While it is absolutely acceptable to ensure all team members conform to the dress code, it is inappropriate to dress down a woman for "wearing enticing clothing" in the context of a male coworker's sexual advances. The infraction the female team member committed was against the lab dress code, which is not there to ensure the correct behavior of the male team members. In administrating the dispute this way, you have sent the message to the female team member that the dress code is there explicitly to marshall her sexuality: that for her, and not for a male team member, not following the dress code carries an extra consequence of inviting sexual harassment. And to the male team member, you have sent the message that although his behavior is ultimately against the rules, it is not unexpected and at least some of the blame lies with the person he was harassing.
Perhaps as you say, neither was guiltless. However it is your responsibility to ensure that you administrate all of the lab policy properly, and claiming that a dress code exists to prevent men from being "enticed" by female coworkers is a form of harassment in an of itself. I myself work in a chemistry lab where a female labmate is in the habit of wearing revealing clothing. This is of course, against the dress code. However it is against the dress code because it is unsafe to expose undue amounts of skin in an active chemical laboratory, and second because it is unprofessional. Our PI has admonished her publicy because of this, and has always indicated that it is a question of safety. It would be extremely inappropriate for him to administer a public reprimand for her clothing being "sexy" or anything to that effect. If any reprimand is adminstered at all about the clothing being distracting, it should be administered out of view of the rest of the lab to indicate that the disciplinary infraction is one against a laboratory policy, not one that the lab as a whole has the right to administer.
While the female team member is unquestionably to blame for not following the dress code, it is not correct to say she is to blame for an episode of sexual harassment. And while it appears your female team member found no issue with it, I find it hard to believe that anyone, when bringing a sexual harassment complaint against a coworker, would not be made extremely uncomfortable being hauled in front of their harasser, and admonished for wearing "enticing" clothing, even if the harasser was later administered a comparable reprimand (Which does not even seem to be the case here. You made clear that the female team member was in violation of a lab policy, which you implied was designed to protect her male coworkers and not her, and had committed a professional infraction. The male team member, however, was admonished for a personal infraction, i.e. "failure to be a gentleman." Not following the dress code is breaking a rule, but sexually harassing a coworker is equated with forgetting to hold the door or splitting the check at dinner).
Well yeah, and the design of the iPad has all the efficiency and productivity enhancing qualities of a rhino having noisy diarrheain the middle of one's office cubicle. If 60 wpm counts as "competition" to you, you don't really need a computer, do you?
I'm sure you can build a solar cell in your garage. Can you build a solar cell that breaks new ground? No, you can't, not without at least four years of education, probably more. Can you design new smartphone displays, new microchips? etc.? No, because you don't have the facilities, which get pretty fucking pricey. And this world is rather poor on investors willing to cough up clean rooms and waste disposal permits for some college dropout with a napkin doodle of a smiling sun with an arrow pointing to a big pile of money.
And a cursory look at the history of Apple and Thomas Edison will reveal that the original apple computers were indeed hand built and sold individually, and that Edison financed Menlo park with the sale of a telegraph patent, which he developed using the facilities he had access to at a telegraph company. Please peruse some relevant literature before you go accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and yourself of being able to understand exciton generation in thin films sufficiently to design organic semiconductor interfaces in your kitchen.
1. People working in foreign countries often make far less and in worse conditions. I'm not saying it's always the stereotypical Nike sweatshop, but a lot of places treat their workers unfairly due to poor regulation. A device made in the US must be made by workers with certain allowances (forty hour work weeks, minimum wage, usually paid sick leave and other benefits for something like electronics manufacture) that are not guaranteed elsewhere. If you have to employ someone, better to employ a person whose employer will care for them sustainably.
2. The more countries involved, and the further they are apart, the larger the carbon footprint of each device.
3. Maintaining a favorable balance of imports over exports is a basic requirement for a healthy economy. Given the amount of goods we import, and the amount of goods electronics-manufacturing countries export, they will not be harmed by losing a small bit of our business, while each chain of imports weakens us materially. It's like cooking at home versus eating take out: yes, the tip you give the delivery man will allow HIM to go home and feed HIMSELF, but honestly you should save the money so you can make rent
Anybody who knows anything about electronics bought a Roku already. This is a marketing gimmick targeting people who don't know better. People should know better, that is true, but just because someone is stupid doesn't mean tricking them is okay.
Apples and oranges, really. Not having a college degree, even fifty years ago, let alone 150, did not mean as much as it does now. Mostly because the "tech" sector and scientific enterprise as a whole was composed of low hanging fruit anyone with a few bucks and some know-how could bang together in their garage. Seriously, the phonograph, light bulb, and electric motor are all things that a person could learn the principles of construction from reading a few books: even before their invention. Try getting a home workshop set up as a clean room suitable for solar power or semiconductor research, and try doing those things effectively just by consulting a manual. The original apple computers were BUILT by Jobs and Wozniak: try hacking together a mobile device yourself with meager capital, and see where that gets you; it's still going to cost you more per unit than Apple spends, and you won't get anywhere near the volume.
