Wow. Because "riding" someone is always a good excuse for them retaliating physically. Clarkson crossed a line. Period. The producer went to the fucking hospital, you moral degenerate.
I do write code every day (well, except the weekends - I have my boundaries). Over my 30+ year career, I've probably written quite a bit. Most of the female people I've been privileged to work with (and manage) as programmers have done the same.
However, getting back to the subject, I don't see a lot of suffering coming about as a result of this "small subset", as you call them. I mainly see inexcusable behavior called out and people who do it publicly exposed and then suffering as a result. Is this why you suffer? Maybe it's deserved.
Pushing beliefs (up to a limit) is what people do. Governments do what is necessary to ensure that fairness is balanced with justice. Discriminating against a subset of people who's behavior is not heinous, nor voluntary, to most of us seems to be unjust.
And I'm afraid my thirst for justice trumps your "right to discriminate". I'm sorry, but it just does. Unless you're a total asshat. You can try to obfuscate the asshattery by appealing to ideals, but we live in a boots on the ground world, where reality tends to trump ideology. We, as a society, try to limit asshattery.
The folks who are pushing this law are asshats, period. They're not even following their own religion's tenets, because they are not loving their fellow man as themselves (but I guess that part doesn't matter). Not to mention the fact that these asshats assume to speak for the entire Christian community, many of which do not share their beliefs on homosexuality. These people don't act like Christians, they act like asshats. I am not sorry that our society tries to limit the actions of such. Good Indianans, control your asshats.
It doesn't matter how the fuck the government wants to tax individuals vs. businesses. You can comply with the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so. That's what governments do. If you want your anarchist paradise... well, have at it, but don't assume the rest of us want to come along for the ride.
Because doing it right is not-automatable and therefore expensive. Really, really expensive. I worked for a company that effectively did nothing but take FDA data from package inserts and recoded it into machine form using industry-standard codes, taxonomies, etc. Even with the slow pace of FDA approvals and insert updates, it took a team of about a dozen clinicians, another dozen bio-informaticists, another couple dozen (relatively specialized - do you know what an ALP test is and what it's used for?) coders to keep up the data system to support this.
And why does it take all these people? Because you're trying to imbue more than information - you're trying to imbue structure and meaning so people can understand and find and code to stuff. And, even though a good Google search can always help, some of this shit is tricky.
For the example in the article, if you index news correctly, it's more than reporters typing a couple links. It's managing subject taxonomies, figuring out valid references, keeping external references updated, etc., etc., etc. It costs. A lot.
Hey! For some of us, that's our jobs. Yes, we check statistics on code check-ins to see what's going on. We believe in visibility and bringing access to this data for warehousing and analysis. And we can often see issues with modules (like code suckage - for example when your defect database has particular components that align with points of high code churn, it's not a spot you'd want to vacation in). Statistics about the code and its production can tell you a lot, if you listen. But I don't think you're interested in listening.
And that's the thing... Egalitarian and fair are neither when one group has been systematically discouraged for (well, forever).
You actually need to go with stats then to redress the issue. And the stats don't actually lie (much).
You don't like their stats? Get your own. Figure out how many % of women are actually interested in programming vs. anecdotal evidence that "women don't want to do STEM" or "networking is biased". There are other places where you could gather appropriate statistics and bolster your case. However, whining about fair, when (as we all know) the world isn't fair, is still just whining.
Show how they are wrong with numbers. And then show how the world is (somehow) unfair to you and work to make it better for you. That is what these women are doing.
It basically shows that they're better tactical thinkers than you, because they're fighting on the ground, not up in ivory towers whining about "egalitarian" and "fair". They're better strategic thinkers than you because they will end up winning and redefining egalitarianism and fairness while you're still whining about ideals. I'm with Chairman Mao on this one - power flows through the barrel of a gun. They're fighting -you're whining.
I give up. Because the test scores their answers that way? Because white people weren't quite smart enough to devise a test that was able to systematically discriminate against all races other than Caucasian without being caught? Because Asians with stupid kids don't force them to take the test? There are any number of reasons.
However, the factoid asked by you still says nothing about the validity of IQ test either across race or in general. I'd say you've got one around 110-115 - better than most by enough to sort of know it, not quite smart enough to be particularly creative in your arguments. Try to study a bit more, and you'll be up with the Mensans in no time.
Me? I tend to make my own scales. I'm pretty high on most of them, Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding.
No, because it's fucking stupid, and contributes 0 to anything other than the wallet of those who get "offended" about "representation" as a profession.
And here it is. I don't know why you're so pissed off about the "professionally offended" as you call them, but if you bring down the statistics people complain about, then they'll either (a) stop complaining about them or (b) be seen as complaining about nothing and become a source of mirth, rather than a touchstone for people's anger.
More importantly, why are you so angry about this? You should do something about that before it affects your health...
Certainly the free market will sort all of this out. Companies/government that fail to secure their critical infrastructure will crash and burn, those that don't profit!
Translation: Trying to disguise the fact that the economy for most of us is imploding due to the social and environmental externalities that corporations are no longer willing to pay for in either taxes or employment opportunity is no longer working. As such, rather than give up our "Kapitalism über Alles" ideology, our only choice is to turn it into class/race warfare.
