But your premise assumes that those people, and those funds, allocated to "this sort of stuff" would instead go to those who are suffering. That's not a safe assumption.
First, you're assuming that someone who is "clever" at astronomical research could also be clever at food production, medicine, or other fields. I doubt that is the case. I love astronomy, aviation and physics, but I absolutely sucked in high school and college at chemistry and biology because I wasn't motivated to study those things. If you are good enough in your field to be a literal rocket scientist, I would wager that in almost every case, it's not because you are simply brighter than those who didn't make the cut; rather, it's because you wanted it more than those who didn't make the cut, and therefore you pushed harder to achieve that goal. That does NOT necessarily imply that you have the necessary motivation to make an impact in other scientific fields.
Second, even if the money went to aid rather than science and the best scientists applied themselves to reducing human suffering instead of space exploration, I'm not convinced that that would solve the problem. Why? Because, IMHO, most human suffering in the world is our own fault. In the '90s, the U.N. tried to bring food and medical aid to people who were suffering in Somalia. Very little aid reached the people who needed it. That wasn't because those with an abundance (i.e., the U.S., Canada, Europe, etc.) didn't provide enough aid. Food was left to rot in Somalia, while people were starving. The problem was that Somalia -- like much of Africa throughout my lifetime -- was struggling with complete anarchy. The warloads who ran the country were stealing the aid and giving it to their supporters while everybody else was dying. The U.N. tried to come in and restore order (ever see the movie "Black Hawk Down"? I highly recommend it) but basically got their butts kicked. Mankind's propensity for inhumanity and violence is a much, much more important cause of human suffering than anything nature can throw at us. Money and science aren't the answer for that problem; eliminating greed and selfishness is the solution, and good luck with that.
That's why I hate telephones so much. Invariably, just as I'm getting "in the zone" my phone rings, and I end up dropping the problem upon which I'm finally starting to make some progress to work on someone else's problem.
You're exaggerating a bit, I think. Don't get me wrong -- you're on the right track, but I think you are extrapolating beyond what the evidence allows.
First, and foremost, everything we do is based upon a risk and value assessment. We may not consider it as such, and we may not even be consciously aware we are doing it, but the process happens in each and every one of us in every decision we make. Stand eyeball to eyeball with a cop...for what? If I am looking at a $50 speeding ticket vs. half a day in court, it's not worth it except possibly for pride. Even if you only make ten or twelve bucks an hour -- and I make well over that figure -- then spending 4-5 hours sitting in traffic court to fight the ticket is a waste of my time and money. Sure, the cop might be wrong, but even IF I can prove it, it's a Pyrrhic Victory. Furthermore, I think people *are* starting to stand up to abuses of authority. Have you seen what's happening at our airports? TSO's aren't LEO's, but they are still in a position of authority, and more and more people are starting to echo John Tyner's "Don't touch my junk!" rallying cry.
Second, perhaps most people have never written their elected officials (I have, FWIW), but I would argue that's more a reflection on how little effect most people expect it to have. Sure, you can vote for "the other guy", but what do you do when he's just the other side of the coin from the crook in office now? Look how well it worked with Barak Obama. Hope and change? Yeah, right. More like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." My elected officials didn't give a rip about my opinion until Sharon Cissna started saying the same thing. Whatever. At least they're paying a little more attention to the issue now.
What you and others call "whining on the Internet" sounds an awful lot like building a base of support to me. Sure, I could go off half-cocked on my pet issue, but is one person going to draw a lot of media attention? How about if I can rally a hundred people to march outside the Federal Building downtown? NOW I might gather some attention. What if I can get a thousand people to rally with me? You see, you are exemplifying yet another problem with Americans: we have microwave, MTV attention spans. If I can't get satisfaction with 30 seconds, I'm not interested. You see people whining but not doing anything. I see a critical mass building. You are expecting people to flash into action, but have you ever seen what happens when you put a match in a cap full of gasoline? Sure, you get a big flame...for about ten seconds until it burns out. But if you take your time gathering tinder, then kindling, then some branches, then some logs, get it all in place and ONLY THEN strike the match, you get a bonfire. If you want to change the country, it will take a really huge freaking bonfire, not a cap full of gasoline. Patience, grasshopper.
