As for empirical study, the rates of CS involvement with women closely followed those with men until about the 80s, when the home computer showed up on the scene, and the advert material focused almost exclusively on male demographics.
Prior to the 1980s, the number of women working in computer science was about on par with the male demographic.
What happened, was the introduction of the home computer, which was marketed as a boy's toy. Boys were encouraged to become computer experts early, girls were de-facto conditioned to believe that computing was for boys, and the demographic diverged splendidly.
It isn't that something biological in the female's brain makes them not as intrinsically interested in computers-- it is that culturally, we have conditioned them to stay away from computers.
That, and the "Being social" thing is also heavily reinforced with targeted children's shows.
There's a feedback loop between targeted television, and the biases those shows target. EG-- the marketing notion of "Girls are social! Let's make shows about girls being social, to target girls!" works-- and causes girls to relate being social with being a girl-- reinforcing the marketing ploy.
It is this latter feedback that has had such a negative impact on (female participation in) computer culture since the 80s.
If Google and Disney were REALLY forward thinking, they would depict a future where both males and females are equally proficient at computer science related tasks, and neither gender treats it like "their thing".
But marketing drones are marketing drones, and they gotta not be forward thinking, and instead focused on the next quarter.
I'd say it probably has more to do with equal opportunity laws not being excempted by H1B hire status.
Specifically, gender demographics biting them in the ass in this industry.
(Evil Human Resources Drone #1) "We need more H1Bs to keep wages cheap--- But OMG-- Most of the H1B applicants are male too! That means we have to pass over H1B applicants TOO to meet our new PR demographic split!"
(Evil Human Resources Drone #2) "Hey, I have this great idea! Let's use H1B labor NOW to drive down the wages of IT industry wide-- while simultaneously encouraging local girls to become technology experts! In 10 to 15 years, we will have enough female applicants that we dont have to pass up top talent when we see it because it's the wrong gender, AND wages will ALREADY be in the toilet!"
Exactly-- Most sensors create a voltage or electric pulse signature of some kind.
EG-- an O2 sensor produces a weak voltage signal.
The ones that produce pulse signals (Like a camshaft positioning sensor) are probably not smart to try to fudge past, since they are required for the engine to fire properly.
O2 and other emissions sensors? Easy to bypass. Just put a suitable voltage limiting resistor off the direct power line, and feed it to the sensor input lead. Booya. Engine things it has plenty of oxygen. (Just be sure that you have indeed limited the voltage to the correct value before you plug it in!)
I assume in this case that it was an emissions sensor, like an exhaust sensor, or an O2 sensor, which was causing the engine to mis-regulate fuel or air supply, and killing the engine. Both are easily "cheesed".
soybeans are legumes, and thus do not require the fertilizers used to grow corn.
This radically reduces the energy overhead of the crop. In order to be net energy positive though, a field of soybeans must produce more oil than is used to grow the crop (after all calculated expenses for processing into biodiesel are included)
It's possible this could work with special cultivars I suppose.
Willow bark, and it contains salycilic acid. Acetyl-salycilic acid is a lab-derived compound that is formulated to be better tolerated by the GI tract, as raw salycilic acid can seriously harm the GI tract in large medicinal doses. (as in, stomach ulcers, bleeding, etc.)
The acetyl complex helps control the pH of the complex in solution, and if the aspirin is "Buffered", then additional metallic salts are added to furhter help control pH in the GI tract.
Raw salycilic acid is still used in many topical skin preparations used to treat acne. Oxy is a well known preparation that contains it.
(You can make home-made Oxy with a bottle of witch hazel, some cotton dob cloths, and some crushed aspirin.)
The ACTUAL problem, is that active compound content of herbs is HIGHLY variable.
One valarian rout of equal mass to another valarian root, will contain more (Or less) active compound than the other.
This means to have consisten product, EXTENSIVE, and CONTINUOUS product testing would have to be done to assure correct dosage for the proper treatment of a condition.
That's expensive, and creates liability for when the preparation does not meet the listed dosage of active compound.
It isn't that the compounds in the herbs are not effective-- it is that the efficacy of a certain measurement of herbal preparation cannot be consistently effective.
Synthetic preparations (Like a tylenol), are created under lab conditions. The quantity of active ingredient is tightly controlled, and dosage is easily metered. There are fewer ancilliary compounds in the preparation that can cause upset, and overall the preparations are safer, more reliable, and more potent.
In same cases, I actually think it is a good thing that placebos (Like powdered asparagus) are in the pills instead of actual, properly processed herbal products.
Simpley because it comes from a plant, does not mean it is safe-- which is exactly what this safety evaluation is really all about. (Some house plants are quite toxic!)
Some of the herbs that are "Popular" are downright dangerous when improperly taken, and let's face it-- there isn't exactly a state qualification for herbal remedies that a practitioner can take to help prove their skill and knowledge, and the unregulated nature of the industry means that malpractice is basically consequence free.
