Do you turn off your displays when you leave the office? My coworkers always leave them on, and it drives me nuts.
OTOH, I have no problems leaving my CPU running - it takes long enough to boot up that I'm willing to contribute to global warming
Funny, both drive me nuts.
And you really don't have much room to talk...that CPU you keep running is eating a HELL of alot more power than those monitors (especially if they're LCD). And most monitors have auto-powerdown modes anyways after a long period of idleness.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip
Dangerous words.
How bout convenience? Loading clips is a pain in the ass, especially squeezing the last couple into the clip. The larger the clip, the less often you need to do the pain in the ass loading.
To take that one step further, want a legitimate reason for silencers/suppressors (also illegal)? Comfort. Even with earplugs, guns are f%^%ing loud, and you can barely hear another person talking. When shooting these things at a range/hunting/what-have-you, it'd be damn nice to have something like a silencer for comfort.
Now do either of these legitimate reasons outweigh the downsides to allowing such devices? Maybe not, but you just asked for a legitimate reason, and there you go.
First lemme say that I respect a liberal who can recognize that 9/11 is garbage.
I just want to dispute a few of your facts though, as most of them seem to be economic related (deficit, jobs, out-sourcing, wages).
Most economic arguments regarding presidents are silly and irrelevant. All-in-all, no president really has THAT much control over the freight train that is the economy.
For example, Clinton served under a booming economy (think dot-com bubble), and did not have to suffer much of the backlash of the bubble bursting. Clinton also didn't have any wars during his administration. Argue all you want about Iraq, but Afghanistan was an unavoidable war, and wars cost lots and lots of money.
Now that said, I don't like W that much. Sadly, I don't like Kerry either, so I have no clue who to vote for. But I don't hold the economy against Bush. It's not totally his fault.
A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view
And that is why they are not facts. Real people and real events are facts. But when you inject ANY sort of "point-of-view" or opinion by unilaterally splicing details together and misrepresenting the facts to further your own end, you leave the realm of facts and enter propaganda/fiction/bullshit/lies. If Moore's "facts" were truly as strong and obvious as he claims they are, they should stand alone without the need for the blatent misrepresentation he uses that makes him no better than the smear artists on either side (ie Limbaugh)
The only cause for celebration (their words, not mine...) is more money for a questionable product. I'm not judging the quality of this new optical mouse, just wondering what would make it worth the money (if you "buy", you get links for prices ranging from $25 to $31). Sure it may look pretty, but really, it's another mouse with another pitch from MS about why you should buy THEIRS! Come one, really! A museum piece? I don't think so.
People pay for "aesthetics" all the time. Just look at any Mac user drooling over his latest "bitchin-lookin" monitor/computer/etc.
Is that expensive titanium frame/pulsing light/what-have-you serving a _functional_ purpose? (and yes, I've heard people praising such things all the time...i liken them to "ricers" who salivate over neon kits on their cars)
Look at "American Pie", "Scary Movie" and the slew of other (shitty) teenage films. They're evidently targeted at those that idolize the teenage years of life - namely, middle schoolers.
Ya know, though I'd agree there's a whole slew of "shitty" teenage movies, I definitely wouldn't rate American Pie as one of them. Can't Hardly Wait was another excellent "teen" movie, one of the first of the modern genre if I'm not mistaken.
And many people, including those in their college years/post college years like to remember with longing or at least fond remembrance the goofiness and random sexual proclivities of their youth (face it, college is alot of the same to the most degree, only with more booze and even less sense in alot of cases). So I also don't agree that these movies only appeal (or are targeting only) at middle schoolers.
Re:playing the lottery is not stupid
on
Odds-on Science
·
· Score: 1
The point is that in order to be able to get excited playing lottery, you have to be bad at math. Let's suppose I offer you a heads or tails game with fair 50-50 probability split for both options. If you win, I pay you $1 (one US dollar), if I win, you pay me $100 (a hundred US dollars). You won't get excited by this game - at least not in a pleasant way. You'll rather say "what kind of a crooked game is this?". The point is that all the lotteries and casino games are as much crooked as this game, but they try to hide it in complex score counting systems. This scheme works good enough for weak minds, but I for one couldn't feel any "excitement" playing a fundamentally crooked game. I can be excited playing poker with a trusted friend, when I know it's just luck and betting strategies for both of us, but there's no point of playing if I know that he has a hidden ace under the table. That's lottery for a math-savvy person.
