People complain when there's fragmentation, people complain when there's an effort to prevent it.
The platform is still open, but Google's services and ownership of the Play store is not. You can make an Android phone, fork it and do whatever you want, but if you want to run it on the Play store and Google Maps, whatever, you have to agree to the rules. Those rules, by the way, do a hell of alot to standardise and make the platform stable for developers.
Some people won't be happy until everything is completely gratis and uncontrolled, and we'll end up with the same mess we had with Symbian.
Fair enough, at least for the 'no forking' stipulation, but the whole requirement to pre-install all google apps if one only wants access to, say, the Play Store? And the mandatory submission of *very* granular sales data? How, exactly, do these stipulations contribute to platform stability?
Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions were resolved through a Consent Decree that took effect in 2001 and a Final Judgment entered in 2002. These proceedings imposed various constraints on our Windows operating system businesses. These constraints include limits on certain contracting practices, mandated disclosure of certain software program interfaces and protocols, and rights for computer manufacturers to limit the visibility of certain Windows features in new PCs. We believe we are in full compliance with these rules. However, if we fail to comply with them, additional restrictions could be imposed on us that would adversely affect our business.
So, here we see MS originally taking the hard-line approach, then being forced to allow vendors to 'bury' Windows-specific features in favor of their own offerings. True, most new Windows PCs still ship with IE pre-installed and ready to go, but it's no longer up to MS to dictate that it shall be so.
Android syncs all your contacts with your google account anyway.
Android can sync all your contacts with your Google account, if you allow it to. Sorry, I just don't trust Google that far. My email contacts are my email contacts, and my phone contacts are my phone contacts. I do not see a pressing need to combine the two, since they are very different use cases.
There is no foldersync for iphones.... what are you really using?
Sorry, that was a bit unclear:)
We just used some sort of file manager app from Apple to download the backed up files from the FTP site to her new iPhone. My point was that FolderSync kept those files up to date for her on her Galaxy, so when her phone got smashed, she didn't lose anything...she figures maybe the last week or so of texts was missing, but no contacts (backed up weekly, courtesy of SuperBackup and FolderSync) and no photos that she could remember (backed up nightly, only FolderSync required). I don't think she bothered restoring the call history:)
And, an anecdote in support of the tech-challenged: I installed FolderSync on a friend's Galaxy for her, and when she 'upgraded' to apple (bah, but I must agree more suited to her), we restored her contacts, photos, etc right up to the day before she got her new iPhone...she said she never really noticed it running, but it had everything neatly backed up for her nonetheless.
Statistically speaking, Android has more than 1.1M apps to Windows Phone's 200,000+
Thanks for clarifying how you were speaking, or I would have no idea how to compare those two numbers!
I do not think that word means what they think it means...how is comparing two absolute numbers 'statistcally speaking'? That's not even enough data for a proper bell curve...
Perhaps what they really meant was 'comparatively speaking'?:)
I'd look at the FolderSync app, ~$3. It supports a huge number of backend connection types including FTP/SFTP, SMB/CIFS and WebDAV to cover most of your local server needs. It also covers most of the major and many minor cloud storage providers. You can set it up to sync only on specified wifi networks, to sync on schedules or when files change, etc.
There's also a "lite" version, which only allows 2 accounts, no Tasker support and no sync filters (which I've never fiddled with anyway, so may not be that important).
Came here specifically to recommend this one too, so +1.
Have been using it, in conjunction with SuperBackup* to back up photos, contacts, texts, calendars, etc. to personal FTP storage for years, and it looks like it'll support a network share drive as a backup site (haven't tested that yet). It's a bit resource intensive on first run (naturally), but once it's caught up it's light and unintrusive...and it just works. One of the nicer features is that you can specify whether to wait until you're plugged in to sync, so you're much less likely to wind up with a dead phone after taking a bunch of photos at an event (not an issue, I guess, if you only sync to network drives at home...)
* Superbackup also has a lite version that's ad-supported, so you can try before you buy.
on the classic slashdot homepage you see replies in the top right corner, but I did not see this in beta. Did they move it or am I missing something? your help is appreciated because this is the most important feature for me.
Yeah, that is...er, was one of the more useful features, I agree. And unfortunately (at least with IE8), the entire right sidebar has disappeared: doesn't seem to matter if I'm logged in or not.
