makes no sense... first because we have very high unemployment and much of it in the industries they're saying they need people. Second, the people being brought in from India etc aren't that exceptional.
We have data on it all. Its a believable argument.
Furthermore, the companies in question could actually train people. But they don't want to do any of these things which makes the whole argument rather dubious.
They might as well say "Wombat refuges must be funded so as to secure America's future in space exploration.
The whole thing is a non sequitur.
Visas have nothing what so ever to do with the academic success of American kids. Nothing.
Aliens could come bubble out of the 10th dimension and seal the US off in a pocket universe... and guess what... they could still get a decent education. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!?! Because immigration has nothing to do with education. The US could be utterly isolated and yet have a fantastic education system.
Example? Look at Japan... notice how their education system is terrible because they don't have really permissive immigration policies.
Oh wait, their education system is great despite having pretty tight immigration.
Stupidity. Anyone that honestly gets suckered into such arguments should get the word "moron" tattooed on their forehead. Just for efficient identification.
yes, older voters do watch them... but what are we going to do about that? The generational disconnect is so stark that its unbridgeable. They're a different country and a different culture.
If only because it breaks up the teacher's unions which have been obstructionists for education reform, standards, and pursuing righteous disciplinary action against nearly criminal misconduct.
Will our schools suddenly have excellent results by transitioning to charter systems? No. But they'll have a chance at succeeding which is more then they have now.
The transmission of the diseases are likely more common in cities. One thing you might want to look at is reducing population density. It likely is safer.
If they ceased to exist are you really going to claim the global ecology is going to collapse?
Sure, there are likely to be a few other species that suffer but given that my priority is the human species, I'd be willing in their case to collect some samples of the species and keep them alive in preserves until they can be reintroduced into the wild AND survive.
I do not believe that the whole global ecology will collapse due to the loss of any one species.
And yes, there are many types of and species of mosquitoes but I'm going to treat them as all one threat regardless of the fact that they live in different regions of the world in entirely different habitats. They suck my blood, transmit disease, and for that they die.
One of the better controls for the system has been putting all the antibiotics under the control of one person and having every use of them logged by that person.
In addition to that, you just go completely fascist with the wash your f'ing hands policies.
A few hospitals have done this and the survival rates have gone up and instances of resistant bacteria have gone down.
These are merely temporary measures. These diseases come back. We've already seen some of them come back in the US.
yes, this is largely due to the anti vaccination movement. But consider, that that is all it takes for them to come back.
They are still out there. Waiting. Breeding. Evolving.
The only real counter against pandemics is to control the vectors of transmission.
Take hospitals. What is more effective at controlling infection.
1. having doctors wash their hands.
2. spraying everything with industrial antibacterial agents regularly.
Answer: 1
Why? While 2 is effective at first it leads to mass bacterial resistance and eventually the immunity of that bacteria to our anti bacterial which renders them ineffective.
Where as washing your hands will probably always work.
Look at the way our digestive system handles food. Acid bath. Brutal but effective.
As to the rest all the various disease we get... control the vectors. The insects that spread some diseases... kill them all. Genocide them. I know some will say "but we need them"... we don't. Mosquitoes are entirely dispensable. Some ecosystems will be disrupted by their loss but something else will fill the void and life will carry on.
Same thing with ticks etc. Pretty much all the blood suckers should go.
Next we should make some kind of effort to keep people from coughing on each other and getting each other sick. The chinese have their funny face masks. That's one way to accomplish this task but I'd like to have something less intrusive.
Something to think on.
In any case, do that along with keeping the water/food clean and we should be pretty safe.
And what relevance does that have to the larger argument on women in technology?
Do you honestly think you can bring up specific anecdotal incidents and nitpick the issue with irrelevant points?
Kindly have an ACTUAL point that either directly undermines my argument or directly supports another.
I have very little patience for "well there is some guy that had something happen that doesn't perfectly fit the exact wording of your generalization."
Clearly you don't understand what a generalization is in the first place.
