I did some google searching, and all I can find is "He was exposed to the highest dose of radiation from the chemical element americium ever recorded — 500 times the occupational standard". When I don't see actual numbers, I get suspicious. Plus, it had the qualifier "from the chemical element americium". Some articles were otherwise copy-n-paste but left out th Americium qualifier. As we all know, there have been some boo-boos with plutonium and things like Chernobyl that resulted in immediate death. All the articles extant seem to have been be copy and pasted from each other back in the 1970-80's, so that 500 times number would be related to the safety standards of 1976.
For one thing there are two different numbers to consider: the instantaneous dose or level of radiation, and the cumulative dose. There's a big difference between getting 10 Sieverts in an hour and getting it over 50 years. I have to wonder if what we're talking about with Mckluskey is a cumulative dose because he had it inside him for years.
Has anyone seen an actual number in Sieverts or equivalent?
wrong for USA, violation of law for pedestrian to walk against light, look it up. In fact, proof of pedestrain walking against light can get aquittal for manslaughter charges by driver. We can't have pedestrians clogging big city traffic if they think they can loiter out in intersection at any time with impunity. move it or lose it!
That's true about drivers being aquitted when hitting pedestrians crossing against light. We've even seen parents charged with manslaughter if they have children with them who get hit while "jaywalking"
However, in the USA we have many crosswalks where there is no light and some even where there is no intersection. Pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way in my state for those crosswalks. This is the case in the videos linked to above. In fact, if a car is stopped at such a crosswalk it is illegal to pass that car.
Also, if the pedestrian entered the crosswalk while they had the light, they still have ROW even if the light changes against them while crossing.
The hospital I worked painted the walls of the conference rooms with whiteboard paint and put out baskets of dry-erase markers. There's a drop-down screen with a projector for showing a computer screen. There are many advantages. You don't have to have your computer support person standing by all the time for when contractors/ sales people get in there and screw everything up. You can have multiple people/teams in the same room working on different approaches (different walls) simultaneously while being able to see everyone else's ideas. We snap photos of what we want to go with and then edit the work in a document later (if we want to preserve the results). I suppose people off-site could watch through webcam/skype etc.
Apply anti-glare polarization to car windshields (blocks horizontally polarized light) and then use horizontal polarization on the pedestrian crosswalk timers.
step two: require habitual jaywalkers to wear clothing that reflects only horizontally polarized light.
One could argue that in most cases, a pedestrian paying attention could have avoided getting ran over if they'd pulled their heads out of their phones long enough to look around them.
SFPD claims to be keeping better stats these days but I could not find them online. However here is what I did find: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/...
All three victims this year entered the crosswalk only after pushing a button to activate several flashing beacons to alert drivers to stop. There are six lanes of traffic across Sunset with an island in the middle. Thursday's crash occurred when several drivers stopped, but a Honda CRV kept going. The driver noticed the woman too late and skidded into her, clipping her with the front bumper and spinning her to the pavement. "She said she didn't see her, " San Franicsco Police Officer Gian Tozzini told KTVU. "I don't know how she didn't see the flashers. Maybe they're just looking forward and not paying attention."
That is three victims, one fatally injured, at a single crosswalk with flashing lights in the Sunset. The description matches what I see in my little New England town where I'll slow because I see a deer stepping into the road and the car behind me thinks they need to pass me on a two lane road so as not to slow down at all - not sure how bad I'd feel other than for the deer. A pedestrian was hit in our crosswalk same way - one car stopped, person started walking, car behind did not even slow down and passed in the next lane hitting the person in the crosswalk - actually tossing them into the front window of another car that had also stopped on the other side for the pedestrian - that car was full of kids coming home from little league.
In some states passing using the oncoming lane through an intersection is against the law. Probably true everywhere, but I'm too lazy to check. In Georgia it's illegal to pass a car stopped at a pedestrian crosswalk, but how many people do you suppose knows that?
You've obviously never been to Atlanta where the mayor is black as well as almost the entire city government is black. The police department is 57% black.
As for gay being a second strike, well it does turn out that Atlanta is no longer considered the gayest city in the USA. http://thegrio.com/2012/01/11/...
I read the article, and I don't see any mention of how many drones were shot down or hit by gunfire. I don't know for sure, but I bet the drones in Afghanistan get shot at a lot, and I admit that will continue to be a problem in the United States.
The article says the US military has about 10,000 drones and 400 from 2001 through 2013 means about 40 or less a year are lost. And that's while being shot at. What would be the failure rate of a Lexus if they were shot at every day while driving around?
It said about a quarter of these are lost in the USA, but it doesn't mention if these are lost in product testing or training - situations known to cause high losses.
It may have more to do with IKEA's tax-avoidance corporate structure. As near as I can tell, what you think of as the Swedish IKEA stores are owned by the non-profit corporations Ingka Holding and the Ingka Foundation. They lease the IKEA trademarked name from a Dutch firm "Inter IKEA Systems". That's its only product: the IKEA trademarked name. The Dutch firm is how the money is taken out, and the full corporate structure is kind of shadowy. I don't believe anyone outside the family knows how it's all put together.
My guess is that any threat to the trademarked name "IKEA" is a threat to their tax avoidance structure, so it's a big deal.
Perhaps a decade from now, when the vaccine is available, the poor folks living in these areas can stop cursing at the western do-gooders who got DDT banned.
DDT is not banned in regions where malaria is prevalent.
I think it is OK if someone drives down the street and identifies houses that leave the front door open and report on what they see. That is, so long as they do not go through the door. That would be a crime.
People who leave the door open are enabling and encouraging criminal activity. Oddly enough, I was in a museum just this morning reading some translated Sumerian cuneiform. It was some laws that addressed just this problem. If someone leaves a property unmaintained and it attracts criminals, then that property owner becomes responsible for any thefts occurring next door.
People who have vulnerable systems on the Internet similarly are responsible in some degree to the huge botnets that are often such a plague. People who identify vulnerable systems are doing us all a favor, and as far as I can tell, they are not committing a crime. The law has a concept called "mens rea", which I do not fully understand, but the concept seems to be that if you do not intend harm and do no harm, then there is no crime.
No. Again, it is this completely idiotic and narrow interpretation of the cloud that is precluding you from understanding its advantages.
The problem is the use of the word "the" when speaking of "the cloud". The article "the" is and English word that has a meaning and proper use. "The" is used to have the effect to singularize or make specific an object begin referred to. This is opposed to the article "a" which is used when objects are generalized.
Almost everyone in the world is going to hear "the cloud" as services hosted on the Internet. The article "the" means specification, so it can only refer to either the well known case of services hosted on the Internet, or a specific instance of cloud computing. In this case, there was no specific instance mentioned in the context, so everyone is reasonable in assuming you are talking about the Internet.
Yes, I know that "the cloud" is used commonly in IT circles to refer to cloud computing in general. It is a bad usage of the language, a kind of marketing infra-dig that leaves more educated people shaking their heads.
I thought so too, but the authors seem to think it was voluntary: "Some animals seem to use the wheel unintentionally, but mice and some shrews, rats and frogs were seen to leave the wheel and then enter it again within minutes in order to continue wheel running."
Also, they typically ran for less than a minute rather than running to exhaustion, and the running times were similar to lab rats' running. It's too bad we can't just ask them. I've always wondered what my dogs and two-year olds were thinking.
Given this article mere moments ago on/. indicating that Google's autonomous cars have driven 700,000 miles on public roads with no citations, it's difficult to argue that they're not more competent, if not hyper-competent, compared to human drivers (most of whom get traffic tickets, and most of whom don't drive 700,000 miles between doing so).
Article has many good valid points, though, but that point irked me.
You have to keep in mind that to some extent the perfect record may be due to having a human driver that takes control when problematic situations arise. They're not completely autonomous 700,000 miles. We would want to know how many times the human has had to take control and why.
