A bit fewer than half of the states have open primaries. Everywhere else, you can only vote within the party you registered. i.e. if you've registered Democrat you cannot vote in the Republican primaries.
What I'm saying is, you don't have to register with the party you identify with. e.g. if you have progressive beliefs, you could register as a republican, and vice versa.
I even suggest voting in the primary of the party you identify with the least.
I thought that was how Trump got elected.
I'm not advocating for sabotaging a party. I'm suggesting trying to make it more moderate. Liberals that voted for Trump in the primaries did the opposite.
This "one side is as bad as the other" bullshit is what got Trump elected in the first place.
I would like to take this moment to remind everyone that there is this thing called a primary election. During the primary election, you can vote for who you want to see in the general election. Traditionally, primary elections have low turnout, so your vote will have more influence.
Even if you don't identify with a political party, vote in the primary. I even suggest voting in the primary of the party you identify with the least. Perhaps that would result in some moderate candidates in the general election.
In any given 2-3 year time span, there's like what, maybe a dozen professional golfers so skilled that they are able to hit the ball on a predictable basis? The remaining pros vary wildly and the amateurs are all over the map, so assessing the claims and technology of golf balls is pretty difficult.
Robots are regularly used to compare golf equipment for that reason. Google "Iron Byron" for details.
If it costs money to do something and you hand it over to the private sector it will cost money plus profit to make it therefore more. If the argument is that somehow the private sector magically has better management then improve the management and reduce the costs but that simply is not true. Better management always equals higher cost as they always charge more than they earn.
Costs are lower in the private sector due to competition in the marketplace. If there is a monopoly on any item or service, you better believe the costs will be astronomical.
What we have seen in the past 5-10 years is the end of a monopoly by ULA as a result of Space X and others. While ULA had a monopoly in the private sector, the SLS made sense. Now that there is competition, that is no longer the case.
I am not an expert on orbital mechanics, but I recall hearing the major problem with re-purposing the ISS is its orbit. In order for it to be served by all of the international partners, it has to be on an orbit with a funky inclination. Changing the inclination of an object already in orbit requires a lot of energy. It's usually easier to just send up a new one.
I suspect this inclination issue would still be a concern for a trip to the moon.
I interact with a piece of code I don't maintain that has this issue. A piece of Visual Basic (don't get me started) that copies from a source to a destination. However instead of using B=A to move the data, the author used copy(A) and paste(B). The data therefore interacts with the clipboard, slowing the process down.
The issue might not be noticeable on a small amount of data. However, I use this piece of code to move gigabytes of data every day.
Bitcoin rising in value isn't inflation of a currency, it's the market attempting to price the future value of an asset, same as with a stock.
Inflation is an increase in the amount of currency required to purchase an assets on average. If you consider bitcoin to be a currency, (technically anything can be) then bitcoin is undergoing deflation since it takes fewer bitcoins to buy an asset on average.
In a broader sense, stop considering things assets or currency. Any asset can be a currency and vice versa. What matters is that item's value compared to everything else.
Does the culture in the United States suggest that STEM careers are a man's domain? Are women avoiding careers in STEM in response to such societal pressures? Is that acceptable?
2) Individuals make choices that influence their earnings. Women as a group tend to make choices that lessen their earnings.
Why do they make the choices? Have they been influenced to do so?
There is no systemic segregation here.
You seem to be suggesting there is no forced segregation. E.g. there is segregation, but by the women's choice. However, you stated above that women as a group make choices that lessen their earnings. That is still systemic segregation by definition.
The cause of segregation does not change the fact that there is segregation.
This is the case of unreasonable expectations. Just look at the list : "fundamentals of networking, computing, and coding" from "acoustic consulting engineering firm, consisting of a mix of mechanical, electrical, civil ".
Does he also expect them to write thier own compiler, all while willing to accept $50K starting salary?
I am a mechanical engineer by trade and training. These are not unreasonable expectations. Today, all engineers are taught the basics of computing and coding in school. Right now I think most schools teach Python, I was taught MATLAB, and the generation before me Fortran. It sounds like some of these new hires blew off those classes since they weren't in their "core discipline".
Networking is a bit of a stretch though. Most new engineering grads only know enough to communicate with other disciplines, and networking is a bit beyond that.