There is a growing (and very wrong!) belief that all herbal products are placebos by their very nature, intrinsically. EG, taking some herbal product for mild blood pressure control has less of the effect on the herb, and more of it on the placebo effect. This discounts that some of the herbs used to treat this condition are powerful toxins, and the thereputic doseage can be close to the toxic dosage. For instance, digitalis, (Common foxglove), has been historically used for this very purpose, and has this very problem. I would rather somebody get a capsule full of powdered asparagus, than actual digitalis leaf powder.
Herbals shouldnt be considered "safe", they should be considered "Drugs with a low thereputic value, and high risk", and regulated accordingly.
This is a red-herring, but let's indulge it, shall we?
There is a finite (but growing) number of humans on the planet. Computer Science aims to fill a specific set of needs endemic to human endeavors. The number of actionable applications for computer science education is limited by the set of individuals having needs for that knowledge. This set of individuals is not in unity with the set of all humans. While humans that have needs for ComputerScience applications can have multiple needs per human, they do not have unlimited needs per human. There is only so much computer science work they need done.
This means that even if we look outside the boundry of traditional employee-employer relationships, and into the realm of of the entrepreneur, there is still a finite (but changing) domain in which to ply that art. This is further complicated by the preferences of the individual humans with those needs, selectively excluding groups of potential suppliers that could potentially service those limited needs. Things like PricePoint of the service rendered, additional value-added offerings that come bundled, licensing requirements and restrictions, use case restrictions, and any other exclusionary domains that winnow out the potential opportunities a specific, individual CompSci trained individual would be able (or willing!) to service.
This is the very heart of the zero-sum concept as it relates to economic models, and why having Walmart show up puts mom and pop out of business.
This means that your red-herring does not lead to a non-zero-sum potential, and can be discarded in this conversation. It adds nothing new to the table.
Nice slight of hand there. "Skilled applicant" is not the term used. "Qualified Applicant" is.
A "Qualified Applicant" is an individual who meets a certain restrictive set of metrics that are pre-determined by the employer, BECAUSE THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL APPLICANTS APPLYING IS ASTOUNDINGLY LARGE.
As the number of applicants in total increases, the specificity of "Qualified applicant" will also increase, so that total positions will remain at or just below the number of available positions.
Since we were talking about the set of *ALL APPLICANTS*, and not "Qualified Applicants", your counter-argument is a non-sequitor. It conflates "All applicants" with "All applicants that meet arbitrary %FOO requirements".
For an example close to the heart of this topic, Let's say that 90% of the total applicant pool is male, but the hiring manager has an internal requirement to hire a 50-50 split between male and female employees.
The hiring manager will pass over 9 male applicants for every one female applicant that they can find. To meet their internal hiring requirements to fill all their positions, they MUST exclude 8 out of every 9 male applicants on the qualification of gender alone.
This only compounds when you add in other arbitrary factors, such as "highest secondary education level", or "lingual ability".
The very reason that the term "Qualified Applicant" is used, is because the number of total possible applicants greatly exceeds (By orders of magnitude in some cases) the number of available positions.
At the time of being educated, the "Qualification" part of this does not yet apply--- they aren't even applicants yet. They are training to BECOME applicants.
The number of students that study Computer Science is greater than the number of CompSci job applicants, which is larger than the number of "Qualified Applicants", which is kept artificially below the number of available positions.
You assert that it is not a zero sum game-- I ask you to explain how you can increase classroom sizes without increasing costs, (Since to make the levels equal, you would have to increase classroom sizes by nearly double without reducing the number of male students attending in order to not summarily exclude any that would previously have attended) and how this increase will also magically increase the number of available positions, such that the odds of being considered a "Qualified Applicant" prior to this increase in total applicants produced is not in any way reduced.
Please, explain it to me.
To preempt you going down another dead-end tangent, I will also point out that there is not infinite currency at work in the global marketplace, even with inflation. (Which increases on a mostly steady inflationary model, thus ensuring a constantly finite supply, and finite currency power values.)
There are also finite numbers of humans on the planet that also would come into play, waaaaay down that rabbit hole.
In order for this to NOT be a zero-sum game, there would have to be a disunity from the finite in there somewhere. Either an infinite value, or an undefined value. (Either one value is in an undefined (mathematically) state, so the outcome cannot be computed, or one value somewhere is an infinite quanta, such that net change is meaningless.)
Neither exists in the systems being discussed, as far as I am aware.
Tell me what this magic feature is, please.
Your final statement is a strawman; Shutting down CS education does not improve the situation. There is demand for CS "qualified" applicants. Shutting down CS education would only eliminate all possible applicants. This is irrational. Your assertion that my argument leads here is not rational.
My assertion is that imposing an arbitrary qualification into the potential talent pool before they are even considered for educational possibilities only excludes otherwise possible and even valuable candidates before they even enter the cla
(Due to slashdot's insistence that I not post short, proper poetic lines, I have been forced to jam all the response lines together into paragraphs. This is not by choice. Dice, in it's infinite wisdom, The bringers of Beta, The mobile site, and countless horrible advertisements that play even with the no advertising checkbox filled in-- has decreed that such must be done. If the literazis here have a problem, please address all complaints to Dice Holdings Inc.)
(No chairs were harmed in the making of this production)
I am new, it's not a lie! I am Microsoft's new CEO guy! -That CEO guy, that CEO guy, I do not like that CEO guy!
