But I agree with you: As long as there are sexists like you telling women to get back in the kitchen because math and science are just too hard for their poor widdle bwains, then yeah, these campaigns are silly and useless - because any intelligent woman will take one look at the line of bullshit you're trying to feed her, turn 180 degrees, and walk away.
What wonderful strawman you are trying there.
What he's arguing for isn't barring women from entering such professions, but that there's no need for specific recruitment. We don't need more female scientists, we need more good scientists regardless of gender. And I don't think that'll be achieved by asinine videos like this one.
As for your extraordinary evidence, it's right there. They aren't choosing it, hence, they probably don't want to - same as a person who doesn't buy a hamburger doesn't want one.
Your analysis assumes:
1) They don't get some tax refunded. I don't know about Illinois tax code, but if you make $1320/month, there's no way you're not going to get all of your withholding back.
Well, good he didn't.. let's say that he loses 200 bucks less. Given the above analysis didn't consider other assorted living expenses, you know, like water , (gaseous) gas and electricity, congratulations - if you get tax returns , you can actually make ends meet.
2) They can't get a roommate. People shack up all the time. It's actually recently (post WWII) that we didn't continue living with our families before we were ready to start our own families, and by that time you had a "real" job.
Not everyone is on a well-enough relation with their family to make this work. Besides, what if there aren't any suitable jobs available from around the locale your family lives in? You might as well assume that the person also has inheritance from a rich uncle to live on.
3) They must have transportation. I thought the benefit of a city is that you can walk where you need to?
I thought that too, the problem is that there's a difference between availability of services (where it's true) and availability of work (where it isn't). It isn't always possible to live close enough, and while walking is great, doesn't work beyond a radius of maybe ten miles.
Again, it's entitlement mentality. It's hard to make due, but minimum wage isn't supposed to be a sustainable wage.
Sorry,but if wanting to live like a person when you are doing the work of one is "entitlement mentality" then fuck yes I am entitled. Especially when looking at how banks and similar scum got a free government handout to pay for their screwups.
It's supposed to be an entry level thing, the minimum in which you must pay your employees otherwise it's downright exploitative. But even if someone is a fuck up or felon, you can survive with some hardship but who says the government has to make sure your life is nice and cush?
Congratulations! You got it spot-on , because it *is* downright exploitative!
Let me fill you in. The purpose of a minimum wage is to make sure that the jobs that are offered pay enough to be able to live on. If that doesn't happen, what you get is either the government having to chip in , and pay a chunk of people's paychecks, making them a machine that takes money from a taxpayer and stuffs them in private individual's pockets - the government might as well employ the people directly and the profit from a state-run company goes back into the budget thus reducing need for taxation
Or, the person in question has to work two jobs, meaning the increase in job availablility doesn't really happen because now everyone down there needs more than one job, and needs both near enough so he can commute, and furthermore, this is just a fancy way to bypass 8 hour worktime, which is mandated by law - it's just done in a way that makes it look voluntary.
Therefore, the logical solution is to set a minimum wage that makes one able to live sustainably.
The problem with the logic right here is that the cost certain luxury (as in, not needed for survival) goods, say a cell phone, X-Box and a few more such trinkets in the US is comparatively low to the cost of basic needs, say, healthcare , or housing.
This means that if you are poor enough to not be able to afford any of those, you will be majorly screwed up if anything at all goes wrong with your health, and can end up in the street quite quickly, too. I don't know, but I don't think that anyone who's employed, i.e. doing productive work for the society should live like that, especially not while others swill champagne and carry their arses in Armani suits.
I understand where your coming from wrt the indutrial-military complex, but had we done what you suggest from the begining the Magna Carta would never have been written, let alone agreed to by the monarchy. It was wealthy merchants who forced the king to devolve some power to the people by refusing to fund his costly wars. To a lesser and more subtle extent, most of todays multi-nationals are also using their influence on politics to keep nations at peace in order to protect their own interests.
When you say A, say the B as well.
At the time you are referring to, the merchants were a progressive force within feudal society, however, today they aren't - in fact, to a lesser extent , the banks and multinationals are behaving a lot like the royalty did for example back in the times of the French Revolution.
