this is the kind of insensitivity i'm talking about! i mean, what about all those parents who don't bother to screen for their kids! are you suggesting that they should be held responsible?
did you feel even a little bit bad about leaving debbie in the lurch there?
on a related note, can i be your girlfriend? i have this boyfriend right now, but i could totally ditch him.
thanks
i can see your point, but i still don't believe the government has any business (at this point) telling me who i can and cannot hire. perhaps in the bad old days, when anti-black/female/martian prejudice was the majority it made some sense, because blacks/women/martians couldn't get a foot in the door. but now, i feel that if a company does not hire from a certain race, it is cutting off its nose to spite its face, and it has every right to do that. if they want to keep talent out of the company, that is their business, not the government's. talented blacks/women/martians will be able to find work elsewhere.
i actually don't think this is the place to ask that question.
most of the women here appear willing to put up with a fair bit of sexism on a regular basis. i've seen a number of sexist remarks on slashdot get modded up (as funny *or* insightful) while responses along the lines of "wow, i hope you know that you're wrong" get modded down.
thus a female president of MIT would probably not affect the chances of applying of most of the women here. they wouldn't find the lack of women in CS/other sciences a deterrent to begin with.
well, you'd have to define "best" for the position. she may be qualified (and it would appear that she is), but for such a multi-faceted position, what would make her the "best."
personally, while i would be very surprised if her gender were not an issue, and while i do think that in an ideal world it shouldn't be, i think this might be a really good move for MIT. firstly and most obviously, PR wise, it gives them a little more of a leg to stand on. MIT has not had a good track record of graduating female grad students and an even worse one of hiring female professors. there was a study a few years ago. i could hunt it down, but i'm too lazy.
secondly, this may bring more women to the graduate schools and as professors. some of you may not think this is a good thing, but, given that men and women *are* different and have some very different forms of social interaction, i'm in favor of some balance. furthermore, i think that encouraging women in science is a good idea if only because whenever you discourage a group from your field, you're potentially turning away major contributers. in fields like computer science (which MIT is so famous for), it's very much a man's world, and if this brings some more balance to it, i think that the field as a whole could benefit.
but will being a woman make her a better president? certainly not.
Haven't you ever heard the saying "when I die, bury me in Chicago so I can keep voting" ? The Democrats did invent modern-day vote fraud, getting all sorts to vote for them: dead people, illegal immigrants, and in one California case, over 120 people in alphabetical order with identical handwriting signing the voter roll. I found it particularly ironic that Al Gore's team in the Florida recount included Daley, who is from... CHICAGO!
this is exactly the reason i think that most people opposed to electronic voting are overreacting. the idea of having anonymous voting is inherently susceptible to fraud. someone posted a stalin quote about the vote counters being the ones who decide, and it's true. hell, have the machine print or email a receipt. there's physical proof.
that said, i do think that the software should be open source, for security's sake.
i know it's a slow response, but you might care anyway.
i'm aware that the difficulty involved in software development is essentially unlimited, but to call the software development (at least as it is done these days, with many practitioners of the art being essentially untrained and much of the art . . . lacking) as a whole the "highest skilled work" demonstrates the naivety of the author. i can think of plenty of things i can (and have) coded up, drunk, tired, hungover, etc etc. at work, i leave the coding for when i'm too out of it to focus on harder problems.
also, though there is an element of design (or should be) in every development project, i believe it requires a lot more skill to actually design a system than to implement it. frequently the implementation is fairly simple if the design is good. hence the term "codemonkey." which is not to say, of course, that the windows design is good.:)
A concern is that even the highest-skilled and best-paying work, such as software development, is now subject to competition from lower-cost locales abroad.
HAHAHAHHAAAHAHAAHAH!
whew. "highest skilled work . . . such as software development" that's a good one.
Allies that seriously disagree about important issues central to the alliance are, by definition, not allies.
this is definitely true, but i would argue that your closest allies are not necessarily the ones that agree with you right this moment. for example, if britain had disagreed with us about iraq, and germany had agreed, i bet britain would still be a closer ally. there's the whole idea of being "allied against such" and such, which is slightly different from being allied in general.
(Not yours, though, unless you are secretly a major political power or a candidate for major political power.)
sure we do. we take counsel in our allies who agree with us. because those are obviously our closest allies. because they agree with us and that means they must be right.
anyway, can't folks in the judicial system can still use this as 'precedent' in a way?
actually, if you're in the boston area already, you can see a lot of the columnades, etc. on a large number of buildings. many of the buildings, not just the ritzier ones, in the city proper are old enough that they still have these features.
as for the stata center, well, it's definitely unique. and i don't think it's entirely without aesthetic appeal. however, the fact that it abandons almost all sense of function for the questionable form certainly disgusts me.
personally, i think this will lead more to imitation of the older stuff than to creative development of new sculptures in a similar genre. this technology will be put to use creating stone garden gnomes and donkeys and such for your backyard more than it will be used to create great architectural features.
absolutely. i drink way more coffee than is good for me, not because i'm tired but because if i don't move my damned butt, i won't be productive anymore. i've come this close to taking up smoking just to get myself outside. welcome to ADD america, i guess.
if you have an office, small though it might be, doing a few push-ups or sit-ups will also get you going again, and it's a little thing you can do to improve your general state of health.
I'm not a complete continuity freak, so I can't tell if the movie violated any of Asimov's universe, but from what I can remember, it fits pretty well (if you ignore Dr. Calvin's age) and might even explain a few things.
okay, to be fair, i haven't seen the movie yet, but it looks a hell of a lot like the robots actually *violate* the three laws. you know, harming humans, allowing humans to come to harm, stuff like that. all the i, robot stories were *about* how the laws don't cover all the bases.
in short, i think this review sucks, and i'm going to picket the movie as offensive to robots. so there.
obviously, there's no way of knowing, but as the linux and mac userbase grows, it seems likely. as soon as managers hear that it's easy to write code that will work on these other platforms, it'll become a standard aspect of software. it has to not crash, not fuck up, and work just as well on one platform as any other. java is certainly popular (granted, not as popular as c++), and this is apparently easier. so my official answer to your question is yes.:)
1.) most of the the examples you've given are in the domain of public spaces, not private enterprises, though wheelchair ramps and disabled parking spaces are in both.
2.) they do require little cost. so, a smart company will implement these features and recoop their losses in customers that they would not otherwise get.
3.) disabled people in the minority, but people who go places and do things with disabled people are not. if i'm going out with my disabled friend, and he can't get in someplace, we won't go there. add to that people who won't go on principle, and you get a significant chunk of your potential customers taken away.
4.) my point was not that "nobody should create disabled-friendly anything" just that the government has no business telling companies that they have to.
5.) i do care about excluding people. i do think it's just rude not to. i don't care if this particular website excludes people. i just won't give them my business.
perhaps i was unclear, but my intention was just to say that the government has no place (IMHO) in private business in this sense. I did not mean to say that there aren't industries which should be under government control, or at least heavily regulated, like, for example, mail. it's slightly counter-intuitive, but the fact that the mail is run by the government is probably the only reason that it's not incredibly expensive. (with email, demand has plummeted, meaning that the price of the service must go up to cover the costs incurred by the provider. the government takes it out of our taxes for the most part, so stamps haven't increased in price all that much.)
i think that odeon had every right to order the website to come down. also not having RTFA, it sounds like they didn't deal with it well, publicity-wise, but they did the right thing by requesting that a copycat site which was deliberately deceptive be taken down.
So, I take it, you will no longer use p2p software to obtain music / media that you have illegally downloaded? Hmm? Sure the laws that the Music Industry has been pushing are stupid, but they are laws, as we all know...
so, for one, i never did use p2p software to obtain illegal media. shocking, i know, but people like me do exist.
however, what i should have said was "blatantly doing illegal things . . . will get your ass sued." very frequently, people will turn a blind eye if you don't rub it in their faces.
also, this is a very different situation. i don't suppose that by illegally downloading media you actually think you're making an effort to change somebody's stupid mind?
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly screen for my kids
this is the kind of insensitivity i'm talking about! i mean, what about all those parents who don't bother to screen for their kids! are you suggesting that they should be held responsible?
did you feel even a little bit bad about leaving debbie in the lurch there? on a related note, can i be your girlfriend? i have this boyfriend right now, but i could totally ditch him. thanks
shake that moneymaker!
i can see your point, but i still don't believe the government has any business (at this point) telling me who i can and cannot hire. perhaps in the bad old days, when anti-black/female/martian prejudice was the majority it made some sense, because blacks/women/martians couldn't get a foot in the door. but now, i feel that if a company does not hire from a certain race, it is cutting off its nose to spite its face, and it has every right to do that. if they want to keep talent out of the company, that is their business, not the government's. talented blacks/women/martians will be able to find work elsewhere.
would you care to back this up? i could hunt down some statistics, but i'm pretty sure that there are many more men in computer science than women.
should you have to do your interview behind a mask, also?
most of the women here appear willing to put up with a fair bit of sexism on a regular basis. i've seen a number of sexist remarks on slashdot get modded up (as funny *or* insightful) while responses along the lines of "wow, i hope you know that you're wrong" get modded down.
thus a female president of MIT would probably not affect the chances of applying of most of the women here. they wouldn't find the lack of women in CS/other sciences a deterrent to begin with.
right.
social and economic evolution, genius.
well, you'd have to define "best" for the position. she may be qualified (and it would appear that she is), but for such a multi-faceted position, what would make her the "best." personally, while i would be very surprised if her gender were not an issue, and while i do think that in an ideal world it shouldn't be, i think this might be a really good move for MIT. firstly and most obviously, PR wise, it gives them a little more of a leg to stand on. MIT has not had a good track record of graduating female grad students and an even worse one of hiring female professors. there was a study a few years ago. i could hunt it down, but i'm too lazy. secondly, this may bring more women to the graduate schools and as professors. some of you may not think this is a good thing, but, given that men and women *are* different and have some very different forms of social interaction, i'm in favor of some balance. furthermore, i think that encouraging women in science is a good idea if only because whenever you discourage a group from your field, you're potentially turning away major contributers. in fields like computer science (which MIT is so famous for), it's very much a man's world, and if this brings some more balance to it, i think that the field as a whole could benefit. but will being a woman make her a better president? certainly not.
this is further proof to me that we really don't know anything about how the brain works. *sigh*
this is exactly the reason i think that most people opposed to electronic voting are overreacting. the idea of having anonymous voting is inherently susceptible to fraud. someone posted a stalin quote about the vote counters being the ones who decide, and it's true. hell, have the machine print or email a receipt. there's physical proof.
that said, i do think that the software should be open source, for security's sake.
i'm aware that the difficulty involved in software development is essentially unlimited, but to call the software development (at least as it is done these days, with many practitioners of the art being essentially untrained and much of the art . . . lacking) as a whole the "highest skilled work" demonstrates the naivety of the author. i can think of plenty of things i can (and have) coded up, drunk, tired, hungover, etc etc. at work, i leave the coding for when i'm too out of it to focus on harder problems.
also, though there is an element of design (or should be) in every development project, i believe it requires a lot more skill to actually design a system than to implement it. frequently the implementation is fairly simple if the design is good. hence the term "codemonkey." which is not to say, of course, that the windows design is good. :)
HAHAHAHHAAAHAHAAHAH!
whew. "highest skilled work . . . such as software development" that's a good one.
friday? you had me really hopefully for a moment there. what can i say? it's early.
this is definitely true, but i would argue that your closest allies are not necessarily the ones that agree with you right this moment. for example, if britain had disagreed with us about iraq, and germany had agreed, i bet britain would still be a closer ally. there's the whole idea of being "allied against such" and such, which is slightly different from being allied in general.
(Not yours, though, unless you are secretly a major political power or a candidate for major political power.)
my cover's blown! i better run!
anyway, can't folks in the judicial system can still use this as 'precedent' in a way?
is anyone else getting visions of the diamond age off of this? that would be rad. :)
as for the stata center, well, it's definitely unique. and i don't think it's entirely without aesthetic appeal. however, the fact that it abandons almost all sense of function for the questionable form certainly disgusts me.
personally, i think this will lead more to imitation of the older stuff than to creative development of new sculptures in a similar genre. this technology will be put to use creating stone garden gnomes and donkeys and such for your backyard more than it will be used to create great architectural features.
absolutely. i drink way more coffee than is good for me, not because i'm tired but because if i don't move my damned butt, i won't be productive anymore. i've come this close to taking up smoking just to get myself outside. welcome to ADD america, i guess. if you have an office, small though it might be, doing a few push-ups or sit-ups will also get you going again, and it's a little thing you can do to improve your general state of health.
okay, to be fair, i haven't seen the movie yet, but it looks a hell of a lot like the robots actually *violate* the three laws. you know, harming humans, allowing humans to come to harm, stuff like that. all the i, robot stories were *about* how the laws don't cover all the bases.
in short, i think this review sucks, and i'm going to picket the movie as offensive to robots. so there.
obviously, there's no way of knowing, but as the linux and mac userbase grows, it seems likely. as soon as managers hear that it's easy to write code that will work on these other platforms, it'll become a standard aspect of software. it has to not crash, not fuck up, and work just as well on one platform as any other. java is certainly popular (granted, not as popular as c++), and this is apparently easier. so my official answer to your question is yes. :)
"folks, we've discovered life on mars, and boy, is it stinky!"
2.) they do require little cost. so, a smart company will implement these features and recoop their losses in customers that they would not otherwise get.
3.) disabled people in the minority, but people who go places and do things with disabled people are not. if i'm going out with my disabled friend, and he can't get in someplace, we won't go there. add to that people who won't go on principle, and you get a significant chunk of your potential customers taken away.
4.) my point was not that "nobody should create disabled-friendly anything" just that the government has no business telling companies that they have to.
5.) i do care about excluding people. i do think it's just rude not to. i don't care if this particular website excludes people. i just won't give them my business.
i think that odeon had every right to order the website to come down. also not having RTFA, it sounds like they didn't deal with it well, publicity-wise, but they did the right thing by requesting that a copycat site which was deliberately deceptive be taken down.
so, for one, i never did use p2p software to obtain illegal media. shocking, i know, but people like me do exist.
however, what i should have said was "blatantly doing illegal things . . . will get your ass sued." very frequently, people will turn a blind eye if you don't rub it in their faces.
also, this is a very different situation. i don't suppose that by illegally downloading media you actually think you're making an effort to change somebody's stupid mind?