She earned a bachelor of science in engineering from Cornell University in 1982
that's all you know form their resume
is she in her 20s?
her 30s?
her 40s?
probably her mid 50s
you agree?
maybe they went in the military for a few years. maybe. otherwise you get their age from the graduation date +/-2 years probably and +10 years at most. not even -10. the kid graduating at college at age 11 is a unicorn
well it's not like they didn't know her age either, they saw that before they called her too
she probably has some bizarre social quirk/ issue that unfairly turns people off or raises genuine red flags about her ability to work with others competently. making cheese sounds romantic, it also sounds solitary
Today, Fillekes' LinkedIn profile describes her career as a "cheese maker at Mohawk Drumlin Creamery." In 2014, "I bought a dairy farm in upstate NY. I designed and built an on-farm creamery to produce farmstead sheep's milk cheese and yogurt," she wrote.
someone with her education who goes to make cheese... hey, that's really romantic. maybe she burnt out, maybe she has some social issue that prevents competent office interaction
but maybe the real issue here is resume prejudice. where the guy or gal who takes 5 or 10 years off to pursue a passion never can get back in the game. which is especially true of women and the pursuit being having children
the usa should be like the nordic countries, and have mandatory child leave for *fathers and mothers*
that way having kids dings men's careers as much as women. otherwise, as long as child rearing impacts women disproportionately, women will never achieve parity with men in the office. nevermind that men want to spend time with their children and time with dad is just as important as time with mom if we really care about strong families in this country. put your money where your mouth is on your rhetoric about strong families, the presence of a father in a child's life, and family values in general, dear social conservatives, and promote equal family leave for men and women
your level of moral "thinking" is particularly brutal and ignorant. you shouldn't talk on topics you lack the reasoning abilities so say intelligent things on. there is obviously a connection between his suicide and the completely out of proportion charges against him. to deny it or dismiss that is purposeful intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity
we get it: "bad people deserve horrible treatment" completely out of proportion to their "crimes". you should go for vigilante justice, sharia law, and mob lynching. that's more you style. you're just a cruel douchebag with a chip on your shoulder
they mostly overlap, but where the two have the most problems is disproportionate punishment: massive jailtime for smoking marijuana cigarette or crushing financial ruin for downloading a file for example
it was illegal for a black person to ride in a section reserved for white people. until last week it was illegal for gays to marry. it is illegal to smoke marijuana in most of the usa, but that will change soon too
for this they are treated with more severity than actual murders
this is not morality and not a legal status quo that requires your respect nor ensures your compliance
where the punishments are massively more brutal than the crimes, you have a legal area itself which is immoral. for example (i'm not saying they are same, it's an analogy for you to understand the topic) in some places that practice sharia law, you chop off a person's hand for stealing, or stone them to death for adultery. this brutality means the legal status quo in that society is actually more immoral than the crimes they are punishing, and such societies do not actually prevent immoral and illegal acts. in fact, they simply convince citizens to treat each other and the authorities with as much cruelty as the authorities deliver to its citizens. we see areas of the world where brutality is proscirbed by authorities creating societies where violence and brutality reign as normal
again, i'm not saying that file downloading is exactly like daesh, i am trying to make you understand how brutal punishments are not respectable and in fact result in worse social conditions
in the same way, there is no respect due to the punishments that western countries like the usa proscribe for file sharing on the internet
the proper response to the legal status quo is to defy and defile the illegitimate and immoral laws wherever and whenever you can, until there is enough of a fire that society demands a rethinking of the laws to be proportional to the actual moral severity of the crimes in question
rather than the agenda of the corporations who have bribed the government to make the punishments so cruel, which is what you are really defending with your words: not morality, but corporate corruption
now call me a douche. just like the guy who says "maybe we shouldn't chop people's hands off for stealing" can be called a douche by the type of people who think like you
so you work out a deal. you don't bury the guy in financial ruin. societies where punishments are worse than the crimes are brutal societies that fail. like cutting off hands for stealing under sharia law. "well he was a thief so he deserved it." that's your level of legal and moral "thinking" on this topic
the left won the popular vote. moron gw bush who got us in a stupid war gore would not have won with florida cheats and the electoral college bullshit that should be abolished
you do realize that while yes, one party is deep throating plutocrat cock, the other is taking it in all 3 holes
you vote strategically, not idealistically
which means you steer your country in the better direction. not stand there like an air head and refuse to participate until the entire political establishment matches your ideology perfectly
or vote for the party that has no chance and only serves to rob votes from the party closer to you ideologically that actually has a chance, thereby making sure the even worse party wins. see: nader, bush, and gore in 2000
we all can have our buttons pushed and sent over the edge. it doesn't matter how frail or unstable aaron was, the morally corrupt legal system that serves the bottom line of some fossilized ignorant corporate counsel and some asshole DA with something to prove: their moral bankruptcy, is the culprit that pushed him over the edge
if you're on the edge of a cliff and a guy pushes you slightly and you fall, is he somehow less culpable than a guy who has to pick you up and drag you kicking and screaming and throw you over the cliff? the malice is the same in both cases, even if the effort is less in one
