Neutron stars are enormous Bose-Einstein condensates left over post-collapse when the gravitational acceleration of a star can't overcome pressures created as a secondary effect of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
White Dwarfs are exactly what the post above you describes. Hydrogen is fused into heavier deuterium that sinks to lower layers in a star until the outer layer is light enough that it gets pushed outward to form a red giant. Then, that outer layer is shed, leaving behind a bright, hot, deuterium rich core. The difference is that sooner or later, the deuterium starts to run out. Black dwarfs are completely expended white dwarfs. Brown dwarfs are easier to detect (but still not what you'd call easy to detect).
Those are both post-main-sequence stars. Neutron stars happen post-supernova when their mass is too low for their gravitational collapse to compress them beneath the Schwarzschild Radius (which would make them black holes). The Scwarzschild Radius is the spherical radius resultant of calculations dependent upon mass; the distance from the center of a sphere to surface that the mass would need to be compressed into in order to become a black hole. I'm not sure whether the gravitational acceleration during collapse is countered by continued energy output, pressures resulting from electrons being pushed into higher energy levels such that the Pauli Exclusion Principle isn't violated, or some combination of both. Neutron stars are neat because they're basically enormous Bose-Einstein condensates.
Your question about white dwarfs is spot-on though because those stars are pretty much what #49246567 describes. A star fuses enough hydrogen that the mass of its outer layers drops off, inner reactions then push that layer outward to form a red giant, the red giant sheds those outer layers, and a white dwarf is that hot, deuterium-rich star left behind. That star then cools and dims over time.
I like how this was modded "Troll", just like any time I mention some mistakes the GOP is making. If you can't form a rational argument, just slander people you disagree with, right?
Just what kind of government control did you think they didn't already have? They already gather and parse practically all data. Tax funds already pay for broadband infrastructure. The FCC has had authority over electronic communications for seventy years!
All that has changed here is that ISPs are being stopped from playing the role of tax collector by making up bogus excuses to jack up prices and hold services for ransom despite consumers already paying for them and taxpayers already paying for the infrastructure. ISPs already practically get free money to manage what we build as a nation, and they want to have unilateral power to facilitate their oligopoly squeezing every possible penny out of us without offering anything in return.
All this "But it's duh gubment" talk is a red herring meant to appeal to low information voters and gullible people who want something to be mad over but don't know enough about anything to figure that out for themselves.
Because that's not the real reason either. The bans on powdered alcohol followed stories about people doing really stupid stuff with it, like snorting it, trying to smoke it, seasoning food with it (and getting more drunk than expected, later than expected), etc etc. It's not worry about kids; it's worry about simpleton adults who like to experiment with stuff before knowing anything about it.
In Louisiana, another reason is that the ban might create another way to arrest people. Louisiana wants as many inmates as possible for slave labor.
The budget is passed both in the house and senate, and the ACA was also passed in both the house and the senate. It didn't originate in the senate. It didn't even originate at the federal level. I'm not arguing to favor that law, but just to say that it shouldn't be used as a magical, mystical, "We can say anything now and be right," device.
It might have worked had they promoted it to people who could use it. At all. I get the feeling that they promoted it to people they could identify as rockstar indie devs and blew off the rest of us. Well, that's what you get, Google. Maybe next time you won't pretend like your service is so special that it should be gated with a crimson rope, and you'll promote it to everybody who can use it.
This part: "Either way, I don't see how it's liberal to think that businesses should operate as unchecked tax collectors by demanding ever more revenue for vital services without providing anything more in return. "
... omits a "not".
Either way, I don't see how it's liberal to think that businesses should NOT operate as unchecked tax collectors by demanding ever more revenue for vital services without providing anything more in return.
My proofreading skills suck on this site for some reason. That's my fault, but it has earned more than one "Damnit!" exclamation from me.
