Now you're just being pedantic. "The 1%" was a phrase popularized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and refers almost exclusively to wealth inequity in America. The median income for the cohort to which the phrase "The 1%" refers is $400,000. Global wealth has no seriously meaningful value when considered on the scale of the individual. By your metric, the average homeless person in the US will be in the top 15 - 20%.
He is neither trained nor paid to be a management consultant. Managers are paid humongous salaries not least because they are supposed to put in the work required for making qualified decisions. If they don't have the brains to pick that up on the job by talking to people in their language, they need to acquire that knowledge in courses catering to them. They don't get 10 times the salary of others for rolling dice.
If you're reporting to someone who gets 10 times the salary you do, either you or your company is fundamentally broken. And if you are incapable of explaining the reasoning behind the decisions you make in your position so that the person you report to can understand it, either you or your manager is seriously challenged in the communications arena. If you're capable, but just unwilling because you can't see past that massive chip on your shoulder, then you need to be replaced by someone who will. Either way, it sounds like your company has some serious problems.
A good manager doesn't have to be a technical person, they have to listen to their subordinates. When you tell your manager that something can't be reasonably fine or shouldn't be done their job requires them to listen to the technical experts on the project.
I've been on both sides of the managerial fence, and in my experience, you can't have one without the other. A good manager can't listen to their subordinates if they can't understand what they're hearing. It's like explaining color to a blind man. One of the primary responsibilities of a manager is communication. He or she has to be technically savvy enough to not only understand the decisions his direct reports are making, but be able to translate those decisions into the appropriate level of technical detail to the people he or she reports to. And that coin has two sides: a manager must also have enough business savvy to understand the decisions of his superiors and be able to translate them to his direct reports.
A manager who makes decisions on the say-so of his subordinates without being technically conversant enough to actually understand and explain why it's a good decision, isn't a manager at all: she's a proxy. The same goes for a manager who just tells his reports what to do without understanding why his own managers want him to do it.
By "this," do you mean the cheating, or the getting caught? The getting caught wouldn't have happened without the cheating...
By "this," do you mean the running from the police, or the getting shot? The getting shot wouldn't have happened without the running... By "this," do you mean wearing the short skirt, or the rape? The getting raped wouldn't have happened without the short skirt...
Nope. Still mindless victim-blaming, but at least we know who you keep company with.
It's like saying "We have no chips in the vending machine". You cannot "have none" - but you can "not have any". "We do not have any chips in the vending machine" would be correct.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what you're talking about either. Both of my assertions are grammatically and logically correct, with the former using the "no-negation" form of assertion.
I have yet to meet ANYONE that has found linked in to be useful in any way. 99% of the "employers" are headhunters that are doing shotgun requests.
Hello, I'm Mark. Glad to meet you. I've gotten two of my last three jobs via LinkedIn and have helped at least two other people get jobs via contacts I made there. I found funding for a non-profit I'm with there. It's also my primary communication method for business associates with which I don't wish to socialize.
Like pretty much everything else on the Internet, LinkedIn is a tool. Just because YOU don't know how to use it doesn't mean it's not useful.
Internet dating is for people who don't have the social skills to meet people and engage in more than a nod or good morning in passing. The same people who don't know their next door neighbors and then complain they have nobody to talk to. Getting out and actually doing something, which would help address the problem, is too outside their comfort zone due to lack of practice. I predict a rise in similar scams targeted at the aging male programmer population who think they'll never fall for it.
Your view is painfully naive, shallow, and uninformed. For many people, "getting out and actually doing something" is a pretty crappy way of meeting people to date. If your ideal date is... well... someone just like you, it's fantastic. Otherwise, not so much.
I'm very social as well as involved in my community, but the aspects of community involvement I like as well as most of my hobbies tend to be things other guys like, not other women. Because of my job, I live in primarily family oriented areas where most people are married. I go out a couple times a week and it's always with married couples or just the guys. Single women in my age range are needles in the proverbial haystack.
Internet dating has been a godsend in meeting people in neighboring areas with different interests and different social circles. Internet dating is a tool. It's a shame you feel the need to denigrate others just because you don't know how to use it.
Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is one of my favorite put-up or shut-up discussion points. Since 2004, Certified Sustainable Palm Oil has been available to the market. Over a decade later, a very small percentage of palm oil sold is produced via sustainable, non-destructive methods. Why? Because it costs more. Rather than support the RSPO by buying sustainable palm oil, slacktivists just boycott palm oil altogether rather than rewarding the industry for doing the right thing. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Why would anyone change their behavior if those who want them to change refuse to support it?
They made their course more attractive to women, nothing else.
