My female colleagues and managers are WITHOUT EXCEPTION great software engineers. I wonder why your workspace is so bad?
It's hard to blame it on "the women" because then you'd have to explain why places like my workspace doesn't suffer. So it must be something else. Any ideas?
Well, that's great, but if the No. 1 reason is that girls just aren't as interested in coding as boys (generally/on average) then how far are you going to get?
If 40% didn't do it for the no.1 reason and 30% didn't do it for the no.2 reason then you'd get 30% more.
So your limited experience with something in your limited area trumps the experiences of everybody else everywhere else ?
I've taken 200+ taxis in Northern Italy, Germany, Singapore, Seattle, LA, Vegas, New York, England, Chicago, Vancouver, Scotland, India, SF and Bay area, British Virgin Islands, Vietnam. Of those only 1 has failed to be clean+safe+reliable. (its headlights were out, and we were driving at night).
The earlier poster claimed that "typically taxis are not clean, safe and reliable", in other words there's >50% chance of not finding such a taxi. If so, then the chances of me having had my experiences are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
So I'm unusually confident that the earlier poster is incorrect.
Here's a typical first-hand report... taxis are neither clean, safe, nor reliable.... It would appear that the Libertarian model is better. Why is the Libertarian view on this particular narrow situation not the correct view?
My experience with taxis has been that they're almost always clean, safe and reliable. I flat out disagree with your "typical" first hand report. The chance of that report being typical and yet not repeated in any of my own many hundreds of taxi rides makes me disbelieve that it's typical.
Your "it would appear" claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think you're looking at the available evidence through libertarian-tinted spectacles. Please repost when you have some statistically significant comparisons.
I can't imagine that Microsoft's own developers are running their own development systems on Windows 8.1 - I wouldn't be surprised if it were a dirty secret within Microsoft that application development takes place on Win7 (and maybe WinXP)
I'm a Microsoft developer. I and most of my colleagues develop on Win8.1. I don't know why your imagination is failing you.
My team does much of our work on VMs running recent builds of VS, and those VMs typically run Win8.1 -- presumably because it has a lower memory footprint than Win7.
As an engineer who actually uses win8.1 for my daily work, the only main UI difference with Win7 is the start screen, and that has negligible impact because I launch apps either by clicking on the taskbar or by pressing Win and then typing by keyboard the name of the app. Exactly the same workflow and same number of keystrokes as before.
Well the Charms bar is apparently dead so it no longer matters that its name is terrible.
Apple already came out with "Continuity". So Microsoft's "Continuum" sounds pretty similar. You might just have to knuckle down and live with a new term for seamless transitions between phone+tablet and laptop+desktop devices. Of all the terms they could have chosen, "Continu*" don't seem too bad.
So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that. I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.
Correction: 80% of people said they agreed with the government's food labelling policy on food including DNA.
That's literally the exact opposite of what you said. That's the majority following the lead of the government.
Is non-GMO "much better", in spite of the fact that extensive research hasn't turned up proof of *any* bad effects, and can provide effective nutritional advantages in many cases?
Indeed. The strongest nutritional advantage seems to be "Monsanto's executives and stockholders are able to eat much finer food now."
80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology?
I support mandatory labels on *all* food products. Therefore I support mandatory labels on food containing DNA, and I've have ticked the "yes" box on this questionnaire too.
But to be pedantic the question actually asked "Do you agree with the government's policy to require mandatory labels on food containing DNA". If you had to answer yes or no to this nonsense question (since there is no such policy) I'd assume the questionnaire, like so many others, was badly written and was referring to an actual government policy on something useful.
Is there something wrong with me that I find this offensive?
Yes there is something wrong with you. You lack empathy and compassion.
(I'm not sure if you "chose" to lack these things or if they're a product of your upbringing, and so I don't know whether your logic would blame you for lacking them or not).
Teachers may be *required* to "demand" a password (if that 's what the school's anti-bullying policy compells them to).
But there's nothing here to say that students must *comply* with those demands.
Now there's usually a separate set of laws which compel people to comply with certain demands made by certain officials. It's too hard to tell here whether password demands will fall into that bucket.
