1984 is not a one government world. It's a world that has many governments, just one of them (UK,USA) is very insidious. They are at war with other countries that dare to not use their brand of freedom.
It has three governments, but they're all essentially the same; all tyrannies. Oceania, Eastasia, Eurasia.
Ah, but that would mean it is somehow their fault, rather than the women's.
So it is inarguable and self-evident that there is fault to be placed, and that fault lies with men?
Good times. Good times. Call me in thirty years where this sounds as ludicrous to everyone as when the exact same arguments were made against women being doctors, lawyers, and business executives do today.
The CS gender gap existed 30 years ago as well. Why should not those arguments sound ludicrous now? Oh, right, data -- law students are about 50:50, medical students also, and MBA students are at least less lopsided thant they were. CS? According to the article, more lopsided. So either something different is going on in that field, or we male geeks are more effectively and viciously exclusive of women than budding doctors, lawyers, and business executives. Somehow, that last doesn't ring true.
What does sound ludicrous is the idea that a field that women would otherwise find desirable remains largely closed to them, despite any formal gender based barriers to entry, merely because some of the men in that field express the opinion that the gender gap is not their doing.
If cons work by making us feel good about helping the con man, then how come so many are based on the mark trying to rip off someone? In the pigeon drop, the mark is trying to rip off the con man. In insider-knowledge scams, the mark is trying to rip off honest traders or gamblers. With "white van" scams, the mark thinks he's buying stolen goods.
"Twenty-five years ago, more young women in colleges and universities were drawn to computer science than today. From 1971 to 1983, incoming freshman women who declared an intention to major in computer science jumped eightfold, to 4 percent from about 0.5 percent. " "At least we know one thing: it's possible to have about the same number of men and women in computer science classes. That just about describes classrooms of 25 years ago." I'm just a stupid girl who knows jack about programming, so he must be right that 4% is close to half.
The author certainly knows how to play fast and loose with the numbers. However, he made the capital mistake of including some of the real data. If you take a look at the accompanying graph, you see a huge spike in interest in CS peaking around 1982 -- for both men and women, though more strongly for men. What happened around 1982? Oh, right, the personal computer revolution was in full swing, with the IBM PC introduced in late 1981.
The graph is fairly fuzzy, but it appears the relative disparity dropped dramatically during the spike, from 2:1 to almost nothing in 1979 and 1980. By the peak it reached back to roughly 3:2, and after it ended around 1987 it was back to roughly 2:1, though at a higher level for men and women. Note this is interest, measured as percentage who declared CS as a probable major, not actual class makeup. Further, it appears what the dot-com boom resulted in yet another major spike for men, but a far smaller one for women -- and after the bust, female interest dropped to pre-PC-revolution levels, whereas men's interest only dropped to the post-PC-revolution baseline.
The author's claim that classrooms of 25 years ago had equal numbers of men and women in CS classes appears to based on the claim that in the mid-1980s "women made up 40 percent of the students who majored in management computer systems, the second most popular major on campus." Wait, what's that, management computer systems? That ain't CS. Not even the same genus.
When I was in the University of Maryland CS program in the late 1980s, the ratio appeared to be about 30:1. Perhaps the class sections I was in simply happened to be more devoid of women than average, but the actual ratio was certainly extreme.
What keeps women from CS/IT are the higher ed institutions that still treat a CS degree like a mathematics degree.
Uhh, two things
1) This doesn't explain why the gender gap in CS is worse than in Mathematics proper.
2) A CS degree _is_ like a mathematics degree. Discrete Finite Automata? Algorithmic complexity? The design of programming languages? Semaphores and concurrency? All basically mathematical.
(and I actually have used calculus in programming on a few rare occasions)
Women in CS in the 80s was explained by the dot-com boom?
No. Lack of women now (compared to then) is partially explained by the dot-com crash. That is, the boom followed by the crash left the degree and profession more tarnished than it was before both events.
Which premise leads to the conclusion that CS culture is greatly and increasingly biased against and exclusive of women. Which claim does not hold up to examination and comparison with other less male-dominated professions which put up far higher barriers to women.
