You're personally value judging the class of a person based on their name, which is itself flawed. The studies I've heard about found: 'upper class' parents are biased to name their kids something unique and distinct. The next tier down social class is more likely to name their kids after kids from the higher social classes 'popular names'. Playing out, you could have an 'upper class' 15 year old and a 'lower class' one year old with the same name.
Your Harley or LaTrina may have been hot upper class names at some point, but I haven't looked into that.
More importantly, are you saying racial job discrimination is wrong, but class discrimination isn't?
Its not racist at all. With birth records, you can map a person's name as well as their race, and all kinds of random other data. If Eliyah are almost entirely named to black babies, it's a 'black' name statistically. If Cody's are almost entirely named to white babies, it's a 'white' name statistically.
Once you've got a baseline of extreme limits of 'white', 'black', 'hyspanic', 'asian', etc.. names, you can perform blind tests on how people react to different names. There's nothing racist about it. Its pretty simple to quantify.
The hard names are those used by all cultures, which is why researchers don't use those names when performing these types of tests.
You don't seem to complain about all the other products you use daily which were all/mostly manufactured in part in China. Obviously there's shoddy shit sold by all sorts of people, but you typically won't buy it unless you have confidence that said shit legitimate enough to assuage your risks. IPhones are made in China. But they're sold by Apple. People like and trust Apple, so Apple has the incentive to make damn sure that their products are high enough quality to match their perception.
The product was sold through Amazon. If you ask the vast majority of Amazon users, they'll say when you buy from Amazon.com, you're buying Amazon. It is only in Amazon's best interest to tighten up and compensate buyers for potential losses due to shoddy products sold through their service. Otherwise, it'll end up much like Ebay has: the shit hole of fraud and bogus products on the internet. I can't name a single friend who still uses EBay after many years of use. Too much BS.
I thought I was the only one that thought these things were the biggest pile of fluff. I'm taking bets on the next over-hyped technologies to fall over:
- Personal Drones
- VR
- Tiny Video Cameras (GoPro-like's)
I'm sure there's more, but these ones both seem to be well over-baked in tech press. That said, there isn't too much on the near horizon that seems fractionally interesting to the disruption smart phones have caused in the tech world.
Lower your screen brightness? I've programmed 16 years professionally, 8 years in school, and probably gamed and watched TV throughout that period during my off hours. I've never had significant or even minor issues with screens 'burning my eyes' or some nonsense. There's nothing wrong with black on white as long as your screens are tuned to you. If the screen brightness is too painful, turn down the brightness. Its a pretty simple solution.
IMHO, White on black is a lot harder to focus on the words but with so many of these things, its largely subjective. I've known some to use blue on grey, which I find abhorrent, but they loved it...
What's missing from your system is either proper DPI or Android's DIP (probably the best measure) adjustments.
Dots-per-Inch (DPI) world: If you have a 10 point font, it should be the exact same physical ruler size if you measured a word on basically any monitor assuming they were correctly specifying their DPI setting in their EDID. Of course there are distortions in monitor pixels, etc.. but should be darn close.
Device Independent Pixel (DIP) world: The OS must knows the 'context' of the screen (aka distance from the viewer's eye). They use the DPI of the panel and multiply by some factor based on how far away a human reader 'should' be from the screen. If you're 10 feet away vs. 10 inches, the number of physical inches representing that same character can vary wildly, but the human perceivable size of the words should 'feel' about the same size.
You US point of view isn't shared internationally. Know your rights and don't be an ass assuming everyone follows the same laws: https://commons.wikimedia.org/...
The definition of private also varies widely depending on country (there are probably a few more measures now that drones exist and are cheap and ubiquitous).
As for the rest of your panacea arguments, the sad fact is most laws are passed because people abuse them without it. Having separate bodies making vs. enforcing laws makes for an essential barrier to limit making a law just for sake of it.
We have privacy laws because we don't want to be micro-scoped and shamed for being different. This is NOT a bad thing. We should be different, and we shouldn't be shamed if someone wants to do something against some social norm in their bedroom, or in their covered back yard. The laws in place attempt to strike balance between two unrealistic alternatives: Full surveillance where nothing is secret vs Complete autonomy where even just crimes cannot be addressed without violating one's personal refuge.
