Respect for the dead is a very fundamental basis for respect for the living.
Censorship is wrong, because understanding the causes and solutions honors both the living and the dead.
ISIS will not stop beheading unless it decides that no longer supports its goals. Can't upload to youtube is irrelevant. Please make you laugh yourself, you're an idiot. They don't want to stop beheadings, only the consumer, sorry product, reactions.
People wanting to censor it have their own reasons. If that sickens you, then you really need some disaster in your life. People really do this, really want this, and genuinely would like it if you fucked off. I'm not one of them, but it's true.
I don't understand the denial/force point, because I could find many, many, many, many. references to this video without the video censorship angle. This post by horseshit logistician Bennett Hasslehoff is all about putting a pre-roll logo on your video.
As much as I want to shit down Bennett's throat at all times of the day, this seems like the absolute least you could do, and certainly not objectionable without specific complaints. Harm the ISIS group if you are going to post the video. Are we good? Great, then make a point that isn't stupid.
The gp does not reference watching as a defence. That is entirely within your mind, and we should surmise things about you as a result.
Also, sick curiosity is not a need to imagine that beheading is gruesome.
I agree that no one should comment on CP unless they have seen it.
Many who abhor it will probably like it, and think it's harmless. Many who think it's harmless will realize it's absolutely in no way harmless, and cannot be tolerated in any fashion. This is how generally people on grandstands work.
Curiosity leads to understanding. If more people understand what a horrible thing this is, you have won if everyone actually sees it. Especially if they thought they might be okay, and realized they were not okay. If more people think this is harmless and deserves to be tolerated as a result of seeing it, society has gotten its judgement. And you will have been proven wrong, much as the wholesome people may object.
Isn't there a quote about defending the worst people to protect the rights of the population?
I saw the same one, unless a very clever magic trick substituted.
I too will not watch one because of that.
For the family members, I certainly thank YT and Twitter and all that.
For humanity in general, I strongly encourage any of them to watch this, and shame on anyone who censors this.
This happens. To people. And it probably really sucks.
People starve. People have diseases, and deformities. And people die horribly.
People need the chance to watch this, and realize how really horrible it is. It's not just awful. It takes a few strokes of the machete. Did you think a clean chop did it? Nope, it's not a Hattori HanzÅ sword. It's something some random dickhead had on hand. It's not really sharp, and not really clean.
Several chops before they die, and several more before it is done.
The news is: this happened. It happens. This is real.
The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.
You're wrong. Here's why. "Bait" as you use it can be good, and for a number of reasons listed in the article you mention.
Clickbait specifically applies to things like advertising and titles on news aggregators. It can also reference baity headlines on the same site,
Here's what I found when I went to MSNBC because my go to news site had few details on today's active shooter incident.
1Thousands pay tribute to 'gentle giant'
2Scott Walker's big blunderWatch
3Gay marriage comes closer to SCOTUS
4The wrong prosecutor for the job?Watch
5'Weâ(TM)re guilty until proven innocent'
6Obama caught between rock and hard placeWatch
7Darren Wilson supporters 'won't back down'
8Paul Ryan runs from DREAMers
9Military: Fort Lee shooter has died
10Letter from Foley details detention
So here's why I immediately went to another site:
1 Who the fuck is this?
2 Everything ever?
3 Closer means nothing
4 If you have to ask, yeah.
5 Yep, that's America for ya
6 Like every other decision where (R) are involved?
7 I don't know who this is, and it's not as baity.
8 Yep
9 I didn't read this one
10 I didn't read this one, also who the shit is Foley?
This was MSNBC trying to get me to click on news when I went to their site for news. If I read it every day, maybe I'd idly click on one of those. Since I don't, I got bored and gave up.
Now, defend the practice of making the user click on more stories than they normally would, as a regular reader. It is wasting the reader's time, and gathering more advertising from companies that use the readers' dollars to sell them advertising so they buy more products.
Dollars are wasted. and people don't read the articles for details, so this kind of horseshit is completely unnecessary.
Your turn.
Re:"Paleolithic diets" now vs then
on
The Evolution of Diet
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"I doubt" is not helpful here.
The article mentions "unrefined grains, nuts, fruits, and vegetables" so your "for example" has holes in it.
"Probably died in their 40s" sounds like you don't have data, and it's a well known bias in life expectancy that infant deaths bring down the average "lived to be" date. I suspect you fell victim to bad statistics.
The popular embrace of a Paleo diet, Ungar and others point out, is based on a stew of misconceptions
Hmm, that sounds like something you would say, but it's right there in the article. H. Erectus ate meat and developed a complicated brain, the article says, and then the advent of agrarian society pushed people towards things they could grow.
Agriculture is widely seen as the start of civilization, as people had to band together and grow stuff together, and not migrate where gardens weren't being grown and tended. Consider that well, because it means that an agrarian diet is also part of the origin of civilization. Also, the article mentions domesticated cattle as being sources of parasites and disease.
At this point in time, you can compare farmers and hunter-gatherers and see how they fared.