Do you like windows on the Raspberry Pi? -I do not like it, CEO guy, I do not like windows on my Raspberry Pi!
Would you like it here, or there? -I would not like it here OR there-- I would not like it anywhere! I do not want windows on my Raspberry Pi, I do not like it, CEO guy!
Would you use it in your house? Would you use it with a mouse? -I would not use it in my house, I would not use it with a mouse. I would not use it here nor there, I would not use it anywhere! I do not want windows on my raspberry pi, I do not like it, CEO guy!
Would you use it on your box? Would you use it with FireFox? -Not on my box, Not with the 'Fox! Not in my house, Nor with a mouse! I would not use it here nor there, I would not use it anywhere! I do not want windows on my raspberry pi, I do not like it, CEO guy!
Would you, could you, In your car? Check your Outlook near or far! -I would not, COULD NOT in a car!
You might like it, you will see! This is totally not like Windows RT! -I abhore WindowsRT, Not in a car, Now let me be! I do not want it on my box, I do not want it with FireFox! I do not want it in my house, I will not use it with my mouse! I do not want it here nor there, I do not want it anywhere! I do not want windows on my Raspberry Pi -I do not like it, CEO guy!
A train! A train! A Train! A Train! Would you could you-- On a train!? -Not on a train, Not Like WinRT, Not in a car-- CEO, Let me be! I would not, COULD not, on my box! I would not, COULD not, with firefox! I would not use it with a mouse, I would not use it in my house! I would not use it here or there, I would not use it ANYWHERE! I do not like windows on my raspberry pi, I do not like it, Windows CEO GUY!
Say, In the dark? Would you could you-- in the dark? -I would not, COULD NOT in the dark!
Would you, could you in the rain? -I would not could not in the rain, Not in the dark, Not on a train. Not in my car, Not like WinRT, I do not like it-- CEO you see! Not in my house, Not on my box! Not with a mouse, not with the 'Fox! I would not use it here nor there, I would not use it anywhere!
You do not want windows on the raspberry pi!? -I do not want it, Microsoft CEO guy!
Would you could you-- On a boat? I would not, COULD NOT on a boat!
Woould you could you-- With a GOAT? (dramatic pause, and fishy look) -I would not, could not on a boat; I WILL NOT, WILL NOT WITH A GOAT!(Seriously, slander Microsoft? Really!?) I will not use it in the rain, I will not use it on a train! Not in the dark, not like WinRT, Not in a car--- You! YOU LET ME BE! I do not like it on my box, I do not like it with the 'Fox! I do not want it in my house, I will not use it with my mouse! I will not use it here or there-- I will not use it ANYWHERE! I do not want windows on my Raspberry Pi, I do not want it, Microsoft CEO GUY!
Try it! Try it and you may! Try it and you may I say!
-CEO, If you let me be, I will try it-- You wil see!
- Ughn,, This is terrible! I think I will cry! This is why I dont want windows on my Raspberry Pi! It would be horrible on a boat It would more terrible with a goat! It would short circuit in the rain I not use it in the dark or on a train, Nor in the car, even if its not WinRT! It is so BAD, SO BAD you see!
-I would not use it on my box, I would not use it with the 'Fox. I would not use it in my house, and I would not touch it with my mouse! I will not use it here or there! I would not use it anywhere! I do so Hate windows on my Raspberry Pi!
There are 2 drivers that work with USB to VGA dongles. One is the SISVGA driver, the other is the DisplayLink driver.
This provides a simple framebuffer device to the system that can drive a VGA monitor. You need to custom build your openwrt image to have it turned on though, and to enable the main system console to run on the virtual console hosted by the framebuffer device (And NOT on the physical serial port usually inside most routers.)
Putting a USB2 hub on the lonely USB2.0 port on the back, putting a keyboard, mouse, and USB2VGA dongle on, you can directly hack away on the router. Even without the keyboard and mouse, the framebuffer device can be used to display data about the current status of the router in real time, and other fun things.
The WRT54G was one of the first consumer routers where the maker "Fucked up", and used FOSS software without a license, and then had to release the source code.
As a consequence, it was one of the first devices to attract major community attention, even with all its warts.
Later versions of the device were so horribly underpowered compared to the original hardware release that they just arent worth any effort. Compared to more recent SoC based home routers, they are garbage. (TINY system flash size, abysmally slow CPU. TINY system RAM, etc.)
When shopping for a consumer router, I look for one that is listed in the OpenWRT support list, with the best intersection of price and hardware inside.
Simply because it has a 50$ pricetag does not mean it is the best router. It just means that the manufacturer has set a 50$ MSRP.
Personally, I think one of those tiny "Fitlet" miniPCs that were mentioned earlier this month would make a great home router. They have a mini PCIe slot inside them, have an actual DIMM slot, and a few other perks. Sadly, I cant seem to find a price or retailer.
A home router is little more than a SoC these days. Does not have the robustness that an actual dedicated computer has. What it DOES have is low energy draw, small physical footprint, and "Good for the price" hardware.
Getting some quality software in there, and a little cooling, they can work quite well even under pretty heavy loads. They just aren't data center grade.
