Ya, seriously. Signage and awareness campaigns can only go so far. The engineering is solid. Everyone knows what they *should be doing*. Police need to re-focus a major part of their beat work on traffic violations. All the laws and all the engineering go unheeded if people don't think there are sufficiently detrimental consequences to their actions.
The laws of physics are not in contravention with the laws of man. The laws of man require drivers to drive no faster than the environment safely allows. If you're surrounded by pedestrians, drive slowly. That way, your momentum stays low and your braking is quick.
"As a tax credit, the amount of your qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax credit reduces your tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis. In order to claim the credit, you have to have a tax liability you report on your return. It will not increase your refund beyond what is owed. Depending on your liability and other tax credits you take, you may not see the full tax savings of the tentative credit you calculate on Form 8936. This is because the credit is a nonrefundable credit. Nonrefundable tax credits cannot reduce your tax bill below zero and also reduce your tax bill for a number of other credits taken before reducing the remaining tax bill for your plug-in electric motor vehicle credit."
Here's why you're wrong about EV chargers in California Apartments:
AB 2565 makes it a requirement for a an apartment landlard to allow the installation of an EVSE (charger). While the charger can be had for less than $1,000 with rebates, installation still costs. If there's insufficient wiring to a garage. That costs, too. If there is no garage, then you need to buy a weatherized EVSE and have it installed outside. The renter is responsible for all costs, reporting, planning, and including removal when the apartment lease is up. This is cost prohibitive.
-- California has a $2,500 direct rebate (it's a check sent to you by the State).
-- The Federal Government has a $5,000 non-refundable tax rebate. That means you have to claim it on your taxes as a negative liability only to reduce existing tax liability. That means if you submit a $5,000 rebate and you're already getting a $250 refund, you get NOTHING from your $5,000 rebate. If you want your full $5,000 value, you have to change your tax witholdings for the year, save what you think you'll have to pay, apply the $5,000 tax rebate, pay what's left, and then look in your "tax savings account" and see what's left. That's your reward. That's not something that low-income people do.
-- To charge an electric vehicle at home, you need a garage or one of those incredibly rare apartments communities that offers EV charging. For comparison, I live in what most would consider a premium apartment community in one of the safest cities in America and there's not a single public EV charger anywhere in this apartment community or the owner's apartment system.
-- You have to travel a maximum distance per day given charge time.
EV are still additional "putt around" vehicles for the upper-middle and upper class. Almost no households live with ONLY an EV.
It's a bit senseless to test whether there's a big difference between regular desktop use is affected by the jump from 4GB to 8GB when you have a a Geforce GTX 980 -- a card that has 4GB of its OWN RAM and costs as much as most people's workstations or home PCs.
Anyone who is running a recently purchased system (within the last 2 years) with only 4GB of RAM is very likely using on-board video as well. Who uses these computers? Rank and file office workers and home users who don't know better.
Getting just about any modern, budget video card will offload graphics work, un-share RAM, and reduce the use of virtual memory. It will make the 4GB stretch a lot farther and 8GB will be plenty for most people. But without that video card, there's just never enough RAM.
So, ya, if you want to say that going from 4GB to 8GB doesn't make a big difference, try making that change without your $500 video card.
(1) I wish I could mod you up because that's a well argued AC post and I think good AC posts don't get the credit they deserve. Unfortunately, I've already commented in this thread (obviously) and thus cannot use my points.
(2) While porno is everywhere and easily accessible, anyone found with porno, or publicly admitting to watching/reading/etc. porno is going to be shamed. And that's what I mean by it being pervasive in society but still publicly taboo. If it was in no way publicly taboo, then where's the UK porno-lovers group standing up for porno rights?
I'm going to disagree here. There is no significant revenue that can come from the ISPs locking down porn access and people getting for accessing it in other ways. If the UK government wanted more money, it could spend a lot less to get a lot more.
This is about conservative social values and the political power of "think of the children". Since pornography is pervasive but still taboo in Western society, it's an easy political stranglehold because there simply aren't enough people willing to stand up and say, "It's my right to was two consenting adults go at it online." It's too publicly shameful. "Oh, look at him! He's probably a paedo! I would never look at that filth! Shame him! SHAME HIM!"
