There are quite a few sins referred to in the bible. Are we really willing as a nation to allow businesses to stop serving unwed mothers? Or obese people? People who work on Sundays? Seriously, with all the choices of sins in the bible, how can it be anything other than bigotry to single out homosexuals for discrimination? When the "values" are applied unevenly that's discrimination.
Until these same people want laws to forbid working on Sundays or laws to forbid divorce etc then they are just cherry picking what little bigotry is still (for now) somewhat culturally acceptable.
A baker doesn't have to believe in gay marriage to bake a stupid cake. He just has to put aside his bigotry long enough to perform a service for someone who's willing to pay for it.
When "generally speaking" everyone you speak to guides you towards other fields and scoffs at the notion that you might enjoy and prosper in STEM fields it isn't all that surprising that fewer women have traditionally done it. Things are changing a little bit, but only because of stories like these making people aware of how their attitudes towards women (and men sometimes) can have lasting effects. It happens to men too, when they try to break traditional gender roles and be nurses or elementary school teachers etc.
With the US falling behind in science and technology, it's time to encourage anyone who shows any interest at all in these fields to at least take a course or two and see if they like it.
Women are often attracted to problem solving positions and intellectual pursuits. And hopefully more and more women will quit caring about stereotypes and historically approved gender roles and just get out and do the work and prove themselves. Your ridiculous analysis about what women want or look for in a career makes it a turn off to think about working with people like you who will assume the woman who wants the job must be somehow aberrant.
I've seen the reverse stereotype more often: the nerdy introverted sexually repressed male who can't string a sentence together when face to face with a customer, but still thinks he's superior because if you lock him in a dark room for 4 days he'll turn out a bit of software that is perfect in its execution except it wasn't what anyone wanted.
CS is like any other field, there are a lot of different personality types who can carve themselves out a role in which to be a solid contributor. Precious few real world problems get solved solely by the nerd in the basement.
It would end them in some states, but others might see a dramatic rise. There are a few states still in the Union where a governor might score political points for being willing to shoot murders in the head.
Generic drugs are often manufactured in countries where labor is much cheaper. Because they sell for much less than still patented drugs. With the (thankfully) low volume use for executions, it wouldn't be worth it to make here.
If I had to guess I'd say the death penalty is used more often as a bargaining chip to get confessions out of folks. Now whether that counts as getting a confession under duress or not is a good question, but generally speaking, the US use of the death penalty doesn't seem to prevent the crime itself. It might satisfy our lust for revenge, but it is clearly wrong to let the state be in the business of killing its citizens.
So the patent office was forced to be self supporting. Their income is from patent applications. They get more applications if people have more reason to believe a patent will be granted. Therefore, they have every reason to define "novel" as "gee, I didn't think of that! gosh!" and grant a patent. This encourages the next hundred applications to come pouring in. We could fix most of the problems by making sure an invention had to be actually novel, before granting the patent. Shopping cart? Not so much. Quantum cryptography? Maybe so. Real work should be rewarded. Ancient ideas shouldn't become novel just because you find a way to do it on a computer.
Well, you could say the same thing about whether this is an actual universe or a simulation. Either you accept that experimental results are real or you give up. There's no point in ANY science if your premise is that anything you see, feel or hear could be faked by a deity wishing to fuck with you.
1) Even if some supernatural entity exists and/or was required to get the universe going, the chances that it is YOUR particular fairy tale out of the thousands that have been worshiped and may yet be worshiped is vanishingly small.
2) Watch Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" for the current scientific thought on how the universe started sans magic.
3) The downside is a bunch of people who think that faith is better than fact and fiction is better than reality who then go about teaching that mentality to kids and applying it to science funding, and civil rights legislation and any other thing where fairy tales aught not apply.
If you live your life being happy to think that one day you'll see your favorite aunt in heaven no one cares. If you need to deny other people the right to a happy existence free from limitations that you choose to accept (re: lifestyle etc) then the rest of us are obligated to care and denounce you.
