Political correctness, as practiced, is three things. First, it's a way (often exaggerated) to try to get along with people. Second, it's an excuse for crass people to be rude and offensive (by dismissing any complaints as political correctness). Third, it's a way for right-wingers to blame people to the political left of them. It's no more a way to conform than many other attitudes in the past. For example, it used to be common to assume that women were inferior, to be kept in the home, to be valued largely for their looks, and women driver jokes were rife. That's no better than assuming that women are equal in all things, should not be housewives, with no attention to be paid to her looks or sexuality.
You also suck at describing the world. K-12 education doesn't work the way you claim. There are tendencies, but there have been equally bad tendencies for a long time. I got removed from a classroom for a mathematical insight in the 1960s, back when women were expected to keep carefully up with fashions and be good with makeup, and when men learning to cook was odd.
A good rule of thumb for determining whether some PC buzzword is bullshit or not is to simply re-frame the item as a sports analogy. Would there be outrage if a school were to limit the number of $SOMECLASS on a team to make room for $OTHERCLASS? Probably yes. Would there be outrage if a school simply offered extra practice for $ALLCLASSES with the aim of getting more $OTHERCLASS? Probably not. Would there be outrage if school separated their sports teams so that $OTHERCLASS need not mix with $SOMECLASS? You bet.
If your argument only holds for some intrinsic attribute of humans but not other instrinsics, you're probably in the wrong there, too.
I've got some feedback to point you toward, NotDrWho.
It's a good thing you appear to like feedback. Hope you like receiving it as well...
The style of classroom you describe is used extensively by the University of Oklahoma School of Computer Science after a bunch of research. Several years worth of studies essentially found that the lower performing students in those groups would later take individual exams and score roughly half a letter grade higher than those who didn't work in those group projects... follow up studies attributed this gain mostly to being forced to be in proximity to the already-successful students. The already-successful students ALSO BENEFIT from the system, showing a notable jump in their own individual exam scores, but, more importantly, showing a significant jump in their individual *retention* of information a year later, attributed to not only having to learn the material but attempting to teach the material. The situation is pretty much loathed by the already-successful students, but the data has been repeated year after year that it is better for nearly all the students in the environment, both the top performers and the bottom performers. Moreover, over several years of exposure, a peer pressure effect builds up, and you get more and more students actively participating in the later years.
Right.... if it's so good why don't they do the same for the school sports teams? I propose that schools put this to the test: make sure that any given sports team is not made up of the best. Mix in the lowest and middling performers with the best athlete. Only one top athlete per team.
Careful perusal of those studies display that the control used was not... well... stupidly "controlled". They measured the performance of students who were in mixed-ability groups, and students in solo assignments, but they did not measure the performance of top students who were *not* in mixed-ability groups; i.e. putting all the top students in one group. And that's just *one* problem with the studies you linked to.
Like every other social science study, it is obvious from reading just a few paragraphs of each study to see that they tailored the study to confirm the PC acceptable methods they want to use.
Can we say confirmation bias? I *knew* we could;-)
you're saying you have the right to pollute public spaces with your filth?
Nope. You said that you should be able to do it using your car, but you want to limit anyone else smoking ciggies who will never even come close to the amount of pollution you put out.
Tyrannical, hypocritical and stupid - well, done, you made a hat-trick.
That is an oversimplification. First of all where I live relatively few places ban e-cigs, the few that do ban them is more about people not wanting cloaks of smoke, or nicotine steam, sprewed on them.
But to be honest you do not know what is in the vaps. Are they using the "safe" liquids you can buy at the store, or did they mix their own and have other "unsafe" chemicals in them. You are free to smoke, you are not free to poison me.
You do a lot more poison damage than I do, even where I to smoke 5 packs of ciggies a day. What's that? You want to keep your energy-sucking lifestyle? Yeah, well, I think I'll keep my pack a day.
