No, you're talking about the extremists, who get the most attention because they're the loudest.
Look a little closer into most any given group (there are certainly notable exceptions) and you'll find a bunch of normal people with perfectly normal human wants and needs that assumes the group in general is good, and will do good, or at least not actively bad, things if given the freedom to do so.
The same group of normal people, however, really only understand the concept of "normal", so when you present them with something like extremism, they tend to keep their heads down because they neither understand how to fight the irrationality of the extremism in the first place, nor the irrationality coming from the outside that tends to condemn the entire group and want to avoid getting stigmatized for the actions of a few bad actors, nor even endure the eye-rolling or different levels of shaming (up to and including abuse) that others do when they try to straighten out the matter and try to express their viewpoint on the situation, which may be perfectly rational and reasonable, but a lot of people will reject outright simply because of those same bad actors in the first place.
Another anecdote: I'm also a vegetarian. I don't advocate for it. I don't tell people they should. In fact, I actively tell people not to if they don't really "want" to, but think they "have" to (that's the right way to give yourself an eating disorder).
Still, I've had to endure a lot of defensiveness from people who think that once that detail comes out, I'm going to start spouting whatever propaganda that the loudest and most obnoxious vegetarians/vegans feel compelled to spout.
Do those people make vegetarianism bad? Of fucking course not. Are those people the majority of vegetarians? Absolutely fucking not. Most of us will leave you alone, even when you turn up your nose at us. We wish you wouldn't assume the worst of us, but we know it's coming.
This is why broad-brush generalizations suck. And yes, that includes religions.
I'd argue that having a tribe is not necessarily a bad thing.
I know that a good number of/. posters would disagree with this, but this is why I don't think religion is a terrible thing. If you have a group with which you identify, with which you share a common history and traditions and common points of view, it may not be useful anymore as a "protective" thing, but rather meets the simple need to be a part of something larger than oneself.
I know this is purely anecdotal, but I don't have much of a family to speak of. Consequently, finding a church to belong to is somewhat comforting to me because I don't have that "tribal" feeling that comes from having a family. I imagine that it might be helpful to people in similar situations.
This is ultimately why people, even with families, seek out "tribes" outside of their family, because of the need to "belong", not just show up and exist.
Having been through the basic Agile training (and exposure to other processes like Lean/Six Sigma and the entire PMI catalog), the only thing I can think of when I see stuff like this is: oh, good, another largely misapplied methodology to getting things done that's a sub for really good management.
I know that a lot of these processes CAN be effective, but they ONLY work if everyone is willing to buy in and play along and if everyone is competent and motivated enough to meet deadlines (in both cases, it means that virtually nobody's dead weight).
After 15 years of working for organizations big and small, the only conclusion I can make about these "standard processes" is there isn't a single one that is asshole-proof. The only thing that ever, EVER solves that particular problem is a dynamite manager that adapts rather than conforms - and isn't afraid to fire people when necessary. But because the paradigm (shudder) states "tailorability, but stick to the process", what you end up with is a bunch of officious morons who emphasize process over ingenuity.
I'm not saying that there should be complete chaos at all times (a good manager lays out the ground rules and provides a structure for activity) or even that these processes hold no merit, but when you have a turn-the-crank process created by someone who seems to have forgotten (or never knew in the first place) what it's like to be boots-on-the-ground, you're going to get resistance by people who just want to get stuff done and not be hampered by the snooty administrators with two-year-degrees who routinely it over the PhDs because they know "the process" and the guys who know how to get shit done don't.
I've had students pull any of the following on me:
1. You're mean 2. I paid good money for this class 3. I'm going broke 4. I'm on my period 5. Can I take the first test again? (This one well into the second half of the semester) 6. The class talked about the final, and we want to know if you'll be grading on a curve.
Had I continued to teach after that, I would have put a headline over my syllabus that said:
"No curves EVER. One of the lessons of my class that you will learn over and over again is that we build on the material we learn. If you don't have the time to do it right the first time, you will NEVER have the time to do it over."
tl;dr: A CEO tells a nun in great detail that requiring the board reflect a greater makeup of diversity for its own sake is "immoral".
