Securing views Berg

I have previously enjoyed a portion of quotas, and add this a piece to this puzzle

As hetrosexuell, white man who is married and has children, and are in the age group 40-50, I expected to have all the benefits you can get and quotas can in practice only disadvantage to me. There is a clear risk that I am expected to speak in their own cause if I say any negative about affirmative action. All arguments that it is unfair to all who qualify on your own skills to become suspicious that inferior performance in which quotas were a prerequisite for the position, the risk of falling flat and assumed that they are pronounced in their own cause, to "avoid competition" from structurally disadvantaged Women.

Let me start with an opinion, I think one can reasonably conclude that women are structurally disadvantaged. Quotas of "fairness" is a position I can understand, and to some extent sympathize with, but the effects on the women who actually qualify on its own merits makes it actually destroys more than it does good. You win a short-term advantage that is for long-term damage. Man pees in his pants to keep warm!

Let us then make a fair argument in the debate and further from the arguments.

One argument that I agree with you; A team works best if you have many views, insights and skills represented. This is where I was going to dig further today.

What shapes us as individuals is traditionally defined by the terms heredity and environment.

Gender is proven heritage - of that can not be doubted, but it will be interesting then the next logical step:

- Which approaches, perspectives and skills is through inheritance related to women in their characteristics as women?

- If there are properties that are attributable to the environment, there is no reason to look at a woman because then of course one might as well have acquired them, right?

With my old militant feminist colleague, I had on some occasions, discussions of male and female abilities. She categorically rejecting empathy and simultaneous capacity of female talents, and that all research revealed that there were no genetic differences that could explain this but it was just a result of the environment combined with prejudice. I do not know if she has the right and have no access to search the research in this area, but let's assume she's right - it beats the legs of the argument that quotas would lead to a diversity of approaches and skills. If she is entitled to be hard to find an empathetic person - not just a woman. This does of course not a woman, but it need not necessarily be a woman.

The conclusion is the argument of the quota is to achieve a sound diversity, is actually inconsistent with the position that we are genetically equal and that gender differences are merely a social construction. Either the genetic characteristics related to sex or the diversity argument just found out - both of which can not logically apply at the same time!

[Updated: fixed some typos and clarified the depreciation part]

As the swine flu hit, I've been able to stay home and have taken the time to follow the discussion on Open networks from Rosenbad. It was said very interesting and everyone seems to differ slightly but this is not the case. Just that the discussion is of course indicates that there are underlying conflicts.

Patrick Field current is normally clear and insightful in their educational preparation. Perhaps it lacks the connection to the examples from real life. Perhaps no one to where the dividing lines are. I'm not myself directly in this industry and therefore may not be the real instinctive feeling that the war at the front is when I look at this, but I think I understand a few different fronts;

# Integration of carriers and service, the one that pulls the cable to a property would purely business reasons for becoming a supplier to make sure you can not switch suppliers under this depreciation. As a customer wants to avoid lock-in and be able to change within a reasonable tid.Det is an inherent conflict between a provider intends to roll out the infrastructure, you want a bond that is as long as possible to the economic entry-level threshold for the customer should be low as possible, but economically, you want the capital costs covered as soon as possible. Depreciation is probably quite short compared to what is reasonable for an infrastructure that has a lifespan of several dozen years (here I make an assumption about particular fiber closest taklöst respect capacity seen over time, which in the same way as with our galvanizing lines blown them up in well over what you thought theoretically possible). Normal business calculations usually seldom able to hand over a few years - no more.

Cable TV operators are a bit of a villain here, it connects public housing states also exempt feet on the conditions for it to set up ADSL in nearby switching centers, the base could become too small.

The solution is that if you're willing to make an infrastructure investment in this way must be able to do it, but that term must be limited. I would suggest that 24-month period is the maximum for all types of subscriptions for IT services as fixed telephone, mobile phone, TV and internet. In the case of infrastructure, where the connection could not reasonably be had "written off" over a reasonable period, the supplier should also be able to demand a "ransom" in the form of book residual value.

