To me if a workplace is not welcoming to women, it's probably not very welcoming to men either, so simply making the workplace better for everyone is the right thing to do, and will attract better candidates of all genders.
Put down the bong.
Are all tech workplaces just not attractive to women? What is different between a typical office, where people type spreadsheets and documents all day, and one where people type code all day?
Are efforts to help girls program going to be helpful if your workplace is just unwelcoming? So you increase the supply of people who for some reason you can't articulate don't want to be a part of tech?
We don't know the answer, so we don't know if there is a problem.
Most likely, it is a gender difference, and our society has built up a story of lack of differences. So we will have a lot of gnashing of teeth, followed by a very vocal minority of people who feel disadvantaged yelling about nothing.
Maybe it is a bunch of gender based discrimination. Maybe it's some other stuff. I'm pretty sure I understand it, but that doesn't mean the answer is known.
Good, let's reason instead of rhetoric. What specifically do you object to in the linked article? Because unless you point out verifiable issues, I'm using it next time I explain how stupid people can't stand information that contradicts their understanding.
Including your knee jerk response here as an exhibit, of course.
Ground rule, please keep to the specifics in the article, and not some straw man.
And please, don't start sentences with filler words. This may sound impossible, but it makes you sound less intelligent.
This article is about how computers see things, not people. Taking the expensive parts out of depth sensing and replacing them with a second camera, and processing the results instead of using expensive hardware. That's kind of a guess, reading into Intel's product announcements.
Having a second camera for 3D dick pics will be a side effect, not the point.
Outside of a C-suite executive meeting, no one cares about the answer to your question other than other people who somehow dislike the technology and don't particularly want to see it.
The only people who need to be concerned are the producers of the product. That's literally their concern and no one else's
If nothing else, it will be a two-quarter spike in profits to report, and the related technologies may work they way into other applications.
Or another way to look at it: the people behind this project want it so yes, people apparently do.
You also misunderstood the point of this. "Intel is trying to one-up Microsoft by building Kinect-like 3D sensors that are small and cheap enough to integrate into mobile devices. Intel announced the technology, dubbed RealSense, last year. And it has been aggressively promoting it at CES this week."
Here's the original title: "3D cameras are about to go mainstream. Here's why that's a big deal." We missed the whole last half of it in the summary.
Law enforcement could decide tomorrow that they don't need a warrant to stuff cacti in your butt. The first case involving someone treated thusly would be adjudicated as such.
The law allows for terrible abuses in this way, and you have to be harmed in order to raise a complaint.
It is a terrible system, but it is the best one I know. If there is a better one, then show me and I will gladly move there. Something more than a link to "Oh, Europe" would be helpful - something that guarantees that the kind of abuses you object to cannot happen.
Cannot happen, and do not happen, and will not happen - these are all different. If it cannot happen, I want to live there.
Why the pessimism? I would think this has a really good chance of turning out in your favor.
It is well known that anyone making a call anywhere discloses information to a third party, so the third party doctrine applies. But the contents of that call, as far as I can tell, are considered private. It would be a difficult legal fight, and expensive.
The only question is, do you give up that easily? Or are you a patriot?
Justice takes time. It also takes standing, or the right to sue. This is a difficult and slow process.
But assuming that you can overcome the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court's interpretation, then the Constitution still stands everywhere, and your dismissive comment is not in any way helpful. If you want to fight, or inspire fighting, or in any way object, then you just basically sent a great bug "fuck you don't try" message. Was that your intent?
What the FBI decides is essentially irrelevant, until you are persecuted and have standing. If you don't have standing, you were not injured by this decision. If you were, then you do, and you can object via the legal system. This is the way the Constitution was supposed to work. It is slow, but it works out eventually, and finally. And that is the way it is supposed to work.
Not necessarily on your timescale, and certainly not on the internet's timescale. And nowhere near the news cycle's timescale. As good as it would be for everyone concerned, it does not work that quickly.
If a government says something is true, then you cannot question the evidence. I'm not supporting the government view - I'm saying that the evidence will not be presented to you to be evaluated.
"Where's the evidence" is therefore, fairly obviously, either a troll post of pure ignorance. Posting a link to someone asking the same questions as you counts as exactly zero on this internet where anyone can opine in any fashion.
