I never understood the contempt and hatred for the Euro. A loose economic union to facilitate trade and further diplomatic relationships with member states to ensure that another WW doesn't occur in Europe seems like a laudable goal. These goals seemed to be designed around the causes of WW1 and WW2. It may not have been perfectly implemented but what is perfect version 1.0? The USA had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation for similar issues (having the federal government assume the war debts of the Revolutionary War was a contentious topic that was addressed with the Constitution, not AoC iirc).
Could someone explain, why is the Euro seen as a bad thing? Perhaps, I am showing my age by asking this.
While I agree with the sentiment lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Fuck the federal student loan program.
As someone who used student loans (both private and federal) to get a B.S. in CS, the federal student loans were very helpful and were reasonable. Some of these changes had occurred recently, but loans that originated in 2005/6 were eligible of consolidation to take advantage of new government proposals (special loan consolidation in 2011/2012 iirc). These consolidations and proposals that passed lowered interest rates, payback amounts, possible forgiveness, etc. The private student loans however, were malicious. They knew you couldn't bankrupt out of them and they knew you were their bitch. It was one of the greatest days of my life paying those fuckers off.
The whole point of the student loans is to increase access to higher education, barring shit like UoP, that mission has been a success with record numbers of student enrollment. I would not have been able to get an education without them.
If there is another way to increase availability to higher education I am all ears. Student loans are not perfect but it's better then not having access to higher education.
I am not denying the problems women face. We are a free society and they are free to choose their career based on what interests them. The information provided FTFA that I previously linked showed a disparity in interest. If the one of the biggest problem women have is that their friends will make fun of them? Yes, i don't have much sympathy for that. Thick skin, grow some. Society does not owe you any favors to end peer pressure or negative stereo types. Because the way to end stereo types is to not care and ignore them and change them yourself. Have some personal accountability. All of the women that are in STEM didn't let anyone bring them down or talk them out of it. That tells me there is equal opportunity. Just because it is not 50/50 does not mean it is inherently sexist.
They're not as free, socially, as boys to pursue those interests.
Are there any legal barriers stopping those interests? No? Then they are just as free. What obstacles stop a girl watching a youtube video that teaches how to code? What societal pressure will stop you from reading a technical manual? There are more opportunities now to cultivate any interest you have these days, if subtle intimidation or mean comments stop you from perusing your interests, clearly it wasn't that interesting to you. If necessary there are legal courses of action a woman can take to end that type of behavior in school or on the job.
If we, as a society, change our attitudes and prejudices and eliminate those absurd gender stereotypes women won't have to face those problems ever. They won't have to worry about sitting in a male dominated classroom or workplace. They won't have to deal with ridiculous attitudes about their competence or ability simply because they're women.
Bullshit. Ever worked in a restaurant? It makes STEM look like the Oprah Winfrey show. Male dominated classroom and/or workplace? That means quotas which mean equal outcomes, not opportunity. Also, this coddling and unnecessary affirmative action does little to help those ridiculous attitudes about their competence and abilities. did you get that job because of quota or because you earned it?
I have yet to see a compelling evidence that suggests women have less opportunity than men in STEM. STEM maybe male dominated, and some men are dicks but that doesn't mean less opportunity for women. Subtle social anxieties and stressors are not evidence of lack of opportunity. Get over it.
The argument is that Computer Science/coding is now as core as basic numeracy and literacy,
i can agree with that. But that doesn't justify segregation. if it did, why don't we segregate all classes ( English, math, drama, science, etc ad infinitum)? Entire schools? Even the Workplace?
Because if he did understand the issues involved, he would have to acknowledge that there are many good reasons for having a girls only class. He might not agree with them, but his original comment appeared to dismiss their very existence.
In the real world, men and women have work together. That is a very compelling reason against segregation. The good reasons for having segregation are not strong enough for that, imo.
I have not seen an acknowledgement for reasons against segregation. You appear to dismiss their very existence. Therefore, you do not understand the issues because if you did you would have acknowledged them.
Yes, children/young adults have to get over peer pressure and negative stereotypes. This is not a gender specific problem. The nerd/geek stereotype is not a positive one, yet men and women overcome this "problem" all the time and pursue their interests. Segregation would solve this, how?
positive female role models
You can do this in a co-ed classroom.
an environment where it's acceptable for them to indulge in those interests
Girls can't learn in the same classroom as boys, is what you imply. Why stop at CS then? Why not gender segregated schools? Segregated workplaces? If girls can't learn with boys can they work with them? Segregation worked so well for race it should work for gender too.
