Women and underrepresented people of color are far less likely to take computing coursework or exams in high school and complete degrees in computer science and engineering. This is a fact.
Yet we also uncovered evidence in this report that suggests women and people of color have extremely different workplace experiences. An increase in negative workplace experiences is significantly negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to likelihood to leave.
This tells us that while there are not as many women and people of color in the current pipeline to drastically change the demographics of the sector, there are also practices within the sector that are problematic. First, The lack of focus on diversity means we continue to hire those that are in our networks, went to our schools, and look just like us. Second, negative experiences (which affect women and people of color at higher rates) lead to turnover.
Thus, while not suggesting that the demographic trends in IT are entirely due to bias, we are also suggesting that they are not entirely due to the pipeline either. The following questions remain unanswered: How many have left IT for another sector? How many found the IT work environment unwelcoming or incompatible and sought employment elsewhere?
I thought we were getting better? I thought we'd beaten the dead horse of Why It's Important To Make An Effort To Include Women and were now in the Fixing It stage? I thought we were safe not talking about this anymore? What the actual fuck, you guys.
[..]
I'm sorry I'm being mean, but goddamn it, you guys. I'm sick of hearing this same tired bullshit, as though it occurred to no one to actually look the fuck around and see that this defensive attitude toward ignoring the fucking problem and hoping it goes away is making shit worse.
You know, as opposed to the mail server living at mail.store.foo.com or whatever?
whoops, fixed.
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
I know how it works. Thanks for not even trying, while lecturing me on some the utter basics just because I said "prefix". Gah.
Even now, you see things like "secure.foo.com", "store.foo.com", and "support.foo.com", so I think having "www" as a separate host name makes a lot of sense,
Uhm what? secure.foo.com and store.foo.com also respond to HTTP(S) requests, right? So wouldn't www.store.foo.com make sense? You know, as opposed to the mail server living at mail.foo.com or whatever? And why do we see www.domain.com, and then forums.domain.com, and *not ever* www.forums.domain.com?
In practice, any hostname can be anything. We differentiate by the protocol and port, and http://mail.foo.com/ doesn't do mail stuff just because it has that hostname. So If you're going to said it makes a lot of sense, you'll have to offer at least one valid argument, instead of just patronizing a strawman. I think you're just flattering yourself -- it makes zero sense, but you agree with it, so you need to fix the problem the cheapest way you can.
Oh wow. You know, the people in Idiocracy are at least likeable.... what will actually happen might be so much worse. Also, it will not take 500 years, no siree bob.
Freedom is the right to say two plus two make four. If granted, all else follows.
From the totalitarian point of view, history is something to be created rather than learned.
[..]
Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another impossible for literary purposes. Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy - or even two orthodoxies, as often happens - good writing stops."
(emphasis mine, because it's hard to *not* think of the Republimocratic Party when reading the above)
[..]
Meanwhile, totalitarianism has not fully triumphed anywhere. Our own society is still, broadly speaking, liberal. To exercise your right of free speech you have to fight against economic pressure and against strong sections of public opinion, but not, as yet, against a secret police force. You can say or print almost anything so long as you are willing to do it in a hole-and-corner way. But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves.
[..]
For the moment the totalitarian state tolerates the scientist because it needs him. Even in Nazi Germany, scientists, other than Jews, were relatively well treated and the German scientific community, as a whole, offered no resistance to Hitler. At this stage of history, even the most autocratic ruler is forced to take account of physical reality, partly because of the lingering-on of liberal habits of thought, partly because of the need to prepare for war. So long as physical reality cannot altogether be ignored, so long as two and two have to make four when you are, for example, drawing the blueprint of an aeroplane, the scientist has his function, and can even be allowed a measure of liberty. His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established. Meanwhile, if he wants to safeguard the integrity of science, it is his job to develop some kind of solidarity with his literary colleagues and not disregard it as a matter of indifference when writers are silenced or driven to suicide, and newspapers systematically falsified.
