Well do the decent thing and give them the fucking they're clearly after.
Why the fuck do you think they're dropping the kids off at soccer? It's to clear the space for a bit of rough, and even the suave drug dealers qualify.
Major programmes failing isn't unusual but those basic elements tend to assure a swifter cheaper failure. Although some major programmes aren't allowed to fail, so people throw money at them to push them through, turning the failure into an expensive one.
That's not a methodology issue, that's a corporate governance issue - if that's the case here, not sure Pearson can be held to blame.
Curious. I find there's a massive and vibrant PC gaming scene, with almost all of the console games available on PC and a far broader range of games also easily acquired.
Some of them are mobile game ports. Some of them have had several years investment by a team of 40 people. Many of them fit somewhere in-between.
PC games are at best mediocre, and the price of a game (assuming one factors all DLC that isn't new levels) has tripled or quadrupled.
What would you class as being "not mediocre"? I can download (legally free) or purchase games that are identical or substantially the same as 90% of the games released on any platform in the last 30 years for my PC, except usually with updated/improved graphics/performance, and the modern releases offer more complexity, richer gameplay and very new gaming experiences.
If you want to buy Train Simulator 2014 and all its DLC then yes, it's more expensive. Even AAA games these days aren't any more expensive in real terms than they have been for decades, and the base game is usually comparable in content to older games. The DLC is optional (much as I hate it) and there are a lot of PC games that continue to offer great modding support, letting you expand and extend the game without needing to spend any additional money.
Then there's all of the 'free to play' games available on the PC. Some of those are very rich and interesting experiences, and they're available across multiple genres.
The local game stores are having a renaissance, and there is little to no interest in anything PC or console, except for maybe WoW.
Yeah.. this thing called Digital Distribution. It's a shit term, but it does explain why physical premises aren't the place to be looking for PC games. Anybody that hasn't embraced the multiple online sources of game information and games is forcing themselves out of the market.
Yeah. I know a lot of people with a backlog of games they've bought but haven't played.
My personal backlog is around 80 games. Most of those came as part of indie bundles, but I rarely spend more than £10 on a game because it's just not worth that much to me.
Most of my time goes into non-AAA games, so I give them the same £5-10 of investment I put into the AAA games. As the indies are often the innovators and the incubators of the industry this assures a healthy and vibrant market, even if the more commercial end of that market is pricing itself out of my range and releasing whole genres that don't interest me.
And it really sucks that you can spend a lot of time learning new skills but no one cares if you don't have on the job experience. I think I pissed away several thousand dollars on training (not including university) on my own dime that did nothing for me. And since I haven't the need to use them, I forget it.
I feel for you on that. I do my best to discourage anybody from spending their own money on IT training, as the payback just isn't there.
You need to self-learn and get on the job training (paid, self-employed/hobbyist or via open source), and then decide whether to supplement that experience with additional training/certification. But there are so many people out there will hands-on knowledge that just having the training is pretty much never enough to pull a job.
Yeah, I'd hesitate to join Tata based on my experience of their management practices and the quality of their staff.
That's got fuck all to do directly with the race of their employees though, so doesn't explain why local hirees have such an unrepresentative demographic.
Schools are legally required by that law to address sexual harassment and violence on campus
Then they should do something to address the harassment of male students, including violence threatened and perpetrated if they dare to suggest a "Men's rights" group on campus.
I see far more people getting raped and not believed then I see people being falsely accused, and this is coming from someone who has had people close to me in both categories.
The incidence and severity of the crime of rape does not excuse the life destroying impact of a false accusation.
Both are bad. Neither should happen. It's correct to attempt to prevent both, and to draw attention to something that makes either become more likely.
The vast majority of the time, accusations are turned back on the accuser. There are occasional examples of the accusation ruining the accused, but most of the time people (including officers) assume the accusation is 'probably false' and treat the victim accordingly. Get raped, and generally one will be treated like they deserved it, or are making it up, or are just having regrets, or are simply trying to 'take advantage' of some innocent man.
In the UK the formal (and I believe primary informal) response of the police is to treat the accusation seriously and treat the complainant as a victim of a serious crime.
