Re:More bias from women than from men, against wom
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
This is simply free market economics which should not be interfered with using state enforced violence because, most of all, it's immoral and, also, inefficient.
What makes you assume the solution will be regulatory?
For the record, I believe people want to be fair and that treating people equally and with respect has become an entrenched cultural value in the US and many other countries. To the extent we are not living those values, I think the majority of citizens would see that as a problem.
To bring up market economics is a worthwhile point. Here's a cold fact: females account for 50% of the population. The tech industry keeps clamoring they can't find enough good people. This in my opinion is a strong argument for why to seek more women in science, where they are currently under-represented. If women believe they have better prospects in other fields like law or finance, don't you think the opportunity cost of that talent drain could potentially offset the efficiency gains you're talking about?
I also think that if efficiency differences are the driver of wage differences as you suggest, then they would become more apparent for women with children as opposed to those without. That should be easy to check.
Therefore, one could argue the application of justice (or certainly the resources of justice) is already being applied based on his political views.
One could argue that, but it would be hard to produce substantiating evidence. I guess it's OK to make unfounded accusations, and long as they're against the government.
Re:Is this really sexism?
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It depends on what you mean by "sexism."
Back in 1999, MIT ran thorough study on gender differences among the faculty. It's an interesting read. One of the striking findings was the consensus that "this is not what we expected gender bias to look like."
Put another way, women's concerns in 2012 are not the same as what they were in 1970 or 1920. It could be your working definition of sexism doesn't describe the problems of women in science.
Re:More bias from women than from men, against wom
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That kinda goes against the claim by some feminists that women are the constant victims of men oppression dictating salaries.
True, it refutes that male malice is to blame, but it also affirms that women do have a problem with bias.
So, perhaps we should put the blame and counter-blame aside and talk about solutions.
The US government is putting the case forward that the film was not an attempt to express a controversial viewpoint as much as something meant entirely to inflame and incense a volatile situation.
Citation needed. I am not aware the US government is prosecuting the film maker over the content of his film. Everything I've read relating to this story says the guy went into hiding with his family because he thought, with good reason, that some backward-ass barbaric sicko might try to kill him over it. (In fact, backward-ass barbaric sickos killed several other people over it.) Going into hiding violated the terms of his parole because he happens to have a rap sheet a mile long for check fraud and other low-grade scumbaggery.
I'm not aware of the Feds having said anything about the content of the film being legally actionable. I think President Obama and Secretary Clinton said it's offensive and the government doesn't endorse it, but AFAIK that's the extent of Federal action regarding the film itself.
If anything, authorities should have gone the other direction and NOT arrested him despite his parole transgressions, in light of the political statement it creates.
So to you, the application of justice should be dependent on the political views someone espouses? The law should treat someone differently based on what he's said in public? How did you get from free speech to there?
I don't get it when people lament about what technology has made them "lose." All one needs to do is change one's behavior, and instantly go back to the way things used to be. Or back to how they are now. Look! Options! More options than we had before!
I fail to see how anyone has lost anything of value. If, instead, the whiny writer is complaining that he can't put down the smart phone and smell the flowers, then his real problem is a lack of willpower.
I mean, every version control system I've used in the past ten years has been free.
Sure, but I doubt your time has been free-as-in-beer. When the boss asks "how much will it cost," an honest answer includes an estimate of man-hours to set it up.
Installing git or svn does not take long, but there may also be time required to designate a server, hold a meeting to debate git vs. svn, etc.
Put another way, the total cost of free-as-in-beer software is comparable to the hidden costs of commercial software.:-) (In my experience, a bit lower, because the free stuff tends to be better documented and supported.)
It's messed up that people are still reacting differently because this was an online post than if it were a postcard or a phone call or note tacked to a utility pole. In other words, I fail to see what makes this newsworthy at all, let alone "news for nerds."
More than 70% of people in the U.S. are Internet users. That works out to over 200 million. OMG! It happened on teh IntarWebz! is a reaction that's about 15 years out of date.
Now if only the legal system would catch up with the new normalcy...
If the author is trying to generalize a lesson from that story, he's more naive about women than he claims Jerry is. The moral is not "don't get involved with a colleague," it's "don't get involved with a psycho bitch from hell." A lesson I, personally, had to learn the hard way.:-)
In the US, people have to fund their own retirement and medical expenses. The social safety net is weak. That is no problem if you are rich or young (with lots of time to amortize the costs), but if you are over 30, the cost of moving here may be very high. Since you are an EU citizen, I would suggest you take a look at other EU countries like Sweden and Denmark.