I'm still struggling to imagine how declaring NK as the culprit, and adding sanctions, helps anyone, since there is sufficient evidence to question the conclusion. ESPECIALLY since a lot of the evidence is in the hands of private companies, and VERY ESPECIALLY since third parties can independently verify at least some of the information.
Your quote about repeating a lie suggests that you are a sceptic, and not really someone seeking the truth. The difference is, you are willing to jump in and question something without all of the information. I'm willing to say that we don't have all of the information, but you seem to be drawing a conclusion while knowing that you don't have all of the information. You are a dangerous person.
As for where sanctions strike the most, I'll leave you to your notions.
You've gotten sidetracked by the replies. The point here is that some math guy has noticed that recent developments in maths were not included in open source code.
Open source contributors are often not math majors, and that's okay. When you have someone who can understand the recent findings, and translate that into an algorithm, the speedups can be a lot faster than simply switching to a lower level language.
That's what this story is about. If you want to start an ASM flamewar, well you did, but it's best to do so in its own thread rather than hijacking the first post. Do better next time.
Meanwhile, it is true that sometimes you have to go the ASM way to get a speedup. Whether it is significant, or whether it is needed, or all of that junk will have been argued extensively by now. "Sometimes" is a very slippery word. No matter how intelligently someone may argue that computers do just fine without optimization, sometimes a person can go beyond what the computer, which was programmed by a person, can do.
How the fuck is this Insightful? Are people really going to just sit on FTL travel and wait for an astronomical body to float by instead?
Of FUCKING COURSE a spaceship might be more practical. But what if it isn't possible? Then the article makes sense. And it's real and practical, whereas FTL travel is not.
Just read the fucking article this time. I was going to select bits to quote for you, but honestly either you are deliberately misunderstanding or don't possess the reading skills to make sense of words.
Have someone read it to you, and ask them to use small words if that helps.
This is not related to Wikipedia, aka "The encyclopedia that like 12 friends of Jimbo can edit" except in that special way where you are related to any random-ass member of humanity.
First: Because you won't get much out of a mission where everyone dies. Argue if you wish, but you will get more out of one where people live and can do stuff and report and return samples.
Second: Proof, in common parlance, does not mean what you suggest. Knowledge within an acceptable error rate is proof enough. And when it proves insufficient, we gain knowledge. But not nearly as much as if it had been.
What exactly did you object to? That people who aren't idiots would like to engage in cutting edge science safely if possible?
Are you familiar with the POODLE attack on SSL? Were you familiar before Google researchers publicised it? Was the collective of Five Eyes aware? Would you have called that malware regardless of who used it?
I've defended the benefit of the doubt before, but I would hardly call this unlikely.
According to an NSA document, the agency intended to crack 10 million intercepted https connections a day by late 2012
That's my big fear out of all of this. That they did, and that they will continue. Your fear is a given - my fear is not even suspected by the majority of the 5 eyes citizens. Yet here it is, standard operating procedure.
I suppose I could be afraid of death by old age, but in my case that's not what will kill me. I'd rather spend my life concerned with what will, in my lifetime, affect me personally. And I don't even have critical data to be concerned with. If I lived in Colorado, that would be enough to suspect me of subverting federal law - and that's enough for me to want to conceal where I live at all times. Even if it's not Colorado.
Remember: 48 states have signed an agreement with Corrections Corporations of America to keep their jails at 90% bed space or else face fines hourly.
Is this the same as paying wait staff $2.13 an hour plus tips or face fines hourly in the form of minimum wage? If not, specify.
It wouldn't take much for copyright law to be amended,
Holy shit, just go ahead and try. I wish you the best of luck, because it needs to happen. But man, that smells like ignorance and idealism stirred into a nice horseshit.
Well, they do, and an American can get shipped over there for breaking them, due to extradition treaties
In theory, maybe. In reality, you have to already be there and there's no shipping off. You are clearly brainwashed, or ignorant.
: Laws created by treaties
Like Kyoto? The opposition generally falls along the lines of states being on the hook for following a treaty, and the feds not being able to agree on behalf of the states. So while you have a valid point, you have an unlikely point. Hardly worth giving you any benefit of any doubt.