Yeah, we're too comfortable in the U.S. We have a lot to lose, and the majority of the country still hasn't lost enough for it to be worth risking what they still have. But the more Washington squeezes Joe the Plumber, the less he has to lose. Sooner or later, the politicians will realize that Americans have had enough and try to make things right...or the nation will collectively grow a pair and kick the crooks out. I'm hoping for the former; the latter would not be pleasant.
Perhaps we should change the motto to, "In God, Gods, and/or quite possibly, no God or Gods at all, depending upon your religion, or lack thereof, we trust."?
The important distinction, however, was that programmers displayed “disinterest in people” and that they disliked “activities involving close personal interaction.” It is these personality profiles, says Ensmenger, that originated our modern stereotype of the anti-social computer geek.... Although the stereotype of the anti-social programmer was created in the 1960s, it is now self-perpetuating. Employers seek to hire new recruits who fit the existing mold.
That's a load of crap.
My boss flat-out told me that the biggest reason he hired me for the position I am in (network administrator) is because he could tell in the interview that my attitude and personality type would match the group I am working in -- and one of the attributes that he specifically mentioned is that I do work well with others. I've worked with arrogant, anti-social, lone-wolf types in IT, and IMHO, no one in their right mind should ever hire people with that personality trait. While they may be very technically skilled, their "my way or the highway" attitude makes it virtually impossible for them to work in a team, and let's face it -- if you are designing anything but the most trivial IT project, it WILL be too big for one person to handle alone. While you don't want to go too far the other direction and hire group-think types either, IT is a team effort, and IT workers had better be able to work together.
The gender disparity in programming is not the result of slight differences between men and women or subtle unconscious biases. It is the result of overt discrimination going back decades to the origin of the profession. And it will take overt action to correct the disparity.
If you think anti-social attitudes are exclusive to men, I can think of a few women I'd like to introduce you to.
By that logic, there must be discrimination at play keeping men out of nursing positions, too. I don't buy it.
IMHO, you are seeing a statistic, and because you want to believe something, you are assuming that MUST be the explanation. Did you take into account any other factors? Are men taking IT jobs because they pay more and men (correctly or not) feel the responsibility for providing for their families, and therefore, that's the job they take even if they'd rather be doing something else? I, for one, wouldn't choose IT as a career field if money were no object...but it is, so while my wife followed her dream of starting her own business (two, actually), I've worked in a job I LIKE (rather than a job I LOVE) to provide for my family while and freeing my wife to do what she loved (even though financially, she's barely broken even on either of the businesses she started). Honestly, I'd much rather be involved in missionary aviation than IT. Or maybe I'd be a motorcycle courier. Or a musician. Or...or...or...
There's also the matter of a difference in what kinds of jobs men and women are drawn towards. If you could get past all the walls and filters and barriers that inhibit clear communication, how does the percentage of women who want to go into IT compare to the percentage of women who ARE in IT? If the ratio of women in IT reasonably approximates the number of women who have a desire to work in IT, there's no problem.
Also, does the ratio of women employed in IT reflect the ratio of women in the sample population? Why on earth would you expect a 50/50 work force in IT, if the population (for sake of argument) is 35/65?
No, on the basis of the ratio of women to men in the IT workforce ALONE, it is far from "obvious" that there is any "discrimination at play."
Like the other comment to your troll, I suspect I am just biting the flamebait, but here goes anyway:
As feminist enlightened research has already shown...
1) [Citation Needed]. Just saying "research has shown..." without referencing a source doesn't mean squat. For all I know, you're just making it up...or you could be misinterpreting the results...or it could be right on the money. Problem is, I can't read it for myself to see if there is any merit to your claim.
2) "...feminist enlightened..." Color me skeptical on the objectivity of THAT research then. Sounds like a heavily biased panel, IMHO. Surprise! Researchers with axe to grind and looking to prove their point find results that validate their opinion! News at 11:00.