Salt and coffee are pretty much irrelevant. If you have high sodium, it might damage you personally and you should not eat things that *will* hurt you, and that's an individual thing, not related to what our ancestors eat. Coffee likewise seems to be irrelevant, since it does not seem to have much effect on our health. Significantly high intake of each are probably bad, but high anything is usually bad.
So what is left from your post? Just a bunch of ignorance.
Think about it from the perspective of the CS graduate. The one who doesn't know how to tune a C.V. to be a good picture of what they know. They have experience and can prove it, as CS300 and 305 were all C, all the time. That's a year of C experience right there!
But it's also the perspective of not knowing what you don't know. If you use standard C functions to find length, append, but never get into truncating because you make a new array and copy instead, you may actually get through 2 courses without ever needing to know there is a zero.
You were told once, but you never wrote a line of code that needed to know about null-termination. Even writing the code "while(*p++ != '\0')" does not communicate the idea of null-term. It could be just a magic way of getting the compiler to do what you want, without conceptualizing the behavior.
Pro tip: People who claim knowledge often don't know how much knowledge to claim.
That did not preclude women, and that seems to be a new area of study for this problem. Women aren't being pushed out by misogyny and male culture (according to this hypothesis) - they are self-selecting, or pushing themselves out. They have the option, but choose not to.
Except when it is part of some other goal - that is, women do use computers, just not for the sake of using computers (generally). Women are utilitarian in using computers to support other endeavors.
So women stopped studying computer science because they didn't have to anymore?
We can oversimplify if you (grandparent and the post to which you replied) like, but the attribution is wrong. Fields constantly diverge and evolve, and the PC revolution meant having access to advanced processing power without competing for time at a mainframe. Women didn't *have to* study computer science before, but it helped in knowing how to get this hunk of metal to give interesting answers.
And it's not that women didn't have to study it anymore - in many cases, the computer became part of the curriculum.
We could rewrite this entire article to say that (advanced) courses of study embraced computers as virtual assistants, which pushed basic computer science into many other fields, increasing the number of women who took CS informally along with their chosen major.
So you don't have to study a specific CS course of study in order to incorporate CS into what you really want to do. Which brings us back to women seeing CS on its own as not interesting, not helpful, or something else. And without further insight, we could stop here and write it off as personal preference due to the underlying brain structures that heighten verbal skills, and give up on all of this "not enough women in the field" nonsense and "men are pushing women away due to misogyny and male culture" beatings.
The next step is obviously to come up with some sort of number that tells us women should be 30+/-5% of the computer science course for X reason, and stop trying to make it 50% unless that reason itself exposes an obvious requirement to do so. Then given that non-CS people can work in software development, what percentage of an IT workforce should be women? What happens if we turn traditionally male cultures like start-ups into female friendly environments?
What if it's a tech company that does lots of completely non-software-related things, how many women should work at that place?
And let women, since they are not precluded and only excluded by choice, be underrepresented where women choose to be. And if we get to the end of all of this and realize that men are just being dicks and it was male culture causing problems all along, men will have no more excuse to fall back on to explain the difference. This is the first step in really getting to an answer, rather than pitting gender against gender in suppositions.
The problem isn't as obvious as you made it. No quote in the article, including yours, points to self confidence as the problem. The one that comes closest is the second half of your quote.
But that's pointing towards realizing a fairly obvious difference and responding appropriately. Should they overcompensate and think that they belong despite evidence otherwise? Is that how this should work? Ignoring evidence? I'm not sure how else you could interpret that.
This is the first explanation I've seen that really makes sense - that women focus on "what it can do for me" and men focus on "what I can make it do". As men tend to design courses, and that develops into the curriculum, and then to an entire program, computer science is focused on the manly perspective.
The other quote:
Girls who have strong math skills tend to have higher verbal skills than boys who are strong in math, which opens up new avenues to follow, like the social sciences
I'm not sure how that is backed up by real information, but it certainly makes a certain bit of logic. Women in general do have higher verbal skills (ignoring the applicability to real life of such research). An average woman with strong math would still have a verbal edge. Self confidence plays no part in this one.
The post-PC specialization idea makes a certain amount of sense - women got a CS degree to get further in a chosen career, not to do CS stuff. And now that they can learn on a PC instead of a classroom, there's no need for the CS degree. This has nothing to do with self confidence.
The data near the bottom seems to bear out this concept, and it has nothing to do with self confidence. So no, Anonymous Wrong Person, it has nothing to do with self confidence unless you want to drag out something that 1) has been debunked 2) is ten years old or 3) didn't look at environmental causes.
Since apple seems to have started this, and other companies followed suit, Microsoft paid little if anything for these laws. At least one party in America has been hesitant to change those due to self interest, not lobbying.
Given that, support your statement hat it took millions of dollars in customer money for Microsoft to buy these laws.
The thing to remember in your post, according to you, is pure ignorance. Which is a pity, because you show promise in understanding.
Good. Your single anecdote took me like 10 seconds to skim. How many legitimate requests were issued in that time?
Also, I should send a DMCA request to DashSlot to take down this horseshit. Your VPS has issues apparently, and you had a problem with that. Or at least it caused you a problem.
Also, no one cares about your $20/mo or less. They don't care about a negative review. They do care about a pattern, and the pattern most interesting is increasing profits. If someone tramples on you, no one cares.
This is what you get for paying someone other than a local DIY kind of company. There are massive benefits for going with a big company. You have to be principled to base your choice on principle.
I hate to be an advocate for security through obscurity, but I figured these things would be ultra super restricted, and "laboratory tests" would be irrelevant because they had access to a device that attackers do not have access to.
The systemâ(TM)s designers seem to have assumed that attackers would not have access to a Secure 1000 to test and refine their attacks,â said Hovav Shacham, a professor of computer science at UC San Diego.
That's actually kind of reasonable, given the amount of spending given to DHS and cetera.
However, the researchers were able to purchase a government-surplus machine found on eBay and subject it to laboratory testing.
Super hot fuck! Who does that? Who the fuck surpluses a secret government machine? Seriously, who the shit did this? Did no one account for the surplus process?
Terrorists get surplus cheese, worst case they don't shit for a few days. Surplus scanning devices? Didn't you fucking retards in Congress think about that when you signed away shitloads of your childrens' dollars for these things?
Holy dick-licking super stupid fuck! Literally the only chance in shit that you have is to keep this shit secret!
"...said J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan"
God bless you, or whichever divinity you do or do not believe in grant you some additional benefit over and above the opportunity to be a collection of electrically connected cells, J. Alex Halderman. Bake yourself some cookies, on us.
Remember the audience. This was written for people who want to know about browsers and Tor. Not for people who want usability.
Specifically, "several bugs required for basic proxy-safe Tor support for Google Chrome's Incognito Mode ended up blocked for various reasons."
So even your command line parameter thing is irrelevant.
Which brings me to this:
So just make a launcher app that forces Chrome to use Tor. You should be able
Stop right there. Everyone who ever said "it's as easy as..." or some variation has been wrong. There are bugs in Chrome, which need to be fixed, but aren't going to because they are blocked by some other feature/problem/request.
So let me re-phrase:
But it isn't a limitation because I don't know what I'm talked about, last I checked the list of command-line arguments there was a command line parameter for forcing use of a proxy. So just resolve the blocks for the bugs that aren't fixed, then fix the bugs, then make a patch set that has to be maintained for Chrome for which the baseline effort will be 3-5x Firefox, then make a launcher app that forces Chrome to use Tor.
You should be able to even [do more things once these things are un-blocked and fixed]".
The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".
Oh, wait, that's not even bad reporting. That's obviously just a guess.
"We need to provide research and evidence-based knowledge to publishers on what kind of devices (iPad, Kindle, print) should be used for what kind of content; what kinds of texts are likely to be less hampered by being read digitally, and which might require the support of paper," said Mangen. "I'm thinking it might make a difference if a novel is a page-turner or light read, when you don't necessarily have to pay attention to every word, compared to a 500-page, more complex literary novel, something like Ulysses, which is challenging reading that really requires sustained focus. That will be very interesting to explore."
Most research, properly done, has a "findings" section with numbers, and a "conclusion" where researchers can speculate wildly with no support. It may be named differently depending on the discipline, but there is always a place for people to say "we guess this might be the explanation".
Especially when this is among the very first research of its kind - we don't know what kind of variables to control for. Obviously, based on the other reply to this comment.
We have to get in the habit of saying this is a finding, but this other thing is just a guess. Kindle readers *in this study* that were selected *by this methodology* did poorly on *this* test. The explanation could be anything that was not controlled for.
Slashdot readers, don't get in the habit of assuming "this is different" means "this is the cause". And educate your friends, and your journalists, that "A researcher said..." only carries weight when you don't take them out of context. And yes, taking random-ass hypotheses from the end of a press release and reporting it as a definitive explanation is FRAUD and FALSIFICATION.
That says to restart in Safe Mode, and many of the replies specifically say that does not work. If you have installation media, that's no problem. Otherwise, you've posted horseshit nonsense that helps no one.
And they forward satire as news to their too-stupid-to-breathe friends, and it becomes this whole big thing.
If you were the largest social media site, wouldn't you just throw up your hands one day and say "Fine, if they can't tell the difference, we'll just tag everything from The Onion with a satire tag"?
I know I would. And I wouldn't want to send the message that "you're too stupid to tell the difference", so I would do it with internal tests, then small public tests.
So what happened here is first line tech support did not get the message because it was not a new feature - t was supposed to be targeted to a very small population. The population target screwed up and some reporter found it. FaceBook had to either claim it was a bug, to Wired, or commit to a plan. They chose the third option, calling it a "small test" they could either dismiss or build upon.
The real bug here seems to be in FaceBook's "related stories" widget. Visit one link to a satire site, and the "related links" fills up with at least one story from that site, and two other links which will probably also be satire.
Now FaceBook looks like it is pimping fake news stories. Or, to the stupid people, now you are looking at something just as unbelievable, but obviously FaceBook thought it was real or they wouldn't display it.
It is the belief of people in FaceBook, and FaceBook's intention of keeping peoples' faith, that is at issue.