#5.. While bad, I don't see how privacy matters here. Spousal privilege is not an issue in a divorce. Surely you can do better than that.
#6 I don't remember that one, but I do remember people claiming to be incapable of the things they are photographed doing. My lenience is growing thin.
#7.. Who the fuck keeps a racist list? And who.. you know what, you hang out with idiots.
#8.. It isn't happening right now. That's what you said, and I no longer care.
#9, "nearly"
Look, privacy is VERY important. But you're actually not helping with this list. You sound like a paranoid lunatic, especially when far better arguments exist. You, and the 5 people who spared mod points for you, need to get your heads out of your asses and make actually helpful arguments based on facts, and not anecdotes or what might happen.
I'm not going to spend the time to rewrite your argument, because that's on you. But you are making me look like an idiot by association.
I don't know a better way to describe it. I get why people use social networks to keep in touch, and "too fucking bad" is not something that normal, social people would say.
Keep in mind that, since at least the agrarian revolution, it has been a beneficial trait to give at least one, admittedly estimated, tenth of a damn, about what other people think and why they think it.
As a privacy advocate I agree with your sentiment. But your reasoning is flawed, and your understanding destructively so.
They can still be more secure than PIN codes in many cases, and can always be used in conjunction with them or other types of passwords for multiple layers of security.
You are repeating something that has been said elsewhere, and I suggest you cite sources when you plagiarize ideas that can be quickly checked. And, TFA does not say what you think it says - the quote is above for anyone to judge for themselves.
Whom do you mean by "NOT ONE OF US"? And when you say " IT LIVING ON SITE (think Monastery)" do you mean that no one is safe? If so, then what do you mean by "NOT ONE OF US"?
Everyone is subject to any attack any moment of the day, by someone who knows the vulnerabilities. Anyone with sufficient power who does not already know this is an idiot, and likely not reading this website.
Define push, and further define the evidence you are willing to accept. It is out there. I don't argue that women are by and large the teachers. The unfairly treated comment is a straw man.
The question is about comp sci, and whether it is controlled by a gender. Not, as far as I can see, about education in general.
I have shown you, as you could equally discover, a push for more men in teaching. It is ineffective. How are boys demanded to conform to a feminised system?
Not chump change doesn't factor in, if you have a business that can, in some fashion, afford it. The quote says that it was paid. Ergo, jump up your own ass and die.
The problem is that a person can agree to pay a pittance, proportionally, and stipulate that a larger sum was paid.
That's straight up lying.
Did they pay $4M and tell the court that they paid more? If so, that's a problem. But a defunct company can't complain that they lied to a court and expect any kind of anything. Even worse, the court record and all reports are wrong about the cost of infringing. That affects everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Put down the bong.
Are all tech workplaces just not attractive to women? What is different between a typical office, where people type spreadsheets and documents all day, and one where people type code all day?
Are efforts to help girls program going to be helpful if your workplace is just unwelcoming? So you increase the supply of people who for some reason you can't articulate don't want to be a part of tech?
We don't know the answer, so we don't know if there is a problem.
Most likely, it is a gender difference, and our society has built up a story of lack of differences. So we will have a lot of gnashing of teeth, followed by a very vocal minority of people who feel disadvantaged yelling about nothing.
Maybe it is a bunch of gender based discrimination. Maybe it's some other stuff. I'm pretty sure I understand it, but that doesn't mean the answer is known.
It is not explicit, but it is clear that they did not use Facebook friends, preferring real ones instead.
Good, let's reason instead of rhetoric. What specifically do you object to in the linked article? Because unless you point out verifiable issues, I'm using it next time I explain how stupid people can't stand information that contradicts their understanding.
Including your knee jerk response here as an exhibit, of course.
Ground rule, please keep to the specifics in the article, and not some straw man.
And please, don't start sentences with filler words. This may sound impossible, but it makes you sound less intelligent.
This article is about how computers see things, not people. Taking the expensive parts out of depth sensing and replacing them with a second camera, and processing the results instead of using expensive hardware. That's kind of a guess, reading into Intel's product announcements.
Having a second camera for 3D dick pics will be a side effect, not the point.
Outside of a C-suite executive meeting, no one cares about the answer to your question other than other people who somehow dislike the technology and don't particularly want to see it.
