I see two major issues here; first and foremost is denial. Yes, there is a problem, and if you can't see it, it's probably because you are part of it (and almost certainly a male).
Catch-22s are cute but not really rhetorically valid.
As for dealing with the problem itself, I can say that part of it is the whole "brogrammer" phenomenon which has cropped up in recent years.
IT'S A FAKE! The whole "brogrammer" thing is a fake, a fraud, a hoax, a put-on.
She clearly sees this micro-culture as an unfortunate anomaly, not something fundamental to hacker culture.
No, she doesn't:
Inspired by multiple reports of groping, sexual assault, and pornography at open tech/culture conferences, the Ada Initiative co-founders...
Note "conferences". Aurora is an Ada initiative co-founder. Also this little timeline of "geek" "crimes against women", which she refers to: TImeline Many of these are not done by geeks (e.g. the Ecole Polytechnique massacre), others aren't "crimes", some are neither.
Whenever I detect a nerd battle brewing, I stand between the two contestants and wave my hand down between them crying "Nerd Battle - GO!!!"
They don't appreciate it. But they also don't appreciate how dumb, arrogant, and unfriendly they sound.
ROTFL. By doing so, you're declaring yourself as so superior to them that you can freely treat them with derision, and you think THEY sound arrogant and unfriendly? Physician, heal thyself!
I'm sorry, but randomly sexually assaulting women (grabbing their crotches) and disappearing into the crowd is not "culture". I'm frankly a little sick of people writing off bad/criminal behavior as "culture".
The purpose of calling it "culture" isn't to write it off, but rather to smear all hackers/geeks by associating them with perverts who get off on crotch-grabbing.
Why is your desire to make a pass at someone at a computer hacker convention more important than someone else's desire not to be subjected to sexual advances at a computer hacker convention? And given that this is a conflict, why shouldn't the convention organizer be able to say, "In the interest of all people attending this computer hacker convention being able to feel comfortable, please don't ask anyone to show their tits?"
Is it the form of the advance or the fact of it that you're upset with? Because I think "In the interest of all people attending this computer hacker convention being able to feel comfortable, please don't ask anyone if they'd like to hook up." wouldn't go over so well for either sex.
The Geek Feminism blog claims the use of Lena Soderberg's image as the first in a long list of geek crimes against women. This despite the fact that the crop of the image normally used shows no nudity, and that if it were in a different magazine, the full shot would have been considered an artistic nude.
I believe there was a Saturday Night Live skit on the subject.
Yes, a fake GE training video on sexual harassment; the rules for men were "Be handsome, be attractive, don't be unattractive." The last scene was the "unattractive" guy walking down a hallway and saying hello to a woman at her desk, and her calling security. Which, unfortunately, isn't far from the truth; "Hi" with the response "Eww, get away from me you creep" isn't unknown in real life.
Trust me, quality women don't respond to dickheads with the attitude you seem to think is a winning one. The girls who are truly worth it respond to strong, intelligent, confident gentlemen, not asshat children.
Tell me again how Hillary Clinton isn't a quality woman.
Read the article. This is about women -- human beings with all the same thoughts and feelings as men -- getting groped and molested by men who are so broken in the head that they think such behavior is merely "politically incorrect".
Too bad it's a bait-and-switch. That is, bring up incidents of sexual assault, but use them to promote a policy which IS about politically correctness, or worse. An egregious example:
Exhibitors in the expo hall, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.
Note that by "sexualized images", they're not referring just to Hustler spreads. They're referring to the sort of imagery that you see every day in the Real World (including, notably, on the covers of "women's magazines").
Why are you spreading this false meme? Hackers don't lack social skills. If hacker can socially engineer people via the internet or in person how is that lacking social skills? Hackers have some of the most advanced social skills in society.
Treating a person as a tool to be used is much easier than actually interacting with them as a human being; what makes it easier is the very fact that in doing so, one ignores all social rules and norms one is supposed to follow and simply concentrates on the goal. And not all hackers can pull off social engineering.
If you want to show a pattern, you have to make the so-called "incidents" have something in common. The Ecole Polytechnique massacre, really? Taking a computer science course (and dropping out) does not make one a geek.
A lot of the rest aren't much more convincing. A sexually suggestive ad ("support") which would not raise an eyebrow in the mainstream? The "OMG ponies" Slashdot April Fools joke?
The only pattern I'm really seeing is repeated attempts to smear geeks and geek culture with the label of misogynistic. I might think there was something to it except 1) I know a lot of geeks -- of them, only one might have an issue, and he's moved over to the sales side since. Also not a software guy. 2) I've seen "brogramming" used as an example. Not the existence of the joke, but the existence of the actual thing.
