Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace

Posted by timothy on from the embroidered-or-not dept.

theodp writes: To commemorate the 200th birthday of Ada Lovelace, Google's CS Education in Media Program partnered with YouTube Kids on Happy Birthday Ada! for Computer Science Education Week. For those seeking (much!) more information on The Enchantress of Numbers, Stephen Wolfram has penned a pretty epic blog post, Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace. "Ada Lovelace was born 200 years ago today," Wolfram begins. "To some she is a great hero in the history of computing; to others an overestimated minor figure. I've been curious for a long time what the real story is. And in preparation for her bicentennial, I decided to try to solve what for me has always been the 'mystery of Ada'." If you're not up for the full 12,000+ word read, skip to "The Final Story" for the TL;DR summary.

124 comments

  1. Stephen Wolfram's Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Smart as the guy undoubtedly is, I think it has already been established that Wolfram's greatest talent is for self promotion. I would really rather not see his blog become one of Slashdot's go-to sources for slow-news-day stories. He gets quite enough publicity all by himself without Slashdot slapping his every bloggy utterance on the front page.

    1. Re:Stephen Wolfram's Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Surely everyone who's read even a single page of a New Kind of Science -- or just that title, actually -- must admit that Lord Wolfram is a modest, self-deprecating kind of guy.

    2. Re:Stephen Wolfram's Blog by prunus.avium · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen much about Wolfram before - other than Wolfram|Alpha - but I get a distinct impression from this blog. He sounds like an insufferably arrogant twat.

    3. Re:Stephen Wolfram's Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, agree on this ... I dont want Wolfram's self promoting ego on slashdot. it's not worth my time.

    4. Re:Stephen Wolfram's Blog by shoor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is one of those times when I actually RTFMed.
      I agree there was self-promotion, but Wolfram has the chops to really digest and understand the Victorian era style and necessarily rough first casting of novel ideas. Plugging through all that documentation couldn't have been easy, and it's not like the guy doesn't have other things to do, so he deserves some kudos in my opinion.
      Wolfram may have been serving himself, but he also served Ada and Charles Babbage, and that makes it worth reading.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    5. Re: Stephen Wolfram's Blog by JaredCoffey · · Score: 1

      Would someone mod this reply up? Well said.

    6. Re:Stephen Wolfram's Blog by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      ...Same boat. What a vexatiously self-aggrandizing man. Excellent writing, and probably some very insightful substance that has never been summarized with the right perspective anywhere, but it really needs less Stephen Wolfram. Perhaps someone could re-edit the whole thing to exclude him—and polish the Wikipedia article while they're at it.

      Unrelatedly, Turing's paper on his eponymous test is mentioned in the biography and has some hilariously sketchy logic in it. If only publishing were like that today!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    7. Re:Stephen Wolfram's Blog by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Surely everyone who's read even a single page of a New Kind of Science [...]

      Yeah, that's as far as I got, too.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    8. Re:Stephen Wolfram's Blog by davester666 · · Score: 0

      nailed it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um... you know that thing where you said to read the summary? That's actually called the summary. Thanks for nothing, theodp!

    1. Re:tl;dr by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Why are these things mutually exclusive? We had plenty of smart people who were off the rocker in more recent time - think John Nash or Van Gogh. Babbage himself must have come across as a mad scientist at the time - spending all the money on hundreds of gears and muttering about building a machine than can think. It probably took a person who didn't care much about social norms to associate with him publicly.

      Even if she had a lot of help and training from Babbage to publish her book, she was still plenty smart to put all the ideas together. Apparently, she was making serious plans to make a flying machine while in her teens and studied many different materials for wings. That's like someone trying to build a mission to marks in their backyard in this day and age and worth respect for the guts all by itself.

    2. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had enough Wolfram crap for the next 10 years. PLease Slashdot Editors stop including that selfpromoting individual indirect freedom to promote on slashdot. As if this guy doesn't get enough publicity with his mailing list spams .

      my point is that this guy spent so much time on this controversial figure because he most likley believes there are parallels with his own life. "misunderstood" "crank" , "fraud" "first programmer" "true visionary" he wants to interpret history in a light that makes himself justified in his own light.

    3. Re:tl;dr by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      I've had enough Wolfram crap for the next 10 years.

      I don't really know what personal issues you have with Wolfram, and actually I don't care either. I also don't care if he's a complete lunatic.

      The only thing I care about is the quality of this particular article, and actually, it was a good article. So leave your weird interpersonal issues aside.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:tl;dr by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, you can't really call her the "first programmer,"

      Who is then? Her writings seem the closest to what we consider "programming". Iteration, conditionals, and (of course) function calls have existed before that time, but her writings are the first that targeted an actual Turing-Complete computing machine, that I know of, rather than just abstract steps.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    5. Re:tl;dr by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Babbage taught her how to do it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:tl;dr by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      This article is good because Ada is the most controversial person in computer science. Some people claim she was a genius who invented computer programming, and others claim she was a fraud (Babbage told her what to write), gambler, and opium addict.

      As another post said, why couldn't she be both? And in fact, she sort of was both -- though perhaps not really a "genius" nor exactly a "fraud."

      Ada comes out looking really good. She was not a fraud, and she did understand what she was doing.

      Yeah, she comes out looking a little TOO good. Wolfram was pretty fair, but he didn't really get into the more controversial stuff and the reasons why many historians say she is massively overrated. She wasn't a fraud, but she is often given too much credit for work that was derivative or which was likely developed together with Babbage.

      Wolfram is not a historian, and unfortunately you can see some of the problems when you just go digging through the primary sources. There are lots of things that may be influencing the way things "look" in those documents, mostly prominently the issue of social class. For example, much is sometimes made of her correspondence with Michael Faraday, and his apparent admiration (or at least approval) of her. But Faraday was from a lower-class background, and in the strict class-based structures of the time, it would potentially be useful for him to "be on the good side" of a noblewoman. I'm not saying Faraday "lied": I'm just saying he had a motivation to try to cultivate patrons and thus be a bit flattering to aristocrats.

      There are other such issues that are important in interpreting the kind of relationships implied by the documents and what they mean about Ada Lovelace's roles and contributions. And frankly Wolfram just seems to be missing a lot of historical perspective. He makes a big deal out of Lovelace's seemingly poetic evocation of weaving and Jacquard punch cards (citing two quotations), but this wasn't poetry and musings about the "fabric of algebra" in some philosophical universe -- it was a practical mechanical connection to previous technology. And later he implies Lovelace was forward-thinking because she imagined possible larger applications for such programming, as in:

      Ada seems to have understood, though, that the "science of operations" implemented by the engine would not only apply to traditional mathematical operations. For example, she notes that if "the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony" were amenable to abstract operations, then the engine could use them to "compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent". Not a bad level of understanding for 1843.

