Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I call bullshit (Score 1) 265

by gewalker (#47325023) Attached to: Tech Workforce Diversity At Facebook Similar To Google And Yahoo

I have no doubt that there are IT positions where the people responsible for hiring are biased in terms of gender or race. You know its true because they are people and some people suck.

From my observations, It is more likely that they are biased against Chinese or Indian developers than they are against blacks or women though. However, this is not general racial bias as much as it is language / culture bias in that they find them difficult to understand or work with.

I am more than ready to just let life go on without the constant cry or "racist" or "sexist" coming from the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Comment: Re:Arms race (Score 1) 106

by gewalker (#47282255) Attached to: Researchers Find "Achilles Heel" of Drug Resistant Bacteria

There are evolutionary limits on how much bacteria (or other disease agents) can change. By the time you knock out the "low-hanging fruit" for possible resistance mechanisms, it is entirely possible that humans win in the war long-term. Assuming of course we don't lose the war in the short-term.

Comment: Re:Correct usage? (Score 1) 120

by gewalker (#47181645) Attached to: Whom Must You Trust?

Use this simple test for 99% of the who/whom selection cases. Rephrase the sentence use Thee or Thou. If Thou is correct, use Who, When Thee is indicated, use whom -- The article title is the 1% case when you actually have to understand the grammar enough to distinguish subject vs. object usage.

The rules for selecting Thee vs. Thou are the same, Thou=subject, Thee=object.

For those of you not raised on Thee & Thou, can use the more modern Him and He. He=Who, Him=whom.

Comment: Re:Because of cutting the cord (Score 1) 475

by gewalker (#47008831) Attached to: Comcast Predicts Usage Cap Within 5 Years

Over the past few years their official quarterly profit margin in in the range of 6.33% to 12.77%.

Companies do not have have incentive to misrepresent the profit margin on the low side because their stock prices would tank.

Granted, this is overall profitability, not just internet services -- but this is not "insanely high" in my mind.

Comment: Re:Breaking news (Score 1) 335

by gewalker (#47001125) Attached to: Zuckerberg's $100 Million Education Gift Solved Little

1. I think you are either ignorant or deceitful. In many cases, charter systems cannot by law or/and charter reject applicants based on selection criteria - they must accept all comers. If they have more applicants than slots, they must use a random lottery to select. -- This negates 1 point 4 also
2. This is usually true -- however I do not care, if a teacher is certified if the outcomes are good. Frankly, neither should you or anyone else. Certification is useless in and of itself. If the local principal and the families are happy with teachers, why should I care about a piece of paper -- shouldn't the closest and most involved be in a better position to judge a teacher than some certification process?
3. You think having to comply with insane testing is a good thing, clearly not? If nothing else, this should speak in favor of charter schools. I agree that we waste too much of the school year with performance testing, guess what, this is the result of trying to manage schools by a huge disconnected bureaucracy -- with control at the most local level, and school selection left to parents, there would not be the incentive to waste 2 or 4 weeks of the year on testing or the cheating.
5 It is true that they may or may not be better. But it is usually easier to shut down a dysfunctional charter school than a conventional public school. Oh, but the way, conventional public schools CHEAT on the tests too.

Socio-economic status is clearly a major factor, if not the major factor -- but it is very hard to decouple from the family influence.and the neighorhoods they live in. Personally, I am pretty convinced the family and neighborhood is the driving factor and the economic factors trend strongly with this.

The real question is why when some poor families are so thrilled to have their kids in some charter schools, escaping the horrid conventional public schools (esp. in those poor areas) -- why why why would I would want to close their charter and through they back in the cesspool. I

I think you need to get a grip on reality.

Personally I don't really much like charter schools, I would like to shut down every last government school in the country and support the education of the child directly -- i.e., the money follows the child. Just like they use in the Netherlands, as written into their constitution in 1917 so they have some experience with how well it works for them.

Here is is straight from the evil conservatives is an article that rebuts your claim about all virtually all the studies show how worthless charter schools are. But the way, it actually references the large-scale studies so you can check the claims.

Charter schools are clearly not always a good choice, they can yield bad results. But at least some of these lose their charter and are shut down. Very rare with conventional public schools.

Comment: Re:rich people go back to paying taxes? (Score 2) 335

by gewalker (#46995307) Attached to: Zuckerberg's $100 Million Education Gift Solved Little

Really? I have never seen any data to support your claim. The Kruger Dunning is about cognitive bias, not media reporting being flat-out lies.
Everything I have ever seen suggests current US inflation adjusted per student spending is about 200% of 1969 levels.

This article shows inflation both adjusted and non adjusted back to the 30s and the trend is up up up though there are some minor dips along the way. And the numbers here are consistent with government sources, etc.

Frankly, I think you are as wrong as possible in this case -- In fact, you are non-sensical. Had property taxes been that high in the 60's there would have been plenty of well-known confirming information.

Comment: Re:We can do it. (Score 1) 162

by gewalker (#46995161) Attached to: The Internet's Broken. Who's Going To Invent a New One?

Actually, I like being able to order stuff online, maybe watch a funny vid from YouTube, org check the news online, or run a search, etc.. -- I don't have an inherent problem with commercial activity on the net -- Not that there isn't a lot of total garbage from commercial sources.

I would really like to see the proposed action against spammers. Unfortunately I don't know how to achieve this reliably and quickly (so as to discourage spammers and other evils) using the current trust every packet by default design internet.

I remember explaining email to my dad many years ago. Once he understand it, his first question? Who pays for it. This is in fact part of the problem on the Internet (spammers push the cost onto everyone else) and will continue to do so as long as the current design is used. Look up the history of mail delivery in England and you will see that changing from receiver pays to sender pays fixed major problems with the mail system.

Switching costs to a better design are unfortunately very high as well. So fixing real problems is slow indeed, even when well-designed and mostly up-ward compatible

"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully." -- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse