You have to look at what the parents are doing: having a child at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and getting others to pay to raise and support that child. An awesome reproduction strategy, and one that can propogate if it isn't stopped.
Adopting orphans just makes the problem worse in the long run unless you're willing to sterilize them upon adoption. It's immoral to contribute to the situation. Better to breed your own children to compete with the orphans for resources if you want that situation to change.
It's not that sterilization wouldn't be desirable for human exploration, it's that it's impossible. We are symbiotic with a lot of flora, we cannot survive without them. Any manned mission is, of necessity, not sterile. Mars' surface is so actively hostile, though, that the spreading contagion theory isn't much of a threat. The real reason we sterilize is to help rule out the possibility that we delivered life in the event that we find it in the future.
I think given that mars life is at best microscopic, there actually isn't a whole lot of caring whether or not we wipe them out in the process of exploring mars.
In a game of survival on earth, absolutely. On mars, give me someone with a pretty advanced education, because weapons development counts for little when you can't breathe.
This stuff barely qualifies as noise in the national budget. If you care about cutting government spending, the only meaningful choices are health insurance for the elderly, retirement insurance for the elderly, and the military.
You could probably send volunteers. But sending criminals is pointless. Survival on a mars mission will require an extreme level of technical skill that just isn't plausible to develop in that population. Sending criminals is just a ludicrously expensive way to implement the death penalty (and existing systems are egregiously expensive enough).
I'm reflecting what society has collectively decided with sufficient agreement to enact into laws. I'd hardly claim to be 'speaking for' when the conclusions are quite that obvious.
Society. Same group that always makes that decision. Just as society has decided that child sexual abuse is unacceptable, we have decided to do something about this.
1) Sure there is. If you can't see it, you're blind. 2) Redressing specific, severe imbalances seems like an excellent strategy for achieving better equality.
But work in the actual field is, for the most part, quite intensely social. And at highschool/university, there's no legitimate reason for the study to be different (any more than any other field of study varies from the real world), and there's certainly no reason to tell people a lie about the level of sociability in the actual career.
The issue you'll have with the asian candidates once you've been a hiring manager and had to deal with enough of them is that a painfully high percentage cannot effectively communicate in English. (And in spite of what you might think, this is typically a functional prerequisite for most coding jobs: you must be able to tell them what you want done, and the most commonly agreed upon language for that communication in the US is English). For whatever reason, the percentage of white candidates who can at least speak passable English seems to be much higher. I guess while US schools are a failure in general, those who make it out unscathed enough to go to college and get a CS degree are at least building some basic skills.
Slashdot Mirror
Against murderers? Yes, I'm afraid so.
And occasionally blowing up a building full of innocent people, but that is the absolute limit.
You have to look at what the parents are doing: having a child at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and getting others to pay to raise and support that child. An awesome reproduction strategy, and one that can propogate if it isn't stopped.
Adopting orphans just makes the problem worse in the long run unless you're willing to sterilize them upon adoption. It's immoral to contribute to the situation. Better to breed your own children to compete with the orphans for resources if you want that situation to change.
It's not that sterilization wouldn't be desirable for human exploration, it's that it's impossible. We are symbiotic with a lot of flora, we cannot survive without them. Any manned mission is, of necessity, not sterile. Mars' surface is so actively hostile, though, that the spreading contagion theory isn't much of a threat. The real reason we sterilize is to help rule out the possibility that we delivered life in the event that we find it in the future.
I think given that mars life is at best microscopic, there actually isn't a whole lot of caring whether or not we wipe them out in the process of exploring mars.
In a game of survival on earth, absolutely. On mars, give me someone with a pretty advanced education, because weapons development counts for little when you can't breathe.
It's a good idea, but in terms of price per euthanasia it's just not cost effective.
This stuff barely qualifies as noise in the national budget. If you care about cutting government spending, the only meaningful choices are health insurance for the elderly, retirement insurance for the elderly, and the military.
You could probably send volunteers. But sending criminals is pointless. Survival on a mars mission will require an extreme level of technical skill that just isn't plausible to develop in that population. Sending criminals is just a ludicrously expensive way to implement the death penalty (and existing systems are egregiously expensive enough).
I don't know how you got from putting some constraints on the perverted jokes to that.
Just the rude jokes part.
I'm reflecting what society has collectively decided with sufficient agreement to enact into laws. I'd hardly claim to be 'speaking for' when the conclusions are quite that obvious.
How about the perverted jokes?
Society. Same group that always makes that decision. Just as society has decided that child sexual abuse is unacceptable, we have decided to do something about this.
1) Sure there is. If you can't see it, you're blind.
2) Redressing specific, severe imbalances seems like an excellent strategy for achieving better equality.
Yep, the idea is to force programmers to change, or face the financial consequences of their choices.
Troll? Really? It's true.
If only they belonged to a protected class, but, alas, bigot is not a protected class.
Good luck selling people on putting an end to sexual harassment laws. :-)
But work in the actual field is, for the most part, quite intensely social. And at highschool/university, there's no legitimate reason for the study to be different (any more than any other field of study varies from the real world), and there's certainly no reason to tell people a lie about the level of sociability in the actual career.
Whether or not their expectation is reasonable, it's legally enforceable, which is really kind of all that matters.
No, that's what they don't love to admit.
Democracy. We've collectively voted nondiscrimination in.
The issue you'll have with the asian candidates once you've been a hiring manager and had to deal with enough of them is that a painfully high percentage cannot effectively communicate in English. (And in spite of what you might think, this is typically a functional prerequisite for most coding jobs: you must be able to tell them what you want done, and the most commonly agreed upon language for that communication in the US is English). For whatever reason, the percentage of white candidates who can at least speak passable English seems to be much higher. I guess while US schools are a failure in general, those who make it out unscathed enough to go to college and get a CS degree are at least building some basic skills.