I'm well aware that C.S. Lewis was an ardent Christian, but I do not believe I misused his words. I wasn't suggesting that anyone who uses "God's work" to describe their actions is an "evil asshole". I'm suggesting that Nathan Myhrvold, founder of major patent troll Intellectual Ventures, is an evil asshole, and that therefore when he claims to be doing God's work I'm immediately reminded of Lewis's words.
Not directly related, but whenever an evil asshole starts prattling on about "God's work" or anything similar, it brings to mind this C.S. Lewis quote
âoeOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.â
Find a mathematician to do the dirty job (writing the required algorithm), have him/her explain it to you and claim you did it by yourself searching on Google.
Funny thing about that. A company I once worked for did the first part: found a mathematician to do a dirty job. In this case, it was reverse engineering a particular field of a binary protocol. He was able to demonstrate that you could generate this field by doing some hairy matrix arithmetic on the data and a 16x16 matrix he'd figured out. All well and good, except that this was a tiny embedded device and the code and matrix took up a lot of space.
I came upon this code some time later and it struck me as wrong; the original was an embedded device as well, so why would they do hairy matrix math? A cyclic redundancy check made much more sense. A little Googling revealed the equivalence between CRCs and matrix math. I reverse-engineered the CRC polynomial from the matrix, and replaced the matrix code with much smaller CRC code. No way I could have done it without enough background in linear algebra to understand what I Googled.
They were the enemy. They won. If they didn't think (or weren't in a position) to impose terms requiring cleanup as part of a peace settlement, the US doesn't owe them anything now.
An ethernet cable wholesales for $1.85, sells for $7.99, 330% margin.
Which would be not so bad, for someone who just wants one cable now. But Best Buy won't sell it for $7.99. They'll sell it for $18.99. They've taken the strategy to an extreme and pissed off a lot of people.
SPEND MONEY ON INFRASTRUCTURE? AGAIN? What is Wall Street Going To DO To OUR STOCK PRICE!!!!!!???!!! WAAHHHHHHH!
Exactly. This is Verizon; they stopped the FIOS buildout not because FIOS was unprofitable, but because there was MORE profit in getting in bed with the cable companies to help sell wireless.
Plus all variables are global & some are used for different purposes in different places. Am I right?
You bet. In fact, there are multiple "scratch" globals and it's up to you to figure out what code paths use which ones. Most likely, there already are some code paths which overwrite these incorrectly, which accounts for some of the bugs the existing system exhibits.
You're describing a backtracking solver, which is what most people mean by a brute-force sudoku solver. I'm referring to the dumbest brute force solver -- iterate through all possible combinations of the missing numbers, checking if each is a valid grid. Number of attempts is max 64^9 (81 numbers on the grid, a minimum 17 clues, 9 possibilities for each number) = 2^54
Wikipedia claims the number of essentially distinct complete grids is 5,472,730,538. I'm not sure if you could, given a partial grid, do a lookup into a canonical set of complete grids without doing as much work as you would trying every possible rotation and permutation.
Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.
No, it's worse than that. After you say "bullshit", the claimaint can say "not bullshit" -- then the provider has to (in order to retain safe harbor) take it down again until a court says otherwise. Basically an automatic injunction.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're feeling particularly evil, they'll make the daughter pay for the cost of extinguishment through extra labor in prison.
Catch-22s are cute but not really rhetorically valid.
IT'S A FAKE! The whole "brogrammer" thing is a fake, a fraud, a hoax, a put-on.
No, she doesn't:
Note "conferences". Aurora is an Ada initiative co-founder.
Also this little timeline of "geek" "crimes against women", which she refers to: TImeline
Many of these are not done by geeks (e.g. the Ecole Polytechnique massacre), others aren't "crimes", some are neither.
ROTFL. By doing so, you're declaring yourself as so superior to them that you can freely treat them with derision, and you think THEY sound arrogant and unfriendly? Physician, heal thyself!
The purpose of calling it "culture" isn't to write it off, but rather to smear all hackers/geeks by associating them with perverts who get off on crotch-grabbing.
Is it the form of the advance or the fact of it that you're upset with? Because I think "In the interest of all people attending this computer hacker convention being able to feel comfortable, please don't ask anyone if they'd like to hook up." wouldn't go over so well for either sex.
The Geek Feminism blog claims the use of Lena Soderberg's image as the first in a long list of geek crimes against women. This despite the fact that the crop of the image normally used shows no nudity, and that if it were in a different magazine, the full shot would have been considered an artistic nude.
