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).
Even if that is not true what is not in dispute is that he physically assaulted another person and some lines cannot be crossed no matter who you are or what you bring in.
Nobody really believes that "no excuse for violence" canard, do they? The world certainly isn't run that way.
The business world certainly does. You have to be very rich and very powerful to get away with punching a colleague and JC just found out that he's not as powerful as he thought he was. He's like the rest of us - punch colleague, get fired.
350 million people disagree with you.
More than that believe you follow the wrong religion. Number of believers have nothing to do with anything.
There's no excuse for this, but as others have said there's a bit more to it. Clarkson may or may not be a primadonna (vs just being a knob, as May referred to him several times), but given the stress he was under and the alcohol, him blowing his top over something small isn't a huge surprise. He certainly deserved to be disciplined, but I'm not sure sacking him outright was the best decision. One thing I am certain of is that the BBC will come to regret it.
You always sack over violence. If JC is smart he'd pay off that producer big-time not press charges; a couple million quid at least. All indications on JC are otherwise, however; he'll lose a lot more in future income with a GBH conviction than a couple million quid.
That problem is solved by providing paternity leave. It the wave of the future, and men should be pushing for it so they can spend some time with their newborn kids as well.
I used to think that too but I changed my mind. There's no point in doing that in the current marriage climate; not enough couples are together so paternity leave ends up useless to the unattached father and thus he may not take it anyway, making him even more valuable than women and attached men.
Unintended consequence: if only 2% of men are unattached fathers, they would be selected for the most by employers. This preference would lead to more men forfeiting paternity leave, and this situation would continue in a vicious cycle until *all* men forfeit their paternity leave. The end result would be an even greater resistance to hiring young women. Another unintended consequence is that this situation makes being an unattached father even more desirable than it is now. There are precious few benefits to a man in marriage right now, so adding more points to the "don't get married" side is going to make the current decline in birth rates accelerate to off-a-cliff levels.
The figure is a lot higher than this, IIRC.
Older women have probably already had all the kids they want to and thus have a lower risk of taking maternity leave.
A sole proprietorship is a business...
Then they shouldn't get the tax relaxations that businesses get.
Income to sole proprietorships is treated as individual income, no different than any working stiff, for tax purposes. They pay individual income tax rates.
Correct me if I am wrong, but do they not get to deduct the cost of running the business from taxable income? So, they receive $100k a year in revenue from business operations, and it costs $20k a year for their car (used for business), then they only pay tax on the $80k.
I dunno about you, but my car, that I use exclusively in getting a salary, is not tax deductible. Hence, I do not feel that it is wrong to say that sole proprietorships get tax breaks that I do not get, even though I have to expend costs in bringing in revenue.
This road does not end in a good place. For anyone of any beliefs, or even of no beliefs.
While I do broadly agree with you, I have to emphasise that when you are a business, and get all the tax breaks for your costs in running that business, then you should also deal with all the crap (no exclusivity in who buys your product/service) that comes with those advantages.
As to your muslim example, if he operates a business selling hardware he will experience legal trouble if he refuses to deal with people who want to buy hardware for use in a non-halaal butchery.
The other side of the coin, however, is work-to-order. Should a muslim/xtian/jew photographer experience legal troubles in advertising "I choose what work I will take on"?
I knew a guy with a Masters in CS who loudly proclaimed optimizing was a pointless exercise.
These days it might just be for most use-cases. For example the "research" above show this - the time consumed in 1 million inefficient string concatenations is what... less than 5 minutes? If you only perform a few hundred string concats at a time the program's user won't even notice the delay. If, like most use cases, you only concat a few strings at a time (say, a few tens) the user *certainly* won't notice. Not that I agree with such inefficiencies, but I *do* see the "why optimise" PoV.
There are only two rules for optimisation:
1. Don't optimise.
2. (For experts only) Don't optimise yet!
One of my tasks in my first year of employment was to take a TCP stack and port to a different micro. My second task was given when the code was going through tests - I had to speed it up by a factor of two. I understand optimisation, and the important thing that I understand is that I do not have to do it much anymore!
And this is why we should not teach CS101 in Java or Python. If they'd been forced to use C this whole experiment would have turned out differently.
Not at all. If you wrote your C in memory string handling as stupidly as they wrote the Python and Java you will still get worse performance in C (e.g. each iteration malloc a new string and then strcpy and strcat into it, and free the old string; compared to buffered file writes you'll lose). It's about failing to understand how to write efficient code, not about which language you chose.
Yeah, but at least then they'd have to actually *write the inefficient code out*, thereby learning why it is inefficient. With Java and Python the novice does not know about the inefficiency because it is hidden behind a "+" operator. This is why OP said to teach in C - you have to implement the concatenation yourself and in the process you learn how not to do it.
A sole proprietorship is a business, and I've known the owners of some whose business was essentially everything they owned. Their business is for all practical purposes their life. As the owner and often the sole employee, the decisions of that business are the decisions of that person; they are indistinguishable.
Then they shouldn't get the tax relaxations that businesses get. If they want to call themselves a business to get the advantages that come with being a business, then they must take the disadvantages as well. They don't get to choose which rules apply to them as a business and which don't because they are not a business. If they call themselves a business then they most certainly are.
Nearly everyone in the world that can afford a iPhone, already has one
I've heard that for years, and Apple keeps breaking year-over-year volume records.
Doesn't mean anything - "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent". The last ten years having been good for Apple is no indicator of the next ten years (or even the next ten months). The market may, after all, have been irrational for the last ten years.
1. Why do you not miss the male privileges? Do those items you listed not matter to you, or do they not matter enough to make a big deal out of it (Pick your fights, that sort of thing).
2. Can you say anything about your general motivation and goals that you had prior to the changeover and post-change? Have your life goals changed significantly, or not at all, or something in between?
3. Any changes in habits? (Eating, sleeping, etc).
Like I said, this prof is a great deal more respected and a good deal more well-read in the field than the authors of the PNAS paper. You are also making the supposition that he doesn't know about that paper, but in fact in a recent paper he goes so far as to cite it.
You are pitting recent findings from a small, limited, non-blind and uncontrolled study against this professor AND his peers' decades of peer-reviewed, blind and controlled studies. It is way too soon to invoke as-yet-to-be-determined factors as an explanation over existing explanations that have been the results of decades of study and research.
The PNAS study shows one thing for certain - bias in this particular field did not lead to the female under-representation at the level we see in information technology fields. The PNAS study serves as a good control for future studies of this sort, but in no way does it actually present any conclusions due to the lack of a control itself.
Many of "problems" that are being highlighted by sociology studies are due to the current crop of unemployable sociologists not having sufficient training in critical reasoning and/or statistics.
What kind of injuries? Curious to know what would prevent you from doing any sort of exercise.
I've now got two prosthetic discs in my back; prior to the disc replacement I could not move head, arms, torso or legs without pain. I could not turn/twist my neck, wrists or torso. I could not not even take in huge breaths (increased the pressure in my chest and caused pain that made me pass out). Merely making a fist was painful.
And that was only two discs; someone else in the ward with me in hospital was there to get four discs replaced. Do not underestimate how even a small wound to the back prevents all your limbs from working.
No wonder dudes refuse to see sexism, if they refuse to even look for it.
I don't see unicorns either - doesn't mean I should waste my time looking for them.
Sure, there's the "loss of male privilege" (which I really don't miss),
Have you considered that you may not be missing the loss of male privilege because, on average, there wasn't that much to start with?
Yes yes, we have had our contentious discussions in the past but we tend to agree at least 50% of the time. Or maybe 25%. Well, sometimes