No, they didn't. They cherry-picked engineering applications which would appeal to women. The other drudgery that's necessary for society's functioning still needs to get done, and it will. Just not by people who think having feel-goods about what they do is more important than the work itself. I'm pretty sure if you changed nursing studies to "nursing while piloting supersonic jets", you'd get a lot more guys being RNs too.
Can we just call it what it is? It's a "toy helicopter", not a "drone". That helps get the conversation on the right track.
No it doesn't. That just sidetracks the conversation completely and leads into another unrelated thread in which someone points out that "drone" is a colloquial superset of UAVs that includes "toy helicopter," the aircraft in this article, and whatever more limited definition you have in your head. It's pointless, non-contributory pedantry.
"Bill Hicks: Remember Jim Fix, that health-nut who died while jogging? Used to write BOOKS about joggingwhat do you jot down about jogging? “Left foot, right foot, hemorrhage."
Remember Bill Hicks, that comedian who made fun of Jim Fix, the health-nut with a heart condition who died at the age of 52? Used to smoke, drink to excess, and make fun of people who took care of themselves? Died of cancer at the age of 32.
Bad idea. Downhill is harder on the knees and quads than running flat. I would rather run uphill over distance than the equivalent downhill any day. It's more work, but far less damaging.
Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.
The US spends over half a trillion dollars on the DOD a year. For decades, we have moved away from producing goods to a service providing nation. Granted, this is starting to improve a bit but it's nothing to celebrate, yet.
It's a little disingenuous to refuse the distinction between external funding and funding created from your own economy, don't you think? And the US economy isn't propped up by arms in the sense the OP used it because the use of those arms is not the engine of our economics. Propped up in the sense that we manufacture and sell them to others as well as ourselves, yes, but that's hardly a closed system, is it?
Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding - and it's a bigger problem than just about anybody guessed.
Fact is, that's a logically inconsistent statement. If it's just now entering the threshold of human understanding, than there can't possibly be enough evidence to call it a "bigger problem than just about anybody guessed". Unless, of course, nobody thought it was a problem at all - in which case they wouldn't be called pollutants, but unicorn dust or leprechaun farticles.
Suing programmers for their creation is a very bad practice. As code is a form of speech, denying someone a freedom of it is against a democratic constitution.
I'd like to see Blizzy sued to bankruptcy for this stupidity. But alas, pigs don't fly now do they?
I'd post that idiocy anonymously too. A) Freedom of speech is freedom from legal suppression. You do not have the right to say whatever you wish. B) Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't release code whose intent or effect is to infringe on someone else's rights. Under your perverse logic, anti-virus software would be "unconstitutional censorship."
>I would leave off the call feature - big waste of time for me.
Yup. I tend to avoid the whole call thing. People calling my phone is an asynchronous interrupt which doesn't fit with my life and work style.
The most ironic part of it is, it's the one piece they just can't seem to get right. Phone calls on a cell phone suck. Period. They're awful. I was at someone's house the other day and talked to someone on an old AT&T Bakelite phone over POTS and I was shocked at how beautiful the sound was. I have never, ever - not even once - had a cell phone call that came anywhere close to that. Cell phone call quality is the audio equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting: anyone who claims they can understand a damn thing is just lying.
I don't know, aside from a few mountains that mostly stay put there's nothing to hit in the air except other planes, and there's a LOT more room to maneuver than on the street.
You'd think that... but I imagine it's a lot like sailing. I sail on the ocean and even if there's only a handful of boats out there, there's a good chance you're going to come near one of them. Every airplane is dealing with the same flying conditions and a fairly limited number of destinations. You're generally going to want to take the shortest, most fuel-efficient path - along with every other craft up there. In theory there's lots of room to maneuver, but the odds of you occupying the same space as another craft going or coming the same direction are actually pretty good.
YA, No. It's not. All the fuss surrounding GMO is about imagined illness and "unnatural" foods. I WISH it was about this because this is what the fuss should be about: Bad Farming Practices (tm). And Bad Farming Practices (tm) are not limited to GMOs, but also apply to the festering cesspool we call organics that poison hundreds of people every year.
Anyone who's arguing against GMOs because of where farmers get their seeds has no idea how modern agriculture works. Farmers have been buying seed from stores for nearly a century and that's not going to change any time soon. The economics of selecting, drying, and storing your own seed hasn't scaled in generations. This fantasy of the strapping farmer harvesting his crops and saving the seeds for next year's planting is just some Hakuna matata circle-of-life fantasy that doesn't exist in the real world business of agriculture.
All that effort to protect what has become a job selling buggy whips.
