Read the Agile Manifesto some time, and tell me whether your company's practices fit in. It sounds to me like you're prioritizing processes and procedures over people and interactions, and not paying attention to working software. If you completely reverse the first bullet point in the Manifesto, you're really not doing Agile.
I've seen Agile work very well, producing good software on time with the developers feeling good about it. That's because we paid attention to the ideas in the Manifesto.
It may be that it's very hard for management in general to actually perform Agile, but there are places where it does work.
Man, you can get astounding mental constructions out of something short and straightforward that didn't mean what you think.
If you're helping people stand up for themselves, that's good. Keep it up. You deserve some praise. However, you're almost certainly not reaching that many individuals.
If a woman can work hard for something that a man can just get, that's not equality. To appreciate this, one has to be willing to listen to people who are potentially discriminated against. Probably neither you nor I have good, solid knowledge of what people in other groups go through. In this case, it's easier for a man to be a hard-nosed negotiator than a woman.
"If you see sexism it is because it is in you. " Similarly, if I see a murder, I'm a murderer. If I see the beauty in a sunset, it's because I'm beautiful. I don't think you've thought this one through.
It might be easier to figure out where I come from if you read what I write and assume I have reasons for writing what I do. You might also consider context, such as the post I reply to. You might also refrain from taking things as insults when they aren't.
BTW, at most of the jobs I've worked at, there weren't as many women, but they had no difficulty fitting in, and no apparent expectation of different treatment.
The amount of energy needed to make solar cells isn't that significant. It can't be. Energy costs money, and therefore energy used in manufacture all the way back along the line has to be accounted for in the sale price of the solar panel. If a solar panel will pay for itself fairly fast, that means it generates a lot more electricity than was used in its manufacture.
If you've got a good enough technological lead, and work hard at maintaining the lead, you might be able to pull this sort of thing off. I've seen it happen.
The Tenth Amendment says that powers not reserved to the Federal government, like interstate commerce, which the net is, go to the states or the people. The FCC doesn't override the Tenth, because the Tenth doesn't apply.
The Tenth Amendment says that stuff that's not a Federal responsibility, like interstate commerce, is to be handled by the states or the people. Interstate commerce is most definitely a Federal concern. Congress can, and has, passed laws so that the FCC can make regulations that must be obeyed. There is absolutely nothing about this that is unconstitutional.
Given a lack of competition, Net Neutrality is the only way to allow people to choose freely where they want to go on the Net.
If you invest capital, your profits are taxed as capital gains, which is less than ordinary income. If you actually work for a living, you pay FICA taxes, and so your pay is more heavily taxed than, say dividends. (You're building up Social Security credit, which may or may not be worth it, but it's not your choice.)
Social Security benefits are based on something like your top 35 years, adjusted for inflation. You're reducing your benefits by not paying SS on everything. Whether this is a good idea is something only you can decide.
Correct. Don't forget that the group of people near or over 65 has a very high voting participation rate. It's politically dangerous to try to screw up Social Security and Medicare.
Google Docs has a big advantage over LibreOffice: sharing. If you want to do collaborative editing, you may find that Google Docs works better than sending LO files all over the place and trying to keep track of modifications.
Facebook has a lot of uses. It's a good way to reconnect with old friends, arrange events, and keep people informed. All of this is possible because of the network effect. No other social medium is likely to connect with that many other people.
It's also used for advertising. That's why we have people in the building with full access (it's blocked for most people). I'd say that people whose jobs include monitoring Facebook need to use Facebook.
A real job has a real paycheck. If you can actually make a real living at it,
Jobs don't necessarily come with paychecks. That's regular employment or contracting. There's a lot of people out there who are doing something else.
Jobs are not necessarily successful at first. If you're doing some sort of freelance work, there's a good chance you'll bleed money for a while, and then start being profitable.
You're talking about individual cases. There will be all sorts of individual cases. However, if men have a clear advantage in raises and promotions, given their data (and large companies will keep data and have lots of comparable cases), it's reasonable to conclude that the environment is sexist.
Some women don't want to be called a "bitch" so they don't demand equal treatment. They doormat themselves. Then, after not standing up for themselves for years they assert it is everyone else's fault they don't have the promotion they never told anyone they wanted.
Do you call men bitches or something equivalent if they demand equal treatment? If a woman is being self-effacing because she doesn't want to be called a bitch, there's probably reasons for that. She's not being treated equally when she demands equal treatment.
