That is correct. This topic isn't something I've really made a point to invest a lot of time into studying.
That said, do you have some info you'd like to share with us? Are there really studies questioning why more women aren't pouring asphalt and more men aren't nurses?
I don't see any studies coming out asking "Why is the percentage of women so low amongst asphalt pouring crews" or anything like that. I also don't see any studies asking whey more men aren't going into nursing.
Why do we seem to have this societal obsession with getting more women into computer science / engineering, etc? Maybe, just maybe, it's the case that most women just don't *want* to be computer scientists or engineers. I mean, do we have hoardes of women protesting that they tried to get into this field and were discriminated against on a sexual basis (hint: no)?
The opportunities are there for women who *do* want to do this kind of stuff. So tell me again why this "issue" keeps coming up time and time again??
At this rate they are going to burn through all twelve of the Doctor's regenerations in another three months - then what will they do?
I believe that the it has been hinted in the past that the high council of timelords can grant a timelord additional regenerations or something. Failing that, The Master found ways to exceed his allotment of regenerations... Why couldn't the Doctor do likewise?:-)
Oh, and it's worse than most people realize, I think. Wasn't The Valeyard, from "Trial of a Timelord" supposedly the doctor's 11th or 12th regeneration or something like that? If Eccleston's character is the 9th Doctor, there are only like 3 more open slots for actors to play the Doctor.
The guy is a self-admitted left-extremist who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo.
Umm, the FBI *is* the Gestapo, for all practical purposes. Along with their comrades in the other "Alphabet Soup" agencies. Don't believe me? Go ask those nice people in Waco, TX? Oh, wait, that's right... you can't BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL DEAD.
Ok, maybe Randy Weaver will say something nice about the government. Ooops, right, they killed him too.
The man's an anarchist who ironically enjoys the freedoms granted in this country (granted by the government).
The government does NOT grant any freedoms to anybody. In this country, the people are implicitly free; no ifs, ands or buts. However, "We The People" loan a little bit of our sovereign power to the government, in order to coordinate things and work for common goals. But the ultimate source of power and freedom is ALWAYS us. And "We The People" can always take back any power we have loaned the government, anytime we're brave enough to do so.
I know somebody has probably already said this, but I'll reiterate:
1. check with the University you want to transfer too, *before* taking classes somewhere else (including another University) regading transfer credit.
2. What transfers ultimately depends on the school accepting the would-be transfer credits, but some observations:
a. "general ed" courses from CC's usually transfer with no problem. That is, the courses that you would typically take in the first two years of a "liberal arts" degree. Stuff like English, Literature, History, Political Science, Physical Geography, Biology, Maths courses, etc.
b. Usually *some* maths courses will transfer, but check **ahead of time** to find out exactly which ones.
c. The University may have a cap on the total number of hours they will accept, and it may vary based on where the transfer classes were taken.
d. "trade" classes usually don't transfer, sometimes classes will count for hours but not for specific course credit, etc. Again, check with your target university (or universities) beforehand.
e. But a "trade" course may still be useful, even if you don't get course credit for it. For example, if you have taken 3 semesters of Java programming at a CC, you may be able to argue your way out of taking "Intro to Programming" at the University, which would free you up to take another elective in that spot. This would vary by case though.
3. Taking classes at a community college can be a great thing. You usually pay less (sometimes much less), and usually have smaller classes - which is especially nice for challenging classes where you may want more one on one interaction with the instructor.
You haven't met very many Christians. Roman Catholics, the vast majority of the Christians in the world, reject wholeheartedly the belief in sola scriptura that is the heart of Fundamentalism. Orthodoxy, representing another 300 million Christians (and up to 5 million in the U.S.) also do so.
I wasn't arguing that all Christians are Fundamentalists. I was arguing the suggestion that only the Holiness and Pentecostal denominations are Fundamentalist. My point was that I know many Baptists, being from a heavily Baptist area, and that I was pretty sure that Baptists are, generally speaking, Fundamentalists given the definition:
"Fundamentalism" is a belief that every word of the Bible is infallible as it is literally written and that human traditions count for nothing.
