Banks. They rat you out to the government in every which way. Any given transaction is sent to the DEA and IRS just for starters. And of course the NSA gets everything by hook or by crook.
... you hear about a new revolutionary breakthrough in such-and-such a field, but nothing ever comes of it.
True, but off the top of my head IBM has within my lifetime come up with two which have actually worked: GMR hard drives (though not GMR itself), and copper interconnect.
Funny you should say that, as the rate of female computer science graduates was apparently higher back then.
In 1974 the percentage of computer science graduates who were female was about 16.5%; slightly lower than today
Whatever biology says, we see that the gender ratio varies greatly with time and place. Our biology hasn't changed much since the 70s, so we can at the very least get the gender ratio back to what it was then. Probably, our biology is flexible enough to support pretty much any gender ratio.
With enough force we could make the gender ratio almost anything we want; we could simply set hard limits for men, for instance; we could ban men from the field entirely. That doesn't mean biology isn't involved.
I haven't got an answer. But this is a "should" question - so no naturalistic fallacy, please.
It's not an example of the naturalistic fallacy to argue that the gender ratios are the way they are because of human nature. It's also not the naturalistic fallacy to argue that if people are free to choose, they will choose according to their nature and so it is OK for the ratios to be what they are; the value here is freedom of choice, not adherence to nature.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People". Not for the advice; as a geek type you'll likely never be able to pull it off anyway. But in the spirit of knowing thy enemy; when the sales and marketing and pointy-haired businessmen try to manipulate you, you'll recognize the techniques and be able to put a source to them.
Post office is model of efficiency, and studies show private and charter schools spend more on administrative costs (read:profit for the owners) that public schools.
I gather economics isn't one of your strong points, as "administrative costs" and "profits" are disjoint categories. It's certainly true that plenty of charters are scams meant for efficiently transferring taxpayer money into connected people's pockets... but unfortunately public schools are much the same.
Or could it be that good education is really, really expensive, and that $100 million dollars isn't really a lot of money on the scale of a State of American.
Newark school district total operating budget is on the order of $900 million, so it's not exactly chump change either.
Could it also be that a lot of that $100 million was spent on trying to make the school district turn out cheap employees for facebook?
Maybe, just maybe, it's your society that is the problem. Since, if you aren't too ignorant to notice, the USA is the only one really having these problems.
Which if any of the graphs on that ed.gov page are adjusted for inflation?
The ones which say "Constant Dollars".
The Newark School District gets more money per pupil than the suburban school districts surrounding it. And its outcomes are far worse. It's not the money.
Actually, judging from the proportion of people who can't do it (even among those who claim they can), being able to write computer programs does make me special. But you could say the same for wiring a light switch or installing a faucet. Most people have no technical skill at all.
Physicists hate the fucking Standard Model, they try to break it all the time. But so far reality has refused to behave otherwise. Climatologists love AGW, and constantly try to shore it up in the face of apparently-contrary reality. That's why the Standard Model is a better theory; not in spite of its relative lack of support among scientists, but because of oit.
The program I graduated from at a large state school in the US isn't even accredited by ABET. Seeing as how ABET is mostly known as an engineering accreditor I would expect this to be the case for many computer science degrees not part of an engineering program.
A good rule of thumb is to find out what the most respected nutritionists agree on and do the opposite. My employer provides lunch, and labels the food according to the 'food pyramid' -- red for the worst stuff like red meats and sweetsand fried food and white flour or rice. Green for steamed vegetables and high fiber foods and the like, yellow in the middle and containing poultry and fatty vegetables.
I only eat red and yellow, preferring red. It's tastiest of course. ~145lb, 5' 7". Cholesterol on the low end of normal.
Portion control is important, but when you're eating tasty filling foods, it's easy. If I notice myself gaining, I can just cut down on the cookies. When you're trying to feed yourself on low macronutrient foods, portion control is ridiculously difficult; you need huge amounts to just stop the hunger.
Unlike you, Mr. Coward, I'm a real tough guy and I wouldn't pay a cabbie insisting on a higher-than-agreed fare either. Even if that means his cop buddies are going to shake me down. You want to rob me you do actually have to go through the effort of doing so. A lot of people act this way, though few likely visit London.
And the western world has gotten itself into a regulatory trap where now hiring a car for a short trip is relatively difficult and expensive, thank to all those 'reasonable' regulations. Meanwhile, look-after-my-kid-for-a-few-hours remains relatively cheap and effectively unregulated (usually a cash transaction involving underage workers, but nothing a politician would be worried about being caught doing).
Cities ate not more efficient than suburbs by every measure; if they were, it would be cheaper, not more expensive, to live in cities. There are diseconomies of density which result in groceries, electricity, etc costing MORE in cities, not less.
