For the same reason that you can't just split off the signal and record that when watching a video. The DRM won't run under operating systems that don't implement the proper security to prevent taking a screenshot. Sure there's a possibility of cracking the encryption, but ever since DVDs were cracked the media companies have been getting smarter about how to thwart people who want to exercise their legal rights.
It's not at all implausible. The whole foundation behind video security is making sure that every component obeys the DRM. The graphics cards have tamper detection built in. Microsoft put up only minimal resistance against this.
Society today is stratified. How can you deny that? Do you think poor minorities are that way because of genetics? If you grow up in an impoverished neighborhood it is extremely difficult to get out of it. And many neighborhoods are that way because of past racism. We had segregation for a hundred years and slavery before that, the effects of that history have not vanished. We had white-flight that effectively nullified integration. Stratification is all around us. It may not be as bad as it used to be in some places, but it has not vanisehd.
Look at Oakland for example; poor areas comprised mostly of blacks and hispanics, rich people up in the hills mostly white, with some hipsters in the middle raising housing costs. Palo Alto versus East Palo Alto, the place where the professors lived versus the place where the servants lived. Parents with any appreciable amount of money will go into significant debt to move to a neighborhood with decent schools so that they can avoid the failling schools in the poor ethnic areas.
I am not asking for quotas or advocating them. I am asking that people notice when racism and sexism exists, and work to encourage people to break the stereotypes and remove the barriers. That means encouraging minorities to go to school, apply for the scholarships, etc; and encourage girls to enter STEM fields, get dirty, go get the career even if the parents would rather she get married and be a proper wife, etc. None of this steals anything away from you. No one is cutting in front of anyone else. What the phrase "affirmative action" means is the opposite of passive inaction. Of course, some people deny that any problems exist here.
I am not asking that the seat warmers be replaced by seat warmers of a different gender. I'm saying get rid of the seat warmers and replace them with better people. White male mediocre people get the seat warming jobs because they never face any hurdles. No one ever told them that engineering was not an appropriate field for little boys to be interested in. No one ever rolls they eyes and assume they're only in school because of quotas. They never leave their job because of a feeling that they don't belong. People say "let them get the job on their own merits" and yet we have people of low merits getting the jobs. When you see women in computing they are almost always well above average, they're not seat warmers. That's because to get into a STEM career as a woman you need above average motivation.
So maybe there aren't a lot of men in nursing. Well, that's a separate problem and it doesn't mean this problem in engineering doesn't exist. The causes of both are probably similar. Parents want their boys to be manly and nursing isn't considered manly (in the US); parents want their girls to be ladylike and engineering is not considered to be very ladylike.
Objective-C though seemed relegated to a very tiny number of systems. Not as tiny as C# of course. Overall a lot of things start feeling like the 1970s all over again, with each major player having their own language, so choice of favorite language coincides with choice of favorite system. I much prefer cross-system languages.
But women are migrating AWAY from computing. There is no innate bias from genetic here. I remember when there were many more women in engineering, I remember working with them, and I would like that to come back. I hate the modern male-only offices. But I am NOT stealing your job, I am not trying to get you fired in order to hire someone else. All I want is to encourage women to come back to computing, and break down barriers that discourage them.
Once you've divided society into stratified classes you have discrimination. That discrimination does not vanish merely because those in power said they were sorry and promise not to do it again. A declaration of equality does not create equality. So how does it get solved? Do you remain passive so that the historically disadvantaged people remain disadvantaged, or do you try to correct things which results in a few historically advantaged people becoming slightly less advantaged? It's discrimination either way.
Overall, affirmative action helps far more people in very positive ways, but it hurts some people in relatively minor ways. This does not mean a quota system though, it can mean encouraging disadvantaged classes of going to colleges, removing segregation, etc. So some C+ student doesn't get into their first choice of school, big deal (and just roll your eyes a decade later when that person starts accusing others of taken his rightful role).
And opposition to affirmative action is irrelevant to this broader discussion anyway. No one is asking quotas or asking for unqualified people to take positions away from others. Spin around in a circle in any software team and chances are you will see several men who are rather medicore seat warmers. Why protect them against others who are more qualified? Why not get a lot more people into the pipeline who can become engineers, regardless of gender? Why push back against women, why repeat the myth that women aren't good at STEM, and why maintain the stratification that we have?
I don't necessarily think it needs to go. Passive action is the problem, people sitting back and assuming that problems will fix themselves. As in declare that the slaves are free without any followup for one hundred years.
Ada Lovelace gets the role because she was the first "programmer" (male or female) for a hypothetical automatic computation machine. Not for being first female STEM major, or first female scientist, or first feminist, or anything like that. People used to be proud of her for being the first programmer. Being the first tends to be the person that gets remembered.