I find it surprising that the stock is trading nearly 3% higher on this news. Normally a stock would lose value because the shares will be diluted. (There should be some correlation between the assets of the company and the value of all the outstanding shares) I think investors are pleased that Tesla will have enough cash on hand to achieve it's goals.
Well.. in the early days of computing, it was a field dominated by women. So it's not that they can't do the job; we know, intellectually, women are more than adequate for IT. The question becomes: why did women fall out of IT/Programming roles?
Or maybe the question is, why do women tend to choose other careers, and how can we force them to choose things they don't want to choose just so things will be "equal"?
Or maybe the question is, why do women want careers in other fields?
Selective reading, I'm not impressed. Lets try a circular argument, go back and read that post again. If you still don't get it, pay very close attention to that last sentence.
Why are you afraid of answering my question? Just because there are no "secret back room meetings" doesn't mean systematic discrimination isn't happening. Humans make decisions a variety of ways, many times without evaluating the logic behind their choice.
Do you think discrimination has to be premeditated?
Slashdot, being a tech focused site, tends to focus on gender imbalance in the tech field. However, gender imbalance exists in all fields. Furthermore, stories about discrimination in the tech sector put it under the microscope. The fact that these imbalances exist is no doubt something to be investigated and addressed, but forcing people to work in a field the don't have a passion for is not a solution.
Is there harm in gender imbalance? Not if there is equal opportunity. However, the wage gap suggests that is not the case. Traditionally, segregation has a strong correlation to oppression.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true. Being poor is not a criminal offense in Georgia. Here's the official Georgia law, all of it: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...
Whoosh!
In the state of Georgia, it's a criminal offense to be poor. Don't believe me? Look it up... Don't have $1200? Off to jail with you!
A bit fewer than half of the states have open primaries. Everywhere else, you can only vote within the party you registered. i.e. if you've registered Democrat you cannot vote in the Republican primaries.
What I'm saying is, you don't have to register with the party you identify with. e.g. if you have progressive beliefs, you could register as a republican, and vice versa.
I even suggest voting in the primary of the party you identify with the least.
I thought that was how Trump got elected.
I'm not advocating for sabotaging a party. I'm suggesting trying to make it more moderate. Liberals that voted for Trump in the primaries did the opposite.
This "one side is as bad as the other" bullshit is what got Trump elected in the first place.
I would like to take this moment to remind everyone that there is this thing called a primary election. During the primary election, you can vote for who you want to see in the general election. Traditionally, primary elections have low turnout, so your vote will have more influence.
Even if you don't identify with a political party, vote in the primary. I even suggest voting in the primary of the party you identify with the least. Perhaps that would result in some moderate candidates in the general election.
In any given 2-3 year time span, there's like what, maybe a dozen professional golfers so skilled that they are able to hit the ball on a predictable basis? The remaining pros vary wildly and the amateurs are all over the map, so assessing the claims and technology of golf balls is pretty difficult.
Robots are regularly used to compare golf equipment for that reason. Google "Iron Byron" for details.
If it costs money to do something and you hand it over to the private sector it will cost money plus profit to make it therefore more. If the argument is that somehow the private sector magically has better management then improve the management and reduce the costs but that simply is not true. Better management always equals higher cost as they always charge more than they earn.
Costs are lower in the private sector due to competition in the marketplace. If there is a monopoly on any item or service, you better believe the costs will be astronomical.
What we have seen in the past 5-10 years is the end of a monopoly by ULA as a result of Space X and others. While ULA had a monopoly in the private sector, the SLS made sense. Now that there is competition, that is no longer the case.
I am not an expert on orbital mechanics, but I recall hearing the major problem with re-purposing the ISS is its orbit. In order for it to be served by all of the international partners, it has to be on an orbit with a funky inclination. Changing the inclination of an object already in orbit requires a lot of energy. It's usually easier to just send up a new one.
I suspect this inclination issue would still be a concern for a trip to the moon.
If the conclusion of this study is correct, why are bone marrow transplants successful at treating leukemia?
ruinmysearchhistory.com
I am not brave enough to do it. I doubt most people are.
I interact with a piece of code I don't maintain that has this issue. A piece of Visual Basic (don't get me started) that copies from a source to a destination. However instead of using B=A to move the data, the author used copy(A) and paste(B). The data therefore interacts with the clipboard, slowing the process down.
The issue might not be noticeable on a small amount of data. However, I use this piece of code to move gigabytes of data every day.
We've heard all the arguments for and against patents already.
The Supreme Court of the United States hasn't, and that's why this is a big deal.
Bitcoin rising in value isn't inflation of a currency, it's the market attempting to price the future value of an asset, same as with a stock.
Inflation is an increase in the amount of currency required to purchase an assets on average. If you consider bitcoin to be a currency, (technically anything can be) then bitcoin is undergoing deflation since it takes fewer bitcoins to buy an asset on average.
In a broader sense, stop considering things assets or currency. Any asset can be a currency and vice versa. What matters is that item's value compared to everything else.
Does the culture in the United States suggest that STEM careers are a man's domain? Are women avoiding careers in STEM in response to such societal pressures? Is that acceptable?
Sure, all decisions are influenced by something or other. That can be cultural, driven by circumstances, and even driven by biology.
Are cultural influences on a person's career choice acceptable? Why?
2) Individuals make choices that influence their earnings. Women as a group tend to make choices that lessen their earnings.
Why do they make the choices? Have they been influenced to do so?
There is no systemic segregation here.
You seem to be suggesting there is no forced segregation. E.g. there is segregation, but by the women's choice. However, you stated above that women as a group make choices that lessen their earnings. That is still systemic segregation by definition.
The cause of segregation does not change the fact that there is segregation.
This is the case of unreasonable expectations. Just look at the list : "fundamentals of networking, computing, and coding" from "acoustic consulting engineering firm, consisting of a mix of mechanical, electrical, civil ". Does he also expect them to write thier own compiler, all while willing to accept $50K starting salary?
I am a mechanical engineer by trade and training. These are not unreasonable expectations. Today, all engineers are taught the basics of computing and coding in school. Right now I think most schools teach Python, I was taught MATLAB, and the generation before me Fortran. It sounds like some of these new hires blew off those classes since they weren't in their "core discipline".
Networking is a bit of a stretch though. Most new engineering grads only know enough to communicate with other disciplines, and networking is a bit beyond that.
The data are readily available. Even broken out by career. What is false about it?
Excellent response. I found that Iowa State paper very informative. However, my question was Socratic, and the parent has yet to respond.
I find it surprising that the stock is trading nearly 3% higher on this news. Normally a stock would lose value because the shares will be diluted. (There should be some correlation between the assets of the company and the value of all the outstanding shares) I think investors are pleased that Tesla will have enough cash on hand to achieve it's goals.
Well.. in the early days of computing, it was a field dominated by women. So it's not that they can't do the job; we know, intellectually, women are more than adequate for IT. The question becomes: why did women fall out of IT/Programming roles?
Or maybe the question is, why do women tend to choose other careers, and how can we force them to choose things they don't want to choose just so things will be "equal"?
Or maybe the question is, why do women want careers in other fields?
Selective reading, I'm not impressed. Lets try a circular argument, go back and read that post again. If you still don't get it, pay very close attention to that last sentence.
Why are you afraid of answering my question? Just because there are no "secret back room meetings" doesn't mean systematic discrimination isn't happening. Humans make decisions a variety of ways, many times without evaluating the logic behind their choice.
Do you think discrimination has to be premeditated?
Slashdot, being a tech focused site, tends to focus on gender imbalance in the tech field. However, gender imbalance exists in all fields. Furthermore, stories about discrimination in the tech sector put it under the microscope. The fact that these imbalances exist is no doubt something to be investigated and addressed, but forcing people to work in a field the don't have a passion for is not a solution.
Is there harm in gender imbalance? Not if there is equal opportunity. However, the wage gap suggests that is not the case. Traditionally, segregation has a strong correlation to oppression.
Individual choice derived from conscious, unconscious, and environmental factors? Are you kidding? That's fascism!
I think it's the unconscious and environmental factors part that people are getting hung up on.
Choices are based generally on two things. 1. Aptitude testing (if you suck at it you probably won't do it) 2. Personal Life Goals
Assuming that's true, why don't women make their life goals a career in STEM?