I think they're alluding to the concept that wires and cables on US soil are on US soil or that persons operating in the US are subject to US laws. They can't possibly mean that US regulations are imposed upon the entire world, or we wouldn't have such marvels as the Great Firewall of China, would we? Maybe this person means to suggest that "liberals" can't understand that policies affecting business affect businesses abroad as well. But in that case, the FCC has specifically stopped American companies from imposing American limitations upon foreign companies.
But I don't think any of that is the case. Maybe this person means that when consumers expect to get what they pay for, that makes the consumers "liberals". Maybe "liberals" is used as a pejorative, which in itself is enough to suggest that the speaker is very low-information. Either way, I don't see how it's liberal to think that businesses should operate as unchecked tax collectors by demanding ever more revenue for vital services without providing anything more in return. In fact, that concept undermines the very premise of free trade by negating the most fundamental principles of equity in transactions as if the profit side of the equation is all that exists. I think in this person's world, we'd all just give our wallets to ISPs and let them have their own pretend economy without us.
But, to me, the importance of equity in trading is a fundamental value of capitalism and therefore a traditional social value in this country. As such, whatever this person thinks "liberal" means, this person is most certainly without a doubt NOT conservative because a core tenet of conservatism is the preservation of traditional social values. Maybe when people realize how sleazy it is to rob consumers and that undermining equity in trade is deviance (plain and simple), we'll stop seeing such low-information arguments posted.
It may have been flamebait or trolling, but some people actually think like this person. I think they just want something to be mad at and somebody to feel superior to, but otherwise they have no actual values whatsoever. But that's just my opinion.
That's sensible, but remember that no one person can both comment and downvote on Slashdot. If you moderate, then the moment you comment on that page, all of your moderation is reversed.
Trello is *just* on the cusp of awesome though! I've signed up and will be watching that site's development closely.
I don't think you actually meant to post flamebait. I think you wanted to just see the article discussed, and because online conversations often derail quickly these days, you got annoyed. So, I'll answer your question as if you're genuinely asking.
Let's use this article as the illustration. If you don't read the article called, "Man 3D-Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission" because you think it's bullshit right off the bat, then you won't read the article titles "Man 3D-Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission" when it actually happens. And if that actually happens, it would be such a breakthrough in manufacturing processes that it would mark the start of a second industrial revolution -- exactly as 3D printing proponents have been awaiting with bated breath.
The question *should be*, "Why the hell does the article call it 'working' when it's not?" And the answer is that online journalism is an effing difficult field that requires bulk content production, often regarding complicated topics, and shit happens. We're going to see increasingly more of this as robot journalists become more prevalent. So, we may want to figure out how to revise our expectations when it comes to keeping things on topic. Whether an article derails itself is, itself, not a derailment.
Well... Not unless you believe every headline exactly as it's written, in which case you should write an autobiography because that mindset could probably produce some interesting anecdotes.
Whitney Hipolite seems like a decent author though. Feel better?
And that can be a vital process. I have a bad habit of tuning out everything I feel to focus on programming until those cylinders are about ready to lock up. It feels great to take a break and get it out once in a while. Thanks for understanding!:)
There's a BIG difference between using the same time signature as another composer and simply not composing anything in the first place, opting instead to "sample" someone else's work. Sampling and remixing can produce great music! Don't get me wrong! I love mash-ups even; sometimes more than the originals. But sampling should not outright replace composition because there is ultimately a difference between a DJ, musician, and performer. Modern pop music is mostly crap because instead of recognizing talented musicians, our industry exalts pretty performers backed up by a DJ, thus leaving mostly mainstream listeners to wonder if musicians even exist anymore.
The intellectual property debate is another matter, but let me just say that I totally agree that the US Congress Mickey-Mousing every damn thing is having an intolerably negative impact upon human creativity in general. They should just write a bill granting Mickey Mouse special status as a national icon, and leave everything else alone. But, unfortunately, the lobbyists involved are apparently not that smart. Instead, let's just poison culture in a way that almost forces more poisoning of culture.
