This isn't really true though. In the 80s, about 30% of CS grads were female. Its declined to around 12% lately.
The lack of female devs can be traced to Academia and HS. We all know how desperate corps are for devs. You could be a gay nazi transgender alien, but if you can sling Ruby, you will be hired for 100k+. Women aren't devs because women aren't studying CS in college. Women aren't studying CS in college because college emphasizes the wrong priorities, and because their parents didn't buy them legos.
There is a problem, but its not in the industry. Its in the homes and schools
Not sure if he is right, but I do agree to an extent. Sending out a clearly unfounded C&C or threat of lawsuit should at least carry a fine with it. Companies have no incentive to weigh the public good right now.
People easily confuse the government shutdown with the threats regarding the debt ceiling.
Lots of people could have cared less about the shutdown, but understood full well the consequences of default. Conflating the two over the ACA was a big mistake. Its my understanding is that the Tea Party aligned members of the RNC were responsible for that, but I could be wrong.
I think a lot of people disagree with your conclusion. I don't think that I should be obligated to work on behalf of someone else's survival if they are UNWILLING to work for themselves. Given that condition, I'd rather let them die.
Just curious, but why is centos never part of these debates? Is it generally not used? Its pretty much Ill I've touched for years, but I never see them in flame wars.
Lets be clear, they are not serving people, they are serving Canadians. Its pretty clear that Nintendo thinks they are the only people in the world foolish enough to buy this turd.
Its not easy, and government is bad at this stuff in the first place.
Which probably means its not a good idea to count on them doing it. The ACA should have tweaked the regs to force existing insurance to cover more people, and left it at that. Depending on government to build and maintain a market is asking for disaster.
Bullshit. The ACA was fully funded and largely untouchable at the federal level. $400m for this system and two years? Please.
Government should not be in the business of business. The only way the ACA could have worked is if there were competing private for profit companies building the exchanges and getting a cut based on volume.
The ACA has some great theory behind it. Assuming that the federal government will be able to operate and maintain a system like this in a cost effective fashion is lunacy. It as bound to fail.
Also don't tell me it was Republican "starve the beast" strategy. The ACA was fully funded and largely untouchable. By any reasonable standard the roughly $400m spent on implementing this was incredibly excessive. If a private company had wanted to build this system for profit, it would have been done for under $100m. The big mistake of the ACA was that it did not allow for the creation of privately run and owned exchanges.
The modern notion of a middle class is a complete aberration, and a bit of a misnomer. The middle class has only really existed since the mid 1900s, and previously no society has ever had one. The American and European middle class only came into existence because of our society's ability to extract wealth from other countries.
The American middle class is in fact part of the global 1%. As America's ability to control foreign economies and resources decreases, the lower echelons of the global 1% who live in America may experience some slight discomfort.
More often then not I see over zealous enforcement of rules that should never have existed in the first place. Disobeying those is the ethical thing to do.
Taking pleasure from these encroachments on individual liberty makes you a toadying-lickspittle.
Cconsider this. I go and raise $1m to start a company, my investors get a 30% stake, I take 60% and set aside a 10% employee pool.
During year 1 I will spend it all: - Investors will get zero $0k. - I'll get salary at $100k - 10 Employees share get $800k.
So for year one, the employees get almost ALL of the economic benefit. Investors get by far the least and have paid for everyone else. Yet you call them parasites?
Year 2 & Year 3, likely more of the same. For years the investors will pay for everyone else, in exchange for no return. In all likelihood they will never get any return at all. Maybe, 1 in 6 companies will be profitable and the investor will see a return. His return needs to exceed the sum total of his investments across all 6 companies, otherwise he is at a net loss. Meanwhile everyone else is always at a net gain.
You guys disgust me. Calling a person a parasite because they believe enough in someone's crazy idea to give them money in exchange for a deferred low probability return is just wrong.
Investors are more important then employees. Its far easier to find good employees then investors.
I'm fine with some socialism. Its not inherently evil. Its a choice.
I choose to live in a world with rapid technological progress. That requires profit. That means some will not have the same access as others. I will not have access to the latest and greatest, nor will I be able to buy organs over seas, but I am okay with that, because today's miracles will be the things my kids take for granted.
Slashdot Mirror
You are an idiot.
This isn't really true though. In the 80s, about 30% of CS grads were female. Its declined to around 12% lately.
The lack of female devs can be traced to Academia and HS. We all know how desperate corps are for devs. You could be a gay nazi transgender alien, but if you can sling Ruby, you will be hired for 100k+. Women aren't devs because women aren't studying CS in college. Women aren't studying CS in college because college emphasizes the wrong priorities, and because their parents didn't buy them legos.
