ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Mailvox: women in science

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen if you put a selection of intelligent, not very attractive women in amongst the biggest collection of gamma males in the known universe:
I'm a STEM worker, at a research lab. Lots of females have come through here. Increasingly more over the years. I have to say that most of them are coasters. Let's face it, I'm dealing with a LOT of socially challenged men here. This is NERD CENTRAL.

The girls are VERY adept at getting the guys to do the heavy lifting for them. And, they are even more adept at establishing social networks beyond the ken of anything your standard issue STEM male could possibly comprehend.

This has led to some very interesting situations.

But, on the whole, the women in my 17-year history with this lab have caused FAR more problems than they have solved.

Of course, there is the odd exception, when you find a female scientist or engineer who is an absolute treasure. They DO exist.

But they represent a very small percentage of the women coming through here. And the chaos caused by all the other women makes one wonder if they are worth it.

Sad to say. VERY sad to say. C'mon we WANT HOT SEXY BABES WORKING HERE! WE ARE A LEGION OF GEEKS!
First, these women are naturally going to be inclined to make up for lost time in enjoying their high relative SMV for the first time in their lives. Second, it's going to be the cheerleader/geek homework scenario writ large. Third, women are going to take over and rule the administration and HR, and promptly steer the organizations in the direction that happens to be of interest to them, which may or may not have anything to do with either a) science, or, b) the nominal purpose of the organization.

And it will happen every single time. No amount of education or professional training trumps the socio-sexual hierarchy.

The primary contribution any woman can make for science is to stay completely out of it. No matter how good she is, no matter how smart she is, she cannot possibly compensate for the complete devastation and distraction she is going to leave in her wake over the course of her career among the socially and sexually hapless gammas who might have otherwise happily spent decades slaving away in the laboratories.

Labels: , ,

105 Comments:

Anonymous Elipe October 18, 2016 11:47 AM  

And the sad thing is that TV shows like Big Bang Theory only make these gamma nerds gamma out even more around women because of their false hopes that they're Leonard about to snag a Penny.

The blue pill is a hell of a drug.

Blogger VFM #7634 October 18, 2016 11:58 AM  

Too many Gammas and not enough higher-ranked men -> useless women put in charge -> parasitic administrations and HR departments.

Sin of Adam all over again.

Blogger JP October 18, 2016 12:00 PM  

One of the worst moments of my career was trying to explain to a little HR girl of 22 why I deserve to keep my job as Developer during a large scale retrenchment. Naturally, HR wasn't affected by all the layoffs.

Blogger Johnny October 18, 2016 12:01 PM  

Despite all the feminist BS, the fight for supremacy is still between men. That is why they put up the female model as the idea. It is the male portion of the population that has to be beaten down, not the female.

The issue with women is that their merits are different than male merits, and chucking one gender into a slot more suited to the other produces undesirable outcomes.

Blogger S1AL October 18, 2016 12:05 PM  

Of the dozen or so women I still have contact with from school (all of them engineering majors), I think 2 or 3 actually went into engineering. Most of the rest got married right after or during college. I'm a bit confused as to where all of these women in STEM work are coming from.

Anonymous BluePony October 18, 2016 12:25 PM  

The women engineers where I work are not bad, but many needlessly complicate things, especially the software types. We can't just have a simple test interface to our hardware designs. There has to be layer after layer of abstraction in three different programming languages. And, gods, do they love Java.

I must work in some magical place, though. There's none of the greek letter hierarchy nonsense going on. People are either married or already seeing someone or simply of the "don't play where I get my pay" mindsets. It's aerospace, so it tends toward a more mature crowd.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 18, 2016 12:25 PM  

S1AL wrote:I'm a bit confused as to where all of these women in STEM work are coming from.

Nine men and a woman apply for a STEM job. Which one does the HR lady hire?

Blogger Johnny October 18, 2016 12:25 PM  

Way back when I was an involuntary audience to daytime TV intended for women. They used to get Helen Gurley Brown on. Her line was "You can have it all." If distilled down to actual behavior it was "You can do it all." Her model of behavior was raising kids and holding a job.

Now to some extent we are actually fulfilling that. Women are maternal enough that they retain the role of wife and mother (or mother only) even as they are supposed to at least equal men in numbers in traditional male roles. Plus they retain superior numbers in traditional female roles. So... I guess they really do want to do it all. I think it crazy, but hey that is just a man's point of view.

Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 12:29 PM  

There has historically been a small % of women like me who do science because we truly love it, have a talent for it, and can't conceive of doing anything else. I don't quite understand how the presence of such women is disruptive, but if we accept Vox's claim, there is still a workable solution that keeps everyone happy. Almost since the dawn of modern science, there have been small, private labs and husband-and-wife labs, and such arrangements have never been more practical than in this highly technological information age.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 18, 2016 12:29 PM  

My sister has a computer science degree and got a job right out of college. She can't format a hard drive and doesn't know the difference between a word processor and a text editor. Cute though, I'm hoping she dumps her current boyfriend (physics grad student) and marries an MBA Chad.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 18, 2016 12:32 PM  

Stickwick wrote:I don't quite understand how the presence of such women is disruptive, but if we accept Vox's claim, there is still a workable solution that keeps everyone happy.

Imagine working in a lab with Donald Trump.

Blogger praetorian October 18, 2016 12:33 PM  

Which is why my company's HR department consists of the following image, printed out and taped to the wall:

https://media1.giphy.com/media/GOvAlgzPN7MNG/200_s.gif

Blogger VD October 18, 2016 12:34 PM  

I don't quite understand how the presence of such women is disruptive

Because the low-rank men who are entirely unaccustomed to female company desperately want to play Doctor Prince Charming to your Disney Science Princess. Imagine a really hot porn star showing up in a bikini to work the front desk at the average white collar office.

Now do you get it?

Anonymous Elipe October 18, 2016 12:35 PM  

Stickwick wrote:Almost since the dawn of modern science, there have been small, private labs and husband-and-wife labs

Stick, we're talking about gamma males here. Husband-and-wife is a bit of a stretch for these. Especially considering that back then, male scientists were still conditioned or taught to be decent men.

Blogger praetorian October 18, 2016 12:36 PM  

I don't quite understand how the presence of such women is disruptive

You have no idea what it's like having a dick.

