Counter question: Is her code any more relevant than that of a man because she's a woman? Is any man's code more relevant than hers because she's a woman?
If neither question can be answered "yes", then how is it even remotely relevant that she's a woman?
And how is either relevant to the quality of open source? How does either promote or improve open source? The point is, why the fuck should I care whether it's men or women writing open source software, designing open source hardware or doing anything else open source?
What do you mean, the return? Kent has never been away (ok, aside of his state mandated vacation, all expenses paid by the taxpayer, i.e. not him). But his son stepped up and took over the family business of conning ignorant people out of money for while he was away, and now he's back and more obnoxious than ever.
When you pit the observations made against flat vs. round earth, the round earth explains the observations better.
By the way, the reason the world appears flat when you look out of your window is the size of the planet we're on. The various drawings you find all over the place where there's a ball and a stick figure drawn onto it that should make it "obvious" when you look at the ball that you should see a curve? Forget them. They are WAY out of scale.
Do you know what size you would have if the Earth had the size of a baseball? You'd be as large as an e. coli bacterium. To draw the stick figure to scale on the circle, it would be smaller than a pixel, even if you had a 16k monitor.
Some MMOs had to offer "classic" server models eventually when they noticed that some expansions didn't meet customer expectations or had a negative impact on player experience. The aforementioned DAoC being one. AO had to remove their "Sloobs" program where you could play the game for 5 bucks a month with only the Shadow Lands expansion, with the intention to hook the "froobs" (free-to-play gamers who got the game with no expansions) on paying and eventually getting the whole package, when they noticed that people dumped their old AO accounts and started new "sloob" accounts because the Alien Invasion expansion wasn't something they actually liked (and frankly, it sucked, SL was one of the best expansions ever, AI was... well, it killed the original game) and they could play the game they wanted to play for 5 instead of 15 bucks a month.
That's just two of the better known MMOs out there that tried the "classic" approach. One had to do it, one tried it as a marketing gag and it backfired badly. In both cases, though it was obvious that players actually WANT to have that sort of gameplay and at least in the first case it is also obvious that people are quite willing to pay for that privilege, too, despite having the option to play the "fully expanded" version as well, and for the same price.
Personally, I'd say a smart company would simply offer the people what they want. Especially if that means that they have to spend less money. I mean, what's easier and cheaper to do than to just change basically nothing?
Actually, some MMOs learned the hard way that they released expansions that killed the game. DAoC being my favorite example to be paraded out as a key example showing off how NOT to make expansions.
Their Trials of Atlantis expansions killed the game. If you're interested, I can go into detail but the tl;dr version is that the game is very heavily realm-vs-realm focused and it became impossible to level new toons to competitive levels after ToA was out for about 6-8 months. Plus it killed crafting.
It was actually SO bad that they did in the end release "classic" servers that contained only the first (and arguably best, in MMO history) expansion, Shrouded Islands. But the damage was done and players had already left.
So yes, sometimes MMO makers make "classic" server available. Mostly when the expansion(s) they release kill off the game...
WoW in its "classic", level 50 (or was it 60?) cap form, IS abandoned. Blizzard does not offer the option to play on a server where the old dungeons are the endgame and expansion creep isn't forcing people to play the game in a way they never wanted to.
If Blizzard offered no-expansion servers, we can talk.
Office 2019 hasn't been released yet. For everything else there's no program that would push people towards Windows 10 from Windows 7 or 8.1
Games would come to mind. The new versions of DirectX will only be released for the most recent version of Windows (or, rather, they will deliberately be crippled to not be compatible with older versions). Until now, game studios were wary to cut off more than half of their potential customer base, but with growing acceptance of Win10 you will eventually see games surface that make use of the new DX features and that will hence only be available for people running Win10 (or at the very least will only run well on Win10 because work on older versions of DX will only be done as an afterthought).
