"Woosh", I believe is the term. Or does CERN stand for something else than Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire back there? (pardon my french,/. text encodings seem broken)
Alternatively, because procreation is a societal good, we can incentivize specifically mothers in this fashion. I trust that women wouldn't just have kids to get this benefit, and who pays for it is an open question, but it still seems like a perverse incentive - and in any case it may not be legal to do this.
I see this thread is completely pointless from now on & uptill now.
should be payed. That's the crux. I don't think anyone disagrees that the majority of the gender gap is due men and women doing different jobs, on average. Its just that not everyone thinks the causality is one-way.
No two persons can be evaluated to be of equal value, and have equal pay, especially in expert positions (which CS mostly is). And if gender correlates with pay differences, that means that gender discrimination is happening. Or that the one sex is better than the other at that particular job. But with the quality of the work being extremely difficult to measure objectively, we can only assume the former.
There is no point in sticking your head in the sand by saying the gender gap is illegal to uphold. It won't change status quo.
Sounds like a great idea. Lets hope the details will add up.
TFA:
The things that aren't addressed by the available information are safety and cost.
Nor is winter & studded tyres mentioned. Studded tyres eat through asphalt & the stones in it quite quickly. How about this plastic? Perhaps this is only for warm climates. Rotterdam seems to not average sub-zero temperatures even in February, so I guess studded tyres are not used there? Any duch person to confirm?
Scramble: 1. To move or climb hurriedly, especially on the hands and knees. 2. To struggle or contend frantically in order to get something: scrambled for the best seats.
What caught me was that they scrambled to safety to a Soyuz.
This has done absolutely nothing to assist, promote, or further the American taxpayer. [...] How far could NASA have gone with this? CERN? DARPA? Securing our boarders? Gift and install free solar panels? I do not care... At least the money would have, ostensibly, been kept here, where it belongs, where it benefits the taxpayer.
Seems we are 20 years behind you, then. Hopefully not following, though. It would be interesting to find a statistic over these figures from a number of countries. Is there a trend towards oscillation in the hours/week over time? Or is either of our datapoints anomalies.
Yeah the changes we see are people are forced to work 3 part time jobs and still be broke because computer programs and robots replaced the jobs yet they are still expected to pay their bills.
This is precisely the system TFA is suggesting we move away from.
When excess people are created per job due to automation and efficiency and Wall Street demands of cheap the value of the labor goes down as some schmuck who has been out of work for 12 months will gladly do yours for $40,000 a year with no benefits for 65 hours a week. The bean counters then will look at YOU and say why should I pay more than $40,000? This guy is willing to do it? So 2 guys who made $70,000 can be replaced by one guy willing to do it for $40,000 = $100,000 savings!!
Its fascinating how many people take your stance: proving capitalism is the better system by arguing to its built-in defects. And seemingly not even noticing their logic weirdness.
If I can have an adequate life at 15 hours/week, I can have a terrific life at 30 hours/week. It's worth the additional 15 hours a week to live the remaining 138 hours a week in minor luxury with plenty left over for toys and a family
Of course it is. But that is a strawman. The question is, if you can have a terrific life at 15 hours/week, why would you work 30? What would you do with all the extra junk?
Now consider the same business with a 15 hour workweek, requiring 8 employees to put in the same number of total hours.
Where did the increase in productivity (which is a built-in prerequisite to the post-scarcity economy) go?
And that's why we have a 40 hour work week
Why do you limit the work-week to 40 hours, btw? By your logic it would be more profitable (for everybody) to have longer working days, and not take Saturdays off. Because we can never have enough brake rotors (of top quality)!
Perhaps you should read a second Heinlein novel before making any claims of the sort. May I recommend at least The cat that walks through walls and Beyond this horizon.
This is not the first time someone falls into this trap. I think there should be a new sort of argumentational fallacy coined: Argumentum ad Heinleinus: Proving your point with a quotation of one Robert.A.Heinlein book, not realizing a second book by the same author proves the anti-thesis of your point.
2. That does not change the fact that the economy portrayed in the show is a version of communism. That is the scientific term for the economic system they used.