I understand that IE8 is pretty ancient (first released in 2009, last stable release in 2011...so it's, like, so three years ago, y'know?), but exactly what sort of voodoo site design are they using that three-year-old browsers can't even see all of the site elements? Sure, their purported userbase (nerds) generally have access to the latest shiny, but they are just as likely to prefer the old but reliable-for-their-needs software (vim, anyone?)
Seriously no button to Post as Anonymous Coward. What the fucking fuckity fuck?
Try no login at all...yes, I'm using IE8 (stuck with it at work, don't ask), but still.
No login, no options to switch to 'classic view' because none of the fancy new menus show up...at least if I log in via the classic site, posts on the beta site are identified (as you said though, with no 'post anon' option), but as soon as the classic site goes away for good, I'm hooped. And yeah, the flow and readability is a joke on the new site, and an especially bad one at that with IE8...
Guess my coffee breaks will get boring...:( Or, I suppose, I could actually go out and talk to ppl...hmmm...naah.
Don't mind me, just test-posting, to see if I even can in beta using IE8. No way to actually log in on the new beta site, so not sure if this post will be anon or not (logged in via classic site first).
Don't hate the playah, hate the game...but who could possibly hate Jeopardy??
I've always wondered why more contestants didn't go for the big value questions first, since the last two rows account for 60% of the board value (not counting daily doubles). Sure, it's nice to 'warm up' to a subject, but if you happen to get a couple of them cold, it's a huge advantage, and if nobody answers them, then at least they're off the table. Sounds brilliant to me...
Of course, that only works if your opponents either don't know the answer or can't come up with it in time, and that's what it sounds like he's generating with his rapid column-hopping. Keeping your opponents off balance is a viable strategy, so nothing to see here, folks, move along...
You know for all of the SI-wits on this site, you think they would at least take advantage of it...
4,000 megawatts == 4 gigawatts.
There, doesn't that convey the same value, but with 4 less characters needed?
If you're going to beat everyone over their heads with it, at least use the FUCKING thing..or does 4,000 of something sound much more impressive than 4 of something?
Injits.
Or they could have claimed it was...4 million kilowatts.
This is only relevant if you're using google drive on a computer that would see to store files locally, surely ?
Um, I thought that's what they're talking about here? A standalone, small form factor PC running Chrome which would (presumably) come with a Google Drive client preinstalled?
I suppose you could uninstall the Google Drive client from the unit and only use the 'free' storage manually via the web interface, but that kinda defeats one of the basic benefits of using Google Drive instead of just using a cheap remote FTP storage service...
Hah, unless Google fixes their bandwidth greedy sync engine for Google Drive, offering free storage is not much of an incentive...unless the people who buy it have not actually tried to use GD before, I suppose.
Not if this technology actually delivers and makes the workforce more efficient--even if it's through dehumanizing total control. Your hippy dippy startup won't be able to compete.
So while you're giving extravagant perks to your employees such as unmetered bathroom breaks and letting them skip their quarterly non-work related conversation log review, your competitors are brutalizing their employees and reaping the rewards associated with turning human beings into pliable, docile, terrified, machines.
The worst thing about fascism is that it can actually deliver; as long as you don't get side tracked by useless and expensive crusades of ethnic cleansing or territorial expansion.
Perhaps business could be improved by advertising that your emloyees are free-range and/or organic? Seems to work pretty good for the egg industry...
I kid, but it occurs to me that I do buy free-range eggs and meat (forget whoreganic, I consider it a useless and near-criminally inefficient practice), precisely because I don't want to support the practices of typical non-free-range farms...so maybe such advertising would be effective after all?
I may not be the most objective viewpoint, since the maths and sciences were easily my top courses, and the ones I enjoyed the most. I, personally, had no problem understanding curriculum materials as written (except social studies, I don't know how anyone ever gets that...), so I never experienced this 'problem'.
Perhaps the bigger issue is: why do we figure that all men are the same, and all women are the same? I don't agree with the "feminist mathematician curriculum theorists", since I have not experienced such difficulties, but then one has to look at the statistics. What I question is: are the statistics the way they are because of inherent physical differences in learning, or learned behaviours towards learning?
I was lucky in that I was encouraged all my life to learn and told that I could do anything I wanted, but not everyone had such a supportive framework. For example, I took Industrial Arts because it was much more interesting to me than Home Economics, and while I got teased for my choice at school, I had learned enough self-confidence by then to not let that affect my choice or performance. Every child is different, and what you learn in the earliest years doesn't usually come out of a book.
