This is supposed to be "Science" correct? Well it's not science at this level, it's science fiction. Is it plausible and possible that there is dark energy and matter? Of course, but we have no proof. Is it equally possible that we find some other missing thing proving that there is no dark anything, and our equations were never wrong.
My point was, and is, no theory of dark anything works either. Various physicists use various numbers for both dark matter and dark energy to make models work. That is not evidence that either exist.
To make a parallel, I could write up a great story of fluctuations in gravity due to dense matter. That is another plausible piece of physics which I find interesting to contemplate. We have no proof that there is such a thing, so me claiming that X happens because of dense matter would be equally unscientific.
Apologies for the delayed response on this one. They already do know when to monitor voice and chat, and they already capture that information. The sensors in phones are very advanced, and can be used for either good or bad deeds. I know this from working at a very large telecom company where they used sensor data in a good way, mostly. Some of the programs they were working on before I left, I found objectionable. FWIW, I don't work there any longer and let them know how I felt about those programs.
The point was, and is, that they don't have to waste cycles like people try and claim. That is absolutely false, and people ignorant to the technology easily fall for that fairy tale.
Most science fiction sounds plausible, that is why we enjoy it. We have no proof dark matter or dark energy exists, so claiming side effects is pretty stupid. Sure, it is possible but it is equally not possie. A whole segment of theoretical physicists has been working on equations that don't require dark matter or energy with promising results so far.
Well, Google has ended up doing many of the things we used to bitch about with Bing. I still prefer Google but use advanced search much more than a regular search or get what Google "thinks" I want instead of what I really want. Google at least functions okay with NoScript.
I am pretty sure that what happened while we were not looking is that both teams got the same owners. Fights at this point about "who is better" won't change that.
This is exactly why you don't want Governments doing _anything_ illegal. The intention for the DEA to buy cocaine might be to bust a dealer, but the risk for agents to abuse or resell the cocaine for personal gain now exists. Allowing parallel construction so that a special case can be busted means that it will also be used for vindictive purposes. What we have lost is accountability within our Government, and the requirement for the Government to enforce their own Constitution against themselves.
There is a whole lot of psychology to contemplate with this behavior, and not very much of it is positive unless the people using it are handicapped in some way
Since the majority of the people doing this have nothing impairing them (obesity from laziness does not count) I find it sad. I would think differently if starting up the device required more than pressing a button after picking up a remote or moving to a box.
Nope, temperature and motion sensors could be used to tell people want to watch the camera. The microphone is a different issue but sensors and GPS would still let them know when to start looking at you. Sensors have been in phones for a long time, as has been the ability for your phone to broadcast sensor information even when you believe the phone is turned "off".
I don't mean rant in a negative light exactly, but that you are behaving similar to what you are complaining about. The Article is about how game consoles can monitor people, which does not have positive consequences for society and citizens. This writer and source is not the first to cover the topic, just the most recent. Spending 4 paragraphs telling everyone how bad the author and source without mention of the topic distracts from the article and topic.
Welcome to the game, if you were not playing intentionally you just became a sucker. If you were playing intentionally, well, go find a sand box and pound some.
People have been concerned about Xbox One and it's always on sensor arrays designed for spying. There was a recent report in the Guardian telling us that GCHQ used it to spy on people in Xbox360. There is no reason to believe that the latest will be used any differently, and no reason to believe that what GCHQ does also happens at the NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, etc...
My family is smart enough to have boycotted all versions of the MS consoles. Yeah, we have owned PS2 through PS4 and some people have concerns with those. Most Sony PS concerns relate to the old Sony root kit issues however, and not some always on spytech filming and recording your every move.
If people want a fix to the solution, start boycotting. Remember that a boycott is not just not purchasing something, but actively persuading others to not purchase that same thing. It will take a lot to force change, because there are all these nice back door payments to companies so that they do the wrong thing (yet another Snowden/Guardian piece you should read).
There are a whole 2 people that get their panties in a bundle over my signature, and you are one of them. That signature has been the same for 10 years or so. Go figure.
I am using life sentences as an example; there are lots of prisoners who are not in for life who still feel they have nothing to lose, act on a violent impulse and attack someone, or are just plain crazy. Some of these people have to be separated physically from the main popualtion and guards. I do agree its use should be lessened though.
You should really read some facts and not just repeat what someone tells you. First, the number of prisoners serving "life" is extremely small. Second, there are far more people in prison for non violent offenses than there are for violent crimes, so your statement that all people in prison are crazy and attack people on impulse is simply asinine.
If you really wish to educate yourself and form an educated opinion, start by reading "Three Felonies A Day" and you might begin to comprehend the current system. A huge one to study is the privatization of prisons, were States are required to have prisons at a specific capacity or pay penalties. Then, actually read some statistics about whom is in prison and why they are there. Finally study social economic factors which impact certain populations regarding crime.
In my educated opinion, I would agree that some people can't be rehabilitated. The number of people that involves such a small percentage of prison population you would need a magnifying glass to find it.