The second potential culprit is the metropolitan area network that can not draw a line between what they wear and do what commercial actors should do; City Network can definitely establish open infrastructure, which can deliver a service from any ISP. Some metropolitan stepping in and becomes ISPs and it is in this case one does not step in the wrong guild and with public money in the pot to compete with commercial entities.

The solution here is to state and local government can deliver infrastructure but never deliver an ISP service.

# ISP provides an Internet service but also a number of VAS (Value Added Services). It is actively or passively to competing services not to work.

Imagine that you buy internet by Bredbandsbolaget but want to buy broadband from someone else. Brebandstelefonileverantören then sends an ATA box to you and you plug it in, but where does it stop. Bredbandsbolaget säljernämligen own voice and only ATA boxes as broadband company / telenor deliver works from Brebandsbolagets customer connections. This means that you have created a lock and a fundamentally unfair favoritism to its own telephone service. Or - there's no way for someone to take an informed decision about the value of Bredbandsbolaget service if not obvious, and it does not in any way at all as far as I can see. I did not know this when I became a customer of Bredbandsbolaget.

The solution must be to declare the commodity Internet service. All types of restrictions that the service is suffering from must be presented in a structured and clear way. Here, the industry has a major responsibility to find forms and structures, just as mobile operators did on what bandwidth they offer. It is perhaps also a logical development of broadband protocols to see which protocols and ports that are open.

Now surround myself by evangelists of social media that constantly emphasizes the importance of being active on social networks for those who are not, and who complain about the lack of strategy and målsätttning for those who actually made the move. It is indeed a rewarding position to be able to complain about everything a little obliquely from above.

There is reason to, after all, agree with, unless you know what you want and what it will be good for it is a very good reason not to!

As most know, there are special rules for listed companies. In theory, all shareholders and potential shareholders to access the same information simultaneously so that no one should get an advantage of knowledge about a company's price-sensitive information. Insiders have natural access to this information and may not act on it before the market as a whole had a chance, and everyone outside to get it together. Through this you end up in a very narrow use of Twitter in the investor relations aspects. One can, of course, tweeting that the company released a report, or anything that resulted in a press release, but only as a notification of that information is available - it is inappropriate to release the information in this way. It is also qualified inappropriate to release the unique information via twitter. It is to my knowledge have not tried, but I find it very difficult to see how one could live up to the transparency requirements by forcing stakeholders to follow it on twitter.

So what should we have it? I can well imagine that you have it in all forms of customer information and customer interaction. Technology suppliers can communicate technical issues ("grid down in Region X, from 17:30 today," "interference on channel 5 via Nacka mast", "Problems with bandwidth because of avgrävd Atlantic cable"). It rikigt dare is to receive customer feedback in this way - exposing themselves to transparency for all followers can see the complaints from everyone they follow. Companies have a tendency to cover up their shortcomings. Is it profitable to be honest or not? I have no answer to that question, but it's relevant ...

To build a community around its products are good. it means that brands have a charge that is greater than the product itself. Apple apparently can do this without Facebook groups and twitter accounts, but that's an example of where the brand is so loaded with value that the company can sell just about anything and it is received positively, and where their "followers" not only accept shortcomings without justification them to others. I have heard a number of iPhone users certify that they never use MMS anyway and that the function is therefore redundant. It's annoying, but you can not let get to be impressed. How are they doing?

My Nokia E90 starts to get really decline. It has been a faithful companion for more than two years and had "gone heavy." I write maybe 25% of my mail via mobile phones to run T9 is not to think about. That means they will be shorter and therefore more cryptic - invites misinterpretation (which can happen even with a longer but the risk is IMHO less).

Candidates;

Nokia N900 - A delicious mobile based on Maemo. I am annoyed by that fragment the Linux for mobiles between Android and other solutions. It would have been an awful lot better if Nokia is the Qt Androidlägret purchase in order to provide a robust solution for the future based on free software. The cell phone seems VERY promising. Touchscreen, widgets, multiple home screens, multitasking, and more. The choice of Maemo, what do we believe third-party software? Will Spotify Maemo? A decent Twitter client as "Tweets60"? Porting their Google Gmail client? These are key issues for me. Selection of an apartheid OS does the risk of buying the expressway into a dead end, but the phone is otherwise very attractive!

