Women intentionally objectify themselves by using the mere sight of their naked body as some sort of "prize" and "reward" for desired behavior and you're telling me--MY GOD--some males might bypass the system altogether and look at porn, or visit prostitutes instead of jumping through their artificial hurdles? What's wrong with these men? How sick in the head do they have to be to want to satisfy their sexual needs without submitting to a long process of jumping through hoops for the potential for sexual gratification?
Furthermore, as women treat themselves as objects to be "won", you mean men might go around and show these pictures and videos to other males, as bragging rights for passing the hurdles women have created? NO. NEVER. Men aren't naturally competitive at all!
It's actually pretty straight-forward. Necessary institutions and organizations were built to help first and second-wave feminism succeed. But Feminism won! Equality is in the legal books. So what's an institution to do once it's no longer needed? Make new issues to prove it's still needed! And they're willing to go further and further to survive--like using outright lies, shame, threats, and pure hatred to accomplish their means. First/Second-wave feminists are pretty pissed off at third-waves for exactly that reason.
Christina Marie Hoff Sommers, a world renowned "classic feminist" sums them up pretty well, so check out her videos or books on topics such as modern feminism's "War against Boys"--wherein boys are treated simply as "inferior girls" and essential things for them like recess are shortened and removed. Third-wavers hate her so much for using things like "facts" that they discredit, smear, and even go as far as to edit her Wikipedia page to remove any mention that she's a feminist. Pretty hilarious stuff.
Imagine a bunch of new programmers editing Linus Torvold's page and debating that he's not a "real programmer." How silly, petty, and passive-aggressive would that be?
I tried to raise this issue before... with the Tesla auto-updating your cars firmware without asking the owner of the car first, and how that means they can literally put anything in there without your consent. (NSA GPS tracking anyone?)
Everyone was too busy going "OMG TESLA RULEZ" to care. (A great car sure, but that doesn't mean we need another Apple walled-garden.)
That's not even factually correct. It doesn't have a 6502. The NES had a Ricoh 2A03, which was a modified 6502 which REMOVED the BCD so they could put IO hardware registers in its place for controllers, sound, and DMA. The SNES did the exact same thing with the Ricoh 5A22, which is derived from the WDC 65C816--the same CPU as the Apple IIGS, which is why the development kid for SNES was an Apple IIGS.
How are we supposed to learn something from this submission if they can't even be bothered to check Wikipedia first? Fun-fact: If your information isn't better than what Wikipedia already has, it's useless.
While I think your heart is in the right place... since they're attacking US citizens and companies, it still applies. Whether foreigners break into your house, shoot your wife, and rape your dog, and convince your children that Jesus is Lord, OR, steal your bank account information from your computer from Jupiter's moon of Europa, it doesn't really matter. They're still attacking you. It doesn't matter that they're not US citizens. Non-citizens can still break laws which allow the government to then protect its citizens.
That's doesn't mean we're not treading into a very grey, confusing legal area... But let's stop assuming laws can't apply outside of a country, or to non-citizens. If a guy fires a gun from Canada-owned land, and kills you in your house near the border, the USA can and will seek justice. This is not some draconian system, this is pretty normal international law and politics.
The USA does shady shit all the time. But let's focus on the depth of that actual shady shit they do instead of getting worked up about everything else they do.
It's so terrible that people don't want to work for a company with a proven track record of exploiting the very citizens it says it serves. All of us iPhone zombies are truly empathatic to your cause.
If that's the case, don't be a dick about it. Instead of "Go work from home for the two weeks because we're afraid you're going to fuck us over." Say, "Enjoy the next two weeks of paid vacation on us as a parting gift. Best of luck on your career."
Both accomplish the exact same thing, but one of them doesn't create dicks out of good employees. I mean what's the chance he's going to be productive those two weeks anyway?
In other words, developers want something that works everywhere, and.NET is the best of the only, crappy, solutions we have available.
It's much harder (and hugely risky) to make a brand new, gigantic project for cross-platform software, than it is to re-implement someone's existing framework. If you don't have money to burn, nobody is going to do that. What if you commit 5 man-years of effort and then nobody uses it? People usually prefer incremental expansions to existing frameworks. Didn't we just have a thread on re-inventing the wheel?
Likewise: I know of people so afraid of "being a cowboy" they use all of 10% of a programming language's feature set because they're too afraid to mess something up if they... learned something.
I also don't want a broken, poorly documented, no-longer maintained or serviceable wheel.
People are finally realizing the problems with things like "game engines."