I've got no mod points, but I think you're exactly right. We risk our lives for things we want to do every day. We should be willing to take on a bit of risk to keep our privacy as well. I mean, you could prevent or solve many crimes if you institute a national DNA sample registry, but (so far) that hasn't happened. The intelligence community will always want more data, it's what they do. They cannot be trusted to oversee themselves. It is ridiculous that they've set themselves as exempt from whistleblower protections - Snowden should be protected.
So, yes, a studio does deserve to profit from its creative work, and the people who participate should also get paid. But the studios should beware of wallowing in hypocrisy as they shout about having things "stolen" from them.
This case was in Sweden, but at least in the U.S. as long as media companies can buy extensions of copyright terms from politicians and prevent anything from ever becoming public domain, I don't feel too bad about their work being stolen. They have, in effect, stolen untold millions in works that should have been free for all to distribute, extend and enjoy. Copyright was not meant to extend until Disney gets tired of buying updates to the law.
I'm surprised at this coming from a Scandinavian country. It sounds much more like something you'd hear from a U.S. court. Common sense tells me they'd have tacked on the extra fine either way though: low quality = damage to reputation, high quality = damage to profits. There was no winning move in that sense.
Because honesty, even when it's painful, is better than platitudes. The facts aren't dependent on how you feel about them. If you are determined to choose to believe what "feels good" rather than what's real, and worse if you vote according to such beliefs, then you are a danger to the rest of us and have no right to be coddled.
He drew attention to an issue that most people don't think about until they have to. But if we don't talk about it, think about it and finally act on it in legislature, it'll always remain this way. He said what he felt and what needed to be said to create some public discussion. Politely wishing things were different doesn't get anything done. You should applaud his decision to share such personal anguish with the world in order to maybe, just maybe get something useful done.
If he had dialed it back it would never have made a ripple in the media. In today's overstimulated world, only this sort of talk gets noticed at all. For all we know, he'd said several times how sad it was that our laws were causing his father unnecessary pain and no one cared. Rant about wanting everyone who supported this situation to suffer from it as well actually got people talking. If we don't talk about it and admit there's a problem it'll never get better.
Didn't someone point out that if you're getting something for free, you probably are the product? In the same way that Facebook happily sells your personal information to advertisers, these professors use your information for their own benefit. If you get something for (nothing | less than full price) it's probably in exchange for something else.
99% of driving may require 10% of your concentration, but if you're not paying attention, when you hit that last %, it'll be too late. It's about being ready for the emergency, not cruising along in traffic.
Remind your boss how you'll be sure to have the plaintiff include the company in any lawsuit that results from being required to browse while driving. It really is no excuse at all. If you are so indispensable to your company that every moment of your time must be available to them then you've got the wrong job. Also, they aren't paying you enough, because you aught to be able to afford a driver if you're that important.
If your job requires you to be so connected that you can't take time to safely drive to and from the office then you need to arrange other transportation. No job should require you to break the law or risk your life and that of others so callously. If my boss were to ever complain that I were out of touch for the time it took me to get to the office, I'd kindly offer to let him hire me a limo.
Can you tell us where and when you normally drive so we can avoid the area? 99.9% of the time driving will not require every drop of your conscious attention, but at the moment that it does, someone's life (maybe yours?) could be at stake and it'll be too late. If you cannot manage to get from one place to another without needing constant distraction, then perhaps try public transportation or carpooling.
I suppose by the most basic definition that is true. However, a manager's ability to actually determine where any given employee ranks is always suspect. Some people are very good at doing nothing while looking invaluable and others are very good at getting things done without boasting. Some people are good at boosting a whole team thus harming their own ability to stand out (to the oblivious manager) but are tremendous value to the company nonetheless. If managements get too ham-fisted about trying to rank everyone by some arbitrary standard, they will always lose some truly good people along with the bad.
Slashdot Mirror
There are quite a few sins referred to in the bible. Are we really willing as a nation to allow businesses to stop serving unwed mothers? Or obese people? People who work on Sundays? Seriously, with all the choices of sins in the bible, how can it be anything other than bigotry to single out homosexuals for discrimination? When the "values" are applied unevenly that's discrimination.