Blogger Basil Makedon October 18, 2016 12:47 PM  

The Curies are the classic example of the husband/wife team in science. Not sure that it's very practical anymore. Distant relations of mine do joint (and very interesting) cognitive research on the physics and chemistry of memory formation, but the husband drives the research.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 18, 2016 12:49 PM  

@10 Aeoli Pera:

My sister has a computer science degree and got a job right out of college. She can't format a hard drive and doesn't know the difference between a word processor and a text editor.

Which, strangely enough, aren't on the ABET CS curriculum and aren't, for example, formally taught in MIT's EECS required courses; does she know what an Abelian grape is? There are, actually, a lot of jobs out there that require real CS, vs. the stuff most of us are more familiar with. Is she in one of those jobs/companies, or is she doing something in the area of CRUD or web front end programming?

For that matter, did she go to one of the top four CS schools, or at the other end, one that cargo cults the subject? It doesn't sound like she has "the spark", as I call it, though, although few of either sex do (fewer women, of course).

Blogger Mountain Man October 18, 2016 12:52 PM  

A number of years back I had a FWB arrangement with a late 20's woman who was a professor of science. She was definitely a nerd but also very cute and had an incredible body. Anyhow I remember she mentioned in passing once that she enjoyed being around me because " you're not a guy who tries to argue with me incessantly with the goal of proving he's more intelligent than me." Her statement spoke volumes about the number of gammas she was surrounded with.

Blogger Miss Carnivorous October 18, 2016 12:56 PM  

I used to date an Engineer from Spain, who worked for GE. He and his fellow engineers were monster partiers. Maybe GE is a different kettle of fish, but, I did not find the guys to be socially inept nerdy types at all. In fact, I was astonished at how attractive and masculine they were. There was one dumpy Asian women who complained that the guys didn't want to date the female engineers, but I came away with the impression that smart people are attractive and that they are also smart enough to make themselves attractive. Kind of like Morgan Fairchild.

Blogger Mountain Man October 18, 2016 12:56 PM  

"Naturally, HR wasn't affected by all the layoffs."

Oh of course not! The fat fatties are always spared.

HR=Welfare For Middle Class Women.

Blogger pdwalker October 18, 2016 12:57 PM  

@15 You have no idea what it's like having a dick.

The only saving grace to getting older is that I gradually get more control over that monster so that it no longer rules my life more than say.... 97% of the time. What an improvement!

Blogger Johnny October 18, 2016 1:00 PM  

praetorian wrote:I don't quite understand how the presence of such women is disruptive

You have no idea what it's like having a dick.


From what I have seen of male behavior, when most men are not being aggressive the tendency is pander to women even when there is no prospect of a sexual adventure. And of course this id double for younger women.

To some extent it is condescending, and it produces women, who because they don't take the hits that a man does, are often in somewhat less capable in leadership positions than they otherwise would be.

There are exceptions of course, but the exceptions are exceptions.

Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 1:12 PM  

VD: Now do you get it?

Sort of, but honestly, this is a bit of a surprise. As an aspie, it'd require asking several questions to really understand how this works; but limiting it to one for now: It's obviously a relative attractiveness thing, but does it apply even when a woman is not at all attractive by any usual standard, e.g. Amy Farrah Fowler?

Anonymous GregMan October 18, 2016 1:18 PM  

I worked in Biology for several years back in the 80's and 90's, and I met and/or worked with a great many female scientists. None of them were any good. The best performed at what I consider to be a Lab Tech level, certainly not a PhD or post-doc level. But, hey, Diversity!

Anonymous veryfunnyminion October 18, 2016 1:19 PM  

Not just in science, there was a genuinely attractive girl (solid 9) in my MBA program (jeer away), she got plenty of help from classmates most of whom were much higher up the scale than gamma nerds. Prolly the profs too.

Funny thing, despite all that she was a coalburner.

Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 1:20 PM  

Basil Makedon: The Curies are the classic example of the husband/wife team in science. Not sure that it's very practical anymore.

It's never been more practical, if you're willing to limit yourself to projects that don't require massive funding or you can drum up your own money. With all the difficulties of working in the academic world, there's been a steady stream of people leaving academia and either setting up private institutes or just working as individual, unaffiliated scientists.

Chemists Art and Laurelee Robinson are good examples of this. After co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute at UC-San Diego, Art left the academic world and co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine with his wife and two other scientists. He and his wife conducted their research while raising and homeschooling six kids. It absolutely can be done.

Blogger pdwalker October 18, 2016 1:24 PM  

@23 Compared to a low rank male with problems handling social issues, only the most repulsive of females would turn their gaze away.

And a funny thing, even if the man is of higher attractiveness, over time he may start finding her more attractive, especially if there is something about her that he likes - personality, intelligence, humour, whatever.

The testosterone and the urges it brings will not be denied. It's relentless.

Blogger DBSFF October 18, 2016 1:30 PM  

but does it apply even when a woman is not at all attractive by any usual standard, e.g. Amy Farrah Fowler?

Some of these guys may have never gotten any. Any girl is gonna stir the pot.

Blogger weka October 18, 2016 1:35 PM  

There has to be layer after layer of abstraction in three different programming languages. And, gods, do they love Java.

If you can't code in C on a whiteboard... Java is training wheels.

Anonymous Elipe October 18, 2016 1:38 PM  

e.g. Amy Farrah Fowler

There's an easy, empirical (scientific!) test for that. Rule 34. Google "Amy Farrah Fowler nude". If it exists, someone somewhere is aroused by it.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 18, 2016 1:39 PM  

@26 Stickwick:

He and his wife conducted their research while raising and homeschooling six kids. It absolutely can be done.

Arthur Robinson's story is quite a bit more impressive, for his wife suddenly died before they could start the home schooling part of it. So he came up with a curriculum that required very little hands on time after phonics and the math tables were taught. It's philosophy is also very interesting, in that he claims, and I agree, that any teaching of science prior to learning your math, that is, single variable calculus, is not really learning science.

So it focuses on teaching only reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic (of course, the reading implicitly teaches a lot more), the latter as quickly as practical, and only then you start on physics, calculus based as it should be, and if enough time is left, college level chemistry (which has the physics as a base, although at least initially doesn't really require the calculus), then "call up the CalTech bookstore and ask them what the current first course biology textbook is" and/or try your hands on statistical mechanics and I forget if there's another high level science book in the package (you teach yourself the additional math you need as you do these science subjects, that's very natural).