Too bad. The old-tech fuels work and scale well. The renewables and other environmentally friendly fuels and motors are always just over the horizon of practicality. If they do threaten to become practical they are declared environmentally anathema. It's old tech or power shortages, take your pick.
Slashdot Mirror
"...when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."
In a word? Yes. At least everyone who is 3 hops away from a person of particular interest, and it seems likely that's almost everyone.
This is like going to Volvo and saying... hey, your cars use a lot of ball bearings, why don't you give up cars and make ball bearings instead?
Banks. They rat you out to the government in every which way. Any given transaction is sent to the DEA and IRS just for starters. And of course the NSA gets everything by hook or by crook.
True, but off the top of my head IBM has within my lifetime come up with two which have actually worked: GMR hard drives (though not GMR itself), and copper interconnect.
In 1974 the percentage of computer science graduates who were female was about 16.5%; slightly lower than today
With enough force we could make the gender ratio almost anything we want; we could simply set hard limits for men, for instance; we could ban men from the field entirely. That doesn't mean biology isn't involved.
It's not an example of the naturalistic fallacy to argue that the gender ratios are the way they are because of human nature. It's also not the naturalistic fallacy to argue that if people are free to choose, they will choose according to their nature and so it is OK for the ratios to be what they are; the value here is freedom of choice, not adherence to nature.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People". Not for the advice; as a geek type you'll likely never be able to pull it off anyway. But in the spirit of knowing thy enemy; when the sales and marketing and pointy-haired businessmen try to manipulate you, you'll recognize the techniques and be able to put a source to them.
I gather economics isn't one of your strong points, as "administrative costs" and "profits" are disjoint categories. It's certainly true that plenty of charters are scams meant for efficiently transferring taxpayer money into connected people's pockets... but unfortunately public schools are much the same.
Newark school district total operating budget is on the order of $900 million, so it's not exactly chump change either.
ROTFL
You wanna be more specific?
The ones which say "Constant Dollars".
The Newark School District gets more money per pupil than the suburban school districts surrounding it. And its outcomes are far worse. It's not the money.
The way I learned it was "In case of nuclear war, put your head between your legs... and kiss your ass goodbye."
Personally I wish he was in Singapore. This is the kind of thing where corporal punishment would seem appropriate.
Actually, judging from the proportion of people who can't do it (even among those who claim they can), being able to write computer programs does make me special. But you could say the same for wiring a light switch or installing a faucet. Most people have no technical skill at all.
Physicists hate the fucking Standard Model, they try to break it all the time. But so far reality has refused to behave otherwise. Climatologists love AGW, and constantly try to shore it up in the face of apparently-contrary reality. That's why the Standard Model is a better theory; not in spite of its relative lack of support among scientists, but because of oit.
Thank you, Dick Cheney. BTW it's your face I'll be using.
The program I graduated from at a large state school in the US isn't even accredited by ABET. Seeing as how ABET is mostly known as an engineering accreditor I would expect this to be the case for many computer science degrees not part of an engineering program.
The American Dream was always a dream. The American reality is Al Bundy.
A good rule of thumb is to find out what the most respected nutritionists agree on and do the opposite. My employer provides lunch, and labels the food according to the 'food pyramid' -- red for the worst stuff like red meats and sweetsand fried food and white flour or rice. Green for steamed vegetables and high fiber foods and the like, yellow in the middle and containing poultry and fatty vegetables. I only eat red and yellow, preferring red. It's tastiest of course. ~145lb, 5' 7". Cholesterol on the low end of normal. Portion control is important, but when you're eating tasty filling foods, it's easy. If I notice myself gaining, I can just cut down on the cookies. When you're trying to feed yourself on low macronutrient foods, portion control is ridiculously difficult; you need huge amounts to just stop the hunger.
Unlike you, Mr. Coward, I'm a real tough guy and I wouldn't pay a cabbie insisting on a higher-than-agreed fare either. Even if that means his cop buddies are going to shake me down. You want to rob me you do actually have to go through the effort of doing so. A lot of people act this way, though few likely visit London.
Dental appointments? In London? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
The UK equivalent of Guantanamo is London, so that's not much of a threat.
And the western world has gotten itself into a regulatory trap where now hiring a car for a short trip is relatively difficult and expensive, thank to all those 'reasonable' regulations. Meanwhile, look-after-my-kid-for-a-few-hours remains relatively cheap and effectively unregulated (usually a cash transaction involving underage workers, but nothing a politician would be worried about being caught doing).
Cities ate not more efficient than suburbs by every measure; if they were, it would be cheaper, not more expensive, to live in cities. There are diseconomies of density which result in groceries, electricity, etc costing MORE in cities, not less.
Too bad. The old-tech fuels work and scale well. The renewables and other environmentally friendly fuels and motors are always just over the horizon of practicality. If they do threaten to become practical they are declared environmentally anathema. It's old tech or power shortages, take your pick.
Yeah, except it has never worked.