This is a pretty unqualified statement. QNX is a rock solid embedded OS and is already everywhere. Buying QNX is why blackberry is still alive today to spout such garbage.
Nobody is answering the questions you pose as a community because the answer is obvious. Women are steered away from STEM before they ever hit the classroom. This is where the 'oppression' lies. But as you correctly point out programming used to be 'women's work' (oh wait that was never the case, it was just more common.
Do you think tech changed somewhere along the way or maybe it was how we introduce women to tech and mathematics in the first place? Maybe women are more attracted to other scientific fields.
>Did they suddenly stop being good programmers, or was something else going on?
They retired, they moved in to management, they moved to other industries, just like every other STEM who has matured. Some of them I heard even died and were not replenished in the "90s" (as you say) when women demographically preferred other industries (for a litany of reasons, some of which I have stated could be addressed). The industry, hungry for capable talent, has NOTHING to do with this.
>Yes, we wouldn't want to overtax ourselves with doing more than one thing at the same time.
Clearly your brain is hyperbole proof.
>Oh, this is a problem across many industries, but that doesn't mean we're somehow absolved of trying to get our own house in order
You miss the point, our house is NOT out of order when it comes to hiring women. I have heard of a pay gap, but I put that solely in the hands of your negotiating power, something everyone needs to learn. Do you think I successfully negotiated my pay because I am a man?
>Further, there exists a clear and significant disparity [wikispaces.com] between women and men pursuing CS degrees--a gap that didn't exist until the 90's. Something happened, and "well, that's just how things played out" doesn't cut it for me.
My spidey senses say they were oppressed! Utilize Occam's Razor please to determine the most likely causes of this, especially considering there is ZERO, and I mean ZERO evidence of active resistance to women joining STEM careers.
>That's absolutely part of the solution, but it's only part of the solution. Those of us already in the tech sector need to be asking ourselves exactly why, for an industry that repeatedly insists that it is rooted on merit, we look so very different from the society in which we exist.
Why do you feel it is only part of the solution? What's the problem again?
>But there were already many women participating in the workforce, particularly as teachers, nurses, and clerical workers. Women formed the backbone of the war machine for World War II--and were basically kicked out of those jobs when the fighting ended, whether or not they wanted to be. The concept of women working wasn't foreign back then; it was the concept of women doing jobs they weren't supposed to do that was the big sticking point.
We should really address the resurgence of fascism in all aspects of our lives so this never happens again. Let's start with stopping the act of prescribing quotas on industries that don't produce rubber boots.
>>OK? Can we just cut the nonsense?
>That would be wonderful.
Indeed, please just stop. The sooner we can focus on how to get women interested in becoming STEM the better we will be. You know looking at the current crop of kids and recruits....I think we will be alright and the 90s will be considered a brief anomaly. I have never seen so many cool geeky women hackers and kids these days are so ingrained with tech, it has to mean something!
>It's a big part of it, yes! It was also a problem for the medical and legal professions in 1970!
This is when moms started joining the workforce. Educated in the 60s and beyond. A woman invented half of the computer junk we use today at Xerox parc. Some of the greatest programmers of the past 40 years have been women.
You are talking nonsense.
>Then you either work for an outlier of a company, or you haven't been able to see it where you are
I work for a giant company. Huge. You may have heard of us. Its women all up and down. Management and Tech.
>. This is a huge, structural, society-wide problem, its roots going back for centuries.
Yes it's EDUCATION for women. Everything else follows. You want women in tech, incentivize them to LEARN TECH so they may achieve MERIT. Plenty of women already manage to do this on their own. To focus on one industry is just bizarre handwaving. And the understanding that if gender doesn't want to get involved in a subject it doesn't mean we should establish a quota. Let's work on getting women in the middle east educated first. OK? Can we just cut the nonsense?
So what you're saying is, to get women in to tech, we need to encourage them to study tech and become hackers?
Honestly I have never once witnessed sexism in my workplace when it comes to hiring. The problem is many women just don't apply or don't have the credentials! Let's work on that sure, but I do not believe Tech has a problem as it is a meritocracy, and as such I have met many brilliant women in my line of work.
I work for and with more women in IT for a very major IT company....WAY more than the number which graduated from my CS program.