This woudn't be the case in a co-ed classroom
I disagree. You can speculate all you want about gender segregation but in the real world men and women have to work with each other.
Just facing a male-dominated classroom, where they're very likely to be subjected to unwanted comments and advances, can be intimidating. It's certainly not conducive to learning.
If it is behavior that is disruptive to learning, the teacher is the arbitrator and can adjust the offenders behavior by kicking them out (for example). Unwanted comments and advances??? We are talking about K-12 right? I didn't realize kids so young were so forward... high school maybe but then, do you get that in English class? How do we stop it there? Why is CS so different?
That you can't find a single legitimate reason for 'girls only' programs tells me that you don't understand the issues at all.
To use your logic: Because you can't find a single legitimate reason for co-ed tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. You didn't address my reason for against segregation therefore you don't understand. Brilliant...
Really, it's quite simple: women and girls face significant obstacles that men and boys don't. If that's not inequality, I don't know what is! By reducing those barriers, we help to give them equal opportunity.
If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.
Again, i think that growing children's interest in CS is a good thing... But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices because of some informal advantage that girls could have if they spent their time with it.... That is not equality. You make women sound weak.
A better example would be shower facilities. If you offered homeless people a shower, only had room for one communal facility so decided to limit it to just women, would that be sexist?
So, the semantics of a unisex bathrooms are now the analogy? Hygiene for adults is fundamentally different than sparking an interest for an education/career for children.
The point is that there is a good reason for having a girl's only class here, merely providing extra help for girls is not detrimental to boys.
I do not see a good reason for having a girls only class. Any career or educational path a person chooses have to learn to work with people that are different from them. Teaching children how to handle diverse work fields and different educational environments is a good thing. That includes learning to work with members of the opposite sex. It may not be detrimental to boys (it could discourage them) but it certainly is unequal and unfair to a male kid that wants to learn about CS but does not have the same formal opportunities as girls because... bad analogies and equal outcomes (but he has more informal opportunities!!! whatever that is).
...the fact that boys have more informal opportunities to become interested in CS. That's all it is doing - allowing girls to try it out and spark an interest. Education is still done at school in a mixed environment, so there is no denying boys access to education.
informal opportunities? Could you list some examples of informal opportunities? Informal implies it is done on their own (or with help from parents). How is a boy (or his parents) cultivating interests now a data point for lack of opportunities to girls? Do girls not have access to the same internet as boys? Or games? Or technology to foster that informal experience? I like the idea of allowing children to spark their interest in CS, but limiting it to one gender to me seems wrong. Just like your soup kitchen example, it seems wrong to deny a poor white person to your soup kitchen.
So, the kid that spent time learning a computer has more opportunities than someone that didn't... Shocking.
You make an interesting argument though. If I give money to a charity for cats, am I discriminating against dogs? I only have a limited amount of cash. Should I divide my donation equally among all charities somehow?
You are changing the criteria and moving the goal post. Cats and dogs are biologically different and require different food diets to be health. That is fundamentally different than a soup kitchen for poor humans. However, sticking to your original example, If you make a soup kitchen and deny a poor person because of their race, that's racist. You may have limited cash, but your soup will be helpful to any hungry human regardless of race. Just like this program would be helpful to any child looking to learn about CS, not just girls.
if I start a soup kitchen for the poor in some predominantly black community, it doesn't mean I'm a racist who hates white people.
Is it racist if you deny poor white people access to soup your kitchen? I don't think anyone is against engaging children in CS. The issue is actively denying interested parties by gender.
Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color.
So, because boys shown an interest in computers whether that is because of (FTFA) computer games or because of some other computer experience in high school; we should deny those kids access to education that could cultivate their interest because a kid with a different gender didn't have the same interest and we must have gender quotas??
The biggest problem with vaccines was their unbridled success. Because vaccines eliminated those terrible diseases and all that remains are distant memories from a dying generation; you have functional retards that publish crap like this: http://www.amazon.com/Melanies...
And company's never build off of government investments? Fed Ex and Amazon should build their own roads and postal system or else they are just as bad as the government. Google should have to build their own internet or else they are taking advantage of government thievery right? Obviously the government prevented private entities from investing their money into such research and development.
What about the money made back by some of those investments through businesses that were created? Roads, postal systems, internet, etc foster a larger/healthier economy which is good for everyone and why everyone pitches in!
Company's need an environment with which to operate and that is usually provided by the government in the form of various projects, infrastructure, research, defense, protections, courts, etc. Because those things are boring, expensive, and not profitable but help nearly everyone.
