Another take on it is that people who are responsible, and realize how much children cost and how much investment it takes in them, wait a long time to have kids and don't have many. Having a house and a two car garage, and having them paid off is SMART, it's how you can live your life without being a slave in someone else's salt mine (and making the kinds of decisions that slaves make).
I don't see this trend as "bad", it seems pretty good to me. We have too many people, we consume too many resources, we don't really have enough to go around for any length of time. Let the population shrink to what it needs to be given the level of technology we have available.
I think that's as much horseshit as thinking 40 and under make an ideal company. If you ask me the biggest problem with the economy and business isn't republicans or democrats, it's that people whose best years and best ideas are behind them, but they want to squeeze the last drop of blood out and make sure every last cent is off the table (even at the expense of greater profit in 2-5 years with investment). If they can do so with 6 month initiatives and lots of processes and Jack Welchian business practices, they will (and believe me, they do). Investors are no doubt leery of older people who are too experienced.
What you want, obviously is a balance of the two. The people in charge are old enough to know how to balance discipline vs. creativity, young enough that they want to see their company succeed and enjoy some of the fruits of their labor. And they employ a balance of fresh out kids who are the workhorse of the corporation, whose energies are harnessed by older folks who have commitments, but enough energy to see the vision and enough wisdom to harness the youthful exuberance that the startup world enjoys.
I question anyone who says they don't want that mix. Every group has benefits. 20-40: high energy, creative drive, 40-55: significant "skin in the game" (college tuitions, mortgages, retirement planning), wisdom and priotitization. 55-65: this is what age discrimination is directed at (and is real, in any industry)
Google should not be responsible for censoring any content any more than the government should be responsible for criminals using roads to haul stolen goods away.
So you may not be in the pro-life camp, but I can assure you are no where near the pro-choice camp at all.
Yes. Honestly I don't care about abortion as an issue at all. I consider it a wasteful but necessary solution to human failings. If it were made illegal tomorrow I wouldn't start a protest, I'd hope a funding model was established that didn't involve ME.
On one hand, this is something the anti-Obama/anti-tax/"fiduciary responsibility" folks should have in mind (and why I can't bring myself to vote with them): - Aborting unwanted children means less children on welfare and medicaid - Aborting children with detectable birth defects means less children with expensive medical problems on the dole, and less money to spend on special-ed, etc. (I have such a sibling, I can speak to his medical bills and to how effectively his tea-party governor has cut him off in recent years) - Government enforced abortion of children of parents who are already on some form of welfare or assistance is a solution to a problem that Fox news trolls on about for hours whenever "soshulism" comes up
On the other hand, whenever I hear a pro-choicer rant on: - If you can't support a child, do not have sex. You fucking idiot. I don't want to hear from a grown adult that not having sex is somehow "too much to ask", we are not dogs, we can control ourselves, if you cannot you need to be locked up. - If you choose to have sex anyway, and do not want a child, use contraception. You twit. If you still get pregnant, a) legally the father should get hooked in and b) as an adult who is allowed to roam free and participate in society, you have to accept the consequences of your actions. If you cannot accept responsibility for your actions, you need to be locked up, I don't even want to drive on the same road as you. - At some point killing a child who is out of the womb and breathing stops being abortion, and starts being legal murder. I'm not sure I can be outraged on this, as I have what some might describe as a "sociopathic" viewpoint of right and wrong. I don't think life is magic and I don't think murder is necessarily wrong. I believe in an unwritten contract that we signed on birth, that says we choose to obey laws and police laws to promote the smooth functioning of a society that is undeniably in our best interests. We agree to follow these laws, or be locked up, or to be killed, or to be sent far away and left for dead (this last option isn't possible anymore). Killing your own children (born or unborn) seems to be a self contained concern, so the question is to what degree we would allow it before it becomes a social problem?
Call me cold and heartless if you wish, I'm probably not on an individual basis, but when it comes to running a society the cute cuddly things we all tell each other starts to cost real money and we have to make calculated decisions. I don't approve of abortion at all, but I think it is in our collective best interests for it to be legal.
