using soil! You can do organic gardening without soil just by making compost tea and flowing that as your nutrient. The most common feedstock is horse poop. All you need to keep the reaction going is an aquarium pump and a bubbler stone.
My grandma, who was an amazing gardener, kept a barrel out near the barn. It was half full of chickenshit. The barrel was allowed to fill with rainwater to the top, and every so often, she'd dip an old tin pan in it, and lay some of this chickenshit tea on the plants.
Which was of course, really smart, since chicken manure is really "hot" and needs a lot of diluting before putting it on the plants.
As a wee kid, I was suitably grossed out by the whole thing. Fortunately I forgot about it when we ate her excellent canned veggies. Jesus, she was an amazing woman.
And the weird part is that we were organic way before it was cool to be organic. Not certain why, although there were still some folks using "Paris Green" when I was little. Paris green is arsenic. Yeah, it will take care of the pests, but perhaps us along with it.
Oops, sorry - your compost tea post struck my happy nostalgia nerve, but I'm back now.
"no pesticides"....no way. None to start maybe but, plant pests will get in and they will require pesticides to remove.
Dayum, I've been getting organic, hydroponically grown salad greens for years now. I'm pretty certain they have the insect issue taken care of. Probably the only thin they have to really be concerned about is viruses.
Might get your first crop or two pest free, but without pesticides or a complete sanitary cleanout between crops, its not going to last.
In a pretty well sealed facility like this, the insects really don't have much place to live. There's no soil, so they can't live in the soil, and concrete bunker walls don't give bugs a really good place to live either.
Probably has something to do with why they put it there in the first place.
Of course they left it in the back seat of their car and it was stolen. Nobody fired or demoted.
and
Meanwhile I can't get the software I need to perform the work I am hired to do becaue I have so much crap running in the background of my machine that it's completely unstable.
Anytime, anywhere, anything like this happens, the people who had nothing at all to do with it are the one's that get punished.
Yes, anyone can code, just as anyone can build a house. Whether or not the house collapses immediately, whether it has any real value, or by any other measure still depends on the skill of the builder, just as in software.
If builders built buildings the way that programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
I've seen those little devils at work, and you are right!
...when you need to google the hex representation of 'red'. *much* better to understand the encoding, and it certainly isn't hard or requires tricky math. it's literally RRGGBB
you are completely and utterly missing the point, by a long, long margin, and have made a severe judgement error. the assumption that you have made is to correlate "understanding" with "successful results".
And when people want to go to a webpage that is red and nothing more, your thesis is completely valid.
Some folks however, want ot see more on a webpage than just......
Slashdot Mirror
So why do men want to go into the field if it's so unpleasant?
I'm not so certain all that many do any more. And the stereotype of the shy geek does have some origins based in reality. Its also how I got involved in it, because all of our IT people had great trouble interfacing with the suits. So they needed someone who was comfortable around shakers and movers.
I do know that when we moved my whole group into the basement area where before there were only a few of us, the ladies wanted carpeting, and they wanted a drop ceiling put in where there were once only concrete floors and pipes and ductwork ceilings. Before that, I never gave much thought to the decor.
It is folly to think that women and men have the exact same thought processes. Women are in general, better communicators, and much more aware of their surroundings. Men are in general, much more focused on problems. Put those things together, and you have a darn good synergy. Having people not think alike and make for great innovation.
I've always identified as a pragmatic. Ideology takes a distant second to the concept of having things work. Which is all to say that Identifying IT as a hotbed of sexual discrimination and harassment, and the weak examples put out as proof - like a photo of a Playboy model's face, long used in Classes on digital photo work, or dongle jokes, or the word "bossy" - as the root causes of less female participation are silly and destructive to women.
Because you cannot buy into those excuses without buying into the idea that women are weak, and cannot handle anything perceived as a problem. I know women are not weak, but there is a lot of pressure put on society to accept that almost Victorian model of gender.
But why did we have so many more women in computing in the 80s and 90s? Why did the "weak woman" appear after that point in time? It's recent enough that we should be able to reverse it before it becomes entrenched.
I'm saying that the things that keep women out of STEM, especially programming, are it's inherent unpleasantnesses - no respect by management, not so hot pay, primitive working conditions, long hours, and not particularly good employment prospects. I've asked more than once, "Why would anyone want to go to this field?"
It's entrenched pretty well, I doubt that it will change.
The thing I don't like about blaming it on the patriarchy is that with the other things mentioned above, we can spend a long time trying to fix the wrong problem.