Provided at gunpoint? More like mutual understanding; businesses are good at somethings and governments can do other things. You are an idiot if you think your taxes do not provide anything useful.
is akin to "you have no evidence that homeopathy works, despite searching for it, but it could still totally be true". Sure, it might be true, but that's a ridiculously banal position to take in an argument: "I win because I don't need to assert anything".
Ummm.... No. The validity of homeopathy is testable and verifiable by scientific rigor. The question about God is purely philosophical and personal. It cannot be tested, verified, or even acknowledged by science. That question is a non-sequitur in science because it doesn't change the laws of nature that we have observed.
Seriously, if Odin, Zeus, or Jesus came from the sky and said; "Yep it was me all along, here is proof of me. See ya next millennium! BTW, be excellent to each other." Would that change the data observed from the LHC? Or would it change the theory of the Higgs Boson? (it might change what it is [It's really just the love touch of his noodley appendage which gives matter mass])
It is all speculation and speculation has no place in science. Agnosticism recognizes that anything outside of reality is unknown and water is wet! However, instead of defaulting to the disbelief (atheism which is scientifically aligned) or belief (theism) they err on "outside of our reality anything is possible however unlikely therefore I don't know without evidence."
Yes, because aliens on the moon told us to. We know this because when Neil Armstrong saw the aliens on the moon/in space, they brainwashed him. If this seems contradictory or paradoxical its because that is what the aliens want you to think!
Slashdot Mirror
The universe is Waldo.
http://bravestwarriors.wikia.c...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I never understood the contempt and hatred for the Euro. A loose economic union to facilitate trade and further diplomatic relationships with member states to ensure that another WW doesn't occur in Europe seems like a laudable goal. These goals seemed to be designed around the causes of WW1 and WW2. It may not have been perfectly implemented but what is perfect version 1.0? The USA had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation for similar issues (having the federal government assume the war debts of the Revolutionary War was a contentious topic that was addressed with the Constitution, not AoC iirc).
Could someone explain, why is the Euro seen as a bad thing? Perhaps, I am showing my age by asking this.
While I agree with the sentiment lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Fuck the federal student loan program.
As someone who used student loans (both private and federal) to get a B.S. in CS, the federal student loans were very helpful and were reasonable. Some of these changes had occurred recently, but loans that originated in 2005/6 were eligible of consolidation to take advantage of new government proposals (special loan consolidation in 2011/2012 iirc). These consolidations and proposals that passed lowered interest rates, payback amounts, possible forgiveness, etc. The private student loans however, were malicious. They knew you couldn't bankrupt out of them and they knew you were their bitch. It was one of the greatest days of my life paying those fuckers off.
The whole point of the student loans is to increase access to higher education, barring shit like UoP, that mission has been a success with record numbers of student enrollment. I would not have been able to get an education without them.
If there is another way to increase availability to higher education I am all ears. Student loans are not perfect but it's better then not having access to higher education.
I am not denying the problems women face. We are a free society and they are free to choose their career based on what interests them. The information provided FTFA that I previously linked showed a disparity in interest. If the one of the biggest problem women have is that their friends will make fun of them? Yes, i don't have much sympathy for that. Thick skin, grow some. Society does not owe you any favors to end peer pressure or negative stereo types. Because the way to end stereo types is to not care and ignore them and change them yourself. Have some personal accountability. All of the women that are in STEM didn't let anyone bring them down or talk them out of it. That tells me there is equal opportunity. Just because it is not 50/50 does not mean it is inherently sexist.
They're not as free, socially, as boys to pursue those interests.
Are there any legal barriers stopping those interests? No? Then they are just as free. What obstacles stop a girl watching a youtube video that teaches how to code? What societal pressure will stop you from reading a technical manual? There are more opportunities now to cultivate any interest you have these days, if subtle intimidation or mean comments stop you from perusing your interests, clearly it wasn't that interesting to you. If necessary there are legal courses of action a woman can take to end that type of behavior in school or on the job.
If we, as a society, change our attitudes and prejudices and eliminate those absurd gender stereotypes women won't have to face those problems ever. They won't have to worry about sitting in a male dominated classroom or workplace. They won't have to deal with ridiculous attitudes about their competence or ability simply because they're women.
Bullshit. Ever worked in a restaurant? It makes STEM look like the Oprah Winfrey show. Male dominated classroom and/or workplace? That means quotas which mean equal outcomes, not opportunity. Also, this coddling and unnecessary affirmative action does little to help those ridiculous attitudes about their competence and abilities. did you get that job because of quota or because you earned it?