He's also an iffy case for proving it can be done, being Pauling's associate way back then, and the sort of person who can get time on Rockefeller University lab equipment (which also gave him and his son some first hand experiences with urban ugliness), both those were/are #1 in the world at what they do.

Blogger Bodo Staron October 18, 2016 1:40 PM  

Keeping them out completely, a little bit harsh. Why not women only labs?
I knew a guy (not science) who hired only women. He was the owner of a company, and the rest were women. It worked. But this was a sales driven company...

Blogger weka October 18, 2016 1:41 PM  

@Stickwick, working as a husband/wife team outside of academia does work... but inside the universities the wife will be promoted because diversity and too much time will be spent covering your collective tails.

In my department, all the behavioural scientists are women and the team leader sensibly married a cook. (Seriously. He now runs a cooking school in a polytech). The amount of energy she spends keeping these women on track was not acknowledged for promortion despite an H factor pushing 18 on google scholar. The two males (I'm one) are psychiatrists, and we don't get promoted other. But if you are a psychologist doing pretty PC stuff...

Oxford had an expectation of chastity and holy orders for its fellows through most of the Victorian era. We may have to bring that back.

Blogger buwaya October 18, 2016 1:51 PM  

"I used to date an Engineer from Spain"

Yes, thats us exactly. Bunch of handsome devils.
Better yet the mestizos. More interesting genes there.
Your next generation of gamma male science drones need an infusion of Antonio Banderas, or perhaps Manuel Quezon -
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/b7/2e/65b72eb2bebe2e35cbaee394763084d9.jpg

Blogger Noah B October 18, 2016 1:53 PM  

@3 Thanks, JP. That's going to give me nightmares.

Blogger CarpeOro October 18, 2016 1:56 PM  

@10 and 17

Actually, the portion of people who have any understanding of computers beyond the portion they are responsible for is extremely small. People that are understand workstations, servers, applications, programming and infrastructure from my experience are/or have worked in operations or are the ones that just love computers in general. Despite how easy it is to build your own desktop/server, I'd doubt 5% of the IT people in corporate America have ever done so.

@28 There was a recent Big Bang Theory where Amy was called a "rock star" and "cool kid". The guy referring to her that way was even farther down the social ladder than the core characters at the university.

Blogger Lovekraft October 18, 2016 1:57 PM  

Seeing the women go squirrely enough times at work allowed me to notice the next possible eruption of emotion in advance.

I joked to co-workers that there's going to be a need for another human sacrifice soon.

Blogger S1AL October 18, 2016 2:05 PM  

"Yes, thats us exactly. Bunch of handsome devils.
Better yet the mestizos. More interesting genes there."

You... do realize that Spain is a country in Europe, right? Also, don't be bitter.

Blogger justaguy October 18, 2016 2:07 PM  

17 That Would be Telling:

As a career engineer, I've often wondered about Computer Science and Computer Engineering versus "real engineering". Many programmers don't have 4 year degrees, know little science and math, but are smart and can follow flow charts and develop them albeit not efficiently. This is vastly different from the 5 semesters of calculus including two semesters of differential equations as well as extensive science knowledge needed for any engineering degree. Add the engineering mindset-- "what do you know, how do you know it and does it actually work in real life?" and computer engineering is very very different than say electrical or mechanical engineering.

Having done extensive algorithm development in my earlier days, I know that there is a study to this along with a bit of theoretical math. When I was the Program Manager for an ACAT I computer development for DoD ($2B program), I saw the top developers and computer architects work the models and basic plan and then the grunt programmers and coding machines put together the rest before the extensive testing began. The real genius was in matching achievable requirements to capability and keeping on track.

Does anyone actually teach CS and CE or just how to be a grunt programmer and follow someone else's direction? Or am I just showing how old my skill set is because know one cares about efficiency and elegance in algorithm development, or matching complex math to computers anymore?

Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 2:10 PM  

That Would Be Telling: Arthur Robinson's story is quite a bit more impressive, for his wife suddenly died before they could start the home schooling part of it.

Laurelee was already homeschooling them when she died. Art had to come up with a way to modify the curriculum so that the kids could teach themselves. You can read their story here.

He's also an iffy case for proving it can be done…

He’s on the more elite end, yes, but it can still be done, and it’s happening more and more. In my field, huge amounts of data and software are now publicly available. Anyone here in principle could do the work I'm doing with the resources that are available.

Blogger buwaya October 18, 2016 2:18 PM  

"You... do realize that Spain is a country in Europe, right?"

Indeed. Been there, lived there as a kid. Speak the language. Still have the passport.

The Phils has a now-small but still influential minority of Spanish mestizos.

Anonymous Sam the Man October 18, 2016 2:26 PM  

Worked in Tech since just after high school, from production line to being responsible entire product lines, from a start up to a fortune 50 companies. A total of 34 years to date.

Never seen a female hardware engineer that had the talent. Ever. Except one RF engineer who was really talented, but which turned out to be a converted guy.

I have seen them work well in support roles, but not as designers. Best I can figure is women are more balanced in their approach to life, that is why the do better in school, but get blown by in most real world situation. Fact is the folks that succeed in any field are not exactly balanced, they eat, sleep, live and die by their profession. Second to these folks (not one myself) are people that do the field as a means to an end, but they are driven in some vocation that the engineering field pays for. It is a means to an end and they are still driven folks and do not want to waste their time at work.

None of the women cared enough to be thinking about the problems at lunch, when they drove in or on their time off. None of the women want to put in the hours when there is stress situation, which is when the best engineers show what they are made of.

As to how they disrupt: In one position I worked at, the front office use to hire cute young women to work in the summer. Every engineer and tech who was young proceeded to enter competition to date/mate with them, happened every summer. The presence of one or two fertile young attractive female in the work place was quite disruptive, as not only were the guys after them, but the comradely that existed was disrupted, as they competed with each other.

Same situation and reason young women should be out of military, the cohesion produced when a large number of guys work together is disrupted when you throw a number of chicks in there, it becomes a giant contest to bang the hottest one, which favors the less honest guys. Much better to have the guys bond in the unit, and then go out together to try and land women when they work together to land them.

Even leaving out the male behavior, (which is not possible) having chicks around affects folks conversation. If you have a bunch of engineers around their conversion is on topic. The stuff they are working on is interesting to them, and if not it is some technical topic. Women find this boring and inevitably change the conversion to more people focused crap, especially when there is any kind of group get together. Because they are not really that interested in the nuances of technical subject X, they inevitable they and shift it to something they care about. A well oiled lab is a place of introverts all trying to ignore each other or interact to solve issues. Women coming in think by socializing they are fixing things, when in fact they are screwing up the environment.