On the flipside, a woman can now legally withdraw consent given while intoxicated after the event. So a man can technically be found guilty of rape after a woman has a glass of wine, walks up to his comatose body, pulls down his trousers and sits on his cock, if she wakes up the next morning and decides she doesn't like the Facebook post mentioning this.
When the law is that fucking insane people need protecting from it, and protection from false accusation is very much necessary.
This is one reason why rape victims get anonymity in the UK.
This is reasonable, and public sentiment almost universally agrees with it.
Someone found guilty in court of making a false accusation loses their anonymity, which reinforces the emphasis that the protection is for actual victims of violent sexual assault.
Where the law goes wrong is that people accused do not also get anonymity. Witch hunts ensue. Lives get destroyed. It's a shitty situation.
How are we subjecting any women to a sexist disadvantage if we grant them equal education, equal opportunities, equal choices?
What the fuck are you talking about disadvantages men *might* suffer when men are already more likely to commit suicide, more likely to die in the workplace, have lower life expectancy, work longer hours, are more likely to have mental health issues, are more likely to be homeless, are treated far far worse by the family and criminal court systems?
Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
If you're a man aged 30 or under you're already suffering from inferior treatment by society as a whole. Too fucking late.
I do feel bad for men who are prevented by gender stereotypes from being first grade teachers or head nurses, but lets be honest, these are paraprofessional jobs that were once semi-reserved for women because men had a monopoly on the real money and prestige jobs of professor or doctor. Society can worry about the JV teams later.
What about the men struggling to get into jobs such as professor or doctor now? Just that it's a pretty shitty time to be a 20 year old man: even if you graduate without suffering a false rape allegation you're going to be fighting for jobs against better educated women who are given funding and additional training then given greater chance of a job even if you can match their qualifications.
Sexism is an issue, but more sexism of a different kind is not the answer. Disadvantaging men that are trying to enter STEM professions leaves them nothing but the shitty jobs, in which they're already heavily over-represented, and even if feminists think that's perfectly fine I think the OP is entirely correct to call them out on it.
If you have 10 tenured positions, and nine of them are men, that Y-factor in hiring the 10th (maybe she will bring something different to the table) can be the deciding factor between two evenly matched candidates and is no more arbitrary or unfair than thinking "This guy reminds me of the one who left, and he worked out well;" which (of course) is part of why the other 9 are men.
The fucking article is highlighting that women are twice as likely to get offered a tenure-track position than men.
The Y-factor is a disadvantage. How the fuck do you come out with some "this is why 90% of them are male" bullshit even in a fucking conversation about women being heavily advantaged over men purely on gender grounds?
There are tenure-track positions in programming? I was under the impression it was literally madness inducing* work, where most employers have a use-em-and-throw-em-away attitude to employees, with death marches, burnout and rife age discrimination. I didn't realise it was a cushy 9-5 job with lifetime employment positions that women were dreaming of breaking into somehow.
What, women choose not to work stupidly long hours in an industry that value technical ability above social skills? And that's the fault of men? Well shit, I guess it's also the fault of men that they don't perceive nursing as a desirable career either.
Slashdot Mirror
Male-centric? What, you mean they teach facts and test actual knowledge, unlike the more artistic courses where being female gets you a higher grade?
Given the ratios bandied about in SV, there's no need to cater to the Y chromosomes in training the next generation.
Forgive me for disagreeing that we should condemn half a generation for being born the wrong sex.
Well do the decent thing and give them the fucking they're clearly after.
Why the fuck do you think they're dropping the kids off at soccer? It's to clear the space for a bit of rough, and even the suave drug dealers qualify.
Yeah, I'm contemplating telling HR that I'm female, get myself some of the extra training that's available.
Ok, only kidding - I left the company where that would've worked. The one with 60% of the 70,000 workforce being female.
I know. If only there were some happy medium where people are treated equally, irrespective of gender.
In the gender appropriate school. What's so complicated about that?
Btw, I'm unsure of the appropriate response to 'shitlord'. Should I call you Arsequeen or something?