Windows needs to run and organize files and applications, that's it.
And manage network connectivity. And printers. And other hardware. And the clipboard. And other means of sharing between applications. And multiple user accounts. And virtual desktops. And VMs. And a way to search the stuff on your machine. And task scheduling. And updates. And joining your company network. And syncing with your phone. And credential management for internet certificates. And cryptographic and other similar services. And language support. And network device discovery. And I'd hope for a seamless way to manage network files like on DropBox or OneDrive. And logging/diagnostics. And screen-reader and other assisted technology support. And 3d graphics. And privacy controls, a way to stop apps from stealing information themselves.
What I've written down isn't "windows bloat". It's in linux and mac too. It's just what we've come to expect of an operating system.
You literally just claimed the lack of evidence of something existing is ipso facto proof of it existing. That's a textbook example of a complete failure of logical validity.
I think you've confused my quote. I used it to quote the item I was *responding* to, like you do in conversation, like I'm doing it right now. You've bizarrely taken it to be a quote of evidence I'm using.
There is no institutional sexism. No one has been able to find it.
The thing is -- I read your post, and I think "that's institutional sexism right here".
I agree with most of what you wrote. But other bits are a sort of weird distorted view of the tech industry, or a picture of an undesirable workplace that should be changed. For instance, "men often like solitary complex tasks working long hours" -- (1) as a married man with a child, I'm delighted that I don't have to work long hours; (2) the successful senior folks are those whose work is accomplished through meetings like in any business, not solitary. And your insults (like those of Linus) are ones I'm glad I don't face at my work, where everyone really genuinely is polite and "nice".
I agree there's no evidence that universities or companies are discriminating. However, I think YOU PERSONALLY are discriminating, and if you're in tech, I bet you contribute to a discriminatory workplace.
Read the article. This is about RECRUITERS. They go out and find candidates. If you're passively waiting for applicants, I'd fire you as a recruiter on the spot.
With Google search, I nearly always find what I'm looking for right at the top of my search
Good for you. With google, I normally find five paid ads at the top of my search that aren't relevant. I have to scroll down to see the surprisingly small number of non-ad results that fit on the first page. Then there are another two paid ads underneath them. Bing is typically no better.
You do not have the right to physically harm, or threaten, someone. But you certainly have the right to offend them... there is no constitutional right to not be offended.
I went to a talk a few years ago by a brain scientist. His results were that the brain response to a physical injury is pretty much the same as the brain response to insults and swear words. Does the constitutional injunction refer to the suffering that's inflicted, i.e. a brain response? or does it refer solely to the physical injury even in cases or people where this doesn't cause any suffering?
Because I am immune to such rhetoric under all but the most trying circumstances
I think you're arrogant and deluded. I base this on a talk I went to a few years ago where the speaker explained that the brain activity caused by offensive swear-words is pretty much the same as the brain activity caused by physical pain -- and went on to say that this brain response was apparently pretty much unavoidable. So when you claim to be immune, I assume (because "science") that the low level of your brain isn't actually immune, but you find yourself able to consciously suppress it and delude yourself about it.
In the first instance the statement makes it quite clear the program DOES NOT KNOW HOW to do what you are talking about.
You can shorten something so far for clarity, but if you go to far you end up with less clarity
"The program doesn't check for"
In this case, like all others in this thread, the non-anthropomorphic version is shorter, more correct, and less misleading. What on earth does it mean for the program to "know" something? Is there a knowledgebase in the program? What is the difference between "the program doesn't check" and "the program doesn't know to check"? Is there an API subfamily related to some kind of "knowing" paradigm built into the architecture?
The TFA is right. Anthropomorphizing is always bad.
Slashdot Mirror
My female colleagues and managers are WITHOUT EXCEPTION great software engineers. I wonder why your workspace is so bad?
It's hard to blame it on "the women" because then you'd have to explain why places like my workspace doesn't suffer. So it must be something else. Any ideas?
Well, that's great, but if the No. 1 reason is that girls just aren't as interested in coding as boys (generally/on average) then how far are you going to get?