You know why we dug into the fucking mess you call a kernel? Because it was a NECESSITY to get anything to work. The security of Windows up to 7 was such a catastrophic failure that the only way to defend against malware was to dig even deeper into your kernel because you had NO, ZERO, ZIP safeguards against malware actually doing something like this.
What did you expect us to do? Run on the crap you dared to call a kernel and rely on its nonexistent ability to defend against malware undermining it? That would make the whole idea of protecting the system absurd because the system's functions you're supposed to trust cannot be trusted.
The reason Vista was the mess it was? Because it was a damn atrocity from a security point of view. It tried its best to obscure and obfuscate its inner workings, mostly because as soon as you noticed just what they were like you realized that the problem is way bigger than you could possibly imagine.
It is actually possible to get people cheaply if you manage to be creative with salaries and job perks. You can get quite a few people with the lure of training and certification on company time and paid by the company (with the string attached that binds you to the company forever).
You can actually get good, young people who cannot afford those certs themselves that way for pennies. Yes, they'll probably leave in 3-5 years (when they can), but by then you have the next batch.
In the words of a former boss of mine "Good, available, no police record. Pick two".
It gets better now that there are actually university courses teaching IT-security, then again, it just ain't the same material, not the same mindset that you find in the old peeps.
Maybe 'cause back when I was young, the only ones you could actually hire were the ones that were actually good enough to not get caught (and thus have no record)...
The main difference is mostly that the older you get as a consultant, the more you are sought after and the more your client is willing to pay because he thinks you're better at what you're doing and more likely to be able to fulfill his fantasies.
Slashdot Mirror
Counter question: Is her code any more relevant than that of a man because she's a woman? Is any man's code more relevant than hers because she's a woman?
If neither question can be answered "yes", then how is it even remotely relevant that she's a woman?
And how is either relevant to the quality of open source? How does either promote or improve open source? The point is, why the fuck should I care whether it's men or women writing open source software, designing open source hardware or doing anything else open source?
Needs more Trump and a dash of Bitcoins and you have the perfect /. article.
It is obviously wrong because it contradicts his desired outcome.
It's a bit like 1984. Done as a warning, taken as a manual.
What do you mean, the return? Kent has never been away (ok, aside of his state mandated vacation, all expenses paid by the taxpayer, i.e. not him). But his son stepped up and took over the family business of conning ignorant people out of money for while he was away, and now he's back and more obnoxious than ever.
Shh! Don't... too late, the PETA demonstration is forming.
At least he's not assuming its gender.
When you pit the observations made against flat vs. round earth, the round earth explains the observations better.
By the way, the reason the world appears flat when you look out of your window is the size of the planet we're on. The various drawings you find all over the place where there's a ball and a stick figure drawn onto it that should make it "obvious" when you look at the ball that you should see a curve? Forget them. They are WAY out of scale.
Do you know what size you would have if the Earth had the size of a baseball? You'd be as large as an e. coli bacterium. To draw the stick figure to scale on the circle, it would be smaller than a pixel, even if you had a 16k monitor.
i People are really, really good surviving with cognitive dissonance while still getting other constructive or innovative shit done.
For reference, see religion.
I'd still prefer to put a slug through their skull instead of relying on some judgement that may or may not come.
Thinking about it, divine justice for those bastards ain't much different from mundane judgement.
Well, it's nice to see someone get into the family business.
WoW is free to play now? When did this happen?
Some MMOs had to offer "classic" server models eventually when they noticed that some expansions didn't meet customer expectations or had a negative impact on player experience. The aforementioned DAoC being one. AO had to remove their "Sloobs" program where you could play the game for 5 bucks a month with only the Shadow Lands expansion, with the intention to hook the "froobs" (free-to-play gamers who got the game with no expansions) on paying and eventually getting the whole package, when they noticed that people dumped their old AO accounts and started new "sloob" accounts because the Alien Invasion expansion wasn't something they actually liked (and frankly, it sucked, SL was one of the best expansions ever, AI was ... well, it killed the original game) and they could play the game they wanted to play for 5 instead of 15 bucks a month.