Funny story, I have a friend who's a male nurse, and I was in dorm with a couple more in school. The only people giving them a hard time were friend and people outside the field (me included with light ribbing). If anything, male nursing is an out-group stigma and certainly not borne from people in-industry (at least from my limited peers' views).
Can you say the same for IT? I've known a lot of ladies in my time in IT (some companies even bordering on 50% staff) and although far fewer cases of discrimination than some would purport, IMHO more than typically female dominated fields.
My only note would be that you're comparing different classes of job without like-comparison. Of course programming is a white collar job where you typically go to university, get your degree then start your professional life. You have a similar trajectory with business, sciences, accounting, etc...
Doctors and Lawyers have seen great strides in female entrance lately. If more women are stepping into higher rewarding jobs, it could be leaving a vacancy of jobs for less desirable fields of which women participated more in. If that's the case, a vacuum of computing jobs will eventually be filled by women (and men) looking to better their economic station.
Yes, there's a social stigma for men not entering nursing. There are probably a lot of programs to entice men into the career, but you don't see people whining about them on the internet. We on Slashdot whine about women in computing because the vast majority of the audience are in computing fields and they see a double-standard. Hell, any sort of institutional 'encouragement' for minorities/genders/etc.. are considered discrimination against ME ME ME!!!!
Hate speech, profanity, spam, threats, etc.. they all run rampant throughout content sites that don't actively fight against them. Sure, Facebook doesn't have to censor nudity, but they chose to draw the line on where they did. That was their choice to make, just as its your choice to use a more free service.
My only burn is that Zuk specifically went out of the way to break his own policies to assuage further political backlash. Trump clicked 'I understand these onerous speech restricted privileges' when he accepted the EULA.
Left/Libertarian is hard to fathom since it would generally mean taking resources away from them to take care of or protect others through government. It would be a strange breed of left/lib (or more moderate biased) person who could consider both as a non-conflicting goal.
I'd prefer to view the spectrum of something like: Fiscally Left (social assistance, progressive taxation, universal healthcare) Fiscal Right (limited services, fewer laws and restrictions, libertarian ideals) Socially Left (Egalitarian, Pro-choice, +GBLT, anti-discrimination, free_speech (when not discrimination), corporate limits, etc..) Socially Right (Pro-Life, anti-social-missfits, anti-'sjw', in-group government, prohibitions)
The left's line up much better in this scheme, because in order for government to hypothetically help others, they need to redistribute wealth. Larger government means the potential for 'fair and equitable' living standards for all. Practicality aside, they are naturally married to one another which is why you often never see the distinction.
The right on the other hand has a quandary. The two sides of the coin are not strictly tied to one another, and in reality can quite often fight on opposite sides of an issue. Socially right's limits on what an individual can do flies in the face of fiscally right's limits on government intervention. Together, the philosophies kind of make sense, but not nearly as cohesively as leftists. Examples: Temperance, and Abortion are two very strong factors of a classically good socially right-wing christian for example. A libertarian on the other hand should naturally look at both as a direct attacks on one's right to decide their own fate and live their lives as they see fit.
Bait and switch much? 1. Is there anywhere in the TOS where FB says they won't read your 'private' correspondence? 2. FB specifically has a system in place to censor content that they don't endorse (hence why these people were paid)
You're certainly free to hate them. I hate them for completely different reasons, but your argument has no weight.
What if.. "FB decided to call your employer when you mention to your bud that you're quitting your job " *SHOCK VALUE* *Bad Stuff*
When you endorse a candidate you bind yourself to them warts and all. Don't like it? Rescind it and tell people you regret it... such as.. http://rarehistoricalphotos.co...
Smart TV's are conceptually great. Big Screen to show lots of information on. Practically though, they're locked into lean-back attitude viewer, they often have mediocre hardware and half-baked software.
Smart boxes on the other hand that plug into anyone's already sunk-cost TV. They are lot more attractive presently because the upgrade cycle is usually much more frequent and they're a completely optional purchase.
- Frequent purchases means more potential income for the providers meaning more money and drive to innovate faster.
- Optional is beneficial because they have to really sell their offering hard to entice consumer demand. The TV/Movie landscape is so muddied with studios / etc.. balkanizing content that there is no 'one' good solution to integrate with.