At the same time, our current society has a lot of issues economically. Successful rehabilitation requires opportunity which this country simply does not have much of currently.
When an image magically shows up on your bosses desk with an anonymous note claiming that you are a lush that needs to get fired, maybe you will change your tune. Historically this practice is common. Deny evidence all you want, your delusion is not reality.
Punks were generally poor to middle class people who were rebelling against greed a based society and controlling government. So "no" these are not the "new punks". Pretty much the opposite.
Welcome to the game of sock puppets. Censor anything anti-whatever by rating it a troll or flame bait, even when well written and articulated. Mod anything pro-whatever insightful and interesting. Turn your ratings slider to -1 and check this thread for how often this occurs and be amazed.
Absolutely a false analogy. If you start to capture people on video, you should expect people to object. That act is obviously different from simply pulling your phone out and showing it to a friend.
Good to see all the google sock puppet accounts spending their mod points today.
Not really. Buying into fear and hype is not the same thing as understanding something. In fact it is kinda the opposite.
So we have no evidence showing that the NSA is providing any and all data to any agency that may wish to target you? We have no data showing that GCHQ is doing the same thing to the British populace? No evidence showing that Germany is not doing the same to their own,etc..?
Wait, I know. We have no evidence of political corruption in the US. You were never lied to about Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria.
Simplifying the issue down to fear is rubbish. The issue is not simply Google Glass by itself for that matter. The issue is that we are seeing what our Government(s) are doing and have a historical expectation for the end result.
A failure to understand consequences based on historical and empirical evidence is the definition of delusion. Arguing that others don't understand based on that delusion is laughable.
I needed to further quote on what portion of your 3rd world country comment was a fabrication since I offered no clarity and a generalized claim that it is false. Moving money from men to women does not benefit all of society in developing countries. Primarily because the majority of those people live hand to mouth, not even paycheck to paycheck. In that case, there is no such thing as "extra money" or money past basic survival needs. Making such a claim would require all economic situations to be identical, and walking down a street where you live should show how absolutely foolish that would be.
Of course you have to look for the bias to see the bias, so let me give you a couple easy examples to contemplate.
From the first paragraph of the first link you give, the benefit is from money "given" to women versus "given" to men and how it benefits a child's well being. Later they show this with women as HH. This is obviously true, because even in extreme poverty adults will give up their own food to feed a younger child/sibling. This has little to do with money, and more to do with human morality and human nature.
The bias and falsity is further exemplified by the insinuation in that same page that all men will spend money on alcohol and tobacco instead of what a family needs to survive. While surely this happens, what is not described are some fundamentals of human nature and economic situations which should be applied unilaterally.
First, to claim all men do this is absolutely fabricated. Further, if your job is to move piles of crap all day, or work in a mine where you were in constant fear, or work at a site where the boss beats the workers, would you drink? No matter the gender of the person working certain jobs: In developing countries (and "developed countries'), certain types of work lead to people seeking out coping mechanisms such as alcohol/drugs/tobacco. A woman in those places does not work. This means that the claim of "men are worse" is simply a fabrication because there is no data to substantiate such a claim. Further, in developing countries workers are sometimes paid in alcohol or tobacco instead of money. Dubai has had numerous cases by immigrant workers claiming that they have been paid in drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and sometimes they were not paid at all.
To view that concept without the bias look at similarly high stress jobs in places where there is no such gender inequality. Women tend to drink and do drugs just as frequently as men in those circumstances. For a fair comparison, look at addiction levels of military men and women, and you will see no difference in rates of addiction, parental/spousal abuse, neglect, child abuse, etc... Admittedly even those statistics present no true conclusion because men serve in combat roles more frequently than women The conclusion you can come to is much more fair than an invented scenario. Looking at Police or Air Traffic controllers looks more similar to the Military than the invented scenarios in the paper.
Yet another issue with this paper is the presumption that men are simply peeing away money when they are not buying new clothes for the kid (this is the perception they provide, not mine). There are certainly different views on how to invest money into a family, and one is not necessarily better than the other. One parent may try to stash money for a better/new house, while another spends every penny possible on new clothing for the kid. One parent may buy a toy where another buys a fishing pole. One may try to save for a computer where another tries to save for a car.
The point is, the paper makes the assumption that all moneys have to be spent on the child's well being immediately or presumed to be non-existent.
As I pointed out with TFA, if you start with a broken premise the solution will always be broken. These topics are complex, and can not be simplified down to man = bad and women = good answer. Similarly, the issue with jobs is not one of STEM = fabulous and !STEM = bad. One can surely have that belief, but that is not a belief grounded in reality.
I was in part responding to the idea that women get to choose to work lesser hours therefore it's fair they get paid less.
Not to be pedantic, but the wording of this is biased as is the statement in whole. "get to choose" is not the same as "choosing". There are many reasons why women make the choice, and not all of them are because the are free . That said, the "therefore it's fair they get paid less" statement implies that if a [insert race/gender/religion] works 50 hours a week they should make the same amount of money as someone working 40. Is that your true opinion? If so then you should have no problem working 40 hours a week and making the same paycheck as someone working 30, and someone working 20 hours a week would of course follow, as would someone working 10 because they all have circumstances they can present to claim why they should only work X amount of hours a week.
This truly is a liberal viewpoint, but it's not valid for a functional society. You end up with a more extreme version what we have now, a working class and dependent class with aristocrats on top diving up the money of the workers. There is incentive for everyone to do less and less, and society will crumble. Human nature is a bummer sometimes, but it is human nature.
The reasons for this are varied and complex, but a significant part of that is the 'higher paid' STEM roles are seen as unattainable for women more than for men - even given a broad background of socio-economic factors.
This is fabrication with regards to women. If you wish to claim otherwise provide facts, and not an opinion of something being unfair. I have worked in numerous environments and never seen a bias when a women chooses to get an education and degree. General Dynamics, General Motors, Bosch, Hewlett Packard, Ericsson, CSC, EDS, cover many of the companies I have worked for in the last couple decades and none of them refused women when they had the education and skill sets required for a job. Obviously a women without an electrical engineering degree can't get a job as an electrical engineer.
Now, where I said before we could debate and where you may find some truth is in economic circumstances. A women from poverty is just as likely as a man from poverty to get an education and get out of poverty. To be frank, the chances for either are very low. Most will be stuck in the rut but that's not because of gender barriers but because of the economy (or lack thereof) they live in. There is an even chance for both genders to turn to crime, though the crimes will obviously differ. Men have trouble being prostitutes and women have trouble being gun toting thugs, that is a real bias I guess someone could bring up in futility.
Women are more likely to be channeled into nurturing or service roles such as teaching, nursing, childcare or aged care, rather than more lucrative roles such as sales or STEM roles. At the lower end of the economy, they are more likely to be a waitress than a construction worker - guess what pays more. Yes being a construction worker may be more physically demanding - but being on your feet all day waiting tables isn't being slack either. In Australia, tradesmen are some of the best paid people, I can assure you that the 'professions' for working class women are not paid nearly as well, they are likely to be a hairdresser or beauty therapist or a masseuse.
Channeled or choose? Further, you make it sound like anything other than a STEM job is simply cleaning up vomit which is untrue. Nurses, Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, and Pharmacists are shit jobs that nobody wants and nobody can make a living at? Those are just as likely today to be filled by women as men, in fact most pharmacists today are women. Nurses have been women for much longer, and men are generally shunned in that job. I know plenty of women who chose to quit STEM jobs to work in nurturing services because they enjoyed that type of work.
Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!
Exactly, it shouldn't matter.
But that does show up as a problem, and no, it's not just a lack of Amish representation.
Which is why efforts are made to remedy that.
Your claim about a problem and needed remedy is misrepresented, and you didn't use those exact words?
It's possible that you simply were not clear in your post, so were not understood due to the lack of clarity. Your WNBA comment makes me rather skeptical, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not sure I get the point, was it sarcasm? I didn't read anything about how guidance counselors are steering people away, and in truth I think that gender would be the smallest reason for that.
You are arguing something very different than TFA or myself, which is also known as a straw man argument.
If you and I work at the same job, 40 hours a week would our pay be equal? The answer is "yes", in almost all cases it would be equal. Do you and I have equal opportunity for education? Again, in almost all cases the answer will be "yes". If our jobs require an education, do we both have the same opportunity for a job if we have the correct education? Again, you will find the answer is "yes".
I am not claiming that there is no biases mind you, because they certainly exist. When found, they generally go to court and the companies are punished. Most companies don't give any favoritism because of this reason, or they do their damn best to hide it if they do.
Generally the people that don't think highly of education are those in certain income groups, not "women". So while we could surely have a debate on that topic, it has nothing to do with the article or my comments. It's a diversion used to support a claim that is simply not true.
The straw man argument you are making has nothing to do with an employer, and would be better suited to teaching people consequences for their own actions.
Yes, a girl that gets pregnant is going to lack education and have a much harder time finding a good paying job. Whether it's being a doctor, lawyer, programmer, astronomer, etc.. there are consequences for decisions. The boy is not as bad off, but will be paying child support as soon as he is of age and his parents will be paying until he's of age. Courts are completely unfair in most cases, seeing the father as an income source for the women instead of being a father and the women as a victim no matter the circumstances. The latter may sound harsh, but I know women accused of abuse that received custody over 'that dirty man' that wanted custody and feared for the kids. Those kids often die or end up on the street, so there are victims on both sides of that debate.
There are plenty of great debates to have, but very little of it deals with how "women are losing out on lucrative programming jobs". First, the jobs are rarely that lucrative. Most importantly women choose not to be programmers, and I see absolutely no issue with that.
First, not addressed to you.. is that people with MOD points need to read the rules for spending mod points. If you can't follow the rules don't use them.