Yes, but along that I-95 corridor, property values are exorbitantly high, and the cheap internet does not really offset the rent / mortgage+taxes. Not to say living here is all bad -- just that, in the grand scheme of things, "cheap internet" is not really a major consideration.
I started this long, convincing post about why cloud backups are so much better in terms of durability and availability. Then I looked at the cost.
Holy smoke! According to Amazon's handy cost calculator, your 8 TB of data would cost $915.86 per month to store in Amazon's cloud. I would argue that kind of cost may be acceptable to back up your entire livelihood, but that really depends on your cash flow, doesn't it?
My new recommendation is to burn your pictures to DVDs or blue-ray discs and bury them in your back yard.:-) Oh wait, I mean keep the discs in a large-size safe deposit box at your neighborhood bank.
If you follow the tech industry long enough, all the hype gets recycled and comes back in slightly regurgitated form later. For example, "thin clients" (the Next Big Thing in 1997) and "cloud" (the Next Big Thing in 2007).
Biometrics were all the rage in the late 1990s, when people were starting to recognize how problematic passwords could be. The enthusiasm died out quickly. Parent has outlined the main reasons why: they're easier to spoof than might first appear, and to use biometrics in authentication requires biometric data to be transmitted and stored (and therefore subject to compromise).
I think face recognition technology is starting to change the tech industry, but not in a good way. It's not used for authentication. It's used for automated surveillance and tracking. *That* is the future of biometrics.
Internet isn't cable, and it should't be operated for a profit any more than the street system.
An analogy with highway tolls comes to mind, and it scares me. Highway tolls can get diverted to other public works projects. Government could gouge us for Internet access just as easily as a private monopoly could, and I am sure they would think of all kinds of "wonderful" uses for that new revenue.
Given how greatly companies differ in the details of their HR policies (when vacation accrues, what forms of paid leave are available, whether employees can 'buy' extra time off), I would be surprised if there is an off-the-shelf solution that fits your needs.
the 'photos with text' experience gives us that feeling we get when we read magazines
Obviously the poster is referring to magazines like People: the feeling that it is so vapid, I want to throw it across the room. I am looking for an experience more like that of Scientific American and National Geographic. I'll stick to text, thanks. (Note the relative scarcity of pictures on Slashdot.)
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you assume the solution will be regulatory?
For the record, I believe people want to be fair and that treating people equally and with respect has become an entrenched cultural value in the US and many other countries. To the extent we are not living those values, I think the majority of citizens would see that as a problem.
To bring up market economics is a worthwhile point. Here's a cold fact: females account for 50% of the population. The tech industry keeps clamoring they can't find enough good people. This in my opinion is a strong argument for why to seek more women in science, where they are currently under-represented. If women believe they have better prospects in other fields like law or finance, don't you think the opportunity cost of that talent drain could potentially offset the efficiency gains you're talking about?
I also think that if efficiency differences are the driver of wage differences as you suggest, then they would become more apparent for women with children as opposed to those without. That should be easy to check.
Yeah, but the conflict has a long history, and people from the Middle East have done a thing or two that make Americans angry, too ...
One could argue that, but it would be hard to produce substantiating evidence. I guess it's OK to make unfounded accusations, and long as they're against the government.
It depends on what you mean by "sexism."
Back in 1999, MIT ran thorough study on gender differences among the faculty. It's an interesting read. One of the striking findings was the consensus that "this is not what we expected gender bias to look like."
Put another way, women's concerns in 2012 are not the same as what they were in 1970 or 1920. It could be your working definition of sexism doesn't describe the problems of women in science.
True, it refutes that male malice is to blame, but it also affirms that women do have a problem with bias.
So, perhaps we should put the blame and counter-blame aside and talk about solutions.
Citation needed. I am not aware the US government is prosecuting the film maker over the content of his film. Everything I've read relating to this story says the guy went into hiding with his family because he thought, with good reason, that some backward-ass barbaric sicko might try to kill him over it. (In fact, backward-ass barbaric sickos killed several other people over it.) Going into hiding violated the terms of his parole because he happens to have a rap sheet a mile long for check fraud and other low-grade scumbaggery.
I'm not aware of the Feds having said anything about the content of the film being legally actionable. I think President Obama and Secretary Clinton said it's offensive and the government doesn't endorse it, but AFAIK that's the extent of Federal action regarding the film itself.
So to you, the application of justice should be dependent on the political views someone espouses? The law should treat someone differently based on what he's said in public? How did you get from free speech to there?