They ARE getting some pretty powerful SoC in them though in recent offerings. Some are up to 1.2ghz ARM platforms now. Probably a side effect of the android phone market.
My old WNDR3400 I use for fun projects just has a 400mhz MIPS (Little endian) SoC though. Has a USB2.0 port, which makes it a fun thing to play with all the same though. (It's BARELY enough to put a compatible USBVGA dongle on, and some USB permanent storage.)
If you dont mind taking one apart, it is pretty easy to install the missing cooling inside a home router.
Most have a 3v level based serial connector that can be tapped for driving a fan. Just getting some circulation in there helps immensely.
This has more to do with the manufacturer not wanting any moving parts than it does with poor design though.
I have a WNDR3400 that I use for various fun projects (It's running OpenWRT) that is a few years old now. I have replaced it with a more capable home router some time ago as the main workhorse. However, the logic board that drives that little silly dome light is a +5v system. I have removed the dome completely, removed the logic board with the lights on it, and used the header strip it connected to, to drive a pretty beefy fan. I can drive its little CPU at 100% nonstop and it does not get much above room temp.
If the biggest problem you have is with cooling, stop being a wimp and just drive a fan off the serial console port connector inside. Pretty much all consumer routers have one.
Indeed, but getting the router's DNS table to point to your malicious package when it checks for "Available Updates" works even when the LAN side does the admin through the web UI.
Leaving the WAN side open is just ASKING for trouble.
Routers are an obvious choice to deploy payloads against.
Most are running a hackfest 2.6 era kernel with not-well-vetted hackfest drivers. Most have an autoupdate feature which silently updates the firmware when you log into them from their web interfaces.
With a combination of a DNS hijack, this autoupdater, malicious intent, and a suitable "Upgrade package"-- these routers can be zombified VERY easily.
Once pwned like this, they become willing and capable servants in a botnet.
The hardware isnt all that bad most of the time, it's the shitty horrible firmwares they run.
Frequently, it's an old, horribly butchered hackjob of openwrt under there these days. Something unholy running a 2.6 era kernel, and with drivers with more hacked patches attached than a 4th century beggar's clothes.
Getting that old filth flushed out and replaced with something properly maintained is a GOOD thing. The router (hw wise) itself usually isnt all that bad.
Netgear tends to be a bit better, but overpriced. Belkin can go die in a fire though.
Pure nitrogen is not anywhere near that level of disparity. Also, pure nitrogen does not have the same electrical insulation properties. You could put a tesla coil in a S-F6 atmosphere, and it would not discharge until a VERY significant voltage had been achieved.
This means that even if an electrical failure occurs in the datacenter, sparking would not be a source of secondary ignition.
Pure nitrogen would also be harder to determine when the atmosphere in the datacenter was safe for human respiration. With the S-F6, if you inhale it, it makes you sound like a steroid pusher. You could immediately tell if the atmosphere had not been vented, long before you became woozy and light headed from O2 deprivation.
Unlike CO2, Methane, Water vapor, and several others, Sulfur hexafluoride is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than normal air. Inside an enclosed space, where it wont be diluted through mechanical agitation (wind), it will happily remain pooled.
You know, places like this underground data center.
The reason it has such a high rating is because it is a fully inert fluoride complex. The energy needed to break it down is crazy high. That's kinda important here, because it's used for fire suppression and electrical spark suppression. Normal UV exposure in the atmosphere is enough to break down methane, and plants break down CO2. Weather temperature equilibrium keeps water vapor under control. Something like S-F6 would stay in the atmosphere a VERY VERY long time if just irrationally released. Used properly, it shouldnt escape.
This may or may not be a serious problem, depending on how they designed the data center.
Because it is heavier than air (REALLY heavier than air-- you can float a tinfoil boat on it!), all you need to do to evacuate it is add pressurized normal air above it, and have an openable floor drain reservoir to allow the displaced sulfur hexafluoride to exit through. The normal air will displace the gas.
Additionally, the heaviness of the gas will cause it to stay pooled in the datacenter, meaning you wont have to keep adding gas to the datacenter as often to maintain the low O2 environment.
Additionally, it is "safe" to breathe sulfur hexafluoride. (About as safe as huffing helium)-- it just displaces the oxygen. it does not itself cause any choking or inhalation hazard other than asphyxiation from low O2. It makes your voice very deep sounding.
If done right, "draining" the gas could be an extremely cost effective solution. (When done, open the vents at the top of the datacenter, then just pump the gas back into the room from the reservoir under the floor.)
So, it being heavier than air may or may not be a problem, depending on how they designed the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Ours, Circa 1980.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As for empirical study, the rates of CS involvement with women closely followed those with men until about the 80s, when the home computer showed up on the scene, and the advert material focused almost exclusively on male demographics.
That's what the historical data shows.
Prior to the 1980s, the number of women working in computer science was about on par with the male demographic.
What happened, was the introduction of the home computer, which was marketed as a boy's toy. Boys were encouraged to become computer experts early, girls were de-facto conditioned to believe that computing was for boys, and the demographic diverged splendidly.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...
It isn't that something biological in the female's brain makes them not as intrinsically interested in computers-- it is that culturally, we have conditioned them to stay away from computers.
That, and the "Being social" thing is also heavily reinforced with targeted children's shows.
There's a feedback loop between targeted television, and the biases those shows target. EG-- the marketing notion of "Girls are social! Let's make shows about girls being social, to target girls!" works-- and causes girls to relate being social with being a girl-- reinforcing the marketing ploy.
It is this latter feedback that has had such a negative impact on (female participation in) computer culture since the 80s.
Here's a link to an article done by NPR on the subject.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...
If Google and Disney were REALLY forward thinking, they would depict a future where both males and females are equally proficient at computer science related tasks, and neither gender treats it like "their thing".
But marketing drones are marketing drones, and they gotta not be forward thinking, and instead focused on the next quarter.
I'd say it probably has more to do with equal opportunity laws not being excempted by H1B hire status.
Specifically, gender demographics biting them in the ass in this industry.
(Evil Human Resources Drone #1)
"We need more H1Bs to keep wages cheap--- But OMG-- Most of the H1B applicants are male too! That means we have to pass over H1B applicants TOO to meet our new PR demographic split!"
(Evil Human Resources Drone #2)
"Hey, I have this great idea! Let's use H1B labor NOW to drive down the wages of IT industry wide-- while simultaneously encouraging local girls to become technology experts! In 10 to 15 years, we will have enough female applicants that we dont have to pass up top talent when we see it because it's the wrong gender, AND wages will ALREADY be in the toilet!"
(Evil CEO)
"Brilliant!"
Exactly-- Most sensors create a voltage or electric pulse signature of some kind.
EG-- an O2 sensor produces a weak voltage signal.
The ones that produce pulse signals (Like a camshaft positioning sensor) are probably not smart to try to fudge past, since they are required for the engine to fire properly.
O2 and other emissions sensors? Easy to bypass. Just put a suitable voltage limiting resistor off the direct power line, and feed it to the sensor input lead. Booya. Engine things it has plenty of oxygen. (Just be sure that you have indeed limited the voltage to the correct value before you plug it in!)
I assume in this case that it was an emissions sensor, like an exhaust sensor, or an O2 sensor, which was causing the engine to mis-regulate fuel or air supply, and killing the engine. Both are easily "cheesed".
soybeans are legumes, and thus do not require the fertilizers used to grow corn.
This radically reduces the energy overhead of the crop. In order to be net energy positive though, a field of soybeans must produce more oil than is used to grow the crop (after all calculated expenses for processing into biodiesel are included)
It's possible this could work with special cultivars I suppose.
Willow bark, and it contains salycilic acid. Acetyl-salycilic acid is a lab-derived compound that is formulated to be better tolerated by the GI tract, as raw salycilic acid can seriously harm the GI tract in large medicinal doses. (as in, stomach ulcers, bleeding, etc.)
The acetyl complex helps control the pH of the complex in solution, and if the aspirin is "Buffered", then additional metallic salts are added to furhter help control pH in the GI tract.
Raw salycilic acid is still used in many topical skin preparations used to treat acne. Oxy is a well known preparation that contains it.
(You can make home-made Oxy with a bottle of witch hazel, some cotton dob cloths, and some crushed aspirin.)
The ACTUAL problem, is that active compound content of herbs is HIGHLY variable.
One valarian rout of equal mass to another valarian root, will contain more (Or less) active compound than the other.
This means to have consisten product, EXTENSIVE, and CONTINUOUS product testing would have to be done to assure correct dosage for the proper treatment of a condition.
That's expensive, and creates liability for when the preparation does not meet the listed dosage of active compound.
It isn't that the compounds in the herbs are not effective-- it is that the efficacy of a certain measurement of herbal preparation cannot be consistently effective.
Synthetic preparations (Like a tylenol), are created under lab conditions. The quantity of active ingredient is tightly controlled, and dosage is easily metered. There are fewer ancilliary compounds in the preparation that can cause upset, and overall the preparations are safer, more reliable, and more potent.
In same cases, I actually think it is a good thing that placebos (Like powdered asparagus) are in the pills instead of actual, properly processed herbal products.
Simpley because it comes from a plant, does not mean it is safe-- which is exactly what this safety evaluation is really all about. (Some house plants are quite toxic!)
Some of the herbs that are "Popular" are downright dangerous when improperly taken, and let's face it-- there isn't exactly a state qualification for herbal remedies that a practitioner can take to help prove their skill and knowledge, and the unregulated nature of the industry means that malpractice is basically consequence free.
There is a growing (and very wrong!) belief that all herbal products are placebos by their very nature, intrinsically. EG, taking some herbal product for mild blood pressure control has less of the effect on the herb, and more of it on the placebo effect. This discounts that some of the herbs used to treat this condition are powerful toxins, and the thereputic doseage can be close to the toxic dosage. For instance, digitalis, (Common foxglove), has been historically used for this very purpose, and has this very problem. I would rather somebody get a capsule full of powdered asparagus, than actual digitalis leaf powder.
Herbals shouldnt be considered "safe", they should be considered "Drugs with a low thereputic value, and high risk", and regulated accordingly.
This is a red-herring, but let's indulge it, shall we?