Generally and to your points now, I'm referring to studies that were done by several credible sources, as well as a link I give above to how the information that the pay scale of 77c on a dollar is simply wrong. They are all searchable, but don't receive air time because people benefit more from spreading fabricated and false information.
I've never regularly worked a 60+ hour week - that's exploitation, not programming. I can think of just a few such weeks in my whole career, times when I had dropped the ball and needed to bust my ass out of simple professionalism.
These day's it's just as common for men as women in the field to have "hard stops" for when they must leave the office - one parent "drops off", the other "picks up" and the latter, male or female, is gone by 5 unless something is actually on fire. Every place I've worked for the past 10 years has respected that.
I agree that most companies respect your hard stops. My point was that during my 20s and early 30s I used to work 60+ hours a week to get ahead (before I became a father). I don't know many women that did the same thing. It was my choice to work more, and I received extra for doing it. I don't hold it against anyone for not doing the same thing, and actually regret some of those decisions. Getting ahead at companies that no longer exist due to buy outs and mergers has not made me incredibly wealthy.
At the same time, that statistic is used to falsely claim that women make way less money than men. Comparing a promotion rate or income based on disparate hours worked is foolish, yet this is how they come up with these bogus numbers. Studies that don't back TFA's argument clearly show that when things are compared on even footing, this alleged gap in pay mostly disappears. Claiming there is no bias is foolish, and that's not my claim. My claim is that the "women are losing" is false statement and there are numerous ways we can show my claim to be true without fudging numbers.
I think there was a historical shortage because more men than women were willing to be social outcasts, as was once more-or-less required to learn programming. But thankfully society has changed, and for whatever reason I'm seeing women interviewing for entry-level programming positions who are there out of sheer geeky interest, drawn into coding from robotics or EE or similar non-CS backgrounds. Never seen that before, and it's a great sign.
I'm **erm** close to 50. I don't remember a time when I heard anything regarding "women can't". I also don't remember seeing a sign "no [insert race/religion/gender/sexual orientation]". That does not mean those things didn't happen, but that when they did they were not "normal". Sure, I saw teachers give favoritism to boys for math and home economics for women. We still had the same classes however, and one of the best partners I ever had in woodshop was a girl.
The issue I have with TFA and other such articles (I view as trash) is that they are at a minimum grossly distorting facts. That means that any solution you come up with (if one is needed) is also grossly distorted. I have known a lot of gay men in my life, and most of them wanted to get into cosmetology and fashion. That was their choice for numerous reasons, and I don't see anyone claiming "Gay people should be [this profession]" and trying to come up with ways of coercing them into that field..
But that does show up as a problem, and no, it's not just a lack of Amish representation.
Which is why efforts are made to remedy that.
What problem? The one that the article falsely claims? TFA starts with a false premise, and then repeats a fabricated statistic as propaganda. Here is a link to a set of data that disagrees with the idea that women make less money than men. I'm not claiming that there are no differences, but the differences are minor. It's not.77c on the dollar as people try and claim for propaganda, reality says it's much much closer. Sure, we can always improve but if the 'problem' is distorted then the solution will also be distorted.
You are arguing that a person should not have a choice because your liberal viewpoint is that everything should be equal all the time. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Utopia does not exist and people won't do something simply because -you- and people of a similar belief want them to. Many times, the forcing of behavior has the opposite effect in fact (basic psychology, read a book). Further, society can't function if everyone is in a technical field. We need doctors, plumbers, welders, farmers, and many people want to perform those roles in society and not be pigeon holed into what -you- want them to do.
Ask the basic required questions, and these would be true for any claim of bias or discrimination (gender, race, religion):
1. Do the people have the same opportunities to education? I'm pretty sure we can state that the system is pretty fair, not perfect, but fair. If they have the same opportunities for education then they could get into the same line of work if they so choose unless there are barriers to entry in the field. This is why we have so many women doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, etc..
2. Do they have opportunity for employment? I work with a lot of women programmers, most of them are originally from China and Russia, so you would have to show me proof that there are entry barriers to employment for women. If you have knowledge and skill, you get jobs even if your English is not so good and you may have difficulty in communicating.
3. Does society discourage them from working in these fields? Again, you need to show me proof that this is happening. I have not seen any advertising or articles talking about how poor a specific gender, race, or religion is in any field since I was a kid. Anything that would even hint at a bias today would end up in court extremely quickly. I'm sure you could dig up a company that was found guilty of discrimination in recent times, but that company would be an anomaly and not a 'normal' company with what society considered acceptable practice.
If those questions are answered "yes", "yes", and "no", then it's possible that people are just choosing not to do certain jobs. Why not let them make up their minds about their careers instead of trying to force them to be what you want them to be? What I find very ironic is that most people will tell you today that if you want to make an excellent living, you go into welding or plumbing because there are real shortages there. But that's not what -you- want them to do.
Slashdot Mirror
This is supposed to be "Science" correct? Well it's not science at this level, it's science fiction. Is it plausible and possible that there is dark energy and matter? Of course, but we have no proof. Is it equally possible that we find some other missing thing proving that there is no dark anything, and our equations were never wrong.
