Because if you telecommute it's your own machine that's set-up properly. If it's a work computer it's crippled with unnecessary junk that you can't change because you're not an administrator on the machine.
I used to have one of those. Gosh, that brings back memories. In fact, I think it's still under the stairs at my parents place, I'll have to get it out and... I'm sorry, is anybody still reading this?
So, in summary: Science/technology is more valuable than art to cash hungry universities.
This sucks. Why should science/technology students not benefit from our creativity in the same way as those in the humanities? It almost seems like a denial of the value of creative input in technological disciplines.
The article says the proteins were correcting any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations, constantly restoring the chain to working order. If this is true I do not expect to see larger penises as the result.
In fact, given the brain-penis balance displayed by your post the proteins should be working to reduce your penis size.
Necrophilia is a crime in many places, so clearly enough people want to have sex with the dead for it to be illegal. Or maybe they just do it because it is illegal - those rebels! Hmm...
I so agree with you. Galaga is my favourite game of all time. I could spend hours playing it.
Why? It's about the intensity of concentration. Give me two dimensions, a joystick, and a maximum of two buttons and my attention is completely consumed. With just two things to concentrate on - avoid and shoot - everything else just melts away and it's me and the game.
For some reason CutoutDissection.com's name is given incorrectly in the/. article. On more than one occasion she is referred to as Jennifer Thornburg or derivations of such. I've corrected the body of the article and placed it below:
.
19-year-old CutoutDissection.com has changed her name to CutoutDissection.com, to protest animal dissections in schools. CutoutDissection says she began opposing dissections in middle school after a class assignment to cut up a chicken wing made her uncomfortable. She is of course interning for PETA, since no teenager could think up an idea this stupid on their own without a team of people helping..com said, "I normally do have to repeat my name several times when I am introducing myself to someone new. Once they find out what my name is, they want to know more about what the Web site is about."
I have next to no knowledge in this area but this seems strange to me. How can they buy what the guy/girl has already contributed? If it's already committed to the project doesn't it fall under the BSD license?
The group working at Cambridge has a detailed description: http://www-sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/mirror.php3
I was a little surprised to read this as being new. Although the He microscope, as it is envisioned, has not yet been built, the Cambridge group has been working on the idea for a while. I'm not sure how much of an improvement the techniques of the group in the story are - for producing flat mirrors - than what is already being used at Cambridge. The Si surfaces they use are already pretty flat. As far as I understood it the most critical area for development was the detector.
I think these are the type of ponies that we're most likely to see on/. http://borgpony.deviantart.com/ I wonder if it's what his wife would like to see though.
For the record I'm in Australia. I did a BSc. with majors in Physics and Chemistry. M:F in Physics = 20:1, M:F in Chemistry about 1:1. But Organic/Environmental Chemistry subjects = 35:65, Physical Chemistry 70:30! Even within the field of Chemistry that is considered (apparently) acceptable equally to men and women there is a disparity of interest.
As physical scientists we never consider that we have too many artificially interested men because we need more physical scientists total.
I think increasingly parents see shaping the interests of their sons and daughters as the way to ensure that they maintain their identity as men and women respectively in a gender-equal society. This is having an increasingly negative effect on boys, since women have (rightly) diversified in the last half century; parents see the only way of ensuring their sons' masculinity as pushing them into increasing a narrower selection of masculine jobs. This in turn skews the numbers in those fields so that it looks as if fewer women are involved.
That is an effect we need to consider more than we do. But the positive approach of having science appeal more to girls is also valid.
So why do we care? How about because working in an environment that is heavily populated by one particular gender is not healthy socially (as should be obvious to any casual reader of comments on/.). This is especially true in fields that are populated by those that love the subject rather than for reasons of economy, because your self-esteem is greatly affected if you feel the thing you love isn't understood/appreciated by one gender. If it's your gender who doesn't appreciate what you do, that's bad for making friends/your position in your peer group. If it's the opposite gender that doesn't appreciate what you do that's bad for... well I think it's obvious... like I said your self-esteem.
