We have to step through a brief history lesson for this one..
This is the consequence of sending everyone to College.
The point in sending masses to college was to have a well educated public. Read Plato's The Republic and you will see that even 2,500 years ago Socrates knew that the only way for a society to succeed and be fair for everyone is by having a public with the best education possible. Some people would only be intelligent enough to be farmers, but everyone should learn as much as they possibly can. Back in the early/mid 1900s the public was sold a bill of goods here if the US Government controlled education we would have such a great public. But the people in power knew that a well educated public is also a danger to an elitist group who want's to control everything. So while the portion of the vision where the Government took over was done, and the amount of schools and universities increased. The quality of the education was diluted to the point it is today, where as the person above said I see people with BA degrees that can't perform basic math without a calculator and college students are demanding and being given "safe" spaces to hide from opinions they may not agree with instead of being able to debate a subject intellectually.
Some people are smarter the others.
Sure, some people are naturally smarter than others. That said, without the right education people can be convinced they are smart while in reality they are dumb as rocks too. The appeal to intellect has been very effective at turning our current "education" system into the shambles it is. With a good education system, even the lowest intellects can become extremely important members of a cohesive society.
College used to be the cream of the crop.
Nope. College used to be the cream of the wealthy ensuring they stayed that way (or putting in as much effort as possible to do so). College was never a fair place to go, and there was no testing among the public to see who was bright. If you farmed dirt you stayed a dirt farmer. If your family had wealth you went to college and got into the family business or politics. Hell, most of Isaac Newton's life was being a politician, or ass kissing to get there.
Now it's just a representation of the population in general.
People today have a crap education, so the fact that everyone one means very little. A few are going to get the most of their education and catch on to the game (if they can afford the right schools), but the majority won't. This is not very different than the days where only the wealthy went to college.
Actually no to your guess at my thought process in all regards. What is wrong with all of the above is simple: Society needs to feed itself. If we bring in cheap labor society as a whole drops and suffers and the standard of living drops. We have already seen this extensively hit the US Middle Class. What is wrong with the ultra wealthy is that they should not exist in any fashion which allows them to manipulate the majority of the populace and reduce their living standards to have more stuff.
Read Plato's The Republic and you will find a discussion about the artisan and how much he gets paid. That people with wealth manipulate and cause harm to get more is not some new novel thing, it's happened for at least 2,600 years. Socrates had a remedy in the Republic, and the founders tried to implement the idea. Corruption has taken us backward and we lean more toward nobles and serfs today, compared to just 20 years ago. Let alone 30, 40, 50, 60, you get the idea.
Teaching someone to do "algebra" does not make them a "mathematician."
Programming is not a base level skill, and making such a comparison is idiotic. Your next statement demonstrates that you know better, but you are not extrapolating your own thoughts.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think most people are arguing that exposing kids to programming makes them a software engineer.
Straw man, but you are almost making my point in your attempt to look knowledgeable. Kids today are not learning critical thinking, they are learning how to take tests and remember what people tell them. Facts don't matter, doing exactly what you are told matters. "Programming" is not some savior in a completely broken education system, and it will only make things worse.
We don't toss kids into genetic engineering classes because the kids lack the basic knowledge to understand it or use it. We don't toss 3rd graders into Calculus for the same reason. For some reason you, and other people, think that programming covers a magical divide. In reality, programming can only work with knowledge you already have so teaching it young is harmful. Kids lack wisdom, and that is the point social engineers enjoy.
I realize that some social engineers want this done, and that certain agencies make money selling the fantasy (media). Teaching someone to code does not make them a programmer. No, it does not make them a better person. No, it does not make them responsible or moral. What it does do is try to flood the market with cheap labor, and make a zombie force that can't think very well for themselves.
Just say "NO" to social engineers working for the ultra wealthy!
Doctor and Lawyer salaries are through the roof because those are two of very few jobs that can not be outsourced to a third world country. If Blue Cross could ship you to Haiti for a 40c an hour doctor you don't think they would?