A choice quotation from the letter follows:
"A search [for board members] based on these criteria usually yields a male who is 50-plus years old, has a Masters degree in an engineering science, and has moved up the managerial ladder to the top spot in one or more corporations. Unfortunately, there are currently few minorities and almost no women who chose to be engineering graduate students 30 years ago. (That picture will be dramatically different in 10 years, due to the greater diversification of graduate students in the '80s.) Bluntly stated, a "woman's view" on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO. I do realize there are other industries in which the last statement does not hold true. We would quickly embrace the opportunity to include any woman or minority person who could help us as a director, because we pursue talent -- and we don't care in what package that talent comes."
Hush you. You're ruining a perfectly good talking point that people who have no experience in the field, or who understand the requirements, demands, or underlying understanding of the psychology involved can use to feel good about themselves because "more women succeeding" in "lucrative and attractive fields with high visibility" automatically = "societally good"
I don't think anyone who was reading Rolling Stone saw the Boston Marathon bomber as a sex symbol, at least anyone who wasn't inclined to see him that way in the first place.
It isn't like RS never covered anything but pop culture either.
That said, when someone who commits a heinous crime is part of your target demographic, I actually think it's rather responsible to pull the veil of "it couldn't happen to you" off your readership, and if it provided some insight that could help someone recognize the signs in someone like that before it's too late, I think it's a far more responsible choice than you're willing to give it credit for.
but hiring black teachers for black students and white teachers for white students to achieve improved results apparently has some empirical basis, so why not do it?
Adding to what Karmashock is saying, I'd like to add the following: because it doesn't teach kids anything about diversity, or about being able to work with people that aren't like you.
If the thing you learn in life from school is "surround yourself with people like you because it's a security blanket", you'll eventually find yourself hobbled by the notion that you don't know how to deal with people that aren't like you. It doesn't toughen kids up for the real world, and reinforces the notion that kids should segregate themselves into their little groups of look-alikes and like-minded people. Because being different is scary and should be avoided at all costs!
Introducing kids to a diversity of people early in life normalizes them to the notion that 2 + 2 = 4, and it doesn't matter squat what color the person that teaches you that is, or whether their pants contain an innie or an outie.
I've never reviewed a book before its release date, however, I have been able to obtain a review copy of a book before it's released to the general public.
It's certainly possible for someone like me who is outside the business to obtain those copies. My library occasionally has a few to give away. Goodreads is generally in the know about getting advanced copies.
I don't think there's anything particularly shady about this practice, though. I mean, why wouldn't a publisher want pre-release buzz?
Slight inaccuracies aside in my initial post, I stand by my initial point. Kid got a job offer because he showed creative thinking and some modicum of courage to ask a question most wouldn't have asked.
He may not be talented, but he's enough of a go-getter (or at least can put on a show of being one) and many companies value that, even if it is for a complete bullshit reason. Sometimes the bullshit is what gets feet in the door.
There's an apparently oft-told fable in a company I used to work for in which an entry-level employee was joined in an elevator by an older businessman. Said entry-level employee remarked on the briefcase of the businessman, and made polite conversation. Upon exiting the elevator, the businessman asked for the young employee's business card, and exchanged his with her.
Apparently, he was a high-level executive in the same company. Because of her initiative to not be shy (that is to say, "network", in the parlance of the environment), said executive was now going to pay attention to this young woman.
I don't know how true this story is (those telling the story neglect to give names, thus the idea that it's more a fable than an actual thing that happened), but the point of the story was that in this organization (whose name you'd know but I will decline to mention), any in-road to making yourself noticed is a good one, even if it's discussing something as banal as a briefcase.
It's always nice to hear other people talk about learning Logo as a kid. I admit I couldn't figure out much to do with it either, but it's given me appreciation for JavaScript as a "learning" language (though I think Python is better learned in the long-run for sheer versatility).
