It isn't about getting a 50/50 balance of male/female competitors. It is about women who say they want to compete but are put off by the attitude of other competitors towards them due to their gender.
Except that's *not* what the articles say - one is just rehashing the other, which is simply a "hey, we threw a survey and this is what we got back". Which not only is self-reporting bias, but it's not even talking to the same question. All it says is that on this *one* event from this *one* site, they had a 90/10 split. Which doesn't check for such things as "what's the usual demographic for your site", "what's the demographics on other comparable sites", or "what's the demographics on sites that have more than 200 people", or "how many women checked the 'male' box because they didn't trust the survey-takers"
That's before we get to the elephant - are we talking about skewed numbers in viewership (which is what TFA is), or skewed numbers in participation? It's entirely possible for the participation to be skewed one direction while the audience is skewed in another.
But most importantly, that article makes a bigger case for racial discrimination, simply by which interviews they picked. And I'd love to hear how anyone is going to fix that, short of requiring token minorities in all groups so that interested parties have someone who look like them in the room. (Which frankly strikes me as far more insulting that simply being the first one through the door.)
To be absolutely clear it isn't about getting a 50/50 ratio. That's just something trolls use to discredit attempts to remove barriers in the way of women who do want to take part. Same with jobs, it isn't about an equal number, it is about women saying they want to do those jobs but are put off by various things.
I'll bite - if 50/50 (or the close-enough number that represents actual demographcs) isn't the goal, then what *is* the acceptable ratio?
Also: I'd love to know why we're complaining about e-sports, but not any of the other long-standing professional sports that don't accept women. Where are the female MLB players, for instance? We had one woman in the NHL, but where are the rest?
If you have a boss that measures productivity solely by "what hours they're at the office" instead of "what was accomplished", then the guy who makes sure his punches are accurate is meeting the productivity goals as defined. If the boss defined the goals incorrectly, that's management's problem.
A job pays what the product of the job is worth. No more.
Bull. A job pays the minimum an employer can get away with paying. Whether that minimum is set by market conditions, greed, or their moral compass, no-one pays more than they think they "should". That's why there's a minimum wage.
If you raise the minimum wage to above what the job's productivity is worth, the job's wage doesn't magically increase. The job simply ceases to exist. All those no-skill jobs kids in high school get to make some spending cash? Gone. All those entry-level jobs for people who learned a lot of book knowledge but don't yet have practical experience? Gone. All those unskilled assembly line jobs? Exported to third world countries or replaced by robots.
Again, bull. There's never going to be a lack of demand for food-servers and store clerks. And those are jobs that don't export easily. What we're already seeing happen is the opposite - employers pushing for "temporary foreign workers", importing folks who *will* work for those cheap-ass rates and can be deported at the first sign of trouble.
I'm sure there are lots of low-wage jobs where employers aren't paying what the job is actually worth. But don't be so blinded by your zeal to curtail those abuses that you demolish a large fraction of the functional economy in the process. The taxpayers aren't just subsidizing certain employers' payroll. They're also subsidizing the inability or unwillingness of certain employees to find/work a more productive job.
This is why funding and providing educational opportunities (both for children and adults) is a much better approach to solving this than raising the minimum wage. True economic growth comes from increasing each individual's productivity. The goal should be to allow people to move from less productive jobs to more productive jobs; not shifting money from more productive jobs to less productive jobs to make those less productive jobs more appealing.
if (trafficSource != VerzionOnDemand && trafficSource != Netflix) {
degradePerformance();//slightly and randomly degrades performance
}
*obviously it's more complicated than the pseudo code above
Probably not that more complicated, though - when you consider that my cable company already offers me a choice of *nine* different plans, ranging from 10-250 Mbps down, and 512Kbps - 15Mbps up, it's pretty clear that I'm already being throttled. It'd be pretty trivial (to the point that I would be amazed if they weren't doing it already) to add a bit of code that ups the speed to their Favored Partners.