My point was, and is, no theory of dark anything works either. Various physicists use various numbers for both dark matter and dark energy to make models work. That is not evidence that either exist.
To make a parallel, I could write up a great story of fluctuations in gravity due to dense matter. That is another plausible piece of physics which I find interesting to contemplate. We have no proof that there is such a thing, so me claiming that X happens because of dense matter would be equally unscientific.
Apologies for the delayed response on this one. They already do know when to monitor voice and chat, and they already capture that information. The sensors in phones are very advanced, and can be used for either good or bad deeds. I know this from working at a very large telecom company where they used sensor data in a good way, mostly. Some of the programs they were working on before I left, I found objectionable. FWIW, I don't work there any longer and let them know how I felt about those programs.
The point was, and is, that they don't have to waste cycles like people try and claim. That is absolutely false, and people ignorant to the technology easily fall for that fairy tale.
Most science fiction sounds plausible, that is why we enjoy it. We have no proof dark matter or dark energy exists, so claiming side effects is pretty stupid. Sure, it is possible but it is equally not possie. A whole segment of theoretical physicists has been working on equations that don't require dark matter or energy with promising results so far.
Well, Google has ended up doing many of the things we used to bitch about with Bing. I still prefer Google but use advanced search much more than a regular search or get what Google "thinks" I want instead of what I really want. Google at least functions okay with NoScript.
I am pretty sure that what happened while we were not looking is that both teams got the same owners. Fights at this point about "who is better" won't change that.
This is exactly why you don't want Governments doing _anything_ illegal. The intention for the DEA to buy cocaine might be to bust a dealer, but the risk for agents to abuse or resell the cocaine for personal gain now exists. Allowing parallel construction so that a special case can be busted means that it will also be used for vindictive purposes. What we have lost is accountability within our Government, and the requirement for the Government to enforce their own Constitution against themselves.
There is a whole lot of psychology to contemplate with this behavior, and not very much of it is positive unless the people using it are handicapped in some way
Since the majority of the people doing this have nothing impairing them (obesity from laziness does not count) I find it sad. I would think differently if starting up the device required more than pressing a button after picking up a remote or moving to a box.
This is a pathetic attempt at shilling, no free donuts for one month!
Nope, temperature and motion sensors could be used to tell people want to watch the camera. The microphone is a different issue but sensors and GPS would still let them know when to start looking at you. Sensors have been in phones for a long time, as has been the ability for your phone to broadcast sensor information even when you believe the phone is turned "off".
I don't mean rant in a negative light exactly, but that you are behaving similar to what you are complaining about. The Article is about how game consoles can monitor people, which does not have positive consequences for society and citizens. This writer and source is not the first to cover the topic, just the most recent. Spending 4 paragraphs telling everyone how bad the author and source without mention of the topic distracts from the article and topic.
Welcome to the game, if you were not playing intentionally you just became a sucker. If you were playing intentionally, well, go find a sand box and pound some.
People have been concerned about Xbox One and it's always on sensor arrays designed for spying. There was a recent report in the Guardian telling us that GCHQ used it to spy on people in Xbox360. There is no reason to believe that the latest will be used any differently, and no reason to believe that what GCHQ does also happens at the NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, etc...
My family is smart enough to have boycotted all versions of the MS consoles. Yeah, we have owned PS2 through PS4 and some people have concerns with those. Most Sony PS concerns relate to the old Sony root kit issues however, and not some always on spytech filming and recording your every move.
If people want a fix to the solution, start boycotting. Remember that a boycott is not just not purchasing something, but actively persuading others to not purchase that same thing. It will take a lot to force change, because there are all these nice back door payments to companies so that they do the wrong thing (yet another Snowden/Guardian piece you should read).
There are a whole 2 people that get their panties in a bundle over my signature, and you are one of them. That signature has been the same for 10 years or so. Go figure.
I am using life sentences as an example; there are lots of prisoners who are not in for life who still feel they have nothing to lose, act on a violent impulse and attack someone, or are just plain crazy. Some of these people have to be separated physically from the main popualtion and guards. I do agree its use should be lessened though.
You should really read some facts and not just repeat what someone tells you. First, the number of prisoners serving "life" is extremely small. Second, there are far more people in prison for non violent offenses than there are for violent crimes, so your statement that all people in prison are crazy and attack people on impulse is simply asinine.
If you really wish to educate yourself and form an educated opinion, start by reading "Three Felonies A Day" and you might begin to comprehend the current system. A huge one to study is the privatization of prisons, were States are required to have prisons at a specific capacity or pay penalties. Then, actually read some statistics about whom is in prison and why they are there. Finally study social economic factors which impact certain populations regarding crime.
In my educated opinion, I would agree that some people can't be rehabilitated. The number of people that involves such a small percentage of prison population you would need a magnifying glass to find it.
