Wow, look who drags out insults when he contradicts himself. And I quote you:
Because if the interests are cultural, then perhaps there needs to be a little pressure to make cultural pressures gender neutral so that there is a freedom of interests. If a girl really likes math, they are pressured to not persue it because it isn't feminine. There exists pressure one way now, and only with artificial pressure the other way will there be a true choice of interests.
You're the one advocating pressure to make people do things your way.
Yeah, but with Tivo you pay for cable, internet, and Tivo. If we got all that stuff from Hulu, we could reduce it to internet + Hulu (or other streaming service).
Actually, if it means that I get to watch what I want, when I want, in HD or SD, and without ads, I'll gladly pay a subscription fee to Hulu. That's damn better than cable.
What does free will have to do with this. No one is taking away your choice if a financial incentive is attached to one choice and not another. You are still free to choose whatever you want. That you are a weak-willed spinless sap that will choose whatever the last person that spoke to them suggested doesn't mean that's what happens with everyone.
Thank you for arguing my point for me. We need not put "pressure" on girls to go into certain fields because they have a right to choose what field they go into, and if they choose something other than mathematics because someone suggested that math is "uncool" or "unfeminine" then they're just "weak-willed spineless saps".
Why on Earth is the choice not real because pressure exists one way or the other? Pressure and preference exist in every choice. Stop trying to counteract free will for the sake of feminism.
So early in the 1900s, the US Army IQ testing "proved" what everyone already knew -- that Irish and Italian immigrants were inherently dumber. But now that's not true any more. What could have changed? Did the genetics of the Irish change so much in the last 100 years that they no longer suffer from inherent biological disadvantages? Or was it that the culture they were living in changed?
Actually, it was most likely nutrition and health care. Same for blacks.
Being poor leads to bad health care and bad nutrition. These lead to a lack of advanced brain development, which leads to lower IQs. Improve those factors and you improve the smarts.
Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS.
Right, so the monopoly abuse in the desktop market that they got convicted of just stopped as soon as the Bush Administration DoJ let them off scot free, right?
Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if the person with power has shit that doesn't stink. By nature, the stronger person will eventually abuse his power. It may not even seem that way to the person with the power, but it will happen. Same is even more true with organizations. They are more complex, less personal. As Google collects more data, as its reach becomes bigger and as time goes on, the abuse will surface. Not that Google is any better or worse than anyone else, it is their success that will do it. And when Google's "Do No Evil" becomes "Well, maybe a little evil", they will make Microsoft look like an amateur.
That's ridiculous. Power doesn't even corrupt at all; it merely attracts the corruptible.
The key, however, is to make sure you have the experience employers want since everyone wants someone who can start contributing right away and doesn't want to take time for training.
Which is a self-creating problem of not wanting to pay for entry-level workers.
But btw, the article I linked was about engineering, not science. And I'm a Comp Sci, so I figure I can go any way.
Honestly the thing I wanted him to prove was not your small detail about the "Final Solution", but his conspiracist claims that Zionists caused the Holocaust.
And thus we see that Slashdotters don't ask those questions, because they already think they know the answer: "there is no question, nothing is true, everything is permitted, God doesn't exist, and if you don't shut up about that stuff I won't be able to concentrate on building my new Gentoo kernel properly";-).
I'm not just needling you here, but the two who replied above you on a basic assumption of atheism.
Engineers generally make pretty good money, though they need to be prepared for a sudden layoff with the way many companies operate now.
You're at least partially right. Even back in 2005: "High school and college students considering their futures know that work as a scientist is morally nasty, brutally alienating and financially insecure."
My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life.
How about we just correct the general anti-intellectualism among both sexes instead? Guys thinking they can get ahead in football or a musical career is essentially the same thing as girls thinking they can get ahead on "a cute ass": banking on one's personal sex-appeal to make it through life. The fact that girls express personal sex appeal through physical appearance and men express it through socially-arranged skill performances only belies the central fact of too many people attempting to make a living off their appeal as mates instead of by contributing to society.
If we were fair and followed our common sense, the psychology and sociology departments that do work on sex disparities would lose their ability to use the buzzwords of society's past sins to procure funding! Therefore, we cannot have fairness or equality, but most swing the pendulum of inequality in the other direction, guaranteeing work for academics and think-tanks for decades to come!
You're missing the fact that teaching is funded out of local taxpayers' pockets and the fact that demand for teachers shifts up with the ability to pay for them. In other words, rich school districts who can afford to pay well for a dozen top-of-the-line teachers to teach only 200 kids will do so, whereas when poorer districts need to get five teachers to teach 200 kids they can't even afford to pay the same wages as the rich district. The NEA and government requirements also interfere, so that when you combine relatively low wages with long hours and a large education requirement nobody really says material prosperity or gain in becoming a teacher.
Note that the exact reverse is also true. En masse most guys don't go into math because it's extravagantly unlikely to net them a desirable female. It's just that men differ from our average in most traits more often than women differ from their average.
Not a very good example. Post-doc work depends largely on what you did for your PhD. If the couple had equal abilities but did two different PhD thesis topics and the woman's turned out more successful by coincidence, the scenario you describe could easily happen by random chance.