I miss the good old days, where companies had to compete on speed (I remember dial-ups hyping that all their lines were 56K!)
To the GP - think of it this way: the boss is *saying* you make $X per year, and then gives you 10% as a bonus at the end of the year as a "good job".
The boss was *actually* always planning to hand out that 10% - they budget it as salary (effectively). They just make a big production out of giving it to you to make you feel special. (Or alternately, if they need to spruce up their margins in December, they can "have a bad year" and cut back that number).
Of course everybody wants more money. The point is -- and this is what important for employer -- are you willing to work harder for it?
More honest point - can your employer get someone else to do it for cheaper? Or can they get *you* to do it for cheaper.
The only truth I've seen from that statement is that generally people don't jump ship just for money. Something *else* gets their back up, they start looking around, and then they find out that they could make better money elsewhere. But if I had a dollar for every time a co-worker stopped by for lunch and said their new job was "better hours, better pay, and less bullshit", I wouldn't need to work either.
> Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work."
Exact citation from the GPL required. (But not expected, as you pulled that out of your arse.) I've worked for half a dozen companies that have made money selling work done under the GPL.
It was my understanding of the difference between GPL and BSD. (So, about as much as an asspull as everyone else's paraphrasing). And I had forgotten that you can charge people to maintain/build GPL code (as long as you hand over source). So yeah, my bad.
The GPL argument is that anyone who produces a derivative work must contribute back to the project, and thus the GPL generates more contributors.
The BSD argument is that there will always be people who create a non-free option, and if that is done by extending open-source the community may get some, if not all benefit from them.
That's a bit leading. How about this?
Releasing something under BSD says "I did it for free, and if you take it and tweak it and make a bazillion dollars, I don't care."
Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work."
It's a complete lie to say that Apple store TOS prohibits releasing software that is GPL. The only hostility here is from RMS and his accolytes. Thay are the ones who want it to be impossible to have GPL on the App Store. Explicitly so.
RMS doesn't really have a choice, though - the App Store is blatantly *not* compatible with GPL. Apple says "thou shalt only do this and that and nothing else", which rams straight into Section 6 of GPL2. So it's the same "take this code and lock it down", except with "on an app store" at the end.
Does it suck? Sure. Is it what happens when open source and walled garden collide? Yup. But neither GPL nor Apple have any reason to compromise their respective values on this.
Heck, at that point it's not even BTC at all - you've sold BTC to CoinBase in exchange for CoinBase's private currency. (Which may or may not actually stay pegged to the BTC going rate over time - if they're popular enough it'd be trivial to start charging "bank fees").
I see a whole lot of mail returned to sender for being abandoned, or being discarded for being abandoned, in those communal mailboxes. I also see a lot of people only visiting their mailboxes weekly, like how they take out their trash cans for the truck to pick up, so mailboxes will be even bigger targets for thieves as there'll be more payoff for the effort than before.
2/3 of Canada have been on the system for years. Any new developments in the past 10 have had this. None of the problems you mention are an issue.
Not to mention any small town - my parent's town *celebrated* when they got the communal mailboxes, because that was an upgrade from having to go to the post office during normal business hours to pick up General Delivery.
Yes. The HHGG movie gets a lot of flak for not following the books
... and indicates a "fan" who hasn't actually read their history. The movie doesn't match the book, true. But the books don't match the radio series. Hell, there are different *versions* of the radio series, and none of them match the book (or the movie). And Adams liked it that way - as far as he was concerned (at least according to the preface on my copy), there *is* no "right version" of Hitchhikers.
Now, that's not to say that the movie is a cinematic masterpiece. But it's a good silly romp, and frankly a cinematic masterpiece wouldn't have done the subject justice.
Download sites mostly don't select what ads to display, and just use syndicated ad networks. Those networks serve download ads on download pages because they get paid per click, and download ads on download pages have high click-through rates.
I call shenanigans - if indie webcomic authors can (and do!) block ads they don't want on their site, surely a large organization can do the same.
