Of course you're right--I started with the presumption of guilt.
About the only difference I would make is I would be fine with the government keeping the cash but paying it back if the person is found not guilty. So they don't have to return the original $20,000 but if found not guilty, I'd better be getting a check for $20,000 posthaste.
I'd fix that particular problem by very noisily firing anyone that I heard say that or act as if they felt that.
All that really does is move the particular problem underground. So the person wouldn't overtly say something like, "Women aren't good programmers--they don't have the brains for it." But they'd still think it. And they'd still go out of their way to not hire women for the position using other criteria: "I just think Dan is a better choice than Barbara--he seemed to communicate better than Barbara did."
There's also the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) which currently has something like 50k active missing juvenile cases which are not part of that classification because of unknown variables.
Such as runaways, etc. Also, these have been on file since 1967. Figure 50,000 divided by 48 years is a bit over 1000 cases a year.
So, in that case, the chances of your child becoming "missing" is about the same as them dying in a fire. They're still far more likely to die of poisoning, drowning, or in a car accident.
You go in for an interview and go through a procession of seven people who speak the other language. You are confronted with the possibility that this is what your work environment will be like. Not everyone is up for that.
You're right. So you don't take the job.
I always say that an interview goes both ways. I also like to see how people deal with me--I'm going to have to work with these people after all. If the interviewer is a jerk in the interview, they're probably a jerk to work with. You need to decide if the job is worth it or not.
"Women aren't good programmers--they don't have the brains for it."
That is sexist comment which I've heard before. Which means that person is not going to hire a woman because he's convinced that women won't be able to do the job. If you have enough of those people hiring, a woman won't even get a chance to prove otherwise.
So, yes, you're forcing them to confront their stereotypical image of a woman's skills by forcing them to hire women. Perhaps they'll learn that their stereotypes are not correct.
I somewhat agree with you--yes, hiring someone who may not be as skilled as someone else just because that someone is a woman is bad. But how would you suggest countering these stereotypes?
Simply throwing someone into a position because they do or do not happen to have a dick doesn't mean you're putting someone competent or appropriate in place.
Conversely, denying someone a position because they do or do not happen to have a dick is also a bad move.
If I deny a nursing position to a man because "men aren't compassionate enough to be nurses," wouldn't you say that's a bad thing?
I [...] was shocked to see every table have 2 iPads, and at the bar, there being a whole row of them.
Not to mention cash registers. I see lots of iPad cash registers at hep restaurants and coffee/tea shops.
When it comes to businesses using tablets, I usually see them as a retail person's PC. If I'm interested in buying something and they don't have it in stock, the retail person can see if they have it at other stores without having to go over to a shared retail person's PC.
Basically, what you are saying is that you like to drive. I don't blame you, by the way. In certain situations and environments, I like to drive, too. I used to not be a big fan of driving, but when I started having a long commute, I decide I would spend money on a car that I wanted to be in and wanted to drive. It was worth it when I spent an hour and a half in the car five days a week.
On the other hand, consider some of the advantages--the "idiots who are afraid of using the road" are the ones who won't be driving. Their autonomous car will probably be going faster than the little old lady in the green Valiant. Also there will be fewer idiot tourists flashing across three lanes because, "Oops! There's my exit!"
The lying about using traffic as an excuse is pretty well dead anyway. If somebody really cares that much, they can get traffic conditions along your route now for whatever times they need.
Personally, though, I see most cars having the "Auto-drive"/"Self-drive" switch (a la Demolition Man) for environments where autonomous driving may not be ideal.
Well, in theory, life can be anywhere. The problem is our ability to detect it.
For example, we've done plenty of studies of life on Earth. We take that knowledge and apply it to Mars to see if we can detect any past or present life. We could do the same thing for Jupiter, but we probably wouldn't detect any life because--if it's there--it behaves differently than life that we know. We'll need some other way to detect it, but if we don't know if it exists, how can we come up with ways to detect it?
That's why we stick with what we know and, yes, that means we're looking for carbon-based life forms that use oxygen and nitrogen the same way we do. Until we find life that is different and figure out a way to detect that life, that's what we're stuck with.
Uh...weather information isn't quite that pervasive. That said, I don't think we even need to go THAT far.