Men are actively pushing women out of top positions by getting undeserved promotions, whereas women has [sic] to work five times as hard as men for peanuts.
Yeah, I'm certain that happens. I'm also certain that women are actively pushing men out of top positions and getting undeserved promotions, too. I used to have a female flight instructor who later landed a job working as a corporate pilot for an oil company. Aviation, like IT, has long been a "good ole boys' club", so I asked her if she found it difficult to get a break in aviation because of her sex. She laughed at me. "No, quite the opposite," she said. "HR departments are going out of their way to recruit women pilots right now. Even if you and I had the same qualifications [she had more flight time and more ratings than I did], I would still land the job nine times out of ten because I am a woman." Anecdote, and regarding a different industry, but what I've seen in IT is similar. Where I work right now, there is a woman in my group who blatantly abuses her salaried position; none of the guys in the office get away with the crap she pulls. In the office where I finally got my break in IT, the lead analyst was female. The majority of that office was female (one out of two analysts, four out of six computer operators). Most of my managers since I graduated from high school have been female, even though my current boss is male. IME, you get what you give. I've worked my 4$$ off and gotten promoted; I've also worked my 4$$ off and gotten passed over for promotion. Blaming it on sex, race, etc., IMHO, is making excuses. If you're bitter and blaming everyone else, you probably won't go far in any industry, not just IT. OTOH, if you are willing to look at other people as individuals and judge them on their own merits, you'll find others probably do the same for you. Most of the guys I know in IT don't really give a rip how you're plumbed if you can help get the job done; I know I don't.
Men are evil.
1) PEOPLE are (often) evil. Get over it.
2) Ummm...based upon the context and arguments you present, you seem to be claiming that men are evil because they are sexist and oppress women. Then, you lump all men into the category "evil". Does that not seem like a sexist and oppressive position to take, particularly for one who is denouncing sexism and oppression? How can you possibly argue that for men to lump women into a second class status on the basis of their sex alone is evil, but then do the very same thing to men? There's a word for people who do that: hypocrite.
Feminist state Sweden has implemented good measures to prevent this and as a result some 85% of University degrees there are females,and well deserved.
Men are evil.
Let me make sure I got this right...you point out how Sweden -- which I assume also contains its fair share of men -- has managed to do something to increase the ratio of women:men graduating from college with university degrees and then reiterate you
Are you suggesting that at least 16%* of people in IT fit into the "Other" category? I've worked in the industry for twelve years now, and I can't *EVER* recall walking into an office and being unsure about the gender of at least 16% of the people working there...
*Just for women to break even, no more than 42% of the work force could be male. 42% x 2 = 84%. 100% - 84% = 16%. Therefore, for women to break even, much less dominate, at least 16% of the work force must be neither male nor female.
I'm not sure that's necessarily a difference. I'm male, but to me, my job is just a job. It's a way to pay the bills so I can afford my house, my truck, my motorcycle, etc., etc., etc. If Ed McMahon pulled up to my driveway tonight with a huge check and a bajillion cameras, there's no way I'd be sitting in my cubicle tomorrow.
I own quite a bit of Behringer gear, too (mixing board, compressors, direct boxes, etc.). While their stuff is a great value, I wouldn't really classify any of it as being particularly high quality. It's good enough to get the job done, but seriously lacking in longevity, and nowhere near as good sound quality as any of the higher-end brands.
I guarantee you, my dad's 30 year old stereo system does NOT sound better than mine. My dad always appreciated quality components, but he never had enough money to buy the stuff he dreamed about owning, and my mom wouldn't have been willing to pay that much even if he could have afforded it, so my dad's stereo equipment was always the mid-grade Walmart quality stuff.
I, on the other hand, dabbled in audio recording a few years ago, so I've got a rack full of entry-level pro gear, with tube preamps, studio reference power amps, studio reference monitors, and some really big honking 18 inch PA mains. I can shake the house if I want pure volume, or I can connect the reference monitors and get pristine sound if that's what I want. Without a doubt, any serious audiophile will have equipment that is orders of magnitude better than my gear -- I did say "entry-level pro gear, after all -- but what I have as still orders of magnitude better than your run-of-the-mill consumer grade gear.
