Sounds like the original, all male group was working just fine....why break that up?
Because the original, all male group was a disaster in the making. Perhaps having a bunch of 12 year old boys on a team might work in the short term, but sooner or later, the immaturity is going to cause a major problem. That sort of behavior is a symptom of a deeper dysfunction, and it shouldn't be ignored.
Umm, no, it's not. I've worked in a lot of different settings, often with nothing but guys, several of the grousp for a period of years, and only once have I seen a group of men behave like you're describing. What you're calling "pretty common" is very rare in my experience. But then, I work with adults.
Even outside the workplace, this sort of behavior is the exception, not the norm. In my own personal social circle (a group of mostly men who've been close friends for 25+ years and have been through heaven and hell together). But then, my friends are adults, too.
No wonder men don't care often for working with women. You have to bend to the lowest common denominator as far as 'feelings' go....legally.
I'm a guy,, and there is no problem working with women in the workplace. They're no different than any other professional
If you feel that acting like a mature adult in a professional manner is "bending to the lowest common denominator," then congratulations: you are already the lowest common denominator.
Guys can't be guys in the workplace....
I'd hate to see what your idea of being a "guy" consists of. But I'm guessing that given your definition, I'd agree with you: guys should be professionals in the workplace. Save acting like assholes for your own time.
What kind of place do you work at? I've worked in a number of development houses, and there's only been one where the culture allowed for unprofessional behavior such as you described -- and there were no women working there (unsurprisingly). It was an awful environment to work in.
At it's root, you have a real problem in your workplace aside from sexism. Your coworkers are unprofessional idiots. I would suggest changing companies.
Nope, I throw it all out because he's actively being an insulting dick. There is potentially an interesting discussion to be had based on his points, but he clearly has no interest in that. I'm just giving back what he dished out.
Yes, that would help, but would still be insufficient for me. But I'm picky. The only system that I would be entirely comfortable to me would be if the authentication server was one that I was running rather than a third party.
The real reason is what's been said before: trust. I can't think of any entity that I trust with so much that I'm OK with them knowing when & where I'm logging into something, let alone hold my keys.
You are, of course, 100% correct. As a software developer who has had to implement more than one brain-dead design against my will, I know better. My apologies.
I do hope that developers make a huge stink when asked to do these things, though. Project planners should, at least, dread giving these kinds of specs to developers because they know they'll get a lot of grief about them.
Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest?
I have, as well as a substantial minority of the people that I know. They're called "sobriety checkpoints."
How many of you have had your entire families deported or locked-up because of their religions or their views of the government?
It's hard to say, since that's not the reason they would give even if it is the reason they did it. This is no different than most repressive regimes, btw.
Can I call the feds and report my neighbor for being a collaborator if I want his house?
I guess that they made FireFox stop sucking? Then please stop keeping the good desktop version a secret and let me use that instead of the ever-increasingly-crappy versions they've been giving us. I won't bother installing it on my phone until they can at least do that.
There is only one set of legitimate buyers for these handcuffs.
Which means that being caught with one of these copycat keys in your possession is going to be hell of a thing to explain to an unsympathetic and skeptical cop,
Why would the cop be so judgmental about my bondage fetish?
The current security procedures carry a heavy cost (not talking just dollars, but including loss of privacy, strengthening of authoritarianism, reduced efficiency, etc.). I argue that this cost is much higher than the cost of things like hijackings, terrorist acts, etc.
Even if all known planned terrorist plots were successful, the cost of that, counting people killed & maimed as well as property damage, would still be many orders of magnitude lower than the cost of allowing people to drive. We've collectively decided that the cost driving is lower than the cost of dramatically improving the safety of road travel. This is the same kind of computation.
I remind you that I don't actually recommend doing nothing. There is a lot that we can do that isn't nearly so onerous, and we should. At the same time, just as we don't shake in terror every time we get into a car, we shouldn't be reacting with such terror at the airport. And that's mostly what airport security does: propagate terror in the passengers by making such huge production out of things, and at the same time signalling to the world (and terrorists) that we are scared out of our minds as a society.
Apple everybody and lots of Microsoft people claim this kind of thing as innovative. That's a lot more than "nobody" right there.