Welcome to the "Global Economy". You have heard all about it I'm sure, and how great it is. A real Utopia where everyone benefits. Assuming of course you are already extremely wealthy, because the rest of the people are expendable. As long as a company can stay afloat using dirt cheap labor, they will. Zuckerberg won the lottery, nothing more. That is your shot to getting out of the cesspool we are creating by complacently watching the government be run by the same people profiteering.
History is cyclical, we have seen this all before. The same result will come eventually, because people never learn to learn from history.
DoD work is supposed to be air gaped when classified. Sure, there is a difference between military contractors and Government. Guess which ones give up information? Not the guys building the military gear, because they are held accountable for their actions.
Early on in computers everyone who could use a computer was considered technical. Accountants and Bookkeepers using Lotus 123 were called "Technical". Secretaries that could use Word Perfect were "High Tech". People who learned these things were learning "High Tech" and "Computers". If you cherry pick history to fit a narrative you are an idiot, but SJWs like you do it all the time..Grats on being one of those.
Are you suggesting that one should fight a mugger because they're likely to attack you anyway?
You invented a statement that I never made, and then defended your fake argument with a personal anecdote. Topping that off, you claim I need to give citation when I never made a claim that a person should be fighting a mugger. YOU DID! What I did state is that believing you are not going to be harmed by a criminal because you gave in to their criminal demand is irrational. There is more than one option.
And by way of personal anecdote I come from Detroit where giving a mugger money shows them that you have some, and they thump you down looking for more. That same behavior is well known in most of South America and Asia as well.
I'm not sure who told them that the best plan was to attempt to pay criminals not to be... well, criminals. Call Law enforcement, and make arrangements with companies that mitigate these attacks? Absolutely, and the latter may cost a few bucks. But paying out a blackmail threat is about as foolish as it gets.
Hell, even small time crimes rarely benefit from appeasing a threat. Plenty of people have given an attacker cash on demand, only to find themselves waking up in a hospital few hours later missing their belongings and a few teeth. The most unlucky of that bunch ended up raped, or dead.
Never trust a criminal! If their morality allows them to bend you over once, somehow believing they won't do it twice is completely irrational.
Prove a negative based on a complete fabrication? Come now, you can't really be that slow. There was no "drop" in the 80s with women and computers, facts do not back up this fantasy. Given that, I guess you can really be that slow.
You can't be that bad at English, but I'll bite one more time.
Over time they've come to dominate most professional fields and upper-management, and you'll now see more in most science classes (e.g. Biology, Chemistry) than men. Basically, most of higher-education is female-dominated, which to me is a huge advantage. But still they lag in Engineering and CS. I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why.
Women have come to dominate most fields and upper management, and most of higher education. But they lag in Engineering and CS. (Your words). Which even if true I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. just claimed that the reason they lag is due to some magical preference keeping women out.
You closed that with So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why." which means there is a problem, and of course the answer will be uncomfortable to people, which negates any attempt you could have of falsely claiming "I meant the woman's preferences, not the institutions".
I left it open-ended as to the reasons. I can buy that gender differences are in play, but that's all anecdotal and tends to backfire as an argument. It would be interesting to see a study tracing work preferences to genetics or brain chemistry.
In this paragraph you attempt to "blame" other external reasons for your allegation that there is some magical "cause" and external reason that women are not in a particular field. This reinforces your statements above and is simply a slick coating of paint over the normal propaganda crap. It still stinks!
If you refuse to own up to your own text and the opinion which you have repeatedly demonstrated, you are simply a troll.
I quoted you directly. If you misspoke then re-write the paragraph with what you intended originally and I will be happy to re-evaluate. As written, you are repeating propaganda in a sneaky way (possibly unintentionally)
You keep repeating the same exact propaganda over and over in different posts, and anyone doing even a cursory study of recent history should be able to tell you how wrong you are. Men did not come back and just take those jobs away. Women were not working because the technology you take for granted did not exist. Sure, the advent of canned vegetables was there but we had no cheap restaurants or fast food. There were no good disposable diapers, cheap baby formula, fast food restaurants, cheap clothing, etc.. etc.. etc... Good grief man, read a damn book or something! Go look up the growth and dominance of fast food. It did not start until the 70s, and not the early 70s either.