I have yet to see a compelling evidence that suggests women have less opportunity than men in STEM. STEM maybe male dominated, and some men are dicks but that doesn't mean less opportunity for women. Subtle social anxieties and stressors are not evidence of lack of opportunity. Get over it.
The argument is that Computer Science/coding is now as core as basic numeracy and literacy,
i can agree with that. But that doesn't justify segregation. if it did, why don't we segregate all classes ( English, math, drama, science, etc ad infinitum)? Entire schools? Even the Workplace?
Because if he did understand the issues involved, he would have to acknowledge that there are many good reasons for having a girls only class. He might not agree with them, but his original comment appeared to dismiss their very existence.
In the real world, men and women have work together. That is a very compelling reason against segregation. The good reasons for having segregation are not strong enough for that, imo.
I have not seen an acknowledgement for reasons against segregation. You appear to dismiss their very existence. Therefore, you do not understand the issues because if you did you would have acknowledged them.
Peer influence and negative stereotypes
Yes, children/young adults have to get over peer pressure and negative stereotypes. This is not a gender specific problem. The nerd/geek stereotype is not a positive one, yet men and women overcome this "problem" all the time and pursue their interests. Segregation would solve this, how?
positive female role models
You can do this in a co-ed classroom.
an environment where it's acceptable for them to indulge in those interests
Girls can't learn in the same classroom as boys, is what you imply. Why stop at CS then? Why not gender segregated schools? Segregated workplaces? If girls can't learn with boys can they work with them? Segregation worked so well for race it should work for gender too.
This woudn't be the case in a co-ed classroom
I disagree. You can speculate all you want about gender segregation but in the real world men and women have to work with each other.
Just facing a male-dominated classroom, where they're very likely to be subjected to unwanted comments and advances, can be intimidating. It's certainly not conducive to learning.
If it is behavior that is disruptive to learning, the teacher is the arbitrator and can adjust the offenders behavior by kicking them out (for example). Unwanted comments and advances??? We are talking about K-12 right? I didn't realize kids so young were so forward... high school maybe but then, do you get that in English class? How do we stop it there? Why is CS so different?
That you can't find a single legitimate reason for 'girls only' programs tells me that you don't understand the issues at all.
To use your logic: Because you can't find a single legitimate reason for co-ed tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. You didn't address my reason for against segregation therefore you don't understand. Brilliant...
Really, it's quite simple: women and girls face significant obstacles that men and boys don't. If that's not inequality, I don't know what is! By reducing those barriers, we help to give them equal opportunity.
If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.
What you want is equal outcomes, not opportunities. Boys that have "informal opportunities", spend their own time to cultivate an interest. Yet, Girls are not. because they have different interests. FTFA, they are not as interested in working with computers, computer animation, computer programming and computer games . They prefercommunal careers.
And have chosennot to work with computers in high school.
Again, i think that growing children's interest in CS is a good thing... But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices because of some informal advantage that girls could have if they spent their time with it.... That is not equality. You make women sound weak.
level the playing field... because a boy that cultivated their interest in computers is now a data point for the lack of opportunity for girls...
A better example would be shower facilities. If you offered homeless people a shower, only had room for one communal facility so decided to limit it to just women, would that be sexist?
So, the semantics of a unisex bathrooms are now the analogy? Hygiene for adults is fundamentally different than sparking an interest for an education/career for children.
The point is that there is a good reason for having a girl's only class here, merely providing extra help for girls is not detrimental to boys.
I do not see a good reason for having a girls only class. Any career or educational path a person chooses have to learn to work with people that are different from them. Teaching children how to handle diverse work fields and different educational environments is a good thing. That includes learning to work with members of the opposite sex. It may not be detrimental to boys (it could discourage them) but it certainly is unequal and unfair to a male kid that wants to learn about CS but does not have the same formal opportunities as girls because... bad analogies and equal outcomes (but he has more informal opportunities!!! whatever that is).
...the fact that boys have more informal opportunities to become interested in CS. That's all it is doing - allowing girls to try it out and spark an interest. Education is still done at school in a mixed environment, so there is no denying boys access to education.
informal opportunities? Could you list some examples of informal opportunities? Informal implies it is done on their own (or with help from parents). How is a boy (or his parents) cultivating interests now a data point for lack of opportunities to girls? Do girls not have access to the same internet as boys? Or games? Or technology to foster that informal experience? I like the idea of allowing children to spark their interest in CS, but limiting it to one gender to me seems wrong. Just like your soup kitchen example, it seems wrong to deny a poor white person to your soup kitchen.
