|
CDP1802 wrote: If I did that, I would deseve getting laughed in the face. I have no sense for that stuff at all. Clothing must be comfortable, warm or light enough (depending on the climate) and must have many pockets.
Same here for me 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
I've come across gender-bias (in both directions) during my career. Even suffered for it a couple of times, but had the sense to speak out and expose the unmitigated differences in salaries.
Things in the UK have moved on and I'm guessing similar things are starting to happen in the US (as I've worked for a US company that made a Big Deal of things like this).
However I believe these "certificates" and "measurements" are worse than useless - "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" after all. How does one deal with a requirement to have (say) 25% of all tech employees to be female? Start employing women who aren't up the standard required just to keep the numbers up? (Same argument applies to any "minority" group). Dilute the company's ability for the sake of useless statistics?
Applying a "solution" at that end of the career ladder is way too late. Girls in schools should be encouraged into the sciences from day 1. Or, to be more accurate, all children should be encouraged to explore all the opportunities available, irrespective of gender. But many societies vilify and stifle people who don't want to follow accepted social norms so there is no incentive to step out of the little boxes folk are forced into. There are always a few that do manage to "break free", thank goodness.
There was another comment on the thread about a company not employing women in permanent roles due to the "likelihood of maternity" - I'm old enough to have come across that attitude during interviews. In the UK paid paternity leave is now compulsory which helps to redress that balance a bit, although we're a bit behind some of our Scandinavian and European cousins (and far ahead of the US). But the unconscious bias against younger women (i.e. of childbearing age) still exists.
Rant over. Apologies. These opinions should have been restricted to the Soapbox.
|
|
|
|
|
CHill60 Girls in schools should be encouraged into the sciences from day 1
That was well said!
CHill60 Rant over. Apologies. These opinions should have been restricted to the Soapbox.
Couple of other CP members said the same, I'll keep that in mind next time.
Bryian Tan
|
|
|
|
|
Your post was fine ... I wandered into the land of politics 
|
|
|
|
|
New contract has me in Tampa FL; I guess it has been a blessing that in the 35+ years I have been doing this, I have never encountered what people would call 'traffic jams'  . That being said, I think most people here need to be told, in words of one syllable and appropiate physucal suasion, what that lever is on the left side of the steering wheel is for. Nobody here uses it - for ANYTHING  . They also firmly believe that that white fog line on the right of the road MUST be followed - no matter where it goes, or if that lane merges, as they do, with large signs informing people of that fact.
An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
UK here so driving on the correct side.
I noticed during a recent coach trip through town the driver always took the outside lane if there was a choice and not turning left.
After a near collision yesterday evening when a van driver tried to merge from the outside lane when just alongside me I'm doing the same from now on. It seems easier to control things from there.
|
|
|
|
|
55378008 wrote: UK here so driving on the correct side.
Nope. We drive on the right side, and the contrary of right is wrong.
Well, I take that since we already took a side of the road you simply took the one left 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Nope. We drive on the right side, and the contrary of right is wrong.
I can see where the confusion comes from here, that's why I wrote "correct" and not "right"
|
|
|
|
|
Here in Ohio I had a commute which involved our busiest two highways for over 20 years.
Through that time I witnessed so much terrible, downright purposely dangerous driving that I never stopped being shocked by it.
And, in the last 5-8 years with the rise of cell phones I would absolutely find people meandering all over the 3 lane highway as if drunk--- and always I would find the driver looking at a cell phone. Always!
One time it was a local news channel van driver going about 40 in the left (fast) lane of the 65mph highway. Absolutely oblivious, they roll!
I was always of a mindset that you get on the highway to get to work. That means put everything down and drive as fast as you can without being pulled over by the local troopers. I think that method makes for better drivers. At least then you're looking at the road.
Put down the cell phones!!! And, drive!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually going fast can be less dangerous as you need all your focus.
Of course you might not be able to brake in time when some fumbduck cuts your road suddenly or enter a road without checking if there are car with precedence. And it is extremely dangerous if roads are not extremely well maintained as rains cause holes that at high speed can send cars flying like ragdolls.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: as you need all your focus
I agree.
Also, you are right, of course about all the other dangers.
I live only a few minutes away from work now so it is solved.
But, again, cell phones make for the most dangerous driving of all. Most people wouldn't read a paperback novel while driving but see no problem with reading text on a cell phone. 
Uber is Planning Self-Flying Drone Taxis[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dreadful. I'm an excessive case: I prefer not even talking when driving, except real small talk that doesn't even involve my brains (and often I snap at my motor-mouth GF cause she's distracting me) and if I don't have long trips I keep the radio off.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and driving can be a relaxing, enjoyable activity, if you not looking at your cell phone every 11 seconds. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, phones are killers on the road.
Right now, I manage 20 miles in about 1 hour and change; by the end of the month I hope to have a small apartment about four blocks away from my work.
I have seen four lane changers, thread the needlers (cross across all lanes of traffic from one side of the street to the other), stop light stalkers (they stop car lengths from the light, then creep up on it - I guess they hope to surprise it) and drivers with the reflexes of dead turtles.
I wish I was back in Alaska, where driving was fun and all you worried about was the occasional moose or rock slide....
An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
stoneyowl2 wrote: stop light stalkers
Yes, I've noticed those a lot too. So annoying. Also, have you noticed then that the cell phone zombies are indignant when you <beep beep> nicely?
They don't like to be broken out of their trance.
Crazy driver waving cell phone: Stop bothering me with driving laws (written and unwritten)!!!
stoneyowl2 wrote: drivers with the reflexes of dead turtles
Great summary of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A repost of sorts also
2 guxinto 4 ... 2 times
3 guzinto 9 ... 3 times
and so til I run out a fingers and toes.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
..is a total of 10 guzinto 35. Do you want stamps with that?
Weird. Usually you want tree-fiddy
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If I start doing fractions I'll have to lose digits.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: and so til I run out a fingers and toes.
an teef.
|
|
|
|
|
Representing numbers without using numbers.
3 - tree
33 - Dirty Tree
33,3 - Dirty tree and a turd.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: 2 guxinto 4 ... 2 times
3 guzinto 9 ... 3 times
Following that pattern, I think you just ran out of letters! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
TRUE MATH
Try to prove it...
1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ... (and goes for the infinity) = 1/2
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Curious and grandi'ous at the same time
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, it has something to do with the way that sums/series work when dealing with infinities. I don't remember exactly how it reduces, but I remember my mind being moderately blown the first time it was explained to me.
Now, my attempt, as I think about right now, would be to reduce it to an infinite series of the sum of one minus one:
(1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ....
Which would of course reduce to 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0...
I know this is wrong (because I've not correctly applied whatever rule leads to the 1/2 answer,) but from a straightforward idiot's logic approach, it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