Just drop the "professional" photog bullshit already. No one needs to pay to have their picture taken. Do you know why? Because it's not 1964 anymore, and every fucking person walks around with some kind of camera on them.
Like I said, selling fucking buggy whips.
Yes, and everyone walks around with some kind of writing tool on them and thinks they're an author too. The unreadable dreck that has turned the self-pub market into a steaming shit-pile makes it very clear that people like you are the ones doing it. Photography is art. Just because you have a tool that is capable of creating art, doesn't mean the person wielding it is, anymore than the billions of people with computers that can run a compiler are capable of writing a useful application.
It's also pretty clear, based on the experiences of women who have an interest in technology, that they experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness, many enough for them to quit. If it were just a couple, then I'd think it was maybe a fluke, but when every woman I've talked to in tech about it has said they experienced it, and all but 2 of my female college classmates dropped out of the CS program, I'd say it's safe to say there's a sexism problem in the culture of tech that should be addressed.
My experience has been that women in technology who say they "experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness" are experiencing the exact same environment that the men they work with experience. Men who work in the primarily female field of nursing experience cattiness, back-stabbing, and undermining cliquishness. Are women in nursing inherently sexist? No, of course not. Men are just not used to the dynamic of a primarily female workplace, and the same holds true for women.
Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.
So, the woman who finds a male nursing co-worker attractive is the problem with the under-representation of men in the nursing field? Men interact with men differently than they interact with women. Women interact with women differently than with men. "Professionalism" that attempts to pretend that's not true is doomed to failure. There are plenty of fields that are balanced in gender representation. There is absolutely nothing inherent in IT professionals that they create a more "sexist" environment than there is in nursing or teaching professionals. Attempting to blame the behavior of those already in the field is disingenuous, uninformed, and insulting.
Slashdot Mirror
"In the 1%" means you make $32,400 a year.
Source: globalrichlist.com
I personally sit in the top 0.38%.
Now you're just being pedantic. "The 1%" was a phrase popularized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and refers almost exclusively to wealth inequity in America. The median income for the cohort to which the phrase "The 1%" refers is $400,000. Global wealth has no seriously meaningful value when considered on the scale of the individual. By your metric, the average homeless person in the US will be in the top 15 - 20%.
He is neither trained nor paid to be a management consultant. Managers are paid humongous salaries not least because they are supposed to put in the work required for making qualified decisions. If they don't have the brains to pick that up on the job by talking to people in their language, they need to acquire that knowledge in courses catering to them. They don't get 10 times the salary of others for rolling dice.
If you're reporting to someone who gets 10 times the salary you do, either you or your company is fundamentally broken. And if you are incapable of explaining the reasoning behind the decisions you make in your position so that the person you report to can understand it, either you or your manager is seriously challenged in the communications arena. If you're capable, but just unwilling because you can't see past that massive chip on your shoulder, then you need to be replaced by someone who will. Either way, it sounds like your company has some serious problems.
A good manager doesn't have to be a technical person, they have to listen to their subordinates. When you tell your manager that something can't be reasonably fine or shouldn't be done their job requires them to listen to the technical experts on the project.
I've been on both sides of the managerial fence, and in my experience, you can't have one without the other. A good manager can't listen to their subordinates if they can't understand what they're hearing. It's like explaining color to a blind man. One of the primary responsibilities of a manager is communication. He or she has to be technically savvy enough to not only understand the decisions his direct reports are making, but be able to translate those decisions into the appropriate level of technical detail to the people he or she reports to. And that coin has two sides: a manager must also have enough business savvy to understand the decisions of his superiors and be able to translate them to his direct reports.
A manager who makes decisions on the say-so of his subordinates without being technically conversant enough to actually understand and explain why it's a good decision, isn't a manager at all: she's a proxy. The same goes for a manager who just tells his reports what to do without understanding why his own managers want him to do it.
I've worked with systemd long enough to realize that systemd is a really broken concept.
By "this," do you mean the cheating, or the getting caught? The getting caught wouldn't have happened without the cheating...
By "this," do you mean the running from the police, or the getting shot? The getting shot wouldn't have happened without the running...
By "this," do you mean wearing the short skirt, or the rape? The getting raped wouldn't have happened without the short skirt...
Nope. Still mindless victim-blaming, but at least we know who you keep company with.
It's like saying "We have no chips in the vending machine".
You cannot "have none" - but you can "not have any".
"We do not have any chips in the vending machine" would be correct.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what you're talking about either. Both of my assertions are grammatically and logically correct, with the former using the "no-negation" form of assertion.