1) 2 women started in my CS program in the 90s. 0 graduated. That said, 250 started, 16 graduated. 2) There is more than one path to IT and many women find there way outside of CS. 3) In my regional IT department I report to 5 women on a chain of seven. 4) I work with 9 women out of 50 regionally. Our customers, (developers) are even more "diverse" gender-wise, nationality as well.
I don't think there is a problem. I think its pretty good!
That's funny I was pretty sure the capitalists we currently live under were just friendlier fascists. If I want to cause trouble at dinner parties I usually just start off with "you know, Nazis really won the war in the end..." and then I duck out for a cigarette.
Enterprise CELL: Hey I hear these new blades are really fast! Let's throw the kitchen sink at them and prove to everyone they are garbage!
Never thinking for one minute that their everyday tasks might have performed far better than X86 if they had managed their processing differently or at least attempted to test this difference. Instead it was, heres the worst workload we can think of for any processer, and then tested that on CELL to find, meh, its an underwhelming chip compared to Xeons.
Well duh! CELL was never about being faster than a Xeon at general computing!
Your IP (x.x.x.x) has been detected disseminating years old copy-pasta, clearly owned and retained by DICE Internet Holdings LLC on slashdot.org (http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/07/1416250/canadian-agency-drops-cases-rather-than-deal-with-new-requirements-for-isp-info). Slashdot.org is a common news website, far past it's prime and as such depends on the security of it's little remaining Intellectual Property (IP) to survive. Should you fail to cease and desist immediately in distributing the IP of slashdot.org we will be left with no other option but to begin civil proceedings against you, your families family, and three generations of their family thereafter.
Hours and minutes. Its obvious to me, a former backup/dr guru in another life, this data was either walked out of Sony itself in 2-3 plastic bins, or fell off the back of an offsite storage truck.
They lost me when they said had he been a Joyent employee it would have been a firing offense. I say: give it up, She's dead Jim and you killed it by politicizing a commit. Fork it and forget it. goodbye.
No they are not. Aaron Swartz actually attempted to liberate the data himself. TPB amorally allowed users to break the law if they want. They are no less moral or culpable in this situation than you ISP or Google.
> We all know that the purpose of pirate bay was to share copyrighted content
Your premise is flawed. TPB was a clearing house for torrents. Illegal and legal. TPB's problem was they felt they were not breaking the law, because they were not performing the infringement. they lost. That doesn't mean its the correct conclusion. They certainly did not profit off of person A's book, which again was the entire premise I responded to:
> How does a book author make money from touring? He spends years writing a book and some jackass puts it on a website for free and makes money off advertising and buys a house in Phuket.
They profited off of the users that consume pirated data. (S)he who uploads and downloads the data. TPB is agnostic, it's users were not.
Far less intelligent me got the idea when I applied for Sally Struther's Firearms repair course and they misspelled the junkmail as a result of that for years!
I use this to track where my information comes from. Salutations such as Professor, or minor mispellings work wonders to reveal the path of crumbs your information left for businesses to follow you.
Person A writes book and publishes it for sale. Person B writes software engine for searching Person B decide to use their search engine for sharing of torrent file data. Person C enjoys person A's book and creates and uploads torrent of Person A's book, (which is just a pointer to Person Cs computer at this time) to search engine and begins seeding. Person C has nothing to do with Person B. They don't know each other, have never spoken, or implicitly communicated for any purpose. Person D.. Z download torrent, complete dowloading the file, and then seed to others who have not yet completed downloading. Person B notices a lot of traffic to his search engine and puts advertising on it to recoup costs, ends up making profit.
Please explain to me how Person B profited off of Person A's work and not his own? If anyone is responsible it is Person C, and possibly D through Z (but it's definitely Person C who performed the infringement).
Slashdot Mirror
This is a pretty unqualified statement. QNX is a rock solid embedded OS and is already everywhere. Buying QNX is why blackberry is still alive today to spout such garbage.
Nope. This is ideal. Talk to a doctor and look at the chart.
Nobody is answering the questions you pose as a community because the answer is obvious. Women are steered away from STEM before they ever hit the classroom. This is where the 'oppression' lies. But as you correctly point out programming used to be 'women's work' (oh wait that was never the case, it was just more common.