The Scriptures The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.
I think that's a pretty compelling argument that it can be said that Baptists (in general) do believe in the doctrine of inerrancy and can therefore be considered Fundamentalists.
Going back to the original point of discussion... there are a shitload of Baptists in the US, especially in the South. And while I can't name names, I imagine that there are indeed quite a few folks who could be considered Fundamentalists (given the above definition) making up parts of the Bush administration.
Wow, Orson Scott Card is fucking whacked out in the head. That's some disturbing shit. He thinks American Muslims should be prohibited from distributing literature written in Arabic??? WTF?
"Fundamentalism" is a belief that every word of the Bible is infallible as it is literally written and that human traditions count for nothing. Only fringe denominations like Holiness and Pentacostalism hold such, and they don't seem to have much sway in the administration.
Ummmm, no way. I live in the heart of the freakin' "Bible Belt" (North Carolina) and I can say that every Baptist I have ever known (which is probably 75% of the people I know) believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and all that jazz.
I guess one can quibble over the exact meaning of Fundamentalism, but most of the Christians I've met strike me as pretty darn close, if not completely Fundamentalist.
But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.
We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.
Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.
Part of the problem is that the people you describe tend towards a libertarian philosophy.. and by "libertarian" here I mean "people who just want to be left the fuck alone," not necessarily Libertarian Party members. And that's just it... libertarian types tend to abhor politics and abhor "getting involved" in general. Which is one reason why it's so difficult for us (and by "us" here I do mean LP members) to achieve results in elections. Many of the very people who sympathise with us, choose not to vote or otherwise involve themselves.
And in the broader sense, we get the problem you describe. People who care about what's going on, ( Libertarian or otherwise) but not enough to get involved (whether by voting, running for office, writing letters to the editor, or whatever) and act to try and correct things.
So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?
I wish I knew the answer to that. Maybe one day the water will get hot enough for the frog to start squirming around - before he boils to death, blissfully unaware.
For quality based value adding you obviously can't rest on your laurels like proprietary software - you have to work on the software. You have to convince your customers you are working on it (and benefitting them). For service and support, you have to remain the supreme expert on the software (then you can charge more than your competitor for the same work). Since the software is open source, the above have to be backed up with some honest work. For branding, you need to understand the market you want and invest in getting your name in people's minds(same as any market).
That really about sums it all up. Shame the moderators didn't catch on to that (yet).
And because it is the government, they can do it legally (they do issue the laws, don't they?).
Aaarrgghh..... I can't believe so many people have this belief system. NO, everything the government does is NOT "ok, just because it's the government." That is so backwards. All power belongs to "We the People." We loan a small bit of that power to the government in order to do things like "Provide for the common defense, and Promote the General Welfare," etc. And that's it.
The government cannot just grant themselves more powers when they feel like it, they can't just pass any law they want, and they cannot infringe on the sovereignty of the individual.
And more to the point, whatever power "we the people" have granted the government, can be taken back, anytime we choose. Well... anytime we - collectively - are brave enough to take it back, that is.
Why doesn't Christies have the same problems with fraud? Because real world auction houses are regulated.
More like, because they have a reputation to protect - and won't tolerate fraud.
It's simple: Nobody is forcing anybody to use E-bay. If E-bay develops a reputation as a place where you're going to get ripped off, people will quit using E-bay. And then E-bay will be forced to either respond and implement policies to protect users, or lose their position in the market.
There are laws that protect buyers and sellers.
Most of which are not at all necessary. The free-market can solve the same problem, and without the need of more government regulations and bureaucracy.
The fact of the matter is that patents are much more important to single inventors of small organizations because without them the big companies would just take their invention, and use it freely without and any compensation to the small inventor.