At the same time, our current society has a lot of issues economically. Successful rehabilitation requires opportunity which this country simply does not have much of currently.
When an image magically shows up on your bosses desk with an anonymous note claiming that you are a lush that needs to get fired, maybe you will change your tune. Historically this practice is common. Deny evidence all you want, your delusion is not reality.
Punks were generally poor to middle class people who were rebelling against greed a based society and controlling government. So "no" these are not the "new punks". Pretty much the opposite.
Getting the law changed would likely require a new amendment
That is false, it's simply an updated interpretation of the right based on "new" technology.
Welcome to the game of sock puppets. Censor anything anti-whatever by rating it a troll or flame bait, even when well written and articulated. Mod anything pro-whatever insightful and interesting. Turn your ratings slider to -1 and check this thread for how often this occurs and be amazed.
Someone needs to step in and fix the sock puppet modding happening in this thread. This is NOT flame bait.
Absolutely a false analogy. If you start to capture people on video, you should expect people to object. That act is obviously different from simply pulling your phone out and showing it to a friend.
Good to see all the google sock puppet accounts spending their mod points today.
Not really. Buying into fear and hype is not the same thing as understanding something. In fact it is kinda the opposite.
So we have no evidence showing that the NSA is providing any and all data to any agency that may wish to target you? We have no data showing that GCHQ is doing the same thing to the British populace? No evidence showing that Germany is not doing the same to their own,etc..?
Wait, I know. We have no evidence of political corruption in the US. You were never lied to about Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria.
Simplifying the issue down to fear is rubbish. The issue is not simply Google Glass by itself for that matter. The issue is that we are seeing what our Government(s) are doing and have a historical expectation for the end result.
A failure to understand consequences based on historical and empirical evidence is the definition of delusion. Arguing that others don't understand based on that delusion is laughable.
I needed to further quote on what portion of your 3rd world country comment was a fabrication since I offered no clarity and a generalized claim that it is false. Moving money from men to women does not benefit all of society in developing countries. Primarily because the majority of those people live hand to mouth, not even paycheck to paycheck. In that case, there is no such thing as "extra money" or money past basic survival needs. Making such a claim would require all economic situations to be identical, and walking down a street where you live should show how absolutely foolish that would be.
Of course you have to look for the bias to see the bias, so let me give you a couple easy examples to contemplate.
From the first paragraph of the first link you give, the benefit is from money "given" to women versus "given" to men and how it benefits a child's well being. Later they show this with women as HH. This is obviously true, because even in extreme poverty adults will give up their own food to feed a younger child/sibling. This has little to do with money, and more to do with human morality and human nature.
The bias and falsity is further exemplified by the insinuation in that same page that all men will spend money on alcohol and tobacco instead of what a family needs to survive. While surely this happens, what is not described are some fundamentals of human nature and economic situations which should be applied unilaterally.
First, to claim all men do this is absolutely fabricated. Further, if your job is to move piles of crap all day, or work in a mine where you were in constant fear, or work at a site where the boss beats the workers, would you drink? No matter the gender of the person working certain jobs: In developing countries (and "developed countries'), certain types of work lead to people seeking out coping mechanisms such as alcohol/drugs/tobacco. A woman in those places does not work. This means that the claim of "men are worse" is simply a fabrication because there is no data to substantiate such a claim. Further, in developing countries workers are sometimes paid in alcohol or tobacco instead of money. Dubai has had numerous cases by immigrant workers claiming that they have been paid in drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and sometimes they were not paid at all.
To view that concept without the bias look at similarly high stress jobs in places where there is no such gender inequality. Women tend to drink and do drugs just as frequently as men in those circumstances. For a fair comparison, look at addiction levels of military men and women, and you will see no difference in rates of addiction, parental/spousal abuse, neglect, child abuse, etc... Admittedly even those statistics present no true conclusion because men serve in combat roles more frequently than women The conclusion you can come to is much more fair than an invented scenario. Looking at Police or Air Traffic controllers looks more similar to the Military than the invented scenarios in the paper.
Yet another issue with this paper is the presumption that men are simply peeing away money when they are not buying new clothes for the kid (this is the perception they provide, not mine). There are certainly different views on how to invest money into a family, and one is not necessarily better than the other. One parent may try to stash money for a better/new house, while another spends every penny possible on new clothing for the kid. One parent may buy a toy where another buys a fishing pole. One may try to save for a computer where another tries to save for a car.
The point is, the paper makes the assumption that all moneys have to be spent on the child's well being immediately or presumed to be non-existent.
As I pointed out with TFA, if you start with a broken premise the solution will always be broken. These topics are complex, and can not be simplified down to man = bad and women = good answer. Similarly, the issue with jobs is not one of STEM = fabulous and !STEM = bad. One can surely have that belief, but that is not a belief grounded in reality.
I was in part responding to the idea that women get to choose to work lesser hours therefore it's fair they get paid less.
