The FBI also interviewed some other people in his circle. And the gov't can't restrict your travel without probably cause and, ultimately, some sort of judicial determination. It's called Due Process--i.e. gov't officials can't just decide to fsck-you over, not at least without a nod from a court.
Apparently you haven't heard of the no-fly list, where they just say "Sorry, no boarding for you, go home, kthxbai".
Actually it doesn't resemble the Creation/Evolution debate at all, and I get the heebie-jeebies when someone says it does.
In the Creation/Evolution debate, one side has solid theories backed by evidence, the other side has either pure faith or shit they made up by starting from the conclusion and attempting to construct a plausible chain of reasoning leading to it.
In the climate debate, neither side has solid theories backed by evidence, and one side has shit they made up by starting from the conclusion and attempting to construct a plausible chain of reasoning leading to it. Of course, both sides accuse the other of being the latter.
I have no clue what "Common Core" is but I tutor many kids and all of them learned multiplication by skip counting, counting equal sized groups, *and* memorization of the times table up to 12 (why 12 is really beyond me).
Practical reasons -- many things in commerce are/were denoted in dozens.
I believe that reading of the CFAA -- that violating the TOS is a felony -- was struck down by the 9th Circuit in the Lori Drew case. Which doesn't mean they can't try to prosecute you for it, it just means it's an uphill battle (especially in the area of the 9th circuit).
None of those movies got preachy about misogyny (although Catching Fire preached to the teenage choir about a lot of other stuff of course, like every coming of age story). All pretty white too of course...
Anyone who is falling over themselves to congratulate Hunger Games and Catching Fire for breaking traditional gender roles is going to be VERY disappointed when Mockingjay comes out.
Yeah, but all that really does is ensure that, in the near future, NO front line characters will be straight white males, because this mania makes everyone run around trying to out-PC each other just to avoid lawsuits or attacks from masses of poorly informed, irrational people on the net.
And the feminists STILL aren't happy. Because too many of the men aren't thinking, "Wow, that's a really empowered female role model who doesn't need a man to get ahead in this world." No, they're thinking "Nice, a hot chick with a bow!"
I would. I'd consider deliberately training them wrong, but if you've dealt with the bottom-of-the-barrel people that companies who do douchey things like forcing people to train their replacements hire, you already know.... it's not necessary. You can teach them to the best of your ability, and they'll still be idiots. So do your best, take your severance with a clear conscience, and enjoy watching them crash and burn.
I find that at Age 22, 10% of the people I interview I will hire.
Either you've got great pre-interview filters or you're hiring a whole lot of idiots.
This is honestly why H1-B are a great ideas. Essentially the US is steal the top 10% of intelligence from other countires. This is invaluable in Software.
Since the H-1Bs seem to follow about the same talent distribution as the natives (most are dumb as rocks and nearly all can't rise above code-monkey level), then if they're the top 10% of those other countries, the remaining 90% must be POWERFUL stupid.
The truth is that learning to give people constructive criticism is very difficult for many people (myself included).
Learning to take it is as difficult.
I think the big problem for many of us is that when we were young we spent far too much time in front of computers or with very geeky peers who did not mind when we spoke to each other with a bit of a lack of respect. That built up habits that you have to break. I guess geek culture has this idea of being tolerant of being rude, whereas when you have to start working with people in the real world you discover that not everyone has that same level of tolerance and should not be expected to develop it.
That's a problem with geeks dealing with people outside of geek culture. It should not be a problem within it. It is not up to mainstream culture to demand that geeks conform to the mainstream norms of politeness; if you wish to deal with geeks on their own terms, you in fact MUST develop a level of tolerance for what you see as rudeness, or you mark yourself as an outsider.
Everyone should be treated with politeness and respect at all times.
Politeness and the forms of showing respect are not absolutes. In mainstream culture, a comment such as "This will not work for reasons, X, Y, Z; please fix" would generally be considered rude. In geek culture it is not. Again, it is not up to the mainstream to demand that geeks communicating with geeks conform to mainstream norms.
Rape is when you engage in sexual behavior of any kind with someone without their consent.
No. You can flirt with, make catcalls at, make lewd remarks to, make lewd gestures to, expose your genitals to, or even jerk off in front of them (without anything touching them) and you may have committed any number of offenses, but rape is not one of them. Rape has a specific meaning, and does not cover all "sexual behavior".
When you hit on a woman and she says no, and then you persist, you are indicating that you do not respect her "no." This very strongly suggests that in the right circumstances, you would rape her, because to you "no" means "keep trying."
Since that isn't even the scenario proposed by the GP, I'm not sure why you bring it up. The scenario is "Making unsuccessful passes at a women and then calling her a cunt while retreating". Nothing about "persisting". That's not "rape-y" by any reasonable definition -- see the last word, "retreating"?
Your scenario is BS too; that's just being a pest, not "rape-y".
but it seems like a major operational problem, dealing with a whole bunch of batteries of different form factors and conditions and trying to harness them for anything reliable. Particularly lithium-ion batteries, which have the annoying habit of venting with flame when overcharged or overdischarged.
A culture that allows a rejected suitor to vindictively punish a woman would certainly qualify as sexist.
Well, maybe; presuming it did not allow rejected women to punish men as well (if it did, and those rejected women exist, it's still dysfunctional but not sexist). But nothing here says there's a culture that allowed it. Just that he reverted her commits; if no one else realized he was doing so or had any idea why he was doing it, there's not necessarily a wider cultural probem.
A culture that allows a bench full of men to gawk and stare at co-workers would qualify as sexism.
As Jesse Pinkman would say (to a person of any gender) "Context, bitch!". It was a work-sponsored party, not the regular work day. And the women were doing something interesting to look at.
It certainly does matter _why_ there was a problem, considering the ongoing campaign to paint male geeks as worse than frat boys in terms of sexism and sexual harassment.
Taking her claims at face value, 90% of the problem was with the founder's wife. If she really is the type described, there's no way her husband could have stopped her, really; she'd never have married anyone she couldn't control. This is unfortunate but it's not sexism by men. The other 10%, again taking this at face value, is a guy who didn't take rejection well, which is certainly bad on his part but isn't indicative of a "sexist internal culture" in general.
Then there were the non-problems: Men watching women hula-hooping at a party, and the guy "hesitating" when asked to leave (sorry, men are human too; mere hesitation after being rejected does not make us monsters).
None of this paints a picture of a sexist internal culture; mostly it paints a picture of an internal culture made disfunctional by the founder's wife.
"We cannot manage our very complex, highly sophisticated capital structure with what's coming out of our high schools," said Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve."
That's a red herring, because we don't need to; we need to manage it with what's coming out of our universities.
When he talks about eliminating inequality by bringing the top down, he doesn't mean bringing down the 1%ers like himself and Gates. He's talking about bringing down all the skilled workers in the top 5-10% down to the level of unskilled workers. This doesn't actually reduce income inequality (it actually makes it worse), so he's full of crap.
This has long been Greenspan's desire; it annoys him to no end that people who do things can aspire to salaries as high as lower-level banksters.
"Society" is willing to pay for a college degree; people with degrees make more over their lifetime than people without degrees. Unfortunately, the dismal science of economics tells us that given such a situation, we should expect the cost of college to rise to the present value of all that extra income, leaving the hapless student with no gain.
The singularity is a fascinating idea that ain't going to happen. Vernor Vinge himself did a much better treatment on what happens in this case.
We're already living in the Age of Failed Dreams. Advancements in technology, aside from computing, have all but halted. Flying cars? We can barely improve planes; yes, that IS your fathers airframe. Cheap and limitless energy? Nope. Life extension? John Adams died at 90 over 200 years ago, and he wasn't THAT unusual; many more live that long today, but few live much longer. Progress on stopping disease has even stopped and regressed. And most notably for the purposes of the singularity, strong general AI hasn't progressed much.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you haven't heard of the no-fly list, where they just say "Sorry, no boarding for you, go home, kthxbai".
In the Creation/Evolution debate, one side has solid theories backed by evidence, the other side has either pure faith or shit they made up by starting from the conclusion and attempting to construct a plausible chain of reasoning leading to it.
In the climate debate, neither side has solid theories backed by evidence, and one side has shit they made up by starting from the conclusion and attempting to construct a plausible chain of reasoning leading to it. Of course, both sides accuse the other of being the latter.
Ah, the Pascal's Wager of warmist doctrine.
The fallacy is the idea that there is no deleterious effect to the proposed "solutions" for warming.
At this point, the IPCC is looking more like bad disaster fiction.
Practical reasons -- many things in commerce are/were denoted in dozens.
Spinoffs from Nazi technology got us to the moon. That some good can come out of evil does not make the evil less evil.
I believe that reading of the CFAA -- that violating the TOS is a felony -- was struck down by the 9th Circuit in the Lori Drew case. Which doesn't mean they can't try to prosecute you for it, it just means it's an uphill battle (especially in the area of the 9th circuit).
Anyone who is falling over themselves to congratulate Hunger Games and Catching Fire for breaking traditional gender roles is going to be VERY disappointed when Mockingjay comes out.
It's also false.
And the feminists STILL aren't happy. Because too many of the men aren't thinking, "Wow, that's a really empowered female role model who doesn't need a man to get ahead in this world." No, they're thinking "Nice, a hot chick with a bow!"
That's not misogyny, that's pandering.
and not care if it's politically correct.