Nope, that's a stupid thing to do.
Taking it further on to enemy land to ensure they won't do it again is also fully justified. Which is why I support US presence in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq.
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
The issue , and reason it's unethical is that there's an uneven balance of power. Hardly any employer has gone bankrupt due to employees leaving as a result of poor treatment (rather than them fucking up and running out of money), while people that don't put up with bullshit are running a solid risk of ending in the streets. The employee is replaceable , and hence, can't really set the conditions, unless he's in a highly skilled, and rare position of expertise. Which is why unions are such an awesome thing - they allow the employees to actually form a credible threat to whoever's screwing them over.
For a limited time, which keeps getting longer and longer....
In Czechoslovakia, after the soviets came in 1968 as a "temporary measure to enforce national security and prevent contrarevolution" , a joke sprung up - the grading of the word long, in new, was to be long, longer, longest and temporary.
I think we can now say it's long, longer, longest and limited.
And then you can take the person who took an unfortunate mortgage and point that there are kids who have gotten into massive trouble for doing nothing much, and will be fucked over for the rest of the life
Pointing to a bigger injustice isn't an argument against solving a current one. See... what pisses me off to no end is that there are actual thieves, muggers , drunk drivers and others such that do actually damaging , harmful things, yet don't get as fucked over
Also , your mention of jailtime is ridiculous. Lemme tell you - I'd rather serve a year or two than be saddled with half a million dollar debt that some old fuck in a wig decided is appropriate damages.
And that's why the Supreme Court should act too - it's explicit have your cake and eat it too mentality - the standard of proof is such as of a civil court, but there are punitive damages like in a criminal process. Fuck them with a rake, that's what.
This...
The software would probably drive me nuts.
Thing is, I wonder whether it's picking out legitimate errors, or mistakes.
If mistakes (as in, miscalculation, or forgetting a term from previous equation) then why change the question? Beeping to alert the student "gee , you prob'ly fucked up over there" works better.
If errors, then it's absolutely horrid, because for one of those, the thing you learn from it is what approach won't work, and (hopefully) why doesn't it, which is friggin' important. It's what separates understanding from just learning by rote - both are useful, but have different applications.
The article presents evidence that human diet seems to correlate with a shorter breastfeeding period than that for animals which are quite a lot like us but eat something completely different
If you believe this is of equal weight than someone pulling pompous claims out of their arse, and attempting to blame "patriarchy" for yet another from a line of utterly disjoint things, then you have been thoroughly hoodwinked by ideology
There was an old joke in the eastern block where i'm from that the main problems of a socialist society are five - spring, summer, autumn, winter, and western imperialism. Feminists seem to take the stance this was poking fun of up to eleven.
It allows for faster brain development, and thus shorter infancy. Given the trouble women have with taking maternity leave, and given how long making a kid into a productive adult takes *anyways* it's an extremely good thing the period needed isn't any longer.
Probability theory HASN'T failed us
For one,it doesn't declare an accident as impossible.
For two, accidents are unlikely - over the 58 years nuclear reactors exist (1954 in Obninsk was first) there hasn't been much significant disasters despite their wide usage. Hell, air travel has probably killed more people and noone's into banning airplanes.
Um, what?
Stochastic means random, with calculable probability.
An example would be metal fatigue, given a probability density function for load stress - it's definitely stochastic, but it isn't proportional to the load to the first power, rather, something like to the power of four, never mind that below certain values, you don't get fatigue in steels at all.
I agree, I think - problem is I replied to the wrong comment.
A polynomial with a non-constant grade, i.e. one that depends on what you are processing is clearly an exponential function, x^f(x) = e^lnxf(x) and then what you say applies.
Firstly, no.
I said it once, but have to repeat - development of new algorithms just isn't what makes producing commercial software expensive. The main thing is that it has to be useful to a large enough set of customers, understandable by them,and it has to have commercial-grade reliability, too. Hence, hours going into stuff starting by market research and ending by betatests.
Furthermore, most patents in the area do the opposite - they stifle progress, by banning other people from using the same ideas, even independently developed, and most often it is either obvious shit, or stuff that has long existed. Your argument boils down to. "I also said shooting at people randomly tends to mostly result in senseless death, but every now and then, I kill a rapist."
