And could you answer the question? Without retorting to platitudes like "diversity in all fields is important", which undoubtedly came from the same book of cliches-to-pull-out-to-avoid-a-question as "every life matters" or "even one is too many".
Why is diversity in tech so important? The number of women in fields like plumber, electrician or bricklayer is even more disproportionate than in tech (And we need more tradesmen/women!) where is the push for diversity in those fields?
Or in one of the many fields where women are more numerous than men?
Since diversity in every field is important, like you just said, I assume you've supported many efforts such as this previously, and helped push for diversity in the trades and teaching?
Just a shame that women aren't interested, eh? We know that, since the number of applicants in colleges and the number of women graduating with a degree relevant to tech, is roughly the same as the number of women working in tech.
In other words: There's no discrimination, ladies just aren't interested.
Could anybody who supports the drive for more women in tech, explain to us why equality in THIS field is so important?
Nursing and Teaching are two fields, where women outnumber men almost five times.
Despite the importance of male role models for young boys, you rarely hear any complaints about the fact that less than 20% kindergarten teachers (or nurses for that matter) are men.
Where are the attempts to diversify nursing or teaching? What is it, that makes women in tech such a priority?
No strawmen please, no avoiding the question or posting platitudes, just a straight up answer please?
And I love how the less substance there is to an argument* the faster its proponents will pull out strawmen and baseless accusations.
* Such as in this case: The argument that tech needs to diversify with more women. Regardless of how many women actually are interested in a career in tech.
And I love how the less substance there is to an argument* the faster its proponents will pull out strawmen and baseless accusations.
* Such as in this case: The argument that tech needs to diversify with more women. Regardless of how many women actually are interested in a career in tech.
msn
And before you bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima, that's exactly the point!
Chernobyl was an inherently unsafe design. Fukushima was a more modern design, and despite that EVERYTHING that could go wrong did go wrong: It withstood a massive 9 on the Richter scale earthquake, over 60 aftershake earthquakes that we're all over 6 on the Richterscale AS WELL as a tsunami and guess what: No meltdown, no thousands or even hundreds of dead.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...
Looking at the anti-nuclear comments, you can only admire what an amazingly effective job KGB&Co did at spreading anti-nuclear FUD in the 70ies and 80ies!
Unfortunately for the green folks and the rest of humanity, there won't be any progress with getting rid of carbon based fuels and global warming until they get over their neurotic, nuclear hang ups and realize how far we have come, and how safe and useful it could be today.
Imagine if they had built that rocket, and a manned mission had been on Mars in the 80ies! What would our world have looked like today?
What sort of insanity is this?!?
Critical mass in (bombless) rockets?!? 500 kg of Uranium to kill everyone on earth?!?
What insane pseudo-scientific garble is this??!
If a rocket with tons of uranium (or plutonium!) exploded, you'd have a hell of a clean up job, but that's pretty much it.
Uranium ISNT nitroglycerin. It doesn't go critical just from shaking it. Otherwise every country on earth would have nukes.
And the largest nuclear bombs had tons of fissile material (as well as booster-material) and never made a bang bitter than 80 Megaton.
So good luck "killing everyone on earth!"
What is really hurting learning and schools, is that we make very little accommodation for the children that are above average and below average.
Everyone is expected to learn the same and to to be equally talented at everything.
But the reality is, that just like adults, some children are better at math while other children are gifted with language skills and others again gifted in other areas.
When everyone is treated the same, the talented kids get bored cause they're not challenged, and the less talented get frustrated because it's hard and bored cause they have no interest in it.
Learning in schools need to get more differentiated in order to get better. We can't solve that just by throwing more computers at schools.
The problem with technology in schools is that it is treated by politicians and hopeful parents like some magic artifact that automatically makes learning better and kids smarter.
No one wants to challenge that, since everybody want to seem progressive and with it.
But teachers don't understand it much better than the students, and the people that do understand technology assumes everyone is as smart as them, and don't know much about kids nor teaching.
Result: Kids get to make PowerPoint presentations instead of a written or verbal presentation. And everyone is happy. Despite kids learning less, reading less and learning that any answer can be googled.
Study finds young people see the world differently than folks in their 30ies and 40ies!
Older folks respond with disbelief&outrage! Convinced young people are stupid or easily manipulated!
EXTRA! EXTRA! WATCH HISTORY REPEATING!
Its a very common, but false assumption that young people are always more progressive than their parents, but that's just not true.
In Europe in the 80ies for example, it became normal for young couples to move in together without getting married, or just getting an informal civil marriage signed at city hall. Women in the workforce albecame the norm and not the exception.
