I hate how much I like Visual Studio and C# in general.

Only because all their greenhouses fled here.

Yeah, but the request for bids specifically required the organization have 8 years of experience with Microsoft Office 2010, and they couldn't find any American companies that did.

Adverb clause, independent clause conjunction independent clause dependent clause. Subject, adjective clause, verb prepositional phrase? Participle phrase subject verb conjunction dependent clause!

Emoticon.

They also need to evaluate the qualifications stated, have a competent technical person who can determine if the stated qualifications are reasonable, and review the qualifications of the person who eventually gets the job.

Otherwise they do they old "Requires 8 years experience in SQL Server 2014" shuffle. It's an impossible requirement, so no American can claim to "meet the requirements." If you say on your resume you do have 8 years experience in SQL Server 2014 (because it's not that different from previous versions) they reject you for "lying" and say "ugh, see, we really can't find any Americans to fill this position! They're not even honest, lying about their qualifications!" Then they hire the H1-B and ignore the stated requirement.

None of this will ever happen, of course.

"Sir? Sir, no, no, you're not allowed to whip the office staff, sir."

"Oh, right, right. Ugh, who can keep all these obscure rules straight?!"

The Church's teachings do not fit neatly into a red/blue box, on moral or economic issues. For instance the Church is opposed to abortion (red!) and the death penalty (blue!). The Church teaches against both the greed inherent in "unfettered capitalism" and the soul-crushing nature of an all-powerful State enforcing communism. The best description of the Church's preferred economic ideology is Distributism.

To be fair, politics would be a lot more entertaining and would reach more people if it were conducted in the Wrestlemania format.

Bruno was a mystic who thought the stars and planets had souls, and wrote books on magic. He was right about the infinite nature of the universe the way a broken clock is right twice a day.

No one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs. But, to hold Bruno up as an example of the Church's "anti-science attitude" (if you believe it has one) is false, as while yes he was persecuted, he was persecuted for his religious ideas (like denying the divinity of Christ, magic, etc) and not his scientific ideas.

His ideas were also not particularly scientific, as they derived from reason, not observation and experiment. More Aristotle than Democritus.

Good for you. Congratulations on your degree, and I hope you have good luck building cool stuff.

I think that's kind of the point. Right now many programs are geared towards the idea of just "study this thing because you're interested in this thing, and whatever you do with that afterwards...shrug." Or "study this thing to get a job as a civil engineer."

What this lady is saying is instead make a program like: "want to help people in developing nations (and soon, everybody...) have access to clean drinking water? Come here and follow the 'Clean Water Engineering Program.'" At the end you're a civil engineer...you still had to take all the same boring math and slumping concrete classes everybody else did. But you shaped your technical electives and gen ed requirements around a specialty in solving water problems.

It's not a different degree. It's not different course content. It's a different selection of optional courses for a different motivation. Some are motivated by employment opportunity. Other people are motivated by just the study of something itself. That's me, basically. I didn't care so much about getting a job in engineering, I just wanted to know how the inside of a microprocessor works. And this idea is to motivate instead with a desire to improve social welfare.

And I think that's great. Instead of posting on fucking FaceBook and twitter about "12 trillion people don't have #CleanWater," go get a fucking engineering degree and solve the damn problem.

I don't see what there is to complain about, but, well, it's /., and it has the words "female engineer" in the title, so it's an excuse for another 500 comment thread of the same old circle jerk. Mmmmmmm delicious pageviews...

It doesn't have to be a different degree. I got an electrical engineering degree and we had different "directions" to choose as well, but we all got the same piece of paper. You choose the electives you want. For instance, if you want to design power plants, you take the power electives. If you want to do analog stuff, you take the analog electives. If you want to do computer stuff, you take the microprocessor and digital electives. At the end you have engineers who specialized in different things, but we all had engineering degrees.

Oh, and of course there were non-core electives, too. All the gen-ed stuff. But you can pick the gen-ed courses you want. So I had friends who were really into audio stuff (wanted to make Monster Cables I guess lolololol?) so they took music courses, and then took the analog and DSP engineering courses. There's no degree in "Audio Electrical Engineer," but they're uniquely positioned to help get a job at a company that makes electric audio equipment.

I had to take a course to satisfy a "geography" requirement. I imagine with something like this they would say "yes, you have to take a geography class, but perhaps you should take "How Water Shapes Nations" that examines the origins of nations through the lens of water disputes." Combined with your civil engineering degree, you're still a civil engineer, just now one uniquely positioned to help solve water problems.

So, "program" does not mean "different degree."

Weapons.

I don't see why you have to change the content of courses. You can't really. There is no "women's calculus." They're talking about a program of guided study towards a particular goal. That is, a different collection of courses and independent study, not different content for the same courses.

My brother-in-law got a building construction degree. However, he did so as part of a "green construction" program at the university. In addition to the courses on calculating loads on walls and tensile strength of materials and all that, he also had courses on ecology and environmental law, so he could better understand the context of the problems "green construction" is trying to solve and the legal frameworks in which you'd have to work.

I imagine a "socially-conscious engineering program" would be similar. You still have to take the standard civil engineering classes to learn how to build a new water pipeline or desalinization plant to solve California's water problems, but perhaps law classes on water usage rights would be helpful. Or sociology classes to help you deal with how to communicate with the public that your new clean fusion reactor is not really one of satan's demons in a box that's going to give you canceraids.

Sounds good to me.

The difference is that in the movies, the audience generally has perfect knowledge of the situation. Of the intentions and criminality of the bad guy and the honesty and righteousness of the good guy.

And this is why IRL we must have due process of law, in which the good guys must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bad guy deserves what's coming to him, and that the good guys acted like good guys.

Doesn't make for good TV, though. 99.9% of real court cases are boring as shit.