Absolutely whoosh! Sorry; I've just gotten annoyed because these people who are just using this topic as an excuse to lash out at each other are making the actual topic of how to get more women interested in computer science totally unapproachable. Instead of, "What do you think, everyone, how do we work together to do this hard thing?" It's, "OMG! We have to figure out how to do this hard thing together, but nobody is allowed to talk about it and all it really means is that if I mention it, I'm automatically right about everything I say."
Authors who have to fall back on that kind of crutch should just stop writing, and people who think they'll solve complicated social problems by making everybody afraid to mention them are the reason those problems exist in the first place. The best strategy a sexist person can employ today is to pretend to hate sexist people, and people are apparently actually so stupid and impulsive that the majority are falling for it.
End. Of. Rant. I'm sorry. I just had to get that out because *not* saying it has been making this topic fester in my brain to the point that it's actually starting to piss me off.
You're going to be down-modded because the trend now is that if you actually think about this topic then you're a bigot.
What people don't seem to be seeing is that nobody is going to devote their time, work, and some measure of their sanity to going about their normal lives at the same time as learning a very technical skill unless that skill can benefit them in a way that is relevant to their needs and interests. Nobody studies Quantum Electrodynamics just because there aren't enough people in their demographic doing it. And because we have this little thing called culture that we like to pretend doesn't exist, the way to do that differs between demographics. You know, exactly like how every single marketing firm ever in the history of marketing has already accepted without devolving all their work into arguing and accusing each other of sexism.
The biggest problem with the discussion of how to get more women interested in computing is that people are so. damn. immature. that they can't discuss the actual topic at all. It all devolves into some kindergarten excuse to lash out at each other, meanwhile absolutely zero progress is actually made because people can't get over their social hypersensitivity enough to even acknowledge that maybe there's a culture giving rise to sexually disproportionate representation in some fields because culture has an impact upon different demographics in different ways.
No, no. Sorry. That's a sexist thing for me to say. What I mean to say is that we're all grey-colored neuter people from the same place and same family, and no group of people who can be described with language shares any cultural commonalities whatsoever. Because apparently that's the only asinine fantasy opinion that anybody is allowed to have anymore.
That's not the only issue. The other issue is that it doesn't actually get women interested in computer science. Nobody is going to decide, "Oh, I better learn this highly technical, challenging skill because Go Team Genitalia Like Mine!" For people to learn challenging skills requires that those skills have a practical application that matters to them, and if income were enough then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
How about a social website that is a blank slate with a highly accessible API that allows people to basically create their own kind of site on their profile? Give it simple syntax and semantics, like Javascript, and make it easily extensible so that people can customize their own pages for talking about themselves and their lives. Then, just make sure that sleaze balls like the robots and sociopaths running Facebook can't touch it.
How about that? An obvious application for the Java replacement tech firms wish they had and a way for them to compete with Facebook at the same time as motivating females to learn to program for a practical task that has already been proven to reach their demographic. It's almost like if we stop accusing each other of sexism and have a single constructive thought about the actual task of getting more women interested in computer science, then we have at least one thought that's actually on topic. Who'd have thunk it?
Are YOU serious? Everywhere that has been attempted, instead of a conversation about how to get more women interested in computer science, it becomes a conversation about how to get men OUT. Old fall-backs like scholarships and training only for females isn't going to help here because it will take more than that to get girls interested in computer science early on. Meanwhile, current female computer scientists hijack the topic to increase their own chances of getting hired, so instead of pro-female, it all becomes anti-male.
How about this: the bits between your legs neither make you a better nor worse developer, so the only way it makes sense to even consider that factor is in trying to reverse the sexist and stupid perception that computer science is for males. That's cultural, and it doesn't result from pretending that somehow having either kind of genitalia matters to the computer.
I'm starting to get bored with this recent trend that just because an article, post, or discussion mentions women, somehow that gives it more merit. No. Disagreeing with an article that happens to have a gendered term in it does not somehow magically satisfy the requirements for sexism. This crap of, "If you don't like this writing, or you disagree with this topic then you don't care about females," is a cheap social hack that is every bit as invalid and nonsense as it is temporary and annoying.
