Isn't the entire point of free public schooling to prevent ignorant parents from passing on their ignorance to their children and perpetuating the cycle?--so that everyone gets a fair education and a fair shot at being a productive member of society? Of course education is supposed to be more than finishing chemical reaction sets; schools are supposed to be schools of life, too, to engage the bright and prepare the future citizen to some standard code of decency (IE not abusive, not dangerous, not drunk, not addicted to pornography).
In short, calling the policy of "pornography should be discouraged" as "indoctrination" to a particular way of life is pretty ridiculous. I'm not saying she deserves 40 years; but she should at least be slapped on the wrist or something.
A lot of people are saying that higher pay is a way to attract better teachers... but someone also pointed out that pay is a way to keep teachers in the profession who would leave it otherwise. And what professions are teachers leaving for? I think people with degrees/experience in math/science probably search out jobs in IT, making innovations in CS and materials, or building critical infrastructure, or researching and developing new drugs, or, I don't know, launching satellites. Note that this is opposed to history teachers (or whatever), in which teaching is definitely a much more obvious option.
Personally I'd rather have these potential math/science teachers in a lab finding the cure for cancer instead of teaching 4th graders the area of a circle (as another poster pointed out). If this is heresy ("think of the children!") I can't help it. I think better math and science education would be better served by investing in training for the teachers, getting rid of unnecessary qualifications like a BS in mathematics for a 4th grade math teacher, and better motivations for the students themselves.
I think it's because people don't want to imply that because this race is more prevalent in this profession, it must mean that members of that race are naturally more talented in that area. That would be called racism. Would saying that there are "innate intellectual differences/ability between race" ok? Why would it be the same for gender? (And if differences in profession due to race is because of "culture," why should culture prevent achievement?)
Anyway, when the theoretical mathematics field is 90% women, people won't care about the "number of each species propagation device"-- they'll just think, "hm. guess men just can't handle the mindset/intellectual challenge." That would be equally bizarre, but fairer (I guess).
How does that make any sense? Does Hillary running for president make (rational) women want to vote for her solely for that reason? The performance, not the gender, of the office is what matters. Who buys software because of the gender of the programmer? Women don't even buy -clothing- (arguably much more sensitive to taste and fit) based on the gender of the designer. Designing computers takes time and teams and it's a massive waste of talent to exclude men from the process.
The article cites for its reasons managers who would "love to have more female [engineers]." What happened to protecting individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of sex? If they don't get eventually sued, I am fervently hoping that they will get massively out-competed by better (and more discerning and accurate in employment allocation) firms:D
I think many of the posters here are implying that this "untapped" talent pool is nonexistent. All of the women who want to be engineers would pursue it; there's no discrimination or suppression of potential/talent here. What you see is what you have.
I think the appeal is that retired Google employees are really young (comparatively):P I don't think the successful employees of McDonalds would have joined the company from the start and be (at retirement) 31.
Wikileaks.com seems to be unaffiliated. Just a random comment as some other articles were citing that website.
"Due to a single blog posting of just a few words, Wikileaks has been thrust into the spot light far earlier then expected."
With no content either!: "Wikileaks has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment." I wonder how they got the 1.1mil leaked documents, if not by traditional means, if the website isn't up yet.
In general, the language and infrastructure barrier really strike me as difficult in this scheme. Eg: "Journalists covering atrocities in darkest Africa and seeking the quotes so prized by editors back home might not have to ask, 'Anyone here been raped and speak English?' " (Economist). This mostly seems like something to incite people in places with easy internet access, not the people under the referred oppressive govts.
Are you angrier by the fact that your job was lost or by the fact that it was lost to someone in Bangalore? The latter certainly seems irrational (why any more aggravating than from losing a job to someone in the US?), but I can't place any other motivation for your statement.
Well, I would say that businesses would usually lay off the person doing things worth less-- the less productive person:P Working in Silicon Valley I guess I've always had the pride like, "well, they pay me because they can't get this level of [talent, innovation, education, whatever] anywhere else." And why do people keep grudges for that?
I was really surprised about how high Apple's stock jumped up (~8%) after the announcement of iPhone, especially since the name has been tossed around and a lot of people had been expecting it for months (years?). Yeah, it totally ruined my faith in efficient market theory (everything that can be known is reflected in stock price). Joking aside, the point is, you CAN'T know everything, but the more important detail is that it doesn't matter because you can EXPECT/suspect things--that Apple is in the market, that they can do these cool things with integration, etc--and we might not talk about the iPhone in certain terms but it's certainly fun (and possibly extremely profitable) to speculate:P
Um, no... do things beyond what is expected of you... If you always think of your employer as something bent on sucking your life out then you'll never succeed or advance your career or do anything other than replaceable office tedium because of this $$-centered attitude and a fixation on short-term returns.