BTW, They have had one wreck, but Google says it happened while the driver had taken control, but did not say why the driver took control.
That topic is covered in this article, and in more detail from the article's link to "That Atlantic" article. Robot cars, at the moment, have a similarly savant-like range of expertise. As The Atlantic recently covered, Google’s driverless vehicles require detailed LIDAR maps—3D models created from lasers sweeping the contours of a given roadway—to function. Autonomous cars have to do impressive things, like detecting the proximity of surrounding cars, and determining right of way at intersections. But they are algorithmically locked onto their laser roads. They stay the proscribed course, following a trail of sensor-generated breadcrumbs. Compared to what humans have to contend with, these robots are the most sheltered sort of permanent student drivers. No one is quizzing them by sending pedestrians or drunk drivers darting into their path, or diverting them through un-mapped, snow-covered country lanes. Their ability to avoid fatal collisions remains untested.
Dang, my other response got posted as AC. It's pretty obvious it was me.
I found his post to question conventional wisdom, but it's certainly not "un-educated". You seem to be responding to someone else's post, or someone else's opinion. Being "an old guy", perhaps you're simply making the same response that's won you praise over your entire life. i.e. "women have had to fight for rights and were actively discriminated against".
As a side note, I haven't won praise over my entire life because I was on the wrong side for a very long time. The reformed sinner is the most annoying; that's me.
That seems to be your entire response. While what you say is true, the conversation has shifted among generations now, so perhaps you need to make note of that.
I really think you need to go back and re-read what the OP said (especially if your response is it's simply "un-educated"). He's simply questioning whether the the gains women have gotten came through second wave feminism or through other means.
And he's right to question whither the gains came, and it's complex and interesting topic.
I think there's a lot of truth to that. A lot of women went to work because of economic need, not because of ideology. Economically having half the work force idle isn't advantageous. Essentially a lot of women got jobs because the family needed the money, not because they read "the second sex", or because Gloria Steinhem existed.
And I think you're correct there as well. I do agree that the feminist movement was not responsible for women wanting to get jobs. However, a big part of the problem was that previously women were prevented from getting many jobs due to legally allowed anti-female bias. They did not apply to schools that did not accept their applications, and they did not apply for jobs that they knew would would be denied. The feminist movement did much to fix those laws.
You can disagree if you like, and that's fine, but having a different opinion on where change comes isn't un-educated.
Nowhere did the OP make any claims that banks wouldn't give out loans, or that women weren't discriminated against. That's an argument I think you've been making for years, and people of your generation have fought you on. The OP is younger than you, and comes from a very different background and likely takes very different opinions than people of your generation. So taking him to task and putting him in the place of a member of your generation kind of misses the point, and the point that the OP was trying to make.
Well, you got me there - I may be making assumptions about where he's coming from that aren't there.
However, here's what he said: >quote>I've some doubts about quite a lot of the commonly accepted modern wisdom vis a vis women in the workplace back then and even previously. Most of the women in my family worked outside the home back in the 60s and 70s, some even had excellent careers.
That's what puts it in my ballpark.
He is implying that because some women (his relatives) had good careers back in the 60's and 70's the commonly accepted wisdom is in doubt. That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. As I said before, there's not a good word that doesn't sounds pejorative. On second thought, I could have said "you don't know what you're talking about."
Anyway. It's nice that he had relatives that had good careers, but my point is that for MOST women they could NOT have many careers due to institutionalized anti-female bias on many levels. That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. Anti-female bias was still legal and still the standard in the 60's and was only beginning to go away in the 70's. The removal of legally allowed anti-female bias (or rather the creating the laws that prohibited bias) was largely done by the feminist movement - they are the people who got the work done. Also, I strongly
I'm an old guy, and I'm telling you that what you just said was, well, un-educated. It's hard to come up with a good word for that without sounding pejorative, so I apologize in advance. Anyway, I've heard this before and it's bullshit. It always seems to come from people who were born into wealth or privilege. It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".
Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband? For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband. People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.
until the 1960's: Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor. Those that did accept women only allowed them into nursing, teaching, or similar programs. yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.
Almost no bank would grant a loan for business or property without the written permission of her husband, unless she was a blood relative of one of the bank's officers. Almost no career advancement path was available for a woman, but they could do the same work with a lower title. Women could be bookkeepers, but not accountants. They could move from clerk to office manager (of clerks), but not district or regional managers.
Yes, there were women that got careers and did well. My mother was one of those, but had to fight bald-faced anti-female discrimination constantly. No one should go through what she did just to get her job done. She was an exception, probably a 5-sigma IQ and also raised as a tomboy, and also had a husband who backed her up. Very few people can't bring to a fight what she was born with; she was one of the exceptions.
But for every one of those there were countless others who had the door slammed in their face or stabbed in the back for the sole reason they were female.
"I'm doing some volunteering for a street kids charity in Senegal, West Africa, and they need a new database to store all their information for the kids, and to help the funding organizations like UNICEF"
Suppose a department in the company you're working for came to you and said "We want a database to store information, and we want to do it with Lotus Notes". Would your first response be start implementing Lotus Notes, or would it be to say "Umm, just a sec here. Why do you think you need a database?" and "What kind of data, how much data will there be, what do you want to do with it?"
Of course, that's one of the most annoying things that IT people do: ignore your question and try to help solve your actual problem. I apologize now. For one thing, your problem may already have been solved for someone else.
Are we talking about committing to paying monthly fees for a VPS server? If so, I do not see why the problem with paying for MS Access licenses.
My other question is, if we're talking about about a few PC's running Windows 7 and zero-tech knowledge, how are you going to handle backups and restores of the mysql database and the custom apps?
With MS Access or Excel, you can do backups and restores to/from a CD-ROM, or to a USB stick with a trivially easy restore that anyone could assist with over the phone. With SQL Server Express and some other suggestions, not so easy.
We need all of this why? Wanting Weapons and Wars just shows how non-advanced and uncivilized Humans are and how we haven't even moved out of our caves yet.
If we are to survive well into the future, we need to learn to disregard our primitive ways and start thinking about others instead of only ourselves. The whole idea of separate Countries and separate people disgust me deeply. People, we are not separate, we all live on a tiny Blue Planet in the middle of an unexplored ocean of awesomeness. If we can't rid ourselves of our primitive nature, maybe we are long overdue for extinction.
Well said. All we need to do is put everyone who refuses to disregard their primitive ways into re-education camps where they can grow into rational modern humans. But, in the past this has caused some hostility between the people being rounded up and those who have been tasked with finding them. But, it has a simple solution. All we need to do is make numbers of autonomous robots to do the gathering. It will be easy to identify the primitive humans, because they'll be the ones trying to resist re-education. Sadly, it may require that the autonomous robots be armed.
If you think 30 bike peletons need to be broken up, you apparently don't know the laws and need to either educate yourself or stop driving.
We're talking about peletons that run red lights en masse. Yes, I do think they need to be broken up if the light runs red while the peleton is halfway through. If the light is red, you need to stop even if 10 of your buddies got through already. If they get lonely, they can stop and wait for you to catch up.
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.[10]
so out of all the shit that needs fixed on earth, your proposal is to spend billions of dollars to see how long it takes for moondust to get on a sliver of glass
fuck you
Yes, actually. This is what I want to spend my money on. We've spent trillions, on trying to fix shit that ain't ever going to get fixed, and I'd like to take a break and look at something pretty for a while. Some money spent here: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/...
But, just to put things into perspective, look at what we're really spending money on:
Slashdot Mirror
I did some google searching, and all I can find is "He was exposed to the highest dose of radiation from the chemical element americium ever recorded — 500 times the occupational standard".
When I don't see actual numbers, I get suspicious. Plus, it had the qualifier "from the chemical element americium". Some articles were otherwise copy-n-paste but left out th Americium qualifier. As we all know, there have been some boo-boos with plutonium and things like Chernobyl that resulted in immediate death.
