Your argument pre-supposes a lot of facts and conclusions that haven't been shown to be true. Among other things, you are exactly equating "bad behavior" with behavior you have decided is the only reason women left the IT field. If a women quits, it is therefore a man's fault and he is guilty of bad behavior.
I'm calling for people to behave better. This includes victimization-mongers. Women need to step up and be adults, not hide behind victim status and excuses. Everyone needs to be encouraged to be better behaved -- not as a threat or because of sympathy, but because it's the right choice and it's the sort of society/organization/group we've all (ideally) decided to have.
"People are who they are" is not an excuse. It's reality. Expecting it to change is futile and self-defeating.
Also "everyone always has to prove they belong in every group" is part of the nature of what a group is. You either belong or you don't. What do you propose as a remedy?
You're confusing "behavior" with "bad behavior". Bad behavior can be discouraged. Reality can't. Expecting reality to change by claiming victimization is also bad behavior. Part of being a responsible grown-up is the ability to deal with the real world.
It's not a "better" society or work environment if we have to treat everyone like they're 4-years-old.
Children or no children, why would we be surprised that a group of people who "leave their organizations at the mid-level point" get paid less on average than another group that sticks around longer?
(I'm willing to be outraged -- Outraged! -- by the disparity, BTW. Where do I get the money they're handing out for playing along?)
A common theme with woman sysadmin that have left the field is that they are tired of the environment. Tired of the macho attitudes. Tired of the put-downs. Tired of having to prove that they are tough enough to be part of the group.
Boo fricken hoo. Everyone always has to prove they belong in every group. Attitudes, macho or any other kind, are part of humanity. The difference is that you're using it as an excuse and trying to put women in the role of the victim here.
Not quite sexual harassment, but alpha geek males who have something to prove and not enough social skills.
So what? People are who they are. Is anyone being friendly and trying to help these "alpha geek males" in any way? When was anyone nice to them? Do the people who are in "the group" speak up when someone gets put down?
And it is not that they can't compete in this environment. It is more that they get tired of same old sh*t over and over again. They move out of the field into a more supportive environment.
I wish us guys would get our heads out of our backsides. I enjoy working with women. They bring a gentler feel to the group. But I am sure I will get flamed saying that IT is not sexist, that there is no problem and women need to get a thicker skin. And that my friends is exactly the problem.
There's definitely a problem. But it's not related to sex/gender. People should be more grown-up, more responsible, more friendly, and just plain better people. But instead our society makes excuses and protects bad behavior (so we can get away with bad behavior when it's our turn). And there's a line a mile long to exploit and tax and otherwise harm anyone who is generous or responsible.
You want things to be better? Then be better. And tell the people around you to be better. And stop trying to play the victim card to manipulate people. People shouldn't be better because women are designated victims and should be cared for. People should be better because better is better.
Unless BP starts posting real losses, then their stock will recover and every investor who didn't liquidate while the stock was low will have lost nothing.
That's the same as saying the stock will be at a different price sometime in the future. Of course it will. That price will either be higher or lower. No one knows. The price right now is off $89 Billion. That's the only real price. All other prices are not real. You are arguing about a price that isn't real.
Investors who think their emotions or feelings make up for price discounts are bad investors and end up taking extra losses because they refuse to look at reality.
Alternative energy would already be economically viable if we gave them the same assistance we do to oil.
Fantasy again. In some world other than the real world where we really live, alternative energy makes sense.
I can't really argue with that. Have fun riding that flying unicorn.
All that $89 billion means for BP is that they're a somewhat easier target for a stock buyout.
Tell that to the shareholders who lost $89 Billion. Just because you don't understand this loss doesn't make it any less real to the people who used to own something valuable and now they no longer do.
Like developing alternative energy sources from solar to nuclear, and encouraging the development and adoption of fuel efficient and preferably electric vehicles?
The President develops energy sources now? How does he find time to do all that scientific work and still fit in so many parties and rounds of golf?
Also, alternative energy sources are still so economically inferior to petroleum that we could have a spill like this every summer, make oil companies pay double for each cleanup, and the alternative sources still couldn't compete. Alternative energy is just another way of saying "please let me pay 5-10 times as much for energy". Electric cars are similarly limited in comparison to real cars. As a real product, they don't make sense. They're more understandable as an environmental religious sacrifice or some kind of green asceticism.
