RTFA, halivar. Women's brains were driving them to embrace computer science apace with their embrace of all other fields of education but then suddenly they turned away from computer science in the 1980s. The question is, why the change? Why is computer science the one field where women WERE embracing the field but then STOPPED embracing the field?
If women didn't want to code then they wouldn't have been choosing to code. Women did want to code, and then stopped wanting to. That's the point of the paper and the article.
We live in a society without slavery so we don't force women to code. The question is, why did women choose to study computer science apace with other fields of study, then suddenly reverse their choices and stop studying computer science? That is the question in the article and your answer "They don't want to code" is factually refuted by the data in the study.
If you read the article you will see that a central premise of the paper is that early consumer computers were toys marketed to boys and not marketed to girls.
So your point might or might not be true, but it is specifically refuted by the paper.
"serif - NOT sans serif - fonts are easier to read "
That is also my understanding, and my experience, but only for text shown in very high resolution for instance when printed on paper. Screens are different, but the newest high res screens might be the start of a new era in display fonts.
Yeah the author finally gets to the point in the last two paragraphs of his blog post. You wouldn't notice that if you stopped reading when the opinion piece became boring.
I have a hard time calling what is described in the article as "weapons". To me a "weapon" must contain actual capability. If we pull a 300-year-old rusty barnacle-covered canon from the bottom of the ocean, is that a "weapon"? I don't think so. It doesn't fire, it can't be directed at an enemy with deadly force.
What this article describes is that there were chemicals in Iraq, not so much chemical weapons. (And, to the more general point, nothing at all like what was described as a justification for the war. That justification is not at all supported by this story.)
"1) The US meddles in other countries affairs in ways that kill lots of people and THAT is why some people hate us, not because of our alleged freedom."
If that is true then why were they so upset at the Dutch? The Dutch don't mettle in foreign affairs so much, yet a majority of worldwide Muslims called for deaths of some Dutch cartoonists. Do they hate the Dutch for their freedom, but hate us for other reasons?
I think they hate our freedom, and we hate their oppression. Luckily we've got bigger bombs so our hatred is more successfully implemented in policy. I'm also willing to defend my love of freedom and my hatred of their oppression, if you disagree with my assessment that my culture is better than theirs, even though neither is perfect. Maybe it would serve our interests to drop fewer bombs, or maybe not, but I don't think Muslim outrage would be substantially different for it. I do, really, think they hate us for our freedom.
There is a minority of Muslims today with worldviews that are compatible with modernity. I hope that minority sways the minds of the overall Muslim community over the next few hundred years in the way that a minority of Christians swayed the Christian community over the last few hundred years. It'll be hard to get through those years without a lot of deaths of people who just cannot abide things like apostasy, speech, secularism and equality.
Clinton? Oh, new unrelated topic? Okay, Clinton was bombing Iraq in order to advance his foreign policy and security agenda. That's similar to what Bush did in purpose but not in scale. Dropping one bomb isn't a war. Invading and occupying a country is a war.
To me "intent" is irrelevant. If I "intend" to kill a million people by farting on them, that counts under your definition but not in my opinion.
Throwing chicken necks at an enemy soldier is "a weapon involving a biological agent" but it isn't a WMD in my opinion. In my opinion a Weapon of Mass Destructions must be ACTUALLY CAPABLE of Mass Destruction.
Therefore "a rusting metal tube containing a nasty chemical" isn't a WMD because it isn't actually capable of mass destruction. You can't strap a rusty metal tube to a rocket to deliver the chemical. It may have been a WMD in the past but not once it is rusting and leaking.
If these old weapons found were WMD by any stretch of the imagination then Cheney would have told us so. Personally I'm still waiting for them to post a video of the insides of one of those "mobile chemical plants" they showed drawings of in 2002 at the UN.
No, we won't stop, because it's imperative to teach people why not to go to war next time.
Justified war exists but is incredibly rare. America hasn't fought a justified war in its last dozen attempts at warfare. If 90% of wars turn out to be bad ideas then that is a message that needs to be repeated and shouted from the mountaintops.
Thank you for your service. Most members of our military conducted themselves with a high level of professionalism, despite some high-profile very bad behavior.
So how do you divide algorithms from other inventions? If you invent a better mousetrap, how is that different than an algorithm describing exactly how to build and run the mousetrap?
I ask this as a person who also dislikes software patents but I always say it is because almost all software patents fail the obviousness test, not because algorithms are somehow off limits for patenting. I have seen software that I thought was reasonable to patent -- two or three times ever.