Interestingly, putting in extra hours won't normally make you much more productive. Not taking sick days when you're sick is likely a negative for the company. Negotiation skills are not particularly relevant to technical skill.
In almost all of the US, employment is "at will", which means that the user can be fired for almost any reason. (There are some reasons specifically not permitted.) I'd suspect that a fair number of people are fired due to other people's problems.
Whether management will fire him is another question entirely.
No. Mathematics isn't falsifiable because it is logic, and not part of the real world. The Tao, assuming it exists, is part of the real world, but makes no verifiable predictions that can be objectively measured. We have found that mathematics is extremely useful in describing much of the world. The Tao could conceivably also be useful, although I haven't seen much to support that.
SIgh. Ever looked at insurance? It pays out unless the insurance company can find a reason not to and support that. If it's a he said-she said situation, the insurance payment is made. That's why detectives try to get photographs of people receiving disability insurance benefits who are doing things they shouldn't be able to do. It's not a matter of the insurance company saying "He doesn't look disabled." (There are doctors who will certify disability when it doesn't exist, and everyone involved knows that. Their determinations still stand, unless countered by evidence..) If I'm in an auto accident, the appropriate insurance company pays out unless they can establish a sound and supported reason why the insurance company shouldn't pay.
Everything I've read about unemployment insurance points to the same thing: it's the employer's responsibility to document cause for firings by cause. This includes records of counseling and such. There's no reason to require this except for unemployment insurance rates.
The retaliatory firing you mention might be illegal, in which case the lawsuit would be for more than unemployment insurance. A legal reason for dismissal is any reason that isn't illegal, and the illegal ones are specifically listed.
"Race" has fewer syllables than "subspecies". They aren't the same word. There is no word for a subspecies that's genetically the same as the main species, much as there's no word for invisible colorless green things. The concepts are contradictory. If it isn't genetically distinct, it isn't biologically different. You also seem to not realize that anthropologists typically study human behavior rather than human biology (although there are branches of anthropology that do study them) and therefore words they find useful don't necessarily have any biological basis. (Is there a biological basis for cross-cousins vs. ortho-cousins? It matters in some cultures, and hence to anthropologists. Cross-cousins are children of my father's sister or mother's brother, and ortho-cousins are children of my father's brother or mother's sister, or so I learned in Anthro 1-001 long ago.)
"'race' is a social construct so Rachel Dolezal is really black because she got a perm and makeup. "
Rachel Dolezal isn't black because nobody considers her black. It's a social construct. Society does not consider her black. Simple.
Or when GP uses it as a stand in to deflect "X race had their last hooray" is what I am talking about.
White Christians are a demographic segment that's been shrinking. They used to be the majority. Either now or not too far in the future they will not be. White Christians are of course a varied group, but if you take a look at society it's run to a large extent in ways that favor white Christians. When they're no longer a majority, society is likely to change. You got a problem with reality, guy?
But ignoring the colloquial meaning with laymen
The colloquial meaning is the social meaning. A person with one white and one black parent is considered black. There's some awfully light-skinned blacks out there. If this was biological in basis, someone with one black and three white grandparents would be white, and that doesn't happen.
I said "just happened to see that headline today".
Headlines are click bait or eyeball attractors or whatever you want to call them. They disproportionately favor the unusual. A headline saying that people agree that night and day are different doesn't attract eyeballs. A headline quoting someone saying that night is day does.
There are no policies specifically to have a lower population growth rate among the white population of the US, but they're generally better off and more firmly on the zero-growth part of the demographic curve, and the immigration pool is increasingly non-white. There are no policies to reduce the number of Christians, but people are leaving churches in large numbers. I definitely hope there's no retaliation, but I can't control the US population. (Some white Christians are real crybabies, taking other groups' attempts to seize equality as attacks.)
Race is based on a few biological characteristics that really aren't all that important. It's a social construct. Poles and Germans used to be separate races, for example (there's tons of references there). Nothing much has changed, but now they're part of one race. In fact, labels are more powerful than physical characteristics in terms of how society works. That, by the way, is a definite statement, and has nothing do do with nihilism. The post-modern philosophy that you're talking about isn't prevalent, and you're apparently willing to classify things as nihilistic so you can pretend it is.
