Good luck, a lot of people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they suddenly had an extra 50 hours a week (you need to include commuting time, lunches, etc) with no boss giving them structure and direction. Most people would just flop down on the couch and eat Cheetohs until they can no longer get off the couch.
In each case you give, it's an example of something we may not be able to help the root cause of. However, if we had a pill that would completely wipe out the flu in your body with no adverse side effects, I think we would use that instead of a decongestant. Sure, we treat the symptoms as a stopgap or when we can't fix the root cause but ultimately, we fix the root cause whenever we're able.
When I broke my leg, they gave me painkillers in the short term but it didn't help anything until the leg was screwed back together (literally) and the root cause (several broken bones) was fixed (by allowing them to heal properly).
You're the only one who said anything about women not liking intense thinking. For that matter, you're the only one who has said the disparity is because women are different... everyone else you're responding to is saying that the issue is with society.
"Diversity of experience, opinion, skillset, or interest is surely something better to strive towards."
This is what my current and most recent employer both strived for. It was by coincidence that it also led to gender/racial diversity as well (because different backgrounds lead to different skillsets and opinions... who knew?). In the end, we had a lot of really good solutions to problems from people starting ideas with "Once when I..." or "I saw something like this before...". We never had anyone say they had a good idea because their ovaries/testes told them or that the color of their skin allowed them to receive transmissions from a far off alien civilization sharing ideas with everyone the right color to listen.
The problem with comparing it to history is that until a few decades ago, it didn't matter what women were interested in - they simply weren't allowed in most fields. However, now women are able to choose any job that men can choose, it's an entirely different ball game.
Since women are now allowed to choose what they want to be, they tend to gravitate towards nursing, teaching and other human interaction fields. Of course societal pressures still play a major role, but I just don't think you can compare it to history of more than a few decades ago.
The IT department in which I work is currently 67% female and 33% male. One of the women is being promoted to manager of another department, so you're saying that we should only look at male replacements in order to bring the disparity closer to being representative of the population as a whole?
And how come I don't see anything about encouraging more men in fields like nursing and teaching?
A lot of studies involving this seem to avoid actually talking to young girls. Of the ones I've talked to, many of them feel insulted that they could get hired because they have a specific set of reproductive organs rather than on their other merits. It reminds me of the pilot episode (I think) of SG-1 where Carter goes off on a rant against O'Neil because "her reproductive organs are on the inside". And it turns out he just dislikes scientists.
You're saying the problem is with people that have identified a potential root cause, rather than just trying to treat the symptoms? I sure hope you're not a doctor. Or a mechanic. Or an engineer. Or in IT. Or any field that requires solving problems for that matter.
Why is it a problem? Not every lopsided gender/race/etc statistic is indicative of a problem. Sometimes it just means that men and women have different interests, or different strengths and weaknesses.
A problem would be if there were plenty of women in the field and employers were intentionally passing over them. However, if the issue is that there simply aren't a lot of women interested in a field, therefore fewer women are employed, then there isn't a problem.
If you try to fix a problem that doesn't exist, you're more likely to make it into a problem.
Of my 20 or so first cousins, only a little less than half have the same last name as I do, and that's largely because they're mostly males descended from my paternal grandfather. The rest of them have last names with origins from all over the globe. On my maternal side, I have nobody with the same last name as I do. Identifying relatives by name is a pretty poor way to do it.
When doing an analysis of our storage capacity, I put it in terms of iTunes downloads for management. Worked quite well.
I think the final summary came out to something like "You could listen to iTunes every day at work, all day long, for 19 years and never repeat a song".
I like doing stuff like this to put things in terms for other people to understand. However, I buy ground beef by the cow, so for me a gallon of gas is about two pounds of ground beef. My car costs 28 pounds of ground beef to fill the tank and I get paid 8.75 pounds of ground beef per hour (gross). My take-home pay is about one ton of ground beef each month. I just sent Sallie Mae my last student loan payment, roughly 250 pounds of ground beef (down from six tons of ground beef two years ago). However, I still owe almost four tons of ground beef on my car, but it's KBB value is close to six tons of ground beef so that's good.
You're right about what I meant. The original poster was asking "what kind of citizen"? and I gave a few examples of them. However, as with the other examples, these are a small (but very vocal) minority of the overall population and in a true democracy would have almost no say in matters. However, there are people that think the big money CEOs shouldn't get any say, effectively denying them their rights as a citizen. I think they should get the same say as any other citizen ("one person, one vote" so to speak). When it comes to matters of economy, they may be more important because of their relative impact but when it comes to what is essentially a civil rights issue, then everybody should be held as an equal because my personal opinion is that civil rights trump economics... a free population is more important than a wealthy population.
Slashdot Mirror
That whooshing sound you keep hearing is not a result of forgetting to take your meds today.
Robots are like asteroids.
We need to keep an eye on every single one, lest we overlook the one that will destroy all humanity.
Good luck, a lot of people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they suddenly had an extra 50 hours a week (you need to include commuting time, lunches, etc) with no boss giving them structure and direction. Most people would just flop down on the couch and eat Cheetohs until they can no longer get off the couch.