That said, software patents make me wonder. How come there's so much research going on in mathematics when I haven't ever seen a patented equation?
Because that's what algorithms are, you know??
Of course they are outside US patent jurisdiction, Bastet be thanked.
However, you are insinuating that all new algorithms are developed in the US, which is frankly, bullshit.. and with that the pseudoargument falls on its face when put against reality, round one. Also, a lot of such research is and will go on in universities, and that is facilitated, not hindered by lack of patents. Writing software and coming up with clever ideas there is cheap... what's expensive is betatesting and fine-tuning that's needed to turn a program into a commercial product.
Oh, let's look even deeper. Who holds the patents, the programmers who invent the algorithms? No, companies do. Using your logic, they should have zero motivation to improve anything, because frankly, their benefits from improving on something are very , very marginal. Hence, I wonder what use are the patents in the area.
Lastly, there's corporate incentive to invent even when there are no patents - it's that you do gain a temporary edge by implementing something new and useful first, be it your invention or someone else's.
Hmm, and how the fuck do you suppose software companies in countries that don't recognise software patents are still operating?
You, sir have no more credibility than a scientist who attempts to argue for a theory which predicts rocks falling upwards. If evidence stands against your statements, the thing to fix isn't the evidence.
Euros: We'll pass legislation that allows the BSA to rape you, but they have to be reasonable about it, no rectal bleeding and such.
FSF: No! Keep business dick out of the public's ass!
Euros: What if it's just half a dick. That's reasonable as a compromise, right? right?
Seriously. Someone making an outlandish and outright wrong demand isn't grounds for compromise, it's grounds for rejection.
Uhh.. that's a pretty low standard for being "so much better". After all, with the exception of SU-5 artillery, I can barely think of any vehicle that's worse than the one tier below it.
Not entirely. The slides will tend to be to the point (usually. Some do contain excess imagery *) but the problem is, that using replicates tends to make it easy for the lecturer to just read through what's written on the board. And that's what the PPers tend to do, especially since it isn't easy to add anything
Written on transparencies have both kinds - folks that just boringly plow through , and folks like our current Fracture Mechanics, and Electric Drive Systems professors who'll actually derive stuff in writing, ask questions , and talk about lotsa stuff not written on.
* - This apparently tends to be a problem with modern books, I have read somewhere. Given how easier it has gotten to actually print images into text, especially children/young books tend to image-saturate instead of providing solid information in terms of text. Never mind that simplified diagrams are usually that much easier to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
What wonderful strawman you are trying there.
What he's arguing for isn't barring women from entering such professions, but that there's no need for specific recruitment. We don't need more female scientists, we need more good scientists regardless of gender. And I don't think that'll be achieved by asinine videos like this one.
As for your extraordinary evidence, it's right there. They aren't choosing it, hence, they probably don't want to - same as a person who doesn't buy a hamburger doesn't want one.
Well, good he didn't .. let's say that he loses 200 bucks less. Given the above analysis didn't consider other assorted living expenses, you know, like water , (gaseous) gas and electricity, congratulations - if you get tax returns , you can actually make ends meet.
Not everyone is on a well-enough relation with their family to make this work. Besides, what if there aren't any suitable jobs available from around the locale your family lives in? You might as well assume that the person also has inheritance from a rich uncle to live on.
I thought that too, the problem is that there's a difference between availability of services (where it's true) and availability of work (where it isn't). It isn't always possible to live close enough, and while walking is great, doesn't work beyond a radius of maybe ten miles.
Sorry ,but if wanting to live like a person when you are doing the work of one is "entitlement mentality" then fuck yes I am entitled. Especially when looking at how banks and similar scum got a free government handout to pay for their screwups.
Congratulations! You got it spot-on , because it *is* downright exploitative!