Right. We're worse chauvinists than doctors, the military, or old-school businessmen. Our stereotypically poorly-washed bodies, inept come-ons, insensitive jokes, and rude stares are worse than any sort of harassment dealt with in other formerly male-dominated professions. In fact, despite being socially inept, we are the #1 undisputed champions at sexual harassment.
(in case you didn't notice, sarcasm level above was set to "dripping")
"Women aren't interested in X" has historically been applied to X = medicine, business, politics... and it's always been wrong. There's something specific about CS here, and I don't think it's the field.
"Women aren't interested in X" has historically always been false. "Women aren't as interested in X as men" or "Women are more interested in Y than X, whereas men are more interested in X than Y" have not been shown to be universally false.
Something has changed since then and I doubt it's biological.
Yeah. Dot-com crash, combined with more general computer familiarity. CS is no longer seen as a lucrative degree, not even to the extent it was before the dot-com boom. And computers are now commonplace, so the field in general has lost some of its apparent exclusivity. Those attracted to CS for money or for exclusive knowledge are not entering the field anymore, leaving the hardcore geeks, who are alas mostly male.
The demosaicing software probably could identify the combination of software and sensor. The distortion might identify the lens, but if you use DxO Optics or some other distortion-correcting tool, you can camouflage that as well. Add some distortion back to really fool them.
However, if you really want to defeat techniques like this, take the picture with a Canon Digital Rebel and a kit lens, or a Nikon D40 and its kit lens. Sure, they'll be able to identify the camera and lens model, but there are so many of them that the information will have very limited use.
Where are you going to find new music if not from recordings? From books. There is a system for writing and reading music. It works. Learn it. Where am I going to hear and share new songs? From listening to people sing them to you. And by you singing new songs to them. Sure it hurts the ears at first.
And again, and again, and again. Two names: William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. Most people don't sound any better than those two.
Besides, none of this avoids copyright. There's copyright on sheet music; it applies to performing that music publicly. There's copyright on lyrics, which apply to performing those lyrics publicly.
Con: Professionals use their real names. Are you a pro or a teenager?
Two things. One, your premise is false. Ask James Tiptree, Jr, Kathyrn Kristine Rusch (a.k.a. Kris Nelscott, a.k.a Kristine Grayson) , George Orwell, George Eliot, Anne Rice (a.k.a. A.N. Rocquelare), etc.
Two, a lot of people writing open source aren't doing it professionally; that is, they aren't being paid for it. That doesn't make them teenagers.
To the GPP, I would be quite worried when some tech could link code submitted anonymously directly to me, e.g. using things like coding style, choice of variable names, language idioms and quirks in comments, and in particular certain programming mistakes made repeatedly or with any kind of pattern.
Except maybe for the comments thing, I suspect that coding styles are imitated far too much to get a useful false positive/false negative rate for code fingerprinting.
But the meetings are the "action points" - they let you know how hard you have to work, and with whom, in order to coordinate your activities.
You understand you're speaking a foreign language from most of Slashdot's perspective, yes? I can no more "work with" politicians and the like than your average politician could write a Quicksort routine in 8086 assembler.
When you realize that the power to influence government is actually wielded by a precious few who are paying attention, you will be stunned at just how much power you really have! Just pay attention, and put in the time to learn the rules of the game.
You need more than that. You need time, a lot of time, often more than a full-time job will allow. You need basic charisma, both to obtain supporters and to be able to talk to the players. You need connections, to get you access to those people in the first place. And you need to not have an opponent who simply outclasses you. It's not enough to learn the rules to the game; you have to be able to act on those rules.
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
He managed to keep the preaching out of the homecoming series
?????
About like C.S. Lewis kept the preaching out of Narnia.
Maybe he can get Martha Stewart's old cell. Should be a nice homey place...
Don't think they're going to put Cuban in a women's prison. Anyway, Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to investigators.
If Cuban's smart (and I suspect he likes to run his mouth too much), the only thing he's said to investigators is "My lawyer is _____, anything you want from me, talk to him".