      Actually, it was a pretty old idea by that time. The science of harmony goes back to the Greeks, mathematicians had been trying to use math algorithms to generate pieces of music since the 1600s, Athanasius Kircher (ahem) had actually produced a device to generate musical compositions automatically by 1650 (it had a bunch of wooden pieces with mathematical tables written on them, which could be rapidly arranged and then translated into pieces of music), and the 1700s saw numerous attempts to continue this line of reasoning further and to propose various mathematical attempts at musical composition.

      So yeah, this is a fun idea, but it was hardly an original one at that time. Same goes for a lot of stuff Wolfram brings up.

      Unfortunately, you can't really call her the "first programmer," or the "first person to write a paper on Computer Science," but that's ok.

      No, but you might actually claim that she was the first debugger. She may or may not have been instrumental in developing a serious set of "programming instructions" to solve a major problem -- but even Babbage admits that she found a major error in his proposed algorithm.

      And she was important in trying

    7. Re:tl;dr by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Without denying your major points, I still think Wolfram managed to get to the core of who Ada was: an intelligent, motivated intellectual who managed to get herself to the fore of the field of mathematics. She was starting to have insights that you would expect to see from an advanced student, and if she had lived, she probably would have made real contributions to the field.

      Also, I thought the OP was interesting because it delved into the Mechanical Notation Babbage used, and discussed how it enabled him to design his machines...

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:tl;dr by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Babbage taught her how to do it.

      We don't really know that. He taught her how his machine worked, but he was not particularly good at describing how it did actual computations on paper it seems, mixing up mechanical ideas with abstract computation ideas.

      It appears they had a back and forth dialog on how to better articulate what it does, and she was the better documentor. Whether that's the first "programmer" or "programming manual writer" is a relatively minor distinction.

      She essentially wrote, "Analytical Engine Unleashed" with feedback from Charles.

      We don't have all the details of their correspondence, but it appears she viewed the machine in more abstract and practical terms than Charles, in part in order to better promote it. His head was more "in the gears" based on his actual writings.

      Perhaps a rough analogy would be that Charles was Steve Wozniak and Ada was Steve Jobs. Jobs "sold" the vision of personal computers, while Ada "sold" the idea of an actual general purpose computer.

      It's fairly safe to say that she was the first to document practical programming and uses of a general purpose physical computer.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    9. Re:tl;dr by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Whether that's the first "programmer" or "programming manual writer" is a relatively minor distinction.

      I think that's a fairly large distinction lol. Anyway, she was translating an article written by someone else (although she added a large section of notes to it).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was a highly opininated piece of snobberish pseudo analytic wannabe sherloskopian gibberish. that's what 'good' means in ur case.
      i dont even know the man, what person issues couls i have other than seeing wolfram products around my uni these days.

    11. Re:tl;dr by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The key is then how important her additions were. It's my understanding that the original gave few if any explicit examples.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    12. Re:tl;dr by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Anyway, if you want to call her 'first', I don't really care lol. We can spend decades arguing about the precise definition of 'first' and it still won't matter.

      What matters is who she was, and what she did, and I think the article does a good job assessing that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea sorry, SJW history has no place in schools. Babbage was the genius and Lovelace was the documenter. No Steve Jobs here. Keep fudging history in hopes that more women want to be software devs but it won't work.

    14. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're enrolled at a university and you communicate an argument *like this*? Your school is defrauding you in the amount of the student fees it charges a normal student. Shame on it.

    15. Re:tl;dr by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It appears she's more than a documenter, she probably was the first to formulate and author concrete examples of digital computer programming (for a general purpose computer), or at least heavily contributed to it. Nobody is claiming Ada invented a computer.

      (By "digital" I mean it's based on discrete values, contrasting with say the ancient Greeks "rope programs" for automating puppet shows.)

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    16. Re:tl;dr by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Small nit to pick. The rope puppet shows were from Heron. Yes, Heron was a Greek and his goods did end up in Greece. However, he is fully titled as Heron of Alexandria. It was there, in the library (which was more than a library like we have today), where he worked and spent his time learning. Attributing his work to the Greeks is a bit misleading. I don't think we're even positive that he was born in Greece but I'm unsure of which historian was discussing that and where.

      It should, of course, be noted that the territory in question, Alexandria, was not necessarily not-Grecian in many ways at the time. It does bear the name of Alexander for a reason, after all. Many, if not most, of his works were for Egyptian temples. There are a few, not enough, documentaries on his life and inventions.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. Hero? by mi · · Score: 1, Troll

    To some she is a great hero in the history of computing

    All respect to women, programmers, engineers, and human-beings in general notwithstanding, don't you need to have undertaken something dangerous to qualify for the term "hero"? Especially "great hero"?

    The dictionary definition mentions "exceptional courage and nobility and strength"...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To some she is a great hero in the history of computing

      All respect to women, programmers, engineers, and human-beings in general notwithstanding, don't you need to have undertaken something dangerous to qualify for the term "hero"? Especially "great hero"?

      The dictionary definition mentions "exceptional courage and nobility and strength"...

      The dictionary definition does not specifically say one must exhibit all three characteristics to be e hero. Strength of character. Strength of the mind. Courage to take a path less travelled. Courage to explore a field of knowledge in which you might not represent to majority. There are plenty of interpretations. It is not restricted to brutality on the battlefield nor the sports venue.

    2. Re:Hero? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero says for example the following: "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities." -- To avoid those who love to nitpick about things let's substitute "hero" with "heroine" and "man" with "woman" here and look at the rest of the definition: a heroine is basically someone who has achieved something particularly noteworthy and possibly challenging, not done something that put them or others in danger or required great physical strength. The challenge may be intellectual or mental, like e.g. a social or physics problem, instead of a huge dragon, and the strength drawn accordingly from one's brains instead of brawn.

      Einstein is definitely considered a great hero in scientific circles, but did he put himself in some sort of great danger when writing down his theories? Did it require him great physical strength?

    3. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engaging in an activity typically pursued by men and risking the wrath of the sperglords for doing so? Definitely dangerous and definitely a hero.

    4. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure being a valuable German-born physicist during the Second World War was a very safe set of circumstances.

    5. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Your definition seems to be taken far out of context. Einstein was no hero. I agree that the part doesn't require great strength but it's the bravery part that makes a man (or woman) a hero(ine).

      The ability could well be mental, but just being smart and successful does not make a hero.

      (also, Greek half-god)

    6. Re:Hero? by rossdee · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      There used to be a Hero Parade in Auckland, NZ
      It was to celebrate gays, lesbians and transgender
      I don't think Ada Lovelace qualified for that, since she was Babbage's mistress, and presumably straight

    7. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering what women were allowed or encouraged to achieve in terms of education and career, and considering Babbage's notably surly personality, I would say her approach took great courage.

    8. Re:Hero? by mi · · Score: 1

      Einstein is definitely considered a great hero in scientific circles

      Is he? I never heard him being called hero — just about any other praise, yes, but not hero. And for the same good reason.

      The challenge may be intellectual or mental

      It is not about the enormity of the challenge, it is about willingly taking some risk to life (or limb or, at least, wealth and station in life), that shows one's bravery and thus heroism.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Hero? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      She wasn't doing anything physically dangerous, but consider the context. In Ada's time, a woman trod on men's societal turf only at the risk of losing her social position -- and lifetime income.

    10. Re:Hero? by mi · · Score: 2

      woman trod on men's societal turf only at the risk of losing her social position

      Huh? Citations, please... Could you name a few women from Ada's society, who lost their social positions?

      [...] and lifetime income

      Though Ada's father was an asshole (like many poets), her mother was a freaking baroness — and "independently wealthy". And it was her mother, who promoted little Ada's interest in Mathematics.

      If you want to find an actual hero among women-scientists, that would by Hypatia, but Ada Lovelace has done nothing exceptionally heroic. Good for her, because her times didn't require such things from her.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I'm a transgender woman and I have to tell you that disagreeing with an old school gatekeeper is an act of bravery. You get no brownie points and risk losing access to your entire healthcare for being yourself not telling them the lies they want to hear which keep them in jobs. They can make your life hell. You are forced to deal with mountains upon mountains of bureaucracy and being kicked around the system like a political football just for not giving in to their urge to dominate and dictate and define you in a way which fulfils their fantasies. They certainly won't acknowledge you are a hero. They will dismiss you are having relationship problems or being difficult. They will use the power of their status to influence other doctors. You will discover you are utterly alone. This is the everyday reality in the UK not just for transgender women but all transgender people. The only hero allowed to be in the room is the gatekeeper but they're not much of a hero are they if their heroism is beating up transgender women in the secrecy of the consulting room is it? I'm sure plenty of wife beaters and rapists perceive themselves as heroes too so the gatekeepers are in good company. I don't know if I'm brave or stupid for standing up to them but I do know one thing - I don't get to be a heroine by beating up people who come to me for help. I don't get to play favourites. I don't get to hide behind the badge or use paperwork as a shield to protect myself. I don't get to be a heroine by running to the boss and telling them I ruined a life so they could save money.

    12. Re:Hero? by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      All respect to women, programmers, engineers, and human-beings in general notwithstanding, don't you need to have undertaken something dangerous to qualify for the term "hero"? Especially "great hero"?

      Wait, you haven't seen how Ada and Babbage fight crime and have adventures?

      Anyone interested in Ada Lovelace and/or the story of computing will enjoy that utterly respectful comic.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    13. Re:Hero? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 0

      Mod up. This is truth. (Trust me, I'm not AC any more, nor do I live in the UK, actually I'm kind of surprised [in a bad way] at this account.)

      I'm sure plenty of wife beaters and rapists perceive themselves as heroes too so the gatekeepers are in good company.

      This nails it. May I count you as a fourth woman who was fucked by SJWs screaming about the lack of women in tech while denying you your very identity?

      Oh, they think they're "good guys." They're the "sheep dogs" that herd us all for our own fucking good. And the sheep buy it!

    14. Re:Hero? by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Engaging in an activity typically pursued by men and risking the wrath of the sperglords for doing so?

      Nonsense and bullshit. Wikipedia cites her biography thus, for example (emphasis mine):

      She was presented at Court at the age of seventeen "and became a popular belle of the season" in part because of her "brilliant mind."

      Somebody lied to you, honey. The "Victorian Britain", however much it is hated by the "progressive" teachers of yours, was not as bad as they were telling you.

      She happily married later and had three children with a loving husband.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Hero? by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And these travails of a sexually confused person have what to do with Ada Lovelace? You do know, she happily married and had three children?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:Hero? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      OK, didn't realize Ada was in an assured position. Yes, I know about Hypatia, but this thread is on the 19th century.

    17. Re:Hero? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid you're the one who is sexually confused. When you see me, you believe I am a woman. Who told you that? I didn't. In fact, I'm surprised when I'm even clearly dressed as a man when you call me "ma'am." Then when you see on my papers that I was assigned the male gender, you'd probably freak the fuck out and blame me for the way you gendered me. But anyway, I digress. Not my problem your image of a trans woman is a man in a dress.

      Back on topic. Random trivia: Lovelace also died from uterine cancer at an unfortunately young age.

      Yes, different people have different body parts. Biology is messy. Deal with it.

      Actually, I'm surprised that Lovelace is idolized as a woman programmer when she had better accomplishments advancing women in the field of science. No love for Rear Admiral Hopper, who designed the first compiler? What about Liskov and her theories?

      Nope. We have to go full retard and blame the programming languages themselves. Obviously, Rear Admiral Hopper and Liskov weren't aware that they were promoting sexism by putting forward things like syntax errors and type theories. You sexist cow, Liskov! Putting things into types and objectifying them means you're a part of the vast conspiracy of foisting the patriarchy on women and keeping them out of programming careers!

    18. Re:Hero? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      FFS, there's no need to get your panties in a wad over trivial semantics.

    19. Re:Hero? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think Ada Lovelace qualified for that, since she was Babbage's mistress,

      Apparently not. She seemed to have a very good relationship with her husband, and he was excited with her work.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re: Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf just happen. This thread was going fine and then powwwww. Slashdot is not a fucking soapbox. Christ sakes.

    21. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not about the enormity of the challenge, it is about willingly taking some risk to life (or limb or, at least, wealth and station in life), that shows one's bravery and thus heroism.

      Which is a criterion not laid out by the definition of the word hero. You're attempting to redefine the word based on your own perceptions of what you think a hero aught to be.

    22. Re:Hero? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Engaging in an activity typically pursued by men and risking the wrath of the sperglords for doing so?

      Nonsense and bullshit. Wikipedia cites her biography thus, for example (emphasis mine):

      She was presented at Court at the age of seventeen "and became a popular belle of the season" in part because of her "brilliant mind."

      Somebody lied to you, honey. The "Victorian Britain", however much it is hated by the "progressive" teachers of yours, was not as bad as they were telling you.

      Actually, you're really overstating your case. And you're overlooking important hints about what was really going on here. She was admired for her "brilliant mind" not just as a woman, but because she was presented at Court.