On the serious side, though, I would like to point out that there are some professions that are gender-biased for no good physiological cause. Women as nurses, flight attendants or hairstylists, for example, or men as engineers, surgeons or STEM trades. These divisions have been established due to cultural biases, not physical ones, and sometimes those biases are the more subtly influential of the two.
I don't think you're going to resolve a nature/nurture debate just by asserting "nurture!"
So to be clear, are you asserting that men are just naturally worse than women at being nurses, flight attendants and hairstylists? What, are their hands too big?
It's been demonstrated that both men and women are fully able to perform at high levels in a broad variety of fields, given equal access to and interest in those fields. It's the 'interest in' part that tends to be curtailed by societal pressures, even as the 'access to' barriers are being challenged and overcome. Just as it takes a strong man to go into nursing or esthetics, it takes an equally strong woman to go into computer science or engineering.
"Women can do just as much mental heavy lifting as men."
Bullshit because if they could, they would. I think it's pretty naïve to think that while nature made fairly substantially different hardware for substantially different purposes that it loaded exactly the same control software because it got lazy all of a sudden. Now maybe women can perform mental heavy lifting of a different sort but honestly, when they talk about patriarchy, when they talk about barriers to entry that they (for lack of understanding) call "bias," what they really mean is "our brain processes don't fit into these fields created and run by male thought processes." The proof to the fallacy of your statement is your statement needing to be made in the first place. Women can't do as much (male type) mental heavy lifting as men because if they could they would and if they were, they wouldn't be complaining about the difficulty of competing in male intellectual endeavors. The "bias" they perceive is the bias of the square peg not fitting in the round hole.
Classic example of confirmation bias. It is *precisely* attitudes like these that present the 'bias' that you openly scorn. "If they could they would, but you simply can't darling, so try to find some nice steno work and leave us men to do all the thinking, mm'kay? Or better yet, go have some babies, because you know your biological clock is ticking away...here, let me help you with that, I have a couple of minutes before my next meeting..."
You can't tell me that a manager who carries your type of attitude is not going to be more critical of female employees than male ones, and more resistant to promoting them or acknowledging their achievements on par with their male counterparts. If acknowledgement does come, it's more in line with "oh wow, that's very good work for a girl! Good job!" Yeah, screw that. Perhaps your mental hole needs a dremel.
Yes, it's true. Some professions are dominated by men, some by women. Nature made it that way. People should be allowed to go into whatever profession they desire without being hindered by some asshole with a sexist complex (of either gender). If they can't cut it, they should be let go like anyone else without screaming "discrimination".
That said, I think more men should be allowed to go backstage to compete at lingerie shows,
Oh honey, you and me both! Nuthin' sexier than a man in a g-string and baby doll, strutting down the catwalk...mmmm...
On the serious side, though, I would like to point out that there are some professions that are gender-biased for no good physiological cause. Women as nurses, flight attendants or hairstylists, for example, or men as engineers, surgeons or STEM trades. These divisions have been established due to cultural biases, not physical ones, and sometimes those biases are the more subtly influential of the two.
So STEM means "I taught myself some coding and computer repair" now?
Duh no need no education...
FTFA:
After four years of school, a couple of internships, and at my present position, I can still count on my hands the number of women that have worked with me in cybersecurity and digital investigation combined.
And your credentials are...? Sounds pretty reasonable for a 21yo to me...
Also, why is it that usually intelligent, erudite men often* turn into troglodytes as soon as they find out the person they've been discussing technical topics with is female? Are we that threatening to your sense of self-worth? I can (kind of) understand being concerned about women in some more physical occupation, since without rigorous strength training the average woman generally can't bring the same sheer physical strength to the table as the average man (and I'm talking averages here, not ectomorphic men or mesomorphic women), but in STEM trades there are no such concerns. Women can do just as much mental heavy lifting as men...all it takes is a love for the field, and to kick out the 'show us yer titz' bullies.
* Often, but certainly not always. There just seems to be a higher proportion of perpetual juveniles in the STEM fields...although I suppose that perception could be due to sampling bias
Slashdot Mirror
People complain when there's fragmentation, people complain when there's an effort to prevent it.
The platform is still open, but Google's services and ownership of the Play store is not. You can make an Android phone, fork it and do whatever you want, but if you want to run it on the Play store and Google Maps, whatever, you have to agree to the rules. Those rules, by the way, do a hell of alot to standardise and make the platform stable for developers.