And if you want to argue that France has no real claim to territory in the Pacific, I would welcome your explanation reference a certain part of Cuba that the US lays claim to.
That's not claimed. That's leased. From a prior Cuban administration, granted, but leased nevertheless.
Non-french companies not operating in France are not subject to French Law. However, these companies are operating in France, if there are customers in France.
Only if the transaction takes place in France. Often, there's a middleman who (legally, if not physically) takes the product across the border, so the company doing the selling isn't operating in France at all. And for free (as in beer) software on the Internet? There's no transaction at all.
Imagine a situation in which Massive company no. 1, based in Canada, supplies all of the US's need for one thing. Massive company no. 2, based in the US, supplies all of Canada's needs for the same thing. Why on earth should Canadian legislation apply to exclusively to company 1, and US legislation exclusively to company 2?
Because company 1 is based in Canada and Company 2 is based in the US. Pretty simple, that. Realistically both companies are going to have subsidiaries and/or partners operating in the opposite country, and those subsidiaries and/or partners will be subject to the law of the country where they operate. But it would be madness for company 1 to have to follow US law on their internal operations. (and yes, the US has pushed that sort of madness, e.g. forbidding company 1 from doing business with Cuba. Canada has pushed back, forbidding company 1 from adhering to that law).
Accordingly, a judge cannot free a defendant on the grounds that the circumstances by which he was brought before a US court violated the laws of, say, France. That's a matter of French law, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of a US court
However, in the case where an extradition treaty does exist, and forbids this sort of thing, the judge CAN (and if the treaty so specificies, must) free the defendant on exactly those grounds -- because the treaty is also a matter of US law.
If you hate your job, where you spend so much of your waking time, life must be miserable. A good number of us reject the proposition that outside approval is the be-all end-all, though it doesn't seem to be the majority opinion.
With respect to the job: It's typically not the outside approval, it's the pay. A lower-paying job which you enjoy more is often not feasible; either you're not qualified (or "overqualified") for the lower-paying jobs, or they're same badness, less pay, or the drop in pay you'd have to take to get the better job is far too great; you wouldn't be able to do the things you enjoy on the lower pay. It'd be nice if there was some continuous scale where you could say, "Oh, I'll take 75% of the pay for a job which sucks 25% less", but there isn't.
In general, I think doing something you don't want for the approval of others is pretty much a standard human thing, not an American thing. In fact, as a society America is probably LESS like that than many others -- Japan, for example.
I don't know exactly how it's in the USA, but in my country (Austria, EU;) ) high school math is like learning how to drive a car and university level math is like learning how to build a car.
Unfortunately, in the USA, high school math is like learning to drive a slot car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_car) (arithmetic, algebra, maybe trig and geometry). In the university you get to drive a real car (e.g. calculus, statistics, linear algebra) and only the truly brave or foolish go on to the various courses (offered senior level and graduate level -- e.g. Advanced Algebra) where you learn to build a car.
We have not received a proper DMCA notice for any particular image at our website. Under DMCA section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii), you must provide "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material" A general description is not sufficient. Furthermore, under DMCA section 512(c)(3)(B), you cannot use your defective notice to claim we have actual knowledge of infringement. As to your invoices, we thank you for your notice that you will be invoicing us to do YOUR job of providing proper DMCA notices. We will inform our Accounts Payable department to immediately forward any such invoices unpaid to our Legal Department, as no section of the DMCA nor any other law requires us to pay them.
Slashdot Mirror
The IRS seems to have the usual paradigm a bit confused.
1) Find one of the few sectors making a profit
2) Take them down
3) ????
It has three governments, but they're all essentially the same; all tyrannies. Oceania, Eastasia, Eurasia.
So it is inarguable and self-evident that there is fault to be placed, and that fault lies with men?
The CS gender gap existed 30 years ago as well. Why should not those arguments sound ludicrous now? Oh, right, data -- law students are about 50:50, medical students also, and MBA students are at least less lopsided thant they were. CS? According to the article, more lopsided. So either something different is going on in that field, or we male geeks are more effectively and viciously exclusive of women than budding doctors, lawyers, and business executives. Somehow, that last doesn't ring true.