Heh. Every time I see someone take a knock at Pearson, my inner Grumpy Cat wakes up, is momentarily pleased, and goes back to sleep.
I'm happy that your kids have found a good learning tool that makes them want to learn instead of that turn-the-crank nonsense being peddled to schools these days.
I was going to make a serious statement about coding and people on Slashdot here, but instead, I think I'll just say "there's fan fiction" and leave it at that.
While I do think what he did was cheating and he should haven't been able to pass by virtue of that, this sort of thing does indicate a couple of things, which can be good or bad depending on view:
1. That he's not tied into solving problems the way everyone else is; therefore a creative thinker 2. He's got the guts to do something that a lot of people might consider cheating; he covered his ass by saying "I'm studying anyway"
Too often we complain about the school system being used to create automatons that don't think for themselves; separating yourself from the pack is a good way to get attention. Again, I'm not saying what he did was right, but sometimes bad press is better than no press.
Is there a branch of the NRA in Australia that needs to look into this?
Not that I don't think they're not looking into this in the States, but, you know, TFA and all...
Though I'm sure you're well aware as Slashdot readers are about the irony in your own statement; guns outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, yada yada.
Slashdot Mirror
Because when something like this becomes more accessible to people, it will sell more than 5000 cars a month?
(I can haz DIY build-your-own-Tesla kit? Pretty please?)
No, you're talking about the extremists, who get the most attention because they're the loudest.
Look a little closer into most any given group (there are certainly notable exceptions) and you'll find a bunch of normal people with perfectly normal human wants and needs that assumes the group in general is good, and will do good, or at least not actively bad, things if given the freedom to do so.
The same group of normal people, however, really only understand the concept of "normal", so when you present them with something like extremism, they tend to keep their heads down because they neither understand how to fight the irrationality of the extremism in the first place, nor the irrationality coming from the outside that tends to condemn the entire group and want to avoid getting stigmatized for the actions of a few bad actors, nor even endure the eye-rolling or different levels of shaming (up to and including abuse) that others do when they try to straighten out the matter and try to express their viewpoint on the situation, which may be perfectly rational and reasonable, but a lot of people will reject outright simply because of those same bad actors in the first place.
Another anecdote: I'm also a vegetarian. I don't advocate for it. I don't tell people they should. In fact, I actively tell people not to if they don't really "want" to, but think they "have" to (that's the right way to give yourself an eating disorder).
Still, I've had to endure a lot of defensiveness from people who think that once that detail comes out, I'm going to start spouting whatever propaganda that the loudest and most obnoxious vegetarians/vegans feel compelled to spout.
Do those people make vegetarianism bad? Of fucking course not. Are those people the majority of vegetarians? Absolutely fucking not. Most of us will leave you alone, even when you turn up your nose at us. We wish you wouldn't assume the worst of us, but we know it's coming.
This is why broad-brush generalizations suck. And yes, that includes religions.
I'd argue that having a tribe is not necessarily a bad thing.
I know that a good number of /. posters would disagree with this, but this is why I don't think religion is a terrible thing. If you have a group with which you identify, with which you share a common history and traditions and common points of view, it may not be useful anymore as a "protective" thing, but rather meets the simple need to be a part of something larger than oneself.
I know this is purely anecdotal, but I don't have much of a family to speak of. Consequently, finding a church to belong to is somewhat comforting to me because I don't have that "tribal" feeling that comes from having a family. I imagine that it might be helpful to people in similar situations.
This is ultimately why people, even with families, seek out "tribes" outside of their family, because of the need to "belong", not just show up and exist.
Because some facilities, like SCIFs, require cabling?
(SCIFs still don't allow cell/smartphones, right? I remember I was even told Furby toys weren't allowed in them.)
Having been through the basic Agile training (and exposure to other processes like Lean/Six Sigma and the entire PMI catalog), the only thing I can think of when I see stuff like this is: oh, good, another largely misapplied methodology to getting things done that's a sub for really good management.
