Yes of course, but without destructive hackers we'd have no use for security consultants either. Your advice is very good based on the assumption that most script kiddies won't take it.
I'm afraid this issue comes up every time a statistical assertion is made comparing averages, and not extremes.
Look, if we found some miraculous way of cutting off a person's leg in exchange for making the other one indestructible, and a bill requiring all people to undergo such a procedure didn't go through (an outcome which 99.999% of people would agree with), the people who thereafter lose both legs in an accident will STILL COMPLAIN!
Sorry about the unrealistic argument, but it's really quite congruent to the parent post.
But it is still "bad science" when you view the species as having some capability to make a cognitive "decision" after birth to adapt.
Not true. Humans are a wonderful example of the contrary. They adapt through learning. Take, for example, a group of shipwrecked sea travellers on an isolated island. They are not initially fit for sustaining themselves on a little island. However, they are able to *learn* how to find food and water (resources) and sustain themselves for as long as it's feasible (i.e. there *are* resources to be found). How is this not adaptation?
Well, if they don't have any women they might not be able to reproduce, but that's a bit of a different issue.
Of course, "adapted" and "evolved" are different words. A species adapts through evolution, and an individual or actual group of individuals adapts through learning and interaction.
As they say in Soviet Russia, if you don't like it, don't eat it. (Seriously. "Ne nravitsya, ne yesh").
Seriously, though, I agree. Their prices are indeed high. But it's a good place to shop when you need a good birthday or Christmas gift, because it's easy to find something quickly in the $10-$30 range that the recepient will appreciate.
I always wondered who buys the $150+ gadgets from them though. Maybe the aforementioned executives?:)
"The people of Brazil will have the option of buying a Windows OS from a store blowing away their shipped configuration and installing Windows. That's the same right that Americans today enjoy with respect to Linux. It will be interesting to see how many people do that."
Zero (give or take a few). Some might communise... *ahem* I mean steal a copy of Windows and reformat their hard drive. However, since most of these people have never used a PC much, they won't really have much motivation to switch to Windows. The reason that a lot of people insist on using Windows is because they're used to it, so it's easy for them. They often complain about their favourite programmes not being available under Linux. The poor Brazilians in question do not yet have such a collection of favourite programmes.
Re:It's just too hard for them
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Stereotypes seem to be prevalent in our society. A lot of people have to fight hard to prove that they can do the job while some are assumed to be able to do it, and these assumptions do not always agree with the results.
I've seen employers expect less of people based on sex, age, race, nationality, etc. I'm lucky enough to be a white (mostly... a little Asian, but most people don't seem to notice) male, but unfortunately too young. I'm 21, and I generally get the feeling that my bosses are surprised whenever I deliver any results, whereas the older people in our company are generally assumed to be exeprienced professionals, yet not all of them are necessarily that good at what they do.
Just trying to give this discussion a little perspective. The world isn't fair. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it though.
Re:It's just too hard for them
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Agreed.
Honestly, the answer to the question of precisely why there are so few women in computer science, physics, math completely eludes me. I'd really like to know why. I can't find any one good reason why not, and nobody else seems to be able to agree on a reason either.
Maybe it's a combination of everything. Overall, women and men do seem to have different distributions of personalities, aptitudes for certain skills, etc., just as any two distinct groups will. You can just as easily qualitatively compare the residents of two cities or Americans vs. Canadians, or anything else.
But it's always hard to point out some specific REASON that would explain the differences, be it genetic or upbringing or social expectations or hormonal or anything else. Maybe the fact that these distributions change over time serves as some sort of hint. Say, I haven't heard of many women physicists a hundred years ago, but today we at least have some.
From personal experience, though, I've observed that a sort of segmentation of the mind, whereby one can think about something while completely forgetting everything else (e.g., the ability to concentrate on a math problem after a nasty fight with your best friend) seems to be more common in men. I really might be wrong. But not being able escape your personal life while concentrating on hard abstract problems would make a technical profession rather frustrating, I think. Just a guess, maybe.
I think what david.given meant was that a static global variable has scope within the.C/.CPP file it's defined it (as opposed to the.H file). AFAIK, headers are sort of like plasmids which you then splice into the main strand of code via an #include. So, in your example, you were declaring the static foo twice in test.c by splicing those definitions in from the *.h files.