This is one of the most offensive lies that tech sector monopolists try to cram down our throats: that "anyone" can make it because they did. If you work in a rapidly growing industry, like personal computing (Apple and Microsoft), social media and advertising (Facebook) or genocide and global war (IBM) you stand to make a lot of money without a lot of book-larnin', but this is a matter of luck and not of "skill." People like Jobs and Zuck just did something that made them money, and when the opportunity to make more money arose, they took it. Despite media portrayals, they did not map out their success out from day one. Steve Jobs did not say "let's make middle-market hardware and software focused on usability for thirty years, and then something called "smartphones" will be possible and we'll move into that market." And for every Microsoft or Apple or Facebook, there's scores of Commodore's, Friendster's, and AOL's. These were not visionaries who were too smart to be taught, they are lucky beneficiaries of a system which allows few to thrive, and selects those few in a way that is almost entirely arbitrary
I'm sure the navy maintains communications for military matters, But things like online shows and gaming are probably recent enough that the navy hasn't felt the need to provide them to sailors as essential comforts
You know, not a single site I went to on "SOPA day" actually blacked out. Wikipedia put a lame ass banner frame that could be circumvented by pressing escape soon after the page loaded, and that was about the most aggressive I saw.
tonight != night time, though yes it was very occicentric of him to ignore the fact that it will be "tonight" only for those in the western hemisphere, and "tomorrow" for those in the east. But given that most of slashdot's readership is America or Europe, I feel that this is a forgiveable oversight
The reason photographs are authoritative is because we believe that the only way to secure a photograph is to actually snap a camera in front of the event. If photorealistic images can be generated without this, then why should we lend photographs any credibility? Already, people's reaction to photographs showing things they don't want to be true is "that's totally photoshopped." Photography's saving grace has always been that it is fairly easy to tell the real from the fake for all but the highest quality forgeries, and then an expert can usually uncover it. Once people simply "don't know" if a picture is true, then the age of the photograph as a means of record will be dead. They will carry all the journalistic weight of engravings or portraits.
However, as the parent suggests, if something DOES happen, and you desire a record of it, it will be cheaper to secure that record by photographing it, rather than rendering it.
Most things, not all things. Certainly less than someone with 100% of their brain. If they were using less than 100% of their brains, there should be some part we could just cut out, with no ill effects. However, overwhelmingly, if you cut out any part of someone's brain, they do not take it well.
MRI was invented in the building I am currently in. The NMR spectroscopist, and the IR spectroscopist not fifty feet from where I am sitting both just had massive heart attacks when that sentence was written.
It seems like the article means the companies currently ON Kickstarter as we speak, specifically in the area of video games. All kickstarter does is take a distributed loan: it will indeed be possible for people to default on that loan. The ones actually doing the kicking won't feel the pop, but a project that only reaches half its funding goal has essentially lost any investment it's already made, which for small, independent game companies means a good deal of man hours, at the very least. The practice can still be the future after a bubble burst: look at tech companies. A bubble burst just mean the herd thins, not that everyone forgets about technology and goes back to good old reliable mimeo machines and stock tickers.
There's probably not a list, given how many kinds of cancer there are, and the difficulty of determining biological mechanisms. Cancers are diverse, but there are certain things that most of them do, and that's where therapies are developed. A big one is overexpression of receptors or antibodies, which not all cancers do in the same way, but most do in some fashion. I'd imagine anything that kills most cancers without killing healthy cells is worth a go.
But that's a double edged sword. I was more surprised to hear that this mechanism isn't leveraged anywhere else in the body. And more importantly, now that we know this mechanism, is it really possible to selectively poison it?
I believe the parent is alluding to the fact that there are members of the autistic community who campaign for its classification as a condition, rather than a pathology. I actually support several implications of this claim, but my views are not important: what is important is that no one should go shooting off their mouth about how they should "cure" someone who has no wish to be cured.
Not that I object to the aims of this study, it's just something to keep in mind while we look for ways to prevent this "horrible disease."
I'm assuming they meant educational about actual PC hardware. If they didn't, they're retarded: why is a computer better suited to educational applications because it's *small*?