1. You can buy a new Mac plus iPhone for half that. Replace the iPhone with an iPod Touch or iPad to save a few hundred more. Used devices also work fine.
2. With minor tweaking you can get OS X running in a VM, use XCode's iOS simulator to do most of your development testing, and invite friend(s) with iOS devices to do on-device beta testing.
3. Then again, if you have no interest in owning or using an Apple product, it's probably best you don't develop for the platform.
All nice in theory, but you're working on the assumption that the only motivator to write an app is for commercial gains. If that is indeed your only motivator then you may as well shell out a little and it might pay off.
However a not-insignificant portion of the world's most popular software was created to scratch an itch. On iOS you have to pay if you want to scratch an itch. So, all the other platforms get the scratched-itch software (i.e. found to be genuinely useful and can't-live-without for at least one person, opssibly more) while iOS gets Peace, or Crystal.
No, it is not cleaner.
Especially as all the catches you make are at the wrong place.
You only have to do one catch at one place each.
Okay, maybe you can rewrite that try/catch structure in a way that looks cleaner to you, and show me how? I put it the way that I did because I assumed that each response/exception would be handled differently (in actual ATMs every response is handled explicitly and there are very few, usually none at all, catchall for responses/exceptions).
However my example was perhaps to simple, as putting it into a state machine makes sense, too.
In my usual line of work, predictability and consistency is more important than execution speed or development time, hence usage of a state-machine is pretty popular as it allows a formal proof of the logic independent of the actual code review. Having all the logic paths laid out in a state-machine makes using formal proof a great deal easier.
(Code reviews also get easier when no stack unwinding can ever be performed in the middle of a function and no composite datatype implicitly destroys itself and its fields... but that's a different argument:-))
How many ways are there to allocate memory in C++? I'm starting to lose count.
Um... three? Stack, heap and static?
Everything else is just wrappers around those.
C++ says nothing about stack and heap, only about lifetimes. As OP never asked about variable lifetimes and/or scope your answer is a great example of a non-sequitur.
As far as C++ memory allocation goes, some of ways to allocate an arbitrary memory block/object, regardless of lifetime, is in this post here.
You are at an ATM, you insert your card, the card can not be read: DamagedCardException.
The card can be read and you are asked to enter the code, code is wrong: InvalidCodeException
You enter the code three times wrong: CardSwallowedException
You enter the code correctly and want to withdraw $1000, but the bank does not acknowledge: TransactionNotPossibleException.
NONE of the above exceptions will terminate the ATM software but will return with a hopefully meaningful message to the main menu.
I wouldn't consider any of those to be exceptions; return DamagedCard, InvalidCode, CardSwallowed or TransactionNotPossible (+ TransactionSuccessful). This allows the caller to be a state machine that changes to different states simply by switching on the return value of the function:
while (1) {
state = readCard ();
switch (state) {
case DamagedCard://...
case InvalidCode://...
case CardSwallowed://...
case TransactionNotPossible://...
case TransactionSuccessful://...
}
By classifying non-exceptional conditions as an exceptional out of the ordinary condition you tend to handle it in an ad-hoc way, treating it as an error. All of those conditions above are *not* errors, they are part of the logic for the ATM. Running out of money in an ATM is also not an error. These things should be handled in the state-machine for the main logic so that at least formal methods can be used to verify that the logic has a well-defined flow for every state. Moving logic out of the normal program flow is asking for errors when someone changes something and it is then not apparent by checking the program logic.
I wrote ATM software for a long long time. Nothing was considered an exception - everything (including errors) was simply a signal to move to some other state which would handle the signal properly. Exceptions are most-used and well-loved by non-CS programmers, because it lets you place undocumented local jumps that bypass the documented logic-flow. Exceptions are hated by CS programmers for the same reason.
For C that's a perfectly reasonable use of goto. For C++ you should use unique_ptr or wrap your resource in your own object that you can stack allocate. RAII is a very nice pattern in C++.
So unique_ptr will close open file handles and network connections?
