There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.
I've never seen any of those accounts. I've only seen countless articles claiming that there must be those accounts because we don't have very many women in CS.
I am trying to think of a type of plastic that can handle millions of cars and tires, yet doesn't wear down - or - if it does wear down, maintains traction and grip.
As a motorcyclist, the idea of this road makes no sense, and is a bit scary. But if they can figure out the traction thing, let's give it a try.
The sun will probably destroy it before the tires do. Sunlight breaks down plastics.
Think what you will of the people employed to maintain the asphalt roads and highways you use every day but they make quite a bit of money, especially considering the level of education required for that kind of work. Lower the total number of jobs required for road construction and maintenance and suddenly the businesses those formerly well paid construction workers patronized will feel the pain.
Don't worry, like all great ideas that will cost less and employ fewer people, this will cost more and employ more people.
I'm all for cleaning out the oceans, but this seems like moving toxic, nature-insoluble trash from one environment to another. Permanently ridding ourselves of the plastic is the right path.
That seems like a waste when we are constantly producing new plastic all the time. Why not recycle the plastic so that we don't have to use more oil making more plastic?
every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent
Is this statistic really true? Are those 140,000 net new jobs, or just job openings that exist for some period of time during the year?
The article cites but does not link to a source for this statistic.
Also, a CS degree is a long, tough slog through dull material that has dubious relevance to most jobs that require a CS degree.
Those are 140,000 openings, so you don't necessarily need new graduates to fill them. You can fill them from other companies (which in theory leaves the same number of openings, but most companies don't fill voids, they just make the other people work harder), or you can fill them from unemployed CS people, of which there are tens of thousands, if not more. There are at least 6,000 more as of a week ago, when Microsoft, the company complaining about the worker shortage, fired 6,000 people.
Fortunately, in technology as in soccer, nobody has taken away the ball, and the women that are interested in the field have just as much if not more opportunity than males to learn, study and pursue a career in Computer Science, and the whole article is bullcrap.
Some engineering degrees (Computer, Electrical), math degrees, etc. can be used in lieu of a CS degree provided you can prove you can code.
In fact, a CS degree is not proof that you can code, it is proof that you understand the theory of Computer Science. An associates degree in computer programming from a trade school proves you can code.
More than likely, a CS major can code. Almost certainly a Computer Engineer can code. Lots of people can code. There is no shortage of people who can meet the demands of these 140,000 jobs. In fact, Microsoft just laid off 6,000 people that can fit the bill.
Looking more closely, the article says that 100,000 jobs require a CS degree. So they are being specific here. They need 100,000 people who went through college to understand the theory of Computer Science. Not programs, very specifically they need Computer Scientists. I'm not sure why. In fact, I think that they don't understand the requirement they are asking for. I am guessing they want code monkeys, not Computer Scientists. In which case, we have those available in spades.
That's for sure. What we keep missing about "renewable" energy is that energy is not renewable. Humankind removes 155,000 Terawatt hours per year of energy from the universal supply. Right now, the vast majority of that comes from energy that has been stored in liquid batteries called oil over hundreds of millions of years. At some point that is going to run out and we will have to get that same amount of energy out of immediate availability sources. The sun pelts us with 1.5 million Terawatt hours per year of energy.
I can only imagine what impact using 10% of the sun's energy would have on the environment, but I don't have to imagine that because by the time we run out of oil (and nuclear, let's not forget that), we will be using much more energy than that. And our solar harvesting rate will still not be anywhere near 100% efficient. We will probably have to have solar collectors nearly the size of Earth out in space collecting energy and beaming it down.
Patiently waiting and hoping for someone to blow a hole in my figures. One hopes that I was off by a factor of a thousand or a million somewhere in there.
After recalculating, I'll blow a hole in my own numbers. It looks like we get 56 million terawatt hours per year from the sun. So, we use only 1/4 of a percent of that. Which is probably still too much.
That's for sure. What we keep missing about "renewable" energy is that energy is not renewable. Humankind removes 155,000 Terawatt hours per year of energy from the universal supply. Right now, the vast majority of that comes from energy that has been stored in liquid batteries called oil over hundreds of millions of years. At some point that is going to run out and we will have to get that same amount of energy out of immediate availability sources. The sun pelts us with 1.5 million Terawatt hours per year of energy.
I can only imagine what impact using 10% of the sun's energy would have on the environment, but I don't have to imagine that because by the time we run out of oil (and nuclear, let's not forget that), we will be using much more energy than that. And our solar harvesting rate will still not be anywhere near 100% efficient. We will probably have to have solar collectors nearly the size of Earth out in space collecting energy and beaming it down.
Patiently waiting and hoping for someone to blow a hole in my figures. One hopes that I was off by a factor of a thousand or a million somewhere in there.
America has one thing that we can really batter about, which is the fact that we are the largest importer in the world. As such, we should be taxing ALL CONSUMED GOODS (local and imported) based on the CO2 from the nations/states that the item and its sub-parts came from.
But if we did that, then goods from overseas would cost the same or more than locally produced goods, and then with demand going up, more worker's would have to be employed to produce those goods and the subsequent rise in employment would cause spending which would result in an uncontainable flood of prosperity for most people in the United States, particularly in the lower and middle classes.
In truth the problem is purely personal. In the steel cage match between science and ideological peer pressure, you know which will win.
I have to agree with this. Most people's beliefs are overwhelmingly influenced by personal experience. If it is getting colder in part of the world, all the evidence that the rest of the world is heating up won't mean much to the people there.
Humans will kill off the ecoweb that sustains them and most species will go extinct. In the far, far distant future another species will evolve enough to investigate and figure out what happened and be completely shocked at this appalling species which caused so much monumental destruction.
By the time another species evolves that has the capacity for such investigatory skills, the evidence of our current society will be almost entirely gone, and the Earth will be full of oil again. The new species will make the same mistakes and there will also be those among the new species that say they are destroying the Earth by burning humans.
If you agreed to be an employee and they classified you as a contractor, then sue them. if you agreed to be a contractor knowing full well that you would be responsible for your own FICA, then live with it.
I don't understand why the government gets to decide if somebody is an employee or a contractor. If two parties agree to an employee or contractor relationship, then their agreement should determine the status of their relationship. A lot of these lawsuits involve people who knowing signed up as a contractor and even got paid extra, then later, after not paying their taxes, decided to sue the company for, well, abiding by the terms of their contract.
This has made it difficult for people who want to be contractors to enjoy long term contracts. I have multiple clients myself, but if I wanted to have one client that I worked for 40 hours per week at their office with their equipment, at their direction for 50 years and be paid on an hourly contract basis and pay my FICA, why should I not be allowed to do that? Nanny State-ism. That's why.
Speaking of aircraft, right now the San Bernadino Fire Dept is saying that fire-fighting aircraft are being grounded because of all the private drone activity in the area around the wildfire.
They should find the owners of those drones and let them pay all of the insurance claims and damages resulting from the fir. To be fair, only the part that occurred after the equipment had to be grounded and the fire leapt from 500 acres to 1500 acres.
I bet the defeat would have been less embarrassing if the hellcat driver hadn't spent the first 5 seconds spinning his wheels in first gear. That he would lose there could be no doubt. The Tesla has more horsepower and all wheel drive. A rear wheel drive with less horsepower can't hope to keep up with that. Less overall traction AND less horsepower to drive it.
Uhh, no, I have not. Don't try to tell me what I have and haven't experienced.
You're right. For all I know you have managed to avoid every single movie and television show that his music has been featured in, have never listened to anyone else's car radio that happened to be tuned to classic rock, have never been to a sports bar or restaurant that had classic rock playing. I mean I guess there is maybe a one in a billion chance that you have not ever heard any music by Neil Young, but I think chances are far greater that you have and didn't know it.
Stevie Wonder is #15 and The Ramones are #26 on their list. When's the last time you heard about them?
Seriously, diversify. There is a lot of good music out there, even a lot that has come out in the past ten years.
I've heard a Stevie Wonder song today, and I saw him last week inducting Bill Withers into the Rock and Roll hall of Fame (recorded it about two months ago).
I heard the Ramones yesterday on Family Guy, though I don't usually listen to that genre of music, so I may not recognize songs of theirs when I hear them randomly.
I've heard Neil Young randomly today as well.
Yet whenever I go out to a bar or watch TV I hear The Rolling Stones playing and never Neil Young. Seriously, walk up to any random person and ask them if they have heard of either. Many more people will recognise the Stones than Neil Young.
Neil Young is a has-been. The Stones are still popular.
Well, I did say the Rolling Stones get constant airplay, did I not. But I can't even stand to listen to them anymore. I used to like them okay, but they got played to death. I'd rather hear Neil Young. When Rolling Stones come on, I change the channel.
I'm not a child of the sixties so I missed his music the first time around. But I remember the first time I stumbled across the "We Are The World" video on MTV. All these great pop singers in a room together, so I figured it must be a benefit concert or something. Then in the middle of the song a guy comes on screen looking disheveled and singing like a cocker spaniel. I couldn't see what was wrong with him, but the contrast between his peformance and the others was obvious. So I figured the record must be for him and people like him. It was a long time before I realized who that song was really for and who that singer was. Imagine how surprised I was when I learned that singer was a legendary singer/songwriter.
You should watch the Making of the We are the World Video, in which you can see them trying to coach Bob Dylan on how to sound like Bob Dylan because he unfortunately got better at singing and they wanted it to sound like the old Dylan.
Yes you have. It's all but impossible to be almost 40 years old and never be exposed to any Neil Young music. You probably didn't know it was Neil Young, but I'm sure you have heard it.
No one who listens to Neil Young is going to be pissing their pants because of the fidelity
I sure am not, because I don't listen to mp3s. All of my Neil Young is on CD, and I probably have some actual vinyl around as well, although I haven't played any vinyl in probably 15 years. I don't really care for streaming music because the audio quality is degraded and it wastes bandwidth and you don't get to own the music.
Methinks this may just be Neil attempting to stay relevant as he declines in popularity.
Yeah, right. I'm sure his airplay this year is pretty much the same as it was last year, and it probably won't decline significantly until long after he is dead.
He is #34 on the list of top Artists by Rolling Stone magazine. I realize that today's youth only listens to people who are number one on some other list today and will not be on next years list at all, and will NEVER be on Rolling Stones list at all, so go on back to listening to Flash in the Pan or whoever is popular today. 5 years from now Neil Young will be getting more airplay than whoever is the #1 selling artist this year.
Slashdot Mirror
There are countless accounts of women facing gender related problems studying CS. What is your argument against those accounts? Are they lying? Perhaps you dismiss their problems, or claim that men face equal problems. I'm interested to know your position.
I've never seen any of those accounts. I've only seen countless articles claiming that there must be those accounts because we don't have very many women in CS.
I am trying to think of a type of plastic that can handle millions of cars and tires, yet doesn't wear down - or - if it does wear down, maintains traction and grip.
As a motorcyclist, the idea of this road makes no sense, and is a bit scary. But if they can figure out the traction thing, let's give it a try.
The sun will probably destroy it before the tires do. Sunlight breaks down plastics.
Think what you will of the people employed to maintain the asphalt roads and highways you use every day but they make quite a bit of money, especially considering the level of education required for that kind of work. Lower the total number of jobs required for road construction and maintenance and suddenly the businesses those formerly well paid construction workers patronized will feel the pain.
Don't worry, like all great ideas that will cost less and employ fewer people, this will cost more and employ more people.
I'm all for cleaning out the oceans, but this seems like moving toxic, nature-insoluble trash from one environment to another. Permanently ridding ourselves of the plastic is the right path.
That seems like a waste when we are constantly producing new plastic all the time. Why not recycle the plastic so that we don't have to use more oil making more plastic?
Is this statistic really true? Are those 140,000 net new jobs, or just job openings that exist for some period of time during the year?
The article cites but does not link to a source for this statistic.
Also, a CS degree is a long, tough slog through dull material that has dubious relevance to most jobs that require a CS degree.
Those are 140,000 openings, so you don't necessarily need new graduates to fill them. You can fill them from other companies (which in theory leaves the same number of openings, but most companies don't fill voids, they just make the other people work harder), or you can fill them from unemployed CS people, of which there are tens of thousands, if not more. There are at least 6,000 more as of a week ago, when Microsoft, the company complaining about the worker shortage, fired 6,000 people.
Fortunately, in technology as in soccer, nobody has taken away the ball, and the women that are interested in the field have just as much if not more opportunity than males to learn, study and pursue a career in Computer Science, and the whole article is bullcrap.
Some engineering degrees (Computer, Electrical), math degrees, etc. can be used in lieu of a CS degree provided you can prove you can code.
In fact, a CS degree is not proof that you can code, it is proof that you understand the theory of Computer Science. An associates degree in computer programming from a trade school proves you can code.
More than likely, a CS major can code. Almost certainly a Computer Engineer can code. Lots of people can code. There is no shortage of people who can meet the demands of these 140,000 jobs. In fact, Microsoft just laid off 6,000 people that can fit the bill.
Looking more closely, the article says that 100,000 jobs require a CS degree. So they are being specific here. They need 100,000 people who went through college to understand the theory of Computer Science. Not programs, very specifically they need Computer Scientists. I'm not sure why. In fact, I think that they don't understand the requirement they are asking for. I am guessing they want code monkeys, not Computer Scientists. In which case, we have those available in spades.
There is no bypassing entropy.
That's for sure. What we keep missing about "renewable" energy is that energy is not renewable. Humankind removes 155,000 Terawatt hours per year of energy from the universal supply. Right now, the vast majority of that comes from energy that has been stored in liquid batteries called oil over hundreds of millions of years. At some point that is going to run out and we will have to get that same amount of energy out of immediate availability sources. The sun pelts us with 1.5 million Terawatt hours per year of energy. I can only imagine what impact using 10% of the sun's energy would have on the environment, but I don't have to imagine that because by the time we run out of oil (and nuclear, let's not forget that), we will be using much more energy than that. And our solar harvesting rate will still not be anywhere near 100% efficient. We will probably have to have solar collectors nearly the size of Earth out in space collecting energy and beaming it down. Patiently waiting and hoping for someone to blow a hole in my figures. One hopes that I was off by a factor of a thousand or a million somewhere in there.
After recalculating, I'll blow a hole in my own numbers. It looks like we get 56 million terawatt hours per year from the sun. So, we use only 1/4 of a percent of that. Which is probably still too much.
There is no bypassing entropy.
That's for sure. What we keep missing about "renewable" energy is that energy is not renewable. Humankind removes 155,000 Terawatt hours per year of energy from the universal supply. Right now, the vast majority of that comes from energy that has been stored in liquid batteries called oil over hundreds of millions of years. At some point that is going to run out and we will have to get that same amount of energy out of immediate availability sources. The sun pelts us with 1.5 million Terawatt hours per year of energy.
I can only imagine what impact using 10% of the sun's energy would have on the environment, but I don't have to imagine that because by the time we run out of oil (and nuclear, let's not forget that), we will be using much more energy than that. And our solar harvesting rate will still not be anywhere near 100% efficient. We will probably have to have solar collectors nearly the size of Earth out in space collecting energy and beaming it down.
Patiently waiting and hoping for someone to blow a hole in my figures. One hopes that I was off by a factor of a thousand or a million somewhere in there.
America has one thing that we can really batter about, which is the fact that we are the largest importer in the world. As such, we should be taxing ALL CONSUMED GOODS (local and imported) based on the CO2 from the nations/states that the item and its sub-parts came from.
But if we did that, then goods from overseas would cost the same or more than locally produced goods, and then with demand going up, more worker's would have to be employed to produce those goods and the subsequent rise in employment would cause spending which would result in an uncontainable flood of prosperity for most people in the United States, particularly in the lower and middle classes.
In truth the problem is purely personal. In the steel cage match between science and ideological peer pressure, you know which will win.
I have to agree with this. Most people's beliefs are overwhelmingly influenced by personal experience. If it is getting colder in part of the world, all the evidence that the rest of the world is heating up won't mean much to the people there.
The basic problem is - most people mainly do "science" by anecdote, even as they deny they are doing it.
Even science does science by anecdote. They just collect more anecdotes.
Humans will kill off the ecoweb that sustains them and most species will go extinct. In the far, far distant future another species will evolve enough to investigate and figure out what happened and be completely shocked at this appalling species which caused so much monumental destruction.
By the time another species evolves that has the capacity for such investigatory skills, the evidence of our current society will be almost entirely gone, and the Earth will be full of oil again. The new species will make the same mistakes and there will also be those among the new species that say they are destroying the Earth by burning humans.
The future isn't what it used to be.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be either.
If you agreed to be an employee and they classified you as a contractor, then sue them. if you agreed to be a contractor knowing full well that you would be responsible for your own FICA, then live with it.
I don't understand why the government gets to decide if somebody is an employee or a contractor. If two parties agree to an employee or contractor relationship, then their agreement should determine the status of their relationship. A lot of these lawsuits involve people who knowing signed up as a contractor and even got paid extra, then later, after not paying their taxes, decided to sue the company for, well, abiding by the terms of their contract.