The really, really horrible violent uneducated etc parents might not have the financial means to obtain this technology. But that's stereotypical, and speculation...
we're entirely happy for our kids to have no freedom from *US*.
I am, at least. Six-year-olds have no right to freedom until they grow to the age of responsibility and make reasonable decisions... I think state laws, at least, make it illegal to leave your kids at home unattended until they're 12 years old (which I find ridiculous, but anyway) so it makes sense to track them until then.
I think people in general should have freedom from the State iff they are responsible and reasonable individuals... for those people, I agree with your conclusion that a tracking device would be a breach of privacy. But extremely young children don't count, and I opt for mother's rights here.:P
There's inheritance tax--it's one of the steepest, considering people can get really zealous to cut down on the head start others get in the relay race of life. There's also taxes on dividends, even if you never sell the stock.
So in conclusion, I guess theoretically you can have a trillion dollars (cut down substantially by tax by the time you inherit it) and then never touch it. That'll probably last until you need to buy some milk or whatever. You really can't live off no income;P
I think your original argument was that it's so unfair that sometimes the rich don't pay taxes (like in the situation you just listed, I imagine-- though I wince at the stock choices.) Fine. The only situation in which the rich don't pay taxes is when the rich don't USE their.. riches, and basically have 0 income. Which doesn't really make sense in that definition, right?
If I have one TRILLION dollars in assets, but an income of only fifteen thousand a year, I pay no taxes.
How did you GET the trillion dollars? If your assets are stock, you pay in the form of tax on capital gains. Property tax for real estate. Tax on interest earned from bonds. If you want to live off your investments and assets, you have to pay dearly for the priviledge.
Federal funding of whatever program or the existence of your soul will not change a damn thing in your life.
Neither will throwing around ideas in number theory during your free time. Discussion doesn't always have to be directly relevant. In fact, I'm pretty sure discussion on what to buy for dinner? should we fix the heater? how are the roads? she doesn't really love him, does she? can be termed "banal" or (latter case) "gossip." Discussion on the deep and interesting topics of life, not just religion or politics but the crux of a sonnet or the nature of a proof, would be termed "intellectual debate" and should be welcomed! for those who enjoy it, who are familiar with the subject matter and can keep a steady, reasonable head and who find it enlightening and refreshing--it's the opposite of burnout.
Others, like you said, probably find discussion of such provoking topics maddening. I would prefer that there would be more people like in the first case. But full disclosure: mathematics/philosophy major here.
That's what they SHOULD do. But society shouldn't let bad parents pass on horrible habits to their children, in the same way that the mandatory education was formed so that uneducated parents weren't allowed to keep their kids uneducated as well.
I agree that the law was too vague to be constitutional, but the government should do something, at least, to prevent obviously (key word!) prurient graphic/sexual scenes from the eyes of children.
People sometimes enjoy interfaces that are more aesthetically pleasing (ok, arguably), so higher processing power is good. What's the alternative? Stop trying to make computers faster, more powerful, or more efficient? And it doesn't really matter, either, what people do with their more powerful computers. They can run bloatware, or use their super graphics card to get their porn very crisp, or whatever. I feel like your argument for using inferior computers which CAN'T run Vista is akin to saying one should use paper underwear - it does the job, right?
What we need is more technology, not less. Recyclable materials (proportional to more technology) would be helpful, too. In the event of a user not running bloatware or using more powerful computers for dubious purposes (ie for work), the productivity gains from more powerful computers would also balance out the negative aspects like e-waste.
I heard somewhere that the japanese animation mimicked cartoons of the US mid-late century before developing into the famous "anime" style. If the goods are copied but also unique, with perhaps different and preferable features, it's better for consumers if products can compete in the open market.
I am probably misunderstanding you. Surely you don't imply that whenever someone uses quicksort, someone else should get five cents? Hoffman, Dijkstra, etc. also worked very, very hard to develop those classic algorithms, and limiting their use might be like copyrighting string theory, or copyrighting math techniques. Of course I'm not implying that your algorithms are simple, but merely suggesting how these copyrights can be abused.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the entire point of free public schooling to prevent ignorant parents from passing on their ignorance to their children and perpetuating the cycle?--so that everyone gets a fair education and a fair shot at being a productive member of society? Of course education is supposed to be more than finishing chemical reaction sets; schools are supposed to be schools of life, too, to engage the bright and prepare the future citizen to some standard code of decency (IE not abusive, not dangerous, not drunk, not addicted to pornography).