these fucking companies have a business model which depends upon an outdated understanding of how information is shared, then they utterly destroy the financial lives, or actually jail, young entrepreneurs who see the future. they could make deals with these guys and take over their companies for their "crimes", and benefit thataways
instead we have these pigheaded, shortsighted, cruel "punishments" for the crime of showing ignorant old fossils that their business models suck in the internet age
this is the worst of lawyers, corporations, and the legal status quo, and i hope these judges, lawyers, and corporate sycophants can sleep at night, because blood is on their hands
what you describe means you treat your significant other like a parent or a cop or a prison warden
which is an incompatible with true love
the feeling you call "true love" about the person you sneak around on is on the level of the shallow infatuations of an immature teenage douchebag. you've never actually known true love because true love is only possible straight and honest. what you have isn't just different, it's shallow and inferior as compared to the genuine article. you lead an incomplete life which is to be pitied
much of the problems in this world are rooted in human weakness
and i'm not going to be all holier-than-thou: i have weaknesses too. we all do
it's just nice not to have a mediocre garden variety weakness like being fearful of appearances or inability to say "fuck you, i'm out of here" when appropriate. the sunk cost fallacy
then again, i really don't give a shit what people think i do
which could mean i do boring things, or it could mean i have enough integrity to say "this is what i'm doing, fuck you if you don't like it"
a lot of this sneaking around with ashley madison is people who just need to grow a backbone and say "fuck you, i'm out of here"
if you have kids or you fear a large alimony:
well you can arrange to see the kids legally, and what are you teaching your kids when you live a quasi half life as an unhappy person? the kids probably already think it's better, for you, for them, if you leave. unhappiness is not hidden from you kids
and exactly how much are you paying now to be chained in quasi half life where you don't get to be the person you are? in that case, the alimony is actually cheaper
life is short. happiness is more important than money or shallow appareances
there's gullibility, where someone trusts people they shouldn't
there's shrewdness, where someone will intelligently verify someone before gradually trusting them
then there's a sort of toxic level of distrust which is not intelligent and is just as hobbling to your life as gullibility. even though those with toxic levels of distrust see themselves as somehow more intelligent than the cluelessly naive and gullible, they aren't really, they are the same level of foolishness which is unintelligent and ruins your life
Slashdot Mirror
if someone graduated from college in 1982, i'm thinking mid 50s. what are you thinking?
http://www.theladders.com/care...
this is a discussion site. people discuss things. apologies for thinking that
that's all you know form their resume
is she in her 20s?
her 30s?
her 40s?
probably her mid 50s
you agree?
maybe they went in the military for a few years. maybe. otherwise you get their age from the graduation date +/-2 years probably and +10 years at most. not even -10. the kid graduating at college at age 11 is a unicorn
it's a bell curve, but your college graduation date determines your age +/- a few years, at least within +/-10 years unless you have an outlier
you must have big hands
the year of your college education ballparks it, for 95% it pins your age exactly +/- 1 year
well it's not like they didn't know her age either, they saw that before they called her too
she probably has some bizarre social quirk/ issue that unfairly turns people off or raises genuine red flags about her ability to work with others competently. making cheese sounds romantic, it also sounds solitary
someone with her education who goes to make cheese... hey, that's really romantic. maybe she burnt out, maybe she has some social issue that prevents competent office interaction
but maybe the real issue here is resume prejudice. where the guy or gal who takes 5 or 10 years off to pursue a passion never can get back in the game. which is especially true of women and the pursuit being having children
the usa should be like the nordic countries, and have mandatory child leave for *fathers and mothers*
that way having kids dings men's careers as much as women. otherwise, as long as child rearing impacts women disproportionately, women will never achieve parity with men in the office. nevermind that men want to spend time with their children and time with dad is just as important as time with mom if we really care about strong families in this country. put your money where your mouth is on your rhetoric about strong families, the presence of a father in a child's life, and family values in general, dear social conservatives, and promote equal family leave for men and women
"let me judge someone on an imaginative hypothetical rather than judge someone else on the truthful reality"
you're a moron
your level of moral "thinking" is particularly brutal and ignorant. you shouldn't talk on topics you lack the reasoning abilities so say intelligent things on. there is obviously a connection between his suicide and the completely out of proportion charges against him. to deny it or dismiss that is purposeful intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity
we get it: "bad people deserve horrible treatment" completely out of proportion to their "crimes". you should go for vigilante justice, sharia law, and mob lynching. that's more you style. you're just a cruel douchebag with a chip on your shoulder
legality is not necessarily morality
they mostly overlap, but where the two have the most problems is disproportionate punishment: massive jailtime for smoking marijuana cigarette or crushing financial ruin for downloading a file for example
it was illegal for a black person to ride in a section reserved for white people. until last week it was illegal for gays to marry. it is illegal to smoke marijuana in most of the usa, but that will change soon too
aaron swartz downloaded files. grooveshark shared files
for this they are treated with more severity than actual murders
this is not morality and not a legal status quo that requires your respect nor ensures your compliance
