I heard that excuse from the computer science faculty too, when everyone asked them why every other STEM company and department had no problem with getting 50 percent women. It was a bogus argument then, and it still is.
What do you think the other engineers do? Program apps, run advanced sims, you name it.
You're not special. You're just trying to find an excuse not to change. Seen that before.
Fun Fact, I'm at one of the world's best universities, filled with highly educated professional women who are in STEM. Advanced Math, Statistics, Genetics, Biochem, Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, AI, you name it.
Half of our students. Half of our faculty. We create more practical science in a day than you see in most countries. And tons of patents.
This reminds me of when the Canadian Army was resistant to women in combat. We did studies. We found that women made better fighter pilots than men did (who do you think fly those A-10 Warthogs?), I've trained and served with highly decorated women of all ranks. Our main resistance was the senior NCOs, with similar attitudes to the ones I hear coming from Google engineers. They were wrong then - back in the 1980s. They're wrong now, here at Google, in the 2100s.
More details on the UW website and in UW Daily and UW News, of course. It's dumbed down from the scientific papers, if you don't have access to those, so most people could read those and follow the links.
The interesting aspect is that, given that most people text more than they call, the power requirements for the cell call drop when you use methods like that, making some of the related work on clothing to incorporate cell elements tie in. Basically, Star Trek comm badges become highly viable, using incident work/home power from wi-fi and TV sets, and you can set up common areas to have higher levels of broadcast power (elevator lobbies, conference areas) for actual voice and video calls.
The future is now. The fact that you remain in denial of it is not our problem.
You can even power these by window solar biofilms, which radiate the power inside, or flexible solar printed wraps. So you could do handsfree calls even when riding a bike or while skateboarding. Without bulky batteries.
Not in the most populous counties. For example, the major cities like LA SF Seattle all have two-hour commutes if you don't actually live near where you work (article: Seattle Times, yesterday)
If the next billion are in India, they learn English in middle school. If in China, they learn English in high school. But their mother tongue is not English.
My point still stands, based on where people actually live and who is gaining technology and at what rate.
note these are the ones with tiny flags on top. It's the motion of the flags that increases their avoidance value. They're cheap, you can get tiny remote controlled ones anywhere.
I stand by what I said. You're conflating internal combustion engines (and I worked on stirling engines and 2-8 cylinder gasoline and diesel engines back in the 70s) with new vehicle sales. You're conflating US purchases with worldwide purchases.
Nobody's taking away your old car. But it won't be cheaper than an electric version. Same with trucks.
Last time I checked, not a lot of sea-going vessels inside the continental US. Most of those emissions, according to the Paris Accords, are not assigned to any country at all, so they aren't measured in any of the stats, outside of internal waterways.
Most people replace their cars and trucks every 2-3 years. (Kelly Blue Book) Most business replaces their vehicles every 2-5 years (fleet depreciation).
If you're a collector, you're a miniscule impact on the emissions. Most of that is already being phased out. Just look at California fleet emissions - down dramatically since 2010.
The future isn't waiting for you to make up your mind. It's changing now.
Slashdot Mirror
Always.
Then they can feel the pain like us.
I really enjoyed that TV series.
Very wise choice.
No, it had to do with ignoring the instruments.
I heard that excuse from the computer science faculty too, when everyone asked them why every other STEM company and department had no problem with getting 50 percent women. It was a bogus argument then, and it still is.
What do you think the other engineers do? Program apps, run advanced sims, you name it.
You're not special. You're just trying to find an excuse not to change. Seen that before.
It's still 2017, not 1967.
the fact you think Canada has fought air wars this century proves how deep your delusion is
The fact you think nobody was in Afghanistan when the US bugged out to Iraq shows you have no idea of what history actually is.
I'll bet you think North Korea still has flint muskets.
Fun Fact, I'm at one of the world's best universities, filled with highly educated professional women who are in STEM. Advanced Math, Statistics, Genetics, Biochem, Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, AI, you name it.
Half of our students. Half of our faculty. We create more practical science in a day than you see in most countries. And tons of patents.
This reminds me of when the Canadian Army was resistant to women in combat. We did studies. We found that women made better fighter pilots than men did (who do you think fly those A-10 Warthogs?), I've trained and served with highly decorated women of all ranks. Our main resistance was the senior NCOs, with similar attitudes to the ones I hear coming from Google engineers. They were wrong then - back in the 1980s. They're wrong now, here at Google, in the 2100s.
It's 2017. Not 1957.
This is why you should never visit Seattle, or go to any of the cool restaurants I go to.
They're on Best Of lists.
Just stay away so I can keep getting great tables.
Thanks!
What a special snowflake.
I'm thinking they just want the US to be weak and vulnerable to Russia.
How about stop making America weaker than other First World Nations and get us all 100 Gbps Internet 3?
Biofilm screens using low power can be woven into sleeves of jackets. Already done.
More details on the UW website and in UW Daily and UW News, of course. It's dumbed down from the scientific papers, if you don't have access to those, so most people could read those and follow the links.
The interesting aspect is that, given that most people text more than they call, the power requirements for the cell call drop when you use methods like that, making some of the related work on clothing to incorporate cell elements tie in. Basically, Star Trek comm badges become highly viable, using incident work/home power from wi-fi and TV sets, and you can set up common areas to have higher levels of broadcast power (elevator lobbies, conference areas) for actual voice and video calls.
The future is now. The fact that you remain in denial of it is not our problem.
You can even power these by window solar biofilms, which radiate the power inside, or flexible solar printed wraps. So you could do handsfree calls even when riding a bike or while skateboarding. Without bulky batteries.
Not in the most populous counties. For example, the major cities like LA SF Seattle all have two-hour commutes if you don't actually live near where you work (article: Seattle Times, yesterday)
Just because they look at it, doesn't mean they like it.
Might even look at it in horror, or amazement that this dreck exists.
If the next billion are in India, they learn English in middle school. If in China, they learn English in high school. But their mother tongue is not English.
My point still stands, based on where people actually live and who is gaining technology and at what rate.
(it's a song lyric)
Not worried at all.
Much more worried about cheetos going wack.
note these are the ones with tiny flags on top. It's the motion of the flags that increases their avoidance value. They're cheap, you can get tiny remote controlled ones anywhere.
Make a circle of them and the self-driving car stops moving.
If you time it right, you can do it right in front of an oncoming truck.
I stand by what I said. You're conflating internal combustion engines (and I worked on stirling engines and 2-8 cylinder gasoline and diesel engines back in the 70s) with new vehicle sales. You're conflating US purchases with worldwide purchases.
Nobody's taking away your old car. But it won't be cheaper than an electric version. Same with trucks.
Last time I checked, not a lot of sea-going vessels inside the continental US. Most of those emissions, according to the Paris Accords, are not assigned to any country at all, so they aren't measured in any of the stats, outside of internal waterways.
Most people replace their cars and trucks every 2-3 years. (Kelly Blue Book) Most business replaces their vehicles every 2-5 years (fleet depreciation).
If you're a collector, you're a miniscule impact on the emissions. Most of that is already being phased out. Just look at California fleet emissions - down dramatically since 2010.
The future isn't waiting for you to make up your mind. It's changing now.
Incorrect. We rescored the numbers.
You're soaking in it.
New Orleans is sinking and they don't know how to swim.
Not in the West.
If you live in the West, 40 percent of your contribution to climate change is from transportation.
Which is one of the reasons why we lead in electric and hybrid purchases.