) Any links/ideas to what "they" do after a geek is profiled?
In my high school (college-prep, designed to attract justthose above-average intellect high schoolers), it came to the attention of my guidnce counselor that _something_ was wrong in my life...
After all, when a kid repeatedly skips first period to cry in the clinic, something's wrong [it was mostly my home life].
She called me into her office and told me that she'd spoken to my mother [the source of most of my anguish], and that clearly nothing was wrong. I had to "grow up" and go back to class.
I guess what I'm saying is that [in my expeirience, in a school FOR GEEKS] even when guidance counselors can clearly see that something is wrong in a kid's life, they don't know how to handle it.
They'll believe someone else over you--if you're a geek, they'll believe the popular kids, they'll believe your parents, they'll believe the teachers who have no idea what's really going on...but they won't listen to you.
Not only was Walt Disney innovative as mentioned above, he was also an extreme perfectionist.
For the story of Bambi, he had a pair of fawns (motherless, I think) brought to the studio, and kept in a pen out back. Disney artists spent days studying the fawns and making sketches. From there they went on to film documentaries of deer in the wild.
The studio spent *nine* *years*(if I recall correctly) making _Sleeping_Beauty_. It was designed to be more formally drawn, with the backgrounds done to the tiniest detail. The voice actors wore costumes and acted out their parts.
[It's fascinating what one can learn from the short documentaries at the end of Disney commemorative editions...they even had film footage of the fawns. There are a lot more, but I'm sleepy. Go rent them yourself:)]
Yes, Disney himself had a much different outlook on releases from his studio. He simply did not permit imperfection from his studio's creations.
Re:Slashdot users' double-standards
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
As I'd said above, the MS FoF clearly reveal that *someone* (presumably the judge in question) did an awful lot of research before making a ruling.
If we could be assured that judges were responsible for having some knowledge of Usenet climates before making decisions regarding Usenet, I don't think anyone would be so worried...
Re:Slashdot users' double-standards
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
As I'd said above, the MS FoF clearly reveal that *someone* (presumably the judge in question) did an awful lot of research before making a ruling.
If we could be assured that judges were responsible for having some knowledge of Usenet climates before making decisions, I don't think anyone would be so worried...
No, seriously, I think people aren't all rabidly paranoid regarding personal safety--but lawsuits and strange people doing nutzoid things are getting more common. So people in responsibility-type areas have to double check 'cause someone might actually *BE* crazy...and they get a little paranoid indeed about covering their asses in case they missed someone who was actually nuts.
Problem is, the people who _would_ climb Tech Tower with an AR-15 are not about to broadcast their intent. Warning is not among their priorities:)
And posts of humor are focussed upon intead. Bleah.
) Oh man, Georgia Tech students really have nothing better to do with their time, eh?;)
(laugh) As I recall, it was midterms...strange things happen when Tech Students are under pressure:)
) But how could a Dean of a university, or anyone professing to have a university education, not be able to figure out that ) the above work was a parody,...
That was what floored me:)
...and the reason I posted. It was clearly a silly set of lyrics, which didn't even apply to any physical realities. For some reason, the fact that it was posted on the "in-ter-net" meant that it was somehow more dangerous, in the minds of those who might have taken it as a threat. If it had been published in the school newspaper, or pasted around campus, it would (probably) have been regarded as an obvious joke.
As I said a few posts up, the power to resolve issues is clearly in the power of people whose comprehension of "online culture" (for lack of a better term on this fine Sunday evening) is lacking.
So what do we do? Can we educate the whole world? The prevalence of "tech support horror stories" web pages suggests otherwise. At the institute of technology which I attend, computer classes are required for graduation, but that doesn't mean that all students are achieving an understanding of this (rather artificial, human-created) society. In fact, Usenet can have a vastly different culture than IRC, which is different from AOL "chat rooms" [still a virgin in that area! whee!]
It would be great if those in the judicial system were required to do an in-depth study of the element of the "in-ter-net" over which they may have to pass judgment, rather like there are separate areas for state and federal offenses. Kind of a nice pipe dream (and of course based on my not-in-depth knowledge of the US judicial system only).
I don't really think that's all that feasable, but I really don't have any faith in the Great Bureaucracy known as "Congress" to be able to pass anything effective either, or to have a clue themselves.
We're all sitting here saying stuff like: * this is awful! How can they infringe on 1st Amendment rights this way? * this is awful...see what *else* they could do [guilty myself] * this isn't so different from a non-online restraining order, maybe it isn't so awful as all that.
But dwelling on it really won't do anything for us. I'm one of those academic people who's completely removed from reality;)...and I confess I have no ideas. Does anyone else?
Considering recent censorship regulations passed, can someone working for the Australian govt be trusted to have decent judgement in what is/is not a threat or a Danger to Society?
(the above is intended to be a fairly flippant remark. go read something else now:)
It was long enough already, I wanted to separate this from the post:)
On Top of Tech Tower (Eric Lorenzo 31 Jul 1998) ==================== On top of Tech Tower With an AR-15, I shot dead three students, Two profs and a dean.
The students were all girls............[TBS: "Tech Bitch Syndrome": what happens to chicks when surrounded by ] Who had turned me down..........[hordes of slavering geeks just waiting for their turn] TBS is fatal:...........................................[As I am female, this stanza is difficult to see as a threat, from me...;)] Now they're underground.
The profs had both failed me,..[I myself have never failed a class, to which records a Dean would have access] When I should have passed. And I shot the dean 'cause.....[there are no male deans here] He's a great big dumb-ass.
I shot them with pleasure, I grinned as they died. And then I ran off to The mountains to hide.
The cops they did catch me, And they did so well. I wrote a confession Signed George P. Burdell........[George P. Burdell is a legendary imaginary tradition:)]
So it's a parody of "On Top of the Schoolhouse/ all covered with sand/ I shot my poor teacher/ with a big rubber band" (and all of her more gruesome fates in further stanzas). If this can be taken as a threat which needs to be acted upon...then a lot more can be "threatening" also.
It was long enough already, I wanted to separate this from the post:)
On Top of Tech Tower (Eric Lorenzo 31 Jul 1998) ==================== On top of Tech Tower With an AR-15, I shot dead three students, Two profs and a dean.
The students were all girls [TBS: "Tech Bitch Syndrome": what happens to chicks when surrounded by hordes of slavering geeks just waiting for their turn] Who had turned me down. TBS is fatal: Now they're underground.
The profs had both failed me, When I should have passed. And I shot the dean 'cause He's a great big dumb-ass.
I shot them with pleasure, I grinned as they died. And then I ran off to The mountains to hide.
The cops they did catch me, And they did so well. I wrote a confession Signed George P. Burdell.
In August I was requested to come speak with the Dean of Students here about a post I had made on a local, university newsgroup (a repost of a parody of "On Top of the Schoolhouse," itself a parody of "On Top of Old Smokey," of course).
Secure in the knowledge that I had been simply enjoying my right to freedom of expression (as protected specifically by our computer resources user agreement), I walked confidently into the meeting, only to discover that the post had eventually come under scrutiny as potentially threatening.
Of course, the reason they thought it was threatening was because they didn't really understand quoting conventions, and thought I had written the whole thing, including the text I had quoted above the parody.
Still, these people--who do not understand Usenet, and who do not care to--had taken a complaint about my post and decided to act upon it. Had I not been able to convince them that part of the message was a quote, they might have acted on a perceived "threat" (doing what, I have no idea).
It's really scary to see this coming out in a court of law. It was bad enough when a Dean of Students (of a technologically oriented institution) was trying to interpret a medium that she did not really understand, and make a ruling based on that lack of knowledge.
From the DoJ FoF in the MS case, it's clear that at least someone in the Justice Dept can make the effort and learn to understand some of the computer industry. But the justice system is staffed with many individuals, most of whom really don't have to know all that much about computers/Usenet/the "Web"/such things, yet they can make rulings based on these things about which they know so little, and understand so much less.