Ok, her being a "programmer" is slightly dubious, as no such machine existed. But in computer science terms she layed out the abstract framework for programming.
If they do earn it, half their misogynist colleagues will still think they didn't deserve it and are diversity or affirmative action hires. On slashdot it seems that even encouraging girls to pursue STEM fields is wrong headed, like we're supposed to stand back and patiently wait for stereotypes and preconcpetions and barriers to dissolve by themselves.
Yup. Disrupting wi-fi, bluetooth, and zigbee networks should cause inconvenience only, nothing of real value is damaged. Cutting the wires though causes real problems.
The analogy is a bit wrong. The people serving up these ads are not the shop owners usually. Web sites are more like radio stations, they'll broadcast someone else's advertisements in return for a kickback. Except that on the internet there is a massive third party advertising industry; the shop owners don't know how/when/where these ads will show up, and the web sites know or care don't care which products they promote.
This is why it's such a weird article/summary. The web didn't even exist in 1989. The color table has so extremely little relationship to CSS. Plus the majority of Slashdot should have known of X Windows already and have probably seen similar tables of colors for decades. So the article feels vaguely patronizing and/or dumbed down, as if it were a kids program entitled "why do new standards borrow from old standards?"
Candidates can decide to debate each other, but if the networks don't show up then few people hear about them. If a party decides not to use the networks then few people will hear the debates. So there's cooperation and negotiation between the two, and the "rules" are highly flexible and in a state of flux.
I am not sure if the COPD is involved with primary debates, and is especially not involved with non-presidential debates (despite the presidential election being less important tha those of congress or senate).
There's no legal framework for a debate. It's all up to entertainment value and if the networks want to have a debate. Anyone can form their own debate at any time, and hope others show up.
It's why I don't like the party system. The loyalty always seems to be to the party first and country second. The founders didn't really want a system of political parties but end up with one in a very short time.
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reason that you can't just split off the signal and record that when watching a video. The DRM won't run under operating systems that don't implement the proper security to prevent taking a screenshot. Sure there's a possibility of cracking the encryption, but ever since DVDs were cracked the media companies have been getting smarter about how to thwart people who want to exercise their legal rights.
It's not at all implausible. The whole foundation behind video security is making sure that every component obeys the DRM. The graphics cards have tamper detection built in. Microsoft put up only minimal resistance against this.
Society today is stratified. How can you deny that? Do you think poor minorities are that way because of genetics? If you grow up in an impoverished neighborhood it is extremely difficult to get out of it. And many neighborhoods are that way because of past racism. We had segregation for a hundred years and slavery before that, the effects of that history have not vanished. We had white-flight that effectively nullified integration. Stratification is all around us. It may not be as bad as it used to be in some places, but it has not vanisehd.
Look at Oakland for example; poor areas comprised mostly of blacks and hispanics, rich people up in the hills mostly white, with some hipsters in the middle raising housing costs. Palo Alto versus East Palo Alto, the place where the professors lived versus the place where the servants lived. Parents with any appreciable amount of money will go into significant debt to move to a neighborhood with decent schools so that they can avoid the failling schools in the poor ethnic areas.
I am not asking for quotas or advocating them. I am asking that people notice when racism and sexism exists, and work to encourage people to break the stereotypes and remove the barriers. That means encouraging minorities to go to school, apply for the scholarships, etc; and encourage girls to enter STEM fields, get dirty, go get the career even if the parents would rather she get married and be a proper wife, etc. None of this steals anything away from you. No one is cutting in front of anyone else. What the phrase "affirmative action" means is the opposite of passive inaction. Of course, some people deny that any problems exist here.
I am not asking that the seat warmers be replaced by seat warmers of a different gender. I'm saying get rid of the seat warmers and replace them with better people. White male mediocre people get the seat warming jobs because they never face any hurdles. No one ever told them that engineering was not an appropriate field for little boys to be interested in. No one ever rolls they eyes and assume they're only in school because of quotas. They never leave their job because of a feeling that they don't belong. People say "let them get the job on their own merits" and yet we have people of low merits getting the jobs. When you see women in computing they are almost always well above average, they're not seat warmers. That's because to get into a STEM career as a woman you need above average motivation.
So maybe there aren't a lot of men in nursing. Well, that's a separate problem and it doesn't mean this problem in engineering doesn't exist. The causes of both are probably similar. Parents want their boys to be manly and nursing isn't considered manly (in the US); parents want their girls to be ladylike and engineering is not considered to be very ladylike.