Since no one can publicly admit to it without such extreme shaming, no one's going to stand up and protect it. Thus someone supporting said conservative values will get the support of nearly everyone because "If you don't support it, then you likely should be shamed because you, too, are probably a paedo!"
This is completely a social and political tactic. Not financial.
You don't even have to put in THAT much effort to see a significant change (depending on starting mass). Try the calorie calculator here. (http://goo.gl/XBPt) I went from 245 to 220lbs without much drama just by making small changes and integrating physical movement better into my life.
If you are eating a 4000-kcal daily diet regularly, cutting your intake in half isn't going to help you lose weight... it's going to help you quit dieting because dropping half your intake is extremely difficult. You can't tell your stretched out stomach, "Hey, so please stop telling me you're hungry."
Cut out one bad thing a week. If you're a total red-meat head and think that no meal is a meal without fried beef, then that may be a problem. Make the switch from red meat to chicken, pork, and fish. If you're a fried-food maniac, cut out fried meats and potatoes. If you're eating fast food for more than 4 meals a week (schedules are a pain, I know), choose a better fast food option. Subway is not a bastion of extreme healthiness, but a footlong turkey on wheat will do significantly less damage than a burger and fries from Five Guys.
And cut out the soda. All of it. Iced tea, water-- almost anything else. But start weening yourself off of it. Still want the fizz? Buy 2-liters of club soda, juice a lime, a lemon, an orange, or a grapefruit at home, throw the juice on ice and top off wit the club soda. BAM-- a non-ultra sweet soda.
If you want to lose weight and stick to a better diet (but not go on "a diet"), you have to make small changes. You have to create a new normal. Do too much at once, and you're dooming yourself to failure.
Hi there. I'm a big-time sustainability nerd. In fact, it's literally part of my job description. I have friends throughout the industry-- energy, transportation, water, land use, etc. I have a couple friends in the food sustainability area and they're vehemently divided on the viability of non-GM crops in the modern world. Me? I can't be bothered to care too much. I don't have the time in the day to figure out how to best grow free-range battery chargers for solar chickens. I need to leave that to someone else.
I'm happy that someone has volunteered to be the test bed for this experiment.
Your argument works with "fat" people because the courts do not recognize having X lbs. of fat as a suspect class. But when you have sub-forums specifically formed to be a place to discuss racist/sexist/prejudicial/discriminatory/etc. topics, the community leaves itself open to allegations of supporting, facilitating, or giving shelter to hate speech. And, unfortunately, even if you have a rock-solid liability waiver, defending one's self in court will cost money and reputation.
Note that I'm not saying that either having such forums or getting rid of such forums is a good or bad thing, but simply that this is the course of evolution of a community. Gather people, get popular, need funding and thus compromise principles, need more people to get more funding and thus further compromise principles.
Clubs, online forums, governments, etc. Everything develops away from highly-held ideals towards "the highest held ideals that angers the fewest number of people".
I hate the idea of major sites like Reddit, Fark, etc. giving up what made them popular: being a sanctuary for people to communicate things as they see fit. But I also accept that once an online community becomes sufficiently large, they will need to:
(1) Bring in revenue to support the people maintaining the site and to pay for the hardware/bandwidth required to actually have a site to support.
(2) Those who provide revenue will impose requirements upon the site that will erode what previously defined the community.
(3) When a community gets sufficiently large, they attract people who weren't part of the original concept and they will demand to be catered to. This will require further erosion of the community's core principles to facilitate because, since revenue's needed, those managing the community must make everyone feel welcomed.
(4) Be ready for lawsuits from people who do not accept the original principles, but want to be part of the community regardless.
This happens with ALL communities and this looks to be Reddit's semi-collapse. Reddit won't die-- not by a long shot. But many will leave and what made Reddit most distinctive from other sites will be watered down. That's called death by success.