I know there are a few more words there. Try to follow along.
We're getting to a point where, due to both science and communication technologies, everyone's flaws and a fuckton of conflicting "facts" can easily be manufactured and disseminated. Power imbalances that could be hidden in the past are now obvious to anyone and a lot of people are asking "Why?" Why does the world have to be like this? Do we really have the shortage of things that economics talks about, or is it that distribution of these things is fucked up? Are the people who are in power actively encouraging and perpetuating dysfunctional behaviors in an attempt to gain more power? Does technology allow us to distribute government control more broadly and still maintain some semblance of a society? In short, all of the questions that we've allowed "professional pundits" and politicians to answer for us in the past.
Right now, economics focuses on "efficiency" more than any other factor.You've reached a post-"economic" age where businesses that hid their externalities in the past can no longer do so. If these costs of externalities are calculated and charged to the companies, many would no longer be profitable causing huge disruptions in the economy. How corporations should pay for these externalities foisted upon us is the seminal question of the age. We used to think that their tax load and benefit in providing employment was sufficient. But now people who run corporations say "we have to avoid taxes". They say "we have to outsource to be competitive. So they pay less, we pay more. Well, until people see the costs of the externalities well enough and feel the pain of their own payments to the corporate behemoth to understand out that the game is rigged. I dread that day, because those in charge seem to be doing everything in their power to steer towards it.
Well, or you could say that technologies and their impact on people, just like laws (or any change in the environment), can have unexpected consequences and, when they occur, one should still do something about it rather than stuffing fingers in your ears and yelling "La, la, la... Bright, shiny, new technology! Yum! You people cope!"
Probably the worst thing to happen as a result of the Ma Bell breakup was the death of Bell Labs.
Well, given the fact that Bell Labs was turning out stuff like C++ after the breakup, it would have probably been best to put it out of its misery at that point, rather than having it limp along for a few more years afterward like it did. All things have a time. The research lab is dead unless you can convince economists that efficiency is not the only virtue for economics to look at.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Because "riding" someone is always a good excuse for them retaliating physically. Clarkson crossed a line. Period. The producer went to the fucking hospital, you moral degenerate.
They couldn't make a small enough internal combustion engine to fit in his sonic screwdriver.
Rumor had it that Clarkson's screwdriver was rather small, anyway. That's why he needed the cars.
I do write code every day (well, except the weekends - I have my boundaries). Over my 30+ year career, I've probably written quite a bit. Most of the female people I've been privileged to work with (and manage) as programmers have done the same.
However, getting back to the subject, I don't see a lot of suffering coming about as a result of this "small subset", as you call them. I mainly see inexcusable behavior called out and people who do it publicly exposed and then suffering as a result. Is this why you suffer? Maybe it's deserved.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the extra $5 or so wouldn't be an issue in court if you could actually show increased costs. Stop being an asshat.
Hey, who am I to argue with happiness?
Amen, from a downstate Illini.
Think of it as evolution in action...
Pushing beliefs (up to a limit) is what people do. Governments do what is necessary to ensure that fairness is balanced with justice. Discriminating against a subset of people who's behavior is not heinous, nor voluntary, to most of us seems to be unjust.
And I'm afraid my thirst for justice trumps your "right to discriminate". I'm sorry, but it just does. Unless you're a total asshat. You can try to obfuscate the asshattery by appealing to ideals, but we live in a boots on the ground world, where reality tends to trump ideology. We, as a society, try to limit asshattery.
The folks who are pushing this law are asshats, period. They're not even following their own religion's tenets, because they are not loving their fellow man as themselves (but I guess that part doesn't matter). Not to mention the fact that these asshats assume to speak for the entire Christian community, many of which do not share their beliefs on homosexuality. These people don't act like Christians, they act like asshats. I am not sorry that our society tries to limit the actions of such. Good Indianans, control your asshats.
It doesn't matter how the fuck the government wants to tax individuals vs. businesses. You can comply with the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so. That's what governments do. If you want your anarchist paradise... well, have at it, but don't assume the rest of us want to come along for the ride.
No brain? No reply.
Exclamation mark.
So does capitalism.
Because doing it right is not-automatable and therefore expensive. Really, really expensive. I worked for a company that effectively did nothing but take FDA data from package inserts and recoded it into machine form using industry-standard codes, taxonomies, etc. Even with the slow pace of FDA approvals and insert updates, it took a team of about a dozen clinicians, another dozen bio-informaticists, another couple dozen (relatively specialized - do you know what an ALP test is and what it's used for?) coders to keep up the data system to support this.
And why does it take all these people? Because you're trying to imbue more than information - you're trying to imbue structure and meaning so people can understand and find and code to stuff. And, even though a good Google search can always help, some of this shit is tricky.
For the example in the article, if you index news correctly, it's more than reporters typing a couple links. It's managing subject taxonomies, figuring out valid references, keeping external references updated, etc., etc., etc. It costs. A lot.