If 40% didn't do it for the no.1 reason and 30% didn't do it for the no.2 reason then you'd get 30% more.
Stupid question, stupid answer.
So your limited experience with something in your limited area trumps the experiences of everybody else everywhere else ?
I've taken 200+ taxis in Northern Italy, Germany, Singapore, Seattle, LA, Vegas, New York, England, Chicago, Vancouver, Scotland, India, SF and Bay area, British Virgin Islands, Vietnam. Of those only 1 has failed to be clean+safe+reliable. (its headlights were out, and we were driving at night).
The earlier poster claimed that "typically taxis are not clean, safe and reliable", in other words there's >50% chance of not finding such a taxi. If so, then the chances of me having had my experiences are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
So I'm unusually confident that the earlier poster is incorrect.
Here's a typical first-hand report... taxis are neither clean, safe, nor reliable.... It would appear that the Libertarian model is better. Why is the Libertarian view on this particular narrow situation not the correct view?
My experience with taxis has been that they're almost always clean, safe and reliable. I flat out disagree with your "typical" first hand report. The chance of that report being typical and yet not repeated in any of my own many hundreds of taxi rides makes me disbelieve that it's typical.
Your "it would appear" claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think you're looking at the available evidence through libertarian-tinted spectacles. Please repost when you have some statistically significant comparisons.
If you have no idea what's in them, how would you even recognize evidence as evidence?
What's more irritating? The whole "Internet of Things" craze, or article summaries that presume everyone knows the acronym?
Neither. I agree with the hype about IoT. I think it will be as big a change to society 40 years' time as the Internet has been so far.
Now what is irritating, though, is all the Slashdot posts complaining about IoT...
I'm using Windows8.1 and it auto-calculates folder sizes.
I can't imagine that Microsoft's own developers are running their own development systems on Windows 8.1 - I wouldn't be surprised if it were a dirty secret within Microsoft that application development takes place on Win7 (and maybe WinXP)
I'm a Microsoft developer. I and most of my colleagues develop on Win8.1. I don't know why your imagination is failing you.
My team does much of our work on VMs running recent builds of VS, and those VMs typically run Win8.1 -- presumably because it has a lower memory footprint than Win7.
As an engineer who actually uses win8.1 for my daily work, the only main UI difference with Win7 is the start screen, and that has negligible impact because I launch apps either by clicking on the taskbar or by pressing Win and then typing by keyboard the name of the app. Exactly the same workflow and same number of keystrokes as before.
Well the Charms bar is apparently dead so it no longer matters that its name is terrible.
Apple already came out with "Continuity". So Microsoft's "Continuum" sounds pretty similar. You might just have to knuckle down and live with a new term for seamless transitions between phone+tablet and laptop+desktop devices. Of all the terms they could have chosen, "Continu*" don't seem too bad.
So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that. I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.
Correction: 80% of people said they agreed with the government's food labelling policy on food including DNA.
That's literally the exact opposite of what you said. That's the majority following the lead of the government.
Is non-GMO "much better", in spite of the fact that extensive research hasn't turned up proof of *any* bad effects, and can provide effective nutritional advantages in many cases?
Indeed. The strongest nutritional advantage seems to be "Monsanto's executives and stockholders are able to eat much finer food now."
80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology?
I support mandatory labels on *all* food products. Therefore I support mandatory labels on food containing DNA, and I've have ticked the "yes" box on this questionnaire too.
But to be pedantic the question actually asked "Do you agree with the government's policy to require mandatory labels on food containing DNA". If you had to answer yes or no to this nonsense question (since there is no such policy) I'd assume the questionnaire, like so many others, was badly written and was referring to an actual government policy on something useful.
Is there something wrong with me that I find this offensive?
Yes there is something wrong with you. You lack empathy and compassion.
(I'm not sure if you "chose" to lack these things or if they're a product of your upbringing, and so I don't know whether your logic would blame you for lacking them or not).
The law itself doesn't say anything.
Teachers may be *required* to "demand" a password (if that 's what the school's anti-bullying policy compells them to).
But there's nothing here to say that students must *comply* with those demands.