Ditto for my Dell Streak 7. It's got a slot for the SIM card, but I never bothered to acquire one. Don't know if the fact that it *can* be linked to a cellular plan -- even though I have so far chosen not to do so -- makes any difference.
So if a terrorist had phoned Mr A in New York on the day of September 11 saying "congratulations on the bomb thing, now on to phase two" you don't think that any subsequent calls to/from Mr A should have been monitored?
In the general case, I don't think NSA should have had any clue that your hypothetical terrorist had called Mr. A. However, if they intercepted the call while the hypothetical terrorist was already being surveilled for another reason, then the proper response would have been to disclose to the FBI that Mr. A might possibly be connected with a terrorist organization so that the FBI could get a warrant to conduct an investigation legally and properly.
And whether it's by the FBI or the NSA is just nit-picking.
No, not by a long shot. That kind of thinking is dangerous because it implies a very, VERY limited understanding of the roles of the TLAs. FBI must conduct investigations of CRIMINAL activity, building a legal case that will withstand a jury trial so that CRIMINALS can be convicted of their crimes and go to jail. NSA, CIA, etc. are MILITARY (okay, maybe paramilitary) organizations. They are concerned with finding out which foreign nations are intending to harm the USA, and consequently provide intel to the military -- and ultimately, the President -- so that the U.S. can conduct MILITARY (or diplomatic) actions against those who intend us harm. When the government begins using its military against its own populace, you have officially entered a police state. That's a Bad Thing, by the way.
Admittedly, there is a grey area where foreign states are engaging terrorist groups to conduct small-scale paramilitary operations against the U.S., but I would argue that terrorist activity within the U.S. is still well within the jurisdiction of the FBI because it is a criminal act. It is not the armed forces of another nation acting against us, even if the terrorist group is sponsored by another nation.
...a lot of fresh produce can be shipped without airfreight, and thereby a lot more energy efficiently...
As was said earlier in this post, that depends entirely upon where you live. I live in Anchorage, Alaska. You can get here by other than by air, but not reliably. Anchorage is (barely, I'll admit) north of the dividing line between ice-free and iced-in seaports. There are two reasonably major highways through Canada, but they both are subject to icy roads in the winter, and as they are in the mountains, that can cause problems as well. There are a lot of railways in south-central Alaska, but I don't know about railways to Anchorage from the lower-48. If you live outside of Anchorage, all bets are off -- Iliamna, for example, is only about 200 miles from here, but the *ONLY* way to get there is by air. Likewise for most of the rest of bush Alaska.
"There are certain circumstances where that authority may exist," even if the NSA has no warrant to investigate a the [sic] person whose privacy it is invading or global permission to eavesdrop on everyone, according to Matthew Olsen, the NSA's general counsel.
The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.
So what happens when the technology advances to the point where it is no more difficult to track the entire population of the U.S.? It's a logical fallacy to claim it's no big deal just because it's impractical given current technology. Technology will catch up, but if you wait until it does to object, it will be too late.
As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.
I do. NSA was chartered for the purpose of gathering electronic intelligence of our enemies abroad (at the time of its inception, the Soviet Union). I worked at NSA in the late '80s, and at the time, there were signs posted all over warning that NSA was specifically prohibited by executive order from conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens within the United States. The FBI is tasked with domestic law enforcement, not NSA; NSA has no business whatsoever conducting surveillance on American citizens within the U.S.
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.
How many of us already choose to use tech products that spy on us because we are too cheap to pay even a trivial sum for the product or for a similar, non-free version? Pandora*, I'm looking at you.
*I don't know if Pandora's paid version is less intrusive than the free version -- I suspect not, but that's just a guess.
Slashdot Mirror
But your premise assumes that those people, and those funds, allocated to "this sort of stuff" would instead go to those who are suffering. That's not a safe assumption.