      She wasn't just a woman -- she was a rich, aristocratic woman who thus had a bit more freedom to do things she wanted to without raising as many eyebrows. But keep in mind that there were still severe restrictions even on noblewomen -- during her lifetime (1830s), Parliament confirmed that women absolutely did NOT have the right to vote, they were basically unable to get a divorce without applying for an individual Act of Parliament to do so, when married their property rights generally didn't exist individually (this was typical of marriage laws back then), etc., etc. You might benefit from reading a bit of the history of feminism in the UK to get a better sense of how restricted women were at this time.

      Sure, educated women in the upper classes were allowed to pursue various intellectual pursuits, basically as long as they weren't seen as having any serious practical consequence. If Ada Lovelace wanted to become a lawyer or a doctor or something like that, she would have faced HUGE obstacles. If she wanted to be taken seriously as a scholar and employed as a professor at a major university, it would have taken serious convincing.

      But if she -- as a wealthy lady who supposedly had nothing better to do with her time -- spent time fiddling with random gadgets that weren't understood to have any practical purpose as yet and working with some theoretical mathematics that wasn't really groundbreaking (it was the connection to technology which was novel, not the math itself), then she wouldn't be "stepping on the toes" of any men in any serious practical professions.

      So, GP's claim was a bit nonsensical, because wealthy aristocratic women did have freedom to pursue intellectual pursuits to some extent. But your response is equally nonsensical in acting like "Victorian Britain" wasn't that bad for women. For women of the lower and middle classes, they certainly wouldn't have had the option to do anything like this. And for upper-class women, this sort of thing was pretty much limited to women who essentially took on the status of "independent scholars" and were generally admired FIRST for their wealth and social standing. But they could participate in intellectual discourse to some extent, as long as they mostly confined themselves to theoretical works without demanding actual recognition or a practical career.

    23. Re:Hero? by mi · · Score: 1

      OK, didn't realize Ada was in an assured position.

      Well, what did you mean then, when you wrote about her risking her "societal position"?! Being smart was not at all considered "detrimental" — indeed, Ada Lovelace was praised in the royal court for having a "brilliant mind" (see Wikipedia).

      but this thread is on the 19th century.

      Yes, and the 19th century Britain was, probably, among the best places to be a woman. Baroness had it easier than a commoner, but even for a commoner it was not quite so awful as haters of things "Victorian" would like us to think.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    24. Re:Hero? by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you're overlooking important hints about what was really going on here. She was admired for her "brilliant mind" not just as a woman, but because she was presented at Court.

      False. She was presented at Court, because she was a girl of noble birth coming of age — all such teenagers were presented at Court, whether they were dumb or smart, or strong or weak.

      there were still severe restrictions even on noblewomen

      She fought none of these restrictions and so is no "hero" on that account. Her intellectual pursuits do her credit, but, because these required no risks are not signs of any heroism either.

      wealthy aristocratic women did have freedom to pursue intellectual pursuits to some extent

      Every woman in 19th century had the necessary freedoms for such pursuits. Being wealthy and well-connected provided the means, but not the freedoms.

      But your response is equally nonsensical in acting like "Victorian Britain" wasn't that bad for women.

      You just agreed, that it was not as bad as the GGP made it appear, and yet, you are calling my response equally nonsensical? Wow...

      women of the lower and middle classes, they certainly wouldn't have had the option to do anything like this

      Not because they lacked freedoms — only because they didn't have the wealth. A very important distinction, when judging a culture.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    25. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bears. Beets. Battlestar galactica.

    26. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She happily married later and had three children with a loving husband.

      Literally misogyny and RAPE!!

    27. Re:Hero? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Blah, blah, blah. You're more interested in having a fruitless argument than recognizing the broader points. Of course she was presented at court because she was a noblewoman, and her mind was only THEN admired because she happened to be thus presented (because she was rich). If she weren't rich, she wouldn't have been admired for her mind, because she likely wouldn't have even have had the opportunity to pursue such things... and even if she had, no one would have paid much attention to her.

      And as for your point about wealth and freedom, again you miss the point. You completely glossed over all of my examples of how women's freedoms were severely curtailed in that society compared to today and how Lovelace was only allowed to do what she did because it was considered relatively useless (like what most aristocrats did in their leisure pursuits). If Lovelace wanted to do anything that actually would EXERCISE ANY RIGHTS (usually the domain of "freedom"), like -- I don't know -- work in a practical job doing something related to these intellectual pursuits, vote, choose to dissolve a marriage (even an abusive one, one where she had been abandoned, etc.), choose the disposition of her own property, choose her own career path, etc.... well, then she'd be out of luck.

      So, if the point of your original post was that women had "freedom" to do USELESS things, well that's hardly surprising in any society. But that wasn't the point of the post you were replying to, and the rhetoric of your posts ("FREEDOM!!!" a la Mel Gibson) implies that women in general had a lot of opportunities to do all sorts of things... just not "the means." And that's simply not true. If it were, why the heck were philosophers in the UK around this exact time writing things about the rights of women and how they could/should be advanced?

      TL;DR -- Poor women at this time were treated mostly as child-bearing and child-rearing machines, legally. Rich women who didn't have to worry about child-rearing and managing a household were still child-bearing machines, but after that, rich women could live a life of leisure doing whatever random crap they wanted, as long as it didn't impinge on the "real world' of what men actually DID and MATTERED. In most areas of law, they had no rights (their rights were instead deferred to their husbands); in the few areas were they did have rights, they were generally inferior to the rights of men. If that's what you call "freedom," well... I just don't know what to say.

    28. Re:Hero? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If we went by the dictionary definition, we'd have to revoke the hero title from thousands of people. Pulled a kid out of a burning building, but it is just normal run of the mill courage and below average strength and no aristocratic heritage.

    29. Re:Hero? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is the modern society trying to assign motives to historical figures. Two men who were friends, clearly they must have been gay. A man and woman who were friends, clearly there was an extramarital relationship there too. It's all prurient gossip by armchair historians.

    30. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Joking" about RAPE ? Without a trigger warning??? You MONSTER!!1

    31. Re:Hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, she *was* the daughter of Lord "I'll-fuck-anything-that-moves" Byron...

    32. Re:Hero? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I thought I've seen everything, but I certainly never saw or expected to see a die-hard libertarian singing praises to the Victorian era.

      Then again, we've had another self-described libertarian fapping on Sarah Palin not that long ago, so I suppose it makes some perverted sense.

  4. Difference Engine by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you have not seen the Difference Engine reconstruction at The Computer History Museum in Santa Clara, I highly recommend it. They actually operate it, and it's hypnotic to watch it.