Link

Blackberry - Bold Type. Fantastic email machine. However when I tested the first 3G version (Yes it's a requirement!) Then sucked the whale when it came to voice part. The sound was bad. I do not even lock-to RIM, the camera is scrubby. It is probably just to figure out, on reflection.

Link

SEM Saito - An impressive phone, but without a keyboard. OSK (On Screen Keyboard), the course might work as substitutes. Fantastic camera, making it a little oily in the middle, but it might be värt.Det there's some value in dealing Swedish (I'm from Lund and want the EMP / ST and SEM should be fine!). Argument against is that all the accessories I I have today (charger and so on), Nokia

Link

Nokia N97 - The logical replacement for my E90. There's also a mini version, but without the trackpad. Feels like that to change to the N97, it's not really changing. Just like buying a new model of the car if you understand the parable.

Link

iPhone 3G - OK, it is unavoidable. I am terribly skeptical of sect formation around Apple. It feels Knutby long way. People who purchase the iPhone has not bought the product itself - has yielded to a doctrine, and that deeply convinced against all sektism I will actively dislike ihpone ... until I buy a self- but I confess: it is a solid phone. Stylish, feature-rich and with the recent software updates have the most functional arguments against it had fallen off. The lack of MMS was a reasonably significant flaw in my eyes as What remains of fundamental criticism is that you choose AppStore fully. A mobile manufacturer controls the range that I can access, based on their moral values ​​and which also took into account that no app can buck the mobile operators who sell mobile. Others may see control as something good - well organized. I see it as a freedom themselves vomiting. I want to choose for yourself what I install without censorship from anyone, I want to circulate freely, and I think it is outrageous that I should have to jailbreak your phone to make that possible. A non-jailbroken iPhone is not an option for me - it is politically impossible! Nokia offers Ovi store - but do not force me to it. Anyone can start a competitor, at any time. THE likes and respects me!

An Android mobile, such as HTC Tatoo. Ok, Android is the OS that I as a political statement like best. have never tried it but it's pull on the software side, and it is really promising. Should be fun on Jocke jardenberg tested Tatoo too and added it to your comparisons (see link ). Android 2.0 has been announced, and Verizon appears to have a nap time and SEM Experia X3 can also have Android 2.0 (in November).

Will probably still say that the N900 is VERY good at. My term expires in March, which means I can get my mobile around the turn. Must hope that the three had it in range until ...

The body is amazing! We are "all" is equipped with a body that can heal wounds, to resist attacks by bacteria, viruses and other rugged, regenerate tissue, and more completely magical!

Obviously, it is so that it can not do everything; pure mechanical damage must be rectified (the heavy lifting that is, to put it back broken bones in position. Finliret fixes the body then himself), agencies may pajja together and must be replaced, burns may also require transplantation and another in which body's functions are not enough. I do not want to take away healthcare and pharmaceutical industry that this is a very large area where they are a great benefit.

What I am more skeptical:

Hönsiga parents who require penicillin to his snot children (something that goes in a few days if you do not do anything). This combined with the palm of a doctor who can not take the conflict means that we have a strong development of resistant bacteria. Penicilling needed for diseases that produce besående harm or at risk of being mortal; not such that solves itself! Pneumonia is a good example of penicillin should be used! If I may shed a bit of salt in the wounds, it is a big factor here that people have children so late, then they have amassed pondusen to push around the doctor but curling influences the family's tiny price / princess absolutely must not be snotty-nosed makes the use the pondusen in a way that is actually bad for society as a collective. A purely selfish act that bites itself in the butt on the day the little prince / princess is in hospital suffering from multidrug-resistant bacteria without the help available because everything has become ineffective.

See this as international conflicts, self-healing is diplomacy, medication is warfare! War is sometimes justified and the only way forward but it should really be justified?