My only annoyance with the whole internet abuse counter-attack (Gamergate, etc.) is that those who were targeted by the abuse went and painted the entirety of the population of male gamers as sociopathic misogynists and giggled while the innocent were lumped in with that horrible stereotype.
Just like pre-internet days, the nerds get abused for being nerds.
This case is exactly what needs to be the standard response. (1) Someone reports abuse. (2) Investigation. (3) Abuser found. (4) Abuser tried and convicted. The end. No making a career based on accusing all male gamers or the entire video game industry or the entirety of "science" for the abuse of a few people perpetrated. Just report, investigate, find, convict, close the book.
We don't need social martyrs, we need good police work and good courts.
I sleep (typically) from 9:30pm to 6:00am when I have work the next day. I also bike commute and don't eat breakfast, so I need the sleep when I'm not eating before the ride.
On Friday and Saturday nights, though, I tend to go to sleep around 10:00pm and wake up around 4:30am or 5:00am. Weird, I know, but for some reason, I wake up with the thought in my mind, "This is my time! I'm not sleeping through it!"
"Worse" is a relative term. Bribery and what the West considers fraudulent or corrupt don't have the same weight or value in China. Talk to anyone who does business in China. Bribery is expected. It's part of business.
The West's influence is trying to make Chinese business more like the West's (and thus more predictable) and thus we're seeing Chinese business practices through the Western lens.
India's not that different. Nor many Latin American countries. Come to think of it, bribes are a part of business life for the majority of the population of the world. So there's that.
Speaking of the "heavy lifting" requirement, nothing would make me happier than seeing better female representation in heavy/hard labor industries. There have been some highly visible construction industry cases wherein females in the industry were treated inappropriately. But those women were setting the groundwork.
Then there's plumbing, sewage, heavy machinery, roadwork, waste management, etc.
Those are the high visibility and hard working positions that, if females started competing for, males would take notice and give proper respect.
I would be proud as all hell if my future daughter did roadwork.
You chose to berate the poster and (likely) have him become hostile to you (and, by proxy, your viewpoint) when you could have simply presented the information that assert you've seen.
"Hey, did you hear pigs fly now? I've heard it said a lot."
"You fracking idiot! You believe everything people say? You're so ignorant! Look up the pig research!"
OR
"Hey, did you hear pigs fly now? I've heard it said a lot."
"I've heard that a lot, too, but I found this data that shows there's just a perception issue. Apparently, someone's been chucking pigs in the air over highly-populated areas. Check out the link."
To speak to the nursing, the greater problem presented in that industry tends to be that there are more practicing male MDs than female MDs with females being weeded out and eventually going into nursing. So, it gets spun from "not enough males in nursing" to "women get forced out of MDs and over-saturate nursing".
I agree that males and females tend to be different, but a lot of that has to do with upbringing. How many people can honestly say that if their male child wanted to play with dolls and be a nurse, that they would foster it? Not many. Most would keep the dolls away, direct the kid into the hard sciences, and hope he becomes an MD or medical researcher.
If little females did that, "Well great!", right?
We should never discount the effects our own gender biases have on steering our children into their careers down the line. It's still pretty taboo to say, but I'd put at least 40% of the blame of sex-separated industries on the upbringing that those industry's workers.
Blame the old parents and instruct the new parents to lay off the gender-specific career focii, that's what I say. Let the girl play with tools and computers. Let the boy play nurse and care for babies. The boomers had to deal with their daughters choosing to go to college and having a career instead of staying home and having babies. This generation will have to deal with their daughters becoming computer nerds and their sons teaching kindergarten.
And understandably so. Social outcast computer guys get resentful. They've been bullied, teased, excluded, derided, mocked, beat up, put down, scoffed at, and turned down for their acne, facial features, natural geeky curiosity, and (sometimes) poor hygiene and poverty.
Those that turn to computers as a safe, solo hobby eventually find each other. They commiserate. They create their own social norms and mores. These are not common social norms because "common society" rejected them back in middle school and high school.