Anonymous VFM #6306 October 18, 2016 2:28 PM  

Stickwick, would it make more sense to you if imagined the sexless lab men as being very, very drunk for the first time? Because that is almost exactly what they experience biologically in the presence of women colleagues. Men thirst for sex like women thirst for security. Going without sex for a long time causes overwhelming anxiety and blind impulses in those men least equipped to solve the issue directly.

Imagine an air traffic control tower manned entirely by paraplegics. All the planes are managed normally, with no one on the outside aware or caring about the handicaps.

Then in walks a new controller who happens to be a doctor with a cure for paraplegia in his case, but he won't give it to anyone, because "We all have a job to do."

How much less effective is that tower going to be?

You could be a drooling, screeching two ton troll, Stickwick...and you still would walk into that tower with the cure.

Blogger Noah B October 18, 2016 2:36 PM  

@31 It's philosophy is also very interesting, in that he claims, and I agree, that any teaching of science prior to learning your math, that is, single variable calculus, is not really learning science.

That sounds awful to me. There was a huge body of scientific work done before calculus existed, and although calculus is an essential mathematical tool for advanced STEM work, it isn't a necessary prerequisite for understanding most of the underlying principles in science, engineering, economics, or other areas in which it is frequently used. For that matter, it's quite easy to grasp the concepts of calculus without being able to apply them analytically.

The things that make science come alive are experiments - making an electromagnet, seeing what prisms do to light, observing germination patterns in different seeds, microwaving things that were never intended to be microwaved (like Cher CDs). Rigorous learning is good for instilling discipline, but fun is necessary for sparking imagination.

Anonymous arw October 18, 2016 2:40 PM  

@Stickwick

It looks something like this.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr October 18, 2016 2:46 PM  

I suspect that STEM may be too general a term. The computer programmers do seem to have a lot of gamma/omega people. Hard science less so. Engineering much less so.

Sam the Man brings up a good point, though. I've got 36 years in flight test. One thing I look for in an engineer is professional zeal - the determination to stand at your station until the flight is completed, your relief arrives...or you collapse at your post. I've worked double-shifts flying a test mission, then briefed the next flight (needed to meet a ferry flight window). A really good engineer lives with the job 24/7...I've done some of my best thinking in the shower.

Few men are willing to do this. But I suspect even fewer women will do so.

Blogger Alexander October 18, 2016 2:48 PM  

Stick,

I knew an absolutely revolting woman, who's daily calorie consumption and volume both began with 4/3 pie...

Anyway, in the time I knew of her she had had sex with a friend of my brother, and then an acquaintance of said friend. My brother managed to make me throw up while conjuring an image of the friend eating out the shebeast.

There is literally no woman so ugly she cannot find two men somewhere to fight over her.

Amy Fowler got no chili in these sweepstakes.

Blogger Noah B October 18, 2016 2:48 PM  

@46 The shower, the toilet, and in bed lying awake at 2 AM are where the magic happens.

Blogger praetorian October 18, 2016 2:52 PM  

Better yet the mestizos. More interesting genes there.

You have to go back.

I'm sorry.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 18, 2016 3:08 PM  

@44 Noah B:

I myself am not sure about the curriculum's philosophy, I certainly did not do it in that order, but I have to disagree on your "necessary prerequisite" point. Sure, you can do a bunch of science without the calculus, and grasp a lot at the "poets" level, but it's all based on physics, which now that we have the calculus is the right way to learn it.

And I believe that if you aren't properly grounded in the basics, math -> physics -> chemistry -> biology (you can of course stop at any point if you're doing just that field), you stand an uncomfortable chance of doing bad science or worse.

One of his points about doing it this way, and this ties into his political work that's for example related to his taking over Access to Energy after Petr Beckmann's death, is that science without the math, without your being able to do the mathematical analysis, is not based on "science" but on authority.

Which ties right into his leading role in the Global Warming Petition Project, the people who say "the science is settled" are ignorant and/or lying, and in the former are people who can't (or won't) "do the math". Whereas if you have the background, it doesn't, for example, take very long spent with the Climategate data dump to prove to yourself they're full of hot air, so to speak.

Given that we're talking about a trillion dollar a year effort to kill billions of people, the stakes in getting this science wrong are rather high. If we're actually headed into a little or big ice age (as some of the same people were claiming earlier, except of course it's always our fault), very very high indeed.

Blogger Aaron October 18, 2016 3:14 PM  

"...the biggest collection of gamma males in the known universe"

You think the men who work in labs are more gamma than the men working as elementary school teachers?

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 18, 2016 3:16 PM  

@@44 Noah B:

Ah, and with regards to the the fun of science, his recommendation if one of your children becomes seriously interested in a subject is to buy them a big, general book for specialists on the subject. He of course won't understand more than a fraction of it, but it can be just the motivation he needs to learn what he needed to know to understand it. That takes place outside of the formal curriculum, of course, which isn't to take more than "half a day" or less as I recall.

Of course, for a lot of people, book != fun, but this curriculum is certainly intended to avoid developing an aversion to books.

Anonymous Logan October 18, 2016 3:17 PM  

"the biggest collection of gamma males in the known universe"

You think the men who work in labs are more gamma than the men who work as elementary school teachers?

Blogger Cloudswrest October 18, 2016 3:17 PM  

@36

Despite how easy it is to build your own desktop/server, I'd doubt 5% of the IT people in corporate America have ever done so.

I used to build/assemble my own computers. Now I'm just too lazy, or the level of ennui is too great and I just go down to Costco and buy a new one when I need to.

Blogger Mr. Bee October 18, 2016 3:18 PM  

My experience: Marry a woman who wanted to go into tech but was disabused of the notion by their HS advisor cause women don't go into tech. Then use your own science/tech chops to help train and orient her to make up for the time lost when she was floundering in the humanities. Then sit back and let affirmative action more than double your family's earning potential. This only works for a happy life if the woman in question is also a good Christian, thinks men > woman (thanks mom in law!) not to mention highly intelligent and a good worker. This was from 30 years ago, so the pool is likely much smaller now, but good luck!

Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 3:19 PM  

Napoleon 12pdr: I suspect that STEM may be too general a term. The computer programmers do seem to have a lot of gamma/omega people. Hard science less so. Engineering much less so.

That's pretty accurate. The vast majority of men in my field are married and seem relatively normal; I've encountered very few men who qualify as the desperate, gamma super-nerd type, which is probably the main reason I had difficulty understanding Vox's point. But in terms of an environment where many of the men are gammas, then the disruptiveness of the sexual dynamic makes sense.

I asked some male friends for clarity about this topic, and the response was that even competent women in a group of non-gamma men can be disruptive, and not necessarily for sexual reasons. The mere presence of a woman disrupts the all-male vibe, where the social and work rules are well-established and straightforward, and creates a minefield in terms of what you can and can't do. That makes total sense.

Blogger Unknown October 18, 2016 3:19 PM  

@6
I did seven deployments on aircraft carriers in 20 years. Every one was mixed sex crews, from 1996 onwards. Every one had men getting in trouble over women, and men picking up the slack of women who could not hang physically.
Carriers loose on average about 25 female crew per deployment due to pregnancy, and that is 25 billets that do not get filled until deployment is over. 25 job slots where the others on the job have to pick up the slack.

Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 3:27 PM  

It's pretty obvious given reason and evidence that the military should be 100% male, except for maybe nurses.

Blogger VD October 18, 2016 3:28 PM  

It's obviously a relative attractiveness thing, but does it apply even when a woman is not at all attractive by any usual standard, e.g. Amy Farrah Fowler?

Two words: Barry Kripke. And also the Geology giant.

You think the men who work in labs are more gamma than the men who work as elementary school teachers?

Yes. I said "gamma", not "lambda pedophile".

Blogger praetorian October 18, 2016 3:28 PM  

OT: holy shit Drudge, holy shit

Blogger Mountain Man October 18, 2016 3:34 PM  

"OT: holy shit Drudge, holy shit"

Bisexual sex scandals, National Enquirer...
...No one really thought Roger Stone would sit idly by while they threw vollies of dirt at our (soon to be ) new President - do you?

Anonymous BGKB October 18, 2016 3:38 PM  

holy shit Drudge, holy shit

But his source is the national enquirer & its nothing we didn't already expect other than the occasional man sex.

Related: Global Warming Hoaxers will need a new boogyman than CO2. Wonder if women could ever accidently discover something as many of the great advances have been.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/

Oct 17, 2016
"Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.

The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles."

Blogger praetorian October 18, 2016 3:38 PM  

I think I don't even think I know what I think I think anymore, man.

We are hitting levels of astral-kek that shouldn't even be harambe.

Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 3:39 PM  

VD: Two words: Barry Kripke. And also the Geology giant.

"Prepare your womb for his gigantic offspring."

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 18, 2016 3:42 PM  

@39 justaguy

@17 That Would be Telling:

[lots of good stuff.]

Does anyone actually teach CS and CE or just how to be a grunt programmer and follow someone else's direction?


ABET does have a Computer Engineering subject, but I have little idea of what it is; after 5 minutes with Google I'd guess "building gadgets" as I describe that subset of the field (for example, microcontroller programming and all that entails, vs. microprogramming, which is what I'd consider "computer engineering" to include).

But CS and being "a grunt programmer" are most certainly taught, and seriously so in at least some places. For the former, MIT, CMU, UC Berkeley and Stanford in no particular order are the places in the world to go.

And there are outliers like Harvard, which has a Computer Science "concentration" (not sure what that is), which is most certainly not an ABET program, but is at minimum not shabby for a serious student.

At the other "grunt" end, nowadays in addition to the traditional autodidact approach, which is how I got good after a few very basic introductory courses, there are for example so called "boot camps" which will teach something like "web programming" (mostly front end stuff, I think, which while not "engineering" hard, is very hard due to the environment which makes early Windows 3.x look like a picnic in many ways).

And there are of course the endless "deskilling" efforts which you've watched one old fashioned approach of, nowadays the curse words are Agile and Scrum.

On the other hand, one great thing about the field is that there's so much to so with computers of all sizes and types that you can likely find a niche, although staying employed as a regular salaried employee past your mid-30s can be quite a trick.

Anonymous Athor Pel October 18, 2016 3:51 PM  

" 23. Anonymous Stickwick October 18, 2016 1:12 PM
VD: Now do you get it?

Sort of, but honestly, this is a bit of a surprise. As an aspie, it'd require asking several questions to really understand how this works; but limiting it to one for now: It's obviously a relative attractiveness thing, but does it apply even when a woman is not at all attractive by any usual standard, e.g. Amy Farrah Fowler?"


There's something attractive about most women. At least one thing but usually more than one. Whether that thing is enough for any individual man to appreciate is another thing. Maybe it's her eyes, or her neck or most importantly her willingness or eagerness to say yes to sex with you.

But truly unattractive women are non-entities to most men. They don't register as sexual targets, at all. To men there are two kinds of women; women they want to fuck and women they will not fuck. Yes, there are some women that will make a dick go limp.

Now,

What some of the other commenters are alluding to is testosterone level. What they are stating clearly is indeed attractiveness, any attractiveness.

If your T levels are high you are perpetually horny. Men are perpetually horny. If woman A is in your presence and woman B is not then woman A will be occupying space in your mind. If she is in your mind she is also the subject of sexual speculation, possibly planning and possibly action. There are lots of other considerations obviously but this is how things are at their most basic.

There's a lesson to learn here. Most women don't know what love is. Loving them but only being mildly sexually attracted them is not a recipe for a long relationship. All women want to be strongly desired, few understand that desire isn't love. If your desire for her is weak she will smell it and think you don't love her. You can't sell tepid.

When I say weak desire what I'm talking about is action towards getting sex from her being almost entirely driven by the man's horniness rather than her being the most attractive woman he is able to get and her knowing it in her bones.

Anonymous BGKB October 18, 2016 3:51 PM  

Apple CEO gay Timmy Cook wants to do away with cash, I guess he gives pre paid credit cards to the Mexicans at home depot he picks up for sex.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/17/apple-tim-cook-cash/

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 18, 2016 4:10 PM  

BGKB wrote:Oct 17, 2016

"Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.

The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles."

Funny, give me 100 acres to grow barley, a couple of tanks and I could do that for you now.
And the ethanol will have better uses than mere "fuel".

