> Why does everything have to be balanced?... I've never been a big believer that bias can be cured by more bias. Affirmative action only leads to people thinking that a miss-represented group of people were only hired because of affirmative action.
I think the general concensus is that the low number of women in CS/IT isn't the result of bias, but rather that they don't want to be there. The common hypothesis is that they don't want to be tarred with the geeky image.
> Whyt sdgpj fyuoij dfuynbder ofpgk a jsdf, flnghidmv kjsafdmdposmf?
> Sorry, didn't you understand that? I was just using a more modern form of English. Language exists to facilitate communication. The point of a language is that it's a standard. It's just like a software protocol or API.
It's good that you understand that language is a matter of convention.
You also need to understand that folk who adopt a convention slightly different from the one you hold to are not thereby either lazy nor illiterate, and it is not moronic to point that fact out.
> > > > > Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness.
> > > > I notice that you didn't write your response in Middle English.
> > > I didn't say language doesn't evolve, I said that using it as an excuse for illiteracy is moronic.
> > Are you literate in Middle English?
> Am I speaking Middle English?
You're using language change as an excuse for illiteracy.
When are people going to start programming contests where the award is given for something that's actually useful, such as fewest bugs, most readable, best re-use of existing code, etc?
> Thus, the trouble with doing something about global warming is that there is a disjunction between the sort of certainty (absolute) that politicians facing re-election and pressure groups want before acting, and
Politicians don't like absolute certainty. They merely want to be able to construct the appearance of absolute certainty when it suits their agenda, and the appearance of absolute doubt when that suits their agenda.
> Galileo got into trouble for asking the authorities to keep their adopted word (which it turns out was Pagan Aristotlean astronomy) rather than for any clash between science itself and church.
Unfortunately, the Church had adopted that bad pagan astronomy along with a lot of other pagan stuff. You can't say it wasn't about the church, or about religious beliefs.
It's no different from people who argue today that abortion is murder because an embryo gets a soul at the moment of conception. It's extrabiblical, but it's still a religious belief.
So someone's peeved that whatever they're complaining about is already fixed, but hasn't magically appeared on their computer? Or is it just that their whine has been found to be pointless?
In the former case, write a script to update from CVS and rebuild every night. Or every hour, if that keeps you happier.
> If I was running some classified program and information was leaked to the press, you can bet I'd check my department's phone records to see if there were any calls placed to the reporters in question.
What would you do if you were running a classified program and you were expected to do things that violate the law, mislead the public, perpetuate injustice, etc?
> About time they figure out who is leaking top secret information to the press! I hope they find the traitors and put them in jail for disclosing secret information that could put our troops in danger.
If you want to enjail people for putting our troops in danger, you should start with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their cronies. They've gotten 2400 of our troops killed and about ten times that many maimed by starting an unnecessary war on false pretexts.
> Journalists are incredibly important now a days. They are the last line of defence from a completely secret (and thus unaccountable to the public) government.
And sadly they did a piss-poor job of it between 9-11 and about a year ago, when some of them finally started breaking ranks with the administration's press releases.
Most of them still aren't not doing a very damn good job of it.
> Divulging classified information is not "whistleblowing", no matter how you look at it.
Except when it's whistleblowing...
> Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit. They are violating their oaths of secrecy.
Yes, and in the long tradition of tyranny there have been lots of people willing to break laws and suffer the consequences for speaking out about wrongs.
But few Americans believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence should have been hanged for signing it.
> If you're talking to government officials, and there are leaks that potentially endanger lives of agents, and collaterally other agents in the field, you're going to get more than a sideways look from the governmet, as well you should.
Also if there are leaks that reveal the incompetence, dishonesty, and corruption in the governmet you're going to get more than a sideways look, and you shouldn't.
The Bush Administration is trying to prosecute people who we ought to be giving medals to.
The big boys cried "Treason!" when the Pentagon Papers came out, too.
Slashdot Mirror
> I play a 16 year old girl on irc - does that count?
Depends on whether you do it for fun, or as part of your job responsibilities at the FBI.
> Why does everything have to be balanced? ... I've never been a big believer that bias can be cured by more bias. Affirmative action only leads to people thinking that a miss-represented group of people were only hired because of affirmative action.
I think the general concensus is that the low number of women in CS/IT isn't the result of bias, but rather that they don't want to be there. The common hypothesis is that they don't want to be tarred with the geeky image.
> Whyt sdgpj fyuoij dfuynbder ofpgk a jsdf, flnghidmv kjsafdmdposmf?
> Sorry, didn't you understand that? I was just using a more modern form of English. Language exists to facilitate communication. The point of a language is that it's a standard. It's just like a software protocol or API.
It's good that you understand that language is a matter of convention.