Moreover, you're confusing things that don't hurt people with those who do. As long as your sexual practices involve adults with informed and uncoerced consent, I don't care whether you get your rocks off with men or women or paraplegics. Children are not adults, are not capable of completely informed consent (the brain doesn't become fully adult until the 20s), and it's entirely different. Saying people attracted to children should be allowed to rape them is like saying that people who like fires should be free to commit arson.
I don't see how I'm supposed to say anything about society without talking about groups rather than individuals. I really don't know more than a few hundred people personally, and that's something like a millionth of the US population. You're making generalizations about groups. We can't help it if we want to talk about society or politics.
As it's set up, whites are generally better off than blacks, who are better off than Native Americans. I'd rather this wasn't the case, but I can't fix it in one/. post. That means that many statements that are true about whites in general are not true about blacks in general, and that swapping races in sentences can make true sentences false.
Where should the reasoning and policy conclusions use the discount rate? It's difficult to predict what will happen well enough to be confident of the effects. It's difficult to price the effects. (I didn't find a 2.4.2.1 in the 2016 Synthesis Report. Could you be more specific?) At a glance, I don't see significant specific financial impact scenarios without discount rates, the costs being considered being almost all mitigation costs. In Box 3.1, we get an estimate of the cost of a metric ton of CO2 lie between a few dollars and a few hundred dollars, and with this disparity there's no reason to argue about discount rates. The effects of a 2.5C increase are estimated at 0.2%-2% of GDP, more likely to be higher than this range than lower.
Carbon issue reduction is at least a billion-player game, with each player benefiting from the carbon reduction of others. There is no incentive to cut one's own carbon dioxide output. Again, if I emit all the CO2 I feel like, I'm not going to make a difference that could possibly be perceptible. If we all take that attitude, we're screwed.
The only way to solve this is to impose a cost on people emitting CO2. The only way to do that is government, whether formally or informally. I have a preference for formal government, a government based on laws instead of innuendo. I'm open to reasoned disagreements on these, but they seem pretty clear to me.
You could call it a Tragedy of the Commons if you like, but the favorite libertarian technique of dividing the commons doesn't work. There's nothing special about CO2 I emit. It doesn't sit there and warm my house in the summer or specifically impact my food supply.
Government actions have worked extremely well to reduce pollution of various sorts in the past. There's no reason to think that it can't continue to do that (except in the Trump regime backed by spineless Republicans in Congress).
Slashdot Mirror
Read the Agile Manifesto some time, and tell me whether your company's practices fit in. It sounds to me like you're prioritizing processes and procedures over people and interactions, and not paying attention to working software. If you completely reverse the first bullet point in the Manifesto, you're really not doing Agile.
I've seen Agile work very well, producing good software on time with the developers feeling good about it. That's because we paid attention to the ideas in the Manifesto.
It may be that it's very hard for management in general to actually perform Agile, but there are places where it does work.
Man, you can get astounding mental constructions out of something short and straightforward that didn't mean what you think.
If you're helping people stand up for themselves, that's good. Keep it up. You deserve some praise. However, you're almost certainly not reaching that many individuals.
If a woman can work hard for something that a man can just get, that's not equality. To appreciate this, one has to be willing to listen to people who are potentially discriminated against. Probably neither you nor I have good, solid knowledge of what people in other groups go through. In this case, it's easier for a man to be a hard-nosed negotiator than a woman.
"If you see sexism it is because it is in you. " Similarly, if I see a murder, I'm a murderer. If I see the beauty in a sunset, it's because I'm beautiful. I don't think you've thought this one through.
It might be easier to figure out where I come from if you read what I write and assume I have reasons for writing what I do. You might also consider context, such as the post I reply to. You might also refrain from taking things as insults when they aren't.
BTW, at most of the jobs I've worked at, there weren't as many women, but they had no difficulty fitting in, and no apparent expectation of different treatment.
The amount of energy needed to make solar cells isn't that significant. It can't be. Energy costs money, and therefore energy used in manufacture all the way back along the line has to be accounted for in the sale price of the solar panel. If a solar panel will pay for itself fairly fast, that means it generates a lot more electricity than was used in its manufacture.
If you've got a good enough technological lead, and work hard at maintaining the lead, you might be able to pull this sort of thing off. I've seen it happen.
The Tenth Amendment says that powers not reserved to the Federal government, like interstate commerce, which the net is, go to the states or the people. The FCC doesn't override the Tenth, because the Tenth doesn't apply.