Also, as far as I can tell,.h files are needed because you don't really control the order the.c/.cpp files are complied in. E.g., you may want to use an "extern" somewhere so the compiler doesn't freak out when it can't find something just yet. Also, they serve as a sort of table of contents.
Ah... I think only a few people really have a clear understanding of precisely WHY header files are needed.
> The reason higher speeds are discouraged by insurance companies is a matter of simple physics--momentum is equal to mass times velocity.
So why not charge obese people more for insurance than skinny people?
Honestly, I think that if this country (I'm assuming we're discussing the US here) required you to pass a SERIOUS driving test to get a license, that would probably be the biggest step towards reducing traffic accidents -- not lowering the highway speed limits. When I got my license, I thought it was a joke. I can't believe you need about zero skills to be allowed to drive on the public road system.
> Guess why the drinking age is 21?
I thought it was because the federal government forced most states to adopt the law with threats of cutting certain funding.
$2K for a new PC just to play DOOM 3? Yes, I would say it's unreasonable. However, I'd like to contest your statement on two points:
1) I just spent LESS than $1K upgrading my computer, which is now more than capable of playing DOOM3. The old parts consist of: case, monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, CD drive. You're overstating the expenses involved:)
2) As far as I know, most of us periodically upgrade our computers regardless of a particular game such as DOOM 3. It would indeed be stupid to upgrade just to play DOOM 3. If you do upgrade, you'll have a fast computer, and one benefit of having said computer is that it'll be able to play DOOM 3... and the future games that rival DOOM 3 technologically. Personally, I did not upgrade just to play DOOM 3. My main excuse was actually a fried motherboard:)
Slashdot Mirror
"I have no use for destructive hackers."
;) I do see your point.
Yes of course, but without destructive hackers we'd have no use for security consultants either. Your advice is very good based on the assumption that most script kiddies won't take it.
Sorry for being picky
When I was 13, my 10-year-old neighbour was trying to convince me that fish don't feel pain from a fish hook because they adapted to fishing.
Why is there so much confusion about evolution and adaptation throughout the general population? Is it really that hard to understand?
sharok,
I'm afraid this issue comes up every time a statistical assertion is made comparing averages, and not extremes.
Look, if we found some miraculous way of cutting off a person's leg in exchange for making the other one indestructible, and a bill requiring all people to undergo such a procedure didn't go through (an outcome which 99.999% of people would agree with), the people who thereafter lose both legs in an accident will STILL COMPLAIN!
Sorry about the unrealistic argument, but it's really quite congruent to the parent post.
"6. When referring to the Xbox, try to scew the name a bit. Xblox, eggs bocks, the stupider the name, the more favorable of a response you will get."
...
Sex box, playboy station, gay cube,
*** Timeout waiting for response.
But it is still "bad science" when you view the species as having some capability to make a cognitive "decision" after birth to adapt.
Not true. Humans are a wonderful example of the contrary. They adapt through learning. Take, for example, a group of shipwrecked sea travellers on an isolated island. They are not initially fit for sustaining themselves on a little island. However, they are able to *learn* how to find food and water (resources) and sustain themselves for as long as it's feasible (i.e. there *are* resources to be found). How is this not adaptation?
Well, if they don't have any women they might not be able to reproduce, but that's a bit of a different issue.
Of course, "adapted" and "evolved" are different words. A species adapts through evolution, and an individual or actual group of individuals adapts through learning and interaction.
As they say in Soviet Russia, if you don't like it, don't eat it. (Seriously. "Ne nravitsya, ne yesh").
:)
Seriously, though, I agree. Their prices are indeed high. But it's a good place to shop when you need a good birthday or Christmas gift, because it's easy to find something quickly in the $10-$30 range that the recepient will appreciate.
I always wondered who buys the $150+ gadgets from them though. Maybe the aforementioned executives?
It is the home of the Brazilian wax, you fool. Show some respect.
"The people of Brazil will have the option of buying a Windows OS from a store blowing away their shipped configuration and installing Windows. That's the same right that Americans today enjoy with respect to Linux. It will be interesting to see how many people do that."