Until these same people want laws to forbid working on Sundays or laws to forbid divorce etc then they are just cherry picking what little bigotry is still (for now) somewhat culturally acceptable.
A baker doesn't have to believe in gay marriage to bake a stupid cake. He just has to put aside his bigotry long enough to perform a service for someone who's willing to pay for it.
When "generally speaking" everyone you speak to guides you towards other fields and scoffs at the notion that you might enjoy and prosper in STEM fields it isn't all that surprising that fewer women have traditionally done it. Things are changing a little bit, but only because of stories like these making people aware of how their attitudes towards women (and men sometimes) can have lasting effects. It happens to men too, when they try to break traditional gender roles and be nurses or elementary school teachers etc.
With the US falling behind in science and technology, it's time to encourage anyone who shows any interest at all in these fields to at least take a course or two and see if they like it.
No wonder you posted AC.
Women are often attracted to problem solving positions and intellectual pursuits. And hopefully more and more women will quit caring about stereotypes and historically approved gender roles and just get out and do the work and prove themselves. Your ridiculous analysis about what women want or look for in a career makes it a turn off to think about working with people like you who will assume the woman who wants the job must be somehow aberrant.
I've seen the reverse stereotype more often: the nerdy introverted sexually repressed male who can't string a sentence together when face to face with a customer, but still thinks he's superior because if you lock him in a dark room for 4 days he'll turn out a bit of software that is perfect in its execution except it wasn't what anyone wanted.
CS is like any other field, there are a lot of different personality types who can carve themselves out a role in which to be a solid contributor. Precious few real world problems get solved solely by the nerd in the basement.
It would end them in some states, but others might see a dramatic rise. There are a few states still in the Union where a governor might score political points for being willing to shoot murders in the head.
Generic drugs are often manufactured in countries where labor is much cheaper. Because they sell for much less than still patented drugs. With the (thankfully) low volume use for executions, it wouldn't be worth it to make here.
If I had to guess I'd say the death penalty is used more often as a bargaining chip to get confessions out of folks. Now whether that counts as getting a confession under duress or not is a good question, but generally speaking, the US use of the death penalty doesn't seem to prevent the crime itself. It might satisfy our lust for revenge, but it is clearly wrong to let the state be in the business of killing its citizens.
I mean, if we can complain about things that are going to bring the world down around our ears, surely stupidity outranks firefox.
So the patent office was forced to be self supporting. Their income is from patent applications. They get more applications if people have more reason to believe a patent will be granted. Therefore, they have every reason to define "novel" as "gee, I didn't think of that! gosh!" and grant a patent. This encourages the next hundred applications to come pouring in. We could fix most of the problems by making sure an invention had to be actually novel, before granting the patent. Shopping cart? Not so much. Quantum cryptography? Maybe so. Real work should be rewarded. Ancient ideas shouldn't become novel just because you find a way to do it on a computer.
Well, you could say the same thing about whether this is an actual universe or a simulation. Either you accept that experimental results are real or you give up. There's no point in ANY science if your premise is that anything you see, feel or hear could be faked by a deity wishing to fuck with you.
So you compare "beliefs" based on scientific evidence with beliefs based on 2000 year old morality tales? It isn't "faith" when you have evidence.
1) Even if some supernatural entity exists and/or was required to get the universe going, the chances that it is YOUR particular fairy tale out of the thousands that have been worshiped and may yet be worshiped is vanishingly small.
2) Watch Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" for the current scientific thought on how the universe started sans magic.
3) The downside is a bunch of people who think that faith is better than fact and fiction is better than reality who then go about teaching that mentality to kids and applying it to science funding, and civil rights legislation and any other thing where fairy tales aught not apply.
If you live your life being happy to think that one day you'll see your favorite aunt in heaven no one cares. If you need to deny other people the right to a happy existence free from limitations that you choose to accept (re: lifestyle etc) then the rest of us are obligated to care and denounce you.