    1. Re:Difference Engine by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 4, Informative

      *sigh*

      The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

      Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

      I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

      Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

      The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

      And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

    2. Re:Difference Engine by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 4, Informative

      *sigh*

      The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

      Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

      I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

      Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

      The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

      And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

      In fairness, you can't go to see an Analytical Engine reconstruction., because there isn't one. So the best you can do is the Difference Engine, which, as you correctly point out, Ada had nothing to do with. It's still worth seeing. And it's in Mountain View, not Santa Clara...sorry, about that.

    3. Re:Difference Engine by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

      Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

      I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

      Given that the OP merely mentioned that the Difference Engine exhibit at Santa Clara is fascinating, and made no mention of Ada, I'd suggest that your nerd rage is out of control and you need to sit back and take some deep breaths before you next post.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Difference Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were a lot more polite to him than I would have been.

    5. Re:Difference Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, nerdturd, the difference engine, because there isn't an analytical engine to go see.

    6. Re:Difference Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, calm down. That time of the month?

  5. et tu Slashdot? by fredrated · · Score: 0

    Now you load more garbage on your web page than can be hauled buy a 20 ton garbage truck?

  6. Oh Ada...not Linda by mpercy · · Score: 0

    Was confused there for a second.

  7. Why haven't we replaced Alice and Bob? by kcitren · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why haven't Alice and Bob been replaced with Ada and Babbage yet?

    1. Re:Why haven't we replaced Alice and Bob? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Very few modern people are named Ada
      2) Nobody is named Babbage
      3) Alice is a famous literary character to whom creepy dweebs love to make allusions
      4) Anyone lame and unoriginal enough to go around using "Alice and Bob" as examples is by definition too lame and unoriginal to change the names to something else.

    2. Re:Why haven't we replaced Alice and Bob? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Why haven't Alice and Bob been replaced with Ada and Babbage yet?

      Because then the movie with Ted and Carol would seem even weirder,

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Why haven't we replaced Alice and Bob? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce Schneier lame and unoriginal? You'd better watch out for a roundhouse kick!

    4. Re:Why haven't we replaced Alice and Bob? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think most people even get the allusion. I had to think about it for a few seconds.. (I've never seen it, but have heard about it.)

  8. Re:SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine why two women who hang out with an eloquent gentleman like you still don't have jobs. You all sound like winners to me!

  9. Most women aren't too smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I agree there are a few so I guess its right to make a big deal about them.

    1. Re:Most women aren't too smart by jandersen · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey, just come out of the closet; there's no shame in being gay. And stop trying to make yourself look smarter by belittling women - it doesn't work.

    2. Re:Most women aren't too smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that you claim its "OK" to be gay yet use it to slander me.

    3. Re:Most women aren't too smart by jandersen · · Score: 1

      If being gay is OK, then it's hardly a slander? But it is not uncommon for gays, who have yet to come out, to harbour rather cramped views on things like women, politics or being gay, to name but a few. And when you seem to be really quite misogynistic in your pronouncements, then it is not unreasonable to guess that you have reasons for favouring men - being gay is one such reason. But most gay men I know, don't feel hostile to women - it isn't a very wild guess to suspect that you don't feel good about yourself, since you seem to have a need to try to put half of the human population down. And if my chain of reasoning is correct, then the best way to get to feel better is to come out and be what is natural for you.

    4. Re:Most women aren't too smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, i've never heard that one before. I make a statement the SJW's dont like and its because you think I'm in the closet. How novel! I suspect you are the gay one or british, same difference, lol.

    5. Re:Most women aren't too smart by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Wow, i've never heard that one before. I make a statement the SJW's dont like and its because you think I'm in the closet. How novel! I suspect you are the gay one or british, same difference, lol.

      We live and learn :-) Enlighten me, what is an SJW?

      Still, I have trouble understanding why it is that some men are misogynists - so I try to make some wild guesses. Perhaps you have a better explanation? I am indeed British - not gay. I know, it's hard to tell the difference, but the slightly pained expression and awkward gait has another explanation: The Tory Government, who have a preference for, shall we say, approaching us from behind.

  10. Re:SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, because the experience of exactly two women you know can be extrapolated to the experience of all women.

    -LaurenC

  11. Re:SJW Monday! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1, Troll

    I know, how eloquent! A gentleman... wait.

    Let me try again.

    All this hand-wavey bullshit about how "misogynerds" like me (again, the premise being that I'm male because I was born with an oversized clitoris) are chasing women out of tech is simply fucking wrong.

    Oh, sure, you want to pretend I'm the one being sexist. That fits the convenient bullshit Narrative. You don't go after the asshole managers that chased them out, do you? Why not? Gee, I wonder.

    So sure, I'm the one being sexist. I will admit that at this point, yes, those two women are better people than I'll ever be. I let you get to me, and that was a mistake.

    I want to be absolutely fucking clear here. Anybody who invokes the difference engine is a cow. (Nods to cow guy up there.) When somebody says "difference engine" in response to Ada Lovelace, they reveal they're a dipshit who doesn't know anything about Lovelace.

    Yes, I'm angry. I'm fucking angry. Have you even read her Notes? Has anybody else in this fucking thread read her Notes? I have. Have you? They're pretty good. She predicts MP3 players and video games.

    The reason I am angry is that none of the SJWs (expand: social juggalo warriors) who keep pouring on this bullshit have read her Notes. They don't understand a single basic fucking thing about computers, much less the Analytical Engine architecture. Yet, they can conclude, based upon nothing except my assigned gender at birth that I am part of a vast conspiracy to keep women out of tech.

    Nope, sorry, bzzzzzt wrong. You never, ever go after the asshole, sexually harassing, bigoted, sexist managers who are the reason those two talented women I know don't have programming jobs. Yes, I said sexual harassment. I busted one manager for sexual harassment, and then he doubled down on whatever the fuck was his deal until she just quit. Yes, I said bigoted and sexist. There is a lawsuit still open for gender discrimination in the case of the other. I hope that fucking asshole executive fucking gets hit with a 6 figure judgement.

    Nope, sorry, not the fault of "misogynerds" like me. Not my fault I was born with a clitoris that was a centimeter too large. Go to hell. All of you SJWs can go to hell. Or at least, I don't care. See the username. The first chance I get, the first moment it's financially feasible for me, I am done with tech. Fuck tech. Fuck you. Fuck SJWs. And fuck gaslighting asshole managers.

  12. Re:SJW Monday! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    It probably can't, say true. Help me out here, Ms. Crates! I am trying to answer one question: WHY?!