All the articles extant seem to have been be copy and pasted from each other back in the 1970-80's, so that 500 times number would be related to the safety standards of 1976.
For one thing there are two different numbers to consider: the instantaneous dose or level of radiation, and the cumulative dose. There's a big difference between getting 10 Sieverts in an hour and getting it over 50 years.
I have to wonder if what we're talking about with Mckluskey is a cumulative dose because he had it inside him for years.
Has anyone seen an actual number in Sieverts or equivalent?
wrong for USA, violation of law for pedestrian to walk against light, look it up. In fact, proof of pedestrain walking against light can get aquittal for manslaughter charges by driver. We can't have pedestrians clogging big city traffic if they think they can loiter out in intersection at any time with impunity. move it or lose it!
That's true about drivers being aquitted when hitting pedestrians crossing against light. We've even seen parents charged with manslaughter if they have children with them who get hit while "jaywalking"
However, in the USA we have many crosswalks where there is no light and some even where there is no intersection. Pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way in my state for those crosswalks. This is the case in the videos linked to above.
In fact, if a car is stopped at such a crosswalk it is illegal to pass that car.
Also, if the pedestrian entered the crosswalk while they had the light, they still have ROW even if the light changes against them while crossing.
The hospital I worked painted the walls of the conference rooms with whiteboard paint and put out baskets of dry-erase markers.
There's a drop-down screen with a projector for showing a computer screen.
There are many advantages.
You don't have to have your computer support person standing by all the time for when contractors/ sales people get in there and screw everything up.
You can have multiple people/teams in the same room working on different approaches (different walls) simultaneously while being able to see everyone else's ideas.
We snap photos of what we want to go with and then edit the work in a document later (if we want to preserve the results).
I suppose people off-site could watch through webcam/skype etc.
Apply anti-glare polarization to car windshields (blocks horizontally polarized light) and then use horizontal polarization on the pedestrian crosswalk timers.
step two: require habitual jaywalkers to wear clothing that reflects only horizontally polarized light.
One could argue that in most cases, a pedestrian paying attention could have avoided getting ran over if they'd pulled their heads out of their phones long enough to look around them.
SFPD claims to be keeping better stats these days but I could not find them online.
However here is what I did find:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/...
All three victims this year entered the crosswalk only after pushing a button to activate several flashing beacons to alert drivers to stop. There are six lanes of traffic across Sunset with an island in the middle.
Thursday's crash occurred when several drivers stopped, but a Honda CRV kept going. The driver noticed the woman too late and skidded into her, clipping her with the front bumper and spinning her to the pavement.
"She said she didn't see her, " San Franicsco Police Officer Gian Tozzini told KTVU. "I don't know how she didn't see the flashers. Maybe they're just looking forward and not paying attention."
That is three victims, one fatally injured, at a single crosswalk with flashing lights in the Sunset. The description matches what I see in my little New England town where I'll slow because I see a deer stepping into the road and the car behind me thinks they need to pass me on a two lane road so as not to slow down at all - not sure how bad I'd feel other than for the deer. A pedestrian was hit in our crosswalk same way - one car stopped, person started walking, car behind did not even slow down and passed in the next lane hitting the person in the crosswalk - actually tossing them into the front window of another car that had also stopped on the other side for the pedestrian - that car was full of kids coming home from little league.
In some states passing using the oncoming lane through an intersection is against the law. Probably true everywhere, but I'm too lazy to check. In Georgia it's illegal to pass a car stopped at a pedestrian crosswalk, but how many people do you suppose knows that?
You've obviously never been to Atlanta where the mayor is black as well as almost the entire city government is black.
The police department is 57% black.
As for gay being a second strike, well it does turn out that Atlanta is no longer considered the gayest city in the USA.
http://thegrio.com/2012/01/11/...
I read the article, and I don't see any mention of how many drones were shot down or hit by gunfire. I don't know for sure, but I bet the drones in Afghanistan get shot at a lot, and I admit that will continue to be a problem in the United States.