The only people who need to be concerned are the producers of the product. That's literally their concern and no one else's
If nothing else, it will be a two-quarter spike in profits to report, and the related technologies may work they way into other applications.
Or another way to look at it: the people behind this project want it so yes, people apparently do.
You also misunderstood the point of this. "Intel is trying to one-up Microsoft by building Kinect-like 3D sensors that are small and cheap enough to integrate into mobile devices. Intel announced the technology, dubbed RealSense, last year. And it has been aggressively promoting it at CES this week."
Here's the original title: "3D cameras are about to go mainstream. Here's why that's a big deal." We missed the whole last half of it in the summary.
Law enforcement could decide tomorrow that they don't need a warrant to stuff cacti in your butt. The first case involving someone treated thusly would be adjudicated as such.
The law allows for terrible abuses in this way, and you have to be harmed in order to raise a complaint.
It is a terrible system, but it is the best one I know. If there is a better one, then show me and I will gladly move there. Something more than a link to "Oh, Europe" would be helpful - something that guarantees that the kind of abuses you object to cannot happen.
Cannot happen, and do not happen, and will not happen - these are all different. If it cannot happen, I want to live there.
Why the pessimism? I would think this has a really good chance of turning out in your favor.
It is well known that anyone making a call anywhere discloses information to a third party, so the third party doctrine applies. But the contents of that call, as far as I can tell, are considered private. It would be a difficult legal fight, and expensive.
The only question is, do you give up that easily? Or are you a patriot?
Citation please. If you are correct, I need to re-evaluate some things.
And one link to one instance won't do, unless it is a supreme court ruling that sets the precedent for everyone.
Justice takes time. It also takes standing, or the right to sue. This is a difficult and slow process.
But assuming that you can overcome the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court's interpretation, then the Constitution still stands everywhere, and your dismissive comment is not in any way helpful. If you want to fight, or inspire fighting, or in any way object, then you just basically sent a great bug "fuck you don't try" message. Was that your intent?
What the FBI decides is essentially irrelevant, until you are persecuted and have standing. If you don't have standing, you were not injured by this decision. If you were, then you do, and you can object via the legal system. This is the way the Constitution was supposed to work. It is slow, but it works out eventually, and finally. And that is the way it is supposed to work.
Not necessarily on your timescale, and certainly not on the internet's timescale. And nowhere near the news cycle's timescale. As good as it would be for everyone concerned, it does not work that quickly.
If a government says something is true, then you cannot question the evidence. I'm not supporting the government view - I'm saying that the evidence will not be presented to you to be evaluated.
"Where's the evidence" is therefore, fairly obviously, either a troll post of pure ignorance. Posting a link to someone asking the same questions as you counts as exactly zero on this internet where anyone can opine in any fashion.
I'm still struggling to imagine how declaring NK as the culprit, and adding sanctions, helps anyone, since there is sufficient evidence to question the conclusion. ESPECIALLY since a lot of the evidence is in the hands of private companies, and VERY ESPECIALLY since third parties can independently verify at least some of the information.
Your quote about repeating a lie suggests that you are a sceptic, and not really someone seeking the truth. The difference is, you are willing to jump in and question something without all of the information. I'm willing to say that we don't have all of the information, but you seem to be drawing a conclusion while knowing that you don't have all of the information. You are a dangerous person.
As for where sanctions strike the most, I'll leave you to your notions.
You've gotten sidetracked by the replies. The point here is that some math guy has noticed that recent developments in maths were not included in open source code.
Open source contributors are often not math majors, and that's okay. When you have someone who can understand the recent findings, and translate that into an algorithm, the speedups can be a lot faster than simply switching to a lower level language.
That's what this story is about. If you want to start an ASM flamewar, well you did, but it's best to do so in its own thread rather than hijacking the first post. Do better next time.
Meanwhile, it is true that sometimes you have to go the ASM way to get a speedup. Whether it is significant, or whether it is needed, or all of that junk will have been argued extensively by now. "Sometimes" is a very slippery word. No matter how intelligently someone may argue that computers do just fine without optimization, sometimes a person can go beyond what the computer, which was programmed by a person, can do.