Suppose you're driving along and you suddenly get hit by torrential snow or rain. What would you do?
Well, of course, the first thing you do is slow down. "Never outdrive your senses," to coin a phrase. So if rain or snow is affecting your visibility, you slow down. Why wouldn't a self-driving car do the same, while flashing a "Please take over driving" alert?
To me, a self-driving car is essentially a really clever cruise control. Which means it's great for the highway but not so good for crowded city streets. I don't see too many people using cruise control on crowded city streets and I'm pretty sure you won't see too many people using auto-drive in the same way.
I'll admit, my daily commute is 56 miles, of which 52 of them are on the freeway. I would buy a self-driving car in a heartbeat. I'd drive it to freeway and then say, "Okay, take me to my exit" and let the car drive the freeway with the stop and go traffic. When it got to my exit, I'd take over and drive the rest of the way home.
He brought the company back from the edge, after being destroyed by another MBA, Jim Sculley.
Sigh. You kids today...
First, it was John Sculley. Jim Sculley made boats and passed a few years ago.
Second, I always like to remind people that Apple had it's largest marketshare--only topped in the last few years--and did some very innovative things while John Sculley was in charge: Hypercard and the transition to RISC to give a couple of examples.
Personally, I give most of the blame to Michael Spindler.
"We've been able to soft-land the rocket booster in the ocean twice so far," says Musk. "Unfortunately, it sort of sat there for several seconds, then tipped over and exploded. [...]"
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you're right--I started with the presumption of guilt.
About the only difference I would make is I would be fine with the government keeping the cash but paying it back if the person is found not guilty. So they don't have to return the original $20,000 but if found not guilty, I'd better be getting a check for $20,000 posthaste.
I'd fix that particular problem by very noisily firing anyone that I heard say that or act as if they felt that.
All that really does is move the particular problem underground. So the person wouldn't overtly say something like, "Women aren't good programmers--they don't have the brains for it." But they'd still think it. And they'd still go out of their way to not hire women for the position using other criteria: "I just think Dan is a better choice than Barbara--he seemed to communicate better than Barbara did."
What should they do with the machine gun?
Assuming it's a legal weapon, sell it. Otherwise melt it down.
What should they do with the $20,000?
Keep it.
What should they do with the car?
Sell it.
Sounds sexist to me. I've spent time in hospitals and the male nurses seemed just as compassionate as the female nurses.
There's also the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) which currently has something like 50k active missing juvenile cases which are not part of that classification because of unknown variables.
Such as runaways, etc. Also, these have been on file since 1967. Figure 50,000 divided by 48 years is a bit over 1000 cases a year.
So, in that case, the chances of your child becoming "missing" is about the same as them dying in a fire. They're still far more likely to die of poisoning, drowning, or in a car accident.
You go in for an interview and go through a procession of seven people who speak the other language. You are confronted with the possibility that this is what your work environment will be like. Not everyone is up for that.
You're right. So you don't take the job.
I always say that an interview goes both ways. I also like to see how people deal with me--I'm going to have to work with these people after all. If the interviewer is a jerk in the interview, they're probably a jerk to work with. You need to decide if the job is worth it or not.
Because they're not allowed in the water?
"Women aren't good programmers--they don't have the brains for it."
That is sexist comment which I've heard before. Which means that person is not going to hire a woman because he's convinced that women won't be able to do the job. If you have enough of those people hiring, a woman won't even get a chance to prove otherwise.
So, yes, you're forcing them to confront their stereotypical image of a woman's skills by forcing them to hire women. Perhaps they'll learn that their stereotypes are not correct.
I somewhat agree with you--yes, hiring someone who may not be as skilled as someone else just because that someone is a woman is bad. But how would you suggest countering these stereotypes?
Simply throwing someone into a position because they do or do not happen to have a dick doesn't mean you're putting someone competent or appropriate in place.
Conversely, denying someone a position because they do or do not happen to have a dick is also a bad move.
If I deny a nursing position to a man because "men aren't compassionate enough to be nurses," wouldn't you say that's a bad thing?
So what happens to the fluid?
I'm wondering if they'll have a "Here comes the Boss" button that suddenly pops up a spreadsheet.