People egenmedicinerar with pain killers to eliminate symptom is headache, which in turn depends on something they do not want to get in. It affects outsiders, but do something about it - not the symptoms! Want to emphasize that painkillers have a tremendous advantage in some cases, that of muscular problems have pain in the example backs do best to move as much as possible to keep the circulation going. If, because of the pain instead stops moving or offsets to begin to go wrong to not draw on it that hurt, could have even more trouble. It makes pain relievers wonders, but only in combination with allowing for the continued move! Combine with professional massage to knead the slag from the muscles!

People who does drugs nasal spray. It's an amazing invention that during an acute phase of cold can keep the system open and thus avoids sinusitis and related complications, but after the acute phase, you certainly can not keep on continuing to "nudge". Affects course not an outsider, but snot production is natural. Snorkels are waste product of that dust and particles stick to the mucus that you can then blow out. Anyone with spray blowing out all the snot risk losing the effect of snot so the dust goes all the way down into the lungs instead of getting stuck on the way it was meant. Guess for yourself if it's good for you!

People Addict lip balm. It requires an extended explanation.

The body is that man by nature lazy. It tries to adapt everything to normal levels. But if you constantly bring outside help to re-wetting of his lips so the body must not do this alone. The use of cerate, the lower the body itself to do so, and thus has made it impossible for themselves to end up with cerate. Any type of medication should be initiated within one acute phase to mitigate the effects of an acute condition. Ceratknarkarna have lowered the body's own ability so that they will have to add lip balm to end up on a normal level of lip moisturizer. I use something called PL3 and the week when we go skiing or any other reason I can lip cracks due to exceptional circumstances. It puts you in a few days and then stop it. The one who always has the bad products by Labello and Lypsyl in your pocket should take some time to think. If you ask me, you ceratknarkare who have been fueled by ceratindustrin.

Ok, so I fell there. I've probably got the flu / the new flu. In many ways, it's nice - just like with teething problems during childhood years, they would have suffered through so we had them.

I now need not take sides in action, man I see it we can get vaccinated against the flu for three reasons:

I do not wanna die

The reason that people are considering vaccination appears to be largely that you do not want to die. It is of course sneezing. The people are dying from diseases - you have to die of something. Age and general frailty you die rarely, but there is a provoking factor in the form of a disease. The root cause is the age and frailty. Require capable bachelor son has absolutely no reason to be worried.

I do not want to be sick

I do not want to be sick. A very selfish reasons. We know all that medication "in vain" live to bacterial resistance. Now, the flu virus, of course, but the more we medicated the greater the risk that the medicines we have are ineffective in the future. Like what's up - to get sick so make your body's own medicine / antibodies that prevent you from becoming sick next time. Even worse, those who vaccinate themselves of private economic reasons, sickness benefit is lower than the salary, so they do not care about resistance risk and think private economy. It really is to take responsibility. It is for me comparable to buying products produced by child labor or where animal cruelty is a part of the process, just because the products are cheaper than the ethically justifiable. FY of the way!

Economics

When the government buys 16 million ampoules vaccine that is not to rescue a handful of people at risk of dying from the disease - that is to prevent a tidal wave washes over the country where a majority of all working age are sick at the same time and likely knock out the key community functions. General strikes excludes important social functions, but the disease takes no such consideration. Now that some vaccinated others have received it and have already recovered, it seems the whole purpose of continuing vaccination completely inappropriate. If we let people get sick and then recover at a reasonable rate so absent the economic shock effect without detracting from the risk of resistance. People build up a natural immunity to withstand the next onslaught.

After infection the doctors for the first time in decades may have run up their procedures to warn people, so you get the sense of the military to finally go to war after having practiced for decades. Finally it's for real. It appears that, in the process lost some proportion.

To vaccinate is like peeing in your pants to keep warm when you are cold - initially it may seem like a good idea, but long term it is headless!

PS: To you then hear horror of the vaccine of the reason that there is little virus in the mix makes me rolling his eyes. YES, this is how the vaccine works. When you took injections for polio and tetanus, it was just that way! Sigh!