I know that a lot of these processes CAN be effective, but they ONLY work if everyone is willing to buy in and play along and if everyone is competent and motivated enough to meet deadlines (in both cases, it means that virtually nobody's dead weight).
After 15 years of working for organizations big and small, the only conclusion I can make about these "standard processes" is there isn't a single one that is asshole-proof. The only thing that ever, EVER solves that particular problem is a dynamite manager that adapts rather than conforms - and isn't afraid to fire people when necessary. But because the paradigm (shudder) states "tailorability, but stick to the process", what you end up with is a bunch of officious morons who emphasize process over ingenuity.
I'm not saying that there should be complete chaos at all times (a good manager lays out the ground rules and provides a structure for activity) or even that these processes hold no merit, but when you have a turn-the-crank process created by someone who seems to have forgotten (or never knew in the first place) what it's like to be boots-on-the-ground, you're going to get resistance by people who just want to get stuff done and not be hampered by the snooty administrators with two-year-degrees who routinely it over the PhDs because they know "the process" and the guys who know how to get shit done don't.
I've had students pull any of the following on me:
1. You're mean
2. I paid good money for this class
3. I'm going broke
4. I'm on my period
5. Can I take the first test again? (This one well into the second half of the semester)
6. The class talked about the final, and we want to know if you'll be grading on a curve.
Had I continued to teach after that, I would have put a headline over my syllabus that said:
"No curves EVER. One of the lessons of my class that you will learn over and over again is that we build on the material we learn. If you don't have the time to do it right the first time, you will NEVER have the time to do it over."
Long, but worth the read:
http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34...
tl;dr: A CEO tells a nun in great detail that requiring the board reflect a greater makeup of diversity for its own sake is "immoral".
A choice quotation from the letter follows:
"A search [for board members] based on these criteria usually yields a male who is 50-plus years old, has a Masters degree in an engineering science, and has moved up the managerial ladder to the top spot in one or more corporations. Unfortunately, there are currently few minorities and almost no women who chose to be engineering graduate students 30 years ago. (That picture will be dramatically different in 10 years, due to the greater diversification of graduate students in the '80s.) Bluntly stated, a "woman's view" on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO. I do realize there are other industries in which the last statement does not hold true. We would quickly embrace the opportunity to include any woman or minority person who could help us as a director, because we pursue talent -- and we don't care in what package that talent comes."
Hush you. You're ruining a perfectly good talking point that people who have no experience in the field, or who understand the requirements, demands, or underlying understanding of the psychology involved can use to feel good about themselves because "more women succeeding" in "lucrative and attractive fields with high visibility" automatically = "societally good"
One of my heroes in life is Judit Polgar.
Chess Grandmaster, was at one point the number 8 player in the world.
Mostly refused to play women's-only tournaments.
Eh, I'm as immature as anyone when it comes to lame humor with just-this-side-of-naughty euphemisms.
I came in looking for lame jokes and puns because, hey, it brightens my day when a bunch of us can get together and be goofy.
I don't think anyone who was reading Rolling Stone saw the Boston Marathon bomber as a sex symbol, at least anyone who wasn't inclined to see him that way in the first place.
It isn't like RS never covered anything but pop culture either.
That said, when someone who commits a heinous crime is part of your target demographic, I actually think it's rather responsible to pull the veil of "it couldn't happen to you" off your readership, and if it provided some insight that could help someone recognize the signs in someone like that before it's too late, I think it's a far more responsible choice than you're willing to give it credit for.
I can't believe I had to scroll this far down to get any kind of "tata" joke.
That said, it's a sad state of affairs when "tata" jokes are the exception in a thread like this, not the rule.
but hiring black teachers for black students and white teachers for white students to achieve improved results apparently has some empirical basis, so why not do it?
Adding to what Karmashock is saying, I'd like to add the following: because it doesn't teach kids anything about diversity, or about being able to work with people that aren't like you.
