If a long-term contributor leaves for whatever reason, that's not good evidence of a general problem. There could be any number of reasons behind it, and the stated reasons are not always the true reasons. If more long-term contributors leave and cite the same things, that is good evidence of a serious problem, but we haven't seen that.
The reason is simply that women have, in general, different interests than men.Anybody denying that is at this time is denying solid scientific facts.
Okay, please provide cites for a few peer-reviewed papers that say that the reason for the disparity is generally different interests. If it's a solid scientific fact, after all, it's got to have several peer-reviewed papers that go back quite a few years.
Also, even assuming this were the case, you're going back until you find an explanation that suits your personal prejudices and not inquiring further. Why do women have different interests? To give one hypothetical example, if girls with technical interests generally wind up working with boys who don't take her seriously and stare at her boobs, she's likely to drop those interests. How often does this occur? I don't know and I don't think you do either.
Either provide examples of CoCs used in this way (and be prepared to show that they weren't used against assholes that share your politics) or see your doctor about adjusting your meds.
Meritocracy, sure. However, if one group of the population is way overrepresented, it makes sense to inquire why. If the project was drawing from a larger talent pool, presumably it would have access to even more competent people.
In that case, good. You're not going to run afoul of such a code of conduct. Unfortunately, there are people out there who are assholes, and the CoC is to set boundaries for them.
Of course, an "Outreach" program by definition is trying to "reach out", but that doesn't make much sense in a faceless meritocracy such as an open source code base.
Whenever I see a picture of someone in F/OS, it's almost always a white male. This means that (a) white males are inherently superior in F/OS development, or (b) there are forces discouraging women and nonwhites. I think it's worth investigating.
The US people adopted the Statue of Liberty and the poem as its own for a long, long time. The gift was truly internalized.
The US entered WWII to stop totalitarianism. Unfortunately, after the fall of France, Eastern Europe was going to be under foreign totalitarian rule, and the only question was who would rule. Most of Western Europe was freed of totalitarianism, and Eastern Europe at least got gentler rule from the Soviet Union than from Hitler.
I'm not saying anything good about Stalin and Soviet Communism, but Hitler and the Nazis were even worse. The German Army accomplished the extremely impressive feat of making Stalin look relatively good to the Soviet people.
Denuclearization, peace, and potential reunification in Korea,
We already got denuclearization and peace from when Jimmy Carter went over there. You may have noticed that it didn't actually stick, but there's no reason to think Trump's initiative is going to stick either. Right-wingers were happy predicting that Carter's deal wasn't going to hold, and now right-wingers seem happy predicting that North Korea really actually means it this time. I find this a lot more amusing than all the other lies in your post.
That's why all this kicking and screaming about Trump is annoying. Like no President has been caught doing potentially criminally bad things before, like no President was a divisive character before, that no President made stupid mistakes either in the past or during the presidency itself?
Strange...I remember plenty of kicking and screaming about certain past Presidents. Moreover, Trump surpasses every previous President in some negative ways.
The TSA has been hassling people since fairly early in the Bush administration. I was hoping Obama would rein it in, but he made it worse. This is a shining example of bipartisan stupidity.
Or maybe the agent problem? We'd all be better off with less intrusive screenings, but the official who makes that policy is politically dead with the first disaster, even if the tighter screenings wouldn't have caught it.
Difference is Amazon was forging into unexplored territory
Mail order is far older than I am. That part has been thoroughly explored. Sears had the store, the warehouses, and the delivery a long time ago. All Amazon had to do was build the site. That's not a small achievement, but they didn't invent the idea of sending off for merchandise.
Facebook has a lot of live data. It's not going to be possible to keep every single employee away from it. Somebody's going to have to handle it, which means access. Simple auditing isn't going to be that difficult to get around. It gets to be a cat-and-mouse game.
What a company can do is establish a firm policy, limit the number of people with access, keep records, and keep alert. That isn't going to stop misuse. Heck, the NSA had its LOVEINT.
The complaint [scribd.com] alleges that Tesla first tried to poach Nikola's chief design enginee
Restricting "poaching" is restraint of trade. A lot of high-buck tech companies in California had their wrists lightly slapped for non-poaching agreements. It also has absolutely nothing legally to do with patents.
You can often defend yourself. You're at a disadvantage, but probably not hopeless. What "loser pays" does is turns a loss into a financial disaster.
Suppose I want to sue a company. As is, my legal costs would doubtless be in the tens of thousands or more, and if I were to lose the suit that's all I'd lose. Tens of millions of people in the US could afford that if they really wanted to. With "loser pays", I go bankrupt if I lose the case.
The question is not whether a warrant is required or not. The question is whether it's required to enable the government to be able to read a device with a warrant, and there's at least some precedent in CALEA, which requires all telecommunication systems to allow government wiretapping. The Fourth is inapplicable, because its protection ends with a warrant (which it places restrictions on).
Your reasoning is something a judge would call "novel". It's perfectly legal to advocate for policy changes, and helping an individual who's here illegally is not the same as being an accomplice. If I were helping someone come into the country illegally, that would doubtless be illegal. Once they're here, that's another thing. Do you want to make it illegal to help someone without first doing a background check?
So you are just peachy with political campaigns being able to directly feed law enforcement invented stories about their opponents?
Sure. Lots of people tell things to the police. Lots of what the police get is misunderstanding, error, and lies. Sorting it out is their problem. What is important is what law enforcement does with such stories, not what they are or who they're from.
So, please tell me who should be allowed to say things to law enforcement and who shouldn't. Ask some law enforcement people whether they'll reject information just for being from a biased or unreliable source. Obviously, a political party is a biased and unreliable source on the doings of the opposing party. That doesn't mean that what they say is necessarily false or unfounded. In a case like that, it's the job of the FBI and the FISA courts to evaluate unreliable information.
Now, if law enforcement were to treat a political party as a reliable source of information, we'd have problems. That's not unique to political parties, though.
I have no idea why you're calling me partisan. I'm not mentioning parties by name. The Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Communist, and Pirate parties (among others) should have the right to tell law enforcement things, and law enforcement should evaluate it appropriately (which does not include trusting it).
Now if that's how you want the political game played, I'd get ready for some pretty depressing stuff because if your side is fine with this, expect it to be used on you soon and we can legitimately be considered to have a kangaroo court system.
Um, I was arguing that any side could do this. While I definitely have a side, that has nothing to do with my opinion.
You don't want kangaroo courts, and neither do I. The quality of the court is not dependent on the quality of the evidence. Law enforcement and the court system have to deal with reports from biased and unreliable sources, because frequently that's all that's available. It is how they deal with such reports that matters.
If we have a biased kangaroo court, the quality of the evidence really doesn't matter. The court will find some way to discredit good evidence and rely on bad when it suits the court's bias. If we don't, the quality of the evidence really doesn't matter, since the court will evaluate evidence based on its source.
Slashdot Mirror
If a long-term contributor leaves for whatever reason, that's not good evidence of a general problem. There could be any number of reasons behind it, and the stated reasons are not always the true reasons. If more long-term contributors leave and cite the same things, that is good evidence of a serious problem, but we haven't seen that.
Have you any evidence at all that Outreachy was going to determine the intern candidates for LLVM, as opposed to make suggestions?
Okay, please provide cites for a few peer-reviewed papers that say that the reason for the disparity is generally different interests. If it's a solid scientific fact, after all, it's got to have several peer-reviewed papers that go back quite a few years.
Also, even assuming this were the case, you're going back until you find an explanation that suits your personal prejudices and not inquiring further. Why do women have different interests? To give one hypothetical example, if girls with technical interests generally wind up working with boys who don't take her seriously and stare at her boobs, she's likely to drop those interests. How often does this occur? I don't know and I don't think you do either.
Either provide examples of CoCs used in this way (and be prepared to show that they weren't used against assholes that share your politics) or see your doctor about adjusting your meds.
Meanwhile, back here in realityland, we ask for examples to back up your wild claims.
Meritocracy, sure. However, if one group of the population is way overrepresented, it makes sense to inquire why. If the project was drawing from a larger talent pool, presumably it would have access to even more competent people.
In that case, good. You're not going to run afoul of such a code of conduct. Unfortunately, there are people out there who are assholes, and the CoC is to set boundaries for them.
Is it your contention that all LLVM internships had to be through Outreachy? Because otherwise white US males can indeed get internships.
Whenever I see a picture of someone in F/OS, it's almost always a white male. This means that (a) white males are inherently superior in F/OS development, or (b) there are forces discouraging women and nonwhites. I think it's worth investigating.
Yup. Damore found that if you act like an asshole and push your political views aggressively at work, you might get fired.
However, I must commend you for abiding by the Slashdot standard of starting with a set of biased facts and never changing your mind.
The US people adopted the Statue of Liberty and the poem as its own for a long, long time. The gift was truly internalized.
The US entered WWII to stop totalitarianism. Unfortunately, after the fall of France, Eastern Europe was going to be under foreign totalitarian rule, and the only question was who would rule. Most of Western Europe was freed of totalitarianism, and Eastern Europe at least got gentler rule from the Soviet Union than from Hitler.