I have yet to meet ANYONE that has found linked in to be useful in any way. 99% of the "employers" are headhunters that are doing shotgun requests.
Hello, I'm Mark. Glad to meet you. I've gotten two of my last three jobs via LinkedIn and have helped at least two other people get jobs via contacts I made there. I found funding for a non-profit I'm with there. It's also my primary communication method for business associates with which I don't wish to socialize.
Like pretty much everything else on the Internet, LinkedIn is a tool. Just because YOU don't know how to use it doesn't mean it's not useful.
Internet dating is for people who don't have the social skills to meet people and engage in more than a nod or good morning in passing. The same people who don't know their next door neighbors and then complain they have nobody to talk to. Getting out and actually doing something, which would help address the problem, is too outside their comfort zone due to lack of practice. I predict a rise in similar scams targeted at the aging male programmer population who think they'll never fall for it.
Your view is painfully naive, shallow, and uninformed. For many people, "getting out and actually doing something" is a pretty crappy way of meeting people to date. If your ideal date is... well... someone just like you, it's fantastic. Otherwise, not so much.
I'm very social as well as involved in my community, but the aspects of community involvement I like as well as most of my hobbies tend to be things other guys like, not other women. Because of my job, I live in primarily family oriented areas where most people are married. I go out a couple times a week and it's always with married couples or just the guys. Single women in my age range are needles in the proverbial haystack.
Internet dating has been a godsend in meeting people in neighboring areas with different interests and different social circles. Internet dating is a tool. It's a shame you feel the need to denigrate others just because you don't know how to use it.
Yes! Yes, yes, yes! Man, I wish I had mod points.
This is one of my favorite put-up or shut-up discussion points. Since 2004, Certified Sustainable Palm Oil has been available to the market. Over a decade later, a very small percentage of palm oil sold is produced via sustainable, non-destructive methods. Why? Because it costs more. Rather than support the RSPO by buying sustainable palm oil, slacktivists just boycott palm oil altogether rather than rewarding the industry for doing the right thing. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Why would anyone change their behavior if those who want them to change refuse to support it?
No, of course not. Who is suggesting we force it?
They made their course more attractive to women, nothing else.
No, they didn't. They cherry-picked engineering applications which would appeal to women. The other drudgery that's necessary for society's functioning still needs to get done, and it will. Just not by people who think having feel-goods about what they do is more important than the work itself. I'm pretty sure if you changed nursing studies to "nursing while piloting supersonic jets", you'd get a lot more guys being RNs too.
Can we just call it what it is? It's a "toy helicopter", not a "drone". That helps get the conversation on the right track.
No it doesn't. That just sidetracks the conversation completely and leads into another unrelated thread in which someone points out that "drone" is a colloquial superset of UAVs that includes "toy helicopter," the aircraft in this article, and whatever more limited definition you have in your head. It's pointless, non-contributory pedantry.
"Bill Hicks: Remember Jim Fix, that health-nut who died while jogging? Used to write BOOKS about joggingwhat do you jot down about jogging? “Left foot, right foot, hemorrhage."
Remember Bill Hicks, that comedian who made fun of Jim Fix, the health-nut with a heart condition who died at the age of 52? Used to smoke, drink to excess, and make fun of people who took care of themselves? Died of cancer at the age of 32.
Bad idea. Downhill is harder on the knees and quads than running flat. I would rather run uphill over distance than the equivalent downhill any day. It's more work, but far less damaging.
First in regards to:
Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.
The US spends over half a trillion dollars on the DOD a year. For decades, we have moved away from producing goods to a service providing nation. Granted, this is starting to improve a bit but it's nothing to celebrate, yet.
It's a little disingenuous to refuse the distinction between external funding and funding created from your own economy, don't you think? And the US economy isn't propped up by arms in the sense the OP used it because the use of those arms is not the engine of our economics. Propped up in the sense that we manufacture and sell them to others as well as ourselves, yes, but that's hardly a closed system, is it?
Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding - and it's a bigger problem than just about anybody guessed.
Fact is, that's a logically inconsistent statement. If it's just now entering the threshold of human understanding, than there can't possibly be enough evidence to call it a "bigger problem than just about anybody guessed". Unless, of course, nobody thought it was a problem at all - in which case they wouldn't be called pollutants, but unicorn dust or leprechaun farticles.
Where the hell are my mod points when I need them!
Suing programmers for their creation is a very bad practice. As code is a form of speech, denying someone a freedom of it is against a democratic constitution.
I'd like to see Blizzy sued to bankruptcy for this stupidity. But alas, pigs don't fly now do they?