It should serve as no surprise that when, in college or professional careers, some women actually want in on the computer industry, they have to wade into the dungeon of outcasts and deal with the stench of their resentment. The first to tread in can, hopefully, make a difference. But they have a lot of baggage to deal with.
You can even see this at fan conventions when "normal" looking girls get scoffed at for being bandwagonners because it is so incredibly difficult for the outcasts to believe that the people that look just like those who excluded them down throughout their adolescence could actually and genuinely have similar interests to their own.
None of that justifies any action taken against attempts at considerate nerd re-integration, but if you don't understand all of that before actually trying to make a change, you're going to be doomed to failure.
If people REALLY want to foster a better, more inclusive environment for all people in the computer industry, they need to foster a better, more inclusive environment for the young people that first choose the computer industry as a hobby. Prevent the de-socialization of those who would otherwise be social outcast computer nerds and you'll be working toward a better computer industry for the future.
But that's only if you want to do the hard work to solve the problem for everyone and not just take up a crusade for a certain few.
"During public hearings on WA State's House Bill 1813, which took aim at boy's historical over-representation in K-12 computer classes, the Office of the WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction voiced concerns..."
My problem with the whole "there aren't enough girls in CS" thing is that everyone assumes that males are specifically targeted and tracked into computer-related academic/research/career paths. That's not the case. By and large, it's social outcasts who take up computers as a hobby are tracked into computer-related academic/research/career paths and those social outcasts are more commonly male.
And they will continue to be male. And social outcasts.
So, at best, these kinds of initiatives will just track more female social outcasts into computer-oriented subjects/careers. Want more "normal people" in computer-oriented careers? Fat chance, buddy.
Personally, I can't be bothered to see the difference. I'm serious. It may have been being raised in the golden age of CD-burnable movies (degrade a 2-hour movie sufficiently to burn it to a 700MB disc), but I don't see the point in 1080p let alone anything more than that.
How much detail is required to convey that someone is crying, that the ball hit the ground before the receiver took possession, or that the explosion went BOOOOM? Certainly not 8k or 4k. And I doubt 1080p.
Really, though. From what I can read in the article (which may be limited because I was no reading major), "A parachute failed during a NASA test of new technology for landing larger spacecraft..." and "Another giant parachute also failed to inflate during a similar NASA test of new Mars spacecraft technology last year."
You can read the whole article (and you should), but here are some nice excerpts.
FTA: On the electric car front, the Chevy Volt is the most significant U.S. competitor to Musk's Tesla Model S...
Meanwhile, Volt was developed during Uncle Sam's bailout of "Government Motors" with $30 billion. That's more than six times the number that got Mr. Hirsch so worked up! Though GM touts that they've "repaid" the government, Treasury reports that the government lost more than $11 billion on that dubious deal.
The Model S is not comparable to the Volt. The Volt is a plug-in hybrid (not an EV) cludge to meet the requirements of a bail out. The Nissan Leaf is a better comparison and it blows the Model S out of the water in its effects on the market. But, the author wants to hamstring a stronger comparison by requiring that the company be American.
Additionally, a bail out deal and subsidy are not comparable. A bail out deal your mom throwing you a few hundred bucks because your business failed, rent needs to be paid, and you have to go visit her to pick up the check. A subsidy is your mom throwing you a few hundred bucks to start up or expand your business. One's there to save your as with some nominal requirements and the other is there to help you profit. Musk has taken both for Tesla.
FTA: The most polite response I can offer to the critics is: Get over it. Find something more productive to do than condemning success. If you insist on continuing to carp, do your research first and hit the right targets. Otherwise you will continue to sound jealous and misinformed.
Wow, internet tough guy, huh?
Oh, and this isn't the only time this guy has white-knighted for Musk. He's actually a bit of a fanboy, so don't let his professorship lull you into a false sense of academic separation:
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, seriously. Signage and awareness campaigns can only go so far. The engineering is solid. Everyone knows what they *should be doing*. Police need to re-focus a major part of their beat work on traffic violations. All the laws and all the engineering go unheeded if people don't think there are sufficiently detrimental consequences to their actions.
Enforce the damn laws.