The problem with your thesis is that it's too expensive and time-consuming for single inventors or small organizations to get patents. And even if they do invest the time and effort to get a patent, they run the risk of having it invalidated by a previously issued, overly-broad, never-should-have-been-granted patent owned by EvilMegaCorp Inc. The fact of the matter is that patents are much more important to large, powerful corporations, because they can leverage them (patents) and their power and money and lawyers, to squeeze out any single inventors or small organizations that threaten them.
Yeah, I know the "party line" that one that says no big companies will invent without patent monopolies, but just look at how many items in the average kitchen were really invented by a big company (hint none). Look at the electricity, phone, the PC, the radio, and so on.... (no big companies). I think if people kicked patents the hell out of they way they'd be supprised what happens. It would free up millions of inventions, to millions more inventors, and create a sunami of economic growth and technology. The fact that inventions can be coppied should be treated like a opportunity, not a threat, or even worse a theft. Patents monopolies (and I mean all of them, not just software) simply half to die and calling them intellectual "property" is simply fradulent.
I wish I had mod points... this deserves to be modded up.
I just wish more people understood this. Patents do more overall harm to our society than they do good. They now serve to inhibit innovation, rather than to encourage it.
The best thing we could do, would be to eliminate patents altogether. At the very least, software and "business method" patents should be eliminated.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't looking very hard.
That is correct. This topic isn't something I've really made a point to invest a lot of time into studying.
That said, do you have some info you'd like to share with us? Are there really studies questioning why more women aren't pouring asphalt and more men aren't nurses?
I found it to be one of the most interesting articles that I have seen here in a LONG time...
It's definitely above average for Slashdot.
Great, now I can't even seem to reply to the correct message. Either I'm drunk or it's way past bedtime (or both). I give up. :-(
But I left out the context of what I was replying to:
why is the level of participation by women so low?
I don't see any studies coming out asking "Why is the percentage of women so low amongst asphalt pouring crews" or anything like that. I also don't see any studies asking whey more men aren't going into nursing.
Why do we seem to have this societal obsession with getting more women into computer science / engineering, etc? Maybe, just maybe, it's the case that most women just don't *want* to be computer scientists or engineers. I mean, do we have hoardes of women protesting that they tried to get into this field and were discriminated against on a sexual basis (hint: no)?
The opportunities are there for women who *do* want to do this kind of stuff. So tell me again why this "issue" keeps coming up time and time again??
At this rate they are going to burn through all twelve of the Doctor's regenerations in another three months - then what will they do?
:-)
I believe that the it has been hinted in the past that the high council of timelords can grant a timelord additional regenerations or something. Failing that, The Master found ways to exceed his allotment of regenerations... Why couldn't the Doctor do likewise?
Oh, and it's worse than most people realize, I think. Wasn't The Valeyard, from "Trial of a Timelord" supposedly the doctor's 11th or 12th regeneration or something like that? If Eccleston's character is the 9th Doctor, there are only like 3 more open slots for actors to play the Doctor.
The guy is a self-admitted left-extremist who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo.
Umm, the FBI *is* the Gestapo, for all practical purposes. Along with their comrades in the other "Alphabet Soup" agencies. Don't believe me? Go ask those nice people in Waco, TX? Oh, wait, that's right... you can't BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL DEAD.
Ok, maybe Randy Weaver will say something nice about the government. Ooops, right, they killed him too.
The man's an anarchist who ironically enjoys the freedoms granted in this country (granted by the government).
The government does NOT grant any freedoms to anybody. In this country, the people are implicitly free; no ifs, ands or buts. However, "We The People" loan a little bit of our sovereign power to the government, in order to coordinate things and work for common goals. But the ultimate source of power and freedom is ALWAYS us. And "We The People" can always take back any power we have loaned the government, anytime we're brave enough to do so.
I know somebody has probably already said this, but I'll reiterate:
1. check with the University you want to transfer too, *before* taking classes somewhere else (including another University) regading transfer credit.