Anonymous Atavisionary October 18, 2016 4:14 PM  

Though not the only problem caused by women in the workplace, by for the most disruptive and expensive, when it occurs, is sexual harassment allegations. Research has shown the many such allegations are false. It costs businesses (and government/universities too presumably) millions of dollars a year to deal with. Even when false. For every woman who can make a positive contribution, there are thousands of her sisters which are nothing but a net drain on the organization, which completely overwhelms any benefit there was to having her.

the book "Smart and Sexy" by roderick kaine has a whole section on this, which is addition to explaining why, biologically, women aren't going to be good at science anyway. So these institutions are wasting all this time and money for lower quality. It makes no sense.

Blogger Marie October 18, 2016 4:39 PM  

Want to know why so many women quit their jobs after having children?

They don't like working with women either.

Anonymous Greg October 18, 2016 5:48 PM  

Scientific progress goes "Boink"?

Blogger The Kurgan October 18, 2016 5:50 PM  

To be fair Vox, most front desk women at white collar offices may not have a filmography on pornhub, and they tend to wear some more clothing than a bikini, that said....they are not that different. Except porn stars can actually be quite interesting people.

Blogger VFM #7634 October 18, 2016 6:36 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Vanished friend October 18, 2016 6:51 PM  

A concept that's old-fashioned and novel at the same time. Is there a name for that kind of distributivist approach to female equality in science? If not, would you mind being an Eve and naming it?

Blogger Vanished friend October 18, 2016 6:51 PM  

A concept that's old-fashioned and novel at the same time. Is there a name for that kind of distributivist approach to female equality in science? If not, would you mind being an Eve and naming it?

Blogger Lazarus October 18, 2016 6:53 PM  

Stickwick wrote:but does it apply even when a woman is not at all attractive by any usual standard, e.g. Amy Farrah Fowler?

She is as much a wannabe slut as Penny is in practice, so yah. Sure, she is a 2-bagger, but get the beer goggles on and go to town.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy October 18, 2016 7:12 PM  

justaguy wrote:Does anyone actually teach CS and CE or just how to be a grunt programmer and follow someone else's direction?
Those courses are taught (not necessarily in the CS department), but I see no sign that any skills beyond grunt coding are valued in the real world.

Blogger B.J. October 18, 2016 7:30 PM  

Women in science? Try women in everything. I've never had a job where the females didn't offload 20%-100% of their job tasks onto males.

Men just let them get away with it. I worked one job where the old, competent admin got replaced by a hot, young piece of ass. Suddenly none of the paperwork was being done right. The previous admin managed to get everyone's job tickets sorted and scheduled by 9AM, the new one couldn't even get one job scheduled. The guys were all too gutless to call her out on it and were all doing their own scheduling, despite cutting into all their billable hours. I refused. I sat right at her desk and stared her down until she did her damn job and scheduled tickets. The other guys were baffled. "How did you get her to do that?" I refused to accept her bad behavior.

Of course she complained, and her (female) boss decided that she shouldn't have to do the scheduling anymore, and we all had to figure out our work schedule on our own. So what did they even hire her for?

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 18, 2016 7:37 PM  

@76 LurkingPuppy

justaguy wrote:
Does anyone actually teach CS and CE or just how to be a grunt programmer and follow someone else's direction?


Those courses are taught (not necessarily in the CS department), but I see no sign that any skills beyond grunt coding are valued in the real world.


Look at companies like Google, which have problems at a scale where mere "grunt coding" would have, well, they'd never have become big. Or the fields involved in designing and verifying complicated integrated circuits, where a failure costs zillions of dollars in tooling (masks) that have to be thrown away. One such failure, at a higher level, helped seal AMD's fate after it stole a march on Intel for many years.

There's a whole lot of problems out there that can't be solved by "grunt coding", persistence, or anything else like that, that require serious intelligence and a foundation in the tools like math required to tackle them. What ABET CS majors try to impart.

As a total of the number of programming jobs, though, they aren't a large fraction. But even then, many projects and companies fail because even simpler math, like M * N, the number of transactions per second, are way greater than the maximum number of disk IOPs available with the day's hardware, is beyond the comprehension of the people who are running the place (true story, by the way).

And "grunt coding" of web sites is no longer easy, at all, especially if you want to avoid compromise. Or if you want to host a lot of users and data but don't have a huge budget in computing power, see our host's fun right now with Wikimedia and Wikipedia's (ab)use of it.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky October 18, 2016 8:37 PM  

Stickwick @23, Re: STEM female attractiveness

I my lab the guys have adapted the usual 1-to-10 rating system. It's a fenced-in secured lab, so we have the 'real world' rating and the 'behind-the-fence' rating. Goes like this:

"Hey look, there goes a 10!"
"Is that a 'behind-the-fence' 10?"
"No! A real 10!"
"OMG!"

These are men, and ones with zero game mostly. Zero. If it's female it is has strange, mysterious, forbidden appeal. How to even talk to one? Big problem for this set!

One day the piteous, panicked, plaintiff wail of man-squee piped down through the halls of the lab. We ran over to find one of our male colleagues in the middle of getting his ass kicked by one of the girls. She had one of her stiletto heels in her hand and was coming for his face when they stopped her.

Her victim liked her, he was trying to throw down and be cool with her, and somehow he screwed up the nerve to work this into the conversation. He somehow thought it cool, hey, it's a bonafide Eminem lyric, to say "If weren't blowjobs you'd be unemployed!"

??? In what universe ... SMH. This is not a dumb guy, this a genius-level guy. It astonishes.

I mean seriously ??? ZERO game from this crew. It's comical.

The women are a mysterious source of fear and wonderment for a lot of the social catastrophe males around here, some guys are all kinds of awkward. We have some socially awkward geek girls, too, but nothing approaches the level of dysfunction achieved by the gamma males.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 18, 2016 9:19 PM  

http://www.gocomics.com/dilbert-classics/2016/10/16

Blogger ZaijiaN October 18, 2016 9:53 PM  

A young coworker of mine presented on a conference she recently went to that was ostensibly for teaching women how to code, but all she talked about was SJW entryism and how white males are all that's wrong with tech.

She's a nice girl, not a harpy (yet), but she's drunk of the koolaid long and deep. And worse yet, my boss and many other male coworkers were all very concerned about how they could improve the work environment.

Tellingly, not one of the suggestions were anything about hiring the best developers, but rather being more inclusive, diverse, and aware of inherent hidden bias.

It's beyond time to start crafting an exit strategy.