In short, calling the policy of "pornography should be discouraged" as "indoctrination" to a particular way of life is pretty ridiculous. I'm not saying she deserves 40 years; but she should at least be slapped on the wrist or something.
A lot of people are saying that higher pay is a way to attract better teachers... but someone also pointed out that pay is a way to keep teachers in the profession who would leave it otherwise. And what professions are teachers leaving for? I think people with degrees/experience in math/science probably search out jobs in IT, making innovations in CS and materials, or building critical infrastructure, or researching and developing new drugs, or, I don't know, launching satellites. Note that this is opposed to history teachers (or whatever), in which teaching is definitely a much more obvious option.
Personally I'd rather have these potential math/science teachers in a lab finding the cure for cancer instead of teaching 4th graders the area of a circle (as another poster pointed out). If this is heresy ("think of the children!") I can't help it. I think better math and science education would be better served by investing in training for the teachers, getting rid of unnecessary qualifications like a BS in mathematics for a 4th grade math teacher, and better motivations for the students themselves.
"Autisim is not a disease. It is part of who you are."
I think it's because people don't want to imply that because this race is more prevalent in this profession, it must mean that members of that race are naturally more talented in that area. That would be called racism. Would saying that there are "innate intellectual differences/ability between race" ok? Why would it be the same for gender? (And if differences in profession due to race is because of "culture," why should culture prevent achievement?) Anyway, when the theoretical mathematics field is 90% women, people won't care about the "number of each species propagation device"-- they'll just think, "hm. guess men just can't handle the mindset/intellectual challenge." That would be equally bizarre, but fairer (I guess).
How does that make any sense? Does Hillary running for president make (rational) women want to vote for her solely for that reason? The performance, not the gender, of the office is what matters. Who buys software because of the gender of the programmer? Women don't even buy -clothing- (arguably much more sensitive to taste and fit) based on the gender of the designer. Designing computers takes time and teams and it's a massive waste of talent to exclude men from the process.
:D
The article cites for its reasons managers who would "love to have more female [engineers]." What happened to protecting individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of sex? If they don't get eventually sued, I am fervently hoping that they will get massively out-competed by better (and more discerning and accurate in employment allocation) firms
I think many of the posters here are implying that this "untapped" talent pool is nonexistent. All of the women who want to be engineers would pursue it; there's no discrimination or suppression of potential/talent here. What you see is what you have.
I think the appeal is that retired Google employees are really young (comparatively) :P I don't think the successful employees of McDonalds would have joined the company from the start and be (at retirement) 31.
Wikileaks.com seems to be unaffiliated. Just a random comment as some other articles were citing that website.
"Due to a single blog posting of just a few words, Wikileaks has been thrust into the spot light far earlier then expected."
With no content either!: "Wikileaks has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment." I wonder how they got the 1.1mil leaked documents, if not by traditional means, if the website isn't up yet.
In general, the language and infrastructure barrier really strike me as difficult in this scheme. Eg: "Journalists covering atrocities in darkest Africa and seeking the quotes so prized by editors back home might not have to ask, 'Anyone here been raped and speak English?' " (Economist). This mostly seems like something to incite people in places with easy internet access, not the people under the referred oppressive govts.
Are you angrier by the fact that your job was lost or by the fact that it was lost to someone in Bangalore? The latter certainly seems irrational (why any more aggravating than from losing a job to someone in the US?), but I can't place any other motivation for your statement.
Well, I would say that businesses would usually lay off the person doing things worth less-- the less productive person :P Working in Silicon Valley I guess I've always had the pride like, "well, they pay me because they can't get this level of [talent, innovation, education, whatever] anywhere else." And why do people keep grudges for that?
I was really surprised about how high Apple's stock jumped up (~8%) after the announcement of iPhone, especially since the name has been tossed around and a lot of people had been expecting it for months (years?). Yeah, it totally ruined my faith in efficient market theory (everything that can be known is reflected in stock price). Joking aside, the point is, you CAN'T know everything, but the more important detail is that it doesn't matter because you can EXPECT/suspect things--that Apple is in the market, that they can do these cool things with integration, etc--and we might not talk about the iPhone in certain terms but it's certainly fun (and possibly extremely profitable) to speculate :P
The iPod did that tolerably.
Unless we tax/mandate them out of existence.
Is that supposed to be a good thing? I don't know if it's exactly the way to obtain everlasting love. :P
There seems to be 90% male looking for female postings on Geek 2 Geek. Washington would be a nice place for single geeky females.