where the punishments are massively more brutal than the crimes, you have a legal area itself which is immoral. for example (i'm not saying they are same, it's an analogy for you to understand the topic) in some places that practice sharia law, you chop off a person's hand for stealing, or stone them to death for adultery. this brutality means the legal status quo in that society is actually more immoral than the crimes they are punishing, and such societies do not actually prevent immoral and illegal acts. in fact, they simply convince citizens to treat each other and the authorities with as much cruelty as the authorities deliver to its citizens. we see areas of the world where brutality is proscirbed by authorities creating societies where violence and brutality reign as normal
again, i'm not saying that file downloading is exactly like daesh, i am trying to make you understand how brutal punishments are not respectable and in fact result in worse social conditions
in the same way, there is no respect due to the punishments that western countries like the usa proscribe for file sharing on the internet
the proper response to the legal status quo is to defy and defile the illegitimate and immoral laws wherever and whenever you can, until there is enough of a fire that society demands a rethinking of the laws to be proportional to the actual moral severity of the crimes in question
rather than the agenda of the corporations who have bribed the government to make the punishments so cruel, which is what you are really defending with your words: not morality, but corporate corruption
now call me a douche. just like the guy who says "maybe we shouldn't chop people's hands off for stealing" can be called a douche by the type of people who think like you
so you work out a deal. you don't bury the guy in financial ruin. societies where punishments are worse than the crimes are brutal societies that fail. like cutting off hands for stealing under sharia law. "well he was a thief so he deserved it." that's your level of legal and moral "thinking" on this topic
the completely off topic ignorant comments of a moron are not valid observations to consider
if that's what you get from my words, you're not an intelligent nor perceptive person
straw
man
the left won the popular vote. moron gw bush who got us in a stupid war gore would not have won with florida cheats and the electoral college bullshit that should be abolished
you do realize that while yes, one party is deep throating plutocrat cock, the other is taking it in all 3 holes
you vote strategically, not idealistically
which means you steer your country in the better direction. not stand there like an air head and refuse to participate until the entire political establishment matches your ideology perfectly
or vote for the party that has no chance and only serves to rob votes from the party closer to you ideologically that actually has a chance, thereby making sure the even worse party wins. see: nader, bush, and gore in 2000
we all can have our buttons pushed and sent over the edge. it doesn't matter how frail or unstable aaron was, the morally corrupt legal system that serves the bottom line of some fossilized ignorant corporate counsel and some asshole DA with something to prove: their moral bankruptcy, is the culprit that pushed him over the edge
if you're on the edge of a cliff and a guy pushes you slightly and you fall, is he somehow less culpable than a guy who has to pick you up and drag you kicking and screaming and throw you over the cliff? the malice is the same in both cases, even if the effort is less in one
it's like the death of aaaron swartz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
these fucking companies have a business model which depends upon an outdated understanding of how information is shared, then they utterly destroy the financial lives, or actually jail, young entrepreneurs who see the future. they could make deals with these guys and take over their companies for their "crimes", and benefit thataways
instead we have these pigheaded, shortsighted, cruel "punishments" for the crime of showing ignorant old fossils that their business models suck in the internet age
this is the worst of lawyers, corporations, and the legal status quo, and i hope these judges, lawyers, and corporate sycophants can sleep at night, because blood is on their hands
what you describe means you treat your significant other like a parent or a cop or a prison warden
which is an incompatible with true love
the feeling you call "true love" about the person you sneak around on is on the level of the shallow infatuations of an immature teenage douchebag. you've never actually known true love because true love is only possible straight and honest. what you have isn't just different, it's shallow and inferior as compared to the genuine article. you lead an incomplete life which is to be pitied
much of the problems in this world are rooted in human weakness
and i'm not going to be all holier-than-thou: i have weaknesses too. we all do
it's just nice not to have a mediocre garden variety weakness like being fearful of appearances or inability to say "fuck you, i'm out of here" when appropriate. the sunk cost fallacy
http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.ht...
i didn't know any of that
then again, i really don't give a shit what people think i do
which could mean i do boring things, or it could mean i have enough integrity to say "this is what i'm doing, fuck you if you don't like it"
a lot of this sneaking around with ashley madison is people who just need to grow a backbone and say "fuck you, i'm out of here"
if you have kids or you fear a large alimony:
well you can arrange to see the kids legally, and what are you teaching your kids when you live a quasi half life as an unhappy person? the kids probably already think it's better, for you, for them, if you leave. unhappiness is not hidden from you kids
and exactly how much are you paying now to be chained in quasi half life where you don't get to be the person you are? in that case, the alimony is actually cheaper
life is short. happiness is more important than money or shallow appareances
your problem seems to be garden variety drama queen
i was actually referring to the wackjobs who are borderline paranoid schizophrenics
there's gullibility, where someone trusts people they shouldn't
there's shrewdness, where someone will intelligently verify someone before gradually trusting them
then there's a sort of toxic level of distrust which is not intelligent and is just as hobbling to your life as gullibility. even though those with toxic levels of distrust see themselves as somehow more intelligent than the cluelessly naive and gullible, they aren't really, they are the same level of foolishness which is unintelligent and ruins your life