I [...] was shocked to see every table have 2 iPads, and at the bar, there being a whole row of them.
Not to mention cash registers. I see lots of iPad cash registers at hep restaurants and coffee/tea shops.
When it comes to businesses using tablets, I usually see them as a retail person's PC. If I'm interested in buying something and they don't have it in stock, the retail person can see if they have it at other stores without having to go over to a shared retail person's PC.
[...] and if Obama is involved somehow.
Obama's a lame duck.
[...] and if Benghazi! is involved somehow.
FTFY.
Besides disasters, there's also the CITGO-Venezuela heating oil program.
Or a Moran.
I thought Print was dead...
We can't have both?
Rotary phone.
Basically, what you are saying is that you like to drive. I don't blame you, by the way. In certain situations and environments, I like to drive, too. I used to not be a big fan of driving, but when I started having a long commute, I decide I would spend money on a car that I wanted to be in and wanted to drive. It was worth it when I spent an hour and a half in the car five days a week.
On the other hand, consider some of the advantages--the "idiots who are afraid of using the road" are the ones who won't be driving. Their autonomous car will probably be going faster than the little old lady in the green Valiant. Also there will be fewer idiot tourists flashing across three lanes because, "Oops! There's my exit!"
The lying about using traffic as an excuse is pretty well dead anyway. If somebody really cares that much, they can get traffic conditions along your route now for whatever times they need.
Personally, though, I see most cars having the "Auto-drive"/"Self-drive" switch (a la Demolition Man) for environments where autonomous driving may not be ideal.
Well, in theory, life can be anywhere. The problem is our ability to detect it.
For example, we've done plenty of studies of life on Earth. We take that knowledge and apply it to Mars to see if we can detect any past or present life. We could do the same thing for Jupiter, but we probably wouldn't detect any life because--if it's there--it behaves differently than life that we know. We'll need some other way to detect it, but if we don't know if it exists, how can we come up with ways to detect it?
That's why we stick with what we know and, yes, that means we're looking for carbon-based life forms that use oxygen and nitrogen the same way we do. Until we find life that is different and figure out a way to detect that life, that's what we're stuck with.
Well, at least it's less than $6 billion.
Uh...weather information isn't quite that pervasive. That said, I don't think we even need to go THAT far.
Suppose you're driving along and you suddenly get hit by torrential snow or rain. What would you do?
Well, of course, the first thing you do is slow down. "Never outdrive your senses," to coin a phrase. So if rain or snow is affecting your visibility, you slow down. Why wouldn't a self-driving car do the same, while flashing a "Please take over driving" alert?
To me, a self-driving car is essentially a really clever cruise control. Which means it's great for the highway but not so good for crowded city streets. I don't see too many people using cruise control on crowded city streets and I'm pretty sure you won't see too many people using auto-drive in the same way.
I'll admit, my daily commute is 56 miles, of which 52 of them are on the freeway. I would buy a self-driving car in a heartbeat. I'd drive it to freeway and then say, "Okay, take me to my exit" and let the car drive the freeway with the stop and go traffic. When it got to my exit, I'd take over and drive the rest of the way home.
He brought the company back from the edge, after being destroyed by another MBA, Jim Sculley.
Sigh. You kids today...
First, it was John Sculley. Jim Sculley made boats and passed a few years ago.
Second, I always like to remind people that Apple had it's largest marketshare--only topped in the last few years--and did some very innovative things while John Sculley was in charge: Hypercard and the transition to RISC to give a couple of examples.
Personally, I give most of the blame to Michael Spindler.
"We've been able to soft-land the rocket booster in the ocean twice so far," says Musk. "Unfortunately, it sort of sat there for several seconds, then tipped over and exploded. [...]"
"Everyone said I was daft to land a rocket in the ocean, but I did it all the same, just to show them. It sank in the ocean. So I built a second one. That sank in the ocean. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank in the ocean. But the fourth one stayed up!"
I think I'll go for a walk now...
EG, they may have the sudden epiphany while playing super mario brothers, that they have failed to have while sititng in their cublcle [...]
Or they may not.
If you're counting on "the truth" to somehow come to you in order to accomplish your task, I'm not sure I'm going to really trust you on a schedule.