    Don't get me wrong. I had a hand in mentoring both, but in the end one was just flat out turned off to tech by a sexually harassing manager, and the other is a better hacker than I am at this point. She mentored me in how to do Javascript correctly (yes, it can be done correctly, amazingly enough--in the end we'd almost implemented actual object oriented class inheritance in javascript!, but that's a story for another day).

    At the same time, I stand accused of sexism. I stand accused of rape. Yet nobody can name just who I raped! Nobody can tell me exactly how I'm involved in this massive conspiracy to keep women out of tech.

    As far as I can tell, here's the nature of the vast conspiracy: acceptance of complete incompetence of male "developers" (read: javascript/ruby/systemd cowboys) and complete rejection of women who actually know what the fuck they're doing. Place the blame on "misogynerds" like me (don't hate me because I have better luck with men than TERFs) and bingo! A winner!

    What I can see from here is that there are fairly useless initiatives such as Canonical's that do absolutely nothing to increase diversity in tech. Then you have TERFs (granted, that's a new term for me, since what's been happening has been happening long before I registered the current UID) out there who blame me personally instead of the asshole managers actually responsible for the fact there are no women in tech.

    Who the fuck is doing anything about all the internalized misogyny I see? NOBODY. NOTHING. Sure, just blame me. I'll go away. You still won't have any women in tech. In fact, one less. So make that three women I know personally who have been chased out of tech by this bullshit.

    WHY?!

  13. Re:tales are for cows. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0

    YOU DISNEY STOLEN COWS!!!!

    Yodel-Adle-Eedle-Idle-Oo!

    idiot lame filter idiot lame filter

  14. Re:SJW Monday! by dave420 · · Score: 1

    So many generalisations. You're not a very logical person, are you?

  15. Re:SJW Monday! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    Eh, probably not anymore.

    Where is the logic to be found here? I tried to proceed logically, say true. I told women who thought computers were for boys, "You're wrong. Women can be programmers, too!" What did it get me? "ur an asshole!" That's what it got me. "ur sexist." Again, that's what it got me.

    There is no logic to be found here. If there were any logic, some feminist would have helped me transition--and I'd be living as a woman today with some hope of a normal life--instead of calling me a quantum rapist (i.e. not even I can know whether I'm a rapist or not because the waveform can only collapse into one state: the observation, i.e. catching me in the act, that I am a rapist no matter what I believe or say or think or feel).

    Nope, no logic whatsoever. WHY must the blame fall on me for the lack of female programmers instead of the asshole managers? Who is going after the asshole managers who are actually responsible? Who is using their cis-ness to help convince women that maths aren't hard?! I sure as hell can't help out there! I'm just a metaphysical rapist, somebody to be injected with testosterone against her will!

    I'm not the one out there telling girls that maths are hard! I'm not the one turning women off to tech and science. So yeah, pretty much fuck everything until people are willing to come around and see the truth. You can blame me all you want, but it's not going to magically produce more women programmers.

    So yeah, call me a misogynist. Makes no difference in the end. Have fun with your self-fulfilling prophecies.

  16. Re:SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What strawman are you even attacking?

  17. Re:SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure what about this stirred up your SJW rage. If you can get this worked up about a historical figure just because she is a woman, maybe it is time to step back and do a little self evaluation...

    Regardless, I'm just amused that you can say you were doing JavaScript correctly in the same breath as bragging about almost implementing class based inheritance in it...

  18. tl;dr by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article is good because Ada is the most controversial person in computer science. Some people claim she was a genius who invented computer programming, and others claim she was a fraud (Babbage told her what to write), gambler, and opium addict. Wolfram spent a lot of time reading through the original documents to figure it out.

    According to Wolfram, she was educationally at the level of around a PhD candidate working on a thesis. She had gotten to the cutting edge of math knowledge of the time, and then had started working with Babbage, with him being kind of like an adviser. Looking at the machine, she did have some fresh perspective and ideas (like you would expect of a high-quality PhD candidate), and she did understand how the Analytic Machine worked. Wolfram predicts that if she had stayed alive, they would have been able to finish the Analytic Machine (Babbage was horrible at project management, and he would have helped her with that).

    Ada comes out looking really good. She was not a fraud, and she did understand what she was doing. Unfortunately, you can't really call her the "first programmer," or the "first person to write a paper on Computer Science," but that's ok. She was a bright, energetic person, with some interesting ideas, who died too young to really investigate them deeply.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  19. Re:SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This still doesn't explain why both were chased out of the field by asshole managers.

    What? Why did they leave the field? I've had asshole managers too, and I changed jobs.
    Your comment makes it sound like women are delicate flowers who can't respond rationally to lousy managers, but of course women can and do. You are part of the problem.

    If you don't like your manager, change jobs. Everybody knows that.

  20. Back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, we were taught she was one of the very first programmers. She also happened to be a woman. She also happened to be, by that time and may ours, a promiscuous woman. She also happened to get uterine cancer and die.

    Our teacher said she got it from being "exposed to many different sets of DNA from her multiple male partners" and encouraged the ladies in the class, yes there were several, not to be a whore.

    1. Re:Back in the day by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      And why not? This is a belief held widely throughout the world. I think you're just being racist towards your instructor and can't handle the fact that a strong female authority figure told you something that you disagree with.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Er, where does racism come into this? Did you just grab the wrong card from your stack of SJW talking points?

    3. Re:Back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I should have pointed out that both I and my instructor are male. But that alone does not make one a feminist.

  21. Re:SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's doing anything about internalized misogyny? NOBODY and NOTHING because internalized misogyny is a thing that can't be measured or quantified. It's a nonsense concept that exists precisely because it can't be satisfied and therefore creates its own perpetual loop. It's a thing I find pointless to ponder because it's not something you can prove, or even spend a significant part of your day trying to fight when you've got actual stuff to do.

    Now, you're raging from your own personal experience, and that's fine. I don't know you. You don't know me either. But you know something?

    SEXISM HAS HAPPENED TO ME.

    I have been sexually harassed. I have been assaulted. I've been called names. I have been excluded.

    You know what I didn't do?

    I DIDN'T GIVE UP.

    You know what else I didn't do?

    BLAME ALL MEN FOR THE ACTIONS OF A FEW.

    I found a place to work where my knowledge and skills are respected. Where I'm paid fairly. Where I've been given a reasonable amount of opportunity for advancement.

    You are entitled to your rage, that is correct. You are not, however, entitled to thrash around like an infant demanding satisfaction for a concept that cannot be reasonably quantified outside of your own perspective. Hell, even WITHIN your own perspective. Find a way to prosecute internalized misogyny that stands up to a court of your peers and maybe then your screed will be worth listening to.