What does sound ludicrous is the idea that a field that women would otherwise find desirable remains largely closed to them, despite any formal gender based barriers to entry, merely because some of the men in that field express the opinion that the gender gap is not their doing.
If cons work by making us feel good about helping the con man, then how come so many are based on the mark trying to rip off someone? In the pigeon drop, the mark is trying to rip off the con man. In insider-knowledge scams, the mark is trying to rip off honest traders or gamblers. With "white van" scams, the mark thinks he's buying stolen goods.
The author certainly knows how to play fast and loose with the numbers. However, he made the capital mistake of including some of the real data. If you take a look at the accompanying graph, you see a huge spike in interest in CS peaking around 1982 -- for both men and women, though more strongly for men. What happened around 1982? Oh, right, the personal computer revolution was in full swing, with the IBM PC introduced in late 1981.
The graph is fairly fuzzy, but it appears the relative disparity dropped dramatically during the spike, from 2:1 to almost nothing in 1979 and 1980. By the peak it reached back to roughly 3:2, and after it ended around 1987 it was back to roughly 2:1, though at a higher level for men and women. Note this is interest, measured as percentage who declared CS as a probable major, not actual class makeup. Further, it appears what the dot-com boom resulted in yet another major spike for men, but a far smaller one for women -- and after the bust, female interest dropped to pre-PC-revolution levels, whereas men's interest only dropped to the post-PC-revolution baseline.
The author's claim that classrooms of 25 years ago had equal numbers of men and women in CS classes appears to based on the claim that in the mid-1980s "women made up 40 percent of the students who majored in management computer systems, the second most popular major on campus." Wait, what's that, management computer systems? That ain't CS. Not even the same genus.
When I was in the University of Maryland CS program in the late 1980s, the ratio appeared to be about 30:1. Perhaps the class sections I was in simply happened to be more devoid of women than average, but the actual ratio was certainly extreme.
Uhh, two things
1) This doesn't explain why the gender gap in CS is worse than in Mathematics proper.
2) A CS degree _is_ like a mathematics degree. Discrete Finite Automata? Algorithmic complexity? The design of programming languages? Semaphores and concurrency? All basically mathematical.
(and I actually have used calculus in programming on a few rare occasions)
No. Lack of women now (compared to then) is partially explained by the dot-com crash. That is, the boom followed by the crash left the degree and profession more tarnished than it was before both events.
Well, no, it hasn't.
Which premise leads to the conclusion that CS culture is greatly and increasingly biased against and exclusive of women. Which claim does not hold up to examination and comparison with other less male-dominated professions which put up far higher barriers to women.
Right. We're worse chauvinists than doctors, the military, or old-school businessmen. Our stereotypically poorly-washed bodies, inept come-ons, insensitive jokes, and rude stares are worse than any sort of harassment dealt with in other formerly male-dominated professions. In fact, despite being socially inept, we are the #1 undisputed champions at sexual harassment.
(in case you didn't notice, sarcasm level above was set to "dripping")
"Women aren't interested in X" has historically always been false. "Women aren't as interested in X as men" or "Women are more interested in Y than X, whereas men are more interested in X than Y" have not been shown to be universally false.
Yeah. Dot-com crash, combined with more general computer familiarity. CS is no longer seen as a lucrative degree, not even to the extent it was before the dot-com boom. And computers are now commonplace, so the field in general has lost some of its apparent exclusivity. Those attracted to CS for money or for exclusive knowledge are not entering the field anymore, leaving the hardcore geeks, who are alas mostly male.
The demosaicing software probably could identify the combination of software and sensor. The distortion might identify the lens, but if you use DxO Optics or some other distortion-correcting tool, you can camouflage that as well. Add some distortion back to really fool them.
However, if you really want to defeat techniques like this, take the picture with a Canon Digital Rebel and a kit lens, or a Nikon D40 and its kit lens. Sure, they'll be able to identify the camera and lens model, but there are so many of them that the information will have very limited use.