You also need to understand that folk who adopt a convention slightly different from the one you hold to are not thereby either lazy nor illiterate, and it is not moronic to point that fact out.
I've really enjoyed 1001 Buzzwords for the Entry-Level Programmer.
> The submitter purports to write in Modern English, and yet their writings don't follow Modern English definitions.
No, they're just using a more modern version of English than you are.
Languages change; learn to deal with it.
> > > > > Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness.
> > > > I notice that you didn't write your response in Middle English.
> > > I didn't say language doesn't evolve, I said that using it as an excuse for illiteracy is moronic.
> > Are you literate in Middle English?
> Am I speaking Middle English?
You're using language change as an excuse for illiteracy.
> I didn't say language doesn't evolve, I said that using it as an excuse for illiteracy is moronic.
Are you literate in Middle English?
> Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness.
I notice that you didn't write your response in Middle English.
Why this fascination with speed?
When are people going to start programming contests where the award is given for something that's actually useful, such as fewest bugs, most readable, best re-use of existing code, etc?
> Thus, the trouble with doing something about global warming is that there is a disjunction between the sort of certainty (absolute) that politicians facing re-election and pressure groups want before acting, and
Politicians don't like absolute certainty. They merely want to be able to construct the appearance of absolute certainty when it suits their agenda, and the appearance of absolute doubt when that suits their agenda.
> Galileo got into trouble for asking the authorities to keep their adopted word (which it turns out was Pagan Aristotlean astronomy) rather than for any clash between science itself and church.
Unfortunately, the Church had adopted that bad pagan astronomy along with a lot of other pagan stuff. You can't say it wasn't about the church, or about religious beliefs.
It's no different from people who argue today that abortion is murder because an embryo gets a soul at the moment of conception. It's extrabiblical, but it's still a religious belief.
> > [FROM TFA]...he had one more great ambition: "I would also like to understand women."
> The Vatican was unavailable for comment.
They were willing to talk; they just didn't know anything about the subject matter.
> If you love God, why not read up on his work?
You refer, I suppose, to Hawkings' description of that work in A Brief History of Time?
> It's turtles all the way down.
Yes, but there's still room for meaningful debate about what kind of turtles.
...for a conference on cosmology, than the Vatican?
> Although I havent bought a game in 2yrs, since I now just play Open Source/Free ones.
Sounds like the terrorists have already won...
> They bought shares of a company at IPO at a specific price.
> They have to pay for those shares they bought at that price.
I'm surprised to hear that it wasn't set up so that your money was handed over automatically.
Also, I suspect that the SEC would take a dim view of reneging on IPO commitments.
Most of the gambling houses are offshore, and the state doesn't get its cut.
So someone's peeved that whatever they're complaining about is already fixed, but hasn't magically appeared on their computer? Or is it just that their whine has been found to be pointless?
In the former case, write a script to update from CVS and rebuild every night. Or every hour, if that keeps you happier.
In the latter case, here's a tissue...
> If I was running some classified program and information was leaked to the press, you can bet I'd check my department's phone records to see if there were any calls placed to the reporters in question.
What would you do if you were running a classified program and you were expected to do things that violate the law, mislead the public, perpetuate injustice, etc?
> About time they figure out who is leaking top secret information to the press! I hope they find the traitors and put them in jail for disclosing secret information that could put our troops in danger.
If you want to enjail people for putting our troops in danger, you should start with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their cronies. They've gotten 2400 of our troops killed and about ten times that many maimed by starting an unnecessary war on false pretexts.
> Journalists are incredibly important now a days. They are the last line of defence from a completely secret (and thus unaccountable to the public) government.
And sadly they did a piss-poor job of it between 9-11 and about a year ago, when some of them finally started breaking ranks with the administration's press releases.
Most of them still aren't not doing a very damn good job of it.
> Divulging classified information is not "whistleblowing", no matter how you look at it.
Except when it's whistleblowing...
> Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit. They are violating their oaths of secrecy.
Yes, and in the long tradition of tyranny there have been lots of people willing to break laws and suffer the consequences for speaking out about wrongs.
But few Americans believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence should have been hanged for signing it.
> If you're talking to government officials, and there are leaks that potentially endanger lives of agents, and collaterally other agents in the field, you're going to get more than a sideways look from the governmet, as well you should.
Also if there are leaks that reveal the incompetence, dishonesty, and corruption in the governmet you're going to get more than a sideways look, and you shouldn't.
The Bush Administration is trying to prosecute people who we ought to be giving medals to.
The big boys cried "Treason!" when the Pentagon Papers came out, too.
> I have no problem with the government obtaining a warrant to get this information.
Except that back when they bothered with things like warrants, they got most of them via a special court created to rubber-stamp the requests.