Um, no... do things beyond what is expected of you... If you always think of your employer as something bent on sucking your life out then you'll never succeed or advance your career or do anything other than replaceable office tedium because of this $$-centered attitude and a fixation on short-term returns.
CS majors teach CS, math majors teach math, engineers teach...
engineers teach math, too. -___-
The really, really horrible violent uneducated etc parents might not have the financial means to obtain this technology. But that's stereotypical, and speculation...
:P
we're entirely happy for our kids to have no freedom from *US*. I am, at least. Six-year-olds have no right to freedom until they grow to the age of responsibility and make reasonable decisions... I think state laws, at least, make it illegal to leave your kids at home unattended until they're 12 years old (which I find ridiculous, but anyway) so it makes sense to track them until then.
I think people in general should have freedom from the State iff they are responsible and reasonable individuals... for those people, I agree with your conclusion that a tracking device would be a breach of privacy. But extremely young children don't count, and I opt for mother's rights here.
There's inheritance tax--it's one of the steepest, considering people can get really zealous to cut down on the head start others get in the relay race of life. There's also taxes on dividends, even if you never sell the stock.
;P
So in conclusion, I guess theoretically you can have a trillion dollars (cut down substantially by tax by the time you inherit it) and then never touch it. That'll probably last until you need to buy some milk or whatever. You really can't live off no income
I think your original argument was that it's so unfair that sometimes the rich don't pay taxes (like in the situation you just listed, I imagine-- though I wince at the stock choices.) Fine. The only situation in which the rich don't pay taxes is when the rich don't USE their.. riches, and basically have 0 income. Which doesn't really make sense in that definition, right?
If I have one TRILLION dollars in assets, but an income of only fifteen thousand a year, I pay no taxes. How did you GET the trillion dollars? If your assets are stock, you pay in the form of tax on capital gains. Property tax for real estate. Tax on interest earned from bonds. If you want to live off your investments and assets, you have to pay dearly for the priviledge.
Federal funding of whatever program or the existence of your soul will not change a damn thing in your life.
Neither will throwing around ideas in number theory during your free time. Discussion doesn't always have to be directly relevant. In fact, I'm pretty sure discussion on what to buy for dinner? should we fix the heater? how are the roads? she doesn't really love him, does she? can be termed "banal" or (latter case) "gossip." Discussion on the deep and interesting topics of life, not just religion or politics but the crux of a sonnet or the nature of a proof, would be termed "intellectual debate" and should be welcomed! for those who enjoy it, who are familiar with the subject matter and can keep a steady, reasonable head and who find it enlightening and refreshing--it's the opposite of burnout.
Others, like you said, probably find discussion of such provoking topics maddening. I would prefer that there would be more people like in the first case. But full disclosure: mathematics/philosophy major here.
That's what they SHOULD do. But society shouldn't let bad parents pass on horrible habits to their children, in the same way that the mandatory education was formed so that uneducated parents weren't allowed to keep their kids uneducated as well. I agree that the law was too vague to be constitutional, but the government should do something, at least, to prevent obviously (key word!) prurient graphic/sexual scenes from the eyes of children.
People sometimes enjoy interfaces that are more aesthetically pleasing (ok, arguably), so higher processing power is good. What's the alternative? Stop trying to make computers faster, more powerful, or more efficient? And it doesn't really matter, either, what people do with their more powerful computers. They can run bloatware, or use their super graphics card to get their porn very crisp, or whatever. I feel like your argument for using inferior computers which CAN'T run Vista is akin to saying one should use paper underwear - it does the job, right?
What we need is more technology, not less. Recyclable materials (proportional to more technology) would be helpful, too. In the event of a user not running bloatware or using more powerful computers for dubious purposes (ie for work), the productivity gains from more powerful computers would also balance out the negative aspects like e-waste.
I heard somewhere that the japanese animation mimicked cartoons of the US mid-late century before developing into the famous "anime" style. If the goods are copied but also unique, with perhaps different and preferable features, it's better for consumers if products can compete in the open market.
I am probably misunderstanding you. Surely you don't imply that whenever someone uses quicksort, someone else should get five cents? Hoffman, Dijkstra, etc. also worked very, very hard to develop those classic algorithms, and limiting their use might be like copyrighting string theory, or copyrighting math techniques. Of course I'm not implying that your algorithms are simple, but merely suggesting how these copyrights can be abused.
The reason being, once you get a mortgage, monthly payments are about the same as rent,
Think logically: surely only the ignorant would pay as much to live in a house (rent) than to live in a house and own it (mortgage).
And--Is business school really just as good as hairdressing school?