And again, and again, and again. Two names: William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. Most people don't sound any better than those two.
Besides, none of this avoids copyright. There's copyright on sheet music; it applies to performing that music publicly. There's copyright on lyrics, which apply to performing those lyrics publicly.
Two things. One, your premise is false. Ask James Tiptree, Jr, Kathyrn Kristine Rusch (a.k.a. Kris Nelscott, a.k.a Kristine Grayson) , George Orwell, George Eliot, Anne Rice (a.k.a. A.N. Rocquelare), etc.
Two, a lot of people writing open source aren't doing it professionally; that is, they aren't being paid for it. That doesn't make them teenagers.
That's not really why we didn't believe you, Ms. Natalie Portman.
Except maybe for the comments thing, I suspect that coding styles are imitated far too much to get a useful false positive/false negative rate for code fingerprinting.
You understand you're speaking a foreign language from most of Slashdot's perspective, yes? I can no more "work with" politicians and the like than your average politician could write a Quicksort routine in 8086 assembler.
You need more than that. You need time, a lot of time, often more than a full-time job will allow. You need basic charisma, both to obtain supporters and to be able to talk to the players. You need connections, to get you access to those people in the first place. And you need to not have an opponent who simply outclasses you. It's not enough to learn the rules to the game; you have to be able to act on those rules.
?????
About like C.S. Lewis kept the preaching out of Narnia.
Don't think they're going to put Cuban in a women's prison. Anyway, Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to investigators.
If Cuban's smart (and I suspect he likes to run his mouth too much), the only thing he's said to investigators is "My lawyer is _____, anything you want from me, talk to him".
That's not claimed. That's leased. From a prior Cuban administration, granted, but leased nevertheless.
Only if the transaction takes place in France. Often, there's a middleman who (legally, if not physically) takes the product across the border, so the company doing the selling isn't operating in France at all. And for free (as in beer) software on the Internet? There's no transaction at all.
Because company 1 is based in Canada and Company 2 is based in the US. Pretty simple, that. Realistically both companies are going to have subsidiaries and/or partners operating in the opposite country, and those subsidiaries and/or partners will be subject to the law of the country where they operate. But it would be madness for company 1 to have to follow US law on their internal operations. (and yes, the US has pushed that sort of madness, e.g. forbidding company 1 from doing business with Cuba. Canada has pushed back, forbidding company 1 from adhering to that law).
However, in the case where an extradition treaty does exist, and forbids this sort of thing, the judge CAN (and if the treaty so specificies, must) free the defendant on exactly those grounds -- because the treaty is also a matter of US law.
With respect to the job: It's typically not the outside approval, it's the pay. A lower-paying job which you enjoy more is often not feasible; either you're not qualified (or "overqualified") for the lower-paying jobs, or they're same badness, less pay, or the drop in pay you'd have to take to get the better job is far too great; you wouldn't be able to do the things you enjoy on the lower pay. It'd be nice if there was some continuous scale where you could say, "Oh, I'll take 75% of the pay for a job which sucks 25% less", but there isn't. In general, I think doing something you don't want for the approval of others is pretty much a standard human thing, not an American thing. In fact, as a society America is probably LESS like that than many others -- Japan, for example.
Unfortunately, in the USA, high school math is like learning to drive a slot car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_car) (arithmetic, algebra, maybe trig and geometry). In the university you get to drive a real car (e.g. calculus, statistics, linear algebra) and only the truly brave or foolish go on to the various courses (offered senior level and graduate level -- e.g. Advanced Algebra) where you learn to build a car.
We have not received a proper DMCA notice for any particular image at our website. Under DMCA section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii), you must provide "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material" A general description is not sufficient. Furthermore, under DMCA section 512(c)(3)(B), you cannot use your defective notice to claim we have actual knowledge of infringement. As to your invoices, we thank you for your notice that you will be invoicing us to do YOUR job of providing proper DMCA notices. We will inform our Accounts Payable department to immediately forward any such invoices unpaid to our Legal Department, as no section of the DMCA nor any other law requires us to pay them.