And if they're deliberately courting the fake download ads on their download pages to trick their users into clicking? That's not the sort of organization I want to support anyhow.
Whether or not taxpayer-funded research should be accessible to the taxpayers for FREE is a matter to be acertained,
Well, in a sense, any American has already paid for that research (via tax dollars). Probably the only time geofencing restrictions would make sense to use. (Wouldn't want us Canadians freeloading on ya!)
Look at it this way - if you substitute "taxpayer" with "Walmart" ("Whether or not Walmart-funded research should be accessible to Walmart for free.."), the argument suddenly sounds silly - why *wouldn't* the people who paid for it get to see it?
I would agree, except that once you reach corporate tiers with Service Level Agreements, internet providers seem to be able to guarantee some level of service...
If it's 2 hours per week, you can legitimately advertise 25Mbps with 98% reliability. That's still more honest than "up to 25" when you never crack 20.
Unless you live in some union controlled state, your boss already has that right. I've lived and worked in that world since the 60's. If you don't like an employee, fire them. Get another.
You can get fired for anything that isn't Title VII.
Even here in Canada, where we have sane laws, my boss could fire me for liking Trek. They'd have to pay me severance for not having proper cause, but they can do it.
Pro-tip: real employment laws list what employers can fire you for without pay, not list what they can't. Make *them* do the work proving things.
As much of a disservice it is to tell you that your speed is 100Mbps when it is almost never 100, it is also a disservice to tell you that your speed is 1Mbps when the lowest it has gone in a year is 15Mbps.
But in that case, there's a commercial incentive to post the highest minimum they can reliably give - if ISP A lowballs 1Mbps, ISP B can advertise 2Mbps ("Twice as fast as ISP A!"). The pressure would be to give the highest reasonable number (limited by what they know they can provide).
The difference is that (a) there would be more honesty in the numbers - the problem with "up to" speeds is that while I'd like to get a faster connection, I have no way of knowing *how much* faster I'd get. After all, if I'm getting 15Mbps (on my "up to 25" plan) and upgrade to "up to 100", the ISP could give me anything between 15.0001 and 100 and honestly claim that my speed is "faster".
With an "at least" claim, I'd know what I'm getting. If I get more, yay for me. But at least we're working with knowns instead of unknowns. (not to mention enforceable complaints if they're not making the minimum speed.
The problem is that you can take and pass a college level English class without actually giving half a shit about writing at an educated level. Having a university degree only proves that you are willing to do whatever busywork it takes to graduate, not that you actually know anything at all, that you paid attention in class, or even that you were smart in the first place.
I've been flat-out told that unless you're in a narrow discipline, employers don't care about *what* your degree was in, just that you have one. (And by narrow I mean "actual trades requiring certification"). My wife is now an expert in her field, but that's a completely different field than what her diploma says she specialized in.
Heck, just *attending* university got me in the door a few times. And now I've got enough work experience that no-one seems to particularly care about what CS class I took 20 years ago.
I mean, just look at cigarettes. The instant someone figured out that second hand smoke was causing cancer, the free market pulled them *right* off the shelves...
It sounds like the crux of the issue is that Canonical runs Mir and they insist any contributor grants them the right to re-release the code under a license of their choosing.
This isn't an unjustified request as we've seen previous license compatibility issues come up and there's reasons you might want to change licenses (the kernel is under GPLv2 until the end of time)
But really, what harm is being done by the kernal being GLP2?
From my chair, asking me to let you assign it to *any* license of your choosing means you're going to license it proprietary. You (as Canonical) certainly aren't going to feel the urge to make it easier for your competitors, n'est pas?
Yes it is. It's a sleazy, underhanded means to default on a debt.
-jcr
No, it's not. If people are agreeing to the terms (I will pay you back X + interest in Y years), and inflation outpaces the interest rate, that's their fault for not getting a high enough interest rate.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't about getting a 50/50 balance of male/female competitors. It is about women who say they want to compete but are put off by the attitude of other competitors towards them due to their gender.