But however it may be with the physical sciences, or with music, painting and architecture, it is â" as I have tried to show â" certain that literature is doomed if liberty of thought perishes. Not only is it doomed in any country which retains a totalitarian structure; but any writer who adopts the totalitarian outlook, who finds excuses for persecution and the falsification of reality, thereby destroys himself as a writer. There is no way out of this. No tirades against âindividualismâ(TM) and the âivory towerâ(TM), no pious platitudes to the effect that âtrue individuality is only attained through identification with the communityâ(TM), can get over the fact that a bought mind is a spoiled mind. Unless spontaneity enters at some point or another, literary creation is impossible, and language itself becomes something totally diff
Simple: enforce it, ignore those who pout, 3 years later you're done. Kinda like nobody had problems from typing nothing whatsoever to typing "www" or "com" when that was required to visit a website.
Users, webmasters, designers, and even web architects can't convince themselves to get rid of www
The latter interests me: I'd love to read clueful arguments *for* the www prefix. Never saw any so far, and plenty of sites seem to have no use for it. And I don't just meant URL shorteners*.
It's like an appendix, like dead code... sure, you can leave useless stuff there, and everything still works fine. But you can also *remove* that appendix, shave your eyebrows, cut off your ears and become the fastest swimmer the world has ever seen! Just saying.
* you know, the ones that are supposed to be "more readable" for everyone and their dog's grandma, where the www prefix never even was considered? Weird, huh.
Uhm what? If they didn't block the site, but removed it from search results, people could still find it via other links and use it. Blocking it from youtube just leaves a useless husk in the search results, so I don't quite get your point.
Assassination was one of those things that "We just did not do anymore." and that we were morally past; but rapid regression took care of that, and now it's among the many things we are free to aspire to, in order to join the community of enlightened human beings once again.
They claimed reading a text that has been revered by billions of humans beings over 6000 years is "hate speech".
What's your point? Sometimes people need 6000 years to learn stuff, does that bother you? That doesn't mean it's now suddenly hate speech -- it means we suddenly realized it's been hate speech all along. I don't mean the whole book, I personally think it's hilarious to consider it a harmonious whole (I guess this is where reverence plays a big role, eh?).
Meanwhile they left the videos calling her a "cunt" and threatening to murder her as okay.
Of course they weren't, but to play devil's advocate:
IF you believe that your sky daddy is gonna torture and kill all who don't wear your little armband, and is going to give you ETERNAL LIFE, and what's more, pretty much said that either you follow Jesus and get hate for it, or you're a backsliding wannabe --- I don't get what the problem is. What you call being murdered could also be considered a shortcut to heaven, and deliverance from temptation.
Unless she doesn't really believe any of that, but just likes to tell others how to live. In that case, fuck her and related hypocrites! She tried to scare others, it backfired. That's a cruel, but also logical way to look at it. It's not like people thought "oh look, a kid on the webs, let's threaten her".
If you slip on an armband, you get treated like the organization you represent. You wanted that, the organization promised you HUGE rewards for slipping on that armband, and EXTREME punishment to anyone who doesn't. You said "that's a great deal, l'm yours". So cry me a fucking river, will you. You run with the Nazis, you hang with the Nazis.
What's your point? If anything that just means that there was plenty of reason to give Google the evil eye even before the unified privacy policy, not that "it's okay, because they could have (technically, but not practically) done it before". WTFLOLNO.
No need for that, the US intelligence agencies opened mail of citizens of East Germany who wrote to the West as well. That is, IIRC they had the BND carrying the sacks from the post office, opening the envelope with a bit of steam or whatever, taking note of anti-government jokes (i.e. there wasn't really ever anything interesting in them), closing them and bringing them back. That actually routinely happened (not "opening ALL mail", but open some, randomly stabbing in the dark as it were) according to to a book I've read, which was written by a ex-BND guy and seemed plausible enough... so, yeah.