Ok, this far we agree.
3. Morons that think calling 'communism' "STAR TREK ECONOMY" will somehow hide what it is should be laughed at.
Why? The (US-)engilsh language is full of PC phrasology. Religion, skin hue & sexual preferences can't be talked about without PC phrases. Why would politcal convictions not need them? Especially the C-word...
4. Communism is ALSO the system used by almost all modern militaries and families. You don't charge your kids for the use of the house. Nor do you charge Fighter pilots for the use of the plane, fuel, bombs, etc.
You obviously have never even been to a communistic country?
5. While Communism works pretty well within the military and within Families, it SUCKS for a general economy. See Russia, Cuba, North Korea for prime examples.
I'm not sure Cuba is a fair comparison. Its cause of poverty is its big neighbour that refused to trade with it, just because they were 'Communists'. NKorea seems to be a failure more because of its totalitarianism than communism. The USSR, well beforer Stalin it still looked good. Despite him, they still managed to hobble on for half a century. And none of these were even close to post-scarcity. Funny you should skip mentioning China or Vietnam here.
6. WE WILL NOT EVER END UP USING COMMUNISM / 'STAR TREK ECONOMY' FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION. That battle was fought and Communism lost during the 20th century.
Except in Vietnam where Communism won. Apart from that, it sounds quite a leap to say Communism is wrong in e.g. the 25th century, because it failed in the 20th centrury.
7. A 'post scarcity' economy is a false idea. there will always be scarcity - fuel, ideas, certain types of entertainment, sex, will ALWAYS be scarce. Merely because we will have solved the scarcity of the original commodities - food, clothing, certain types of products, does not mean nothing will ever be scarce again.
Fuel? Ideas? Please... Entertainment, sex? Why would there need to be a scarcity about these? If people don't need to work, they have all the time to entertain each others. Please don't base your answer in your current moral convictions, or that of your fellow humans at this point in time.
The point with the 'Startrek economy' idea is that humanity will have a rather different set of values (needs to have, if it is to succeed) than today's capitalist thinking. Arguing that the 'Startrek economy' would not work in today's society is pointless at best.
Technologically we've been more than capable of providing everyone in the world with a life of comfort and leisure (say a 20-hour work week) for several decades, at least. The problems are not technological, they're cultural and political. Further advances in technology are only likely to exacerbate the existing situation.
How do you figure that? Here we currently have a 37.5-hour work week. Reading about working conditions back during the industrial revolution (e.g. any book by Marx), and we seem to be progressing rather rapidly towards that 20-hour week. Heck, the previous generation still remember a 6-day working week.
The problems are, sure enough, cultural. But how would technology advancement suddenly start taking us backwards on this development direction?
I'm a software developer in the UK, and I've found that it's very rare (maybe 5% of the time) to find an employer that will even consider any working from home
I have not yet had an interview where the employer would not allow any working from home. "Full time" home work (i.e. show up once a week for the meeting) type offers are rare, yes. But I can't remember a single interview where 1 day a week would not be offered.
Perhaps I don't scout as many job interviews as you do, as I am happy with my current job (which doesn't put a limit on my telecommuting, so it ends up with 2-3 days a week, which I find a nice balance). So perhaps I just pick my interviews more carefully?
Execution is heavily overrated too, at least here on/.. 100% perfect exectution usually don't turn a bad idea to a good product, but a great idea, even with flaky execution, can be a commercial success.
Slashdot Mirror
"Woosh", I believe is the term. /. text encodings seem broken)
Or does CERN stand for something else than Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire back there?
(pardon my french,
Alternatively, because procreation is a societal good, we can incentivize specifically mothers in this fashion. I trust that women wouldn't just have kids to get this benefit, and who pays for it is an open question, but it still seems like a perverse incentive - and in any case it may not be legal to do this.
I see this thread is completely pointless from now on & uptill now.
should be payed. That's the crux. I don't think anyone disagrees that the majority of the gender gap is due men and women doing different jobs, on average. Its just that not everyone thinks the causality is one-way.