Having a SmartTV implicitly means buying into one company's solution for something which doesn't have a single answer (presently), but in a future of majority supported interoperability, sure SmartTV's would make a lot more sense.
It is 'reasonable' that your IP address is considered personal information 'offered' to the web sites in question.
What this law 'should' mean (I can't speak for the wording specifically) is that a site's owner should treat a user's data as privileged, meaning it isn't handed out to others without reasonable justification. Law enforcement should still be able to subpoena these records as they probably have been able to in the past. My hope is that the law makes it harder for 'non-subpoena' requests for a given user's IP address harder to obtain since it would now be a privacy violation to disclose it.
That's all fine, but as the blow-back illustrates, just because an IP address makes a physical connection with a service you're hosting, it doesn't mean that said service is in any way being transmitted by the person in question. DOS attacks happen all over the place, and unless you have services which share information about these attack vectors, its significantly harder to track and get take-downs of the offenders (maybe I'm being too optimistic..).
Maybe the best trade-off is when an IP address is logically tied to further information from the site (site profile, name, email, etc..). If so, the information is considered 'personal information' while a random drive-by DOS is just considered infrastructure data.
Assuming you subtract the difference, you're left with roughly the same number of people 'not seeking employment' in either country: US: 25.7% France: 26%
'"paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go'
The total losers attitude. I've always been at least as competent as the average in my groups and I've never shed a tear working the exact time (or less) than I'm supposed to. I get my work done and my reviews are as glowing as always. I get promoted, get raises, and if I'm not I find new companies that do.
Certainly if you've been over-promoted into a position you aren't qualified / competent in, you may have to work your ass off to maintain it, but IMHO that's the worst possible outcome of my life. I'd rather quit and get a new job in a lesser position and live a much more enjoyable life.
*psst* lowering the value of money helps you pay back your debt *psst*
Most of your held debt is spent on armed forces (as a whole), armed forced pensions/medicaid, interest, etc.. which one do you ever see being cut? Europe had people in pitch-forks because the only things they could realistically cut were social services, education, medical, etc.. When the US gov starts cutting veteran's pensions and health, what do you see the outcome being?
Certainly scaling back new armed forced recruiting is a pretty good idea assuming you can life without it (very likely).
It takes significantly longer to train an individual to be effective in any single job than it did in 1870. Even with a generic undergrad degree, pivoting from one job category to the next takes time. That time to pivot will only get longer as jobs become more specialized. When job categories are eliminated en-mass, you'll have large sways of people who aren't effectively employable any more, as the training required to pivot will just be too time consuming to merit the societal or personal cost to incur. Instead, they'll be net deficits, either through death (no safety blanket), feed off their security blanket if they have any, or feed off the system.
Of those 50% of farmers in 1870, how many ended up changing careers and finding better lives outside their work upbringing? Did everyone start to work in factories or was it the more likely outcome: Farmers stayed farmers till they retired/died, and their children were educated and left their agricultural roots to find different more intellectually challenging pursuits in cities. The farmer's safety blanket was that they were largely self-sufficient. Unless they had a big choaking loan from the bank, they could often coast into old-age off the value of their farms. People fired/downsized from Walmart, Disney, or TaxiCo's may have 401k's, but others will have literally nothing to fall back on. Yes, it is certainly a matter of poor judgement, but a popular failing. Now that automation is essentially eliminating most manufacturing, large sways of grunt labour and (with self-driving vehicles) huge chunks of our logistics needs, where will 5-6 billion people find to do with their lives which are 'valued' in a GDP sense?
I'd love to know, so that I can jump into that field now. Because even in software development, one of the apex demand fields, I see oversupply (of not so amazing candidates) and increasing automation to swallow their future prospects. If you can 8-ball be the winning growth job categories for the non-super-rich even 2 decades ahead, I'd believe that someone has answers worth sharing. The only answer I have is health care, which will hold until most of the baby boomers are dead.
Slashdot Mirror
You're personally value judging the class of a person based on their name, which is itself flawed. The studies I've heard about found: 'upper class' parents are biased to name their kids something unique and distinct. The next tier down social class is more likely to name their kids after kids from the higher social classes 'popular names'. Playing out, you could have an 'upper class' 15 year old and a 'lower class' one year old with the same name.