The laws of physics are not in contravention with the laws of man. The laws of man require drivers to drive no faster than the environment safely allows. If you're surrounded by pedestrians, drive slowly. That way, your momentum stays low and your braking is quick.
Here's why you're wrong about the tax credit:
https://turbotax.intuit.com/ta...
"As a tax credit, the amount of your qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax credit reduces your tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis. In order to claim the credit, you have to have a tax liability you report on your return. It will not increase your refund beyond what is owed. Depending on your liability and other tax credits you take, you may not see the full tax savings of the tentative credit you calculate on Form 8936. This is because the credit is a nonrefundable credit. Nonrefundable tax credits cannot reduce your tax bill below zero and also reduce your tax bill for a number of other credits taken before reducing the remaining tax bill for your plug-in electric motor vehicle credit."
Here's why you're wrong about EV chargers in California Apartments:
AB 2565 makes it a requirement for a an apartment landlard to allow the installation of an EVSE (charger). While the charger can be had for less than $1,000 with rebates, installation still costs. If there's insufficient wiring to a garage. That costs, too. If there is no garage, then you need to buy a weatherized EVSE and have it installed outside. The renter is responsible for all costs, reporting, planning, and including removal when the apartment lease is up. This is cost prohibitive.
Yes and no.
-- California has a $2,500 direct rebate (it's a check sent to you by the State).
-- The Federal Government has a $5,000 non-refundable tax rebate. That means you have to claim it on your taxes as a negative liability only to reduce existing tax liability. That means if you submit a $5,000 rebate and you're already getting a $250 refund, you get NOTHING from your $5,000 rebate. If you want your full $5,000 value, you have to change your tax witholdings for the year, save what you think you'll have to pay, apply the $5,000 tax rebate, pay what's left, and then look in your "tax savings account" and see what's left. That's your reward. That's not something that low-income people do.
-- To charge an electric vehicle at home, you need a garage or one of those incredibly rare apartments communities that offers EV charging. For comparison, I live in what most would consider a premium apartment community in one of the safest cities in America and there's not a single public EV charger anywhere in this apartment community or the owner's apartment system.
-- You have to travel a maximum distance per day given charge time.
EV are still additional "putt around" vehicles for the upper-middle and upper class. Almost no households live with ONLY an EV.
Ugh... my kingdom for after-posting editing capability.
It's a bit senseless to test whether there's a big difference between regular desktop use is affected by the jump from 4GB to 8GB when you have a a Geforce GTX 980 -- a card that has 4GB of its OWN RAM and costs as much as most people's workstations or home PCs.
Anyone who is running a recently purchased system (within the last 2 years) with only 4GB of RAM is very likely using on-board video as well. Who uses these computers? Rank and file office workers and home users who don't know better.
Getting just about any modern, budget video card will offload graphics work, un-share RAM, and reduce the use of virtual memory. It will make the 4GB stretch a lot farther and 8GB will be plenty for most people. But without that video card, there's just never enough RAM.
So, ya, if you want to say that going from 4GB to 8GB doesn't make a big difference, try making that change without your $500 video card.
(1) I wish I could mod you up because that's a well argued AC post and I think good AC posts don't get the credit they deserve. Unfortunately, I've already commented in this thread (obviously) and thus cannot use my points.
(2) While porno is everywhere and easily accessible, anyone found with porno, or publicly admitting to watching/reading/etc. porno is going to be shamed. And that's what I mean by it being pervasive in society but still publicly taboo. If it was in no way publicly taboo, then where's the UK porno-lovers group standing up for porno rights?
I'm going to disagree here. There is no significant revenue that can come from the ISPs locking down porn access and people getting for accessing it in other ways. If the UK government wanted more money, it could spend a lot less to get a lot more.
This is about conservative social values and the political power of "think of the children". Since pornography is pervasive but still taboo in Western society, it's an easy political stranglehold because there simply aren't enough people willing to stand up and say, "It's my right to was two consenting adults go at it online." It's too publicly shameful. "Oh, look at him! He's probably a paedo! I would never look at that filth! Shame him! SHAME HIM!"
