Perhaps the gender ratio would be more balanced if the population in general believed that a person can be a techie and still be "cool".
Lying might help with initial recruitment but when people find that this isn't true they'll probably just quit again. In the long run it's probably best to be honest and tell people that being a techie and being "cool" are not compatible.
Because the people already established in these fields (men) don't want them there
In all my years in tech related work (about 15) I have not once heard a single comment from a coworker even suggesting that women aren't as good as tech workers. I've never ever heard anything derogatory about a female candidate because she is female in post-interview discussions. On the other hand I work with lots of guys who'd love to see more women in the workplace. I find it hard to consider complaints that men are trying to keep women out as anything other than bald-faced lies.
It's fine to buy flour, but not if you think it's cocaine. And if you buy cocaine thinking it's flour you're probably fine too. In other words, it's what you think that matters. In the book 1984 they called this "thoughtcrime". As Winston Smith said "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters".
Re:Infrastructure not old business model
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 1
over-hyped
You mean as opposed to just hyped? I absolutely love this word to bits. It's as if mere hyperbole just isn't enough to describe Google stock and instead we have to hype up the word hype with over-exaggeration in order to capture the ultra-extremity of the situation.
ID is a proposal for how life appeared on Earth, not for how life appeared around Betelgeuse. We don't have much evidence about what happened around Betelgeuse so it's unscientific to consider it at this stage. You can have a solution to one problem without having the solution to another more difficult one.
there is no discernable difference between creationism and ID
There's a big difference and to say there isn't is just a piece of evolutionist propaganda. Creationism is a belief in the literal truth of the Biblical account of creation. ID is about the creation of life by an intelligence which could be anything from the God of the Bible to slimy tentacled aliens from a planet orbiting Betelgeuse.
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: acting rationally is taking the best course of action to achieve your goals, but it can't tell you what your goals are. If you want to affect someone's goals rational argument might not be the best course of action. People on opposite sides of the spectrum have differing goals.
He he! I remember doing that for the book Mr Happy on my 16K BBC Micro over 20 years ago. Had to type in the whole book myself. To think that you can now do it for non-trivial chunk of the complete corpus of published human writing boggles the mind!
...Proxima Centauri is our neighbour and humans only recently diverged from the other apes. Earth-like is really just a literal translation of the Latin elements of the technically correct word which is "terrestrial".
I think one of the biggest problems is confusing fact with value. Take, for example, the issue of abortion. The two sides disagree over what constitutes a person. But there is no fact of the matter in this situation. What matters is your value system. Simplifying: one side values unborn babies more, the other the freedom of the mother more. Both sides will adduce facts to further their cause but the issue isn't over fact. Often arguments over value turn into quite stupid fact slinging sessions because neither side is actually talking about the right thing. And this is also why the two sides will often ignore the facts when convenient because their values aren't actually derived from those facts.
Unfortunately, in our society, facts rule. Whether or not you are talking about facts or values we are taught to dress up our statements as if they are statements of fact. If you want to sway someone's values it's probably better to appeal to their emotions - but unfortunately this is frowned upon.
The existence of God is easily falsifiable. Just kill yourself and ask St Peter at the pearly gates yourself. If you don't want to perform this experiment then that's your problem. But it's certainly a lot easier than falsifying String Theory.
Its funny how easy it is to explain something when you get to come up with your own theoretical items.
No it's not. The MOND researchers had to find the simplest model they could that fits observation without hypothesising dark matter but instead making small tweaks to known existing laws. In general this is a far from trivial task and checking to see if your ideas fit the data is pretty laborious.And the MOND researchers haven't been working by some special rules saying that they are allowed to make up "theoretical items" that other people aren't allowed to do. All physicists are free to make up whatever theoretical models they like as long as they fit the facts, make predictions and aren't overly ad hoc. I can't even begin to understand where you got the idea it was "easy". If I didn't know better I'd say you had a bad case of sour grapes.
What do you mean by "how does gravity work?"? If you want some equations to tell you how to make accurate predictions then there are countless books and "It seems we don't know anymore today than we did way back when." is only true if by "we" you mean "people who haven't studied gravity". For an almost layman's level introduction to general relativity try John Baez's intro.
Or do you mean "how does it work? how does an object here get pulled towards an object there? what is the connection between them?". In which case you're asking a metaphysical question and I suggest consulting a rabbi, priest or shaman.
It's like all things linux. It works, but it takes time and energy to get it to that stage.
Are you allowed to say that on Slashdot? I thought that suggesting installing a device under Linux was any harder than it is under Windows was heresy round here. I'd watch your back carefully - you might suddenly find yourself burning on a stake.
Slashdot Mirror
Lying might help with initial recruitment but when people find that this isn't true they'll probably just quit again. In the long run it's probably best to be honest and tell people that being a techie and being "cool" are not compatible.