    Until then, I, and many, many other people aren't going to be held hostage by the threat of you leaving. In fact, if you're going to go around accusing people of "internalized misogyny", I suspect I wouldn't want to work with you anyway.

    So, how about you work on your resume and find someone who will appreciate you?

    -LaurenC

  22. Re:SJW Monday! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 2

    You're correct. I haven't been clear. I got triggered.

    (Granted, shoehorning class inheritance into Javascript was fun but fundamentally flawed. Still, an interesting exercise.)

    I live in a world where, apparently, Ada Lovelace is evidence of my sexism. I wasn't assigned the same gender as her at birth, so therefore, because I chose (even though the warnings should have been clear it was a poor choice) to learn programming, I'm a fucking sexist, end of story. Hey, I was a kid at the time. I didn't understand the complete insanity and gender lunacy that would become programming.

    What about Rear Admiral Hopper? Do her accomplishments amount to jack shit? Apparently.

    What about Lovelace's work in advancing women in science in general? Nope. Again, jack shit.

    Hypatia got a mention up there. She must have been a fantastic individual to accomplish becoming the head librarian of the fucking Library of Alexandria despite the attitudes about women that must have persisted at the time! Granted, she might have been an Amazon, who knows. My alter ego at the red site would probably make up something in regards to that.

    Do the SJWs even understand what was in Lovelace's Notes? I doubt it. The ones who have accused me of sexism to my face certainly didn't.

    Curie. Tubman. Many others we're leaving out. Yet, Lovelace. Why Lovelace? Why is Lovelace even a trigger for me? Why did I get accused of sexism because I wasn't assigned the same gender at birth, even though I fucking should have?! What the fuck does gender have to do with any of this?

    But whatever. This is a man's world, not because it should be, but because the SJWs like it that way. That way we can magnify some rich bitch who lived 150 some odd years ago larger than life just to build the FEEL GUILTY narrative. FEEL GUILTY!

    Somebody hook a generator up to Lovelace's spinning corpse. This is certainly not what she indented. If she were alive today, she would be accused of not being a "real" woman and of being a traitor to her own gender. Why? Because if an SJW spent 5 minutes talking to her, they would realize how mentally deficient they are. Then would come the usual accusations. Because womanhood is only one thing, can possibly be only one thing, and we'll beat into submission anyone, cis or trans, that doesn't fit that mold. Womanhood is victimhood! Or at least it is according to man's world.

    Why? For the same reason we've got somebody up there pointing out that the important attribute of Lovelace is that she had some kids! I mean, WTF?! FEEL GUILTY, YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE LOVELACE YOU SEXIST! There are many "cisgendered" women who can't have children. Modern medical science is solving those problems one-by-one. You might have remembered one woman who was in the news because she was able to give birth thanks to her mother's uterus being implanted in her. Was she a mentally ill, sexually confused person until she had that procedure? Is the definition of a woman limited to those who have babies? Help me out here.

    I don't know. There are two women I know (not me) who need programming jobs. Until that's resolved, any fucking invocation of Lovelace as evidence of sexism is null and void. Any fucking blame directed at me personally for some vast conspiracy of misogynerds keeping women out of programming jobs and go fuck itself. I report asshole sociopath psychologically manipulating managers for sexual harassment when it happens. Do you? I encourage women who have been discriminated against, even if they don't realize it themselves, to file lawsuits. Do you?

    I feel I'm the only person actually doing something about the problem with gender diversity in programming. But it's not good enough. Nothing I do ever will be good enough, because I'm not a woman, and so therefore I will always either be a sexist or metaphysical rapist or some other fucking excuse for WHY my efforts will never be good enough, why I

  23. Re: SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is blaming you? I keep seeing you say that. Was it in another thread? if so take it up there.

  24. OT: Sexual confusion by mi · · Score: 1

    Yes, different people have different body parts.

    And a human being born with a penis yet without a womb is a male. Deal with it.

    Putting things into types and objectifying them means you're a part of the vast conspiracy of foisting the patriarchy on women and keeping them out of programming careers!

    +1 Funny!

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by CronoCloud · · Score: 0

      And a human being born with a penis yet without a womb is a male.

      That's not an accurate statement. Sex and gender are two different things.

      One is what is what is between your legs, the other is how you feel and identify.

    2. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be extremely difficult to breed animals if you never know which are male or female.

      I mean, we could probably train some of the primates to tell us their gender, but nearly every other species would be out of luck.

    3. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by mi · · Score: 2

      Sex and gender are two different things.

      Bullshit. The two words are synonyms — the latter was thought up simply to be able to have a conversation about certain matters without the younger part of those present giggling at the former. Says the dictionary:

      sex, gender, sexuality -- (the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles; "she didn't want to know the sex of the foetus")

      One is what is what is between your legs, the other is how you feel and identify.

      People with a mismatch of these two are not well. Abnormal. Up until a few years ago one could be expected to be generous and humour them so as not to hurt their feelings, but their more recent antics require a pushback of some kind.

      A person calling himself a cat or Napoleon is universally understood as needing treatment. Why should we view a woman calling herself a man — or the other way around — any differently?

      In a few years, medicine and biology may allow us to extend our necks or grow tails — will we see more confused people demanding, they be called giraffes on pain of being denounced as speciist bigots?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is what is what is between your legs, the other is how you feel and identify.

      If you don't feel like your are then you are suffering a identity disorder. Transgenders peoples need help, not encouragement. Sure when society at large hate men, it is difficult to be one. But dressing as a women and pretend to be one is not a solution.

      Identity politic will be the end of the western civilisation. And before you cheer (because I know you type think western civilisations are the evil patriarchal colonialist imperialist oppressors of the world), think of who you fags, weakling and deluded weirdo will fair in the Islamic civilisation. You may not recognize the greatness that the West that deserve to be preserved, but at last you should have a bit of self preservation and fear for the consequence of the destruction of the West. TL;DR Fuck you.

    5. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by narcc · · Score: 0

      People with a mismatch of these two are not well. Abnormal.

      They used to say the same thing about homosexuals. We're far more enlightened now.

      You're welcome to your regressive beliefs. I can't say or do anything to change them. Just be aware that they'll soon be a relic of a by-gone era, with people excusing statements like yours with a quick "he's just from a different time" or "things were different when he was young, they didn't know any better".

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    6. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by mi · · Score: 1

      They used to say the same thing about homosexuals.

      For the purposes of this conversation, homosexuals are no different. Something is not quite right with them...

      You're welcome to your regressive beliefs. [...] Just be aware that they'll soon be a relic of a by-gone era, with people excusing statements like yours with a quick "he's just from a different time" or "things were different when he was young, they didn't know any better".