Some people won't be happy until everything is completely gratis and uncontrolled, and we'll end up with the same mess we had with Symbian.
Fair enough, at least for the 'no forking' stipulation, but the whole requirement to pre-install all google apps if one only wants access to, say, the Play Store? And the mandatory submission of *very* granular sales data? How, exactly, do these stipulations contribute to platform stability?
I fail to see how it is different from the whole hullabaloo with Microsoft and Internet Explorer, the outcome of which was:
Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions were resolved through a Consent Decree that took effect in 2001 and a Final Judgment entered in 2002. These proceedings imposed various constraints on our Windows operating system businesses. These constraints include limits on certain contracting practices, mandated disclosure of certain software program interfaces and protocols, and rights for computer manufacturers to limit the visibility of certain Windows features in new PCs. We believe we are in full compliance with these rules. However, if we fail to comply with them, additional restrictions could be imposed on us that would adversely affect our business.
So, here we see MS originally taking the hard-line approach, then being forced to allow vendors to 'bury' Windows-specific features in favor of their own offerings. True, most new Windows PCs still ship with IE pre-installed and ready to go, but it's no longer up to MS to dictate that it shall be so.
They're open as in the design, not open as in your mom's legs.
How droll. Witty repartee aside, would you care to explain exactly how mandatory design and operating restrictions make this an 'open' design?
Basically, Google is saying that nobody gets to place restrictions on their toys...except them, of course.
"Open"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
A giant dildo. Yes, I would know.
Quit bragging.
"Zombie Rabbit On The Moon!" :p
Android syncs all your contacts with your google account anyway.
Android can sync all your contacts with your Google account, if you allow it to. Sorry, I just don't trust Google that far. My email contacts are my email contacts, and my phone contacts are my phone contacts. I do not see a pressing need to combine the two, since they are very different use cases.
There is no foldersync for iphones .... what are you really using?
Sorry, that was a bit unclear :)
We just used some sort of file manager app from Apple to download the backed up files from the FTP site to her new iPhone. My point was that FolderSync kept those files up to date for her on her Galaxy, so when her phone got smashed, she didn't lose anything...she figures maybe the last week or so of texts was missing, but no contacts (backed up weekly, courtesy of SuperBackup and FolderSync) and no photos that she could remember (backed up nightly, only FolderSync required). I don't think she bothered restoring the call history :)
Once again, companies try to prevent competition through legislation ... and apparently some lawmakers aren't above giving it to them.
No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't free...
And, an anecdote in support of the tech-challenged: I installed FolderSync on a friend's Galaxy for her, and when she 'upgraded' to apple (bah, but I must agree more suited to her), we restored her contacts, photos, etc right up to the day before she got her new iPhone...she said she never really noticed it running, but it had everything neatly backed up for her nonetheless.
Statistically speaking, Android has more than 1.1M apps to Windows Phone's 200,000+
Thanks for clarifying how you were speaking, or I would have no idea how to compare those two numbers!
I do not think that word means what they think it means...how is comparing two absolute numbers 'statistcally speaking'? That's not even enough data for a proper bell curve...
Perhaps what they really meant was 'comparatively speaking'? :)
I'd look at the FolderSync app, ~$3. It supports a huge number of backend connection types including FTP/SFTP, SMB/CIFS and WebDAV to cover most of your local server needs. It also covers most of the major and many minor cloud storage providers. You can set it up to sync only on specified wifi networks, to sync on schedules or when files change, etc.
There's also a "lite" version, which only allows 2 accounts, no Tasker support and no sync filters (which I've never fiddled with anyway, so may not be that important).
Came here specifically to recommend this one too, so +1.
Have been using it, in conjunction with SuperBackup* to back up photos, contacts, texts, calendars, etc. to personal FTP storage for years, and it looks like it'll support a network share drive as a backup site (haven't tested that yet). It's a bit resource intensive on first run (naturally), but once it's caught up it's light and unintrusive...and it just works. One of the nicer features is that you can specify whether to wait until you're plugged in to sync, so you're much less likely to wind up with a dead phone after taking a bunch of photos at an event (not an issue, I guess, if you only sync to network drives at home...)
* Superbackup also has a lite version that's ad-supported, so you can try before you buy.
on the classic slashdot homepage you see replies in the top right corner, but I did not see this in beta. Did they move it or am I missing something? your help is appreciated because this is the most important feature for me.