Since no one can publicly admit to it without such extreme shaming, no one's going to stand up and protect it. Thus someone supporting said conservative values will get the support of nearly everyone because "If you don't support it, then you likely should be shamed because you, too, are probably a paedo!"
This is completely a social and political tactic. Not financial.
You don't even have to put in THAT much effort to see a significant change (depending on starting mass). Try the calorie calculator here. (http://goo.gl/XBPt) I went from 245 to 220lbs without much drama just by making small changes and integrating physical movement better into my life.
If you are eating a 4000-kcal daily diet regularly, cutting your intake in half isn't going to help you lose weight... it's going to help you quit dieting because dropping half your intake is extremely difficult. You can't tell your stretched out stomach, "Hey, so please stop telling me you're hungry."
Cut out one bad thing a week. If you're a total red-meat head and think that no meal is a meal without fried beef, then that may be a problem. Make the switch from red meat to chicken, pork, and fish. If you're a fried-food maniac, cut out fried meats and potatoes. If you're eating fast food for more than 4 meals a week (schedules are a pain, I know), choose a better fast food option. Subway is not a bastion of extreme healthiness, but a footlong turkey on wheat will do significantly less damage than a burger and fries from Five Guys.
And cut out the soda. All of it. Iced tea, water-- almost anything else. But start weening yourself off of it. Still want the fizz? Buy 2-liters of club soda, juice a lime, a lemon, an orange, or a grapefruit at home, throw the juice on ice and top off wit the club soda. BAM-- a non-ultra sweet soda.
If you want to lose weight and stick to a better diet (but not go on "a diet"), you have to make small changes. You have to create a new normal. Do too much at once, and you're dooming yourself to failure.
Hi there. I'm a big-time sustainability nerd. In fact, it's literally part of my job description. I have friends throughout the industry-- energy, transportation, water, land use, etc. I have a couple friends in the food sustainability area and they're vehemently divided on the viability of non-GM crops in the modern world. Me? I can't be bothered to care too much. I don't have the time in the day to figure out how to best grow free-range battery chargers for solar chickens. I need to leave that to someone else. I'm happy that someone has volunteered to be the test bed for this experiment.
Your argument works with "fat" people because the courts do not recognize having X lbs. of fat as a suspect class. But when you have sub-forums specifically formed to be a place to discuss racist/sexist/prejudicial/discriminatory/etc. topics, the community leaves itself open to allegations of supporting, facilitating, or giving shelter to hate speech. And, unfortunately, even if you have a rock-solid liability waiver, defending one's self in court will cost money and reputation. Note that I'm not saying that either having such forums or getting rid of such forums is a good or bad thing, but simply that this is the course of evolution of a community. Gather people, get popular, need funding and thus compromise principles, need more people to get more funding and thus further compromise principles. Clubs, online forums, governments, etc. Everything develops away from highly-held ideals towards "the highest held ideals that angers the fewest number of people".
That's a 100% appropriate comparison. I'll even throw out Sci Fi's adoption of reality shows leading up to their full transition to "Syfy".
I hate the idea of major sites like Reddit, Fark, etc. giving up what made them popular: being a sanctuary for people to communicate things as they see fit. But I also accept that once an online community becomes sufficiently large, they will need to:
(1) Bring in revenue to support the people maintaining the site and to pay for the hardware/bandwidth required to actually have a site to support.
(2) Those who provide revenue will impose requirements upon the site that will erode what previously defined the community.
(3) When a community gets sufficiently large, they attract people who weren't part of the original concept and they will demand to be catered to. This will require further erosion of the community's core principles to facilitate because, since revenue's needed, those managing the community must make everyone feel welcomed.
(4) Be ready for lawsuits from people who do not accept the original principles, but want to be part of the community regardless.
This happens with ALL communities and this looks to be Reddit's semi-collapse. Reddit won't die-- not by a long shot. But many will leave and what made Reddit most distinctive from other sites will be watered down. That's called death by success.