The article says the US military has about 10,000 drones and 400 from 2001 through 2013 means about 40 or less a year are lost. And that's while being shot at. What would be the failure rate of a Lexus if they were shot at every day while driving around?
It said about a quarter of these are lost in the USA, but it doesn't mention if these are lost in product testing or training - situations known to cause high losses.
It may have more to do with IKEA's tax-avoidance corporate structure.
As near as I can tell, what you think of as the Swedish IKEA stores are owned by the non-profit corporations Ingka Holding and the Ingka Foundation.
They lease the IKEA trademarked name from a Dutch firm "Inter IKEA Systems". That's its only product: the IKEA trademarked name.
The Dutch firm is how the money is taken out, and the full corporate structure is kind of shadowy. I don't believe anyone outside the family knows how it's all put together.
My guess is that any threat to the trademarked name "IKEA" is a threat to their tax avoidance structure, so it's a big deal.
It will take your females.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
This is how it will happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Here's a demo of the new robot. Surely it would be easy to downside and re-purpose these for mosquito heads.
http://www.theonion.com/video/...
Perhaps a decade from now, when the vaccine is available, the poor folks living in these areas can stop cursing at the western do-gooders who got DDT banned.
DDT is not banned in regions where malaria is prevalent.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/...
I think it is OK if someone drives down the street and identifies houses that leave the front door open and report on what they see.
That is, so long as they do not go through the door. That would be a crime.
People who leave the door open are enabling and encouraging criminal activity. Oddly enough, I was in a museum just this morning reading some translated Sumerian cuneiform. It was some laws that addressed just this problem. If someone leaves a property unmaintained and it attracts criminals, then that property owner becomes responsible for any thefts occurring next door.
People who have vulnerable systems on the Internet similarly are responsible in some degree to the huge botnets that are often such a plague.
People who identify vulnerable systems are doing us all a favor, and as far as I can tell, they are not committing a crime. The law has a concept called "mens rea", which I do not fully understand, but the concept seems to be that if you do not intend harm and do no harm, then there is no crime.
No. Again, it is this completely idiotic and narrow interpretation of the cloud that is precluding you from understanding its advantages.
The problem is the use of the word "the" when speaking of "the cloud".
The article "the" is and English word that has a meaning and proper use. "The" is used to have the effect to singularize or make specific an object begin referred to. This is opposed to the article "a" which is used when objects are generalized.
Almost everyone in the world is going to hear "the cloud" as services hosted on the Internet. The article "the" means specification, so it can only refer to either the well known case of services hosted on the Internet, or a specific instance of cloud computing. In this case, there was no specific instance mentioned in the context, so everyone is reasonable in assuming you are talking about the Internet.
Yes, I know that "the cloud" is used commonly in IT circles to refer to cloud computing in general. It is a bad usage of the language, a kind of marketing infra-dig that leaves more educated people shaking their heads.
They're already working on the solution of a runaway mammoth population:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
I thought so too, but the authors seem to think it was voluntary:
"Some animals seem to use the wheel unintentionally, but mice and some shrews, rats and frogs were seen to leave the wheel and then enter it again within minutes in order to continue wheel running."
Also, they typically ran for less than a minute rather than running to exhaustion, and the running times were similar to lab rats' running.
It's too bad we can't just ask them. I've always wondered what my dogs and two-year olds were thinking.
Given this article mere moments ago on /. indicating that Google's autonomous cars have driven 700,000 miles on public roads with no citations, it's difficult to argue that they're not more competent, if not hyper-competent, compared to human drivers (most of whom get traffic tickets, and most of whom don't drive 700,000 miles between doing so).
Article has many good valid points, though, but that point irked me.
You have to keep in mind that to some extent the perfect record may be due to having a human driver that takes control when problematic situations arise. They're not completely autonomous 700,000 miles. We would want to know how many times the human has had to take control and why.
BTW, They have had one wreck, but Google says it happened while the driver had taken control, but did not say why the driver took control.