I'm suddenly frightened. I was so secure in my First Amendment rights. What is a threat? What kind of speech deserves a restraining order? What kind of speech deserves more than that?
Words that I merely quoted in a followup were perceieved as threatening, in combination with words I did post [though I credited the original author of the parody]...
A completely unrealistic "threat" was percieved simply because people didn't understand the medium. Fortunately I was in an informal meeting with someone pre-disposed to believe me. Had I not been, I might be fighting this out in a court of law--with power to resolve resting in more people who don't understand the medium.
Not everyone is being sucked into the Internet. One of the most brilliant people I know programs because he wants to solve theoretical problems, not because he just wants to program. Sure, a lot of people are doing more with computers now--but a lot of them are because it's the best means to the end, and not the end itself. I don't think the Internet is sucking away all the best minds...just the ones who *want* to be there. And they'd probably be less happy elsewhere.
I also have doubts that people whose expertise lies in computing would have efficiently and quickly have developed, say, better land transport... if only because it's difficult to get this sort of idea to the public, since the oil industry REALLY wants to squash it every time it's mentioned.
And even if it's a toy, this internet thing does good things for lots of people. My entire family is online now, and I'm so much more in touch with them than I ever was when we had to use snail mail or long distance phone charges. It's brought us closer together, which is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it...
) stay honest and try to show interest in things without microprocessors.
*Why* do I keep seeing this? (multiple places besides/., I mean)
If *all* you care about is computers, then you'd be really unhappy in a relationship with someone who doesn't care for them. Shared interests in SOMEthing can make a relationship work--it doesn't have to exclude computing!
If something's important to you, don't pretend it's not--any more than you'd affect an interest in (f'rinstance) sports, if you hate them. That will *NOT* help you meet the woman of your dreams.
"Stay honest" is right--but being honest isn't compatible with feigning interest is something you care nothing about, or trying to ignore your real interests. Faking it will just make trouble later.
But be open about your obsessions:) whatever they may be; if you try, you'll find someone who either shares the interest or at least can tolerate it, if you share another genuine interest.
) I've often been approached by girls BECAUSE I'm geeky.
Well, yea! I'm sure I'm not the only chick in the world who thinks (f'rinstance) that sysadmining is sexy (oooh, baby).
Think about it: the appealing personality to people like me is one very like mine: someone who's intelligent, someone who'll challenge me. And social evolution (grin) suggests that in the future, the successful people will be geeks. I have no objection to ignoring the societal "norm" for someone who appeals to me, who will fulfill the genuine needs that *I* have--not what society tries to tell me is "cool."
But I'd like to point out that tho the majority of geeks I've encountered have been direct, sensitive and fun, some of them still have that "gotta be macho" attitude that's such a turn-off to a chick with a brain.
Not all women are created alike (the way I've lived my life is direct evidence against the "chicks like jocks who will treat them badly" idea). But then too, not all geeks are created alike. Sad. I've got a good one tho:)
) You're saying that it was okay for him to deceive MTV because they asked for it?? ) You really believe that, just because his "cover-my-ass" letter said so?
Heh, actually, no. I just said that in the situation he presents (which has no baring on whether it's actually accurate or if he's making it up to cover his ass), what he did is what I'd do.
Just 'cause I'd do it, or I think it would be the right thing to do in such a situation, doesn't mean I think it's entirely okay.:)
Wait, now...he said he pointed MTV to some legit hacker sources, and MTV came back saying they wanted more--and that they clearly wanted sensationalism.
In that case I'd've given them some carefully crafted sensationalism, hanging on to proof that it was all fake... if they didn't get it from me they'd get it from somebody else. So if I could prove that that was what they were after AND I could discredit what they were going to do anyway, that's what I'd do, in that case.
I agree that the guy who was in this position and just wrote his retraction could have handled it much better. Still, if they were _clearly_ looking for something faked and sensational-looking, I think the best approach was the one he took.
) Frankly, I don't think you are qualified to answer the question either, as you are not a programmer.
You continue to fail to grasp the enormity of the pressures brought to bear.