Hey! For some of us, that's our jobs. Yes, we check statistics on code check-ins to see what's going on. We believe in visibility and bringing access to this data for warehousing and analysis. And we can often see issues with modules (like code suckage - for example when your defect database has particular components that align with points of high code churn, it's not a spot you'd want to vacation in). Statistics about the code and its production can tell you a lot, if you listen. But I don't think you're interested in listening.
And that's the thing... Egalitarian and fair are neither when one group has been systematically discouraged for (well, forever).
You actually need to go with stats then to redress the issue. And the stats don't actually lie (much).
You don't like their stats? Get your own. Figure out how many % of women are actually interested in programming vs. anecdotal evidence that "women don't want to do STEM" or "networking is biased". There are other places where you could gather appropriate statistics and bolster your case. However, whining about fair, when (as we all know) the world isn't fair, is still just whining.
Show how they are wrong with numbers. And then show how the world is (somehow) unfair to you and work to make it better for you. That is what these women are doing.
It basically shows that they're better tactical thinkers than you, because they're fighting on the ground, not up in ivory towers whining about "egalitarian" and "fair". They're better strategic thinkers than you because they will end up winning and redefining egalitarianism and fairness while you're still whining about ideals. I'm with Chairman Mao on this one - power flows through the barrel of a gun. They're fighting -you're whining.
Then why do East Asians score higher than whites?
I give up. Because the test scores their answers that way? Because white people weren't quite smart enough to devise a test that was able to systematically discriminate against all races other than Caucasian without being caught? Because Asians with stupid kids don't force them to take the test? There are any number of reasons.
However, the factoid asked by you still says nothing about the validity of IQ test either across race or in general. I'd say you've got one around 110-115 - better than most by enough to sort of know it, not quite smart enough to be particularly creative in your arguments. Try to study a bit more, and you'll be up with the Mensans in no time.
Me? I tend to make my own scales. I'm pretty high on most of them, Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding.
No, because it's fucking stupid, and contributes 0 to anything other than the wallet of those who get "offended" about "representation" as a profession.
And here it is. I don't know why you're so pissed off about the "professionally offended" as you call them, but if you bring down the statistics people complain about, then they'll either (a) stop complaining about them or (b) be seen as complaining about nothing and become a source of mirth, rather than a touchstone for people's anger.
More importantly, why are you so angry about this? You should do something about that before it affects your health...
Certainly the free market will sort all of this out. Companies/government that fail to secure their critical infrastructure will crash and burn, those that don't profit!
It just so happens that google glasses here is only MOSTLY dead.
Yes, it's pining for the fiords, as we speak...
I'm sure Tony will get right on that "Why the fuck should I let you record me" thing. I'm sure he'll be on that right after the "nerdy creep" thing.
Translation: Trying to disguise the fact that the economy for most of us is imploding due to the social and environmental externalities that corporations are no longer willing to pay for in either taxes or employment opportunity is no longer working. As such, rather than give up our "Kapitalism über Alles" ideology, our only choice is to turn it into class/race warfare.
I know there are a few more words there. Try to follow along.
We're getting to a point where, due to both science and communication technologies, everyone's flaws and a fuckton of conflicting "facts" can easily be manufactured and disseminated. Power imbalances that could be hidden in the past are now obvious to anyone and a lot of people are asking "Why?" Why does the world have to be like this? Do we really have the shortage of things that economics talks about, or is it that distribution of these things is fucked up? Are the people who are in power actively encouraging and perpetuating dysfunctional behaviors in an attempt to gain more power? Does technology allow us to distribute government control more broadly and still maintain some semblance of a society? In short, all of the questions that we've allowed "professional pundits" and politicians to answer for us in the past.
Right now, economics focuses on "efficiency" more than any other factor.You've reached a post-"economic" age where businesses that hid their externalities in the past can no longer do so. If these costs of externalities are calculated and charged to the companies, many would no longer be profitable causing huge disruptions in the economy. How corporations should pay for these externalities foisted upon us is the seminal question of the age. We used to think that their tax load and benefit in providing employment was sufficient. But now people who run corporations say "we have to avoid taxes". They say "we have to outsource to be competitive. So they pay less, we pay more. Well, until people see the costs of the externalities well enough and feel the pain of their own payments to the corporate behemoth to understand out that the game is rigged. I dread that day, because those in charge seem to be doing everything in their power to steer towards it.
on the opposite they help make it easier to make others aware of what's happening.
Although this is indeed the case, it is not always an unmixed blessing.
Well, or you could say that technologies and their impact on people, just like laws (or any change in the environment), can have unexpected consequences and, when they occur, one should still do something about it rather than stuffing fingers in your ears and yelling "La, la, la... Bright, shiny, new technology! Yum! You people cope!"
Just sayin'.
Dude, if you're here, it's obvious what you think is cool couldn't be more wrong.
Probably the worst thing to happen as a result of the Ma Bell breakup was the death of Bell Labs.
Well, given the fact that Bell Labs was turning out stuff like C++ after the breakup, it would have probably been best to put it out of its misery at that point, rather than having it limp along for a few more years afterward like it did. All things have a time. The research lab is dead unless you can convince economists that efficiency is not the only virtue for economics to look at.