      Attitudes change back in forth — Ancient Greece was generally accepting of homosexuals, then the Christians frowned at them, and now we are accepting once again.

      These changes in attitudes don't affect the fundamental truth, however — it is an anomaly. Which, of course, is not to say, it is "evil" or "dangerous". Some people are born deaf, some — blind, and some — with messed-up sexuality... It is unfortunate and the better societies find a way to accommodate all such members as well as possible. But, all of this notwithstanding, it is an anomaly.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used to say the same thing about homosexuals. We're far more enlightened now.

      They used to say the same thing about pedosexuals. We're far more enlightened now to conflate how peoples are born with child rapist. It's 2016, come on!

    8. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by CronoCloud · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. The two words are synonyms

      You personally may think they are synonyms but they haven't been synonyms for a few decades now. Didn't you get the memo?

      Abnormal. Up until a few years ago one could be expected to be generous and humour them so as not to hurt their feelings, but their more recent antics require a pushback of some kind.

      People might say the same thing about aspies. But what are the antics you are referring to? Besides, those that tend to use the term "pushback" tend to be the kinds of people who are upset they have to be nice to people that they weren't expected to be nice to in the past.

      Why should we view a woman calling herself a man â" or the other way around â" any differently?

      Because it IS different. There aren't a large number of people claiming to be Napoleon, but transgender people have existed throughout history, this isn't something new.

    9. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Glad you at least enjoy my attempts at humor, but you're still missing the other point, mi.

      At some point in the next week, you will see somebody you've never met before. You will believe this person is a woman. This person will actually be a man.

      How do you intend to establish this? Do you perform the Crocodile Dundee maneuver on every woman you meet just to be sure? How do you control for bottom surgery? Do you have a portable ultrasound device or something?

      I'm honestly curious. The only reason you know I'm "really" a man is because I gave you that information. Well, and I am posting to /. lol! I guarantee you that once I go deep stealth, there is no way you're going to be able tell without strip searching me.

      Do you actually have a way of determining the gender somebody was assigned at birth, or do you just walk around in constant paranoia that every attractive woman around you might actually be a man?

      Well, I guess if the former is the case, that would explain some reactions I've gotten upon presenting ID up to and including frightening some poor old man so bad, he jumped up, ran into the back room like he had just seen the devil himself, and called the cops on me.

      Oh, trust me. I have ways of torturing people like you who think they can "always" spot somebody not presenting as their assigned gender at birth. Call me a man all you want on the internet lol. It'll only increase the epicness of what will happen later this week.

      I'll just leave this here: guevedoce.

    10. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by mi · · Score: 1

      How do you intend to establish this

      I do not intend to establish it at all. I'm already married, thank you very much.

      The only reason you know I'm "really" a man is because I gave you that information.

      ... and I still don't know that.

      Do you actually have a way of determining the gender somebody was assigned at birth

      It was not "assigned" — the male-female distinction pre-dates any sort of "assignation". The external signs are perfectly obvious.

      Yes, there is a tiny number of people (and other animals) born with both genitalia, but that does not apply to the "transgendered" folk like yourself. You have (or claim to have) a disagreement between mind and body.

      And I say, your mind needs treatment — you are no different, than a person, whose mind insists, he is a Napoleon.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:OT: Sexual confusion by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      And I say, your mind needs treatment

      Bit late to reply, will make this request when this comes up again if you don't want to respond here. (I hate this site's UI.) If you have some kind of psychotectic method you're keeping secret, there are many trans women out there who would love for you to publish your studies.

      (I've made up my mind anyway since I'm attracted to men and would rather be a heterosexual woman who can't have children than a homosexual man with mutilated genitals who can't have children. It's not a perfect choice. In all truth, if I could be an intact, heterosexual man, I might not mind being as such. I was probably that way in many previous lives anyway and might be in my next. Who knows.)

      I pass well enough to get ma'amed even when I'm clearly dressed as a man Not everybody is that lucky. If you have some way of changing mental gender, please help us out. You might even stand to make a substantial amount of cash, and I would be glad to refer people to you who will have a difficult time because they can't pass well or at all.

      In 2015, all we know how to do is change the body until you reveal this amazing new advance of yours.

  25. Erratum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wolfram predicts that if she had stayed alive, they would have been able to finish the Analytic Machine (Babbage was horrible at project management, and he would have helped her with that).

    should read

    Wolfram predicts that if she had stayed alive, they would have been able to finish the Analytic Machine (Babbage was horrible at project management, and she would have helped him with that).

    1. Re:Erratum by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yup thx

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  26. Re:But there are no women in STEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >#51113577
    >#51113677

    What sourcery is this?!

  27. Difference Engine Demo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I saw the Difference Engine reconstruction at the Computer History Museum a few years ago, and was fortunate enough to see the engine operated. It is hand-cranked, and uses ripple carry. The operator reported a significant increase in torque needed when the accumulator hit a major carry.

  28. Re:SJW Monday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem extremely angry.

    You should find the source of that.

  29. Fuck feminism by mi · · Score: 1

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Now you are sounding like a feminist...

    and her mind was only THEN admired because she happened to be thus presented

    I brought up her being admired for her mind to counter the contention, that "Victorian society" looked down upon smart women.

    the point of your original post was that women had "freedom" [...]

    The point of my original post was to question the validity of the term "hero", when applied to Ada Lovelace, who never had to risk neither life, nor limb, nor wealth, nor station in life to pursue her interests in Mathematics and computing.

    Your — and others' — attempts to turn this into some kind of feminist debate is pitiful, you are grasping at straws in your struggle for relevance.

    Poor women at this time were treated mostly as child-bearing and child-rearing machines, legally.

    Yes, it sucks to be poor — in any era and in any society. It sucked even more to be a woman, simply because giving birth before antibiotics and tools-sterilization was dangerous, and rearing a child before baby-formula, refrigeration, gas stoves, washing machines, etc. made it a full-time job (though your use of the term "machines" is uncalled for and derogatory.)

    More importantly, male "oppression" had nothing to do with it and your kind's attempts to drive a wedge between sexes is destructive to society and detrimental to both women and men.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  30. Re:But there are no women in STEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, look at those dubs!

  31. Genetic predisposition towards intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People should hardly be surprised that the daughter of one the great geniuses of the early 19th century was herself a genius. And moreover her mother, no intellectual slouch, was determined to educate her in mathematics, natural science and religion so that their daughter would not also be "mad, bad and dangerous to know".

  32. Forget Ada, how about Wolfram himself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ada may not have been a fraud after all, but how about this Stephen Wolfram himself? Is his Cellular Automata based science all bullshit? Nothing useful seems to have come out of it.