As a woman, I have seen the discouragement that is there. It is more insidious than anything active--being told to my face that I couldn't/shouldn't do something would at least be a situation in which I had some space to argue.
I think I am indeed more qualified to respond than you might think, having felt this societal pressure to not succeed in hard science. I was never encouraged in high school beyond, "wow. You did well on that test. What an anamoly."
I was never given suggestions of material to read, ideas to look over, things to do in my spare time that related to my field of interest; my only exposure to it was in classes (which I thoroughly enjoyed)...and it never occurred to me--as a high school student--that there might be information that I, in my uneducated-as-yet state, that I might find helpful, interesting, or comprehendible.
I got to college and found out that many students had had personal guidance from their high school teachers, or families, or communities... were pointed towards sources for further, spare-time reading. The idea blew my mind! [Nah, I'm not bitter.]
Furthermore, I wonder: why did it not occur to me to look for entertainment==field of interest, on my own?
Hmmmm...why is it that so few women in CS look to CS for entertainment?
Why is it that women tend to think of work as separate from play? Why are we taught to think this way? I'm *trying* to change myself, once I realized I'd been given this mindset. After all, I very much enjoy the stuff I do in classes--why NOT do it for fun? Why not, indeed. Someone needs to tell the rest of the world, too.
(shrug) Like I said, I'm not in CS myself. It may be more prevalent in the women in CS... but again, look at the trends: women are taught to be scared to do things extracurricularly (with science, math, CS)...
Then they're pointed to technology 'cause it's lucrative, there's high demand, and of course women can do anything they want, right? 'Cause obviously we all go into high school with no preconditions...
Slashdot Mirror
) Any links/ideas to what "they" do after a geek is profiled?
In my high school (college-prep, designed to attract justthose above-average intellect high schoolers), it came to the attention of my guidnce counselor that _something_ was wrong in my life...
After all, when a kid repeatedly skips first period to cry in the clinic, something's wrong [it was mostly my home life].
She called me into her office and told me that she'd spoken to my mother [the source of most of my anguish], and that clearly nothing was wrong. I had to "grow up" and go back to class.
I guess what I'm saying is that [in my expeirience, in a school FOR GEEKS] even when guidance counselors can clearly see that something is wrong in a kid's life, they don't know how to handle it.
They'll believe someone else over you--if you're a geek, they'll believe the popular kids, they'll believe your parents, they'll believe the teachers who have no idea what's really going on...but they won't listen to you.
Not only was Walt Disney innovative as mentioned above, he was also an extreme perfectionist.
:)]
For the story of Bambi, he had a pair of fawns (motherless, I think) brought to the studio, and kept in a pen out back. Disney artists spent days studying the fawns and making sketches. From there they went on to film documentaries of deer in the wild.
The studio spent *nine* *years*(if I recall correctly) making _Sleeping_Beauty_. It was designed to be more formally drawn, with the backgrounds done to the tiniest detail. The voice actors wore costumes and acted out their parts.
[It's fascinating what one can learn from the short documentaries at the end of Disney commemorative editions...they even had film footage of the fawns. There are a lot more, but I'm sleepy. Go rent them yourself
Yes, Disney himself had a much different outlook on releases from his studio. He simply did not permit imperfection from his studio's creations.
As I'd said above, the MS FoF clearly reveal that *someone* (presumably the judge in question) did an awful lot of research before making a ruling.
If we could be assured that judges were responsible for having some knowledge of Usenet climates before making decisions regarding Usenet, I don't think anyone would be so worried...
As I'd said above, the MS FoF clearly reveal that *someone* (presumably the judge in question) did an awful lot of research before making a ruling.
If we could be assured that judges were responsible for having some knowledge of Usenet climates before making decisions, I don't think anyone would be so worried...
...
:)
you're out to get me, aren't you??
No, seriously, I think people aren't all rabidly paranoid regarding personal safety--but lawsuits and strange people doing nutzoid things are getting more common. So people in responsibility-type areas have to double check 'cause someone might actually *BE* crazy...and they get a little paranoid indeed about covering their asses in case they missed someone who was actually nuts.