No I think in good leaders, this goes hand in hand. If you aren't suffering from some equivalent of PTSD after doing a job like what he described, you aren't qualified to lead humans. Most of us simply don't have to deal with stakes quite that high, but should still be doing a cost/benefit analysis while also trying to empathize.
The study was performed on fetuses 24 to 36 weeks in gestation. Casual abortion on fetuses of that age is illegal almost everywhere. I don't think this will touch of an abortion debate amongst the mostly male population of Slashdot, who either a) have never had sex, b) will have long since run away from any woman they impregnated by that point, or c) I know this is inconceivable, accepted fatherhood and are preparing for a new geeklet.
Of course on other sites with actual women, they may decry the lack of parasite removal options after the 24th week and use this as some anthropomorphism of the parasite.
I don't really believe that an urban black man, an indian woman, or a gay chinese man will have vastly different perspectives and approaches to Ruby. That's bullshit diversity.
I do think a CMS developer, a PLM developer, a web host provider and a database admin may have some very unique perspectives that apply to Ruby. That's real diversity. If they all happen to be white men, big deal, as long as they HAPPEN to be white men, and other more qualified people weren't being sent away because of some arbitrary criteria like race, gender, religion or orientation.
While I agree it seems odd that all the speakers are white men, I am also projecting my american viewpoint of technology diversity, which consists more of asians (of some variety) than white men. I don't really know the tech demographic in the UK, particularly of those on the conference circuit which most of us don't have time for anyway.
I entirely reject the rest. Diversity is a bullshit agenda designed to equalize access to education and the workforce, it should not be viewed as a force of nature particularly in science and technology. I won't doubt in social subjects diversity has a measurable effect on certain types of interactions, that's not relevant to people doing real work.
You mean the agreements explicitly agreed to between union management and corporations? Or the agreements explicitly agreed to between union management and employees? As far as I know, with the exception below, union employees are free to leave their union and sign up, there's nothing legally stopping them (caveat: there are some social issues).
Trying to figure out which of these is as unethical as two people agreeing not to hire a third person without his consent.
There is one place I may see your point on: the existence of "closed shops". That definitely needs to be attacked (and is illegal in many places). There should never be a closed shop, everyone should have the right to apply for a job. If the union is doing ITS job, employees will pay their dues and join. If management is doing ITS job, employees have no need of a union.
This happens all the time though, in fact frequently these positions are marketed to contractors as "contract to hire" (not that it usually happens, that's just a gimmick, I think I saw one contractor turned in 7 years, most are removed and replaced in 1.5 years). The company with the job just wants a disposable employee with a side effect of try-before-you-buy, the employee just wants a job, and the contracting company wants a piece of the action.
It seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable for you to leave the contract house and go to the employer if offered the position. No one is being bankrupted by this, if anything the entire existence of the contracting house to begin with is shady: employer finds our legal system to be inconvenient to their hiring practices, contract house offers a loophole around the laws, employee usually wants a full time position but will take a paycheck however offered.
Finally, if the contracting house keeps digging up full time employees, they will be seen as a valuable resource by HR and their services sought more often. I don't know about you, but my job doesn't give me a lot of time to shop around. I rely on suppliers to provide a service and want to spend as little time on the finding as I can. If I find one that's great, I keep using them. If they fail me, I shop around.
Professional Engineer is protected in the US too. But you don't see it much outside of government. A PE isn't very useful in private industries, it's too broad and to mgmt sounds like a union.
"Convicted sex offender" is a very broad term that describes anyone who has been convicted of doing anything that might be construed as a sexual offense, even if the actual victim not only didn't complain, but was a willing participant.
What we really want to do is ensure that serial rapists cannot use the internet as their predatory jungle, and for this type of person I entirely agree with you. But I'd hate to ruin the life of some poor 20yo who fell in love with his sisters friend who happened to be 17, but whose parents decided to have him arrested.