Yeah, that is...er, was one of the more useful features, I agree. And unfortunately (at least with IE8), the entire right sidebar has disappeared: doesn't seem to matter if I'm logged in or not.
I understand that IE8 is pretty ancient (first released in 2009, last stable release in 2011...so it's, like, so three years ago, y'know?), but exactly what sort of voodoo site design are they using that three-year-old browsers can't even see all of the site elements? Sure, their purported userbase (nerds) generally have access to the latest shiny, but they are just as likely to prefer the old but reliable-for-their-needs software (vim, anyone?)
Seriously no button to Post as Anonymous Coward. What the fucking fuckity fuck?
Try no login at all...yes, I'm using IE8 (stuck with it at work, don't ask), but still.
No login, no options to switch to 'classic view' because none of the fancy new menus show up...at least if I log in via the classic site, posts on the beta site are identified (as you said though, with no 'post anon' option), but as soon as the classic site goes away for good, I'm hooped. And yeah, the flow and readability is a joke on the new site, and an especially bad one at that with IE8...
Guess my coffee breaks will get boring... :( Or, I suppose, I could actually go out and talk to ppl...hmmm...naah.
Don't mind me, just test-posting, to see if I even can in beta using IE8. No way to actually log in on the new beta site, so not sure if this post will be anon or not (logged in via classic site first).
italics
bold
This is a quote
Don't hate the playah, hate the game...but who could possibly hate Jeopardy??
I've always wondered why more contestants didn't go for the big value questions first, since the last two rows account for 60% of the board value (not counting daily doubles). Sure, it's nice to 'warm up' to a subject, but if you happen to get a couple of them cold, it's a huge advantage, and if nobody answers them, then at least they're off the table. Sounds brilliant to me...
Of course, that only works if your opponents either don't know the answer or can't come up with it in time, and that's what it sounds like he's generating with his rapid column-hopping. Keeping your opponents off balance is a viable strategy, so nothing to see here, folks, move along...
You know for all of the SI-wits on this site, you think they would at least take advantage of it...
4,000 megawatts == 4 gigawatts.
There, doesn't that convey the same value, but with 4 less characters needed?
If you're going to beat everyone over their heads with it, at least use the FUCKING thing..or does 4,000 of something sound much more impressive than 4 of something?
Injits.
Or they could have claimed it was...4 million kilowatts.
Even more impressive: 5,361,930 HP!
This is only relevant if you're using google drive on a computer that would see to store files locally, surely ?
Um, I thought that's what they're talking about here? A standalone, small form factor PC running Chrome which would (presumably) come with a Google Drive client preinstalled?
I suppose you could uninstall the Google Drive client from the unit and only use the 'free' storage manually via the web interface, but that kinda defeats one of the basic benefits of using Google Drive instead of just using a cheap remote FTP storage service...
Hah, unless Google fixes their bandwidth greedy sync engine for Google Drive, offering free storage is not much of an incentive...unless the people who buy it have not actually tried to use GD before, I suppose.
Not if this technology actually delivers and makes the workforce more efficient--even if it's through dehumanizing total control. Your hippy dippy startup won't be able to compete.
So while you're giving extravagant perks to your employees such as unmetered bathroom breaks and letting them skip their quarterly non-work related conversation log review, your competitors are brutalizing their employees and reaping the rewards associated with turning human beings into pliable, docile, terrified, machines.
The worst thing about fascism is that it can actually deliver; as long as you don't get side tracked by useless and expensive crusades of ethnic cleansing or territorial expansion.
Perhaps business could be improved by advertising that your emloyees are free-range and/or organic? Seems to work pretty good for the egg industry...
I kid, but it occurs to me that I do buy free-range eggs and meat (forget whoreganic, I consider it a useless and near-criminally inefficient practice), precisely because I don't want to support the practices of typical non-free-range farms...so maybe such advertising would be effective after all?
I would like to know CSEC would get from YVR WiFi. It is so slow that it is useless except for slow surfing on internet web pages.
It's so slow because they're too busy vacuuming the data off of your device, perhaps?
I may not be the most objective viewpoint, since the maths and sciences were easily my top courses, and the ones I enjoyed the most. I, personally, had no problem understanding curriculum materials as written (except social studies, I don't know how anyone ever gets that...), so I never experienced this 'problem'.