Stalin was a liberal? China is a liberal regime? You aren't brain dead?
Is your name Jack? Did you spend a period of your life trapped on a desert island because of a plane crash?
In all my years in tech related work (about 15) I have not once heard a single comment from a coworker even suggesting that women aren't as good as tech workers. I've never ever heard anything derogatory about a female candidate because she is female in post-interview discussions. On the other hand I work with lots of guys who'd love to see more women in the workplace. I find it hard to consider complaints that men are trying to keep women out as anything other than bald-faced lies.
There may be media bias. But your statistics do nothing whatsoever to support the hypothesis that there is.
It could be worse. People could be looking to their religious leaders.
It's fine to buy flour, but not if you think it's cocaine. And if you buy cocaine thinking it's flour you're probably fine too. In other words, it's what you think that matters. In the book 1984 they called this "thoughtcrime". As Winston Smith said "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters".
You mean as opposed to just hyped? I absolutely love this word to bits. It's as if mere hyperbole just isn't enough to describe Google stock and instead we have to hype up the word hype with over-exaggeration in order to capture the ultra-extremity of the situation.
Certainly not people acting for a religious cause. Do you know anything about the IRA?
Oh...and it only takes a handful extremists to make front page news.
'Love' is an abstract noun. 'God' isn't. Are you just pretending to be confused about the distinction?
ID is a proposal for how life appeared on Earth, not for how life appeared around Betelgeuse. We don't have much evidence about what happened around Betelgeuse so it's unscientific to consider it at this stage. You can have a solution to one problem without having the solution to another more difficult one.
There's a big difference and to say there isn't is just a piece of evolutionist propaganda. Creationism is a belief in the literal truth of the Biblical account of creation. ID is about the creation of life by an intelligence which could be anything from the God of the Bible to slimy tentacled aliens from a planet orbiting Betelgeuse.
Have any of you actually gone out into the street and talked to random people about a subject like science?
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: acting rationally is taking the best course of action to achieve your goals, but it can't tell you what your goals are. If you want to affect someone's goals rational argument might not be the best course of action. People on opposite sides of the spectrum have differing goals.
He he! I remember doing that for the book Mr Happy on my 16K BBC Micro over 20 years ago. Had to type in the whole book myself. To think that you can now do it for non-trivial chunk of the complete corpus of published human writing boggles the mind!
...Proxima Centauri is our neighbour and humans only recently diverged from the other apes. Earth-like is really just a literal translation of the Latin elements of the technically correct word which is "terrestrial".
...irony!
I'm curious to see how closely Benford's Law is followed by these pages. It should be easy for Google to run the stats.
Unfortunately, in our society, facts rule. Whether or not you are talking about facts or values we are taught to dress up our statements as if they are statements of fact. If you want to sway someone's values it's probably better to appeal to their emotions - but unfortunately this is frowned upon.
The existence of God is easily falsifiable. Just kill yourself and ask St Peter at the pearly gates yourself. If you don't want to perform this experiment then that's your problem. But it's certainly a lot easier than falsifying String Theory.
No it's not. The MOND researchers had to find the simplest model they could that fits observation without hypothesising dark matter but instead making small tweaks to known existing laws. In general this is a far from trivial task and checking to see if your ideas fit the data is pretty laborious.And the MOND researchers haven't been working by some special rules saying that they are allowed to make up "theoretical items" that other people aren't allowed to do. All physicists are free to make up whatever theoretical models they like as long as they fit the facts, make predictions and aren't overly ad hoc. I can't even begin to understand where you got the idea it was "easy". If I didn't know better I'd say you had a bad case of sour grapes.
Or do you mean "how does it work? how does an object here get pulled towards an object there? what is the connection between them?". In which case you're asking a metaphysical question and I suggest consulting a rabbi, priest or shaman.
That's because Oscar winners are just Lifetime movies with famous people starring in them. I wish they did Oscars for movies for guys.
Does it portray women as victims? +3
Does it star a beautiful actress with ugly makeup +1
Does it deal with weighty issues? +1
Is it science fiction? -3
Does it show how minority groups are oppressed? +2
Does it star people from a minority group who haven't received Oscars for a few years? +2
Did you cry? +2
Was it made by an action movie director turned serious? +2
Does it deal with weighty issues albeit by stringing together a sequence of time-worn cliches? +2
Is it an action movie made by a serious director? -2
Is it science fiction? -5
Will I feel guilty that I'm a racist homophobe if I don't vote for this movie? +3
(For the sound editing Oscar only:) Does the movie have good sound editing? +0
Is it science fiction? -2
Are you allowed to say that on Slashdot? I thought that suggesting installing a device under Linux was any harder than it is under Windows was heresy round here. I'd watch your back carefully - you might suddenly find yourself burning on a stake.