Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


Comment: Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score 1) 595

Do you agree that it's a problem that only ~20% of the female workforce successfully pursue work technical fields here in the US and the West?

It would only be a problem, if something other than genuine lack of interest stopped the rest of them.

People seeing a problem insist, genders are equal and therefor any disparity in interest is automatically evidence of a problem. But I don't think, genders are equal so I need some other evidence.

How would you propose to equalize this, if at all?

Before searching for solutions, I need to be convinced, there is a problem...

Comment: Re:Well done! (Score 0) 437

by mi (#49514621) Attached to: George Lucas Building Low-Income Housing Next Door To Millionaires

make them commute two hours

Nobody makes anybody commute — people do that on their own free will.

and bring bag lunches

That's always a good idea — because home-made lunch is cheaper than a purchased one.

If they didn't deserve such abuse they wouldn't be poor

Who is abusing who?

/end Puritan/Protestant trolling

Just South of the border lies a vast, populous, sunny, and Catholic country. You are in a wrong place — just move South and leave this gloomy Puritan/Protestant hellhole to the rest of us.

Comment: Re:Billionaire saved by taxpayer (Score 1) 105

It is not "fascism" by any stretch of the imagination for a company to get a loan from the government.

Whatever Mussolini's preference, Fascism originated in Italy. That government officials are in a position to extend loans at all, is Collectivism — a sticky coin of which Fascism is one of the sides (Communism being the other).

it prevented an actually innovative company from sinking

This very FA talks about it not sinking, but selling to another company...

Comment: More and less free market (Score 1) 105

But there is no such thing as a free market.

"Free market" may be a Platonic ideal, but market freedom can still be compared. A market, in which the government invests billions of captive taxpayers' monies, is less free, than one, where only private investors exist.

competition helps drive the economy

Not all competition is useful. The skillset required for convincing government bureaucrats to extend loans has little overlap with what's needed to secure real investment from people risking their own funds.

Comment: Re:Billionaire saved by taxpayer (Score 1) 105

This is FUD.

False. Though I do Fear the government, there was nothing Uncertain or Doutbful about my post.

You may argue that Department of Energy should have acted as venture capitalist and demanded more return

That's, what the statists, who wrote the Slate's article, are arguing: government-investment is Ok, it just should've been done better. I argue, that the government should not be "investing" in anything at all.

Congress explicitly required Department lend on low rates and they have good reasons for it.

No, actually, their reasons were bad — and that's the point. Whether the investment is repaid (Tesla) or not (Solyndra), it should not have happened in the first place — because, if the person making the decision is not risking his own money, then it is not a proper "investment".

Department is not a venture capitalist and should not act as such, such activity should be left to private business, not Government entity

Marvelous! You got it!!

There is big difference between corporations requiring bailout because of their own mismanagement or fraud while doing usual business and corporations trying to introduce something completely new

There is no difference. Mortgage-backed securities are just as innovative as pure-electric vehicles. Risky, but potentially rewarding. The government should not be swinging its enormous purse in either market.

Hence the loan was from Department of ENERGY, not Treasury.

Distinction without difference. Not to the point I was making, anyway. And BTW, I said nothing about the bailed-out financial companies, you did.

Comment: Billionaire saved by taxpayer (Score 0, Flamebait) 105

More competition is better

Only if it is free market competition. When you allow government to pick winners, it is no longer Capitalism, but Crony Capitalism — which is to the real thing, like Westborough Church is to Christianity.

Because government officials do not put their own money on the line and a successful businessman must know, how to play politics — to the inevitable detriment of running his business instead...

And, while we are at it, our (taxpayer's) investment in Tesla was even worse than in Solyndra.

Comment: Re:What's bad about Uber drivers? (Score 1) 48

you probably don't have to deal with Uber SUV's right hooking you on a bike, or Lincoln town cars parked in the middle of the road

Do you have any evidence to suggest, Uber-associated SUVs and town-cars are especially bad in this regard, or are you just venting?

In my personal experience and opinion SUVs are anti-social in general — too big, can not see through them from behind — whoever drives them. But we aren't talking about personal anecdotes here, are we?

Comment: Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score 1) 595

That's not "a" study, it's from a metastudy.

Yeah. a metastudy by a doctorate candidate. So brilliant, no one has heard of her neither before nor after, and the only reason we have heard of her at all, is that she manipulated the numbers to show, what progressives wanted to see.

Where are you getting that quote from the paper?

Those words are from the article you linked to. The popular text describing the paper.

There absolutely are some very demonstrable differences in certain psychological regards

Oh, wow. Great. Now, if psychology is affected — and we also know, that muscles are — could there not be other differences, subtle and otherwise? Could those hormones, that cause women to dress more provocatively and buy provocative clothes during fertility periods, be also having an effect on work and other pursuits?

We are approaching the question with different axioms — and come to different conclusions. You say: "Genders are equal, therefor any sign of differences proves sexism". I say: "There is little to no sexism, therefor the observed differences prove, genders are different."

Some of our arguments (all of yours, actually) are simply variations of the above...

Oh please, you're not seriously going to pretend that there weren't tremendous pressures in Victorian society for women to not be involved in STEM-style careers

Queen Victoria died in 1901. According to NPR, female participation in programming was on par with men until 1984. I don't buy NPR's explanations, but I believe their facts. Whatever the reason for females losing interest in mid-80ies, blaming "Victorian era" for it is stupid today and was stupid 30 years ago. Find yourself something else to blame...

But if you continue to insist, it is American "parochial" ("bigoted", "backwards", "retarded") attitudes, that are to blame, then you must first explain, why women in the even more parochial countries (like all of the ex-USSR) are doing better, rather than worse.

"I'll see your 50% and raise it to 100%" - how does this even make sense?

Here is how it make sense. You wrote: "one can decide that having 50% of the human population having a solid interest in the sort of careers most valuable to the improvement of the human condition is a good thing". I still think, having the entire 100% of the human population — both sexes, that is — having that "solid interest" is an even better thing.

This ridicule is what you get for speaking in (other people's) slogans, instead of your own sentences.

Nobody is talking about disinteresting men from pursuing STEM careers

Why, TFA is talking about exactly that: "for excluded male students by [...] a companion all-boys school that would emphasize English Language Arts". So, did I just catch you lying, or you didn't even read the write-up before posting?

"Are there laws or even customs, that prevent girls from entering a STEM field and excelling in it" - it's like you didn't even read my post.

I read it, and I still don't know, what you are talking about. "Victorian era"? Must be it...

And if one person wastes their time trying to become a physicist when they'd have made a better fry cook? Well whoop-di-freaking-doo. The world is still a better place.

No, the world is a worse place, if you force a would-be brilliant singer, designer, or a CEO into becoming a mediocre programmer. She'll spend her life programming in some future equivalent of Cobol (Perl?) and hate her life...

I've met people — male and female — working in a field chosen for reasons other than sincere interest, and I pity them. And certainly would not wish such fate upon anyone else.

The pretense, that gender identity is "learned" destroys lives. Why must you insist on it?

Comment: Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score 1) 595

Well, there's this and other things like it

That NPR-article offers two YouTube videos as evidence, that home computers were marketed to boys. We are also led to believe, no such advertising existed targeting girls...

Even if it really did not, however, makes little difference, because the marketing would not have been the reason of girls being less interested, it would have been a consequence of it.

The greedy capitalists paying for those commercials would not have deliberately rejected half of their market...

Also, the effect of such advertising would not have been immediate — the target audience (and the) kids in the videos were 12-15 years old, at least 5 years away from entering the job-market. So they can not explain the drop of female participation in computers, which began — according to the same NPR-article — in 1984.

Case closed.

Comment: Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score 1) 595

You may be interested to know that the full grand master title is granted automatically for women-only achievements* to make them look better.

I am well aware of this fact, and the link I provided earlier makes the distinction too: see the "How Earned" column in his table.

Comment: Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score 1) 595

But there's only one issue with that...

How was that study conducted? Has it ever been reviewed by peers or successfully reproduced?

Screw Mars and Venus; men and women are from Earth

This would argue againstsegregation... But even that study shows ample differences between genders, and the article describing it (which is what you linked to) acknowledges ample earlier studies "that had shown significant, and often large, sex differences".

If you had a society where eating apples was something almost exclusively done by men

Most of the female chess Grand Masters (not to be confused with the WGMs) come from places, where views on gender-roles remain quite traditional — Georgia, China, Russia, or Ukraine.

This alone handily defeats the argument, that it is the dastardly "Victorian moral system", that keeps women from advancing in anything other than child-bearing and singing.

If a girl from Lviv can become a Grandmaster — her last opponent, incidentally, being a girl from Vladivostok, what is the excuse for a girl from Los Angeles? Sex-stereotypes are only wider-spread in the former USSR...

the very fact that historically there were fewer women in STEM (a legacy from the old Victorian moral system)

Citation needed.

Or, one can decide that having 50% of the human population having a solid interest in the sort of careers most valuable to the improvement of the human condition is a good thing

I'll see your 50% and raise it to 100%. You make even less sense with these slogan here, than you made earlier with attempts to remain scientific.

and maybe we should give a shot at remedying this

Rectifying what? Are there laws or even customs, that prevent girls from entering a STEM field and excelling in it? I am not aware of any such and I await your citations.

even if just on the "offchance" that it's not biological

But what if it is bilogicial — as seems perfectly probable? Would not your efforts to encourage people to do, what they have little aptitude towards, then be wasteful and, indeed, detrimental to that "improvement of the human condition"?

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.