Except that's *not* what the articles say - one is just rehashing the other, which is simply a "hey, we threw a survey and this is what we got back". Which not only is self-reporting bias, but it's not even talking to the same question. All it says is that on this *one* event from this *one* site, they had a 90/10 split. Which doesn't check for such things as "what's the usual demographic for your site", "what's the demographics on other comparable sites", or "what's the demographics on sites that have more than 200 people", or "how many women checked the 'male' box because they didn't trust the survey-takers"
That's before we get to the elephant - are we talking about skewed numbers in viewership (which is what TFA is), or skewed numbers in participation? It's entirely possible for the participation to be skewed one direction while the audience is skewed in another.
But most importantly, that article makes a bigger case for racial discrimination, simply by which interviews they picked. And I'd love to hear how anyone is going to fix that, short of requiring token minorities in all groups so that interested parties have someone who look like them in the room. (Which frankly strikes me as far more insulting that simply being the first one through the door.)
To be absolutely clear it isn't about getting a 50/50 ratio. That's just something trolls use to discredit attempts to remove barriers in the way of women who do want to take part. Same with jobs, it isn't about an equal number, it is about women saying they want to do those jobs but are put off by various things.
I'll bite - if 50/50 (or the close-enough number that represents actual demographcs) isn't the goal, then what *is* the acceptable ratio?
Also: I'd love to know why we're complaining about e-sports, but not any of the other long-standing professional sports that don't accept women. Where are the female MLB players, for instance? We had one woman in the NHL, but where are the rest?
Is there any sort of moral imperative that women must consist of 50% of all occupations? Even the niche dumb ones?
Here is a US page showing high concentration *female* jobs. Where's the cries for more men in teaching and nursing?
Now, show me women who are trying to get into e-sports and can't, and then we can talk.
If you have a boss that measures productivity solely by "what hours they're at the office" instead of "what was accomplished", then the guy who makes sure his punches are accurate is meeting the productivity goals as defined. If the boss defined the goals incorrectly, that's management's problem.
A job pays what the product of the job is worth. No more.
Bull. A job pays the minimum an employer can get away with paying. Whether that minimum is set by market conditions, greed, or their moral compass, no-one pays more than they think they "should". That's why there's a minimum wage.
If you raise the minimum wage to above what the job's productivity is worth, the job's wage doesn't magically increase. The job simply ceases to exist. All those no-skill jobs kids in high school get to make some spending cash? Gone. All those entry-level jobs for people who learned a lot of book knowledge but don't yet have practical experience? Gone. All those unskilled assembly line jobs? Exported to third world countries or replaced by robots.
Again, bull. There's never going to be a lack of demand for food-servers and store clerks. And those are jobs that don't export easily. What we're already seeing happen is the opposite - employers pushing for "temporary foreign workers", importing folks who *will* work for those cheap-ass rates and can be deported at the first sign of trouble.
I'm sure there are lots of low-wage jobs where employers aren't paying what the job is actually worth. But don't be so blinded by your zeal to curtail those abuses that you demolish a large fraction of the functional economy in the process. The taxpayers aren't just subsidizing certain employers' payroll. They're also subsidizing the inability or unwillingness of certain employees to find/work a more productive job. This is why funding and providing educational opportunities (both for children and adults) is a much better approach to solving this than raising the minimum wage. True economic growth comes from increasing each individual's productivity. The goal should be to allow people to move from less productive jobs to more productive jobs; not shifting money from more productive jobs to less productive jobs to make those less productive jobs more appealing.
if (trafficSource != VerzionOnDemand && trafficSource != Netflix) {
degradePerformance(); //slightly and randomly degrades performance
}
*obviously it's more complicated than the pseudo code above
Probably not that more complicated, though - when you consider that my cable company already offers me a choice of *nine* different plans, ranging from 10-250 Mbps down, and 512Kbps - 15Mbps up, it's pretty clear that I'm already being throttled. It'd be pretty trivial (to the point that I would be amazed if they weren't doing it already) to add a bit of code that ups the speed to their Favored Partners.