Your Harley or LaTrina may have been hot upper class names at some point, but I haven't looked into that.
More importantly, are you saying racial job discrimination is wrong, but class discrimination isn't?
Its not racist at all. With birth records, you can map a person's name as well as their race, and all kinds of random other data.
If Eliyah are almost entirely named to black babies, it's a 'black' name statistically.
If Cody's are almost entirely named to white babies, it's a 'white' name statistically.
Once you've got a baseline of extreme limits of 'white', 'black', 'hyspanic', 'asian', etc.. names, you can perform blind tests on how people react to different names. There's nothing racist about it. Its pretty simple to quantify.
The hard names are those used by all cultures, which is why researchers don't use those names when performing these types of tests.
http://freakonomics.com/podcas...
^
Interesting talk on the subject.
Stall stall stall till the other guy runs out of money / initiative!!!
You don't seem to complain about all the other products you use daily which were all/mostly manufactured in part in China. Obviously there's shoddy shit sold by all sorts of people, but you typically won't buy it unless you have confidence that said shit legitimate enough to assuage your risks. IPhones are made in China. But they're sold by Apple. People like and trust Apple, so Apple has the incentive to make damn sure that their products are high enough quality to match their perception.
The product was sold through Amazon. If you ask the vast majority of Amazon users, they'll say when you buy from Amazon.com, you're buying Amazon. It is only in Amazon's best interest to tighten up and compensate buyers for potential losses due to shoddy products sold through their service. Otherwise, it'll end up much like Ebay has: the shit hole of fraud and bogus products on the internet. I can't name a single friend who still uses EBay after many years of use. Too much BS.
I thought I was the only one that thought these things were the biggest pile of fluff. I'm taking bets on the next over-hyped technologies to fall over:
- Personal Drones
- VR
- Tiny Video Cameras (GoPro-like's)
I'm sure there's more, but these ones both seem to be well over-baked in tech press. That said, there isn't too much on the near horizon that seems fractionally interesting to the disruption smart phones have caused in the tech world.
Lower your screen brightness? I've programmed 16 years professionally, 8 years in school, and probably gamed and watched TV throughout that period during my off hours. I've never had significant or even minor issues with screens 'burning my eyes' or some nonsense. There's nothing wrong with black on white as long as your screens are tuned to you. If the screen brightness is too painful, turn down the brightness. Its a pretty simple solution.
IMHO, White on black is a lot harder to focus on the words but with so many of these things, its largely subjective. I've known some to use blue on grey, which I find abhorrent, but they loved it...
What's missing from your system is either proper DPI or Android's DIP (probably the best measure) adjustments.
Dots-per-Inch (DPI) world: If you have a 10 point font, it should be the exact same physical ruler size if you measured a word on basically any monitor assuming they were correctly specifying their DPI setting in their EDID. Of course there are distortions in monitor pixels, etc.. but should be darn close.
Device Independent Pixel (DIP) world: The OS must knows the 'context' of the screen (aka distance from the viewer's eye). They use the DPI of the panel and multiply by some factor based on how far away a human reader 'should' be from the screen. If you're 10 feet away vs. 10 inches, the number of physical inches representing that same character can vary wildly, but the human perceivable size of the words should 'feel' about the same size.
You US point of view isn't shared internationally. Know your rights and don't be an ass assuming everyone follows the same laws:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/...
The definition of private also varies widely depending on country (there are probably a few more measures now that drones exist and are cheap and ubiquitous).
As for the rest of your panacea arguments, the sad fact is most laws are passed because people abuse them without it. Having separate bodies making vs. enforcing laws makes for an essential barrier to limit making a law just for sake of it.
We have privacy laws because we don't want to be micro-scoped and shamed for being different. This is NOT a bad thing. We should be different, and we shouldn't be shamed if someone wants to do something against some social norm in their bedroom, or in their covered back yard. The laws in place attempt to strike balance between two unrealistic alternatives: Full surveillance where nothing is secret vs Complete autonomy where even just crimes cannot be addressed without violating one's personal refuge.
Funny story, I have a friend who's a male nurse, and I was in dorm with a couple more in school. The only people giving them a hard time were friend and people outside the field (me included with light ribbing). If anything, male nursing is an out-group stigma and certainly not borne from people in-industry (at least from my limited peers' views).