Who would have thought that doing everything possible to deregulate, and the underlying philosophy that regulation is unnecessary, would result in insufficient regulatory action?
Where has it been shown that regulations would have made any difference? Eleven guys were killed in the explosion. You think they care more about what some bureaucrat says than whether they live or die?
Re:Oh good! The trolls are out in full force!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
None of what you said requires the draconian lockdown.
Then why didn't Palm do it? Where was Microsoft providing this? Where was Linus and Red Hat?
But nah, Apple wants the forced 30% cut and the control so they won't. And they still will have lots of otherwise smart people defending it's every move.
Engineers at Apple should work for free?
Apple makes their tools and their phones work great for developers and users. They do this... in order to get the 30% cut. The "control" is the key that locks the vending machine -- if you could just open it up and take all the contents without paying, no one would ever install vending machines.
If you don't want to pay the 30% cut, then don't charge money for your app. Problem solved.
Read on - I'm sure someone is, right this moment, comment on how we all used to hate on Microsoft but Apple is now worse than they ever were while someone else is bitching about Apple's walled garden approach.
Except Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on anything. The critics of Microsoft had a point. The Apple critics are just whiners.
(And yes, you can be technically correct and still be a whiner. You don't have the right to force Apple to run their phone business to your satisfaction. You have the right to buy a non-Apple phone, or no phone. Apple has the right to make a phone you like, or make one you don't like. Please stop whining.)
That's where people get to live where they want, right? A place where they can get cheaper land and have a yard and some privacy. Sounds pretty good.
Of the value of land uses beyond roads and residential development?
If land is more valuable for non-residential use, then it will be too expensive to buy for residential use. And it will, therefore, not be used for residences.
If you value this land so much, then take out your check book and buy it. And use it to meet your emotional needs. Otherwise consider minding your own business.
Do you really think that this would come *cheap*? Why the hell do you think it would be "better housing for less money?" More construction = price goes UP. Materials go at a higher premium, tradespeople charge more since they're in higher demand, suitable space for development goes at a higher price. And then since jobs won't be changing location, people would be driving *further* to get to their office, which is the whole problem with commuters and road rage in the first place. People want to get to and from work quickly, rather than wasting their lives in a car to get to work, and go home again.
Then why did they bother buying the house? Who did the builders build it for? If it sucks so bad and is so expensive, then no one will want to live there. So they won't. (And that would mean the person I was responding to is wrong about roads leading to more traffic congestion as people move to suburbs.)
On the other hand, if you're wrong and it's nice, then people will move there and be better off. Either way, people will find a place to live that best suits their needs. That's good for people.
But you would rather have people live their lives according to your plans -- to suit your personal needs and emotional whims -- rather than letting them choose what is best for them.
So let's cut all federal highway funding and 13.7% of state roadway funding, and all federal mass transit funding, and all state transit funding not directly paid by transit fares.
Local governments can do what their citizens want. (Maybe stop building streets altogether if you think those are only used for the 95% of us who drive. That will be quite the unprecedented city with no streets.) Federal subsidies to local governments should also be eliminated along with most of the federal gas tax.
That should solve the question of "you get a nickel subsidy so I should get 10 dollars".
City streets aren't a subsidy for drivers. Cities had streets long before cars were invented. Streets are part of what a city is. The residents of a city should pay for the streets. They use them and benefit from them whether they drive a car or not.
Mass transit tends to mostly benefit mass transit riders at the expense of non-riders. Mass transit riders don't even come close to paying for the operating cost (not including actually building anything) of mass transit.
So only build them some places and not "everywhere" then? My post suggested we do the thing that is "cost effective". That should include more lanes when the objective financial numbers support more lanes.
Ever think that maybe you also live in a society where your actions impact others? Do you think maybe you could fucking take a train if it means your neighbor gets to have a job? At what point do people like you make your own country to fuck up and leave the rest of us to actually care for one another?
Because everyone except me works for the train company? ???
Or is taking a train just a mindless ritual of obedience to some king or religion -- a sacrifice that leads to good harvests and good fortune for my village?
Cars go where you're going when you're going there.