No sir, it is you who don't understand. For there are _plenty_ of ecstatic people who are now millions and living the free life because they decided to play the lotto. What the lottery means to me is the slimmest chance of instant happiness (forgoing the debate of "money doesn't buy happiness")...simply throwing away 1 dollar a week, 52 bucks a year that would have otherwise probably been pissed away on beer or 1 bad stock purchase, I can feel that maybe, just maybe, I can wake up tomorrow and never show up to my shitty job ever again. It's not a matter of math, it's not a matter of probability. We "smarter" people who still appreciate the lotto understand how absurd the odds are (that's why we don't spend more than a dollar). The point is that people STILL win, many of whom did the exact same thing (buy 1 ticket just in the hope of "cheating" your way into a fortune) and pulled it off
I like some of the monster hits, but I don't need to hear them 5 times/day all over the fm dial.
I'm in total agreeance there.
There's alot of newer songs I like alot, but get overplayed so much that I eventually grow to dislike them. But this more of an an argument against local radio stations, not record companies. So the blame really rests primarily on your local DJs.
Because it has been proven time and time again by artists who had to fight tooth and nail to get their first airplay only to become an overnight success.
There's millions of "hopefuls" who think they have talent flocking to the record industry looking for easy money (just look at all the crappy singers that audition for shows like American Idol). There's only so many record companies, and they only have so much time.
Of course there's going to be "tooth and nail" competition. Hell, I heard they turned away alot of GOOD singers in the latest competition, simply because they can only take so many.
Yeah, it's popular because the fatcats decide that they're going to make someone a star.
Who has been "made" a star?
To bring up American Idol again as a perfect example. Three seasons running and where have those people's careers gone? Clay is probably the only one whose album really took off (and frankly I think he's the only one that deserved it). The winner of the first show you never hear about (even her movie flopped). I've never heard any of their "hits" on the radio. Is this not what this show is supposed to be doing? "Making" a star? I certainly don't see it happening at any incredible rate. I think many of them have the talent, but the canned "original" songs that are being generated for them by the show SUCK. These are the same "repetitive" songs you claim are supposed to "instantly be liked by the masses." Well, I certainly haven't been hearing them, nor would I want to. I think the public agrees...that's why the shit ISN'T ON THE RADIO. Clear-cut case of public determining what they like, not the other way around.
Anyways, from a strictly financial standpoint, why would record companies waste their money bringing a sub-par singer up to spec when they could just recruit a good one with good talent and good lyrics? Face it, whether you like it or not, a large portion of the singers you claim are "industry-generated" actually have talent, vocal or otherwise.
As far as what they're singing sounding repetitive, or all the songs being the same, let me welcome you to this new concept called a "genre". To me, all country music sounds the same. Does that give me privy to discount all the talent present in THAT market segment?
It's different strokes for different folks. The "sound" of popular music may not appeal to you, but it appeals to others.
I've always wondered. What would you do if your obscure "better" music DID get airplay and exposure and everyone started to like it? Would it suddenly be labeled the new "popular" music? Would you then be forced to hate it for being overplayed and enjoyed by the masses? ANY genre can be replicated and mass produced. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean that people are no longer allowed to have an actual valid appreciation of the sound.
When you're in your twice-a-day commute, you eventually get complacant and stop paying attention.
I disagree somewhat.
The kind of complacency you speak of happens primarily (if not only) in slow-going drivers.
I'm a fairly fast, aggressive driver (though I still use signals, am courteous to faster traffic, and use passing lanes as they're meant to be used). Driving at such a speed _requires_ alot of attention. Anyways, you never have time to be "complacent" because you're always looking for the next fastest path through traffic (I wonder how many drivers out there actually plan their driving paths up to a half-mile ahead as they're supposed to)
However, when a ticket I had 2 years ago forced me to slow down and essentially drive the speed limit, I found myself MUCH MUCH more complacent than before. With cruise control on and no real necessity to actually pay attention to the road, I found my reaction time drastically slashed. It scared me actually. I felt as if I had turned into a bad driver. I actually feared for my own safety at times.
Now that the ticket is gone and I can drive at the much safer higher speed, I feel much better and I've regained alot of the road focus I lost.
They would like other stuff too, if it got a reasonable amount of exposure. It doesn't get that exposure because of the way things are.
How do you know?
Such a claim is just as arrogant and assuming as one who says the opposite.
Personally I've had alot of exposure to tons of genres, from oldies to rave to industrial to jap pop. You name it, I've probably heard something like it. And frankly, I _still_ prefer most popular music to the "niche" music markets that some snobs claim to be "superior music". And I say "most" because there _are_ a few gems amongst the more obscure music.
Still, I agree...popular music is popular for a reason.
The "repetitive brainwashing" conpiracy-theory argument against popular music is all horseshit.
I'd prefer not to have apps load on boot unless I tell them to load on boot, thank you very much. I don't need either my RAM or swap being soaked by an app I haven't given explicit permission to load.
But then, that may be why I don't live in a Windows world.
Another option of course would be to simply disable prefetching.
What? Don't know how to configure a Windows machine? I wouldn't say it's any more obscure than your typical *nix system
that Dreamcast was the first system to do all this.
Once again, that certainly doesn't precede April 1999 (Dreamcast was released in September of 1999).
I do find it kind of silly that people can patent ideas without even a prototype. Hell, if that kind of bullshit is allowable, I'll patent cold fusion and flying cars right now.
Man, you really need to take some classes in investing, because you don't understand how stocks work at all.
I missed no points.
If you'll read MY post again, you'll see that I'm pointing out that an investment in an evil company can HINDER the company just as easily as it could help them. The only thing you're purchasing is a voice, and you can use that voice for change or for support.
Financially that company gets NOTHING. Let me re-iterate them...my 1000 shares are worth ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH to the company in question. Do you get that? There is no "selling out" involved.
If anything, NOT buying into the company and letting the evil shareholders do evil things is alot more abhorrent than buying in and attempting to change the company.
I wonder how many of the analysts who scoffed at Google's potential value of $33bn rely on it every day to research other companies
They had (and have) good reason to scoff.
The market does an amazingly good job of valuing a company on its own. Google shares have been floating between the $97 and $103 range pretty much all day. And that's with LOTS of volume buying and selling. I'd say the market did a pretty good job of determining the present value of Google, and its well below 33 billion.
I'd still be wary of buying into it though, unless you want a long-term growth stock. I disagree with the evaluations that Google will be your typical high-risk tech stock. Google shares are currently priced "about right" for the state of the company...they aren't overvlaued or undervalued...that means that to go up, it's going to require company growth.
Google, though a brilliant company, still has a limited market segment (and growing competition). I'm not sure what direction they're going to go in, but I have a feeling it'll be slow-going. Oh, that and I've a feeling there will be a somewhat substantial selloff in the first 3 months or so after the hype dies off and people don't see this thing skyrocketting.
Besides what is your soul worth? Personally I didn't invest in defense contractors right after 9-11 although I know some people who did (and did very well at it.) Instead I gave away money to different charities, I will never regret that.
Ya know, I once thought this way too, but there is a fallacy in that kind of thinking. Investing in a company doesn't give the company a dime. They've already made money on those shares, your money is doing nothing but trading around in an investing "limbo." Having your dollars invested in them doesn't help them anymore than if you had your dollars invested in Google or IBM or something else. It's a moral "null"
In fact, if anything my soul would feel better, as owning a part of that company would mean I would have a say, however small that say might be, in the future of the company.
Yeah, they're of the same breed as the men who whine they don't have any luck with women because they are "nice guys" and not "assholes." The reason they have no luck is that they're wimps who never stand up for what they want
True for some, not for others.