Let me fill you in. The purpose of a minimum wage is to make sure that the jobs that are offered pay enough to be able to live on. If that doesn't happen, what you get is either the government having to chip in , and pay a chunk of people's paychecks, making them a machine that takes money from a taxpayer and stuffs them in private individual's pockets - the government might as well employ the people directly and the profit from a state-run company goes back into the budget thus reducing need for taxation
Or, the person in question has to work two jobs, meaning the increase in job availablility doesn't really happen because now everyone down there needs more than one job, and needs both near enough so he can commute, and furthermore, this is just a fancy way to bypass 8 hour worktime, which is mandated by law - it's just done in a way that makes it look voluntary.
Therefore, the logical solution is to set a minimum wage that makes one able to live sustainably.
The problem with the logic right here is that the cost certain luxury (as in, not needed for survival) goods, say a cell phone, X-Box and a few more such trinkets in the US is comparatively low to the cost of basic needs, say, healthcare , or housing.
This means that if you are poor enough to not be able to afford any of those, you will be majorly screwed up if anything at all goes wrong with your health, and can end up in the street quite quickly, too. I don't know, but I don't think that anyone who's employed, i.e. doing productive work for the society should live like that, especially not while others swill champagne and carry their arses in Armani suits.
When you say A, say the B as well.
At the time you are referring to, the merchants were a progressive force within feudal society, however, today they aren't - in fact, to a lesser extent , the banks and multinationals are behaving a lot like the royalty did for example back in the times of the French Revolution.
Nope, that's a stupid thing to do.
Taking it further on to enemy land to ensure they won't do it again is also fully justified.
Which is why I support US presence in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq.
The issue , and reason it's unethical is that there's an uneven balance of power. Hardly any employer has gone bankrupt due to employees leaving as a result of poor treatment (rather than them fucking up and running out of money), while people that don't put up with bullshit are running a solid risk of ending in the streets.
The employee is replaceable , and hence, can't really set the conditions, unless he's in a highly skilled, and rare position of expertise.
Which is why unions are such an awesome thing - they allow the employees to actually form a credible threat to whoever's screwing them over.
For a limited time, which keeps getting longer and longer....
In Czechoslovakia, after the soviets came in 1968 as a "temporary measure to enforce national security and prevent contrarevolution" , a joke sprung up - the grading of the word long, in new, was to be long, longer, longest and temporary.
I think we can now say it's long, longer, longest and limited.
And then you can take the person who took an unfortunate mortgage and point that there are kids who have gotten into massive trouble for doing nothing much, and will be fucked over for the rest of the life
Pointing to a bigger injustice isn't an argument against solving a current one. See... what pisses me off to no end is that there are actual thieves, muggers , drunk drivers and others such that do actually damaging , harmful things, yet don't get as fucked over
Also , your mention of jailtime is ridiculous. Lemme tell you - I'd rather serve a year or two than be saddled with half a million dollar debt that some old fuck in a wig decided is appropriate damages.
And that's why the Supreme Court should act too - it's explicit have your cake and eat it too mentality - the standard of proof is such as of a civil court, but there are punitive damages like in a criminal process. Fuck them with a rake, that's what.
10-year olds? What the hell, you learn this at 6-7.
This...
The software would probably drive me nuts.
Thing is, I wonder whether it's picking out legitimate errors, or mistakes.
If mistakes (as in, miscalculation, or forgetting a term from previous equation) then why change the question? Beeping to alert the student "gee , you prob'ly fucked up over there" works better.
If errors, then it's absolutely horrid, because for one of those, the thing you learn from it is what approach won't work, and (hopefully) why doesn't it, which is friggin' important. It's what separates understanding from just learning by rote - both are useful, but have different applications.
The article presents evidence that human diet seems to correlate with a shorter breastfeeding period than that for animals which are quite a lot like us but eat something completely different
If you believe this is of equal weight than someone pulling pompous claims out of their arse, and attempting to blame "patriarchy" for yet another from a line of utterly disjoint things, then you have been thoroughly hoodwinked by ideology
There was an old joke in the eastern block where i'm from that the main problems of a socialist society are five - spring, summer, autumn, winter, and western imperialism. Feminists seem to take the stance this was poking fun of up to eleven.
It allows for faster brain development, and thus shorter infancy. Given the trouble women have with taking maternity leave, and given how long making a kid into a productive adult takes *anyways* it's an extremely good thing the period needed isn't any longer.