Problem is, the people who _would_ climb Tech Tower with an AR-15 are not about to broadcast their intent. Warning is not among their priorities
And posts of humor are focussed upon intead. Bleah.
If I'd known if would affect you so drastically, Pitha, I'd never have stamped your head ;)
) oh, and for the record, I consider it a [dubious] honor to be laughed at by CmdrTaco.
Yea, but Hemos gave *me* a frisbee! (grin)
) Oh man, Georgia Tech students really have nothing better to do with their time, eh? ;)
:)
...
:)
(laugh) As I recall, it was midterms...strange things happen when Tech Students are under pressure
) But how could a Dean of a university, or anyone professing to have a university education, not be able to figure out that
) the above work was a parody,
That was what floored me
...and the reason I posted. It was clearly a silly set of lyrics, which didn't even apply to any physical realities. For some reason, the fact that it was posted on the "in-ter-net" meant that it was somehow more dangerous, in the minds of those who might have taken it as a threat. If it had been published in the school newspaper, or pasted around campus, it would (probably) have been regarded as an obvious joke.
As I said a few posts up, the power to resolve issues is clearly in the power of people whose comprehension of "online culture" (for lack of a better term on this fine Sunday evening) is lacking.
;) ...and I confess I have no ideas. Does anyone else?
So what do we do? Can we educate the whole world? The prevalence of "tech support horror stories" web pages suggests otherwise. At the institute of technology which I attend, computer classes are required for graduation, but that doesn't mean that all students are achieving an understanding of this (rather artificial, human-created) society. In fact, Usenet can have a vastly different culture than IRC, which is different from AOL "chat rooms" [still a virgin in that area! whee!]
It would be great if those in the judicial system were required to do an in-depth study of the element of the "in-ter-net" over which they may have to pass judgment, rather like there are separate areas for state and federal offenses. Kind of a nice pipe dream (and of course based on my not-in-depth knowledge of the US judicial system only).
I don't really think that's all that feasable, but I really don't have any faith in the Great Bureaucracy known as "Congress" to be able to pass anything effective either, or to have a clue themselves.
We're all sitting here saying stuff like:
* this is awful! How can they infringe on 1st Amendment rights this way?
* this is awful...see what *else* they could do [guilty myself]
* this isn't so different from a non-online restraining order, maybe it isn't so awful as all that.
But dwelling on it really won't do anything for us. I'm one of those academic people who's completely removed from reality
Considering recent censorship regulations passed, can someone working for the Australian govt be trusted to have decent judgement in what is/is not a threat or a Danger to Society?
:)
(the above is intended to be a fairly flippant remark. go read something else now
It was long enough already, I wanted to separate this from the post :)
............[TBS: "Tech Bitch Syndrome": what happens to chicks when surrounded by ] .........[hordes of slavering geeks just waiting for their turn] ...........................................[As I am female, this stanza is difficult to see as a threat, from me...;)]
..[I myself have never failed a class, to which records a Dean would have access] .....[there are no male deans here]
.......[George P. Burdell is a legendary imaginary tradition :)]
On Top of Tech Tower (Eric Lorenzo 31 Jul 1998)
====================
On top of Tech Tower
With an AR-15,
I shot dead three students,
Two profs and a dean.
The students were all girls
Who had turned me down.
TBS is fatal:
Now they're underground.
The profs had both failed me,
When I should have passed.
And I shot the dean 'cause
He's a great big dumb-ass.
I shot them with pleasure,
I grinned as they died.
And then I ran off to
The mountains to hide.
The cops they did catch me,
And they did so well.
I wrote a confession
Signed George P. Burdell.
So it's a parody of "On Top of the Schoolhouse/ all covered with sand/ I shot my poor teacher/ with a big rubber band" (and all of her more gruesome fates in further stanzas). If this can be taken as a threat which needs to be acted upon...then a lot more can be "threatening" also.
It was long enough already, I wanted to separate this from the post :)
On Top of Tech Tower (Eric Lorenzo 31 Jul 1998)
====================
On top of Tech Tower
With an AR-15,
I shot dead three students,
Two profs and a dean.