Not to be pedantic, but the wording of this is biased as is the statement in whole. "get to choose" is not the same as "choosing". There are many reasons why women make the choice, and not all of them are because the are free . That said, the "therefore it's fair they get paid less" statement implies that if a [insert race/gender/religion] works 50 hours a week they should make the same amount of money as someone working 40. Is that your true opinion? If so then you should have no problem working 40 hours a week and making the same paycheck as someone working 30, and someone working 20 hours a week would of course follow, as would someone working 10 because they all have circumstances they can present to claim why they should only work X amount of hours a week.
This truly is a liberal viewpoint, but it's not valid for a functional society. You end up with a more extreme version what we have now, a working class and dependent class with aristocrats on top diving up the money of the workers. There is incentive for everyone to do less and less, and society will crumble. Human nature is a bummer sometimes, but it is human nature.
The reasons for this are varied and complex, but a significant part of that is the 'higher paid' STEM roles are seen as unattainable for women more than for men - even given a broad background of socio-economic factors.
This is fabrication with regards to women. If you wish to claim otherwise provide facts, and not an opinion of something being unfair. I have worked in numerous environments and never seen a bias when a women chooses to get an education and degree. General Dynamics, General Motors, Bosch, Hewlett Packard, Ericsson, CSC, EDS, cover many of the companies I have worked for in the last couple decades and none of them refused women when they had the education and skill sets required for a job. Obviously a women without an electrical engineering degree can't get a job as an electrical engineer.
Now, where I said before we could debate and where you may find some truth is in economic circumstances. A women from poverty is just as likely as a man from poverty to get an education and get out of poverty. To be frank, the chances for either are very low. Most will be stuck in the rut but that's not because of gender barriers but because of the economy (or lack thereof) they live in. There is an even chance for both genders to turn to crime, though the crimes will obviously differ. Men have trouble being prostitutes and women have trouble being gun toting thugs, that is a real bias I guess someone could bring up in futility.
Women are more likely to be channeled into nurturing or service roles such as teaching, nursing, childcare or aged care, rather than more lucrative roles such as sales or STEM roles. At the lower end of the economy, they are more likely to be a waitress than a construction worker - guess what pays more. Yes being a construction worker may be more physically demanding - but being on your feet all day waiting tables isn't being slack either. In Australia, tradesmen are some of the best paid people, I can assure you that the 'professions' for working class women are not paid nearly as well, they are likely to be a hairdresser or beauty therapist or a masseuse.
Channeled or choose? Further, you make it sound like anything other than a STEM job is simply cleaning up vomit which is untrue. Nurses, Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, and Pharmacists are shit jobs that nobody wants and nobody can make a living at? Those are just as likely today to be filled by women as men, in fact most pharmacists today are women. Nurses have been women for much longer, and men are generally shunned in that job. I know plenty of women who chose to quit STEM jobs to work in nurturing services because they enjoyed that type of work.
Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!
Exactly, it shouldn't matter.
But that does show up as a problem, and no, it's not just a lack of Amish representation.
Which is why efforts are made to remedy that.
Your claim about a problem and needed remedy is misrepresented, and you didn't use those exact words?
It's possible that you simply were not clear in your post, so were not understood due to the lack of clarity. Your WNBA comment makes me rather skeptical, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not sure I get the point, was it sarcasm? I didn't read anything about how guidance counselors are steering people away, and in truth I think that gender would be the smallest reason for that.
You are arguing something very different than TFA or myself, which is also known as a straw man argument.
If you and I work at the same job, 40 hours a week would our pay be equal? The answer is "yes", in almost all cases it would be equal. Do you and I have equal opportunity for education? Again, in almost all cases the answer will be "yes". If our jobs require an education, do we both have the same opportunity for a job if we have the correct education? Again, you will find the answer is "yes".
I am not claiming that there is no biases mind you, because they certainly exist. When found, they generally go to court and the companies are punished. Most companies don't give any favoritism because of this reason, or they do their damn best to hide it if they do.
Generally the people that don't think highly of education are those in certain income groups, not "women". So while we could surely have a debate on that topic, it has nothing to do with the article or my comments. It's a diversion used to support a claim that is simply not true.
The straw man argument you are making has nothing to do with an employer, and would be better suited to teaching people consequences for their own actions.
Yes, a girl that gets pregnant is going to lack education and have a much harder time finding a good paying job. Whether it's being a doctor, lawyer, programmer, astronomer, etc.. there are consequences for decisions. The boy is not as bad off, but will be paying child support as soon as he is of age and his parents will be paying until he's of age. Courts are completely unfair in most cases, seeing the father as an income source for the women instead of being a father and the women as a victim no matter the circumstances. The latter may sound harsh, but I know women accused of abuse that received custody over 'that dirty man' that wanted custody and feared for the kids. Those kids often die or end up on the street, so there are victims on both sides of that debate.
There are plenty of great debates to have, but very little of it deals with how "women are losing out on lucrative programming jobs". First, the jobs are rarely that lucrative. Most importantly women choose not to be programmers, and I see absolutely no issue with that.