That's just two of the better known MMOs out there that tried the "classic" approach. One had to do it, one tried it as a marketing gag and it backfired badly. In both cases, though it was obvious that players actually WANT to have that sort of gameplay and at least in the first case it is also obvious that people are quite willing to pay for that privilege, too, despite having the option to play the "fully expanded" version as well, and for the same price.
Personally, I'd say a smart company would simply offer the people what they want. Especially if that means that they have to spend less money. I mean, what's easier and cheaper to do than to just change basically nothing?
Actually, some MMOs learned the hard way that they released expansions that killed the game. DAoC being my favorite example to be paraded out as a key example showing off how NOT to make expansions.
Their Trials of Atlantis expansions killed the game. If you're interested, I can go into detail but the tl;dr version is that the game is very heavily realm-vs-realm focused and it became impossible to level new toons to competitive levels after ToA was out for about 6-8 months. Plus it killed crafting.
It was actually SO bad that they did in the end release "classic" servers that contained only the first (and arguably best, in MMO history) expansion, Shrouded Islands. But the damage was done and players had already left.
So yes, sometimes MMO makers make "classic" server available. Mostly when the expansion(s) they release kill off the game...
Kaspersky. So good the US even had to outlaw it 'cause their NSA malware gets detected.
Maybe you should stop using shitty AV products. Just because McAfee has the best salesmen doesn't mean they have the best product.
Or even a good one.
WoW in its "classic", level 50 (or was it 60?) cap form, IS abandoned. Blizzard does not offer the option to play on a server where the old dungeons are the endgame and expansion creep isn't forcing people to play the game in a way they never wanted to.
If Blizzard offered no-expansion servers, we can talk.
Office 2019 hasn't been released yet. For everything else there's no program that would push people towards Windows 10 from Windows 7 or 8.1
Games would come to mind. The new versions of DirectX will only be released for the most recent version of Windows (or, rather, they will deliberately be crippled to not be compatible with older versions). Until now, game studios were wary to cut off more than half of their potential customer base, but with growing acceptance of Win10 you will eventually see games surface that make use of the new DX features and that will hence only be available for people running Win10 (or at the very least will only run well on Win10 because work on older versions of DX will only be done as an afterthought).
And guess what, it only took 5 minutes of using Google...
You know why we dug into the fucking mess you call a kernel? Because it was a NECESSITY to get anything to work. The security of Windows up to 7 was such a catastrophic failure that the only way to defend against malware was to dig even deeper into your kernel because you had NO, ZERO, ZIP safeguards against malware actually doing something like this.
What did you expect us to do? Run on the crap you dared to call a kernel and rely on its nonexistent ability to defend against malware undermining it? That would make the whole idea of protecting the system absurd because the system's functions you're supposed to trust cannot be trusted.
The reason Vista was the mess it was? Because it was a damn atrocity from a security point of view. It tried its best to obscure and obfuscate its inner workings, mostly because as soon as you noticed just what they were like you realized that the problem is way bigger than you could possibly imagine.
It is actually possible to get people cheaply if you manage to be creative with salaries and job perks. You can get quite a few people with the lure of training and certification on company time and paid by the company (with the string attached that binds you to the company forever).
You can actually get good, young people who cannot afford those certs themselves that way for pennies. Yes, they'll probably leave in 3-5 years (when they can), but by then you have the next batch.
In the words of a former boss of mine "Good, available, no police record. Pick two".
It gets better now that there are actually university courses teaching IT-security, then again, it just ain't the same material, not the same mindset that you find in the old peeps.
Maybe 'cause back when I was young, the only ones you could actually hire were the ones that were actually good enough to not get caught (and thus have no record)...
The main difference is mostly that the older you get as a consultant, the more you are sought after and the more your client is willing to pay because he thinks you're better at what you're doing and more likely to be able to fulfill his fantasies.
Too honest.