By that logic, posting inane comments as Anonymous Coward is roughly the same as watching TV.
I'll be back in Herkimer in two weeks, I'll be sure to stop by.
Not many other parasites sing such high praise for their HOSTS.
Their previous focus was providing the best submarine screendoor to keep out the oceans of malware.
In each case you give, it's an example of something we may not be able to help the root cause of. However, if we had a pill that would completely wipe out the flu in your body with no adverse side effects, I think we would use that instead of a decongestant. Sure, we treat the symptoms as a stopgap or when we can't fix the root cause but ultimately, we fix the root cause whenever we're able.
When I broke my leg, they gave me painkillers in the short term but it didn't help anything until the leg was screwed back together (literally) and the root cause (several broken bones) was fixed (by allowing them to heal properly).
You're the only one who said anything about women not liking intense thinking. For that matter, you're the only one who has said the disparity is because women are different... everyone else you're responding to is saying that the issue is with society.
"Diversity of experience, opinion, skillset, or interest is surely something better to strive towards."
This is what my current and most recent employer both strived for. It was by coincidence that it also led to gender/racial diversity as well (because different backgrounds lead to different skillsets and opinions... who knew?). In the end, we had a lot of really good solutions to problems from people starting ideas with "Once when I..." or "I saw something like this before...". We never had anyone say they had a good idea because their ovaries/testes told them or that the color of their skin allowed them to receive transmissions from a far off alien civilization sharing ideas with everyone the right color to listen.
The problem with comparing it to history is that until a few decades ago, it didn't matter what women were interested in - they simply weren't allowed in most fields. However, now women are able to choose any job that men can choose, it's an entirely different ball game.
Since women are now allowed to choose what they want to be, they tend to gravitate towards nursing, teaching and other human interaction fields. Of course societal pressures still play a major role, but I just don't think you can compare it to history of more than a few decades ago.
The IT department in which I work is currently 67% female and 33% male. One of the women is being promoted to manager of another department, so you're saying that we should only look at male replacements in order to bring the disparity closer to being representative of the population as a whole?
And how come I don't see anything about encouraging more men in fields like nursing and teaching?
A lot of studies involving this seem to avoid actually talking to young girls. Of the ones I've talked to, many of them feel insulted that they could get hired because they have a specific set of reproductive organs rather than on their other merits. It reminds me of the pilot episode (I think) of SG-1 where Carter goes off on a rant against O'Neil because "her reproductive organs are on the inside". And it turns out he just dislikes scientists.
You're saying the problem is with people that have identified a potential root cause, rather than just trying to treat the symptoms? I sure hope you're not a doctor. Or a mechanic. Or an engineer. Or in IT. Or any field that requires solving problems for that matter.
Why is it a problem? Not every lopsided gender/race/etc statistic is indicative of a problem. Sometimes it just means that men and women have different interests, or different strengths and weaknesses.
A problem would be if there were plenty of women in the field and employers were intentionally passing over them. However, if the issue is that there simply aren't a lot of women interested in a field, therefore fewer women are employed, then there isn't a problem.
If you try to fix a problem that doesn't exist, you're more likely to make it into a problem.
Of my 20 or so first cousins, only a little less than half have the same last name as I do, and that's largely because they're mostly males descended from my paternal grandfather. The rest of them have last names with origins from all over the globe. On my maternal side, I have nobody with the same last name as I do. Identifying relatives by name is a pretty poor way to do it.
But at the same time, incest increases the chances of the remaining recessive genetic defects showing up in children and causing problems.
Because nobody should ever do anything if you, personally, won't use it
Ah, the Internet.
Where the men are boys
The women are men
And dissidents are 14 year old Tweeters
**That's how much we back up every single night
When doing an analysis of our storage capacity, I put it in terms of iTunes downloads for management. Worked quite well.
I think the final summary came out to something like "You could listen to iTunes every day at work, all day long, for 19 years and never repeat a song".
Sounds like you have a comparatively high number of potential points of failure compared to the cloud services.
He has a license to kill -9
I like doing stuff like this to put things in terms for other people to understand. However, I buy ground beef by the cow, so for me a gallon of gas is about two pounds of ground beef. My car costs 28 pounds of ground beef to fill the tank and I get paid 8.75 pounds of ground beef per hour (gross). My take-home pay is about one ton of ground beef each month. I just sent Sallie Mae my last student loan payment, roughly 250 pounds of ground beef (down from six tons of ground beef two years ago). However, I still owe almost four tons of ground beef on my car, but it's KBB value is close to six tons of ground beef so that's good.
You're right about what I meant. The original poster was asking "what kind of citizen"? and I gave a few examples of them. However, as with the other examples, these are a small (but very vocal) minority of the overall population and in a true democracy would have almost no say in matters. However, there are people that think the big money CEOs shouldn't get any say, effectively denying them their rights as a citizen. I think they should get the same say as any other citizen ("one person, one vote" so to speak). When it comes to matters of economy, they may be more important because of their relative impact but when it comes to what is essentially a civil rights issue, then everybody should be held as an equal because my personal opinion is that civil rights trump economics... a free population is more important than a wealthy population.