It's primarily popular amongst the circles that want to solve the "problem" of high wages in STEM by attempting to saturate the market, since they're getting push back on the H1-B and overseas design center angle.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
All the engineers Steve Jobs uses are in the western world, mostly Cupertino. He uses Asia, primarily for manufacturing. Manufacturing being the primary consumer of unskilled labor with minimal education, which would otherwise help put the excess of humanities majors we produce in the US to work and help them pay off college loans.
If you can master technical skills and complex math, overwhelming data suggests that you have also learned to read and think, and on the path to proving your competence have also managed to write clearly. I really don't think that's the loss. The best argument is creative losses from lacking a broad background in other cultures, ideas and in some cases lack of historical reference. It's not clear to me to what degree this really helps 99% of the STEM workforce though.
The only career I know of where being able to do any of these things is optional, seems to be upper level executives.
This has been going on 40 years, there's no reason to think common sense broke out now just because we wanted it to. Hopefully the same people who flooded the FCC site months ago are going to be ready to keep doing this until we can get some concession sufficient enough to weaken the monopolies.
China has their checkbook ready!
I'm not sure what Fox News is except the biggest, most well known right wing troll on planet Earth. Russia just doesn't quite get how to do it properly.
These same people also pay for police and military (some 50% of the federal budget goes to the military, last I looked). The military is presently actively engaged in killing people, but at all times at least engaged in thinking about how to do it, that is a strong violation of judeo-christian values. Additionally soldiers have been known to rape and murder innocents. You can't take responsibility of what someone else does with your tax money, it stops being yours when you fork it over. You vote for the person who will best represent your morality, and hope for the best. Jesus set that precedent in the bible ("Render unto Caesar...") over very similar concerns brought up by Jews.
Rational Christians would not have any issue with this. Rational Christians would has a more sensible view on abortion (i.e. the unfunded mandate that all children must live....to suffer in poverty? that children born with detectable birth defects must be born, and left without medical care?). They may not support abortion, but they certainly would not allow an innocent to suffer through apathy. In any event, that's not the group doing the talking. Rational Christians, I could probably find a middle ground with, even if I don't believe in their magic.
However when you put the decision in their own hands, yes, some will not want to fund abortions, and will not want to fund contraception, etc. In this case you're asking them to actively pay for what they don't like, but not giving them the tools to properly rectify the problem. I still think they're wrong, you can't chop logic morality, but it's in the defensible region of "things I can control, and things I can leave to God". As far as I'm concerned the rhetoric of "You are all sinners" is less a condemnation of mankind, and more a statement of fact: we cannot help but sin, we lack the tools. We can however choose how to sin and try to manage the consequences. But not being religious, I am not sure how that matches the various world-views of all sects. It seems like choosing not to commit the sin of murder may be the greater sin when the victim was about to walk in to a school with an assault rifle, for example. Not paying for the abortion may be the greater sin then bringing children in to the world who will suffer, and who will spawn more children who will suffer.
The laws vary by state, but generally speaking those libertarians do not have to do any of the things the poster mentions. Various interactions withe the government ARE protected (by the civil rights act, and others), but when it pertains to private businesses in many, possibly most cases, they are free to be as biggotted and shitty as they want. And I personally agree that they should retain that liberty.
Provided they understand the consequences to their actions, and understand that governments won't interact with them, many public businesses won't interact with them, and generally a lot of people are going to legally, correctly, call them out on their BS.
The only mess worth talking about is when "christian" values interfere with employee well being, and our decision to leave health care in the hands of corporations. In this case now we're in to the land where government is obligated to step in: the overall health and well being of its population. If we had chosen to provide health care at the government level, and relieve corporations of something they don't entirely seem to want to provide properly, then this mess would all be cleaner. As it stands its' confusing and things like this make it all worse.
Or it's "related" in some obscure way, but entirely unhelpful. When a journalist writes a science/tech related article, the "infobox" should contain the references consulted. When the journalist is writing about an incident that occurred, I'd like to see transcripts, reports from investigators, etc. that the journalist drew from to write the story.
More often than not it seems like they make stuff up or attempt to assemble things they don't understand into a narrative that "seems" plausible but may not be supported by the facts. What I never want then is a link to another article with another faulty narrative that is even more confusing.
Seriously, this is the dumbest thing ever. Just make the code work. I don't care at all if women wrote it. There are so many issues that actually matter, and this isn't one of them.