The students were all girls [TBS: "Tech Bitch Syndrome": what happens to chicks when surrounded by hordes of slavering geeks just waiting for their turn]
Who had turned me down.
TBS is fatal:
Now they're underground.
The profs had both failed me,
When I should have passed.
And I shot the dean 'cause
He's a great big dumb-ass.
I shot them with pleasure,
I grinned as they died.
And then I ran off to
The mountains to hide.
The cops they did catch me,
And they did so well.
I wrote a confession
Signed George P. Burdell.
In August I was requested to come speak with the Dean of Students here about a post I had made on a local, university newsgroup (a repost of a parody of "On Top of the Schoolhouse," itself a parody of "On Top of Old Smokey," of course).
Secure in the knowledge that I had been simply enjoying my right to freedom of expression (as protected specifically by our computer resources user agreement), I walked confidently into the meeting, only to discover that the post had eventually come under scrutiny as potentially threatening.
Of course, the reason they thought it was threatening was because they didn't really understand quoting conventions, and thought I had written the whole thing, including the text I had quoted above the parody.
Still, these people--who do not understand Usenet, and who do not care to--had taken a complaint about my post and decided to act upon it. Had I not been able to convince them that part of the message was a quote, they might have acted on a perceived "threat" (doing what, I have no idea).
It's really scary to see this coming out in a court of law. It was bad enough when a Dean of Students (of a technologically oriented institution) was trying to interpret a medium that she did not really understand, and make a ruling based on that lack of knowledge.
From the DoJ FoF in the MS case, it's clear that at least someone in the Justice Dept can make the effort and learn to understand some of the computer industry. But the justice system is staffed with many individuals, most of whom really don't have to know all that much about computers/Usenet/the "Web"/such things, yet they can make rulings based on these things about which they know so little, and understand so much less.
I'm suddenly frightened. I was so secure in my First Amendment rights. What is a threat? What kind of speech deserves a restraining order? What kind of speech deserves more than that?
Words that I merely quoted in a followup were perceieved as threatening, in combination with words I did post [though I credited the original author of the parody]...
A completely unrealistic "threat" was percieved simply because people didn't understand the medium. Fortunately I was in an informal meeting with someone pre-disposed to believe me. Had I not been, I might be fighting this out in a court of law--with power to resolve resting in more people who don't understand the medium.
) terrible and arduous task of...getting up half an hour early? Driving ten blocks out of
) the way during their commute?
Finding the damn polling place in the first place? AAAAAUGH! I get lost in my own house...
Not everyone is being sucked into the Internet. One of the most brilliant people I know programs because he wants to solve theoretical problems, not because he just wants to program. Sure, a lot of people are doing more with computers now--but a lot of them are because it's the best means to the end, and not the end itself. I don't think the Internet is sucking away all the best minds...just the ones who *want* to be there. And they'd probably be less happy elsewhere.
I also have doubts that people whose expertise lies in computing would have efficiently and quickly have developed, say, better land transport... if only because it's difficult to get this sort of idea to the public, since the oil industry REALLY wants to squash it every time it's mentioned.
And even if it's a toy, this internet thing does good things for lots of people. My entire family is online now, and I'm so much more in touch with them than I ever was when we had to use snail mail or long distance phone charges. It's brought us closer together, which is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it...
) My home network uses place names from The Lord of The Rings,
;)
Strangely enough, so does mine
That, or turning off auto-loading of images. I never get banner ads. :>
) stay honest and try to show interest in things without microprocessors.
/., I mean)
:) whatever they may be; if you try, you'll find someone who either shares the interest or at least can tolerate it, if you share another genuine interest.
*Why* do I keep seeing this? (multiple places besides
If *all* you care about is computers, then you'd be really unhappy in a relationship with someone who doesn't care for them. Shared interests in SOMEthing can make a relationship work--it doesn't have to exclude computing!
If something's important to you, don't pretend it's not--any more than you'd affect an interest in (f'rinstance) sports, if you hate them. That will *NOT* help you meet the woman of your dreams.