Interesting then.
Major programmes failing isn't unusual but those basic elements tend to assure a swifter cheaper failure. Although some major programmes aren't allowed to fail, so people throw money at them to push them through, turning the failure into an expensive one.
That's not a methodology issue, that's a corporate governance issue - if that's the case here, not sure Pearson can be held to blame.
"Deploy as quickly as possible" doesn't preclude proper risk assessment, a phased roll-out, ongoing evaluation and determination of benefits.
Sort of an agile mentality
No, sort of a cowboy mentality. Agile mentality is collaborative, informed, open and measureable.
Curious. I find there's a massive and vibrant PC gaming scene, with almost all of the console games available on PC and a far broader range of games also easily acquired.
Some of them are mobile game ports. Some of them have had several years investment by a team of 40 people. Many of them fit somewhere in-between.
PC games are at best mediocre, and the price of a game (assuming one factors all DLC that isn't new levels) has tripled or quadrupled.
What would you class as being "not mediocre"? I can download (legally free) or purchase games that are identical or substantially the same as 90% of the games released on any platform in the last 30 years for my PC, except usually with updated/improved graphics/performance, and the modern releases offer more complexity, richer gameplay and very new gaming experiences.
If you want to buy Train Simulator 2014 and all its DLC then yes, it's more expensive. Even AAA games these days aren't any more expensive in real terms than they have been for decades, and the base game is usually comparable in content to older games. The DLC is optional (much as I hate it) and there are a lot of PC games that continue to offer great modding support, letting you expand and extend the game without needing to spend any additional money.
Then there's all of the 'free to play' games available on the PC. Some of those are very rich and interesting experiences, and they're available across multiple genres.
The local game stores are having a renaissance, and there is little to no interest in anything PC or console, except for maybe WoW.
Yeah.. this thing called Digital Distribution. It's a shit term, but it does explain why physical premises aren't the place to be looking for PC games. Anybody that hasn't embraced the multiple online sources of game information and games is forcing themselves out of the market.
Yeah. I know a lot of people with a backlog of games they've bought but haven't played.
My personal backlog is around 80 games. Most of those came as part of indie bundles, but I rarely spend more than £10 on a game because it's just not worth that much to me.
Most of my time goes into non-AAA games, so I give them the same £5-10 of investment I put into the AAA games. As the indies are often the innovators and the incubators of the industry this assures a healthy and vibrant market, even if the more commercial end of that market is pricing itself out of my range and releasing whole genres that don't interest me.
I can only hope that hurt as much to write as it did to read. I mean raad.
And it really sucks that you can spend a lot of time learning new skills but no one cares if you don't have on the job experience. I think I pissed away several thousand dollars on training (not including university) on my own dime that did nothing for me. And since I haven't the need to use them, I forget it.
I feel for you on that. I do my best to discourage anybody from spending their own money on IT training, as the payback just isn't there.
You need to self-learn and get on the job training (paid, self-employed/hobbyist or via open source), and then decide whether to supplement that experience with additional training/certification. But there are so many people out there will hands-on knowledge that just having the training is pretty much never enough to pull a job.
Yeah, I'd hesitate to join Tata based on my experience of their management practices and the quality of their staff.
That's got fuck all to do directly with the race of their employees though, so doesn't explain why local hirees have such an unrepresentative demographic.
Because a violent attacker with greater strength and size could never remove those items from you and use them against you.
No, I think I'd prefer alternate strategies.
Schools are legally required by that law to address sexual harassment and violence on campus
Then they should do something to address the harassment of male students, including violence threatened and perpetrated if they dare to suggest a "Men's rights" group on campus.
I see far more people getting raped and not believed then I see people being falsely accused, and this is coming from someone who has had people close to me in both categories.
The incidence and severity of the crime of rape does not excuse the life destroying impact of a false accusation.
Both are bad. Neither should happen. It's correct to attempt to prevent both, and to draw attention to something that makes either become more likely.