Moreover, it's probably sexist. We have established that there is a gender imbalance issue in the workplace. If the requirement is that two women are in close collusion on the project, that's statistically less likely than two men (which may number 5:1 in some fields, including mine). The mathematical proof is left to the reader, but select 2 from N where N is a collection of one of three genders with a skewed distribution: Male, Female & No Interaction where No Interaction defines tasks that are purely self-contained and represents the greatest part of the distribution. The way to pass this test then is to force your women to work together and isolate them, functionally, from the men. The odds of those two interacting increases dramatically (but as much of our work is solitary, it's not a definite). To get definite interaction you need to have a woman work on the user facing portions of the code (i.e. "outside" the engine) and another who is a user. Either way this doesn't strike me as good for anybody, and certainly doesn't seem very equal opportunity/diverse/ideal or even rational.
It has to be much, much worse on the kinds of software projects I see a lot these days. Someone buys/acquires some code written elsewhere by persons gender unknown but almost certainly male (more so as the software approaches the OS/hardware level). You can have an entire company of women tying their code into this codebase and they may never write a function for each other, each tackling this big hairball independently for her own module. They may not have cause to interact, and your all-woman company fails the test.
Bad idea. In any event I don't think it solves any issues I see affecting women in the workplace in a helpful way, it just seems to be more distracting data-points leading away from the cause of the actual problem that should be examined.
For at least 15 years people have been making noise about quantum computing and how it's right around the corner and they just need some funding. That said it's been worked on for 15 years and has been funded and like some other technologies, has remained in research, not development. This is just a marketing pitch shifted.
I have no idea if quantum computing will ever be a thing we want to use, but I know we're going to keep talking about it like we talk about nuclear fusion being humanities salvation.
As far as I'm concerned this is the real problem. Most meals come with way, way more calories than you should have, particularly if you're eating any form of take-out. To the point where you may be eating two days of food in one sitting, and not really even realize it. I looked at one meal at a restaurant my wife likes, and calculated 4500 calories. We like to laugh at the imgur photos with the fat person and 5 buckets of KFC, but this particular meal did not look nearly so gluttonous.
Eat slowly, take drinks, but if you clean your plate like mom asked then you just ate 2 days worth of food in one sitting and probably didn't even realize it (and will be hungry in a few hours, depending on how starchy it all was). I've lost 50 lbs by just packing my own food 19/21 meals a week (and actually eating 3x a day, which goes to OPs point about spacing things out a bit, which does help). Not only does it save a ton of money, it takes the pounds off.
Take-out has a dilemma, in that labor and rent is a high cost to them, so they tend to give you too much food which is relatively cheap in the US to make you feel like you got your money's worth. But what we really need is half that amount of food, spaced better through the day.
People have been hostile to nerds and geeks since early childhood. I wonder if these efforts will have any further effect. I personally would wear google glass just because it annoys idiot hipsters.
I understand, and those people are playing politics, and anyone with a brain realizes that they've set themselves up to lose badly. The question is whether going for the kill really benefits anyone. The best possible resolution is for the project leads to just change the name already, before further drama ensues.
The rational outcomes of this effort are this:
- Github would sensibly decide it is not going to be the censor police for project names, content, comments, submissions etc. This isn't misogyny, something of this size can't possibly be expected to play censor for everything. They will take unnecessary heat for this because of allegations of misogyny, but if they have a brain they will have to choose to do nothing or else invest infinite time in idiocy. Because of this, 10000 new projects with idiotic names will arise based on GIFT (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory). The perpetrators of the politics will have been "beaten" to the collective benefit of precisely no one.
- The project maintainer, having been incensed by various "feminist" trolls will likely keep the project name in spite of common sense.
The ideal outcome is for the project maintainer to simply take the high-road and change his project to something less silly, because it IS funny but it's a needless distraction for his project, and a good project leader tries to avoid those. Is DICSS about fighting "feminist" trolls, or is it about...whatever it is actually about, I can't be bothered to look. Further, he ostensibly made his project open source and on GitHub to attract developers, and possibly corporate ($$$) support, and anything that detracts from that is actively hurting him.
It has been formally researched, the best way to combat trolls is just to remove the wind from their sails. Certainly in this case it will remove ad revenue from what will almost certainly become a set of circular click-bait links about the phallic male patriarchy of open source that will cause worldwide vomiting.
Quite a lot of open source is worked on by for profit companies. Their contributions are no less than the average guy, and it gets the job done and moves us forward. For profit companies though, have lawsuit concerns that the average anon troll on the internet does not usually have to worry about (provided finding $$$ > potential damages returned). It seems like creating names that might alienate such contributors is not a good idea, and even if you don't think you need/want them, that precluding them from the get-go is just not smart.