I agree. Its how-to section welcoming beginners doesn't describe how-to do anything. Features are demonstrated and users are left clicking around trying to figure out how to reach those features. During the process of figuring that out, users end up creating boards that can't be deleted but won't be wanted, and we find that cards can not be deleted -- only archived. And they can't be recovered from archive, so who exactly is archiving them and for what?
Trello does look like a mess, but it looks like a mess that is just a few common sense improvements away from being very useful and simple. This could be a replacement for Facebook if it were matured beyond its current incomplete state and polished a bit.
As for people down-modding you... You do know that you're not allowed to have negative opinions anymore, right? We all have to be happy, bubbly, manic crack addicts who find absolutely everything in the world to be happy, shiny, and perfect. Any other kind of thought will be punished.
Both perspective are right, and the usefulness of C++ increases with experience. Look at your old code. Does it make you cringe? If not, then Linus' quote applies to you.
If the idea were further developed to the point of at least basic object-oriented programming, then I suspect that every student would benefit from that class because it would teach them about organizational collaboration at the same time as programming. Even if they never write a line of code outside of school, having a rigorous framework describing how groups (teams) and groups of groups (class) interact to achieve specific results may lead some of them to better understand how different departments and companies work together.
This formalizes the cognitive benefits of team sports, and brings practice of those skills into the classroom. I would expect that to be much more effective in conferring all but the physical benefits because it removes all the extraneous social influences. It also reinforces the idea that diversity is beneficial by demonstrating practically that people have different valuable qualities. It could inspire students to look up to good problem-solvers as well as they already look up to athletes, which is useful because professional success most often derives from problem-solving and leadership skills.
That young CS grad who didn't get the job using one language to do one thing because they don't have experience doing thirty other things that aren't in the job description just might have cost less than the four decade cyborg who can manage to hum COBOL in their sleep. Just sayin'....
I don't buy that bureaucratic processes have to gum up the works. That perspective is obsolete. If major international corporations can coordinate decisions and systems using modern technology, so can our government. If a bunch of kids or laypersons can coordinate quickly and efficiently to do something as complicated as build video games then people competent enough to hold the fate of innocents in their hands should be able to work out a way to work without archaic limitations.
A modern threat will require a modern system, otherwise no matter what we come up with, it will be too slow. And I'm not comfortable with the concept of shooting first and asking questions later.
You're right on point with this. I agree totally. That is one of the reasons why for the second tier, I recommend that a security office from each branch is notified. That increases the number of analytic eyes on the event, and injects potentially vital defense information into the military sphere. It may well be necessary to respond to that level of threat with guns and bombs, so getting news of the attack to the right hands first primes the engine.
This also pits the branches of the armed forces in competition with each other where electronic security is concerned. If they compete to analyze threats then higher productivity, higher accuracy units are better funded. The overall result can harden our military against electronic attacks as well. If the enemy can mess with our dams, what about our missiles? Field equipment? Communications?
The moment such an attack is a threat to anything vital, it is a military matter.
The reason that a judge should be involved is that we do not have to choose between readiness and our guiding values. In the event that such an attack originates with anybody in US jurisdiction, the law enforcement response should be just as swift and just as decisive as a response to any other kind of terrorism. But that also includes a trial for the accused, whenever possible. Getting records on file from the start of the case helps that along. Somebody smart enough to figure out how to penetrate the security of vital systems just may be smart enough to frame somebody for it too. We need to be careful.
It doesn't have to be either/or. We don't have to choose between security and our values.
An electronic border guard would necessarily be a NEW AGENCY. Letting ANY existing agency mix their mission with that WILL lead to problems. We've already seen the first signs of that. This calls for specialization, not some hamfisted bushism.