I've got no mod points, but I think you're exactly right. We risk our lives for things we want to do every day. We should be willing to take on a bit of risk to keep our privacy as well. I mean, you could prevent or solve many crimes if you institute a national DNA sample registry, but (so far) that hasn't happened. The intelligence community will always want more data, it's what they do. They cannot be trusted to oversee themselves. It is ridiculous that they've set themselves as exempt from whistleblower protections - Snowden should be protected.
All of that may be true, but the media companies (in the U.S. at least) lose a LOT of the high ground when they use creative accounting to be sure they make maximum profits (see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml). Also, they purchase helpful copyright extensions from our politicians so that nothing can ever fall into the public domain (see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html).
So, yes, a studio does deserve to profit from its creative work, and the people who participate should also get paid. But the studios should beware of wallowing in hypocrisy as they shout about having things "stolen" from them.
This case was in Sweden, but at least in the U.S. as long as media companies can buy extensions of copyright terms from politicians and prevent anything from ever becoming public domain, I don't feel too bad about their work being stolen. They have, in effect, stolen untold millions in works that should have been free for all to distribute, extend and enjoy. Copyright was not meant to extend until Disney gets tired of buying updates to the law.
I'm surprised at this coming from a Scandinavian country. It sounds much more like something you'd hear from a U.S. court. Common sense tells me they'd have tacked on the extra fine either way though: low quality = damage to reputation, high quality = damage to profits. There was no winning move in that sense.
Because honesty, even when it's painful, is better than platitudes. The facts aren't dependent on how you feel about them. If you are determined to choose to believe what "feels good" rather than what's real, and worse if you vote according to such beliefs, then you are a danger to the rest of us and have no right to be coddled.
That's the line that ensures we're talking about it.
He drew attention to an issue that most people don't think about until they have to. But if we don't talk about it, think about it and finally act on it in legislature, it'll always remain this way. He said what he felt and what needed to be said to create some public discussion. Politely wishing things were different doesn't get anything done. You should applaud his decision to share such personal anguish with the world in order to maybe, just maybe get something useful done.
If he had dialed it back it would never have made a ripple in the media. In today's overstimulated world, only this sort of talk gets noticed at all. For all we know, he'd said several times how sad it was that our laws were causing his father unnecessary pain and no one cared. Rant about wanting everyone who supported this situation to suffer from it as well actually got people talking. If we don't talk about it and admit there's a problem it'll never get better.
Didn't someone point out that if you're getting something for free, you probably are the product? In the same way that Facebook happily sells your personal information to advertisers, these professors use your information for their own benefit. If you get something for (nothing | less than full price) it's probably in exchange for something else.
99% of driving may require 10% of your concentration, but if you're not paying attention, when you hit that last %, it'll be too late. It's about being ready for the emergency, not cruising along in traffic.
Remind your boss how you'll be sure to have the plaintiff include the company in any lawsuit that results from being required to browse while driving. It really is no excuse at all. If you are so indispensable to your company that every moment of your time must be available to them then you've got the wrong job. Also, they aren't paying you enough, because you aught to be able to afford a driver if you're that important.
If your job requires you to be so connected that you can't take time to safely drive to and from the office then you need to arrange other transportation. No job should require you to break the law or risk your life and that of others so callously. If my boss were to ever complain that I were out of touch for the time it took me to get to the office, I'd kindly offer to let him hire me a limo.
Can you tell us where and when you normally drive so we can avoid the area? 99.9% of the time driving will not require every drop of your conscious attention, but at the moment that it does, someone's life (maybe yours?) could be at stake and it'll be too late. If you cannot manage to get from one place to another without needing constant distraction, then perhaps try public transportation or carpooling.
I suppose by the most basic definition that is true. However, a manager's ability to actually determine where any given employee ranks is always suspect. Some people are very good at doing nothing while looking invaluable and others are very good at getting things done without boasting. Some people are good at boosting a whole team thus harming their own ability to stand out (to the oblivious manager) but are tremendous value to the company nonetheless. If managements get too ham-fisted about trying to rank everyone by some arbitrary standard, they will always lose some truly good people along with the bad.