I would. I'd consider deliberately training them wrong, but if you've dealt with the bottom-of-the-barrel people that companies who do douchey things like forcing people to train their replacements hire, you already know.... it's not necessary. You can teach them to the best of your ability, and they'll still be idiots. So do your best, take your severance with a clear conscience, and enjoy watching them crash and burn.
AMC did that, they called it "Mad Men" and women loved it. Go figure.
Either you've got great pre-interview filters or you're hiring a whole lot of idiots.
Since the H-1Bs seem to follow about the same talent distribution as the natives (most are dumb as rocks and nearly all can't rise above code-monkey level), then if they're the top 10% of those other countries, the remaining 90% must be POWERFUL stupid.
Learning to take it is as difficult.
That's a problem with geeks dealing with people outside of geek culture. It should not be a problem within it. It is not up to mainstream culture to demand that geeks conform to the mainstream norms of politeness; if you wish to deal with geeks on their own terms, you in fact MUST develop a level of tolerance for what you see as rudeness, or you mark yourself as an outsider.
Politeness and the forms of showing respect are not absolutes. In mainstream culture, a comment such as "This will not work for reasons, X, Y, Z; please fix" would generally be considered rude. In geek culture it is not. Again, it is not up to the mainstream to demand that geeks communicating with geeks conform to mainstream norms.
Modern technology has solved this problem, there's a drill bit linkage made for drilling a hole in your skull without damaging your brain.
No. You can flirt with, make catcalls at, make lewd remarks to, make lewd gestures to, expose your genitals to, or even jerk off in front of them (without anything touching them) and you may have committed any number of offenses, but rape is not one of them. Rape has a specific meaning, and does not cover all "sexual behavior".
Since that isn't even the scenario proposed by the GP, I'm not sure why you bring it up. The scenario is "Making unsuccessful passes at a women and then calling her a cunt while retreating". Nothing about "persisting". That's not "rape-y" by any reasonable definition -- see the last word, "retreating"?
Your scenario is BS too; that's just being a pest, not "rape-y".
but it seems like a major operational problem, dealing with a whole bunch of batteries of different form factors and conditions and trying to harness them for anything reliable. Particularly lithium-ion batteries, which have the annoying habit of venting with flame when overcharged or overdischarged.
Well, maybe; presuming it did not allow rejected women to punish men as well (if it did, and those rejected women exist, it's still dysfunctional but not sexist). But nothing here says there's a culture that allowed it. Just that he reverted her commits; if no one else realized he was doing so or had any idea why he was doing it, there's not necessarily a wider cultural probem.
As Jesse Pinkman would say (to a person of any gender) "Context, bitch!". It was a work-sponsored party, not the regular work day. And the women were doing something interesting to look at.
It certainly does matter _why_ there was a problem, considering the ongoing campaign to paint male geeks as worse than frat boys in terms of sexism and sexual harassment.
Taking her claims at face value, 90% of the problem was with the founder's wife. If she really is the type described, there's no way her husband could have stopped her, really; she'd never have married anyone she couldn't control. This is unfortunate but it's not sexism by men. The other 10%, again taking this at face value, is a guy who didn't take rejection well, which is certainly bad on his part but isn't indicative of a "sexist internal culture" in general.
Then there were the non-problems: Men watching women hula-hooping at a party, and the guy "hesitating" when asked to leave (sorry, men are human too; mere hesitation after being rejected does not make us monsters).
None of this paints a picture of a sexist internal culture; mostly it paints a picture of an internal culture made disfunctional by the founder's wife.
That's a red herring, because we don't need to; we need to manage it with what's coming out of our universities.
When he talks about eliminating inequality by bringing the top down, he doesn't mean bringing down the 1%ers like himself and Gates. He's talking about bringing down all the skilled workers in the top 5-10% down to the level of unskilled workers. This doesn't actually reduce income inequality (it actually makes it worse), so he's full of crap. This has long been Greenspan's desire; it annoys him to no end that people who do things can aspire to salaries as high as lower-level banksters.
"Society" is willing to pay for a college degree; people with degrees make more over their lifetime than people without degrees. Unfortunately, the dismal science of economics tells us that given such a situation, we should expect the cost of college to rise to the present value of all that extra income, leaving the hapless student with no gain.
The singularity is a fascinating idea that ain't going to happen. Vernor Vinge himself did a much better treatment on what happens in this case.
We're already living in the Age of Failed Dreams. Advancements in technology, aside from computing, have all but halted. Flying cars? We can barely improve planes; yes, that IS your fathers airframe. Cheap and limitless energy? Nope. Life extension? John Adams died at 90 over 200 years ago, and he wasn't THAT unusual; many more live that long today, but few live much longer. Progress on stopping disease has even stopped and regressed. And most notably for the purposes of the singularity, strong general AI hasn't progressed much.