My only annoyance with the whole internet abuse counter-attack (Gamergate, etc.) is that those who were targeted by the abuse went and painted the entirety of the population of male gamers as sociopathic misogynists and giggled while the innocent were lumped in with that horrible stereotype.
Just like pre-internet days, the nerds get abused for being nerds.
This case is exactly what needs to be the standard response. (1) Someone reports abuse. (2) Investigation. (3) Abuser found. (4) Abuser tried and convicted. The end. No making a career based on accusing all male gamers or the entire video game industry or the entirety of "science" for the abuse of a few people perpetrated. Just report, investigate, find, convict, close the book.
We don't need social martyrs, we need good police work and good courts.
I sleep (typically) from 9:30pm to 6:00am when I have work the next day. I also bike commute and don't eat breakfast, so I need the sleep when I'm not eating before the ride.
On Friday and Saturday nights, though, I tend to go to sleep around 10:00pm and wake up around 4:30am or 5:00am. Weird, I know, but for some reason, I wake up with the thought in my mind, "This is my time! I'm not sleeping through it!"
"Worse" is a relative term. Bribery and what the West considers fraudulent or corrupt don't have the same weight or value in China. Talk to anyone who does business in China. Bribery is expected. It's part of business. The West's influence is trying to make Chinese business more like the West's (and thus more predictable) and thus we're seeing Chinese business practices through the Western lens. India's not that different. Nor many Latin American countries. Come to think of it, bribes are a part of business life for the majority of the population of the world. So there's that.
Speaking of the "heavy lifting" requirement, nothing would make me happier than seeing better female representation in heavy/hard labor industries. There have been some highly visible construction industry cases wherein females in the industry were treated inappropriately. But those women were setting the groundwork.
Then there's plumbing, sewage, heavy machinery, roadwork, waste management, etc.
Those are the high visibility and hard working positions that, if females started competing for, males would take notice and give proper respect.
I would be proud as all hell if my future daughter did roadwork.
Bad form.
You chose to berate the poster and (likely) have him become hostile to you (and, by proxy, your viewpoint) when you could have simply presented the information that assert you've seen.
"Hey, did you hear pigs fly now? I've heard it said a lot."
"You fracking idiot! You believe everything people say? You're so ignorant! Look up the pig research!"
OR
"Hey, did you hear pigs fly now? I've heard it said a lot."
"I've heard that a lot, too, but I found this data that shows there's just a perception issue. Apparently, someone's been chucking pigs in the air over highly-populated areas. Check out the link."
The choice is yours.
To speak to the nursing, the greater problem presented in that industry tends to be that there are more practicing male MDs than female MDs with females being weeded out and eventually going into nursing. So, it gets spun from "not enough males in nursing" to "women get forced out of MDs and over-saturate nursing".
I agree that males and females tend to be different, but a lot of that has to do with upbringing. How many people can honestly say that if their male child wanted to play with dolls and be a nurse, that they would foster it? Not many. Most would keep the dolls away, direct the kid into the hard sciences, and hope he becomes an MD or medical researcher.
If little females did that, "Well great!", right?
We should never discount the effects our own gender biases have on steering our children into their careers down the line. It's still pretty taboo to say, but I'd put at least 40% of the blame of sex-separated industries on the upbringing that those industry's workers.
Blame the old parents and instruct the new parents to lay off the gender-specific career focii, that's what I say. Let the girl play with tools and computers. Let the boy play nurse and care for babies. The boomers had to deal with their daughters choosing to go to college and having a career instead of staying home and having babies. This generation will have to deal with their daughters becoming computer nerds and their sons teaching kindergarten.
And understandably so. Social outcast computer guys get resentful. They've been bullied, teased, excluded, derided, mocked, beat up, put down, scoffed at, and turned down for their acne, facial features, natural geeky curiosity, and (sometimes) poor hygiene and poverty.
Those that turn to computers as a safe, solo hobby eventually find each other. They commiserate. They create their own social norms and mores. These are not common social norms because "common society" rejected them back in middle school and high school.