I want to do PhD comics, except all the characters are gritty guns-for-hire trying to get by in an apocalyptic hellscape. I think that's the treatment this cherished favorite deserves
Slashdot Mirror
They're onto us, Sambo
While it is absolutely acceptable to ensure all team members conform to the dress code, it is inappropriate to dress down a woman for "wearing enticing clothing" in the context of a male coworker's sexual advances. The infraction the female team member committed was against the lab dress code, which is not there to ensure the correct behavior of the male team members. In administrating the dispute this way, you have sent the message to the female team member that the dress code is there explicitly to marshall her sexuality: that for her, and not for a male team member, not following the dress code carries an extra consequence of inviting sexual harassment. And to the male team member, you have sent the message that although his behavior is ultimately against the rules, it is not unexpected and at least some of the blame lies with the person he was harassing.
Perhaps as you say, neither was guiltless. However it is your responsibility to ensure that you administrate all of the lab policy properly, and claiming that a dress code exists to prevent men from being "enticed" by female coworkers is a form of harassment in an of itself. I myself work in a chemistry lab where a female labmate is in the habit of wearing revealing clothing. This is of course, against the dress code. However it is against the dress code because it is unsafe to expose undue amounts of skin in an active chemical laboratory, and second because it is unprofessional. Our PI has admonished her publicy because of this, and has always indicated that it is a question of safety. It would be extremely inappropriate for him to administer a public reprimand for her clothing being "sexy" or anything to that effect. If any reprimand is adminstered at all about the clothing being distracting, it should be administered out of view of the rest of the lab to indicate that the disciplinary infraction is one against a laboratory policy, not one that the lab as a whole has the right to administer.
While the female team member is unquestionably to blame for not following the dress code, it is not correct to say she is to blame for an episode of sexual harassment. And while it appears your female team member found no issue with it, I find it hard to believe that anyone, when bringing a sexual harassment complaint against a coworker, would not be made extremely uncomfortable being hauled in front of their harasser, and admonished for wearing "enticing" clothing, even if the harasser was later administered a comparable reprimand (Which does not even seem to be the case here. You made clear that the female team member was in violation of a lab policy, which you implied was designed to protect her male coworkers and not her, and had committed a professional infraction. The male team member, however, was admonished for a personal infraction, i.e. "failure to be a gentleman." Not following the dress code is breaking a rule, but sexually harassing a coworker is equated with forgetting to hold the door or splitting the check at dinner).
that's what they said
Well yeah, and the design of the iPad has all the efficiency and productivity enhancing qualities of a rhino having noisy diarrheain the middle of one's office cubicle. If 60 wpm counts as "competition" to you, you don't really need a computer, do you?
Ahem.... Good troll, sir, you almost had me.
Enter....
The electron-per-second
I'm sure you can build a solar cell in your garage. Can you build a solar cell that breaks new ground? No, you can't, not without at least four years of education, probably more. Can you design new smartphone displays, new microchips? etc.? No, because you don't have the facilities, which get pretty fucking pricey. And this world is rather poor on investors willing to cough up clean rooms and waste disposal permits for some college dropout with a napkin doodle of a smiling sun with an arrow pointing to a big pile of money.
And a cursory look at the history of Apple and Thomas Edison will reveal that the original apple computers were indeed hand built and sold individually, and that Edison financed Menlo park with the sale of a telegraph patent, which he developed using the facilities he had access to at a telegraph company. Please peruse some relevant literature before you go accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and yourself of being able to understand exciton generation in thin films sufficiently to design organic semiconductor interfaces in your kitchen.
where the f*** did all my tags go?
1. People working in foreign countries often make far less and in worse conditions. I'm not saying it's always the stereotypical Nike sweatshop, but a lot of places treat their workers unfairly due to poor regulation. A device made in the US must be made by workers with certain allowances (forty hour work weeks, minimum wage, usually paid sick leave and other benefits for something like electronics manufacture) that are not guaranteed elsewhere. If you have to employ someone, better to employ a person whose employer will care for them sustainably. 2. The more countries involved, and the further they are apart, the larger the carbon footprint of each device. 3. Maintaining a favorable balance of imports over exports is a basic requirement for a healthy economy. Given the amount of goods we import, and the amount of goods electronics-manufacturing countries export, they will not be harmed by losing a small bit of our business, while each chain of imports weakens us materially. It's like cooking at home versus eating take out: yes, the tip you give the delivery man will allow HIM to go home and feed HIMSELF, but honestly you should save the money so you can make rent
Anybody who knows anything about electronics bought a Roku already. This is a marketing gimmick targeting people who don't know better. People should know better, that is true, but just because someone is stupid doesn't mean tricking them is okay.
Apples and oranges, really. Not having a college degree, even fifty years ago, let alone 150, did not mean as much as it does now. Mostly because the "tech" sector and scientific enterprise as a whole was composed of low hanging fruit anyone with a few bucks and some know-how could bang together in their garage. Seriously, the phonograph, light bulb, and electric motor are all things that a person could learn the principles of construction from reading a few books: even before their invention. Try getting a home workshop set up as a clean room suitable for solar power or semiconductor research, and try doing those things effectively just by consulting a manual. The original apple computers were BUILT by Jobs and Wozniak: try hacking together a mobile device yourself with meager capital, and see where that gets you; it's still going to cost you more per unit than Apple spends, and you won't get anywhere near the volume.