Allow me to educate you, a generalization is a simplification that is not specific to any one incident. It does not approximate all situations but rather is meant to vaguely express a cloud of known information. The cloud in most cases cannot be specifically defined without going into extreme detail. So for brevity sake it is commonly GENERALIZED to save time since the difference between the generalization and the data is frequently a distinction without meaning.
To answer your point, yes people that come from ivy league schools likely could find employment and would not die in the streets if their ventures died and forced them to get back on a conventional career track.
Your observation is very cunning. That's sarcasm. I point that out because you're stupid.
You're still making the clearly moronic argument that women don't have rich parents.
I regret if my observation as to the idiocy of that point might offend you. However, on reflection you should admit that any perceived lack of tact on my part at expressing this... the point is indefensible.
Please acknowledge this so we can move on... the obvious consequence of admitting this point will be the that this line of argument fails.
Again, this is not an attempt at hostility or brow beating or some other monkey pissing contest played out over the internet. Rather, it is a lack of patience with illogical arguments that do not deserve any more of our time.
If he lives in his mom's basement then he likely doesn't have a job you want to give to a woman.
So try again. Or better yet, concede to my superiority and get me a beer.
Either way... your argument is stupid.
If you want to get lonely engineers especially in Silicon Valley a wife, then you can hire a lot of supernumerary women for all sorts of stuff. Just relocate a lot of the crap that has been moved to india and hire women to fill those slots.
That way you're not compromising your core R&D team and now suddenly there are loads of financially strapped women in close proximity that will have all their problems fixed by moving in with one of these guys and saying yes.
Would that not solve the problem the valley is having with engineers wanting to move to SF because there are no girls in the Valley?
Look, my only hostility here is to not hiring the right people for the right job. If you have two candidates for a job and one is woman and one is a man... and the man is a little better for any reason then hire the man. Ditto for the woman if she's better. But do not hire people simply because they have vaginas.
Unless the job requires a vagina... then it's okay.
Not at all. I'm completely open. I simply refuse to let you presume an air of superiority or judge my beliefs against irrational social constructs.
Why would I let you have the advantage for no reason?
Why would I accept a moral and ethical premise that automatically puts me at a disadvantage?
The logic of political correctness is not an even handed ethical system. It gives some power or status over others arbitrarily. And I see no reason why I should legitimize it given that its whole purpose is to arbitrarily De-legitimize given races, genders, and social classes it feels as less morally worthy of rights.
We are all equally worth of precisely the same rights.
And I find this entire topic to be offensive and bigoted towards men.
Its misandry. Nothing more or less. And the proponents of it are no less odious then misogynists.
I will meet the feminists that want to push this shit tooth and nail answering every barb and jab measure for measure.
They have exploited male indulgence and chivalry for generations. Enough is enough. They want to be treated like men?
Okay... No more pulled punches.
And this isn't internet tough guy stupidity. This is a rhetorical declaration of intent. No kid gloves. No patty cake. If they want to play hard ball then they're in for a shock.
Slashdot Mirror
... When you have a box full of rubber stamps and barrels of ink?
Well if your managers are more incompetent then you then anything is possible.
That owed almost entirely to his relationship with Bill gates. Everyone else at the company needs to actually know something.
If you actually didn't know what you were doing and they tasked you to accomplish something?
Not very long.
Frankly, this is another story about nothing.
I don't think the stem system is actually correcting our education problem and I don't think it would if we funded it more.
To the contrary, I think we'd get farther with this if we just told companies to train people to a level where they'd be comfortable hiring them.
What does that cost? If they want government subsidies for that then I think most would be okay with that because they get a job at the end of it.
But short of that... no sale.
how are US academics more likely to get a job if the US has higher immigration?
That's illogical.
makes no sense... first because we have very high unemployment and much of it in the industries they're saying they need people. Second, the people being brought in from India etc aren't that exceptional.
We have data on it all. Its a believable argument.
Furthermore, the companies in question could actually train people. But they don't want to do any of these things which makes the whole argument rather dubious.
... to make sense anymore.
They might as well say "Wombat refuges must be funded so as to secure America's future in space exploration.