But for some reason, even if it affects perfectly civilian people who didn't hurt a fly, it's not spying --- as long as it happens to foreigners, right?
The current "everything is free" model on the web is only possible because of that advertising.
It's not free, it's paid for by advertising. Hidden costs don't mean "no costs". Here's an idea: I pay my ISP for the downstream bandwidth. What if some of that money went to the owners of the servers I peruse, automically, AKA built-in micropayment? Dunno about you, but if that would double the price of my interwebs, it would still be fucking cheap interwebs. It wouldn't be a way to earn money with traffic either, just a way to not LOOSE money from it. Sure, it's sketchy and it involves no actual calculations (I wouldn't know where to start with those), who knows if it would work. But fuck it, I would be up for trying that.
Consider how public transportation is also partly paid for by ads. You pay for the ticket, yet you still get ads. However, I don't even want to know how much worse it would be if tickets costed no money at all. Just like I'd be interested if we can't make the internet an interesting place again, by putting advertisement, the mental product of those who HAVE no mental products, back in its place: last place. Which is still generous and you know it.
But more importantly, saying advertising shouldn't really on horrible clusterfucks of javascript, isn't even arguing against advertising. Even arguing that ads shouldn't spy, not even count views, and simply pay for click-throughs (then they're your customers, agreeing to your privacy policy, and you can do whatever the fuck you want), wouldn't be arguing against advertisement as a whole. I bit anyway, because this topic does interest me.
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself.
Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourself.
Seriously, though. If you are, do. No, really. There's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, okay? Kill yourself. Seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No, this is not a joke, if you're going: "There's going to be a joke coming." There's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked, and you are fucking us. Kill yourself, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself. Planting seeds.
I know all the marketing people are going: "He's doing a joke." There's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations.
I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now, too. "Oh, you know what Bill's doing? He's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man. I am not doing that, you fucking evil scumbags! "Oh, you know what Bill's doing now? He's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. Lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research. Huge market. He's doing a good thing." God damn it, I'm not doing that, you scumbags. Quit putting a goddamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet! "Oh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a fucking web. "Oh, the trapped dollar. Big dollar, huge dollar. Good market, look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..."
How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you? "What did you do today, honey?" "Oh, we made arsenic childhood food. Now, good night. Yeah, we just said, you know, is your baby really too loud? You know... yeah, the mums will love it, yeah." Sleep like fucking children, don't you? This is your world, isn't it?
Bill Hicks (I'll never tire of posting this, until and even for a while after it came to pass)
Once upon a time I was in Amsterdam, and after leaving a supermarket two cops followed us, tapped me on the shoulder, said someone had claimed I had been stealing, and asked me if I would come back to the shop with them. Since I didn't steal anything I happily obliged and emptied my pockets; grinning like an idiot because I was thinking of that Pulp Fiction scene... it's actually true:D And I didn't get the impression the Netherlands are worse off for it, to the contrary. Not that I've been there often, and I've not visited in ages... but I saw a lot there I kinda envied.
You can overdo openness, or let's call it naivity, but that often enough corrects itself automatically. Not so with paranoia: You can be too untrusting all your life towards hundreds and thousands of people, and misjudge any and all situations, and if you never STOP, you'll never find out, live a stunted life, and even think that it would have been *worse* if you had been more trusting.
Not that this relates to the OP directly, because work time is work time, and their network is their network. But other than that, go out and trust a random stranger today.
heh. what kind of dumb clusterfuck is this thread even.... even if the guy didn't invent email, there's so much derp here to last for 5 threads; what gives?
ORLY? citation needed or something. because if you don't provide one, you actually are doing what you claim Chomsky is doing: you claim something, offering nothing to back it up, and we have to agree because you said it -- right? Well no, so feel free to suspend the irony anytime by citing the relevant parts:P
Slashdot Mirror
http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/13/the-three-biggest-myths-about-women-in-tech/
http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/is-it-me-or-are-we-going-backward/
whoops, fixed.