"Stay honest" is right--but being honest isn't compatible with feigning interest is something you care nothing about, or trying to ignore your real interests. Faking it will just make trouble later.
But be open about your obsessions
) I've often been approached by girls BECAUSE I'm geeky.
Well, yea! I'm sure I'm not the only chick in the world who thinks (f'rinstance) that sysadmining is sexy (oooh, baby).
Think about it: the appealing personality to people like me is one very like mine: someone who's intelligent, someone who'll challenge me. And social evolution (grin) suggests that in the future, the successful people will be geeks. I have no objection to ignoring the societal "norm" for someone who appeals to me, who will fulfill the genuine needs that *I* have--not what society tries to tell me is "cool."
I mostly agree with you...
:)
But I'd like to point out that tho the majority of geeks I've encountered have been direct, sensitive and fun, some of them still have that "gotta be macho" attitude that's such a turn-off to a chick with a brain.
Not all women are created alike (the way I've lived my life is direct evidence against the "chicks like jocks who will treat them badly" idea). But then too, not all geeks are created alike. Sad. I've got a good one tho
but...but...geeks are so much more fun than "normal" guys!
I'd much prefer a geek than a jock. Intelligence, marketable skills, interests in common...
Silly woman.
) You're saying that it was okay for him to deceive MTV because they asked for it??
:)
) You really believe that, just because his "cover-my-ass" letter said so?
Heh, actually, no. I just said that in the situation he presents (which has no baring on whether it's actually accurate or if he's making it up to cover his ass), what he did is what I'd do.
Just 'cause I'd do it, or I think it would be the right thing to do in such a situation, doesn't mean I think it's entirely okay.
Wait, now...he said he pointed MTV to some legit hacker sources, and MTV came back saying they wanted more--and that they clearly wanted sensationalism.
In that case I'd've given them some carefully crafted sensationalism, hanging on to proof that it was all fake... if they didn't get it from me they'd get it from somebody else. So if I could prove that that was what they were after AND I could discredit what they were going to do anyway, that's what I'd do, in that case.
I agree that the guy who was in this position and just wrote his retraction could have handled it much better. Still, if they were _clearly_ looking for something faked and sensational-looking, I think the best approach was the one he took.
) Frankly, I don't think you are qualified to answer the question either, as you are not a programmer.
You continue to fail to grasp the enormity of the pressures brought to bear.
As a woman, I have seen the discouragement that is there. It is more insidious than anything active--being told to my face that I couldn't/shouldn't do something would at least be a situation in which I had some space to argue.
I think I am indeed more qualified to respond than you might think, having felt this societal pressure to not succeed in hard science. I was never encouraged in high school beyond, "wow. You did well on that test. What an anamoly."
I was never given suggestions of material to read, ideas to look over, things to do in my spare time that related to my field of interest; my only exposure to it was in classes (which I thoroughly enjoyed)...and it never occurred to me--as a high school student--that there might be information that I, in my uneducated-as-yet state, that I might find helpful, interesting, or comprehendible.
I got to college and found out that many students had had personal guidance from their high school teachers, or families, or communities... were pointed towards sources for further, spare-time reading. The idea blew my mind! [Nah, I'm not bitter.]
Furthermore, I wonder: why did it not occur to me to look for entertainment==field of interest, on my own?
Hmmmm...why is it that so few women in CS look to CS for entertainment?
Why is it that women tend to think of work as separate from play? Why are we taught to think this way? I'm *trying* to change myself, once I realized I'd been given this mindset. After all, I very much enjoy the stuff I do in classes--why NOT do it for fun? Why not, indeed. Someone needs to tell the rest of the world, too.
particularly in your early, formative years.
(shrug) Like I said, I'm not in CS myself. It may be more prevalent in the women in CS... but again, look at the trends: women are taught to be scared to do things extracurricularly (with science, math, CS)...
Then they're pointed to technology 'cause it's lucrative, there's high demand, and of course women can do anything they want, right? 'Cause obviously we all go into high school with no preconditions...