Thanks. I find women more responsible than men. This is all coming from a guy.
Of my three favorite bosses, two were women. I do not at all subscribe to the "woman managers are bitches" theory.
Why don't you care? Worried about competition? Basically, if everything is fair and above board, why only 5% female programmers instead of 50%?
Are you going to answer my questions? You ask a lot of them, yet provide no insight.
Is it impossible that given the respect, the pay, the working conditions many in IT face, that women might want to go into different fields?
I say that is correct, and given that women go into other fields with a solid track record of sexual harassment and evenassault, it might not be those poor shy geeks that are causing the problem. The job often sucks.
Any thoughts, or are you just giong to recycle the same questions over again?
There's simply no evidence that 95% of men have zero interest in being around small children, absent social stigma.Anyway, I know you're joking about the cartel thing, but there's definitely a stigma about having men around small kids without female supervision, and this really is an inefficiency that's bad for society. Personally I think it results in a lot of women being around kids (because they fill the void basically) who really shouldn't be. As a society, we seem to have this idea that women are all wonderful, caring people when around small children, and it simply isn't true. A lot of them are nasty, heartless bitches and shouldn't be around any kids or have their own. Assuming men are generally bad and women are generally great with kids is bound to result in a bunch of these women taking jobs with children.
And the great irony in the all men are pesos/ all women are saints outlook is that all you need to do is go to the sex offender registry, and see that there are a lot of women on them. There's still a lot of sexual abuse going on in schools. Only now that male teachers are almost nonexistent, it is becoming pretty difficult to blame the guys. Though no doubt some will try.
Which is why although I think that everyone should have their say, and if you are a misandryst who sees every problem as men's fault, yeah, you should be able to speak your mind.
But freedom of expression does not mean we have to pay attention to these people. Kooks are kooks, and will never be anything different. TWF's are actually promoting the weird idea that women are very weak, if you listen to them long enough.
Right. If you are all about equality that is great. Explain then why the equality has dropped over the years.
They don't want the lack of respect from management, the mediocre pay, the crappy work surroundings, and the innsane hours.
Perhaps you might answer a question yourself since you seem to ask a lot of them, and as if there is no answer than different versions of "All IT is sexist assholes".
Tell me why there is no sexism, no good old boys club patriarchy in the fields that women do go into.
Business - now there is a field devoid of any sexual anything. Right? My wife cold tell you tales that would curl your toes about the business world and the shit that goes on there.
So you have made the accusations against us. Now answer the questions of why this situation doesn't exist in the fields womendo go into.
They are in an amazingly advantaged group and can not even see it, instead acting afraid that one day they might not be able to tell sex jokes at work as if that is the worst possible discrimination.
I had to chuckle at that. Have you ever heard a group of women getting together and either telling raunchy jokes or graphically describig their boyfriend/husband's funy face when he cums? I have.
All of this bullshit is bullshit for very large values of bullshit.
Its like third wave feminism has gone so far around the bend that thy hate a victorian era version of women's psyches. The present day idea that hearing a bad sexully oriented word irreparably damages a women is plain unrealistic.
Women have sex drives
Women have a sense of humor
The two most filthy minded raunchiest people I have ever worked with were women.
Very very few are as pure as the driven snow.
And yet we somehow have follen into a pit dug for us by humorless misandrysts.
My favorite story of the utterly screwed up system we have fallen into comes from my lab's machine shop, where of course, the old days of calendars showing women in bikinis have been utterly banned.
I the pursuit of banning any "offensive images from the workplace, one day, the wrong person saw on the inside of one of the machinists toolboxes, an offending photograph of a young woman in a cheerleading outfit. She went to HR to complain. After all, the obvious sexual undertones of a machinist, and seeinf the tittlation such a person would get from looking at such an offensive image were all there.
So HR aid the guy a visit. Told him the photo was offensive to a woman and must be removed immediately.
His answer - and this is paraphrased, because it became a legend around the place, went something like "I'll take the picute of my daughter, who is a high school cheerleader out of my toolbox when you put out a memo that there wil be no photos of people's children allowed anywhere here."
HR left, with their tails between their legs. I have no idea what they told the offended woman.
But as I have always said about these things, you have to pay attention to who you listen to. Because outraged humorless misandrysts won't ever be actually satisfied. No outraged humorless people ever are.
This isn't about forcing people to take jobs they don't want. However women are clearly capable of these jobs, and were clearly interested in them in the past.
If there is some biological basis then it does not account why the percentage of female programmers has declined over time, so I seriously doubt it's some sort of innate bias. There's a clear problem, even if you fail to acknowledge it. Why has the percentage dropped? You clearly don't care, but some people do.