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
I know how it works. Thanks for not even trying, while lecturing me on some the utter basics just because I said "prefix". Gah.
Uhm what? secure.foo.com and store.foo.com also respond to HTTP(S) requests, right? So wouldn't www.store.foo.com make sense? You know, as opposed to the mail server living at mail.foo.com or whatever? And why do we see www.domain.com, and then forums.domain.com, and *not ever* www.forums.domain.com?
In practice, any hostname can be anything. We differentiate by the protocol and port, and http://mail.foo.com/ doesn't do mail stuff just because it has that hostname. So If you're going to said it makes a lot of sense, you'll have to offer at least one valid argument, instead of just patronizing a strawman. I think you're just flattering yourself -- it makes zero sense, but you agree with it, so you need to fix the problem the cheapest way you can.
Oh wow. You know, the people in Idiocracy are at least likeable.... what will actually happen might be so much worse. Also, it will not take 500 years, no siree bob.
sorry for the broken characters...
à means "
Ã" means - ... heh.
Simple: enforce it, ignore those who pout, 3 years later you're done. Kinda like nobody had problems from typing nothing whatsoever to typing "www" or "com" when that was required to visit a website.
But you're right when it comes to www, it is the responsibility of webmasters to get rid of it.
The latter interests me: I'd love to read clueful arguments *for* the www prefix. Never saw any so far, and plenty of sites seem to have no use for it. And I don't just meant URL shorteners*.
It's like an appendix, like dead code... sure, you can leave useless stuff there, and everything still works fine. But you can also *remove* that appendix, shave your eyebrows, cut off your ears and become the fastest swimmer the world has ever seen! Just saying.
* you know, the ones that are supposed to be "more readable" for everyone and their dog's grandma, where the www prefix never even was considered? Weird, huh.
Uhm what? If they didn't block the site, but removed it from search results, people could still find it via other links and use it. Blocking it from youtube just leaves a useless husk in the search results, so I don't quite get your point.
http://www.amazon.com/Sane-Society-Erich-Fromm/dp/B000HDOTG6/
http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Freedom-Erich-Fromm/dp/0805031499/
They're to the OP like the theory of Relativity is to Newtonian physics or worse.
You could say the same about any mafia boss, so what exactly is your point? Signed, not a derp.
Obama is the engineer of exactly fuck all, as was Bush and those before him, as will be the next president. They just put a face on it.
FTFY.
Read Erich Fromm.
"Whats with the blatently biased summary ?"
It's, uhm, reader submitted?
Like, if you wanted to give it a different spin, you totally had (and still might have) the chance, yay!
What's your point? Sometimes people need 6000 years to learn stuff, does that bother you? That doesn't mean it's now suddenly hate speech -- it means we suddenly realized it's been hate speech all along. I don't mean the whole book, I personally think it's hilarious to consider it a harmonious whole (I guess this is where reverence plays a big role, eh?).
Of course they weren't, but to play devil's advocate:
IF you believe that your sky daddy is gonna torture and kill all who don't wear your little armband, and is going to give you ETERNAL LIFE, and what's more, pretty much said that either you follow Jesus and get hate for it, or you're a backsliding wannabe --- I don't get what the problem is. What you call being murdered could also be considered a shortcut to heaven, and deliverance from temptation.
Unless she doesn't really believe any of that, but just likes to tell others how to live. In that case, fuck her and related hypocrites! She tried to scare others, it backfired. That's a cruel, but also logical way to look at it. It's not like people thought "oh look, a kid on the webs, let's threaten her".
If you slip on an armband, you get treated like the organization you represent. You wanted that, the organization promised you HUGE rewards for slipping on that armband, and EXTREME punishment to anyone who doesn't. You said "that's a great deal, l'm yours". So cry me a fucking river, will you. You run with the Nazis, you hang with the Nazis.