You're absolutely right about iterative vs innovative, of course, but nobody seems to want to be known as an "iterative" company -- even though that type of advance has a much larger cumulative impact on things.
On the other hand, it's still going to be a big step forwards when we can all reasonably carry our computers around with us rather than segregating between desktop stuff and phone stuff and anything in between.
But that hits my point -- we've been able to do that for a very long time (in internet time). The main problem isn't so much the computers themselves, but user interfaces. UIs that are comfortable for human general purpose have rather large minimum size requirements. A comfortable keyboard is big. A comfortable screen is big. What works for using for long periods of time tends away from portable.
What we need to make the ultimate dream come true is actual innovation: a new way to do UI that doesn't require large devices. This means no keyboards & no screens. A radical rethinking.
That's a false dichotomy -- there are other options. But even if our choice is between doing nothing and doing what they do now, I would argue that doing nothing is the better alternative. By a long shot.
The logical conclusion to all of this is a cell phone that connects wirelessly to touch-screens, keyboards and monitors and all of your computing is done in a single small device.
And once you've done all that, you have successfully built a laptop, or, if you want a nice, big screen or three, a desktop.
Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism. That would seem more in character than some general "hate science" rationale.The Genoa shooting was of the head of an energy company, not a scientist. Even nonprofit research labs are often funded and influenced by powerful corporations. Corporate control of science gives corporations a great deal more power, both directly and indirectly, than many other areas of interest.
Please explain why it's a "very much required" security feature. I understand what it does, but I don't understand why it should be required.
Also, the "it's optional" line is a bit misleading. It's "optional" for the OEMs. If the OEM decides they want to require it, it becomes nonoptional for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the original, all male group was working just fine....why break that up?
Because the original, all male group was a disaster in the making. Perhaps having a bunch of 12 year old boys on a team might work in the short term, but sooner or later, the immaturity is going to cause a major problem. That sort of behavior is a symptom of a deeper dysfunction, and it shouldn't be ignored.
Pretty common to all male working groups....
Umm, no, it's not. I've worked in a lot of different settings, often with nothing but guys, several of the grousp for a period of years, and only once have I seen a group of men behave like you're describing. What you're calling "pretty common" is very rare in my experience. But then, I work with adults.
Even outside the workplace, this sort of behavior is the exception, not the norm. In my own personal social circle (a group of mostly men who've been close friends for 25+ years and have been through heaven and hell together). But then, my friends are adults, too.
No wonder men don't care often for working with women. You have to bend to the lowest common denominator as far as 'feelings' go....legally.
I'm a guy,, and there is no problem working with women in the workplace. They're no different than any other professional
If you feel that acting like a mature adult in a professional manner is "bending to the lowest common denominator," then congratulations: you are already the lowest common denominator.
Guys can't be guys in the workplace....
I'd hate to see what your idea of being a "guy" consists of. But I'm guessing that given your definition, I'd agree with you: guys should be professionals in the workplace. Save acting like assholes for your own time.
Yes, this to the power of a million.
What kind of place do you work at? I've worked in a number of development houses, and there's only been one where the culture allowed for unprofessional behavior such as you described -- and there were no women working there (unsurprisingly). It was an awful environment to work in.
At it's root, you have a real problem in your workplace aside from sexism. Your coworkers are unprofessional idiots. I would suggest changing companies.
Nope, I throw it all out because he's actively being an insulting dick. There is potentially an interesting discussion to be had based on his points, but he clearly has no interest in that. I'm just giving back what he dished out.
Since you don't care what the hell I think, I'll return the favor and be sure not to use any of your products, whether free or otherwise.
Yes, that would help, but would still be insufficient for me. But I'm picky. The only system that I would be entirely comfortable to me would be if the authentication server was one that I was running rather than a third party.
The real reason is what's been said before: trust. I can't think of any entity that I trust with so much that I'm OK with them knowing when & where I'm logging into something, let alone hold my keys.
But if you do that, then why not just use a different password for each such group? Passwords aren't that hard.
You are, of course, 100% correct. As a software developer who has had to implement more than one brain-dead design against my will, I know better. My apologies.
I do hope that developers make a huge stink when asked to do these things, though. Project planners should, at least, dread giving these kinds of specs to developers because they know they'll get a lot of grief about them.