The whole thing is a non sequitur.
Visas have nothing what so ever to do with the academic success of American kids. Nothing.
Aliens could come bubble out of the 10th dimension and seal the US off in a pocket universe... and guess what... they could still get a decent education. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!?! Because immigration has nothing to do with education. The US could be utterly isolated and yet have a fantastic education system.
Example? Look at Japan... notice how their education system is terrible because they don't have really permissive immigration policies.
Oh wait, their education system is great despite having pretty tight immigration.
Stupidity. Anyone that honestly gets suckered into such arguments should get the word "moron" tattooed on their forehead. Just for efficient identification.
yes, older voters do watch them... but what are we going to do about that? The generational disconnect is so stark that its unbridgeable. They're a different country and a different culture.
In open source communities the freeloaders are users.
Who cares. The only people that watch this show are people that fell asleep in front of their tv 20 years ago.
Irrelevant show is irrelevant.
baseless insult is baseless and therefore null.
Do you have anything to contribute besides null input? Or is that all you can manage? The rhetorical equivalent of white noise.
I win by default if you can't do better.
I think you know what I mean.
Really? So if I released a line of soaps that had alchohol in them, you're saying I could put on the label "anti bacterial"?
or are you wrong?
Rhetorical... don't nitpick me if you're in fact in error.
If only because it breaks up the teacher's unions which have been obstructionists for education reform, standards, and pursuing righteous disciplinary action against nearly criminal misconduct.
Will our schools suddenly have excellent results by transitioning to charter systems? No. But they'll have a chance at succeeding which is more then they have now.
So you think the tech imbalance is due to rich parents not respecting their daughters.
Okay.
I don't buy your safety net argument. Women have been shown to take risks if they have a safety net. Men have been shown to take risks without it.
That is actually the difference. Women do start businesses. They do it at a much lower rate and have a much lower failure rate.
Does that mean that women are better business managers? No. They simply don't start businesses unless their probability of failure is much lower.
So this safety net argument you have is actually reversed. The men are doing it with or without the safety net. The women are doing it only with it.
The transmission of the diseases are likely more common in cities. One thing you might want to look at is reducing population density. It likely is safer.
Sorry if I came off as hostile. There are a lot of rabid nutcases on the internet and I have a scorched earth policy with those wastes of oxygen.
I live in Los Angeles... so I'll take a rain check on the beer. If you were in LA, I'd buy you a round.
If they ceased to exist are you really going to claim the global ecology is going to collapse?
Sure, there are likely to be a few other species that suffer but given that my priority is the human species, I'd be willing in their case to collect some samples of the species and keep them alive in preserves until they can be reintroduced into the wild AND survive.
I do not believe that the whole global ecology will collapse due to the loss of any one species.
And yes, there are many types of and species of mosquitoes but I'm going to treat them as all one threat regardless of the fact that they live in different regions of the world in entirely different habitats. They suck my blood, transmit disease, and for that they die.
Its actually a global problem.
Doctors get complacent.
They abuse antibiotics.
One of the better controls for the system has been putting all the antibiotics under the control of one person and having every use of them logged by that person.
In addition to that, you just go completely fascist with the wash your f'ing hands policies.
A few hospitals have done this and the survival rates have gone up and instances of resistant bacteria have gone down.
These are merely temporary measures. These diseases come back. We've already seen some of them come back in the US.
yes, this is largely due to the anti vaccination movement. But consider, that that is all it takes for them to come back.
They are still out there. Waiting. Breeding. Evolving.
The only real counter against pandemics is to control the vectors of transmission.
Take hospitals. What is more effective at controlling infection.
1. having doctors wash their hands.
2. spraying everything with industrial antibacterial agents regularly.
Answer: 1
Why? While 2 is effective at first it leads to mass bacterial resistance and eventually the immunity of that bacteria to our anti bacterial which renders them ineffective.
Where as washing your hands will probably always work.
Look at the way our digestive system handles food. Acid bath. Brutal but effective.