There is a problem, but its not in the industry. Its in the homes and schools
US seems to be doing just fine. Economy is growing, no bubbles, etc.
Not sure if he is right, but I do agree to an extent. Sending out a clearly unfounded C&C or threat of lawsuit should at least carry a fine with it. Companies have no incentive to weigh the public good right now.
People easily confuse the government shutdown with the threats regarding the debt ceiling.
Lots of people could have cared less about the shutdown, but understood full well the consequences of default. Conflating the two over the ACA was a big mistake. Its my understanding is that the Tea Party aligned members of the RNC were responsible for that, but I could be wrong.
I think a lot of people disagree with your conclusion. I don't think that I should be obligated to work on behalf of someone else's survival if they are UNWILLING to work for themselves. Given that condition, I'd rather let them die.
Just curious, but why is centos never part of these debates? Is it generally not used? Its pretty much Ill I've touched for years, but I never see them in flame wars.
Lets be clear, they are not serving people, they are serving Canadians. Its pretty clear that Nintendo thinks they are the only people in the world foolish enough to buy this turd.
Great way for goog to ensure they only hire goog employees.
Private sector was doing a pretty good job for the majority of Americans. Even the ACA acknowledges that.
The ACA should have empowered private entities to create the market place. Then it might stand a chance of working.
Its not easy, and government is bad at this stuff in the first place.
Which probably means its not a good idea to count on them doing it. The ACA should have tweaked the regs to force existing insurance to cover more people, and left it at that. Depending on government to build and maintain a market is asking for disaster.
Does it matter? If the government can't manage the contractors, they shouldn't build a system that depends on them managing the contractors.
Bullshit. The ACA was fully funded and largely untouchable at the federal level. $400m for this system and two years? Please.
Government should not be in the business of business. The only way the ACA could have worked is if there were competing private for profit companies building the exchanges and getting a cut based on volume.
What went wrong? Government.
The ACA has some great theory behind it. Assuming that the federal government will be able to operate and maintain a system like this in a cost effective fashion is lunacy. It as bound to fail.
Also don't tell me it was Republican "starve the beast" strategy. The ACA was fully funded and largely untouchable. By any reasonable standard the roughly $400m spent on implementing this was incredibly excessive. If a private company had wanted to build this system for profit, it would have been done for under $100m. The big mistake of the ACA was that it did not allow for the creation of privately run and owned exchanges.
The modern notion of a middle class is a complete aberration, and a bit of a misnomer. The middle class has only really existed since the mid 1900s, and previously no society has ever had one. The American and European middle class only came into existence because of our society's ability to extract wealth from other countries.
The American middle class is in fact part of the global 1%. As America's ability to control foreign economies and resources decreases, the lower echelons of the global 1% who live in America may experience some slight discomfort.
More often then not I see over zealous enforcement of rules that should never have existed in the first place. Disobeying those is the ethical thing to do.
Taking pleasure from these encroachments on individual liberty makes you a toadying-lickspittle.
Cconsider this. I go and raise $1m to start a company, my investors get a 30% stake, I take 60% and set aside a 10% employee pool.
During year 1 I will spend it all:
- Investors will get zero $0k.
- I'll get salary at $100k
- 10 Employees share get $800k.
So for year one, the employees get almost ALL of the economic benefit. Investors get by far the least and have paid for everyone else. Yet you call them parasites?
Year 2 & Year 3, likely more of the same. For years the investors will pay for everyone else, in exchange for no return. In all likelihood they will never get any return at all. Maybe, 1 in 6 companies will be profitable and the investor will see a return. His return needs to exceed the sum total of his investments across all 6 companies, otherwise he is at a net loss. Meanwhile everyone else is always at a net gain.
You guys disgust me. Calling a person a parasite because they believe enough in someone's crazy idea to give them money in exchange for a deferred low probability return is just wrong.
Investors are more important then employees. Its far easier to find good employees then investors.
Because he owns 25% of the company? Its his company. If the people working for him don't like it, then they should go start their own.
Everyone involved disgusts me.
Wow, you're a real dick.
Show some alternatives that works at driving innovation on a national scale. Show me and Ill stop.
Oh? k.
Nope.
Both of your examples are examples of state sanctioned monopolies. Proving my point.
Fuck you, and fuck what you thinks is a fair share.
How much is fair? 20%? 30%? 50%? 60%? Whats fair? At what point will you stop trying to take my shit?
I'm fine with some socialism. Its not inherently evil. Its a choice.
I choose to live in a world with rapid technological progress. That requires profit. That means some will not have the same access as others. I will not have access to the latest and greatest, nor will I be able to buy organs over seas, but I am okay with that, because today's miracles will be the things my kids take for granted.