Pizza when I was a kid cost as much as a week of groceries. We had 1 "fast food" place when I was in elementary school called "Burger Chef" and it was expensive too. Mom sewed and knitted because clothing was expensive. People had cloth diaper services because disposable diapers were expensive, bulky, and seen as wasteful. The Grocery store was mostly fruits and vegetables, with a whopping 3 or 4 flavors of instant cereal which people thought was for either the most wealthy or most destitute.
Women worked because their families were poor and they needed the income. You would hear things like "That poor lady has to work because her husband can't make a good enough living to support his family." "Going to work" was not a sign of status or sign of success by any stretch of the imagination. You are brainwashed into believing not just a reality that does not exist, but that living your life serving someone else is "success".
Think really hard about how you respond, if you believe you can possibly argue your delusion. Facts, something that certain people hate, are essential to a good debate.
But still they lag in Engineering and CS. I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why.
What complete horse shit. There are no barriers to entry in any job field for women. In fact today we have women getting jobs because of the qualifier "woman".
For 40 years women have been receiving preferential treatment in Education. Women receive more funding, more scholarships, and have been receiving far more degrees than men because of Gender, yet people continue to bleat how "men are biased" because that's what people tell them. It is really not that hard to check facts. As a single and simple example here is a list of available scholarships. "Men" doing anything becomes "patriarchy" and evil so we can't.
This really makes no sense. If an American citizen isn't protected by the U.S. Constitution when anywhere then they can't be bound by it either.
This has been the case for quite some time but people are slow to figure things out. Assuming you have enough power in the US, you can break a whole lot of laws and never be brought up on charges. With no power, you are jailed for carrying a small amount of marijuana for personal consumption. In rare cases you might be killed for selling loose cigarettes.
While my comment may seem very broad, it is intentionally worded that way. The FBI is fine breaking the Constitution, as is the NSA, as is DHS and the TSA, as is the CIA, as is some State and Local Police, as is some Sheriffs. Even when they are caught they lie and business tends to go back to the way it just was. More and more people are figuring this out and questioning the double standard, and it helps that the abuse has been increasing as well.
How do you make money to keep the project going? Well, you have to have some give and take (*cough* yahoo default search engine *cough*).
Firefox has ~10% market share and is not installed as a default in Windows, IOS, OSX, or Android. Google does not recommend it every time you run a search on a non Chrome browser either. 10% is pretty damn good all things considered.
The doom and gloom claim is simply wrong. Sure, they may leverage some technology better than others but moving to the point it's not relevant? Last I checked, Steve Balmer as not running them into the ground too. (sorry, easy MS shot and I took it)
Sounds like they are implementing lots of features I saw in Solaris over a decade ago. Sure, it's a browser instead of an OS but.... Well, I'l give it a look just like I did with Sun's uber desktop.
A candidate needs 1% to be in a debate, but can't get any national coverage because they are not in the debate.
That is such an obvious logic problem you have to hurt yourself in order to avoid it. We have not even gotten to the point of being over a year before the election. You know how we keep hearing that "it's a long time until election day and Trump and Carson could still lose the nomination"? Well the wey to prevent that would be to omit people from the discussion to begin with.
The FCC makes money by fining people when they slip, not by putting them out of business. The FCC does not "notice" either, they field complaints from people and verify complaints after the fact. Which should tell you why Radio Stations record everything.. they have to by law.
That is not to defend the FCC or Chinese broadcasting. I figure it remained on the air because exposing it may cause people to question the US propaganda machine.
The ignorant one is the person who attempts to claim the exception is the rule, as you just did. I used the US as my example because the majority of people on this site are from the US. My same example would work all over the Middle East, where there is no warning about bombs. Just bombs.
Next time you wish to appear intelligent make sure it's not by making false claims fallacy arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
We have to step through a brief history lesson for this one..
This is the consequence of sending everyone to College.