2. What transfers ultimately depends on the school accepting the would-be transfer credits, but some observations:
a. "general ed" courses from CC's usually transfer with no problem. That is, the courses that you would typically take in the first two years of a "liberal arts" degree. Stuff like English, Literature, History, Political Science, Physical Geography, Biology, Maths courses, etc.
b. Usually *some* maths courses will transfer, but check **ahead of time** to find out exactly which ones.
c. The University may have a cap on the total number of hours they will accept, and it may vary based on where the transfer classes were taken.
d. "trade" classes usually don't transfer, sometimes classes will count for hours but not for specific course credit, etc. Again, check with your target university (or universities) beforehand.
e. But a "trade" course may still be useful, even if you don't get course credit for it. For example, if you have taken 3 semesters of Java programming at a CC, you may be able to argue your way out of taking "Intro to Programming" at the University, which would free you up to take another elective in that spot. This would vary by case though.
To use my own example, I'm currently taking classes at Wake Technical Community College, and Durham Tech, and planning to transfer to UNC - Chapel Hill. I found this and this while browsing the section of UNC's website that talks about transfer admissions. Look for similar material on your University's website, or call them and ask to speak to an admissions counselor.
3. Taking classes at a community college can be a great thing. You usually pay less (sometimes much less), and usually have smaller classes - which is especially nice for challenging classes where you may want more one on one interaction with the instructor.
Aarrgh, they moved it. Here is the correct link.
Well why don't you ask IBM to open up a JVM for you
They already did.
You haven't met very many Christians. Roman Catholics, the vast majority of the Christians in the world, reject wholeheartedly the belief in sola scriptura that is the heart of Fundamentalism. Orthodoxy, representing another 300 million Christians (and up to 5 million in the U.S.) also do so.
I wasn't arguing that all Christians are Fundamentalists. I was arguing the suggestion that only the Holiness and Pentecostal denominations are Fundamentalist. My point was that I know many Baptists, being from a heavily Baptist area, and that I was pretty sure that Baptists are, generally speaking, Fundamentalists given the definition:
"Fundamentalism" is a belief that every word of the Bible is infallible as it is literally written and that human traditions count for nothing.
This is from the Southern Baptist Convention website:
The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.
I think that's a pretty compelling argument that it can be said that Baptists (in general) do believe in the doctrine of inerrancy and can therefore be considered Fundamentalists.
Going back to the original point of discussion... there are a shitload of Baptists in the US, especially in the South. And while I can't name names, I imagine that there are indeed quite a few folks who could be considered Fundamentalists (given the above definition) making up parts of the Bush administration.
Wow, Orson Scott Card is fucking whacked out in the head. That's some disturbing shit. He thinks American Muslims should be prohibited from distributing literature written in Arabic??? WTF?
Damn Slashdot for not having an "edit post" feature. I should have added a qualifier to this part, since nothing is absolute:
... can say that almost every Baptist I have ever known ...
can say that every Baptist I have ever known
should probably have read:
"Fundamentalism" is a belief that every word of the Bible is infallible as it is literally written and that human traditions count for nothing. Only fringe denominations like Holiness and Pentacostalism hold such, and they don't seem to have much sway in the administration.
Ummmm, no way. I live in the heart of the freakin' "Bible Belt" (North Carolina) and I can say that every Baptist I have ever known (which is probably 75% of the people I know) believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and all that jazz.
I guess one can quibble over the exact meaning of Fundamentalism, but most of the Christians I've met strike me as pretty darn close, if not completely Fundamentalist.
But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.
We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.
Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.
Part of the problem is that the people you describe tend towards a libertarian philosophy.. and by "libertarian" here I mean "people who just want to be left the fuck alone," not necessarily Libertarian Party members. And that's just it... libertarian types tend to abhor politics and abhor "getting involved" in general. Which is one reason why it's so difficult for us (and by "us" here I do mean LP members) to achieve results in elections. Many of the very people who sympathise with us, choose not to vote or otherwise involve themselves.