People being too stupid to breathe won't change because you pointed it out. Obviously, they are able to breathe or they would have stopped. Similar for breeding. Now imagine that your audience is smart enough to breathe and breed, but smart enough for little else.what would you do?
Remember: most people are very much like insects: they notice input and react to it. Posts here on dotslash exemplify it, when they take a predictable news story and post an obvious but unrelated "conventional wisdom" without giving specific consideration to the context. Input, reaction, and little in between. I suppose you would agree that assholes like that post all the time here? So what do we do about these stupid people?
The wall street journal thought it was important enough to write an article about, so go yell at them.
And some dude named Nate Hoffelder thought it was important enough to write some web page about so yell at him.
Then Nate shoveled it into the Slashdot Word Salad Shooter (tm), and Soulskill shat out this garbage. Go yell at it.
Even worse, Reason58 felt the need to post a statement which boiled down to "I don't want to have to think about difficult things like how different sub-populations utilise different resources and what kind of impact, or lack thereof, that might have on business and economy." So go yell at yourself.
I'm just stating the obvious, and I won't be back round in the morrow to see you fail to defend yourself, so again feel free to yell at yourself.
"Beg the question" is a commonly misused phrase that you probably confused with the uncommonly used phrase "begs questions".
You are apparently objecting to something that did not even exist except in your own mind.
I suppose if I were not a native English speaker, I could not have a conversation with you because you would be constantly correcting me on idioms I supposedly misused, only to find I simply mistranslated something that you otherwise, if not for your thickheadedness, would have understood just fine.
Mr. or Miss "as if you care", we don't care, and we would be better off without you.
Here's why: Every year "the dictionary", read as various dictionary publishers, routinely add new words that are in common use. Why? To document their usage and meaning.
Here's why also: "The dictionary" commonly adds meanings to words because of the different ways they are used. Encyclopedic dictionaries typically give date ranges for when they were introduced as meaning that.
According to dictionary.com, "prompt" as you used it above could mean any of 14 different things. How am I, as a simple grammar Nazi, supposed to determine which of 14 different meanings you intended? Maybe I can narrow it down to 5 or so by diagramming your sentence.
Here's an idea: go back in time and tell everyone who uses "beg the question" incorrectly to FOAD before their idiocy becomes popular.
If you can't do that, go back in time to the first instance of you reading some idiot complaining about incorrect usage of "beg the question" and tell that person the fight is already lost because people are too stupid to use words correctly.
If you can't do that, stick a sock in it and let us get back to talking about things.
Seems like you are talking about general computing and related applications of computing. This guy is talking about business IT, which is a tiny subset of computing.
It would not be inappropriate to mod parent off topic for posting a generalist reply to something written for a specific audience.
Are you sure of the legal basis of this? Or is it just logic?
Because in my state, the wording means their recording is legal but mine is not. So that makes me think people should not rely on logic for legal matters.
To write applications in one language, instead of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, SQL, and something else. Not including multiple levels of configuration files (website and web server at least).
What's the worst that could happen?
The NSA could insert backdoors which, unless they were incomprehensible crypto, would be easily found by both white and black hat investigators. Also, Carnegie Mellon University, which has a pile of research announcements every year, has its entire research department under suspicion of colluding with an oppressive government agency and spends decades regaining international status as someone you can do anything other than make the punchline of a joke.
CMU losing status is, to CMU, absolutely an intolerable option. I'm not saying it won't just because of the potential impact, but you asked what is the worst that could happen. Backdoors, and a respected university bursts into flames and is disregarded for decades internationally. That's bad.
What's the best?
Fewer bugs.
Why is the NSA interested in something like that directly?
Because despite recent bad press, they are interested in security. If we can write stuff with fewer bugs, we are more secure. Maybe there are still plenty of bugs in the hardware/OS that they know about, but fewer bugs in the application level, which means the foreigners don't know about them because they don't exist.
What is the potential for abuse?
Pretty small. White hats will vet the libraries, black hats will try to penetrate it, and it's no more or less secure than anything else a human has written. But people can make mistakes in fewer languages. And they aren't replacing languages, from the sound of it.
Is it to make code analysis that much more centralized and (supposedly) simple?
I suppose you could read the article.
Why didn't this come up with itself before now?
Why didn't the airplane come up before it did? Are you insinuating something? Do you know something we don't know? Did someone mod you up for any particular reason, or just because you spewed thoughtless rhetorical questions?
A watchlist of "known or suspected terrorists" have "no recognized terrorist group affiliation."
Did Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols have a recognized affiliation? They apparently were against the handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco, which I think a lot of Americans would agree with. Not so violently against, but also against.
Does that make them suspicious of being terrorists? No. But would it surprise you, after the fact, to know that they were 1) on a list and 2) not affiliated with anyone specifically?
This is not news. They could be affiliated with a non-recognized group. They could be not affiliated with any group. They could be loner whack jobs. They could be completely crazy and unpredictable to the point of potentially doing doing massive damage, like numerous lone gunmen have done, or lone bombers, or lone anything.
