> By my calculations, they won't be able to hit the 10 million mark in time.
Close enough that it is almost certainly their own fault if they don't make it. Still baffles me how they could be so unprepared for something they prepared so long for.
Where is your head? I am just shocked that people here are so disgusted with the political manipulation, bribery, etc. These things are more abhorrent than murder?
Propaganda, political manipulation, bribery? Disgusting!
I also read a document recently that said that armies KILL PEOPLE during war, too.
Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Every time I start thinking some of the Slashdot community has some minor amount of intelligence, I see a discussion like this.
What the hell did you THINK happened in military operations?
Exactly. I mean, how is it not foreseeable when you try to get a record number of people downloading your software at once... that you might end up getting a record number of people downloading your software at once?
I'd be embarrassed if I were responsible for this. Luckily, I'm not so I can just complain.
I thought you guys were just whining about having to get used to a new feature, but I just tried it and I agree. This does not work at all like I want it to. Specifically, the assumption that if there is a matching bookmark then that result should show first (or it seems like that is what's happening) seems completely backwards.
I waited until 1:45p. I am all for helping their marketing effort here, but I also have things to do other than refreshing getfirefox.com...... like refreshing slashdot.org.
The servers, the servers, the servers are on fire. The servers, the servers, the servers are on fire. We don't need to download let the motherf***ers burn. Burn motherf***ers, burn.
There is a growing area of interest in so-called "Green IT" (mostly due to inevitable regulations), and the first area being looked at is data center organization. It's always the first stat a consultant firm throws out, because it's relatively easy to show significant cost savings in such an environment (just by reorganizing the appliances to distribute heat in a different manner).
Who cares if women tend to be more verbal than analytical? We are not talking about women in general and men in general. We are talking about women programmers and male programmers. Do you have data on tendencies there, because I don't.
Assuming that the same trend from the general population would exist in this very specific smaller population with its own variables would be a HORRIBLE logic error, ESPECIALLY in a area where analytical skills are highly valued.
My question is: if the WH Office of Admin doesn't have independent authority, then that implies that it is under some other organization's authority, right? If so, we should be able to send the FOIA request to that authority.
Why does the fact that it's a correlation mean it's not useful? In fact, the remainder of your comment describing what WOULD be useful is also referring to correlations: women get more reasonable deadlines, men feel less secure in their positions.
That is HILARIOUS and kudos to you for paying such close attention. You are absolutely right. If she can only do it correctly 70% of the time and she knows that 80% of the programmers are men, then she is doing WORSE THAN CHANCE.
I wish we could mod you > 5 because anyone who reads this article should see your comment, since -- as you said -- it completely invalidates the point of the article.
Ok, great. Women think differently than other women, and men think differently than other men, too.
> If you have two independent programmers do the same work, with the same requirements they will > frequently arrive at different solutions. As most know this can be leveraged by comparing the > output of both solutions to verify the solution is proper. If one solution was done by a male > and the other by a female the probability of difference should go up due to the difference in > thought patterns, I would think.
Technically, you are right. If you did this experiment enough times, you would be able to see and OVERALL (but only on the large scale, not in the individual experiments) variability that is due to sex difference. HOWEVER, between two programmers the VAST majority of the variability will be due to reasons that have nothing to do with the participants' sexes.
The bottom line is that people spend a whole lot of time on sex differences and gender differences when it comes to cognition and emotion and intelligence, and it's largely a waste of time. The diversity in these elements are great due to individual differences, mostly due to the fact that our brains are formed by our experiences more than anything else (your visual cortex organizes itself as the visual cortex because it is the group of neurons that receives visual input, for example... if you sent a different group visual input during development, THAT would be your visual cortex). The variability that can be accounted for by sex is relatively very small.
> The result is that in general people start to driver farther than they were, and the savings > in efficiency disappears.
Interesting comment, but I do have a beef with this one point. I know you probably didn't mean to, but you make it sound like everything evens back out. In fact there is a pretty large economic gain when people can drive further for the same cost.
I find it sad that such a determination can be made so early. To me this is clear indication of the power of the political parties and the severe problems with we have with our two party system. How can you call it an election when it can be predicted like this so accurately before most people have even started to pay attention? Depressing.
Slashdot Mirror
Just thought of something. Was mozilla.org hosting US Open highlight clips yesterday or something? Because that would explain a lot.
Well, they were embarrassingly unprepared for the event and left the stage after the first few minutes of the performance. So... 50 Cent?
> By my calculations, they won't be able to hit the 10 million mark in time.
Close enough that it is almost certainly their own fault if they don't make it. Still baffles me how they could be so unprepared for something they prepared so long for.
16% of the time, it works every time
> So it's by any means necessary then?
Um, yes. Like killing people.
Where is your head? I am just shocked that people here are so disgusted with the political manipulation, bribery, etc. These things are more abhorrent than murder?
Propaganda, political manipulation, bribery? Disgusting!
I also read a document recently that said that armies KILL PEOPLE during war, too.
Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Every time I start thinking some of the Slashdot community has some minor amount of intelligence, I see a discussion like this.