The Tenth Amendment says that stuff that's not a Federal responsibility, like interstate commerce, is to be handled by the states or the people. Interstate commerce is most definitely a Federal concern. Congress can, and has, passed laws so that the FCC can make regulations that must be obeyed. There is absolutely nothing about this that is unconstitutional.
Given a lack of competition, Net Neutrality is the only way to allow people to choose freely where they want to go on the Net.
If you invest capital, your profits are taxed as capital gains, which is less than ordinary income. If you actually work for a living, you pay FICA taxes, and so your pay is more heavily taxed than, say dividends. (You're building up Social Security credit, which may or may not be worth it, but it's not your choice.)
Social Security benefits are based on something like your top 35 years, adjusted for inflation. You're reducing your benefits by not paying SS on everything. Whether this is a good idea is something only you can decide.
Correct. Don't forget that the group of people near or over 65 has a very high voting participation rate. It's politically dangerous to try to screw up Social Security and Medicare.
Google Docs has a big advantage over LibreOffice: sharing. If you want to do collaborative editing, you may find that Google Docs works better than sending LO files all over the place and trying to keep track of modifications.
Facebook has a lot of uses. It's a good way to reconnect with old friends, arrange events, and keep people informed. All of this is possible because of the network effect. No other social medium is likely to connect with that many other people.
It's also used for advertising. That's why we have people in the building with full access (it's blocked for most people). I'd say that people whose jobs include monitoring Facebook need to use Facebook.
Jobs don't necessarily come with paychecks. That's regular employment or contracting. There's a lot of people out there who are doing something else.
Jobs are not necessarily successful at first. If you're doing some sort of freelance work, there's a good chance you'll bleed money for a while, and then start being profitable.
Thank you for that excellent example of /. misogyny.
Do you think they want /. posters to be talking to their customers?
You're talking about individual cases. There will be all sorts of individual cases. However, if men have a clear advantage in raises and promotions, given their data (and large companies will keep data and have lots of comparable cases), it's reasonable to conclude that the environment is sexist.
Do you call men bitches or something equivalent if they demand equal treatment? If a woman is being self-effacing because she doesn't want to be called a bitch, there's probably reasons for that. She's not being treated equally when she demands equal treatment.
You know, your company might be better off adopting Agile methodologies rather than what you're doing.
Interestingly, putting in extra hours won't normally make you much more productive. Not taking sick days when you're sick is likely a negative for the company. Negotiation skills are not particularly relevant to technical skill.
In almost all of the US, employment is "at will", which means that the user can be fired for almost any reason. (There are some reasons specifically not permitted.) I'd suspect that a fair number of people are fired due to other people's problems.
Whether management will fire him is another question entirely.
No. Mathematics isn't falsifiable because it is logic, and not part of the real world. The Tao, assuming it exists, is part of the real world, but makes no verifiable predictions that can be objectively measured. We have found that mathematics is extremely useful in describing much of the world. The Tao could conceivably also be useful, although I haven't seen much to support that.
SIgh. Ever looked at insurance? It pays out unless the insurance company can find a reason not to and support that. If it's a he said-she said situation, the insurance payment is made. That's why detectives try to get photographs of people receiving disability insurance benefits who are doing things they shouldn't be able to do. It's not a matter of the insurance company saying "He doesn't look disabled." (There are doctors who will certify disability when it doesn't exist, and everyone involved knows that. Their determinations still stand, unless countered by evidence..) If I'm in an auto accident, the appropriate insurance company pays out unless they can establish a sound and supported reason why the insurance company shouldn't pay.
Everything I've read about unemployment insurance points to the same thing: it's the employer's responsibility to document cause for firings by cause. This includes records of counseling and such. There's no reason to require this except for unemployment insurance rates.
The retaliatory firing you mention might be illegal, in which case the lawsuit would be for more than unemployment insurance. A legal reason for dismissal is any reason that isn't illegal, and the illegal ones are specifically listed.
A few comments.
"Race" has fewer syllables than "subspecies". They aren't the same word. There is no word for a subspecies that's genetically the same as the main species, much as there's no word for invisible colorless green things. The concepts are contradictory. If it isn't genetically distinct, it isn't biologically different. You also seem to not realize that anthropologists typically study human behavior rather than human biology (although there are branches of anthropology that do study them) and therefore words they find useful don't necessarily have any biological basis. (Is there a biological basis for cross-cousins vs. ortho-cousins? It matters in some cultures, and hence to anthropologists. Cross-cousins are children of my father's sister or mother's brother, and ortho-cousins are children of my father's brother or mother's sister, or so I learned in Anthro 1-001 long ago.)