Yeah yeah yeah, a game engine does tons of things for you. But it also forces you to do things a certain way, and can make tracking down bugs on THEIR SIDE extremely difficult. The time you save by "having it run out of the box" should be considered against the time it takes to "learn the API" and "learn the engine's quirks" and the huge cost of not being able to modify certain parts of the technology as needed. There's also the trade off of "is my new code making new bugs?" vs "Is their framework hiding bugs from me?"
It's not a simple, easy decision to make.
While more obvious with game engines, the same applies to any foreign piece of code. There is no such thing as magically re-usable code. All code needs time and energy to understand and work with, and no framework is magically going to let you treat a complex problem like a simple problem. It may hide the complex decisions, but if those decisions are wrong, you've got yet another headache.
Though, this is really an arcane (read: 1995) way to write text posts. When I first started posting again on Slashdot I thought, "Wait, is this really the only way to post?"
You'd think everyone would use Markdown or some variation of it by now. Well, everyone does except Slashdot. And I still frequent a web forum designed in 1999, and it supports forum markup.
I wonder if they never changed because they think their system is better, or they just don't want to devote the resources. Or perhaps they like it worse as a natural barrier-to-entry to posting to keep out fifthly casuals and their signal-to-noise ratio. But I think that's giving them too much credit.
Next up in Slashdot Beta, all posts use a flash applet running in a java runtime that emulates VIM!
Half the juriors were WOMEN. And ALL of the Asian juriors voted against her.
When you assume every women who loses a case is because of "male domination", then nobody takes you seriously when you have an actual case of discrimination.
Ars Technica just lost my respect and readership. If they can be this biased toward their agenda even when the facts are obviously to the contrary, they can't be trusted to report on anything.
In a nutshell, the case is obviously frivolous, and if it had succeeded it would have been another barrier for women in the industry because companies would see a female applicant and go, "Is she worth the risk?"
Just because there's a way to scan papers (to help you trick the system) doesn't mean everyone is going to use it. The smart ones will, but that doesn't mean plenty of stupid people won't.
If tool can't stop every bad guy doesn't mean it's useless. Even a professional will miss some. It's about reducing the numbers that get through.
Additionally, many emergencies have something wrong with the plane. Not all, like a misreported flight instrument sending you into the ocean... but clearly, there are differences between a healthy plane descending rapidly, and an engine exploding (engine temp sensors high or dead, fluid loss) and the same resulting loss of altitude. The drop is the same, but the instruments are wildly different.
I think programmers should focus on making code that "isn't slow" more than they should focus on "is fast." Focus on not making stupid mistakes like running higher-order algorithms than necessary (ala using a for loop to search for a key when you could have been using a dictionary).
If you focus on fast, you should definitely do a profile-first-optimize-last approach so you're actually optimizing code that the computer spends most of it's time running.
If you're optimizing fringe functions, then it better be for a pet project and "because I want to." Because otherwise you'll be sacrificing maintenance and introducing bugs for something that isn't even affecting the user.
"Why?" is the goto card for people who don't achieve anything.
The things you learn re-inventing the wheel can be applied in various parts of your future projects.
It's like asking why solve a math problem? Obviously, to learn how to do math for the chance that you see a problem that you DON'T have an easy answer already available. Hell, that's what an entire engineering degree is. It's not "can you solve problem X" because problem X will almost never occur in real life in an isolated environment. The purpose is "can you solve these kinds of problems." And how do you learn to solve problems? By looking at ones people have already solved.
Here's a thought. A modern car can tell the difference between driving and a jackass about to rear-end someone.
Can't we train some neural nets / other machine learning with flight data on two sets of data. One, emergency maneuvers, and two, with suicides. There is very likely a large difference in the mindset and controls influenced by that mindset between an emergency manuever and a suicide.
If a suicide is detected, at the very least POP the lock on the cockpit so the crew can do something about it. If it's an emergency landing but NOT terrorism, this won't be a problem. The only problem left is when pilot-is-crashing is falsely flagged, AND there are terrorists outside. But depending on how strong the correlation is, this might be an impossible scenario. The point is, we don't know until we actually try and run the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically.
Women intentionally objectify themselves by using the mere sight of their naked body as some sort of "prize" and "reward" for desired behavior and you're telling me--MY GOD--some males might bypass the system altogether and look at porn, or visit prostitutes instead of jumping through their artificial hurdles? What's wrong with these men? How sick in the head do they have to be to want to satisfy their sexual needs without submitting to a long process of jumping through hoops for the potential for sexual gratification?