I'd post that idiocy anonymously too. A) Freedom of speech is freedom from legal suppression. You do not have the right to say whatever you wish. B) Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't release code whose intent or effect is to infringe on someone else's rights. Under your perverse logic, anti-virus software would be "unconstitutional censorship."
>I would leave off the call feature - big waste of time for me.
Yup. I tend to avoid the whole call thing. People calling my phone is an asynchronous interrupt which doesn't fit with my life and work style.
The most ironic part of it is, it's the one piece they just can't seem to get right. Phone calls on a cell phone suck. Period. They're awful. I was at someone's house the other day and talked to someone on an old AT&T Bakelite phone over POTS and I was shocked at how beautiful the sound was. I have never, ever - not even once - had a cell phone call that came anywhere close to that. Cell phone call quality is the audio equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting: anyone who claims they can understand a damn thing is just lying.
See this makes my whole week. Shitbag dirty criminal animal who rapes and murders multiple people gets "absolutely tremendous levels of suffering"
There is a huge grin on my face right now. Knowing it pisses you off even makes me happier.
Cool!
Capthca: Hilarity! Can you believe it! HAHAHAH Fuck off.,
Anonymous Coward has never been more applicable. Take off your sheet clansman and show your face.
Watch out for those blanket generalizations, they bite back.
Nothing is said about the ability of coal miners to learn how to code. You just can't teach them.
lolwut? "Oh, they can learn, they just can't be taught." So they arrive at these new skill-sets organically through osmosis?
I don't know, aside from a few mountains that mostly stay put there's nothing to hit in the air except other planes, and there's a LOT more room to maneuver than on the street.
You'd think that... but I imagine it's a lot like sailing. I sail on the ocean and even if there's only a handful of boats out there, there's a good chance you're going to come near one of them. Every airplane is dealing with the same flying conditions and a fairly limited number of destinations. You're generally going to want to take the shortest, most fuel-efficient path - along with every other craft up there. In theory there's lots of room to maneuver, but the odds of you occupying the same space as another craft going or coming the same direction are actually pretty good.
All the fuss surrounding GMO is about this.
YA, No. It's not. All the fuss surrounding GMO is about imagined illness and "unnatural" foods. I WISH it was about this because this is what the fuss should be about: Bad Farming Practices (tm). And Bad Farming Practices (tm) are not limited to GMOs, but also apply to the festering cesspool we call organics that poison hundreds of people every year.
Anyone who's arguing against GMOs because of where farmers get their seeds has no idea how modern agriculture works. Farmers have been buying seed from stores for nearly a century and that's not going to change any time soon. The economics of selecting, drying, and storing your own seed hasn't scaled in generations. This fantasy of the strapping farmer harvesting his crops and saving the seeds for next year's planting is just some Hakuna matata circle-of-life fantasy that doesn't exist in the real world business of agriculture.
All that effort to protect what has become a job selling buggy whips.
Just drop the "professional" photog bullshit already. No one needs to pay to have their picture taken. Do you know why? Because it's not 1964 anymore, and every fucking person walks around with some kind of camera on them.
Like I said, selling fucking buggy whips.
Yes, and everyone walks around with some kind of writing tool on them and thinks they're an author too. The unreadable dreck that has turned the self-pub market into a steaming shit-pile makes it very clear that people like you are the ones doing it. Photography is art. Just because you have a tool that is capable of creating art, doesn't mean the person wielding it is, anymore than the billions of people with computers that can run a compiler are capable of writing a useful application.
It's also pretty clear, based on the experiences of women who have an interest in technology, that they experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness, many enough for them to quit. If it were just a couple, then I'd think it was maybe a fluke, but when every woman I've talked to in tech about it has said they experienced it, and all but 2 of my female college classmates dropped out of the CS program, I'd say it's safe to say there's a sexism problem in the culture of tech that should be addressed.
My experience has been that women in technology who say they "experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness" are experiencing the exact same environment that the men they work with experience. Men who work in the primarily female field of nursing experience cattiness, back-stabbing, and undermining cliquishness. Are women in nursing inherently sexist? No, of course not. Men are just not used to the dynamic of a primarily female workplace, and the same holds true for women.
Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.
So, the woman who finds a male nursing co-worker attractive is the problem with the under-representation of men in the nursing field? Men interact with men differently than they interact with women. Women interact with women differently than with men. "Professionalism" that attempts to pretend that's not true is doomed to failure. There are plenty of fields that are balanced in gender representation. There is absolutely nothing inherent in IT professionals that they create a more "sexist" environment than there is in nursing or teaching professionals. Attempting to blame the behavior of those already in the field is disingenuous, uninformed, and insulting.