They're using domestically built copies of MIPS processors they copied from someone else (usually wrongly), stringing them together and proving that 2+2=5.
There exist people who are incapable of reevaluating their views. I call her mom. And it's exactly on topic, as evolution is one of a great many topics she is implacable on. She views athiests and agnostics as being "against god", and she prays for my soul regularly and tries to sneak my son off to church if we leave him in her custody on Sunday. I keep telling her she doesn't need to sneak (hell we put him in a christian preschool!), if she wants to take him it's fine with us, that one day he'll evaluate his views and decide what he believes...but she still feels like she has to sneak. No amount of reasoned debate from anyone, anywhere will shake her views.
I would say instead that it is wrong to assume that all religious people are incapable of reevaluating their views. Many are. But there are people who are incapable, it's a complete waste of time to even try, and more than likely you are going to create some enemies. The better solution is to choose your battles and only fight what needs to be fought. If the evangelicals want to have religion in school, then add comparative religion as a curriculum item (and ensure that major religions past and present, are brought up). Let them fight with the catholics, jews, muslims, etc. over curriculum. Maybe they'll forget about science class.
Well it's important to do your for() play before putting anything in her {}. Now some people like to go from one to the other back to back such as for() {, while others prefer to separate the {} shortly after. From study I'd say it hardly matters. What I have little patience for is for() play with no {} at all.
Certainly it is not to change opinions, or they would not be distributing a form of linux no one has ever heard of to MS loyalists. I think they would have better luck preaching tax loophole reform at a republican convention, at least there'd be press that'd listen.
Slashdot Mirror
Another take on it is that people who are responsible, and realize how much children cost and how much investment it takes in them, wait a long time to have kids and don't have many. Having a house and a two car garage, and having them paid off is SMART, it's how you can live your life without being a slave in someone else's salt mine (and making the kinds of decisions that slaves make).
I don't see this trend as "bad", it seems pretty good to me. We have too many people, we consume too many resources, we don't really have enough to go around for any length of time. Let the population shrink to what it needs to be given the level of technology we have available.
I think that's as much horseshit as thinking 40 and under make an ideal company. If you ask me the biggest problem with the economy and business isn't republicans or democrats, it's that people whose best years and best ideas are behind them, but they want to squeeze the last drop of blood out and make sure every last cent is off the table (even at the expense of greater profit in 2-5 years with investment). If they can do so with 6 month initiatives and lots of processes and Jack Welchian business practices, they will (and believe me, they do). Investors are no doubt leery of older people who are too experienced.
What you want, obviously is a balance of the two. The people in charge are old enough to know how to balance discipline vs. creativity, young enough that they want to see their company succeed and enjoy some of the fruits of their labor. And they employ a balance of fresh out kids who are the workhorse of the corporation, whose energies are harnessed by older folks who have commitments, but enough energy to see the vision and enough wisdom to harness the youthful exuberance that the startup world enjoys.
I question anyone who says they don't want that mix. Every group has benefits. 20-40: high energy, creative drive, 40-55: significant "skin in the game" (college tuitions, mortgages, retirement planning), wisdom and priotitization. 55-65: this is what age discrimination is directed at (and is real, in any industry)
Google should not be responsible for censoring any content any more than the government should be responsible for criminals using roads to haul stolen goods away.
Sounds like they were trained properly: Bully, Harass and Obfuscate.
So you may not be in the pro-life camp, but I can assure you are no where near the pro-choice camp at all.
Yes. Honestly I don't care about abortion as an issue at all. I consider it a wasteful but necessary solution to human failings. If it were made illegal tomorrow I wouldn't start a protest, I'd hope a funding model was established that didn't involve ME.