So, the kid that spent time learning a computer has more opportunities than someone that didn't... Shocking.
You make an interesting argument though. If I give money to a charity for cats, am I discriminating against dogs? I only have a limited amount of cash. Should I divide my donation equally among all charities somehow?
You are changing the criteria and moving the goal post. Cats and dogs are biologically different and require different food diets to be health. That is fundamentally different than a soup kitchen for poor humans. However, sticking to your original example, If you make a soup kitchen and deny a poor person because of their race, that's racist. You may have limited cash, but your soup will be helpful to any hungry human regardless of race. Just like this program would be helpful to any child looking to learn about CS, not just girls.
if I start a soup kitchen for the poor in some predominantly black community, it doesn't mean I'm a racist who hates white people.
Is it racist if you deny poor white people access to soup your kitchen? I don't think anyone is against engaging children in CS. The issue is actively denying interested parties by gender.
Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color.
So, because boys shown an interest in computers whether that is because of (FTFA) computer games or because of some other computer experience in high school; we should deny those kids access to education that could cultivate their interest because a kid with a different gender didn't have the same interest and we must have gender quotas??
Or did I miss something?
If metric is so awesome why aren't computers 10 based?
Checkmate.
It's for real. The author is delusional.
Somehow I doubt this. Homeschooling is a growing trend.
If you don't trust what the government says about vaccines; do you think you would trust the education from the government?
The biggest problem with vaccines was their unbridled success. Because vaccines eliminated those terrible diseases and all that remains are distant memories from a dying generation; you have functional retards that publish crap like this: http://www.amazon.com/Melanies...
the value of general science research that isn't chasing a short term profit.
you must be some sort of communist.
Each grain of sand is useless by itself but with enough sand and water you can build sand castles.
And company's never build off of government investments? Fed Ex and Amazon should build their own roads and postal system or else they are just as bad as the government. Google should have to build their own internet or else they are taking advantage of government thievery right? Obviously the government prevented private entities from investing their money into such research and development.
What about the money made back by some of those investments through businesses that were created? Roads, postal systems, internet, etc foster a larger/healthier economy which is good for everyone and why everyone pitches in!
Company's need an environment with which to operate and that is usually provided by the government in the form of various projects, infrastructure, research, defense, protections, courts, etc. Because those things are boring, expensive, and not profitable but help nearly everyone.
Provided at gunpoint? More like mutual understanding; businesses are good at somethings and governments can do other things. You are an idiot if you think your taxes do not provide anything useful.
It's also easier to reread something ambiguous or poorly worded to get the meaning as opposed to seeking back a few seconds.
this good post comrade. deny, derail, and diminish.
we will spill the ketchup onto the french frys and salt the plates to make those capitalist pigs our bacon for breakfast!
is akin to "you have no evidence that homeopathy works, despite searching for it, but it could still totally be true". Sure, it might be true, but that's a ridiculously banal position to take in an argument: "I win because I don't need to assert anything".
Ummm.... No. The validity of homeopathy is testable and verifiable by scientific rigor. The question about God is purely philosophical and personal. It cannot be tested, verified, or even acknowledged by science. That question is a non-sequitur in science because it doesn't change the laws of nature that we have observed.
Seriously, if Odin, Zeus, or Jesus came from the sky and said; "Yep it was me all along, here is proof of me. See ya next millennium! BTW, be excellent to each other." Would that change the data observed from the LHC? Or would it change the theory of the Higgs Boson? (it might change what it is [It's really just the love touch of his noodley appendage which gives matter mass])
It is all speculation and speculation has no place in science. Agnosticism recognizes that anything outside of reality is unknown and water is wet! However, instead of defaulting to the disbelief (atheism which is scientifically aligned) or belief (theism) they err on "outside of our reality anything is possible however unlikely therefore I don't know without evidence."
they succeed in "falling on their ass"
I am an expert at sitting on my ass you insensitive clod!
Why should I run and jump when there is a perfect capable (and awesome) robot that can do it for me?
Robots will take our jobs and our exercise routines!
issue with the kernel, sysvinit and/or php
So, what you are saying is that I can blame systemd? Or did I miss it and systemd is our savior?
I am confused and unsure how to be outraged by this. I am going to go eat ice cream.
Yes, because aliens on the moon told us to. We know this because when Neil Armstrong saw the aliens on the moon /in space, they brainwashed him. If this seems contradictory or paradoxical its because that is what the aliens want you to think!
It's aliens all the way down.