Women really will take the asshole over the nice guy, mainly because being disregarded/mistreated/ignored is highly valued to a woman. They like the game and like to "work" for affection. Most nice guys are open with their feelings and treasure the women freely and openly. This is boring to women, who find the indifferent attitude of the assholes to be mysterious, exotic, and thrilling.
It disgusted me to my core playing that game to get a girl, but it worked. Indifference paid off where respect and diligence (and confidence) got me nothing
Believe me, the nice guys have a reason to whine. Women are f%^%&# up.
I'm going to take a funny stance on this subject. Normally I would be annoyed by this sort of thing, but something occured to me when I read this/. article. Because Adbar is *not* spyware, I'm going to install it. I think people should support advertizing projects that take the high moral road. I'm going to reward these guys for staying legit and we'll see how it turns out. I wouldn't mind Google ads on pages I'm surfing, because there might be cool products or services I can buy related to the stuff I'm looking at.
That's not a funny stance at all.
In fact, if it wasn't for dumbass media/ad conglomerates cramming spam advertising down our throats for years, maybe we'd have grown up seeing intelligent market adventising as a boon rather than the curse that society has made of it.
A silent PC is indeed a nice thing to have but what infuriates me, sometimes more than the noise itself, is having to wait for a PC to boot. Why can't somebody make a desktop PC that instantly (or almost instantly) powers up to its previous state? Surely one can use very low power battery back memory to store the system's state when the power is turned off, and then restore it when the power is restored. Does this technology exist?
Yeah, it's called the "Hibernate" feature. Also frequently known as "Standby". Laptop users use it all the time.
I know some Windows XP desktop users that like it as well, though I don't like it myself.
I've not seen any evidence that women are somehow biologially inherently uninterested in the computer science field.
There's plenty...it's called reality and the existing job market ratio.
You see, that's evidence for us whereas you like to use it to support your own far-fetched conclusions.
Honestly? I don't care about men in nursing
That's because you obviously don't care about a factual argument, because that's a vary obvious and relevant counterpoint to any sort of "gender ratio work environment" argument.
If you actually wanted to logically and reasonably debate the issue rather than spout emotionally about something, you could offer a reasonable counterpoint instead of dismissing the statement.
both because I don't think society has much to gain by pushing men to accept lower-income jobs (next, lets try to get affluent white kids to take up a career as janitors! That'd be useful!)
OK, first this draws the assumption that nurse job roles are lower paid than CS job roles, which is one hell of a leap of logic. I believe starting nurses on average makes damn near, if not more, than starting CS job roles. I know my nurse girlfriend is making more than I am now. Specialty nurses, like nurse anastheistists (sp?) make in the realm of 100K+ starting, and that only takes like 1-2 extra years of schooling to get the masters.
I think you have alot to learn about the nursing field if you equate the salary and/or competence level to that of a janitor. Maybe you should take stock of your own prejudices before forming a strong opinion about others.
As for everything you say about IT, I could bring up the traditional stereotypes of "CS dropout" and/or "Management degree w/ a progamming class". Many IT progams across the nation are just that, and you'd have to do a damn good job proving to me the degrees are somehow comparable.
I don't know about you, but if I knew that going into a particular field would result in the above happening on a daily basis, and that my intelligence would constantly be under-estimated by my peers, I would probably want to pick a different field. I would want to learn and work somewhere where I would not be perceived as a token exception to the rule.
3 of your 5 complaints mention affirmative action as a problem, and you want more affirmative action (ala specific minority group targeting) to fix it?
Most of that disgust/seething hatred/disrepsect/what-have-you is caused from the prejudiced hiring practices that DO occur in today's society. You may not like hearing it, but YES it is easier to get in to a good school/job as a minority than a "white male", and females are certainly a minority in the CS field.