If abuses of privileged access all would result in criminals being discovered, I don't particularly give a shit about them.
Probability theory HASN'T failed us ,it doesn't declare an accident as impossible.
For one
For two, accidents are unlikely - over the 58 years nuclear reactors exist (1954 in Obninsk was first) there hasn't been much significant disasters despite their wide usage. Hell, air travel has probably killed more people and noone's into banning airplanes.
Um, what? Stochastic means random, with calculable probability. An example would be metal fatigue, given a probability density function for load stress - it's definitely stochastic, but it isn't proportional to the load to the first power, rather, something like to the power of four, never mind that below certain values, you don't get fatigue in steels at all.
I agree, I think - problem is I replied to the wrong comment.
A polynomial with a non-constant grade, i.e. one that depends on what you are processing is clearly an exponential function, x^f(x) = e^lnxf(x) and then what you say applies.
By this definition, any function is a polynomial because I can do a Taylor expansion of it about any point.
Interesting. Not only have you moved the goalposts, you practically ran away carrying them in a bundle
Firstly, no. ,and it has to have commercial-grade reliability, too. Hence, hours going into stuff starting by market research and ending by betatests.
I said it once, but have to repeat - development of new algorithms just isn't what makes producing commercial software expensive. The main thing is that it has to be useful to a large enough set of customers, understandable by them
Furthermore, most patents in the area do the opposite - they stifle progress, by banning other people from using the same ideas, even independently developed, and most often it is either obvious shit, or stuff that has long existed. Your argument boils down to. "I also said shooting at people randomly tends to mostly result in senseless death, but every now and then, I kill a rapist."
That said, software patents make me wonder. How come there's so much research going on in mathematics when I haven't ever seen a patented equation?
Because that's what algorithms are, you know??
Of course they are outside US patent jurisdiction, Bastet be thanked.
However, you are insinuating that all new algorithms are developed in the US, which is frankly, bullshit.. and with that the pseudoargument falls on its face when put against reality, round one. Also, a lot of such research is and will go on in universities, and that is facilitated, not hindered by lack of patents. Writing software and coming up with clever ideas there is cheap... what's expensive is betatesting and fine-tuning that's needed to turn a program into a commercial product.
Oh, let's look even deeper. Who holds the patents, the programmers who invent the algorithms? No, companies do. Using your logic, they should have zero motivation to improve anything, because frankly, their benefits from improving on something are very , very marginal. Hence, I wonder what use are the patents in the area.
Lastly, there's corporate incentive to invent even when there are no patents - it's that you do gain a temporary edge by implementing something new and useful first, be it your invention or someone else's.
Hmm, and how the fuck do you suppose software companies in countries that don't recognise software patents are still operating?
You, sir have no more credibility than a scientist who attempts to argue for a theory which predicts rocks falling upwards. If evidence stands against your statements, the thing to fix isn't the evidence.
Euros: We'll pass legislation that allows the BSA to rape you, but they have to be reasonable about it, no rectal bleeding and such.
FSF: No! Keep business dick out of the public's ass!
Euros: What if it's just half a dick. That's reasonable as a compromise, right? right?
Seriously. Someone making an outlandish and outright wrong demand isn't grounds for compromise, it's grounds for rejection.
Slovakia didn't sign ACTA either.
Uhh.. that's a pretty low standard for being "so much better". After all, with the exception of SU-5 artillery, I can barely think of any vehicle that's worse than the one tier below it.
Not entirely. The slides will tend to be to the point (usually. Some do contain excess imagery *) but the problem is, that using replicates tends to make it easy for the lecturer to just read through what's written on the board. And that's what the PPers tend to do, especially since it isn't easy to add anything
Written on transparencies have both kinds - folks that just boringly plow through , and folks like our current Fracture Mechanics, and Electric Drive Systems professors who'll actually derive stuff in writing, ask questions , and talk about lotsa stuff not written on.
* - This apparently tends to be a problem with modern books, I have read somewhere. Given how easier it has gotten to actually print images into text, especially children/young books tend to image-saturate instead of providing solid information in terms of text. Never mind that simplified diagrams are usually that much easier to understand.