There has been a lot of conjecture. And your choice is who you want to listen to.
At can be either the third wave "weak woman" model, where some incredibly trivial things can apparently force a young lady who is passionately into programming into dropping it completely.
Or it might be that women who have now re-entered the workforce voluntarily - as opposed to the "Rosey the Riveter" WW2 example of dire need - to perhaps adjust over time to what they find as a good career path.
Now an analysis of the two "reasons" is pretty important. The "weak woman" model presupposes that any negativity will destroy a woman's passion for the work, as well as ruin her self esteem. It's the same rationale that Barbie Dolls turn young ladies into anorexics.
It also fails because it assumes that the only career field in which there is any form of sexual harassment is STEM. Because I don't hear people whining too much about rampant sexism in the business sector, and there are a lot of women employed there. And if a dongle joke or a image of a Playboy model's face can destroy a young lady's passion for STEM, imagine when she gets to the workforce. You get hammered with more negativity than that every day. If that's the real reason, it makes no sense.
Now the other thesis, which I espouse based on many years of experience trying to recruit young women into STEM fields is that they have seen STEM, and want no part of it. And for much different reasons.
And those reasons are really long hours, mediocre pay, and an utter lack of respect. The image of the geek, working in the company basement, living on Cheetos and Mountain Dew, and working 20 hour days is not terribly inaccurate (I like their Crunchy Jalepeno Cheddar ones myself)
There might also be a correlation with thought process, but it is like walking into a minefield trying to suggest that there is any difference between the way men and women think in general.
But you do not have to invoke the second one, the first reasoning is fine by itself.
In the end, I question not so much why women are not going for STEM careers, but why any men are.
All of this is to say, if there is enough pay and prestige, and pleasant work environment, they will show up. And good luck with the idea of making the geek's work life better. That would cost money, and the woman making that decision might not want to spend it.
http://www.techrepublic.com/ar...
But wait - the Office 365 was compared to 6 year old Open office software, and numbers were fudged a lot, as in while the cost of learning the software was considered the same across the entirety of the study, whereas, as with any software product, it falls over time, from when everyone must learn it, to when only new or inexperienced people do. Nor does it take the costs of changing from OO to Microsoft.
So sorry, 6 years ago, the self driving cars were just starting out, so I'm not going to get all spun up about software issues. After all, that's why they have testing.
But yeah, they had that issue back in 2009. Six years ago. Makes a good talking point for ya.
Here's another one. When dissing solar cells, just the type Charles Fritts invented in 1883 as your metric. It used gold and selenium - and had about 1% efficiency. With your logic, thats what they are all like today...right?
Maybe time moves on, and things improve. If you have to go back six years to find this software problem, it probably doesn't exist any more.
The Governor of Florida just called. You are not allowed to mention greenhouse effect. Strike it, please.
Greenhouses are supposed to trap, and therefore produce energy, not to consume it.
Good gawd!
first thing is trapping energy is not producing energy.
Second thing is why don't you go into a closed greenhouse on a 100 degree day. You probably won't find one, because they have to be opened up to get rid of the excess heat.
And during the winter, they need heat just like any other building does where you don't want the temps to dip below freezing.
They do a fine job in operating at the spring/fall portions of the year. Or when there is some abundant energy source, like the thermal energy used to heat the big Icelanndic greenhouses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I did specifically qualify it as "without a sanitary cleanout". 20 days is most certainly not shorter than the life cycle than most plant pests, but is enough to keep them from establishing a colony so yah that would work.
However, i do wonder how much of this significant amount of work is being considered when saying its so much more efficient.
In many ways a closed environment can be worst than open air because open air crops attract both pest and pest predator, closed environments are far more resistant to predator establishment than pest.
Have you worked at a greenhouse? Seems like you know everything about both modes of operation.
What you are telling us is that plants just grow themselves in greenhouses, The farmer sleeps in every day, and the plants plant themselves, wed and feed and water themselves, and harvest with no human labor.
Serously to make a aotomobile analogy, You are like the person who claims that Tesla's are failure, because their batteries have less energy when it's really vcold, conveniently forgetting that people have to use engine block and battery heaters, and diesel truck owners leave them rnning 24-7.
So old school petrofuel FTW!