What the hell did you THINK happened in military operations?
Exactly. I mean, how is it not foreseeable when you try to get a record number of people downloading your software at once... that you might end up getting a record number of people downloading your software at once?
I'd be embarrassed if I were responsible for this. Luckily, I'm not so I can just complain.
I thought you guys were just whining about having to get used to a new feature, but I just tried it and I agree. This does not work at all like I want it to. Specifically, the assumption that if there is a matching bookmark then that result should show first (or it seems like that is what's happening) seems completely backwards.
I waited until 1:45p. I am all for helping their marketing effort here, but I also have things to do other than refreshing getfirefox.com... ... like refreshing slashdot.org.
The servers, the servers, the servers are on fire.
The servers, the servers, the servers are on fire.
We don't need to download let the motherf***ers burn.
Burn motherf***ers, burn.
Maybe forgetting all your cookies and login information is their memory management mechanism.
It's June 17th and it doesn't seem to be released.
There is a growing area of interest in so-called "Green IT" (mostly due to inevitable regulations), and the first area being looked at is data center organization. It's always the first stat a consultant firm throws out, because it's relatively easy to show significant cost savings in such an environment (just by reorganizing the appliances to distribute heat in a different manner).
Who cares if women tend to be more verbal than analytical? We are not talking about women in general and men in general. We are talking about women programmers and male programmers. Do you have data on tendencies there, because I don't.
Assuming that the same trend from the general population would exist in this very specific smaller population with its own variables would be a HORRIBLE logic error, ESPECIALLY in a area where analytical skills are highly valued.
My question is: if the WH Office of Admin doesn't have independent authority, then that implies that it is under some other organization's authority, right? If so, we should be able to send the FOIA request to that authority.
That is, if this isn't bullshit.
Comments are moderated. I'm guessing mine will not be approved due to her emotional reaction to it, even though it was a well-reasoned criticism.
What the hell is "testosterone-fueled code" anyway? I mean, here is a excerpt from the code for an online store I recently developed for a client.
// GONNA SHAVE WITH A RAZOR BLADE YEAH
oStore.getValidator().validateInput(lstFormElements);
// GONNA PUNCH YOUR LIGHTS OUT IF YOU KEEP LOOKING AT ME YEAH
oStore.getCCProcessor().processPurchaseTrxn(listFormElements.get('CC'));
// TIRED OF CODING TIME FOR WORKING OUT THEN STRIP CLUB YEAH
oStore.getWorkflow().getNextPage();
Seems pretty standard and I could see a woman coding it the same way.
Wait, I don't get it.
Why does the fact that it's a correlation mean it's not useful? In fact, the remainder of your comment describing what WOULD be useful is also referring to correlations: women get more reasonable deadlines, men feel less secure in their positions.
That is HILARIOUS and kudos to you for paying such close attention. You are absolutely right. If she can only do it correctly 70% of the time and she knows that 80% of the programmers are men, then she is doing WORSE THAN CHANCE.
I wish we could mod you > 5 because anyone who reads this article should see your comment, since -- as you said -- it completely invalidates the point of the article.
> Women and Men DO think different.
Ok, great. Women think differently than other women, and men think differently than other men, too.
> If you have two independent programmers do the same work, with the same requirements they will
> frequently arrive at different solutions. As most know this can be leveraged by comparing the
> output of both solutions to verify the solution is proper. If one solution was done by a male
> and the other by a female the probability of difference should go up due to the difference in
> thought patterns, I would think.
Technically, you are right. If you did this experiment enough times, you would be able to see and OVERALL (but only on the large scale, not in the individual experiments) variability that is due to sex difference. HOWEVER, between two programmers the VAST majority of the variability will be due to reasons that have nothing to do with the participants' sexes.
The bottom line is that people spend a whole lot of time on sex differences and gender differences when it comes to cognition and emotion and intelligence, and it's largely a waste of time. The diversity in these elements are great due to individual differences, mostly due to the fact that our brains are formed by our experiences more than anything else (your visual cortex organizes itself as the visual cortex because it is the group of neurons that receives visual input, for example... if you sent a different group visual input during development, THAT would be your visual cortex). The variability that can be accounted for by sex is relatively very small.
> The result is that in general people start to driver farther than they were, and the savings
> in efficiency disappears.
Interesting comment, but I do have a beef with this one point. I know you probably didn't mean to, but you make it sound like everything evens back out. In fact there is a pretty large economic gain when people can drive further for the same cost.
Just thought that was important to point out.
You put that into intelink.gov? I hear Guantanamo is great this time of year.
you're talking about somebody with a powerful enough prejudice to find issue with millions of years of sexual reproduction
And where does the dog fit in with that?
Ok, I guess what I meant that they are historically accurate. You're right, that does not mean that the current prediction is accurate.
I find it sad that such a determination can be made so early. To me this is clear indication of the power of the political parties and the severe problems with we have with our two party system. How can you call it an election when it can be predicted like this so accurately before most people have even started to pay attention? Depressing.