With numbers that large, we need to start a War On Sharks.
These are open source of course (Objective-C is a part of GCC too). But practically speaking it will stick to being an Apple specific tool.
Objective-C though seemed relegated to a very tiny number of systems. Not as tiny as C# of course. Overall a lot of things start feeling like the 1970s all over again, with each major player having their own language, so choice of favorite language coincides with choice of favorite system. I much prefer cross-system languages.
But women are migrating AWAY from computing. There is no innate bias from genetic here. I remember when there were many more women in engineering, I remember working with them, and I would like that to come back. I hate the modern male-only offices. But I am NOT stealing your job, I am not trying to get you fired in order to hire someone else. All I want is to encourage women to come back to computing, and break down barriers that discourage them.
Once you've divided society into stratified classes you have discrimination. That discrimination does not vanish merely because those in power said they were sorry and promise not to do it again. A declaration of equality does not create equality. So how does it get solved? Do you remain passive so that the historically disadvantaged people remain disadvantaged, or do you try to correct things which results in a few historically advantaged people becoming slightly less advantaged? It's discrimination either way.
Overall, affirmative action helps far more people in very positive ways, but it hurts some people in relatively minor ways. This does not mean a quota system though, it can mean encouraging disadvantaged classes of going to colleges, removing segregation, etc. So some C+ student doesn't get into their first choice of school, big deal (and just roll your eyes a decade later when that person starts accusing others of taken his rightful role).
And opposition to affirmative action is irrelevant to this broader discussion anyway. No one is asking quotas or asking for unqualified people to take positions away from others. Spin around in a circle in any software team and chances are you will see several men who are rather medicore seat warmers. Why protect them against others who are more qualified? Why not get a lot more people into the pipeline who can become engineers, regardless of gender? Why push back against women, why repeat the myth that women aren't good at STEM, and why maintain the stratification that we have?
I don't necessarily think it needs to go. Passive action is the problem, people sitting back and assuming that problems will fix themselves. As in declare that the slaves are free without any followup for one hundred years.
Ada Lovelace gets the role because she was the first "programmer" (male or female) for a hypothetical automatic computation machine. Not for being first female STEM major, or first female scientist, or first feminist, or anything like that. People used to be proud of her for being the first programmer. Being the first tends to be the person that gets remembered.
Ok, her being a "programmer" is slightly dubious, as no such machine existed. But in computer science terms she layed out the abstract framework for programming.
Worst haiku ever.
If they do earn it, half their misogynist colleagues will still think they didn't deserve it and are diversity or affirmative action hires. On slashdot it seems that even encouraging girls to pursue STEM fields is wrong headed, like we're supposed to stand back and patiently wait for stereotypes and preconcpetions and barriers to dissolve by themselves.
Or maybe people can treat them as equals? Wow, too radical probably.
Yup. Disrupting wi-fi, bluetooth, and zigbee networks should cause inconvenience only, nothing of real value is damaged. Cutting the wires though causes real problems.
The analogy is a bit wrong. The people serving up these ads are not the shop owners usually. Web sites are more like radio stations, they'll broadcast someone else's advertisements in return for a kickback. Except that on the internet there is a massive third party advertising industry; the shop owners don't know how/when/where these ads will show up, and the web sites know or care don't care which products they promote.
And Software Engineering is 75% management science as well.
Remember kids, computers did not exist until Tim Berners Lee invented them so that his browser had somewhere to run.
This is why it's such a weird article/summary. The web didn't even exist in 1989. The color table has so extremely little relationship to CSS. Plus the majority of Slashdot should have known of X Windows already and have probably seen similar tables of colors for decades. So the article feels vaguely patronizing and/or dumbed down, as if it were a kids program entitled "why do new standards borrow from old standards?"
I just spent the last 20 minutes trying to set one on fire. Not worth the effort. Get an iPhone, those things light up good.
Candidates can decide to debate each other, but if the networks don't show up then few people hear about them. If a party decides not to use the networks then few people will hear the debates. So there's cooperation and negotiation between the two, and the "rules" are highly flexible and in a state of flux.
I am not sure if the COPD is involved with primary debates, and is especially not involved with non-presidential debates (despite the presidential election being less important tha those of congress or senate).
There's no legal framework for a debate. It's all up to entertainment value and if the networks want to have a debate. Anyone can form their own debate at any time, and hope others show up.
Didn't she set up this email server because that's what the previous secretary of state did?
You don't seem to understand how politics works.
These colors existed before the web, no? Weren't they the same as in X Windows?
It's why I don't like the party system. The loyalty always seems to be to the party first and country second. The founders didn't really want a system of political parties but end up with one in a very short time.