This is one of my pet peeves in websites today. It's not just FB that does this.
Attention web developers: PLEASE STOP forcing us to the mobile versions of your sites. Just stop it.
Impossible. You can't have less than zero credibility. Perhaps you mean that Fox News is as credible as RT.
Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest?
I have, as well as a substantial minority of the people that I know. They're called "sobriety checkpoints."
How many of you have had your entire families deported or locked-up because of their religions or their views of the government?
It's hard to say, since that's not the reason they would give even if it is the reason they did it. This is no different than most repressive regimes, btw.
Can I call the feds and report my neighbor for being a collaborator if I want his house?
Yes. Thanks, DHS!
I guess that they made FireFox stop sucking? Then please stop keeping the good desktop version a secret and let me use that instead of the ever-increasingly-crappy versions they've been giving us. I won't bother installing it on my phone until they can at least do that.
There is only one set of legitimate buyers for these handcuffs.
Which means that being caught with one of these copycat keys in your possession is going to be hell of a thing to explain to an unsympathetic and skeptical cop,
Why would the cop be so judgmental about my bondage fetish?
The current security procedures carry a heavy cost (not talking just dollars, but including loss of privacy, strengthening of authoritarianism, reduced efficiency, etc.). I argue that this cost is much higher than the cost of things like hijackings, terrorist acts, etc.
Even if all known planned terrorist plots were successful, the cost of that, counting people killed & maimed as well as property damage, would still be many orders of magnitude lower than the cost of allowing people to drive. We've collectively decided that the cost driving is lower than the cost of dramatically improving the safety of road travel. This is the same kind of computation.
I remind you that I don't actually recommend doing nothing. There is a lot that we can do that isn't nearly so onerous, and we should. At the same time, just as we don't shake in terror every time we get into a car, we shouldn't be reacting with such terror at the airport. And that's mostly what airport security does: propagate terror in the passengers by making such huge production out of things, and at the same time signalling to the world (and terrorists) that we are scared out of our minds as a society.
Well, nobody said it would be.
Apple everybody and lots of Microsoft people claim this kind of thing as innovative. That's a lot more than "nobody" right there.
You're absolutely right about iterative vs innovative, of course, but nobody seems to want to be known as an "iterative" company -- even though that type of advance has a much larger cumulative impact on things.
On the other hand, it's still going to be a big step forwards when we can all reasonably carry our computers around with us rather than segregating between desktop stuff and phone stuff and anything in between.
But that hits my point -- we've been able to do that for a very long time (in internet time). The main problem isn't so much the computers themselves, but user interfaces. UIs that are comfortable for human general purpose have rather large minimum size requirements. A comfortable keyboard is big. A comfortable screen is big. What works for using for long periods of time tends away from portable.
What we need to make the ultimate dream come true is actual innovation: a new way to do UI that doesn't require large devices. This means no keyboards & no screens. A radical rethinking.
That's a false dichotomy -- there are other options. But even if our choice is between doing nothing and doing what they do now, I would argue that doing nothing is the better alternative. By a long shot.
That enhances the real problem.
FTFY.
Exactly.
And this isn't very innovative by itself, as we've had devices that can do this well for over a decade.
The logical conclusion to all of this is a cell phone that connects wirelessly to touch-screens, keyboards and monitors and all of your computing is done in a single small device.
And once you've done all that, you have successfully built a laptop, or, if you want a nice, big screen or three, a desktop.
Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism. That would seem more in character than some general "hate science" rationale.The Genoa shooting was of the head of an energy company, not a scientist. Even nonprofit research labs are often funded and influenced by powerful corporations. Corporate control of science gives corporations a great deal more power, both directly and indirectly, than many other areas of interest.
True, but if a solution causes more problems than it solves, it certainly should mean you don't implement it.
Please explain why it's a "very much required" security feature. I understand what it does, but I don't understand why it should be required.
Also, the "it's optional" line is a bit misleading. It's "optional" for the OEMs. If the OEM decides they want to require it, it becomes nonoptional for you.
If the only thing keeping this secure is a companies 'promise' they wont ever take action, then I'd have to agree with Ubuntu.
Except that now you have to trust Ubuntu. This is one of the main problems with this secure boot nonsense: in the end, you have to trust somebody.