Anonymous Utah4Trump October 18, 2016 10:03 PM  

I know plenty of male elementary teachers who aren't lambda or pedophile. They're mostly married guys with families

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 18, 2016 10:06 PM  

That Would Be Telling wrote:Which ties right into his leading role in the Global Warming Petition Project, the people who say "the science is settled" are ignorant and/or lying, and in the former are people who can't (or won't) "do the math". Whereas if you have the background, it doesn't, for example, take very long spent with the Climategate data dump to prove to yourself they're full of hot air, so to speak.
Of all the times I've raised the issues of optical depths and adiabatic lapse rates and the other, essential physical factors which are the foundation phenomena behind the greenhouse effect (and thus climate change), NOT ONE PERSON HERE has come back at me with mathematics.  Every one has argued from an authority, most often Anthony Watts.

Hypocrisy.

Given that we're talking about a trillion dollar a year effort to kill billions of people, the stakes in getting this science wrong are rather high.
Hogwash.  France, Ontario and Sweden have de-carbonized their electric sectors and have energy that's downright cheap.  Further, they did it more or less by accident.  What you need to understand is that Greenpiss and the rest are NOT environmental organizations, they are false fronts for the fossil industry.  They support the death of Germany's nuclear industry and its replacement with lignite.

Blogger Lazarus October 18, 2016 10:20 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote:Hogwash.  France, Ontario and Sweden have de-carbonized their electric sectors and have energy that's downright cheap.

Speaking of Hogwash, Ontario energy rates are third highest in Canada, and highest amongst the large provinces.

Busted.

Blogger Miss Carnivorous October 18, 2016 10:37 PM  

Buwaya,

I know, Javier Bardem! What a greaser! Not!!!

Blogger Lazarus October 18, 2016 10:37 PM  

Lazarus wrote:She is as much a wannabe slut as Penny is in practice, so yah. Sure, she is a 2-bagger, but get the beer goggles on and go to town.

I am surprised no one asked what a 2-bagger was. Guess it must be a universal concept.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 18, 2016 10:50 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote:Of all the times I've raised the issues of optical depths and adiabatic lapse rates and the other, essential physical factors which are the foundation phenomena behind the greenhouse effect (and thus climate change), NOT ONE PERSON HERE has come back at me with mathematics.  Every one has argued from an authority, most often Anthony Watts.
Bullshit, you keep pulling out technical minutae and refuse to address actual problems in the theory. Like the fact that THE MODELS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE.
All of the predictions generate by the models that are used have turned out substantially false.

Get some models that actually predict what will happen and then come back and talk about technical minutae. And no, restrospective predictions don't count. As someone or other said, "Give me 4 unknown variables and I can make your model recite the pledge of allegiance."

Blogger wreckage October 18, 2016 10:57 PM  

If you want a productive worker, get a woman who's raised kids and is now returning to the workforce. They work like hell and do not give a single shit about sexual prestige games (having already won that game, biologically speaking).

Blogger wreckage October 18, 2016 10:58 PM  

(Assuming 2+ kids, not a decorative "having it all" trophy baby).

Blogger Lazarus October 18, 2016 11:01 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Bullshit, you keep pulling out technical minutae and refuse to address actual problems in the theory. Like the fact that THE MODELS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE.

Absolutely. If anyone wants to get lost in the continuing climate minutae go to

Climate Etc.

Actual science discussed to a level of absurdity that precludes its utility.

This is why it is good for people who want to increase tax revenue. It is endlessly inconclusive.

Anonymous Avalanche October 19, 2016 12:02 AM  

@26 " The Curies are the classic example of the husband/wife team in science."

But didn't I just read somewhere that unlike Pierre, SHE never had any radiation burns? Could it just be the reverse of the Leakey's, where wife Mary found the world-famous fossil, but HE got the credit?

Blogger scimitar October 19, 2016 2:53 AM  

Agree with article...Same rationale with women in the military who want combat duty or be part of Special op units. Disruptive. The French Foreign Legion does not allow women...

Blogger rho October 19, 2016 3:27 AM  

My second favorite part of this thread is where VD said the primary contribution any woman can make for science is to stay completely out of it. My favorite part is where Stickwick was confused.

I can only assume that Stickwick's curriculum is now completely dead.

Anonymous Stickwick October 19, 2016 6:12 AM  

What does any confusion on my part have to do with the curriculum?

Blogger VD October 19, 2016 6:18 AM  

I can only assume that Stickwick's curriculum is now completely dead.

Your assumption is as flawed as your logic, as usual. You're obviously quite stupid. It's not that hard to understand the difference between the macro ideal and the micro reality.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 19, 2016 8:14 AM  

@87 Snidely Whiplash:

Mr. Rational wrote:
Of all the times I've raised the issues of optical depths and adiabatic lapse rates and the other, essential physical factors which are the foundation phenomena behind the greenhouse effect (and thus climate change), NOT ONE PERSON HERE has come back at me with mathematics. Every one has argued from an authority, most often Anthony Watts.


Bullshit, you keep pulling out technical minutae and refuse to address actual problems in the theory. Like the fact that THE MODELS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE.
All of the predictions generate by the models that are used have turned out substantially false.


Indeed; going back to my ClimateGate cite, as I recall it revealed some details about those very special Siberian trees, but while that's interesting in a Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) way, ultimately the highest level model issues, and their constant massaging of them ("hide the decline"), along with that poor guy's technical diary of futile attempts to simply reproduce previous papers from the data and computer programs he was able to find on their systems, is quite enough.

With of course a cherry on top in their conspiring to blackball researchers and an entire journal showing they aren't doing science, but politics.

I do vaguely recall "Mr. Rational's" postings on this topic, and that none of them were worth responding to as you relate. I'm not sure his arguments reach the "not even wrong" level, but they were certainly irrelevant. And how some people on this forum may respond with appeals to authority is entirely irrelevant to the serious discussions of the topic, which certainly do occur, if not, as he claims, here.

Blogger praetorian October 19, 2016 12:19 PM  

Mr. Rational keeps pretending that a system as complex and non-linear as the environment can be modeled with tinker toys and some regressions.

There is no one as irrationally unrealistic as an autistic rationalist.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 19, 2016 12:25 PM  

Java as a language is more or less fine, the real problem is how it's come to be used. Common Java techniques like injection and inversion of control are generally horrible engineering, but they do allow low-skill keyboard peckers to occasionally wire up components built by better coders into something that more or less works. But Kek help them if they have to debug anything at the integration level. The typical Java programmer is a step up from a cargo cultist, in that a plane does occasionally land, but only a step. They barely know what's going on.