On one hand, this is something the anti-Obama/anti-tax/"fiduciary responsibility" folks should have in mind (and why I can't bring myself to vote with them):
- Aborting unwanted children means less children on welfare and medicaid
- Aborting children with detectable birth defects means less children with expensive medical problems on the dole, and less money to spend on special-ed, etc. (I have such a sibling, I can speak to his medical bills and to how effectively his tea-party governor has cut him off in recent years)
- Government enforced abortion of children of parents who are already on some form of welfare or assistance is a solution to a problem that Fox news trolls on about for hours whenever "soshulism" comes up
On the other hand, whenever I hear a pro-choicer rant on:
- If you can't support a child, do not have sex. You fucking idiot. I don't want to hear from a grown adult that not having sex is somehow "too much to ask", we are not dogs, we can control ourselves, if you cannot you need to be locked up.
- If you choose to have sex anyway, and do not want a child, use contraception. You twit. If you still get pregnant, a) legally the father should get hooked in and b) as an adult who is allowed to roam free and participate in society, you have to accept the consequences of your actions. If you cannot accept responsibility for your actions, you need to be locked up, I don't even want to drive on the same road as you.
- At some point killing a child who is out of the womb and breathing stops being abortion, and starts being legal murder. I'm not sure I can be outraged on this, as I have what some might describe as a "sociopathic" viewpoint of right and wrong. I don't think life is magic and I don't think murder is necessarily wrong. I believe in an unwritten contract that we signed on birth, that says we choose to obey laws and police laws to promote the smooth functioning of a society that is undeniably in our best interests. We agree to follow these laws, or be locked up, or to be killed, or to be sent far away and left for dead (this last option isn't possible anymore). Killing your own children (born or unborn) seems to be a self contained concern, so the question is to what degree we would allow it before it becomes a social problem?
Call me cold and heartless if you wish, I'm probably not on an individual basis, but when it comes to running a society the cute cuddly things we all tell each other starts to cost real money and we have to make calculated decisions. I don't approve of abortion at all, but I think it is in our collective best interests for it to be legal.
No I think in good leaders, this goes hand in hand. If you aren't suffering from some equivalent of PTSD after doing a job like what he described, you aren't qualified to lead humans. Most of us simply don't have to deal with stakes quite that high, but should still be doing a cost/benefit analysis while also trying to empathize.
The study was performed on fetuses 24 to 36 weeks in gestation. Casual abortion on fetuses of that age is illegal almost everywhere. I don't think this will touch of an abortion debate amongst the mostly male population of Slashdot, who either a) have never had sex, b) will have long since run away from any woman they impregnated by that point, or c) I know this is inconceivable, accepted fatherhood and are preparing for a new geeklet.
Of course on other sites with actual women, they may decry the lack of parasite removal options after the 24th week and use this as some anthropomorphism of the parasite.
Speak for yourself, I like more wonder on the bread!
I don't really believe that an urban black man, an indian woman, or a gay chinese man will have vastly different perspectives and approaches to Ruby. That's bullshit diversity.
I do think a CMS developer, a PLM developer, a web host provider and a database admin may have some very unique perspectives that apply to Ruby. That's real diversity. If they all happen to be white men, big deal, as long as they HAPPEN to be white men, and other more qualified people weren't being sent away because of some arbitrary criteria like race, gender, religion or orientation.
While I agree it seems odd that all the speakers are white men, I am also projecting my american viewpoint of technology diversity, which consists more of asians (of some variety) than white men. I don't really know the tech demographic in the UK, particularly of those on the conference circuit which most of us don't have time for anyway.
I entirely reject the rest. Diversity is a bullshit agenda designed to equalize access to education and the workforce, it should not be viewed as a force of nature particularly in science and technology. I won't doubt in social subjects diversity has a measurable effect on certain types of interactions, that's not relevant to people doing real work.
In that environment there is not a single discipline where experience matters. At least, as far as they'll ever know.
You mean the agreements explicitly agreed to between union management and corporations? Or the agreements explicitly agreed to between union management and employees? As far as I know, with the exception below, union employees are free to leave their union and sign up, there's nothing legally stopping them (caveat: there are some social issues).
Trying to figure out which of these is as unethical as two people agreeing not to hire a third person without his consent.