For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men).
Let me clarify this with a data point/anecdote. Here at UMass Amherst, there are a great many scholarships available for Computer Science students. The small minority that don't require that the applicant have membership in a racial minority or have female sex all explicitly state that they still prefer it. It's actively frustrating hunting for scholarships as a "white" male, since everyone figures that you must be rich, fat, and happy enough to pay for everything in life all on your lonesome, or at least that you deserve their money much less than someone who happens to speak Spanish natively or lacks a Y-chromosome.
Money always attracted nearly all men. A good definition of "geek" is someone whose interests override their need for money.
But the ease thing... yeah. American culture right now can go die. Exactly when America should be reinvesting in making things and in R&D, everyone just figures that a bit more management can make it all work again.
I have a new slogan for the business world: "If you're not in production, research, or development, you're in overhead."
Why do you think people go into science? There's nothing spiritual (i.e. superstitious) about those questions. If you truly want to know the answers to these great questions, you're not going to be satisfied with some fairy tale.
Science doesn't really answer any of those questions.
There's more if you google around. There were also a number of international very high level zionists who wanted the persecutions, because it served their interests to get more immigrants to go to palestine to help start the jewish state there. Germany even offered a one time bailout/bribery fee to have the whole jewish population moved, but it was rejected by these same rich zionists, it is like they wanted the holocaust so that there would be this huge compelling reason to forcefully takeover what is now Israel, an excuse. Fascinating history. Gruesome, but fascinating, and plenty of odd occurrences and traitorous activities and high level machinations (the bankrolling of the nazi regime is another interesting aspect, some very serious charges could have been levied there but weren't in the allied world, and a lot of these bankers were guess what) and so on to go around. The allies intel knew the camps were in operation, yet failed to ever destroy the rail lines leading into and out of the camps to help shut them down. You have to wonder why this wasn't done.
So, if you didn't know about it, jews working for or bankrolling the nazis and collaborating, etc., consider yourself now informed, and go do your own research. If you live in Germany or a few other nations with so called "hate crimes" laws, watch your step doing the research.
Motherfucking prove it you goddamn anti-Semite. Go ahead, make my day and prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, look who drags out insults when he contradicts himself. And I quote you:
Because if the interests are cultural, then perhaps there needs to be a little pressure to make cultural pressures gender neutral so that there is a freedom of interests. If a girl really likes math, they are pressured to not persue it because it isn't feminine. There exists pressure one way now, and only with artificial pressure the other way will there be a true choice of interests.
You're the one advocating pressure to make people do things your way.
Yeah, but with Tivo you pay for cable, internet, and Tivo. If we got all that stuff from Hulu, we could reduce it to internet + Hulu (or other streaming service).
Actually, if it means that I get to watch what I want, when I want, in HD or SD, and without ads, I'll gladly pay a subscription fee to Hulu. That's damn better than cable.
What does free will have to do with this. No one is taking away your choice if a financial incentive is attached to one choice and not another. You are still free to choose whatever you want. That you are a weak-willed spinless sap that will choose whatever the last person that spoke to them suggested doesn't mean that's what happens with everyone.
Thank you for arguing my point for me. We need not put "pressure" on girls to go into certain fields because they have a right to choose what field they go into, and if they choose something other than mathematics because someone suggested that math is "uncool" or "unfeminine" then they're just "weak-willed spineless saps".
Why on Earth is the choice not real because pressure exists one way or the other? Pressure and preference exist in every choice. Stop trying to counteract free will for the sake of feminism.
So early in the 1900s, the US Army IQ testing "proved" what everyone already knew -- that Irish and Italian immigrants were inherently dumber. But now that's not true any more. What could have changed? Did the genetics of the Irish change so much in the last 100 years that they no longer suffer from inherent biological disadvantages? Or was it that the culture they were living in changed?
Actually, it was most likely nutrition and health care. Same for blacks.
Being poor leads to bad health care and bad nutrition. These lead to a lack of advanced brain development, which leads to lower IQs. Improve those factors and you improve the smarts.
Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS.
Right, so the monopoly abuse in the desktop market that they got convicted of just stopped as soon as the Bush Administration DoJ let them off scot free, right?
Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if the person with power has shit that doesn't stink. By nature, the stronger person will eventually abuse his power. It may not even seem that way to the person with the power, but it will happen. Same is even more true with organizations. They are more complex, less personal. As Google collects more data, as its reach becomes bigger and as time goes on, the abuse will surface. Not that Google is any better or worse than anyone else, it is their success that will do it. And when Google's "Do No Evil" becomes "Well, maybe a little evil", they will make Microsoft look like an amateur.
That's ridiculous. Power doesn't even corrupt at all; it merely attracts the corruptible.
The key, however, is to make sure you have the experience employers want since everyone wants someone who can start contributing right away and doesn't want to take time for training.
Which is a self-creating problem of not wanting to pay for entry-level workers.
But btw, the article I linked was about engineering, not science. And I'm a Comp Sci, so I figure I can go any way.