I used to be dismissive of JavaScript, until I started using it more extensively. Now it's one of my favorite languages. Oh, it's not C, granted, and it's not suitable for the things C should be used for, but it's so flexible and smooth creating general purpose logic. Well done, Mr. Eich.

any teaching of science prior to learning your math, that is, single variable calculus, is not really learning science.

I think this is backwards. You don't really understand calculus until you understand position-velocity-acceleration. Because until you understand how calculus works with a real world problem, you don't really know if you've learned a truth, or intellectually stimulating nonsense.

Blogger praetorian October 19, 2016 1:04 PM  

I used to be dismissive of JavaScript, until I started using it more extensively. Now it's one of my favorite languages. Oh, it's not C, granted, and it's not suitable for the things C should be used for, but it's so flexible and smooth creating general purpose logic. Well done, Mr. Eich.

I kill you.

I kill you now.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling October 19, 2016 2:26 PM  

@98. Jack Amok October 19, 2016 12:25 PM

I used to be dismissive of JavaScript, until I started using it more extensively. Now it's one of my favorite languages. Oh, it's not C, granted, and it's not suitable for the things C should be used for, but it's so flexible and smooth creating general purpose logic. Well done, Mr. Eich.

Its base semantics are from as much Scheme as Eich could get into it in the very limited time he had, and it doesn't get much better than that. Prototype based OO is also an interesting choice, and I have to think it's better than the class based OO I've given up on.

any teaching of science prior to learning your math, that is, single variable calculus, is not really learning science.

I think this is backwards. You don't really understand calculus until you understand position-velocity-acceleration. Because until you understand how calculus works with a real world problem, you don't really know if you've learned a truth, or intellectually stimulating nonsense.


Isn't that a very common, if not completely standard way to begin teaching the calculus? Along with the tangent to a curve thing, which is more in the direction of "intellectually stimulating nonsense."

It's also the case that you have to learn a lot of math up to that point for which interesting applications aren't necessarily apparent, it can get rather faith based. For example, how often is trigonometry motivated by its applications to rotation and AC electricity? And you still have to learn a lot of it before you can apply it to the calculus of those things.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 19, 2016 2:28 PM  

That Would Be Telling wrote:I do vaguely recall "Mr. Rational's" postings on this topic, and that none of them were worth responding to as you relate. I'm not sure his arguments reach the "not even wrong" level, but they were certainly irrelevant.
It's his variation on dismissing rather than address the argument.
"You don't agree with AGW, but what do you think about [technical term buried in the theory]? If you don't know about that, you're not qualified to comment!!!!"

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 19, 2016 4:46 PM  

praetorian wrote:Mr. Rational keeps pretending that a system as complex and non-linear as the environment can be modeled with tinker toys and some regressions.
Praetorian is one with the leftards who claim we don't really know anything, so his dogma is correct.

Lazarus wrote:Speaking of Hogwash, Ontario energy rates are third highest in Canada, and highest amongst the large provinces.
Ontario is the most populous, followed by Quebec and British Columbia.  Both QC and BC are hilly and have massive amounts of hydropower; HQ owns 37977 MW of hydro generation, more than 4 kW per capita.  Ontario has about 600 watts per capita.

Hydro is cheap and clean.  Nuclear is clean, not quite so cheap.  Ruinables are expensive, and it was a previous provincial government's push for wind farms and solar panels which drove Ontario Hydro's prices up as high as they are today.  The bulk of the power generated in Ontario is cheap.

Busted.
This, from someone who is at best silent when denialists deny that the Earth even has a greenhouse effect to increase.  This is what happens when you let your tribe decide what scientific data you'll accept.  Maybe you can join up with those stupid Africans who say science is racist because it says that witchcraft is bunk.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 19, 2016 4:52 PM  

Widely Headgash wrote:Bullshit, you keep pulling out technical minutae and refuse to address actual problems in the theory.
You are asserting a positive, that adding CO2 will have no effect.  YOU must support this, especially by refuting the basic physical models which say that it will.

Like the fact that THE MODELS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE.
The radiative models are substantially correct.  There is a measured radiation imbalance in accordance with the models.  Effects on instant temperature depend on other effects like transport of heat into deep ocean waters, are (a) not at all related to the atmospheric radiative models and (b) almost certainly changing before our eyes.  It's been changing in front of the eyes of record-keepers for 700 years already.

All of the predictions generate by the models that are used have turned out substantially false.

Get some models that actually predict what will happen and then come back and talk about technical minutae. And no, restrospective
[sic] predictions don't count.
Thank you, goalpost-mover.  When temperature increases change e.g. ocean circulation patterns and there is a knock-on effect on heat transport and surface temperatures, this lets you say "your model didn't predict what happened!"  Then when scientists say "oh, this changed, we incorporated this change in our model and now it fits" you get to say "retrospective predictions don't count!"

Humans are busy replicating the carbon release of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.  Meanwhile you're sitting there with a "model" (if you can call it that) that added CO2, CH4, NO2 etc. aren't doing squat, while direct radiative measurements say they are.

For someone who claims to read the Bible and talks about all the times people suffered because they ignored important messengers, this is pretty damn ironic.  It's almost as ironic as it will be when the on-going disaster finally crosses your threshold of deniability, and you blame it all on abortion.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 22, 2016 3:18 AM  

Isn't that a very common, if not completely standard way to begin teaching the ,calculus? Along with the tangent to a curve thing, which is more in the direction of "intellectually stimulating nonsense."

Yes, but it's a matter of degree for me. Introduce some stimulating nonsense, but then tie it to testable reality sooner rather than later. Let's say it's the STEM equivalent of requiring a sophomore art student to hold a gallery show and grading them on how many pieces they actually sell.

class based OO I've given up on.

Don't give up on it, it's powerful. It just needs to be used properly.

Though if you happen to be programming in Java, the odds are you won't see many examples of that... I think Java may be a programming language created by and for people who never really understood OO concepts. I mean, they create classes that are Is-A's without access to the "A" part, and classes that are Has-A's without knowing what the "A" actually is. As best I can tell, the typical Java programmer doesn't know the difference between a class and a .java file with a bunch of code in it.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts