Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Rationality? (Score 3, Insightful) 59

"much of the money still being invested is pouring into the upper echelon of highly valued start-ups like Airbnb and WeWork or younger ones with clear paths to profit," leaving "scores" of previously well-funded startups now struggling to survive."

If they're not a highly-valued (ie speculative) startup, or one with a CLEAR PATH TO PROFIT, why the fuck would/should anyone be investing in them?

Comment Re: Dangerous comment (Score 1) 101

This comment is sadly the kind of horrifically dangerous and stupid comment that permeates the Android technical community.

I wholeheartedly agree. Your comment is sad, stupid, and indicative of incompetence.

Meh, howbow you explain how open ports are not a security risk instead of calling anyone who you disagree with "stupid".

Comment Re:Dangerous comment (Score 1) 101

Open ports by themselves don't constitute a security risk.

This comment is sadly the kind of horrifically dangerous and stupid comment that permeates the Android technical community.

So I wasn't the only person who read that as absolute assholery. An open port is always a security risk.

Almost as big a risk as someone declaring it isn't a risk.

Comment Re:CO2 levels are falling (Score 0) 132

true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.

Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?

CO2 levels typically come from sources like volcanoes. Yes, it's possible that another big volcanic event could occur, say like the Siberian traps. The added CO2 would be the least of our problems if that happened. major temperature swings as Sulfur aerosols lower temperatures, then we'd deal with swings the other way as the CO2 does it's job.

And if not, is there any guarantee nature will not do it again in the foreseeable future? And if there's no such guarantee, or even a more than slight probability, then why bother about our own produced CO2?

We are all going to die, so why bother getting out of bed - just lie there until we're dead.

Because clearly we can't beat nature. Can we?

Nope, at least not now. but we can work at getting along with it.

It's all a matter of outlook. Many folk don't give a damn about anything that comes after them personally. And some do.

And it looks like its official, The greenhouse effect, or lack of it, has become the USA's Lysenkoism.

Comment Re:Fuck California. (Score 1, Insightful) 211

Ask any landlord who has significant experience
and you will see they will agree with this position.

I have been a landlord - and I applaud California's decision. Because it won't make it more difficult to rent to people who cause problems. It will make it more difficult for racist assholes, but I view that as good thing myself.
 

Why Californians tolerate their government escapes me.

Seriously? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government that makes life difficult for narrow minded intolerant racist assholes like yourself? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government who upholds the rights of all citizens, regardless of color?

Comment Re:The first question that comes to mind (Score 1) 279

is "Are women and minorities mistreated more often, or are white men more tolerant of being mistreated?"

Unfortunately, there's no possible way to ask that question that won't produce an hysterical, blind hatred response from pretty much everybody.

Let's try this one.

It's possible either through basic expectations, or being sold a bill of goods, that many women are convinced both that they can have it all, and that the workplace is a place of fulfillment and happiness.

And yet, none of us actually has it all. I had as much as I could, but juggling a family life and professionalism, I really had to juggle my schedule, and work a lot of extra hours.

And just as a personal observation, so many women came into the workplace looking at it as a sprint to success. That somehow you would work hard for acouple years, then rest on your laurels. It's not a sprint - it's a marathon.

The final issue ties in with the second one. There is competition in the workplace. Not the beat someone in a sport or anger type competition, but one in which some people are willing to work harder and longer. I think this is a guy thing. I have it. If I am willing to work longer and harder, should I be punished for that? Because I have worked with women who do a very good job, but they put in 8 hours, and no more. I am convinced that they believe that competition between employees is mistreatment.

Some of this is conjecture, but all of it is based upon workplace experience. As for the cure, I am not so certain what will work. I think that males have made a lot of adjustments, but it is possible that to achieve equal success, that females might have to make the final adjustment. We always expect insant results, and perhaps meeting in the middle might expedite that.

Is that blind hatred?

Comment Re:The Answer Comes Around 1am (Score 1) 279

if you want to see who is most successful in IT just watch who walks out the office's front door at 1am, exhausted, stumbling to their car.

To me it does not sound like "successful" more like "loser".

Yup, and for some people, who cannot be bothered to expend any more than a minimum effort, they believe they are the ones who are winning.

I've seen enough people like that come and go over the years.

No muchacho, they lost.

I worked hard, and as needed, and I provided for and raised a family and was involved in my family, and retired at 55 because I did put in the work, and was compensated for it. The people my age who wouldn't allow the place to " take advantage of them" are either still working, and wil be for the next 12 years, or were really big winners, and were made redundant.

Comment Re:Perception is not Reality (Score 1) 279

Anybody that makes you be an asshole, or they won't do their job, is themselves a raging, festering, prolapsed asshole.

Exactly. There were people who thought I was an asshole - and I was to them, but they were dumasses who tried to throw up roadblocks to getting things done. And I was fucking mean when the occasion demanded it. My favorite was when someone gave me shit abot something I had to have done, and I'd give them a phone number to call. It was the director's direct line. Never a problem after that.

And upon reflection on a long career, being an asshole to them was exactly what they deserved. Some people seem to think simply doing their job was doing someone a favor. Anyone who was helpful to me? I'd run through a wall for them.

Comment a good start (Score 1) 118

There has been a lot of technological innovation in agriculture lately:

Vertical and indoor farming
Aquaculture
Robotics - for far more than harvesting
Cultured meat
etc.

These innovations will provide more and better food at lower cost and with less suffering of both humans and animals. It will also reduce pollution, reduce energy use, and improve food security. That seems like a win/win/win to me.

Good to see this happening.

Comment Re:Literally in the Summary (Score 4, Interesting) 279

Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.

There is a very strong anti-male bias, even when it is approached in a friendly manner - see below.

If you dig up the actual report, you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.

I'm not surprised. I know that in my setting, we had a bit of a bias in hiring women over men, they came in at the same pay as the men, and we promoted them more quickly than men. I voluntarily gave up several promotions in order for a female co worker to get a promotion - stupid quota system with promotions.

Yet - they all left. Despite preferential treatment, they quit. Getting married, having children, just going back to live with the family were typical. One engineer woman left to become a personal trainer - musta been a helluva hit to the pocket, and another opened a daycare center. Some were let go during slowdowns, in large part because if myself or the other guy were let go, more people would be hired because they usually had a distinct list of what they would or wouldn't do.Travel, Overtime, and non standard work hours were a no-no. One of the biggest problems when there were personnel conflicts? Other women.

In the end, even though I missed a number of promotions, I was paid a lot more than the others. And there were a few complaints over the years. Quickly taken care of by the boss who asked if they wanted to do what I did. No takers. The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians. I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.

Comment Re:Literally in the Summary (Score 1) 279

You get paid according to the agreement you had with your employer. If you don't like the terms of your employment then you need to renegotiate-- you have no right to complain about what you agreed to.

And we learn that showing up as late as possible, and doing as little as possible is the hot ticket. Jesus was such a commie.

Comment Re:Literally in the Summary (Score 1) 279

In the USA they are required to keep you job (or one just like it) open. There is an expectation that the parent will return.

Contractors see these, short term, might turn perm, roles all the time.

If you believe this doesn't affect the job prospects of childbearing age women, I've got a bridge to sell you. But it _should_ affect their job prospects, just like any other real factor. The law be damned.

Yup.We had a woman who had three children over a roughly 8 year period. Took off over a year each. We were required to give her he job back.

That meant that three other women who were working as replacement lost their jobs.

And it is important, now that we talk about equal pay for equal work. I was quite dependable, and would come in early and work late, work nights and weekends, and travel. If another person of the same job description but only works 6 years out of ten, won't work more than 40 hours a week, and won't work any other times than 8 to 5, and refuses to travel, due the same compensation I am?

This is not a trivial question. Saying yes brings up a whole other set of problems, Continuity of work and needed expenditures for more employees by the employer means something. If people who do less overall work than I do, I'm outa there, because I know what I'm worth.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard

Working...