No two persons can be evaluated to be of equal value, and have equal pay, especially in expert positions (which CS mostly is). And if gender correlates with pay differences, that means that gender discrimination is happening.
Or that the one sex is better than the other at that particular job. But with the quality of the work being extremely difficult to measure objectively, we can only assume the former.
There is no point in sticking your head in the sand by saying the gender gap is illegal to uphold. It won't change status quo.
Same one.
Last week it was 7800 persons.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/microsoft_to_lay_off_more_than_half_its_finnish_staff/8139690
I don't see how that is a problem here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
Sounds like a great idea. Lets hope the details will add up.
TFA:
The things that aren't addressed by the available information are safety and cost.
Nor is winter & studded tyres mentioned. Studded tyres eat through asphalt & the stones in it quite quickly. How about this plastic?
Perhaps this is only for warm climates. Rotterdam seems to not average sub-zero temperatures even in February, so I guess studded tyres are not used there? Any duch person to confirm?
Pardon me for being rural, but why is this a problem?
Scramble:
1. To move or climb hurriedly, especially on the hands and knees.
2. To struggle or contend frantically in order to get something: scrambled for the best seats.
What caught me was that they scrambled to safety to a Soyuz.
Just follow your link, then click on "FAQ". Search for link named "Agreement".
http://assets.ubuntu.com/sites/ubuntu/1473/u/files/section/legal/Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I_v1.2.pdf
This has done absolutely nothing to assist, promote, or further the American taxpayer. [...] How far could NASA have gone with this? CERN? DARPA? Securing our boarders? Gift and install free solar panels? I do not care... At least the money would have, ostensibly, been kept here, where it belongs, where it benefits the taxpayer.
My vote goes for the CERN option!
I've never seen it, but that is how I'd guess python's libSDL interface would (should!) look like.
"Woosh", I believe?
What would be cooler than to get modded "Troll" in a Qt-defending insert?
If Company A develops a treatment and Company B develops a cure, which company would get your money in case you happen to get the disease in question?
Seems we are 20 years behind you, then. Hopefully not following, though.
It would be interesting to find a statistic over these figures from a number of countries. Is there a trend towards oscillation in the hours/week over time? Or is either of our datapoints anomalies.
Yeah the changes we see are people are forced to work 3 part time jobs and still be broke because computer programs and robots replaced the jobs yet they are still expected to pay their bills.
This is precisely the system TFA is suggesting we move away from.
When excess people are created per job due to automation and efficiency and Wall Street demands of cheap the value of the labor goes down as some schmuck who has been out of work for 12 months will gladly do yours for $40,000 a year with no benefits for 65 hours a week. The bean counters then will look at YOU and say why should I pay more than $40,000? This guy is willing to do it? So 2 guys who made $70,000 can be replaced by one guy willing to do it for $40,000 = $100,000 savings!!
Its fascinating how many people take your stance: proving capitalism is the better system by arguing to its built-in defects. And seemingly not even noticing their logic weirdness.
If I can have an adequate life at 15 hours/week, I can have a terrific life at 30 hours/week. It's worth the additional 15 hours a week to live the remaining 138 hours a week in minor luxury with plenty left over for toys and a family
Of course it is. But that is a strawman.
The question is, if you can have a terrific life at 15 hours/week, why would you work 30? What would you do with all the extra junk?
Now consider the same business with a 15 hour workweek, requiring 8 employees to put in the same number of total hours.
Where did the increase in productivity (which is a built-in prerequisite to the post-scarcity economy) go?
And that's why we have a 40 hour work week
Why do you limit the work-week to 40 hours, btw? By your logic it would be more profitable (for everybody) to have longer working days, and not take Saturdays off.
Because we can never have enough brake rotors (of top quality)!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek
So Keynes was a bit too bullish. That doesn't mean the idea was wrong.
I think the entire point with TFA was that we are seeing the first (faint) signs of just such a mentality change you refer to.
Perhaps you should read a second Heinlein novel before making any claims of the sort. May I recommend at least The cat that walks through walls and Beyond this horizon.
This is not the first time someone falls into this trap. I think there should be a new sort of argumentational fallacy coined:
Argumentum ad Heinleinus: Proving your point with a quotation of one Robert.A.Heinlein book, not realizing a second book by the same author proves the anti-thesis of your point.