There is one place I may see your point on: the existence of "closed shops". That definitely needs to be attacked (and is illegal in many places). There should never be a closed shop, everyone should have the right to apply for a job. If the union is doing ITS job, employees will pay their dues and join. If management is doing ITS job, employees have no need of a union.
This happens all the time though, in fact frequently these positions are marketed to contractors as "contract to hire" (not that it usually happens, that's just a gimmick, I think I saw one contractor turned in 7 years, most are removed and replaced in 1.5 years). The company with the job just wants a disposable employee with a side effect of try-before-you-buy, the employee just wants a job, and the contracting company wants a piece of the action.
It seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable for you to leave the contract house and go to the employer if offered the position. No one is being bankrupted by this, if anything the entire existence of the contracting house to begin with is shady: employer finds our legal system to be inconvenient to their hiring practices, contract house offers a loophole around the laws, employee usually wants a full time position but will take a paycheck however offered.
Finally, if the contracting house keeps digging up full time employees, they will be seen as a valuable resource by HR and their services sought more often. I don't know about you, but my job doesn't give me a lot of time to shop around. I rely on suppliers to provide a service and want to spend as little time on the finding as I can. If I find one that's great, I keep using them. If they fail me, I shop around.
It's the part where he voluntarily shared his info with his gf that makes this not really a security hole, just a stupid person.
Professional Engineer is protected in the US too. But you don't see it much outside of government. A PE isn't very useful in private industries, it's too broad and to mgmt sounds like a union.
The problem is that too many people understand this very useful business model:
1. Install Ubuntu
2. sudo apt-get install gnome-session-fallback
3. ???
4. profit!
(and usually ??? is just installing proprietary nvidia drivers)
"Convicted sex offender" is a very broad term that describes anyone who has been convicted of doing anything that might be construed as a sexual offense, even if the actual victim not only didn't complain, but was a willing participant.
What we really want to do is ensure that serial rapists cannot use the internet as their predatory jungle, and for this type of person I entirely agree with you. But I'd hate to ruin the life of some poor 20yo who fell in love with his sisters friend who happened to be 17, but whose parents decided to have him arrested.
They're using domestically built copies of MIPS processors they copied from someone else (usually wrongly), stringing them together and proving that 2+2=5.
Depends on who you talk to. To many green is more equivalent to "naturist".
There exist people who are incapable of reevaluating their views. I call her mom. And it's exactly on topic, as evolution is one of a great many topics she is implacable on. She views athiests and agnostics as being "against god", and she prays for my soul regularly and tries to sneak my son off to church if we leave him in her custody on Sunday. I keep telling her she doesn't need to sneak (hell we put him in a christian preschool!), if she wants to take him it's fine with us, that one day he'll evaluate his views and decide what he believes ...but she still feels like she has to sneak. No amount of reasoned debate from anyone, anywhere will shake her views.
I would say instead that it is wrong to assume that all religious people are incapable of reevaluating their views. Many are. But there are people who are incapable, it's a complete waste of time to even try, and more than likely you are going to create some enemies. The better solution is to choose your battles and only fight what needs to be fought. If the evangelicals want to have religion in school, then add comparative religion as a curriculum item (and ensure that major religions past and present, are brought up). Let them fight with the catholics, jews, muslims, etc. over curriculum. Maybe they'll forget about science class.
Well it's important to do your for() play before putting anything in her {}. Now some people like to go from one to the other back to back such as for() {, while others prefer to separate the {} shortly after. From study I'd say it hardly matters. What I have little patience for is for() play with no {} at all.
Or getting employed by MS and leaking doc(x)/xls(x) read/write code. Illegal? Yes. But not immoral and what a better place we'd all live in.
Certainly it is not to change opinions, or they would not be distributing a form of linux no one has ever heard of to MS loyalists. I think they would have better luck preaching tax loophole reform at a republican convention, at least there'd be press that'd listen.
She said she wanted more foreplay.
You think you have it bad, imagine the geeksquad call.