And how long do you think it takes and how many people are involved before the first shovel hits the ground on a major new construction project?
Once you have the land surveyed it takes six months, mostly due to the approval process for construction permit. If the approval process alone did not take 2 months then it would take far far less than six months. Architects are damn quick repurposing an existing mall plan for different geography.
I just don't find enough uses for it to justify the floor or bench space for the machine. In subtractive manufacturing where one takes away material I can work in metal, plastic, and wood. I can cut, plane, sand, shave, drill, tap, or die-cut, and if I pick up one of those tabletop mills, I could mill and otherwise create channels, and these can all be done in three different materials.
The problem is that a cheap 3dPrinter can do shapes which would require 5-DOF CNC. These are very expensive. So you can use only plastic in a 3d printer but you can do very complicated shapes. With a cheaper 3 DOF CNC you can use also wood or metals, but the shapes you can produce will be simpler.
This is a myth perpetuated by the new breed of maker: the hipster arduino connected to a led maker. With a 3-axis mill I can mill a mold for almost any practical shape. Any tool, almost any part, etc.
(BTW: I called this hype correctly more than two years ago on slashdot:-))
Or at least not all of them. The BTC faithful are really uneducated when it comes to money. Many really thought that Bitcoin would just grow forever. I had one confidently tell me that in two year (this was about 2 years ago) it would be worth over $10,000 per Bitcoin and so on.
One? You must be around some pretty smart folk then... 'cos over here on slashdot we've had multiple retards tell us that BTC would be $10k soon - see this person for example.
I've got a ford Mondeo from 2005. I believe it's a european car and NA never got it. It's a pity - over 300000km of road the only non-service repairs were for a coil pack, a r/r brake caliper and a waterpump+thermostat replacement.
This car is still used daily (now by my wife) and other than three stitches in the drivers seat coming loose, worn gearlever knob and wear on the colour of the steering wheel, shows no sign of wear. This car looks the same as it did when it left the factory.
For what ts worth, speculative investors don't agree that Tesla is insignificant. Tesla's Market Cap is in the neighborhood of $33.8 billion whereas GM is $47.5 billion.
Tesla is playing a dangerous game of musical chairs using share dilution to get more money. Sooner or later the music must stop.
I would turn that around and say that 95% of programmers are bad at OO programming, period, regardless of what language they started with.
That's because 95% of written OO solutions don't fit an OO domain. There is this myth that OO is the best we have, but in reality OO is very counter-intuitive to the human brain. Most OO solutions would be better off structured. The human brain handles that much better than OO.
I also don't buy that argument -- otherwise how the hell did Tesla jump start into an already saturated market?
Lots and lots of handouts?
If Apple was smart they would just buy Tesla to save them years of experience.:-)
Just because a company is_currently_ not in an existing market doesn't imply that they won't be hiring people who can lay the foundation.
Impossible? No. Hard? Yes.
The market for cars is not the same as one for fashion accessories. The apple business plan of "high markup on status symbol branding" doesn't really work that well on cars - there's a reason that Fiat owns Ferrari, VW owns Bentley+Porsche+Lamborghini+others, BMW owns Rolls-Royce, etc...
There are too few people who can afford the high-end brands to support that market in cars. With high-end phones people can afford the asking price. With high-end cars even very low interest rate leases puts the car out of the range of 99% of the market.
You have to try and get past the "I don't wanna", sometimes. I was one of those kids who "doesn't like sports". Tried hockey and baseball (hated it), and my parents figured I might enjoy individual sports more than team ones, so they made me try track (liked it but it didn't stick), horseback riding (showjumping and dressage; I kept at that well into my college years) and a few others with varying success. Point is: I would never have tried those if they hadn't made me. Same with computers: if a child doesn't show much interest in programming, perhaps they'll enjoy the more artistic side of web design, or other technical hobbies. Stimulating a child means exposing them to all manner of sports, hobbies and intellectual pastimes. And sometimes it's ok to make them try something, as long as you keep in mind that's it about them, and not about your idea of a perfect childhood or spending Saturdays on the bleachers drinking beers with the other dads at little league. And of course you have to understand your child a little bid, and get good at picking activities they might like.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that you can use it to justify making the kid do any number of stupid things. "How do you know he won't enjoy mining for coal if you won't let him try it? No no no, not just once - it will take at least a month of working in the mines to see if he takes to it."