I don't doubt that there are people that do not belong. But if I started some crazy organization tomorrow and posted threats, everyone associated with me in that organization would be a suspicious person without being part of a recognized organization.
Quit foaming at the mouth about things that don't matter, and start to fucking care about the things that very goddamned well do matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Respect for the dead is a very fundamental basis for respect for the living.
Censorship is wrong, because understanding the causes and solutions honors both the living and the dead.
ISIS will not stop beheading unless it decides that no longer supports its goals. Can't upload to youtube is irrelevant. Please make you laugh yourself, you're an idiot. They don't want to stop beheadings, only the consumer, sorry product, reactions.
People wanting to censor it have their own reasons. If that sickens you, then you really need some disaster in your life. People really do this, really want this, and genuinely would like it if you fucked off. I'm not one of them, but it's true.
I don't understand the denial/force point, because I could find many, many, many, many. references to this video without the video censorship angle. This post by horseshit logistician Bennett Hasslehoff is all about putting a pre-roll logo on your video.
As much as I want to shit down Bennett's throat at all times of the day, this seems like the absolute least you could do, and certainly not objectionable without specific complaints. Harm the ISIS group if you are going to post the video. Are we good? Great, then make a point that isn't stupid.
The gp does not reference watching as a defence. That is entirely within your mind, and we should surmise things about you as a result.
Also, sick curiosity is not a need to imagine that beheading is gruesome.
I agree that no one should comment on CP unless they have seen it.
Many who abhor it will probably like it, and think it's harmless. Many who think it's harmless will realize it's absolutely in no way harmless, and cannot be tolerated in any fashion. This is how generally people on grandstands work.
Curiosity leads to understanding. If more people understand what a horrible thing this is, you have won if everyone actually sees it. Especially if they thought they might be okay, and realized they were not okay. If more people think this is harmless and deserves to be tolerated as a result of seeing it, society has gotten its judgement. And you will have been proven wrong, much as the wholesome people may object.
Isn't there a quote about defending the worst people to protect the rights of the population?
I saw the same one, unless a very clever magic trick substituted.
I too will not watch one because of that.
For the family members, I certainly thank YT and Twitter and all that.
For humanity in general, I strongly encourage any of them to watch this, and shame on anyone who censors this.
This happens. To people. And it probably really sucks.
People starve. People have diseases, and deformities. And people die horribly.
People need the chance to watch this, and realize how really horrible it is. It's not just awful. It takes a few strokes of the machete. Did you think a clean chop did it? Nope, it's not a Hattori HanzÅ sword. It's something some random dickhead had on hand. It's not really sharp, and not really clean.
Several chops before they die, and several more before it is done.
The news is: this happened. It happens. This is real.
Or do we disagree with Trek lore?
You're wrong. Here's why. "Bait" as you use it can be good, and for a number of reasons listed in the article you mention.
Clickbait specifically applies to things like advertising and titles on news aggregators. It can also reference baity headlines on the same site,
Here's what I found when I went to MSNBC because my go to news site had few details on today's active shooter incident.
1Thousands pay tribute to 'gentle giant'
2Scott Walker's big blunderWatch
3Gay marriage comes closer to SCOTUS
4The wrong prosecutor for the job?Watch
5'Weâ(TM)re guilty until proven innocent'
6Obama caught between rock and hard placeWatch
7Darren Wilson supporters 'won't back down'
8Paul Ryan runs from DREAMers
9Military: Fort Lee shooter has died
10Letter from Foley details detention
So here's why I immediately went to another site:
1 Who the fuck is this?
2 Everything ever?
3 Closer means nothing
4 If you have to ask, yeah.
5 Yep, that's America for ya
6 Like every other decision where (R) are involved?
7 I don't know who this is, and it's not as baity.
8 Yep
9 I didn't read this one
10 I didn't read this one, also who the shit is Foley?
This was MSNBC trying to get me to click on news when I went to their site for news. If I read it every day, maybe I'd idly click on one of those. Since I don't, I got bored and gave up.
Now, defend the practice of making the user click on more stories than they normally would, as a regular reader. It is wasting the reader's time, and gathering more advertising from companies that use the readers' dollars to sell them advertising so they buy more products.
Dollars are wasted. and people don't read the articles for details, so this kind of horseshit is completely unnecessary.
Your turn.
"I doubt" is not helpful here.
The article mentions "unrefined grains, nuts, fruits, and vegetables" so your "for example" has holes in it.
"Probably died in their 40s" sounds like you don't have data, and it's a well known bias in life expectancy that infant deaths bring down the average "lived to be" date. I suspect you fell victim to bad statistics.
Hmm, that sounds like something you would say, but it's right there in the article. H. Erectus ate meat and developed a complicated brain, the article says, and then the advent of agrarian society pushed people towards things they could grow.
Agriculture is widely seen as the start of civilization, as people had to band together and grow stuff together, and not migrate where gardens weren't being grown and tended. Consider that well, because it means that an agrarian diet is also part of the origin of civilization. Also, the article mentions domesticated cattle as being sources of parasites and disease.
At this point in time, you can compare farmers and hunter-gatherers and see how they fared.