I agree with one respondent who said we needed to fix the problem at the source. Well, how do we do that? We need to expose both genders to as broad as possible a variety of activities from as early an age as possible. And be encouraging about it! Also, we need to fix the portrayal of stereotypes in popular media. Advertising is increasingly being shown to be a major contributor of the obesity crisis. Junk-food companies marketing to children are having significant success. When you have 30s to market your product, you don't have time to break down gender stereotypes. In fact using them makes it easier to find your target demographic - but think of the harm this is doing! Next bunch of ads, see how many examples there are of men/women in non-traditional areas. So, of course kids see this and it doesn't register with them that this portrayal is biased, it becomes part of their perception of the world. To fix that particular problem is going to require some complex regulatory oversight of advertising.
We also need real-life role models, this is where quotas actually can have some positive effect, however I agree with the majority of respondents that have raised concerns about other negative effect quotas can have. Scholarships for the best and brightest are more positive. Perhaps just hi-lighting the achievements some women have made would be helpful.
As an interesting aside let's talk about Marie Curie. She's the only scientist to ever win 2 Nobel prizes, she was a hero during War time driving an ambulance to get X-ray technology to the front. She overcame great obstacles to even attend school, and having read her biography I can tell you she was a wonderful, interesting character. So then why is there no big budget movie about her life? I reckon it's because Hollywood (and the film industry generally) don't know what to do with this non-traditional woman, they can't deal with a woman who shunned glamour! (Marie actually insisted that if her family were going to buy her a wedding dress, then it had to be something she could wear in the lab. She sulked the entire shopping trip and eventually ended up with a navy blue dress t
Slashdot Mirror
Because if you telecommute it's your own machine that's set-up properly. If it's a work computer it's crippled with unnecessary junk that you can't change because you're not an administrator on the machine.
I used to have one of those. Gosh, that brings back memories. In fact, I think it's still under the stairs at my parents place, I'll have to get it out and... I'm sorry, is anybody still reading this?
Just leave the computer on. The boss will get the message eventually.
George Jetson was paid the whole day just to press a button to start the plant in the morning and shut it down before he went home. Same thing.
If a fictional cartoon character from the future can get paid for that, then I don't see why I can't be too.
I feel you're pain.
Why am I not surprised that the makers of Groupwise are communist sympathisers.
So, in summary: Science/technology is more valuable than art to cash hungry universities.
This sucks. Why should science/technology students not benefit from our creativity in the same way as those in the humanities? It almost seems like a denial of the value of creative input in technological disciplines.
Nor even in my children since eggs are all created at a young age.
If you are looking at increasing your penis size I'm guessing you are male. So I don't see what eggs have to do with it.
The article says the proteins were correcting any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations, constantly restoring the chain to working order. If this is true I do not expect to see larger penises as the result. In fact, given the brain-penis balance displayed by your post the proteins should be working to reduce your penis size.
Necrophilia is a crime in many places, so clearly enough people want to have sex with the dead for it to be illegal. Or maybe they just do it because it is illegal - those rebels! Hmm...
I so agree with you. Galaga is my favourite game of all time. I could spend hours playing it.
Why? It's about the intensity of concentration. Give me two dimensions, a joystick, and a maximum of two buttons and my attention is completely consumed. With just two things to concentrate on - avoid and shoot - everything else just melts away and it's me and the game.
That's a lot of work just on A Hard Day's Night. He must be working like a dog.
A bit hard. I hear he's sleeping like a log.
Pop stars seem to be taking their clothes off younger and younger these days.
.
19-year-old CutoutDissection.com has changed her name to CutoutDissection.com, to protest animal dissections in schools. CutoutDissection says she began opposing dissections in middle school after a class assignment to cut up a chicken wing made her uncomfortable. She is of course interning for PETA, since no teenager could think up an idea this stupid on their own without a team of people helping. .com said, "I normally do have to repeat my name several times when I am introducing myself to someone new. Once they find out what my name is, they want to know more about what the Web site is about."
Why would you even conduct a study with only 40 people? It's not like they had to do more than an hour of looking at cars and filling in a survey.