Do you think tech changed somewhere along the way or maybe it was how we introduce women to tech and mathematics in the first place? Maybe women are more attracted to other scientific fields.
>Did they suddenly stop being good programmers, or was something else going on?
They retired, they moved in to management, they moved to other industries, just like every other STEM who has matured. Some of them I heard even died and were not replenished in the "90s" (as you say) when women demographically preferred other industries (for a litany of reasons, some of which I have stated could be addressed). The industry, hungry for capable talent, has NOTHING to do with this.
>Yes, we wouldn't want to overtax ourselves with doing more than one thing at the same time.
Clearly your brain is hyperbole proof.
>Oh, this is a problem across many industries, but that doesn't mean we're somehow absolved of trying to get our own house in order
You miss the point, our house is NOT out of order when it comes to hiring women. I have heard of a pay gap, but I put that solely in the hands of your negotiating power, something everyone needs to learn. Do you think I successfully negotiated my pay because I am a man?
>Further, there exists a clear and significant disparity [wikispaces.com] between women and men pursuing CS degrees--a gap that didn't exist until the 90's. Something happened, and "well, that's just how things played out" doesn't cut it for me.
My spidey senses say they were oppressed! Utilize Occam's Razor please to determine the most likely causes of this, especially considering there is ZERO, and I mean ZERO evidence of active resistance to women joining STEM careers.
>That's absolutely part of the solution, but it's only part of the solution. Those of us already in the tech sector need to be asking ourselves exactly why, for an industry that repeatedly insists that it is rooted on merit, we look so very different from the society in which we exist.
Why do you feel it is only part of the solution? What's the problem again?
>But there were already many women participating in the workforce, particularly as teachers, nurses, and clerical workers. Women formed the backbone of the war machine for World War II--and were basically kicked out of those jobs when the fighting ended, whether or not they wanted to be. The concept of women working wasn't foreign back then; it was the concept of women doing jobs they weren't supposed to do that was the big sticking point.
We should really address the resurgence of fascism in all aspects of our lives so this never happens again. Let's start with stopping the act of prescribing quotas on industries that don't produce rubber boots.
>>OK? Can we just cut the nonsense?
>That would be wonderful.
Indeed, please just stop. The sooner we can focus on how to get women interested in becoming STEM the better we will be. You know looking at the current crop of kids and recruits....I think we will be alright and the 90s will be considered a brief anomaly. I have never seen so many cool geeky women hackers and kids these days are so ingrained with tech, it has to mean something!
>It's a big part of it, yes! It was also a problem for the medical and legal professions in 1970!
This is when moms started joining the workforce. Educated in the 60s and beyond. A woman invented half of the computer junk we use today at Xerox parc. Some of the greatest programmers of the past 40 years have been women.
You are talking nonsense.
>Then you either work for an outlier of a company, or you haven't been able to see it where you are
I work for a giant company. Huge. You may have heard of us. Its women all up and down. Management and Tech.
>. This is a huge, structural, society-wide problem, its roots going back for centuries.
Yes it's EDUCATION for women. Everything else follows. You want women in tech, incentivize them to LEARN TECH so they may achieve MERIT. Plenty of women already manage to do this on their own. To focus on one industry is just bizarre handwaving. And the understanding that if gender doesn't want to get involved in a subject it doesn't mean we should establish a quota. Let's work on getting women in the middle east educated first. OK? Can we just cut the nonsense?
So what you're saying is, to get women in to tech, we need to encourage them to study tech and become hackers?
Honestly I have never once witnessed sexism in my workplace when it comes to hiring. The problem is many women just don't apply or don't have the credentials! Let's work on that sure, but I do not believe Tech has a problem as it is a meritocracy, and as such I have met many brilliant women in my line of work.
I work for and with more women in IT for a very major IT company....WAY more than the number which graduated from my CS program.
1) 2 women started in my CS program in the 90s. 0 graduated. That said, 250 started, 16 graduated.
2) There is more than one path to IT and many women find there way outside of CS.
3) In my regional IT department I report to 5 women on a chain of seven.
4) I work with 9 women out of 50 regionally. Our customers, (developers) are even more "diverse" gender-wise, nationality as well.
I don't think there is a problem. I think its pretty good!
I think the double negative threw him off.