As to the rest all the various disease we get... control the vectors. The insects that spread some diseases... kill them all. Genocide them. I know some will say "but we need them"... we don't. Mosquitoes are entirely dispensable. Some ecosystems will be disrupted by their loss but something else will fill the void and life will carry on.
Same thing with ticks etc. Pretty much all the blood suckers should go.
Next we should make some kind of effort to keep people from coughing on each other and getting each other sick. The chinese have their funny face masks. That's one way to accomplish this task but I'd like to have something less intrusive.
Something to think on.
In any case, do that along with keeping the water/food clean and we should be pretty safe.
And what relevance does that have to the larger argument on women in technology?
Do you honestly think you can bring up specific anecdotal incidents and nitpick the issue with irrelevant points?
Kindly have an ACTUAL point that either directly undermines my argument or directly supports another.
I have very little patience for "well there is some guy that had something happen that doesn't perfectly fit the exact wording of your generalization."
Clearly you don't understand what a generalization is in the first place.
Allow me to educate you, a generalization is a simplification that is not specific to any one incident. It does not approximate all situations but rather is meant to vaguely express a cloud of known information. The cloud in most cases cannot be specifically defined without going into extreme detail. So for brevity sake it is commonly GENERALIZED to save time since the difference between the generalization and the data is frequently a distinction without meaning.
To answer your point, yes people that come from ivy league schools likely could find employment and would not die in the streets if their ventures died and forced them to get back on a conventional career track.
Your observation is very cunning. That's sarcasm. I point that out because you're stupid.
Good day, nitwit.
You're still making the clearly moronic argument that women don't have rich parents.
I regret if my observation as to the idiocy of that point might offend you. However, on reflection you should admit that any perceived lack of tact on my part at expressing this... the point is indefensible.
Please acknowledge this so we can move on... the obvious consequence of admitting this point will be the that this line of argument fails.
Again, this is not an attempt at hostility or brow beating or some other monkey pissing contest played out over the internet. Rather, it is a lack of patience with illogical arguments that do not deserve any more of our time.
If he lives in his mom's basement then he likely doesn't have a job you want to give to a woman.
So try again. Or better yet, concede to my superiority and get me a beer.
Either way... your argument is stupid.
If you want to get lonely engineers especially in Silicon Valley a wife, then you can hire a lot of supernumerary women for all sorts of stuff. Just relocate a lot of the crap that has been moved to india and hire women to fill those slots.
That way you're not compromising your core R&D team and now suddenly there are loads of financially strapped women in close proximity that will have all their problems fixed by moving in with one of these guys and saying yes.
Would that not solve the problem the valley is having with engineers wanting to move to SF because there are no girls in the Valley?
Look, my only hostility here is to not hiring the right people for the right job. If you have two candidates for a job and one is woman and one is a man... and the man is a little better for any reason then hire the man. Ditto for the woman if she's better. But do not hire people simply because they have vaginas.
Unless the job requires a vagina... then it's okay.
To the contrary, amazon's search system is itself better then most.
The point is that Demonoid actually had far and away the best search site for torrents. Nothing has come close to it before or since.
Not at all. I'm completely open. I simply refuse to let you presume an air of superiority or judge my beliefs against irrational social constructs.
Why would I let you have the advantage for no reason?
Why would I accept a moral and ethical premise that automatically puts me at a disadvantage?
The logic of political correctness is not an even handed ethical system. It gives some power or status over others arbitrarily. And I see no reason why I should legitimize it given that its whole purpose is to arbitrarily De-legitimize given races, genders, and social classes it feels as less morally worthy of rights.
We are all equally worth of precisely the same rights.
And I find this entire topic to be offensive and bigoted towards men.
Its misandry. Nothing more or less. And the proponents of it are no less odious then misogynists.
I will meet the feminists that want to push this shit tooth and nail answering every barb and jab measure for measure.
They have exploited male indulgence and chivalry for generations. Enough is enough. They want to be treated like men?
Okay... No more pulled punches.
And this isn't internet tough guy stupidity. This is a rhetorical declaration of intent. No kid gloves. No patty cake. If they want to play hard ball then they're in for a shock.