This is a shocking idea. You have heard of the Goa'uld right?
I have next to no knowledge in this area but this seems strange to me. How can they buy what the guy/girl has already contributed? If it's already committed to the project doesn't it fall under the BSD license?
The group working at Cambridge has a detailed description: http://www-sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/mirror.php3 I was a little surprised to read this as being new. Although the He microscope, as it is envisioned, has not yet been built, the Cambridge group has been working on the idea for a while. I'm not sure how much of an improvement the techniques of the group in the story are - for producing flat mirrors - than what is already being used at Cambridge. The Si surfaces they use are already pretty flat. As far as I understood it the most critical area for development was the detector.
As soon as I conquer my fear of virtual drowning I'll walk that plank.
I think these are the type of ponies that we're most likely to see on /. http://borgpony.deviantart.com/ I wonder if it's what his wife would like to see though.
I like the white on green. Just cause you're a geek doesn't mean you can't have an appreciation of aesthetics.
I should have added ...and not with some tacky quota system.
For the record I'm in Australia. I did a BSc. with majors in Physics and Chemistry. M:F in Physics = 20:1, M:F in Chemistry about 1:1. But Organic/Environmental Chemistry subjects = 35:65, Physical Chemistry 70:30! Even within the field of Chemistry that is considered (apparently) acceptable equally to men and women there is a disparity of interest.
As physical scientists we never consider that we have too many artificially interested men because we need more physical scientists total.
I think increasingly parents see shaping the interests of their sons and daughters as the way to ensure that they maintain their identity as men and women respectively in a gender-equal society. This is having an increasingly negative effect on boys, since women have (rightly) diversified in the last half century; parents see the only way of ensuring their sons' masculinity as pushing them into increasing a narrower selection of masculine jobs. This in turn skews the numbers in those fields so that it looks as if fewer women are involved.
That is an effect we need to consider more than we do. But the positive approach of having science appeal more to girls is also valid.
So why do we care? How about because working in an environment that is heavily populated by one particular gender is not healthy socially (as should be obvious to any casual reader of comments on /.). This is especially true in fields that are populated by those that love the subject rather than for reasons of economy, because your self-esteem is greatly affected if you feel the thing you love isn't understood/appreciated by one gender. If it's your gender who doesn't appreciate what you do, that's bad for making friends/your position in your peer group. If it's the opposite gender that doesn't appreciate what you do that's bad for... well I think it's obvious... like I said your self-esteem.
I agree with one respondent who said we needed to fix the problem at the source. Well, how do we do that? We need to expose both genders to as broad as possible a variety of activities from as early an age as possible. And be encouraging about it! Also, we need to fix the portrayal of stereotypes in popular media. Advertising is increasingly being shown to be a major contributor of the obesity crisis. Junk-food companies marketing to children are having significant success. When you have 30s to market your product, you don't have time to break down gender stereotypes. In fact using them makes it easier to find your target demographic - but think of the harm this is doing! Next bunch of ads, see how many examples there are of men/women in non-traditional areas. So, of course kids see this and it doesn't register with them that this portrayal is biased, it becomes part of their perception of the world. To fix that particular problem is going to require some complex regulatory oversight of advertising.
We also need real-life role models, this is where quotas actually can have some positive effect, however I agree with the majority of respondents that have raised concerns about other negative effect quotas can have. Scholarships for the best and brightest are more positive. Perhaps just hi-lighting the achievements some women have made would be helpful.
As an interesting aside let's talk about Marie Curie. She's the only scientist to ever win 2 Nobel prizes, she was a hero during War time driving an ambulance to get X-ray technology to the front. She overcame great obstacles to even attend school, and having read her biography I can tell you she was a wonderful, interesting character. So then why is there no big budget movie about her life? I reckon it's because Hollywood (and the film industry generally) don't know what to do with this non-traditional woman, they can't deal with a woman who shunned glamour! (Marie actually insisted that if her family were going to buy her a wedding dress, then it had to be something she could wear in the lab. She sulked the entire shopping trip and eventually ended up with a navy blue dress t
Logic is an extension of intuition. It does not always serve us well.