Perhaps the bigger issue is: why do we figure that all men are the same, and all women are the same? I don't agree with the "feminist mathematician curriculum theorists", since I have not experienced such difficulties, but then one has to look at the statistics. What I question is: are the statistics the way they are because of inherent physical differences in learning, or learned behaviours towards learning?
I was lucky in that I was encouraged all my life to learn and told that I could do anything I wanted, but not everyone had such a supportive framework. For example, I took Industrial Arts because it was much more interesting to me than Home Economics, and while I got teased for my choice at school, I had learned enough self-confidence by then to not let that affect my choice or performance. Every child is different, and what you learn in the earliest years doesn't usually come out of a book.
I don't think you're going to resolve a nature/nurture debate just by asserting "nurture!"
So to be clear, are you asserting that men are just naturally worse than women at being nurses, flight attendants and hairstylists? What, are their hands too big?
It's been demonstrated that both men and women are fully able to perform at high levels in a broad variety of fields, given equal access to and interest in those fields. It's the 'interest in' part that tends to be curtailed by societal pressures, even as the 'access to' barriers are being challenged and overcome. Just as it takes a strong man to go into nursing or esthetics, it takes an equally strong woman to go into computer science or engineering.
"Women can do just as much mental heavy lifting as men."
Bullshit because if they could, they would. I think it's pretty naïve to think that while nature made fairly substantially different hardware for substantially different purposes that it loaded exactly the same control software because it got lazy all of a sudden. Now maybe women can perform mental heavy lifting of a different sort but honestly, when they talk about patriarchy, when they talk about barriers to entry that they (for lack of understanding) call "bias," what they really mean is "our brain processes don't fit into these fields created and run by male thought processes." The proof to the fallacy of your statement is your statement needing to be made in the first place. Women can't do as much (male type) mental heavy lifting as men because if they could they would and if they were, they wouldn't be complaining about the difficulty of competing in male intellectual endeavors. The "bias" they perceive is the bias of the square peg not fitting in the round hole.
Classic example of confirmation bias. It is *precisely* attitudes like these that present the 'bias' that you openly scorn. "If they could they would, but you simply can't darling, so try to find some nice steno work and leave us men to do all the thinking, mm'kay? Or better yet, go have some babies, because you know your biological clock is ticking away...here, let me help you with that, I have a couple of minutes before my next meeting..."
You can't tell me that a manager who carries your type of attitude is not going to be more critical of female employees than male ones, and more resistant to promoting them or acknowledging their achievements on par with their male counterparts. If acknowledgement does come, it's more in line with "oh wow, that's very good work for a girl! Good job!" Yeah, screw that. Perhaps your mental hole needs a dremel.
Yes, it's true. Some professions are dominated by men, some by women. Nature made it that way. People should be allowed to go into whatever profession they desire without being hindered by some asshole with a sexist complex (of either gender). If they can't cut it, they should be let go like anyone else without screaming "discrimination".
That said, I think more men should be allowed to go backstage to compete at lingerie shows,
Oh honey, you and me both! Nuthin' sexier than a man in a g-string and baby doll, strutting down the catwalk...mmmm...
On the serious side, though, I would like to point out that there are some professions that are gender-biased for no good physiological cause. Women as nurses, flight attendants or hairstylists, for example, or men as engineers, surgeons or STEM trades. These divisions have been established due to cultural biases, not physical ones, and sometimes those biases are the more subtly influential of the two.
So STEM means "I taught myself some coding and computer repair" now?
Duh no need no education...
FTFA:
After four years of school, a couple of internships, and at my present position, I can still count on my hands the number of women that have worked with me in cybersecurity and digital investigation combined.
And your credentials are...? Sounds pretty reasonable for a 21yo to me...
Also, why is it that usually intelligent, erudite men often* turn into troglodytes as soon as they find out the person they've been discussing technical topics with is female? Are we that threatening to your sense of self-worth? I can (kind of) understand being concerned about women in some more physical occupation, since without rigorous strength training the average woman generally can't bring the same sheer physical strength to the table as the average man (and I'm talking averages here, not ectomorphic men or mesomorphic women), but in STEM trades there are no such concerns. Women can do just as much mental heavy lifting as men...all it takes is a love for the field, and to kick out the 'show us yer titz' bullies.
* Often, but certainly not always. There just seems to be a higher proportion of perpetual juveniles in the STEM fields...although I suppose that perception could be due to sampling bias