Salt and coffee are pretty much irrelevant. If you have high sodium, it might damage you personally and you should not eat things that *will* hurt you, and that's an individual thing, not related to what our ancestors eat. Coffee likewise seems to be irrelevant, since it does not seem to have much effect on our health. Significantly high intake of each are probably bad, but high anything is usually bad.
So what is left from your post? Just a bunch of ignorance.
Think about it from the perspective of the CS graduate. The one who doesn't know how to tune a C.V. to be a good picture of what they know. They have experience and can prove it, as CS300 and 305 were all C, all the time. That's a year of C experience right there!
But it's also the perspective of not knowing what you don't know. If you use standard C functions to find length, append, but never get into truncating because you make a new array and copy instead, you may actually get through 2 courses without ever needing to know there is a zero.
You were told once, but you never wrote a line of code that needed to know about null-termination. Even writing the code "while(*p++ != '\0')" does not communicate the idea of null-term. It could be just a magic way of getting the compiler to do what you want, without conceptualizing the behavior.
Pro tip: People who claim knowledge often don't know how much knowledge to claim.
That did not preclude women, and that seems to be a new area of study for this problem. Women aren't being pushed out by misogyny and male culture (according to this hypothesis) - they are self-selecting, or pushing themselves out. They have the option, but choose not to.
Except when it is part of some other goal - that is, women do use computers, just not for the sake of using computers (generally). Women are utilitarian in using computers to support other endeavors.
We can oversimplify if you (grandparent and the post to which you replied) like, but the attribution is wrong. Fields constantly diverge and evolve, and the PC revolution meant having access to advanced processing power without competing for time at a mainframe. Women didn't *have to* study computer science before, but it helped in knowing how to get this hunk of metal to give interesting answers.
And it's not that women didn't have to study it anymore - in many cases, the computer became part of the curriculum.
We could rewrite this entire article to say that (advanced) courses of study embraced computers as virtual assistants, which pushed basic computer science into many other fields, increasing the number of women who took CS informally along with their chosen major.
So you don't have to study a specific CS course of study in order to incorporate CS into what you really want to do. Which brings us back to women seeing CS on its own as not interesting, not helpful, or something else. And without further insight, we could stop here and write it off as personal preference due to the underlying brain structures that heighten verbal skills, and give up on all of this "not enough women in the field" nonsense and "men are pushing women away due to misogyny and male culture" beatings.
The next step is obviously to come up with some sort of number that tells us women should be 30+/-5% of the computer science course for X reason, and stop trying to make it 50% unless that reason itself exposes an obvious requirement to do so. Then given that non-CS people can work in software development, what percentage of an IT workforce should be women? What happens if we turn traditionally male cultures like start-ups into female friendly environments?
What if it's a tech company that does lots of completely non-software-related things, how many women should work at that place?
And let women, since they are not precluded and only excluded by choice, be underrepresented where women choose to be. And if we get to the end of all of this and realize that men are just being dicks and it was male culture causing problems all along, men will have no more excuse to fall back on to explain the difference. This is the first step in really getting to an answer, rather than pitting gender against gender in suppositions.
The problem isn't as obvious as you made it. No quote in the article, including yours, points to self confidence as the problem. The one that comes closest is the second half of your quote.
But that's pointing towards realizing a fairly obvious difference and responding appropriately. Should they overcompensate and think that they belong despite evidence otherwise? Is that how this should work? Ignoring evidence? I'm not sure how else you could interpret that.
This is the first explanation I've seen that really makes sense - that women focus on "what it can do for me" and men focus on "what I can make it do". As men tend to design courses, and that develops into the curriculum, and then to an entire program, computer science is focused on the manly perspective.
The other quote :
I'm not sure how that is backed up by real information, but it certainly makes a certain bit of logic. Women in general do have higher verbal skills (ignoring the applicability to real life of such research). An average woman with strong math would still have a verbal edge. Self confidence plays no part in this one.
The post-PC specialization idea makes a certain amount of sense - women got a CS degree to get further in a chosen career, not to do CS stuff. And now that they can learn on a PC instead of a classroom, there's no need for the CS degree. This has nothing to do with self confidence.
The data near the bottom seems to bear out this concept, and it has nothing to do with self confidence. So no, Anonymous Wrong Person, it has nothing to do with self confidence unless you want to drag out something that 1) has been debunked 2) is ten years old or 3) didn't look at environmental causes.
They sold profit rights to their Bahamian cousin. He holds on to it until the next tax amnesty.
Since apple seems to have started this, and other companies followed suit, Microsoft paid little if anything for these laws.
At least one party in America has been hesitant to change those due to self interest, not lobbying.
Given that, support your statement hat it took millions of dollars in customer money for Microsoft to buy these laws.
The thing to remember in your post, according to you, is pure ignorance. Which is a pity, because you show promise in understanding.
You didn't stop using the old ones because the new ones were better?
Did you stop using Google when the ads were not clearly different from the search results? Cos that was a big deal for a while.
Maybe you did, but a shitload of people who obviously disagree did not.
Figure out your fundamental point and come back.
Good. Your single anecdote took me like 10 seconds to skim. How many legitimate requests were issued in that time?