There is a finite (but growing) number of humans on the planet. Computer Science aims to fill a specific set of needs endemic to human endeavors. The number of actionable applications for computer science education is limited by the set of individuals having needs for that knowledge. This set of individuals is not in unity with the set of all humans. While humans that have needs for ComputerScience applications can have multiple needs per human, they do not have unlimited needs per human. There is only so much computer science work they need done.
This means that even if we look outside the boundry of traditional employee-employer relationships, and into the realm of of the entrepreneur, there is still a finite (but changing) domain in which to ply that art. This is further complicated by the preferences of the individual humans with those needs, selectively excluding groups of potential suppliers that could potentially service those limited needs. Things like PricePoint of the service rendered, additional value-added offerings that come bundled, licensing requirements and restrictions, use case restrictions, and any other exclusionary domains that winnow out the potential opportunities a specific, individual CompSci trained individual would be able (or willing!) to service.
This is the very heart of the zero-sum concept as it relates to economic models, and why having Walmart show up puts mom and pop out of business.
This means that your red-herring does not lead to a non-zero-sum potential, and can be discarded in this conversation. It adds nothing new to the table.
Holy Strawman batman! He's moving the goalpost!
Nice slight of hand there. "Skilled applicant" is not the term used. "Qualified Applicant" is.
A "Qualified Applicant" is an individual who meets a certain restrictive set of metrics that are pre-determined by the employer, BECAUSE THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL APPLICANTS APPLYING IS ASTOUNDINGLY LARGE.
As the number of applicants in total increases, the specificity of "Qualified applicant" will also increase, so that total positions will remain at or just below the number of available positions.
Since we were talking about the set of *ALL APPLICANTS*, and not "Qualified Applicants", your counter-argument is a non-sequitor. It conflates "All applicants" with "All applicants that meet arbitrary %FOO requirements".
For an example close to the heart of this topic, Let's say that 90% of the total applicant pool is male, but the hiring manager has an internal requirement to hire a 50-50 split between male and female employees.
The hiring manager will pass over 9 male applicants for every one female applicant that they can find. To meet their internal hiring requirements to fill all their positions, they MUST exclude 8 out of every 9 male applicants on the qualification of gender alone.
This only compounds when you add in other arbitrary factors, such as "highest secondary education level", or "lingual ability".
The very reason that the term "Qualified Applicant" is used, is because the number of total possible applicants greatly exceeds (By orders of magnitude in some cases) the number of available positions.
At the time of being educated, the "Qualification" part of this does not yet apply--- they aren't even applicants yet. They are training to BECOME applicants.
The number of students that study Computer Science is greater than the number of CompSci job applicants, which is larger than the number of "Qualified Applicants", which is kept artificially below the number of available positions.
You assert that it is not a zero sum game-- I ask you to explain how you can increase classroom sizes without increasing costs, (Since to make the levels equal, you would have to increase classroom sizes by nearly double without reducing the number of male students attending in order to not summarily exclude any that would previously have attended) and how this increase will also magically increase the number of available positions, such that the odds of being considered a "Qualified Applicant" prior to this increase in total applicants produced is not in any way reduced.
Please, explain it to me.
To preempt you going down another dead-end tangent, I will also point out that there is not infinite currency at work in the global marketplace, even with inflation. (Which increases on a mostly steady inflationary model, thus ensuring a constantly finite supply, and finite currency power values.)
There are also finite numbers of humans on the planet that also would come into play, waaaaay down that rabbit hole.
In order for this to NOT be a zero-sum game, there would have to be a disunity from the finite in there somewhere. Either an infinite value, or an undefined value. (Either one value is in an undefined (mathematically) state, so the outcome cannot be computed, or one value somewhere is an infinite quanta, such that net change is meaningless.)
Neither exists in the systems being discussed, as far as I am aware.
Tell me what this magic feature is, please.
Your final statement is a strawman; Shutting down CS education does not improve the situation. There is demand for CS "qualified" applicants. Shutting down CS education would only eliminate all possible applicants. This is irrational. Your assertion that my argument leads here is not rational.
My assertion is that imposing an arbitrary qualification into the potential talent pool before they are even considered for educational possibilities only excludes otherwise possible and even valuable candidates before they even enter the cla
So, you are saying that an employer can hire infinite employees?
All instances of this are competative markets for a finite resource-- the job openings available-- and there are not infinite numbers of employers.
This combination of finite openings with finite employers means, without question, that there are finite possible successes per unit of time.
Or do you somehow ascribe that people can wait infinite amounts of time to land one of these finite opportunities?
If you think that, might I introduce you to the "No work for 6 months == we wont hire you" mainstream policy?
At every level besides a rhetorical one, your argument lacks substance.
(Due to slashdot's insistence that I not post short, proper poetic lines, I have been forced to jam all the response lines together into paragraphs. This is not by choice. Dice, in it's infinite wisdom, The bringers of Beta, The mobile site, and countless horrible advertisements that play even with the no advertising checkbox filled in-- has decreed that such must be done. If the literazis here have a problem, please address all complaints to Dice Holdings Inc.)
(No chairs were harmed in the making of this production)
I am new, it's not a lie!
I am Microsoft's new CEO guy!
-That CEO guy, that CEO guy, I do not like that CEO guy!
Do you like windows on the Raspberry Pi?
-I do not like it, CEO guy, I do not like windows on my Raspberry Pi!
Would you like it here, or there?
-I would not like it here OR there-- I would not like it anywhere! I do not want windows on my Raspberry Pi, I do not like it, CEO guy!
Would you use it in your house? Would you use it with a mouse?
-I would not use it in my house, I would not use it with a mouse. I would not use it here nor there, I would not use it anywhere! I do not want windows on my raspberry pi, I do not like it, CEO guy!
Would you use it on your box? Would you use it with FireFox?
-Not on my box, Not with the 'Fox! Not in my house, Nor with a mouse! I would not use it here nor there, I would not use it anywhere! I do not want windows on my raspberry pi, I do not like it, CEO guy!
Would you, could you, In your car? Check your Outlook near or far!
-I would not, COULD NOT in a car!
You might like it, you will see! This is totally not like Windows RT!
-I abhore WindowsRT, Not in a car, Now let me be! I do not want it on my box, I do not want it with FireFox! I do not want it in my house, I will not use it with my mouse! I do not want it here nor there, I do not want it anywhere! I do not want windows on my Raspberry Pi
-I do not like it, CEO guy!
A train! A train! A Train! A Train! Would you could you-- On a train!?
-Not on a train, Not Like WinRT, Not in a car-- CEO, Let me be! I would not, COULD not, on my box! I would not, COULD not, with firefox! I would not use it with a mouse, I would not use it in my house! I would not use it here or there, I would not use it ANYWHERE! I do not like windows on my raspberry pi, I do not like it, Windows CEO GUY!
Say, In the dark? Would you could you-- in the dark?
-I would not, COULD NOT in the dark!
Would you, could you in the rain?
-I would not could not in the rain, Not in the dark, Not on a train. Not in my car, Not like WinRT, I do not like it-- CEO you see! Not in my house, Not on my box! Not with a mouse, not with the 'Fox! I would not use it here nor there, I would not use it anywhere!
You do not want windows on the raspberry pi!?
-I do not want it, Microsoft CEO guy!
Would you could you-- On a boat?
I would not, COULD NOT on a boat!
Woould you could you-- With a GOAT?
(dramatic pause, and fishy look)
-I would not, could not on a boat; I WILL NOT, WILL NOT WITH A GOAT!(Seriously, slander Microsoft? Really!?) I will not use it in the rain, I will not use it on a train! Not in the dark, not like WinRT, Not in a car--- You! YOU LET ME BE! I do not like it on my box, I do not like it with the 'Fox! I do not want it in my house, I will not use it with my mouse! I will not use it here or there-- I will not use it ANYWHERE! I do not want windows on my Raspberry Pi, I do not want it, Microsoft CEO GUY!
Try it! Try it and you may! Try it and you may I say!
-CEO, If you let me be, I will try it-- You wil see!
- Ughn,, This is terrible! I think I will cry! This is why I dont want windows on my Raspberry Pi! It would be horrible on a boat It would more terrible with a goat! It would short circuit in the rain I not use it in the dark or on a train, Nor in the car, even if its not WinRT! It is so BAD, SO BAD you see!
-I would not use it on my box, I would not use it with the 'Fox. I would not use it in my house, and I would not touch it with my mouse! I will not use it here or there! I would not use it anywhere! I do so Hate windows on my Raspberry Pi!
-Screw you, Screw you, CEO guy!
... Wait, WHAT?
AC, you DO realize that the obama administration KEPT most of bush's tax cuts, AND INCREASED SPENDING.
You DO know this, right?
No, that would be a magnetic klein bottle trap.
Why?
Don't bother the scientists, they are doing "Good work" in all fields unorientable.
If it is supported, YES.
There are 2 drivers that work with USB to VGA dongles. One is the SISVGA driver, the other is the DisplayLink driver.
This provides a simple framebuffer device to the system that can drive a VGA monitor. You need to custom build your openwrt image to have it turned on though, and to enable the main system console to run on the virtual console hosted by the framebuffer device (And NOT on the physical serial port usually inside most routers.)
Here's a blog detailing the process for getting the displaylink driver working.
Putting a USB2 hub on the lonely USB2.0 port on the back, putting a keyboard, mouse, and USB2VGA dongle on, you can directly hack away on the router. Even without the keyboard and mouse, the framebuffer device can be used to display data about the current status of the router in real time, and other fun things.
The WRT54G was one of the first consumer routers where the maker "Fucked up", and used FOSS software without a license, and then had to release the source code.
As a consequence, it was one of the first devices to attract major community attention, even with all its warts.
Later versions of the device were so horribly underpowered compared to the original hardware release that they just arent worth any effort. Compared to more recent SoC based home routers, they are garbage. (TINY system flash size, abysmally slow CPU. TINY system RAM, etc.)
When shopping for a consumer router, I look for one that is listed in the OpenWRT support list, with the best intersection of price and hardware inside.
Simply because it has a 50$ pricetag does not mean it is the best router. It just means that the manufacturer has set a 50$ MSRP.