Honestly the thing I wanted him to prove was not your small detail about the "Final Solution", but his conspiracist claims that Zionists caused the Holocaust.
And thus we see that Slashdotters don't ask those questions, because they already think they know the answer: "there is no question, nothing is true, everything is permitted, God doesn't exist, and if you don't shut up about that stuff I won't be able to concentrate on building my new Gentoo kernel properly" ;-).
I'm not just needling you here, but the two who replied above you on a basic assumption of atheism.
Engineers generally make pretty good money, though they need to be prepared for a sudden layoff with the way many companies operate now.
You're at least partially right. Even back in 2005: "High school and college students considering their futures know that work as a scientist is morally nasty, brutally alienating and financially insecure."
My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life.
How about we just correct the general anti-intellectualism among both sexes instead? Guys thinking they can get ahead in football or a musical career is essentially the same thing as girls thinking they can get ahead on "a cute ass": banking on one's personal sex-appeal to make it through life. The fact that girls express personal sex appeal through physical appearance and men express it through socially-arranged skill performances only belies the central fact of too many people attempting to make a living off their appeal as mates instead of by contributing to society.
I see most kids get home at 2 or 3 in the afternoon
That would be because they got to school at 7 AM.
If we were fair and followed our common sense, the psychology and sociology departments that do work on sex disparities would lose their ability to use the buzzwords of society's past sins to procure funding! Therefore, we cannot have fairness or equality, but most swing the pendulum of inequality in the other direction, guaranteeing work for academics and think-tanks for decades to come!
You're missing the fact that teaching is funded out of local taxpayers' pockets and the fact that demand for teachers shifts up with the ability to pay for them. In other words, rich school districts who can afford to pay well for a dozen top-of-the-line teachers to teach only 200 kids will do so, whereas when poorer districts need to get five teachers to teach 200 kids they can't even afford to pay the same wages as the rich district. The NEA and government requirements also interfere, so that when you combine relatively low wages with long hours and a large education requirement nobody really says material prosperity or gain in becoming a teacher.
Note that the exact reverse is also true. En masse most guys don't go into math because it's extravagantly unlikely to net them a desirable female. It's just that men differ from our average in most traits more often than women differ from their average.
Not a very good example. Post-doc work depends largely on what you did for your PhD. If the couple had equal abilities but did two different PhD thesis topics and the woman's turned out more successful by coincidence, the scenario you describe could easily happen by random chance.
For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men).
Let me clarify this with a data point/anecdote. Here at UMass Amherst, there are a great many scholarships available for Computer Science students. The small minority that don't require that the applicant have membership in a racial minority or have female sex all explicitly state that they still prefer it. It's actively frustrating hunting for scholarships as a "white" male, since everyone figures that you must be rich, fat, and happy enough to pay for everything in life all on your lonesome, or at least that you deserve their money much less than someone who happens to speak Spanish natively or lacks a Y-chromosome.
Dang, moderators give you +2 Funny now just for posting a link to an XKCD?
There are more moderately-high paying jobs not requiring a BA/BS degree that men traditionally hold, rather than women. Building trades, for instance.
Nearly all of which have collapsed under competition from guest workers or foreign countries since roughly the '90s.
FWIW, since this is a relatively recent development, I think it's fine... it'll help undo centuries/millenia of male domination in Western culture.
Male domination my ass. Men don't dominate. The top men dominate.
Money always attracted nearly all men. A good definition of "geek" is someone whose interests override their need for money.
But the ease thing... yeah. American culture right now can go die. Exactly when America should be reinvesting in making things and in R&D, everyone just figures that a bit more management can make it all work again.
I have a new slogan for the business world: "If you're not in production, research, or development, you're in overhead."
Why do you think people go into science? There's nothing spiritual (i.e. superstitious) about those questions. If you truly want to know the answers to these great questions, you're not going to be satisfied with some fairy tale.
Science doesn't really answer any of those questions.
Aw hell no. Just as wearing the Magen David comes into style the Scientologists take it? Come on!
There's more if you google around. There were also a number of international very high level zionists who wanted the persecutions, because it served their interests to get more immigrants to go to palestine to help start the jewish state there. Germany even offered a one time bailout/bribery fee to have the whole jewish population moved, but it was rejected by these same rich zionists, it is like they wanted the holocaust so that there would be this huge compelling reason to forcefully takeover what is now Israel, an excuse. Fascinating history. Gruesome, but fascinating, and plenty of odd occurrences and traitorous activities and high level machinations (the bankrolling of the nazi regime is another interesting aspect, some very serious charges could have been levied there but weren't in the allied world, and a lot of these bankers were guess what) and so on to go around. The allies intel knew the camps were in operation, yet failed to ever destroy the rail lines leading into and out of the camps to help shut them down. You have to wonder why this wasn't done.
So, if you didn't know about it, jews working for or bankrolling the nazis and collaborating, etc., consider yourself now informed, and go do your own research. If you live in Germany or a few other nations with so called "hate crimes" laws, watch your step doing the research.
Motherfucking prove it you goddamn anti-Semite. Go ahead, make my day and prove it.