If the thing you learn in life from school is "surround yourself with people like you because it's a security blanket", you'll eventually find yourself hobbled by the notion that you don't know how to deal with people that aren't like you. It doesn't toughen kids up for the real world, and reinforces the notion that kids should segregate themselves into their little groups of look-alikes and like-minded people. Because being different is scary and should be avoided at all costs!
Introducing kids to a diversity of people early in life normalizes them to the notion that 2 + 2 = 4, and it doesn't matter squat what color the person that teaches you that is, or whether their pants contain an innie or an outie.
I'm not a comic fan, don't know much about Daredevil otherwise, and I'm really digging it.
It helps that I can't stop staring at Charlie Cox.
I've never reviewed a book before its release date, however, I have been able to obtain a review copy of a book before it's released to the general public.
It's certainly possible for someone like me who is outside the business to obtain those copies. My library occasionally has a few to give away. Goodreads is generally in the know about getting advanced copies.
I don't think there's anything particularly shady about this practice, though. I mean, why wouldn't a publisher want pre-release buzz?
Slight inaccuracies aside in my initial post, I stand by my initial point. Kid got a job offer because he showed creative thinking and some modicum of courage to ask a question most wouldn't have asked.
He may not be talented, but he's enough of a go-getter (or at least can put on a show of being one) and many companies value that, even if it is for a complete bullshit reason. Sometimes the bullshit is what gets feet in the door.
There's an apparently oft-told fable in a company I used to work for in which an entry-level employee was joined in an elevator by an older businessman. Said entry-level employee remarked on the briefcase of the businessman, and made polite conversation. Upon exiting the elevator, the businessman asked for the young employee's business card, and exchanged his with her.
Apparently, he was a high-level executive in the same company. Because of her initiative to not be shy (that is to say, "network", in the parlance of the environment), said executive was now going to pay attention to this young woman.
I don't know how true this story is (those telling the story neglect to give names, thus the idea that it's more a fable than an actual thing that happened), but the point of the story was that in this organization (whose name you'd know but I will decline to mention), any in-road to making yourself noticed is a good one, even if it's discussing something as banal as a briefcase.
Outlaw "yada yada" all you like. At least we'll still have Lobster Bisque.
I see this recommendation a lot.
Nothing wrong with encouraging kids' interests when they're young as long as you're not being a "Tiger Parent".
And who said subby wasn't taking his/her kids outside to play?
It's always nice to hear other people talk about learning Logo as a kid. I admit I couldn't figure out much to do with it either, but it's given me appreciation for JavaScript as a "learning" language (though I think Python is better learned in the long-run for sheer versatility).
Heh. Every time I see someone take a knock at Pearson, my inner Grumpy Cat wakes up, is momentarily pleased, and goes back to sleep.
I'm happy that your kids have found a good learning tool that makes them want to learn instead of that turn-the-crank nonsense being peddled to schools these days.
Eh, I gave up fighting that fight when I started reading and hearing people referencing "The Cloud" everywhere.
We kinda had that, it's just that we weren't calling it that, and not a lot of people realized it was there.
To some people, obsessions are fun.
I was going to make a serious statement about coding and people on Slashdot here, but instead, I think I'll just say "there's fan fiction" and leave it at that.
So, the only winning move is not to play?
While I do think what he did was cheating and he should haven't been able to pass by virtue of that, this sort of thing does indicate a couple of things, which can be good or bad depending on view:
1. That he's not tied into solving problems the way everyone else is; therefore a creative thinker
2. He's got the guts to do something that a lot of people might consider cheating; he covered his ass by saying "I'm studying anyway"
Too often we complain about the school system being used to create automatons that don't think for themselves; separating yourself from the pack is a good way to get attention. Again, I'm not saying what he did was right, but sometimes bad press is better than no press.
Is there a branch of the NRA in Australia that needs to look into this?
Not that I don't think they're not looking into this in the States, but, you know, TFA and all...
Though I'm sure you're well aware as Slashdot readers are about the irony in your own statement; guns outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, yada yada.