Seems to me the solution to the problem is to eliminate affirmative action and just have people compete on a zero-based skill-to-skill assessment. LORD what I wouldn't give for that to be a reality. I'll go toe-to-toe with anybody, male or female, but shit like this pisses me off...favortism, quotas, assumptions that some sort of bias is the driving factor for the ratio being as it is. These things are just as annoying to me as the stuff you listed is to you.
If you're really that good at what you do, then it should be obvious through your actions, speech, and work. It's virtually impossible to belittle someone who is outclassing and outshining you at everything you do. So why is this even an issue? Just do your job and let your work speak for itself.
It's a joke law, normally used only when appending it to other charges to shoot for higher jail time/penalties for felons.
But I too await the day we have "obstruction traps" akin to "speed traps"...and you wouldn't even need a radar gun. Just look for the 3 miles of backed up traffic and pick the guy in the front left *smirk*
Slashdot Mirror
And you really don't have much room to talk...that CPU you keep running is eating a HELL of alot more power than those monitors (especially if they're LCD). And most monitors have auto-powerdown modes anyways after a long period of idleness.
Dangerous words.
How bout convenience? Loading clips is a pain in the ass, especially squeezing the last couple into the clip. The larger the clip, the less often you need to do the pain in the ass loading.
To take that one step further, want a legitimate reason for silencers/suppressors (also illegal)? Comfort. Even with earplugs, guns are f%^%ing loud, and you can barely hear another person talking. When shooting these things at a range/hunting/what-have-you, it'd be damn nice to have something like a silencer for comfort.
Now do either of these legitimate reasons outweigh the downsides to allowing such devices? Maybe not, but you just asked for a legitimate reason, and there you go.
I just want to dispute a few of your facts though, as most of them seem to be economic related (deficit, jobs, out-sourcing, wages).
Most economic arguments regarding presidents are silly and irrelevant. All-in-all, no president really has THAT much control over the freight train that is the economy.
For example, Clinton served under a booming economy (think dot-com bubble), and did not have to suffer much of the backlash of the bubble bursting. Clinton also didn't have any wars during his administration. Argue all you want about Iraq, but Afghanistan was an unavoidable war, and wars cost lots and lots of money.
Now that said, I don't like W that much. Sadly, I don't like Kerry either, so I have no clue who to vote for. But I don't hold the economy against Bush. It's not totally his fault.
And that is why they are not facts. Real people and real events are facts. But when you inject ANY sort of "point-of-view" or opinion by unilaterally splicing details together and misrepresenting the facts to further your own end, you leave the realm of facts and enter propaganda/fiction/bullshit/lies. If Moore's "facts" were truly as strong and obvious as he claims they are, they should stand alone without the need for the blatent misrepresentation he uses that makes him no better than the smear artists on either side (ie Limbaugh)
You mixed it up!
It's Omicron Persei 8! (I'm not sure if it was intended, but I always hear it as Omicron "pussy i ate")
hehe...now THAT's humor
Is that expensive titanium frame/pulsing light/what-have-you serving a _functional_ purpose? (and yes, I've heard people praising such things all the time...i liken them to "ricers" who salivate over neon kits on their cars)
And many people, including those in their college years/post college years like to remember with longing or at least fond remembrance the goofiness and random sexual proclivities of their youth (face it, college is alot of the same to the most degree, only with more booze and even less sense in alot of cases). So I also don't agree that these movies only appeal (or are targeting only) at middle schoolers.
Preach on, fellow misanthrope!
I'm in total agreeance there.
There's alot of newer songs I like alot, but get overplayed so much that I eventually grow to dislike them. But this more of an an argument against local radio stations, not record companies. So the blame really rests primarily on your local DJs.
There's millions of "hopefuls" who think they have talent flocking to the record industry looking for easy money (just look at all the crappy singers that audition for shows like American Idol).
There's only so many record companies, and they only have so much time.
Of course there's going to be "tooth and nail" competition. Hell, I heard they turned away alot of GOOD singers in the latest competition, simply because they can only take so many.
Yeah, it's popular because the fatcats decide that they're going to make someone a star.
Who has been "made" a star?