Fast forward to the 2000's and all of a sudden there's a huge spike in church marriages, and a rise in young women leaving the workforce in order to become part- or full time homemakers.
In the Muslim world, the generation of young people who grew up in the 80ies and 90ies were also far more religious than their parents generation, who generally speaking were much more secular than you see even today. (If you look at a picture from Kabul or Beirut in the 60ies or early 70ies, and compare it with a picture from today, it's hard to find any women wearing a hijab then. Let alone the burqa that are common in Kabul today.)
And in a similar socio-psychological shift in the US, young people who grew up in a world that has both an Internet and a war on terror, have a more positive view of the NSA than those who didn't.
At least you can appreciate the delightful irony at people in their thirties shaking their head and complaining about young people these days!
Saying that "everybody needs to learn to code!" Is like suggesting to solve hunger in Africa, by sending them all our surplus food.
On the surface it kinda make sense.. We got a lot no? And they don't.
But because of the complexity of the problem, human nature, political and economic realities, it would be a disaster.
While its tempting to come to the conclusion that since you code. And a lot of your friends code. And your coworkers can also code, despite being pretty dense in some cases. So why not teach it to everybody?
But the reality is, that it's takes a different kind of intelligence to succeed in math and coding, than it does to write poetry or novels, or successfully lead a diverse team, or intuitively and competently design or choose a wardrobe.
There is a reason why IQ tests or competency tests are separated into categories like verbal and mathematical.
People are different, and not all have a mind that takes easily to math. And who suffers the most, when it's insisted that all kids are like blank slates, capable of learning exactly the same? The kids. Both those that take to math and those that don't.
We could learn something from the Scandinavian countries, whose schools consistently rate much higher than American schools in tests cores. In Scandinavian countries kids can choose between high schools that focus on math and STEM, highschools that are focussed on language, highschools that are focused on business or technical school that focus on blue collar jobs like electrician, carpenter, mechanic etc.
They choose those between the 8th and 9th grade, depending on which country.
In both cases, we're talking about a few hundred people a year.
In a country of 300 million, that's not "systematical evidence of failure to protect the weak." Per. Capita its similar numbers that you see in Europe, and tens of times less than you see om South America.
Sounds about as credible, as when people say that "a lot of black people are violent by nature...."
Without offering any other proof than their own observations.
Actually, despite any imaginary conspiracy, the media DID cover it.
It made a little blurb in the local paper, as small, local crime stories tend to do. And wasn't really picked up by any national media because there were actual news happening at the time.
Your comment won't be disregarded because you're anonumous. It'll be disregarded because you're literally proposing the introduction of thoughtcrime.
Which is ethically and judiciously abhorrent, as well as abhorrently stupid.
And while you pontificate on whether it should be legal to masturbate to a picture of fully clothed kids on a playground, and the non-existent damage it may cause them, pontificate on this:
The majority of child abusers have themselves been victims of sexual abuse. So not only will they be victimized as children, they'll also potentialet be victimized later on as adults. By you and other get-tough-on-em types.
Your comment won't be disregarded because you're anonumous. It'll be disregarded because you're literally proposing the introduction of thoughtcrime.
Which is ethically and judiciously abhorrent, as well as abhorrently stupid.
And while you pontificate on whether it should be legal to masturbate to a picture of fully clothed kids on a playground, and the non-existent damage it may cause them, pontificate on this:
The majority of child abusers have themselves been victims of sexual abuse. So not only will they be victimized as children, they'll also potentialet be victimized later on as adults. By you.
Less than 20% of women in the US identify themselves as feminists*. In Europe the highest support is among Italian women, where only 31% would call themselves a feminist.
So your irrational fear of feminists is groundless. They've managed to alienate most of the people they claim to represent, and outside of a few hotbeds of revolutionary Marxism in a handful of universities, they have become an irrelevant footnote and relic of the past. Like hippies or The abstinence movement.
Moreover, they're also completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, so perhaps your trolling is needed elsewhere?
*Not to be confused with equality regardless of sex, which around two-thirds support.
And your notion that there is a "culture of silence" may be good fodder for the grassroots, but In reality its ultramarxist, puritanical logic falls apart outside of the US.
You seem to forget, that your self-righteousness collides with logic at one crucial point: Abuse in the Catholic church DID come out, and police have arrested plenty of "respected" pedophiles, like the Republican operative mentioned in this very thread.
The prosecutor leaned hard enough on him to get a guilty plea, so now you want to investigate his relatives and random associates, eh?
Well, it certainly didn't take you long to prove that everyone who warned this may turn into a witch hunt were absolutely right!