That topic is covered in this article, and in more detail from the article's link to "That Atlantic" article.
Robot cars, at the moment, have a similarly savant-like range of expertise. As The Atlantic recently covered, Google’s driverless vehicles require detailed LIDAR maps—3D models created from lasers sweeping the contours of a given roadway—to function. Autonomous cars have to do impressive things, like detecting the proximity of surrounding cars, and determining right of way at intersections. But they are algorithmically locked onto their laser roads. They stay the proscribed course, following a trail of sensor-generated breadcrumbs. Compared to what humans have to contend with, these robots are the most sheltered sort of permanent student drivers. No one is quizzing them by sending pedestrians or drunk drivers darting into their path, or diverting them through un-mapped, snow-covered country lanes. Their ability to avoid fatal collisions remains untested.
More detail from this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...
Dang, my other response got posted as AC. It's pretty obvious it was me.
I found his post to question conventional wisdom, but it's certainly not "un-educated". You seem to be responding to someone else's post, or someone else's opinion. Being "an old guy", perhaps you're simply making the same response that's won you praise over your entire life. i.e. "women have had to fight for rights and were actively discriminated against".
As a side note, I haven't won praise over my entire life because I was on the wrong side for a very long time. The reformed sinner is the most annoying; that's me.
That seems to be your entire response. While what you say is true, the conversation has shifted among generations now, so perhaps you need to make note of that.
I really think you need to go back and re-read what the OP said (especially if your response is it's simply "un-educated"). He's simply questioning whether the the gains women have gotten came through second wave feminism or through other means.
And he's right to question whither the gains came, and it's complex and interesting topic.
I think there's a lot of truth to that. A lot of women went to work because of economic need, not because of ideology. Economically having half the work force idle isn't advantageous. Essentially a lot of women got jobs because the family needed the money, not because they read "the second sex", or because Gloria Steinhem existed.
And I think you're correct there as well. I do agree that the feminist movement was not responsible for women wanting to get jobs.
However, a big part of the problem was that previously women were prevented from getting many jobs due to legally allowed anti-female bias. They did not apply to schools that did not accept their applications, and they did not apply for jobs that they knew would would be denied. The feminist movement did much to fix those laws.
You can disagree if you like, and that's fine, but having a different opinion on where change comes isn't un-educated.
Nowhere did the OP make any claims that banks wouldn't give out loans, or that women weren't discriminated against. That's an argument I think you've been making for years, and people of your generation have fought you on. The OP is younger than you, and comes from a very different background and likely takes very different opinions than people of your generation. So taking him to task and putting him in the place of a member of your generation kind of misses the point, and the point that the OP was trying to make.
Well, you got me there - I may be making assumptions about where he's coming from that aren't there.
However, here's what he said:
>quote>I've some doubts about quite a lot of the commonly accepted modern wisdom vis a vis women in the workplace back then and even previously. Most of the women in my family worked outside the home back in the 60s and 70s, some even had excellent careers.
That's what puts it in my ballpark.
He is implying that because some women (his relatives) had good careers back in the 60's and 70's the commonly accepted wisdom is in doubt.
That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. As I said before, there's not a good word that doesn't sounds pejorative. On second thought, I could have said "you don't know what you're talking about."
Anyway. It's nice that he had relatives that had good careers, but my point is that for MOST women they could NOT have many careers due to institutionalized anti-female bias on many levels. That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. Anti-female bias was still legal and still the standard in the 60's and was only beginning to go away in the 70's. The removal of legally allowed anti-female bias (or rather the creating the laws that prohibited bias) was largely done by the feminist movement - they are the people who got the work done.
Also, I strongly
I'm an old guy, and I'm telling you that what you just said was, well, un-educated. It's hard to come up with a good word for that without sounding pejorative, so I apologize in advance. Anyway, I've heard this before and it's bullshit. It always seems to come from people who were born into wealth or privilege.
It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".
Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband? For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband. People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.
until the 1960's:
Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor.
