Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I don't know about this one... (Score 5, Insightful) 376

There is no problem to be solved.

Women who want to become software engineers are free to do so. There are no barriers. That women tend to choose other careers is the result of human nature. Like it or not, boys and girls are different, and those differences are immutable.

As for "minorities," the very term is meaningless. Anyone of any color, creed, sex, or religion is (in America at least) free to pursue these careers. Trying to bean count the number of Inuit who are code jockeys is ridiculous and ultimately degrading to those being counted.

Google is being shook down by the race and sex hustlers, nothing more. They company is all too aware that these free classes are not going to change the demographics of software engineers. They're doing this as a PR stunt to fend off the hustlers, who will eventually move on to some other target who is more willing to be shook down.

Men are an extreme minority in the child care services industry. Early childhood development programs at colleges and universities are essentially estrogen clubs. There are no men anywhere. Why? Because human nature is what it is, and the nature of men does not include such things.

Comment Trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. (Score 1) 155

What does it matter how many girls are doing what?

Young women are going to do precisely what they want. No one is stopping them from pursuing computer science or engineering careers. These fields pay well. There are many clear and obvious incentives to pursue these careers. If young women tend to choose other careers more often than young men, this does not represent a problem in need of a solution.

Promoting a class based on its female participation rate is absurd.

Comment Making Nixon look like a boyscout (Score 1) 465

This is, belive it or not, the biggest political scandal within living memory, possibly in all of American history.

An arm of the federal government targets citizens for intimidation based on their political beliefs, likely at the behest of the White House. When the jig is up, the miscreants do everything they can to lie, obfuscate, and destroy evidence.

Political revolutions have started over less.

Comment Diversi-what? (Score 1) 435

So yahoo hires the best people for the job, and this is supposed to be news?

I'm sick and tired of whiny losers complaining that they can't get a job because of their ethnicity.

NO. You can't get a job because you SUCK. The job market does not care what color you are, what church you go to, or where your ancestors migrated here from. The only thing the job market cares about is your ability to produce value. If you can't do it, the market will choose someone else who can. If you can do it, then welcome to the winner's circle my son.

This nonsense about juding a company's hiring practices by the skin of their employees is woefully pathetic peurile garbage.

Comment May Day? (Score 0) 247

Why on earth would anyone use a holiday celebrated by socialists as their marketing buzzword?

Knowing absolutely NOTHING about this effort, I'm instantly opposed to it on this basis alone.

This is like calling your new computer system the CyberStalin. Anyone who would do so is either ignorant, crazy, or evil.

Comment Inventing new names for old scams (Score 1) 568

There is a concept from marketing known as branding. Brands are not merely a convenient name by which your company or product is known. Consumers respond to brands themselves, either positively or negatively. This is known as brand equity.

A brand with good equity will sell a product simply by having its name attached to it. A Calvin Klein shirt will sell for more than a comparable shirt from a less famous brand. Likewise, a brand with bad equity will inhibit sales of an otherwise good product.

Brands that become toxic are abandoned. The company will change its name, or change the name of the product, or release a new product under a new name. Phillip Morris changed its name to Altria for example. IBM sold off its hard drive business to another firm when their "Deathstar" line of drives became irredeemably associated with poor quality.

Ideas also have brands.

When an idea keeps getting rebranded under new names, it means the people peddling that idea are having a hard time. The more familiar potential consumers (believers) of that idea become with it, the more likely they are to reject it. So the people who want to push that idea repackage it under a new name and try to pretend it is something different.

I'm not surprised that global warming / climate change / climate chaos / etc has been given yet another name. I'm just surprised that it took them so long to think one up.