To bring up American Idol again as a perfect example. Three seasons running and where have those people's careers gone? Clay is probably the only one whose album really took off (and frankly I think he's the only one that deserved it). The winner of the first show you never hear about (even her movie flopped). I've never heard any of their "hits" on the radio. Is this not what this show is supposed to be doing? "Making" a star? I certainly don't see it happening at any incredible rate. I think many of them have the talent, but the canned "original" songs that are being generated for them by the show SUCK. These are the same "repetitive" songs you claim are supposed to "instantly be liked by the masses." Well, I certainly haven't been hearing them, nor would I want to. I think the public agrees...that's why the shit ISN'T ON THE RADIO. Clear-cut case of public determining what they like, not the other way around.
Anyways, from a strictly financial standpoint, why would record companies waste their money bringing a sub-par singer up to spec when they could just recruit a good one with good talent and good lyrics?
Face it, whether you like it or not, a large portion of the singers you claim are "industry-generated" actually have talent, vocal or otherwise.
As far as what they're singing sounding repetitive, or all the songs being the same, let me welcome you to this new concept called a "genre". To me, all country music sounds the same. Does that give me privy to discount all the talent present in THAT market segment?
It's different strokes for different folks. The "sound" of popular music may not appeal to you, but it appeals to others.
I've always wondered. What would you do if your obscure "better" music DID get airplay and exposure and everyone started to like it? Would it suddenly be labeled the new "popular" music? Would you then be forced to hate it for being overplayed and enjoyed by the masses? ANY genre can be replicated and mass produced. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean that people are no longer allowed to have an actual valid appreciation of the sound.
I disagree somewhat.
The kind of complacency you speak of happens primarily (if not only) in slow-going drivers.
I'm a fairly fast, aggressive driver (though I still use signals, am courteous to faster traffic, and use passing lanes as they're meant to be used). Driving at such a speed _requires_ alot of attention. Anyways, you never have time to be "complacent" because you're always looking for the next fastest path through traffic (I wonder how many drivers out there actually plan their driving paths up to a half-mile ahead as they're supposed to)
However, when a ticket I had 2 years ago forced me to slow down and essentially drive the speed limit, I found myself MUCH MUCH more complacent than before. With cruise control on and no real necessity to actually pay attention to the road, I found my reaction time drastically slashed. It scared me actually. I felt as if I had turned into a bad driver. I actually feared for my own safety at times.
Now that the ticket is gone and I can drive at the much safer higher speed, I feel much better and I've regained alot of the road focus I lost.
How do you know?
Such a claim is just as arrogant and assuming as one who says the opposite.
Personally I've had alot of exposure to tons of genres, from oldies to rave to industrial to jap pop. You name it, I've probably heard something like it. And frankly, I _still_ prefer most popular music to the "niche" music markets that some snobs claim to be "superior music". And I say "most" because there _are_ a few gems amongst the more obscure music.
Still, I agree...popular music is popular for a reason.
The "repetitive brainwashing" conpiracy-theory argument against popular music is all horseshit.
What? Don't know how to configure a Windows machine?
I wouldn't say it's any more obscure than your typical *nix system
Once again, that certainly doesn't precede April 1999 (Dreamcast was released in September of 1999).
I do find it kind of silly that people can patent ideas without even a prototype.
Hell, if that kind of bullshit is allowable, I'll patent cold fusion and flying cars right now.
I missed no points.
If you'll read MY post again, you'll see that I'm pointing out that an investment in an evil company can HINDER the company just as easily as it could help them. The only thing you're purchasing is a voice, and you can use that voice for change or for support.
Financially that company gets NOTHING. Let me re-iterate them...my 1000 shares are worth ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH to the company in question.
Do you get that? There is no "selling out" involved.
If anything, NOT buying into the company and letting the evil shareholders do evil things is alot more abhorrent than buying in and attempting to change the company.
The market does an amazingly good job of valuing a company on its own.
Google shares have been floating between the $97 and $103 range pretty much all day. And that's with LOTS of volume buying and selling. I'd say the market did a pretty good job of determining the present value of Google, and its well below 33 billion.
I'd still be wary of buying into it though, unless you want a long-term growth stock. I disagree with the evaluations that Google will be your typical high-risk tech stock. Google shares are currently priced "about right" for the state of the company...they aren't overvlaued or undervalued...that means that to go up, it's going to require company growth.
Google, though a brilliant company, still has a limited market segment (and growing competition). I'm not sure what direction they're going to go in, but I have a feeling it'll be slow-going. Oh, that and I've a feeling there will be a somewhat substantial selloff in the first 3 months or so after the hype dies off and people don't see this thing skyrocketting.
In fact, if anything my soul would feel better, as owning a part of that company would mean I would have a say, however small that say might be, in the future of the company.
Women really will take the asshole over the nice guy, mainly because being disregarded/mistreated/ignored is highly valued to a woman. They like the game and like to "work" for affection. Most nice guys are open with their feelings and treasure the women freely and openly. This is boring to women, who find the indifferent attitude of the assholes to be mysterious, exotic, and thrilling.
It disgusted me to my core playing that game to get a girl, but it worked. Indifference paid off where respect and diligence (and confidence) got me nothing
Believe me, the nice guys have a reason to whine.
Women are f%^%&# up.
In fact, if it wasn't for dumbass media/ad conglomerates cramming spam advertising down our throats for years, maybe we'd have grown up seeing intelligent market adventising as a boon rather than the curse that society has made of it.
Laptop users use it all the time.
I know some Windows XP desktop users that like it as well, though I don't like it myself.
There's plenty...it's called reality and the existing job market ratio.
You see, that's evidence for us whereas you like to use it to support your own far-fetched conclusions.
Honestly? I don't care about men in nursing
That's because you obviously don't care about a factual argument, because that's a vary obvious and relevant counterpoint to any sort of "gender ratio work environment" argument.
If you actually wanted to logically and reasonably debate the issue rather than spout emotionally about something, you could offer a reasonable counterpoint instead of dismissing the statement.
both because I don't think society has much to gain by pushing men to accept lower-income jobs (next, lets try to get affluent white kids to take up a career as janitors! That'd be useful!)
OK, first this draws the assumption that nurse job roles are lower paid than CS job roles, which is one hell of a leap of logic. I believe starting nurses on average makes damn near, if not more, than starting CS job roles. I know my nurse girlfriend is making more than I am now. Specialty nurses, like nurse anastheistists (sp?) make in the realm of 100K+ starting, and that only takes like 1-2 extra years of schooling to get the masters.
I think you have alot to learn about the nursing field if you equate the salary and/or competence level to that of a janitor. Maybe you should take stock of your own prejudices before forming a strong opinion about others.
As for everything you say about IT, I could bring up the traditional stereotypes of "CS dropout" and/or "Management degree w/ a progamming class". Many IT progams across the nation are just that, and you'd have to do a damn good job proving to me the degrees are somehow comparable.
Most of that disgust/seething hatred/disrepsect/what-have-you is caused from the prejudiced hiring practices that DO occur in today's society.
You may not like hearing it, but YES it is easier to get in to a good school/job as a minority than a "white male", and females are certainly a minority in the CS field.
Seems to me the solution to the problem is to eliminate affirmative action and just have people compete on a zero-based skill-to-skill assessment.
LORD what I wouldn't give for that to be a reality.
I'll go toe-to-toe with anybody, male or female, but shit like this pisses me off...favortism, quotas, assumptions that some sort of bias is the driving factor for the ratio being as it is. These things are just as annoying to me as the stuff you listed is to you.
If you're really that good at what you do, then it should be obvious through your actions, speech, and work. It's virtually impossible to belittle someone who is outclassing and outshining you at everything you do. So why is this even an issue? Just do your job and let your work speak for itself.
But sadly never enforced.
It's a joke law, normally used only when appending it to other charges to shoot for higher jail time/penalties for felons.
But I too await the day we have "obstruction traps" akin to "speed traps"...and you wouldn't even need a radar gun.
Just look for the 3 miles of backed up traffic and pick the guy in the front left *smirk*