Also, I should send a DMCA request to DashSlot to take down this horseshit. Your VPS has issues apparently, and you had a problem with that. Or at least it caused you a problem.
Also, no one cares about your $20/mo or less. They don't care about a negative review. They do care about a pattern, and the pattern most interesting is increasing profits. If someone tramples on you, no one cares.
This is what you get for paying someone other than a local DIY kind of company. There are massive benefits for going with a big company. You have to be principled to base your choice on principle.
I hate to be an advocate for security through obscurity, but I figured these things would be ultra super restricted, and "laboratory tests" would be irrelevant because they had access to a device that attackers do not have access to.
That's actually kind of reasonable, given the amount of spending given to DHS and cetera.
Super hot fuck! Who does that? Who the fuck surpluses a secret government machine? Seriously, who the shit did this? Did no one account for the surplus process?
Terrorists get surplus cheese, worst case they don't shit for a few days. Surplus scanning devices? Didn't you fucking retards in Congress think about that when you signed away shitloads of your childrens' dollars for these things?
Holy dick-licking super stupid fuck! Literally the only chance in shit that you have is to keep this shit secret!
"...said J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan"
God bless you, or whichever divinity you do or do not believe in grant you some additional benefit over and above the opportunity to be a collection of electrically connected cells, J. Alex Halderman. Bake yourself some cookies, on us.
Remember the audience. This was written for people who want to know about browsers and Tor. Not for people who want usability.
Specifically, "several bugs required for basic proxy-safe Tor support for Google Chrome's Incognito Mode ended up blocked for various reasons."
So even your command line parameter thing is irrelevant.
Which brings me to this:
Stop right there. Everyone who ever said "it's as easy as..." or some variation has been wrong. There are bugs in Chrome, which need to be fixed, but aren't going to because they are blocked by some other feature/problem/request.
So let me re-phrase:
But it isn't a limitation because I don't know what I'm talked about, last I checked the list of command-line arguments there was a command line parameter for forcing use of a proxy. So just resolve the blocks for the bugs that aren't fixed, then fix the bugs, then make a patch set that has to be maintained for Chrome for which the baseline effort will be 3-5x Firefox, then make a launcher app that forces Chrome to use Tor.
You should be able to even [do more things once these things are un-blocked and fixed]".
The researchers already explained the difference:
Oh, wait, that's not even bad reporting. That's obviously just a guess.
Most research, properly done, has a "findings" section with numbers, and a "conclusion" where researchers can speculate wildly with no support. It may be named differently depending on the discipline, but there is always a place for people to say "we guess this might be the explanation".
Especially when this is among the very first research of its kind - we don't know what kind of variables to control for. Obviously, based on the other reply to this comment.
We have to get in the habit of saying this is a finding, but this other thing is just a guess. Kindle readers *in this study* that were selected *by this methodology* did poorly on *this* test. The explanation could be anything that was not controlled for.
Slashdot readers, don't get in the habit of assuming "this is different" means "this is the cause". And educate your friends, and your journalists, that "A researcher said..." only carries weight when you don't take them out of context. And yes, taking random-ass hypotheses from the end of a press release and reporting it as a definitive explanation is FRAUD and FALSIFICATION.
That says to restart in Safe Mode, and many of the replies specifically say that does not work. If you have installation media, that's no problem. Otherwise, you've posted horseshit nonsense that helps no one.
And they forward satire as news to their too-stupid-to-breathe friends, and it becomes this whole big thing.
If you were the largest social media site, wouldn't you just throw up your hands one day and say "Fine, if they can't tell the difference, we'll just tag everything from The Onion with a satire tag"?
I know I would. And I wouldn't want to send the message that "you're too stupid to tell the difference", so I would do it with internal tests, then small public tests.
So what happened here is first line tech support did not get the message because it was not a new feature - t was supposed to be targeted to a very small population. The population target screwed up and some reporter found it. FaceBook had to either claim it was a bug, to Wired, or commit to a plan. They chose the third option, calling it a "small test" they could either dismiss or build upon.
The real bug here seems to be in FaceBook's "related stories" widget. Visit one link to a satire site, and the "related links" fills up with at least one story from that site, and two other links which will probably also be satire.
Now FaceBook looks like it is pimping fake news stories. Or, to the stupid people, now you are looking at something just as unbelievable, but obviously FaceBook thought it was real or they wouldn't display it.
It is the belief of people in FaceBook, and FaceBook's intention of keeping peoples' faith, that is at issue.
People being too stupid to breathe won't change because you pointed it out. Obviously, they are able to breathe or they would have stopped. Similar for breeding. Now imagine that your audience is smart enough to breathe and breed, but smart enough for little else.what would you do?
Remember: most people are very much like insects: they notice input and react to it. Posts here on dotslash exemplify it, when they take a predictable news story and post an obvious but unrelated "conventional wisdom" without giving specific consideration to the context. Input, reaction, and little in between. I suppose you would agree that assholes like that post all the time here? So what do we do about these stupid people?
The wall street journal thought it was important enough to write an article about, so go yell at them.