Yes, a fake GE training video on sexual harassment; the rules for men were "Be handsome, be attractive, don't be unattractive." The last scene was the "unattractive" guy walking down a hallway and saying hello to a woman at her desk, and her calling security. Which, unfortunately, isn't far from the truth; "Hi" with the response "Eww, get away from me you creep" isn't unknown in real life.
Tell me again how Hillary Clinton isn't a quality woman.
Too bad it's a bait-and-switch. That is, bring up incidents of sexual assault, but use them to promote a policy which IS about politically correctness, or worse. An egregious example:
Note that by "sexualized images", they're not referring just to Hustler spreads. They're referring to the sort of imagery that you see every day in the Real World (including, notably, on the covers of "women's magazines").
Treating a person as a tool to be used is much easier than actually interacting with them as a human being; what makes it easier is the very fact that in doing so, one ignores all social rules and norms one is supposed to follow and simply concentrates on the goal. And not all hackers can pull off social engineering.
If you want to show a pattern, you have to make the so-called "incidents" have something in common. The Ecole Polytechnique massacre, really? Taking a computer science course (and dropping out) does not make one a geek.
A lot of the rest aren't much more convincing. A sexually suggestive ad ("support") which would not raise an eyebrow in the mainstream? The "OMG ponies" Slashdot April Fools joke?
The only pattern I'm really seeing is repeated attempts to smear geeks and geek culture with the label of misogynistic. I might think there was something to it except
1) I know a lot of geeks -- of them, only one might have an issue, and he's moved over to the sales side since. Also not a software guy.
2) I've seen "brogramming" used as an example. Not the existence of the joke, but the existence of the actual thing.
You know who else thought you could pick and choose ideas from the writings of various authors? Hitler.
I'm well aware that C.S. Lewis was an ardent Christian, but I do not believe I misused his words. I wasn't suggesting that anyone who uses "God's work" to describe their actions is an "evil asshole". I'm suggesting that Nathan Myhrvold, founder of major patent troll Intellectual Ventures, is an evil asshole, and that therefore when he claims to be doing God's work I'm immediately reminded of Lewis's words.
Not directly related, but whenever an evil asshole starts prattling on about "God's work" or anything similar, it brings to mind this C.S. Lewis quote
âoeOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.â
Funny thing about that. A company I once worked for did the first part: found a mathematician to do a dirty job. In this case, it was reverse engineering a particular field of a binary protocol. He was able to demonstrate that you could generate this field by doing some hairy matrix arithmetic on the data and a 16x16 matrix he'd figured out. All well and good, except that this was a tiny embedded device and the code and matrix took up a lot of space.
I came upon this code some time later and it struck me as wrong; the original was an embedded device as well, so why would they do hairy matrix math? A cyclic redundancy check made much more sense. A little Googling revealed the equivalence between CRCs and matrix math. I reverse-engineered the CRC polynomial from the matrix, and replaced the matrix code with much smaller CRC code. No way I could have done it without enough background in linear algebra to understand what I Googled.
They were the enemy. They won. If they didn't think (or weren't in a position) to impose terms requiring cleanup as part of a peace settlement, the US doesn't owe them anything now.
BASIC came out of Dartmouth, but what drove it wasn't that, but the fact that just about every micro had a version of it.
He's using the name Billy Gates, and he's praising MBAs and salespeople on Slashdot. You couldn't get better trollsign without a bridge.
Which would be not so bad, for someone who just wants one cable now. But Best Buy won't sell it for $7.99. They'll sell it for $18.99. They've taken the strategy to an extreme and pissed off a lot of people.
Exactly. This is Verizon; they stopped the FIOS buildout not because FIOS was unprofitable, but because there was MORE profit in getting in bed with the cable companies to help sell wireless.
You bet. In fact, there are multiple "scratch" globals and it's up to you to figure out what code paths use which ones. Most likely, there already are some code paths which overwrite these incorrectly, which accounts for some of the bugs the existing system exhibits.
You're describing a backtracking solver, which is what most people mean by a brute-force sudoku solver. I'm referring to the dumbest brute force solver -- iterate through all possible combinations of the missing numbers, checking if each is a valid grid. Number of attempts is max 64^9 (81 numbers on the grid, a minimum 17 clues, 9 possibilities for each number) = 2^54
Wikipedia claims the number of essentially distinct complete grids is 5,472,730,538. I'm not sure if you could, given a partial grid, do a lookup into a canonical set of complete grids without doing as much work as you would trying every possible rotation and permutation.
No, it's worse than that. After you say "bullshit", the claimaint can say "not bullshit" -- then the provider has to (in order to retain safe harbor) take it down again until a court says otherwise. Basically an automatic injunction.
She's 36, which makes her Generation X.