Can you say the same for IT? I've known a lot of ladies in my time in IT (some companies even bordering on 50% staff) and although far fewer cases of discrimination than some would purport, IMHO more than typically female dominated fields.
My only note would be that you're comparing different classes of job without like-comparison. Of course programming is a white collar job where you typically go to university, get your degree then start your professional life. You have a similar trajectory with business, sciences, accounting, etc...
Doctors and Lawyers have seen great strides in female entrance lately. If more women are stepping into higher rewarding jobs, it could be leaving a vacancy of jobs for less desirable fields of which women participated more in. If that's the case, a vacuum of computing jobs will eventually be filled by women (and men) looking to better their economic station.
Women's bias seems less about stability and more about work flexibility:
http://freakonomics.com/podcas...
Yes, there's a social stigma for men not entering nursing. There are probably a lot of programs to entice men into the career, but you don't see people whining about them on the internet. We on Slashdot whine about women in computing because the vast majority of the audience are in computing fields and they see a double-standard. Hell, any sort of institutional 'encouragement' for minorities/genders/etc.. are considered discrimination against ME ME ME!!!!
Hate speech, profanity, spam, threats, etc.. they all run rampant throughout content sites that don't actively fight against them. Sure, Facebook doesn't have to censor nudity, but they chose to draw the line on where they did. That was their choice to make, just as its your choice to use a more free service.
My only burn is that Zuk specifically went out of the way to break his own policies to assuage further political backlash. Trump clicked 'I understand these onerous speech restricted privileges' when he accepted the EULA.
Left/Libertarian is hard to fathom since it would generally mean taking resources away from them to take care of or protect others through government. It would be a strange breed of left/lib (or more moderate biased) person who could consider both as a non-conflicting goal.
I'd prefer to view the spectrum of something like:
Fiscally Left (social assistance, progressive taxation, universal healthcare)
Fiscal Right (limited services, fewer laws and restrictions, libertarian ideals)
Socially Left (Egalitarian, Pro-choice, +GBLT, anti-discrimination, free_speech (when not discrimination), corporate limits, etc..)
Socially Right (Pro-Life, anti-social-missfits, anti-'sjw', in-group government, prohibitions)
The left's line up much better in this scheme, because in order for government to hypothetically help others, they need to redistribute wealth. Larger government means the potential for 'fair and equitable' living standards for all. Practicality aside, they are naturally married to one another which is why you often never see the distinction.
The right on the other hand has a quandary. The two sides of the coin are not strictly tied to one another, and in reality can quite often fight on opposite sides of an issue. Socially right's limits on what an individual can do flies in the face of fiscally right's limits on government intervention. Together, the philosophies kind of make sense, but not nearly as cohesively as leftists. Examples: Temperance, and Abortion are two very strong factors of a classically good socially right-wing christian for example. A libertarian on the other hand should naturally look at both as a direct attacks on one's right to decide their own fate and live their lives as they see fit.
Bait and switch much?
1. Is there anywhere in the TOS where FB says they won't read your 'private' correspondence?
2. FB specifically has a system in place to censor content that they don't endorse (hence why these people were paid)
You're certainly free to hate them. I hate them for completely different reasons, but your argument has no weight.
What if.. "FB decided to call your employer when you mention to your bud that you're quitting your job " *SHOCK VALUE* *Bad Stuff*
He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?
For women, apparently Google's your friend:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wom...
When you endorse a candidate you bind yourself to them warts and all. Don't like it? Rescind it and tell people you regret it... such as..
http://rarehistoricalphotos.co...
Smart TV's are conceptually great. Big Screen to show lots of information on. Practically though, they're locked into lean-back attitude viewer, they often have mediocre hardware and half-baked software.
Smart boxes on the other hand that plug into anyone's already sunk-cost TV. They are lot more attractive presently because the upgrade cycle is usually much more frequent and they're a completely optional purchase.
- Frequent purchases means more potential income for the providers meaning more money and drive to innovate faster.
- Optional is beneficial because they have to really sell their offering hard to entice consumer demand. The TV/Movie landscape is so muddied with studios / etc.. balkanizing content that there is no 'one' good solution to integrate with.
Having a SmartTV implicitly means buying into one company's solution for something which doesn't have a single answer (presently), but in a future of majority supported interoperability, sure SmartTV's would make a lot more sense.