Furthermore, as women treat themselves as objects to be "won", you mean men might go around and show these pictures and videos to other males, as bragging rights for passing the hurdles women have created? NO. NEVER. Men aren't naturally competitive at all!
It's actually pretty straight-forward. Necessary institutions and organizations were built to help first and second-wave feminism succeed. But Feminism won! Equality is in the legal books. So what's an institution to do once it's no longer needed? Make new issues to prove it's still needed! And they're willing to go further and further to survive--like using outright lies, shame, threats, and pure hatred to accomplish their means. First/Second-wave feminists are pretty pissed off at third-waves for exactly that reason.
Christina Marie Hoff Sommers, a world renowned "classic feminist" sums them up pretty well, so check out her videos or books on topics such as modern feminism's "War against Boys"--wherein boys are treated simply as "inferior girls" and essential things for them like recess are shortened and removed. Third-wavers hate her so much for using things like "facts" that they discredit, smear, and even go as far as to edit her Wikipedia page to remove any mention that she's a feminist. Pretty hilarious stuff.
Imagine a bunch of new programmers editing Linus Torvold's page and debating that he's not a "real programmer." How silly, petty, and passive-aggressive would that be?
So select the Fisher-Price theme when it comes out. Geez.
I tried to raise this issue before... with the Tesla auto-updating your cars firmware without asking the owner of the car first, and how that means they can literally put anything in there without your consent. (NSA GPS tracking anyone?)
Everyone was too busy going "OMG TESLA RULEZ" to care. (A great car sure, but that doesn't mean we need another Apple walled-garden.)
That's not even factually correct. It doesn't have a 6502. The NES had a Ricoh 2A03, which was a modified 6502 which REMOVED the BCD so they could put IO hardware registers in its place for controllers, sound, and DMA. The SNES did the exact same thing with the Ricoh 5A22, which is derived from the WDC 65C816--the same CPU as the Apple IIGS, which is why the development kid for SNES was an Apple IIGS.
How are we supposed to learn something from this submission if they can't even be bothered to check Wikipedia first? Fun-fact: If your information isn't better than what Wikipedia already has, it's useless.
They'll only play in the playground if they control it.
Apple is an example of a succesful walled-garden. Microsoft is an example of a failed walled-garden.
If we only had you working for us during the Reign of Bush, we could have invaded the whole Middle East while people applauded!
While I think your heart is in the right place... since they're attacking US citizens and companies, it still applies. Whether foreigners break into your house, shoot your wife, and rape your dog, and convince your children that Jesus is Lord, OR, steal your bank account information from your computer from Jupiter's moon of Europa, it doesn't really matter. They're still attacking you. It doesn't matter that they're not US citizens. Non-citizens can still break laws which allow the government to then protect its citizens.
That's doesn't mean we're not treading into a very grey, confusing legal area... But let's stop assuming laws can't apply outside of a country, or to non-citizens. If a guy fires a gun from Canada-owned land, and kills you in your house near the border, the USA can and will seek justice. This is not some draconian system, this is pretty normal international law and politics.
The USA does shady shit all the time. But let's focus on the depth of that actual shady shit they do instead of getting worked up about everything else they do.
It's so terrible that people don't want to work for a company with a proven track record of exploiting the very citizens it says it serves. All of us iPhone zombies are truly empathatic to your cause.
Well, for starters, civil forfeiture is about your non-living stuff, and the 4th Amendment applies to YOU, a living being with enumerable rights.
That doesn't mean I agree with it, but hell, you asked.
If that's the case, don't be a dick about it. Instead of "Go work from home for the two weeks because we're afraid you're going to fuck us over." Say, "Enjoy the next two weeks of paid vacation on us as a parting gift. Best of luck on your career."
Both accomplish the exact same thing, but one of them doesn't create dicks out of good employees. I mean what's the chance he's going to be productive those two weeks anyway?
In other words, developers want something that works everywhere, and .NET is the best of the only, crappy, solutions we have available.
It's much harder (and hugely risky) to make a brand new, gigantic project for cross-platform software, than it is to re-implement someone's existing framework. If you don't have money to burn, nobody is going to do that. What if you commit 5 man-years of effort and then nobody uses it? People usually prefer incremental expansions to existing frameworks. Didn't we just have a thread on re-inventing the wheel?
Likewise: I know of people so afraid of "being a cowboy" they use all of 10% of a programming language's feature set because they're too afraid to mess something up if they... learned something.
I also don't want a broken, poorly documented, no-longer maintained or serviceable wheel.
People are finally realizing the problems with things like "game engines."