The vast majority of the time, accusations are turned back on the accuser. There are occasional examples of the accusation ruining the accused, but most of the time people (including officers) assume the accusation is 'probably false' and treat the victim accordingly. Get raped, and generally one will be treated like they deserved it, or are making it up, or are just having regrets, or are simply trying to 'take advantage' of some innocent man.
In the UK the formal (and I believe primary informal) response of the police is to treat the accusation seriously and treat the complainant as a victim of a serious crime.
On the flipside, a woman can now legally withdraw consent given while intoxicated after the event. So a man can technically be found guilty of rape after a woman has a glass of wine, walks up to his comatose body, pulls down his trousers and sits on his cock, if she wakes up the next morning and decides she doesn't like the Facebook post mentioning this.
When the law is that fucking insane people need protecting from it, and protection from false accusation is very much necessary.
No. Not being found guilty means you must be treated as innocent, not that you are innocent.
It's a subtle difference, but it does exist.
This is one reason why rape victims get anonymity in the UK.
This is reasonable, and public sentiment almost universally agrees with it.
Someone found guilty in court of making a false accusation loses their anonymity, which reinforces the emphasis that the protection is for actual victims of violent sexual assault.
Where the law goes wrong is that people accused do not also get anonymity. Witch hunts ensue. Lives get destroyed. It's a shitty situation.
To be fair, if you do you should probably just go quartz :)
Current UK law : You may not discriminate against a job applicant on the grounds of gender (unless they're a man).
Your view of what constitutes a reasonable law : You must discriminate against a job applicant if they're a man.
How about, fuck off.
I think you're a complete cunt.
How are we subjecting any women to a sexist disadvantage if we grant them equal education, equal opportunities, equal choices?
What the fuck are you talking about disadvantages men *might* suffer when men are already more likely to commit suicide, more likely to die in the workplace, have lower life expectancy, work longer hours, are more likely to have mental health issues, are more likely to be homeless, are treated far far worse by the family and criminal court systems?
Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
If you're a man aged 30 or under you're already suffering from inferior treatment by society as a whole. Too fucking late.
What the fuck? How about no, we don't spend two generations fucking over men purely because they happen to have a cock from birth.
I do feel bad for men who are prevented by gender stereotypes from being first grade teachers or head nurses, but lets be honest, these are paraprofessional jobs that were once semi-reserved for women because men had a monopoly on the real money and prestige jobs of professor or doctor. Society can worry about the JV teams later.
What about the men struggling to get into jobs such as professor or doctor now? Just that it's a pretty shitty time to be a 20 year old man: even if you graduate without suffering a false rape allegation you're going to be fighting for jobs against better educated women who are given funding and additional training then given greater chance of a job even if you can match their qualifications.
Sexism is an issue, but more sexism of a different kind is not the answer. Disadvantaging men that are trying to enter STEM professions leaves them nothing but the shitty jobs, in which they're already heavily over-represented, and even if feminists think that's perfectly fine I think the OP is entirely correct to call them out on it.
If you have 10 tenured positions, and nine of them are men, that Y-factor in hiring the 10th (maybe she will bring something different to the table) can be the deciding factor between two evenly matched candidates and is no more arbitrary or unfair than thinking "This guy reminds me of the one who left, and he worked out well;" which (of course) is part of why the other 9 are men.
The fucking article is highlighting that women are twice as likely to get offered a tenure-track position than men.
The Y-factor is a disadvantage. How the fuck do you come out with some "this is why 90% of them are male" bullshit even in a fucking conversation about women being heavily advantaged over men purely on gender grounds?
Fucking feminists.
There are tenure-track positions in programming? I was under the impression it was literally madness inducing* work, where most employers have a use-em-and-throw-em-away attitude to employees, with death marches, burnout and rife age discrimination. I didn't realise it was a cushy 9-5 job with lifetime employment positions that women were dreaming of breaking into somehow.
What, women choose not to work stupidly long hours in an industry that value technical ability above social skills? And that's the fault of men? Well shit, I guess it's also the fault of men that they don't perceive nursing as a desirable career either.
* http://www.businessinsider.com...
Tell this to the feminists. Maybe we can remove some of the systemic discrimination that's holding back boys and young men.