It should serve as no surprise that when, in college or professional careers, some women actually want in on the computer industry, they have to wade into the dungeon of outcasts and deal with the stench of their resentment. The first to tread in can, hopefully, make a difference. But they have a lot of baggage to deal with.
You can even see this at fan conventions when "normal" looking girls get scoffed at for being bandwagonners because it is so incredibly difficult for the outcasts to believe that the people that look just like those who excluded them down throughout their adolescence could actually and genuinely have similar interests to their own.
None of that justifies any action taken against attempts at considerate nerd re-integration, but if you don't understand all of that before actually trying to make a change, you're going to be doomed to failure.
If people REALLY want to foster a better, more inclusive environment for all people in the computer industry, they need to foster a better, more inclusive environment for the young people that first choose the computer industry as a hobby. Prevent the de-socialization of those who would otherwise be social outcast computer nerds and you'll be working toward a better computer industry for the future.
But that's only if you want to do the hard work to solve the problem for everyone and not just take up a crusade for a certain few.
"During public hearings on WA State's House Bill 1813, which took aim at boy's historical over-representation in K-12 computer classes, the Office of the WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction voiced concerns..."
My problem with the whole "there aren't enough girls in CS" thing is that everyone assumes that males are specifically targeted and tracked into computer-related academic/research/career paths. That's not the case. By and large, it's social outcasts who take up computers as a hobby are tracked into computer-related academic/research/career paths and those social outcasts are more commonly male.
And they will continue to be male. And social outcasts.
So, at best, these kinds of initiatives will just track more female social outcasts into computer-oriented subjects/careers. Want more "normal people" in computer-oriented careers? Fat chance, buddy.
Personally, I can't be bothered to see the difference. I'm serious. It may have been being raised in the golden age of CD-burnable movies (degrade a 2-hour movie sufficiently to burn it to a 700MB disc), but I don't see the point in 1080p let alone anything more than that. How much detail is required to convey that someone is crying, that the ball hit the ground before the receiver took possession, or that the explosion went BOOOOM? Certainly not 8k or 4k. And I doubt 1080p.
Really, though. From what I can read in the article (which may be limited because I was no reading major), "A parachute failed during a NASA test of new technology for landing larger spacecraft..." and "Another giant parachute also failed to inflate during a similar NASA test of new Mars spacecraft technology last year."
Two data points does not a plague make.
(Apple) Worldwide Developers Conference. I had to look it up for myself, so I thought I would post it.
You can read the whole article (and you should), but here are some nice excerpts.
FTA: On the electric car front, the Chevy Volt is the most significant U.S. competitor to Musk's Tesla Model S...
Meanwhile, Volt was developed during Uncle Sam's bailout of "Government Motors" with $30 billion. That's more than six times the number that got Mr. Hirsch so worked up! Though GM touts that they've "repaid" the government, Treasury reports that the government lost more than $11 billion on that dubious deal.
The Model S is not comparable to the Volt. The Volt is a plug-in hybrid (not an EV) cludge to meet the requirements of a bail out. The Nissan Leaf is a better comparison and it blows the Model S out of the water in its effects on the market. But, the author wants to hamstring a stronger comparison by requiring that the company be American.
Additionally, a bail out deal and subsidy are not comparable. A bail out deal your mom throwing you a few hundred bucks because your business failed, rent needs to be paid, and you have to go visit her to pick up the check. A subsidy is your mom throwing you a few hundred bucks to start up or expand your business. One's there to save your as with some nominal requirements and the other is there to help you profit. Musk has taken both for Tesla.
FTA: The most polite response I can offer to the critics is: Get over it. Find something more productive to do than condemning success. If you insist on continuing to carp, do your research first and hit the right targets. Otherwise you will continue to sound jealous and misinformed.
Wow, internet tough guy, huh?
Oh, and this isn't the only time this guy has white-knighted for Musk. He's actually a bit of a fanboy, so don't let his professorship lull you into a false sense of academic separation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... "Disclosure: Dr. Autry currently owns Tesla stock."
https://twitter.com/gregwautry
https://www.facebook.com/gregw...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...