And in the broader sense, we get the problem you describe. People who care about what's going on, ( Libertarian or otherwise) but not enough to get involved (whether by voting, running for office, writing letters to the editor, or whatever) and act to try and correct things.
So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?
I wish I knew the answer to that. Maybe one day the water will get hot enough for the frog to start squirming around - before he boils to death, blissfully unaware.
Sorry my comment can't be longer, but I have to report to jury duty for a witch trial.
Just be sure to read this first.
Yesterday marked the anniversary of the high, not today. Easy for me to remember, b/c 10 March is my birthday.
Happy (belated) Birthday!!!!!!
For quality based value adding you obviously can't rest on your laurels like proprietary software - you have to work on the software. You have to convince your customers you are working on it (and benefitting them). For service and support, you have to remain the supreme expert on the software (then you can charge more than your competitor for the same work). Since the software is open source, the above have to be backed up with some honest work. For branding, you need to understand the market you want and invest in getting your name in people's minds(same as any market).
That really about sums it all up. Shame the moderators didn't catch on to that (yet).
Here are my comments on this topic, FWIW.
And because it is the government, they can do it legally (they do issue the laws, don't they?).
Aaarrgghh..... I can't believe so many people have this belief system. NO, everything the government does is NOT "ok, just because it's the government." That is so backwards. All power belongs to "We the People." We loan a small bit of that power to the government in order to do things like "Provide for the common defense, and Promote the General Welfare," etc. And that's it.
The government cannot just grant themselves more powers when they feel like it, they can't just pass any law they want, and they cannot infringe on the sovereignty of the individual.
And more to the point, whatever power "we the people" have granted the government, can be taken back, anytime we choose. Well... anytime we - collectively - are brave enough to take it back, that is.
Why doesn't Christies have the same problems with fraud? Because real world auction houses are regulated.
More like, because they have a reputation to protect - and won't tolerate fraud.
It's simple: Nobody is forcing anybody to use E-bay. If E-bay develops a reputation as a place where you're going to get ripped off, people will quit using E-bay. And then E-bay will be forced to either respond and implement policies to protect users, or lose their position in the market.
There are laws that protect buyers and sellers.
Most of which are not at all necessary. The free-market can solve the same problem, and without the need of more government regulations and bureaucracy.
Really, it depends on your career goals. But have you considered Software Engineering?
The fact of the matter is that patents are much more important to single inventors of small organizations because without them the big companies would just take their invention, and use it freely without and any compensation to the small inventor.
The problem with your thesis is that it's too expensive and time-consuming for single inventors or small organizations to get patents. And even if they do invest the time and effort to get a patent, they run the risk of having it invalidated by a previously issued, overly-broad, never-should-have-been-granted patent owned by EvilMegaCorp Inc. The fact of the matter is that patents are much more important to large, powerful corporations, because they can leverage them (patents) and their power and money and lawyers, to squeeze out any single inventors or small organizations that threaten them.
Yeah, I know the "party line" that one that says no big companies will invent without patent monopolies, but just look at how many items in the average kitchen were really invented by a big company (hint none). Look at the electricity, phone, the PC, the radio, and so on .... (no big companies). I think if people kicked patents the hell out of they way they'd be supprised what happens. It would free up millions of inventions, to millions more inventors, and create a sunami of economic growth and technology. The fact that inventions can be coppied should be treated like a opportunity, not a threat, or even worse a theft. Patents monopolies (and I mean all of them, not just software) simply half to die and calling them
intellectual "property" is simply fradulent.
I wish I had mod points... this deserves to be modded up.
I just wish more people understood this. Patents do more overall harm to our society than they do good. They now serve to inhibit innovation, rather than to encourage it.
The best thing we could do, would be to eliminate patents altogether. At the very least, software and "business method" patents should be eliminated.