Those that did accept women only allowed them into nursing, teaching, or similar programs. yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.
Almost no bank would grant a loan for business or property without the written permission of her husband, unless she was a blood relative of one of the bank's officers.
Almost no career advancement path was available for a woman, but they could do the same work with a lower title. Women could be bookkeepers, but not accountants. They could move from clerk to office manager (of clerks), but not district or regional managers.
Yes, there were women that got careers and did well. My mother was one of those, but had to fight bald-faced anti-female discrimination constantly. No one should go through what she did just to get her job done. She was an exception, probably a 5-sigma IQ and also raised as a tomboy, and also had a husband who backed her up. Very few people can't bring to a fight what she was born with; she was one of the exceptions.
But for every one of those there were countless others who had the door slammed in their face or stabbed in the back for the sole reason they were female.
"I'm doing some volunteering for a street kids charity in Senegal, West Africa, and they need a new database to store all their information for the kids, and to help the funding organizations like UNICEF"
Suppose a department in the company you're working for came to you and said "We want a database to store information, and we want to do it with Lotus Notes". Would your first response be start implementing Lotus Notes, or would it be to say "Umm, just a sec here. Why do you think you need a database?" and "What kind of data, how much data will there be, what do you want to do with it?"
Of course, that's one of the most annoying things that IT people do: ignore your question and try to help solve your actual problem. I apologize now.
For one thing, your problem may already have been solved for someone else.
Are we talking about committing to paying monthly fees for a VPS server? If so, I do not see why the problem with paying for MS Access licenses.
My other question is, if we're talking about about a few PC's running Windows 7 and zero-tech knowledge, how are you going to handle backups and restores of the mysql database and the custom apps?
With MS Access or Excel, you can do backups and restores to/from a CD-ROM, or to a USB stick with a trivially easy restore that anyone could assist with over the phone. With SQL Server Express and some other suggestions, not so easy.
We need all of this why? Wanting Weapons and Wars just shows how non-advanced and uncivilized Humans are and how we haven't even moved out of our caves yet.
If we are to survive well into the future, we need to learn to disregard our primitive ways and start thinking about others instead of only ourselves. The whole idea of separate Countries and separate people disgust me deeply. People, we are not separate, we all live on a tiny Blue Planet in the middle of an unexplored ocean of awesomeness. If we can't rid ourselves of our primitive nature, maybe we are long overdue for extinction.
Well said.
All we need to do is put everyone who refuses to disregard their primitive ways into re-education camps where they can grow into rational modern humans.
But, in the past this has caused some hostility between the people being rounded up and those who have been tasked with finding them.
But, it has a simple solution. All we need to do is make numbers of autonomous robots to do the gathering.
It will be easy to identify the primitive humans, because they'll be the ones trying to resist re-education. Sadly, it may require that the autonomous robots be armed.
If you think 30 bike peletons need to be broken up, you apparently don't know the laws and need to either educate yourself or stop driving.
We're talking about peletons that run red lights en masse.
Yes, I do think they need to be broken up if the light runs red while the peleton is halfway through. If the light is red, you need to stop even if 10 of your buddies got through already. If they get lonely, they can stop and wait for you to catch up.
The Inuit get carbs in their diet as well, but it's not from soda pop.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of
glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.[10]
You simply present them with a paradox, and they'll melt down or blow up trying to solve it. I saw Captain Kirk do it once.
Aww, man, every 90 days?
Now I'll have to get a new set of password tatoos on my groin.
so out of all the shit that needs fixed on earth, your proposal is to spend billions of dollars to see how long it takes for moondust to get on a sliver of glass
fuck you
Yes, actually. This is what I want to spend my money on.
We've spent trillions, on trying to fix shit that ain't ever going to get fixed, and I'd like to take a break and look at something pretty for a while.
Some money spent here:
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/...
But, just to put things into perspective, look at what we're really spending money on:
http://mentalfloss.com/article....
You think that we can't spend part of our cigarette budget on something else.