1. I love Star Trek.
2. That does not change the fact that the economy portrayed in the show is a version of communism. That is the scientific term for the economic system they used.
Ok, this far we agree.
3. Morons that think calling 'communism' "STAR TREK ECONOMY" will somehow hide what it is should be laughed at.
Why? The (US-)engilsh language is full of PC phrasology. Religion, skin hue & sexual preferences can't be talked about without PC phrases. Why would politcal convictions not need them?
Especially the C-word...
4. Communism is ALSO the system used by almost all modern militaries and families. You don't charge your kids for the use of the house. Nor do you charge Fighter pilots for the use of the plane, fuel, bombs, etc.
You obviously have never even been to a communistic country?
5. While Communism works pretty well within the military and within Families, it SUCKS for a general economy. See Russia, Cuba, North Korea for prime examples.
I'm not sure Cuba is a fair comparison. Its cause of poverty is its big neighbour that refused to trade with it, just because they were 'Communists'.
NKorea seems to be a failure more because of its totalitarianism than communism.
The USSR, well beforer Stalin it still looked good. Despite him, they still managed to hobble on for half a century.
And none of these were even close to post-scarcity.
Funny you should skip mentioning China or Vietnam here.
6. WE WILL NOT EVER END UP USING COMMUNISM / 'STAR TREK ECONOMY' FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION. That battle was fought and Communism lost during the 20th century.
Except in Vietnam where Communism won.
Apart from that, it sounds quite a leap to say Communism is wrong in e.g. the 25th century, because it failed in the 20th centrury.
7. A 'post scarcity' economy is a false idea. there will always be scarcity - fuel, ideas, certain types of entertainment, sex, will ALWAYS be scarce. Merely because we will have solved the scarcity of the original commodities - food, clothing, certain types of products, does not mean nothing will ever be scarce again.
Fuel? Ideas? Please...
Entertainment, sex? Why would there need to be a scarcity about these? If people don't need to work, they have all the time to entertain each others. Please don't base your answer in your current moral convictions, or that of your fellow humans at this point in time.
The point with the 'Startrek economy' idea is that humanity will have a rather different set of values (needs to have, if it is to succeed) than today's capitalist thinking. Arguing that the 'Startrek economy' would not work in today's society is pointless at best.
Technologically we've been more than capable of providing everyone in the world with a life of comfort and leisure (say a 20-hour work week) for several decades, at least. The problems are not technological, they're cultural and political. Further advances in technology are only likely to exacerbate the existing situation.
How do you figure that? Here we currently have a 37.5-hour work week. Reading about working conditions back during the industrial revolution (e.g. any book by Marx), and we seem to be progressing rather rapidly towards that 20-hour week.
Heck, the previous generation still remember a 6-day working week.
The problems are, sure enough, cultural. But how would technology advancement suddenly start taking us backwards on this development direction?
So unlike honeybees humans have no reason to transport them deliberately.
Not quite true, bumblebees are used in greenhouses for pollination.
E.g.: https://greenmethods.com/product/bombus-impatiens-pollinating-bumblebee-hives/
But that probably helps only a select few species of bumblebees to migrate.
Stuff that matter? This is an article about some academic excercise in employment law?
And "War is Peace"? Check. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Freedom is Slavery": working on it.
I'm a software developer in the UK, and I've found that it's very rare (maybe 5% of the time) to find an employer that will even consider any working from home
I have not yet had an interview where the employer would not allow any working from home. "Full time" home work (i.e. show up once a week for the meeting) type offers are rare, yes. But I can't remember a single interview where 1 day a week would not be offered.
Perhaps I don't scout as many job interviews as you do, as I am happy with my current job (which doesn't put a limit on my telecommuting, so it ends up with 2-3 days a week, which I find a nice balance). So perhaps I just pick my interviews more carefully?
Execution is heavily overrated too, at least here on /..
100% perfect exectution usually don't turn a bad idea to a good product, but a great idea, even with flaky execution, can be a commercial success.