That's funny I was pretty sure the capitalists we currently live under were just friendlier fascists. If I want to cause trouble at dinner parties I usually just start off with "you know, Nazis really won the war in the end..." and then I duck out for a cigarette.
Yup, but there was no telling anyone else that.
Enterprise CELL: Hey I hear these new blades are really fast! Let's throw the kitchen sink at them and prove to everyone they are garbage!
Never thinking for one minute that their everyday tasks might have performed far better than X86 if they had managed their processing differently or at least attempted to test this difference. Instead it was, heres the worst workload we can think of for any processer, and then tested that on CELL to find, meh, its an underwhelming chip compared to Xeons.
Well duh! CELL was never about being faster than a Xeon at general computing!
Congramulations! U JUST got the koke. Srry capd. U'v won a freeeb bluetooth keyboard!
Typing on a touch screen is still shitty 5 years later. Case in point i just had to make 3 corrections to the previous sentenc.
Yeah who need bicycles or other mode of transport
Market does not lie.
This is happening, just not at the pace you expected after falling for the hype.
It is a growing market, with lots of competition: https://ws.elance.com/file/Mar...
Too bad mods here dont appreciate him :( when he died I died a little inside. Will never forget that day in May 1998.
Dear Sir/Madam/Common Internet Criminal,
Your IP (x.x.x.x) has been detected disseminating years old copy-pasta, clearly owned and retained by DICE Internet Holdings LLC on slashdot.org (http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/07/1416250/canadian-agency-drops-cases-rather-than-deal-with-new-requirements-for-isp-info). Slashdot.org is a common news website, far past it's prime and as such depends on the security of it's little remaining Intellectual Property (IP) to survive. Should you fail to cease and desist immediately in distributing the IP of slashdot.org we will be left with no other option but to begin civil proceedings against you, your families family, and three generations of their family thereafter.
Signed,
Lionel Hutz.
"Attorney" Slashdot.org
Lol. That went better than expected
Hours and minutes. Its obvious to me, a former backup/dr guru in another life, this data was either walked out of Sony itself in 2-3 plastic bins, or fell off the back of an offsite storage truck.
They lost me when they said had he been a Joyent employee it would have been a firing offense. I say: give it up, She's dead Jim and you killed it by politicizing a commit. Fork it and forget it. goodbye.
yes I still run hpux.
That's one helluva case of 'sticky hands'. Photons beware!
Oh my god you are a moron.
>They are not Aaron Swartz.
No they are not. Aaron Swartz actually attempted to liberate the data himself. TPB amorally allowed users to break the law if they want. They are no less moral or culpable in this situation than you ISP or Google.
> We all know that the purpose of pirate bay was to share copyrighted content
Your premise is flawed. TPB was a clearing house for torrents. Illegal and legal. TPB's problem was they felt they were not breaking the law, because they were not performing the infringement. they lost. That doesn't mean its the correct conclusion. They certainly did not profit off of person A's book, which again was the entire premise I responded to:
> How does a book author make money from touring? He spends years writing a book and some jackass puts it on a website for free and makes money off advertising and buys a house in Phuket.
They profited off of the users that consume pirated data. (S)he who uploads and downloads the data. TPB is agnostic, it's users were not.
Far less intelligent me got the idea when I applied for Sally Struther's Firearms repair course and they misspelled the junkmail as a result of that for years!
I use this to track where my information comes from. Salutations such as Professor, or minor mispellings work wonders to reveal the path of crumbs your information left for businesses to follow you.
Well he certainly didn't put it on a website.
Person A writes book and publishes it for sale. .. Z download torrent, complete dowloading the file, and then seed to others who have not yet completed downloading.
Person B writes software engine for searching
Person B decide to use their search engine for sharing of torrent file data.
Person C enjoys person A's book and creates and uploads torrent of Person A's book, (which is just a pointer to Person Cs computer at this time) to search engine and begins seeding. Person C has nothing to do with Person B. They don't know each other, have never spoken, or implicitly communicated for any purpose.
Person D
Person B notices a lot of traffic to his search engine and puts advertising on it to recoup costs, ends up making profit.
Please explain to me how Person B profited off of Person A's work and not his own? If anyone is responsible it is Person C, and possibly D through Z (but it's definitely Person C who performed the infringement).