There are some real advantadges to being underground. Constant temperature is one. A greenhouse needs constant monitoring, because the amount of insolation during the summer. Coupled with the greenhouose effect (even though that really doesn't exist) will warm the crap out of the place, necessitating a lot of fans first, than removal of the sides to open it up. During the winter, the greenhouose needs heated - a lot. Whereas underground, the heat tends to be constant year-round. Less labor for spraying pesticides because they don't use any, and the leds don't produce much heat, unless you are hammering them hard.
house. And you don't need to ship it half way around the world in the winter.
Honestly, WTF are you complaining about now? This doesn't sound like a problem with the summary, it sounds like a problem with the poster.
I think maybe he was molested by a hydroponics technician when he was little.
The summary claims that the underground solution uses less energy than a greenhouse. Maybe the summary is bad (I know that'd be a first on slashdot).
I wouldn't doubt it at all. LEDs do a really good job of turning little sips of electricity into bright light. They certainly use less energy than CFLs, and a metric shitload less than Filament based bulbs. Even more savings are to be had with banks of them powered with DC, since you don't have the energy suckage of an individual power supply to each bulb.
And you do have a fair amount of electricity at work for that aboveground greenhouse.
Insects aren't created from the ether.
Spontaneous generation says otherwise, though I appreciate that someone at least finally acknowledges the existence of the ether.
Well, it was ether that, or we'd have to listen to you complaining all day...
They're not even using soil! You can do organic gardening without soil just by making compost tea and flowing that as your nutrient. The most common feedstock is horse poop. All you need to keep the reaction going is an aquarium pump and a bubbler stone.
My grandma, who was an amazing gardener, kept a barrel out near the barn. It was half full of chickenshit. The barrel was allowed to fill with rainwater to the top, and every so often, she'd dip an old tin pan in it, and lay some of this chickenshit tea on the plants.
Which was of course, really smart, since chicken manure is really "hot" and needs a lot of diluting before putting it on the plants.
As a wee kid, I was suitably grossed out by the whole thing. Fortunately I forgot about it when we ate her excellent canned veggies. Jesus, she was an amazing woman.
And the weird part is that we were organic way before it was cool to be organic. Not certain why, although there were still some folks using "Paris Green" when I was little. Paris green is arsenic. Yeah, it will take care of the pests, but perhaps us along with it.
Oops, sorry - your compost tea post struck my happy nostalgia nerve, but I'm back now.
"no pesticides"....no way. None to start maybe but, plant pests will get in and they will require pesticides to remove.
Dayum, I've been getting organic, hydroponically grown salad greens for years now. I'm pretty certain they have the insect issue taken care of. Probably the only thin they have to really be concerned about is viruses.
Might get your first crop or two pest free, but without pesticides or a complete sanitary cleanout between crops, its not going to last.
In a pretty well sealed facility like this, the insects really don't have much place to live. There's no soil, so they can't live in the soil, and concrete bunker walls don't give bugs a really good place to live either.
Probably has something to do with why they put it there in the first place.
ls?
Olympis sized swimming poo?
ew.
Actually, I would. Southern Florida is expected to be underwater by the end of the century.
NO its not. The Governor of Florida banned mention of Global warming, so now it won't happen.,p> http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Take that you whiny liberals. We control science with the stroke of a pen.
It is a market ripe for some competition.
Of course they left it in the back seat of their car and it was stolen. Nobody fired or demoted.
and
Meanwhile I can't get the software I need to perform the work I am hired to do becaue I have so much crap running in the background of my machine that it's completely unstable.
Anytime, anywhere, anything like this happens, the people who had nothing at all to do with it are the one's that get punished.
.. don't get your name, your photo, or anything that has anything to related to you, online - or even in a database, anywhere
Better move to Idaho, and build a compound. Oh wait - you'll still be in someone's database.
Why not? I could care less either way, but would YOU like to get hung for your predecessor's mis-deeds?? Wouldn't be fair to you, now would it....
Looks like the ultimate loophole has been found!
What is most surprising is that Microsoft used paid shills. Who knew?
Yes, anyone can code, just as anyone can build a house. Whether or not the house collapses immediately, whether it has any real value, or by any other measure still depends on the skill of the builder, just as in software.
If builders built buildings the way that programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
I've seen those little devils at work, and you are right!
...when you need to google the hex representation of 'red'. *much* better to understand the encoding, and it certainly isn't hard or requires tricky math. it's literally RRGGBB
you are completely and utterly missing the point, by a long, long margin, and have made a severe judgement error. the assumption that you have made is to correlate "understanding" with "successful results".
And when people want to go to a webpage that is red and nothing more, your thesis is completely valid.
Some folks however, want ot see more on a webpage than just......
red.