The point in sending masses to college was to have a well educated public. Read Plato's The Republic and you will see that even 2,500 years ago Socrates knew that the only way for a society to succeed and be fair for everyone is by having a public with the best education possible. Some people would only be intelligent enough to be farmers, but everyone should learn as much as they possibly can. Back in the early/mid 1900s the public was sold a bill of goods here if the US Government controlled education we would have such a great public. But the people in power knew that a well educated public is also a danger to an elitist group who want's to control everything. So while the portion of the vision where the Government took over was done, and the amount of schools and universities increased. The quality of the education was diluted to the point it is today, where as the person above said I see people with BA degrees that can't perform basic math without a calculator and college students are demanding and being given "safe" spaces to hide from opinions they may not agree with instead of being able to debate a subject intellectually.
Some people are smarter the others.
Sure, some people are naturally smarter than others. That said, without the right education people can be convinced they are smart while in reality they are dumb as rocks too. The appeal to intellect has been very effective at turning our current "education" system into the shambles it is. With a good education system, even the lowest intellects can become extremely important members of a cohesive society.
College used to be the cream of the crop.
Nope. College used to be the cream of the wealthy ensuring they stayed that way (or putting in as much effort as possible to do so). College was never a fair place to go, and there was no testing among the public to see who was bright. If you farmed dirt you stayed a dirt farmer. If your family had wealth you went to college and got into the family business or politics. Hell, most of Isaac Newton's life was being a politician, or ass kissing to get there.
Now it's just a representation of the population in general.
People today have a crap education, so the fact that everyone one means very little. A few are going to get the most of their education and catch on to the game (if they can afford the right schools), but the majority won't. This is not very different than the days where only the wealthy went to college.
Pepperoni is mostly pork, I have no idea why people have missed that so far.
Actually no to your guess at my thought process in all regards. What is wrong with all of the above is simple: Society needs to feed itself. If we bring in cheap labor society as a whole drops and suffers and the standard of living drops. We have already seen this extensively hit the US Middle Class. What is wrong with the ultra wealthy is that they should not exist in any fashion which allows them to manipulate the majority of the populace and reduce their living standards to have more stuff.
Read Plato's The Republic and you will find a discussion about the artisan and how much he gets paid. That people with wealth manipulate and cause harm to get more is not some new novel thing, it's happened for at least 2,600 years. Socrates had a remedy in the Republic, and the founders tried to implement the idea. Corruption has taken us backward and we lean more toward nobles and serfs today, compared to just 20 years ago. Let alone 30, 40, 50, 60, you get the idea.
Teaching someone to do "algebra" does not make them a "mathematician."
Programming is not a base level skill, and making such a comparison is idiotic. Your next statement demonstrates that you know better, but you are not extrapolating your own thoughts.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think most people are arguing that exposing kids to programming makes them a software engineer.
Straw man, but you are almost making my point in your attempt to look knowledgeable. Kids today are not learning critical thinking, they are learning how to take tests and remember what people tell them. Facts don't matter, doing exactly what you are told matters. "Programming" is not some savior in a completely broken education system, and it will only make things worse.
We don't toss kids into genetic engineering classes because the kids lack the basic knowledge to understand it or use it. We don't toss 3rd graders into Calculus for the same reason. For some reason you, and other people, think that programming covers a magical divide. In reality, programming can only work with knowledge you already have so teaching it young is harmful. Kids lack wisdom, and that is the point social engineers enjoy.
I realize that some social engineers want this done, and that certain agencies make money selling the fantasy (media). Teaching someone to code does not make them a programmer. No, it does not make them a better person. No, it does not make them responsible or moral. What it does do is try to flood the market with cheap labor, and make a zombie force that can't think very well for themselves.
Just say "NO" to social engineers working for the ultra wealthy!
Doctor and Lawyer salaries are through the roof because those are two of very few jobs that can not be outsourced to a third world country. If Blue Cross could ship you to Haiti for a 40c an hour doctor you don't think they would?
Welcome to the "Global Economy". You have heard all about it I'm sure, and how great it is. A real Utopia where everyone benefits. Assuming of course you are already extremely wealthy, because the rest of the people are expendable. As long as a company can stay afloat using dirt cheap labor, they will. Zuckerberg won the lottery, nothing more. That is your shot to getting out of the cesspool we are creating by complacently watching the government be run by the same people profiteering.