How the fuck is this Insightful? Are people really going to just sit on FTL travel and wait for an astronomical body to float by instead?
Of FUCKING COURSE a spaceship might be more practical. But what if it isn't possible? Then the article makes sense. And it's real and practical, whereas FTL travel is not.
"Willing to wait" is not the same thing as "able to wait".
If we have no choice but to wait, perhaps willing is the next best thing.
Or do you have the secret to FTL travel hidden in your pants?
Just read the fucking article this time. I was going to select bits to quote for you, but honestly either you are deliberately misunderstanding or don't possess the reading skills to make sense of words.
Have someone read it to you, and ask them to use small words if that helps.
This is not related to Wikipedia, aka "The encyclopedia that like 12 friends of Jimbo can edit" except in that special way where you are related to any random-ass member of humanity.
First: Because you won't get much out of a mission where everyone dies. Argue if you wish, but you will get more out of one where people live and can do stuff and report and return samples.
Second: Proof, in common parlance, does not mean what you suggest. Knowledge within an acceptable error rate is proof enough. And when it proves insufficient, we gain knowledge. But not nearly as much as if it had been.
What exactly did you object to? That people who aren't idiots would like to engage in cutting edge science safely if possible?
Define badly configured?
Are you familiar with the POODLE attack on SSL? Were you familiar before Google researchers publicised it? Was the collective of Five Eyes aware? Would you have called that malware regardless of who used it?
I've defended the benefit of the doubt before, but I would hardly call this unlikely.
That's my big fear out of all of this. That they did, and that they will continue. Your fear is a given - my fear is not even suspected by the majority of the 5 eyes citizens. Yet here it is, standard operating procedure.
I suppose I could be afraid of death by old age, but in my case that's not what will kill me. I'd rather spend my life concerned with what will, in my lifetime, affect me personally. And I don't even have critical data to be concerned with. If I lived in Colorado, that would be enough to suspect me of subverting federal law - and that's enough for me to want to conceal where I live at all times. Even if it's not Colorado.
Is this the same as paying wait staff $2.13 an hour plus tips or face fines hourly in the form of minimum wage? If not, specify.
You sound autistic.
I don't know a better way to describe it. I get why people use social networks to keep in touch, and "too fucking bad" is not something that normal, social people would say.
Keep in mind that, since at least the agrarian revolution, it has been a beneficial trait to give at least one, admittedly estimated, tenth of a damn, about what other people think and why they think it.
As a privacy advocate I agree with your sentiment. But your reasoning is flawed, and your understanding destructively so.
You are repeating something that has been said elsewhere, and I suggest you cite sources when you plagiarize ideas that can be quickly checked. And, TFA does not say what you think it says - the quote is above for anyone to judge for themselves.
Whom do you mean by "NOT ONE OF US"? And when you say " IT LIVING ON SITE (think Monastery)" do you mean that no one is safe? If so, then what do you mean by "NOT ONE OF US"?
Everyone is subject to any attack any moment of the day, by someone who knows the vulnerabilities. Anyone with sufficient power who does not already know this is an idiot, and likely not reading this website.
Restate your point, if indeed you have one?
Great job. Now go convince 7 billion people of that. Meanwhile, people are buying bio-only devices.
If you came here to proselytize, you have the wrong audience. Isn't this demonstration far more effective than your post was?
If you are not China, and do not control the glass? Is it special then? If you are not even suspected of controlling the glass?
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen...
Define push, and further define the evidence you are willing to accept. It is out there. I don't argue that women are by and large the teachers. The unfairly treated comment is a straw man.
The question is about comp sci, and whether it is controlled by a gender. Not, as far as I can see, about education in general.
I have shown you, as you could equally discover, a push for more men in teaching. It is ineffective. How are boys demanded to conform to a feminised system?
Not chump change doesn't factor in, if you have a business that can, in some fashion, afford it. The quote says that it was paid. Ergo, jump up your own ass and die.
The problem is that a person can agree to pay a pittance, proportionally, and stipulate that a larger sum was paid.
That's straight up lying.
Did they pay $4M and tell the court that they paid more? If so, that's a problem. But a defunct company can't complain that they lied to a court and expect any kind of anything. Even worse, the court record and all reports are wrong about the cost of infringing. That affects everyone.