I miss the good old days, where companies had to compete on speed (I remember dial-ups hyping that all their lines were 56K!)
To the GP - think of it this way: the boss is *saying* you make $X per year, and then gives you 10% as a bonus at the end of the year as a "good job".
The boss was *actually* always planning to hand out that 10% - they budget it as salary (effectively). They just make a big production out of giving it to you to make you feel special. (Or alternately, if they need to spruce up their margins in December, they can "have a bad year" and cut back that number).
Of course everybody wants more money. The point is -- and this is what important for employer -- are you willing to work harder for it?
More honest point - can your employer get someone else to do it for cheaper? Or can they get *you* to do it for cheaper.
The only truth I've seen from that statement is that generally people don't jump ship just for money. Something *else* gets their back up, they start looking around, and then they find out that they could make better money elsewhere. But if I had a dollar for every time a co-worker stopped by for lunch and said their new job was "better hours, better pay, and less bullshit", I wouldn't need to work either.
> Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work." Exact citation from the GPL required. (But not expected, as you pulled that out of your arse.) I've worked for half a dozen companies that have made money selling work done under the GPL.
It was my understanding of the difference between GPL and BSD. (So, about as much as an asspull as everyone else's paraphrasing). And I had forgotten that you can charge people to maintain/build GPL code (as long as you hand over source). So yeah, my bad.
The GPL argument is that anyone who produces a derivative work must contribute back to the project, and thus the GPL generates more contributors.
The BSD argument is that there will always be people who create a non-free option, and if that is done by extending open-source the community may get some, if not all benefit from them.
That's a bit leading. How about this?
Releasing something under BSD says "I did it for free, and if you take it and tweak it and make a bazillion dollars, I don't care."
Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work."
It's a complete lie to say that Apple store TOS prohibits releasing software that is GPL. The only hostility here is from RMS and his accolytes. Thay are the ones who want it to be impossible to have GPL on the App Store. Explicitly so.
RMS doesn't really have a choice, though - the App Store is blatantly *not* compatible with GPL. Apple says "thou shalt only do this and that and nothing else", which rams straight into Section 6 of GPL2. So it's the same "take this code and lock it down", except with "on an app store" at the end.
Does it suck? Sure. Is it what happens when open source and walled garden collide? Yup. But neither GPL nor Apple have any reason to compromise their respective values on this.
Heck, at that point it's not even BTC at all - you've sold BTC to CoinBase in exchange for CoinBase's private currency. (Which may or may not actually stay pegged to the BTC going rate over time - if they're popular enough it'd be trivial to start charging "bank fees").
I see a whole lot of mail returned to sender for being abandoned, or being discarded for being abandoned, in those communal mailboxes. I also see a lot of people only visiting their mailboxes weekly, like how they take out their trash cans for the truck to pick up, so mailboxes will be even bigger targets for thieves as there'll be more payoff for the effort than before.
2/3 of Canada have been on the system for years. Any new developments in the past 10 have had this. None of the problems you mention are an issue.
Not to mention any small town - my parent's town *celebrated* when they got the communal mailboxes, because that was an upgrade from having to go to the post office during normal business hours to pick up General Delivery.
Yes. The HHGG movie gets a lot of flak for not following the books
... and indicates a "fan" who hasn't actually read their history. The movie doesn't match the book, true. But the books don't match the radio series. Hell, there are different *versions* of the radio series, and none of them match the book (or the movie). And Adams liked it that way - as far as he was concerned (at least according to the preface on my copy), there *is* no "right version" of Hitchhikers.
Now, that's not to say that the movie is a cinematic masterpiece. But it's a good silly romp, and frankly a cinematic masterpiece wouldn't have done the subject justice.
Download sites mostly don't select what ads to display, and just use syndicated ad networks. Those networks serve download ads on download pages because they get paid per click, and download ads on download pages have high click-through rates.