First, not addressed to you.. is that people with MOD points need to read the rules for spending mod points. If you can't follow the rules don't use them.
Generally and to your points now, I'm referring to studies that were done by several credible sources, as well as a link I give above to how the information that the pay scale of 77c on a dollar is simply wrong. They are all searchable, but don't receive air time because people benefit more from spreading fabricated and false information.
I've never regularly worked a 60+ hour week - that's exploitation, not programming. I can think of just a few such weeks in my whole career, times when I had dropped the ball and needed to bust my ass out of simple professionalism.
These day's it's just as common for men as women in the field to have "hard stops" for when they must leave the office - one parent "drops off", the other "picks up" and the latter, male or female, is gone by 5 unless something is actually on fire. Every place I've worked for the past 10 years has respected that.
I agree that most companies respect your hard stops. My point was that during my 20s and early 30s I used to work 60+ hours a week to get ahead (before I became a father). I don't know many women that did the same thing. It was my choice to work more, and I received extra for doing it. I don't hold it against anyone for not doing the same thing, and actually regret some of those decisions. Getting ahead at companies that no longer exist due to buy outs and mergers has not made me incredibly wealthy.
At the same time, that statistic is used to falsely claim that women make way less money than men. Comparing a promotion rate or income based on disparate hours worked is foolish, yet this is how they come up with these bogus numbers. Studies that don't back TFA's argument clearly show that when things are compared on even footing, this alleged gap in pay mostly disappears. Claiming there is no bias is foolish, and that's not my claim. My claim is that the "women are losing" is false statement and there are numerous ways we can show my claim to be true without fudging numbers.
I think there was a historical shortage because more men than women were willing to be social outcasts, as was once more-or-less required to learn programming. But thankfully society has changed, and for whatever reason I'm seeing women interviewing for entry-level programming positions who are there out of sheer geeky interest, drawn into coding from robotics or EE or similar non-CS backgrounds. Never seen that before, and it's a great sign.
I'm **erm** close to 50. I don't remember a time when I heard anything regarding "women can't". I also don't remember seeing a sign "no [insert race/religion/gender/sexual orientation]". That does not mean those things didn't happen, but that when they did they were not "normal". Sure, I saw teachers give favoritism to boys for math and home economics for women. We still had the same classes however, and one of the best partners I ever had in woodshop was a girl.
The issue I have with TFA and other such articles (I view as trash) is that they are at a minimum grossly distorting facts. That means that any solution you come up with (if one is needed) is also grossly distorted. I have known a lot of gay men in my life, and most of them wanted to get into cosmetology and fashion. That was their choice for numerous reasons, and I don't see anyone claiming "Gay people should be [this profession]" and trying to come up with ways of coercing them into that field..
But that does show up as a problem, and no, it's not just a lack of Amish representation.
Which is why efforts are made to remedy that.
What problem? The one that the article falsely claims? TFA starts with a false premise, and then repeats a fabricated statistic as propaganda. Here is a link to a set of data that disagrees with the idea that women make less money than men. I'm not claiming that there are no differences, but the differences are minor. It's not .77c on the dollar as people try and claim for propaganda, reality says it's much much closer. Sure, we can always improve but if the 'problem' is distorted then the solution will also be distorted.
You are arguing that a person should not have a choice because your liberal viewpoint is that everything should be equal all the time. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Utopia does not exist and people won't do something simply because -you- and people of a similar belief want them to. Many times, the forcing of behavior has the opposite effect in fact (basic psychology, read a book). Further, society can't function if everyone is in a technical field. We need doctors, plumbers, welders, farmers, and many people want to perform those roles in society and not be pigeon holed into what -you- want them to do.
Ask the basic required questions, and these would be true for any claim of bias or discrimination (gender, race, religion):
1. Do the people have the same opportunities to education? I'm pretty sure we can state that the system is pretty fair, not perfect, but fair. If they have the same opportunities for education then they could get into the same line of work if they so choose unless there are barriers to entry in the field. This is why we have so many women doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, etc..
2. Do they have opportunity for employment? I work with a lot of women programmers, most of them are originally from China and Russia, so you would have to show me proof that there are entry barriers to employment for women. If you have knowledge and skill, you get jobs even if your English is not so good and you may have difficulty in communicating.
3. Does society discourage them from working in these fields? Again, you need to show me proof that this is happening. I have not seen any advertising or articles talking about how poor a specific gender, race, or religion is in any field since I was a kid. Anything that would even hint at a bias today would end up in court extremely quickly. I'm sure you could dig up a company that was found guilty of discrimination in recent times, but that company would be an anomaly and not a 'normal' company with what society considered acceptable practice.
If those questions are answered "yes", "yes", and "no", then it's possible that people are just choosing not to do certain jobs. Why not let them make up their minds about their careers instead of trying to force them to be what you want them to be? What I find very ironic is that most people will tell you today that if you want to make an excellent living, you go into welding or plumbing because there are real shortages there. But that's not what -you- want them to do.