Now there's usually a separate set of laws which compel people to comply with certain demands made by certain officials. It's too hard to tell here whether password demands will fall into that bucket.
Windows needs to run and organize files and applications, that's it.
And manage network connectivity. And printers. And other hardware. And the clipboard. And other means of sharing between applications. And multiple user accounts. And virtual desktops. And VMs. And a way to search the stuff on your machine. And task scheduling. And updates. And joining your company network. And syncing with your phone. And credential management for internet certificates. And cryptographic and other similar services. And language support. And network device discovery. And I'd hope for a seamless way to manage network files like on DropBox or OneDrive. And logging/diagnostics. And screen-reader and other assisted technology support. And 3d graphics. And privacy controls, a way to stop apps from stealing information themselves.
What I've written down isn't "windows bloat". It's in linux and mac too. It's just what we've come to expect of an operating system.
You literally just claimed the lack of evidence of something existing is ipso facto proof of it existing. That's a textbook example of a complete failure of logical validity.
I think you've confused my quote. I used it to quote the item I was *responding* to, like you do in conversation, like I'm doing it right now. You've bizarrely taken it to be a quote of evidence I'm using.
There is no institutional sexism. No one has been able to find it.
The thing is -- I read your post, and I think "that's institutional sexism right here".
I agree with most of what you wrote. But other bits are a sort of weird distorted view of the tech industry, or a picture of an undesirable workplace that should be changed. For instance, "men often like solitary complex tasks working long hours" -- (1) as a married man with a child, I'm delighted that I don't have to work long hours; (2) the successful senior folks are those whose work is accomplished through meetings like in any business, not solitary. And your insults (like those of Linus) are ones I'm glad I don't face at my work, where everyone really genuinely is polite and "nice".
I agree there's no evidence that universities or companies are discriminating. However, I think YOU PERSONALLY are discriminating, and if you're in tech, I bet you contribute to a discriminatory workplace.
Read the article. This is about RECRUITERS. They go out and find candidates. If you're passively waiting for applicants, I'd fire you as a recruiter on the spot.
They're CANDIDATES. No "at the expense of".
To fill you in: The Lord's Resistance Army
With Google search, I nearly always find what I'm looking for right at the top of my search
Good for you. With google, I normally find five paid ads at the top of my search that aren't relevant. I have to scroll down to see the surprisingly small number of non-ad results that fit on the first page. Then there are another two paid ads underneath them. Bing is typically no better.
You do not have the right to physically harm, or threaten, someone. But you certainly have the right to offend them... there is no constitutional right to not be offended.
I went to a talk a few years ago by a brain scientist. His results were that the brain response to a physical injury is pretty much the same as the brain response to insults and swear words. Does the constitutional injunction refer to the suffering that's inflicted, i.e. a brain response? or does it refer solely to the physical injury even in cases or people where this doesn't cause any suffering?
Because I am immune to such rhetoric under all but the most trying circumstances
I think you're arrogant and deluded. I base this on a talk I went to a few years ago where the speaker explained that the brain activity caused by offensive swear-words is pretty much the same as the brain activity caused by physical pain -- and went on to say that this brain response was apparently pretty much unavoidable. So when you claim to be immune, I assume (because "science") that the low level of your brain isn't actually immune, but you find yourself able to consciously suppress it and delude yourself about it.
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
When you go shooting, lots of people (especially beginners) take home the target with the bullet holes. This sounds like the next step.
"The program doesn't know to check for"
"The program wasn't designed to check for"
In the first instance the statement makes it quite clear the program DOES NOT KNOW HOW to do what you are talking about.
You can shorten something so far for clarity, but if you go to far you end up with less clarity
"The program doesn't check for"
In this case, like all others in this thread, the non-anthropomorphic version is shorter, more correct, and less misleading. What on earth does it mean for the program to "know" something? Is there a knowledgebase in the program? What is the difference between "the program doesn't check" and "the program doesn't know to check"? Is there an API subfamily related to some kind of "knowing" paradigm built into the architecture?
The TFA is right. Anthropomorphizing is always bad.