I'm jaded with battery claims. Oh, you built a better battery? Fine, make a product and sell it to me. If it's a better battery then I'll pay you well for your invention, but don't talk to me about research because I've heard it before.
Offices I have worked in have had very little paper in them over my career (starting just before the Iraq War) but I work in tech so maybe we're on the leading edge. I literally can't think of the last time I had to touch a piece of paper specifically for work -- maybe signing my employment contract? Sometimes I use pen and paper to work out algorithms but more often I use a whiteboard.
What kind of office do you work in? There is a great diversity.
I can't speak for him, but I use the one at the local library. I have to go put five cents into that machine a few times a year. At this rate it would be cheaper to buy a printer in about three hundred years. There's also one at work I can use.
I recently got an email from my insurance company telling me they needed some additional paperwork. They told me to fax the documents to a phone number.
I thought "Sure, it should be fairly easy to find a fax machine. But... where am I going to find the time machine required to go back to the 1970s to find the fax machine?"
My father-in-law recently commented on me not owning a printer, suggesting maybe he could get us one as a gift. I shut that down: look, I can afford a printer if I want one, but I've lived my entire adult life (I turned 18 in 1998) without owning a personal printer, and my need to print is asymptotically approaching zero. I print maybe four or six times a year and on those occasions I seek out a printer.
I never knew CUPS was an Apple product but I remember installing it back in, what, probably 2000 on some Linux machines in college, as part of my work-study job. That must have been immediately after it was introduced.
You are right: the LPR system it replaced was awful. I don't remember much about CUPS except that I got it to work.
The closest subdefinition is "to draw out or remove as if by percolation".
Could the gas lost to space be "as if" liquid were passing through the gas? Maybe, if you stretch the definition. Replace "liquid" with "solar wind" and that's not very far off.
Other words would be a better fit.
One thing I can safely disagree with you about, though, is that this represents a new low for Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA, halivar. Women's brains were driving them to embrace computer science apace with their embrace of all other fields of education but then suddenly they turned away from computer science in the 1980s. The question is, why the change? Why is computer science the one field where women WERE embracing the field but then STOPPED embracing the field?
If women didn't want to code then they wouldn't have been choosing to code. Women did want to code, and then stopped wanting to. That's the point of the paper and the article.
We live in a society without slavery so we don't force women to code. The question is, why did women choose to study computer science apace with other fields of study, then suddenly reverse their choices and stop studying computer science? That is the question in the article and your answer "They don't want to code" is factually refuted by the data in the study.
If you read the article you will see that a central premise of the paper is that early consumer computers were toys marketed to boys and not marketed to girls.
So your point might or might not be true, but it is specifically refuted by the paper.
"serif - NOT sans serif - fonts are easier to read "
That is also my understanding, and my experience, but only for text shown in very high resolution for instance when printed on paper. Screens are different, but the newest high res screens might be the start of a new era in display fonts.
Yeah the author finally gets to the point in the last two paragraphs of his blog post. You wouldn't notice that if you stopped reading when the opinion piece became boring.
I have a hard time calling what is described in the article as "weapons". To me a "weapon" must contain actual capability. If we pull a 300-year-old rusty barnacle-covered canon from the bottom of the ocean, is that a "weapon"? I don't think so. It doesn't fire, it can't be directed at an enemy with deadly force.
What this article describes is that there were chemicals in Iraq, not so much chemical weapons. (And, to the more general point, nothing at all like what was described as a justification for the war. That justification is not at all supported by this story.)
"1) The US meddles in other countries affairs in ways that kill lots of people and THAT is why some people hate us, not because of our alleged freedom."
If that is true then why were they so upset at the Dutch? The Dutch don't mettle in foreign affairs so much, yet a majority of worldwide Muslims called for deaths of some Dutch cartoonists. Do they hate the Dutch for their freedom, but hate us for other reasons?
I think they hate our freedom, and we hate their oppression. Luckily we've got bigger bombs so our hatred is more successfully implemented in policy. I'm also willing to defend my love of freedom and my hatred of their oppression, if you disagree with my assessment that my culture is better than theirs, even though neither is perfect. Maybe it would serve our interests to drop fewer bombs, or maybe not, but I don't think Muslim outrage would be substantially different for it. I do, really, think they hate us for our freedom.
There is a minority of Muslims today with worldviews that are compatible with modernity. I hope that minority sways the minds of the overall Muslim community over the next few hundred years in the way that a minority of Christians swayed the Christian community over the last few hundred years. It'll be hard to get through those years without a lot of deaths of people who just cannot abide things like apostasy, speech, secularism and equality.