It is 'reasonable' that your IP address is considered personal information 'offered' to the web sites in question.
What this law 'should' mean (I can't speak for the wording specifically) is that a site's owner should treat a user's data as privileged, meaning it isn't handed out to others without reasonable justification. Law enforcement should still be able to subpoena these records as they probably have been able to in the past. My hope is that the law makes it harder for 'non-subpoena' requests for a given user's IP address harder to obtain since it would now be a privacy violation to disclose it.
That's all fine, but as the blow-back illustrates, just because an IP address makes a physical connection with a service you're hosting, it doesn't mean that said service is in any way being transmitted by the person in question. DOS attacks happen all over the place, and unless you have services which share information about these attack vectors, its significantly harder to track and get take-downs of the offenders (maybe I'm being too optimistic..).
Maybe the best trade-off is when an IP address is logically tied to further information from the site (site profile, name, email, etc..). If so, the information is considered 'personal information' while a random drive-by DOS is just considered infrastructure data.
Flat unemployment rates:
US unemployment: 6.1
France unemployment: 10.4
https://data.oecd.org/unemp/un...
These are people who are seeking work of course. If you 'give up' searching for work, you fall off the board.
For raw employment rates:
US: 68.2
France: 63.6
https://data.oecd.org/emp/empl...
Assuming you subtract the difference, you're left with roughly the same number of people 'not seeking employment' in either country:
US: 25.7%
France: 26%
Yeah, and most of those extra people are 65+'s who can't afford to retire. Nice life.
'"paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go'
The total losers attitude. I've always been at least as competent as the average in my groups and I've never shed a tear working the exact time (or less) than I'm supposed to. I get my work done and my reviews are as glowing as always. I get promoted, get raises, and if I'm not I find new companies that do.
Certainly if you've been over-promoted into a position you aren't qualified / competent in, you may have to work your ass off to maintain it, but IMHO that's the worst possible outcome of my life. I'd rather quit and get a new job in a lesser position and live a much more enjoyable life.
*psst* lowering the value of money helps you pay back your debt *psst*
Most of your held debt is spent on armed forces (as a whole), armed forced pensions/medicaid, interest, etc.. which one do you ever see being cut? Europe had people in pitch-forks because the only things they could realistically cut were social services, education, medical, etc.. When the US gov starts cutting veteran's pensions and health, what do you see the outcome being?
Certainly scaling back new armed forced recruiting is a pretty good idea assuming you can life without it (very likely).
Maybe not too many applications, but It'll break a million web email entry fields which require an '@' and a '.'
It takes significantly longer to train an individual to be effective in any single job than it did in 1870. Even with a generic undergrad degree, pivoting from one job category to the next takes time. That time to pivot will only get longer as jobs become more specialized. When job categories are eliminated en-mass, you'll have large sways of people who aren't effectively employable any more, as the training required to pivot will just be too time consuming to merit the societal or personal cost to incur. Instead, they'll be net deficits, either through death (no safety blanket), feed off their security blanket if they have any, or feed off the system.
Of those 50% of farmers in 1870, how many ended up changing careers and finding better lives outside their work upbringing? Did everyone start to work in factories or was it the more likely outcome: Farmers stayed farmers till they retired/died, and their children were educated and left their agricultural roots to find different more intellectually challenging pursuits in cities. The farmer's safety blanket was that they were largely self-sufficient. Unless they had a big choaking loan from the bank, they could often coast into old-age off the value of their farms. People fired/downsized from Walmart, Disney, or TaxiCo's may have 401k's, but others will have literally nothing to fall back on. Yes, it is certainly a matter of poor judgement, but a popular failing. Now that automation is essentially eliminating most manufacturing, large sways of grunt labour and (with self-driving vehicles) huge chunks of our logistics needs, where will 5-6 billion people find to do with their lives which are 'valued' in a GDP sense?
I'd love to know, so that I can jump into that field now. Because even in software development, one of the apex demand fields, I see oversupply (of not so amazing candidates) and increasing automation to swallow their future prospects. If you can 8-ball be the winning growth job categories for the non-super-rich even 2 decades ahead, I'd believe that someone has answers worth sharing. The only answer I have is health care, which will hold until most of the baby boomers are dead.