Slashdot Mirror
Neutron stars are enormous Bose-Einstein condensates left over post-collapse when the gravitational acceleration of a star can't overcome pressures created as a secondary effect of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
White Dwarfs are exactly what the post above you describes. Hydrogen is fused into heavier deuterium that sinks to lower layers in a star until the outer layer is light enough that it gets pushed outward to form a red giant. Then, that outer layer is shed, leaving behind a bright, hot, deuterium rich core. The difference is that sooner or later, the deuterium starts to run out. Black dwarfs are completely expended white dwarfs. Brown dwarfs are easier to detect (but still not what you'd call easy to detect).
Those are both post-main-sequence stars. Neutron stars happen post-supernova when their mass is too low for their gravitational collapse to compress them beneath the Schwarzschild Radius (which would make them black holes). The Scwarzschild Radius is the spherical radius resultant of calculations dependent upon mass; the distance from the center of a sphere to surface that the mass would need to be compressed into in order to become a black hole. I'm not sure whether the gravitational acceleration during collapse is countered by continued energy output, pressures resulting from electrons being pushed into higher energy levels such that the Pauli Exclusion Principle isn't violated, or some combination of both. Neutron stars are neat because they're basically enormous Bose-Einstein condensates.
Your question about white dwarfs is spot-on though because those stars are pretty much what #49246567 describes. A star fuses enough hydrogen that the mass of its outer layers drops off, inner reactions then push that layer outward to form a red giant, the red giant sheds those outer layers, and a white dwarf is that hot, deuterium-rich star left behind. That star then cools and dims over time.
I like how this was modded "Troll", just like any time I mention some mistakes the GOP is making. If you can't form a rational argument, just slander people you disagree with, right?
Just what kind of government control did you think they didn't already have? They already gather and parse practically all data. Tax funds already pay for broadband infrastructure. The FCC has had authority over electronic communications for seventy years!
All that has changed here is that ISPs are being stopped from playing the role of tax collector by making up bogus excuses to jack up prices and hold services for ransom despite consumers already paying for them and taxpayers already paying for the infrastructure. ISPs already practically get free money to manage what we build as a nation, and they want to have unilateral power to facilitate their oligopoly squeezing every possible penny out of us without offering anything in return.
All this "But it's duh gubment" talk is a red herring meant to appeal to low information voters and gullible people who want something to be mad over but don't know enough about anything to figure that out for themselves.
Because that's not the real reason either. The bans on powdered alcohol followed stories about people doing really stupid stuff with it, like snorting it, trying to smoke it, seasoning food with it (and getting more drunk than expected, later than expected), etc etc. It's not worry about kids; it's worry about simpleton adults who like to experiment with stuff before knowing anything about it.
In Louisiana, another reason is that the ban might create another way to arrest people. Louisiana wants as many inmates as possible for slave labor.
The budget is passed both in the house and senate, and the ACA was also passed in both the house and the senate. It didn't originate in the senate. It didn't even originate at the federal level. I'm not arguing to favor that law, but just to say that it shouldn't be used as a magical, mystical, "We can say anything now and be right," device.
It might have worked had they promoted it to people who could use it. At all. I get the feeling that they promoted it to people they could identify as rockstar indie devs and blew off the rest of us. Well, that's what you get, Google. Maybe next time you won't pretend like your service is so special that it should be gated with a crimson rope, and you'll promote it to everybody who can use it.
This part: "Either way, I don't see how it's liberal to think that businesses should operate as unchecked tax collectors by demanding ever more revenue for vital services without providing anything more in return. "
... omits a "not".
Either way, I don't see how it's liberal to think that businesses should NOT operate as unchecked tax collectors by demanding ever more revenue for vital services without providing anything more in return.
My proofreading skills suck on this site for some reason. That's my fault, but it has earned more than one "Damnit!" exclamation from me.