I call shenanigans - if indie webcomic authors can (and do!) block ads they don't want on their site, surely a large organization can do the same.
And if they're deliberately courting the fake download ads on their download pages to trick their users into clicking? That's not the sort of organization I want to support anyhow.
Whether or not taxpayer-funded research should be accessible to the taxpayers for FREE is a matter to be acertained,
Well, in a sense, any American has already paid for that research (via tax dollars). Probably the only time geofencing restrictions would make sense to use. (Wouldn't want us Canadians freeloading on ya!)
Look at it this way - if you substitute "taxpayer" with "Walmart" ("Whether or not Walmart-funded research should be accessible to Walmart for free.."), the argument suddenly sounds silly - why *wouldn't* the people who paid for it get to see it?
I would agree, except that once you reach corporate tiers with Service Level Agreements, internet providers seem to be able to guarantee some level of service...
If it's 2 hours per week, you can legitimately advertise 25Mbps with 98% reliability. That's still more honest than "up to 25" when you never crack 20.
Unless you live in some union controlled state, your boss already has that right. I've lived and worked in that world since the 60's. If you don't like an employee, fire them. Get another.
You can get fired for anything that isn't Title VII.
Even here in Canada, where we have sane laws, my boss could fire me for liking Trek. They'd have to pay me severance for not having proper cause, but they can do it.
Pro-tip: real employment laws list what employers can fire you for without pay, not list what they can't. Make *them* do the work proving things.
As much of a disservice it is to tell you that your speed is 100Mbps when it is almost never 100, it is also a disservice to tell you that your speed is 1Mbps when the lowest it has gone in a year is 15Mbps.
But in that case, there's a commercial incentive to post the highest minimum they can reliably give - if ISP A lowballs 1Mbps, ISP B can advertise 2Mbps ("Twice as fast as ISP A!"). The pressure would be to give the highest reasonable number (limited by what they know they can provide).
The difference is that (a) there would be more honesty in the numbers - the problem with "up to" speeds is that while I'd like to get a faster connection, I have no way of knowing *how much* faster I'd get. After all, if I'm getting 15Mbps (on my "up to 25" plan) and upgrade to "up to 100", the ISP could give me anything between 15.0001 and 100 and honestly claim that my speed is "faster".
With an "at least" claim, I'd know what I'm getting. If I get more, yay for me. But at least we're working with knowns instead of unknowns. (not to mention enforceable complaints if they're not making the minimum speed.
The problem is that you can take and pass a college level English class without actually giving half a shit about writing at an educated level. Having a university degree only proves that you are willing to do whatever busywork it takes to graduate, not that you actually know anything at all, that you paid attention in class, or even that you were smart in the first place.
I've been flat-out told that unless you're in a narrow discipline, employers don't care about *what* your degree was in, just that you have one. (And by narrow I mean "actual trades requiring certification"). My wife is now an expert in her field, but that's a completely different field than what her diploma says she specialized in.
Heck, just *attending* university got me in the door a few times. And now I've got enough work experience that no-one seems to particularly care about what CS class I took 20 years ago.
I mean, just look at cigarettes. The instant someone figured out that second hand smoke was causing cancer, the free market pulled them *right* off the shelves...
It sounds like the crux of the issue is that Canonical runs Mir and they insist any contributor grants them the right to re-release the code under a license of their choosing.
This isn't an unjustified request as we've seen previous license compatibility issues come up and there's reasons you might want to change licenses (the kernel is under GPLv2 until the end of time)
But really, what harm is being done by the kernal being GLP2?
From my chair, asking me to let you assign it to *any* license of your choosing means you're going to license it proprietary. You (as Canonical) certainly aren't going to feel the urge to make it easier for your competitors, n'est pas?
Inflation is not default.
Yes it is. It's a sleazy, underhanded means to default on a debt.
-jcr
No, it's not. If people are agreeing to the terms (I will pay you back X + interest in Y years), and inflation outpaces the interest rate, that's their fault for not getting a high enough interest rate.