History is cyclical, we have seen this all before. The same result will come eventually, because people never learn to learn from history.
DoD work is supposed to be air gaped when classified. Sure, there is a difference between military contractors and Government. Guess which ones give up information? Not the guys building the military gear, because they are held accountable for their actions.
COMPUTER SCIENCE WAS LOTUS 1-2-3 AND WORDPERFECT. Stop trolling and do some fucking homework.
Early on in computers everyone who could use a computer was considered technical. Accountants and Bookkeepers using Lotus 123 were called "Technical". Secretaries that could use Word Perfect were "High Tech". People who learned these things were learning "High Tech" and "Computers". If you cherry pick history to fit a narrative you are an idiot, but SJWs like you do it all the time. .Grats on being one of those.
Are you suggesting that one should fight a mugger because they're likely to attack you anyway?
You invented a statement that I never made, and then defended your fake argument with a personal anecdote. Topping that off, you claim I need to give citation when I never made a claim that a person should be fighting a mugger. YOU DID! What I did state is that believing you are not going to be harmed by a criminal because you gave in to their criminal demand is irrational. There is more than one option.
And by way of personal anecdote I come from Detroit where giving a mugger money shows them that you have some, and they thump you down looking for more. That same behavior is well known in most of South America and Asia as well.
I'm not sure who told them that the best plan was to attempt to pay criminals not to be... well, criminals. Call Law enforcement, and make arrangements with companies that mitigate these attacks? Absolutely, and the latter may cost a few bucks. But paying out a blackmail threat is about as foolish as it gets.
Hell, even small time crimes rarely benefit from appeasing a threat. Plenty of people have given an attacker cash on demand, only to find themselves waking up in a hospital few hours later missing their belongings and a few teeth. The most unlucky of that bunch ended up raped, or dead.
Never trust a criminal! If their morality allows them to bend you over once, somehow believing they won't do it twice is completely irrational.
Prove a negative based on a complete fabrication? Come now, you can't really be that slow. There was no "drop" in the 80s with women and computers, facts do not back up this fantasy. Given that, I guess you can really be that slow.
You can't be that bad at English, but I'll bite one more time.
Over time they've come to dominate most professional fields and upper-management, and you'll now see more in most science classes (e.g. Biology, Chemistry) than men. Basically, most of higher-education is female-dominated, which to me is a huge advantage. But still they lag in Engineering and CS. I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why.
Women have come to dominate most fields and upper management, and most of higher education. But they lag in Engineering and CS. (Your words). Which even if true I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. just claimed that the reason they lag is due to some magical preference keeping women out.
You closed that with So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why." which means there is a problem, and of course the answer will be uncomfortable to people, which negates any attempt you could have of falsely claiming "I meant the woman's preferences, not the institutions".
I left it open-ended as to the reasons. I can buy that gender differences are in play, but that's all anecdotal and tends to backfire as an argument. It would be interesting to see a study tracing work preferences to genetics or brain chemistry.
In this paragraph you attempt to "blame" other external reasons for your allegation that there is some magical "cause" and external reason that women are not in a particular field. This reinforces your statements above and is simply a slick coating of paint over the normal propaganda crap. It still stinks!
If you refuse to own up to your own text and the opinion which you have repeatedly demonstrated, you are simply a troll.
I quoted you directly. If you misspoke then re-write the paragraph with what you intended originally and I will be happy to re-evaluate. As written, you are repeating propaganda in a sneaky way (possibly unintentionally)
You keep repeating the same exact propaganda over and over in different posts, and anyone doing even a cursory study of recent history should be able to tell you how wrong you are. Men did not come back and just take those jobs away. Women were not working because the technology you take for granted did not exist. Sure, the advent of canned vegetables was there but we had no cheap restaurants or fast food. There were no good disposable diapers, cheap baby formula, fast food restaurants, cheap clothing, etc.. etc.. etc... Good grief man, read a damn book or something! Go look up the growth and dominance of fast food. It did not start until the 70s, and not the early 70s either.