Mass transit goes places and runs on a schedule with only occasional regard to the particular needs of travelers.
Cars are paid for by the people who use them. Roads are paid for by the gas tax from the drivers of the cars.
Mass transit is subsidized by taking money from people against their will -- people who don't use mass transit and derive no substantial benefit from mass transit.
What are you doing to show you care for them? Are you going to write a check to some charity?
Or are you just whining and posturing on an Internet message board? You pretend to care... as long as it doesn't personally cost you anything. Stop being a drama queen.
By contrast, being internally inconsistent means that the policy conflicts with itself; no matter what set of circumstances come about, some part or parts of the policy will always remain unimplemented.
That sounds like something that happens in the real world.
What world do the "internally consistent" policies get fully implemented in? The academic world? Models and spreadsheets? I'm sure it all adds up sometimes if you ignore enough factors.
And when governments back away, guess what rises from the woodwork to fill the power vacuum? Kings and tyrants, that's who: your friendly neighbourhood gang leader, the local power company headsman who's no longer bound by regulation and can excersize his power to make you sit in the dark if you don't obey him, the local shopkeeper who makes an agreement with other shopkeepers to rise prices to a level that gives them more profits, etc.
That sounds like a job for a policy that's a compromise between complete hands-off and totalitarian micro-management, doesn't it? Something that treats everyone like an adult who can run his own life, but prohibits force and fraud and sometimes some collusion.
It's not some simple clear-cut academic policy that you could implement and then walk away though. As you described above, it wouldn't be "fully" implemented. You'd have to continually tweak it to maintain maximum effective freedom for the individuals.
I'm still not seeing what's wrong with the inconsistency. Humanity is inconsistent. Things change. Why shouldn't policies be a little flexible within a set of overall ideals?
Every leash is held by someone. The only question is whether you have any power over whoever holds it.
I have individual power over my employer because he needs my help and I have lots of value to offer him. I have individual power over merchants because I can spend my wages at any one of them, or none at all. In turn, they have things to offer me that I need, which gives them power of their own. It is a mutually beneficial relationship because all specific transactions are voluntary for both sides.
Representative government tries to do just that to curb the worst abuses of power; weaken it enough and you get to enjoy the joke of those who aren't answerable to you.
And representative government isn't answerable to me individually. My employer is. Merchants are. Government is not.
Representative government can be just as oppressive as any other government. We're starting to see that. Taking from a minority of individuals for the benefit of a majority is still taking. Governments do this to individuals against their will.
Recently, also we've seen our government impose very heavy obligations (debts) on people (children and future generations) it does not represent and who cannot vote. This is unjust.
Government must shrink to limit these specific intentional injustices. That will probably mean some other injustices will occur by happenstance or due to individual's mistakes or misconduct. Intentionally committing great evils to avoid small incidental ones is not a good choice. Not even if consistency is a stake.
On what basis do you make this statement? What's the link between consistency and whether something is implementable?
How are political problems ever not implementable anyway? It seems like just about any idea in politics could be implemented. The goals might not be achieved, but when have the expressed goals of any political policy (consistent or otherwise) ever been fully achieved?
Basically, none of the ideas in politics or public policy work. It's all a mishmash of partial successes, temporary successes, and terrible failures. That's the biggest reason governments should do less and just let citizens sort out their own problems. Citizens will make mistakes too, but they should succeed or fail on their own rather than have failure forced on them by would-be kings and tyrants.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you believe everything you read?
Anything posted by kdawson is usually propaganda.
Your argument pre-supposes a lot of facts and conclusions that haven't been shown to be true. Among other things, you are exactly equating "bad behavior" with behavior you have decided is the only reason women left the IT field. If a women quits, it is therefore a man's fault and he is guilty of bad behavior.
I'm calling for people to behave better. This includes victimization-mongers. Women need to step up and be adults, not hide behind victim status and excuses. Everyone needs to be encouraged to be better behaved -- not as a threat or because of sympathy, but because it's the right choice and it's the sort of society/organization/group we've all (ideally) decided to have.
"People are who they are" is not an excuse. It's reality. Expecting it to change is futile and self-defeating.
Also "everyone always has to prove they belong in every group" is part of the nature of what a group is. You either belong or you don't. What do you propose as a remedy?
You're confusing "behavior" with "bad behavior". Bad behavior can be discouraged. Reality can't. Expecting reality to change by claiming victimization is also bad behavior. Part of being a responsible grown-up is the ability to deal with the real world.
It's not a "better" society or work environment if we have to treat everyone like they're 4-years-old.
It's like you're about to make a point, but you can't quite figure out how to put it into words.
My points were to stop with the manipulative victim-mongering and be better people if you want a better society or work environment.
Your point is ... I have no idea what your point is.
Children or no children, why would we be surprised that a group of people who "leave their organizations at the mid-level point" get paid less on average than another group that sticks around longer?
(I'm willing to be outraged -- Outraged! -- by the disparity, BTW. Where do I get the money they're handing out for playing along?)
A common theme with woman sysadmin that have left the field is that they are tired of the environment. Tired of the macho attitudes. Tired of the put-downs. Tired of having to prove that they are tough enough to be part of the group.
Boo fricken hoo. Everyone always has to prove they belong in every group. Attitudes, macho or any other kind, are part of humanity. The difference is that you're using it as an excuse and trying to put women in the role of the victim here.
Not quite sexual harassment, but alpha geek males who have something to prove and not enough social skills.
So what? People are who they are. Is anyone being friendly and trying to help these "alpha geek males" in any way? When was anyone nice to them? Do the people who are in "the group" speak up when someone gets put down?
And it is not that they can't compete in this environment. It is more that they get tired of same old sh*t over and over again. They move out of the field into a more supportive environment.
I wish us guys would get our heads out of our backsides. I enjoy working with women. They bring a gentler feel to the group. But I am sure I will get flamed saying that IT is not sexist, that there is no problem and women need to get a thicker skin. And that my friends is exactly the problem.
There's definitely a problem. But it's not related to sex/gender. People should be more grown-up, more responsible, more friendly, and just plain better people. But instead our society makes excuses and protects bad behavior (so we can get away with bad behavior when it's our turn). And there's a line a mile long to exploit and tax and otherwise harm anyone who is generous or responsible.
You want things to be better? Then be better. And tell the people around you to be better. And stop trying to play the victim card to manipulate people. People shouldn't be better because women are designated victims and should be cared for. People should be better because better is better.
Unless BP starts posting real losses, then their stock will recover and every investor who didn't liquidate while the stock was low will have lost nothing.
That's the same as saying the stock will be at a different price sometime in the future. Of course it will. That price will either be higher or lower. No one knows. The price right now is off $89 Billion. That's the only real price. All other prices are not real. You are arguing about a price that isn't real.
Investors who think their emotions or feelings make up for price discounts are bad investors and end up taking extra losses because they refuse to look at reality.
Alternative energy would already be economically viable if we gave them the same assistance we do to oil.
Fantasy again. In some world other than the real world where we really live, alternative energy makes sense.
I can't really argue with that. Have fun riding that flying unicorn.
All that $89 billion means for BP is that they're a somewhat easier target for a stock buyout.
Tell that to the shareholders who lost $89 Billion. Just because you don't understand this loss doesn't make it any less real to the people who used to own something valuable and now they no longer do.
Like developing alternative energy sources from solar to nuclear, and encouraging the development and adoption of fuel efficient and preferably electric vehicles?
The President develops energy sources now? How does he find time to do all that scientific work and still fit in so many parties and rounds of golf?
Also, alternative energy sources are still so economically inferior to petroleum that we could have a spill like this every summer, make oil companies pay double for each cleanup, and the alternative sources still couldn't compete. Alternative energy is just another way of saying "please let me pay 5-10 times as much for energy". Electric cars are similarly limited in comparison to real cars. As a real product, they don't make sense. They're more understandable as an environmental religious sacrifice or some kind of green asceticism.
Who would have thought that doing everything possible to deregulate, and the underlying philosophy that regulation is unnecessary, would result in insufficient regulatory action?
Where has it been shown that regulations would have made any difference? Eleven guys were killed in the explosion. You think they care more about what some bureaucrat says than whether they live or die?
None of what you said requires the draconian lockdown.
Then why didn't Palm do it? Where was Microsoft providing this? Where was Linus and Red Hat?
But nah, Apple wants the forced 30% cut and the control so they won't. And they still will have lots of otherwise smart people defending it's every move.
Engineers at Apple should work for free?
Apple makes their tools and their phones work great for developers and users. They do this ... in order to get the 30% cut. The "control" is the key that locks the vending machine -- if you could just open it up and take all the contents without paying, no one would ever install vending machines.
If you don't want to pay the 30% cut, then don't charge money for your app. Problem solved.
Read on - I'm sure someone is, right this moment, comment on how we all used to hate on Microsoft but Apple is now worse than they ever were while someone else is bitching about Apple's walled garden approach.
Except Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on anything. The critics of Microsoft had a point. The Apple critics are just whiners.
(And yes, you can be technically correct and still be a whiner. You don't have the right to force Apple to run their phone business to your satisfaction. You have the right to buy a non-Apple phone, or no phone. Apple has the right to make a phone you like, or make one you don't like. Please stop whining.)
Do you have no concept of urban sprawl?
That's where people get to live where they want, right? A place where they can get cheaper land and have a yard and some privacy. Sounds pretty good.
Of the value of land uses beyond roads and residential development?
If land is more valuable for non-residential use, then it will be too expensive to buy for residential use. And it will, therefore, not be used for residences.
If you value this land so much, then take out your check book and buy it. And use it to meet your emotional needs. Otherwise consider minding your own business.
Do you really think that this would come *cheap*? Why the hell do you think it would be "better housing for less money?" More construction = price goes UP. Materials go at a higher premium, tradespeople charge more since they're in higher demand, suitable space for development goes at a higher price. And then since jobs won't be changing location, people would be driving *further* to get to their office, which is the whole problem with commuters and road rage in the first place. People want to get to and from work quickly, rather than wasting their lives in a car to get to work, and go home again.
Then why did they bother buying the house? Who did the builders build it for? If it sucks so bad and is so expensive, then no one will want to live there. So they won't. (And that would mean the person I was responding to is wrong about roads leading to more traffic congestion as people move to suburbs.)
On the other hand, if you're wrong and it's nice, then people will move there and be better off. Either way, people will find a place to live that best suits their needs. That's good for people.
But you would rather have people live their lives according to your plans -- to suit your personal needs and emotional whims -- rather than letting them choose what is best for them.
So let's cut all federal highway funding and 13.7% of state roadway funding, and all federal mass transit funding, and all state transit funding not directly paid by transit fares.
Local governments can do what their citizens want. (Maybe stop building streets altogether if you think those are only used for the 95% of us who drive. That will be quite the unprecedented city with no streets.) Federal subsidies to local governments should also be eliminated along with most of the federal gas tax.
That should solve the question of "you get a nickel subsidy so I should get 10 dollars".
(Transit fares only pay for 40% of annual operating costs, which doesn't even include building the roads or tracks or buying the vehicles.)
City streets aren't a subsidy for drivers. Cities had streets long before cars were invented. Streets are part of what a city is. The residents of a city should pay for the streets. They use them and benefit from them whether they drive a car or not.
Mass transit tends to mostly benefit mass transit riders at the expense of non-riders. Mass transit riders don't even come close to paying for the operating cost (not including actually building anything) of mass transit.
What does mass transit have to do with "big government"? You seem to think there's a connection. Can you tell us what it is?
So only build them some places and not "everywhere" then? My post suggested we do the thing that is "cost effective". That should include more lanes when the objective financial numbers support more lanes.
Nope. Less than 5% of commuters use mass transit. The impact on congestion is minimal in most cities.
Building more roads is more cost effective in most places.
More roads with more lanes => more retail/housing construction ...
So more people will have better housing for less money? It sounds like they'll be able to lead better, happier lives that way.
And all it takes for this substantial improvement in living standards is to build more roads? Maybe we should get started doing that right away.
=> more traffic => congestion.
So we can build even more roads then. They improved living standards once. Why not continue to improve?
The future of traffic management is definitely *not* more roads and more lanes.
Because freedom and better living standards are no longer the goals of the people who deal with traffic management. In fact, they want the opposite.
But the future is uncertain. We can still decide to re-assert our intention to lead better lives.
Ever think that maybe you also live in a society where your actions impact others? Do you think maybe you could fucking take a train if it means your neighbor gets to have a job? At what point do people like you make your own country to fuck up and leave the rest of us to actually care for one another?
Because everyone except me works for the train company? ???
Or is taking a train just a mindless ritual of obedience to some king or religion -- a sacrifice that leads to good harvests and good fortune for my village?
Just wondering.
I live in California now. California likes cars. The freeways here are great.
I lived in Portland for a while. Portland hates cars. Traffic congestion was much worse in Portland than it is here in California.
Cars go where you're going when you're going there.
Mass transit goes places and runs on a schedule with only occasional regard to the particular needs of travelers.
Cars are paid for by the people who use them. Roads are paid for by the gas tax from the drivers of the cars.
Mass transit is subsidized by taking money from people against their will -- people who don't use mass transit and derive no substantial benefit from mass transit.
At some point, it might make more sense to reduce congestion by building enough roads with enough lanes for the cars.
What are you doing to show you care for them? Are you going to write a check to some charity?
Or are you just whining and posturing on an Internet message board? You pretend to care ... as long as it doesn't personally cost you anything. Stop being a drama queen.
I wonder who thought it was a great idea to pay for suicides?
People respond to incentives. I hope we're learning that. It continues to be a costly lesson.
By contrast, being internally inconsistent means that the policy conflicts with itself; no matter what set of circumstances come about, some part or parts of the policy will always remain unimplemented.
That sounds like something that happens in the real world.
What world do the "internally consistent" policies get fully implemented in? The academic world? Models and spreadsheets? I'm sure it all adds up sometimes if you ignore enough factors.
And when governments back away, guess what rises from the woodwork to fill the power vacuum? Kings and tyrants, that's who: your friendly neighbourhood gang leader, the local power company headsman who's no longer bound by regulation and can excersize his power to make you sit in the dark if you don't obey him, the local shopkeeper who makes an agreement with other shopkeepers to rise prices to a level that gives them more profits, etc.
That sounds like a job for a policy that's a compromise between complete hands-off and totalitarian micro-management, doesn't it? Something that treats everyone like an adult who can run his own life, but prohibits force and fraud and sometimes some collusion.
It's not some simple clear-cut academic policy that you could implement and then walk away though. As you described above, it wouldn't be "fully" implemented. You'd have to continually tweak it to maintain maximum effective freedom for the individuals.
I'm still not seeing what's wrong with the inconsistency. Humanity is inconsistent. Things change. Why shouldn't policies be a little flexible within a set of overall ideals?
Every leash is held by someone. The only question is whether you have any power over whoever holds it.
I have individual power over my employer because he needs my help and I have lots of value to offer him. I have individual power over merchants because I can spend my wages at any one of them, or none at all. In turn, they have things to offer me that I need, which gives them power of their own. It is a mutually beneficial relationship because all specific transactions are voluntary for both sides.
Representative government tries to do just that to curb the worst abuses of power; weaken it enough and you get to enjoy the joke of those who aren't answerable to you.
And representative government isn't answerable to me individually. My employer is. Merchants are. Government is not.
Representative government can be just as oppressive as any other government. We're starting to see that. Taking from a minority of individuals for the benefit of a majority is still taking. Governments do this to individuals against their will.
Recently, also we've seen our government impose very heavy obligations (debts) on people (children and future generations) it does not represent and who cannot vote. This is unjust.
Government must shrink to limit these specific intentional injustices. That will probably mean some other injustices will occur by happenstance or due to individual's mistakes or misconduct. Intentionally committing great evils to avoid small incidental ones is not a good choice. Not even if consistency is a stake.
On what basis do you make this statement? What's the link between consistency and whether something is implementable?
How are political problems ever not implementable anyway? It seems like just about any idea in politics could be implemented. The goals might not be achieved, but when have the expressed goals of any political policy (consistent or otherwise) ever been fully achieved?
Basically, none of the ideas in politics or public policy work. It's all a mishmash of partial successes, temporary successes, and terrible failures. That's the biggest reason governments should do less and just let citizens sort out their own problems. Citizens will make mistakes too, but they should succeed or fail on their own rather than have failure forced on them by would-be kings and tyrants.