Yeah yeah yeah, a game engine does tons of things for you. But it also forces you to do things a certain way, and can make tracking down bugs on THEIR SIDE extremely difficult. The time you save by "having it run out of the box" should be considered against the time it takes to "learn the API" and "learn the engine's quirks" and the huge cost of not being able to modify certain parts of the technology as needed. There's also the trade off of "is my new code making new bugs?" vs "Is their framework hiding bugs from me?"
It's not a simple, easy decision to make.
While more obvious with game engines, the same applies to any foreign piece of code. There is no such thing as magically re-usable code. All code needs time and energy to understand and work with, and no framework is magically going to let you treat a complex problem like a simple problem. It may hide the complex decisions, but if those decisions are wrong, you've got yet another headache.
...If it was USA/Israel/Britain/Canada pulling yet another False Flag operation of saying "OMGAWD Asians did it!".
For those who missed it, Canada outright admitted it they do this.
Though, this is really an arcane (read: 1995) way to write text posts. When I first started posting again on Slashdot I thought, "Wait, is this really the only way to post?"
You'd think everyone would use Markdown or some variation of it by now. Well, everyone does except Slashdot. And I still frequent a web forum designed in 1999, and it supports forum markup.
I wonder if they never changed because they think their system is better, or they just don't want to devote the resources. Or perhaps they like it worse as a natural barrier-to-entry to posting to keep out fifthly casuals and their signal-to-noise ratio. But I think that's giving them too much credit.
Next up in Slashdot Beta, all posts use a flash applet running in a java runtime that emulates VIM!
Half the juriors were WOMEN. And ALL of the Asian juriors voted against her.
When you assume every women who loses a case is because of "male domination", then nobody takes you seriously when you have an actual case of discrimination.
Ars Technica just lost my respect and readership. If they can be this biased toward their agenda even when the facts are obviously to the contrary, they can't be trusted to report on anything.
"Ellen Pao gender-bias lawsuit is a setback for women"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025377...
Written by a female ex-CEO.
In a nutshell, the case is obviously frivolous, and if it had succeeded it would have been another barrier for women in the industry because companies would see a female applicant and go, "Is she worth the risk?"
Just because there's a way to scan papers (to help you trick the system) doesn't mean everyone is going to use it. The smart ones will, but that doesn't mean plenty of stupid people won't.
If tool can't stop every bad guy doesn't mean it's useless. Even a professional will miss some. It's about reducing the numbers that get through.
Additionally, many emergencies have something wrong with the plane. Not all, like a misreported flight instrument sending you into the ocean... but clearly, there are differences between a healthy plane descending rapidly, and an engine exploding (engine temp sensors high or dead, fluid loss) and the same resulting loss of altitude. The drop is the same, but the instruments are wildly different.
Rhymetime With Eminem - How do you rhyme with the word orange?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think programmers should focus on making code that "isn't slow" more than they should focus on "is fast." Focus on not making stupid mistakes like running higher-order algorithms than necessary (ala using a for loop to search for a key when you could have been using a dictionary).
If you focus on fast, you should definitely do a profile-first-optimize-last approach so you're actually optimizing code that the computer spends most of it's time running.
If you're optimizing fringe functions, then it better be for a pet project and "because I want to." Because otherwise you'll be sacrificing maintenance and introducing bugs for something that isn't even affecting the user.
"Why?" is the goto card for people who don't achieve anything.
The things you learn re-inventing the wheel can be applied in various parts of your future projects.
It's like asking why solve a math problem? Obviously, to learn how to do math for the chance that you see a problem that you DON'T have an easy answer already available. Hell, that's what an entire engineering degree is. It's not "can you solve problem X" because problem X will almost never occur in real life in an isolated environment. The purpose is "can you solve these kinds of problems." And how do you learn to solve problems? By looking at ones people have already solved.
Here's a thought. A modern car can tell the difference between driving and a jackass about to rear-end someone.
Can't we train some neural nets / other machine learning with flight data on two sets of data. One, emergency maneuvers, and two, with suicides. There is very likely a large difference in the mindset and controls influenced by that mindset between an emergency manuever and a suicide.
If a suicide is detected, at the very least POP the lock on the cockpit so the crew can do something about it. If it's an emergency landing but NOT terrorism, this won't be a problem. The only problem left is when pilot-is-crashing is falsely flagged, AND there are terrorists outside. But depending on how strong the correlation is, this might be an impossible scenario. The point is, we don't know until we actually try and run the numbers.
"Hey, babe, can you get me a soda?" ::SLAM::
"Yeah."
"GOTCHA BITCH!"
I actually agree, but I couldn't resist.