Pizza when I was a kid cost as much as a week of groceries. We had 1 "fast food" place when I was in elementary school called "Burger Chef" and it was expensive too. Mom sewed and knitted because clothing was expensive. People had cloth diaper services because disposable diapers were expensive, bulky, and seen as wasteful. The Grocery store was mostly fruits and vegetables, with a whopping 3 or 4 flavors of instant cereal which people thought was for either the most wealthy or most destitute.
Women worked because their families were poor and they needed the income. You would hear things like "That poor lady has to work because her husband can't make a good enough living to support his family." "Going to work" was not a sign of status or sign of success by any stretch of the imagination. You are brainwashed into believing not just a reality that does not exist, but that living your life serving someone else is "success".
Think really hard about how you respond, if you believe you can possibly argue your delusion. Facts, something that certain people hate, are essential to a good debate.
But still they lag in Engineering and CS. I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why.
What complete horse shit. There are no barriers to entry in any job field for women. In fact today we have women getting jobs because of the qualifier "woman".
For 40 years women have been receiving preferential treatment in Education. Women receive more funding, more scholarships, and have been receiving far more degrees than men because of Gender, yet people continue to bleat how "men are biased" because that's what people tell them. It is really not that hard to check facts. As a single and simple example here is a list of available scholarships. "Men" doing anything becomes "patriarchy" and evil so we can't.
This really makes no sense. If an American citizen isn't protected by the U.S. Constitution when anywhere then they can't be bound by it either.
This has been the case for quite some time but people are slow to figure things out. Assuming you have enough power in the US, you can break a whole lot of laws and never be brought up on charges. With no power, you are jailed for carrying a small amount of marijuana for personal consumption. In rare cases you might be killed for selling loose cigarettes.
While my comment may seem very broad, it is intentionally worded that way. The FBI is fine breaking the Constitution, as is the NSA, as is DHS and the TSA, as is the CIA, as is some State and Local Police, as is some Sheriffs. Even when they are caught they lie and business tends to go back to the way it just was. More and more people are figuring this out and questioning the double standard, and it helps that the abuse has been increasing as well.
When FF had 50% of the market there were 2.1 Browsers being used. I.E., Firefox, and Opera.
How do you make money to keep the project going? Well, you have to have some give and take (*cough* yahoo default search engine *cough*).
Firefox has ~10% market share and is not installed as a default in Windows, IOS, OSX, or Android. Google does not recommend it every time you run a search on a non Chrome browser either. 10% is pretty damn good all things considered.
The doom and gloom claim is simply wrong. Sure, they may leverage some technology better than others but moving to the point it's not relevant? Last I checked, Steve Balmer as not running them into the ground too. (sorry, easy MS shot and I took it)
Sounds like they are implementing lots of features I saw in Solaris over a decade ago. Sure, it's a browser instead of an OS but.... Well, I'l give it a look just like I did with Sun's uber desktop.
A candidate needs 1% to be in a debate, but can't get any national coverage because they are not in the debate.
That is such an obvious logic problem you have to hurt yourself in order to avoid it. We have not even gotten to the point of being over a year before the election. You know how we keep hearing that "it's a long time until election day and Trump and Carson could still lose the nomination"? Well the wey to prevent that would be to omit people from the discussion to begin with.
The FCC makes money by fining people when they slip, not by putting them out of business. The FCC does not "notice" either, they field complaints from people and verify complaints after the fact. Which should tell you why Radio Stations record everything.. they have to by law.
That is not to defend the FCC or Chinese broadcasting. I figure it remained on the air because exposing it may cause people to question the US propaganda machine.
Are you, perchance, referring to the Department of Redundancy Department (DRD)?
Isn't the DRD the oversight on the RDR?
The ignorant one is the person who attempts to claim the exception is the rule, as you just did. I used the US as my example because the majority of people on this site are from the US. My same example would work all over the Middle East, where there is no warning about bombs. Just bombs.
Next time you wish to appear intelligent make sure it's not by making false claims fallacy arguments.
That person from the redundant Department of Redundancy again?