First, you're assuming that someone who is "clever" at astronomical research could also be clever at food production, medicine, or other fields. I doubt that is the case. I love astronomy, aviation and physics, but I absolutely sucked in high school and college at chemistry and biology because I wasn't motivated to study those things. If you are good enough in your field to be a literal rocket scientist, I would wager that in almost every case, it's not because you are simply brighter than those who didn't make the cut; rather, it's because you wanted it more than those who didn't make the cut, and therefore you pushed harder to achieve that goal. That does NOT necessarily imply that you have the necessary motivation to make an impact in other scientific fields.
Second, even if the money went to aid rather than science and the best scientists applied themselves to reducing human suffering instead of space exploration, I'm not convinced that that would solve the problem. Why? Because, IMHO, most human suffering in the world is our own fault. In the '90s, the U.N. tried to bring food and medical aid to people who were suffering in Somalia. Very little aid reached the people who needed it. That wasn't because those with an abundance (i.e., the U.S., Canada, Europe, etc.) didn't provide enough aid. Food was left to rot in Somalia, while people were starving. The problem was that Somalia -- like much of Africa throughout my lifetime -- was struggling with complete anarchy. The warloads who ran the country were stealing the aid and giving it to their supporters while everybody else was dying. The U.N. tried to come in and restore order (ever see the movie "Black Hawk Down"? I highly recommend it) but basically got their butts kicked. Mankind's propensity for inhumanity and violence is a much, much more important cause of human suffering than anything nature can throw at us. Money and science aren't the answer for that problem; eliminating greed and selfishness is the solution, and good luck with that.
And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself."
But not while it's busy doing something else.
That's why I hate telephones so much. Invariably, just as I'm getting "in the zone" my phone rings, and I end up dropping the problem upon which I'm finally starting to make some progress to work on someone else's problem.
You're exaggerating a bit, I think. Don't get me wrong -- you're on the right track, but I think you are extrapolating beyond what the evidence allows.
First, and foremost, everything we do is based upon a risk and value assessment. We may not consider it as such, and we may not even be consciously aware we are doing it, but the process happens in each and every one of us in every decision we make. Stand eyeball to eyeball with a cop...for what? If I am looking at a $50 speeding ticket vs. half a day in court, it's not worth it except possibly for pride. Even if you only make ten or twelve bucks an hour -- and I make well over that figure -- then spending 4-5 hours sitting in traffic court to fight the ticket is a waste of my time and money. Sure, the cop might be wrong, but even IF I can prove it, it's a Pyrrhic Victory. Furthermore, I think people *are* starting to stand up to abuses of authority. Have you seen what's happening at our airports? TSO's aren't LEO's, but they are still in a position of authority, and more and more people are starting to echo John Tyner's "Don't touch my junk!" rallying cry.
Second, perhaps most people have never written their elected officials (I have, FWIW), but I would argue that's more a reflection on how little effect most people expect it to have. Sure, you can vote for "the other guy", but what do you do when he's just the other side of the coin from the crook in office now? Look how well it worked with Barak Obama. Hope and change? Yeah, right. More like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." My elected officials didn't give a rip about my opinion until Sharon Cissna started saying the same thing. Whatever. At least they're paying a little more attention to the issue now.
What you and others call "whining on the Internet" sounds an awful lot like building a base of support to me. Sure, I could go off half-cocked on my pet issue, but is one person going to draw a lot of media attention? How about if I can rally a hundred people to march outside the Federal Building downtown? NOW I might gather some attention. What if I can get a thousand people to rally with me? You see, you are exemplifying yet another problem with Americans: we have microwave, MTV attention spans. If I can't get satisfaction with 30 seconds, I'm not interested. You see people whining but not doing anything. I see a critical mass building. You are expecting people to flash into action, but have you ever seen what happens when you put a match in a cap full of gasoline? Sure, you get a big flame...for about ten seconds until it burns out. But if you take your time gathering tinder, then kindling, then some branches, then some logs, get it all in place and ONLY THEN strike the match, you get a bonfire. If you want to change the country, it will take a really huge freaking bonfire, not a cap full of gasoline. Patience, grasshopper.