Yes, I suppose the rusty buckets of chemicals could be made into IEDs, as long as we remember that IEDs are not WMDs.
Yes, Bush started a war.
Clinton? Oh, new unrelated topic? Okay, Clinton was bombing Iraq in order to advance his foreign policy and security agenda. That's similar to what Bush did in purpose but not in scale. Dropping one bomb isn't a war. Invading and occupying a country is a war.
I don't know. That sounds sort of broad.
To me "intent" is irrelevant. If I "intend" to kill a million people by farting on them, that counts under your definition but not in my opinion.
Throwing chicken necks at an enemy soldier is "a weapon involving a biological agent" but it isn't a WMD in my opinion. In my opinion a Weapon of Mass Destructions must be ACTUALLY CAPABLE of Mass Destruction.
Therefore "a rusting metal tube containing a nasty chemical" isn't a WMD because it isn't actually capable of mass destruction. You can't strap a rusty metal tube to a rocket to deliver the chemical. It may have been a WMD in the past but not once it is rusting and leaking.
If these old weapons found were WMD by any stretch of the imagination then Cheney would have told us so. Personally I'm still waiting for them to post a video of the insides of one of those "mobile chemical plants" they showed drawings of in 2002 at the UN.
No, we won't stop, because it's imperative to teach people why not to go to war next time.
Justified war exists but is incredibly rare. America hasn't fought a justified war in its last dozen attempts at warfare. If 90% of wars turn out to be bad ideas then that is a message that needs to be repeated and shouted from the mountaintops.
Thank you for your service. Most members of our military conducted themselves with a high level of professionalism, despite some high-profile very bad behavior.
Tough mod, bro. Your comment clearly wasn't a troll... it was flamebait.
So how do you divide algorithms from other inventions? If you invent a better mousetrap, how is that different than an algorithm describing exactly how to build and run the mousetrap?
I ask this as a person who also dislikes software patents but I always say it is because almost all software patents fail the obviousness test, not because algorithms are somehow off limits for patenting. I have seen software that I thought was reasonable to patent -- two or three times ever.
"I miss the days when browser vendors weren't afraid to rapidly innovate and take bold, important steps."
FWIW, when they do that most people on Slashdot complain. Damned do/don't, and all that.
+4, Informative
I'm jaded with battery claims. Oh, you built a better battery? Fine, make a product and sell it to me. If it's a better battery then I'll pay you well for your invention, but don't talk to me about research because I've heard it before.
That's what I thought, too. I'd never known that.
Now think all the way back to A/UX.
Offices I have worked in have had very little paper in them over my career (starting just before the Iraq War) but I work in tech so maybe we're on the leading edge. I literally can't think of the last time I had to touch a piece of paper specifically for work -- maybe signing my employment contract? Sometimes I use pen and paper to work out algorithms but more often I use a whiteboard.
What kind of office do you work in? There is a great diversity.
I can't speak for him, but I use the one at the local library. I have to go put five cents into that machine a few times a year. At this rate it would be cheaper to buy a printer in about three hundred years. There's also one at work I can use.
I recently got an email from my insurance company telling me they needed some additional paperwork. They told me to fax the documents to a phone number.
I thought "Sure, it should be fairly easy to find a fax machine. But... where am I going to find the time machine required to go back to the 1970s to find the fax machine?"
My father-in-law recently commented on me not owning a printer, suggesting maybe he could get us one as a gift. I shut that down: look, I can afford a printer if I want one, but I've lived my entire adult life (I turned 18 in 1998) without owning a personal printer, and my need to print is asymptotically approaching zero. I print maybe four or six times a year and on those occasions I seek out a printer.
I never knew CUPS was an Apple product but I remember installing it back in, what, probably 2000 on some Linux machines in college, as part of my work-study job. That must have been immediately after it was introduced.
You are right: the LPR system it replaced was awful. I don't remember much about CUPS except that I got it to work.
None of the terraforming ideas make any sense without a magnetosphere.
The closest subdefinition is "to draw out or remove as if by percolation".
Could the gas lost to space be "as if" liquid were passing through the gas? Maybe, if you stretch the definition. Replace "liquid" with "solar wind" and that's not very far off.
Other words would be a better fit.
One thing I can safely disagree with you about, though, is that this represents a new low for Slashdot.
Wouldn't that include, say, cars boats trains airplanes and spaceships?
I'd happily pay $2 for a spaceship, even if it ran Windows.
I'd pay more than $2 for a Tesla.
So why not use a different app store then?
Me too. If anything the Gmail filter is too aggressive and I lose some legit emails into the spam folder.