The pressure of social conformity is as strong as you let it be. No more, no less.
How does it make sense to push a buggy product out the door before it's ready? It only makes sense if you want the product to tank.
I don't get it when people lament about what technology has made them "lose." All one needs to do is change one's behavior, and instantly go back to the way things used to be. Or back to how they are now. Look! Options! More options than we had before!
I fail to see how anyone has lost anything of value. If, instead, the whiny writer is complaining that he can't put down the smart phone and smell the flowers, then his real problem is a lack of willpower.
Sure, but I doubt your time has been free-as-in-beer. When the boss asks "how much will it cost," an honest answer includes an estimate of man-hours to set it up.
Installing git or svn does not take long, but there may also be time required to designate a server, hold a meeting to debate git vs. svn, etc.
Put another way, the total cost of free-as-in-beer software is comparable to the hidden costs of commercial software. :-) (In my experience, a bit lower, because the free stuff tends to be better documented and supported.)
What could possibly be more invasive than tracking a user's every interaction with a Web site?
It's messed up that people are still reacting differently because this was an online post than if it were a postcard or a phone call or note tacked to a utility pole. In other words, I fail to see what makes this newsworthy at all, let alone "news for nerds."
More than 70% of people in the U.S. are Internet users. That works out to over 200 million. OMG! It happened on teh IntarWebz! is a reaction that's about 15 years out of date.
Now if only the legal system would catch up with the new normalcy ...
The fact that the offender owns guns is highly relevant to the level of threat he poses.
A person who owns guns is not usually problem.
A person who makes death threats is a potential problem.
A person who makes death threats AND owns guns is a potential problem of great severity.
If the author is trying to generalize a lesson from that story, he's more naive about women than he claims Jerry is. The moral is not "don't get involved with a colleague," it's "don't get involved with a psycho bitch from hell." A lesson I, personally, had to learn the hard way. :-)
No surprise there. The only unknown was how the advertisers were going to rationalize that.
In the US, people have to fund their own retirement and medical expenses. The social safety net is weak. That is no problem if you are rich or young (with lots of time to amortize the costs), but if you are over 30, the cost of moving here may be very high. Since you are an EU citizen, I would suggest you take a look at other EU countries like Sweden and Denmark.
Yes, but along that I-95 corridor, property values are exorbitantly high, and the cheap internet does not really offset the rent / mortgage+taxes. Not to say living here is all bad -- just that, in the grand scheme of things, "cheap internet" is not really a major consideration.
You could always look him up in Wikipedia ... oh, wait, never mind. ;-)
I started this long, convincing post about why cloud backups are so much better in terms of durability and availability. Then I looked at the cost.
Holy smoke! According to Amazon's handy cost calculator, your 8 TB of data would cost $915.86 per month to store in Amazon's cloud. I would argue that kind of cost may be acceptable to back up your entire livelihood, but that really depends on your cash flow, doesn't it?
My new recommendation is to burn your pictures to DVDs or blue-ray discs and bury them in your back yard. :-) Oh wait, I mean keep the discs in a large-size safe deposit box at your neighborhood bank.
It didn't have to justify its valuation, it only had to maintain valuation through the IPO so the venture capitalists could cash out.
If you follow the tech industry long enough, all the hype gets recycled and comes back in slightly regurgitated form later. For example, "thin clients" (the Next Big Thing in 1997) and "cloud" (the Next Big Thing in 2007).
Biometrics were all the rage in the late 1990s, when people were starting to recognize how problematic passwords could be. The enthusiasm died out quickly. Parent has outlined the main reasons why: they're easier to spoof than might first appear, and to use biometrics in authentication requires biometric data to be transmitted and stored (and therefore subject to compromise).
I think face recognition technology is starting to change the tech industry, but not in a good way. It's not used for authentication. It's used for automated surveillance and tracking. *That* is the future of biometrics.
An analogy with highway tolls comes to mind, and it scares me. Highway tolls can get diverted to other public works projects. Government could gouge us for Internet access just as easily as a private monopoly could, and I am sure they would think of all kinds of "wonderful" uses for that new revenue.
Given how greatly companies differ in the details of their HR policies (when vacation accrues, what forms of paid leave are available, whether employees can 'buy' extra time off), I would be surprised if there is an off-the-shelf solution that fits your needs.
Obviously the poster is referring to magazines like People: the feeling that it is so vapid, I want to throw it across the room. I am looking for an experience more like that of Scientific American and National Geographic. I'll stick to text, thanks. (Note the relative scarcity of pictures on Slashdot.)