Yeah, we're too comfortable in the U.S. We have a lot to lose, and the majority of the country still hasn't lost enough for it to be worth risking what they still have. But the more Washington squeezes Joe the Plumber, the less he has to lose. Sooner or later, the politicians will realize that Americans have had enough and try to make things right...or the nation will collectively grow a pair and kick the crooks out. I'm hoping for the former; the latter would not be pleasant.
Perhaps we should change the motto to, "In God, Gods, and/or quite possibly, no God or Gods at all, depending upon your religion, or lack thereof, we trust."?
I don't like these guys any more than I like the government and don't trust them any further than I could throw them.
Tassey and Perkins will demonstrate the WASP’s high-flying exploits at next week’s Black Hat Security Conference in Las Vegas...Tassey, a security consultant to Wall Street and the U.S. intelligence community and Perkins, a senior security engineer supporting the U.S. government [emphasis mine]...
In this case, the difference between "hackers" and "the government" appears to be negligible, at best.
True :)
I still suspect 16% is a very high number, though.
I knew I should have checked before posting...
;)
The important distinction, however, was that programmers displayed “disinterest in people” and that they disliked “activities involving close personal interaction.” It is these personality profiles, says Ensmenger, that originated our modern stereotype of the anti-social computer geek. ... Although the stereotype of the anti-social programmer was created in the 1960s, it is now self-perpetuating. Employers seek to hire new recruits who fit the existing mold.
That's a load of crap.
My boss flat-out told me that the biggest reason he hired me for the position I am in (network administrator) is because he could tell in the interview that my attitude and personality type would match the group I am working in -- and one of the attributes that he specifically mentioned is that I do work well with others. I've worked with arrogant, anti-social, lone-wolf types in IT, and IMHO, no one in their right mind should ever hire people with that personality trait. While they may be very technically skilled, their "my way or the highway" attitude makes it virtually impossible for them to work in a team, and let's face it -- if you are designing anything but the most trivial IT project, it WILL be too big for one person to handle alone. While you don't want to go too far the other direction and hire group-think types either, IT is a team effort, and IT workers had better be able to work together.
The gender disparity in programming is not the result of slight differences between men and women or subtle unconscious biases. It is the result of overt discrimination going back decades to the origin of the profession. And it will take overt action to correct the disparity.
If you think anti-social attitudes are exclusive to men, I can think of a few women I'd like to introduce you to.
By that logic, there must be discrimination at play keeping men out of nursing positions, too. I don't buy it.
IMHO, you are seeing a statistic, and because you want to believe something, you are assuming that MUST be the explanation. Did you take into account any other factors? Are men taking IT jobs because they pay more and men (correctly or not) feel the responsibility for providing for their families, and therefore, that's the job they take even if they'd rather be doing something else? I, for one, wouldn't choose IT as a career field if money were no object...but it is, so while my wife followed her dream of starting her own business (two, actually), I've worked in a job I LIKE (rather than a job I LOVE) to provide for my family while and freeing my wife to do what she loved (even though financially, she's barely broken even on either of the businesses she started). Honestly, I'd much rather be involved in missionary aviation than IT. Or maybe I'd be a motorcycle courier. Or a musician. Or...or...or...
There's also the matter of a difference in what kinds of jobs men and women are drawn towards. If you could get past all the walls and filters and barriers that inhibit clear communication, how does the percentage of women who want to go into IT compare to the percentage of women who ARE in IT? If the ratio of women in IT reasonably approximates the number of women who have a desire to work in IT, there's no problem.
Also, does the ratio of women employed in IT reflect the ratio of women in the sample population? Why on earth would you expect a 50/50 work force in IT, if the population (for sake of argument) is 35/65?
No, on the basis of the ratio of women to men in the IT workforce ALONE, it is far from "obvious" that there is any "discrimination at play."
As feminist enlightened research has already shown...
1) [Citation Needed]. Just saying "research has shown..." without referencing a source doesn't mean squat. For all I know, you're just making it up...or you could be misinterpreting the results...or it could be right on the money. Problem is, I can't read it for myself to see if there is any merit to your claim.