Rachel Dolezal isn't black because nobody considers her black. It's a social construct. Society does not consider her black. Simple.
White Christians are a demographic segment that's been shrinking. They used to be the majority. Either now or not too far in the future they will not be. White Christians are of course a varied group, but if you take a look at society it's run to a large extent in ways that favor white Christians. When they're no longer a majority, society is likely to change. You got a problem with reality, guy?
The colloquial meaning is the social meaning. A person with one white and one black parent is considered black. There's some awfully light-skinned blacks out there. If this was biological in basis, someone with one black and three white grandparents would be white, and that doesn't happen.
Headlines are click bait or eyeball attractors or whatever you want to call them. They disproportionately favor the unusual. A headline saying that people agree that night and day are different doesn't attract eyeballs. A headline quoting someone saying that night is day does.
There are no policies specifically to have a lower population growth rate among the white population of the US, but they're generally better off and more firmly on the zero-growth part of the demographic curve, and the immigration pool is increasingly non-white. There are no policies to reduce the number of Christians, but people are leaving churches in large numbers. I definitely hope there's no retaliation, but I can't control the US population. (Some white Christians are real crybabies, taking other groups' attempts to seize equality as attacks.)
Race is based on a few biological characteristics that really aren't all that important. It's a social construct. Poles and Germans used to be separate races, for example (there's tons of references there). Nothing much has changed, but now they're part of one race. In fact, labels are more powerful than physical characteristics in terms of how society works. That, by the way, is a definite statement, and has nothing do do with nihilism. The post-modern philosophy that you're talking about isn't prevalent, and you're apparently willing to classify things as nihilistic so you can pretend it is.
Moreover, you're confusing things that don't hurt people with those who do. As long as your sexual practices involve adults with informed and uncoerced consent, I don't care whether you get your rocks off with men or women or paraplegics. Children are not adults, are not capable of completely informed consent (the brain doesn't become fully adult until the 20s), and it's entirely different. Saying people attracted to children should be allowed to rape them is like saying that people who like fires should be free to commit arson.
I don't see how I'm supposed to say anything about society without talking about groups rather than individuals. I really don't know more than a few hundred people personally, and that's something like a millionth of the US population. You're making generalizations about groups. We can't help it if we want to talk about society or politics.
As it's set up, whites are generally better off than blacks, who are better off than Native Americans. I'd rather this wasn't the case, but I can't fix it in one /. post. That means that many statements that are true about whites in general are not true about blacks in general, and that swapping races in sentences can make true sentences false.
Where should the reasoning and policy conclusions use the discount rate? It's difficult to predict what will happen well enough to be confident of the effects. It's difficult to price the effects. (I didn't find a 2.4.2.1 in the 2016 Synthesis Report. Could you be more specific?) At a glance, I don't see significant specific financial impact scenarios without discount rates, the costs being considered being almost all mitigation costs. In Box 3.1, we get an estimate of the cost of a metric ton of CO2 lie between a few dollars and a few hundred dollars, and with this disparity there's no reason to argue about discount rates. The effects of a 2.5C increase are estimated at 0.2%-2% of GDP, more likely to be higher than this range than lower.
Carbon issue reduction is at least a billion-player game, with each player benefiting from the carbon reduction of others. There is no incentive to cut one's own carbon dioxide output. Again, if I emit all the CO2 I feel like, I'm not going to make a difference that could possibly be perceptible. If we all take that attitude, we're screwed.
The only way to solve this is to impose a cost on people emitting CO2. The only way to do that is government, whether formally or informally. I have a preference for formal government, a government based on laws instead of innuendo. I'm open to reasoned disagreements on these, but they seem pretty clear to me.
You could call it a Tragedy of the Commons if you like, but the favorite libertarian technique of dividing the commons doesn't work. There's nothing special about CO2 I emit. It doesn't sit there and warm my house in the summer or specifically impact my food supply.
Government actions have worked extremely well to reduce pollution of various sorts in the past. There's no reason to think that it can't continue to do that (except in the Trump regime backed by spineless Republicans in Congress).