I think they're alluding to the concept that wires and cables on US soil are on US soil or that persons operating in the US are subject to US laws. They can't possibly mean that US regulations are imposed upon the entire world, or we wouldn't have such marvels as the Great Firewall of China, would we? Maybe this person means to suggest that "liberals" can't understand that policies affecting business affect businesses abroad as well. But in that case, the FCC has specifically stopped American companies from imposing American limitations upon foreign companies.
But I don't think any of that is the case. Maybe this person means that when consumers expect to get what they pay for, that makes the consumers "liberals". Maybe "liberals" is used as a pejorative, which in itself is enough to suggest that the speaker is very low-information. Either way, I don't see how it's liberal to think that businesses should operate as unchecked tax collectors by demanding ever more revenue for vital services without providing anything more in return. In fact, that concept undermines the very premise of free trade by negating the most fundamental principles of equity in transactions as if the profit side of the equation is all that exists. I think in this person's world, we'd all just give our wallets to ISPs and let them have their own pretend economy without us.
But, to me, the importance of equity in trading is a fundamental value of capitalism and therefore a traditional social value in this country. As such, whatever this person thinks "liberal" means, this person is most certainly without a doubt NOT conservative because a core tenet of conservatism is the preservation of traditional social values. Maybe when people realize how sleazy it is to rob consumers and that undermining equity in trade is deviance (plain and simple), we'll stop seeing such low-information arguments posted.
It may have been flamebait or trolling, but some people actually think like this person. I think they just want something to be mad at and somebody to feel superior to, but otherwise they have no actual values whatsoever. But that's just my opinion.
CONGRESS can levy new federal taxes. CONGRESS and ONLY CONGRESS. How stupid do you think we are? "It's duh gubment!"
That's sensible, but remember that no one person can both comment and downvote on Slashdot. If you moderate, then the moment you comment on that page, all of your moderation is reversed.
Trello is *just* on the cusp of awesome though! I've signed up and will be watching that site's development closely.
I don't think you actually meant to post flamebait. I think you wanted to just see the article discussed, and because online conversations often derail quickly these days, you got annoyed. So, I'll answer your question as if you're genuinely asking.
Let's use this article as the illustration. If you don't read the article called, "Man 3D-Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission" because you think it's bullshit right off the bat, then you won't read the article titles "Man 3D-Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission" when it actually happens. And if that actually happens, it would be such a breakthrough in manufacturing processes that it would mark the start of a second industrial revolution -- exactly as 3D printing proponents have been awaiting with bated breath.
The question *should be*, "Why the hell does the article call it 'working' when it's not?" And the answer is that online journalism is an effing difficult field that requires bulk content production, often regarding complicated topics, and shit happens. We're going to see increasingly more of this as robot journalists become more prevalent. So, we may want to figure out how to revise our expectations when it comes to keeping things on topic. Whether an article derails itself is, itself, not a derailment.
Well... Not unless you believe every headline exactly as it's written, in which case you should write an autobiography because that mindset could probably produce some interesting anecdotes.
Whitney Hipolite seems like a decent author though. Feel better?
And that can be a vital process. I have a bad habit of tuning out everything I feel to focus on programming until those cylinders are about ready to lock up. It feels great to take a break and get it out once in a while. Thanks for understanding! :)
There's a BIG difference between using the same time signature as another composer and simply not composing anything in the first place, opting instead to "sample" someone else's work. Sampling and remixing can produce great music! Don't get me wrong! I love mash-ups even; sometimes more than the originals. But sampling should not outright replace composition because there is ultimately a difference between a DJ, musician, and performer. Modern pop music is mostly crap because instead of recognizing talented musicians, our industry exalts pretty performers backed up by a DJ, thus leaving mostly mainstream listeners to wonder if musicians even exist anymore.
The intellectual property debate is another matter, but let me just say that I totally agree that the US Congress Mickey-Mousing every damn thing is having an intolerably negative impact upon human creativity in general. They should just write a bill granting Mickey Mouse special status as a national icon, and leave everything else alone. But, unfortunately, the lobbyists involved are apparently not that smart. Instead, let's just poison culture in a way that almost forces more poisoning of culture.