2) "...feminist enlightened..." Color me skeptical on the objectivity of THAT research then. Sounds like a heavily biased panel, IMHO. Surprise! Researchers with axe to grind and looking to prove their point find results that validate their opinion! News at 11:00.
Men are actively pushing women out of top positions by getting undeserved promotions, whereas women has [sic] to work five times as hard as men for peanuts.
Yeah, I'm certain that happens. I'm also certain that women are actively pushing men out of top positions and getting undeserved promotions, too. I used to have a female flight instructor who later landed a job working as a corporate pilot for an oil company. Aviation, like IT, has long been a "good ole boys' club", so I asked her if she found it difficult to get a break in aviation because of her sex. She laughed at me. "No, quite the opposite," she said. "HR departments are going out of their way to recruit women pilots right now. Even if you and I had the same qualifications [she had more flight time and more ratings than I did], I would still land the job nine times out of ten because I am a woman." Anecdote, and regarding a different industry, but what I've seen in IT is similar. Where I work right now, there is a woman in my group who blatantly abuses her salaried position; none of the guys in the office get away with the crap she pulls. In the office where I finally got my break in IT, the lead analyst was female. The majority of that office was female (one out of two analysts, four out of six computer operators). Most of my managers since I graduated from high school have been female, even though my current boss is male. IME, you get what you give. I've worked my 4$$ off and gotten promoted; I've also worked my 4$$ off and gotten passed over for promotion. Blaming it on sex, race, etc., IMHO, is making excuses. If you're bitter and blaming everyone else, you probably won't go far in any industry, not just IT. OTOH, if you are willing to look at other people as individuals and judge them on their own merits, you'll find others probably do the same for you. Most of the guys I know in IT don't really give a rip how you're plumbed if you can help get the job done; I know I don't.
Men are evil.
1) PEOPLE are (often) evil. Get over it.
2) Ummm...based upon the context and arguments you present, you seem to be claiming that men are evil because they are sexist and oppress women. Then, you lump all men into the category "evil". Does that not seem like a sexist and oppressive position to take, particularly for one who is denouncing sexism and oppression? How can you possibly argue that for men to lump women into a second class status on the basis of their sex alone is evil, but then do the very same thing to men? There's a word for people who do that: hypocrite.
Feminist state Sweden has implemented good measures to prevent this and as a result some 85% of University degrees there are females,and well deserved.
Men are evil.
Let me make sure I got this right...you point out how Sweden -- which I assume also contains its fair share of men -- has managed to do something to increase the ratio of women:men graduating from college with university degrees and then reiterate you
Are you suggesting that at least 16%* of people in IT fit into the "Other" category? I've worked in the industry for twelve years now, and I can't *EVER* recall walking into an office and being unsure about the gender of at least 16% of the people working there...
*Just for women to break even, no more than 42% of the work force could be male. 42% x 2 = 84%. 100% - 84% = 16%. Therefore, for women to break even, much less dominate, at least 16% of the work force must be neither male nor female.
I'm not sure that's necessarily a difference. I'm male, but to me, my job is just a job. It's a way to pay the bills so I can afford my house, my truck, my motorcycle, etc., etc., etc. If Ed McMahon pulled up to my driveway tonight with a huge check and a bajillion cameras, there's no way I'd be sitting in my cubicle tomorrow.
I own quite a bit of Behringer gear, too (mixing board, compressors, direct boxes, etc.). While their stuff is a great value, I wouldn't really classify any of it as being particularly high quality. It's good enough to get the job done, but seriously lacking in longevity, and nowhere near as good sound quality as any of the higher-end brands.
I guarantee you, my dad's 30 year old stereo system does NOT sound better than mine. My dad always appreciated quality components, but he never had enough money to buy the stuff he dreamed about owning, and my mom wouldn't have been willing to pay that much even if he could have afforded it, so my dad's stereo equipment was always the mid-grade Walmart quality stuff.
I, on the other hand, dabbled in audio recording a few years ago, so I've got a rack full of entry-level pro gear, with tube preamps, studio reference power amps, studio reference monitors, and some really big honking 18 inch PA mains. I can shake the house if I want pure volume, or I can connect the reference monitors and get pristine sound if that's what I want. Without a doubt, any serious audiophile will have equipment that is orders of magnitude better than my gear -- I did say "entry-level pro gear, after all -- but what I have as still orders of magnitude better than your run-of-the-mill consumer grade gear.