This is one of the most offensive lies that tech sector monopolists try to cram down our throats: that "anyone" can make it because they did. If you work in a rapidly growing industry, like personal computing (Apple and Microsoft), social media and advertising (Facebook) or genocide and global war (IBM) you stand to make a lot of money without a lot of book-larnin', but this is a matter of luck and not of "skill." People like Jobs and Zuck just did something that made them money, and when the opportunity to make more money arose, they took it. Despite media portrayals, they did not map out their success out from day one. Steve Jobs did not say "let's make middle-market hardware and software focused on usability for thirty years, and then something called "smartphones" will be possible and we'll move into that market." And for every Microsoft or Apple or Facebook, there's scores of Commodore's, Friendster's, and AOL's. These were not visionaries who were too smart to be taught, they are lucky beneficiaries of a system which allows few to thrive, and selects those few in a way that is almost entirely arbitrary
I'm sure the navy maintains communications for military matters, But things like online shows and gaming are probably recent enough that the navy hasn't felt the need to provide them to sailors as essential comforts
Now, I know there are schools with MORE than 50,000 students: it's not the BIGGEST. But how is that considered "small"?
You know, not a single site I went to on "SOPA day" actually blacked out. Wikipedia put a lame ass banner frame that could be circumvented by pressing escape soon after the page loaded, and that was about the most aggressive I saw.
tonight != night time, though yes it was very occicentric of him to ignore the fact that it will be "tonight" only for those in the western hemisphere, and "tomorrow" for those in the east. But given that most of slashdot's readership is America or Europe, I feel that this is a forgiveable oversight
The reason photographs are authoritative is because we believe that the only way to secure a photograph is to actually snap a camera in front of the event. If photorealistic images can be generated without this, then why should we lend photographs any credibility? Already, people's reaction to photographs showing things they don't want to be true is "that's totally photoshopped." Photography's saving grace has always been that it is fairly easy to tell the real from the fake for all but the highest quality forgeries, and then an expert can usually uncover it. Once people simply "don't know" if a picture is true, then the age of the photograph as a means of record will be dead. They will carry all the journalistic weight of engravings or portraits.
However, as the parent suggests, if something DOES happen, and you desire a record of it, it will be cheaper to secure that record by photographing it, rather than rendering it.
Technically, computers can't multitask either.
Most things, not all things. Certainly less than someone with 100% of their brain. If they were using less than 100% of their brains, there should be some part we could just cut out, with no ill effects. However, overwhelmingly, if you cut out any part of someone's brain, they do not take it well.
MRI was invented in the building I am currently in. The NMR spectroscopist, and the IR spectroscopist not fifty feet from where I am sitting both just had massive heart attacks when that sentence was written.
It seems like the article means the companies currently ON Kickstarter as we speak, specifically in the area of video games. All kickstarter does is take a distributed loan: it will indeed be possible for people to default on that loan. The ones actually doing the kicking won't feel the pop, but a project that only reaches half its funding goal has essentially lost any investment it's already made, which for small, independent game companies means a good deal of man hours, at the very least. The practice can still be the future after a bubble burst: look at tech companies. A bubble burst just mean the herd thins, not that everyone forgets about technology and goes back to good old reliable mimeo machines and stock tickers.
There's probably not a list, given how many kinds of cancer there are, and the difficulty of determining biological mechanisms. Cancers are diverse, but there are certain things that most of them do, and that's where therapies are developed. A big one is overexpression of receptors or antibodies, which not all cancers do in the same way, but most do in some fashion. I'd imagine anything that kills most cancers without killing healthy cells is worth a go.
But that's a double edged sword. I was more surprised to hear that this mechanism isn't leveraged anywhere else in the body. And more importantly, now that we know this mechanism, is it really possible to selectively poison it?
I believe the parent is alluding to the fact that there are members of the autistic community who campaign for its classification as a condition, rather than a pathology. I actually support several implications of this claim, but my views are not important: what is important is that no one should go shooting off their mouth about how they should "cure" someone who has no wish to be cured. Not that I object to the aims of this study, it's just something to keep in mind while we look for ways to prevent this "horrible disease."
I'm assuming they meant educational about actual PC hardware. If they didn't, they're retarded: why is a computer better suited to educational applications because it's *small*?
I'm sure they came up with that all by themselves
I want to do PhD comics, except all the characters are gritty guns-for-hire trying to get by in an apocalyptic hellscape. I think that's the treatment this cherished favorite deserves