Absolutely whoosh! Sorry; I've just gotten annoyed because these people who are just using this topic as an excuse to lash out at each other are making the actual topic of how to get more women interested in computer science totally unapproachable. Instead of, "What do you think, everyone, how do we work together to do this hard thing?" It's, "OMG! We have to figure out how to do this hard thing together, but nobody is allowed to talk about it and all it really means is that if I mention it, I'm automatically right about everything I say."
Authors who have to fall back on that kind of crutch should just stop writing, and people who think they'll solve complicated social problems by making everybody afraid to mention them are the reason those problems exist in the first place. The best strategy a sexist person can employ today is to pretend to hate sexist people, and people are apparently actually so stupid and impulsive that the majority are falling for it.
End. Of. Rant. I'm sorry. I just had to get that out because *not* saying it has been making this topic fester in my brain to the point that it's actually starting to piss me off.
You're going to be down-modded because the trend now is that if you actually think about this topic then you're a bigot.
What people don't seem to be seeing is that nobody is going to devote their time, work, and some measure of their sanity to going about their normal lives at the same time as learning a very technical skill unless that skill can benefit them in a way that is relevant to their needs and interests. Nobody studies Quantum Electrodynamics just because there aren't enough people in their demographic doing it. And because we have this little thing called culture that we like to pretend doesn't exist, the way to do that differs between demographics. You know, exactly like how every single marketing firm ever in the history of marketing has already accepted without devolving all their work into arguing and accusing each other of sexism.
The biggest problem with the discussion of how to get more women interested in computing is that people are so. damn. immature. that they can't discuss the actual topic at all. It all devolves into some kindergarten excuse to lash out at each other, meanwhile absolutely zero progress is actually made because people can't get over their social hypersensitivity enough to even acknowledge that maybe there's a culture giving rise to sexually disproportionate representation in some fields because culture has an impact upon different demographics in different ways.
No, no. Sorry. That's a sexist thing for me to say. What I mean to say is that we're all grey-colored neuter people from the same place and same family, and no group of people who can be described with language shares any cultural commonalities whatsoever. Because apparently that's the only asinine fantasy opinion that anybody is allowed to have anymore.
That's not the only issue. The other issue is that it doesn't actually get women interested in computer science. Nobody is going to decide, "Oh, I better learn this highly technical, challenging skill because Go Team Genitalia Like Mine!" For people to learn challenging skills requires that those skills have a practical application that matters to them, and if income were enough then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
How about a social website that is a blank slate with a highly accessible API that allows people to basically create their own kind of site on their profile? Give it simple syntax and semantics, like Javascript, and make it easily extensible so that people can customize their own pages for talking about themselves and their lives. Then, just make sure that sleaze balls like the robots and sociopaths running Facebook can't touch it.
How about that? An obvious application for the Java replacement tech firms wish they had and a way for them to compete with Facebook at the same time as motivating females to learn to program for a practical task that has already been proven to reach their demographic. It's almost like if we stop accusing each other of sexism and have a single constructive thought about the actual task of getting more women interested in computer science, then we have at least one thought that's actually on topic. Who'd have thunk it?
Are YOU serious? Everywhere that has been attempted, instead of a conversation about how to get more women interested in computer science, it becomes a conversation about how to get men OUT. Old fall-backs like scholarships and training only for females isn't going to help here because it will take more than that to get girls interested in computer science early on. Meanwhile, current female computer scientists hijack the topic to increase their own chances of getting hired, so instead of pro-female, it all becomes anti-male.
How about this: the bits between your legs neither make you a better nor worse developer, so the only way it makes sense to even consider that factor is in trying to reverse the sexist and stupid perception that computer science is for males. That's cultural, and it doesn't result from pretending that somehow having either kind of genitalia matters to the computer.