Personally, I think one of those tiny "Fitlet" miniPCs that were mentioned earlier this month would make a great home router. They have a mini PCIe slot inside them, have an actual DIMM slot, and a few other perks. Sadly, I cant seem to find a price or retailer.
Yeah-- I was meaning "good for the price"
A home router is little more than a SoC these days. Does not have the robustness that an actual dedicated computer has. What it DOES have is low energy draw, small physical footprint, and "Good for the price" hardware.
Getting some quality software in there, and a little cooling, they can work quite well even under pretty heavy loads. They just aren't data center grade.
They ARE getting some pretty powerful SoC in them though in recent offerings. Some are up to 1.2ghz ARM platforms now. Probably a side effect of the android phone market.
My old WNDR3400 I use for fun projects just has a 400mhz MIPS (Little endian) SoC though. Has a USB2.0 port, which makes it a fun thing to play with all the same though. (It's BARELY enough to put a compatible USBVGA dongle on, and some USB permanent storage.)
If you dont mind taking one apart, it is pretty easy to install the missing cooling inside a home router.
Most have a 3v level based serial connector that can be tapped for driving a fan. Just getting some circulation in there helps immensely.
This has more to do with the manufacturer not wanting any moving parts than it does with poor design though.
I have a WNDR3400 that I use for various fun projects (It's running OpenWRT) that is a few years old now. I have replaced it with a more capable home router some time ago as the main workhorse. However, the logic board that drives that little silly dome light is a +5v system. I have removed the dome completely, removed the logic board with the lights on it, and used the header strip it connected to, to drive a pretty beefy fan. I can drive its little CPU at 100% nonstop and it does not get much above room temp.
If the biggest problem you have is with cooling, stop being a wimp and just drive a fan off the serial console port connector inside. Pretty much all consumer routers have one.
Indeed, but getting the router's DNS table to point to your malicious package when it checks for "Available Updates" works even when the LAN side does the admin through the web UI.
Leaving the WAN side open is just ASKING for trouble.
Routers are an obvious choice to deploy payloads against.
Most are running a hackfest 2.6 era kernel with not-well-vetted hackfest drivers. Most have an autoupdate feature which silently updates the firmware when you log into them from their web interfaces.
With a combination of a DNS hijack, this autoupdater, malicious intent, and a suitable "Upgrade package"-- these routers can be zombified VERY easily.
Once pwned like this, they become willing and capable servants in a botnet.
The hardware isnt all that bad most of the time, it's the shitty horrible firmwares they run.
Frequently, it's an old, horribly butchered hackjob of openwrt under there these days. Something unholy running a 2.6 era kernel, and with drivers with more hacked patches attached than a 4th century beggar's clothes.
Getting that old filth flushed out and replaced with something properly maintained is a GOOD thing. The router (hw wise) itself usually isnt all that bad.
Netgear tends to be a bit better, but overpriced. Belkin can go die in a fire though.
S-F6 is 6x heavier than normal air.
Pure nitrogen is not anywhere near that level of disparity. Also, pure nitrogen does not have the same electrical insulation properties. You could put a tesla coil in a S-F6 atmosphere, and it would not discharge until a VERY significant voltage had been achieved.
This means that even if an electrical failure occurs in the datacenter, sparking would not be a source of secondary ignition.
Pure nitrogen would also be harder to determine when the atmosphere in the datacenter was safe for human respiration. With the S-F6, if you inhale it, it makes you sound like a steroid pusher. You could immediately tell if the atmosphere had not been vented, long before you became woozy and light headed from O2 deprivation.
Of course it is. So is water vapor.
Unlike CO2, Methane, Water vapor, and several others, Sulfur hexafluoride is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than normal air. Inside an enclosed space, where it wont be diluted through mechanical agitation (wind), it will happily remain pooled.
You know, places like this underground data center.
The reason it has such a high rating is because it is a fully inert fluoride complex. The energy needed to break it down is crazy high. That's kinda important here, because it's used for fire suppression and electrical spark suppression. Normal UV exposure in the atmosphere is enough to break down methane, and plants break down CO2. Weather temperature equilibrium keeps water vapor under control. Something like S-F6 would stay in the atmosphere a VERY VERY long time if just irrationally released. Used properly, it shouldnt escape.
This may or may not be a serious problem, depending on how they designed the data center.
Because it is heavier than air (REALLY heavier than air-- you can float a tinfoil boat on it!), all you need to do to evacuate it is add pressurized normal air above it, and have an openable floor drain reservoir to allow the displaced sulfur hexafluoride to exit through. The normal air will displace the gas.
Additionally, the heaviness of the gas will cause it to stay pooled in the datacenter, meaning you wont have to keep adding gas to the datacenter as often to maintain the low O2 environment.
Additionally, it is "safe" to breathe sulfur hexafluoride. (About as safe as huffing helium)-- it just displaces the oxygen. it does not itself cause any choking or inhalation hazard other than asphyxiation from low O2. It makes your voice very deep sounding.
If done right, "draining" the gas could be an extremely cost effective solution. (When done, open the vents at the top of the datacenter, then just pump the gas back into the room from the reservoir under the floor.)
So, it being heavier than air may or may not be a problem, depending on how they designed the system.