Zero (give or take a few). Some might communise... *ahem* I mean steal a copy of Windows and reformat their hard drive. However, since most of these people have never used a PC much, they won't really have much motivation to switch to Windows. The reason that a lot of people insist on using Windows is because they're used to it, so it's easy for them. They often complain about their favourite programmes not being available under Linux. The poor Brazilians in question do not yet have such a collection of favourite programmes.
Get an OS that comes bundled with wget.
Stereotypes seem to be prevalent in our society. A lot of people have to fight hard to prove that they can do the job while some are assumed to be able to do it, and these assumptions do not always agree with the results.
I've seen employers expect less of people based on sex, age, race, nationality, etc. I'm lucky enough to be a white (mostly... a little Asian, but most people don't seem to notice) male, but unfortunately too young. I'm 21, and I generally get the feeling that my bosses are surprised whenever I deliver any results, whereas the older people in our company are generally assumed to be exeprienced professionals, yet not all of them are necessarily that good at what they do.
Just trying to give this discussion a little perspective. The world isn't fair. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it though.
Agreed.
Honestly, the answer to the question of precisely why there are so few women in computer science, physics, math completely eludes me. I'd really like to know why. I can't find any one good reason why not, and nobody else seems to be able to agree on a reason either.
Maybe it's a combination of everything. Overall, women and men do seem to have different distributions of personalities, aptitudes for certain skills, etc., just as any two distinct groups will. You can just as easily qualitatively compare the residents of two cities or Americans vs. Canadians, or anything else.
But it's always hard to point out some specific REASON that would explain the differences, be it genetic or upbringing or social expectations or hormonal or anything else. Maybe the fact that these distributions change over time serves as some sort of hint. Say, I haven't heard of many women physicists a hundred years ago, but today we at least have some.
From personal experience, though, I've observed that a sort of segmentation of the mind, whereby one can think about something while completely forgetting everything else (e.g., the ability to concentrate on a math problem after a nasty fight with your best friend) seems to be more common in men. I really might be wrong. But not being able escape your personal life while concentrating on hard abstract problems would make a technical profession rather frustrating, I think. Just a guess, maybe.
I think what david.given meant was that a static global variable has scope within the .C/.CPP file it's defined it (as opposed to the .H file). AFAIK, headers are sort of like plasmids which you then splice into the main strand of code via an #include. So, in your example, you were declaring the static foo twice in test.c by splicing those definitions in from the *.h files.
.h files are needed because you don't really control the order the .c/.cpp files are complied in. E.g., you may want to use an "extern" somewhere so the compiler doesn't freak out when it can't find something just yet. Also, they serve as a sort of table of contents.
Also, as far as I can tell,
Ah... I think only a few people really have a clear understanding of precisely WHY header files are needed.
> The reason higher speeds are discouraged by insurance companies is a matter of simple physics--momentum is equal to mass times velocity.
So why not charge obese people more for insurance than skinny people?
Honestly, I think that if this country (I'm assuming we're discussing the US here) required you to pass a SERIOUS driving test to get a license, that would probably be the biggest step towards reducing traffic accidents -- not lowering the highway speed limits. When I got my license, I thought it was a joke. I can't believe you need about zero skills to be allowed to drive on the public road system.
> Guess why the drinking age is 21?
I thought it was because the federal government forced most states to adopt the law with threats of cutting certain funding.
$2K for a new PC just to play DOOM 3? Yes, I would say it's unreasonable. However, I'd like to contest your statement on two points:
:)
:)
1) I just spent LESS than $1K upgrading my computer, which is now more than capable of playing DOOM3. The old parts consist of: case, monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, CD drive. You're overstating the expenses involved
2) As far as I know, most of us periodically upgrade our computers regardless of a particular game such as DOOM 3. It would indeed be stupid to upgrade just to play DOOM 3. If you do upgrade, you'll have a fast computer, and one benefit of having said computer is that it'll be able to play DOOM 3... and the future games that rival DOOM 3 technologically. Personally, I did not upgrade just to play DOOM 3. My main excuse was actually a fried motherboard