Ditto for my Dell Streak 7. It's got a slot for the SIM card, but I never bothered to acquire one. Don't know if the fact that it *can* be linked to a cellular plan -- even though I have so far chosen not to do so -- makes any difference.
...2010 TK7 is about 300 meters across...
It would be kind of cramped, and I rather suspect the gravitational pull would be negligible for all practical purposes.
So if a terrorist had phoned Mr A in New York on the day of September 11 saying "congratulations on the bomb thing, now on to phase two" you don't think that any subsequent calls to/from Mr A should have been monitored?
In the general case, I don't think NSA should have had any clue that your hypothetical terrorist had called Mr. A. However, if they intercepted the call while the hypothetical terrorist was already being surveilled for another reason, then the proper response would have been to disclose to the FBI that Mr. A might possibly be connected with a terrorist organization so that the FBI could get a warrant to conduct an investigation legally and properly.
And whether it's by the FBI or the NSA is just nit-picking.
No, not by a long shot. That kind of thinking is dangerous because it implies a very, VERY limited understanding of the roles of the TLAs. FBI must conduct investigations of CRIMINAL activity, building a legal case that will withstand a jury trial so that CRIMINALS can be convicted of their crimes and go to jail. NSA, CIA, etc. are MILITARY (okay, maybe paramilitary) organizations. They are concerned with finding out which foreign nations are intending to harm the USA, and consequently provide intel to the military -- and ultimately, the President -- so that the U.S. can conduct MILITARY (or diplomatic) actions against those who intend us harm. When the government begins using its military against its own populace, you have officially entered a police state. That's a Bad Thing, by the way.
Admittedly, there is a grey area where foreign states are engaging terrorist groups to conduct small-scale paramilitary operations against the U.S., but I would argue that terrorist activity within the U.S. is still well within the jurisdiction of the FBI because it is a criminal act. It is not the armed forces of another nation acting against us, even if the terrorist group is sponsored by another nation.
...so unless NSA has taps on all the telecomm central offices, its going to be really hard to track and capture all of it.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they do:
Welcome to 1994.
You cook the nutrients out of them and add a boatload of preservatives, some of which cause allergic or other reactions in some people, for starters.
...a lot of fresh produce can be shipped without airfreight, and thereby a lot more energy efficiently...
As was said earlier in this post, that depends entirely upon where you live. I live in Anchorage, Alaska. You can get here by other than by air, but not reliably. Anchorage is (barely, I'll admit) north of the dividing line between ice-free and iced-in seaports. There are two reasonably major highways through Canada, but they both are subject to icy roads in the winter, and as they are in the mountains, that can cause problems as well. There are a lot of railways in south-central Alaska, but I don't know about railways to Anchorage from the lower-48. If you live outside of Anchorage, all bets are off -- Iliamna, for example, is only about 200 miles from here, but the *ONLY* way to get there is by air. Likewise for most of the rest of bush Alaska.
The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.
So what happens when the technology advances to the point where it is no more difficult to track the entire population of the U.S.? It's a logical fallacy to claim it's no big deal just because it's impractical given current technology. Technology will catch up, but if you wait until it does to object, it will be too late.
As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.
I do. NSA was chartered for the purpose of gathering electronic intelligence of our enemies abroad (at the time of its inception, the Soviet Union). I worked at NSA in the late '80s, and at the time, there were signs posted all over warning that NSA was specifically prohibited by executive order from conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens within the United States. The FBI is tasked with domestic law enforcement, not NSA; NSA has no business whatsoever conducting surveillance on American citizens within the U.S.
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.
How many of us already choose to use tech products that spy on us because we are too cheap to pay even a trivial sum for the product or for a similar, non-free version? Pandora*, I'm looking at you.
*I don't know if Pandora's paid version is less intrusive than the free version -- I suspect not, but that's just a guess.