I'm not saying anything good about Stalin and Soviet Communism, but Hitler and the Nazis were even worse. The German Army accomplished the extremely impressive feat of making Stalin look relatively good to the Soviet people.
We already got denuclearization and peace from when Jimmy Carter went over there. You may have noticed that it didn't actually stick, but there's no reason to think Trump's initiative is going to stick either. Right-wingers were happy predicting that Carter's deal wasn't going to hold, and now right-wingers seem happy predicting that North Korea really actually means it this time. I find this a lot more amusing than all the other lies in your post.
Strange...I remember plenty of kicking and screaming about certain past Presidents. Moreover, Trump surpasses every previous President in some negative ways.
The TSA has been hassling people since fairly early in the Bush administration. I was hoping Obama would rein it in, but he made it worse. This is a shining example of bipartisan stupidity.
Or maybe the agent problem? We'd all be better off with less intrusive screenings, but the official who makes that policy is politically dead with the first disaster, even if the tighter screenings wouldn't have caught it.
Mail order is far older than I am. That part has been thoroughly explored. Sears had the store, the warehouses, and the delivery a long time ago. All Amazon had to do was build the site. That's not a small achievement, but they didn't invent the idea of sending off for merchandise.
Facebook has a lot of live data. It's not going to be possible to keep every single employee away from it. Somebody's going to have to handle it, which means access. Simple auditing isn't going to be that difficult to get around. It gets to be a cat-and-mouse game.
What a company can do is establish a firm policy, limit the number of people with access, keep records, and keep alert. That isn't going to stop misuse. Heck, the NSA had its LOVEINT.
Somebody actually trusts Wikileaks? Besides, Russia isn't what Assange has said he's hiding from in his incarceration in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Restricting "poaching" is restraint of trade. A lot of high-buck tech companies in California had their wrists lightly slapped for non-poaching agreements. It also has absolutely nothing legally to do with patents.
You can often defend yourself. You're at a disadvantage, but probably not hopeless. What "loser pays" does is turns a loss into a financial disaster.
Suppose I want to sue a company. As is, my legal costs would doubtless be in the tens of thousands or more, and if I were to lose the suit that's all I'd lose. Tens of millions of people in the US could afford that if they really wanted to. With "loser pays", I go bankrupt if I lose the case.
It's time for you to open your eyes and look at the evidence. Learning a little basic science wouldn't hurt, either.
Is it all right if I get a little nervous at the thought of a car with gas pressurized to 10K PSI getting into an accident near me?
The question is not whether a warrant is required or not. The question is whether it's required to enable the government to be able to read a device with a warrant, and there's at least some precedent in CALEA, which requires all telecommunication systems to allow government wiretapping. The Fourth is inapplicable, because its protection ends with a warrant (which it places restrictions on).
Duh. This is Slashdot. We get clickbait articles going through here fairly frequently.
Your reasoning is something a judge would call "novel". It's perfectly legal to advocate for policy changes, and helping an individual who's here illegally is not the same as being an accomplice. If I were helping someone come into the country illegally, that would doubtless be illegal. Once they're here, that's another thing. Do you want to make it illegal to help someone without first doing a background check?
I take my meds regularly.
Sure. Lots of people tell things to the police. Lots of what the police get is misunderstanding, error, and lies. Sorting it out is their problem. What is important is what law enforcement does with such stories, not what they are or who they're from.
So, please tell me who should be allowed to say things to law enforcement and who shouldn't. Ask some law enforcement people whether they'll reject information just for being from a biased or unreliable source. Obviously, a political party is a biased and unreliable source on the doings of the opposing party. That doesn't mean that what they say is necessarily false or unfounded. In a case like that, it's the job of the FBI and the FISA courts to evaluate unreliable information.
Now, if law enforcement were to treat a political party as a reliable source of information, we'd have problems. That's not unique to political parties, though.
I have no idea why you're calling me partisan. I'm not mentioning parties by name. The Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Communist, and Pirate parties (among others) should have the right to tell law enforcement things, and law enforcement should evaluate it appropriately (which does not include trusting it).
Um, I was arguing that any side could do this. While I definitely have a side, that has nothing to do with my opinion.
You don't want kangaroo courts, and neither do I. The quality of the court is not dependent on the quality of the evidence. Law enforcement and the court system have to deal with reports from biased and unreliable sources, because frequently that's all that's available. It is how they deal with such reports that matters.
If we have a biased kangaroo court, the quality of the evidence really doesn't matter. The court will find some way to discredit good evidence and rely on bad when it suits the court's bias. If we don't, the quality of the evidence really doesn't matter, since the court will evaluate evidence based on its source.