This has made it difficult for people who want to be contractors to enjoy long term contracts. I have multiple clients myself, but if I wanted to have one client that I worked for 40 hours per week at their office with their equipment, at their direction for 50 years and be paid on an hourly contract basis and pay my FICA, why should I not be allowed to do that? Nanny State-ism. That's why.
Speaking of aircraft, right now the San Bernadino Fire Dept is saying that fire-fighting aircraft are being grounded because of all the private drone activity in the area around the wildfire.
http://ktla.com/2015/07/17/15-...
They should find the owners of those drones and let them pay all of the insurance claims and damages resulting from the fir. To be fair, only the part that occurred after the equipment had to be grounded and the fire leapt from 500 acres to 1500 acres.
Tesla vs Hellcat back in January
I bet the defeat would have been less embarrassing if the hellcat driver hadn't spent the first 5 seconds spinning his wheels in first gear. That he would lose there could be no doubt. The Tesla has more horsepower and all wheel drive. A rear wheel drive with less horsepower can't hope to keep up with that. Less overall traction AND less horsepower to drive it.
Uhh, no, I have not. Don't try to tell me what I have and haven't experienced.
You're right. For all I know you have managed to avoid every single movie and television show that his music has been featured in, have never listened to anyone else's car radio that happened to be tuned to classic rock, have never been to a sports bar or restaurant that had classic rock playing. I mean I guess there is maybe a one in a billion chance that you have not ever heard any music by Neil Young, but I think chances are far greater that you have and didn't know it.
Stevie Wonder is #15 and The Ramones are #26 on their list. When's the last time you heard about them?
Seriously, diversify. There is a lot of good music out there, even a lot that has come out in the past ten years.
I've heard a Stevie Wonder song today, and I saw him last week inducting Bill Withers into the Rock and Roll hall of Fame (recorded it about two months ago).
I heard the Ramones yesterday on Family Guy, though I don't usually listen to that genre of music, so I may not recognize songs of theirs when I hear them randomly.
I've heard Neil Young randomly today as well.
Well, then what is the relevant measure of greatest artists of all time? VH1 has him at number 26.
Yet whenever I go out to a bar or watch TV I hear The Rolling Stones playing and never Neil Young. Seriously, walk up to any random person and ask them if they have heard of either. Many more people will recognise the Stones than Neil Young.
Neil Young is a has-been. The Stones are still popular.
Well, I did say the Rolling Stones get constant airplay, did I not. But I can't even stand to listen to them anymore. I used to like them okay, but they got played to death. I'd rather hear Neil Young. When Rolling Stones come on, I change the channel.
> Dylan did it.
No, he didn't.
I'm not a child of the sixties so I missed his music the first time around. But I remember the first time I stumbled across the "We Are The World" video on MTV. All these great pop singers in a room together, so I figured it must be a benefit concert or something. Then in the middle of the song a guy comes on screen looking disheveled and singing like a cocker spaniel. I couldn't see what was wrong with him, but the contrast between his peformance and the others was obvious. So I figured the record must be for him and people like him. It was a long time before I realized who that song was really for and who that singer was. Imagine how surprised I was when I learned that singer was a legendary singer/songwriter.
You should watch the Making of the We are the World Video, in which you can see them trying to coach Bob Dylan on how to sound like Bob Dylan because he unfortunately got better at singing and they wanted it to sound like the old Dylan.
I have never heard any of his music.
Yes you have. It's all but impossible to be almost 40 years old and never be exposed to any Neil Young music. You probably didn't know it was Neil Young, but I'm sure you have heard it.
No one who listens to Neil Young is going to be pissing their pants because of the fidelity
I sure am not, because I don't listen to mp3s. All of my Neil Young is on CD, and I probably have some actual vinyl around as well, although I haven't played any vinyl in probably 15 years. I don't really care for streaming music because the audio quality is degraded and it wastes bandwidth and you don't get to own the music.
Methinks this may just be Neil attempting to stay relevant as he declines in popularity.
Yeah, right. I'm sure his airplay this year is pretty much the same as it was last year, and it probably won't decline significantly until long after he is dead.
He is #34 on the list of top Artists by Rolling Stone magazine. I realize that today's youth only listens to people who are number one on some other list today and will not be on next years list at all, and will NEVER be on Rolling Stones list at all, so go on back to listening to Flash in the Pan or whoever is popular today. 5 years from now Neil Young will be getting more airplay than whoever is the #1 selling artist this year.