The laws being broken are from around the world. This is a bigger problem than the tiny diesel market int he US. These changes are in autos sold in several countries.
Agreed - but does it make them more guilty than the bosses or less guilty? Because if they do find these engineers, you know they're going to be much more likely to face jail time than the bosses. You gotta have a scapegoat. With most legal systems it is very difficult to prove criminal intent, conspiracies to defraud are very difficult to prove, but knowing who wrote the code changes makes it easy to prosecute.
These people don't care. It's more important to them to be able to have jackrabbit starts when the light turns green than to worry about hypothetical pollution.
There needs to be motivation to cheat. What do a couple of engineers gain here? If their managers up the chain know about it then at least there's a chance for a bonus. But keeping it closed to just a few low level engineers is pointless. The only think they could do is perhaps let it take hold and then later extort money from VW to keep quiet about it.
It's utterly impossible for a couple of engineers to do this by themselves anyway. No engineer even has the motivation to do this, as the engineers their pay is only marginally affected by how well the autos sell. If a couple engineers made this change then many people within VW are going to notice. You can't keep this type of conspiracy secret without an immense amount of effort, which is pointless effort if you have no motivation in the first place. QA will notice this. The people paying attention to the emissions, who are most definitely not the engineers who are mucking with software, will notice. The managers setting performance goals will notice.
What's more plausible, some mid and upper level managers saying "we've made some performance improvements, measure this and see how it goes" and getting away with it, or a couple of software engineers saying "we managed to get rid of our NOX problems with some code changes, so try this firmware update and see how it goes" and getting away with it?
Real literature is not allowed to be enjoyable. Sad, but it seems like the literature community is chock full of extreme bigots. Witness the nasty attack by the British self appointed art snob who claimed Pratchett was an awful writer while admiting clearly that he had never read any Pratchett. It was clearly meant to be click bait, provide ad revenue from all the outraged fans who kept retweeting the article. But it still presented what I think is wrong with the thinking of a certain strata of intellectuals: if it's popular it must be bad. And the irony is that some of the literature he cited was originally considered popular fiction by the literati of the time. Dickens, Austen, etc.
Even if bald face lies they are the oral report from someone who was there. That's what happens when you interview someone, you get a mixture of truth and lies and misremembered events. If you're going to accuse someone of being a liar, don't accuse the interviewer.
These are completely different awards given by committees from different fields belonging to different academies which come from different countries altogether. The only commonality is with the name and the original foundation money.
Also, this is a prize for literature, not a prize for journalism. Literature is mostly fiction. Similarly, the Peace prize often involved politics, and politics is mostly fiction. So where's the surprise?
However this is at a time when a lot of younger women are not concerned much about feminism anymore and don't think it applies to them. So these whiners do a service by proving that misogyny is still alive and well.
Well then we disagree. I see a difference between "game" and "sport". You can have money at stake and a significant number of people willing to pay to support it without it being a sport - ie, poker is not a sport in my view. Backstabbing in the office would be considered a sport by that definition. On the other hand, you have have little or no money at stake and few people willing to support it and it's still a sport - Calvin Ball.
There are things offiicially categorized as a sport by lovers of that sport, but which I don't think are really sports (or games). To me, a sport needs some amount of physical exertion or exercise and should be a physical activity; thus chess doesn't count in my view, despite some official people calling it a sport. Bass fishing isn't a sport to me because it's minimally physical, but hunting could be because there's typically some amount of hiking involved (and still stretching the definition).
For an eSport, I'd like to see it done like biathlons. Run a mile, play an FPS for ten minutes, run another mile, play the deathmatch level, run another mile, do a jumping puzzle without falling, race to the finish line.
We had the case not too long ago where the US did not allow exporting of certain encryption technologies. So business would actually use weak encryption with known vulnerabilities. Not quite plain text but pretty bad. Good encryption is of vital importance to commerce.
But almost all the bosses I've had fit your description. They're external liasons. They spend the interminable time in the meetings, they filter out the requests from the bigwigs. In fact some of the most important things they did was dealing with interpersonal conflicts on the team, because all teams have some amount of dysfunction.
Once you have a league and rules, you have the ability to have a competition across schools. That does not make it a sport. Chess is not a sport. Bridge is not a sport. Even at the world Scrabble tournament they do not call it a sport.
If you play chess, you join the chess club. You can even have competitions with other schools. But it's not a sport and it's not sponsored by the athletics competition and no one was inane enough to invent the word "cSports". What's wrong with being "an official club" as opposed to "an official club sport"?
But then again, fox hunting is considered a sport even when you're guaranteed a kill.
I used to jog a lot. I NEVER got a runners high. There was no second wind either. Every minute was difficult, and it got more difficult with every passing minute, and the only way to keep going was either to become numb (ie, like those who stumble over the finish line in a daze) or just keep repeating "one more step" over and over. The only high was when it was over you were elated that you could stop.
But I do think some people get this high. But being humans, they are prone to assuming that everyone else in the world should be exactly like them. Thus if they hear when someone doesn't have a runners high the first instinct is to think the other person must be doing it wrong. Keep at it a few more months they'll say, then you'll be hooked for life. Or they'll apologize and say the first two years are the hardest but it gets better.
Sounds like you have a major chip on your shoulder if you think people who just want to get women back into computing, where they used to be well represented, are a major evil in the world. Maybe you should just assume that a few people went overboard instead of treating this as a massive conspiracy so that you need to post "I hate SJWs" every time a post shows up on slashdot that has a woman mentioned in it. Instead of pointing out some absuses when occur, these anti-SJW nuts end up starting a flame war every time someone asks "how come there aren't more women in $X" and they spend a whole lot of their existence googling for mentions of certain women so that they can continue to inject their hate in any thread with those names.
You example is pointless. It is not proof of conspiracy, it is not proof that you're being oppressed. All it proves is that you have difficulty with keeping things in perspective.
Hmm, privilege status means you get accepted in the community without even a blink just because you're white male. No one suggests that you may have taken a wrong turn in the hallway, no one mistakenly thinks you're the janitor, your parents never said "oh computing, maybe you should rethink that choice", you never had to be better than average just to be accepted as average, no one assumes that you must be the affirmative action guy.
There were maybe 5 people discussing the non-issue or journalistic ethics (all over a lie, the two never slept together). But 50,000 people were discussing the bigger issues about misogyny. Yet those original 5 people were in the background plaintively squeaking "don't change the subject, doxxing is a side issue".
This makes sense though. The average programmer is.. well, average. Programmers aren't only the best, but there are a lot of average and mediocre and even awfuls in there. But there are few barriers to men becoming programmers; maybe a few parents out there discourage little Jimmy from being an engineer because they want him to be a doctor. But no one ever had their masculinity questioned for considering computing as a career. So the average Joe who can't really decide on a major may choose computer science, why not? They graduate with mediocre grades, then get a mediocre job programming or in IT. But the guy who's really great at computing, who really loves the whole concept, gets a better job.
But then with girls there are a lot more barriers. In the last few decades computing has become stereotyped as a job for men (it wasn't always this way). Parents tell their girls that there are more appropriate jobs for women, why not consider being a nurse, or secretary/admin, or if you seem to like computers then maybe the help desk. The average girl takes the hints. In college deciding upon a major all the peers repeat the message; computers are for boys, and the boys in that department are dorks anyway. So the average girl decides on a different major. So the girl already has to be well above average to go into computing to start with. And they do exist.
So what you end up with is a few good men in computing, a few good women, a whole lot of mediocre men, and very few mediocre women. So yes, the crappy coders are going to predominantly be men.
Now this is where it may sound strange - I think we need more mediocre women in computing! People make arguments all over in slashdot about "let women be accepted into the community by the quality of their code". But I think this is incorrect. We already accept men with shitty code into computing. You know this because you work with them, you've done the code reviews. There are people in every field that seem to have chosen the wrong career path. If you look at the accounting or HR departments, you see a mixture of average men and average women both. So if men can be slackers in computing then women should be able to be slackers in computing too!
Yes, many men are such troglodytes. Just witness gamergate. Or notice that everytime there's an slashdot story with women in it that so many posts end up being about SJWs screwing things up for men. And that's just the lighter side of misogyny.
"Like to see"? You've never worked with females programmers or engineers? Females used to fill a sizeable chunk of the computing support and programming positions. They occupied a lot of the seats in the CS classes. It was not at all rare. They did NOT gravitate to different professions. I am utterly amazed that someone today has never worked with women in these professions. And amazed that people do not think this is a problem and that it's natural. This is not about girls playing with dolls and boys playing with guns (stupid stereotypes that they are) but about a damn job. The majority of world deals with jobs they don't like; most male IT staff seem to hate their job and many male programmers treat it as just a 9 to 5 job.
I remember going through a long spell of not finding any competent programmers who could do more than just tie together libraries, and then finally a candidate came along that was not only good but really great. And she was female, and continued to do great. I do think when there's a barrier that people who overcome that tend to be much more motivated than average. So if there are barriers or speed bumps or even subtle discouragement for women that those who really want to be in the field do end up being better than the average guy whose parents pushed him into the field. There are subtle signals to girls starting from a very young age; not just the dolls vs guns thing, but that girls should be social but boys should be aggressive, that "math is hard" according to Barbie, think about a husband first and job second, it's not ladylike to tell boys that they're wrong, etc. In other words, the barriers aren't HR departments refusing to hire a certain type of person, but instead a lot of subtle nudges as one grows up.
Consider why more men aren't nurses. It's because as boys grow up they are told what's manly and what isn't, and if you're not manly you must be queer (and you're told this years before you even know what the word even means and you learn to fear it anyway). If you say you want to help sick people when you grow up, they parents say "oh good, my son wants to be a doctor" and "oh good, my daughter wants to be a nurse". The same subtle nudges that move boys one way and girls the other. When we did have more women in computing it was before computing got stereotyped as a job for men.
So why when someone talks about getting more women into open source coding - a *voluntary* hobby - people start thinking it's about a quota system or forcing people to do something they don't like doing? What is this fear these people have against women? Why would anyone be opposed to encouraging girls in school to consider computer science or other technical fields when they get to college?
Slashdot Mirror
The laws being broken are from around the world. This is a bigger problem than the tiny diesel market int he US. These changes are in autos sold in several countries.
Agreed - but does it make them more guilty than the bosses or less guilty? Because if they do find these engineers, you know they're going to be much more likely to face jail time than the bosses. You gotta have a scapegoat. With most legal systems it is very difficult to prove criminal intent, conspiracies to defraud are very difficult to prove, but knowing who wrote the code changes makes it easy to prosecute.
These people don't care. It's more important to them to be able to have jackrabbit starts when the light turns green than to worry about hypothetical pollution.
There needs to be motivation to cheat. What do a couple of engineers gain here? If their managers up the chain know about it then at least there's a chance for a bonus. But keeping it closed to just a few low level engineers is pointless. The only think they could do is perhaps let it take hold and then later extort money from VW to keep quiet about it.
It's utterly impossible for a couple of engineers to do this by themselves anyway. No engineer even has the motivation to do this, as the engineers their pay is only marginally affected by how well the autos sell. If a couple engineers made this change then many people within VW are going to notice. You can't keep this type of conspiracy secret without an immense amount of effort, which is pointless effort if you have no motivation in the first place. QA will notice this. The people paying attention to the emissions, who are most definitely not the engineers who are mucking with software, will notice. The managers setting performance goals will notice.
What's more plausible, some mid and upper level managers saying "we've made some performance improvements, measure this and see how it goes" and getting away with it, or a couple of software engineers saying "we managed to get rid of our NOX problems with some code changes, so try this firmware update and see how it goes" and getting away with it?
Real literature is not allowed to be enjoyable. Sad, but it seems like the literature community is chock full of extreme bigots. Witness the nasty attack by the British self appointed art snob who claimed Pratchett was an awful writer while admiting clearly that he had never read any Pratchett. It was clearly meant to be click bait, provide ad revenue from all the outraged fans who kept retweeting the article. But it still presented what I think is wrong with the thinking of a certain strata of intellectuals: if it's popular it must be bad. And the irony is that some of the literature he cited was originally considered popular fiction by the literati of the time. Dickens, Austen, etc.
Even if bald face lies they are the oral report from someone who was there. That's what happens when you interview someone, you get a mixture of truth and lies and misremembered events. If you're going to accuse someone of being a liar, don't accuse the interviewer.
These are completely different awards given by committees from different fields belonging to different academies which come from different countries altogether. The only commonality is with the name and the original foundation money.
Also, this is a prize for literature, not a prize for journalism. Literature is mostly fiction. Similarly, the Peace prize often involved politics, and politics is mostly fiction. So where's the surprise?
However this is at a time when a lot of younger women are not concerned much about feminism anymore and don't think it applies to them. So these whiners do a service by proving that misogyny is still alive and well.
Well then we disagree. I see a difference between "game" and "sport".
You can have money at stake and a significant number of people willing to pay to support it without it being a sport - ie, poker is not a sport in my view. Backstabbing in the office would be considered a sport by that definition.
On the other hand, you have have little or no money at stake and few people willing to support it and it's still a sport - Calvin Ball.
There are things offiicially categorized as a sport by lovers of that sport, but which I don't think are really sports (or games). To me, a sport needs some amount of physical exertion or exercise and should be a physical activity; thus chess doesn't count in my view, despite some official people calling it a sport. Bass fishing isn't a sport to me because it's minimally physical, but hunting could be because there's typically some amount of hiking involved (and still stretching the definition).
For an eSport, I'd like to see it done like biathlons. Run a mile, play an FPS for ten minutes, run another mile, play the deathmatch level, run another mile, do a jumping puzzle without falling, race to the finish line.
We had the case not too long ago where the US did not allow exporting of certain encryption technologies. So business would actually use weak encryption with known vulnerabilities. Not quite plain text but pretty bad. Good encryption is of vital importance to commerce.
Did it work?
But almost all the bosses I've had fit your description. They're external liasons. They spend the interminable time in the meetings, they filter out the requests from the bigwigs. In fact some of the most important things they did was dealing with interpersonal conflicts on the team, because all teams have some amount of dysfunction.
Once you have a league and rules, you have the ability to have a competition across schools. That does not make it a sport. Chess is not a sport. Bridge is not a sport. Even at the world Scrabble tournament they do not call it a sport.
We do care, because it makes nerds look stupid. We're just trying to point out that not all of us are a part of the crazy.
If you play chess, you join the chess club. You can even have competitions with other schools. But it's not a sport and it's not sponsored by the athletics competition and no one was inane enough to invent the word "cSports". What's wrong with being "an official club" as opposed to "an official club sport"?
But then again, fox hunting is considered a sport even when you're guaranteed a kill.
I used to jog a lot. I NEVER got a runners high. There was no second wind either. Every minute was difficult, and it got more difficult with every passing minute, and the only way to keep going was either to become numb (ie, like those who stumble over the finish line in a daze) or just keep repeating "one more step" over and over. The only high was when it was over you were elated that you could stop.
But I do think some people get this high. But being humans, they are prone to assuming that everyone else in the world should be exactly like them. Thus if they hear when someone doesn't have a runners high the first instinct is to think the other person must be doing it wrong. Keep at it a few more months they'll say, then you'll be hooked for life. Or they'll apologize and say the first two years are the hardest but it gets better.
Sounds like you have a major chip on your shoulder if you think people who just want to get women back into computing, where they used to be well represented, are a major evil in the world. Maybe you should just assume that a few people went overboard instead of treating this as a massive conspiracy so that you need to post "I hate SJWs" every time a post shows up on slashdot that has a woman mentioned in it. Instead of pointing out some absuses when occur, these anti-SJW nuts end up starting a flame war every time someone asks "how come there aren't more women in $X" and they spend a whole lot of their existence googling for mentions of certain women so that they can continue to inject their hate in any thread with those names.
You example is pointless. It is not proof of conspiracy, it is not proof that you're being oppressed. All it proves is that you have difficulty with keeping things in perspective.
Hmm, privilege status means you get accepted in the community without even a blink just because you're white male. No one suggests that you may have taken a wrong turn in the hallway, no one mistakenly thinks you're the janitor, your parents never said "oh computing, maybe you should rethink that choice", you never had to be better than average just to be accepted as average, no one assumes that you must be the affirmative action guy.
There were maybe 5 people discussing the non-issue or journalistic ethics (all over a lie, the two never slept together). But 50,000 people were discussing the bigger issues about misogyny. Yet those original 5 people were in the background plaintively squeaking "don't change the subject, doxxing is a side issue".
This makes sense though. The average programmer is.. well, average. Programmers aren't only the best, but there are a lot of average and mediocre and even awfuls in there. But there are few barriers to men becoming programmers; maybe a few parents out there discourage little Jimmy from being an engineer because they want him to be a doctor. But no one ever had their masculinity questioned for considering computing as a career. So the average Joe who can't really decide on a major may choose computer science, why not? They graduate with mediocre grades, then get a mediocre job programming or in IT. But the guy who's really great at computing, who really loves the whole concept, gets a better job.
But then with girls there are a lot more barriers. In the last few decades computing has become stereotyped as a job for men (it wasn't always this way). Parents tell their girls that there are more appropriate jobs for women, why not consider being a nurse, or secretary/admin, or if you seem to like computers then maybe the help desk. The average girl takes the hints. In college deciding upon a major all the peers repeat the message; computers are for boys, and the boys in that department are dorks anyway. So the average girl decides on a different major. So the girl already has to be well above average to go into computing to start with. And they do exist.
So what you end up with is a few good men in computing, a few good women, a whole lot of mediocre men, and very few mediocre women. So yes, the crappy coders are going to predominantly be men.
Now this is where it may sound strange - I think we need more mediocre women in computing! People make arguments all over in slashdot about "let women be accepted into the community by the quality of their code". But I think this is incorrect. We already accept men with shitty code into computing. You know this because you work with them, you've done the code reviews. There are people in every field that seem to have chosen the wrong career path. If you look at the accounting or HR departments, you see a mixture of average men and average women both. So if men can be slackers in computing then women should be able to be slackers in computing too!
So why not? Why do you discourage people from encouraging women to go into open source?
Yes, many men are such troglodytes. Just witness gamergate. Or notice that everytime there's an slashdot story with women in it that so many posts end up being about SJWs screwing things up for men. And that's just the lighter side of misogyny.
"Like to see"? You've never worked with females programmers or engineers? Females used to fill a sizeable chunk of the computing support and programming positions. They occupied a lot of the seats in the CS classes. It was not at all rare. They did NOT gravitate to different professions. I am utterly amazed that someone today has never worked with women in these professions. And amazed that people do not think this is a problem and that it's natural. This is not about girls playing with dolls and boys playing with guns (stupid stereotypes that they are) but about a damn job. The majority of world deals with jobs they don't like; most male IT staff seem to hate their job and many male programmers treat it as just a 9 to 5 job.
I remember going through a long spell of not finding any competent programmers who could do more than just tie together libraries, and then finally a candidate came along that was not only good but really great. And she was female, and continued to do great. I do think when there's a barrier that people who overcome that tend to be much more motivated than average. So if there are barriers or speed bumps or even subtle discouragement for women that those who really want to be in the field do end up being better than the average guy whose parents pushed him into the field. There are subtle signals to girls starting from a very young age; not just the dolls vs guns thing, but that girls should be social but boys should be aggressive, that "math is hard" according to Barbie, think about a husband first and job second, it's not ladylike to tell boys that they're wrong, etc. In other words, the barriers aren't HR departments refusing to hire a certain type of person, but instead a lot of subtle nudges as one grows up.
Consider why more men aren't nurses. It's because as boys grow up they are told what's manly and what isn't, and if you're not manly you must be queer (and you're told this years before you even know what the word even means and you learn to fear it anyway). If you say you want to help sick people when you grow up, they parents say "oh good, my son wants to be a doctor" and "oh good, my daughter wants to be a nurse". The same subtle nudges that move boys one way and girls the other. When we did have more women in computing it was before computing got stereotyped as a job for men.
So why when someone talks about getting more women into open source coding - a *voluntary* hobby - people start thinking it's about a quota system or forcing people to do something they don't like doing? What is this fear these people have against women? Why would anyone be opposed to encouraging girls in school to consider computer science or other technical fields when they get to college?
Except I've seen that dickish guy being the manager, and HR never willing to push back because he's buddies with founders.