And some dude named Nate Hoffelder thought it was important enough to write some web page about so yell at him.
Then Nate shoveled it into the Slashdot Word Salad Shooter (tm), and Soulskill shat out this garbage. Go yell at it.
Even worse, Reason58 felt the need to post a statement which boiled down to "I don't want to have to think about difficult things like how different sub-populations utilise different resources and what kind of impact, or lack thereof, that might have on business and economy." So go yell at yourself.
I'm just stating the obvious, and I won't be back round in the morrow to see you fail to defend yourself, so again feel free to yell at yourself.
Fuck that, I'm staying with Project Gutenburg for my books on my Kindle DX.
It works perfectly for me, because I'm already behind on my reading list by life + 75 years.
I totally would have stuck around. If only to be able to talk to the next person into space.
"Did you like zero gravity?"
"Yep"
"Did you do cartwheels through the ship?"
"Yep"
"And grab the oh shit handles on the other side?"
"Yep"
"I rubbed my balls on that"
"Well they washed them down"
"With sterile pads"
"Yep"
"Balls on that too"
"Shut up. I'm getting coffee."
"In the coffee cup on your desk... ?"
"Beg the question" is a commonly misused phrase that you probably confused with the uncommonly used phrase "begs questions".
You are apparently objecting to something that did not even exist except in your own mind.
I suppose if I were not a native English speaker, I could not have a conversation with you because you would be constantly correcting me on idioms I supposedly misused, only to find I simply mistranslated something that you otherwise, if not for your thickheadedness, would have understood just fine.
Mr. or Miss "as if you care", we don't care, and we would be better off without you.
Here's why: Every year "the dictionary", read as various dictionary publishers, routinely add new words that are in common use. Why? To document their usage and meaning.
Here's why also: "The dictionary" commonly adds meanings to words because of the different ways they are used. Encyclopedic dictionaries typically give date ranges for when they were introduced as meaning that.
http://dictionary.reference.co...
According to dictionary.com, "prompt" as you used it above could mean any of 14 different things. How am I, as a simple grammar Nazi, supposed to determine which of 14 different meanings you intended? Maybe I can narrow it down to 5 or so by diagramming your sentence.
Here's an idea: go back in time and tell everyone who uses "beg the question" incorrectly to FOAD before their idiocy becomes popular.
If you can't do that, go back in time to the first instance of you reading some idiot complaining about incorrect usage of "beg the question" and tell that person the fight is already lost because people are too stupid to use words correctly.
If you can't do that, stick a sock in it and let us get back to talking about things.
Seems like you are talking about general computing and related applications of computing. This guy is talking about business IT, which is a tiny subset of computing.
It would not be inappropriate to mod parent off topic for posting a generalist reply to something written for a specific audience.
Are you sure of the legal basis of this? Or is it just logic?
Because in my state, the wording means their recording is legal but mine is not. So that makes me think people should not rely on logic for legal matters.
To write applications in one language, instead of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, SQL, and something else. Not including multiple levels of configuration files (website and web server at least).
The NSA could insert backdoors which, unless they were incomprehensible crypto, would be easily found by both white and black hat investigators. Also, Carnegie Mellon University, which has a pile of research announcements every year, has its entire research department under suspicion of colluding with an oppressive government agency and spends decades regaining international status as someone you can do anything other than make the punchline of a joke.
CMU losing status is, to CMU, absolutely an intolerable option. I'm not saying it won't just because of the potential impact, but you asked what is the worst that could happen. Backdoors, and a respected university bursts into flames and is disregarded for decades internationally. That's bad.
Fewer bugs.
Because despite recent bad press, they are interested in security. If we can write stuff with fewer bugs, we are more secure. Maybe there are still plenty of bugs in the hardware/OS that they know about, but fewer bugs in the application level, which means the foreigners don't know about them because they don't exist.
Pretty small. White hats will vet the libraries, black hats will try to penetrate it, and it's no more or less secure than anything else a human has written. But people can make mistakes in fewer languages. And they aren't replacing languages, from the sound of it.
I suppose you could read the article.
Why didn't the airplane come up before it did? Are you insinuating something? Do you know something we don't know? Did someone mod you up for any particular reason, or just because you spewed thoughtless rhetorical questions?
A watchlist of "known or suspected terrorists" have "no recognized terrorist group affiliation."
Did Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols have a recognized affiliation? They apparently were against the handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco, which I think a lot of Americans would agree with. Not so violently against, but also against.
Does that make them suspicious of being terrorists? No. But would it surprise you, after the fact, to know that they were 1) on a list and 2) not affiliated with anyone specifically?
This is not news. They could be affiliated with a non-recognized group. They could be not affiliated with any group. They could be loner whack jobs. They could be completely crazy and unpredictable to the point of potentially doing doing massive damage, like numerous lone gunmen have done, or lone bombers, or lone anything.
I don't doubt that there are people that do not belong. But if I started some crazy organization tomorrow and posted threats, everyone associated with me in that organization would be a suspicious person without being part of a recognized organization.
Quit foaming at the mouth about things that don't matter, and start to fucking care about the things that very goddamned well do matter.