Maybe patronising and stereotyping women is not the best way to encourage them to read your tech news site...
Maybe not spewing anger and denial at every story about women in tech might be a good start though.
What anger and denial? Asking for a citation when you make the claim "when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing," is what you consider anger and denial?
It sounds pretty basic but when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing,
Now that you've stopped repeating your *other* argument in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary, you go this one? I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on your "a lot of girls say"... citation needed on the survey you think exists.
Wow! The only reason this is happening is because we've managed to fuck things up badly enough over the last two decades that we effectively have boys only computer camps currently.
Do you go full "Dan's Brown's Body" for girls schools as well or do you reserve such an extreme reaction for computer camps?
Why single out computer camps? I'll feel the same repugnance if the girl in question was forced to go to fashion camp. We've spent the better part of the last 30 years convincing girls that they can do anything they want to, and now you expect us to applaud this behaviour?
Slashdot Mirror
Political correctness, as practiced, is three things. First, it's a way (often exaggerated) to try to get along with people. Second, it's an excuse for crass people to be rude and offensive (by dismissing any complaints as political correctness). Third, it's a way for right-wingers to blame people to the political left of them. It's no more a way to conform than many other attitudes in the past. For example, it used to be common to assume that women were inferior, to be kept in the home, to be valued largely for their looks, and women driver jokes were rife. That's no better than assuming that women are equal in all things, should not be housewives, with no attention to be paid to her looks or sexuality.
You also suck at describing the world. K-12 education doesn't work the way you claim. There are tendencies, but there have been equally bad tendencies for a long time. I got removed from a classroom for a mathematical insight in the 1960s, back when women were expected to keep carefully up with fashions and be good with makeup, and when men learning to cook was odd.
A good rule of thumb for determining whether some PC buzzword is bullshit or not is to simply re-frame the item as a sports analogy. Would there be outrage if a school were to limit the number of $SOMECLASS on a team to make room for $OTHERCLASS? Probably yes. Would there be outrage if a school simply offered extra practice for $ALLCLASSES with the aim of getting more $OTHERCLASS? Probably not. Would there be outrage if school separated their sports teams so that $OTHERCLASS need not mix with $SOMECLASS? You bet.
If your argument only holds for some intrinsic attribute of humans but not other instrinsics, you're probably in the wrong there, too.
I've got some feedback to point you toward, NotDrWho.
It's a good thing you appear to like feedback. Hope you like receiving it as well...
The style of classroom you describe is used extensively by the University of Oklahoma School of Computer Science after a bunch of research. Several years worth of studies essentially found that the lower performing students in those groups would later take individual exams and score roughly half a letter grade higher than those who didn't work in those group projects... follow up studies attributed this gain mostly to being forced to be in proximity to the already-successful students. The already-successful students ALSO BENEFIT from the system, showing a notable jump in their own individual exam scores, but, more importantly, showing a significant jump in their individual *retention* of information a year later, attributed to not only having to learn the material but attempting to teach the material. The situation is pretty much loathed by the already-successful students, but the data has been repeated year after year that it is better for nearly all the students in the environment, both the top performers and the bottom performers. Moreover, over several years of exposure, a peer pressure effect builds up, and you get more and more students actively participating in the later years.
Right.... if it's so good why don't they do the same for the school sports teams? I propose that schools put this to the test: make sure that any given sports team is not made up of the best. Mix in the lowest and middling performers with the best athlete. Only one top athlete per team.
If you want to learn more, the term you should Google is "Readiness Assurance Tests"... these are tests that students take twice, once as a group and once as individuals, and your score is the average of the group and the individual. You can also take a look at these links: https://ccistudentcenterblog.w... http://slideplayer.com/slide/4... https://www.ou.edu/idp/teamlea...
Careful perusal of those studies display that the control used was not... well... stupidly "controlled". They measured the performance of students who were in mixed-ability groups, and students in solo assignments, but they did not measure the performance of top students who were *not* in mixed-ability groups; i.e. putting all the top students in one group. And that's just *one* problem with the studies you linked to.
Like every other social science study, it is obvious from reading just a few paragraphs of each study to see that they tailored the study to confirm the PC acceptable methods they want to use.
Can we say confirmation bias? I *knew* we could ;-)
you're saying you have the right to pollute public spaces with your filth?
Nope. You said that you should be able to do it using your car, but you want to limit anyone else smoking ciggies who will never even come close to the amount of pollution you put out.
Tyrannical, hypocritical and stupid - well, done, you made a hat-trick.
That is an oversimplification. First of all where I live relatively few places ban e-cigs, the few that do ban them is more about people not wanting cloaks of smoke, or nicotine steam, sprewed on them.
But to be honest you do not know what is in the vaps. Are they using the "safe" liquids you can buy at the store, or did they mix their own and have other "unsafe" chemicals in them. You are free to smoke, you are not free to poison me.
You do a lot more poison damage than I do, even where I to smoke 5 packs of ciggies a day. What's that? You want to keep your energy-sucking lifestyle? Yeah, well, I think I'll keep my pack a day.
1. You can buy a new Mac plus iPhone for half that. Replace the iPhone with an iPod Touch or iPad to save a few hundred more. Used devices also work fine.
2. With minor tweaking you can get OS X running in a VM, use XCode's iOS simulator to do most of your development testing, and invite friend(s) with iOS devices to do on-device beta testing.
3. Then again, if you have no interest in owning or using an Apple product, it's probably best you don't develop for the platform.
4. http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...
All nice in theory, but you're working on the assumption that the only motivator to write an app is for commercial gains. If that is indeed your only motivator then you may as well shell out a little and it might pay off.
However a not-insignificant portion of the world's most popular software was created to scratch an itch. On iOS you have to pay if you want to scratch an itch. So, all the other platforms get the scratched-itch software (i.e. found to be genuinely useful and can't-live-without for at least one person, opssibly more) while iOS gets Peace, or Crystal.
No, it is not cleaner. Especially as all the catches you make are at the wrong place. You only have to do one catch at one place each.
Okay, maybe you can rewrite that try/catch structure in a way that looks cleaner to you, and show me how? I put it the way that I did because I assumed that each response/exception would be handled differently (in actual ATMs every response is handled explicitly and there are very few, usually none at all, catchall for responses/exceptions).
However my example was perhaps to simple, as putting it into a state machine makes sense, too.
In my usual line of work, predictability and consistency is more important than execution speed or development time, hence usage of a state-machine is pretty popular as it allows a formal proof of the logic independent of the actual code review. Having all the logic paths laid out in a state-machine makes using formal proof a great deal easier.
(Code reviews also get easier when no stack unwinding can ever be performed in the middle of a function and no composite datatype implicitly destroys itself and its fields... but that's a different argument :-))
How many ways are there to allocate memory in C++? I'm starting to lose count.
Um... three? Stack, heap and static?
Everything else is just wrappers around those.
C++ says nothing about stack and heap, only about lifetimes. As OP never asked about variable lifetimes and/or scope your answer is a great example of a non-sequitur.
As far as C++ memory allocation goes, some of ways to allocate an arbitrary memory block/object, regardless of lifetime, is in this post here.
I don't realy get why people write this nonsense.
You are at an ATM, you insert your card, the card can not be read: DamagedCardException.
The card can be read and you are asked to enter the code, code is wrong: InvalidCodeException
You enter the code three times wrong: CardSwallowedException
You enter the code correctly and want to withdraw $1000, but the bank does not acknowledge: TransactionNotPossibleException.
NONE of the above exceptions will terminate the ATM software but will return with a hopefully meaningful message to the main menu.
I wouldn't consider any of those to be exceptions; return DamagedCard, InvalidCode, CardSwallowed or TransactionNotPossible (+ TransactionSuccessful). This allows the caller to be a state machine that changes to different states simply by switching on the return value of the function:
while (1) { //... //... //... //... //...
state = readCard ();
switch (state) {
case DamagedCard:
case InvalidCode:
case CardSwallowed:
case TransactionNotPossible:
case TransactionSuccessful:
}
is a great deal cleaner than
try {
// Handle successful return
// Handle exception
// Handle exception
// Handle exception
// Handle exception
readCard();
} catch (DamagedCardException e ) {
} catch (InvalidCodeException e ) {
} catch (CardSwallowedException e ) {
} catch (TransactionNotPossibleException e ) {
}
By classifying non-exceptional conditions as an exceptional out of the ordinary condition you tend to handle it in an ad-hoc way, treating it as an error. All of those conditions above are *not* errors, they are part of the logic for the ATM. Running out of money in an ATM is also not an error. These things should be handled in the state-machine for the main logic so that at least formal methods can be used to verify that the logic has a well-defined flow for every state. Moving logic out of the normal program flow is asking for errors when someone changes something and it is then not apparent by checking the program logic.
I wrote ATM software for a long long time. Nothing was considered an exception - everything (including errors) was simply a signal to move to some other state which would handle the signal properly. Exceptions are most-used and well-loved by non-CS programmers, because it lets you place undocumented local jumps that bypass the documented logic-flow. Exceptions are hated by CS programmers for the same reason.
For C that's a perfectly reasonable use of goto. For C++ you should use unique_ptr or wrap your resource in your own object that you can stack allocate. RAII is a very nice pattern in C++.
So unique_ptr will close open file handles and network connections?
And how long do you think it takes and how many people are involved before the first shovel hits the ground on a major new construction project?
Once you have the land surveyed it takes six months, mostly due to the approval process for construction permit. If the approval process alone did not take 2 months then it would take far far less than six months. Architects are damn quick repurposing an existing mall plan for different geography.
I just don't find enough uses for it to justify the floor or bench space for the machine. In subtractive manufacturing where one takes away material I can work in metal, plastic, and wood. I can cut, plane, sand, shave, drill, tap, or die-cut, and if I pick up one of those tabletop mills, I could mill and otherwise create channels, and these can all be done in three different materials.
The problem is that a cheap 3dPrinter can do shapes which would require 5-DOF CNC. These are very expensive. So you can use only plastic in a 3d printer but you can do very complicated shapes. With a cheaper 3 DOF CNC you can use also wood or metals, but the shapes you can produce will be simpler.
This is a myth perpetuated by the new breed of maker: the hipster arduino connected to a led maker. With a 3-axis mill I can mill a mold for almost any practical shape. Any tool, almost any part, etc.
(BTW: I called this hype correctly more than two years ago on slashdot :-))
The Mondeo is the Ford Contour in the US (if it's still available).
Two different cars: this is mine (2005 Mondeo) and this is the Contour (last produced in 2000).
Or at least not all of them. The BTC faithful are really uneducated when it comes to money. Many really thought that Bitcoin would just grow forever. I had one confidently tell me that in two year (this was about 2 years ago) it would be worth over $10,000 per Bitcoin and so on.
One? You must be around some pretty smart folk then... 'cos over here on slashdot we've had multiple retards tell us that BTC would be $10k soon - see this person for example.
I've got a ford Mondeo from 2005. I believe it's a european car and NA never got it. It's a pity - over 300000km of road the only non-service repairs were for a coil pack, a r/r brake caliper and a waterpump+thermostat replacement.
This car is still used daily (now by my wife) and other than three stitches in the drivers seat coming loose, worn gearlever knob and wear on the colour of the steering wheel, shows no sign of wear. This car looks the same as it did when it left the factory.
you lost me when you un-neededly brought up race......
But the age was fine, right?
For what ts worth, speculative investors don't agree that Tesla is insignificant. Tesla's Market Cap is in the neighborhood of $33.8 billion whereas GM is $47.5 billion.
Tesla is playing a dangerous game of musical chairs using share dilution to get more money. Sooner or later the music must stop.
I would turn that around and say that 95% of programmers are bad at OO programming, period, regardless of what language they started with.
That's because 95% of written OO solutions don't fit an OO domain. There is this myth that OO is the best we have, but in reality OO is very counter-intuitive to the human brain. Most OO solutions would be better off structured. The human brain handles that much better than OO.
Agreed!
I also don't buy that argument -- otherwise how the hell did Tesla jump start into an already saturated market?
Lots and lots of handouts?
If Apple was smart they would just buy Tesla to save them years of experience. :-)
Just because a company is_currently_ not in an existing market doesn't imply that they won't be hiring people who can lay the foundation.
Impossible? No. Hard? Yes.
The market for cars is not the same as one for fashion accessories. The apple business plan of "high markup on status symbol branding" doesn't really work that well on cars - there's a reason that Fiat owns Ferrari, VW owns Bentley+Porsche+Lamborghini+others, BMW owns Rolls-Royce, etc...
There are too few people who can afford the high-end brands to support that market in cars. With high-end phones people can afford the asking price. With high-end cars even very low interest rate leases puts the car out of the range of 99% of the market.
You have to try and get past the "I don't wanna", sometimes. I was one of those kids who "doesn't like sports". Tried hockey and baseball (hated it), and my parents figured I might enjoy individual sports more than team ones, so they made me try track (liked it but it didn't stick), horseback riding (showjumping and dressage; I kept at that well into my college years) and a few others with varying success. Point is: I would never have tried those if they hadn't made me. Same with computers: if a child doesn't show much interest in programming, perhaps they'll enjoy the more artistic side of web design, or other technical hobbies. Stimulating a child means exposing them to all manner of sports, hobbies and intellectual pastimes. And sometimes it's ok to make them try something, as long as you keep in mind that's it about them, and not about your idea of a perfect childhood or spending Saturdays on the bleachers drinking beers with the other dads at little league. And of course you have to understand your child a little bid, and get good at picking activities they might like.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that you can use it to justify making the kid do any number of stupid things. "How do you know he won't enjoy mining for coal if you won't let him try it? No no no, not just once - it will take at least a month of working in the mines to see if he takes to it."
Maybe patronising and stereotyping women is not the best way to encourage them to read your tech news site...
Maybe not spewing anger and denial at every story about women in tech might be a good start though.
What anger and denial? Asking for a citation when you make the claim "when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing," is what you consider anger and denial?
Who said that computer camps are foolish? I intended to say that overpaying is foolish.
It sounds pretty basic but when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing,
Now that you've stopped repeating your *other* argument in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary, you go this one? I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on your "a lot of girls say"... citation needed on the survey you think exists.
Do you have any evidence that girls are being pushed into CS?
It's in the damn summary, FCOL! Did you not even read the summary?
Wow! The only reason this is happening is because we've managed to fuck things up badly enough over the last two decades that we effectively have boys only computer camps currently. Do you go full "Dan's Brown's Body" for girls schools as well or do you reserve such an extreme reaction for computer camps?
Why single out computer camps? I'll feel the same repugnance if the girl in question was forced to go to fashion camp. We've spent the better part of the last 30 years convincing girls that they can do anything they want to, and now you expect us to applaud this behaviour?
Suddenly this push for segregation makes sense - "Fools and their money..."