What's your point? If anything that just means that there was plenty of reason to give Google the evil eye even before the unified privacy policy, not that "it's okay, because they could have (technically, but not practically) done it before". WTFLOLNO.
No need for that, the US intelligence agencies opened mail of citizens of East Germany who wrote to the West as well. That is, IIRC they had the BND carrying the sacks from the post office, opening the envelope with a bit of steam or whatever, taking note of anti-government jokes (i.e. there wasn't really ever anything interesting in them), closing them and bringing them back. That actually routinely happened (not "opening ALL mail", but open some, randomly stabbing in the dark as it were) according to to a book I've read, which was written by a ex-BND guy and seemed plausible enough... so, yeah.
But for some reason, even if it affects perfectly civilian people who didn't hurt a fly, it's not spying --- as long as it happens to foreigners, right?
http://friendica.com/
http://diasporaproject.org/
http://socialswarm.net/
[lang=derp]
Me: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Bli bla blu."
You: "Hurr-de-durr? A-hurr-da!"
Me: "Eep!!" *cowers*
[/lang]
And if you either judge this out of context, or actually watched the thing and still describe it as you did, you're dumb fucking sissy.
He's not moaning and groaning -- maybe in your head, not in that video.
However, you seem to be upset and frustrated. How come?
It's not free, it's paid for by advertising. Hidden costs don't mean "no costs". Here's an idea: I pay my ISP for the downstream bandwidth. What if some of that money went to the owners of the servers I peruse, automically, AKA built-in micropayment? Dunno about you, but if that would double the price of my interwebs, it would still be fucking cheap interwebs. It wouldn't be a way to earn money with traffic either, just a way to not LOOSE money from it. Sure, it's sketchy and it involves no actual calculations (I wouldn't know where to start with those), who knows if it would work. But fuck it, I would be up for trying that.
Consider how public transportation is also partly paid for by ads. You pay for the ticket, yet you still get ads. However, I don't even want to know how much worse it would be if tickets costed no money at all. Just like I'd be interested if we can't make the internet an interesting place again, by putting advertisement, the mental product of those who HAVE no mental products, back in its place: last place. Which is still generous and you know it.
But more importantly, saying advertising shouldn't really on horrible clusterfucks of javascript, isn't even arguing against advertising. Even arguing that ads shouldn't spy, not even count views, and simply pay for click-throughs (then they're your customers, agreeing to your privacy policy, and you can do whatever the fuck you want), wouldn't be arguing against advertisement as a whole. I bit anyway, because this topic does interest me.
Bill Hicks (I'll never tire of posting this, until and even for a while after it came to pass)
Once upon a time I was in Amsterdam, and after leaving a supermarket two cops followed us, tapped me on the shoulder, said someone had claimed I had been stealing, and asked me if I would come back to the shop with them. Since I didn't steal anything I happily obliged and emptied my pockets; grinning like an idiot because I was thinking of that Pulp Fiction scene... it's actually true :D And I didn't get the impression the Netherlands are worse off for it, to the contrary. Not that I've been there often, and I've not visited in ages... but I saw a lot there I kinda envied.
You can overdo openness, or let's call it naivity, but that often enough corrects itself automatically. Not so with paranoia: You can be too untrusting all your life towards hundreds and thousands of people, and misjudge any and all situations, and if you never STOP, you'll never find out, live a stunted life, and even think that it would have been *worse* if you had been more trusting.
Not that this relates to the OP directly, because work time is work time, and their network is their network. But other than that, go out and trust a random stranger today.
"probably", "insofar as you can tell"?
heh. what kind of dumb clusterfuck is this thread even.... even if the guy didn't invent email, there's so much derp here to last for 5 threads; what gives?
"as spoken by an authority figure"
ORLY? citation needed or something. because if you don't provide one, you actually are doing what you claim Chomsky is doing: you claim something, offering nothing to back it up, and we have to agree because you said it -- right? Well no, so feel free to suspend the irony anytime by citing the relevant parts :P