Slashdot Mirror
And could you answer the question? Without retorting to platitudes like "diversity in all fields is important", which undoubtedly came from the same book of cliches-to-pull-out-to-avoid-a-question as "every life matters" or "even one is too many". Why is diversity in tech so important? The number of women in fields like plumber, electrician or bricklayer is even more disproportionate than in tech (And we need more tradesmen/women!) where is the push for diversity in those fields? Or in one of the many fields where women are more numerous than men? Since diversity in every field is important, like you just said, I assume you've supported many efforts such as this previously, and helped push for diversity in the trades and teaching?
Just a shame that women aren't interested, eh? We know that, since the number of applicants in colleges and the number of women graduating with a degree relevant to tech, is roughly the same as the number of women working in tech. In other words: There's no discrimination, ladies just aren't interested.
Could anybody who supports the drive for more women in tech, explain to us why equality in THIS field is so important? Nursing and Teaching are two fields, where women outnumber men almost five times. Despite the importance of male role models for young boys, you rarely hear any complaints about the fact that less than 20% kindergarten teachers (or nurses for that matter) are men. Where are the attempts to diversify nursing or teaching? What is it, that makes women in tech such a priority? No strawmen please, no avoiding the question or posting platitudes, just a straight up answer please?
And I love how the less substance there is to an argument* the faster its proponents will pull out strawmen and baseless accusations. * Such as in this case: The argument that tech needs to diversify with more women. Regardless of how many women actually are interested in a career in tech.
And I love how the less substance there is to an argument* the faster its proponents will pull out strawmen and baseless accusations. * Such as in this case: The argument that tech needs to diversify with more women. Regardless of how many women actually are interested in a career in tech. msn
And before you bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima, that's exactly the point! Chernobyl was an inherently unsafe design. Fukushima was a more modern design, and despite that EVERYTHING that could go wrong did go wrong: It withstood a massive 9 on the Richter scale earthquake, over 60 aftershake earthquakes that we're all over 6 on the Richterscale AS WELL as a tsunami and guess what: No meltdown, no thousands or even hundreds of dead. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...
Looking at the anti-nuclear comments, you can only admire what an amazingly effective job KGB&Co did at spreading anti-nuclear FUD in the 70ies and 80ies! Unfortunately for the green folks and the rest of humanity, there won't be any progress with getting rid of carbon based fuels and global warming until they get over their neurotic, nuclear hang ups and realize how far we have come, and how safe and useful it could be today. Imagine if they had built that rocket, and a manned mission had been on Mars in the 80ies! What would our world have looked like today?
What sort of insanity is this?!? Critical mass in (bombless) rockets?!? 500 kg of Uranium to kill everyone on earth?!? What insane pseudo-scientific garble is this??! If a rocket with tons of uranium (or plutonium!) exploded, you'd have a hell of a clean up job, but that's pretty much it. Uranium ISNT nitroglycerin. It doesn't go critical just from shaking it. Otherwise every country on earth would have nukes. And the largest nuclear bombs had tons of fissile material (as well as booster-material) and never made a bang bitter than 80 Megaton. So good luck "killing everyone on earth!"
What is really hurting learning and schools, is that we make very little accommodation for the children that are above average and below average. Everyone is expected to learn the same and to to be equally talented at everything. But the reality is, that just like adults, some children are better at math while other children are gifted with language skills and others again gifted in other areas. When everyone is treated the same, the talented kids get bored cause they're not challenged, and the less talented get frustrated because it's hard and bored cause they have no interest in it. Learning in schools need to get more differentiated in order to get better. We can't solve that just by throwing more computers at schools.
The problem with technology in schools is that it is treated by politicians and hopeful parents like some magic artifact that automatically makes learning better and kids smarter. No one wants to challenge that, since everybody want to seem progressive and with it. But teachers don't understand it much better than the students, and the people that do understand technology assumes everyone is as smart as them, and don't know much about kids nor teaching. Result: Kids get to make PowerPoint presentations instead of a written or verbal presentation. And everyone is happy. Despite kids learning less, reading less and learning that any answer can be googled.
Study finds young people see the world differently than folks in their 30ies and 40ies! Older folks respond with disbelief&outrage! Convinced young people are stupid or easily manipulated! EXTRA! EXTRA! WATCH HISTORY REPEATING!
Its a very common, but false assumption that young people are always more progressive than their parents, but that's just not true. In Europe in the 80ies for example, it became normal for young couples to move in together without getting married, or just getting an informal civil marriage signed at city hall. Women in the workforce albecame the norm and not the exception. Fast forward to the 2000's and all of a sudden there's a huge spike in church marriages, and a rise in young women leaving the workforce in order to become part- or full time homemakers. In the Muslim world, the generation of young people who grew up in the 80ies and 90ies were also far more religious than their parents generation, who generally speaking were much more secular than you see even today. (If you look at a picture from Kabul or Beirut in the 60ies or early 70ies, and compare it with a picture from today, it's hard to find any women wearing a hijab then. Let alone the burqa that are common in Kabul today.) And in a similar socio-psychological shift in the US, young people who grew up in a world that has both an Internet and a war on terror, have a more positive view of the NSA than those who didn't. At least you can appreciate the delightful irony at people in their thirties shaking their head and complaining about young people these days!
Saying that "everybody needs to learn to code!" Is like suggesting to solve hunger in Africa, by sending them all our surplus food. On the surface it kinda make sense.. We got a lot no? And they don't. But because of the complexity of the problem, human nature, political and economic realities, it would be a disaster. While its tempting to come to the conclusion that since you code. And a lot of your friends code. And your coworkers can also code, despite being pretty dense in some cases. So why not teach it to everybody? But the reality is, that it's takes a different kind of intelligence to succeed in math and coding, than it does to write poetry or novels, or successfully lead a diverse team, or intuitively and competently design or choose a wardrobe. There is a reason why IQ tests or competency tests are separated into categories like verbal and mathematical. People are different, and not all have a mind that takes easily to math. And who suffers the most, when it's insisted that all kids are like blank slates, capable of learning exactly the same? The kids. Both those that take to math and those that don't. We could learn something from the Scandinavian countries, whose schools consistently rate much higher than American schools in tests cores. In Scandinavian countries kids can choose between high schools that focus on math and STEM, highschools that are focussed on language, highschools that are focused on business or technical school that focus on blue collar jobs like electrician, carpenter, mechanic etc. They choose those between the 8th and 9th grade, depending on which country.
Digital watermark?
I assume your best source for this information, is some guy ranting at another forum?'
Neither does it exist as a platform for your faux outrage, sorry!
In both cases, we're talking about a few hundred people a year. In a country of 300 million, that's not "systematical evidence of failure to protect the weak." Per. Capita its similar numbers that you see in Europe, and tens of times less than you see om South America.
Sounds about as credible, as when people say that "a lot of black people are violent by nature...." Without offering any other proof than their own observations.
Actually, despite any imaginary conspiracy, the media DID cover it. It made a little blurb in the local paper, as small, local crime stories tend to do. And wasn't really picked up by any national media because there were actual news happening at the time.
Your comment won't be disregarded because you're anonumous. It'll be disregarded because you're literally proposing the introduction of thoughtcrime. Which is ethically and judiciously abhorrent, as well as abhorrently stupid. And while you pontificate on whether it should be legal to masturbate to a picture of fully clothed kids on a playground, and the non-existent damage it may cause them, pontificate on this: The majority of child abusers have themselves been victims of sexual abuse. So not only will they be victimized as children, they'll also potentialet be victimized later on as adults. By you and other get-tough-on-em types.
Your comment won't be disregarded because you're anonumous. It'll be disregarded because you're literally proposing the introduction of thoughtcrime. Which is ethically and judiciously abhorrent, as well as abhorrently stupid. And while you pontificate on whether it should be legal to masturbate to a picture of fully clothed kids on a playground, and the non-existent damage it may cause them, pontificate on this: The majority of child abusers have themselves been victims of sexual abuse. So not only will they be victimized as children, they'll also potentialet be victimized later on as adults. By you.
Less than 20% of women in the US identify themselves as feminists*. In Europe the highest support is among Italian women, where only 31% would call themselves a feminist. So your irrational fear of feminists is groundless. They've managed to alienate most of the people they claim to represent, and outside of a few hotbeds of revolutionary Marxism in a handful of universities, they have become an irrelevant footnote and relic of the past. Like hippies or The abstinence movement. Moreover, they're also completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, so perhaps your trolling is needed elsewhere? *Not to be confused with equality regardless of sex, which around two-thirds support.
And your notion that there is a "culture of silence" may be good fodder for the grassroots, but In reality its ultramarxist, puritanical logic falls apart outside of the US.
You seem to forget, that your self-righteousness collides with logic at one crucial point: Abuse in the Catholic church DID come out, and police have arrested plenty of "respected" pedophiles, like the Republican operative mentioned in this very thread.
The prosecutor leaned hard enough on him to get a guilty plea, so now you want to investigate his relatives and random associates, eh? Well, it certainly didn't take you long to prove that everyone who warned this may turn into a witch hunt were absolutely right!