I'm starting to get bored with this recent trend that just because an article, post, or discussion mentions women, somehow that gives it more merit. No. Disagreeing with an article that happens to have a gendered term in it does not somehow magically satisfy the requirements for sexism. This crap of, "If you don't like this writing, or you disagree with this topic then you don't care about females," is a cheap social hack that is every bit as invalid and nonsense as it is temporary and annoying.
I agree. Its how-to section welcoming beginners doesn't describe how-to do anything. Features are demonstrated and users are left clicking around trying to figure out how to reach those features. During the process of figuring that out, users end up creating boards that can't be deleted but won't be wanted, and we find that cards can not be deleted -- only archived. And they can't be recovered from archive, so who exactly is archiving them and for what?
Trello does look like a mess, but it looks like a mess that is just a few common sense improvements away from being very useful and simple. This could be a replacement for Facebook if it were matured beyond its current incomplete state and polished a bit.
As for people down-modding you... You do know that you're not allowed to have negative opinions anymore, right? We all have to be happy, bubbly, manic crack addicts who find absolutely everything in the world to be happy, shiny, and perfect. Any other kind of thought will be punished.
Both perspective are right, and the usefulness of C++ increases with experience. Look at your old code. Does it make you cringe? If not, then Linus' quote applies to you.
If the idea were further developed to the point of at least basic object-oriented programming, then I suspect that every student would benefit from that class because it would teach them about organizational collaboration at the same time as programming. Even if they never write a line of code outside of school, having a rigorous framework describing how groups (teams) and groups of groups (class) interact to achieve specific results may lead some of them to better understand how different departments and companies work together.
This formalizes the cognitive benefits of team sports, and brings practice of those skills into the classroom. I would expect that to be much more effective in conferring all but the physical benefits because it removes all the extraneous social influences. It also reinforces the idea that diversity is beneficial by demonstrating practically that people have different valuable qualities. It could inspire students to look up to good problem-solvers as well as they already look up to athletes, which is useful because professional success most often derives from problem-solving and leadership skills.
That young CS grad who didn't get the job using one language to do one thing because they don't have experience doing thirty other things that aren't in the job description just might have cost less than the four decade cyborg who can manage to hum COBOL in their sleep. Just sayin'....
I don't buy that bureaucratic processes have to gum up the works. That perspective is obsolete. If major international corporations can coordinate decisions and systems using modern technology, so can our government. If a bunch of kids or laypersons can coordinate quickly and efficiently to do something as complicated as build video games then people competent enough to hold the fate of innocents in their hands should be able to work out a way to work without archaic limitations.
A modern threat will require a modern system, otherwise no matter what we come up with, it will be too slow. And I'm not comfortable with the concept of shooting first and asking questions later.
You're right on point with this. I agree totally. That is one of the reasons why for the second tier, I recommend that a security office from each branch is notified. That increases the number of analytic eyes on the event, and injects potentially vital defense information into the military sphere. It may well be necessary to respond to that level of threat with guns and bombs, so getting news of the attack to the right hands first primes the engine.
This also pits the branches of the armed forces in competition with each other where electronic security is concerned. If they compete to analyze threats then higher productivity, higher accuracy units are better funded. The overall result can harden our military against electronic attacks as well. If the enemy can mess with our dams, what about our missiles? Field equipment? Communications?
The moment such an attack is a threat to anything vital, it is a military matter.
The reason that a judge should be involved is that we do not have to choose between readiness and our guiding values. In the event that such an attack originates with anybody in US jurisdiction, the law enforcement response should be just as swift and just as decisive as a response to any other kind of terrorism. But that also includes a trial for the accused, whenever possible. Getting records on file from the start of the case helps that along. Somebody smart enough to figure out how to penetrate the security of vital systems just may be smart enough to frame somebody for it too. We need to be careful.
It doesn't have to be either/or. We don't have to choose between security and our values.
An electronic border guard would necessarily be a NEW AGENCY. Letting ANY existing agency mix their mission with that WILL lead to problems. We've already seen the first signs of that. This calls for specialization, not some hamfisted bushism.